Clinton Up Again At 538, Trump's Average Poll Numbers Now In the Mid-30's

[Doctor Jack]

Two interesting pieces of news from 538. First, Clinton is up yet again to another all time high of 89.3% in the polls only forecast.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo


Also, Trump's support continues to fall. Clinton is holding steady around 44.5% in the 538 averages but Dickless is now at 36% and continues his freefall. He has lost 4 points of support since the beginning of this month.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/


This is a complete and utter implosion. I have never seen a candidate that I can remember polling in the mid-30s during the general election. You have to reach back to 1996 to find a major party candidate doing as poorly as Trump is right now. And if you go through the past polls, Trump's position is historic in how bad it is. The only candidates polling this low this late in the election were Bob Dole, Bush in 1992, George McGovern, Humphrey and Goldwater. Trump is now polling among the biggest losers in the last 50 years.

Right now the closest parallel looks like 1996 and Trump is Bob Dole, who was polling around 37% at this point, Hillary is Bill, who was in the mid to upper 40s, and Johnson is Perot, polling around 7 or 8. The numbers seem to match up very closely.

[chillfactor]

1. nice to see...

let's hope the trend continues.

[Doctor Jack]

2. Considering the breaking news

Of Manafort being bribed by pro-russian political operatives in 2012, it would say that its likely to

[Maru Kitteh]

5. Wait

Wut?

Holy crap. Looking forward to this! I despise that tool.

[Kennah]

3. It must be said

https://m.

[pnwmom]

4. That first debate can't come soon enough for me!

The supremely knowledgeable, self-controlled and unflappable Hillary Clinton against . . . the braggart who has never composed a paragraph's worth of a spoken thought in his life.

[Moonwalk]

9. Never count chickens. In Kennedy-Nixon, the radio listeners thought Nixon had won...

...the television viewers knew Kennedy had won. Trump is an entertainer, a television personality and he's proven in debate after republican debate that he knows how to use the camera to his advantage. Debates, alas, aren't just about how well people make points. They're also about how they come across. As "entertaining" or not. As warm, as charming, as "presidential" (meaning, how we expect a movie president to look and act and sound).

So, yes, I'm hoping that the debates are run in a way (professionally and with real, demanding questions) to show Trump at his worse and Hillary at her best. But we CANNOT take for granted that Trump will fail in this arena. He likes being before the cameras. And he's had a ton of experience being entertaining before the cameras. He might have more of an advantage in these debates than we think.

[pnwmom]

10. I watched him in those debates. When he starts treating Hillary like he treated Rubio, he's screwed.

The last few remaining women voters on his team will be gone.

[NewJeffCT]

15. Not only that

while the pundits typically gave Trump decent grades for the debates, his poll numbers generally trended a bit downwards after each debate and/or his opponents gained ground.

They had an analysis a week or so back on Morning Joe when the topic of debates first came up, which is where they had the analysis.

I suspect that Clinton will gain ground because she'll look sharp, supremely competent and in command of the facts.

[alfredo]

11. He will weasel out of the debates.

[pnwmom]

13. I'm afraid of that.

[alfredo]

14. That will give Hillary more ammo to use against him. He'd be branded a coward.

Talks tough, but afraid to debate a "girl."

[NewJeffCT]

16. like this

[alfredo]

17. Yes!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. Trump supporters are only doing it to piss us off.

[LeftRant]

7. That's awesome.

I'd like to see him under 10% chance. How low can he go?

[alfredo]

12. I think the absolute bottom would be around 30%.

We have a lot of authoritarian followers.

[C Moon]

8. It's shocking if he even gets 1%...or the 1%

[stevenleser]

20. I think a huge percentage of the 1%'ers have deserted him already.

Two points:

1. It does 1%'ers no good whatsoever to have an overconfident moron running the economy

2. 1%'ers want to be around to enjoy their money. Having someone make reckless statements about the use of nuclear weapons is enough for them to think its better to pay a little more in taxes and not be dead.

[C Moon]

21. +1

[TomCADem]

18. Time to Crank Up the False Equivalency!

The media loves a horse race. If you can't normalize Trump, then make Hillary look as Trump.

[7962]

19. good point

[Odin2005]

22. Do any of the older posters here know why Perot's numbers dropped off towards the end?

[geek tragedy]

23. because it was clear he had no choice to win, and people didn't want to waste their

vote on a protest candidate.