Pollsters were predicting a huge Clinton victory in 2016; and a huge Dewey victory in 1948. By now we should have learned that polls are worthless. Enough people change their minds daily (except extremists like Trump voters), or don't know their own mind, or lie to the pollsters so that if a poll turns out right it's only for the same reason that a clock is right twice a day.
Pollsters were predicting a probable Clinton win by a small margin. Pundits who didn't understand statistics were tired of getting spanked by Nate Silver & Co every four years, and decided to go with the "sure thing" by pointing to the polls and forecasting a Clinton landslide. Meanwhile Nate was giving Trump a 29% shot--better odds than flipping two heads in a row.
Polling in 1948 was about as sophisticated as a Buzzfeed personality test. The famous Trib headline wasn't even based on polls, it was the work of DC-based pundit Arthur Henning going with his gut.
"Democrats probably need a seven-point lead in the national popular vote to have a 50-50 chance to retake the House."
One man one vote. Right.
2
The real unknown is turnout. Democratic progressive activists have exhausted or alienated moderate and working class flyover country Democrats, Having cried wolf non-stop, their additional exhortations stand a good chance of being tuned out and that will lead to plummeting Democratic turnout. The Russia-gate show has gone on too long and everyone but a die-hard clicks the channel the second anything about it gets mentioned. Many Democrats and lots of independents are also really really sick of listening to more about Hillary and the endless whining about 2016. The Democrats lack a compelling economic issue to get the voters to flock to their side. The party highlights support for illegal immigration, but there was and is no political support for shutting down the government over that and there is less support than the media thinks for sanctuary cities or defying Federal immigration law. The likely result: many centrists who are nominally Democrats and who now say they will vote for a genetic Democrat, won’t actually vote for one come November. Unless the Democrats reverse field and do something to appeal to the middle class and working class, it’s quite possible they will lose 15 points in turnout and get swept away in the Senate and most purple district House races.
Reading this article, I hope that the points raised throughout will encourage the media, the New York Times included, to reflect on the rhythm and flow of their reporting. I don't know how you could publish this article without some self-reflection. The media must find a way to move away from breaking news alerts, 24/7 news coverage and the frontpage headline attention given to all those "tweets". What is the point of publishing these "polls" if, as stated in this article, they don't mean anything. In that case, they are a distraction from news stories that matter. The culture of breaking news is damaging our society and our ability to focus on KEY issues. Our President has a lot to answer for in relation to this but the media needs to be smarter and not a slave to tweets, scandals and meaningless polls. If we want our elections to be centered on real issues that affect real people we need to figure out how to get above the fray and not be a slave to ever changing news stories.
I rarely write comments and I am a New York Times subscriber. I understand and sympathize that media organizations are under significant financial pressure but I am tired of scrolling further and further down to find the news stories that really matter.
7
In 2016 Democratis voters easily outnumbered Republican. Where the real issue sits is “this”President needed to justify the nations gamble to change the Country.
He squandered his potential “benefit of the doubt”. Instead of proving he was sincere he broke “ lying” records. Instead of showing the value of a business person, he overtly displayed a disregard for his self adoring and self dealing.
In other words he hasn’t become more acceptable. His has become less acceptable.
Those that believed in Obama’s approach don’t see Trump winning, they see him trying to take credit away from Obama. Look Obama said beating ISIL properly would go beyond his term.
No doubt Trump has watched our Stock market jump, but he hasn’t convinced voters it was him.
Because it is isn’t him.
He has over 80% support with Republicans, but it’s a smaller party. He has the cult of celebrity, but it has been a deteriorating fame.
Trump won by small margins, in the Great Lakes. Will he hold it....he can’t. Democrats over confidence, a tampered election, no signs of growing into the job.
Here is what’s happening.
His loyals are growing in places where he had huge margins, this balances the significant losses Republicans will suffer in Florida, a regretful Wisconsin, and places like Northern Florida, and Western North Carolina...
So the numbers appear closer but Trump voters are good where he can’t use them.
Republicans are loyal but smaller...Trump not popular. Oh oh.
40 percent of the people get all their national news information from Fox so it is no accident Trump’s approval rating is the same.
3
The news that 40% of Americans still approve of the job that Trump is doing is deeply disturbing.
14
Doesn’t that correlate with what percentage of people get all their news from Fox?
4
I find it hilarious that liberals think ALL conservatives get their news ONLY from Fox News. I don't even know what channel to find it... Could it be there are no reliable news choices to gain real, unbiased insight on politics? Just the news and not riddled with opinions? Still holding out, but I fear that notion is dead.
What we really have here is a feedback loop perpetuated by people like Nate Cohn and the press in general, who can't resist creating news over reporting it. So much easier to blog than to drill down for factual information and then do the hard work of cleaning out the fiction and present accurate information in real world context.
Why the Times allows itself to give so much space to speculation, conjecture, and pontification perpetually bothers me. Not to mention it's running material for days on end. It has got to the point where one has to weed the paper just to find something one has not read a week ago or at least yesterday. Yesterday I selected an article only to discover it was published mid January.
Nate Cohn has no idea how things will look next November. Would it not be more useful to write about what is going on today. Not to mention more interesting because it strikes me that today's column been a very familiar theme here.
6
"Democrats probably need a seven-point lead in the national popular vote to have a 50-50 chance to retake the House."
But...gerrymandering. Turnout, or lack thereof. The sharp divide between Democratic centrists and progressives. Superficial, clickbait media coverage.
Democrats need far more than a 7-point lead in the national vote to have that 50-50 chance of taking the House. Seven points does not a landslide make, and a landslide just about everywhere is what they need. And that's just not gonna happen.
