State of the race - Nov 3rd

So a rush of Kamala Harris leading polls dropped this weekend, one even showing Harris winning Iowa. Tis to laugh. But there are a bunch of New York Times swing state polls spelling good news for Kamala Harris, among others. I just don't buy it.  Here's what I am seeing as of this morning:

I see Trump winning handily in Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia. I also see him winning in Nevada and Pennsylvania by slim margins, and I see nailbiters that either candidate could win, in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Now let me caveat my own findings.

In Michigan there's a Marist poll that's got Harris ahead by 3, while the rest of the recent and reasonable polls have the race too close to call. So as a nailbiter I still think Michigan is leaning Trump but it is a too close to call state. With Trump typically overperforming his polling, I think this should still go Trump.  However, I do not say that with overwhelming confidence and it could be stolen by Democrat shenanigans. 

The story in Wisconsin is similar to Michigan; a Marist poll pulling the average towards Kamala. Looking at only the three polls that I think fit the late stage and reasonable margin of error, sample size and likely without sample issues, I see Trump at 50.5% and Harris at 49.5%. Tight but winnable for Trump.

North Carolina has swung closer to Trump, but all of the four polls I am including are what most consider right-leaning pollsters; Fox, Rasmussen, Atlas Intel and Trafalgar. I'm not suggesting these pollsters are wrong, but there is a risk of confirmation bias and polling bias overstating Trump support. 

The same is true for Georgia (two polls, both from the aforementioned group) and to a lesser extent, Arizona (three polls, two right leaning and one I am unfamiliar with). It is also the case for Nevada, with 3 reasonable late polls all showing Trump ahead, but all three are right leaning pollsters. That said I think the first two states are both pretty solidly Trump. Nevada is probably a lot closer but I'd give a slight edge to Trump.

That leaves Pennsylvania, where there are seven viable polls. On the left leaning side, the Washington Post has Harris ahead by roughly 1, Marist has her ahead by 3. The other poll I think skews a bit left is Quinnipiac, which actually has Trump ahead by 2. The right leaning polls are as follows, Fox - Trump +2, Insider Advantage - Trump +1, Rasmussen - Trump +2 and Atlas Intel - Trump +2. I think Trump wins the state.

Overall, I still see Trump winning the electoral college, handily, minus any malfeasance.

For what it's worth, for the national popular vote I am seeing Trump at 50.94%.

State of the Race - Halloween edition

In the latest RCP average of polls in the swing states, Kamala Harris has pulled back ahead of Donald Trump in Wisconsin and Michigan, while Trump has opened his lead further in a few of the other states. For any new readers, I don't go by a straight lift of the RCP data, as not all polls are created equal. I filter out polls that do not share their poll population, or where the polled population is too low to consider statistically significant. I also filter out polls that are more than 10 days old (this week I am lowering that to 7 days). Any poll with a margin of error greater than 3.5% is not reliable in my opinion either. Likely voters are a must but pretty much every poll now is only looking at likely voters rather than registered voters or all adults.

All of that has to be taken into consideration, without even getting into the crosstabs of who was polled. Many pollsters still, oversample Democrats and it skews their results.

Here is what I am seeing as of today, but I have a caveat to apply to my findings:

Trump has from the above as well as safe states, enough electoral college votes to secure a victory, winning all of the swing states, and the electoral college by 312 to 226. But Pennsylvania is a must in this scenario and frankly, I don't implicitly trust their vote counts. The three rust belt states (PA, WI and MI) appear to be within the grasp of Harris at the moment. Trump's leads are thin (1.96%, 0.36% and  0.69% respectively). That makes a 'steal' more possible for the Democrats. I don't like it. And in fact if they were trying to create a plausible scenario for a surprise Kamala 'victory', from a RCP viewpoint they have succeeds.

But here are my caveats on my own results; (1) I have not looked at the crosstabs of any of the individual polls, and more importantly (2) these polls that do meet my statistical standards, are mostly all conservative leaning or neutral pollsters.  The latter point means that while Trump leads, the may truly be razor thin leads, making a stolen election possible.

Where the Democrats seem to be conceding are states that do not matter.  They appear to have written off Georgia and Arizona.  Trump needs those, Kamala does not. The Harris campaign also has apparently pulled a bunch of ad buys from North Carolina.  Trump needs the state, Kamala does not. Nevada, does not matter to either candidate in the current calculus. The Rust Belt is what matters. Kamala needs all 3, Trump only needs one to win.

Despite the polymarket betting that Trump has a 2 out of 3 chance of winning, despite Trump apparently leading in the national vote total, and despite him leading in enough (or conceivably all) the swing states, if Harris wins Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, she wins 270-268. That still makes this race a nail biter.

State of the race: October 14th

 

Click to enlarge.

Taken from the RCP polls, and including only polls that are likely voters, with a sample size greater than 500 or more, and a margin of error less than or equal to 3.5% and polls taken on September 30th or later.

