CNN / ORC polls: Trump strong in Nevada, Clinton rise in Florida, CNN / ORC Opinion poll, US polls, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump

CNN / ORC polls: Trump strong in Nevada, Clinton rise in Florida, CNN / ORC Opinion poll, US polls, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump

Both the Clinton and Trump campaigns have hit the ground hard in Arizona, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, and new CNN/ORC polls across the four states paint a picture of a tight race to the finish in critical battlegrounds.

Clinton holds a 4-point edge among likely voters in the historically blue-tilting Pennsylvania, and Trump tops Clinton by 5 with voters in red-leaning Arizona. Though both states tilt in the same direction as their 2012 results, the leaders' margins are tighter than their predecessors' final leads were in each state.

Florida appears to be as tight a contest as ever, with Clinton at 49% among likely voters and Trump at 47%. That's an apparent shift in Clinton's direction since the last CNN/ORC poll there in September before the presidential debates began, but still a within-margin-of-error race.

In Nevada, the poll suggests the race has also shifted, with Trump now ahead there 49% to 43%, with 5% behind Libertarian Gary Johnson, compared with a two-point Clinton edge in mid-October.

Tight Senate races, too
All four of these states also have senate seats up for grabs this year, three of the four are incredibly close contests. In Florida, Marco Rubio's once wide lead over Patrick Murphy has evaporated, and the race is now a 1-point contest, 49% back Rubio, 48% Murphy. The Nevada race to replace the Senate's top Democrat Harry Reid has swung back toward Republican Joe Heck, but here too the race is within margin of error, with Heck at 49% to Catherine Cortez Masto's 47%. The margin widens slightly in Pennsylvania, where Republican incumbent Pat Toomey lags behind challenger Katie McGinty by 5 points. In Arizona, John McCain holds a wide lead over challenger Ann Kirkpatrick, topping her 52% to 39%.

The CNN/ORC polls were conducted by telephone Oct. 27-Nov. 1. Results reflect interviews with 867 registered voters and 769 likely voters in Arizona, 884 registered voters and 773 likely voters in Florida, 860 registered voters and 790 likely voters in Nevada and 917 registered voters and 799 likely voters in Pennsylvania. Results among likely voters have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points in each state.
Source: edition.cnn

US 2016 presidential election: Double-digit win for Hillary Clinton says Indian analyst, US opinion poll 2016 latest, US polls, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Observatory Group Latest Survey 2016

US 2016 presidential election: Double-digit win for Hillary Clinton says Indian analyst, US opinion poll 2016 latest, US polls, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Observatory Group Latest Survey 2016

In my earlier article (, I had said that Hillary Clinton will win by a 9% margin. I think that is an under-estimate. Given that opinion polls are saying ‘too close to call’ (and the presidential debates yet to begin), some of you will be tempted to dismiss me as nuts. But I’ll stick to my position: The opinion poll data are at eye-catching odds with historical patterns, and clash with all reasonable assumptions about the pattern continuing. My most-preferred forecast is, in a two-way fight, 57% to Clinton and 43% for Donald Trump. If third-party candidates together poll 10%, the margin might reduce to 11%. If this prediction is accurate, 2016 will be comparable to the Eisenhower-Stevenson election of 1956, when Eisenhower won 57.4 % to Stevenson’s 42%.

Poll forecasts are not for the weak-hearted. I speak with some experience, having conducted several national opinion polls in India in the 1980s and 1990s, and getting some wrong. Armchair election analyses since then have fared considerably better! There are many reasons for opinion polls to go wrong—an unrepresentative sample maybe the most important. And in this age of fast-paced internet polling, a representative voter data sample maybe very difficult to achieve.

In contrast to polls, my forecast is based on broad historical tendencies of actual registered voters. So, there is less room to go wrong, and one can only go wrong if the pattern (who votes for whom) deviates substantially from post-war history. If American registered voters are classified into four mutually-exclusive groups—non-Hispanic Whites (hereafter Whites), Black, Hispanics, and Others—then the accompanying table outlines some basic electoral stats for 2016 estimated by using citizens, registered voters, and turnout data for the 2008- and 2012-presidential elections in the US.


