Election Preview: The Path to 270 (with updated numbers)

Well, sports fans, in just under 24 hours we will start getting results from Election Day. We will learn who will be our next President of the United States and which political party will control the Senate for 2017 and 2018. 31 days ago, when the lewd Access Hollywood Trump tape was released, conventional wisdom said that the race was functionally over. However, in the four weeks since then, Trump has steadily clawed back. He’s had two good debate performances, has stayed mostly on message and benefited from a bevy of bad news for Hillary Clinton. We’ve learned more about potential “pay for play” conflicts of interest regarding the Clinton Foundation, we’ve seen embarrassing Wiki-Leaked emails that reinforced her “dishonest and untrustworthy” persona, the government announced that ObamaCare premiums were rising and, of course, the bombshell news that the FBI was taking another look at her use of a private email server while at Secretary of State.

Now, in case you missed it, on Sunday FBI Director James Comey dropped another big piece of news, announcing that the Bureau had reviewed all of the emails discovered two weeks ago on Anthony Weiner’s computer and has not changed its original conclusion, which was not to prosecute the case.

This post will be divided into five parts:

1. The impact that the FBI re-opening of the Clinton email investigation has had on the race
2. Where the race stands in the swing state polls
3. The path for Donald Trump to get to 270 electoral votes (this will have a state-by-state breakdown)
4. Is it possible that the polls are fundamentally wrong?
5. Predictions (for the general election and the battle for the Senate)

1. The impact that the FBI re-opening of the Clinton email investigation has had on the race

It’s tempting to assume that the FBI announcement ten days ago was the catalyst for a tightening of the polls but the truth is that Trump was gaining on her on the basis of all the other bad news. By looking at the numbers, it seems like that the Comey surprise tilted the race by no more than 1-to-2 points towards Trump but that bounce may be reversed by Sunday’s news.

Anyway, if you take a look at the chart below, which details the ebb and flow of the Clinton-Trump horse race based on four-way polling that includes Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, you’ll see how events have shaped this race.

These are the Real Clear Politics average of polls taken in the aftermath of the following newsworthy events.

Wordpress Table Plugin

The bottom row, of course, is where the race stands currently. You’ll see that the FBI announcement had just a small impact because the race was tightening already. When news stories break, there’s usually a blip for a few days where the shock of the information shifts the race based on the severity of the news. The bombshell revelation that Hillary’s emails were back on the table had a temporary (but minor) drag but (as you can see), the polls taken in the last five days drifted back to where they had been prior to the announcement. The second announcement Sunday is only marginally reflected in polling because it came so late.

Along the way, you’ll notice various bounces here. When Ted Cruz defeated Trump in Wisconsin in early April, there was talk of a contested convention and Trump was on the ropes. But in the four weeks that followed, he racked up big wins in the Northeast and then in Indiana. In the polls taken after Cruz and John Kasich announced their withdrawals from the race, Trump (as the presumptive nominee) got a big bump in the head-to-head polls with Clinton.

Clinton surged after she wrapped up the nomination and then dipped a bit after being “cleared” by the FBI regarding her private email server (remember that Comey publicly excoriated her behavior even while announcing that he wouldn’t recommend prosecution). Trump surged after his convention and then Clinton soared even higher after hers. Also, the race predictably tightened in a bit in the week after the health scare in which Hillary collapsed due to pneumonia on 9/11.

What truly explains the tightening of the Trump-Clinton battle is the fall-off of support for the third party candidates Johnson and Stein. While Stein’s erosion of support has (as expected) mostly accrued to Clinton’s benefit, Johnson’s decline in support has shifted to both candidates, but at different times. Once he was shut out of the presidential debates, his advocates started to shift to the major candidates. It was actually the first debate (which Hillary won handily) that started the Johnson shift to Hillary but those who would otherwise have drifted to Trump stayed put in the aftermath of the Access Hollywood tape. However, as the memory of the tape has started to fade, the Republican-leaning Trump supporters have “come home” to their party’s nominee.

