 |
 |
The previous analysis last Thursday showed Sec. Hillary Clinton winning the election with near certainty with, on average, 333 electoral votes (EVs) to Donald Trump’s 205 EVs.
Since then, there have been 91 new new polls released that satisfy my inclusion criteria. So today, after 100,000 simulated elections, Clinton wins 99,714 times and Trump wins 286 times (including the 9 ties). Clinton received (on average) 315 (-18) to Trump’s 223 (+18) electoral votes.
In an election held now, Clinton would have a 99.7% (-0.3%) probability of winning and Trump would have a 0.3% probability of winning.
There are a few interesting changes since Thursday. Most notably, Alaska is suddently blue! The only current poll has Clinton up by +4%. Previous polls had Trump leading. The trend towards Clinton looks plausible:
New polls have turned Arizona back to red again after being blue for some days. Last Thursday, Clinton would have won AZ with a 75% probability. Today, Trump would win with a 77% probability. The trend toward Trump is convincing:
Florida had been leaning blue last Thursday. A bunch of new polls has painted a redder picture, although Clinton’s chances have only dropped from 84% to 68%. Here is the last week of polling:
In Indiana, a new Trump+11 poll has strengthened Trump’s chances from 89% to 98%.
Last week we had two Iowa polls that, together, favored Trump. Now, the only current poll is a tie between the candidates dropping Trump’s chances from 71% to 50%.
Some new Maine polls have changed little beyond the state’s 2nd congressional district. Trump had a weak lead last week and now Clinton leads in two of the three current polls. Trump had a 58% chance of taking the CD last week; now Clinton has a 57% chance of taking it.
In Minnesota, a new poll gives Clinton a +10 margin, increasing her chances of taking the state to 99%.
In rare gains for Clinton, a new Montana poll only has Trump up by +1% instead of double digits. This lowers Trump’s chances from 100% to 97.7%.
We have three new polls in Nevada, and two of them give Trump a slight lead. The result is that Clinton’s chances have dropped from 83% to 56%. The state is, essentially, tied now.
Since last week, eight new North Carolina polls have come and a few lost out for a total of 14 current polls. What do all they new polls reveal? Clinton still has an 80% chance of taking the state. Here is the last two months of polling:
Ohio has gone more strongly for Trump. Last Thursday, Trump had an 89% chance of taking the state. Today that is 98%.
Oregon went from three current polls to one new one with Clinton at +7%. Because the poll is small there is great uncertainty, and Clinton’s chances have dropped to about 90%.
Pennsylvania has had a big polling rush the last few days. It hasn’t made much difference. Clinton wins every one, even if by small margins.
Last week, Trump was badly slipping in Texas, with +3% and +4% polls. Now, we have two new polls with Trump at +7% and +12%. Consequently Clinton’s chances have dropped in Texas from 14% to 0.1%.
Something similar has happened in Utah—polls tanked for Trump last week. This week they rebound with Trump up last week from 87% to about 100%.
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 02 Nov 2015 to 02 Nov 2016, and including polls from the preceding 21 days (FAQ).
An animated sequence of maps and electoral vote distributions can be seen here
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Clinton (full distribution here):
- 326 electoral votes with a 5.84% probability
- 325 electoral votes with a 4.16% probability
- 297 electoral votes with a 3.19% probability
- 332 electoral votes with a 3.14% probability
- 319 electoral votes with a 3.12% probability
- 323 electoral votes with a 3.06% probability
- 322 electoral votes with a 3.02% probability
- 331 electoral votes with a 2.95% probability
- 320 electoral votes with a 2.88% probability
- 329 electoral votes with a 2.84% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Clinton wins 99.7%, Trump wins less than 0.01%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Clinton: 315.4 (17.0)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Trump: 222.6 (17.0)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Clinton: 319 (281, 343)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Trump: 219 (195, 257)
Each column of this table shows the electoral vote total aggregated by different criteria for the probability of winning a state (Safe=100%, Strong=90%+, Leans=60%+, Weak=50%+):
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Clinton | 207 | |||
| Strong Clinton | 65 | 272 | ||
| Leans Clinton | 47 | 47 | 319 | |
| Weak Clinton | 13 | 13 | 13 | 332 |
| Weak Trump | 0 | 0 | 0 | 206 |
| Leans Trump | 15 | 15 | 206 | |
| Strong Trump | 119 | 191 | ||
| Safe Trump | 72 |
This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.