Race/ Sex Eligible Actual voters Turnout Vote for Vote for Excess vote %D %R
to vote Clinton Trump for Clinton    
  mil mil % mil mil mil % %
Black 28.9 19.5 67.5 18.1 1.4 16.8 93 7
Hispanics 27.1 12.6 46.5 10.1 2.5 7.6 80 20
Others 13.7 6.6 48.2 4.6 2 2.6 70 30
B+H+O 691 38.7 55.5 32.8 5.9 27 84.8 15.2
Whitefemale 79.6 50.5 63.4 25.3 25.3 0 50 50
White male 74.8 45.6 61 18.2 27.4 -9.1 40 60
Whitetotal      154.4 96.1 62.2 43.5 52.6 -9.1 45.3 547
Total             224.1 135 60.2 763 58.5 17.9 56.6 43.4

Source: US Census Bureau. Voter registration data. Gallup polls 1952-2012.
Notes: You can play with the racial propensities to vote to obtain any scenario result. You will find that the probability of Trump even losing by five per cent margin is very low.


What matters is not the eligible population, but the actual voting population. To arrive at the latter, one goes through two transformations—from voting age population to registration, and from registration to actual voting. Turnout is the fraction of actual voters to those eligible. Differences in turnout can be meaningful: Note that while the Hispanic and Black eligible populations are near equal (around 29 million each), low registration and turnout stats for the former result in only 12.6 million Hispanic versus 19.5 million Black voters. Blacks had the highest turnout rate in 2012 (66.2%); in second place, were Whites (62%).

Voting behaviour can vary by sex, but only for Whites is this segregation estimated. I assume that for non-Whites, males and females vote with identical propensities for a Democrat or Republican. The non-whites are only a third of the population and representative male-female data are not easily available. So, my forecast, based on estimates of historical propensities to vote for each racial group, is as below (also see accompanying table).

Blacks: It is assumed that Blacks will vote 93% for Clinton and 7% for Trump—this is consistent with the historical record, and opinion polls.

Hispanics: With a two-party adjustment, Hispanics have averaged 67% for Democrats; Obama gained 68% and 72% in the 2008- and 2012-elections. The record-best for the Democrats was in 1996, when Bill Clinton obtained 77% of the two-party Hispanic vote. In 2012, Republican candidate Mitt Romney obtained 28%, and 2016 opinion polls suggest that Trump’s share of the Hispanic vote is running 4-8 percentage points lower than Romney’s.

It seems likely that Trump will receive the lowest historical Republican share of the Hispanic vote. It is unlikely that Trump will do better among Hispanics than Bob Dole did in 1996 (a 23% two-way vote). Given the particular nature of this election, it seems a safe assumption that Hispanics will vote in record amounts for Clinton, at around 80-20.
Others comprise nearly 14 million of the voting age population, but only 6.6 million of registered voters. Asian Americans account for two-thirds of Others. Seventy-three percent of Asian Americans voted for Obama in 2012.
These propensities suggest that in 2016, 38.7 million of non-Whites will vote on election-day, and approximately 85% will vote Democrat. [For the last four elections, 82% of non-whites have voted Democrat]. This implies that Trump starts with a 27 million-vote handicap (32.8 million votes for Clinton, and 5.9 million for Trump). There is likely to be very little movement in this advantage for Clinton; for any movement, Blacks will have to prefer Trump over historic margins, and Hispanics will have to move towards Trump in a very unexpected fashion. Even if it is assumed that Trump receives, among Hispanics, the average of Republican votes obtained since 1980 (33%),

Clinton’s non-white-voter advantage declines by 4 million, to 23 million. And that is still a very large disadvantage for Trump to overcome.

What about the White vote in 2016?

Sixty-nine percent of registered voters are White, comprising 50.5 million females and 45.6 million males. Why do women voters outnumber men so markedly? They live longer, and have a higher turnout. Noteworthy also is the fact that White women traditionally vote Democrat and White men traditionally vote Republican.
Estimates of the White vote (Gallup Polls) for all presidential elections from 1952-2012 indicate that on average, White voters prefer Republicans 55% to 45 %. What one needs, however, is the Republican-Democratic breakdown of White vote by sex. The result, consistent with the historical White average, is that White women split 50-50 and White men prefer Republicans 60-40. This results in a 13.2% spread (56.6-43.4) in favour of Clinton. This is our base case result.

