Tag Archives: Pennsylvania

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.

A Polling Comparison

By Jim Ellis

Neck-and-neck polling in a few key battleground states between President Donald Trump and former vice president Joe Biden shows interesting parallels to the 2016 race between Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Sept. 10, 2020 — With a plethora of presidential polls being released every week providing sometimes radically diverse results, it is often difficult to draw a clear picture of where the electorate is heading.

The conventional wisdom and preponderance of polling trends suggest that Joe Biden is leading the presidential race, but that President Trump is making a comeback, and the race is beginning to show some of the same characteristics found in 2016.

Three of the key states that baffled the political pollsters four years ago were Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. As we will remember, President Trump was expected to lose them all but scored close upset victories in each place.

The aggregate group of 2016 pollsters missed in each of the three states and the Real Clear Politics polling archives still publicly maintains all of those survey results. Therefore, we have the historical data to draw clear parallels between then and now.

In Wisconsin, 33 polls were taken during the election cycle and only one, from the Trafalgar Group at the end of the campaign season, placed Trump in front. A total of 62 polls were conducted in Pennsylvania with only three, again including a Trafalgar poll, projecting the future president into the lead. In Michigan, 42 polls were publicly released with Trump ahead in just two.

Though it is not generally statistically significant to average polling results because the polling methodologies, and certainly sample sizes, are very different, doing so does give us a guide as to the error factor that was present in 2016, and possibly a glimpse into what might exist this year.

In Wisconsin, the average Hillary Clinton lead advancing into the general election was 6.5 percentage points. With a 0.7 percent win for Trump, the overall error factor became a whopping 7.2 percent. The Pennsylvania numbers were closer but still a significant miss. Clinton’s average lead heading into Election Day was 2.1 percent and the president won there by the same 0.7 percent that he carried Wisconsin. Therefore, the Keystone State error factor was 2.8. Michigan was a similar story. Error factor: Clinton plus-3.6 percent. Trump victory margin: just 0.3. Total Michigan error factor: 3.9.

Continue reading →

Presidential Polling Progress

By Jim Ellis

Aug. 27, 2020 — The Republican National Convention coverage featured several mentions of swing state polling getting closer between the two presidential candidates, and recent moves from both sides would seem to suggest that internal survey numbers also reflect such a trend.

Below, we compare the 10 most recent polls with the 10 prior surveys in each of the key states to better illustrate the campaign’s movement:

ARIZONA

Last 10 Public Polls: July 17 – August 23
• Biden Aggregate Average Lead: 3.2%

Previous 10 Public Polls: June 26 – July 24
• Biden Aggregate Average Lead: 4.4%

Swing: Trump +1.2%

FLORIDA

Last 10 Public Polls: July 17 – August 22
• Biden Aggregate Average Lead: 3.2%

Previous 10 Public Polls: June 8 – July 21
• Biden Aggregate Average Lead: 6.9%

Swing: Trump +3.7%

GEORGIA

Last 10 Public Polls: July 9 – August 15
• Trump Aggregate Average Lead: 0.4%

Previous 10 Public Polls: May 4 – July 2
• Trump Aggregate Average Lead: 0.1%

Swing: Trump +0.3%

MICHIGAN

Last 10 Public Polls: July 24 – August 23
• Biden Aggregate Average Lead: 7.0%

Previous 10 Public Polls: July 9 – July 26
• Biden Aggregate Average Lead: 7.4%

Swing: Trump +0.4%

Continue reading →

Plethora of House Polls Released; All Tell Unique Stories

By Jim Ellis

Aug. 14, 2020 — In the past several days, 14 polls in 13 competitive House districts were publicly released, and they all tell a unique story. The synopsis is below (in alphabetical order):

CO-3:
• GQR Research – Mitsch Bush (D) 43%; Boebert (R) 42%

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (Aug. 3-6; 400 likely CO-3 voters) went into the field to test Democratic candidate Diane Mitsch Bush versus Republican Lauren Boebert, who unseated Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Cortez) in the June Republican primary.

The result here is not particularly surprising considering that Boebert was a shocking upset winner in the GOP primary. Mitsch Bush has a huge cash advantage, but Republicans will likely rally around Boebert in a district where President Trump should comfortably win.

