This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/upshot/theories-of-the-race-how-durable-is-hillary-clintons-lead.html
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Theories of the Race: How Solid Is Hillary Clinton’s Lead? | Theories of the Race: How Solid Is Hillary Clinton’s Lead? |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Hillary Clinton holds a modest and potentially vulnerable lead over Donald J. Trump heading into the first presidential debate Monday night, with a large number of voters remaining undecided or saying they’ll support a minor-party candidate. | Hillary Clinton holds a modest and potentially vulnerable lead over Donald J. Trump heading into the first presidential debate Monday night, with a large number of voters remaining undecided or saying they’ll support a minor-party candidate. |
| It’s not where it seemed the race would stand a month ago, when Mrs. Clinton led national polls by around eight percentage points. Her large advantage has dwindled. Today, she is ahead by around two percentage points in high-quality national surveys of likely voters, and in the key states she needs to win the Electoral College. | It’s not where it seemed the race would stand a month ago, when Mrs. Clinton led national polls by around eight percentage points. Her large advantage has dwindled. Today, she is ahead by around two percentage points in high-quality national surveys of likely voters, and in the key states she needs to win the Electoral College. |
| The good news for Mrs. Clinton is that she still holds an advantage. She has trailed in just two live-interview national surveys since the conventions. The state polling has been similar. Since the Democratic convention in late July, Mrs. Clinton has led in all but one live-interview poll in a combination of states worth a total of 272 electoral votes, two over the 270 needed to win. Her favorable states include those that went for the Democrats John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000, minus Maine’s Second Congressional District, plus New Mexico, New Hampshire, Virginia and Colorado. | |
| In a sense, this is reminiscent of 2012. President Obama had what was called a Midwestern firewall: a lead in the Kerry-Gore states, plus Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio — worth a total of 271 electoral votes. Like Mrs. Clinton’s edge, Mr. Obama’s lead in these states was occasionally quite narrow. But there was never a point where Mitt Romney was tied or ahead there, and the same is true for Mr. Trump. | In a sense, this is reminiscent of 2012. President Obama had what was called a Midwestern firewall: a lead in the Kerry-Gore states, plus Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio — worth a total of 271 electoral votes. Like Mrs. Clinton’s edge, Mr. Obama’s lead in these states was occasionally quite narrow. But there was never a point where Mitt Romney was tied or ahead there, and the same is true for Mr. Trump. |
| But there’s one big difference: the number of voters who say they’re undecided or support a minor-party candidate. Strictly by the numbers, a three-point lead is not especially robust when 15 or even 20 percent of voters are either undecided or say they support a minor-party candidate. | But there’s one big difference: the number of voters who say they’re undecided or support a minor-party candidate. Strictly by the numbers, a three-point lead is not especially robust when 15 or even 20 percent of voters are either undecided or say they support a minor-party candidate. |
| The sizable number of undecided voters is partly responsible for the volatility in the polling this year. Mrs. Clinton’s lead has bobbed between two and eight percentage points since April (though Mr. Trump held a fleeting lead in the few days immediately after the Republican convention). With so many voters on the sidelines, fairly modest shifts in the tone of the race or news media coverage can bring undecided voters on to or off the sidelines, moving the polls even as few voters actually change their minds. | The sizable number of undecided voters is partly responsible for the volatility in the polling this year. Mrs. Clinton’s lead has bobbed between two and eight percentage points since April (though Mr. Trump held a fleeting lead in the few days immediately after the Republican convention). With so many voters on the sidelines, fairly modest shifts in the tone of the race or news media coverage can bring undecided voters on to or off the sidelines, moving the polls even as few voters actually change their minds. |
| The minor-party candidates also make things harder for analysts. In general, strong third-party candidates with solid name recognition and a real base of committed support — think Ross Perot or John Anderson — hold that core support in the polls on Election Day. But weaker third-party candidates — the sort that get named in polls without much name recognition — have a much worse track record. Their supporters tend to not vote or to switch to a major-party candidate. One wonders whether those people were ever actually supporters at all, or whether they were just uncertain or disaffected voters taking an option provided to them by pollsters. | The minor-party candidates also make things harder for analysts. In general, strong third-party candidates with solid name recognition and a real base of committed support — think Ross Perot or John Anderson — hold that core support in the polls on Election Day. But weaker third-party candidates — the sort that get named in polls without much name recognition — have a much worse track record. Their supporters tend to not vote or to switch to a major-party candidate. One wonders whether those people were ever actually supporters at all, or whether they were just uncertain or disaffected voters taking an option provided to them by pollsters. |
