Sunday, August 7, 2016

The Electoral College Map (8/7/16)

Latest Update



New State Polls (8/7/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Arizona
8/2-8/5
+/- 4.8%
1095 likely voters
42
44
5
+2
+0.18
Nevada
8/2-8/5
+/- 4.6%
993 likely voters
43
41
6
+2
+0.04
Virginia
8/2-8/5
+/- 3.7%
1181 likely voters
49
37
5
+12
+4.30


Polling Quick Hits:
There were a trio of battleground state polls released from YouGov/CBS on Sunday. YouGov has been doing a battleground tracker of 11 battleground states in addition to individual state polls so far this year. However, Arizona has not been included in that tracker. Nor has YouGov reported individualized results in any of the three states today before now. This is a long way of saying that there is no direct, in-house comparison for any of the three polls below.

Arizona:
Changes (August 7)
StateBeforeAfter
ArizonaToss Up ClintonToss Up Trump
The Grand Canyon state is back on the Trump side of the partisan line. At this point, Arizona is close enough to tied that any result that runs counter to the current average leader is likely to shift the balance toward the other candidate. That was true earlier in the week when a Clinton-positive poll in Arizona tipped the average in her direction. And it is true today with a Trump +2 bringing the FHQ average in Arizona back to him.


Nevada:
The same dynamic may be closer to being a reality in Nevada as well. The FHQ weighted average has been narrowly favoring Trump in the Silver state, but the it has been approaching zero over time. At Trump +0.04 after the addition of this YouGov survey Nevada, the average may push across the partisan line into Clinton territory with the any additional pro-Clinton poll result.  Both Arizona and Nevada are on the Watch List below, vulnerable to a shift into Clinton's column.


Virginia:
The Old Dominion, too, is moving in the Clinton-Kaine ticket's direction. But Virginia has consistently been leaning blue. The difference now on the after side of the two national conventions is that the polling margins have been increasing, becoming a deeper shade of blue. Here at FHQ, the average is still just below that Lean/Toss Up line, and this poll has increased the margin enough to put Virginia back on the Watch List. There are no other Clinton toss ups that are in any danger of pushing over into the Lean area, but Virginia is moving closer to joining Pennsylvania in making that switch.



NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
NJ-14
(175)
VA-133
(269 | 282)
UT-6
(158)
LA-8
(55)
MD-10
(17)
DE-3
(178)
NH-43
(273 | 269)
AK-3
(152)
SD-3
(47)
RI-4
(21)
WI-10
(188)
IA-6
(279 | 265)
MO-10
(149)
ND-3
(44)
MA-11
(32)
NM-5
(193)
FL-29
(308 | 259)
IN-11
(139)
ID-4
(41)
VT-3
(35)
MI-16
(209)
NC-15
(323 | 230)
TX-38
(128)
NE-5
(37)
CA-55
(90)
OR-7
(216)
OH-18
(341 | 215)
KS-6
(90)
AL-9
(32)
NY-29
(119)
CT-7
(223)
NV-6
(197)
SC-9
(84)
KY-8
(23)
IL-20
(139)
ME-4
(227)
AZ-11
(191)
AR-6
(75)
OK-7
(15)
MN-10
(149)
CO-9
(236)
GA-16
(180)
MT-3
(69)
WV-5
(8)
WA-12
(161)
PA-20
(256)
MS-6
(164)
TN-11
(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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 282 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 Virginia 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 Virginia 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
Missouri
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Nevada
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
South Carolina
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
Utah
from Toss Up Trump
to Lean Trump
Virginia
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.





Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Friday, August 5, 2016

The Electoral College Map (8/5/16)

Latest Update



New State Polls (8/5/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Georgia
8/1-8/4
+/- 4.0%
847 registered voters
41
38
7
+3
+1.19
Michigan
7/30-8/4
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
43
32
14
+11
+7.67


Polling Quick Hits:
Georgia:
A bad (work) week of polling comes to a close with more suboptimal polling for Donald Trump. Most of the week has featured polls from blue states with seemingly widening gaps favoring the former secretary of state (and a few deep red state surveys indicating strong but lagging Trump leads). But in the latest Atlanta Journal-Constitution survey of the Peach state, there is at least some evidence that Clinton blue is creeping into red but competitive states.

