Most of the [other election forecasts] give Clinton a better chance than we do – some of them give her as high as an 80 percent chance, in fact, despite her recent slide in the polling. Why are our models more pessimistic about Clinton’s chances?...
Bottom line: Although there are other factors that matter around the margin, our models show better numbers for Trump mostly because they’re more aggressive about detecting trends in polling data. For the past couple of weeks — and this started before the conventions, so it’s not just a convention bounce — there’s been a strong trend away from Clinton, and toward Trump. Although there’s always the risk of overreaction, this time our models were ahead of the curve in understanding the shift....
July 28, 2016
Nate Silver: "Why Our Model Is Bullish On Trump, For Now."
A new piece, just posted at FiveThirtyEight (where Clinton is given only a 52.6% chance of winning the election):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
93 comments:
Nates now-cast has Trump at over 55% this morning- likely higher later on...
...his now-cast tries to capture recent momentum, placing greater weight on recent polling and reducing the time premium.
You all know by now that I am the best, just the best, political consultant in America. No one is close to me. I know things, even before you can dream or think. This is why I am a go-to guy for all them.
I predict that Hillary! will win the election by destroying Trump and GOP everywhere. The GOP will lose all three: WH, House, and Senate.
Starting Nov., there will be increasing calls for naming buildings, monuments, streets, etc. after Hillary!
Trust me. You heard here first.
Repeat after me: Madame President!
'merica's pol said:
"I predict that Hillary! will win the election by destroying Trump and GOP everywhere. The GOP will lose all three: WH, House, and Senate."
Could you please get that information to Hillary! before the convention reconvenes? It would be really nice if the country didn't have to endure her BS tonight.
The ISIS attacks will continue. Who is going to stop them?
And when the deleted emails are released, Hillary completely tanks. Assange said he hates Hillary. Revenge!
"I predict that Hillary! will win the election by destroying Trump and GOP everywhere. The GOP will lose all three: WH, House, and Senate."
It's possible, but more likely this will be a close election, decided by about 5% of the vote between the two major party candidates with as much as 10% going to third parties. Probably over 15% to third parties if they were allowed in the debates.
If I were Hillary, I wouldn't be so confident. With so many voters thinking this country is on the wrong track, and with her identified as the "incumbent", she's either got to make a solid case for stability and continuity, or to convince them that she's the real change agent. Nothing about her suggests she has the skills for that.
Hillary Lannister will simply have to destroy all her domestic enemies while being respectful and treating with foreign enemies which she believes can actually help her.
Go Trump! Mrs Clinton stands for nothing but greed and naked ambition. She has married her way into tha halls of power, which, one would think, would appall feminists, but nope, doesn't seem to bother them.
Trump went before a hostile media group and took questions for an hour. Unfortunately, the press with its bias, used selective hearing and only heard the 33,000 email comment. And even that it got wrong. But eh, they are for Clinton so what do they care.
Clinton, whom the media wants to win, won't even do a press conference even though she can count on their support even to the pint of distortion and lies. If she is afraid of her own fawning media, how can she interact with hostile world leaders???
Shorter Nate Silver: Our Model is Bullish on Trump because Hillary is such a terrible candidate.
Shorter Silver -"It's a 50-50 election. Toss a coin."
Interesting Althouse is highlighting er singing Nate's praises in 2016 ...
But, but, but foolishly ignored his prediction er highly tuned calculations in 2012.
Indeed Althouse, as mentioned previously, whatever Nate predicts a couple days before the 2016 presidential election etch it in gold. This will save you from embarrassing yourself, as well as many of your con minions, like you did (4) years ago.
Keep hope alive!
Yah. now-cast now at 57.4% for Trump
Just like last week, these polls are relatively meaningless.
I suspect Hillary's still reeling from the FBI statement, which was only made worse by the DNC hack. Although the two were unrelated, the DNC hack did put the words "e-mail" and "hack" and "Hillary" fresh in voters minds. The idea of Hillary as corrupt and untrustworthy is keeping a lot of voters from believing her campaign promises, so she'll have a hard time winning over converts.
