Tag Archives: FiveThirtyEight@Politicaldog101

FiveThirtyEight rates Democrats ‘s chances of a Senate majority at 35% to 40%….

Things HAVE improved for Democrats from just a little while ago…

There are several interesting things going on here:

  • The “toss-ups” aren’t really toss-ups. The four races that were originally rated as pure toss-ups — Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada — now rate as having a two-in-three chance of going for Democrats instead.
  • Republicans have fewer targets. Seemingly competitive Midwestern states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where there are potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents, become real long shots for Republicans.
  • And Democrats have more targets. The blue team has some realistic prospects of picking up Republican seats beyond their primary targets of Arizona and Nevada, with Tennessee or a second seat opening up in Arizona being the most likely possibilities.

So this is what a true 50-50 battle for the Senate would look like — but are these revised ratings realistic? You’d have to go through on a case-by-case basis. As I mentioned, for instance, I’d have no problem with treating Arizona as leaning Democratic. And the revised ratings for some of the Democratic incumbents in purple states, such as Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin and Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey, seem more realistic than the original ones to me; they shouldn’t be all that vulnerable in this sort of political climate. But I’m not sure I buy that Democrats have a 42 percent chance of a pickup in Tennessee or that McCaskill is a two-to-one favorite in Missouri, where Republicans are fielding some strong opponents.

Personally, I’d probably split the difference between the macro and the micro views and put Democrats’ chances of winning the Senate somewhere in the range of 35 percent to 40 percent. That’s a lot better for Democrats than it was before Alabama, and it’s higher than it probably “should” be given how favorable the Senate map is for Republicans. But it’s still a fairly steep hill to climb….


A year in his Presidency, Trump polls as a Conservative…FiveThirtyEight

 over at Nate Silver’s blog takes a look at a new YouGov survey that suggests that Americans may have thought Donald Trump was all over the place in political party views…

But now is seen as a Conservative Republican…

I ‘m with their original view that the guy really had no political ideology, but he IS the leader of the Republican party ‘so ya dance with who brought ya’….Attempts by Trump to sneak back to the middle politically get immediate scolding from his adopted party members who remind him of party unity…

Here’s a bit from Enten and the link…

A new YouGov survey released this week found that 5 percent of registered voters think President Trump is liberal, 19 percent think he’s moderate and 51 percent think he’s conservative. So, a majority of voters think the Republican president is a conservative. Typically, that wouldn’t be news. With Trump, however, it is.

Trump was an unusual candidate in many ways, but one important one was that before he took office, we knew less about his political philosophy than that of perhaps any other modern president. We’re now almost a year into Trump’s tenure, though, and his policy agenda has been almost entirely orthodox Republicanism. Voters have noticed.

Before Trump moved into the White House, he took a mix of liberal and conservative positions. He was, for example, vehemently against illegal immigration but in favor of infrastructure spending. He was against gun control, but he claimed to be stronger than Hillary Clinton on LGBT rights. When you totaled up Trump’s ideological score on economic and social issues from the website OnTheIssues — which assigns an ideological grade to politicians’ statements and votes on a scale that we’ve converted to go from -5 (very liberal) to +5 (very conservative) — he came in at +42.5. His score was closer to 0, perfectly “moderate,” than any incoming president of the past 40 years except George H.W. Bush.

Trump’s ideology was hard to pin down before he took office

OnTheIssues scores as of Nov. 2016

Barack Obama -30.0 -30.0 -60.0
Jimmy Carter -27.5 -32.5 -60.0
Bill Clinton -27.5 -17.5 -45.0
George H.W. Bush +20.0 +15.0 +35.0
Donald Trump +15.0 +27.5 +42.5
Gerald Ford +22.2 +27.5 +49.7
George W. Bush +32.5 +27.5 +60.0
Ronald Reagan +27.8 +33.3 +61.1

The total score scale goes from -100 (liberal) to +100 (conservative). The economic and social scales go from -50 (liberal) to +50 (conservative).


