NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label electoral map. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral map. Show all posts

22 October 2016

Election Update: There Are 4 Ways This Election Can End — And 3 Involve Clinton Winning 21OKT16


THIS election update from +FiveThirtyEight was posted on Friday, 21 OCT 16, 2 days after the third and final presidential debate and the explosion of controversy over donald drumpf's/trump's refusal to promise to accept the results of the election whoever wins. drumpf/trump refuses to endorse a peaceful transition of power after the 2016 presidential election. Even after this and with more women coming forward accusing drumpf/trump of sexual assault and harassment, and drumpf/trump still not releasing his federal tax returns this latest election update still offers a scenario for drumpf/trump-pence to defeat Clinton-Kaine. This is a warning to all Clinton-Kaine supporters, we can not become complacent, we can not believe the outrageous statements from drumpf/trump-pence guarantee their defeat, and we all need to remember 

Election Update: There Are 4 Ways This Election Can End — And 3 Involve Clinton Winning


It’s tempting to say that voters have made up their minds and that the presidential vote is set. Hillary Clinton has a 6.6-percentage-point lead in the popular vote and an 87 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, according to our polls-only forecast. A week ago, those numbers were about the same: a 6.4-point lead and an 85 percent chance. In our polls-plus forecast, Clinton’s chances are 84 percent, up only slightly from 82 percent a week ago.

Furthermore, although we have only a handful of polls that postdate the third presidential debate, they don’t show much change so far. The only national poll conducted fully after the debate — from Morning Consult for Politico — shows Clinton up 6 percentage points, the same margin Morning Consult had in their previous poll. A couple of the national tracking polls have moved a bit — but the movement has been in different directions.
But it’s premature to assume that Clinton is locked into a 6- or 7-point win. It’s narrowly premature because there’s been only one full day of polling since the final debate, and that isn’t necessarily enough time to show any further shifts in the race. And it’s broadly premature because there’s still a lot of uncertainty in the outcome.
Wait — I hear you saying — didn’t you just tell me that there’s an 87 percent chance Clinton will win? That doesn’t sound like all that much uncertainty.
Well, it depends on your tolerance for risk, I suppose. Donald Trump’s chances in our model are about 1 in 7, and you’d expect a candidate with a 1-in-7 chance to win about one presidential election every 28 years.1 So while it would be a rare occurrence, we’re not quite in once-in-a-lifetime territory.
But mostly I mean that, while Clinton’s in a reasonably safe position, there’s quite a bit of doubt about her potential margin of victory, both in the popular vote and the Electoral College.
The charts below — which are based on 20,000 simulations from our model as of Friday afternoon2 — attempt to explain this by laying out four broad scenarios:
  • A Trump win, including cases where he loses the popular vote but wins the Electoral College.
  • A narrow Clinton win, wherein she wins the Electoral College, but wins the popular vote by 3 percentage points or less. (Or wins the Electoral College and loses the popular vote.)
  • A Clinton win in the “Obama zone,” wherein she wins the popular vote by 4 to 7 percentage points — the margins by which President Obama won the elections in 2012 and 2008, respectively. Clinton is all but certain to win the Electoral College if she wins the popular vote by this amount.
  • Finally, a Clinton blowout, wherein she wins the popular vote by 8 points or more, which would almost certainly also yield a dominant performance in the Electoral College.
  • silver-electionupdate-1021-1
  • The polls-only forecast currently shows Clinton in the “Obama zone,” but it also has her with only about a 1-in-3 chance of ending up there. If Clinton gains any further ground on Trump, then we’re really into blowout territory, with Arizona potentially turning blue, perhaps along with more exotic options.
    But the race could also tighten — or the polls could be overstating Clinton’s advantage. (Or both, in which case Clinton could still lose.) Maybe there’s something to the argument that the race has tended to ebb and flow between narrower and wider Clinton leads, and that Clinton’s been at a high-water mark recently. I’m not totally sure that I buy it because of Trump’s lack of discipline on the campaign trail and the short amount of time left. But our model says to be cautious because of the still-high number of undecided voters and the broad swing state map, and that uncertainty could cut in either direction.
    The polls-plus model, in fact, still discounts Clinton’s lead slightly, expecting the race to tighten by a point or so. It has her squarely in the middle of the “Obama zone” instead of edging up against a landslide. It also uses a somewhat narrower probability distribution, since the extra information that polls-plus accounts for theoretically improves the forecast’s precision. So it has her with a 36 percent chance of an Obama-type win, a 32 percent chance of a blowout, and a 33 percent chance of having to sweat — either a close call or a loss.
    The point is really just this: To say that Clinton has (roughly) an 85 percent chance of winning is not to say that she’s going to glide to victory 85 percent of the time. The 85 percent figure includes its share of close calls, along with a (larger) share of blowouts. It includes a few oddball scenarios, like Clinton winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.3 One benefit of having a 6- or 7-point lead is that a couple of things can go wrong — including somewhat inaccurate polling — and you can still win.
    Nate Silver is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight.  
  • Chance of winning
    FiveThirtyEight
    Hillary Clinton
    85.8%
    Donald Trump
    14.2%
    FiveThirtyEight
  • Electoral votes

