What a year! The two most unpopular candidates of all time,
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, will be placed into nomination – and
presumably ratified, but who knows – in the coming weeks as the standard bearers
of their respective parties. Headliners
on the national scene for decades, both have traced decidedly unconventional paths to their
conventions, and arrive at them carrying the load of their own almost-lowest-ever
favorability levels, which is saying something.
The most recent poll, by CBS/New York Times, has Clinton’s favorability
rating at 28%, and Trump’s at 30%. It’s
hard to conceive.
This must have enormous
implications for the electoral vote, right?
Wrong.
We at BTRTN have
completed our first 50-state rack-up of the Electoral Vote – not a projection
or a prediction, just a snapshot of where we are – and the dashboard looks
eerily similar to 2012. At this juncture,
we find that a whopping four states out of the 50 – four! – are currently in
the opposite column from that of the 2012 election. Can it really be the same old song?
A little primer to
begin: those national polls, you know,
the ones that show Trump and Clinton about even now? Forget about them. Ignore them.
They don’t matter. This election
is won state-by-state in the Electoral College, so the only thing to pay
attention to are individual state polls.
And since we have already indicated that this is lining up to be a
typical election day (if an atypical campaign), you should only pay attention
to swing state polling. There are 40 states
that have voted, in the last four presidential campaigns, from 2000 to 2012,
either all blue or all red. That leaves
10 states that have swung both ways in that time: Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada,
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia and the two biggest of them all, Ohio
and Florida. Those 10 states account for
116 electoral votes this year, only 22% of the magic 538.
Those ten states are
the classically defined “swing states” – since they have actually swung – but a
few more states might be in play this year as well. Early polling shows that both Clinton and
Trump are only modestly ahead in states that have gone for their predecessor
nominee in four straight elections, and Clinton is actually ahead in a few of
those states that have only gone for the GOP in this century. More on that below. The point is, however narrowly you define the
swing states, they are the ones to watch.
On to the numbers….here
is the snapshot of the Electoral College at this time:
CLINTON - TOTAL
|
337
|
Clinton - Solid
|
232
|
Clinton - Lean
|
70
|
Clinton - Tossup
|
35
|
Trump - Tossup
|
29
|
Trump - Lean
|
50
|
Trump - Solid
|
122
|
TRUMP - TOTAL
|
201
|
Hillary Clinton is
ahead in a rather convincing manner at this point, 337 to 201, though hardly the landslide
that some envisioned (you need 270 to win, of course). Her electoral vote
count, by our calculations, is, in fact, nearly identical to that of Barack
Obama’s in 2012, when he won by 332 to 206 over Mitt Romney.
You may have seen
headlines in the past few days that indicate certain swing state races are
tightening or have flipped, presumably in the wake of the FBI email report
fall-out. This is true in part -- in the
last week, she has weakened in Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida and Ohio. But she has also strengthened in Virginia,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Colorado, and the net is about a wash.
But I will underline my
main point, and then get into the nitty-gritty of the state-by-state: this has been an unprecedented campaign, by
any stretch, with the boorish Donald Trump launching into elective politics
with the subtlety of a meteor, and Hillary Clinton – the first woman to head a
major party ticket -- fending off an unexpectedly strong challenge from Bernie
Sanders on the one hand, and the overhang of a never-ending (it seemed) FBI
investigation that could very well have led to an indictment, on the
other. But with all of that, this
race is closely hewing to the standard 21st century model, and will
likely come down to those same 10 swing states yet again (and perhaps a few
more), with Clinton likely prevailing.
The big 50-state-chart
is below, and here are a few comments before you dive into it if you wish.
·
You
can see by column (i) that there has not been a great deal of polling in any
state, and in many states – typically non-swing-states – there has been no
polling at all. Polling is just starting
to heat up. You can also see that in
some states, while there has been polling, it may be quite stale – say, the
last poll was done in May. So…caveats
galore.
·
Clinton
is actually leading -- by a narrow margin – in Kentucky and Arizona, two states
that have gone for the GOP in each of the four elections from 2000 to 2012.
·
But
she is only “leaning” in three states that have gone blue in those same four elections: Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And she is up by single-digits in states like
Connecticut, Michigan, Maine and New Mexico that Obama won twice by double-digits.
·
Trump,
on the other hand, can hardly count on the “red wall” – of the 20 states that
have gone red by double digits, on average, in the past four elections, he is
ahead in seven of them by only a single-digit margin. (This includes Utah, which was Mitt Romney
country, and Romney’s antipathy to Trump is coming through…Trump is only +7 in
a state Romney won by +48.) And there
has not been polling in half of other of those 20 states, meaning he has a measured double-digit lead in only
three states: Louisiana, Arkansas
and West Virginia.