That said, what's probably helping her are the fundamentals of Obama's positive approval rating and low unemployment rate.
Why do you give Nate so much credit? He was no better than any other pollster over the past year, and he is desperate to try to regain his mojo. Frack him, let his results speak for themselves, quit trying to prop him up.
What say everyone make their election predictions today? Maybe we can revisit this post the day after the election and see how close we were.
57.4% seems pretty good for a comic book version of a campaign.
Lots of people must like comic books, eh CNBC?
That said, what's probably helping her are the fundamentals of Obama's positive approval rating and low unemployment rate.
@Brando, now calculate unemployment the way it was calculated back in Carter's day. You'll find it to be closer to ten percent than to five. The Obama economy has been very good for big time Wall Street investors. Not so good for coal miners, skilled laborers, and recent college graduates.
"What say everyone make their election predictions today?"
Trump continuing to implode notwithstanding, have mentioned previously if the economy doesn't tank and Obama's job approval ratings remain good, Hillary wins.
It's that basic.
This is not rocket science ...
"Nates now-cast has Trump at over 55% this morning- likely higher later on... "
Could you link to that? I know he had Trump up a few days ago, but the number I have in the post is what I'm seeing today. I'm looking at the top right hand corner of the website homepage. Is there something called the "now-cast" that's somewhere else?
You know when the polls are "meaningless"?
When you don't like them.
How many of Hillary's 33,000 "missing emails" were coming from spammers? 'Cause that number translates to about 23 per day, 365 days a year, over her four-year term as Secretary of State.
Could it be that she just doesn't want us to know that she constantly played FarmVille and loaded up on spam thereby?
@Bob Ellison, so you're saying her sysadmins were so cluelessly clunky that they didn't prevent spam from getting to her inbox?
I guess "meaningless" is the wrong word. They have meaning, but they don't mean nearly as much as people seem to think they do. As we get closer, they'll be more meaningful, but this far out, they're nice to know, but not particularly important.
"@Brando, now calculate unemployment the way it was calculated back in Carter's day. You'll find it to be closer to ten percent than to five. The Obama economy has been very good for big time Wall Street investors. Not so good for coal miners, skilled laborers, and recent college graduates."
Still, under 5% is pretty low, and more importantly it's been a downward trend. People will compare it to where it was four and eight years ago. In 1980, it was increasing (plus, very high inflation and interest rates that were also increasing). A lot of people are out of work who are trying to find work, but relative to recent years it has been an improvement. (I'm not crediting or blaming presidents on this one, obviously the economy is not something they can really control, but voters do pass blame and credit based on it)
"Trump continuing to implode notwithstanding, have mentioned previously if the economy doesn't tank and Obama's job approval ratings remain good, Hillary wins."
I had in mind percentage predictions that we can check against in a few months.
"@Bob Ellison, so you're saying her sysadmins were so cluelessly clunky that they didn't prevent spam from getting to her inbox?"
-- Honestly? Not ruling that possibility out. I mean, they did say GMail was more secure, and every few months a spam mail sneaks its way through to my box. I'm sure a good chunk of the purged emails were personal, deliberately purged, etc.
I'm looking at the top right hand corner of the website homepage. Is there something called the "now-cast" that's somewhere else?
Follow that top right hand corner link, then on the page that shows the chance of winning, look in the top left corner. There are radio buttons to choose between three different models
I think that if Hillary! was not in trouble, there would not be any need for her to tack so far to the left to get nominated, and I think she is now so far to the left that tacking back to the middle is no longer feasible.
shiloh said...
Trump continuing to implode notwithstanding...
If Trump continues to implode the way he has for the past month he'll win in a landslide.
"I think that if Hillary! was not in trouble, there would not be any need for her to tack so far to the left to get nominated, and I think she is now so far to the left that tacking back to the middle is no longer feasible."