IL-13:
• RMG Research – Londrigan (D) 43%; Rep. Davis (R) 41%

After seeing the 2018 election between Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Taylorville) and challenger Betsy Dirksen Londrigan (D) evolve into a 50.3 – 49.6 percent result, the pair returns for Round 2. The RMG poll (July 27-Aug. 7; 400 likely IL-13 voters), though over a very long sampling period, finds what has been clear for some time, that the 2020 edition will yield another tight race.

IN-5:
• WPA Intelligence – Spartz (R) 47%; Hale (D) 40%

The new WPA Intelligence poll (Aug. 4-6; 400 likely IN-5 voters) produces the opposite result of a survey we saw from the GBAO research organization in late June (June 25-28; 500 likely IN-5 voters). The latter study projected Democratic former state representative and ex-lieutenant governor nominee Christina Hale topping Republican state Sen. Victoria Spartz, 51-45 percent.

According to the current WPA data, Sen. Spartz, a Ukrainian immigrant, now holds a 47-40 percent advantage. The latter numbers are more consistent with the district’s voting history. Incumbent Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Carmel) is retiring.

Continue reading →

The Polling Extremes

By Jim Ellis

Former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate, Joe Biden (D)

July 31, 2020 — Two survey research organizations, Morning Consult and Change Research, just released the results of their recent battleground states polling series. Looking at all the recent public data in these places illustrates the polling volatility and movement within the states that will ultimately decide the presidential election.

The ballot test results listed for each state below illustrates the most extreme examples for President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden during the mid to late July period. With such a wide variance in most places, it is difficult to say with any certainty exactly how these defining states will actually perform come Election Day.

President Donald Trump

It is also important to take into account sample size, sample segmentation, and whether the poll was conducted through live interview, online questioning, or an interactive voice response system.

ARIZONA
• Morning Consult (JULY 17-26, 908 likely Arizona voters)
Joe Biden (D) ………….. 49% (+7)
Donald Trump (R) ……. 42%
• Change Research (July 24-26, 365 likely Arizona voters; targeted online sample)
Joe Biden (D) ………….. 47% (+2)
Donald Trump (R) ……. 45%

Arizona surveys have consistently yielded small leads for Biden over the past several months. Most of the recent results find the candidates falling within the polling margin of error.

FLORIDA
• Morning Consult (July 17-26, 3,593 likely Florida voters; online)
Donald Trump (R) ……. 48% (+1)
Joe Biden (D) ………….. 47%
• Quinnipiac University (July 16-20, 924 registered Florida voters; live interview)
Joe Biden (D) ………….. 51% (+13)
Donald Trump (R) ……. 38%

This is the most divergent spread within all of the battleground states. Florida’s polling history has routinely featured wide polling ranges that result in close election results.
Continue reading →

Turnout 2020: Up, then Down

By Jim Ellis

June 8, 2020 — In most political campaigns, the final electoral result is determined not necessarily from transforming undecided individuals into positive votes, but rather ensuring that the candidate’s committed supporters actually cast their ballot. Therefore, accurately projecting and influencing voter turnout becomes critical for every campaign.

Before the COVID-19 virus struck, many analysts and political prognosticators were predicting a record turnout in the 2020 general election, thus exceeding 2016’s all-time high 136.8 million presidential election ballots. Many stated that breaking 150 million voters was possible, with some even believing that was likely. The post-COVID primary vote participation figures now suggest otherwise, however.

There is a big difference in voter turnout before and after the COVID-19 virus attack. Prior to the March 18 societal shutdown, 25 states had held presidential primary or major caucus elections, meaning up to and including the March 17 election date in Arizona, Florida, and Illinois. North Dakota and Wyoming, because of the small attendance figures in their caucuses and reporting system, are not included in this matrix.

By mid-March, former vice president Joe Biden had broken away from the pack of Democratic candidates, and all of his major opponents had either dropped out of the race or were headed down that path. When voters cast their ballots on March 17, only Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) were advancing to the April 7 primary in Wisconsin.

