The Trump-Clinton Race Is Not As Close As It Looks

National Journal ^ | May 30, 2016 | Charlie Cook

[Nita Nupress]

OMG! The article is as plain as day.

So again... What is YOUR interpretation of the article?

[Utmost Certainty]

Cook may be a NeverTrump shill, but there are facts that shouldn’t be overlooked.

(Not saying anyone clearly knows what the electoral facts are yet, but I’d rather start trying to discern these instead of riding on pollyanna assumptions)

[cornfedcowboy]

I’m gonna tell the teacher on You!

[Lurkinanloomin]

I don’t think it will be all that close, either.

When faced with the choice of Trump/American vs Multi-national Hillary, Americans will vote American.

[BobL]

“It is ex­ceed­ingly un­likely that Clin­ton will beat Trump by a wide mar­gin be­cause of her high neg­at­ives and the in­tense par­tis­an­ship that has gripped the na­tion, but the prob­ab­il­it­ies still are in her fa­vor.”

Glad to see this, since EVERY OTHER PREDICTION about Trump has been wrong - just add this. While Mr. Koch is right in that if the party voters line up with their party candidate, Hillary could win. But what he neglects, or more likely chooses to ignore, is Trump’s CROSS-OVER appeal...which is one of the top reasons he won the nomination in the first place.

This is not a typical candidate trying to win at the margins (if that), because Trump is saying things that 70% of the electorate (i.e., white voters), having been TOTALLY IGNORED by both parties, want to hear. What that means is that in states that have large white majorities, but usually vote Democrat, or are tossups, like Michigan (76% white), Wisconsin (83% white), Ohio (81% white), and Pennsylvania (79% white), Trump will be VERY COMPETITIVE and may just take all 4 of the above (and also note that turnout among whites is even higher than the population percentages listed above, so add a few percent to those).

Now I’m going to go back to see if Mr. Koch got it right on Trump last summer...why do I think I know that answer without looking?

[JBW1949]

Anti Trump article through and through....

And you liked it??????????

[Walkingfeather]

Here is what you and Cook disregard. The Democrats are down 20% in voting... THAT IS BEFORE Hillary is indicted. Which at this point doesnt really matter politically because she can be hammered just as soundly. Here is the point... The democrats are already demoralized. Demoralized voters... dont show up at the polls. They are down 20% in the primaries.. (Primaries are where your hard core base votes ) Then if sanders gets knocked out, They wont show at the polls. Plus polls show 20% will vote for Trump in that case... (not counting on that) But Trump has a big percentage of Black voters as well. Trumps side is more fired up than since Reagan... All those add up to a huge win... not a close one. Cook and you are wrong..... with Utmost Certainty....

[JBW1949]

I read the article and what it said to me was that Trump has the republican nomination and the GOP has coalesced somewhat for Trump...Hillary is STILL in a struggle with Bernie and the party is split, yet there is only a small difference in Trump and Hillary at the polls...

What is being said is that when Hillary gets the nomination and the liberals coalesce, she will be way ahead of Trump...

I say that’s BS...BIG BS......

[Utmost Certainty]

The impact of the email crime is probably already factored into the voter preferences we’re seeing in polls.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicted

Anyway yeah, I hope I’m wrong.

[Chode]

OMG! The article is as plain as day.

So again... What is YOUR interpretation of the article?

it's almost an hour now, and i'd like to hear it too...

[Walkingfeather]

Then you are pro Hillary?

[Utmost Certainty]

Is this a joke question?

[x]

I read the article and what it said to me was that Trump has the republican nomination and the GOP has coalesced somewhat for Trump...Hillary is STILL in a struggle with Bernie and the party is split, yet there is only a small difference in Trump and Hillary at the polls...

Good summary.

What is being said is that when Hillary gets the nomination and the liberals coalesce, she will be way ahead of Trump...

Er, no ... He says:

It is ex­ceed­ingly un­likely that Clin­ton will beat Trump by a wide mar­gin be­cause of her high neg­at­ives and the in­tense par­tis­an­ship that has gripped the na­tion, but the prob­ab­il­it­ies still are in her fa­vor.

He's saying it could very close, but the odds are on her winning.

[lquist1]

I think this article has merit — I have seen this same line of thinking articulated in numerous places and it’s true, once the Dems coalesce around Hillary, it will be a much different race.

All that said — I’d like to know what the polls looked like in 2008 when McCain had the GOP nomination sewn up relatively early, while Hillary and Obama slugged it out until May or June. I’m too lazy to look it up, but just going by memory, it seems like McCain still trailed significantly in the polls. Of course, the political environment was far worse for the GOP then, and McCain was a lowsy candidate, but I think it would still be a good comparison to this year’s race.

With all that has happened this election year, anybody who writes off Trump in the general would be a fool. He’s been underestimated all year, and I think if the Dems had a decent candidate, he’d be heavily favored to lose. But Hillary is just so bad (and the Dems don’t really have a viable “plan B”) that I think Trump’s got at least a 50/50 shot.

[Mike Darancette]

November Freeper refrain: Well, Cruz would have lost by more.

[JBW1949]

You are correct in what he said...

I stated what I think he means....But would not say...

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Of course you don’t with your little Eeyore-ish ‘reality checks’.

‘Reality’ from the same idiots who have been wrong about Trump every step of the way. Very impressive.

[Walkingfeather]

Sorry read your response incorrectly. Thought you said you hope I was wrong. My apologies.

[BobL]

Boy, that didn’t take long. Why even give these clowns the time of day if they’re SO FAR OFF. Here are a couple of examples:

July, 2015: “So, will the Trump “surge” do damage to the GOP brand for 2016? Plenty of Democrats, including Hillary “Basta” Clinton,would like to think so. But, given the minuscule attention span of the average American, it’s hard to believe that the Trump era will be remembered much past September.” [[note: he’s referring to September, 2015, as in last year - he also mentioned the insurmountable lead that Hillary has against Trump. You know, the ‘lead’ that has since evaporated.]]

http://cookpolitical.com/story/8676

---

August, 2015:
“Trump Will Never Be the Republican Nominee,’ Charlie Cook Says”
“This is a summer fling, nothing more”
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-11/-trump-will-never-be-the-republican-nominee-charlie-cook-says

also, August, 2015:
“While there are few if any experienced GOP pros or political reporters who think Trump can actually win the nomination...”
“But the McCain incident also suggests that, while Trump’s candidacy is almost certainly destined to fail...”
“When asked which candidates might logically benefit if—or, more likely, when—Trump deflates”

http://cookpolitical.com/story/8714

Sucks we have the Internet these days...

[RetiredTexasVet]

Looks like Charlie could eat a lot more than a “crow” ... I think herds of cattle should be very worried!