Trump’s stances led voters to believe he was relatively moderate for a Republican — or at least that he was ideologically idiosyncratic. More voters viewed Trump as liberal than any incoming GOP president since at least Ronald Reagan, and fewer voters viewed him as conservative than any Republican since at least Reagan. That stood in stark contrast to Clinton, whom the clear majority of voters saw as liberal. Trump’s ideological positioning relative to Clinton’s may have been one of the reasons he was able to pull off a slim Electoral College victory against her.

Upon entering the White House, however, Trump has taken up a primarily conservative agenda. He’s become hawkish on foreign policy, he stocked the federal courts with conservative judges, and he urged Congressional Republicans to push through a massive tax cut that was seen as mostly helping the well-to-do. He also tried to stop transgender Americans from serving in the military. The national infrastructure project seems to be going nowhere.

Therefore, it’s not surprising that Trump’s White House policies have pushed his OnTheIssues score toward the conservative end of the spectrum. Trump’s score is now a +60, compared to a +42.5 before the election….


Doug Jones Is Just A Normal Polling Error Away From A Win In Alabama

…from FiveThirtyEight….whuich is hedging their bets,,,,

Things seem to be going Roy Moore’s way. President Trump endorsed him. The Republican National Committee is back to supporting him. And Moore, who has been accused of sexual contact with women when they were underaged, has led by an average of 3 percentage points in polls1 taken within 21 days of the Dec. 12 special Senate election in Alabama. The betting markets give Moore about an 80 percent chance of victory — roughly the same chance they gave Hillary Clinton just before the 2016 presidential election.

Before Election Day last year, we advised caution, however — polls aren’t perfect at even the best of times, Trump had an advantage in the Electoral College, and there were a lot of undecided voters. So what’s our advice heading into the Alabama election? Well, it’s the same — be cautious — but for slightly different reasons.

A look at all U.S. Senate election polls since 19982 shows that their average error — how far off the polls were from the actual election result — is more than a percentage point higher than the average error in presidential polling. Also, Alabama polls have been volatile, this is an off-cycle special election with difficult-to-predict turnout, and there haven’t been many top-quality pollsters surveying the Alabama race. So even though Moore is a favorite, Democrat Doug Jones is just a normal polling error away from winning. (Or, by the same token, Moore could win comfortably.)….

The bottom line is that with less than a week to go in the campaign, Moore seems to have the edge — but he’s far from a sure thing….


Come 2020 those Rust belt states are gonna be losing some electoral votes….

And that means the states that cost Hillary Clinton the election will be less of a factor for Republicans and Democrats…..

The census is gonna reward southwestern MORE electoral votes….

Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Arizona are gonna be where the political fight is gonna be for President….

Three years from now, in 2020, hundreds of thousands of census takers will fan out across the country to carry out the constitutionally mandated U.S. population count. That count will determine how the 435 seats in the House and 538 votes in the Electoral College will be distributed among the states starting in the 2022 congressional election cycle (and therefore in time for the 2024 presidential election).

The 2020 census will almost certainly show a continued shift in population — and therefore electoral power — away from the Northeast and Midwest and toward the South and West. The political impact of that shift is harder to assess: Most of the fastest-growing states voted for Trump in 2016, but the demographic groups that are growing fastest, particularly Latinos, tend to vote Democratic. Cities, which voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, are likewise growing faster than rural areas, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

What is clear, however, is that demographic trends are accelerating the existing southward migration of the nation’s center of political gravity. Traditional Northern and Midwestern swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio are likely to lose electoral votes and congressional seats, while states like Texas and Arizona — which aren’t swing states now but are becoming more competitive — are likely to gain them. Florida, which is already among the swingiest swing states, will also likely gain seats. That means Trump’s strategy of appealing to Rust Belt voters could be less successful in future races….


FiveThirtyEight games out HOW Donald Thrump probably won’t get to 1,237…

Enough of the guessing on how he ain’t gonna get the nomination….

FiveThirtyEight runs the numbers….

(Of Course they COULDS be wrong…)

Although our panel’s original estimates had Trump finishing with 1,175 pledged delegates, my revised deterministic projections have him at 1,155, and the probabilistic version has him at 1,159. I wouldn’t make a huge deal of the differences given the considerable uncertainty in the race, however. Basically, flipping Indiana from a probable win to a probable loss outweighs the gains I have Trump making relative to our original projections in New York and Connecticut. In other states, the differences from the original projections are minor.

