Trump's NY re-elect numbers are brutal....

Trump's latest re-elect numbers in the latest Siena NY poll are absolutely brutal:

https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SNY1019-Crosstabs.pdf

Re-elect 28 / someone else 68, re-elect -40 or someone else +40



The internals from the screenshot above:

Overall: 28/68, -40
Independents: 28/68, -40
Women: 26/71, -45
Moderates: 21/76, -55
Suburbs: 39/56, -17
Jewish voters: 38/62, -24

Here October 2011 (Obama), to compare:

https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SNY101811_Crosstabs.pdf




The internals from the screenshot above:

Overall: 48/45, +3
Independents: 44/47, -3
Women: 51/43, +8
Moderates: 44/45, -1
Suburbs: 38/58, -20
Jewish voters: 49/49, Tie

In both cases, the critical sub-rubriks are: women, inds and the suburbs....

No one is expecting Trump to be competitive in NY, but that's not the purpose of this OP.
The purpose of this OP is to remind that "margins matter".

With that in mind, here the presidential winning margins the last 15 presidential cycles:

2016: Clinton (D) +22.49%
2012: Obama (D) +28.18%
2008: Obama (D) +26.86%
2004: Kerry (D) +18.29%
2000: Gore (D) +25.00%
1996: Clinton (D) +28.86%
1992: Clinton (D) +15.85%
1998: Dukakis (D) +4.10%
1984: Reagan (R) +8.01%
1980: Reagan (R) +2.67%
1976: Carter (D) +4.42%
1972: Nixon (R) +17.74%
1968: Humphrey (D) +5.46%
1964: Johnson (D) +37.25%
1960: Kennedy (D) 5.26%

So, the last time that a Democrat won NY by close to +40 points (which is what the current re-elect numbers in the Siena poll are showing) was in 1964, when Johnson won nationally by +24. Take a look at the last two times where a Republican won nationally in both the popular vote and in the electoral count but lost NY: 2004 and 1988. In 2004, Kerry easily won NY, but by "only" +18. In 1988, Dukakis carried NY, but by only +4. Also, in 2016, where Clinton won in the NPV but Trump won in the electors nationally, Clinton's NY margin was 6 points less than Obama's 2012 re-election win in this state.

Now, it is unlikely that the D-nominee, when he or she emerges, will win NY by +40, but considering the brutal numbers that Trump is suffering among women, suburbanites and Independent voters, a D +35 here is 2020 is definitely possible, which would easily track with a national D +10 to D +13 win.

The point is: even in states considered "safe" states, we can learn alot from margin numbers over a long time. And if anything, these numbers will move more to the left, not to the right. That has been the historical trend in this state in polling vis-a-vis election night results.

At this point in time in time before his successful re-election in 2012, Obama was ahead by only +3 in NY when it came to re-elect/someone else, but on election night, he won by +28. That's a mathematically verifiable, historically proven margin shift of 25 points toward Obama from the time of the Siena poll in 2011 until his re-election. (Note: in individual matchups in the Siena October poll, Obama was at +27 over Perry, +26 over Cain and +20 over Romney, but there are not individual matchups in the current Trump poll)

Here, Trump is at -40 IN HIS OWN HOME STATE.

*Margins matter*

-Stat

Also: Impeach AND remove: 55/38, impeach and remove +17....

 

Good work.. thank you.

 

Can't wait for the Cons to say that the Libs can have the blue states and they will win in the Electoral College.
They will be very disappointed.

 

Trump is saying he's going to flip some more.
I don't know that he'll win by 400 electoral votes, but I'm thinking this is a cake walk for him. EDIT: Honest, I just watched a video saying they think Trump on track to win 400. I did a search and posted thinking it associated. Nope. The link below is from 2 years ago. Hope to find the vid I watched but for now, this is from 2 weeks ago.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-will-win-2020-election-400-electoral-votes-bannon-claims-685120

 

For perspective, the last time a Republican came over 400 EV was George H. W. Bush in 1988 and in that year, Dukakis barely took NY by 4.10%. The reams of current data dont' even show Trump getting close to 300, much less 400. A Democrat is far more likely to get to 400 in 2020 than that pile of crapola.

So, I always LOL when I see those kinds of vids.

 

We are in a weird place. HRC was supposed to win. The NYT and Huffpo thought she had a 90+ chance of winning yet lost to a guy that has never been in the military nor been elected to public office. Now? We have macro expectations of a POTUS and Trump appears to be fulfilling them. I think he will be up against a proclaimed globalist/socialist who may get her (it's going to be Warren) clock cleaned. We'll see.

 

Really? Which one?

 

ooh ooh I know the answer to this one!!!

Fake polling fake polling!

 

Trump Will WIN in a Landslide According to Most Accurate Model

 

You might say they're SALT-y.

