New numbers from Quinnipiac (538 rating: A-), compared to its last poll on August 18.
(margin of error: 3.9)
Clinton: 44 (+3)
Trump: 42 (+9)
Johnson: 10 (-6)
Head-to-head, it’s Clinton 47, Trump 47.
The only other poll out of CO this month, from Emerson (grade: B) has Trump up 4 in the 4-way, up 3 in head-to-head.
Trump currently leads the RCP average in IA, NC, NV, FL, and OH. Add CO to that and he’s your next President.
Ipsos had Trump up 3 as of 9/8, 43-40.
CO really may be THE ballgame.
IA is gone, and OH looks gone at this moment as well. If Trump holds NC and FL (no sure thing) than as long as Clinton PA, NH and VA she has 263 EV’s to Trumps 266.
And Colorado out.
This isn’t a surprise: CO was the state that decided ’08 and ’12.
I want to see better polling.
And the national numbers suggest the race is moving back to CLniton nationally.
No, CO didn’t decide 2008 or 2012. In 2012 Obama could have lost CO, FL, and OH and still won. The CO vote in both of those elections was similar to the national popular vote totals. That was a deviation from the three prior elections when the GOP won and in ’92 WJC’s total was three points less than his national total.
Agree that IA has been lost (it’s even more settled and much earlier than its 2014 Senate race). OH is also gone.
HRC has to hold all four of Maine’s EC votes (they’ve never been split), NH, and NV or CO to win. HRC is lagging in NV which isn’t a good sign. Q’s Clinton v. Trump tie in CO is a warning, even if it’s not realistic because it will be a four way race and expect Johnson will hold onto enough of the to vote to deny Trump the win. However, with Bennet dropping from 50+ to 45 (without gains for the GOP nominee), Democrats aren’t as strong here as they need to be.
Failing to get anti-fracking on the ballot and depending on Hispanic turnout for your margins…unforced errors.
That’s like saying the unforced errors of HRC is that she’s HRC.
What east coast Democrats and liberals don’t get is the style and policy differences required to run well in mountain states and to a lesser extent OR and WA.
You don’t understand the analysis. Make a list of all the states. Then order them by Obama’s margin, and then determine which state gets him over 270.
That state was Colorado, and he won it by 1.3 points larger than the national margin.
This is really important to understand. It identifies where the fulcrum is likely to be if the national race is tied.
Beyond this there are three states not to sleep on:
Trump’s margin in AZ is barely more than a point. It isn’t on a lot of people’s radar, but it does provide Clinton with another state if CO goes south.
WI and MI are both pretty close. The very good Marquette poll found Clinton up only 2. If Trump puts either in play it gives him a couple other ways to win.
But I think the race is moving away from Trump as we speak. Of course the debate could change everything.
Are we doing projections or Wednesday morning analysis of results?
Or do you start with the “sure blue” states and add from there? Would that be “sure blue” 2000 or “sure blue” 2004? Let’s use 2004 when turnout was higher and “sure blue” was lower.
2008 (“sure blue”) – scorecard
East Coast (ME-MD) – 114
IL-north – 65
West Coast – 81
That’s 260 EC votes. So, the state that first reported 10 or more EC votes for Obama was the one that put him over the top. As Obama’s vote percentage was higher in VA than OH and NC, would say that VA put him over the top. (The FL panhandle delays its reporting — even if its machines were tip-top.)
There’s some risk in using this for projections because while consistently blue over four or more election cycles, the margins in several blue states are thin. The vote can swing as much as it does in what are considered swing states, but it’s in one direction, bluer and when less blue not less than 50%.
In sorting through this, I now see why you’ve been concerned about HRC pulling money/resources from CO and VA. Red in 2004, large swings from 2004 to 2008, and under 52% in 2012. Obama gave up less in NV in 2012; so, it should be more solid blue, but the poll numbers aren’t reflecting that. Isn’t Kaine supposed to put VA in HRC’s column?
Seems somewhat straightforward at this time: HRC needs CO and NV or SC. How the hell did this woman make the race as close as it was in 2000? (GWB is an idiot, but Trump is a maniac.) She’s stumbling in the same states that Gore did: NV, CO, and NH. And she’s had VA in her column which Gore never had.
Maybe this will clarify things. This a list of states by Obama’s margin, and the cumulative EV total.
This is how you do targeting – I did for years in Vermont when trying to come up with a strategy for the State House.
When you look at this you realize just how incompetent the decision was to pull out of CO and VA.
I mean it was just beyond stupid.