Through March 17, Democratic primary turnout was up substantially from 2016, and on projected pace to meet the high turnout general election predictions if such a trend continued throughout the remainder of the election year. Republican turnout was down substantially in comparison to 2016, but that is obviously because President Trump had no serious opposition for re-nomination. Therefore, only the Democratic turnout numbers are viable for making statistically relevant calculations and projections.

Through the 25 tested presidential primaries ending March 17, turnout was up 14.8 percent when compared to the open race four years ago in the 17 states that held primary or major caucus elections in both 2016 and 2020. Since the COVID shutdown, however, Democratic voter participation has fallen. In the 11 post-COVID states that held Democratic primary elections in both 2016 and 2020, turnout dropped 21.2 percent when comparing the participation figures from the aforementioned election years.

Continue reading →

Moving to the General

By Jim Ellis

June 4, 2020 — The June 2nd primary featured 10 states, and now the candidates are set for November. Below is a recap of the races from Tuesday’s primary that project as competitive this fall, and an early prognosis for each.

IN-5:

• St. Sen Victoria Spartz (R) vs. Christina Hale (D)
Trump ’16: 53-41% | 2018 Congressional: 57-43% R (Brooks)

Ukrainian born state Senator Victoria Spartz topped a field of 15 Republican candidates with 41% on Tuesday night, after a nasty primary that resulted in some of the other contenders running ads touting that they were born in America. Democrat Christina Hale, a former state Representative and 2016 Lt. Governor nominee, had an easier time in her primary, and won with 39% of the vote, which was slightly under pre-election estimates.

Ms. Spartz is the favorite to win in November in a traditionally Republican district, but one that is moving more toward the center. Democrats will see how this race begins to unfold, but this is a seat on their secondary target list. We can expect Spartz to be tested early, and if the numbers suggest an opening, the Democrats will go for an upset win.

IOWA-SENATE:

• Sen. Joni Ernst (R) vs. Theresa Greenfield (D)
Trump ’16: 51-42% | 2016 US Senate: 60-36% R (Grassley)

Iowa is one of three Republican firewall states to keep the Senate majority, with Montana and Maine being the other two. Sen. Joni Ernst seeks her first re-election and is now paired with Des Moines real estate executive Theresa Greenfield. The Democratic establishment backed Greenfield, but she came under attack in the primary and defeated two opponents with 47% of the vote, a bit under pre-election projection.

All races in Iowa are competitive, so we can expect intense political competition here from the presidential race all the way through each of the state’s four House districts. Polling will show the Senate race as close until Election Day, but what should be another Trump victory here will help set the table for the remainder of the races. Sen. Ernst is rated as a slight favorite as the general election now officially begins.

IA-1:

• Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D) vs. St. Rep. Ashley Hinson (R)
Trump ’16: 49-45% | 2018 Congressional: 50-45% D

Freshman Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D-Dubuque) defends her seat for the first time and faces a top opponent in Republican state Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Cedar Rapids), a former television news anchor. The 1st District looked to be the safest Democratic seat in the state after 2011 redistricting, but the electorate hasn’t voted that way. This will be a top tier Republican challenge race, and one to watch. Rep. Finkenauer certainly begins with the incumbent’s advantage, but the IA-1 campaign is a top national GOP target. If the Republicans are to have any chance of re-taking the House majority, Ms. Hinson will have to win.

IA-2:

• Rita Hart (D) vs. St. Sen. Marianette Miller-Meeks (R)
Trump ’16: 49-45% | 2018 Congressional: 54-42% D (Loebsack)

The 2nd District, located in Iowa’s southeastern sector, is the district that has played best for Democrats during the decade despite President Trump carrying it in 2016.

Democrats feature former state Senator and 2018 Lt. Governor nominee Rita Hart who was even unopposed in an open seat primary. Republicans counter with first-term state Senator Marianette Miller-Meeks (R-Ottumwa), who begins her fourth race for the congressional seat. Ms. Hart is the clear favorite here, and Dr. Miller-Meeks will have to prove her credibility nationally after three losses. If she does not begin the general election in competitive fashion, this race will quickly turn Ms. Hart’s way.
Continue reading →