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

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.

Outrage: rules for thee but not for Democrats

JFK Jr. can't get off the ballot in swing states Michigan and Wisconsin, but Kamala Harris was able to be swapped in for Let's Go Brandon no problem... yeah, elections are totally fair.

Here's your threat to democracy:

My take on the state of the race

A lot of polls being included in the RCP polling average for the swing states, are of little value.  For example the NYT poll does not show a Margin of Error.  When polls exclude details like that, or survey size, for example, they are either not confident in their results or are hiding something. I exclude those polls based on threshold criteria, along with polls that are too small, or include perhaps all adults instead of Registered or Likely Voters, or ones that may oversample Democrats, which often happens.  Those types of polls are not exactly push polls for the respondents but are a form of push polls for the voting public.  For example polls trying to generate astroturfed momentum for Kamala Harris.

I have not in this exercise even looked at the crosstabs and these polls may indeed still be overemphasizing the positive look for Harris. All that to justify what I have included in my polling calculations.  What I have done is aggregated the polls that are worth including (minus the bad crosstabs filter) into a vote total for each state to see what the good polling is actually showing across multiple pollsters with similar, acceptable methodology/disclosure polls.

Here's my criteria (these are relatively loose criteria, but if they were any tighter, there would not yet be enough to share any insights):

 

Here's what I see.

Based on the above, here's what I would project, a Trump win.

Keep in mind there are a number of states that do not have enough polling to report.  Georgia is one such example but others I have defaulted to most likely based on previous cycles.  These include New Hampshire, Virginia, Minnesota and Maine.  These were leaning Trump when he was facing Let's Go Brandon, but have since not shown any polling results.

My honest opinion is that this will break more for Trump by November but that remains to be seen.

The real danger for the Trump 2024 campaign

Donald Trump is an infinitely better candidate for president than Kamala Harris. He'd be a much better debater if she musters the courage to debate Trump (she probably won't and that alone is very telling). Trump would of course make an infinitely better president than Kamala Harris. We know this. But there's reason to worry. The Democrats are not playing to win, they're playing to be able to be in a position to say they won.

If you look at the RealClearPolitics poll averages in the swing states (something I urge you to do with caution as it averages polls that are not alike), as of today, Trump still leads Harris in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia. He's only trailing in Michigan, but thanks mainly to a highly unlikely outlier poll. If the entire current RCP state of affairs holds true, Trump will get 297 electoral college votes and win the presidency.

But here's the catch, the polls, particularly including the outliers, have significantly dampened the lead Trump holds.  In fact they've depressed the margins strongly enough (again as of now), that it would be fairly easy for Democrats to pad the vote totals and steal the election in states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Those two states alone would swing the election to Harris given enough ballot stuffing. And the Trump leads are a bit tight. You could also add Georgia to the list of possible Harris steals. Maybe even Arizona. 

The real danger therefore, is not Trump being unable to win the right combination of states to win the electoral college, the danger is not winning the right combination of states by enough votes to overcome cheating on an epic scale by Democrats in those states.  If Kamala Harris does indeed choose inexplicably popular Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro as her running mate, being able to cheat Pennsylvania into her column becomes infinitely easier.  If she holds the suspect polls for Michigan, that means any one Wisconsin, Georgia or Arizona would capture the Whitehouse for the Democrat.

The map with Harris as the Democrat nominee should be at least as easy for Trump as it was with Let's Go Brandon, but the truth is, it got harder. Not through legitimacy, but the bar to provably win each swing state got higher.

Poll Analysis

RealClear Politics does something I hate when it takes an aggregate of polls, it mixes unalike polls, and it gives all polls equal weighting. That's not realistic.  In order to do a more reasoned polling average in the swing states, it should be a weighted average of like polls.  I've taken a partial step towards filtering that way this cycle for the swing states. I haven't yet weighted the polls but what I have done is filtered the polls to include only the following in the various swing states;  Only likely voter polls with a sample size >=500 a margin of error <=4.25%,  and only polls taken since 06-Jul-24.

