Home-stretch polling

[pbrower2a]

Why is Georgia tied?

Trump had a small lead with less than 45% of the vote.   That is to prevent the situation that I saw in 2008 when I saw Obama up 27-36 in Tennessee (he got a little over 37% of the vote) or Montana or the Dakotas with 44-42 leads (he ended up with something like 46% of the vote and lost).

I saw lots of 44-32 leads early, and most of those have become something like 52-42 or 49-43. As a rule one builds upon such leads  to get near or over 50% or one loses.

There are plenty of crappy pollsters out there. We are also getting some November surprises... The server link to Russia looks very, very bad.

[J. J.]

I am not using the map for percentages.  The lighter shades are my tossups, showing a guess of how each will go. 



I am assuming a slight trend to Trump, and looked as past elections.  I have it at:

Clinton:  269
Trump:  269

I was not trying to come out with a tie.

A stronger trend to Trump and he wins; the tide shifts slightly to Clinton, she wins.  A tidal wave and well ....  If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

I would also be watching to see what the CD's in Maine and Nebraska do.  It may come down to one of those.

[King]

If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

How many more elections until you stop jacking off to Reagan's 1980 win?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But what will the price of gold be by election day? Could be decisive imo.

[Crumpets]

I am not using the map for percentages.  The lighter shades are my tossups, showing a guess of how each will go. 



I am assuming a slight trend to Trump, and looked as past elections.  I have it at:

Clinton:  269
Trump:  269

I was not trying to come out with a tie.

A stronger trend to Trump and he wins; the tide shifts slightly to Clinton, she wins.  A tidal wave and well ....  If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

I would also be watching to see what the CD's in Maine and Nebraska do.  It may come down to one of those.

NC at solid R?!

[Snek!]

I am not using the map for percentages.  The lighter shades are my tossups, showing a guess of how each will go. 



I am assuming a slight trend to Trump, and looked as past elections.  I have it at:

Clinton:  269
Trump:  269

I was not trying to come out with a tie.

A stronger trend to Trump and he wins; the tide shifts slightly to Clinton, she wins.  A tidal wave and well ....  If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

I would also be watching to see what the CD's in Maine and Nebraska do.  It may come down to one of those.

NC at solid R?!

This is Trumps best case scenario. Hillary is up mid single digits in VA,CO,PA,MI, and WI. Let's see where NH is. We need to keep NC/FL close though.

[Arch]

I am not using the map for percentages.  The lighter shades are my tossups, showing a guess of how each will go.  



I am assuming a slight trend to Trump, and looked as past elections.  I have it at:

Clinton:  269
Trump:  269

I was not trying to come out with a tie.

A stronger trend to Trump and he wins; the tide shifts slightly to Clinton, she wins.  A tidal wave and well ....  If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

I would also be watching to see what the CD's in Maine and Nebraska do.  It may come down to one of those.

NC at solid R?!

This is Trumps best case scenario. Hillary is up mid single digits in VA,CO,PA,MI, and WI. Let's see where NH is. We need to keep NC/FL close though.

Absurd map. Please let PB continue his thread. You can go post your fantasy maps in the appropriate threads.

[Edu]

Good to see that after all these years J. J. is still terrible at predicting elections.

Great consistency from the great MENSA member

[pbrower2a]

There are so many polls coming in that I can't keep track of them all. I so expect this in the last two weeks of the electoral season.

[pbrower2a]

If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

How many more elections until you stop jacking off to Reagan's 1980 win?

Indeed,

(1) Ronald Reagan challenged an undeniably-failed incumbent President. Except for a difference in the issues of the time, Reagan 1980 has an eerie resemblance to FDR in 1932.

Barack Obama has solid approval ratings, so this race involves a challenger against someone closely connected to the promises and policies of an incumbent President whom Americans hold in high regard.

The analogy is thus to either 1960, 1988, or 2000. 1960 was a very close loss for the Party with the incumbent President. 1988 was a decisive win for the Party with the incumbent President.

(2)  Ronald Reagan won the  upscale, socially-liberal "Rockefeller Republicans" then a big part of the Republican Party. Although Nelson Rockefeller has been gone for over twenty years his constituency remains -- but it has largely drifted Democratic. Donald trump is not getting that vote. 

(3) Ronald Reagan also did a good job of assuaging possible fears of ethnic and religious minorities. Donald Trump has given those ethnic and religious minorities much to fear while stirring up white enmity toward middle-class non-whites and non-Christians.

(4) Ronald Reagan  may not have been the ideal Christian (a divorcee) in his personal life, but Donald Trump's behavior is grossly un-Christian. He's struggling in Utah solely because his personal life is a travesty of Mormon family values not far from mine. By a travesty of Christian values I do not mean celebrating Passover, facing Mecca when praying, or keeping an image of Ganesha. If one grabs crotches of women or walks into the changing room of people of the other gender, then one's expressions of religious identity are irrelevant. I can vote for people of faith -- any faith -- so long as they live up to the standards that they preach. 

