2016 Polling Thread

[The Wonkette]

(08-05-2016, 01:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here's my projection of what the map will look like if Hillary Clinton is barely winning Georgia.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



I can't say who wins Utah after Donald Trump has bungled the usual Republican support -- a write-in campaign for Mitt Romney?

Texas goes D before any of the states of the arc of states (LA, AR, TN, KY, WV) that Bill Clinton won twice that Obama got clobbered in twice. If educated white suburbanites in Greater Atlanta are going to Clinton in Texas, they are doing so in Texas, too. But I can't assure anyone that Republicans will win in the High Plains states.

Clinton winning South Carolina?????

[playwrite]

(08-05-2016, 02:18 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 01:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Here's my projection of what the map will look like if Hillary Clinton is barely winning Georgia.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



I can't say who wins Utah after Donald Trump has bungled the usual Republican support -- a write-in campaign for Mitt Romney?

Texas goes D before any of the states of the arc of states (LA, AR, TN, KY, WV) that Bill Clinton won twice that Obama got clobbered in twice. If educated white suburbanites in Greater Atlanta are going to Clinton in Texas, they are doing so in Texas, too. But I can't assure anyone that Republicans will win in the High Plains states.

Clinton winning South Carolina?????

 Yea, that might be a stretch even in the 2020s.    

Good catch.

[playwrite]

I like this cartographic over at Princeton Election Consortum  -




Not because it uses the color scheme I use to or that it is based on the latest polls that give a number of swing states to Clinton (doesn't yet give her GA or AZ).

Its because it's by electoral votes (population) and it makes more clear how the GOP is becoming a regional rump political party.  When Texas goes Blue, it's pretty much over.

[The Wonkette]

(08-05-2016, 01:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I just saw a credible poll in which Hillary Clinton takes a lead... in Georgia.

Aren't the Beatles great? It's beginning to feel like 1964 again!

Here's my projection of what the map will look like if Hillary Clinton is barely winning Georgia.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



I can't say who wins Utah after Donald Trump has bungled the usual Republican support -- a write-in campaign for Mitt Romney?

Texas goes D before any of the states of the arc of states (LA, AR, TN, KY, WV) that Bill Clinton won twice that Obama got clobbered in twice. If educated white suburbanites in Greater Atlanta are going to Clinton in Texas, they are doing so in Texas, too. But I can't assure anyone that Republicans will win in the High Plains states.

Clinton winning South Carolina???


That'll be the day.

[pbrower2a]

(08-05-2016, 03:22 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:

(08-05-2016, 01:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I just saw a credible poll in which Hillary Clinton takes a lead... in Georgia.

Aren't the Beatles great? It's beginning to feel like 1964 again!

Here's my projection of what the map will look like if Hillary Clinton is barely winning Georgia.

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



I can't say who wins Utah after Donald Trump has bungled the usual Republican support -- a write-in campaign for Mitt Romney?

Texas goes D before any of the states of the arc of states (LA, AR, TN, KY, WV) that Bill Clinton won twice that Obama got clobbered in twice. If educated white suburbanites in Greater Atlanta are going to Clinton in Texas, they are doing so in Texas, too. But I can't assure anyone that Republicans will win in the High Plains states.

Clinton winning South Carolina???


That'll be the day.

I don't know how that got on the map.

[Eric the Green]

I don't know if the current Trump debacle and Clinton bounce will last long enough to tilt Georgia to Hillary in November. If so, though, I'd agree with brower's projection, except for South Carolina; and Indiana and Missouri as well as Georgia would still be close. Texas would be close too, but still in Trump's column. But yes, if Georgia lands in Hillary's column, it's a virtual blowout, or as close to one as is possible these days. If we give IN, MO and GA to Hillary (plus one in Nebraska) and let Trump keep Texas, SC and Utah, that's 396 to 142.

