Presidential election tracker: Clinton 48.6, Trump 44.2

As Democrats find encouragement from early voting patterns, opinion polls also appear to be turning back in Hillary Clinton’s favour.

There now appears to be something of a breakout in Hillary Clinton’s favour on the presidential tracker, which is showing up clearly in the trend chart below. This has caused her razor thin lead on recent readings of the electoral college projection to blow out to 317 to 221, with Florida and North Carolina now in her column. Still absent from it, by the barest of margins, is Nevada, where the Democrats have been greatly buoyed by the pattern of early voting turnout, with one noted local observer all but calling the state for Clinton. This has led to suggestions that pollsters have been coming in low for Clinton across the board by underestimating turnout among Hispanics. The latest interactive map of the results below can be viewed here.

2016-11-07-us-poll-tracker

State Margin Swing EV
Alabama Safe 9
Alaska Trump 10.5 3.5 3
Arizona Trump 2.7 6.4 11
Arkansas Trump 21.6 2.1 6
California Clinton 21.9 1.2 55
Colorado Clinton 2.8 2.6 9
Connecticut Safe 7
D.C. Safe 3
Delaware Clinton 18.3 0.3 3
Florida Clinton 0.3 0.6 29
Georgia Trump 5.0 2.8 16
Hawaii Safe 4
Idaho Trump 20.9 11.0 4
Illinois Clinton 13.8 3.1 20
Indiana Trump 10.0 0.2 11
Iowa Trump 3.1 8.9 6
Kansas Trump 20.0 1.7 6
Kentucky Safe 8
Louisiana Trump 14.8 2.4 8
Maine Clinton 6.9 8.4 4
Maryland Clinton 33.4 7.3 10
Massachusetts Clinton 27.0 3.9 11
Michigan Clinton 6.0 3.5 16
Minnesota Clinton 7.7 0.0 10
Mississippi Safe 6
Missouri Trump 10.9 1.5 10
Montana Trump 15.1 1.5 3
Nebraska Trump 18.9 2.9 5
Nevada Trump 0.1 6.8 6
New Hampshire Clinton 2.0 3.6 4
New Jersey Clinton 11.3 6.5 14
New Mexico Clinton 5.0 5.2 5
New York Clinton 18.7 9.5 29
North Carolina Clinton 0.1 2.1 15
North Dakota Safe 3
Ohio Trump 2.6 5.6 18
Oklahoma Safe 7
Oregon Clinton 6.8 5.3 7
Pennsylvania Clinton 4.4 1.0 20
Rhode Island Clinton 21.9 5.6 4
South Carolina Trump 8.3 2.2 9
South Dakota Trump 13.7 4.3 3
Tennessee Trump 14.2 6.2 11
Texas Trump 8.9 6.9 38
Utah Trump 9.1 38.9 6
Vermont Clinton 26.2 9.4 3
Virginia Clinton 5.8 1.9 13
Washington Clinton 12.6 2.3 12
West Virginia Safe 5
Wisconsin Clinton 4.7 2.2 10
Wyoming Safe 3

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

70 comments on “Presidential election tracker: Clinton 48.6, Trump 44.2”

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2
  1. If this picture of people lined up to vote is indicative of the national trend, Trump is in for a thrashing:

    Every US election features queues to vote. For some reason their electoral system doesn’t permit easy or quick voting.

  2. Just as a reminder, even after the votes are counted, the electoral college vote count is merely a presumption. One that assumes each states electors will honour the popular vote and not misspell the candidates names, which may render an electoral vote void. There are systems in place to negate these eventualities of course, but if the possibility doesn’t terrify you then you have a lot more faith in people then I do.

  3. Irish Central (an Irish American Newsletter that I came across when researching an authentic recipe for colcannon) has a take all of its own, blogging the US election live:

    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/live-blog-election-day-2016-for-the-irish-in-america?utm_campaign=Best+of+IrishCentral+-+2016-11-08&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Mailjet

    After Brexit, I thank Dog every day that I am a dual Australian / Irish citizen, rather than having a British type EU passport.