 

400?
That’s a pretty high number seeing that he has lost support in every state in the Union with the exception of one, seeing that he won 46 electoral votes out of 306 by a margin less than 0.8% I don’t see how that’s possible barring another 9/11 type event.

He may win, but it will be on an even lower margin than he did in 2016.

 

Is Trump kaput? Say it. Predict it, you have all the numbers

 

It’s in the stars, it’s inevitable. Why do you think Libs scream to the sky?

They're trying to scare them

 

The only thing inevitable will be one of us, on the morning after the election, will be thinking of moving to Canada.

 

I've lived in Canada already, in Halifax as a matter of factory. Did not like it one bit, and not moving there no matter what.

 

which Democrat? Racist ole Joe Bite_me... crazy Socialist... Pocahontas maybe? What a bunch of freaks!

 

New York and California could run Charles Manson as the Democrat vs. Mother Teresa the Republican, the Democrats would still win by 20 points. There are states on both sides where the D and or the R behind the name is much more important than the candidates.

There's nothing surprising here. I think Trump's showing in North Carolina and Ohio is much more telling.

https://surveyresearch.ecu.edu/wp-c..._Report_Impeachment_Election_October_2019.pdf

https://emersonpolling.reportablene...iden-sanders-and-warren-in-democratic-primary

With the right candidate, the Democrats winning North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona may be more probable than not. A Democratic presidential candidate winning New York is totally expected, a 100% guarantee. Now a Democratic presidential candidate winning in those four states I mentioned would be headline news. Perhaps not so much for Ohio which is considered a bellwether, but for the other three, yeah.

 

I don't think you completely read the OP. Try again. Here is the key phrase:

 

Okay, but with 48 states with winner take all, the margin means nothing as far as awarding electoral votes. At least in my way of thinking. Now coat tails enhancing the state legislature and winning congressional districts is another matter. There you have something.

 

Actually, it does, because major margin shifts in "safe" states are very much a reliable indicator of what is happening in traditional battleground states and perhaps in new battlegrounds.

 

Could be, I wasn't looking at as such. I do think at the moment Trump is between a Rock and a Hard Place. I highly doubt he can win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania again. In fact I'd almost bet the farm. Then there Iowa, Ohio and Florida which I would say are leaning democratic. Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina very well could go Democratic with the right candidate.

Now this view is so early with a year to go, it doesn't mean much if anything. I'd say Trump can't win it, but the Democrats could lose it just like they did in 2016. Time will tell.

 

We had this discussion a long time ago, and it was a very productive one. In fact, it was one of the most enjoyable debate experiences I have ever had. The idea that this margin issue is based upon is "a rising tide lifts all boats", which means that as polling data grows and grows and grows, the pattern invariably is that the side that is winning enjoys far larger margins than usual where it is expected to win, is winning in a number of battlegrounds, some are tied and then we see that the losing side is still winning a lot of it's electoral territory, but with visibly reduced margins. In 2008 as polling showed Obama sweeping Illinois by between +25 and +30 (where a Democrat usually won by +10 to +15), was tied with McCain for 8 months on end in, of all places, Indiana, and multiple polls from various sources showed McCain ahead by maybe 8 points in either of the Dakotas - data points like these were sure-fire signs that Obama was heading for a really solid win on election night.

Some people have bitched and moaned about how off the polling was in 2016, but the vast majority of it was actually spot-on. National polling, which measures the popular vote and not the so-called electoral college, showed Clinton ahead by a composite of +3 on November 8th. She won in the NPV by +2.1. Polling in Ohio showed her losing by between 5-9 points, she lost Ohio by 8. Ditto for Iowa, where she lost by 10. Polling showed Florida a toss up, with a maximum of +1 either for Clinton or for Trump. Trump won by +1. Polling showed Clinton ahead by +2 in Nevada. She won Nevada by +2. Only in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan did the polling for some very strange (cough, cough, ocheyn plocha, pa russki) reason not add up and in those states, Trump won by +0.7, +0.7 and +0.1, respectively. In other words, Trump apparently acheived the inside straight that Nate Silver gave him a 25% chance of getting.

In 2018, the polling of numerous congressional districts ended up being absolutely spot-on and showed, just as a national generic polling was showing, sizeably larger margins for D candidates in safe D districts, reduced margins (or losses) for GOPers in safe GOP districts and also, Ds winning the lion's share of battleground CDs. In fact, congressional polling in 2018 was larger, more in depth and better than ever before in history.

So, for this reason, when I see polling for a very safe state, I pay every bit as much attention, because as Stat loves to say: "Margins matter!" And as soon as the first polling for, say, Arkansas or Alabama comes out, I will comb through it every bit as much.

Good to hear from you.

 

Looking forward to your post in late October of next year..

 

Many many enthusiastic posters have disappeared forever soon after 2016 elections.... probably gonna happen after 2020 elections too.

 

Thank you....