November 2, 2016

Morning Line: It's wild out there

When we started computing average polls early this morning, Clinton was looking in serious trouble. But by the time we got through she had enough electoral votes to win. Other factors that are hard to count is the trends in early voting, but so far not looking bad for Clinton. Here's how it looks early Wednesday afternoon:

Nationally, Hillary Clinton is one point ahead of Trump, a statistical tie. This this is 3 points better than her worst position vs Trump and six points less than her best. Her current average percentage is 44%, Her campaign range has been 38-48%

Clinton is leading with 273 electoral votes, enough to win. Another 9 electoral votes are leaning Democratic.  159 electoral votes are definitely in the Trump column. Another 69 are possible. This would still leave him 42 electoral votes short.



Anonymous said...

It is wild out there, so what do you make of this?:

Tom Puckett said...

Does TPR take into account the ideas expressed in:

Mainstream Presidential Polls Fuel Illusion That Voters Are Stuck With Only Two Choices:

And after you look at that, please take a look at Jill Stein's op-ed piece for The Hill on why millennials are going green:

According to the mainstream presidential polls fuel illusion article:

Corporate media are focused on Donald Trump’s accusations of “oversampling” on the part of Democrats against Republicans. He’s half right, because polls do oversample declared Democrats by up to 14 percent in polls that compose the RealClearPolitics average.

The deeper story is that mainstream polls skew against youth and independents, who are undersampled in most polls up to a whopping 30 percent. A recent CNN poll sampled few people under the age of 50. Not one major poll lists alternative-party identification in the breakdown of its sample.

Third-party candidates are treated as if they don’t exist—while the approval ratings for the two parties in government and Congress as a whole are hovering around historic lows. What we can glean from the polls is that it’s clear people want change, but what kind of change they want is of no concern to the pollsters.

No one really knows how large the “Bernie or Bust” crowd is, but what we do know is that the floodgates opened during the tragic circus of the Democratic National Convention, and progressive Berniecrats began to burn Green. #Demexit became a trending hashtag on social media, and a recent nationwide survey of Sanders delegates found that 33 percent intend to vote for Stein.

Everywhere the Stein-Baraka campaign goes, we find an ever-growing base of support—not just among former Sanders supporters, but also among those “unlikely” voters who are underrepresented in polls: young people, Independents and people of color. These are all the demographics, when broken out in mainstream polls, that go about 4 percent to 10 percent higher for Stein. These voters compose a potentially game-changing, awakening “sleeping giant” that has the establishment working overtime to impose a media blackout on a third-party alternative.

In this election year—when the largest voting block of registered voters are independents, and many people (especially millennials, lower-income voters and people of color) are fed up with the two-party system—the means of taking a temperature check on the state of our democracy denies a voice to those who choose to reject the establishment duopoly. Only 9 percent of Americans chose Clinton and Trump to be the major-party nominees, which puts a whole lot of people in a big margin of error.

A voter revolt could be happening right under our noses, but the establishment and their pollster apparatchiks don’t want you to notice. They want to maintain the illusion that voters are stuck with only two choices, a trap that the majority of Americans who want another major party are trying to escape.

Cheers, Tom

Anonymous said...

No president is above removal by the planners, going back to Taylor and Harrison let alone McKinley and FDR. The FBI merely reiterates its extra- constitutional authority as a reminder of how it disposed of JFK,MLK and RFK and the evidence. There is a paradox. Obama was a weak president consistent with all presidents since JFK who had sought to restore the office. But Obama was strong enough to avoid assassination after failing to attack Syria and Iran. Clinton would be a "strong" president in the Reaganite illusion by subordinating the office to the CIA and pentagon. The Giuliani-911 FBI merely states notwithstanding there is a check and balance against the CIA and pentagon that could easily take her administration down. Of course the voters and the Green Party have nothing to do with elections since each presidential election is a cover up for a genuine coup d'etat. Clinton represents a coup d'etat over Obama's party and Kerry's diplomacy which coup Obama acceeds to as he did to Libya, having picked his battles. Obama when historians catch up to his supersubtle moves, will be found to have done exactly nothing, wherein lies his strength in avoiding nuclear war, although entrenching the Bush oligarchy. After the 911 coup against Bush, the President is a figurehead with only the power to say no, which typically invites assassination. Obama was clever enough to say no in a few critical pockets of resistance and stay alive, certainly no New Frontier.