Monday, August 22, 2016

The Electoral College Map (8/22/16)

Latest Update



New State Polls (8/22/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
North Carolina
8/15-8/17
+/- 3.6%
723 registered voters
38
39
10
+1
+2.22
Ohio
8/18-8/21
+/- 4.9%
402 likely voters
43
39
8
+4
+2.40
South Carolina
8/15-8/17
+/- 3.5%
768 registered voters
37
41
11
+4
+3.03


Polling Quick Hits:
With just more than 11 weeks until Election Day, the beginning of the work week offered one new poll each from the Carolinas and another Ohio survey.


North Carolina:
In the Tar Heel state, the latest Gravis survey found a closer race than had the other polling firms in the post-convention period. While Clinton led by one in the head-to-head with Trump, in the multi-candidate race, Trump was ahead. This one is closer to the PPP survey (Clinton +2) than it was to the Marist poll that had the former secretary of state up nine points. This nudged the FHQ average in North Carolina down slightly, but kept it the cluster of Clinton-leaning toss up states (with Florida, Iowa and Ohio).


Ohio:
For the second consecutive day there was a new poll out of the Buckeye state. The range established in the few polls to have been released since the conventions has had Clinton ahead anywhere from two to six points ahead. And the first Monmouth poll of Ohio of this cycle falls into that gap. Clinton +4 is not only the average Ohio poll lead since the conventions but modal poll margin as well. In any event, the polling out of Ohio continues to push the FHQ weighted average (margin) higher and higher and away from Trump. This poll and the latest North Carolina poll above kept both states in the cluster of toss ups mentioned above but causes the two to trade places in the Electoral College Spectrum.


South Carolina:
One could argue that the Gravis survey of North Carolina discussed above is off by showing Trump ahead. Perhaps, but is it within range of the post-convention PPP poll there. What is more difficult to square is the idea that only three points separate the margins North and South Carolina. Trump's lead in the four-way race in South Carolina is just four points. That, too, is proximate to a recent PPP survey of the Palmetto state. However, North and South Carolina have been separated by a bit more than eight points in the final results over the last two cycles. Something could be wrong with one of these two Carolinas polls, but it could also be that the two states are reverting to a pre-Obama era proximity to each other in the order states (albeit one that has the pair in a more competitive space on the Spectrum than was the case when both were Strong Bush states in 2000 and 2004).

Though this Gravis survey does not move South Carolina on the Spectrum, it does provide a little more evidence that South Carolina is more competitive than it has been while still being consistently tilted in Trump's direction.



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)
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)
WI-10
(188)
FL-29
(302 | 265)
UT-6
(142)
SD-3
(39)
MA-11
(32)
ME-4
(192)
OH-18
(320 | 236)
KS-6
(136)
ND-3
(36)
VT-3
(35)
NM-5
(197)
NC-15
(335 | 218)
TX-38
(130)
ID-4
(33)
CA-55
(90)
MI-16
(213)
IA-6
(341 | 203)
IN-11
(92)
NE-5
(29)
NY-29
(119)
OR-7
(220)
NV-6
(347 | 197)
MS-6
(81)
AL-9
(24)
IL-20
(139)
CT-7
(227)
AZ-11
(191)
AR-6
(75)
OK-7
(15)
WA-12
(151)
CO-9
(236)
GA-16
(180)
MT-3
(69)
WV-5
(8)
MN-10
(161)
PA-20
(256)
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 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
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
Missouri
from Toss Up 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
Wisconsin
from Lean Clinton
to Strong 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 |

Sunday, August 21, 2016

The Electoral College Map (8/21/16)

Latest Update



New State Polls (8/21/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Iowa
8/17-8/19
+/- 4.0%
987 likely voters
40
40
7
+0
+1.82
Ohio
8/17-8/19
+/- 3.9%
997 likely voters
46
40
4
+6
+2.30


Polling Quick Hits:
For the third Sunday running YouGov has another series of battleground state polls. This time the stops are in the midwest in Iowa and Ohio. Both states have been proximate to each other on the Electoral College Spectrum, but have moved in opposite directions during August. While the margin in Ohio has ticked upward (and toward Clinton), Iowa has gotten closer and closer.


Iowa:
FHQ has gotten some flak over the last week or so about Iowa. More explicitly, there has been some pushback on the idea of Iowa being to the Clinton side of Nevada on the Electoral College Spectrum. This was more noteworthy, perhaps, when Nevada was barely on the Trump side of the partisan line  before a recent polling update in the Silver state. Compared to other sites tracking the state of the race to 270 -- particularly those accounting for demography/demographic changes on the state level -- FHQ has consistently had Nevada in redder territory. That is mainly a function of the fact that FHQ only utilizes polling data, and the polls in Nevada have shown a much tighter race.

However, as I argued early last week, the question may be less about the order of Iowa and Nevada and more about how proximate one is to the other on the Spectrum. Yes, during the Obama era, Nevada has been to the Democratic side of Iowa. But in each case, the two states ended up pretty close to each other. And though Iowa was on one side of the partisan line and Nevada the other until very recently, the two have been converging on one another in the post-convention period. That is true on the Spectrum, but is increasingly true in terms of the average margins as well. Nevada is virtually tied and Iowa is also inching closer to that distinction. Having tied polls and nothing more than a two point advantage for either candidate since the conventions will do that. And this new poll from YouGov fits right in.