Not all swing states have had polls that qualify with that as a minimum criteria. But, given those criteria, here's what I am seeing:

Given these likely voter views, and assuming no other inherent bias in these polls, I have Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all looking like Trump wins. It's still not a complete picture mind you because some of these are within the average (unweighted) margin of error.

But if this holds up and all else is held equal (and yes, more work needs to be done on my analysis, and it's still only July), the electoral college would look like this:

Why is this not front page news everywhere?

Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every city except for 4 in key swing states.  Yet he got 13 million more votes than she did in 2016? That's a remarkable and implausible coincidence and the math just doesn't make sense.

***How the polls understated Trump in 2016, and what it means for 2020***

Looking back at the 2016 Trump vs. Clinton election, There was some interesting shy Trump voter effect.  I'm not worried about the actual results in 2020 if this time the polling misses the same voters it did in 2016. Trump's support was often understated.* Below are some of the key states showing how the polls got it wrong leading up to the 2016 election by month.  Interestingly, the polls in 2016 often understated* Clinton support, albeit typically by a smaller percentage.  That all could be from the impact of third party votes switching late, or cheating.  But the polls having Biden +15 are likely experiencing the same mistakes they did last time.

*Note, where the number is negative, it indicates the polls have overstated the candidate's support in that month. Where both candidates' numbers equal exactly zero, it indicates there was no polling in that time frame.

In Florida: Trump highly over-performed his polling right into November. Hillary Clinton in October polls was actually doing worse than her polling, though by November the polls were back to understating her actual results.

In Georgia: Polling generally improved month over month for both candidates, but Trump was hurt more by being understated throughout the late polling cycle.

In Iowa: The polls massively underestimated Trump but were fairly close on Clinton.

In Michigan: The story is similar to Iowa, in October short-selling his support by almost 8% while overselling Hillary's by 1%!

In Minnesota: In October the total error of support for Clinton and Trump was 8%!

In North Carolina: The polls were off by a combined support error of 4.6% in October and even more in November.

In New Hampshire: There was an interesting reversal of error in November but in October the effect was a +8 shift towards Hillary.

In Ohio: Trump was again slighted. You get the idea and pattern forming among all the states here, right?

In Pennsylvania: Much the same as other states, the Trump shy voters are not getting picked up just like elsewhere.  Unless, just like elsewhere, the differential that largely evaporates in November was fictitious to begin with.  Did the pollsters suddenly figure out how to spot shy Trump voters in November 2016? Or did they not want to be labelled as untrustworthy, and had to start reflecting the truth? The former is more likely true because there are pollsters who largely got it right in 2016 (Trafalgar) that are showing a tighter race than other pollsters who are still showing large Biden leads today. Remember, these graphs are the pollsters in the aggregate by month, not differentiating between correct and incorrect pollsters. A lot (if not most) of the same players are showing the same type of results this time around - both the Trafalgars and the Ipsoses of the polling universe.

In Texas: Here's one they hurt Hillary, dramatically (as well as Trump).  But most notably in every month but October.  October is THE month this time around, since there are only 2 days worth of potential polling in November, and more realistically, just 1 day.

In Virginia: The bias probably doesn't matter because Biden is obscenely ahead in the state.  However, it raises the question - are the polls (either deliberately or through error) overstating the Biden lead even more strongly that they did for Hillary Clinton?  Or is Biden actually really that far ahead?  If he is, the contest is over. But if not, what is the ratio of Hillary oversampled voters in 2016 to Biden oversampled voters in 2020?  I have in all of my assessments so far assumed it's 1-1.  Interestingly in my analyses so far, if the Biden bias is only 85% of Clinton's, he still wins the election. At 90% it's not decided yet and at 95% or more, Trump wins.

Finally in Wisconsin: The error was clear.  In November they finally got Clinton support right, but there was still a massive undercounting of Trump support.

So what's it all mean? It means GO VOTE. For Trump.  Nothing matters - not the polls, not the early voting split, nothing matters except the final tally.  I have statistical knowledge and I'm saying the polls don't matter as much as you are being told.  If all the polls were done properly, they might.  But there's a lot of bias at work, both political and technical.  We won't understand it until after the election, and then and only then, is there a chance for pollsters to start correcting their mistakes of 2016 and 2020 (if the latter are still suffering from the same  issues as the former). But that's not the election.  The election is you turning out and making a difference.