Make no mistake, Georgia has been competitive in the polls all along. Of the ten polls conducted in Georgia in 2016, 70 percent of them have shown a race tipped toward Trump, but by margins of less than five points. That is a toss up by FHQ standards. This latest poll, however, has Clinton out in front and erodes the Trump advantage in the Peach state even further. Still, Georgia maintains its position behind Nevada as the tightest Toss Up Trump state, but one that is not quite within range -- a fraction of a point -- of jumping over the partisan line just yet. As FHQ has noted, Georgia and states like Arizona and/or Nevada are not needs for Clinton at this point given the order of states that has been established. On the path the 270, those states would prove superfluous to her, but very nearly necessary for Trump.


Michigan:
Another day, another poll out of Michigan. And in this case, the second story is the same as the first: Clinton is ahead by a margin hovering around the Strong and Lean categories. On the weight of this poll and yesterday's Glengariff survey, Clinton's average lead at FHQ has grown to nearly 8 points. Sure, the polling overall is moving in Clinton's direction this week following the Democratic convention last week and steady stream of unforced errors by Trump, but Michigan is one of those industrial midwest states that is a cornerstone of the Trump strategy to shake up the electoral map. If Michigan is moving deeper into Clinton territory, then several paths to 270 come off the table with it. Then again, if Georgia is moving toward Clinton, Michigan is going to be a next to impossible task for Trump.

The poll and resulting change to the FHQ weighted average for Michigan pushes the Great Lakes state deeper into the heart of the Lean Clinton category, but still well away from jumping into the Strong area.



NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
NJ-14
(175)
NH-4
(260)
UT-6
(158)
LA-8
(55)
MD-10
(17)
DE-3
(178)
VA-133
(273 | 278)
AK-3
(152)
SD-3
(47)
RI-4
(21)
WI-10
(188)
IA-6
(279 | 265)
MO-10
(149)
ND-3
(44)
MA-11
(32)
NM-5
(193)
FL-29
(308 | 259)
IN-11
(139)
ID-4
(41)
VT-3
(35)
MI-16
(209)
NC-15
(323 | 230)
TX-38
(128)
NE-5
(37)
CA-55
(90)
OR-7
(216)
OH-18
(341 | 215)
KS-6
(90)
AL-9
(32)
NY-29
(119)
CT-7
(223)
AZ-11
(352 | 197)
SC-9
(84)
KY-8
(23)
IL-20
(139)
ME-4
(227)
NV-6
(186)
AR-6
(75)
OK-7
(15)
MN-10
(149)
CO-9
(236)
GA-16
(180)
MT-3
(69)
WV-5
(8)
WA-12
(161)
PA-20
(256)
MS-6
(164)
TN-11
(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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 278 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 Virginia is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.



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 Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
Arkansas
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Missouri
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Nevada
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
South Carolina
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
Utah
from Toss Up Trump
to Lean Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.





Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, August 4, 2016

The Electoral College Map (8/4/16)

Latest Update



New State Polls (8/4/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Florida
8/1-8/3
+/- 4.4%
500 likely voters
43.2
38.8
11.6
+4.4
+2.43
Michigan
7/30-8/1
+/- 4.0%
600 likely voters
41.0
31.6
15.5
+9.4
+7.22
New Hampshire
7/29-8/1
+/- 4.0%
609 likely voters
45
31
13
+14
+3.94
Pennsylvania
7/29-8/1
+/- 4.8%
661 registered voters
47
34
10
+13
+5.42


Polling Quick Hits:
A week after the close of the Democratic National Convention, a handful of polls from blue -- toss up to lean -- states show Clinton in good position to hold on to the bulk of 2012 states President Obama won. There are, however, still three months until the November election.