[pbrower2a]

A composite of Presidential elections, 1976 and 1992-2012:




Deep red -- Democrats win every Presidential race. 248
Medium red -- Democrats win all but one Presidential race. 15
White -- always went with the winner 22
Pale blue -- went for the winner in all election, but in that exception went for the Republican 38
Yellow -- twice Democratic, but seeming to now drift Democratic 13
Green -- twice Democratic but seeming to drift Republican (Missouri in a light shade because Obama was close in 2008, others deep green) 38/48
Medium blue -- Republicans win all but one Presidential race. 56
Deep blue --Republicans win every Presidential race. 98

NE-02 is the middle box in Nebraska even if the district is Greater Omaha.

Mass dissatisfaction with the Republican party is strong outside core GOP areas. Republicans will need either a catastrophic failure of the Obama Administration or a quickly-forming cultural trend (like a right-wing religious revival) in most Blue (Atlas Red) states to create an opportunity.

OK, one might trade Nevada for Iowa... but that leaves the Republican nominee with several must-win states (Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina), none of which will be certain.

The winner of the Democratic nomination gets the Obama campaign apparatus intact.

[pbrower2a]

...I made a correction on South Carolina.

I have no reliable recent polls on Montana, either Dakota, Nebraska, or Kansas. I would guess that Donald Trump, a flamboyant narcissist and demagogue, may not do so well in those states as Republican nominees from Eisenhower onward.

[Anthony '58]

No way Hillary wins Texas.

The Cleveland Browns have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl this year.

[pbrower2a]

Hillary Clinton is up 12 in Virginia according to a poll by YouGov.

[pbrower2a]

(08-07-2016, 03:53 PM)Anthony Wrote: No way Hillary wins Texas.

The Cleveland Browns have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl this year.

No, maybe the Detroit Lions.

In 2008 Texas was about as far from being an Obama victory as Pennsylvania was from being a Democratic loss.

I figure that in 2008 and 2012 the white suburban vote in Georgia and Texas went anomalously well, in contrast to the white vote in other suburban areas. Maybe it was that the suburbs of Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are enough newer than those of such cities as Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia that they still have some rural characteristics and have yet to have obsolete infrastructure in need of Big Government to expand or rebuild at great cost.

But know well: those suburbanites in Georgia and Texas are well-educated, and if Georgia is swinging Democratic this year, then such is because educated white suburbanites in Greater Atlanta are showing signs of rejecting Donald Trump. Educated people hold demagogues even of their own side of the political spectrum in deep disdain.

I can't see Hillary Clinton doing much better in 2016 than Barack Obama did in 2008 in states that Obama won by 10% or more. Barack Obama won the 2008 Presidential election by 7.26%, which borders on a landslide.  (Since 1900 there have been close elections with the winner getting 58% or less of the electoral vote -- Truman in 1948, and Kennedy was close to that in 1960, 65% or more of the electoral vote --Taft in 1908, and 2012 -- Obama was close to the median, and had he lost Florida he would have had about 57% of the electoral vote). Obama's win by 7.26% in a binary election is hard to distinguish from the margin in popular vote from the wins of FDR in 1944 (7.50%) or the elder Bush in 1988 (7.72%).

If Hillary Clinton is ahead of Donald Trump by 10% or so, then she is already near the max-out levels for Barack Obama in 2008 for about 20 states including California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Her gains must be elsewhere.

I have seen recent polls showing that Arizona, Georgia, and Missouri might be on the margin of Clinton victories. At that point, Indiana gets iffy. Texas of course has the largest reservoir of white educated voters who could in theory swing toward Clinton. Hispanics (largely Mexican-Americans) are more conservative than Mexican-Americans elsewhere in America, which probably reflects that Mexican-Americans in Texas avoided the catastrophic meltdown in the real-estate hustle of 2007-2009. (Texas had such a crash in the 1980s very similar in cause and effect, and its politicians then -- Democrats and Republicans -- reformed the lending system to make liar loans and second mortgages more difficult to get). Such Mexican-American conservatives as there are in Texas are going to find Donald Trump as offensive as do Mexican-Americans elsewhere. Texas has thus two large groups of potential Romney-to-Clinton voters.

I have seen polls before the Party Conventions suggesting that Donald Trump would lose Texas by high-single-digit margins instead of the mid-teens or more that we are accustomed to seeing.

