Changes (11/8/16):
Election Day.
As there were only a few more polls added to the mix on the final day of the 2016 campaign -- or in just under the wire yesterday -- there were only a few subtle changes to the figures here at FHQ.
- South Carolina pushed past Texas toward the partisan line on the Electoral College Spectrum below, but neither will budge from the Trump column. Both had at various points shown to be much closer than normal. Neither, however, will end up anywhere other than red as the results trickle in.
- Wisconsin once again traded spots with Michigan on the Spectrum. Similar to the two Trump states above, neither state seems poised to jump the partisan line away from Clinton. The trajectory of the race has headed in that general direction here at the end, but it is likely that that was more consolidation of partisan support (for Trump) than any wholesale shift away from Clinton or the Democrats. The temptation is there to suggest that the tightening in states like Michigan and Wisconsin is perhaps a reversion to the pre-Obama mean for the pair. Yet, that simply is not the case. Both are within range of exactly where they were in the Obama-Romney race four years ago.
- The map and Watch List remained unchanged from a day ago.
Changes since June 13 (first map of the cycle):
Rather than a noisy race, the opposite occurred instead. It has been a steady race through the lens of the graduated weighted average FHQ utilizes. Yes, that is largely a function of methodology. As the dataset grows -- as the number of polls increase -- shocks become less likely. Note, however, that even with the pedestrian methodology and the limitations it carries, FHQ ended up where a great many of the more sophisticated models are. We will have more on this in the aftermath of the election, but for now, what has changed since June:
- The map always seemingly had 2012 as a jumping off point. Most presidential elections tend to build on the previous elections. The order of states remains largely the same and the movement tends to be more of a uniform shift one way or the other (with exceptions -- see Utah, 2016).
- If 2012 was the starting point, then the first map was the 2012 Obama states plus North Carolina and Arizona. Arizona pushed back across the partisan line toward Trump around the conventions and settled in. North Carolina did not. There have been fluctuations from one poll to another in the Tar Heel state, but it, too, settled into the Clinton column.
- Arizona was not alone in jumping the partisan line over the last few months. The general election campaign witnessed Iowa cross the partisan line into the red and never really look back. Ohio, here at FHQ anyway, was more resistant. While the Buckeye state hopped the partisan line into Trump territory just yesterday, the second debate -- the town hall debate immediately after the Access Hollywood tape was released -- was the turning point in Ohio. The polls shifted toward Trump after that point and the average here shrunk smaller and smaller over time.
- One final change in comparing the first and last maps was the addition of the congressional districts in Maine and Nebraska. FHQ had not previously focused any on any of them, but added them since there was some data. We will confess that it was probably not enough data, but they were added nonetheless. Adding them did shift what had been a reliably electoral vote under the statewide distribution from Maine's second congressional district to Trump's total.
- The tipping point state has changed over time as well. Virginia was the initial spot where either Clinton or Trump would have crossed 270 electoral votes, but that changed a number of times and often included pairs of states as things split at 269-269 over the summer. That settled down later as the order of the states along the Lean/Toss Up line on the Clinton side of the Spectrum reshuffled. Colorado has been in that position since just before the first debate. And bear in mind, while the states have changed, the position of the tipping point state has not. The order has been that stable.
Incorrect Projections?
- FHQ has the least confidence in a few areas. First, Ohio is very close; the closest of all the states here at FHQ. It would not be a surprise if if jumped back over the partisan line into Clinton's column. At the same time, that is not what we are predicting.
- Second, the lack of data from Maine's second congressional district does not inspire confidence. The recent polling has favored Clinton by narrow margins, but a handful of Trump-favorable outliers from the late summer -- even when discounted in the weighted average -- still has that one tipped toward Trump here at FHQ.