Ohio:
Meanwhile in the Buckeye state, it is hard to fathom that this poll from YouGov is just the third overall there since the convention. That obviously is not a lot of data on which to go, but all are pointing in the same direction: toward Clinton. The lingering question, then, concerns by just how much is Clinton ahead. A six point lead is not only the largest of the post-convention period for Clinton in Ohio but the largest since a couple of primary season surveys there. There is probably enough recent data to suggest Clinton is ahead in Ohio, but probably not by six points. That is, at least until there is more similar data released.

Neither Iowa nor Ohio budge from their positions (next to each other) on the Spectrum below. Both remain firmly within the Toss Up Clinton category with neither on the Watch List.



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)
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)
WI-10
(188)
FL-29
(302 | 265)
UT-6
(142)
SD-3
(39)
MA-11
(32)
ME-4
(192)
NC-15
(317 | 236)
KS-6
(136)
ND-3
(36)
VT-3
(35)
NM-5
(197)
OH-18
(335 | 221)
TX-38
(130)
ID-4
(33)
CA-55
(90)
MI-16
(213)
IA-6
(341 | 203)
IN-11
(92)
NE-5
(29)
NY-29
(119)
OR-7
(220)
NV-6
(347 | 197)
MS-6
(81)
AL-9
(24)
IL-20
(139)
CT-7
(227)
AZ-11
(191)
AR-6
(75)
OK-7
(15)
WA-12
(151)
CO-9
(236)
GA-16
(180)
MT-3
(69)
WV-5
(8)
MN-10
(161)
PA-20
(256)
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 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
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
Missouri
from Toss Up 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
Wisconsin
from Lean Clinton
to Strong 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 |

Thursday, August 18, 2016

The Electoral College Map (8/18/16)

Latest Update



New State Polls (8/18/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Georgia
8/17
+/- 3.6%
730 registered voters
42.8
43.0
3.4
+0.2
+0.87
Nevada
8/15-8/17
+/- 4.4%
500 likely voters
43.8
41.6
7.8
+2.2
+0.33



Polling Quick Hits:
The one thing about the presidential race in the post-convention environment is that the partisan line on the Electoral College Spectrum below has been stuck somewhere in the midst of the Arizona, Georgia and Nevada grouping. For the last week and a half all three have been on the Trump side, but only by the smallest of margins. However, the point in raising this is not those margins. Rather, it is to suggest that if the most competitive states are states that ended up Lean Romney states in November 2012, then the battleground has shifted against Republicans in the intervening four years.

Sure, Nevada is more competitive than is was in 2012, but most of the rest of the states have remained proximate to the positions each was in order (given the polling data available thus far in 2016). In light of that fact, even picking up Nevada would be small consolation if most of the rest of the order remains intact. As of now -- in mid-August 2016 -- cycle-over-cycle stability is the take-home. The above is the Obama map plus North Carolina (or that minus Nevada).

In any event, two of those most competitive states cited above saw new poll releases today.


Georgia:
The post-convention story in Georgia remains the same: There is a range of results from tied to about Trump +5. And the latest from the Peach state from Opinion Savvy does nothing to change that. It fits right in on the lower end of that range. It should be noted also that the firm had Trump ahead only three points in its last survey of Georgia in May. Consistent with the movement in this race in the time since, then, things have moved in Clinton's direction.

Georgia holds its position on the Spectrum and remains on the Watch List, though the average margin is pushing one point.


Nevada:
Changes (August 18)
StateBeforeAfter
NevadaToss Up TrumpToss Up Clinton
In the Silver state, the polling has been more volatile. The established range in a small number of late spring and summer polls is around ten points, running from Clinton +5 to Trump +5. Split the difference there and one gets something close to a tie. And that is exactly where Nevada has been stationed for much of the summer. The addition of the new Suffolk survey does not change that -- Nevada is still a virtual tie -- but the balance has changed. The fraction of a difference between the two nominees has been tilted toward Trump. Now, however, on the weight of this poll that has changed to an ever so slight advantage for Clinton. Of course, quibbling over where the partisan line is is less meaningful when Clinton has in her strong and lean states enough electoral votes to clinch the White House. In other words, Nevada is a need for Trump, but a want for Clinton. And if they are battling over Nevada, Arizona and Georgia, then the outlook in the overall war is less than rosy.



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)
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)
WI-10
(188)
FL-29
(302 | 265)
UT-6
(142)
SD-3
(39)
MA-11
(32)
ME-4
(192)
NC-15
(317 | 236)
KS-6
(136)
ND-3
(36)
VT-3
(35)
NM-5
(197)
OH-18
(335 | 221)
TX-38
(130)
ID-4
(33)
CA-55
(90)
MI-16
(213)
IA-6
(341 | 203)
IN-11
(92)
NE-5
(29)
NY-29
(119)
OR-7
(220)
NV-6
(347 | 197)
MS-6
(81)
AL-9
(24)
IL-20
(139)
CT-7
(227)
AZ-11
(191)
AR-6
(75)
OK-7
(15)
WA-12
(151)
CO-9
(236)
GA-16
(180)
MT-3
(69)
WV-5
(8)
MN-10
(161)
PA-20
(256)
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 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
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
Missouri
from Toss Up 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
Wisconsin
from Lean Clinton
to Strong 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 |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)