    Hillary Clinton
    338.9
    Donald Trump
    198.2
    Evan McMullin
    0.8
    Gary Johnson
    0.1

    Popular vote

    Hillary Clinton
    49.6%
    Donald Trump
    43.2%
    Gary Johnson
    5.6%
    Other
    1.5%
  • Chance of winning control
    FiveThirtyEight
    Democrats
    68.7%
    Republicans
    31.3%
    FiveThirtyEight

15 October 2016

Election Update: Watch New Hampshire For Signs Of A Trump Comeback 14OKT16

Want these election updates emailed to you right when they’re published? Sign up here.
Donald Trump hasn’t had a lot of good polling news lately. Very few swing-state polls have shown him with a lead since the first presidential debate, and those few leads have mostly been in states like Ohio and Iowa that aren’t part of Hillary Clinton’s path of least resistance to 270 electoral votes. To find good polls for Trump in states that could be part of Clinton’s firewall, you have to cherry-pick a bit — and you have to accept the fact that “good” in this context means trailing by a little instead of by a lot.
With that stipulated, some of Trump’s better numbers have come in New Hampshire. A MassINC poll released on Friday morning showed Trump trailing by only 3 percentage points there. And a Suffolk University poll last week — conducted before the release of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” videotape — had him down only 2 points in New Hampshire.
As I warned, that required a bit of cherry-picking. Several other polls of New Hampshire have been released since the first debate, and they have Clinton ahead by margins ranging from 6 to 11 percentage points — a safer margin than the MassINC or Suffolk polls show. New Hampshire is also one of the few swing states where Trump has spent more on advertising than Clinton— a deficit that the Clinton campaign could counteract if it feels as if the state is in jeopardy.
But as far as our model is concerned, the outcome in New Hampshire is more uncertain than in the other Clinton firewall states. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Trump’s chances of winning each state are determined both by how far ahead (or behind) Clinton is, and by how much uncertainty there is in the forecast. Compare Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, for example. Our polls-only model shows Trump as being ever-so-slightly closer to Clinton in Pennsylvania (where he trails her by 7.4 percentage points in our forecast) than in New Hampshire (7.6 points). But it gives Trump a somewhat higher chance of winning New Hampshire (17 percent) than Pennsylvania (11 percent).
STATEPROJECTED POP. VOTE MARGINTRUMP CHANCES OF WINNING
ColoradoClinton +6.714.5%
PennsylvaniaClinton +7.411.5
New HampshireClinton +7.616.8
MinnesotaClinton +7.812.1
WisconsinClinton +7.911.2
VirginiaClinton +8.29.2
MichiganClinton +9.17.7
Where can Trump break Clinton’s firewall?
Data as of Oct. 14
SOURCE: FIVETHIRTYEIGHT POLLS-ONLY FORECAST MODEL
That’s because it assigns more uncertainty to the forecast in New Hampshire. In our model, uncertainty is determined by four major factors. First is the quantity — and quality — of polling in each state. In most swing states, there’s generally enough polling that this isn’t a major source of uncertainty, although some, like Iowa, Minnesota and Arizona, could use more data. There’s plenty of polling in New Hampshire, however, if not quite as much as in states like Pennsylvania or North Carolina.
The second factor is the disparity between polling and demographics in each state. Where these are misaligned — as in Nevada earlier in the year, where demographics and voting history implied that Clinton “should” have been ahead, but polls showed her trailing — there’s more uncertainty in the forecast. This isn’t really an issue in New Hampshire, however. Instead, the numbers are in pretty strong agreement there, as our adjusted polling average has Clinton ahead by 7.7 points, while our demographic forecasthas her up 6.5 points.
But the third and fourth factors do contribute to uncertainty in New Hampshire. One of these is that New Hampshire is a small state; states with smaller populations have larger polling errors. Since 2000, for instance, the states with the largest average error in presidential polls, according to our pollster ratings database, are Hawaii, Delaware, Rhode Island, North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska and Vermont, all of which have just three or four electoral votes. While there are some other factors to control for,1 the trend is pretty robust even once you account for them. I suspect it’s because smaller states have more homogenous demographics. In diverse states such as Pennsylvania or North Carolina, voting is fairly predictable along demographic lines, and pollsters can correct a lot of sampling problems by using demographic weighting. That’s less true in states such as New Hampshire, Hawaii or Utah, which are more demographically idiosyncratic. If you don’t do a good job of capturing the Mormon vote in Utah, for example, your poll or forecast is going to be way off.
The final factor is that New Hampshire is more “elastic” than other swing states. By elastic — the way I’m using the the term is borrowed from economics — I mean that it tends to swing more with the national trends. Specifically, New Hampshire has an elasticity score of 1.19, which means that for every point that the national polls move, we’d expect New Hampshire to move by 1.19 points in the same direction. Thus, if there’s a 5-point shift back toward Trump nationally, we’d expect New Hampshire to swing by slightly more than that, by around 6 points instead.
STATEELASTICITY SCORE
New Hampshire1.19
Maine1.15
Colorado1.06
Iowa1.06
Minnesota1.05
Wisconsin1.04
Arizona1.02
Michigan1.01
Nevada1.00
Ohio1.00
Florida0.99
Virginia0.97
Pennsylvania0.96
North Carolina0.93
Georgia0.89
Which swing states swing the most?
These elasticity scores are calculated based on detailed assessments of each state’s demographics from the 2012Cooperative Congressional Election Study and the 2008 exit poll. And they get at some of the same concepts that I mentioned above. In Pennsylvania or North Carolina — relatively inelasticswing states — voters are highly bifurcated along racial, religious and other demographic boundary lines. Pennsylvania and North Carolina happen to be swing states because the number of Democratic-leaning groups is roughly the same as the number of Republican-leaning groups in each one. But they don’t actually have all that many swing voters. They tend to be states where turning out your base is more important than persuasion.
In New Hampshire, by contrast, there really are a lot of swing voters. In particular, there are lots of middle-class and upper-middle-class white voters who aren’t highly religious and don’t belong to one of the major parties. Those voters are often torn in their presidential vote in this and in other elections.
So while Clinton would be highly likely to win New Hampshire in an election held today, the question is what happens if Trump makes some type of comeback. If he does, we’d expect New Hampshire to move more with the national tide, while Pennsylvania would be more resistant. But Trump could limit Clinton to a 269-269 Electoral College tie if he wins New Hampshire while losing the other Clinton firewall states, with the tie potentially to be broken by the 2nd Congressional Districts of Maine and Nebraska2 — or failing that, by the House of Representatives.
screen-shot-2016-10-14-at-1-21-49-pm
screen-shot-2016-10-14-at-1-21-49-pm
Sure, some of these scenarios can get obscure. If Clinton wins Florida or North Carolina — or loses Pennsylvania — New Hampshire’s four electoral votes will look measly in comparison. But according to our voter power index, New Hampshirites have the most influential votes in the country in both the presidential and the contest for control of the U.S. Senate.
Overall, Clinton’s chances of winning the election are 86 percent in our polls-only forecast and 82 percent in polls-plus, little changed from recent days.

