 |
 |
The previous analysis from 4 days ago showed Sec. Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump, with a >99.9% probability of winning an election last week. Clinton’s mean electoral vote total was 335 and Trump’s was 203.
With a pile of new polls released since then, things haven’t changed a whole lot. Now, after 100,000 simulated elections, Clinton wins all 100,000 times. Clinton received (on average) 338 (+3) to Trump’s 200 (-3) electoral votes. In an election held now, Clinton would still have a > 99.9% probability of beating Trump.
There are a few things to highlight for this analysis.
Two new polls have come in from Arizona, and Clinton leads each. The oldest poll is a tie, and the newest three have Clinton at +2%, +1%, and +2%. This slight lead has slightly raised Clinton’s probability of taking the state from 60.8% to 65.8%. This is barely better than a tie, but the fact that a Democrat is leading in Arizona is nothing short of remarkable.
In Colorado, two polls with Trump up age out, and one new poll is added. The four current polls have Clinton up +11%, +11%, +0% (tie), and +8%. Consequently, Clinton’s chances have gone from 81.8% to 98.9% of winning the state today.
We have nine current polls in Florida, and eight of the polls have Clinton up. The one new poll has her up +4%. Overall, Clinton’s chances go from 91.8% to 94.2% in Florida.
We see a slight shift in Georgia, where Trump’s chances have dropped from 98.7% to 93.2%. This is entirely an artifact of 6 old polls dropping out and a new one coming in. The new poll has Trump up by +5.5%.
Minnesota has shifted in Trump’s favor, on account of a new Gravis poll that has the state tied. The other two current polls have Clintion up by +6.9% and 6%. The Gravis poll looks like an outlier.
Two new Nevada polls join five other polls. Clinton has small leads in five of the seven polls, and the other two are ties. Clinton’s chances rise from 76.6% to 82.9% in the state.
In North Carolina, one poll ages out and three new polls weigh in. Clinton leads in all nine current polls, typically with small leads. Her chances have gone up from a 86% to a 92.3% probability.
A new South Carolina poll has Trump leading by +15.4%, raising his chances to 100% from 76%.
Utah has had some interesting polling, including a tie last week. Today, a Rasmussen poll with Trump up +2% joined a third poll with Trump at +6% to raise his chances of winning from 76.9% to 81.4%.
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 17 Oct 2015 to 17 Oct 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):
- 333 electoral votes with a 6.13% probability
- 334 electoral votes with a 5.11% probability
- 340 electoral votes with a 3.96% probability
- 323 electoral votes with a 3.87% probability
- 351 electoral votes with a 3.16% probability
- 339 electoral votes with a 2.93% probability
- 322 electoral votes with a 2.91% probability
- 352 electoral votes with a 2.73% probability
- 341 electoral votes with a 2.65% probability
- 329 electoral votes with a 2.37% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Clinton wins 100.0%, Trump wins 0.0%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Clinton: 337.6 (17.7)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Trump: 200.4 (17.7)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Clinton: 336 (304, 376)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Trump: 202 (162, 234)
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 | 181 | |||
| Strong Clinton | 121 | 302 | ||
| Leans Clinton | 31 | 31 | 333 | |
| Weak Clinton | 0 | 0 | 0 | 333 |
| Weak Trump | 1 | 1 | 1 | 205 |
| Leans Trump | 42 | 42 | 204 | |
| Strong Trump | 123 | 162 | ||
| Safe Trump | 39 |
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 | 2 | 795 | 46.8 | 53.2 | 9.8 | 90.2 | ||
| AZ | 11 | 4 | 1887 | 50.7 | 49.3 | 65.5 | 34.5 | ||
| AR | 6 | 2* | 1256 | 36.4 | 63.6 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| CA | 55 | 1 | 674 | 64.1 | 35.9 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| CO | 9 | 4 | 2369 | 53.5 | 46.5 | 98.9 | 1.1 | ||
