Yeah, it’s hard. But take a look at the graph above that shows the margins in national presidential polls for the final year over the past three cycles. The spread between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is almost the same as the gap in both the 2008 and 2012 elections at this time!
In 2008, the margin improved after September. In 2012, it fell. But in both cases, the Democrat won.
Look closer. The line for 2016 has never gone below zero, whereas we did see that happen in both 2008 and 2012 (yes, there’s still time for this to happen). In fact, if forced to pick which line I’d rather be on, I’d pick 2016’s for sure.
That doesn’t mean Trump can’t win. He can, of course. But Clinton is still the favorite, and always has been.
But what about the primaries? They said Trump could never win! And he did! And what about Brexit? They said that wouldn’t happen either! The polls have been terrible this year, we just can’t trust them.
True. Let’s talk about all that.
If you recall, Trump had a giant lead in the primaries from July 2015 onward. Those who predicted he couldn’t or wouldn’t win were assuming a little too much and ignoring the evidence of the polls.
The referendum on the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, on the other hand, was simply very tight right up until the end, when “Leave” won by a 4-point margin. Anyone who could look at this graph and confidently predict the outcome was kidding themselves.
This does show that polls can be be wrong, even in aggregate, and this year especially, the chances of polling errors are higher in the presidential race if support for third-party candidates stays steady (it usually falls). We can, of course, sleep far more comfortably when the average is up around Clinton +7 than Clinton +2.
Wait just one damn minute. Perhaps the most narcissistic, ignorant, unqualified fool in history has a legitimate shot at becoming president of these here somewhat-United States, and you’re telling me NOT TO PANIC?!?
Um. Well. There is that.
The very nature of one particular candidate leads one to fear irreversible consequences should the unthinkable occur. Whoever thought there was someone who could make George W. Bush look like a compassionate and erudite luminary?
The chances of a Clinton win are arguably better than the chances of an Obama win in 2008 or 2012, overall, based on the general trajectory of the lines in the graph at the top of this post.
But the results of a Trump win would be far more calamitous than what we assume a McCain or Romney win would have brought. It is that thought that has so many of us reaching for a paper bag. Low-probability events with catastrophic results have a way of capturing the imagination and not letting go, mathematics be damned—think airplane crashes vs. car crashes.
The chances of Donald Trump winning the presidency are real, and far greater than the chances of any given airplane crashing. We are right to be worried. The odds, however, are still in our favor. It is not time to panic. Yet.