Tag Archives: Iowa

The Latest Numbers

By Jim Ellis

Oct. 23, 2020 — Polls are being updated daily in the competitive Senate races. Below are the most recent two surveys from each major contest. Some states provide disparate results, others more consistent. The data source is FiveThirtyEight Polls.


ALABAMA

Moore Information (OCT. 11-15; 504 likely Alabama voters, live interview)
• Tommy Tuberville (R) – 55%
• Sen. Doug Jones (D) – 40%

FM3 Research (Oct. 11-14; 801 likely Alabama voters; live interview)
• Sen. Doug Jones (D) – 48%
• Tommy Tuberville (R) – 47%


ALASKA

Public Policy Polling (Oct. 19-20; 800 Alaska voters, interactive response system)
• Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) – 44%
• Al Gross (D/I) – 41%

Siena College/NYT (Oct. 9-14; 423 likely Alaska voters, live interview)
• Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) – 45%
• Al Gross (D/I) – 37%


ARIZONA

Ipsos/Reuters (Oct. 14-21; 658 likely Arizona voters, online)
• Mark Kelly (D) – 51%
• Sen. Martha McSally (R) – 43%

Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion (Oct. 18-19; 800 likely Arizona voters, automated)
• Mark Kelly (D) – 48%
• Sen. Martha McSally (R) – 44%


GEORGIA-A

Emerson College (Oct. 17-19; 506 likely Georgia voters; interactive voice response)
• Sen. David Perdue (R) – 46%
• Jon Ossoff (D) – 45%

Garin Hart Yang Research (Oct. 11-14; 600 likely Georgia voters; live interview)
• Jon Ossoff (D) – 48%
• Sen. David Perdue (R) – 43%


GEORGIA-B – Special Election

Siena College/NYT (Oct. 13-19; 759 likely Georgia voters, live interview)
Jungle Primary; top two advance to Jan 5 runoff
• Raphael Warnock (D) – 32%
• Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) – 23%
• Rep. Doug Collins (R) – 17%
• Matt Lieberman (D) – 7%
• Ed Tarver (D) – 2%

Emerson College (Oct. 17-19; 506 likely Georgia voters, interactive voice response)
• Raphael Warnock (D) – 27%
• Rep. Doug Collins (R) – 27%
• Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) – 20%
• Matt Lieberman (D) – 12%
• Ed Tarver (D) – 2%


Continue reading

Iowa: Questioning the Polls

By Jim Ellis

Oct. 19, 2020 — Every political observer remembers that the cumulative polling community incorrectly predicted the Great Lakes states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in the 2016 Trump-Clinton presidential race, but further research finds additional significant misses in succeeding elections.

Political research reveals that two of those campaigns came in Iowa during the 2016 presidential race and the hotly contested governor’s race two years later. Today, we look at the Hawkeye State numbers with the goal of potentially ascertaining if there is a common polling pattern or consistent error factor.

In October, four polls have been released for the 2020 contest from a like number of different pollsters, two from left of center organizations while the other two are independent entities. The research organizations are Data for Progress, Civiqs for the Daily Kos Elections webpage, YouGov, and Quinnipiac University. Each has conducted one October Iowa survey.

In the presidential race, the polls yield former vice president Joe Biden an average lead of just over one percentage point. The cumulative ballot test mode then finds Des Moines real estate executive Theresa Greenfield (D) topping Sen. Joni Ernst (R) with a margin of four percentage points.

How do these numbers compare to recent polling vs. results electoral history, and is there an inherent Republican under-poll present?

In 2016, the Real Clear Politics polling average from Nov. 1-4 found then-candidate Donald Trump leading former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by a mean average of three percentage points derived from three polls and three different polling firms. On Election Day, Nov. 4, 2016, Trump carried the state by a much larger 9.5-point margin.

Overall, 26 Iowa polls were released during the 2016 election cycle, with Trump recording a cumulative average lead of under half of one percentage point. According to the Real Clear Politics polling archives, 12 firms combined to reach the grand total, including Public Policy Polling (5 surveys), NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist College (5), Loras College (3), Quinnipiac University (3), Emerson College (2), and Selzer & Company for the Des Moines Register (2). The widest spread came from Loras College (Clinton plus-14) at the end of June. The Selzer & Company for the Des Moines Register poll produced the most accurate finding, Trump plus-7, at the very end of the election cycle (Nov. 1-4, 2016).