- Tough-to-poll Nevada is always a bit of a problem child. It has been biased toward the Republican (compared to the final results) in each of the last two cycles. It would not be a shock if the Silver state is not a more comfortable win for Clinton. But again, that is not the prediction here.
| Final FHQ Margins -- 11/8/16 | ||
State
| Margin | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama |
+20.86
|
Strong Trump
|
| Alaska |
+5.59
|
Lean Trump
|
| Arizona |
+1.73
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Arkansas |
+18.46
|
Strong Trump
|
| California |
+22.89
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Colorado |
+3.83
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| Connecticut |
+12.45
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Delaware |
+13.19
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Florida |
+1.87
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| Georgia |
+3.17
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Hawaii |
+28.24
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Idaho |
+24.19
|
Strong Trump
|
| Illinois |
+15.07
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Indiana |
+9.71
|
Lean Trump
|
| Iowa |
+1.33
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Kansas |
+12.50
|
Strong Trump
|
| Kentucky |
+19.70
|
Strong Trump
|
| Louisiana |
+12.71
|
Strong Trump
|
| Maine |
+6.74
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Maine CD1 |
+15.08
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Maine CD2 |
+3.05
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Maryland |
+28.12
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Massachusetts |
+23.92
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Michigan |
+6.46
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Minnesota |
+7.39
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Mississippi |
+10.69
|
Strong Trump
|
| Missouri |
+8.02
|
Lean Trump
|
| Montana |
+14.16
|
Strong Trump
|
| Nebraska |
+19.42
|
Strong Trump
|
| Nevada |
+0.81
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| New Hampshire |
+4.82
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| New Jersey |
+11.79
|
Strong Clinton
|
| New Mexico |
+6.58
|
Lean Clinton
|
| New York |
+19.73
|
Strong Clinton
|
| North Carolina |
+1.36
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| North Dakota |
+19.01
|
Strong Trump
|
| Ohio |
+0.14
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Oklahoma |
+24.96
|
Strong Trump
|
| Oregon |
+9.01
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Pennsylvania |
+4.86
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| Rhode Island |
+12.52
|
Strong Clinton
|
| South Carolina |
+7.50
|
Lean Trump
|
| South Dakota |
+12.03
|
Strong Trump
|
| Tennessee |
+14.50
|
Strong Trump
|
| Texas |
+7.52
|
Lean Trump
|
| Utah |
+9.97
|
Lean Trump
|
| Vermont |
+24.07
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Virginia |
+6.12
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Washington |
+12.77
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Washington, DC |
+65.00
|
Strong Clinton
|
| West Virginia |
+24.76
|
Strong Trump
|
| Wisconsin |
+6.36
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Wyoming |
+35.69
|
Strong Trump
|
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
RI-4
(162)
|
NH-4
(263)
|
SC-9
(161)
|
TN-11
(61)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
TX-38
(152)
|
AR-6
(50)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
OR-7
(183)
|
FL-29
(301 | 266) |
MO-10
(114)
|
ND-3
(44)
|
MA-11
(31)
|
MN-10
(193)
|
NC-15
(316 | 237) |
IN-11
(104)
|
NE-53
(41)
|
CA-55
(86)
|
ME-23
(195)
|
NV-6
(322 | 222)
|
UT-6
(93)
|
KY-8
(36)
|
NY-29
(115)
|
NM-5
(200)
|
OH-18
(216)
|
MS-6
(87)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20+13
(136)
|
MI-16
(216)
|
IA-6
(198)
|
SD-3
(81)
|
ID-4
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
WI-10
(226)
|
AZ-11
(192)
|
KS-6
(78)
|
WV-5
(15)
|
WA-12
(151)
|
VA-13
(239)
|
GA-16+13
(181)
|
LA-8
(72)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
CT-7
(158)
|
PA-20
(259)
|
AK-3
(164)
|
MT-3
(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 Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
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 Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Oregon
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Strong Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Utah
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (11/7/16)
The Electoral College Map (11/6/16)
The Electoral College Map (11/5/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
No comments:
Post a Comment