 |
 |
We have now had a few days for post-debate polls to trickle out. My previous analysis, four days ago, was almost entirely pre-debate polls. It showed Clinton with a 79.2% probability of winning the election with, on average, 288 electoral votes.
There have been about 20 or so post-debate state head-to-head polls released, mostly in competitive states. The results confirm the general wisdom that Clinton gained the edge from the first debate.
Today, after 100,000 simulated elections, Clinton wins 92,456 times and Trump wins 7,544 times (including the 1,007 ties). Clinton received (on average) 300 to Trump’s 238 electoral votes. In an election held now, Clinton would have a 92.5% probability of winning and Trump would have a 7.5% probability of winning.
A couple of states showed some interesting changes:
In Colorado one poll aged out and we got two new polls today that both have Clinton up by +11%. This has moved the probability from 51.4% for Trump to 83.7% for Clinton. The state is still quite close, but the magnitude of Clinton’s lead in two polls suggest that Clinton now has the advantage.
The story is similar in Florida one poll aged out, and three new polls were released, all with Clinton leading. Clinton’s leads, however, are smaller at 4%, +0.2% and 5%. Clinton is leading in 6 of the 10 current polls. Trump had a 60.6% probability of taking Florida 4 days ago, now Clinton is up with a 62.9% probability. The state is still mighty close!
Trump gains a bit in Iowa, not because of any new polls—there have been none since the debate. Rather one poll aged out. Trump leads in 2 of the 3 current Iowa polls.
Nevada gains two new polls with Clinton up by +6% and +1%. As a result Trump’s probability of winning of 66.8% four days ago has shrunk to 47.6%. This is, basically, a tie.
New Hampshire is over-polled because of a competitive Senate race. We lost one poll and gained two new ones in 4 days with Clinton up +6% and +7%. Clinton’s chances go up a bit to a 99.1% probability of winning today.
We have one new poll in New Jersey for a total of 2 polls. This one has Clinton up 6.4%, and so Clinton moves from a 78.3% probability to a 92.5% probability of taking the state.
In New Mexico, one old poll was replaced by a new (but small) poll that has Clinton up +4%. The previous poll had her at +9%. As a result, Clinton’s chances have dropped from 99.4% to 77.3% probability of winning the state now. The polling history suggests that Clinton is very likely to take New Mexico:
Two new polls, and the loss of an old poll in North Carolina have strengthened Clinton’s tenuous hold on the state. She now has lead in five consecutive NC polls, but the margins are small (+1%, +3%, +1%, +2.6% and +1%). Her chances have gone from 52.2% to 56.7%. Still, pretty much a tie.
In Pennsylvania we lose two polls and gain one new one. This has tightened the race slightly, but Clinton still has a 94.9% probability of taking the state. The polling history does suggest a tightening of the race, but Clinton leads the last 5 polls by small margins (+4%, +3%, +1%, +2%, +2%).
Virginia loses one poll and gains two new ones. Four days ago, Clinton had a 99.7% probability of winning. Today, she takes all but 28 of the 100,000 simulated elections.
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 03-Oct-2015 to 03-Oct-2016, and including polls from the preceding month (FAQ). As we’ve seen before, Clinton is on the move upward, after hitting a “low” that still had her most likely winning the election.
Note that the polls have yet to “speak” to Donald Trump’s other problems that arose after the debate—his 3am tweet about an Hispanic model (Alicia Machado) and her non-existent “sextape”, Trump’s own soft-core porn video, Trump’s suggestion that his opponent is cheating on her spouse, Trump’s partial 1995 tax forms showing over $900 million losses, the Trump Foundation’s potential legal problems, his badly-stated comment about Vets with PTSD, and a bunch of high profile newspaper non-endorsements. If these issues affect the polls, we’ll see the effects over the next week or two.
Of course, things may not continue to favor Clinton. Wednesday is supposedly the “October Surprise” that will un-do her.