I expect that Clinton’s
“convention bounce” will exceed that of Trump’s, and that will extend her lead
in the swing states. Clinton will benefit
from night-after-night of glowing hosannas from a glittering set of gifted
speakers: Bill Clinton, Elizabeth Warren,
Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and, of course, Barack Obama. Trump’s convention, with lesser lights (Ted
Cruz, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Newt Gingrich) offering, by contrast,
rather tepid homages to Trump, will likely not help him much, particularly if
demonstrators and crazies overshadow the proceedings. But we shall see.
*******************************
To explain the chart
itself, columns (C) through (F) note the margin between the Democratic
candidate and GOP candidate in each of the last four elections. Looking at the first line, this means that in
2012, Obama beat Romney by 84 margin points (the actual vote in DC was 91% for
Obama to 7% for Romney – a difference of 84 points. Column (G) gives the average margin of those
four years). Column (H) gives the
average of the most recent polls, and column (I) shows in what month those
polls occurred and how many in that month.
Column (J) gives our rating for the state, whether it is solid, leaning
or a tossup, blue or red. We try to
avoid “too close to call.” These ratings
add up to the numbers at the top of this article.
We will revisit these
charts many times in the next 115 days…enjoy your first look.
(a)
|
(b)
|
(c)
|
(d)
|
(e)
|
(f)
|
(g)
|
(h)
|
(i)
|
(j)
|
Democrat Minus Republican
|
2016 Electoral Votes
|
2000 Mrgn (D-R)
|
2004 Mrgn (D-R)
|
2008 Mrgn (D-R)
|
2012 Mrgn (D-R)
|
Avg Mrgn Last 4
|
Latest 2016 Polls as
of 7/14
|
Date (#) of
Polls
|
BTRTN Rating
|
DC
|
3
|
76
|
80
|
86
|
84
|
82
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Hawaii
|
4
|
18
|
9
|
45
|
43
|
29
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Rhode Island
|
4
|
29
|
21
|
28
|
27
|
26
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Vermont
|
3
|
10
|
20
|
37
|
36
|
26
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Massachusetts
|
11
|
27
|
25
|
26
|
23
|
25
|
Clinton +24
|
May (1)
|
Solid
|
New York
|
29
|
25
|
18
|
27
|
27
|
24
|
Clinton +23
|
June (1)
|
Solid
|
Maryland
|
10
|
16
|
13
|
25
|
25
|
20
|
Clinton +35
|
Apr (2)
|
Solid
|
Connecticut
|
7
|
18
|
10
|
22
|
18
|
17
|
Clinton +7
|
June (1)
|
Solid
|
California
|
55
|
12
|
10
|
24
|
21
|
17
|
Clinton +30
|
July (1)
|
Solid
|
Delaware
|
3
|
13
|
8
|
25
|
19
|
16
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Illinois
|
20
|
12
|
10
|
25
|
16
|
16
|
Clinton +25
|
Mar (1)
|
Solid
|
New Jersey
|
14
|
16
|
7
|
16
|
17
|
14
|
Clinton +21
|
June (1)
|
Solid
|
Maine
|
4
|
5
|
9
|
17
|
15
|
12
|
Clinton +7
|
June (1)
|
Solid
|
Washington
|
12
|
6
|
7
|
17
|
14
|
11
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Michigan
|
16
|
5
|
3
|
16
|
10
|
9
|
Clinton +7
|
Jul (1)
|
Solid
|
NEW MEXICO
|
5
|
0.1
|
-1
|
15
|
10
|
6
|
Clinton +8
|
May (1)
|
Solid
|
Minnesota
|
10
|
2
|
3
|
10
|
8
|
6
|
Clinton +13
|
Apr (1)
|
Solid
|
COLORADO
|
9
|
-8
|
-5
|
9
|
5
|
0.2
|
Clinton +8
|
July (5)
|
Solid
|
VIRGINIA
|
13
|
-8
|
-8
|
6
|
3
|
-2
|
Clinton +8
|
July (2)
|
Solid
|
Oregon
|
7
|
0.4
|
4
|
16
|
12
|
8
|
Clinton +5
|
May (2)
|
Lean
|
Pennsylvania
|
20
|
4
|
3
|
10
|
5
|
6
|
Clinton +4
|
July (2)
|
Lean
|
Wisconsin
|
10
|
0.2
|
0.4
|
14
|
7
|
5
|
Clinton +4
|
July (1)
|
Lean
|
NEW HAMP.