She overreacted to Bernie. Not in that Bernie wasn't a threat, but in that trying to out-socialist him was not going to convince anyone, and if anything is giving moderates fodder to question her. A better move would have been to stick it out and defend the moderate position--which makes more sense as the "incumbent" of the election, and positions her for the general. She probably bought into some polling that showed how far left the Dem electorate was drifting.
But the Dems have lurched far left. Obama and Sanders are proof of it. These Democrats would never elect Bill Clinton. I worry that we're in for a repeat of the FDR era.
@Brando: "convince them that she's the real change agent. Nothing about her suggests she has the skills for that." This was the case Bill tried to make, with his "change maker" spiel. He may have been marginally more effective in presenting them as actually married than in changing her into a change maker.
@BE: "Could it be that she just doesn't want us to know that she constantly played FarmVille and loaded up on spam thereby?" Nah. It was mostly about yoga. You can tell just by looking at her how much she is into yoga and exercise -- that's tens of thousands of emails right there. Of course, as someone on this blog pointed out a while ago, the whole notion that a busy professional produces 30K+ personal emails in a four-year period, equal to her complete output of work-related emails, is inherently incredible.
As Trump says, and the MSM immediately had to distort--confirming the you're-all-in-the-tank-for-Hill point he made--let's see them. Of course, as someone else also pointed out, due to the fact that there were so many and that they really do appear to have been destroyed, Wikileaks could put out false information or fake emails. It would be difficult for Hill to dispute deliberate falsehoods. Since her attorneys didn't review the content, they could not help her. Quite apart from the humiliation factor in the release of the actual emails, the possibility of manipulation greatly raises the blackmail risk.
Spam? You mean like this:
My candidate for President was dead broke just a few, short years ago. But now she's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Click here to learn how you too can become one of the wealthiest 1% from the comfort of your own home....
Always subtract 5-7% for Silver's Dem bias. Anyone watching all the pundits, reading all the polls, and believing them do not understand the dynamic in play. People are fed up w/ elitists. And there is probably a solid 10%, maybe as high of 15% of people who will vote for Trump but are ashamed to say it to pollsters or even family and friends.
Hillary! Your ticket to better abs is right here!
Why waste time on ten-minute yogas? Our seven-minute yoga program will put you in tip-top shape. You'll notice results within days, guaranteed!
Plus, your first four years are free! After that, just pay $1,000,000 per year from your family foundation, and you'll get all the yogas you learned to love forever!
Well, we'll see.
I basically agree with Glenn Loury: Trump has a route to winning handily. He should be reaching out to the black community. He should be spending a quarter of his speaking time from now till the election, talking to black audiences.
"You've been voting Democrat since I was a kid. They've rewarded you with black mayors, black governors, and now a black president. What has the party ever done for you that actually worked, that actually helped? Can you fire a teacher who doesn't teach? How many black kids are illiterate today - who _went to school and high school_ - compared with sixty years ago? Mrs. Clinton says she'll give everyone free college. (Isn't gonna happen.) What good will college do for kids who can't read and can't do math?
They say I'm a racist because I say dumb stuff. We all say dumb stuff - you do too, right? - but maybe I say more than most. But I'm not a racist, and I'm here to talk to you. They say I'm not much of a conservative either; I don't mind spending money. But enough with wasting it. Do you really want your money for education spent in Washington by people who are busy making requirements for the kind of bathrooms every school in America has to have? We have to start doing things that actually work.
Every one of you doesn't want people in American cities afraid of the police, and not trusting them to help the community. But every one wants the police to be able to do their jobs and protect us. We have to find ways to end this war - ways that work."
The black community doesn't _care_ about immigration, they mostly even agree with him.
He could do it. He could turn that community. I don't know anyone else who could.
But I don't see him doing it, and time is passing. Sigh.
The media reports fake employment numbers.
"But the Dems have lurched far left. Obama and Sanders are proof of it. These Democrats would never elect Bill Clinton. I worry that we're in for a repeat of the FDR era."
I'd only worry about it if the conditions in the country were such that we could have another FDR era (several straight terms of one-party dominance and a left-leaning ideology). The Dems could win this year, but if they stay far-left they're ripe for defeats later. And Hillary is no FDR!