(5) The closest analogue as President that I see for Barack Obama is Dwight Eisenhower in temperament and level of achievement. The ideal President to follow a cautious President with a scrupulous respect for legal formalities and precedent (in that Obama is much like Ike) would be a new John F. Kennedy. I see nothing in Hillary Clinton or in Donald Trump that suggests a new John F. Kennedy.

The first two terms of FDR? That may be what he wanted to be as president, but the Tea Party "revolution" made that impossible. But Eisenhower is still considered an above-average President. More blatantly intellectual than Eisenhower, Obama has most media on his side as Eisenhower didn't...

He is certainly  not the New Herbert Hoover and he is like Jimmy Carter only in his personal life and avoidance of scandals. He isn't Dubya, either.

(6) Going into 2016, Republicans had the potential to exploit Presidential fatigue: after eight years of even an above-average President, people want something very different. Indeed, Donald Trump could hardly be more different from Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton ends up defending the policies and achievements of Barack Obama, which is usually good for a loss. People eventually want change, and Donald Trump is drastic change.

So what can go wrong?

Caution is a virtue, and Donald Trump is scary. Barack Obama is a stickler for precedent and formality, and Donald Trump is clearly not so. Donald Trump has the crankiest foreign policy since George McGovern. (I talk about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy, and I end up defending Reagan and the elder Bush). Donald Trump has a personal life so rakish as to be indefensible. One votes for him despite his behavior, and not because of it. He has no experience in politics or governmental administration, so he makes huge blunders as a campaigner. Above all, Donald Trump has created large blocks of people who distrust him whose demographics ordinarily suggest that they might be swing voters for Republicans. 

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Why is NH not tied?

[pbrower2a]

I'm not going to do more maps. There is a near plethora of polls...

by PPP, and Donald Trump will not win nationally with these results:

Missouri: Trump +11
Trump - 52%
Clinton - 41%

Nevada: Clinton +3
Clinton - 48%
Trump - 45%

New Hampshire: Clinton +5
Clinton - 48%
Trump - 43%

North Carolina: Clinton +2
Clinton - 49%
Trump - 47%

Pennsylvania Clinton +4
Clinton - 48%
Trump - 44%

Wisconsin: Clinton +7
Clinton - 48%
Trump - 41%

Polls conducted for Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/11/03143903/NationalMemo112-Final.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Marist for NBC. Very weak results for Trump in states that he must win decisively to have a real chance nationwide:

Arizona:

Trump 45%
Clinton 40%
Johnson 9%
Stein 3%

Georgia:

Trump 45%
Clinton 44%
Johnson 8%

Texas:

Trump 49%
Clinton 40%
Johnson 6%
Stein 2%

All were conducted from Oct. 30 to Nov. 1.

[pbrower2a]

My next map will probably be some comparison of the completed 2016 Presidential election to that of some other Presidential election.

[pbrower2a]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/11/clinton-leads-by-5-in-firewall-states.html

Virginia:

Clinton 48
Trump 43
Johnson 4
Stein 1
McMullin 1

Michigan:

Clinton 46
Trump 41
Johnson 6
Stein 2

Colorado:

Clinton 48
Trump 43
Johnson 4
Stein 2
McMullin 1

FYI: These are the final PPP public polls this cycle.

Game over.

[dirks]

If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

How many more elections until you stop jacking off to Reagan's 1980 win?

What is happening right now is the closest we've seen to 1980. 2004...2012. Those races hardened at a point and there was very little exciting movement in the late hours. 84 was a bore. so was 88. This is a lot of fun

[pbrower2a]

According to a "news" story on  GOP Pravda (a/k/a FoX News), Donald Trump has momentum on his side as the election providentially closes up.  

Meanwhile CNN has a poll showing Hillary Clinton up 2 in Florida.

[olowakandi]

I am not using the map for percentages.  The lighter shades are my tossups, showing a guess of how each will go. 



I am assuming a slight trend to Trump, and looked as past elections.  I have it at:

Clinton:  269
Trump:  269

I was not trying to come out with a tie.

A stronger trend to Trump and he wins; the tide shifts slightly to Clinton, she wins.  A tidal wave and well ....  If there is a 1980 style shift, it will go for Trump.

I would also be watching to see what the CD's in Maine and Nebraska do.  It may come down to one of those.

Clinton will lose VA before she loses NH.  NH is a blue state as well as NV

Clinton 272
Trump 266
not including VA of course

[pbrower2a]

California, Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner


Clinton 54%
Trump 30%
Johnson 4%
Stein 3%

Good pollster, but nearly a one-Party state. Good for calibrating sure-win states for Clinton.
Georgia:

http://opinionsavvy.com/2016/11/04/poll-trump-ahead-in-georgia-by-four/

Trump - 49% (50)
Clinton - 45% (46)
Johnson - 6% (3)

Clinton is still winning the early vote: 51% to 43%
Trump wins day-of voters: 57% to 34%

Trump wins 65% of white voters; Clinton wins 80% of black voters


Iowa, Selzer, Des Moines Register

Trump - 46%
Clinton - 39%
Johnson - 6%
Stein - 1%

Poll conducted Nov 1-4.