On that list it looks like Trump has flipped NV, and Iowa. That puts Clinton at 260. SO she needs to find 10 more EV’s.
She trails in Florida and Ohio, but NC is a tossup.
So that tells you just how fricken important CO is. If she loses Colorado then she has to flip a Romney state. NC is at best a tossup, and she is behind in Arizona.
So Colorado is IT in a way I don’t think people get.
To you other point, I believe any Democratic Nominee wince World War 2 with the exception of Carter in 1980 would be up by at least 10.
Put another way she is the worst nominee of my lifetime.
When you look at the list notice how far up Trump has gone in Clinton’s list. Michigan and Wisconsin are within 3. Note too the exceptions: PA and VA.
Got it. It’s good model. Also highlights Kaine as her hedge guy. (Although I also think that she’s comfy with him.) My only gripe about it is that it encourages a degree of complacency wrt to some states that are can still swing and encourages conservative cautiousness. By that I mean if a candidate writes off a state before the campaign begins, she/he has limited her/his acceptance within that state after winning. (Trump is an unstructured maniac, but he has been working some states that are assumed to be blue.)
IA went south early; so, she’s only had a 9 EV margin and expansion possibilities for some breathing room are tough to get at this late stage. Looks a lot like what Gore faced, except he wasn’t as savvy with his VP pick (he should have gone with Graham). VA still looks solid for HRC, but leaving that and CO to chance while spending money/resources in states like FL and NC isn’t all that prudent.
Is she working CO? Or is she sending surrogates? Assume Kaine is working VA which will probably suffice. I know she sent Bernie to OH — what a freaking waste of what he could offer — and has Warren stumping for her in NH which is probably about as good as she can get for that state. IA is gone (it’s as if the DEM party in the state has died).
It looks like we have reached the point where it’s Trump’s election to lose.
What a debacle.
Not there yet. Does up the importance of the first debate. Should be interesting because neither has a debate style that will be effective with this opponent. OTOH, no reason to think that either can change her and his style for this one.
Damn Democrats, it was going to be a blowout win this year … why Hillary?
Ted Cruz won Colorado big and this could tilt that state in Trump’s favor.
That assumes that the CO GOP caucuses reflected anything close to voter sentiment. Colorado Republicans aren’t getting much of a say in 2016
Apparently team Cruz organized and stacked the caucuses with locals running for delegate slots and won them all. Possible that those individuals didn’t bother mentioning that they were Cruz Cruds. Why bother when there was no competition for the delegate slots.
So, my guess is that Cruz’s endorsement will mean little to CO GOP voters.
iirc — Ted and his whole freaking family prayed on their knees for hours on the question of whether or not to run for the Presidency. As if god would give a fig about Ted Cruz, Trump, or a US election. OTOH, Satan just might which would explain a large number of those that made it to the WH.
Stop all of this poll bullshit.
Wait until the verdict is in on the first debate.
Then things’ll start to clear up.
Until then?
Just a bunch of highly paid hustlers running their various games.
Has anyone ever done a time study on the pollsters, starting…oh, say six months before the last 6 or 8 presidential elections, right up to the final outcomes?
Betcha it would look just like Jorge Luis Borges’s self-portait.
Bet on it.
AG
In 2008 and 2012 the leader in the polling average from Sept 15 to Sept 30 won every state. In 2004 the only state to flip was New Hampshire.
So to sum, in the last 3 Presidential elections, the leader of a state before the first debate went on to win that state 152 out of 153 times.
You are unambiguously and completely wrong.
Things may change, but arguing the current numbers are meaningless is factually incorrect.
I think there is a fundamental difference between 08/12 and 16. In 08/12, neither candidate was particularly hated and undecideds slowly fell into place as one of the candidates made his case.
In 2016, we have the two most unpopular candidates in modern history. We can make many guesses about how this affects things, but I personally expect that this means greater volatility in the undecideds as every single event affects who they hate/fear more. I think tomorrow’s debate will matter this time, especially if Trump can somehow sound presidential.
Have you ever considered that the polls drive the vote instead of simply measuring it? Mass media coverage of polls pushes undecideds in the “right” direction. The fix direction. No one wants to be on the losing side. That’s one of the ways the fix has worked for so long.
Plus…these are not normal candidates, to say the least. And the debates will tell the tale this time, for sure.
Watch.
I’m gonna.
AG
Did you miss my timeline?
“Six months before the last 6 or 8 presidential elections, right up to the final outcomes.”
Sure…the fix has done its job and done it fairly well over the last 50 years or so.
I am disputing the efficacy of polls in general. Especially in a truly outlier year.
Watch.
AG