| For this same reason, it’s a little hard to make sense of the shifts in the race. | For this same reason, it’s a little hard to make sense of the shifts in the race. |
| One theory holds that the race is relatively stable, with the polls shifting only as each side’s marginal voters feel moved to voice support for a candidate they don’t really like. When the news is bad for Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump, the voters at the periphery of their coalitions say they’re undecided, unlikely to vote or supporting a minor-party candidate. When the news gets better, these voters feel more comfortable saying they’ll support either candidate. This dynamic fits with the tendency of the polls to bounce up and down, almost like a stock market trading range. | One theory holds that the race is relatively stable, with the polls shifting only as each side’s marginal voters feel moved to voice support for a candidate they don’t really like. When the news is bad for Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump, the voters at the periphery of their coalitions say they’re undecided, unlikely to vote or supporting a minor-party candidate. When the news gets better, these voters feel more comfortable saying they’ll support either candidate. This dynamic fits with the tendency of the polls to bounce up and down, almost like a stock market trading range. |
| If this theory is right, Mrs. Clinton is likelier to retake a more comfortable lead than to fall behind Mr. Trump. One could even spin Mrs. Clinton’s narrow lead as good news: She’s still ahead despite some episodes that might have hurt her — like her "basket of deplorables” comment and her pneumonia (and secrecy about it). | If this theory is right, Mrs. Clinton is likelier to retake a more comfortable lead than to fall behind Mr. Trump. One could even spin Mrs. Clinton’s narrow lead as good news: She’s still ahead despite some episodes that might have hurt her — like her "basket of deplorables” comment and her pneumonia (and secrecy about it). |
| The other theory holds that Mrs. Clinton really has lost ground, and that there’s no reason to suppose that she’s likelier to rebound than to keep falling. | The other theory holds that Mrs. Clinton really has lost ground, and that there’s no reason to suppose that she’s likelier to rebound than to keep falling. |
| Why would Mrs. Clinton have lost ground? Part of the explanation might be that her post-convention bounce hadn’t actually faded by Labor Day. Another possibility is that Mr. Trump has been fairly well behaved over the last month. He hasn’t gotten himself into too much trouble, relatively speaking, since his feud with the family of Capt. Humayun Khan, allowing other stories — including ones about Mrs. Clinton — to supplant the steady stream of stories about Mr. Trump’s remarks. | Why would Mrs. Clinton have lost ground? Part of the explanation might be that her post-convention bounce hadn’t actually faded by Labor Day. Another possibility is that Mr. Trump has been fairly well behaved over the last month. He hasn’t gotten himself into too much trouble, relatively speaking, since his feud with the family of Capt. Humayun Khan, allowing other stories — including ones about Mrs. Clinton — to supplant the steady stream of stories about Mr. Trump’s remarks. |
| If this theory is right, Mrs. Clinton would still be the favorite — she leads today, after all — but she would be in danger. One could argue that she led by a large margin only because Mr. Trump failed to clear even the lowest bars of competence and decorum for a presidential nominee. It would also suggest that the debates are a big opportunity for Mr. Trump: By simply appearing presidential, he could cement his current gains and even make additional improvement. | If this theory is right, Mrs. Clinton would still be the favorite — she leads today, after all — but she would be in danger. One could argue that she led by a large margin only because Mr. Trump failed to clear even the lowest bars of competence and decorum for a presidential nominee. It would also suggest that the debates are a big opportunity for Mr. Trump: By simply appearing presidential, he could cement his current gains and even make additional improvement. |
| Which theory is right? Historically, it’s not obvious that either interpretation is the better one. Sometimes, races really do change for good. Other times, shifts in the polls are just noise. | Which theory is right? Historically, it’s not obvious that either interpretation is the better one. Sometimes, races really do change for good. Other times, shifts in the polls are just noise. |
| One thing that helps Mrs. Clinton is that the current pool of undecided and minor-party voters is quite diverse. It includes disaffected young idealists, blue-collar Democrats, well-educated Republican-leaners and probably some of the voters who don’t pay much attention to the news and who just can’t make up their mind between two unpopular candidates. In general, a more diverse pool of undecided voters helps the candidate in the lead, since it makes them less likely to break one way. | One thing that helps Mrs. Clinton is that the current pool of undecided and minor-party voters is quite diverse. It includes disaffected young idealists, blue-collar Democrats, well-educated Republican-leaners and probably some of the voters who don’t pay much attention to the news and who just can’t make up their mind between two unpopular candidates. In general, a more diverse pool of undecided voters helps the candidate in the lead, since it makes them less likely to break one way. |
