Fundamentals point to a competitive election

WASHINGTON — In the wake of Donald Trump’s horrible, very bad, no good weekend and Hillary Clinton winning the California primary, capturing the title of presumptive Democratic nominee and earning the endorsement of President Barack Obama, what should we be watching for in the polls? Was the “coming home” media mantra — Republicans having returned, some Democrats not having come back as of yet — that emerged after the last round of polls correct?

On average (and depending on which of the various averages you prefer), Clinton leads Trump by three to five percentage points. The closeness of the polls has surprised some pundits — but a deeper dive suggest there’s a lot that makes sense in the current polling and that they still provide a good way to understand the structure and math of the 2016 race.

And, yes, even in a year when the rules supposedly don’t apply, and even in a week of unprecedented events, there is math and structure, and a range of predictable outcomes.

The first indication of this is that national and state polls to date have been logically consistent — they’ve been telling essentially the same story. Close polls in battleground states yield results in line with what we would expect when the national margin is around four percentage points.

For example, according to the Pollster.com compilation of polling averages, Clinton is ahead in Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire by about four percentage points and Trump leads in North Carolina by two percentage points.

The polls are also in line with the well-established fundamental factors that structure and explain presidential elections.

The changing face of the American electorate (becoming less white), Obama’s improving job approval rating, and an easier path to 270 in the Electoral College benefit the Democrats. On the other hand, economic growth remains tepid, the most recent jobs report was weak, optimism in the electorate remains low, most say things are headed on the wrong track, and it is difficult for an incumbent party to win a third term.

So, without incorporating anything specific about this particular and peculiar year or this past particularly peculiar week — not to mention a certain particularly peculiar candidate — the fundamentals point to a competitive election with a slight advantage for the Democrats.

This happens to be a finding exactly in line with the current polls. Put another way, a slight under-performance by Clinton or over-performance by Trump over the next five months makes this race a toss-up, a slight over-performance by Clinton and under-performance by Trump puts this in landslide (at least under the modern definition) territory for the Democrats — something akin to Obama’s 2008 victory.

For Clinton to win, she needs Democrats to remain at a solid advantage over Republicans as a share of the electorate (this is what most current polls are showing); retain the loyalty of Democratic voters; and not lose independents by too large of a margin.

For Trump to win, he must have the loyalty of Republicans while winning a larger share of independents than Mitt Romney did in 2012 (Romney won independents by five percentage points). Theoretically, his candidacy could also shape the electorate to be more Republican, but it is more likely that the partisan composition of the electorate in 2016 will be what the polls are showing now and be roughly what it was in 2012.

That’s the stark math for both candidates.

Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump