I've been watching this chart like a hawk. (I also go here and here at least twice a day.) Without taking into account a lot of stuff that I probably should take into account -- you know, the usual boring jibber-jabber about polling methodology -- I've noticed one strange, continuing, unexpected, inexplicable, and completely counter-intuitive meta-trend: Whenever a candidate has a bad week, he or she gets better numbers. This has been the situation for both Trump and Clinton.
I have a (tentative) explanation for this: Whenever the online trolls and teevee talking heads mount a coordinated and unrelenting hate-hate-hate campaign against a candidate, many people become unnerved by the viciousness of the mob. After all, in the "Frankenstein" movies, we sympathize with the hunted creature, not with the crazed, torch-wielding villagers.
Not only that. When everything seems darkest for a candidate, people watch the news carefully. They listen to the arguments mounted by that candidate's surrogates -- arguments from people one might otherwise ignore. After hearing both sides, a voter may think: "Oh, that thing we're all supposed to be upset about really isn't that upsetting. This supposedly huge problem is really just a molehill that the media wants to turn into a mountain."
This principle explains why Bill Clinton's approval numbers shot up after Monica-gate, especially after the broadcast of Clinton's grand jury testimony. Stupidly, the Republicans had fought to make that broadcast happen; they completely mis-judged how the public would react. Each and every day -- for years -- Americans had been told that the Starr inquisition would expose a long list of ghastly crimes committed in an orgy of Satanic perfidy. Instead, all we got was a bright, well-meaning, middle-aged man who foolishly had succumbed to the charms of a curvy brunette with a crush on him. The Republicans only made themselves look like a batch of pervs when they demanded second-by-second details of the affair. All of the other horrifying claims against Clinton were exposed as a pack of lies: Starr had nothing. The torch-wielding mob suddenly looked a lot scarier than the creature being hunted.
In spite of all that, I'm still predicting a Trump victory. I always predict the worst. And Trump is definitely the worst.
4 comments:
Christopher Hale writes in Time magazine (23 Jul 2016) about "What Tim Kaine, Donald Trump and Pope Francis Have In Common".
And that naughty, naughty man means they were all educated by Jesuits.
Tim Kaine is widely known to be Jesuit-"influenced".
I'm suspicious that the SJs may have something to do with why Mike Pence is so coy about his religious affiliation.
And...today I learn from Chris that Donald Trump was educated by Jesuits too!
This isn't looking good for Hillary Clinton. Even if she wins, she won't stay in office long.
IUSTUM NECAR REGES IMPIUS !
talking points memo seems to be selectively choosing what polls to use this week. they put asterisks next to the ones that are not in the average. they seem to be picking ones to put in the poll they are propelling Hillary to a greater lead?
I read their methodology and how Loess regression analysis works.
However TPM still picks the polls
Anon, and please sign with some kind of nick next time, you may be right. Well, I did predict that Trump would lead in the poll aggregator sites by the end of this month. The great thing about being a gloom-and-doom forecaster is that when the worst happens, you get to smirk in triumph. I'm practicing my smug smile even as we speak.
i was anonymous before. My point is if you look a the TPM list they seem to have deliberatly picked out only polls with bigger clinton leads
Post a Comment