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):
- 307 electoral votes with a 3.41% probability
- 322 electoral votes with a 2.83% probability
- 318 electoral votes with a 2.75% probability
- 293 electoral votes with a 2.65% probability
- 289 electoral votes with a 2.62% probability
- 301 electoral votes with a 2.56% probability
- 316 electoral votes with a 2.55% probability
- 304 electoral votes with a 2.42% probability
- 312 electoral votes with a 2.35% probability
- 278 electoral votes with a 2.25% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Clinton wins 92.5%, Trump wins 7.5%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Clinton: 300.4 (20.9)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Trump: 237.6 (20.9)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Clinton: 302 (259, 339)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Trump: 236 (199, 279)
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 | 143 | |||
| Strong Clinton | 99 | 242 | ||
| Leans Clinton | 59 | 59 | 301 | |
| Weak Clinton | 21 | 21 | 21 | 322 |
| Weak Trump | 0 | 0 | 0 | 216 |
| Leans Trump | 12 | 12 | 216 | |
| Strong Trump | 156 | 204 | ||
| Safe Trump | 48 |
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* | 3690 | 36.7 | 63.3 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AK | 3 | 2* | 1043 | 43.1 | 56.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AZ | 11 | 2 | 979 | 48.7 | 51.3 | 29.0 | 71.0 | ||
| AR | 6 | 2 | 1256 | 36.4 | 63.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 5 | 6573 | 62.3 | 37.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 7 | 3382 | 51.2 | 48.8 | 83.7 | 16.3 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1 | 847 | 58.8 | 41.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 1* | 529 | 56.7 | 43.3 | 98.5 | 1.5 | ||
| DC | 3 | 1* | 1131 | 76.5 | 23.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| FL | 29 | 10 | 5832 | 50.3 | 49.7 | 62.9 | 37.1 | ||
| GA | 16 | 7 | 3494 | 47.3 | 52.7 | 1.5 | 98.5 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 801 | 61.9 | 38.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 1* | 403 | 34.2 | 65.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| IL | 20 | 4 | 2843 | 58.0 | 42.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 1 | 474 | 45.6 | 54.4 | 8.6 | 91.4 | ||
| IA | 6 | 3 | 1199 | 47.0 | 53.0 | 6.5 | 93.5 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1 | 498 | 43.2 | 56.8 | 1.7 | 98.3 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 425 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 1.4 | 98.6 | ||
| LA | 8 | 2 | 1132 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| ME | 2 | 3 | 1671 | 53.6 | 46.4 | 98.2 | 1.8 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 3 | 829 | 62.6 | 37.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 3 | 828 | 44.6 | 55.4 | 1.3 | 98.8 | ||
| MD | 10 | 1 | 426 | 70.0 | 30.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 2 | 832 | 62.9 | 37.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 4 | 3391 | 53.0 | 47.0 | 99.3 | 0.7 | ||
| MN | 10 | 2 | 1044 | 53.8 | 46.2 | 96.0 | 4.0 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 987 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| MO | 10 | 2 | 1612 | 43.6 | 56.4 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1* | 1153 | 44.1 | 55.9 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1 | 594 | 34.5 | 65.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 1 | 191 | 35.6 | 64.4 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| NE2 | 1 | 1 | 207 | 44.9 | 55.1 | 15.7 | 84.3 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1 | 199 | 23.6 | 76.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 8 | 4272 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 52.4 | 47.6 | ||
| NH | 4 | 6 | 2697 | 53.2 | 46.8 | 99.1 | 0.9 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 2 | 1264 | 52.8 | 47.2 | 92.5 | 7.5 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1 | 330 | 53.0 | 47.0 | 77.3 | 22.7 | ||
| NY | 29 | 2 | 1517 | 63.2 | 36.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 11 | 5614 | 50.2 | 49.8 | 56.7 | 43.3 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1 | 300 | 42.7 | 57.3 | 3.2 | 96.8 | ||
| OH | 18 | 8 | 4508 | 48.3 | 51.7 | 5.2 | 94.8 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1 | 445 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.4 | 99.6 | ||
| OR | 7 | 1 | 325 | 60.3 | 39.7 | 99.6 | 0.4 | ||
| PA | 20 | 8 | 3772 | 51.8 | 48.2 | 94.9 | 5.1 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1 | 678 | 51.5 | 48.5 | 70.3 | 29.7 | ||
| SC | 9 | 2 | 1509 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 657 | 40.9 | 59.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 2191 | 40.5 | 59.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TX | 38 | 2 | 906 | 45.6 | 54.4 | 2.8 | 97.2 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1 | 381 | 38.1 | 61.9 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1 | 439 | 64.9 | 35.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 6 | 3908 | 53.8 | 46.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1 | 578 | 53.5 | 46.5 | 87.5 | 12.5 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 309 | 38.8 | 61.2 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| WI | 10 | 2 | 1087 | 52.9 | 47.1 | 92.0 | 8.0 | ||
| 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.