Continue reading

Where the Senate Stands

By Jim Ellis

Oct. 13, 2020 — Now, less than a month before the official Election Day, we see multiple polls coming regularly in almost every competitive Senate race. Democrats need a net conversion of three Republican seats if Joe Biden is elected president and four seats if he is not. With 16 races now on the competitive board, we look at where they each stand. At least two surveys are included for each race.

Looking at the current trends, we see a tightening Senate from the current 53R-47D majority. Under the current swing, Democrats could reach 51, but with several races remaining as toss-ups or in range where they still could go either way. It’s conceivable, at this point, that both parties could claim 49 seats with a fight for the remaining two that would decide the next majority.

All of the polling data is from late September and early October:


ALABAMA: Sen. Doug Jones (D) vs. Tommy Tuberville (R)
• Trend: Tuberville

POLLS:
• University of Auburn @ Montgomery (Sept. 30-Oct. 3; 1,072 registered Alabama voters)
  Tommy Tuberville (R) – 54%
  Sen. Doug Jones (D) – 42%

• Morning Consult (Sept. 11-20; 658 likely Alabama voters)
  Tommy Tuberville (R) – 52%
  Sen. Doug Jones (D) – 34%


ALASKA: Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) vs. Dr. Al Gross (I/D)
• Trend: Slightly Sullivan

POLLS:
• Alaska Survey Research (Sept. 25-Oct. 4; 676 likely Alaska voters)
  Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) – 48%
  Al Gross (I/D) – 44%

• Harstad Strategic Research (Sept. 20-23; 602 likely Alaska voters)
  Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) – 46%
  Al Gross (I/D) – 45%


ARIZONA: Appointed Sen. Martha McSally (R) vs. Mark Kelly (D)
• Trend: Kelly

POLLS:
• Latino Decisions (Sept. 28-Oct. 6; 600 likely Arizona voters)
  Mark Kelly (D) – 47%
  Sen. Martha McSally (R) – 42%

• Ipsos (Oct. 3-5; 550 likely Arizona voters)
  Mark Kelly (D) – 48%
  Sen. Martha McSally (R) – 44%

• Data Orbital (Oct. 3-5; 550 likely Arizona voters)
  Mark Kelly (D) – 49%
  Sen. Martha McSally (R) – 44%

• HighGround, Inc. (Sept. 28-Oct. 5; 400 likely Arizona voters)
  Mark Kelly (D) – 50%
  Sen. Martha McSally (R) – 44%


Continue reading

Senate: A Polling Comparison

By Jim Ellis

Sept. 24, 2020 — Today, we look at the competitive Senate races and segment the group around polling consistency. Several races routinely report point spreads between the two major party candidates that are wildly inconsistent, while others vary over a small difference often within the same polling period.

The two most extreme surveys during the month are listed for each state with the most extreme first and the closest second. You will notice that the British firm, Redfield & Wilton Strategies, is often listed as the most extreme.

We begin, alphabetically by state, with the inconsistent group. Only the two Georgia races are in the September consistent segment.


INCONSISTENT


Arizona
Number of September polls: 14
Polling range: 16 points

Redfield & Wilton Strategies
(Sept. 12-16; 855 likely Arizona voters; combination online and live interview)
• Mark Kelly (D) – 52%
• Sen. Martha McSally (R) – 35%

ABC News/Washington Post
(Sept. 15-20; 579 AZ likely voters; live interview)
• Mark Kelly (D) – 49%
• Sen. Martha McSally (R) – 48%


Iowa
Number of September polls: 2
Polling range: 8 points

Fabrizio Ward/Hart Research (for AARP)
(Aug. 30-Sept. 5; 800 likely Iowa voters; live interview)
• Sen. Joni Ernst (R) – 50%
• Theresa Greenfield (D) – 45%

Selzer & Company
(Sept. 14-17; 658 likely Iowa voters; live interview)
• Sen. Joni Ernst (R) – 45%
• Theresa Greenfield (D) – 42%


Continue reading

Why Arizona is So Pivotal

By Jim Ellis

Does Arizona hold the key in a Trump-Biden election?

