Florida:
Despite the headline-grabbing margin in the Quinnipiac battleground survey of Florida, the Sunshine state still remains very much in the heart of the Toss Up Clinton category in the FHQ graduated weighted average. Sure, Florida inched closer to the Lean category, but the more notable fact is perhaps that Florida is on the Democratic of Ohio on the Electoral College Spectrum below. The opposite was true in both 2008 and 2012 (though both states ended up in the Democratic column both times).
Ohio:
Quinnipiac's efforts in Ohio are a bit different than in Florida. The Q-poll is the only one to consistently show Trump ahead in the Buckeye state. Other than a Baldwin Wallace internet poll from February, Quinnipiac is the only one to show something other than a modest Clinton advantage. Without the handful of Q-polls, then, Clinton's lead approaches five points and the Lean category at FHQ.
Pennsylvania:
Contrary to the pattern in Ohio, the Quinnipiac polls in Pennsylvania have been consistent with the majority of polling in the Keystone state. With the exception of a couple of outliers (from other firms) indicating a double digit Clinton lead there, most of the survey work in Pennsylvania has shown a close race; Quinnipiac included. Pennsylvania is one of the few states that has thus far run contrary to the average uniform swing, toward rather than from Trump. A small consolation given the next state.
Utah:
The story in the Beehive state is not that race is close between Clinton and Trump. While Clinton is running marginally ahead of Obama's 2012 share of the vote in Utah in the latest survey from Dan Jones/Utah Policy, it really is all about where Trump is relative to Romney's 2012 support there. Currently, the New York businessman lags about 50 percent behind Romney 2012. Some to a lot of that will perhaps come back to Trump by November, but having to make up ground in Utah means effort and resources not used elsewhere.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
MN-10
(156)
|
NH-4
(245)
|
GA-16
(164)
|
SD-3
(53)
|
VT-3
(10)
|
WA-12
(168)
|
VA-13
(258)
|
MS-6
(148)
|
ND-3
(50)
|
MD-10
(20)
|
WI-10
(178)
|
PA-203
(278/280)
|
UT-6
(142)
|
NE-5
(47)
|
RI-4
(24)
|
NJ-14
(192)
|
FL-29
(307/260)
|
AK-3
(136)
|
AL-9
(42)
|
MA-11
(35)
|
NV-6
(198)
|
OR-7
(314/231)
|
IN-11
(133)
|
KY-8
(33)
|
IL-20
(55)
|
MI-16
(214)
|
IA-6
(320/224)
|
SC-9
(122)
|
AR-6
(25)
|
NY-29
(84)
|
NM-5
(219)
|
OH-18
(338/218)
|
TN-11
(113)
|
WV-5
(19)
|
DE-3
(87)
|
CT-7
(226)
|
AZ-11
(349/200)
|
MT-3
(102)
|
ID-4
(14)
|
CA-55
(142)
|
CO-9
(235)
|
NC-15
(364/189)
|
TX-38
(99)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
KS-6
(241)
|
MO-10
(174)
|
LA-8
(61)
|
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 280 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 Pennsylvania 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 List adds Utah to the the previous (6/17/16) update.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Tennessee
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Utah
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Virginia
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
No comments:
Post a Comment