|
4
|
-1
|
1
|
10
|
6
|
4
|
Clinton +5
|
June (2)
|
Lean
|
NEVADA
|
6
|
-4
|
-3
|
13
|
7
|
3
|
Clinton +4
|
July (1)
|
Lean
|
N. CAROLINA
|
15
|
-13
|
-12
|
0.3
|
-2
|
-7
|
Clinton +6
|
July (1)
|
Lean
|
Kentucky
|
8
|
-15
|
-20
|
-16
|
-23
|
-18
|
Clinton +3
|
June (1)
|
Lean
|
IOWA
|
6
|
0.3
|
-1
|
10
|
6
|
4
|
Clinton +1
|
July (3)
|
Tossup
|
OHIO
|
18
|
-4
|
-2
|
5
|
2
|
0.2
|
Tie
|
July (2)
|
Tossup
|
Arizona
|
11
|
-6
|
-10
|
-9
|
-11
|
-9
|
Clinton +1
|
June (2)
|
Tossup
|
FLORIDA
|
29
|
0.0
|
-5
|
3
|
1
|
-0.3
|
Trump +0.3
|
July (3)
|
Tossup
|
Missouri
|
10
|
-3
|
-7
|
-0.1
|
-10
|
-5
|
Trump +5
|
Mar (1)
|
Lean
|
Georgia
|
16
|
-12
|
-17
|
-5
|
-8
|
-10
|
Trump +4
|
May (4)
|
Lean
|
South Carolina
|
9
|
-16
|
-17
|
-9
|
-11
|
-13
|
none
|
none
|
Lean
|
Montana
|
3
|
-25
|
-21
|
-2
|
-14
|
-15
|
none
|
none
|
Lean
|
Mississippi
|
6
|
-17
|
-20
|
-13
|
-12
|
-15
|
Trump +3
|
Mar (1)
|
Lean
|
South Dakota
|
3
|
-23
|
-22
|
-8
|
-18
|
-18
|
none
|
none
|
Lean
|
Alaska
|
3
|
-31
|
-26
|
-22
|
-13
|
-23
|
Trump +5
|
Jan (1)
|
Lean
|
INDIANA
|
11
|
-16
|
-21
|
1
|
-11
|
-11
|
Trump +8
|
Apr (2)
|
Solid
|
Tennessee
|
11
|
-4
|
-14
|
-15
|
-21
|
-13
|
Trump +9
|
May (1)
|
Solid
|
Louisiana
|
8
|
-8
|
-15
|
-19
|
-17
|
-15
|
Trump +16
|
May (1)
|
Solid
|
Arkansas
|
6
|
-5
|
-10
|
-20
|
-24
|
-15
|
Trump +11
|
June (1)
|
Solid
|
West Virginia
|
5
|
-6
|
-13
|
-13
|
-27
|
-15
|
Trump +27
|
May (1)
|
Solid
|
Texas
|
38
|
-21
|
-23
|
-12
|
-16
|
-18
|
Trump +8
|
June (1)
|
Solid
|
Kansas
|
6
|
-21
|
-25
|
-15
|
-22
|
-21
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Alabama
|
9
|
-15
|
-26
|
-22
|
-22
|
-21
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
North Dakota
|
3
|
-28
|
-27
|
-10
|
-20
|
-21
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Nebraska
|
5
|
-29
|
-33
|
-15
|
-23
|
-25
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Oklahoma
|
7
|
-22
|
-31
|
-31
|
-34
|
-29
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Idaho
|
4
|
-41
|
-38
|
-25
|
-32
|
-34
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Wyoming
|
3
|
-41
|
-40
|
-32
|
-41
|
-39
|
none
|
none
|
Solid
|
Utah
|
6
|
-41
|
-46
|
-28
|
-48
|
-40
|
Trump +7
|
June (1)
|
Solid
|
Good read....hope it stays the same.
ReplyDeleteYou and Nate are pretty close but you have a more positive (in my opinion) spin on the recent tightening. My heart hopes you are right, but my head says that the recent trend coupled with stale polling that doesn't fully capture that adverse (to Hilary) trend means that the race is actually depressingly closer than your numbers suggest.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at this NBC poll, which was fielded AFTER the FBI report. It might give you comfort:
Deletehttp://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-leads-trump-diverse-battleground-states-new-polls-n609551