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.
| 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 |
I haven’t been keeping an eye on the US elections much, but is it in anyway possible to convert these polling numbers into what sort of numbers the house and senate elections might produce?
It seems the focus is too much on the presidency itself.
This story, apart from proving the appalling partisanship in the FBI letter scandal, should ensure that any Trump momentum is killed off.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-election/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email-20161106-gsjbz3.html
Raaraa,
Yes the Princeton politics consortium has a good mathematical model (by Sam Wang) of the US Senate races here. Arguably it is better than Nate Silver’s. It is close but the Democrats still have a 60/40 chance of taking control, better if you factir in the VP vote and Clinton wins. Kaine may be the busiest VP in recent history.
http://election.princeton.edu/todays-senate-seat-count-histogram/
The democrats are no doubt happy that the polls are finally moving in their direction, but have no reason to relax just yet. Trump won’t be president in my opinion as he has no chance of winning New Hampshire, but a close final result will be a hollow victory for HRC and validate Trump and his deplorables.
The House of Representatives is a gerrymandered Republican lock.
The Senate contest is very tight. Given that the Democrats are almost certainly going to gain Illinois and Wisconsin, the competitive races are Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri. All except Nevada are Republican held. If either side wins three of those they’re at 50 seats.
Will and everyone else – there’s an interesting article on “phantom swings” on YouGov at https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/11/01/beware-phantom-swings-why-dramatic-swings-in-the-p/ Like Essential, they have a panel from whom they select samples for each poll, and, like Essential, their numbers tend to be more stable than other pollsters making people wonder whether they’re missing something. Their explanation is that when something happens that is a bit embarrassing for one party (boasts about pussy-grabbing, discoveries of emails) there is an exaggerated swing away from that party, not because a yuge number of people are changing their voting intention but because some supporters of the embarrassed party are so embarrassed that, without actually having changed their intended vote, they simply stop responding to polls for a while. Since YouGov have records of how (most of) their panellists voted last time, they can correct for this (ahh, the reponse rate among our known republicans is 4% higher this time than among our known democrats – apply correction factor), hence the flattening out of their results. Seems kinda plausible. Wonder if Essential does the same?
Insider insight from my dual-nationality brother in California. He says a lot of white American men are whiney little boys who’ve never grown up, so they identify with Darnnnald. But he can’t understand why other republicans support him…
The FBI found nothing new but I’m still sad the director didn’t have to front up to a press conference to describe all the Anthony Weiner sext pics his team looked through.
Wonder what will become of the Trump unendorsers if the election plays out how the polls indicate and he ends up losing by a slimmer margin than Romney? Will they be ostracised? It’s pretty troubling how conservative parties in the US and Aus seem to have successfully waged war on and defeated most of their moderates and progressives. Establishment GOP figures need Trump to lose badly or else the party is headed in a very bad direction.
socrates @ #3 Monday, November 7, 2016 at 8:00 am
Thanks, this is what I’ve been looking for.
William, your latest polling average seems a bit off to me. Here are the RCP averages and comments from Nate Silver, who insists its a 2-3 point race and makes the following observation “national polling average should probably be showing somewhere in the range of Clinton +2 or Clinton +3, or it may be making some strange assumptions.”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-dont-ignore-the-polls-clinton-leads-but-its-a-close-race/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/304559-nate-silver-goes-off-on-huffington-post-in-tweet-storm
I’d also speculate that Trump doesn’t need to win the popular vote to win. California is a huge vote sink for the Dems and would be worth a net 2% to them overall. There is nothing else like California in terms of size and lopsided political complexion. The next biggest states, New York and Texas virtually cancel each other out. Also Trump seems to be over performing in battleground states and under performing in traditional Republican states in the south and western interior. I’d be surprised if Trump wins the popular vote, but I still believe he has a reasonable chance of winning on Tuesday, even if he is up to 2% behind.
Another article on early voting trends. It seems to me that Trump should be mightily encouraged by NC and moderately by FL, but that Clinton is better positioned in Nevada and Colorado. Of course there are many variables in all these cases: Democrats claim they have been focusing on “low propensity voters” for early votes, Colorado has switched to all mail-ballots so direct comparison could be hard, Republican fear of vote-rigging could scare them away from early balloting in some states, how will Independents behave? ..