1
Thinking about the difference of the humor associated with a banana peel or the indignity associated with living in a banana republic. I suddenly realized that in America, most of us believe we are living in a "banana peel" kakistocracy. Unfortunately for our national pride, the world laughs at us continually while we howl constantly from yet another new imperious embarrassment.
5
As the Texas primaries showed, the red and white impulse is alive and well without an abatement towards massive wins. As long as 400 individuals most of our nations'a wealth, our era of self-governance slides further and further away. This is the test of our democracy, and non-Republicans, have to find the key to unsnapping the unshakable polls. Russia certainly has...
5
There may appear to be signs of a Democratic “wave” but it isn’t going to happen. Generic polls this far in advance rarely reflect the eventual outcome. It is still a huge advantage to be an incumbent and the right is better organised (they’re organised!), better funded and more motivated. Gerrymandering still overwhelmingly favours republicans and few districts will be redrawn before the election. If trump’s approval rating goes above 45%, and it could,
the dems will not take the house. I don’t think they will anyway. Nationwide they will get more votes than republicans; they always do. But the system doesn’t factor that into representation. They may pick up a few seats where republicans are retiring but not many more. Check back with me in eight months. I hope you can tell me I was wrong.
2
You only want to hear what you want to hear. Do you think that anyone who voted for Trump or any fair-minded person observing the devices of Democratic elites will look at their treatment of Trump and Republicans and say, “Yes, I would like some of that. Those seem like nice, sensible people. They just want to do what’s best for all Americans”? If anger is what energizes you, Mr. Cohn, there’s more than enough to go around.
Trump/GOP has become toxic. Trump has scandal on a daily basis. GOP backed tax cuts for the rich;endorsed Roy Moore;silent on Trumps Charlottesville quotes;tried to take away our healthcare. Polls are a gusestimate;but voters are repelled by Trump/GOP. Ray Sipe
2
So 'The State of Play' is D+8 and Trump ~39. That sets up the Democrats to probably take the House, but barely, with <230 seats. GOP probably holds the Senate, but probably doesn't gain much ground if any, 50-52 seats for them.
What this is going to come down to is what the mood cycle is on any given day. The economy probably isn't going to tank, but probably isn't going to take off like a rocket. Russia hasn't mattered much to this point, but if Kushner and/or Don Jr. get indicted, it may peel off a couple of points from Trump's approval or add a couple to the D's generic advantage. Not for long, but maybe a couple of weeks. 2016 showed that if the election happened two weeks prior or two weeks later than it actually did, Clinton probably wins. The cyclical timing of the more stable environment matters.
D's are going to make gains. Even the downswings have D+6-7 and Trump at ~42, and that still gives them a shot to win the House, but may end with a GOP narrow hold. But if that generic ballot sits around D+11 and/or Trump is at his lower bounds of ~36, there are SO many GOP seats that become vulnerable right around that lineD's taking the House with >240 seats, and getting to 51 in the Senate.
This has been the situation, to Nate's point, since last May, and it will continue to be the situation until November. Only the GOP stupidly going after ACA/Medicare/Medicaid, or Trump actually, stupidly deporting Dreamers could significantly change it.
So the "upshot" (sorry) of this is the statistical correlation between Presidential approval & the generic Cong. ballot and how real it actually is. I'm sure there is more info out there about how the Congressional majority shifts during mid-terms based on these two polls.
In my opinion Democrats could effect the "big shifts" they so desire if they would:
1. Abandon the Politics of Identity. Under the guise of "social justice" the party is obsessively dividing Americans by race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion, lack of religion, and characteristics yet to be discovered.
2. Abandon the Politics of Envy. Cease with the rhetorical demonizing of successful elements in the private sector such as "greedy corporations", "fat cat bankers", the mythical "1%", billionaires, "the rich", and just about all who are more fortunate, smarter, work harder, and are more successful. This is not to imply that criminal behavior should be ignored, but the Party's present ideology encourages Americans to view themselves as helpless victims who must depend upon government to protect them from their fellow citizens.
I suspect there are more than a few disenchanted Republicans and Independents who are nevertheless repelled by the Democratic Party's reliance upon these flaws in their ideology.
4
It sounds like you want Democrats to be more like Conservatives. Are you old enough to remember Conservative Democrats? You might have to fire up your WAYBAC machine, to go back to those days.
. .
That said, pretty much any Democrat that even thought about some of those changes, would hunted down like the last human in a zombie movie. This ideology has been morphing for more than 20 years. Bill Clinton was the last Democrat that came close. But, I doubt he could get elected today. What I mean, someone like Bill Clinton could not get elected again.
. .
And the two reasons, TA DA. Hillary has not said she will NOT run. Until she does, it's November 9th, 2016. The second problem, is as old as time. The Democrats can always get young college students fired up and volunteering. But, the average 18 to 30 year old, live at home, semi-adult, no-tax-paying, part-time working, video game playing, internet consumer, is not frequently seen at polling places.
. .
My guess is, for every 100, under 30 year old, Kardashian viewers, only 2 or 3 vote. The class warfare politicians can count on money from the wealthy they deplore.
. .
And the wheels on the bus go round and round.
The "mythical" 1% just gobbled up 83% of benefits under the tax bill. Is that the "fortunate" part of being rich or because you are "smarter" and "work harder" than us unlucky, stupid and lazy 99%.
So, in the long run the polls are fairly steady. But in the real world it is only what the people think on election day that matters. And a sudden swing (such as a report on a renewed FBI investigation) can be enough to tip the scales if it comes at the critical time.
If you look at the polling history for 2016, you will see that at almost any other time the result would have been different.
12