This map would lead to a Trump win with 306 electoral college votes, the same as in 2016.  I think this time around he may do better than this shows at the moment.

NOTE:  Applying the same logic to national polls, Kamala Harris appears to still be leading in the popular vote, but not by a great margin.

State of the race

Here's my latest take on the race, based on polls of likely voters within the past 14 days, with at least a 500 sample size. The only state with no valid polls based on my criteria, is Georgia.

Interestingly, outside of one poll in North Carolina, there are only two pollsters with polling that qualifies, and both tend to favor Republicans in their methodology.  Is it possible there's a bias in my selection? Yes, seeing as how the included polls are clearly right-leaning.  But the problem with that conclusion is that they are the most recent polls, they do have a reasonable sample size, and they are polling likely voters, which is more informative than registered voters or just all adults.

Without getting into the crosstabs of voters and whether the sample compositions are indicative of the electorate, it's a better quick and dirty than how RealClearPolitics just does a recency and non-duplicate pollster check. I trust my averages more than that of RCP. 

Further, check out The Peoples' Pundit on Benny Johnson, who explains some more details on why Trump is very likely winning right now.

The state of the race today.

A good summary from Ben Shapiro on the presidency, the senate, the Democrat reaction, and more.

State of the race - what I see

Taking a look at the RealClearPolitics average of polls in the battleground states, I am seeing results that are odds with their interpretation of who is leading the race for president in 2020. President Trump currently has 205 electoral college votes.  Joe Biden currently has 201 electoral college votes and there are 132 electoral college votes that have not yet been decided.*

In the swing states I'm seeing the following results based on the available RCP aggregation of polls: 

-- Texas has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 52.7% and Biden has 47.3% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 5.4%. 

-- Florida has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- Pennsylvania has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 50.1% and Biden has 49.9% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 0.1%. 

-- Ohio has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 52.3% and Biden has 47.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 4.6%. 

-- Georgia has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 50.3% and Biden has 49.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 0.6%. 

-- Michigan has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 49.4% and Biden has 50.6% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 1.1%. 

-- North Carolina has a total of 3 valid polls. Trump has 51.1% and Biden has 48.9% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 2.2%. 

-- Virginia has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 49.4% and Biden has 50.6% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 1.2%. 

-- Arizona has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. 

-- Wisconsin has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. 

-- Minnesota has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 48.8% and Biden has 51.2% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 2.4%. 

-- Colorado has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- Nevada has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 43.8% and Biden has 56.2% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 12.3%. 

-- Iowa has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- New Mexico has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- New Hampshire has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.

-- Maine has a total of 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up. Trump has 39.3% and Biden has 60.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 21.3%. 

As for electoral college wins: most are still toss-ups if you look at the validity of the state polls.

Texas (38) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Florida (29) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Pennsylvania (20) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Ohio (18) --Trump would get the electoral college votes.

Georgia (16) -- Trump would get the electoral college votes.

Michigan (16) -- Biden would get the electoral college votes.

North Carolina (15) -- Trump would get the electoral college votes.

Virginia (13) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Arizona (11) No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Wisconsin (10) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Minnesota (10) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Colorado (9) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Nevada (6) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Iowa (6) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

New Mexico (5) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

New Hampshire (4) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

Maine (4) -- No one currently is winning the electoral college vote.

*These results are based on the following parameters; polls taken in the last 14 days, with a sample size of at least 500 among likely voters, with a margin of error of less than 4.1%, among pollsters rated C+ or better, using the Pollster Tracking by FiveThirtyEight.com, and removing 538's allocated pollster bias and my calculated temporal pro-Clinton bias vs. actual election results from 2016. States must have at least 2 valid polls to be considered.

Realistically I think both Texas and Iowa belong in the Trump column, which would up his electoral college total to 249.  With that he still needs to hold Arizona, and either Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania to put him over the 270 needed to win.

The president is in good but not great shape electorally, according to the evidence offered by pollsters (which has been presented as very bad for the president).  The reality may be very different.  But even if the president is in great shape, there's a movement afoot to delegitimize his potential win if not outright steal the election for Biden.  Every vote matters, as long as it is a real vote.  And in addition, the Republicans need to hold the senate and win back congress in order to implement Trump's agenda to drain the swamp, stand up to China, and make America great again.

UPDATE:  In my map I have assumed Florida for president Trump, where elsewhere I have left it as no current winner.  I think Trump will win Florida but I cannot call it that way based on the evidence.  Given that, I would add Florida to the "realistically in Trump's column" paragraph but as a must hold.  Otherwise the analysis holds up. Barring this craziness.

State of the race - Nov 4

Yesterday I updated my view of the state of the race for the presidency and it looked like a tie as far as the electoral college.  Today I went back to the RCP average of polls and I recalibrated my weighted average of polls to see if I'm in the same place as my electoral college view of how tight this race is.   It seems to be the case that it is very tight. As you can see below:

Click to enlarge.