"Trump has a route to winning handily. He should be reaching out to the black community. He should be spending a quarter of his speaking time from now till the election, talking to black audiences."
Every four years the GOP keeps talking about how this time they're going to make inroads with blacks, but it just never happens. I don't know what it would take to make that happen, but whatever they've tried in the past (gay marriage amendments, anti-abortion policies, enterprise zones) hasn't worked.
Trump's better bet is winning back white women.
"I don't know what it would take to make that happen"
Voter ID which is gonna allow mittens to win PA, done!
Well, maybe stop passing state legislation specifically designed to make it harder for minorities to vote.
Just a thought.
"Every four years the GOP keeps talking about how this time they're going to make inroads with blacks, but it just never happens." But he's not the GOP. He has a unique opportunity as the outsider. Plus, blacks are sick of it all. BLM isn't just about police. Things aren't working and they know it.
And, voters all know him. He doesn't need advertising like a regular candidate. Let Clinton spend a billion dollars on ads, while promising to overturn Citizens United! Forget about that stuff; Trump should be targeting minorities like a candidate targets a state just before the primary.
Sure, let him target women as well. But I'm not sure how to do that; blacks would come to hear him speak and/or protest. Women aren't as desperate right now as blacks, not even close.
"But he's not the GOP. He has a unique opportunity as the outsider. Plus, blacks are sick of it all. BLM isn't just about police. Things aren't working and they know it."
Maybe, but generations of black voters have been conditioned against voting Republican. The high water mark post-1964 was Ford's 17%. And look at the black approval rating for Obama--they stick with their party and their president.
The white women vote normally breaks for the GOP (particularly white married women) and they often have concerns that hit right in the GOP zone (e.g., security). Hillarys' doing well with them now but they are more movable than the black vote.
"maybe stop passing state legislation specifically designed to make it harder for minorities to vote." Heh - Trump should mention that during his speeches that I'm writing for him.
"How many of you don't have any ID so that you couldn't vote - raise your hands! Okay, the two of you, my campaign will personally take charge of getting you free ID so that you can. Speak to this man George here... Now, how many people here have heard that requiring ID is a racist way to stop you from voting?
This is how the Democratic Party has been playing you since I was a kid. Forget about actually helping your community, the main thing is _Vote for us!_"
I know the Onion is now owned by a big Hillary donor (and it shows) but I thought this was relatively funny.
Ann Althouse said...
You know when the polls are "meaningless"?
When you don't like them.
7/28/16, 8:28 AM"
There is a lot of truth in your statement. Still, when polls state the 70% of the people believe the country is headed in the wrong direction how seriously can polls favoring the party of continuing the same be taken? It appears that the Democrats are arguing yes we are bad but Trump! and the Republicans are Super Bad! They might even win with that especially if the 47% show up to vote in record numbers.
"Sure, let him target women as well." Leave that to Ivanka and Tiffany.
He should read Loury, one of the few honest leftists left. He doesn't need to make "inroads"--picking off a few black votes in VA, OH, and PA is doable.
If I understood him correctly at his presser, he's going to roll out some great "plan" to reach out to Hispanics. We'll see. But Trump is playing to win.
"Maybe, but generations of black voters have been conditioned against voting Republican." Yup. That's what I'm saying. He has a unique opportunity to change that. It could change the whole voting dynamic in the United States if he succeeded. The Democratic Party without the black vote couldn't win an election for dogcatcher.
Definitely worth a try. And he has _nothing better to do till the election_! What aside from that? Give a crazy press conference every few days and say something that gets his name in the headlines and he's good.
This constant recording of the GOP "not reaching out to blacks" year after year is tiresome. How about letting blacks thinking for themselves? If they keep voting for Democrats and their life gets worse every year, then they are beyond hope. Pandering to them, wont cut it.
"70% of the people believe the country is headed in the wrong direction"
Congressional job approval = 80% disapprove. Who's in charge of congress? Republicans.
shiloh said...