Latest election round-up

Click to enlarge.

There have been a few new polls since my last update. Taking a look at the RealClearPolitics average of polls in the battleground states, president Trump currently has 250 electoral college votes while  Joe Biden currently has 237 electoral college votes and there are still 51 electoral college votes that have not yet been decided.*  

In the swing states the following results are observed:

-- Texas has a total of only 1 valid poll.  That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up as a result. But Trump has 54.5% and Biden has 45.5% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 9.1%.    No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to the included polls.  But I'm assuming a Trump win.  The projected vote differential would be 579,250 in a regular turnout or 605,580 in a high turnout election.  

-- Florida has a total of 6 valid polls. Trump has 51.5% and Biden has 48.5% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 2.9%.    Trump would get the electoral college votes.  The projected vote differential would be 150,825 in a regular turnout or 157,681 in a high turnout election. 

-- Pennsylvania has a total of 4 valid polls. Trump has 50% and Biden has 50% of the weighted valid vote total. But Joe Biden leads by 0.1%.   Biden would get the electoral college votes.  The projected vote differential would be a miniscule 2,748 in a regular turnout or 2,873 in a high turnout election. This state could be the difference in the election. 

-- Ohio has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 54.8% and Biden has 45.3% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 9.5%.    Trump would get the electoral college votes.  The projected vote differential would be 316,739 in a regular turnout or 331,136 in a high turnout election. 

-- Georgia has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 51.3% and Biden has 48.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 2.7%.    Trump would get the electoral college votes.  The projected vote differential would be 71,859 in a regular turnout or 75,125 in a high turnout election. 

-- Michigan has a total of 3 valid polls. Trump has 50.7% and Biden has 49.3% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 1.4%.    Trump would get the electoral college votes.  The projected vote differential would be 41,919 in a regular turnout or 43,824 in a high turnout election. 

-- North Carolina has a total of 3 valid polls. Trump has 49.3% and Biden has 50.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 1.5%.    Biden would get the electoral college votes.  The projected vote differential would be 42,295 in a regular turnout or 44,217 in a high turnout election. 

-- Virginia has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.  No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to included polls.  I'm assuming a Biden win in the state. 

-- Arizona 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 52.2% and Biden has 47.8% of the weighted valid vote total. Trump leads by 4.4%.    No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to included polls.  The projected vote differential would be 78,940 in a regular turnout or 82,528 in a high turnout election. 

-- Wisconsin 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 47.7% and Biden has 52.3% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 4.7%.    No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to included polls.  The projected vote differential would be 80,595 in a regular turnout or 84,258 in a high turnout election. 

-- Minnesota has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.  No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to included polls. 

-- 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.  No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to included polls. 

-- Nevada has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.  No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to included polls. 

-- Iowa 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 4.7%.    Trump would get the electoral college votes.  The projected vote differential would be 42,558 in a regular turnout or 44,492 in a high turnout election. 

-- New Mexico 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 42.6% and Biden has 57.4% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 14.8%.    No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to included polls.  The projected vote differential would be 74,797 in a regular turnout or 78,197 in a high turnout election. 

-- New Hampshire has a total of 2 valid polls. Trump has 48.3% and Biden has 51.7% of the weighted valid vote total. Biden leads by 3.5%.    Biden would get the electoral college votes.  The projected vote differential would be 13,821 in a regular turnout or 14,450 in a high turnout election. 

-- Maine has a total of 0 valid polls. That is not sufficient to make a prediction in the state. The state remains a toss up.  No one currently is winning the electoral college vote according to included polls.  Assuming a Trump win.  

*Based on the following parameters; polls taken in the last 17 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 as well as my calculated temporal pro-Clinton bias vs. actual election results from 2016. States must have at least 2 valid polls to be considered.