Sept. 16, 2020 — For several reasons, the Grand Canyon State of Arizona is possibly the most important state on the political map to determine the ultimate presidential election outcome.

Primarily, Arizona is one of five core states that President Trump must win to form a foundation for a favorable remaining state coalition map. The other four, geographically from west to east, are Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. Should Joe Biden break through in any one of these five states, he will likely win the national election.

At this point, Arizona appears to be the most precarious of the Trump core states. While the President’s numbers are improving here, the September polls find him trailing Biden in all six publicly released surveys from a range of one to nine points among likely voters, with a mean average of Biden plus-4, and a median of Biden plus-3.5.

The five states are so critical to President Trump, or any Republican national candidate, because, as a unit, they yield a relatively easy remaining victory map. Carrying the five southern sector domains and assuming no leakage in Ohio or Iowa, and even while not winning Nevada or New Hampshire, the GOP nominee then claims the presidency with a victory in any one of the key Great Lakes states: Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. For a Democrat to win under this scenario, he or she would be forced to sweep the aforementioned quartet.

President Trump won the 2016 Electoral College vote 306-232, which means he can relinquish a net 36 electoral votes in 2020 and still win the national election. Under the scenario of him taking either Wisconsin or Minnesota, along with keeping Arizona, he would defeat Biden with exactly 270 electoral votes. This model also assumes he wins the 2nd Congressional District from both Nebraska and Maine, the two states that split their electoral votes. He won both in 2016. Under this scenario, Michigan and Pennsylvania would go to Biden.

Arizona, now potentially teetering toward the Democrats, is critical to the president’s prospects because Trump cannot afford to trade it for one of the western Great Lakes States, either Minnesota or Wisconsin. Such a loss would force the president to win two of the four Great Lakes, but only one could be Minnesota or Wisconsin since those two states have 10 electoral votes and Arizona has 11.

Therefore, simply put, losing Arizona because of its 11th electoral vote would mean that Trump would be forced to carry either Michigan or Pennsylvania in addition to one of the other three remaining Great Lakes States. A further scenario involving Trump losing Arizona and replacing it with both of the 10-electoral vote states (MN and WI) could result in the election ending in a 269-269 tie. This would force a tiebreaker to be decided in the US House of Representatives.

Let’s look at the chances of Trump winning Arizona by comparing his current standing to where he was at this point in 2016. Looking at the Real Clear Politics polling archives, we find that 19 Arizona polls were conducted during the entire 2016 election cycle. In 2020, just since the July 4th holiday break, 25 surveys were publicly reported in the Grand Canyon State.

Four years ago, at the end of August through mid-September, two individual polls came from Gravis Marketing (Aug. 25-27, 2016) and NBC News/Marist College (Sept. 6-8, 2016). These surveys yielded Trump four and one-point leads, respectively. Shortly thereafter, the trend began to turn Hillary Clinton’s way. The OH Predictive Insights survey (Sept. 28-30, 2016) found the two candidates tied at 42 percent apiece, while Emerson College (Oct. 2-4, 2016) and the Arizona Republic newspaper poll (Oct. 10-15, 2016) detected consecutive leads for Clinton of two and five points.

Therefore, Arizona did not turn toward Trump for good until the Monmouth University survey in late October (Oct. 21-24, 2016), which put him just one point ahead. Going into the election from that point, and remembering the 2016 election was on Nov. 8, Trump led in the final four polls from a two to five-point margin. He would eventually win the actual vote count by 3.6 percentage points, 48.7 – 45.1 percent, meaning a raw vote margin of 91,234 votes of more than 2.573 million ballots cast.

Because of Arizona’s fast population growth, the state has changed in four years. During that interval, the overall population expanded five percentage points to 7,278,717 individuals according to the Census Bureau’s July 2019 estimate, the latest available.

Minorities, specifically Hispanics and blacks, account for approximately 69 percent of the population gain, thus at least partially explaining Biden’s improved prospects in the state. Overall, Hispanics represent 31.7 percent of the overall Arizona population, and blacks 5.2 percent, as compared to the non-Hispanic white position receding to 54.1 percent.

The population changes suggest that this already tight political state will likely become even closer as we head for Nov. 3.