27 October 2016

Battleground/National Report, 26 October, 2016 - T-minus 13 days (Clinton 323 / Trump 180 / Tossup 35)

Wednesday, October 26th, 2016, was exactly 13 days before the General Election on November 8, 2016. T-minus less than two weeks.... final sprint....

Complete polling results for all states for 2016 to-date are here as an EXCEL table for 10/26/2016 in GOOGLE DOCS. All polls are hyperlinked.

So, my methodology for doing averages in this wild-and-wooly-sometimes-3-way election was explained in the first Battleground Report, from 11 October, 2016.

The Battleground table is pretty darned detailed. The LEGEND for said table is HERE. In fact, you need to read it in order to develop an "eye" for the Battleground tab.

9 national polls came in on 10/26 plus polls for the following states: FL (1), LA (1), NH (2), NV (2) and UT (1), for a sum total of 16 polls.  It was a relatively sparse day in battleground polling and although the NV polls have tightened up the aggregate, the battlegrounds and tossups have not changed at all:

This also means that the electoral landscape prediction is unchanged from 10/25:

In New Hampshire, there were two polls with pretty disparate results: a Monmouth poll showing Clinton +4 (4-way) and an NBC/Marist showing Clinton +8 (2-way) and +9 (four-way), but the real reason why the statistic fell slightly is because a poll fell out of the bottom of the 7-day time window. But let's take a hard look at this: Clinton is at an aggregate of +8.41. That is the highest aggregate for any candidate since 2008, and in comparison to this day, 13 days before the election in 2012 (10/24/2012), which showed an aggregate of Obama +1.40, Clinton is currently running 7 points better in NH than Obama was. She is also running 7 points better nationally than Obama was at this juncture, so the two statistics are tracking with each other.  New Hampshire has often been a bitterly contested battleground state: it was a +1.2 - +1.4 race in 1992, 2000 and 2004, but since 2008, is not really as competitive as the press and pundits want to make it out to be. And when even Emerson College, which does landline only polling, which automatically will skew hard to the right (do I even need to explain why?) shows Clinton up by +8 in New Hampshire, then you know that it's all pretty much over with. Another sign that this state is definitely no longer in the battlegrounds is that Republican-friendly pollsters are not taking the time to poll the state. Rasmussen, Emerson, Mason-Dixon, Pulse - not of these firms have polled New Hampshire even once.  And Trump is not campaigning here, either. For fun, I am going to keep the state in the battleground table until election day, but it's not really necessary.

In NEVADA, two polls came in yesterday, both showing mathematical absolute ties. I consider this to be only somewhat possible, especially considering that pollsters have been off in the West for years now because they keep undercalculating the Latino vote. That being said, Nevada can be a quirky state - so wait and see. This has tightened the aggregate, but Clinton is up in Nevada right now by about the margin that George W. Bush won in his 2004 re-election: a lean but stubborn aggregate in her favor. The numbers tell me that this race is tight. But the early voting statistics coming out of Nevada plus my gut feeling tell me that it is not nearly as tight as people think.

In UTAH, a Rasmussen update poll came in, showing Trump +3 over Evan McMullin (4th party candidate) and +4 over Clinton.  That's a statistical tie, but the last RAS showed a mathematical tie, so there may very well have been some movement toward Trump since 10/17. Interestingly enough, most of the other 4-way polls fell out of the statistic, including a CBS poll that showed Trump +17, so the aggregate actually fell ever so slightly. I've written a lot in other battleground reports about possible scenarios in Utah, how they could play out, so I do find this fascinating... fascinating that the word UTAH even comes close to the word "battleground". One very telling thing is that Trump has not gone to campaign in Utah at all, but Clinton just may.


It should be noted that the AP/GKF poll shows some eye-popping values, whilst the Dornsife poll has slipped back into Trump territory - and makes for about a 15 point difference. This really cannot exist in the same universe at the same time....

The tracking list:

12 October 2016, Clinton +5.52, -0.21
13 October 2016, Clinton +6.61, +1.08*
14 October 2016, Clinton +6.75, +0.14
15 October 2016 - no battleground report posted
16 October 2016, Clinton +6,44, -0.31
17 October, 2016, Clinton +7.35, +0.92*
18 October, 2016, Clinton +6.91, -0.45
19 October 2016, Clinton +6.64, -0.27
20 October 2016 - no battleground report posted
21 October 2016, Clinton +6.74, +0.10
23 October 2016, Clinton +6.02, -0.72
24 October 2016, Clinton +6.25, +0.23
25 October 2016, Clinton +6.37, +0.23
26 October 2016, Clinton +6.73, +0.36
*Due to rounding, the difference is off by 0.01

On this corresponding day in 2012the national aggregate shifted from Romney +0.06 on 10/23 to Obama +0.17 on 10/24, so Clinton is currently 6.56 points ahead of where Obama was four years ago.

If you look at the margins, you see a gentle rising and falling - often called the sinus-curve effect. I fully expected to see this.

And some end-statistics: I first started collecting 2016 presidential polls at the beginning of October 2013 and since then I have logged 4,380 matchups from 2,261 individual polls. You can find the breakdown to this stuff at the EXCEL table, in the tab that says "poll totals".

For past reference, here is the ELECTORAL LANDSCAPE from 16 days before the GE 2012, from 10/23/2012.  And here is also the corresponding report from 10/21/2008.

One more thing: early voting has begun and there are lots of stats coming out of many states. Soon, I will be collating that data as well.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Constructive comments and critique are always welcome. Please keep it polite and respectful.