I believe that president Trump will win Arizona bring his electoral college total to 261. He could also win North Carolina, New Hampshire, Minnesota and possibly Pennsylvania and Nevada. That gives him a lot of paths to victory. But in any of those states as well as Michigan I expect Democrats to mount legal proceedings to try to discount any of the president's victories.

That means this comes down to a legal battle, and the president will have to win more than 270-something or else it could be stolen.  But it's still possible that he gets as high as 326 electoral college votes if the election were held today.

Realistic polling results (part 2 of 2)

This is a continuation of my look at the state by state polling (which I had intended to complete yesterday).  If you have not seen part 1, take a look here for more context.

There are eight more states to look into that RealClearPolitics considers swing states. 

New Hampshire: There are a total of eight polls that RCP has listed for New Hampshire and only 3 that they use in calculating their average. St. Anselm has Biden +8 with  a +/-3% Margin of Error listed for their poll.  I was able to take a look at what are referred to as the crosstabs and it would appear they polled an almost equal number of Democrats and Republicans, but a very low number of Independents.  Yet according to CNN as recently as February, Independents represent the largest voting block in the state and represent 42% of the voters.  In the St Anselm poll they represent 1.2% of those polled.  That's clearly not a good sample.  That said, the poll shows swing voters as regarding president Trump unfavorably by a 2 to 1 ration.  But that is across only 85 people polled.  That is not a sample that will provide statistical significance.  Most importantly, the poll is among registered voters, not likely voters.  That is the only poll done within the last 45 days. In April they ran a poll showing Biden +7. Again it was registered voters.  In February the University of New Hampshire did a poll of Likely voters that had Trump +2.  It was a smaller poll and had a margin of error of +/2%, so the president's lead was not outside the margin of error.  The other poll they ran that they included was all the way back in January by NBC/Marist.   It also showed Biden +8.  My Take: Among registered voters Biden seems to have had a decent edge.  However you cannot say that is currently the case as only one poll is recent enough, and among likely voters no claim whatsoever can be made.  My best guess is that neither candidate holds a lead above the margin of error.

North Carolina: This state is a must win for president Trump but he clearly trails in the polls. But there is maybe one single poll I would say is worth keeping in an average.  The most recent poll by  CNBC/Change Research has Biden +1.  It is among likely voters and is very recent, but they did not indicate a margin of error. Clearly whatever it was the Biden lead is within the margin of error.  In their previous poll from late June the sample size was similar and it was +/-3.9% (it showed Biden +7 only 2 weeks prior to them showing him +1.  There's a disconnect there).  It's also worth noting the poll was a Democrat sponsored poll.  They also did a poll back in May that was similarly close.  So did Civitas/Harper which showed Trump +3 (+/-4%).  My Take: This state is close, but despite the plethora of polls showing Biden ahead, the polls that are worth taking note are few and far between and none of those have been recent enough to count.

Georgia: Only two polls since May, both registered voters not likely voters.  One (Fox) has Biden +2 and the other has Trump +3. So no real polling insight.  The state is a toss-up.  My Take: Trump wins this state that has trended towards Democrats but it's definitely not there yet. Realistically it's way too early to tell from a polling perspective.  As we get closer to November, there will be, as in all swing states, more reliable polling from which to glean information.

Ohio: THE bellwether state, right?  So why only 4 polls in the RCP list, since January 2020?  And why only registered voters? RCP has the state as a tie with 1 poll showing a Trump lead and 2 showing a smaller Biden lead.  My Take:  Trump crushed Hillary Clinton in 2016.  He's likely well ahead of Biden but I cannot make that claim at this point, it's just a strong hunch.  Officially I'd say this state cannot be put in either column at this point based on polls.