The point here is that the race was already getting closer before last Friday’s FBI announcement and it was getting closer because the GOP-leaning Johnson supporters were more stubbornly thumbing their nose at Trump than the Democratic-leaning Johnson supporters towards Clinton. Unless (that is a big unless) late tonight or tomorrow morning, I would expect the race to be stabilized.

2. Where the race stands in swing state polls

The question is whether the Donald’s surge and Hillary’s decline that’s already occurred is enough for the political novice to complete the epic comeback and upset the longstanding political dynasty named Clinton. The chart below the Real Clear Politics average of all potential swing state polls with the number of Electoral College votes to be allocated to the winner of each state. As I’m sure you know, a minimum of 270 Electoral Votes is required to win the presidency. In the states not showing on this chart, the super “safe” states, you can assume that Clinton has 185 electoral votes “banked,” with Trump having 164 in the bag.

This chart was updated at 4:30p PT on Monday.

Wordpress Table Plugin

The chart above displays a projected electoral vote outcome based solely on the RCP average of polls and it shows how close this race really might be. With a late poll released Monday by the Trafalgar Group that shows Trump winning by four points in Florida, the chart shows a 272–to-266 win for Secretary Clinton. However, if Trump were to win the states in which the polls currently show him with the lead and is also able to win New Hampshire, then he would eke out the 270-to-268 victory, which would be the closest outcome since the disputed 1876 election, when Rutherford B. Hayes bested Samuel J. Tilden 185-to-184 despite losing the popular vote.

Now, in case you’re wondering what “Maine 2nd CD” means, it’s short for “Maine 2nd Congressional District.” The Pine Tree State is one of just two in the nation (the other being Nebraska) that is not winner-take-all. Maine awards electoral votes both statewide and by Congressional District. The overall winner in Maine gets 2 electoral votes and then there is one vote available for whichever candidates gets the most votes in each of the two CD’s. In Maine’s 2nd CD, what little polling exists shows a neck-and-neck race and Trump with a half-point lead.

What would happen if everything in the chart above went as scripted with the exception of Hillary winning Maine’s 2nd CD and Trump winning in New Hampshire? That would result in a 269-to-269 tie. Per the Constitution, the outcome of the election would then be determined by the newly elected House of Representatives, which each state’s delegation getting one vote. Because the GOP has a significant edge in the House, this outcome would likely result in President Trump.

(Incidentally, the 2nd CD in Nebraska (which encompasses mostly the metropolitan area of Omaha) is also theoretically in play but the two polls taken there show Trump up by nearly 10 points.)

By the way, there’s a 2nd path to a 269-269 deadlock. In this scenario, Trump would lose Nevada and New Hampshire but pull out an upset in Colorado and win the Maine 2nd CD.

Anyway, the question of the day, then, is whether to believe these polls. Is the race really this close or is the underlying advantage that typically benefits the Democratic candidate too big a wall for Trump to scale? When you look at the chart, Clinton’s lead in the states in which she has an advantage is greater than Trump’s. In fact, for the bottom seven states on this chart (Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Minnesota), there has not been one single poll in the last 30 days that shows Trump winning until Monday, when the right-leaning Trafalgar Group showed a poll with Trump up by one in Pennsylvania. These states are Hillary’s big “blue wall.” None of these states are even regarded as in play by most political scientists. Regardless, the super confident reality TV star has decided to play in all of them. For the final Saturday, Sunday, and Monday of the campaign, Trump either had rallies scheduled in all of those seven states except for New Mexico (which he visited last week).