Previously I had a two week view which I've changed to a weekly view this time around.  This view takes a weighted average of the polls, as they are not all equal.  The approach is as follows - if a poll has 2000 respondents and another poll has 1000 respondents I've pro-rated the voter percentages Trump and Clinton for each poll as a percentage of that poll but the overall voter total would be 3000 so a poll that has Clinton ahead by 4 points but over 1000 people polled would net her less voters than the poll that had her behind 3 points over 2000 voters. 

Additionally I've excluded polls that do not indicate their margin of error as those polls are not transparent and therefore subject to manipulation. I've excluded any polls with less than 800 respondents and polls with margins of error greater than 4.5%.  I've also excluded all polls with a margin of 6 or more (the last measure has been more fluid than the others as the gap has been larger than that at times).

For November-ending polling only 1 poll has been excluded as a result of those criteria - a Reuters/Ipsos poll that has Hillary Clinton +6. It seems like an outlier, though I could be wrong. That poll has consistently showed Clinton at the high end of the spectrum and seems out of alignment with most polls that range from Trump +4 to Clinton +5 (most at Clinton +1 to 3).

One other note - as I've capped the outlier to reflect the current situation, previous weeks have had polls excluded that previously did not have those same polls excluded - my Excel spreadsheet is not that dynamic (yet).  Therefore weeks prior to November were further apart than they appear above.

With that exclusion my weighted average of polls indicates an absolute tie in total voters allocated across 5 November polls. It's a true toss up right now in my estimation, excluding any possible momentum.

Bear in mind that this does not take into account polling methodologies which I do not have the bandwidth to review, and some polls that I have included demand further review.  Nor does this take into account momentum.  The polls today might not reflect next Tuesday.

However, even the polling as it exists, shows a tight, tight race.

State of the race - Nov 3

The race for president has been a roller coaster ride in 2016, there have been that many ups and downs for everyone involved or watching.  The latest polls do not deviate from that at all.  Recent polls have seen Trump surge ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire, and even Virginia which has slowly trended from Republican red to Democratic blue over the last 20 years.  Colorado, a former Clinton lock and no longer a swing state is back in play and Nevada could just as easily end up in Trump's column as Hillary's.  Some of these recent polls though, are still outliers in the state by state races, but their recency and unitary direction do corroborate a trend towards Trump.

Many will argue that it's as a result of the FBI Director Comey's re-opening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, but as I and others have noted, the tightening of the polls started before that and pretty rapidly too.  Polling has been recalibrated as there has been a lot of evidence of Democrat oversampling versus Republicans and Independents that pollsters could not carry through election days lest they look unscientific.

That is all beside the point anyway and we are where we are regardless of how we got here.  And where we are right now is striking.  This is how I see the current situation. (Map-sharing courtesy of 270towin.com).

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

A tie, with each candidate 1 electoral vote short of 270 (now you can see why 270towin got their website name). The election is in 5 days from today (6 including today) and the polling is not over.  The trending is not over.  Everyone is waiting for the next shoe to drop and guessing what it might be - an FBI Clinton indictment, another WikiLeaks bombshell, a Donald Trump October surprise?  No one knows.

But let's assume for a moment that it's status quo through election day and there are no more last minute events.  Here's where, if the above holds true either candidate can get that electoral college win.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary currently has the easier path.  

(1) North Carolina is the most obvious opportunity.  While Trump appears to be leading the margin is still razor thin.  A strong get out the vote effort might put her over the top. If  NC flips to her column, it's over. 

(2) Florida - Hillary through a combination of advertising, stumping and possible nefarious activities could pull off the state. 

(3) Nevada is also a possibility, it''s a traditionally Democratic state and a later state to vote.  Democrats there could be energized to turn out if they are aware that it's a tight race nationally.  

(4) The Utah gambit. Utah has a large Mormon population and they do not like Trump.  Consequently a third candidate is close to Trump in polling there.  Should Trump lose the state to him, the election goes to Congress to decide.  With Clinton at 269 and Trump at 263 and this McMullin guy at 6, there would be intense pressure for the Republican congress to select Hillary as the next president seeing as she would have the electoral college lead.  There is no requirement that they do so, and she's probably loath to count on that possibility, never theless there are a number of #NeverTrump Republican establishment types and combined with the number of Democrats in Congress, it's possible she could win this way.  However, polling has indicated Trump is starting to pull ahead in the state so it still is the least likely scenario for her.

As another point that works in Hillary's favor New Hampshire may revert to norm and go Democrat. I'm of the opinion that it will surprise people and vote Trump.  Should that prove false Hillary will win regardless of teh other options.  However, should any Trump win scenario but one pan out, New Hampshire won't matter.

