New State Polls (10/12/16)
Margin of Error
533 likely voters
892 likely voters
468 likely voters
424 likely voters
600 likely voters
409 likely voters
986 likely voters
1152 likely voters
500 likely voters
878 likely voters
Polling Quick Hits:
The midweek mark brought a couple of polls (Maine and Wisconsin) that were in the field over an eventful weekend bookended with the Friday Trump Tapes and the second presidential debate on Sunday night. Another two (Missouri and Ohio) commenced the night of the debate and the remaining four (Florida, Michigan, Nevada and Utah) were out completely after the tape and debate. Not to belabor the point, but that is at least something on the state level from which the effects of those events might begin to be felt.
The bottom line is that overall there is a bit of a continued nudge toward Clinton, but there is also not a consistent pattern in terms of how that is occurring. Six of the polls are part of a series the last poll of which was in the field since the conventions. The trendlines are not consistent. In some cases, Clinton gains and Trump holds steady (Maine and Wisconsin) while in others, Trump loses ground while Clinton holds pat (Florida and Michigan). Both slightly gained in the PPP survey in Nevada and Trump gained against expectations as Clinton dropped off some in Missouri.
But let's not get carried away about six observations. The early returns are mixed on the state level. More polls are on the way.
The first debate was something of a turning point in the polling in Florida. Since that time Clinton has only trailed twice out of eleven surveys (and even the online panel from UPI has shifted in Clinton's direction since its last wave there). The result is a more entrenched and durable Clinton advantage in the Sunshine state.
|Changes (October 12)|
|Maine CD2||Lean Trump||Toss Up Trump|
The biggest change in Michigan across the Glengariff surveys over the last two weeks has been Trump losing ground. Clinton, however, was not the beneficiary. Instead almost all of the five points Trump dropped were picked up by the two main third party candidates and the undecided category. On some level, that is something to watch in Michigan when future polls are released: Is Trump losing ground while Clinton remains stationary? That Clinton is hovering around the 40 percent would be problematic if Trump was gaining. But the former Secretary of State has led there almost wire to wire at this point and Trump has yet to capitalize.
The one bright spot for Trump on the day is in the Show-Me state where the Monmouth poll finds Trump ahead by a five point margin that keeps the state just where it has been: in the Lean Trump area. The margin is less noteworthy than the trajectory over Monmouth surveys. Trump has grown his support in the time since the firm's last poll there in August. But that poll was out at the same time as a number of other polls finding a similarly narrow divide. The most recent polls in Missouri have been pushing double digit Trump leads. And this poll represents a tightening (rather than the reverse when using the earlier Monmouth poll) comparatively. Still, at this point, for Trump to lose Missouri would require a significant shift against him.
Similar to the situation in Florida, Clinton has yet to trail in a poll of Nevada since the first debate. Her lead there is narrow but consistent in the FHQ averages. There is less data in Nevada, but that pattern is similar to the way that Obama's lead in the home stretch in Florida in 2012 was small but durable if not consistent.
Baldwin Wallace was last in the Field in Ohio in February. Then, Donald Trump had a modest two point lead over Clinton. But now, the poll finds Clinton up nine. That may or may not be an outlier when all the dust settles on the events surrounding the second debate (if it settles). However, while polling has shifted back in Clinton's direction since the first debate, it has not pushed up to nine points anywhere else. That may be the new normal in the Buckeye state, but that is not clear yet.
Some will focus on the tie between Clinton and Trump in Utah while others will turn their attention to the fact that Evan McMullin is nipping at their heels in the lower 20s. But the interesting thing is the divergence between the multi-way polls that have consistently found both candidates below 40 percent in the Beehive state while some of the online panel surveys have show a much (much) wider gap. That is mainly a function of the latter setting up the survey question as a binary choice that has pushed Trump's support up. It has also pushed his average share support up in the FHQ formula, keeping Utah just inside the Strong side of the Lean/Strong line for Trump. That is true at other sites as well. Utah looks to be narrowing, but by how much depending on what polls are included in the mix.
Finally in the Badger state, Clinton gained over the last Marquette survey there. Trump, on the other hand, was steady in the upper 30s. Like Michigan, Wisconsin is one of those Rust Belt-type states where the battle for Trump is getting above the 40 percent mark. Instead of moving up with under four weeks to go, Trump is either stuck in neutral or in reverse in those two states. Then again, both are well enough into the Lean Clinton category as to make peeling one or both of them off a real reach.
Yes, Maine-02 slid into the Toss Up Trump category, but Ohio also moved off the Watch List. The Buckeye state is no longer on the cusp of jumping over the partisan line into Trump territory (at this point anyway). On the Spectrum, Utah and Michigan shifted a spot each, but that was the extent of the change triggered by the addition of these polls.
NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
(272 | 275)
(301 | 266)
(316 | 237)
(334 | 222)
(340 | 204)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.
3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes is added approximately where it would fall in the Spectrum above.
4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1
from Toss Up Trump
to Lean Trump
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
from Toss Up Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
from Lean Clinton
to Strong Clinton
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
The Electoral College Map (10/11/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/10/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/9/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.