But even if Hillary Clinton does not swing fully enough for Hillary Clinton to win the state, then Texas will give her the biggest absolute swing in popular votes (it's Texas!)... and one of the largest (if not the largest) swing in electoral margin.  Educated suburbanites in Texas may still be conservative -- but they aren't crazy. Remember: educated people hold demagogues even of their own side of the political spectrum in deep disdain. Donald Trump is very much a demagogue.

[pbrower2a]

The most likely mass of Romney-to-Trump voters include two groups:

1. College-educated white people. Well-educated people are likely to recognize demagogues and the hazards that they pose, and hold them in deep disdain even if they are on the same side of the political spectrum. Educated white voters formed a large part of the Romney vote in Colorado and Virginia, both of which Barack Obama still won decisively in 2012. But Trump will find a big chunk of that vote turning on him.

2. Hispanics (largely Mexican-Americans in Texas and early-wave Cuban-Americans in Florida) more conservative than other Hispanics. Texas' Mexican-Americans have a difference from those outside Texas in that they missed out on the dubious experience of the real-estate crash of the latter part of the Double-Zero decade because Texas, having experienced a similar disaster in the real estate crash of about twenty years ago, had reformed its laws on lending so that people could not get loans for which they were grossly unqualified and were unable to take out second mortgages for consumer spending. Mexican-Americans, the ethnic group swiftest to buy houses as their income approaches middle-class levels, got burned badly in the 2007-2010 real-estate crash in California, Nevada, and Arizona; it will take a long tome for them to forgive a Republican Party which sponsored the corrupt boom in real estate while Dubya was President.

I'm guessing that Hispanics who could still vote for Mitt Romney won't find Donald Trump so acceptable after the vile stuff that he has said about some Hispanics.
That could be the difference between losing Virginia by 8% and losing it by 12%, which is what a recent poll suggests. Note well that the Senate seat in Colorado of incumbent Democratic Senator Bennett has gone out of reach for the challenger after having seemed vulnerable.

Again, so what will it matter whether Hillary Clinton wins Colorado by 12% instead of by 8% (which may be what I see soon, in view of the swing of Arizona which has some parallels to Colorado? Nothing.




Educated white voters were much of the Republican vote in Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts -- but any swing from Romney to Clinton will also be moot. There just aren't enough Republicans to swing. Guessing that well-educated Republicans in Hawaii and West Virginia are small parts of the Republican vote in both states for opposite reasons (Hawaii is majority-minority and has few Republicans; West Virginia is toward the bottom in educational achievement, and has few Democrats), I figure that a swing in Hawaii is likely moot and any swing in West Virginia will help Donald Trump. I have seen polls of Nevada suggesting a statistical tie -- but Nevada is also toward the bottom in educational achievement, and Democratic voters in Nevada are heavily minorities concentrated in Greater Las Vegas and Greater Reno. Ranching, mining, and casino-related services do not need educated workers in great numbers. Donald Trump might fare better than Mitt Romney there.

But -- most polls indicate that Hillary Clinton has a bigger lead than the margin of Barack Obama in 2008; Obama was gaining at the end in what had seemed like a close election until the last few weeks. Depending on your taste, Hillary Clinton is up from high single digits to low-double digits. So whence comes her swing?

[Ragnarök_62]

There's a A new kid in town.   Lots of polling companies shall now have diskie dumpies.

[pbrower2a]

Just amazing! Eight polls in two days! Some are two polls of the same state. But we get to add Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, and Ohio. Most imaginable swing states have just been polled.

Binary race, Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®  



Leader up with

60% or more -- saturation 80%
55-59% --     saturation 70%
50-54% --     saturation 60%
46-49%, margin 4% or greater saturation 40%
46-49%, margin 3% or less saturation 20%

(the usual color applies for the partisan leader, but yellow blue to green and red to orange below  

40-45%, margin 4% or greater, saturation 40%
43-45%, margin 3% or less, saturation 20%  





Small states and districts in area or with shapes that allow confusion:

FL T 0/6;4
NH D15/8,4

Clinton (D)
Trump ®
Johnson (L)

The nature of this election cycle must change dramatically for Donald Trump to have any chance of victory.