Donald Trump

Absent more momentum, and stuck in a tie Trump will have to rely on a polling error in a marginally Clinton state to win. His best hope is that the momentum continues.  If it does several states could flip and he could win easily.  Failing that the race comes down to one of three most feasible scenarios for a Trump win; Colorado flips, Virginia flips or Maine CD2 flips.  All would require the latest polls to be slightly off.

(1) The RCP average of polls for Colorado has Clinton up 1.7%, within the margin of error, and with the latest poll an actual tie, and overall average-wise with Trump surging.  Trump has led Clinton earlier in the state, as late as early October. Absent more momentum, this could be down to a recount and a late night next Tuesday for election watchers.

(2) Virginia seems like it would be the hardest flip for Trump.  There is no doubt Trump is surging there but he still has a 3.4 point gap in the RCP average for the state.  Absent continued momentum Trump will not win Virginia.  Unless the Hampton University poll is correct.  It might be.

(3) One of the first states to close it's polls could determine the election.  This one I think is well within Trump's grasp and I'd say with 60% certainty, he'll win it, despite trailing right now.  Maine splits its electoral college votes - 2 go to the statewide winner (Clinton), one goes to the winner of congressional district 1 (also Clinton)  and 1 goes to the winner of Congressional District 2.  The latter, currently is leaning towards Clinton.  However, Trump has led most of the election cycle for that CD's one electoral college vote (from June to mid-October, at one point by as much as 14%). The district is a typically Republican, rural district which would indicate a Trump support base.  Additionally all the polls in the district are very small, in the 300 responder range. The one exception from early October had 800+ responders and showed Trump up 1. Should Trump win Maine CD2 and nothing else varies from the above map, Trump would win 270 to 268.

The dark horse for Trump is Pennsylvania.  He's trending upward there quickly. But it's always been a tantalizing tease for Republicans.  Trump winning there would mean he's probably also won Colorado or Virginia.  Winning Pennsylvania without winning other toss up states would be a weird result.

At this point the race is truly a toss up. Either candidate could win.  Trump's momentum may carry him well past Clinton.  Or he may hit a ceiling and come up just short in a swing state or two.  The momentum might still change with some other October surprise.  Have the Democrats thrown all of their ammo at Trump already? That's hard to say.  Is the FBI going to announce anything?  What will WikiLeaks share this week?  Hang on tight - it's going to be a really wild finish, wilder than the Cubs vs. Indians World Series game 7.  

State of the polls - October 19th

The final debate is today.  Going into it, I thought the exercise below would be useful, since I suspect  the polls will change in the next week.  Rather than looking at the race today, I thought I'd take a look at the polls themselves and see if there's any accounting for the Hillary Clinton October surge that is seemingly suspect.  A couple of things have jumped out.

Following are polls from the RealClearPolitics average of polls, looked at in isolation. In each case I've looked at polls sectioned into the 1st half /2nd half of each month dating back to June 2016. Let me add a caveat here.  There is an additional overlay that is needed here which is to compare these polls to how they performed or assessed Trump and Clinton in the primaries.  A lot of pollsters predicted Trump's death during the primaries.  Many of those who were wrong are predicting the same now.  And that should be factored in as an adjustment factor here.  I have not had the opportunity to do that here.

Another thing that should be factored in is that the polls don't all share their weighting of polling participants.  They are black boxes and those methodologies definitely can skew results.  Not making that methodology available makes a poll suspect in my eyes, as a hidden methodology allows the opportunity to manipulate results.  In turn, I have also not had the time to review most polling crosstabs where they are available, so there's some culpability on my part as well.

Firstly let's take a look at Rasmussen, a pollster generally regarded as conservative-leaning.  I've selected this one first because there is an obvious point that comes from it.  Here's what a trend of their polls look like.

Rasmussen: Click to enlarge

Forget the trends, look at the x axis.  The last included Rasmussen poll included is from July.  But Rasmussen is still polling to this day. Rasmussen has the race tied.  But it does not reflect in the RCP average anymore.  Why not?  That's strange.

Next let's look at the LA Times polls.  This poll is an outlier as it has Trump leading.  This poll has caught a lot of flack from pollsters and journalists but it has been a consistent methodology poll and therefore can indicate a trend regardless if the polling mix is correct or not.

LA Times: Click to enlarge

To me this poll indicates a narrow "trading range" for each of the candidates : Trump 43 to 46 and Clinton 42 to 45.5 since early August. This poll displays much less fluctuation than other polls and is probably more reflective of decided voters since the same voters are being repeatedly polled whereas in other polls we see a fresh set of voters each time.  The takeaway is that Trump voters are likely not abandoning him.  Rather the question regarding this poll is, "have they selected a truly representative sample of voters?"  