At first glance, the early vote offers a bright spot for Clinton, where she enjoys a 22-point advantage over Trump. That’s a testament to her campaign’s heavy focus on banking votes during Iowa’s 40-day early vote period. But the data indicate it will not be enough to overcome Trump's support.

Voters who have already cast their ballots represent 34 percent of poll respondents. Among the remaining two-thirds of respondents who haven’t voted but plan to, Trump leads by 21 percentage points, 53-32.

Among other groups, meanwhile, Clinton’s lead is significantly lower than the advantage she enjoys nationally. She holds just a 3-point lead among women, for example, a demographic Democrats have been banking on to reject Trump and lift Clinton and one that she leads by a dozen or more points in national polls.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2016/11/05/iowa-poll-trump-opens-7-point-lead-over-clinton/93347134/?hootPostID=244ad51ae6af519614281eb8c6904b90

New Mexico -- Albuquerque Journal:

https://www.abqjournal.com/883092/clinton-still-ahead-in-new-mexico.html

Clinton 45% (+10)
Trump 40% (+9)
Johnson 11% (-13)
Stein 3% (+1)

New York (as if there should be any surprise, but this is good for calibration of sure-win states for Hillary Clinton:

http://files.constantcontact.com/9c83fb30501/486bf15f-bd24-43fa-988f-79ba63efc430.pdf

NY - Siena College: Clinton +17, Nov 3-4

Compared to    OCT. 13-17  

Clinton    51 (-3)
Trump    34  (+4)
Johnson   5
Stein        2

Ohio, Columbus Dispatch:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/11/06/dispatch-poll-finds-presidential-race-too-close-to-call.html#

Clinton 48%
Trump 47%

The Ohio poll gives me enough data for a state-by-state prediction.

[pbrower2a]

The state that will give the weirdest of all possible results, Utah:

https://www.scribd.com/document/330023731/UTAH-Final

Trump - 35
Clinton - 29
McMullin - 24
Johnson - 3
Stein - 1

[pbrower2a]

My prediction, Sunday morning before Election Day, with only one allowable tie:

Hillary Clinton (D)  vs. Donald Trump (R)




Tie -- white

solid -- 10% or more, saturation 7
firm -- 5 to 9.99%, saturation 5
shaky -- less than 5% , saturation 2  

[Ljube]

Michigan firm D?

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Michigan firm D?

With Trump talking on the news, recommending taking jobs out of MI, sure.

[pbrower2a]

Here's another.

Clinton 42.9
Trump 39.0
Johnson 4.7
Stein 0.9

84,292 LV interviewed

50 state roundup:

Alabama: Trump +21
Alaska: Trump +0.3 (with Johnson at 12)
Arizona: Trump +8.5
Arkansas: Trump +17.5
California: Clinton +21.4
Colorado: Clinton +5.2 (Johnson at 6)
Connecticut: Clinton +10.8
Delaware: Clinton +19.1
DC: Clinton +73
Florida: Clinton +1.1
Georgia: Trump +4.9
Hawaii: Clinton +26.3
Idaho: Trump +19.5
Illinois: Clinton +15.2
Indiana: Trump +7.2
Iowa: Clinton +3.1
Kansas: Trump +15.9
Kentucky: Trump +20
Louisiana: Trump +11.4
Maine: Clinton +4.7-----Johnson at 8.5, Stein at 3.8
Maryland: Clinton +25.8
Massachusetts: Clinton +22.7
Michigan: Clinton +6
Minnesota: Clinton +6.4
Mississippi: Trump +6
Missouri: Trump +7.5
Montana: Trump +12.4
Nebraska: Trump +12.6
Nevada: Clinton +1.6
New Hampshire: Clinton +8.6
New Jersey: Clinton +12
New Mexico: Clinton +7.1 (Johnson at 11.4)
New York: Clinton +21.3
North Carolina: Clinton +2.2
North Dakota: Trump +12.5
Ohio: Clinton +1.7
Oklahoma: Trump +26.6
Oregon: Clinton +7.8
Pennsylvania: Clinton +1.5
Rhode Island: Clinton +17.8
South Carolina: Trump +11
South Dakota: Trump +18.3
Tennessee: Trump +14.6
Texas: Trump +7.9
Utah: Trump +9.1 (Trump 33, Clinton 24)
Vermont: Clinton +16 (Stein at 5)
Virginia: Clinton +9.1
Washington: Clinton +15.7
West Virginia: Trump +28.3
Wisconsin: Clinton +4.5
Wyoming: Trump +32.8

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161107_50_1.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Odd set of polls, not so much for the results as they for for refuting some recent outlier polls that seemed way out of line. Gravis has been sort of OK without Breitbart, but its polls for Breitbart have been strongly for Trump.

These fellows might prefer to be accurate at the end so that they can't be seen as glaringly wrong after the election.

Game over. Cue the "death" music for Pac-Man or the, the 'goat' motif from Let's Make a Deal, or the 'loser' riff on The Price Is Right.

I intend to close this thread in a couple of hours. Please comment now. Polls are forecasts. Tomorrow will feature the most important election in a long time in America.