"70% of the people believe the country is headed in the wrong direction"
Congressional job approval = 80% disapprove. Who's in charge of congress? Republicans.
7/28/16, 9:39 AM"
The public looks at the direction the country is headed in from the perspective of the executive branch. By the way, Congress always polls badly no matter which party is in the majority which also works for Trump since he is running against the entrenched elites.
I hope the country is smart enough to understand that the "direction the country is headed right now" is not something produced by the current Congress. The current Congress is in the position of digging in its heels, trying to brake, since the country is - duh - headed in the wrong direction!
But I don't know if the country is smart enough. shiloh may be right - many or most Americans may make the silly analogy that he is making.
I have read nothing in Silver's analysis that accounts for massive vote fraud by the Dems, for the Dems. This is a significant flaw in his modeling of the 2016 elections.
The Dems will cheat in FL, OH, PA, VA, and anywhere else there are close races. The results from Philly, for example, will never be reported before the entire rest of the state, and when they are reported, mirabile dictu!, the total will put the Dems ahead just enough to avoid a recount.
Therefore I think Silver needs to revise his Hillary odds upwards by however many points it takes to show her getting elected, no matter what the odds are for Trump.
Trump 47%? Hillary 53%!
Trump 50%? Hillary 55%!
Trump 99%? Hillary 100%! or maybe 110%!
Because Dem vote fraud is how we got Senator Franken, and how we're gonna get President Hillary. I have had money on this outcome for this reason since 2008.
Ann, try this link to now-cast...
now-cast
On a mobile device theres a menu at tge bottom that lets you toggle between his three models.
If I recall corretly on a web browser there should be buttons to the left of the Clinton-Trump bar chart that allow you to change the model.
Trump seems to be adopting Ali's rope-a-dope strategy. He let the media and Dems take shots at him. He has come back out swinging at his convention and continues to engage during the DNC's cycle. I expect him to go back into rope-a-dope and let another cycle of attacks pass so that they are "old news" when the election cycle is nearly complete.
The thing about the "wrong direction" numbers is that it combines those who think our country it too much in the hands of business and wants the government to do more for everyone and those who think the opposite. There's those who think this country is too far down the PC rabbit hole and those who think there's way too much white and male privilege going on. The Tea Party and the Occupiers were both groups of very pissed off people who didn't like what was going on in this country, and yet those groups produced Ted Cruz and Liz Warren respectively.
So while a lot of them may find Trump's message appealing, the real question is what percentage of the unsatisfied voters that makes up. And it looks like both parties are giving up on the people who want things to be stable and disdain radical change (e.g., the Bloomberg contingent).
Polls only matter now in the sense that it forces the candidates to adjust. Right now, it's Hillary that has to adjust. Looks like she is going with having Obama try and drag her over the line since people have a positive view of him. But his approval is personal, not political since so many people think the country is in the shitter.
'The thing about the "wrong direction" numbers is that it combines those...'
True. And we are combining those who disapprove of Congress too. Lots of conservatives seem to be furious at Congress because it hasn't repealed Obamacare yet. They've written off Paul Ryan because he sold out - i.e., managed to pass a budget. Etc.
The thing about the "wrong direction" numbers is that it combines those who think our country it too much in the hands of business and wants the government to do more for everyone and those who think the opposite
'Wrong Direction' also captures Bernie supporters.
The media reports fake employment numbers.
Just like last week, these polls are relatively meaningless.
If you know what's being collected and measured and show your work is followed you can learn a great deal..
Re: employment- the media reported number is just one measure and yes the media does draw the wrong conclusions because of stupidity or bias, but if compare that number with other measures like U7 or EMRATIO you can learn a great deal.
Likewise with polling data- far from meaningless, you can learn a great deal about current sentiment, change of sentiment from the recent and distant past, and momentum. A candidate that was polling strongly- a lead well outside the margin of error- who is swiftly and suddenly trailing in several polls, some of which are outside the margin of error- that says something has changed. You can argue what it means but you shouldn't argue it's meaningless...