In contrast to the LA Times polls, CNN-related polls tell a different tale.  CNN showed a narrowing race, as did many polls through the first half of September but a suddenly widening gap in October.  That's representative of the RCP average of polls and reflects the narrative that the October surprise of Trump's verbally abusive hot microphone comments.  Is that properly reflecting the present situation?  At odds with the LA Times, that's the real question, which we do not know the answer to as of yet.

CNN: Click to enlarge

CBS, echoes the CNN narrative but with a wider divide throughout,  settling in at 11 points so far.  That seems unrealistically high, nevertheless the trend observed in CNN related polls is echoed here.

CBS: Click to enlarge

Fox News, cognizant of their viewer base but nevertheless an establishment institution mirrors CBS but on a smaller scale - either in an attempt to ameliorate the feelings of their viewers or in an unintentional bias in their polling.  The question is - does the bias overstate or understate Trump support?

Fox: Click to enlarge

Over the last 6 weeks, Fox has had a Clinton lead ranging from 5% to 7%.  Only in the first half of September was the race really tight in their polling.  The consistency mirrors the LA Times a little better than other polls.  That's interesting: (1) is the consistency more reflective of the race than the sudden swings (I believe it probably is) and if so (2) is the Fox polling getting a better or worse sample than the LA Times?

One set of polls I have consistently taken issues with are the NBC-related polls.  Specifically their SurveyMonkey polls I find dubious but in addition the plethora of NBC polls (excluding CNBC and MSNBC) seem to be stacking the RCP averages just because there are so many of them. Nevertheless, despite their almost outlier-esque differentials, take a look a this trend - it's interesting:

NBC: Click to enlarge

Their view of the post Labor Day Trump free fall has him bottoming out in the first half of October and already rebounding. Has their sampling changed?  They seem to be an outlier in terms of a Trump recovery or support turnaround.  On the other hand, they are showing Hillary above 50%.  That's definitely an outlier at this point.  That's not to say it cannot happen and they may be a leading indicator of that but at this point I'd be very reluctant to believe her support has surpassed 50%.

Next up is Reuters.

Reuters: Click to enlarge

What's interesting about Reuters-related polls is that Trump never breaks 40% and Hillary and Trump combined are very low numbers, indicating a large number of undecided and/or other party voters.  Hillary Clinton never breaks 44%. Interestingly, the Trump slump here also appears to reverse in the second half of October.

I also looked at Monmouth and Quinnipiac.  The former interestingly has polls showing up consistently in the latter half of the month and the latter seems to be overdue for another poll.  Both, seemingly refuting my earlier point about Hillary Clinton support not exceeding 50%, so perhaps there is some evidence that should could be there now.  Again, the evidence is thin, but there is more evidence  than I mentioned above.  Take from the two pollster views below, what you will.

Monmouth: Click to enlarge

Quinnipiac: Click to enlarge

If pollsters are skewing results, they will have to rid themselves of their biases over the next two weeks if they wish to maintain an air of expertise.  If the election rolls around and your polls are off - you get hammered. Zogby used to be included in the RCP average but was way off in recent elections and got themselves bumped from not only RCP but from the media in general.  Pollsters don't want that for themselves.

The debate tonight affords them the opportunity to adjust any bias.  If Trump or Hillary Clinton slays the debate, there's an immediate opportunity to adjust accordingly.  But if the polls are prejudicially skewed by the pollsters (say against Trump), and the debate is close to a draw and they have to adjust Trump's support upwards, where does that leave them in explaining the late shift?  Late deciders are breaking for Trump?  That's a tough pill to swallow given the build-up in the narrative to this point.

At this point one thing is clear, the post election poll analysis is going to be a lot to sift through, but it will probably be quite revealing, regardless of who actually wins the election.

State of the Race - October 16th

It's been a while since I've updated my weighted average of polling on the national polls of the race for president.  The swath of polls in October showing Hillary Clinton charging ahead has made it somewhat of a distasteful task.  Nevertheless, it needed to be done. Except my results were - well, unexpected.

As a reminder, not all polls are created equally.  To account for this I have not included all polls from the RealClearPolitics average of polls in my analysis.  I have excluded polls with no reported Margin of Error.  Not reporting that makes the numbers dubious at best and unscientific at worst.  I have also excluded polls with a margin of error greater than 4.5%, which is a pretty large margin of error.  As an added twist, I have excluded polls where multiple instances of the same poll source are occurring within days of itself.  For Example the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows up 3 times in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Yes, the dates are different but it seems like a way of manipulating the average of polls by including your own smaller polls, more frequently.

Given all of that, the race it turns out is a lot closer than the topline optics would indicate, although Hillary Clinton has not surprisingly given the media blitz on Trump, retaken the lead over the last 4 weeks (1.4%).  However the lead is razor thin at this point which makes the final debate, the advertising blitz and the get out the vote effort coming up in the last weeks, uber-critical.  I expect to see significant poll changes starting next week.  Which direction they'll shift is anyone's guess.

