Discussion: Clinton Has 7-Point Lead Over Trump In National McClatchey-Marist Poll

7 points nationwide is good; hopefully Ohio and Florida will follow in train.


Nice to see her opening up another lead on a national level. Now i just need state polling to follow.


Another point or two from the Monday debate would be huge. Voters who don’t like Clinton and who will never vote for Trump may find her more acceptable after she shows strength and composure in the face of whichever Trump shows up with his usual bull jive.


I tend to think the debate might be worth a lot more this cycle. She could be looking at 3-5 points if she humiliates him and simultaneously humanizes herself. Too many people, especially young people, subscribe to this cartoon version of Clinton that has absolutely no connection to reality. If she can assuage the fears of those folks she might be able to bring some of them home and pick up some moderate Republicans who remain Never Trump. She’s got a heavier lift than I ever realized, but if she can pull it off Monday night she’ll probably be able to put this election to bed.


Hopefully state results start following next week. Also, hopefully the debate isn’t graded on too sharp a curve, because undoubtedly there will be one.


From this morning’s NYT:

My money is on the lady … :smirk::smirk::smirk:.


Given the horse race coverage this year I knew early Sept would be dominated by
the race is tightening story
hopefully soon and until Nov
She’s pulling ahead will be the trope.


These stories about a single poll are just clickbait. You could find a wonderful or a terrible one almost every day.

Go to http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast to get the combined polls.

These show Clinton at +2% and improving.


Good news is better than the opposite right.

We can do this, again. Go Dems-on to victory!


The national poll trend is similar, and actually better, to what we saw in the run up to the 2008 debate. Recall that Obama had middling poll numbers vs. McCain through much of September because McCain had a successful convention when rolled out the Palin. It was a gangsta’ move on his part to temporarily blunt Obama and eliminate any convention bounce. That 1st Obama-McCain debate was also on Sept. 26.

From 9/7 - 9/15: Obama led in 5 national polls; McCain in 4 national polls and there were 3 ties. Basically, the race was a tie.

From 9/16/ - 9/25: Obama led in 10 polls, McCain in 2 and 2 ties. Obama’s average lead was around 3-4 points.

Post debate 1, his numbers blew up. State polls caught up at that point.


A possible analog to this race is 1980. There were a lot of undecided and 3rd party voters. Reagan had a lead in internal polls, and it was clear that a large # of voters were unreachable by Carter, but it wasn’t clear that Reagan was actually going to grab them. Gallup screwed up polling the entire cycle, but I think it can be fairly argued that after the Reagan-Carter debate, he probably gained a net 2-3 points nationally, which had a ripple effect across the electoral college. He won all the close states and padded his leads where he had already established an advantage. In this cycle, there is a large number of voters who are unreachable for Trump. It isn’t clear at this point whether HRC can get enough of them to post a decisive win. I think these debates will be that opportunity for her. A place to look would be North Carolina. Both the Upshot and PPP polls have her at 38-33 among millennials in a 4-way, with numbers that rise to around 50% when a 2 person question is asked. If she starts claiming 45%-50% among NC millennials post debate, then NC will move decisively into her column.


She appears to have regained most of the lead she had three weeks ago. If the debates go well for her (fingers crossed) there should be little fear of a Trump Presidency.

1 Like

With around 100 million voters, each percentage point is a million votes. I share your optimism on Hillary’s many strengths. Something else Trump lacks and can never fake is love. Compassion from Trump would run completely against his strong guy image.


In Josh’s current editorial (you can’t comment on it at the end), he said except for the Supreme Court he can’t think of why we should vote for Hillary. Well besides protection of women’s health care choices/abortion rights (I’m a woman), here’s more: Climate Change, universal health insurance, minimum wage, Citizens United, infrastructure repair & building, & college debt relief to start with. I don’t have a problem knowing why I support Hillary.


I don’t think Judis [not Josh–thanks for noting that Professor] is uncertain about whom to support in this election or why. He was addressing the question of why Hillary is not running away with the election and was looking at things from (what he takes to be) the perspective of the average voter. And his point was that for such a person, Hillary needs to do more than just present a bunch of different policies. She needs to articulate an overarching, inspiring theme. Obviously she doesn’t need to do this to win the votes of TPMers. But for the typical uninformed voter it’s important. And for the sake of the future of the country I wish she would do this. (Also for the sake of my anxiety level–it is highly unpleasant emotionally for the election to be this close.)

The odd thing is that this sort of broader thematic approach would seem to come naturally to her. Remember the “politics of meaning”? Or the idea (from her commencement address) that we need to find more immediate, ecstatic modes of living? I’m not suggesting she bring back those ideas in particular. But it seems to me that this image of Hillary as pragmatic policy wonk and nothing else comes as a response to the endless criticism she has endured from Republicans and the media.


I think the editorial you’re referring to was written by John Judis, not Josh.

ETA: Yup, assuming it’s the one entitled “Why Hillary Clinton hasn’t been able to leave Donald Trump in the Dust,” that’s a John Judis piece. Not everything in that EdBlog column is written by Josh.

1 Like

Thanks guys. I must confess, I thought all those were written by Josh. I still stand by my comment though.


Clueless, but restless, voters of America: I know you want change, but Trump isn’t change, he’s Armageddon. We’ve got two choices, one’s a seasoned policy expert, the other is a raging, babbling buffoon. It really doesn’t look like a choice at all.


I think you have accurately described Josh’s column. He didn’t say that he couldn’t think of three things. He said that he didn’t think that the average voter could think of three things other than the Supreme Court. I agree with Josh that a theme is important, but the polls don’t agree with Josh on the specifics. If you go to the internals of the three recent credible nstional polls, Hillary substantially beats Trump on just about every substantive issue. Moreover, if these polls are correct, she will win nationally by 6 points, which is a lot more than Obama’s 2012 electoral landslide that came with only a 4+ point popular vote margin over Romney.

So while I agree with a lot of Josh’s analysis, I think some of it is off the mark. For example, as to Dukakis, at the beginning of the 1988 campaign, I think Dukakis had a 32% lead, but was tagged with Willy Horton and that he couldn’t get mad at a potential rapist of his wife, and then posed ridiculously in a tank. But mostly, Bush won because he was able to hold the Reagan sunshine; that sunshine set into political darkness in the fourth year of his term. Hillary has never had a 32% lead and she is not coming off an Obama landslide re-election victory 4 years ago.

Where I most agree with Josh is Hillary’s need to encapsulate what she is for. But I disagree that she should at this point take her foot off of Trump’s neck on his threat to the country. Somehow, she needs to do both. So while I absolutely agree that a good umbrella slogan would be great, I don’t think that it alone would propel her to a bigger or more comfortable lead.

Where I most disagree with Josh is in his apparent abandonment of his consistent earlier argument that this election is all about “dominance.” I still think that’s what it is about. If that is right, then Hillary can have a chance to pull away if she can dominate Trump in the debate. Nothing will be more important than that-- when we are looking at things within the candidates’ control.

Then there are things outside the candidates’ control. Rioting in major cities a few weeks before the election. The move toward right wing nationalist parties throughout the entire western world. The narcissistic, selfish, historically challenged millennial generation that thinks we have failed them (!) and decide they are too good to vote or plan to vote for deeply flawed third party candidates because they think Hillary is compromised by actually having been in the trenches fighting on their behalf for decades. They are depressing Hillary’s margin by 4 points.

As to Josh’s comparisons between this election and 1964, I think that’s really not at all appropriate. LBJ won a landslide as the martyred JFK’s legatee. I remember. It was the first presidential election I was old enogh to vote in-- when voting age was still 21.