2016 Polling Thread

[pbrower2a]

The Washington Post has polled all fifty states, missing only the District of Columbia and the separately-voting Congressional Districts of Maine and Nebraska. With such a rich collection of polls, I can begin anew:

Blank map.



OK -- not that new!

This is all by the same pollster even with over 5000 people polled in Texas, and some of the results are counter-intuitive. We can ignore prior controversies from hereon and be stuck with new ones (oh, well!). Counter-intuitive data can be right, and change in the way people show valid perception of the world often begins with counter-intuitive data. In a binary choice:

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®:

Blank map.



Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9% -- saturation 6
50-54.9% -- saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9% -- saturation 2

Any lead with less than 45% will be considered unusable.

Numeric data here:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/po...poll/2086/


A few comments:

1. We no longer have the situation in which anyone has a lead with less than 45% of the vote in any state. I will include no such polling results hereon unless the margin is outside the margin of error (4%).

2. I could say such things as "Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin typically closes late and hard against Republicans in a Presidential year", but I cannot say whether an inverse is true in other states. What you see happening in polls will be what you get.

3. As always I will reject any polls from trade associations, campaigns, political parties, lobbyists, unions, ethnic associations, or advocacy groups. Until recently I might have done so on the principle that 'beggars can't be choosers', but I am not begging any more. I already have data for all 50 states.

4. I was tempted to expect that the Dakotas might trend D because they are reasonably-well-educated states... but Donald Trump is doing well there.

5. Texas is a gigantic surprise. Of course a 1% lead there by a Democratic nominee is both counter-intuitive and practically insignificant. So basically, don't make a bet that Hillary Clinton will win Texas unless it be a long shot.

6. The only real chance that I see for a Trump pick up from any Obama state from 2012 is Iowa. Usually Iowa votes much like Wisconsin, but this time it seems to be voting more like Nebraska or South Dakota.

7. The small margin (by usual standards) for Nebraska suggests that the Second Congressional District will be in play. Maine's Second Congressional District will not be a quick call, but I can reasonably expect that Hillary Clinton will get all four electoral votes from Maine.

8. Mississippi close? What is going on there?

9. Wyoming looks like the best state for Trump, and Maryland looks like the best state for Clinton.

Binary here so far.