For comparison purposes, here's what my unweighted results look like, although I've excluded polls for the same first two criteria I've mentioned above. You can see the gap is larger (4 points).

State of the race - October 4th

After seeing Trump peak at 270 about a week back (and not posting on it), I've got a different picture today, that doesn't completely align with all of the latest polling but does reflect a tight race.  As of today, I have Hillary winning a squeaker.

The darker the color red, the safer for Trump, the darker the blue the safer for Clinton.

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Current polls have Hillary ahead in Florida and North Carolina, the latter by tenths of a percent. I think Trump will carry both of those states.  Nevada has Hillary back in front but it's too early to shift that back to her column yet.  

Also of note, Gary Johnson the Libertarian is pulling over 20% of the vote in Nevada and realistically has moved that state to less safely Hillary's, but I'm keeping it as is for now.

The VP debate is tonight.  Watch it and you'll see some definite contrast between the two men.

State of the race - September 23rd

I recently had some questions about a couple of NBC polls that have Hillary Clinton up by numbers out of line with other polls.  More polling has come in and it's only muddied the waters.

Firstly, the RealClearPolitics electoral college map has Hillary winning the presidency by an electoral college count of 272-266 in a no-toss-up state race.  That's just as tight as I'm seeing the race right now.

But meanwhile a McClatchy/Marist poll has come out that has Hillary Clinton up by 7 points. So maybe the NBC data isn't really all that far off.  But not so fast.

McClatchy/Marist comes up with the exact same spread in their first poll in nearly two months, but it’s actually much better for Trump than their previous result — a 48/33 outlier...

...The poll appears to slightly oversample women (54/46) and a bit more significantly undersample white voters (67%) in comparison to 2012’s exit polling (53/47, 72% respectively). The age demos are structured differently, but appear to lean a little young compared to 2012. On the partisan affiliation side, the split seems reasonable at a D+5 in both RVs and LVs.

So the sampling splits leaves it a questionable poll. But there are problems for Trump there too; his polling numbers with women, and whites are still below the numbers he needs to have a shot at winning, if the poll is accurate.

But all of this is moot. The first debate is on Monday. No stool for Clinton. No commercials, no breaks and they're expecting a record audience. Polls late next week are the polls that will really matter.

State of the race - September 20th

Not my assessment today, I'm otherwise occupied.  However I thought I'd share a couple of interesting notes from others.  Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com, a highly respected pollster/analyst, has Donald Trump's chances of winning at 48% today.  A month ago he had it at 3%.  That's an amazing shift.

In addition, there's this, from CBS.

State of the Race - Sept 19th

I've started looking at the state by state polling for the swing states.  Interestingly some of them don't have much recent polling (beyond August, or early September) and a lot has happened in the last two weeks.  But as it stands, in a 2 way race and assigning even margin of error states to who looks to be reasonably ahead, I currently have Hillary Clinton winning the electoral college 293-245.

Tenuous

But despite the 48 electoral college vote lead, her grasp is tenuous.  Several states fall into true toss up status even though she currently enjoys a lead.  Among those most interesting Nevada (6) has as it's most recent polling Trump winning. Wisconsin (10) has a comfortable lead for Clinton in the RealClearPolitics average of polls - as of August 28th.  Those polls really need a refresh. Colorado (9)  had a sliding trend with a Clinton lead in August.  The only September poll has Trump ahead by 4 but with a 3.9% margin of error. North Carolina (15) had different polls showing both candidates ahead, even at the same time, in August.  It's a true dog fight in that state.  The only September poll has it as a tie. I'd rate it right now as the 'tossiest' of toss up races.  Maine's 2nd CD, a single proportional electoral college vote appears to be safely Trump's even though Clinton will win the other votes from the state.  Maine is one of 2 states that allocates an electoral college vote proportionally. That's a flip from my last prediction where I had unwittingly allocated it to Clinton.

States more likely to remain faithful to their histories

Arizona looks like a toss up but is looking more to me like it will remain Republican and Trump will prevail.  So too the race in georgia; it should shake out for Trump. Trump has recovered from a Florida swoon in August and the state has been trending his way all September - he's now ahead and the trend appears to be unfinished.  Iowa seems to have broken for Trump. The two polls from August 31st onward have him ahead by 5 and 8 points. In Ohio, despite the refusal of a scorned Kasich to help Trump, only 1 poll in the last 6 has Hillary ahead of Trump in the crucial state - by 7 points. Every other recent poll has Trump ahead by as little as 1 and as much as 5.  Ohio has broken for Trump it would appear.

Pennsylvania is looking likely to be a relatively safe hold for the Democrats and Clinton.  So too is Virginia - the race there is tightening but she's still got about a 3 point lead and a VP candidate from the state. I'd be surprised at this point if Trump were to win it. New Hampshire still looks like a Clinton hold too. The trend is running towards toss up but she still leads.  And while Michigan still looks like Clinton is favored, the trend line is not favoring her and the state could be in jeopardy for her.  A poll with a Trump lead in Michigan in the next week would throw the entire race into chaos because Michigan is supposed to be safely Democrat.  But with Ford closing plants in Michigan and moving production to Mexico, such a poll is a real possibility as the trend line preceded Ford's announcement.