Pennsylvania: RCP has it at Biden +8.  There is a lot of polling being done in the state and quite a few that have polled likely voters.  But there are only two that I think have shown dependable results in the recent 45 day window (based on criteria I have previously mentioned).  The Trafalgar Group poll and the Susquehanna poll.  Both have Biden at +5.  Trafalgar's was mid-June and  Susquehanna's was last week.  The other polls, some showing a Biden lead as high as 13%, can be discarded as not reliable.  My Take:  As of last week it is very possible the 2 polls were correct.  I have not seen the crosstabs to see the R/D/Independent weightings but they may be reasonable.  As of last week I would have put PA in the Biden column.  But I'm going to leave it open.  Here's why; his recent announcement of a $2 trillion clean energy plan leading to 100% clean energy means devastating job losses in the state.  He's proposing the same agenda that Obama and Clinton both followed.  He just cost himself a lot of votes in his 'childhood' state.  Polls in the coming weeks will start to reflect that speech.  This race will be a tight one by next month, barring some other dramatic change.  Luckily, it is likely going to be a state where we will be able to reasonably track polling sooner rather than later.

Texas: Look, if RCP is going to track Texas as a swing state, then why not Democratic states like Colorado.  That this is even in the mix is ridiculous.  It's so ridiculous in fact, that I did not even build into my calculator and option for Texas. If Republicans lose Texas, it's game over, forever.  So with respect to this state, I'm kinda riffing on my analysis.  

Nevertheless, the RCP average has Trump +0.2%.  There are only two polls I can see with any recency that are likely voters with a reasonable margins of error.  There's OAN/Gravis that has Trump +2 and the Dallas Morning News that is a much larger sample size that has Biden +5. Yes, that's concerning.  A brief review of the methodology of that poll appears to keep it as a viable poll.  The poll could be an outlier, but I'm going to have to factor it in to my thinking.  My Take: From a strictly dependable-poll-driven analysis I'd say right now the state is leaning towards Biden.  But as with Pennsylvania, Biden's recent energy speech probably just wiped out his chances of competing in Texas. I'm leaving this one in Trump's column because if this state goes Democrat, it's over. I'm going to have to fold up my blog and re-open it as BBQ recipe blog if that happens.

Virginia: RCP average of polls has this state at Biden +11.  The 2 latest polls  in the average were taken in Mar/Apr and in May.  The timing is useless.  While Biden is likely to win this state and outperform Hillary Clinton (barring a Virginia-specific gaffe, which is entirely possible), he is just not going to win the state by 11 points.  My Take:  There are exactly zero polls I would include in assessing the state.  Based on demographics trends, it's likely to remain a Democrat state, sadly.  Given any lack of real polling, I cannot claim otherwise.

Wisconsin: The RCP average is Biden +6.  I see only one poll worth factoring in - the Trafalgar Group poll from late June which has Trump +1.  The CNBC/Change Research polls for this state and others, which have Biden exclusively ahead (here and in other states) might  be accurate, but they do not publish margin of error data, which is a very odd curiousity, and therefore I cannot include in my calculus.  My Take: With one poll that I can factor, showing Trump ahead, I still have to put this state in the No Call column because 1 valid poll is not enough to hang your hat on (pardon the pun). 

All in all, these state by state polls do look all that different from the Hillary Clinton paradigm-shifting landslide of 2016.  Remember that?  Me neither. Here's my primarily poll-based map (granting Georgia, Texas and Arizona to Trump despite enough poll-based evidence to support it):

Click to enlarge.

In this scenario, if Trump wins Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin he gets to 270. Barely. Is that feasible?  Absolutely. Is it likely?  Given polling I'd say it's only 50/50 right now.  While the polls are mostly all skewed and problematic, the president does have work to do.  I think COVID-19 has sapped his energy and enthusiasm.  But once he gets back to campaigning, something he seems to enjoy, I expect to see some poll shifts.  The debates will cause shifting too.  And the tendency of pollsters to become more rigorous in the closing days will see shifts too.  Honestly I still see president Trump with a potential electoral college ceiling as high as 335.  

My point is a Biden blow out is not going to happen, not that I or anyone else can fairly predict right now.  For now conservatives, do not get discouraged, just sit tight and wait.  Or better yet donate your money and time to making 2020 a Trump and Republican year.

Realistic polling results

Realistic polling results? Not so far.  I've been tracking the RealClearPolitics amalgamation of polls for some time now (here, here, here).   I have many problems with the simplistic presentation of an average of the polls to determine state by state winners from an electoral college perspective.

Click to enlarge RCP's take.