| 1 | 0 | EC | # | Total | % | % | Clinton | Trump | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 8 | Votes | polls | Votes | Clinton | Trump | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 1* | 2400 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AK | 3 | 1 | 360 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 71.8 | 28.2 | ||
| AZ | 11 | 8 | 4128 | 49.2 | 50.8 | 22.9 | 77.1 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1 | 409 | 36.7 | 63.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 3 | 2147 | 64.2 | 35.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 5 | 3809 | 51.8 | 48.2 | 94.8 | 5.2 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 847 | 58.8 | 41.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 1* | 618 | 62.9 | 37.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DC | 3 | 1* | 1131 | 76.5 | 23.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| FL | 29 | 15 | 12111 | 50.3 | 49.7 | 68.1 | 31.9 | ||
| GA | 16 | 8 | 4662 | 47.8 | 52.2 | 1.6 | 98.4 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 801 | 61.9 | 38.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 1 | 774 | 30.9 | 69.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| IL | 20 | 3 | 2024 | 57.6 | 42.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 3 | 1139 | 45.9 | 54.1 | 2.2 | 97.8 | ||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 696 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.3 | 49.7 | ||
| KS | 6 | 2 | 1022 | 43.3 | 56.7 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| KY | 8 | 2 | 1267 | 38.4 | 61.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| LA | 8 | 4 | 2145 | 42.1 | 57.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| ME | 2 | 3 | 1870 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 98.6 | 1.4 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 3 | 971 | 57.2 | 42.8 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 3 | 909 | 50.3 | 49.7 | 56.5 | 43.5 | ||
| MD | 10 | 2* | 1062 | 70.0 | 30.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 2 | 820 | 67.8 | 32.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 8 | 5926 | 54.4 | 45.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MN | 10 | 2 | 1111 | 55.3 | 44.7 | 99.1 | 0.9 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 987 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 6 | 5856 | 43.5 | 56.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MT | 3 | 2* | 1345 | 46.1 | 53.9 | 2.3 | 97.7 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1* | 594 | 34.5 | 65.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1* | 191 | 35.6 | 64.4 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1* | 207 | 44.9 | 55.1 | 15.4 | 84.6 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 199 | 23.6 | 76.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 9 | 7047 | 50.1 | 49.9 | 55.8 | 44.2 | ||
| NH | 4 | 8 | 4796 | 54.1 | 45.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1 | 527 | 56.0 | 44.0 | 97.4 | 2.6 | ||
| NM | 5 | 2* | 1726 | 56.8 | 43.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1 | 513 | 64.3 | 35.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 14 | 11088 | 50.6 | 49.4 | 80.4 | 19.6 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 300 | 42.7 | 57.3 | 4.3 | 95.7 | ||
| OH | 18 | 7 | 5984 | 48.2 | 51.8 | 2.3 | 97.7 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1 | 477 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| OR | 7 | 1 | 378 | 54.8 | 45.2 | 90.0 | 10.0 | ||
| PA | 20 | 13 | 11743 | 52.4 | 47.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 504 | 61.9 | 38.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| SC | 9 | 2* | 1509 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1 | 405 | 45.7 | 54.3 | 10.9 | 89.1 | ||
| TN | 11 | 2* | 1185 | 43.0 | 57.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TX | 38 | 2 | 1555 | 44.4 | 55.6 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| UT | 6 | 4 | 1651 | 45.8 | 54.2 | 0.6 | 99.4 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1 | 437 | 69.1 | 30.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 10 | 7914 | 54.3 | 45.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1 | 397 | 60.7 | 39.3 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 440 | 31.8 | 68.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| WI | 10 | 6 | 5606 | 53.1 | 46.9 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| WY | 3 | 1* | 293 | 25.9 | 74.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
* An older poll was used (i.e. no recent polls exist).
Details of the methods are given in the FAQ.
The most recent analysis in this match-up can be found from this page.
Follow me (@hominidviews) on Twitter for poll updatates and other political stuff.
The Hampton University poll of VA released today – was there a methodology problem, was it so newly released that it wasn’t included before you posted, or is there another reason it wasn’t included? I realize it makes essentially no difference overall.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
at this date in 2012, 11/2/2012, Darryl had:
Barack Obama at a 94.4% probability of winning
vs.
5.6% probability for Willard R-Money.
And what did our trolls say?
Heh.
How do you put your analysis in context with the 538 analysis today giving Trump a 30% chance of winning?
J-Lon @3,
538 uses a “proprietary” analysis. My analysis is fully described in the FAQ so that a person with modest programming skills and some probability theory chops can replicate what I have done.
One important point…my analyses are informed by polls only. 538 has some other “magic sauce” thrown in.”
As I have pointed out repeatedly, 538 produces a distribution of electoral vote outcomes that defies reality. I haven’t looked in awhile, but a month ago, the “nowcast” distribution was horribly overdispersed, allowing for nearly 0 votes for Clinton to nearly 0 votes for Trump. Poll-based evidence would suggest that there is zero probability the EV being < 150 or > 420 for clinton. Try finding such scenarios!
