The analysis on Monday showed Sec. Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump with a greater than 99.9% probability of winning an election held now, and with a mean electoral vote of 338 for Clinton to 200 for Trump.
We’ve gotten about 49 new polls since then. A Monte Carlo analysis with 100,000 simulated elections has Clinton winning all 100,000 times. In an election held now, Clinton would have a greater than 99.9% probability of winning and Trump would have a less than 0.01% probability of winning. Clinton received (on average) 338 to Trump’s 200 electoral votes.
In other words, even with plenty of new polls, the race has stabalized.
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 20 Oct 2015 to 20 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 7.05% probability
- 334 electoral votes with a 6.82% probability
- 351 electoral votes with a 4.16% probability
- 340 electoral votes with a 3.92% probability
- 352 electoral votes with a 3.40% probability
- 339 electoral votes with a 3.35% probability
- 341 electoral votes with a 2.72% probability
- 323 electoral votes with a 2.53% probability
- 328 electoral votes with a 2.45% probability
- 336 electoral votes with a 2.27% probability
After 100,000 simulations:
- Clinton wins greater than 99.9%, Trump wins less than 0.01%.
- Average (SE) EC votes for Clinton: 338.5 (17.3)
- Average (SE) EC votes for Trump: 199.5 (17.3)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Clinton: 337 (304, 376)
- Median (95% CI) EC votes for Trump: 201 (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|
This table summarizes results by state. Click on the poll count to see the individual polls included for the state.
|2||8||Votes||polls||Votes||Clinton||Trump||% wins||% wins|
* 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.
Stoner Bob spews:
I’m not so certain Clinton will support legalization of cannabis. We’ve made a lot of progress, but there ar still those out there who want to undo what Colorado and Washington have done in regard to having sensible cannabis policies.
If Trump had his way, I believe he’d get that fat boy from New Jersey to be the attorney-general. Fatso ain’t friendly towards cannabis and will no doubt look to crush what we’ve done here in Washington.
I don’t think so. The worst she’ll do is continue the is it ‘legal, maybe’ attitude of the Obama administration.
California and Arizona are definitely going to legalize so that’s the entire West coast and 85 electoral votes in a blue block right there. Add Nevada, recreational leading in polls and only Idaho is poised to vote to keep it illegal in the West. The tax collection from legal weed in California is going to be too staggering to ignore.
25 states have some level of legalization and at least five will have passed full legalization after November. A couple other states have recreational measures this year but passage is iffy at best.
I think the tide has turned on this one. There’s no upside to cracking down on the states and ironically those most in favor of using federal statutes to reign in pot are “state’s rights” types. The calls to “Think of the Children” are going to mostly come from the opposition party. The worst HRC will do is nothing leaving quasi-legal status with no access to traditional banks. I have seen that there are a couple insurance companies now specializing in Cannabis businesses so legitimacy is growing, pun intended.
Mark Adams spews:
At some point as states legalize pot there is going to be a political crises. It could be whimper of a crises. It doesn’t matter who the President is or how they personally feel about pot. O’bama has not gotten rid of the drug czar in the past 8 years. The official policy of the Federal Government is pot is a banned substance. Along with other drugs. Whether these Federal drug laws actually pass constitutional muster is questionable. certainly the drug laws were born out of racism, and protecting women because they are weak, and are like Eve in the garden. The Congress that passed the drug law never meant for the drug law to be this powerful or so pervasive, it was twisted when prohibition ended and a bunch of federal agents needed something to do. Not that they didn’t go after stills in the backwoods as Uncle Sam wanted to be paid taxes on any white lightning produced.
At some point Congress has to step in and either change the drug law. or tell the states and the President the current law is the law of the land go enforce it.
Obama has had to enforce the drug laws of the United States and keep the drug czar open. Just like he’s had to deport a lot of illegal immigrants. Unless Gary Johnson or Jill Stein are elected there is likely to be an uptick in enforcement of Federal drug laws as applied to marijuana.
I still don’t agree. You don’t want to be a WA U.S. House Rep arguing that a law that seems to be working fine in your state and is bringing in passive revenue should be overturned by the Feds.
Likewise you don’t want to be a rural conservative House Rep from California who just told your farming constituency that you’re going to crack down on this now very profitable and pretty easy to grow crop and send them back to scraping by on produce. State’s rights and all.
And when the exits show that the few who still voted GOP for president are even older and whiter than those that voted for Romney you aren’t going to be a GOP House Rep from any state picking up the banner that tells GenX and Millenials that you have no freaking clue about their priorities.
There may be some bumps in the road but the prohibition on Cannabis is over. The support for going back in Congress just won’t be there maybe after this cycle but assuredly after a few more states legalize in 2018.
Mark Adams spews:
George Will wrote this article in 2013. http://www.politifact.com/pund.....-gop-says/
I don’t think in any poll there has been any indication Trump has had a chance in any of the 18 states the Democrats have won the 6 past elections, unless you throw in third party candidates.
So maybe Trump’s tactics are not so crazy what does he have to loose, Demographics have rigged the election.
Mark Adams spews:
@4 You meant at @3?
Federal law trumps state law and is the law of the land. The Congress is thus far not on board. Maybe after the election it will be, but without Congress changing Federal law states making marijuana legal is a house of cards.
Here in Washington the moment you step on Federal property (National park, forest, reservation, Hanford, military base, Federal Court building, ect) which make up a lot of the state the fact you can possess legally in Washington is mute.
Are you suggesting though that states could maintain the fiction if the National Guard is called up supplemented by the army to enforce Federal law like in the south to enforce school desegregation? I don’t know what Clinton’s promises in this area are, not been very public. Unlikely she’s getting calling an end to the drug war, and shutting down the drug czar and the just say no office that the first President Clinton kept open. I don’t think that Trump and Hilliary’s policy is that much different in this area. I think Clinton will be less accommodating than Obama, and at the least you will see a more active Federal Attorney General pushing back on the legalization of pot here and other states. Trump is the law and order candidate and the states legalization is over. The political winds of change could blow the house of cards over in a gentle wind or more of a fall wind storm.