The one consistent theme though seems to be that the Black % of the total early vote is considerably down from 2012 (figures from earlier last week were from 15% to 12% in Florida, 36% to 31% in Georgia , 28% to 22% in NC) and most of this will NOT have been factored into the polling models. Then there’s the issue of how many Black votes will leak to Trump. I’d expect this will be double Romney’s 6% (though this might not show up in the initial exit polls), plus there will be a greater leakage to third party candidates at Clinton’s expense.
In 2012 The Black vote was Obama 93%, Romney 6%, a net of 87%. If we use that as the baseline =100. For 2016 lets assume a scenario of Clinton 85%, Trump 10%, Other 5%, That’s a net 70%, instead of 87%. Many automated polls show much less than this for Clinton.
Lets now assume a scenario that the Black proportion of the total vote falls from 13% in 2012 ( a record high) to 11%. That’s a relative weakening of the value of the black vote by 15% and is quite consistent (actually conservative) with early voting patterns to date.
This 15% reduction will further reduce the relative value of the Black vote to Clinton in comparison to 2012 from 70%, to 59.5%. That’s a potential game changer in states like North Carolina and Michigan. I believe the turnout has NOT been factored into most of the polling which is based on 2012 turnout and the vote figures have not been factored into the live phone polling, which consistently under counts the Black vote for Trump in comparison to the automated surveys.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/early-voting-results-2016-florida-nevada-north-carolina-latest-statistics-clinton-vs-trump-who-leads-is-winning-ahead-ohio-battleground-states-hillary/
Final NC early voting figures are in. Black Turnout is down 15% in raw numbers, whilst overall turnout is up 15% from 2.7 million to 3.1 million. The female % of total turnout is up by 2.5% and Latino from 1.2% to 1.8% but this can’t possibly make up for the reduction in black votes.
Unless something unexpected happens with White votes or there’s a massive increase in Black turnout on election day, I really can’t see how Hillary can win this state now.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/north-carolina-early-voting-results-2016-election-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-votes-cast-turnout-up-down-increase-decrease-who-winning-republicans-democrats/
Republican fear of “vote rigging” is just a media positioning tactic. The reality is the opposite. Many of the States mentioned have been the subject of ruthless efforts at voter suppression by republican State governments. Tactics include closing early polling booths in areas with large black, latino or immigrant populations. So the “black turn-out” numbers are more indicative of “black turn-away” efforts than lack of enthusiasm.
jack a randa @ #6 Monday, November 7, 2016 at 10:34 am
In Essential’s case the issue isn’t just that it’s underdispersed when there is something going on. It’s also underdispersed (less bouncy than would be expected randomly) when there’s nothing going on.
I don’t know what’s up with the LA Times. Their national tracking poll currently has Trump +5, yet they’re publishing an article that predicts a Clinton win with 352 electoral college votes:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-here-s-our-final-electoral-map-of-the-1478473458-htmlstory.html
Surely those two outcomes are mutually exclusive by a very wide margin. So they’re basically saying that either their tracking poll is rubbish, or their electoral map is.
Clintons polls just improved in Nevada.
Five Thirty Eight has her in the lead there now by 1.4 points.
Should I be following Nate Silver or Sam Wang.
Nate Silver if you’re a Republican, and Sam Wang otherwise?
Peterk
I’d be very surprised if any polling aggregate model wasn’t anticipating a weaker black vote for the dens this year. Obama got a noticeable bounce in 2004 , which stayed in 2008, I very much doubt anyone expected Hillary to maintain the entire bounce.
I meant 08 and 12 of course not.
If Nate Silvers website is biased towards Republicans, then good news, Trump has no chance of winning.
I don’t think it is, but we’ll see how each of the pollsters did come election day.
At the time of writing this Nate Silver’s 538 “polls-only” forecast has Nevada (Dem 51.8%), Florida (Dem 49.7%) and North Carolina (Dem 50.1%)… all about 50-50 tossup’s. If Trump wins all 3 he still falls short.
The odds of winning 3 tossups are 1 in 8, and he still doesn’t win, yet 358 has Trump’s odds at 1 in 3?
I must need to convolute up my probability drive to make sense of it.
Question
The odds aren’t independent. States don’t coin flip to decide which candidate, if one state that polls at 50/50 goes to Trump, then the state of another state polling at 50/50 going to Trump is actually significantly higher than 50/50. It’s the same thing with polls predicting small Clinton leads, if one state polling a small Clinton lead turns out to really have a small Trump lead, it’s likely that all demographically similar states have underestimated Trump support.
