New State Polls (8/31/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New York
|
8/28-8/30
|
+/- 3.4%
|
800 likely voters
|
52.1
|
34.2
|
2.6
|
+17.9
|
+19.62
| |
North Carolina
|
8/27-8/29
|
+/- 3.4%
|
800 likely voters
|
43.4
|
44.8
|
2
|
+1.4
|
+1.80
| |
Wisconsin
|
8/25-8/28
|
+/- 5.0%
|
650 likely voters
|
41
|
38
|
7
|
+3
|
--
| |
Wisconsin
|
8/27-8/30
|
+/- 4.9%
|
404 likely voters
|
43
|
38
|
8
|
+5
|
+8.26
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
The close of August brought a couple of new surveys from Wisconsin, one from New York and a leftover from yesterday out of North Carolina.
Also, FHQ should mention the IPSOS/Reuters state-level tracking polls floating around out there. Typically, the modus operandi here is take any poll and add it into the mix with the caveat that there is a preference for likely voter screens and multi-candidate results when available (when there are multiple versions of the results). But the IPSOS data is tricky on at least two fronts. First, the dates of aggregation within states are overlapping. In other words, they ostensibly share not only time but responses. There is an echo of one poll in another.
Secondly, some of the sample sizes are incredibly small and thus have high margins of error. In looking back at the polls FHQ has added during March, there is no poll that has anything higher than a +/-5.0 MoE. There are a number of cases of this in the IPSOS data and many in states that are woefully underpolled. FHQ has some qualms with adding small sample size data anyway, but adding that sort of data in states where there is very little polling or no polling equates to adding data for the sake of adding data. Like Donald Trump on the immigration issue, FHQ will need some time to fully consider these issues and how/whether to include this data. Let this serve as an editorial note that the matter is being considered.
To the day's polls.
New York:
The latest Emerson survey of the Empire state is more of the same. The story has been Clinton underperforming Obama and other past Democratic nominees in New York and Trump stuck in the low to mid-30s. That is true here as well. Clinton is running about ten points behind Obama's 2012 pace and the overall margin between Clinton and Trump about ten points behind the 2012 margin. The end result is still the same: a deeply blue state (and one not yet put in play by its favorite son).
North Carolina:
Emerson also surveyed North Carolina for the first time this cycle, and let's just say that that Marist survey from earlier this month is looking more and more like an outlier in a sea of narrow leads (or ties) for either candidate in the Tar Heel state. This one is the first survey to show Trump ahead since a small sample Survey USA poll on the heels of the Democratic convention. Still, North Carolina's is still a tale of a very close race; one favoring Clinton by a slight margin, but one that is inching closer.
Wisconsin:
In the Badger state, two new surveys updated the early August picture (when last the state was polled). Together the Marquette and Monmouth polls show a tightening race and more clearly than elsewhere show an end to Clinton's convention bounce or the effects of Trump's bad post-convention week. Wisconsin has spent the summer hovering around the Strong/Lean Clinton line, but the addition of these surveys pulls Wisconsin's average down in to the heart of the Lean category. It is still an uphill climb for Trump at this point, but the trend line is moving in the Republican nominee's direction. As always, more data will be required to see whether or not this holds.
--
There were not too many changes to the various figures after this last update for August. The map held steady, continuing to show a 347-191 Clinton advantage in the Electoral College. North Carolina and Iowa switched places on the Spectrum. Both are still very close but consistently tipped in the Clinton's direction. Wisconsin, as mentioned above, drew closer and thus moved down a couple of notches on the Spectrum in to the middle of the Lean category. The new polls there also moved Wisconsin off the Watch List, no longer threatening to jump into the Strong Clinton area.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
NJ-14
(175)
|
PA-203
(269 | 289)
|
MO-10
(155)
|
TN-11
(58)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
DE-3
(178)
|
NH-43
(273 | 269)
|
AK-3
(145)
|
LA-8
(47)
|
RI-4
(21)
|
ME-4
(182)
|
FL-29
(302 | 265) |
KS-6
(142)
|
SD-3
(39)
|
MA-11
(32)
|
NM-5
(187)
|
OH-18
(320 | 236) |
UT-6
(136)
|
ND-3
(36)
|
VT-3
(35)
|
WI-10
(197)
|
IA-6
(326 | 218)
|
TX-38
(130)
|
ID-4
(33)
|
CA-55
(90)
|
OR-7
(204)
|
NC-15
(341 | 212)
|
IN-11
(92)
|
NE-5
(29)
|
NY-29
(119)
|
MI-16
(220)
|
NV-6
(347 | 197)
|
MS-6
(81)
|
AL-9
(24)
|
IL-20
(139)
|
CT-7
(227)
|
GA-16
(191)
|
AR-6
(75)
|
OK-7
(15)
|
WA-12
(151)
|
CO-9
(236)
|
AZ-11
(175)
|
MT-3
(69)
|
WV-5
(8)
|
MN-10
(161)
|
VA-13
(249)
|
SC-9
(164)
|
KY-8
(66)
|
WY-3
(3)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (all Clinton's toss up states plus Pennsylvania), he would have 289 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 New Hampshire and Pennsylvania are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Pennsylvania and Trump, New Hampshire, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College. | ||||
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Arizona
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Arkansas
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Delaware
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Georgia
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Indiana
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Nevada
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/30/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/29/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/26/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
The Electoral College Map (8/30/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/29/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/26/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
