 |  |
We now have about 20 new polls since the previous analysis last week. There Sec. Hillary Clinton was leading Donald Trump in mean electoral votes 347 to 199. If the election had been held last week we would expect Clinton to win with near certainty.
The new polls come largely from swing states, and include: 2 AZ, 1 FL, 1 MI, 1 MO, 2 NC, 1 NH, 1 NY, 2 OH, 4 PA, 1 VA, 4 WI, and 1 WV.
A Monte Carlo analysis with 100,000 simulated elections, gives Clinton all 100,000 wins. Clinton received (on average) 350 to Trump’s 188 electoral votes. In an election held now, Clinton would be expected to win with greater than 99% probability.
Basically, the newest polls don’t change the picture much. The only state to flip is Georgia, that went from Trump with a 72.5% probability of taking to state to Clinton with a 50.1% chance. In other words, Georgia looks like a toss-up. The change isn’t because of new polling. Rather, one old poll “dated out”. Frankly, Clinton’s standing is being driven by one poll from JMC Analytics that has her up +7%. I suspect this poll is an outlier.
In Missouri, a new PPP poll has Trump up +6%, which improve his chances of taking the state from 79.4% last week to 93.9% this week.
In North Carolina we lost one old poll and gained two new polls. The net result is no change: Clinton still has an 84% chance of taking the state now.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
Ten most probable electoral vote outcomes for Clinton (full distribution here):
- 356 electoral votes with a 6.39% probability
- 340 electoral votes with a 5.13% probability
- 362 electoral votes with a 5.08% probability
- 346 electoral votes with a 4.60% probability
- 347 electoral votes with a 4.47% probability
- 341 electoral votes with a 4.19% probability
- 357 electoral votes with a 4.19% probability
- 350 electoral votes with a 3.83% probability
- 363 electoral votes with a 3.44% probability
- 349 electoral votes with a 2.87% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Clinton wins 100.0%, Trump wins 0.0%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Clinton: 349.7 (14.1)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Trump: 188.3 (14.1)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Clinton: 350 (321, 374)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Trump: 188 (164, 217)
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 | 187 | |||
| Strong Clinton | 125 | 312 | ||
| Leans Clinton | 28 | 28 | 340 | |
| Weak Clinton | 22 | 22 | 22 | 362 |
| Weak Trump | 1 | 1 | 1 | 176 |
| Leans Trump | 26 | 26 | 175 | |
| Strong Trump | 89 | 149 | ||
| Safe Trump | 60 |
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 | 1* | 435 | 37.5 | 62.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| AZ | 11 | 5 | 3902 | 48.8 | 51.2 | 14.5 | 85.5 | ||
| AR | 6 | 1* | 623 | 43.3 | 56.7 | 1.2 | 98.8 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1* | 803 | 60.5 | 39.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 2 | 1244 | 57.0 | 43.0 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| CT | 7 | 1* | 1024 | 53.2 | 46.8 | 92.5 | 7.5 | ||
| DE | 3 | 1* | 529 | 56.7 | 43.3 | 98.6 | 1.4 | ||
| DC | 3 | 1* | 1131 | 76.5 | 23.5 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| FL | 29 | 10 | 7004 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 99.5 | 0.5 | ||
| GA | 16 | 5 | 3762 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.1 | 49.9 | ||
| HI | 4 | 1* | 801 | 61.9 | 38.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ID | 4 | 1* | 402 | 34.3 | 65.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| IL | 20 | 2* | 1654 | 59.4 | 40.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 1 | 334 | 43.4 | 56.6 | 4.6 | 95.4 | ||
| IA | 6 | 3 | 1671 | 50.3 | 49.7 | 56.4 | 43.6 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1 | 469 | 46.7 | 53.3 | 15.6 | 84.4 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 425 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 1.3 | 98.7 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1* | 1285 | 39.4 | 60.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| ME | 2 | 1 | 1555 | 56.6 | 43.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 1* | 201 | 59.2 | 40.8 | 97.0 | 3.0 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 1* | 162 | 49.4 | 50.6 | 46.0 | 54.0 | ||
| MD | 10 | 2* | 2657 | 65.2 | 34.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 1* | 400 | 61.3 | 38.8 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| MI | 16 | 4 | 2537 | 55.3 | 44.7 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MN | 10 | 1* | 1139 | 56.1 | 43.9 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1 | 987 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 4 | 3202 | 48.1 | 51.9 | 6.1 | 93.9 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1* | 1153 | 44.1 | 55.9 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| NE | 2 | 1* | 1093 | 42.5 | 57.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NE1 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE2 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NE3 | 1 | 0* | (0) | (100) | |||||
| NV | 6 | 2 | 1267 | 52.0 | 48.0 | 84.1 | 15.9 | ||
| NH | 4 | 3 | 2128 | 55.7 | 44.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 2* | 568 | 60.4 | 39.6 | 99.9 | 0.1 | ||
| NM | 5 | 1 | 783 | 56.3 | 43.7 | 99.6 | 0.4 | ||
| NY | 29 | 3 | 2635 | 60.7 | 39.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 7 | 4820 | 51.0 | 49.0 | 84.4 | 15.6 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 1226 | 44.6 | 55.4 | 0.5 | 99.5 | ||
| OH | 18 | 5 | 3371 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 90.2 | 9.8 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1* | 244 | 35.2 | 64.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| OR | 7 | 1* | 580 | 52.1 | 47.9 | 75.9 | 24.1 | ||
| PA | 20 | 7 | 4594 | 53.9 | 46.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| RI | 4 | 1* | 886 | 57.0 | 43.0 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| SC | 9 | 2 | 1631 | 48.3 | 51.7 | 15.9 | 84.1 | ||
| SD | 3 | 1* | 657 | 40.9 | 59.1 | 0.1 | 99.9 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1* | 2191 | 40.5 | 59.5 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TX | 38 | 2 | 1606 | 44.8 | 55.2 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| UT | 6 | 1 | 641 | 38.1 | 61.9 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1* | 356 | 69.7 | 30.3 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 5 | 3409 | 56.6 | 43.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1 | 335 | 64.2 | 35.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1 | 309 | 38.8 | 61.2 | 0.2 | 99.8 | ||
| WI | 10 | 4 | 2260 | 54.8 | 45.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WY | 3 | 1* | 690 | 29.6 | 70.4 | 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.