2016 Presidential Election Map

This isn't a popularity contest™
It will take 270 electoral votes to win the 2016 presidential election. Click states on this interactive map to create your own 2016 election forecast. Create a specific match-up by clicking the party and/or names near the electoral vote counter. Use Map Options to set the number of available ratings (colors) in your map. Use the buttons below the map to share your forecast or embed it into a web page.
Clinton
256
Trump
157

125
Select a Starting View:

Most likely to be contested Details
11MA
4RI
7CT
14NJ
3DE
10MD
3DC
Split Electoral Votes
ME 31
NE 311

Headlines

Lone Star State in Play? Trump Leads by Just 4 in New Poll

No Republican has carried Texas by fewer than 13 points since 1996; no Democrat has won here since Carter in 1976

Electoral College Projections as of October 13th

Where the race stands from the viewpoint of a number of forecasters

Six Seats May Decide the Battle for Senate Control

If Clinton wins, Democrats will need four seats to control the Senate. Here's where the 34 races currently stand

Poll Finds Clinton, Trump Tied in Utah; Independent McMullin Within Striking Distance

The state is up for grabs and a third party could win if able to consolidate disillusioned voters

Clinton Leads by 9 in an NBC/WSJ Poll; Trump Rebounds After Debate

NBC polls conducted before and after the presidential debate


About this Site
270towin.com is an interactive Electoral College map for 2016 and a history of Presidential elections in the United States. Since electoral votes are generally allocated on an "all or none" basis by state, the election of a U.S President is about winning the popular vote in enough states to achieve 270 electoral votes, a majority of the 538 that are available. It is not about getting the most overall popular votes, as we saw in the 2000 election, when the electoral vote winner (Bush) and the popular vote winner (Gore) were different.
Copyright © 2004-2016 270towin.com All Rights Reserved