"The Dems will cheat in FL, OH, PA, VA"
Althouse cons continuing to cry me a river notwithstanding, indeed PA is the key.
And with each passing day, Trump is also doing more damage down ballot:
Toomey 36, McGinty 43 McGinty +7
>
"The public looks at the direction the country is headed in from the perspective of the executive branch."
Gallup Obama Job Approval ~ 51/45 = Approve +6
They may be breaking about even in the polls right now, but there is not much that can happen to Trump, while there are so many things that can - and indeed some seem likely to - happen to Hillary!
So Trump says something the media say is bad or stupid. People seem to be shrugging that off even more than Hillary!'s security breaches. It's just too complicated with charges and counter-charges.
But - What do you mean you approved a Russian pipeline through xxx for 25 million dollars?
Or there is a terrorist attack - real or imitation - even more successful than the instigators had intended on American soil. The Republicans have not been and are not now in charge of the government. Hillary!'s Dems are.
Etc, etc.
"not much that can happen to Trump"
Tax returns
Bush41/Bush43 et al cons doing a negative Trump campaign ad, much like Bloomberg did live last nite.
Flopping like a dead fish in the debates.
Apologies to dead fish ...
"Tax returns"
That one seems as likely to do damage as the Birther stuff did to President Obama. At some point Trump will release the tax returns, and they will show exactly what he has said all along: like any American, he takes any legal dodge to save money he can. It's hard for me to conceive any other result, or conceive why anyone thinks it will matter.
Tax returns
I think his team has come up with their ongoing strategy- the IRS is going to give him cover.
Like everyone else under investigation by legal authorities, he's not going to release his return(s) since the IRS is auditing his return...and as long as he reports more than $999,999 in income he will automatically be subjected to at least a desk audit.
I wouldn't hold your breath waiting to see them if I were you.
Is anybody making book on that 80% for Hillary number? Cause I want some of that action.
IRS: Trump can release tax returns, regardless of audit
In a statement Friday, the IRS said that federal privacy rules prohibit the agency from discussing individual tax matters, but “nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information.”
While not citing Trump by name, the IRS also disputed the businessman's suggestions that he is being audited for political reasons or because he is a Christian.
“The IRS stresses that audits of tax returns are based on the information contained on the taxpayer’s return and the underlying tax law — nothing else,” the agency said. “Politics and religion do not factor into this. The audit process is handled by career, non-partisan civil servants, and we have processes in place to safeguard the exam process.”
Asked on CNN about the audits, Trump said: "Well, maybe because of the fact that I'm a strong Christian, and I feel strongly about it, maybe there's a bias."
btw, strong Christian = lol funny!
“I’m sure a careful tax attorney would advise him not to disclose it in the middle of an audit,” Thorndike said of Trump. “But an attorney would say not to disclose it anytime.”
If Trump can’t handle a difficult audit, “he’s running for the wrong job,” said Thorndike, who has called for the New York City businessman and other presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.
“It’s a willingness to say 'I’m asking for your trust, and I’m willing to provide this information to earn your trust,'” said Thorndike.
We will never see Clinton Foundation tax returns, you know why? Because the system is "rigged."
Not to worry though, as the DNC leak shows, the press will be in a flood the zone mode for some time to suppress the contents of those emails. But it is very important that Shilo follow through on the strategy to "muddy the waters" around HRC's ethical lapses!
The best way to do this is with stories with no fingerprints.
Don't look for help finding the truth from the media, as they have been as corrupted as the DNC by the Clinton's and their network of favoritism for pay.
How does it feel Shilo, to shill for a candidate who has totally corrupted your DNC? Turned it into one big favors for cash operation?
Follow "Shameless Leader" over a cliff, go ahead.
I'm going to pose a corollary to the Bradley rule, and call it the Trump rule. In 1969 Tom Bradley, a black police chief, ran against incumbent Sam Yorty for the mayoralty of Los Angeles. Bradley had a comfortable lead in polling up to election day, but lost by a substantial margin. Election analysts surmised that poll respondents were reluctant to express an anti-Bradley opinion because he was black. I firmly believe that a segment of today's poll respondents are reluctant to express a pro-Trump opinion because they've been told what a big meanie he is, though they secretly agree with him and will carry through in the voting booth.
