New State Polls (9/30/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
9/27-9/29
|
+/- 3.5%
|
820 likely voters
|
46
|
42
|
4
|
+4
|
--
| |
Florida
|
9/28-9/29
|
+/- 4.0%
|
619 likely voters
|
47
|
46
|
1
|
+1
|
+2.10
| |
Michigan
|
9/27-9/28
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
42
|
35
|
10
|
+7
|
+5.99
| |
Nevada
|
9/27-9/29
|
+/- 4.4%
|
500 likely voters
|
44
|
38
|
6
|
+6
|
+0.24
| |
New Hampshire
|
9/27-9/29
|
+/- 4.4%
|
502 likely voters
|
42
|
35
|
4
|
+7
|
+5.76
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
The end of the week brought another wave of state-level polls that were in the field completely after the first presidential debate earlier in the week. And that has folks out looking high and low for debate effects in the results. FHQ would urge some patience. There simply has not been as much state-level polling in the time since that debate to arrive at any conclusion. Now, there have been a series of national polls -- national polls with a time series with fairly regular intervals -- that have indicated that, but the evidence at the state level is still inconclusive.
Unlike those national polls, the state surveys are less regular in their occurrence. Take this MassINC/WBUR survey of New Hampshire. The last time the firm was in the field in the Granite state was right around the time the calendar was flipping from July to August; right after the conventions. Well, if you take those results and compare them with the just-released numbers, it shows a narrowing in the race; not a post-debate increase in the margin.
And this is not to suggest that there has been no effect. Again, the national polls have so far shown that Clinton got something out of the Monday night showdown at Hofstra. But it is more difficult sometimes to put state polls in their proper context. One not only has to look back at the last poll the firm conducted in the state (if any), but also explore where that firm's polls have generally fallen relative to other polls in the same basic time period.
All this is to say that the national polls are beginning to show a debate bounce for Clinton, but the state polls are not necessarily indicating that trend.
...yet. On to the day's polls...
Florida:
The two Florida polls also illustrate the state poll lag (or if not that, then the inconclusive nature of the post-debate results to this point). Compared to the last polls from each firm -- Mason-Dixon and Opinion Savvy -- the changes are pretty muted. Clinton gained a couple of points since August in the Mason-Dixon survey while Trump held pat, and in the Opinion Savvy poll, both candidates gained two points, keeping the margin at Clinton +1. Now, this point could be nitpicked to death if it came to that. But the key thing to look at now is the overall state of the polls. In Florida, the pre-debate polling was all over the place. Trump led some and Clinton led others. If the post-debate landscape displaces that trend with, say, a string of Clinton leads (with no interruptions), then something is probably happening. These two along with the PPP survey release from a day ago are perhaps beginning to hint at just that.
Michigan:
In the Great Lakes state, Glengariff had not conducted a survey since the very beginning of August. As was the case with the New Hampshire poll used as an example above, that time period was even more favorable to Clinton than the current survey is. There may have been some additional fluctuations had the firm been in the field in the interim period. All we can glean from the series is that Clinton is still ahead by a margin somewhere in the Lean area. And that is where Michigan has been for the most part here at FHQ. As such, this is an affirming poll.
Nevada:
| Changes (September 30) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | Toss Up Trump | Toss Up Clinton | |
New Hampshire:
The Granite state was dealt with above for the most part, but it should be noted that this MassINC survey is consistent with the polling that has been conducted in New Hampshire in September. Clinton's lead there has held steady and her FHQ average in the state has been comfortably in the five to six point range all along.
--
Obviously the Nevada change is the big ticket item for today. It turns blue in crossing over the partisan line. That is reflected on the map, Spectrum and Watch List. The other states represented in today's polls changed little if at all. New Hampshire swapped spots with Virginia on the Spectrum, but that was the extent of it.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
NJ-14
(175)
|
ME-4
(264)
|
MS-6
(126)
|
TN-11
(56)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
DE-3
(178)
|
CO-93
(273 | 274)
|
MO-10
(120)
|
AR-6
(45)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
NM-5
(183)
|
FL-29
(302 | 265) |
SC-9
(110)
|
SD-3
(39)
|
CA-55
(75)
|
MN-10
(193)
|
NC-15
(317 | 236) |
AK-3
(101)
|
ND-3
(36)
|
MA-11
(86)
|
WI-10
(203)
|
OH-18
(335 | 221)
|
KS-6
(98)
|
ID-4
(33)
|
NY-29
(115)
|
MI-16
(219)
|
NV-6
(341 | 203)
|
UT-6
(92)
|
NE-5
(29)
|
IL-20
(135)
|
NH-4
(223)
|
IA-6
(197)
|
IN-11
(86)
|
OK-7
(24)
|
WA-12
(147)
|
VA-13
(236)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
MT-3
(75)
|
WV-5
(17)
|
CT-17
(154)
|
RI-4
(240)
|
GA-16
(180)
|
KY-8
(72)
|
AL-9
(12)
|
OR-7
(161)
|
PA-20
(260)
|
TX-38
(164)
|
LA-8
(64)
|
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 Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 274 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 Colorado 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. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category. | ||||
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
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Delaware
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Indiana
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Maine
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Michigan
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
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
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Oregon
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Rhode Island
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Utah
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Virginia
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/29/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/28/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/27/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
No comments:
Post a Comment