Other considerations

I haven't yet started analyzing the 4 way races with Johnson and Stein factored in, as I think their numbers will fall as we close in on election day.  Nevertheless, they do merit a review, which I will do soon.

Additionally, the debates are rapidly approaching.  Aside from 'events' (e.g. an email problem, a major verbal gaffe, a terrorist attack) the debates are the biggest remaining factor - even bigger than a coming Clinton ad bombardment in swing states, though if not countered by Trump or Republican SuperPACs, those will matter too).  The debates are live and could easily swing the campaign either way.

Summary

As I mentioned, currently I have Hillary Clinton winning the electoral college 293-245.  But 4 tenuous states do have the potential to flip the winner.  If Nevada, Wisconsin, North cArolina and Colorado all flip, Trump would win 285-253.  And that is within the realm of possibility.  And if North Carolina and Wisconsin flip but Colorado and Nevada don't, Trump could still win 270-268.  And even more bizarrely, if we switch Colorado for Trump and Wisconsin back to Hillary, we'd have a 269-269 tie.  In that case, Trump would win.

So it's still very, very tight and getting tighter by the day right now.  It's going to be an interesting next 6 weeks.

State of the race - September 15th

Two recent polls have Donald Trump pulling ahead among Likely Voters in the critical states of Florida and Ohio. Combined, those two states have a rich total of 47 electoral college votes (more on that later.

Looking at the safe states scenario, Hillary Clinton has a pretty safe lock on 200 of a needed 270 electoral college votes to win the presidency. Trump has 163. If we assume that the polling trends in Florida and Ohio will give Trump those states, he takes a 210 to 200 lead.

In addition if Trump loses either Georgia or Arizona then Hillary will have already won in a landslide - having taken both Ohio and Florida in the process. So adding those two states to Trump's column, is a fairly likely outcome, because barring any October surprises (which are still possible). That bring's Trump's total up to 237. And that's where Trump's path becomes more difficult.

Virginia has trended Democrat over the last two elections and while Trump can win it, it's 13 electoral college votes likely will end up in Hillary's column. The same is true for vote-rich Pennsylvania. Trump could surprise there but that is a longshot scenario. Tiny Live Fee or Die New Hampshire likely falls Hillary's way unless we are in a Trump landslide scenario. Pollster Frank Luntz believes Trump's momentum in N.H. will continue and Trump will win it. Maybe so, but not yet.

With those states falling that way, we have a 237-237 electoral college tie. Adding Maine's votes-plitting system to Clinton's tally, and Nebraska's to Trump (a likely outcome in each case) we're at 238-238 with 62 yet unallocated.

16 come from Michigan (which are Hillary Clinton's to lose, even with Ford closing plants and moving the jobs to Mexico a move no doubt that helps Trump's chances there). Clinton leads by 5 with less than 2 months to go. If Trump closes Michigan that could very well land him the race but I still see Michigan in the Clinton column.

6 votes are from Iowa Trump is now slightly up Iowa and this state is continuing to trend his way. Give these votes to Trump.

9 electoral college votes are assigned to Colorado used to be a swing state. It's gone liberal and Clinton has an 8 point lead. There's no polling that I'm aware of in September, there which is problematic, but the state is likely going blue again and Hillary will get those votes too.

6 votes come from Nevada. Nevada has gone reliably blue forever. In August, Hillary was 5 points ahead (on a volume of one poll). In a single poll in September, Trump was ahead by 1. Trump's a casino guy and Nevada is a casino state. Despite Clinton's lead among Hispanics, a key voting block in that state, I think pulls off a surprise in the state.

That puts Hillary at 263 and Trump at 250 and 2 states remaining; 10 from Wisconsin and 15 from North Carolina. If Hillary wins either state she's won. In North Carolina Hillary leads by a mere 0.6% in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. The state is simply too close to call. Wisconsin is another matter. Hillary has a 4 point lead. But again, those polls are all from August during Trump's swoon, and prior to Hillary's latest issues about health and calling Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables". My view is that Hillary still leads but that the margin is likely almost as slim as North Carolina.

In other words, this contest is currently a coin toss and victory is a razor thin margin for either candidate. But I don't expect it to stay that way.

We haven't seen the debates yet. Will Hillary wilt? Will Trump stick his foot in his mouth? Either could happen. Then again, either candidate has the potential to do well for themselves as well. It's a big unknown.

WikiLeaks is promising some devastating leaks on Clinton emails in October. If they have anything it could be a big deal. If Julian Assange is just trying to promote his site, and there's nothing there, it is a complete non-factor.