| There is mainly upside for Mrs. Clinton among the disaffected young idealists, who might never break for Mr. Trump but could be lured back to her from a third-party candidate or from the ranks of the undecided. | There is mainly upside for Mrs. Clinton among the disaffected young idealists, who might never break for Mr. Trump but could be lured back to her from a third-party candidate or from the ranks of the undecided. |
| Mrs. Clinton’s weakness among young voters is undermining what many assumed would be her biggest strength against Mr. Trump: Hispanic and black voters. Nonwhite voters are disproportionately young, and her weakness among young voters is a major reason Mrs. Clinton is not quite matching Mr. Obama’s margin among nonwhite voters in national surveys despite Mr. Trump’s appeal to racial and ethnic resentment. There’s probably more room for Mrs. Clinton to improve than the other way around. | Mrs. Clinton’s weakness among young voters is undermining what many assumed would be her biggest strength against Mr. Trump: Hispanic and black voters. Nonwhite voters are disproportionately young, and her weakness among young voters is a major reason Mrs. Clinton is not quite matching Mr. Obama’s margin among nonwhite voters in national surveys despite Mr. Trump’s appeal to racial and ethnic resentment. There’s probably more room for Mrs. Clinton to improve than the other way around. |
| Then there are the undecided, conflicted blue-collar Democrat-leaners and well-educated Republican-leaners. | Then there are the undecided, conflicted blue-collar Democrat-leaners and well-educated Republican-leaners. |
| According to recent national surveys, Mrs. Clinton is faring far worse among white voters without a degree than Mr. Obama was four years ago. It has put her behind in Ohio, the anchor of Mr. Obama’s Midwestern firewall, as well as in Iowa and Maine’s Second Congressional District. | According to recent national surveys, Mrs. Clinton is faring far worse among white voters without a degree than Mr. Obama was four years ago. It has put her behind in Ohio, the anchor of Mr. Obama’s Midwestern firewall, as well as in Iowa and Maine’s Second Congressional District. |
| Who are they? They’re the voters who were the focus of pre-election coverage in 2012. They didn’t love Mr. Obama, but they tended to vote for him because they thought he looked out for the middle class. They believed that Mitt Romney was a plutocrat who outsourced jobs and would favor the rich over ordinary Americans. | Who are they? They’re the voters who were the focus of pre-election coverage in 2012. They didn’t love Mr. Obama, but they tended to vote for him because they thought he looked out for the middle class. They believed that Mitt Romney was a plutocrat who outsourced jobs and would favor the rich over ordinary Americans. |
| For the Northern white working-class voters who helped give Mr. Obama his four-point win, the 2016 election is sort of a strange reversal of 2012. This time, it’s the Republican businessman who has positioned himself as the candidate fighting for ordinary Americans. He has adopted positions with real appeal to working-class Democratic-leaners, whether on trade, immigration or the social safety net. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is the one being caricatured as Mr. Romney was: as corrupt and bought by special interest and corporations. | For the Northern white working-class voters who helped give Mr. Obama his four-point win, the 2016 election is sort of a strange reversal of 2012. This time, it’s the Republican businessman who has positioned himself as the candidate fighting for ordinary Americans. He has adopted positions with real appeal to working-class Democratic-leaners, whether on trade, immigration or the social safety net. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is the one being caricatured as Mr. Romney was: as corrupt and bought by special interest and corporations. |
| So far, Mr. Trump’s losses among well-educated suburban G.O.P. voters have roughly canceled out Mrs. Clinton’s losses among less educated Democrats. But Mrs. Clinton hasn’t locked down their support, just as Mr. Trump hasn’t locked down white working-class Democrats. | So far, Mr. Trump’s losses among well-educated suburban G.O.P. voters have roughly canceled out Mrs. Clinton’s losses among less educated Democrats. But Mrs. Clinton hasn’t locked down their support, just as Mr. Trump hasn’t locked down white working-class Democrats. |
| In some ways, it’s not easy for either candidate to sweep both groups. After all, the sort of message that appeals to well-educated Republican voters may not resonate with working-class Democrats, and vice versa. | In some ways, it’s not easy for either candidate to sweep both groups. After all, the sort of message that appeals to well-educated Republican voters may not resonate with working-class Democrats, and vice versa. |
| But there is one thing that might affect both groups: their view of whether Mr. Trump can handle the presidency. | But there is one thing that might affect both groups: their view of whether Mr. Trump can handle the presidency. |
| Is this the core of Mr. Trump’s problem with either group, or at least a large component of the problem? If it is, then the debates could be a moment for him to appear presidential — and turn his opening into real gains. | Is this the core of Mr. Trump’s problem with either group, or at least a large component of the problem? If it is, then the debates could be a moment for him to appear presidential — and turn his opening into real gains. |