New State Polls (8/29/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona
|
8/25-8/27
|
+/- 3.63%
|
728 likely voters
|
40
|
39
|
13
|
+1
|
+0.94
| |
Michigan
|
8/25-8/28
|
+/- 3.4%
|
800 likely voters
|
44.9
|
39.5
|
6.7
|
+5.4
|
+7.52
| |
Ohio
|
8/25-8/27
|
+/- 3.4%
|
800 likely voters
|
42.5
|
43.4
|
2.2
|
+0.90
|
+2.20
| |
Pennsylvania
|
8/25-8/28
|
+/- 3.4%
|
800 likely voters
|
45.9
|
42.7
|
2.9
|
+3.2
|
+5.95
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
Monday's batch of polling brought on some level some interesting results, but from pollsters with spottier histories. Yes, there were new battleground surveys out of the Rust Belt (Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania), but it came from three landline-only samples from Emerson. In addition, there was a new poll released in Arizona from the pollster who has had one of the heavier Clinton leans of any firm in the Grand Canyon state thus far.
The silver lining -- if one wants to look at it that way -- is that less representative though these pollsters may be, it did not disrupt the picture in the electoral college that has emerged here at FHQ.
Arizona:
Looking overall at the 2016 polling in Arizona, OH Predictive Insights has now provided Clinton with three of the four leads she has had there. This latest survey is no different, though it shows a tighter race than the past polls from the firm have. The rest of the polling is close and in Trump's direction. The impact OH Predictive has had has been pretty minimal. Without them, Trump's advantage goes from just under a point to around two points. That series of polls has help Clinton, then, but not by much. Arizona is a toss up that favors Trump either with them or not.
Michigan:
In the Great Lakes state, Emerson finds a closer race than most pollsters have recently. That is more a function of Trump's position in the survey: in this case around the ceiling for Trump in Michigan in 2016. Clinton is right in the range she has been in through the first eight months of the year. The question is whether this is a trend -- Trump gaining but not taking from Clinton -- or a matter of the methodological dependence on a landline-only sample.
Ohio:
Emerson's snapshot of Ohio is also well within the established range for not only the candidates' shares of support but for the margin as well. Trump has a few more respondents in favor of him in the poll than Clinton, but the two are basically tied in the Buckeye state in this poll. It bears repeating that this is in the range of results lately witnessed in Ohio, but it breaks a string of post-convention leads for Clinton in the polls there. Like Michigan, this could be a narrowing in the polls like the contraction in the national polls.
...or, well, see the question in the Michigan section above.
Pennsylvania:
It is in Pennsylvania where the largest potential trend change can be found. The Emerson survey there bids farewell to the double digit or near double digit leads that have characterized polling in the Keystone state since convention season concluded. This one most resembles the PPP survey that was taken in the immediate aftermath of the Democratic convention. As with Michigan, the change has nothing to do with Clinton. She continues to hover in the mid- to upper 40s. Emerson finds Trump in the low 40s rather than in the mid- to upper 30s where the New York businessman has been in the majority of polls since the conventions.
Across the board, then, the Emerson polls are the story of a Trump rebound if there was an apples to apples, Emerson poll to Emerson poll comparison. There is not. But it looks like in comparison to other pollsters' recent efforts in these midwestern states. We'll need more data to know whether these are trends or outliers.
--
Compared to the last update there were no changes to the map, but Michigan flips spots with Oregon on the Spectrum and Arizona and Pennsylvania both drift within a point of switching categories to enter the Watch List. Arizona moves closer to the partisan line separating Clinton's and Trump's states and Pennsylvania tightens enough to by within a point of the Clinton Lean/Toss up line.
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)
|
WI-10
(188)
|
FL-29
(302 | 265) |
KS-6
(142)
|
SD-3
(39)
|
MA-11
(32)
|
ME-4
(192)
|
OH-18
(320 | 236) |
UT-6
(136)
|
ND-3
(36)
|
VT-3
(35)
|
NM-5
(197)
|
NC-15
(335 | 218)
|
TX-38
(130)
|
ID-4
(33)
|
CA-55
(90)
|
OR-7
(204)
|
IA-6
(341 | 203)
|
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
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Strong Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/26/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/25/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/24/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
The Electoral College Map (8/26/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/25/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/24/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
No comments:
Post a Comment