"The media reports fake employment numbers."
The numbers have always been "fake" in that they don't take into account the people who are no longer looking for work, but the question is whether the calculation is different from what it was before. If they're using the same calculation then clearly the "real" unemployment number, however you calculate it, is improved.
I know there are a lot of people not working or underemployed that the 4.9% number misses, but you can't really say things are as bad as they were at the height of the recession.
" I firmly believe that a segment of today's poll respondents are reluctant to express a pro-Trump opinion because they've been told what a big meanie he is, though they secretly agree with him and will carry through in the voting booth."
If that were the case, wouldn't he have outperformed his polls in the primaries? In the primaries he generally pulled about what his latest polls were showing, and in some cases a bit less.
The number to watch is the swath of third party or undecided voters, who right now are depriving both candidates of a majority. If they abandon the third parties and flock mostly towards one of the others, that'll be it.
"At some point Trump will release the tax returns, and they will show exactly what he has said all along: like any American, he takes any legal dodge to save money he can. It's hard for me to conceive any other result, or conceive why anyone thinks it will matter."
I agree it won't matter, but I don't think he's going to release them before the election or else he would have already. There's something there he doesn't want people to see, and I don't think it's a low tax rate (he boasts that he pays only what he's legally required). Anything that would show him to be making lots of money and paying very low taxes he'd be proud of---it'd bolster his image as a guy who succeeds and works the system.
But I don't think most voters care. If you're inclined towards Trump, it doesn't matter that he's holding back (plus it makes the media angry), if you're inclined against him you already figure he's up to something shady.
shiloh said...
IRS: Trump can release tax returns, regardless of audit
There's a big difference between "can" and "should". Without any question, Trump's lawyers are telling him not to release information from a pending investigation. That's what your lawyers would tell you, too, if you were being audited. Would you ignore your lawyers' advice?
Trump seems to be adopting Ali's rope-a-dope strategy. He let the media and Dems take shots at him. He has come back out swinging at his convention and continues to engage during the DNC's cycle. I expect him to go back into rope-a-dope and let another cycle of attacks pass so that they are "old news" when the election cycle is nearly complete.
T S
If Trump can’t handle a difficult audit, “he’s running for the wrong job,” said Thorndike, who has called for the New York City businessman and other presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.
In Re Brando and Big Mike's conversation: Yesterday's Rasmussen Poll on "direction of the country" had 76% saying the country is headed in the wrong direction. This has to have an impact whether people like Obama or not. How can Hillary say we'll keep on trucking when 75% say you're headed the wrong way. I have to side with Big Mike on the unemployment numbers. I have seen, what I knew at the time to be, reliable sources calculate unemployment at 9.5% If I could find the sites again I would add a link.
'If they're using the same calculation then clearly the "real" unemployment number, however you calculate it, is improved.' No. If 10% were unemployed at the height of the recession, and half of those have given up looking for work, the same calculation yields 5% now. It has not improved; what has happened is that the temporarily unemployed have moved on to become permanently unemployed.
It isn't a question of if he can, but if he will. As someone who works extensively with the IRS I wouldn't allow a client's return to be subject to public scrutiny while under review and I suspect Trumps people won't let him either.
...but Shiloh if you want to hold your breath while waiting for Trump to release his, be my guest.
"No. If 10% were unemployed at the height of the recession, and half of those have given up looking for work, the same calculation yields 5% now. It has not improved; what has happened is that the temporarily unemployed have moved on to become permanently unemployed."
Is that actually the case, though? What are the total number of people employed in this country today vs. 2010, adjusted for total population growth? If everyone who was counted as "looking for a job" in that 10% and half of them just gave up, I'd expect the number of total employed to be the same.