  4. LU@103

    No worries D&M! I’m not up just for this, but it’s certainly breaking the tedium of late-night coding

    😀
    I am working with people in Europe and the US, and so trying to get everything done at a reasonable time their day.

    My US friends are pretty much on edge.

  5. BC@104

    Just as a reminder, even after the votes are counted, the electoral college vote count is merely a presumption. One that assumes each states electors will honour the popular vote and not misspell the candidates names, which may render an electoral vote void. There are systems in place to negate these eventualities of course, but if the possibility doesn’t terrify you then you have a lot more faith in people then I do.

    The Gore Vidal historical novel 1876 is a great read in how the election can be turned round by the Electoral College.

  6. I have no special insight into forecasting such a primitive electoral system but my expectation is about 323 ECV to Clinton. In theory Trump can win if there’s a degree of polling error but it seems more likely that could go the other way. The 98-99% win chance estimates doing the rounds for Clinton even a few days ago should be ignored, it’s not that clearcut.

  7. Gore Vidal would have been appalled at the rise of Trump.

    He would have also claimed to have seen it coming, and could have pointed to some number of his novels making such a prediction. And no doubt he would have had a few pithy put-downs for Trump too.

  8. Kevin Bonham@112,

    I have no special insight into forecasting such a primitive electoral system but my expectation is about 323 ECV to Clinton. In theory Trump can win if there’s a degree of polling error but it seems more likely that could go the other way. The 98-99% win chance estimates doing the rounds for Clinton even a few days ago should be ignored, it’s not that clearcut.

    My guess is that Clinton will become president, but that it will be a comfortable but not resounding victory.

    My bigger concern is with the Senate. At the moment it is at best a coin toss, and at worst leaning a little to the Republicans.

    I was in the US for the Federal Shut Down, in 2013. I went to visit collaborators at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and the National Radio Astronomical Observatory, next door to the School of Physics there. While it all seemed like high farce, I *really* was not able to meet formally with my collaborators at NRAO. The shut down was very real, and enforced. I was just lucky that some of the people I was working with were 0.5 U Va, and so we could still meet and collaborate.

    My guess is that the 2013 shut down is just a dress rehearsal for what we can expect if the Republicans get control of the senate.

    So, KB, I am begging you, tell me that the Democrats will take the senate, please….

  9. a r @ #74 Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 11:18 pm

    If this picture of people lined up to vote is indicative of the national trend, Trump is in for a thrashing:
    https://twitter.com/jenbenka/status/795958106249449472/photo/1
    By my count we’re talking 70-80% women, and perhaps 10% white males. The Trump crowd appears to be staying home. Or at least, sleeping in.

    Democrats tend to vote early, Republicans later. According to the West Wing anyway.

  10. Well, I signed off for the night, because my work stuff is done, well enough of it anyway.
    But in perusing the media while winding down before sleeping, I came across this shocker from Nick O’Malley reporting on behalf of Fairfax:

    Philadelphia: In the final hours of this long and bitter campaign, the Clinton machine ruthlessly took advantage of Democratic unity and their pronounced advantage in star power in a series of events in key states.

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/stars-come-out-for-philadelphia-rally-as-obamas-deliver-final-boost-to-hillary-20161108-gskliu.html

    My take on this is that some “stars” feel strongly that they want a Democrat president, and they are knowingly, as consenting adults, there to give HRC and the Democrats a boost.
    For O’Malley to use the words the Clinton machine ruthlessly took advantage of Democratic unity and their pronounced advantage in star power is to really devalue the efforts of people who got out to support HRC and the Democratic party. This includes Obama and his family. Why does O’Malley think that the willingly given and enthusiastic support of these people is being “ruthlessly explored” by the Clinton campaign?
    Is he saying that they were not really there to support Clinton and the Democrats?
    Is he saying that even if these people were misguidedly there to support Clinton that she should know what a corrupt and defiled candidate she is, and that she should not have been there to accept their support?

    Please Explain..

Comments Page 2 of 2
1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *