 |
 |
My previous analysis in this race showed Secretary Clinton just barely leading Sen. Rubio 65% to 35%. Rubio was second to Jeb Bush in performance against Clinton. In the intervening weeks, Rubio has started to crawl out of the mid-tier rankings in the G.O.P. primary. A week ago he placed third in SC, and today we see he is second in NH
Rubio’s primary “surge” hasn’t translated into general election gains. He seems to be losing ground to Clinton. Now after 100,000 simulated elections, Clinton wins 92,430 times and Rubio wins 7,570 times (including the 404 ties). Clinton received (on average) 304 to Rubio’s 234 electoral votes. In an election held now, Clinton would have a 92.4% probability of winning and Rubio would have a 7.6% probability of winning.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Clinton (full distribution here):
- 299 electoral votes with a 2.52% probability
- 286 electoral votes with a 2.44% probability
- 315 electoral votes with a 2.36% probability
- 312 electoral votes with a 2.31% probability
- 307 electoral votes with a 2.28% probability
- 296 electoral votes with a 2.25% probability
- 302 electoral votes with a 2.24% probability
- 283 electoral votes with a 2.20% probability
- 294 electoral votes with a 1.91% probability
- 297 electoral votes with a 1.76% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Clinton wins 92.4%, Rubio wins 7.6%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Clinton: 303.5 (24.6)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Rubio: 234.5 (24.6)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Clinton: 303 (257, 352)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Rubio: 235 (186, 281)
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%+):
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 19 Oct 2014 to 19 Oct 2015, and including polls from the preceding month (FAQ).
An animated sequence of maps and electoral vote distributions can be seen here
| Threshold | Safe | + Strong | + Leans | + Weak |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe Clinton | 159 | |||
| Strong Clinton | 84 | 243 | ||
| Leans Clinton | 40 | 40 | 283 | |
| Weak Clinton | 0 | 0 | 0 | 283 |
| Weak Rubio | 16 | 16 | 16 | 255 |
| Leans Rubio | 108 | 108 | 239 | |
| Strong Rubio | 52 | 131 | ||
| Safe Rubio | 79 |
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 | Rubio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 8 | Votes | polls | Votes | Clinton | Rubio | % wins | % wins | |
| AL | 9 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| AK | 3 | 2* | 1756 | 49.6 | 50.4 | 41.4 | 58.6 | ||
| AZ | 11 | 1* | 504 | 48.8 | 51.2 | 34.8 | 65.2 | ||
| AR | 6 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| CA | 55 | 1* | 681 | 62.4 | 37.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 1* | 1034 | 45.3 | 54.7 | 1.6 | 98.4 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 1075 | 60.9 | 39.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| DE | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| DC | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| FL | 29 | 1 | 1044 | 49.4 | 50.6 | 39.6 | 60.4 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1* | 572 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 70.1 | 29.9 | ||
| HI | 4 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| ID | 4 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IL | 20 | 1* | 800 | 57.0 | 43.0 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| IN | 11 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 1181 | 47.7 | 52.3 | 12.8 | 87.2 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 1094 | 47.2 | 52.8 | 8.8 | 91.2 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 964 | 47.1 | 52.9 | 10.2 | 89.8 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 536 | 51.7 | 48.3 | 70.6 | 29.4 | ||
| ME | 2 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| ME1 | 1 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| ME2 | 1 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MD | 10 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MA | 11 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| MI | 16 | 1* | 1231 | 48.2 | 51.8 | 17.9 | 82.1 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1* | 832 | 51.2 | 48.8 | 68.5 | 31.5 | ||
| MS | 6 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| MO | 10 | 1* | 747 | 41.4 | 58.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1* | 931 | 45.6 | 54.4 | 3.2 | 96.8 | ||
| NE | 2 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE1 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE2 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE3 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NV | 6 | 1* | 609 | 53.4 | 46.6 | 87.7 | 12.3 | ||
| NH | 4 | 1* | 723 | 54.6 | 45.4 | 96.2 | 3.8 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1* | 1257 | 61.3 | 38.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NM | 5 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| NY | 29 | 1* | 699 | 66.2 | 33.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 2 | 1675 | 45.3 | 54.7 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| ND | 3 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OH | 18 | 1 | 1015 | 47.7 | 52.3 | 14.4 | 85.6 | ||
| OK | 7 | 0 | (0) | (100) | |||||
| OR | 7 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| PA | 20 | 2 | 1793 | 48.3 | 51.7 | 15.4 | 84.6 | ||
| RI | 4 | 0 | (100) | (0) | |||||
| SC | 9 | 1* | 959 | 46.5 | 53.5 | 6.2 | 93.8 | ||
| SD | 3 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| TN | 11 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| TX | 38 | 1* | 386 | 55.7 | 44.3 | 94.4 | 5.6 | ||
| UT | 6 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| VT | 3 | 0* | (100) | (0) | |||||
| VA | 13 | 1 | 960 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 49.9 | 50.1 | ||
| WA | 12 | 2* | 1671 | 53.6 | 46.4 | 98.0 | 2.0 | ||
| WV | 5 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| WI | 10 | 1 | 710 | 54.4 | 45.6 | 95.3 | 4.7 | ||
| WY | 3 | 1* | 1059 | 36.4 | 63.6 | 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.
I can see a dumb-belt of voters developing across the middle.
@1 They’re called “flyover states” for a reason.
@2 They certainly have low expectations. Very, very low.
This joker has proclaimed there should be a law to fire VA workers who “aren’t doing their jobs” when he, himself, has been MIA during more votes than any of them. But, really, do these right wing jackasses even listen to themselves? Because if they did they’d slit their own wrists.
@4 Not to worry, Trump is running away in the polls, and is gonna be their nominee. Hillary only has to run against hot air. Global warming is arriving early.
Congratulations to the Mets.
Why is Paul Ryan dangling his dick out there for so long, hoping the rest of his Caucus will yank it before he commits? Is he that wimpish?