Will White women turn out better than their historical average in an election in which there is a woman candidate for president, and in which women as a group have been insulted by the other presidential candidate? Perhaps not better than what Obama achieved, but equal to what he did obtain, i.e., 55%? This results in a 17% margin for Clinton (White men remain at historical average 40-60).

What about a 1980-Reagan performance by Trump, winning the White vote 61-39? This results in a narrower, but still respectable, 4% margin victory for Hillary Clinton.

Just the average of the above three simulations gives Clinton an 11% advantage. It is improbable that debates, or much else, can change this likely result. What will allow Trump to win? If Trump obtains the same White vote as Reagan obtained in 1984 (60% women and 70% men), 2016 might result in the narrowest of victories for Trump. So, all analysts have to face this question—how close is Trump to Reagan in his appeal? If not close enough, then a Clinton victory is assured.

Recent US polls are close, within ±3%; yet, my historical analysis shows that a close election is very unlikely. Can history be that wrong? If not, then why are the polls so different than the “historical” outcome?

One explanation is that it is in everyone’s interest to show that the race is too close to call. The TV networks ring in the profits—the whole globalised world is clued in. Political websites never had it so good. Why upset the profit-cart?

Democrats prefer an ex-ante close race for a high turnout. If it looks like a landslide, won’t Democrats just stay home on voting day? The Trump camp prefers a close race to help with funding. And the pollsters? After being caught by circumstances (Brexit and Trump), they are playing it safe, erring heavily on the side of caution, since nothing is gained by being an “outlier” at this early stage.

The author is senior India analyst, The Observatory Group, a New York based macro policy advisory group. He conducted several national opinion polls in India in the 1980s and 1990s, and now prefers armchair analysis to polling.



US Presidential Election Florida Opinion Poll 2016 May: Gravis Marketing shows Clinton Ahead of Trump by 4 % Points, US Opinion poll 2016

Florida Poll: Latest US Opinion poll by Gravis
Marketing, Hillary Clinton ,
Donald Trump,US Opinion poll 2016

This Opinion Poll has been conducted by Gravis Marketing

Sample Size: 2542 registered Voters

Polling Methodoly: Telephonic interviews

Margin of Error +2.0% 

Time when Conducted – Between 17th – 18th May 2016. 

This Opinion Poll shows Democrat Hillary Clinton lead by 4 points against Republican Trump in Florida 

They also revealed the unfavorable percentages of the 2 leaders in the state i.e for both Trump and Clinton.

Surely Trump has High Number of Unfavorable Ratings Compared to Clinton but still overall both the candidates have high unfavorable Ratings. See Latest poll by Newyork Times/CBS on Unfavorable Ratings of the Leaders

Poll source

Date administered





Lead margin

Sample Size

Margin of error

Gravis Marketing

May 17–18, 2016

Hillary Clinton


Donald Trump




± 2%


 Clinton’s  figures indicated that 52 % of Florida registered voters currently have an unfavorable opinion, 40 % having a favorable opinion and 8 % unsure.



 Registered voters








 Trump’s figures indicated that 54 % of Florida registered voters currently have an unfavorable opinion, 38 % having a favorable opinion and 8 % unsure.





 Registered voters







Surely Trump has High Number of Unfavorable Ratings Compared to Clinton but still overall both the candidates have high unfavorable Ratings.


US Presidential Election Opinion Poll 2016 RealClearPolitics average of latest polls shows Trump ahead of Clinton by 0.2% Points, US Opinion poll Summary ,US Presidential Polls 2016

Republican’s Trump overtakes Clinton in average of national polls by RCP, 2016 Presidential Polls, RealClearPolitics,US Opinion poll Summary ,US Presidential Polls 2016 

Trump led by 5  points by the Rasmussen Reports and according to Fox and ABC News Trump overtakes clinton by 3 points and 2 points respectively.

 On Sunday, RealClearPolitics calculated the avergaes of all National Polls and showed that Trump is now, on average, 0.2 percentage points ahead of Clinton.