At the same time, the path-to-1,237 scenario doesn’t look all that far-fetched — certainly not as compared with, say, Bernie Sanders’s quixotic path to catch Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates. Our path-to-1,237 path has Trump sweeping almost everything in the Northeast, winning Indiana and winning California by a solid-but-not-spectacular margin. I wouldn’t bet on that parlay at even odds, but it’s far from impossible. There’s also a reasonable variation; Trump could win slightly fewer delegates than I’m expecting in New York and Connecticut but make them up with a bigger win in California. So we’re not yet at the point where absolutely everything has to go right for Trump to clinch 1,237 delegates after California; although he can’t afford major setbacks such as losing Indiana or Maryland.


Donald Trump is the weakest GOP leading nominee …..

FiveThirtyEight points ourt that Doanld Trump is the weakest leading Republican running for the parties nomination at this time during the process….

I guess that is another reason there is such a effort to get rid off him, eh?

(And why Democrats don’t mind him BEING the nominee)

Past GOP nominees such as George H.W. Bush in 1988, George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 had bigger shares of the vote at this point, even if they started out slowly. You’ll also note, however, that the two most recent Republican nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, weren’t doing too much better than Trump is now.

McCain and Romney, though, were far ahead of Trump at this point in the delegate race. All the eventual nominees studied here won a majority of the delegates allotted1 by this date. Trump remains short of a majority.

You’ll also note that past nominees tended to increase their delegate and vote leads from this point forward, mostly because their rivals had faded or dropped out. In 2008, McCain vanquished Romney by early February and Mike Huckabee by early March….

More and some charts/graphs….

Polling Update March 14, 2016….Close ones in the MidWest States….

The polling does NOT look good for Rubio in Florida….

He has to hope it’s wrong….

In Ohio I  we have the latest Q poll with a Trump tie with Kasich….
My feeling is Kasich squeezes a win out….

Wins  for Clinton inFlorida , Ohio and Illinois and North Carolina….(Though Sanders has made gains everywhere)

Missouri should give Clinton a tight win (Sanders jumped up in recent polling there)….If she sweeps?

She’s a lock…

Sanders needs delegates….Not just wins….

(Remember…We’ve had polling off in more than one race this season ..)

Florida Republican Presidential Primary


Trump 46, Rubio 22, Cruz 14, Kasich 10 Trump +24

Florida Democratic Presidential Primary


Clinton 60, Sanders 34 Clinton +26

Florida Democratic Presidential Primary

PPP (D)*

Clinton 57, Sanders 32 Clinton +25

Ohio Republican Presidential Primary


Kasich 38, Trump 38, Cruz 16, Rubio 3 Tie

Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary


Clinton 51, Sanders 46 Clinton +5

Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary

PPP (D)*

Clinton 46, Sanders 41 Clinton +5

North Carolina Republican Presidential Primary


Trump 44, Cruz 33, Kasich 11, Rubio 7 Trump +11

North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary

PPP (D)*

Clinton 56, Sanders 37 Clinton +19

Illinois Democratic Presidential Primary

PPP (D)*

Clinton 48, Sanders 45 Clinton +3

Missouri Democratic Presidential Primary

PPP (D)*

Sanders 47, Clinton 46 Sanders +1

…for more details….RealClear Politics….


FiveThirtyEight has Clinton and Trump winning everything except Ohio which it has Kasich ahead….Missouri IS close for Clinton which still leads  in their numbers….

After tomorrow is the GOP race just between Rubio and Trump?

FiveThirtyEigth explains thgat the ‘winner-take-all’ thing and the blue states GOP contests virtually leave him no way for Ted Cruz to amass delegates for the nomination….

This view has also been forwarded by Nate Cohn over at the Upshot @ The NY Times…

If you believe this?

The Republican nomination race is actually ALREADY a two person race since it appears Marco Rubio IS gonna be the establishment/elites choice to fight Trump….

