Sunday, September 11, 2016

A Very Close Presidential Election Which is not That Close

It's a very close election, a nail biter with that one proviso: it's not that close.

We keep hearing how close it is. On cable news, someone who calls himself a journalist-which I could recall who; it was on CNN I think; if not then MSNBC but I keep thinking CNN-claimed that this is one of the closest elections ever.

Sure. It's giving Bush-Gore, Nixon-Humphrey-and Nixon-Kennedy-a serious run for their money. To be sure, there were a few rebels from the conventional wisdom like John Harwood who inexplicitly said this:

"actually the race isn't that volatile."

Not that volatile?! Why Trump is pivoting and he's going to win the black vote after going to that fake church service and asking them 'What the hell do you have to lose?' and Scott Adams and Sean Trende are both evil geniuses and...

But what to make of this Washington Post poll which came out overnight?

"#NEW National ABC/WaPost Poll Head-2-Head: Clinton 51 (+8) Trump 43"

That doesn't look so close. Maybe Dan Pfieffer was right after all.

"Dems have a tendency to bed wet and the race isn't that close ht"

Maybe Matt McDermott is too:

"ABC/WaPo finds the race unchanged: because it is. Clinton has a stable, comfortable lead and has for a month. Go enjoy your weekend!"

"It's almost as if our President is (in this age of partisanship) beloved, and Hillary Clinton is his obvious successor."

Indeed. Occam's Razor means you should prefer the simplest argument. This is true unless you're the Beltway media.

The higher the Obama's numbers get, the better for Hillary.

"8 in 10 likely voters who approve of Pres. Obama in new ABC/WaPo poll back Hillary Clinton


John Singer:

"Expect to win (ABC/WaPo poll): Hillary Clinton - 58% (50% in May) Donald Trump - 29% (40% in May)"

Eric Boehlert:

"ha. voters ignoring media spin. #wise"

No comments:

Post a Comment