Boob – don’t jump.
Darryl, two questions:
1. FAQ states that the poll window would narrow to two weeks “perhaps in September”. When do you narrow next, as the current window is wider than two weeks?
2. New Mexico – if Johnson were to gain a couple more points, perhaps at the expense of the current NM poll leader, and the spread were more like, say, 32 – 30 – 28 among three candidates, does Monte Carlo still hold, or do you have to use a different form of analysis? And in the unlikely event that Johnson were to take the lead in a poll, how is that handled? Is it still put in an “other” category?
Thanks in advance.
@2
Someone got the Johnson email claiming that a Johnson win in NM would deny 270 to any candidate and send it to the House to decide.
But not so much. For that to happen Trump has to carry Florida, NC AND Nevada which isn’t going to happen and all polling in NM has Johnson a distant third. Clinton is still going to win NM no matter what the fundraising emails from Johnson claim.
Sloppy @ 2,
1. When I reduce window size is based on the number of polls released. Right now there are nearly enough polls to move to a 3 week window, but probably not a 2 week window. (It seems like there are lots of polls being released, but there are a plethora of internet polls that fail my inclusion criteria.) I’ll likely reduce the window later this week, since I am starting to ramp up the number of analyses.
FWIW: With a 3 week window Clinton wins with 97.8% probabilty and a mean of 312 EVs. With a 2 week window, Clinton wins with 97.9% and a mean of 317.
For more insight on window size consider this: Today’s analysis had 12 “older polls” states (those with * next to poll count). With a 3 week window that number increases to 21. With a 2 week window, the number is 30. So 2 week window is simply too small. Something from 3-weeks to 4-weeks is about right.
2. Not sure I fully follow your question, but unless Johnson were to actually pull into the lead, the analysis would be affected very little. Right now, 3rd party wins are ignored, and the sample size is adjusted downward to the D+R responses. The polling suggests Johnson is in a “comfortable” 3rd place in NM, so a second place finish doesn’t seem at all likely. If Johnson were seriously be a contender for second or first place, I would need to modify the analysis and break out the “other” category. I am pretty certain that that won’t be needed. The Monte Carlo analysis would still be the appropriate analytical method, but would be modified to include a third candidate in the outcomes.
Czechsaaz @3,
If Johnson won the 5 NM electors, Clinton chances of winning 270 electors would drop to 87.4%. Trump’s probability of winning 269 electors would drop to 4.7%.
@2 Still dreaming of Johnson winning with 5 electoral votes?
http://handbill.us/?p=77125
No doubt about it, Trump bombed in the first debate, and it’s hurting him. Just wait until the polls reflect his latest gaffes. CNBC ran a story this morning with a headline, “Trump campaign in death spiral.” Can you say “President Hillary Clinton,” Boob? Better get used to it.
@7,
This is where Boob comes back and assures you how well his investment portfolio will perform under the leadership of a female liberal feminist Democrat. Begs one or two questions