An examination of the GOP delegate landscape shows that in states where evangelical Protestants are at least 30 percent of the population, just 22 percent of delegates will be awarded on a winner-take-all basis,1 compared to 47 percent of delegates in other states:

This delegate allocation matrix puts Cruz’s campaign at a serious disadvantage. For example, if Cruz wins the primary in his home state of Texas by one vote, he’ll probably win a handful more delegates than his nearest competitor. By contrast, if Marco Rubio or Trump win Florida by one vote, either would win a whopping 99 more delegates than his nearest competitor.

If you only count states that vote after South Carolina, the winner-take-all versus proportional gap gets even more daunting for Cruz. In fact, after South Carolina, the only winner-take-all states with a high proportion of evangelical Protestants are Indiana, Missouri and West Virginia — all of which are winner-take-all by congressional district.

These disparities could help explain why Cruz’s position in betting markets remains very anemic — a good deal behind both Trump and Rubio….



FiveThirtyEight forecast for New Hampshire Dem Primary will surprise you…

The people over at FiveThirtyEight are doing a rolling DAILY forecast of the odds for each parties primary or caucus contest….

The numbers for the Democrats in New hampshire for THIS date are  NOT what the general political media are expressing….And are NOT good news for the Sanders campaign…Remeber the NH primary Is 3 weeks away though….

According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has a 57% chance of winning the New Hampshire primary……

More ….

There daily forecast for the Republican New Hamshire Primary….

According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Donald Trump has a 39% chance of winning the New Hampshire primary…..

(Rubio and Cruz come in behind Trump)


FiveThirtyEight gives Hillary Clinton a 82% Chance to WIN Iowa…

According to our latest polls-plus forecast, Hillary Clinton has an 82% chance of winning the Iowa caucuses.

Our forecasts don’t produce a single expected vote share for each candidate, but rather generate a range of possible outcomes, shown below. The range will be wider or narrower under certain circumstances: For instance, it narrows as the election gets closer. Our estimate of each candidate’s chance of winning the state is based on these ranges….


Sen Rubio gains in the Republican endorsements race…

While Jeb Bush leads in endiorsements which shows establishment strength….. (Chris Christie is in second polace on the list)

Marco Rubio seems to have picked up steam, while Bush has faltered…..

The race for endorsements among Republican presidential candidates has been a slow one since we began keeping track of the endorsement primary earlier this year. Jeb Bush has sat atop our leaderboard, but many of his endorsements came before he officially announced his candidacy, and he’s received only three since Labor Day — all from House members.

But this week, Marco Rubio has shown signs of momentum, picking up endorsements from three fellow senators, including one today from Sen. James E. Risch of Idaho. In contrast to Bush’s 3 endorsement points1 since Labor Day, Rubio has received 22 — by far the most of any Republican candidate over that span…..


The importance of migration in reshaping political coalitions may be fairly minimal…FiveThirtyEight

Nate Silver and Harry Enten over at FiveThirtyEight are pouring cold water on the idea that the migration of people from Blue States to Red States will turn some Red States ….Purple…..

It’s a fascinating hypothesis, but it’s overstated, in our view. The first problem is that the predominant political trend of the past two decades has not been consistently better performance by Democrats, but instead greater polarization across partisan and geographic lines. Remember, the GOP controls the House of Representatives, a plurality of state legislatures and a majority of governor’s mansions, and Republicans are slight favorites to take the Senate in November. Democrats have done well in recent presidential elections, but if Republicans take the Senate and hold the House, then by 2016 the GOP will have had control of the Senate for 12.5 of the past 24 years and the House for 18 of 24.

We’re not saying we’d rather have had Republicans’ hand to play. But the balance of power in the country has been reasonably equivocal, as it tends to be over the long run.

By contrast, the trend toward greater polarization has been clear and sweeping. It’s been clear in races for the House; there are far fewer swing districts than there once were, even after accounting for the effects of gerrymandering. It’s been clear in gubernatorial races, which now bear a much stronger correlation to presidential elections and other races for federal office. And it’s been clear in races for the presidency. In 1992, when Democrat Bill Clinton beat Republican George H.W. Bush, there were no states — none — where either candidate won by 20 or more percentage points. In 2012, there were 18 of them, 11 of which were won by Republican Mitt Romney. A few states (such as West Virginia and Colorado) have switched party loyalties, but for the most part, red states have gotten redder and blue states have gotten bluer; theories about the role played by migration need to reconcile with this evidence….