Florida:
Changes (August 4)
StateBeforeAfter
PennsylvaniaToss Up ClintonLean Clinton
The paths to 270 electoral votes for Donald Trump go through Florida. Period. The first 2016 Suffolk poll of the Sunshine state is one more data point that suggests that Clinton is holding on to a lead there. Overall, the Florida polling has been pretty volatile. Excluding outliers, that range runs from around Clinton +5 to Trump +5. Yet most of that has tipped the balance toward Clinton. The Suffolk poll lends some credence to that notion.

And hey it is good to have Suffolk back in Florida after they stopped polling there after conceding that Obama had no shot.


Michigan:
Glengariff's first poll of Michigan since May shows Clinton at the upper end of the range of polling results in the Great Lakes state. But the survey also solidifies the position Michigan has occupied in the Lean Clinton category. It has knocked around within that area within the FHQ Electoral College Spectrum without leaving it all summer. That has been typical of Michigan in recent cycle (since at least part way through the 2008 cycle). In other words, this poll has Michigan being Michigan: attractive enough to enter into the swing state conversation, but far enough out into the Democratic slate of states to be very difficult indeed for a Republican nominee to pick off.


New Hampshire:
Perhaps this MassINC survey of New Hampshire is reminiscent of the 15 point lead UNH/WMUR showed Obama up in late September 2012. It could also be that it is the sign of a widening margin between Clinton and Trump. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle since there are not a lot of double digit Clinton advantages in the 2016 surveys of the Granite state. That is to say that this poll may be a sign of a lead -- a range even -- that is solidifying for Clinton in the state. Time and additional polling will tell. 


Pennsylvania:
Another surprisingly wide margin can be found in the mid-Atlantic in Pennsylvania where Franklin and Marshall find a 13 point Clinton lead. The Keystone state has spent much of the summer months hovering around the line between the Toss Up and Lean Clinton categories. Recently, Pennsylvania has been just below that line in the Electoral College Spectrum below, but with this poll has pushed into Lean Clinton territory. Still, Pennsylvania remains on the Watch List. Only, now it is on the cusp of being a Toss Up rather than shifting into the Lean category. 

Pennsylvania operates like a cross between Florida and Michigan in most recent cycles. It is valuable to some if not most scenarios in which a Republican candidate gets to 270, warrants attention, but ends up out of reach on the Democratic side of the partisan line (though often not as deep into the blue as Michigan).



NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
NJ-14
(175)
NH-4
(260)
UT-6
(158)
LA-8
(55)
MD-10
(17)
DE-3
(178)
VA-133
(273 | 278)
AK-3
(152)
SD-3
(47)
RI-4
(21)
WI-10
(188)
IA-6
(279 | 265)
MO-10
(149)
ND-3
(44)
MA-11
(32)
NM-5
(193)
FL-29
(308 | 259)
IN-11
(139)
ID-4
(41)
VT-3
(35)
OR-7
(200)
NC-15
(323 | 230)
TX-38
(128)
NE-5
(37)
CA-55
(90)
CT-7
(207)
OH-18
(341 | 215)
KS-6
(90)
AL-9
(32)
NY-29
(119)
MI-16
(223)
AZ-11
(352 | 197)
SC-9
(84)
KY-8
(23)
IL-20
(139)
ME-4
(227)
NV-6
(186)
AR-6
(75)
OK-7
(15)
MN-10
(149)
CO-9
(236)
GA-16
(180)
MT-3
(69)
WV-5
(8)
WA-12
(161)
PA-20
(256)
MS-6
(164)
TN-11
(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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 278 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 Virginia is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.



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 Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
Arkansas
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Missouri
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Nevada
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
South Carolina
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
Utah
from Toss Up Trump
to Lean Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.





Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

The Potential Impact of Divisiveness in the 2016 Presidential Campaign

The following is a guest post from Paul-Henri Gurian, professor emeritus in the Department of Political Science at the University of Georgia.