Polling Data



Trump (R)

Clinton (D)


RCP Average

5/13 – 5/19



Trump +0.2

ABC News/Wash Post

5/16 – 5/19



Trump +2

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl

5/15 – 5/19



Clinton +3

Rasmussen Reports

5/17 – 5/18



Trump +5

FOX News

5/14 – 5/17



Trump +3

CBS News/NY Times

5/13 – 5/17



Clinton +6


Trump’s campaign is now beginning it’s vice presidential discussion, Donald Trump, Republican, vice presidential candidates, Trump campaign,US presidential Election 2016

Trump’s campaign is now beginning it’s vice presidential discussion, Donald Trump, Republican, vice presidential candidates, Trump campaign,US presidential Election 2016

Donald Trump’s campaign is scrambling to ramp up its planning for the general election, including scraping together a list of potential vice presidential candidates, after Trump abruptly became the presumptive Republican nominee Tuesday night.

The Trump campaign, blindsided by rival Ted Cruz’s sudden exit from the race, is now beginning internal deliberations about potential vice presidential candidates, two Trump campaign sources tell CNN.
The campaign will also begin coordinating immediately with the Republican National Committee to calibrate a general election ground game, including staff hires and deciding in which battleground states to deploy field staff, a senior Trump adviser said.
Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told reporters Tuesday night before election results in Indiana drove Cruz out of the race that the campaign had yet to start vetting vice presidential candidates.
Trump confirmed Wednesday that his campaign is beginning to put together a committee to weigh in on his pick for running mate. The committee will include former presidential rival and now-Trump supporter Ben Carson, the former neurosurgeon’s adviser Armstrong Williams confirmed to CNN.
Some candidates who have been mentioned by pundits as potential vice presidents are already ruling themselves out.
“Well, I predict Donald’s going to have a big win, I like my job. I worked hard to get this job. I’m going to stay in this job,” Florida Gov. Rick Scott, one such potential candidate, told CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront” on Wednesday. “I’m going to finish this job, I’ve got two years and eight months to go.”
When Burnett asked if he would say “yes” to being Trump’s vice president, he responded, “I’m going to pass.”
“I will do everything I can to make sure he wins both our state and if he wants any help nationwide, I’ll do anything I can to make sure he wins but I’m going to stay in this job and finish this job and have a good partner in the White House,” Scott said.
On Thursday, Carson told The Wall Street Journal that he wasn’t interested in the job, saying he’d be a “distraction.”
A senior Trump campaign source said Wednesday that the campaign’s early favorites for vice president are now New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.
And Trump, in an interview with CNN on Wednesday, added another name to the list: Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is expected to drop out of the race Wednesday afternoon.
“I think John will be very helpful with Ohio,” Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
The source stressed that the shortlist is in its infancy.
Some are already taking themselves out of the running: A spokesman for Portman said the senator, who is in the midst of an intense Senate reelection campaign, is “not interested.”
“He’s focused on his own race,” said Kevin Smith, his spokesman.
And Haley said her “plate is full.”
“I have great respect for the will of the people, and as I have always said, I will support the Republican nominee for president,” she said in a statement. “While I am flattered to be mentioned and proud of what that says about the great things going on in South Carolina, my plate is full and I am not interested in serving as vice president.”
Trump said at an event Thursday that Haley was never under consideration.
A spokesman for Martinez also said she wasn’t interested.
“The governor has said repeatedly over the years that she isn’t interested in serving as vice president,” said Chris Sanchez, a spokesman for the governor. “She appreciates that such attention puts New Mexico in the spotlight, but she is fully committed to serving the people of our state.”
Haley, who endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio against Trump in her state’s primary, has been highly critical of Trump and warned voters against flocking to “the siren call of the angriest voices” — a thinly veiled dig at Trump.
Martinez has also not shied away from criticizing the brash New York billionaire, but Portman has said he would support the GOP nominee.
One governor who said she was “behind Donald Trump 100%” was Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin.
“I have not had any direct contact with Mr. Trump, but I would be very honored if I were to receive a call saying I need you to help make America great again,” Fallin said in a statement regarding the VP speculation.

Trump has repeatedly stressed that he would pick a running mate with political and government experience — versus a businessman like himself — whose relationships with powerful members of Congress could help him pass his agenda legislatively.