As of today, RealClearPolitics has the following polling average results:

Arizona - Biden +2.8%

Florida - Biden +6.4%

Iowa - Trump +1.5%

Michigan - Biden +7.7%

Minnesota -  Biden +16%

Nevada - Biden +4.0%

New Hampshire - Biden +4.3%

North Carolina - Biden +2.0%

Georgia - Trump +3.0%

Ohio - Tie

Pennsylvania - Biden +7.8%

Texas - Trump +0.2%

Virginia - Biden +11%

Wisconsin - Biden +6.0%

Does anyone honestly think that president Trump is ahead by just 0.2% in Texas?  Or that Biden is ahead in Arizona? The polls, and therefore the RealClearPolitics average of polls are incorrect.  The average that many pundits rely on is the wonkiest number ever.  For example the RCP average is lumping in registered voter polls with likely voter polls. That's mixing apples and oranges so to speak.

If the RealClearPolitics average is correct, right now Joe Biden is indeed looking at a landslide win over president Trump. He would have a 333-149 electoral college lead with Ohio and Texas as swing states going neither way but both potentially landing in Biden's column giving him as much as a 389-149 lead or as low as 333-205 electoral college win. That's an absurdity.

On a state by state basis here is what I am seeing:

Arizona: RCP has Trump ahead in only 3 of 23 polls since February 2019, or 2 if 17 polls in 2020.  In the past 45 days, 5 polls were conducted using the (typically) more dependable Likely Voters. Three of them were conducted by the same pollster (CNBC/Change Research) which is a Democrat funded poll. Their polls are typically using too small of a sample size and they do not publish their margin of error.  Take them out and there is a poll showing Trump +4 and a poll showing Biden +5.  My take: Based on the availability of quality polls, the state is undecided in my view. Realistically if Trump loses Arizona, he's lost the election but I personally don't see him losing the state.

Florida: RCP says Biden +6.8%?  No way.  Of the 6 polls since late May in the supposedly swing state, 4 of them are conducted by the same pollster as mentioned for Arizona.  Not surprisingly they have the same issue with their polls as in Arizona. The TIPP poll that had Biden +11% also has a margin of error problem in that they won't publish it, which means their party affiliation ratio in their poll may be skewed also.  I could not check it.  That leaves one poll that is across the board worth keeping - the Trafalgar Group (which is a Republican funded poll).   It has the state as a tie.  My take: The reality is that as usual, at this point, the state is still a toss up.

Iowa: The RCP average has Trump +1.5%. That's probably right but there are 0 polls within the last 45 days that are usable in the state.  The Des Moines Register poll which has Trump +1.  The problem is that it is the only recent poll and to rely on just one poll is not advisable.  My take: Iowa still has to be classified as a toss up just due to lack of data.

Michigan: In the last 45 days CNBC/Change Research polling has been busy stacking the average for Joe Biden (3 of 4 of the most recent state polls definitely skews the average).  There are 4 polls that I would consider; the lastest polls by each of CNBC/Change Research and EPIC-MRA, and one from NY Times/Sienna. The CNBC/Change Research has to drop because they do not publish a margin of error for their polls. The NY Times/Sienna poll is registered voters and has to drop.  That leaves Republican sponsored Trafalgar poll of 1101 likely voters that has Biden at +1% and the EPIC-MRA poll of 600 likely voters that has Biden (no joke) +16%. The latter poll has a margin of error (MOE) of +/- 4%, vs. +/- 3% for Trafalgar.  If EPIC-MRA has Biden at it's most pro-Trump MOE it is still Biden +12%.  And if Trafalgar has it's poll at it's most pro-Biden it is Biden +4%.  Now is it Biden +12% or Biden +4%? My take: It's neither.  The state cannot be called at this point for Biden.  But here's the problem for president Trump, his support in the states does appear to have softened and requires some attention from his campaign.

Minnesota: Every RCP poll in the state is a registered voter poll.  My take: The polls for Minnesota are useless, and there is no data for the state. Because Trump did well against Clinton, I'm going to leave this as a toss-up until data appears.

Nevada:  The latest poll is from January.  My take: The polls for Nevada are useless, and there is no data for the state.  It's probably still a Biden state but there is no data to support the claim.

