 |
 |
Previous analyses shows that former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) are performing reasonably well (even if losing) against Hillary Clinton in a electoral college election that uses state polling. We might label Bush and Rubio as “top-tier” candidates, except that neither are leading in the G.O.P. primary. Still…they are a threat to Clinton.
Then there is the bottom tier. Certainly, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) falls into this category based on his abysmal performance against Clinton (0.5% probability of winning to Clinton’s 99.5%).
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) must also be relegated to the bottom of the Republican primary heap, although in fairness, he is doing much better than Walker. Not really a threat, though.
After 100,000 simulated elections, Clinton wins 97,668 times and Paul wins 2,332 times (including the 99 ties). Clinton received (on average) 329 to Paul’s 209 electoral votes. In an election held now, Clinton would have a 97.7% probability of winning and Paul would have a 2.3% probability of winning.
Paul is losing in FL, NC, VA, PA, MI, WI, IA, GA, NM and NV, and he is leading, but isn’t really doing that well in his home state of KY.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Clinton (full distribution here):
- 336 electoral votes with a 2.30% probability
- 326 electoral votes with a 2.14% probability
- 334 electoral votes with a 2.09% probability
- 344 electoral votes with a 2.05% probability
- 342 electoral votes with a 1.88% probability
- 324 electoral votes with a 1.79% probability
- 328 electoral votes with a 1.79% probability
- 335 electoral votes with a 1.72% probability
- 330 electoral votes with a 1.71% probability
- 338 electoral votes with a 1.67% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Clinton wins 97.7%, Paul wins 2.3%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Clinton: 329.2 (26.0)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Paul: 208.8 (26.0)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Clinton: 331 (271, 377)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Paul: 207 (161, 267)
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 | 92 | |||
| Strong Clinton | 161 | 253 | ||
| Leans Clinton | 73 | 73 | 326 | |
| Weak Clinton | 10 | 10 | 10 | 336 |
| Weak Paul | 0 | 0 | 0 | 202 |
| Leans Paul | 75 | 75 | 202 | |
| Strong Paul | 58 | 127 | ||
| Safe Paul | 69 |
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 16-Sep-2014 to 16-Sep-2015 that including polls from the preceding one month (FAQ).
An animated sequence of maps and electoral vote distributions can be seen here
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 | Paul | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 8 | Votes | polls | Votes | Clinton | Paul | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AK | 3 | 3* | 1827 | 45.3 | 54.7 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| AZ | 11 | 1* | 510 | 47.1 | 52.9 | 18.1 | 81.9 | ||
| AR | 6 | 4* | 3775 | 49.1 | 50.9 | 22.1 | 77.9 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1* | 516 | 55.0 | 45.0 | 94.8 | 5.2 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1* | 760 | 48.3 | 51.7 | 25.5 | 74.5 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 1062 | 62.8 | 37.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 1* | 975 | 54.2 | 45.8 | 96.9 | 3.1 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1* | 815 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 74.5 | 25.5 | ||
| HI | 4 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| ID | 4 | 1* | 443 | 38.8 | 61.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| IL | 20 | 1* | 782 | 56.0 | 44.0 | 98.9 | 1.1 | ||
| IN | 11 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IA | 6 | 1* | 1245 | 51.8 | 48.2 | 81.3 | 18.7 | ||
| KS | 6 | 5* | 4518 | 46.1 | 53.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 746 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 34.1 | 65.9 | ||
| LA | 8 | 2* | 1637 | 48.6 | 51.4 | 21.2 | 78.8 | ||
| ME | 2 | 1* | 857 | 64.1 | 35.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| ME2 | 1 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MD | 10 | 1* | 667 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 1* | 771 | 62.8 | 37.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 1* | 932 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 77.6 | 22.4 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1* | 862 | 50.6 | 49.4 | 59.5 | 40.5 | ||
| MS | 6 | 2* | 1060 | 48.9 | 51.1 | 30.5 | 69.5 | ||
| MO | 10 | 1* | 739 | 43.0 | 57.0 | 0.4 | 99.6 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1* | 890 | 44.2 | 55.8 | 0.5 | 99.5 | ||
| NE | 2 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE1 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE2 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE3 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NV | 6 | 1* | 782 | 54.3 | 45.7 | 95.6 | 4.4 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1 | 706 | 55.9 | 44.1 | 98.8 | 1.2 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1* | 1257 | 61.3 | 38.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1* | 618 | 57.6 | 42.4 | 99.6 | 0.4 | ||
| NY | 29 | 1* | 683 | 66.6 | 33.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 1* | 804 | 52.4 | 47.6 | 83.5 | 16.5 | ||
| ND | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OH | 18 | 2* | 1754 | 49.3 | 50.7 | 33.7 | 66.3 | ||
| OK | 7 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OR | 7 | 1* | 861 | 56.7 | 43.3 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| PA | 20 | 2* | 1575 | 50.5 | 49.5 | 60.8 | 39.2 | ||
| RI | 4 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| SC | 9 | 1* | 764 | 48.8 | 51.2 | 32.6 | 67.4 | ||
| SD | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| TN | 11 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| TX | 38 | 2* | 964 | 46.1 | 53.9 | 4.1 | 95.9 | ||
| UT | 6 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| VT | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| VA | 13 | 1* | 1041 | 52.8 | 47.2 | 90.1 | 9.9 | ||
| WA | 12 | 2* | 1692 | 54.7 | 45.3 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| WV | 5 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| WI | 10 | 1* | 722 | 54.4 | 45.6 | 95.4 | 4.6 | ||
| WY | 3 | 2* | 2060 | 39.7 | 60.3 | 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.
None of this matters unless your going to place a bet on Fleet Street. Kim Kardassian is at 1000 to 1.
Why not have some fun here and have both parties splinter and have two candidates from both parties. Sure it’s unlikely, but Rand Paul should have a better chance than about the same odds for each party having a major split and the US having 3 or 4 major candidates for President ala 1860. What could the result be hmmm something involving the House of Representatives. The dark horse candidate can win! Could be Kim.
Why even bother with this analysis? Paul obviously isn’t going to be the nominee. The real question is whether he’ll still be in the race when the GOP clown show reconvenes next month.
Clinton is still in this race?