"In Re Brando and Big Mike's conversation: Yesterday's Rasmussen Poll on "direction of the country" had 76% saying the country is headed in the wrong direction. This has to have an impact whether people like Obama or not. How can Hillary say we'll keep on trucking when 75% say you're headed the wrong way. I have to side with Big Mike on the unemployment numbers. I have seen, what I knew at the time to be, reliable sources calculate unemployment at 9.5% If I could find the sites again I would add a link."
She won't get much mileage out of "keep on trucking" with a lot of those voters, but the more leftist among them would still stick with the Dems over the GOP who they think would take it too far in the other direction. Just like in 2008 when a large number of voters were angry about the direction of the country, but the ones who saw Obama's "change" as a negative still stuck with McCain.
As for the "9.5%" I know that can depend on what other types of unemployed we're counting (labor force participation rates, etc.). The question though is by that measurement, how does it compare to where it was?
In 2008, for example, the unemployment rate on election day was below 8% (I don't recall the exact number and am too lazy to search it) but voters still were pessimistic enough to try out a fresh guy with no experience, because the trend all year had been towards higher unemployment (plus rising gas prices and financial collapses). In 2012, the numbers weren't much better, but they'd improved since the height of the recession in 2010, so that helped the incumbent.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
In 2006, 63% employed for ages 16 yrs and up.
Dropped to 58% for pretty much the whole recession. By now it has crept back up almost to 60%.
wow. I thought Nate Silver's job was to reassure lefties that their candidate will win.
"Dropped to 58% for pretty much the whole recession. By now it has crept back up almost to 60%."
So reading that, it's still poor compared to 2006 but an upward trend from 2010. Now, how much of that is covered by retirees, and of the retirees how many were forced into early retirement by a bad job market?
The other thing about "retirees" is that there was a significant up tick in the number of people allowed to essentially retire on Social Security disability. The loosening of disability requirements was apparently intentional, since if they are now considered disabled, they are no longer in the job market, and, thus, no longer qualify tas unemployed.
"The other thing about "retirees" is that there was a significant up tick in the number of people allowed to essentially retire on Social Security disability. The loosening of disability requirements was apparently intentional, since if they are now considered disabled, they are no longer in the job market, and, thus, no longer qualify tas unemployed."
That's a growing problem--a lot of people claiming "disability" when they just can't find work (and no longer qualify for unemployment benefits). Not to mention students--people who go back to school because they can't find work and hope with another degree and a few years they might have better luck later. It's hard to tell how many of them went to school because they wanted to better themselves (and would have regardless of the job market) or if it was prompted by inability to find work.
The important measure to my mind is the labor force participation rate, but even that can tell a fuzzy picture--if we happen to have a lot more genuine retirees (i.e., would have retired anyway because they were tired of working or saved enough) rather than "forced by bad job market" retirees, it may not be because the economy is weak but because of demographics.
if we happen to have a lot more genuine retirees (i.e., would have retired anyway because they were tired of working or saved enough) rather than "forced by bad job market" retirees, it may not be because the economy is weak but because of demographics.
I'm loving the comments and letting them roll but remember the participation rate kicks out anyone over 64...
I don't remember where I saw it (maybe Megan?), but a large portion of the permanent unemployed are not new retirees (of course, some old retirees have died), but young people who just never found a job. We are moving in the direction of Europe, where a significant fraction of the young population cannot find work and aren't trying any more.
You know when the polls are "meaningless"?
When you don't like them.
Hahahaha. So true.
From what I can tell the only polling that's anywhere near accurate is the internal party polling. The polls we see in the media are designed to shape public opinion more than reflect it.
"...but Shiloh if you want to hold your breath while waiting for Trump to release his, be my guest."
Actually think it's an infinitesimal Trump problem looking at the big picture ie Trump has soooo many other larger negatives his taxes really won't matter much.
Plus it's probably a slight negative regardless. If it was a positive he would have already released his taxes.
It'll be a bigger distraction at the debates when he ducks and weaves like the charlatan/chameleon everybody already knows he is.
As Nate Silver was a Journolister (i.e., Democrat operative with a byline), Hill's likely in bigger trouble than he relates.
Post a Comment