Earlier this year my colleagues and I published a research article on the impact of divisiveness in presidential campaigns. (“National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948-2012”, Gurian, Burroughs, Atkeson, Cann and Haynes, Political Behavior). Our research measured the impact of national party division on the national popular vote in the general election. We also measured the impact of a divisive state primary on the general election results in that state. We found that, relative to what would otherwise be expected, the impact of a divisive state primary was limited but the impact of the national party division was potentially much larger.

Our research indicated that the impact of a divisive state primary is rarely more than 1% in the general election in that state. Applying the results of this research to the 2016 primaries we found that the primaries in only a few states indicated an advantage to either party of more than 1%. For example, we found that in South Carolina and Texas, where Clinton did quite well in the primaries and Trump did poorly, the expected general election advantage to Clinton was just a shade over 1%. Similarly in West Virginia and Washington state, where Clinton did poorly but Trump did well, the expected advantage to Trump was about 1.2%.

Looking at the potential swing states we found that none of them exceeded a 1% advantage to either candidate. (We were not able to estimate the impact in Colorado.) Our analysis indicates that Clinton would receive an advantage of between .50 and .88% in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Georgia, but less than that in the other swing states. The analysis indicates an advantage for Trump in none of the swing states. This may be partially because Clinton had only one opponent throughout the campaign, while Trump had multiple opponents throughout most of the campaign; thus in most states Clinton's share of the Democratic primary vote was greater than Trump's share of the Republican primary vote. 

Because national party division is difficult to measure, we estimated its impact in two different ways. We used aggregate popular vote (1972-2012) as one measure. Similar to our measure of divided state primaries, we compared the proportion of the national aggregate popular vote for Clinton in the Democratic primaries to the aggregate popular vote for Trump in the Republican primaries.

Clinton received the majority (55.2%) of the aggregate Democratic primary vote, while Trump received only a plurality (45.0%) of the Republican primary vote. In other words, among primary voters there was a larger pool of Republican voters who supported candidates other than Trump than the pool of Democratic voters who supported a candidate other than Clinton. Using this measure of national party division, we estimate that Clinton will receive 2.4% more of the national popular vote than would otherwise be expected in the general election.

We also estimated the impact of national party division using an alternative measure, comparing the percent of delegates supporting the two nominees at their conventions (1948-2012). Contrary to the popular vote measure, the convention vote measure indicates that in 2016 the Republican party is more united. Trump received a larger majority (69.8%) of delegate votes at his convention than Clinton did in hers (59.7%). This suggests that Trump will receive 1.2% more of the general election vote than would otherwise be expected.

Part of the explanation for the difference may be the fact that Democratic rules allocate delegates proportionately, while Republican rules usually allocate disproportionally more delegates to the winner of the primary. Clinton received 55.2% of the aggregate popular vote and 59.7% of the convention vote. (The additional votes for Clinton were largely because of super-delegates.) Trump, on the other hand, received only 45.0% of the aggregate popular vote but received 69.8% of the delegate vote at the convention. Again, this is likely because of the “winner-take-more” rules in the Republican party.

The convention vote measure is more “conservative” in the sense that it almost always indicates a smaller advantage to the more unified party than the aggregate popular vote measure does. From 1972 to 2012, the aggregate popular vote has indicated an advantage greater than 6% for one party or the other in 5 of the 11 elections; the convention vote measure has not indicated an advantage of that magnitude in any election during that time period.

Comparing the two measures to subjective observations, the convention vote measure seems to be a better fit. For example, in 2004 President Bush ran unopposed while Senator Kerry won all but three primaries; the convention measure indicates a small advantage for Bush while the popular vote measure indicates a large advantage. Both estimates for 2016 are relatively small compared to other elections since 1972. This is not surprising since both parties are somewhat divided. (Compare, for example, the 1972 and 1984 elections, when the Republicans were very united while the Democrats were severely divided.) To summarize, our research suggests that the impact of national party division will be modest (though it is unclear which party would benefit more), and a small advantage to Clinton in several swing states.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/3/16)

Filling Nomination Vacancies That Don't Exist

The Electoral College Map (8/2/16)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)