[Eric the Green]

(08-09-2016, 04:23 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: There's a A new kid in town.   Lots of polling companies shall now have diskie dumpies.

This is the Eagles song that belongs on the best songs ever thread (but I already posted it).

[pbrower2a]

The rationale for my coloring scheme:

1. Anyone with more than 50% of the vote is going to win whether in a one-way or 10-way race.
2. A strong third-party or independent nominee lowers the level of a win. Thus if third-party nominees take 10% of the vote, 45% +1 becomes a plurality.
3. In binary races, winners are already approaching 50% if not already there. A lead of 47-41 means something. A lead of 45-37 doesn't mean as much. Some candidates just can't go beyond 45% in a state even if they get there early, which explains why Barack Obama could be up 44-42 in the Dakotas in 2008 in the summer and still lose. Obviously some states are poor matches for nominees.
4. National tracking polls are up to date. Although winning a Presidential election with fewer popular votes than one's opponents is unlikely (it is luck), we all know about 2000 and over-react to the chance of such.
5. The red-blue color scheme comes from a source that still uses red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. I have orange and green for leads with less than 46% so that I can easily delete polls that show someone up 44-42 or even 44-38 early (44 is as much as the leader might get in some states in November, although the eventual leader might get a small lead with 45% or less early. If one does not end up at least close to 50% by the time of the election one loses a binary election. 44-42 Clinton in Mississippi could easily end up 56-44 for Trump. and 44-42 in Iowa for Trump could easily end up as 54-46 for Clinton. The reality of states may be more significant than the Presidential nominee in winning those states.
6. The states elect the President; the People do not. Although it is unlikely that someone will win the Presidency while getting less than a plurality of the popular vote, practically all voters remember 2000. The bigger the spread between candidates in the popular vote, the less likely it is that someone will win the Presidency with less than a plurality.

[pbrower2a]

Another poll suggests that Wisconsin, which barely went for Kerry in 2004, is out of reach for Donald Trump. 10% margin and over 50%.

[pbrower2a]

From a more experienced, and in some ways better, compiler of polls:



This is with more conventional colors.

full red -- strong Republican. Trump up 10% or more.
pink -- weak Republican. Trump up 5-9.9%
red outline on white -- barely Republican. Trump up less than 5%
white -- tie.
white with a blue outline -- barely Democratic. Clinton up by less than 5%
light blue -- weakly Democratic. Clinton up 5-9.9%
full blue -- strong Democratic. Clinton up 10% or more.

...................................

In 2008 (same legend), but of course Obama vs. McCain:


................................

2012 (Obama vs. Romney, again, same legend):



Hillary Clinton is ahead of Obama at the same point in two different years.

Source:http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Aug10.html

[Cynic Hero '86]

The Establishment are clearly scared sh*tless of Trump. The yesterday trump has spilled the beans of what was behind the creation of ISIS.

[pbrower2a]

Florida and North Carolina are averages.

Binary race, Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®  



Leader up with

60% or more -- saturation 80%
55-59% --     saturation 70%
50-54% --     saturation 60%
46-49%, margin 4% or greater saturation 40%
46-49%, margin 3% or less saturation 20%

(the usual color applies for the partisan leader, but yellow blue to green and red to orange below  

40-45%, margin 4% or greater, saturation 40%
43-45%, margin 3% or less, saturation 20%  



Johnson support:

16%+: 80
13-15: 70
10-12: 60
7-9: 50
4-6: 40
2-3: 30
0-1: 20
Poll w/ no Libertarian number: clear




Donald Trump is now doing so badly that the combined polling for Johnson and Stein is beginning
 to approach his.




Small states and districts in area or with shapes that allow confusion:

FL D4/4;4
ME D 10/10; 4
NH D15/8,4

Clinton (D)
Trump ®
Johnson (L)

The nature of this election cycle must change dramatically for Donald Trump to have any chance of victory.