Thanks Elaugaufein,
I suppose if one goes they all go kind of makes sense, but it still requires a bit of a convolution to take the odds from worse than 1 in 8 down to 1 in 3. At 50-50, those states could just as easily go either way with no correlation to each other.
Anyway 538 now has Clinton winning all 3 states in the “polls-only”, and Trump still close to 1 in 3 (31.5%). I also notice that Florida has flipped overnight, and it barely changed the 538 EV count.
Nevada 54.3 – 45.7
Florida 51.4% 48.6%
North Carolina 51.4% 48.6%
Also if you go to the national polls Trump is getting +1.2% “Adjust for trend line”. None of this seems very transparent to me.
My only guess is the kind of people who vote for Trump are more likely to bet on sports. 538 may be doing a bit of pandering for clicks.
Late polls are showing a definite shift back towards Clinton. 538 prediction now giving Florida and North Carolina back to Clinton with odds 71/29.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
If Trump loses Florida he is toast.
This is a long read, but a really well argued piece by a libertarian journalist on why he’s voting for Hillary Clinton:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/this-year-is-different-why-i-insist-on-voting-for-hillary-clinton/506723/
With the complexity of the US election system i have pretty much been relying on 538’s posted win probabilities as to whether i despair or not.
Currently 70.3 / 29.7 favoring Clinton . Relief.
On the Senate its 50/50. Worry, but maybe the doGs will be kind.
Imacca
50/50 is a little better than it appears for the Senate if Clinton wins, the VP gets a casting vote in a tied Senate, so they can afford to tie.
Now that it is less than 24 hrs to go until we actually know the result, here is my prediction
Clinton 274/Trump 264
Clinton:
Swing states
Nevada, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia
plus the obvious, Delaware, Connecticut,California,DC, Hawaii,Illinois,
Washington, Oregon, ,New york, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland,
Trump
Swing states: Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Ohio, New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, Indiana
Plus the obvious:Alabama, Arkansas,Alaska,both Dakotas, Louisiana, Idaho,
Texas, Missouri, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Mississipi, Kentucky, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska , Tennessee, West Virginia
Sorry that should be just one trump delegate from Maine
My guess on the US.
EV’s: Clinton 352, Trump 186.
National: Clinton 51%, Trump 43%.
Senate Tie (Dem control)
🙂
Question
So you are guessing Florida, North Carolina to Clinton plus New Hampshire and all of Maine. Hard to see her winning Ohio or Arizona.
DTT
Yep, basically William’s prediction plus Nevada, Arizona and Ohio. I could be more conservative and go with William, but where is the fun in that? I think the trend is with Clinton.
I’m guessing Clinton will get closer to 300 than 350. My final bet is:
Clinton 331
Trump 207
Clinton will win most of the swing states except North Carolina and Trump will pick up a vote in Maine.
My guess is more optimistic than my expectations in case you were wondering about the contradiction.
stay optimistic BC 🙂
I think Arizona could be the surprise win of the election for the Democrats, whereas I think Ohio is a long shot. Arizona is a border state, and 30% of its population is Hispanic/Latino. If reports about a strong Latino turn out are accurate, that could turn it. On the other hand, Ohio may be heading towards no longer being a swing state.
The final LA Times update has Trump’s lead reduced from +5 to +3. Clinton has the momentum, and the win.
Have to run from a hailstorm in Northern NSW, so quick drop-in!
Clinton 313
Trump 225
Big night and day ahead.
Clinton 350 plus.
She’s winning the polls.
She’s winning the early vote.
The trend is her friend.
The Trump people might not even turn up . Even if they do, they may not be registered.
From the CNN live blog:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/dixville-notch-results-2016/index.html
BTW, is any one else watching live updates? It would be great to get more information. I am following CNN at the moment.
Also, is this the correct PB Blog to be posting US election updates to? I will ask this question in the main blog as well.
Maybe I will be talking to myself 🙂
Anyone in the peanut gallery still think McMullin will win an electoral vote?
No chance of that 😀
I’m betting he will come close, but fall short of winning Utah.
Then again there is the possibility of a faithless elector throwing a spanner in the works.
Great to have your company guys!
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.
A small diversion from the Shovel while we wait for more action:
http://www.theshovel.com.au/2016/11/08/dont-fuck-this-up-world-tells-america/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=don_t_fuck_this_up_world_tells_america&utm_term=2016-11-08