Also….I’ve been doing this before 538 was created.
But Nate has himself some good graphics!
Sloppy @ 1
“as it so newly released that it wasn’t included before you posted, or is there another reason it wasn’t included?”
The poll is now in my database, but wasn’t released (or, at least, I didn’t see it) until after I completed the analysis.
According to my Twitter timeline, I didn’t add the Hampton poll to my database until ~ 7:30 on Wednesday.
BTW: Tomorrow I go to a 10 day “current poll” window.
My god. Just look at these pathetic fiends clinging to 25% and torturing the math.
“But… But… Bucks County!”
We’ll find out who’s going to be the next president on Tuesday. It’ll probably be me.
@ 2
Hey, YLB:
Tuesday night you were promoting this
http://horsesass.org/drinking-.....nt-1325182
Florida poll.
Any idea why that poll didn’t make it into Darryl’s analysis, Torrance?
I suspect #CrookedHillary’s hemorrhagic gastroenteritis will begin oh, around Friday evening.
We won’t see that white pantsuit on Election Night, that’s for sure.
Due later today:
(((Harry Enten)))Verified account
@ForecasterEnten
I meant three* btw. Three NH polls. Two of them have Trump ahead so far.
@9 Make sure you’re not near any pill bottles when the letdown hits you Tuesday night, doc.
@ 10
Not sure what happens beyond Tuesday but I’m not expecting Trump to win.
But an improving Trump in NH helps Ayotte, an improving Trump in NC helps Burr, an improving Trump in NV helps Heck, and any movement in WI and in PA that might occur would help Johnson and Toomey, respectively.
It’s the little things.
Today and tomorrow #CrookedHillary in NC, PA, MI
Today BO is in NC
Today Kaine is in FL
Today Spoiled Brat is in NH
Today Bill is in CO
Tomorrow Biden in PA
Tomorrow Bernie in IA, CO
Tomorrow Spoiled Brat is in NC
Saturday #CrookedHillary is in OH
Saturday BO in FL and Sunday he’s in NH
#Crooked Hillary in OH on Saturday
Which makes me think Team Clinton won’t defend NV, and that NH is in trouble if they’re sending Obama there on the final weekend.
And Kaine doesn’t have enough to do. WTF.
Yesterday Drumpf was asking early voters for Clinton who might have “second thoughts” might consider revising their ballots in states where that’s permitted.
One of those is Wisconsin. It’s a pretty fair assumption that some voters in that state may get their votes changed for them by Scott Walker and his minions without even having to ask.
In a bid to distract Donald J Thiefperv’s voters on election day, Democratic operatives will be giving out free moonshine and meth at polling stations.
Glendale @ 8
Perhaps the proprietary elements of TargetSmart’s methodology didn’t fit Darryl’s criteria.
Woe be to Hillary haters (klowns) if it is proved prescient.
“But an improving Trump in NH helps Ayotte, an improving Trump in NC helps Burr, an improving Trump in NV helps Heck, and any movement in WI and in PA that might occur would help Johnson and Toomey, respectively.
“
No evidence. Might leave you more butt hurt, however you’d be less stupid if you followed the Senate polls to predict the Senate races.
Travis, what are you going to do if Hillary wins?
Others, what are you going to do if Donald wins?
@17 Buy stocks at much lower prices.
So, what should happen to a public school principal and secretary who dress up for Halloween as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a prison jumpsuit?
http://wtvr.com/2016/11/02/vir.....ison-garb/
@17 If he wins (hahahahahaha!) I’ll demand he be impeached for thievery and perversion.
@ 17
Won’t affect me. Either way income inequality increases. I am on the favorable side of that inequity. The children of y’all will fund a good part of my retirement. YLB, thank you.
Oh, and now that Melania Trump is hitting the campaign trail, her speeches are plagiarizing Marla Maples. Too funny!
http://tinyurl.com/j88m8bf
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Is there anything the Trumps don’t steal?
@21 What if both of us greedy bastards go to Hell, and then find out we’re going to be roommates?
@17 Retire…but my bride and I have been planning to do that anyway. Maybe give a little more consideration as to exactly where.
@21,
Riiiiiiiight.
That certainly explains the dozens of carelessly sourced and badly written comments desperately trying to prop up that raving orange pervert.
@25 In boob’s defense, it clearly has no love for the Donilld… IIRC, it was pulling for anyone but Orange Julius in the primaries.
It just HATES Hillary with a psychopathic intensity..
A old derangement syndrome that afflicts its tribe.
Sloppy, YLB @ 15,
Part of the respondents are from an online panel. Lots and lots of polls doing that this year, unfortunately.