| 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 | 9 | 5303 | 51.5 | 48.5 | 94.2 | 5.8 | ||
| GA | 16 | 1 | 1261 | 46.9 | 53.1 | 6.8 | 93.2 | ||
| 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 | 1 | 700 | 65.4 | 34.6 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| IN | 11 | 2 | 832 | 47.2 | 52.8 | 13.3 | 86.7 | ||
| IA | 6 | 1 | 526 | 47.5 | 52.5 | 22.1 | 77.9 | ||
| KS | 6 | 1* | 498 | 43.2 | 56.8 | 1.8 | 98.2 | ||
| KY | 8 | 1* | 425 | 42.4 | 57.6 | 1.2 | 98.8 | ||
| LA | 8 | 1 | 664 | 45.8 | 54.2 | 6.2 | 93.9 | ||
| ME | 2 | 1 | 714 | 54.9 | 45.1 | 96.0 | 4.0 | ||
| ME1 | 1 | 1 | 379 | 60.2 | 39.8 | 99.7 | 0.3 | ||
| ME2 | 1 | 1 | 336 | 49.1 | 50.9 | 40.2 | 59.8 | ||
| MD | 10 | 1 | 636 | 70.0 | 30.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MA | 11 | 1 | 339 | 69.0 | 31.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MI | 16 | 5 | 4251 | 54.8 | 45.2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| MN | 10 | 3* | 1824 | 52.2 | 47.8 | 90.6 | 9.4 | ||
| MS | 6 | 1* | 987 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MO | 10 | 3 | 3411 | 46.2 | 53.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| MT | 3 | 1 | 822 | 43.9 | 56.1 | 0.6 | 99.4 | ||
| 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 | 16.0 | 84.0 | ||
| NE3 | 1 | 1* | 199 | 23.6 | 76.4 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| NV | 6 | 7 | 4599 | 51.0 | 49.0 | 82.9 | 17.0 | ||
| NH | 4 | 6 | 2541 | 53.4 | 46.6 | 99.3 | 0.7 | ||
| NJ | 14 | 1* | 549 | 53.7 | 46.3 | 89.8 | 10.2 | ||
| NM | 5 | 2 | 796 | 56.3 | 43.7 | 99.3 | 0.7 | ||
| NY | 29 | 2* | 1517 | 63.2 | 36.8 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| NC | 15 | 9 | 5296 | 51.4 | 48.6 | 92.3 | 7.7 | ||
| ND | 3 | 1* | 300 | 42.7 | 57.3 | 3.5 | 96.5 | ||
| OH | 18 | 7 | 4130 | 49.6 | 50.4 | 33.4 | 66.6 | ||
| OK | 7 | 1* | 445 | 41.1 | 58.9 | 0.3 | 99.7 | ||
| OR | 7 | 3 | 2107 | 55.6 | 44.4 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| PA | 20 | 7 | 3997 | 54.5 | 45.5 | 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* | 657 | 40.9 | 59.1 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| TN | 11 | 1 | 415 | 43.1 | 56.9 | 2.6 | 97.4 | ||
| TX | 38 | 2 | 1220 | 46.7 | 53.3 | 5.2 | 94.8 | ||
| UT | 6 | 3 | 945 | 47.9 | 52.1 | 18.6 | 81.4 | ||
| VT | 3 | 1* | 439 | 64.9 | 35.1 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| VA | 13 | 5 | 3111 | 56.0 | 44.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | ||
| WA | 12 | 1 | 415 | 60.2 | 39.8 | 99.8 | 0.2 | ||
| WV | 5 | 1* | 440 | 31.8 | 68.2 | 0.0 | 100.0 | ||
| WI | 10 | 3 | 2161 | 54.0 | 46.0 | 99.4 | 0.6 | ||
| 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.
“Conservative” Xtians must be delighted to see these poll results, right?
After all, rates of women seeking abortions decline faster under Democrats. So they should be thrilled. Right?
Haven’t they figured it out yet? They’ve had plenty of time. Under Bush they got all the stars aligned precisely the way they wanted. They even had a court majority in their favor. And not only did family planning and reproductive medicine remain legal, but the decline in the rate of abortions under Clinton stalled out for eight years under W. Whether “insider” or “outsider”, conservative elites, including the pulpit pimps of the xtian right, use those people mercilessly. And now they even have them dropping their pants and bending over for Kim Jong Orange. Pathetic.
@1 Maybe the rubes finally figured out the Koches of the world aren’t on their side after all.
You’re using normal distributions for these simulations, correct?
The Deplorables should have taken Garland while they had the chance.
In their future.
@4 I like the idea. Especially if he replaces a conservative.
demo kid,
No, not a normal distribution. That would be a hack at best. The FAQ describes what I do.
.00000031%
Historic rate of vote fraud in U.S. federal elections.
Facts have a decided liberal bias.
@6:
Had to dust off notes from my classes in Bayesian statistics! But yes, I understand now. And I’ll RTFM. :-)
WTF? Why are there still red states on these maps?