Trump hasn't released his taxes. Either he does and it has bad news or optics for him, he doesn't and he looks supsicious or he doesn't and it has no bad news. Again, it is an unknown.

But there's an even bigger factor than all of these I think.

Hillary Clinton has had a tough week, but here’s something she’s doing extremely well: raising enormous amounts of money. As of late August, Clinton had raised a total of $446.4 million (including through SuperPacs) compared to Donald Trump’s $137.3 million. That’s a prodigious advantage and one that could certainly make the difference in a tight race.

...Even though Clinton has spent $349.6 million so far compared to Trump’s meager $96.7 million, the race is nearly even.

...Still, Hillary’s campaign apparently thinks money can buy her much-needed love. Early efforts to make Clinton more “likable” came up short as outings like the cross-country trip in her “Scooby” van and (secretly scripted) chance meetings with everyday Americans flopped. As the campaign has progressed, her unfavorable ratings have steadily climbed. A recent CNN poll shows her negatives are now worse than Trump’s, and that’s an accomplishment.

...Donald Trump scored points in August by visiting flood victims in Louisiana and meeting with the president of Mexico. Hillary Clinton was resting and meeting with donors.

...Clinton’s money haul will not only give her a big TV advantage, but it also allows her to open more offices, organize more phone banks, send out more flyers and otherwise invest in the machinery of delivering votes and voters on election day. One analysis claims Clinton has more than three times the number of campaign offices in swing states as Trump does.

Team Trump meanwhile, believe that they have found a way around the tranditional advertising and campaign offices approach. They proved that in the primaries, but the primaries are a different beast than the general election. Their unconventional approach is a gamble. Who's right? Again, it's an unknown. Right now, this race is just too close to predict. The next 6 weeks will reveal a lot, and I suspect by election day we will probably have a better idea, before election-day voting even gets started.  In the meantime, with all of those upcoming unknowns (likely some breaking each way in favor of either candidate), it's going to be a wild ride.

State of the race

With the presidential race headed into the home stretch, now that summer is over, a lot of Republicans are hoping for a brilliant finish by Donald Trump to make up the remainder of the ground he lost since the Hillary Clinton Democratic convention coronation.  That seems wishful thinking; Trump is Trump.  Perhaps he can be tempered by advisors, but not contained.  He reminds me of a baseball pitcher who you know is going to throw several wild pitches but is also capable of some terrific pitches.  The problem is control - you don't know what sort of pitch you are going to get at any given point in time.  But in the presidential race, there are no relief pitchers.

Sadly that's where that analogy breaks down because pitching doesn't score runs and that's what Trump needs now.  That's where the RNC comes in.

...Clin­ton is ahead in all 26 states that Obama won in 2012, plus the Dis­trict of Columbia, with a total of 332 elect­or­al votes, 62 more than needed to win. The closest state is North Car­o­lina, with a half-point Clin­ton even though it has gone Re­pub­lic­an in five out of the past six elec­tions. Iowa is next-closest with a Clin­ton lead of 1.5 points, fol­lowed by Nevada at 2.3 points, Flor­ida at 2.7 points, Ohio at 3.8 points and Wis­con­sin at 5.3 points. The RCP av­er­ages also show Clin­ton with a tiny, three-tenths of a point lead in Geor­gia, a state that has gone Re­pub­lic­an in five out of the past six elec­tions. Trump has a 2.5 per­cent­age point lead in Ari­zona, a state that has gone Re­pub­lic­an in five out of the past six elec­tions, and is up by 3 points in Mis­souri, which has gone Re­pub­lic­an in four out of the last six.

Taken to­geth­er, these data sug­gest that while the elec­tion is not over, it would take a pretty ma­jor event or turn of events for Clin­ton to lose...

As much as it pains me to say it, that last bit of assessment could be right. Trump could win if he had another 6 months, but he could also give up a few grand slams and bury his chances of winning.

All is not lost though for those of us experiencing nightmares over an ultra liberal SCOTUS (Supreme Court).  Clinton has been raking in cash but that's what Republicans need to dump into the race, starting today - cash.  Loads and loads of cash.  They need a state-by-state infrastructure in place and they need it right now.  They need an endless barrage of ads from now until November.  If the RNC cannot handle that on it's own then the conservative Super-PACs need to coordinate their efforts.

Trump needs to win in all of those close states - Florida, Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, Iowa and Wisconsin.  Georgia, Missouri and Arizona should work out and maybe some defense is needed.  But if Trump cannot win the latter three, he doesn't deserve to win.

Trump seems like a one man show but he's running against a machine and he needs help.  He should focus on presidential speeches, debate over-prep, and voter engagement.  That's what he can do to bend the current course further to his direction. It's what he has to do.  The RNC and every Republican and conservative PAC have to kick in their efforts.  The election and stopping Hillary Clinton is too important to sit idly by.