With just 6 states reviewed so far and I have all of them as toss ups whereas the RCP average has 5 of 6 of them strongly for Biden leaving only Iowa leaning for Trump.  From that Biden 333 electoral college votes I mentioned earlier (if Trump wins Texas and Ohio of the RCP toss-ups) I so far have removed 72 electoral college votes from Biden's column leaving him with 261 and Trump with just 199.  And there's a lot of other states to dissect, likely making both of those electoral college numbers decline for both candidates.

The big takeaway so far should be this - the RCP polls are not relevant yet.  Whether that is deliberate,  an inability to improving polling methods, or some other reason does not yet matter.  So far, nobody is winning.  I'm content to let Democrats and the media think otherwise but not teh American people.  They need to know this race is FAR from over.

Coming tomorrow - New Hampshire, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and mt latest overall electoral college numbers.

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.

Thursday Hillary Bash - Is she losing Chuck Todd?

MSNBC's Chuck Todd weighs in on what a recent poll shows regarding Hillary Clinton's numbers in various swing states.  The numbers are not good, and Todd speculates as to why.

He takes a reasonably objective tone throughout the discussion.  Right near the end he says "there's something just not quite right" followed at the very end by "Boom".  It could be just speculation on her campaign, or Todd could be leaning towards Sanders.  Is Clinton losing Chuck Todd, or is it just the swing state numbers she's losing?  Or both? Or am I reading too much into this segment?

You decide.

Predicting the Election Outcome

This is really a weird year in terms of convergence of views on the outcome of the presidential election.  Polls are all over the place - from the differences between sample skews to the differences between the state polls and national polls, the lack of consistency points to a wide range of potential outcomes.  I've never looked at an election with as much optimism and trepidation at the same time.

Romney Ad Blitz - Spanish Edition

I'm glad to see that Romney is not ceding the Hispanic vote to Obama.

As part of his ad blitz, this ad is clearly destined for certain states - Florida and Nevada come to mind. I'm not sure which states this will run in, if you have any insight, let me know.

TAMPA, Florida — In its first sustained and organized attempt to woo Hispanic outreach this election cycle, the Romney campaign is preparing a major post-convention blitz aimed at wooing Latinos in Florida, an aide told BuzzFeed.

The effort will include a dramatic increase in Spanish-language ad spending, an aggressive bilingual mail program geared toward early voter turnout, and an ambitious ground game led by 13 full-time field staffers dedicated solely to courting Hispanics — more, the aide claimed, than "any other Republican presidential campaign in history."

The stakes are high: Swings of a few percentage points among Hispanic voters in Florida, as in other crucial states, could easily swing the election.

Though the campaign declined to provide specific numbers, an aide said they plan to spend "substantial money" on Spanish-language ads, many of them featuring the candidate's son, Craig Romney, who speaks fluent Spanish. They will also run negative commercials attacking President Obama for breaking his promise to take on immigration reform during his first year in office — a counter to Latino communities' distrust with the Republican Party over some leaders anti-immigrant rhetoric in general and over Romney's hard primary opposition to the "Dream Act" and other measures to legalize illegal immigrants.

Romney surrogates and aides will hold a series of "Hispanic dialogues" throughout the state, where Latino voters will be encouraged to come discuss the issues they find most important.

It's not just about money though, it's about connecting.  I would have liked to have seen Romney and the RNC start this effort two years ago.

Romney Ad Blitz - Colorado Edition

Military cutbacks under Obama hurt Colorado.

Romney Ad Blitz - Florida Edition

Obama has not been good for Florida.  Mitt Romney wants Floridians to know that.  Most must already know, but just in case you live in Florida and didn't realize that point, here's the ad from Romney's post Democratic convention ad blitz.

Romney Ad Blitz - Virginia Edition

Virginia I believe, will go Republican this cycle, and it won't be as close as the polls indicate.  Following the end of the DNC convention, Romney won't allow the Obama bounce - if there is one - to take hold in swing states like Virginia.  It's a good, targeted strategy. Here's the Virginia ad opener.