New State Polls (10/5/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Maine CD2
|
10/2-10/3
|
+/- 4.9%
|
400 likely voters
|
44
|
40
|
4
|
+4
|
+5.10
| |
New Mexico
|
9/28-10/2
|
+/- 4.1%
|
594 likely voters
|
46
|
33
|
3
|
+13
|
+7.79
| |
North Carolina
|
9/29-10/3
|
+/- 3.9%
|
656 likely voters
|
46
|
44
|
6
|
+2
|
+1.29
| |
Ohio
|
10/1-10/4
|
+/- 4.9%
|
405 likely voters
|
44
|
42
|
6
|
+2
|
+0.51
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
Wednesday was a light polling release day.
Maine 2nd congressional district:
Perhaps the race is getting closer in ME-02. Perhaps. While Clinton has seen an eight point shift in her direction in the last two weeks across Normington-Petts surveys in the Pine Tree state, the firm is the only one to show the former Secretary of State ahead there all year. Then again, it is not as if the polling there has been all that frequent. Trump has the edge, but that lead is buoyed by a couple of double digit margins during that mid-September period when the overall race was tightening. Now this race, too, has moved toward Clinton.
New Mexico:
Tight earlier in the week, not now. That's the horserace interpretation of New Mexico polling over the last few days. The truth of the matter is that Clinton has tended to be around the 40 percent mark and Trump right in that low to mid-30s position he is in in this Survey USA poll. This might be a sign of a Clinton-driven -- as in, Clinton's share of support is increasing -- widening of the gap or it could be an outlier. Or it could be that a narrowing of the gap nationally during the second half of September pushed some would-be Johnson supporters to or back to Clinton. The only thing that is certain in the Land of Enchantment is that the state has been underpolled.
...especially considering Johnson could be viewed to have the highest probability of siphoning off support from the major party candidates in his home state.
North Carolina:
Clinton's lead in North Carolina seems real and increasingly durable. Since the weekend before the first debate, Clinton has enjoyed a stretch of leads in nine of the last ten surveys in the Tar Heel state. Now, that is ten polls in about tens days -- the frequency is way up -- but collectively they appear to be telling a clear tale: Clinton is narrowly ahead.
Ohio:
A little over a month ago, Clinton led by four points in the last Monmouth survey of Ohio. At that point in late August, FHQ had Clinton's overall lead in the Buckeye state after the addition of that poll at 2.4 points. The margin in the latest Monmouth survey has cut that lead in half to just two points, and that is a kind of microcosm of how things have trended there. That two point contraction closely mirrors the track the FHQ graduated weighted average of Ohio has followed in that time: down a couple of points and now nearly tied.
--
With just four new polls, not much changed today. New Mexico shifted into the mathematical heart of the Lean Clinton area (and up three spots on the Spectrum). But that is the extent of the changes there. The Watch List added ME-02, but otherwise stayed the same.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
PA-20
(263)
|
SC-9
(154)
|
MT-3
(53)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
OR-7
(179)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
TX-38
(145)
|
AR-6
(50)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
RI-4
(183)
|
FL-29
(301 | 266) |
AK-3
(107)
|
ND-3
(44)
|
CA-55
(75)
|
NM-5
(188)
|
NC-15
(316 | 237) |
MS-6
(104)
|
KY-8
(41)
|
MA-11
(86)
|
ME-23
(190)
|
OH-18
(334 | 222)
|
KS-6
(98)
|
NE-53
(33)
|
NY-29+13
(116)
|
MN-10
(200)
|
NV-6
(340 | 204)
|
IN-11
(92)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20
(136)
|
WI-10
(210)
|
IA-6
(198)
|
UT-6
(81)
|
WV-5
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
MI-16
(226)
|
AZ-11
(192)
|
LA-8
(75)
|
OK-7
(14)
|
CT-7
(146)
|
VA-13
(239)
|
GA-16
(181)
|
SD-3
(67)
|
ID-4
(7)
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(243)
|
MO-10+13
(165)
|
TN-11
(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 275 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 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 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
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Colorado
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Maine CD2
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Michigan
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
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
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Oregon
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Rhode Island
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Strong Clinton
| |
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 (10/4/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/3/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/2/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
No comments:
Post a Comment