As I go through the potential Trump victory scenarios, for ease of reference, here are Hillary’s seven “blue wall” states:

• Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes)
• Michigan (16)
• Virginia (13)
• Wisconsin (10)
• Minnesota (10)
• Colorado (9)
• New Mexico (6)

3. The path for Donald Trump to get to 270 electoral votes?

Let’s look at the electoral vote scenarios where Trump can win. In all of these scenarios, I’m going to assume that Trump holds Ohio. No Republican has won the Oval Office, ever, without a win in the Buckeye State. In almost every potential scenario, I’m also going to assume that, if Trump is going to win, he’s going to need to grab Florida’s 29 electoral votes as well. This also assumes (as an obvious point) that he wins the traditional GOP (but currently close in the polls) states of Arizona and Georgia. Now, just to understand the type of inside straight that Trump will likely need to achieve, if he wins the “safe” states along with Ohio, Florida, Arizona and Georgia, that still puts him at 238 electoral votes, 32 shy of what he needs.

So, here are the various paths to 270 for Donald J. Trump:

— Almost all of the polls are right: this road to 270 assumes that Trump wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and Maine’s 2nd CD. These wins, where he currently holds polling leads of 3 points or less, plus Florida and New Hampshire (where he’s trailing) would result in 270 votes on the nose. This is the “inside straight” win for Trump and does not require any victories behind the “blue wall.”

Now, I am highly dubious that Trump can achieve this inside straight and it’s because I am convinced that he will lose in Nevada. I know a bit about this state having owned a condo there for seven years and voted in Las Vegas for the last two presidential elections.

— Nevada: this is a state (with 6 electoral votes) that shows Trump with a 0.8 point lead (according to the polls), mostly due to a 6-point lead in a CNN poll taken earlier this week. The Donald is working hard to win the Silver State but I am skeptical. Nevada is tough state in which to poll accurately because of its transient population and a large swath of casino employees that work a lot of odd hours. Outgoing Senator Harry Reid has a fantastic get-out-the-vote organization with the local unions in Las Vegas. Early voting trends are decidedly in Clinton’s favor (especially among Latino voters) to the point that Nevada voting expert Jon Ralston has written that Trump would need to win by more than 10 points on Election Day to even have a chance to win. If Clinton wins here, it’s snake eyes for Trump unless he picks off something from the blue wall.

So, if Ralston and I are correct about Nevada, that means that by definition that Trump will need to pick off at least one state among the seven that fill the blue wall. Let’s look at those states.

— Pennsylvania: for decades, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been Lucy with a football and and the Republicans have been Charlie Brown. If Trump were able to pull off a shocking win in Pennsylvania, he could afford to lose Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa and still win the presidency. Or, he could lose in North Carolina and New Hampshire and still win it. Because Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes, that prize opens up the map and gives Trump the chance to blow a couple of other smaller swing states. If Trump wins Pennsylvania, he could finish with anywhere from 270 to 290 electoral votes. Despite the Lucy with the football aspect of the Keystone State, I still feel that Trump was smart to throw everything he had there because it has no early voting and is his best shot to give himself multiple paths to 270.

One of Clinton’s inherent advantages nationwide is that she has a big lead banked already in multiple states with early votes cast in the aftermath of the Access Hollywood tape. With virtually the entire state of Pennsylvania voting on Tuesday, that means that the race is as it is now and not as it was 3 weeks ago. Clearly the Clinton campaign is aware of this which is why they have multiple events designed to get out the vote, particularly in heavily Democratic-leaning Philadelphia. There was a concert with Katy Perry, one with Stevie Wonder and a “election eve” mega-rally featuring all three Clintons plus Barack and Michelle Obama. Republican presidential candidates are almost always doomed by the Philadelphia door-knocking machine that tilts a state blue that otherwise would go red. The one wild card factor that could have benefited the Donald and that was the Philadelphia transit strike, which might have depressed the Election Day turnout in the City of Brotherly Love. But the strike was settled Monday morning so it should have no impact.

— Michigan: with 16 electoral votes, a Michigan flip achieves the same result as Pennsylvania but with a slightly smaller margin. A Michigan win would permit a loss in North Carolina. Or it would cover for losses in Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire. Like Pennsylvania, there’s no early voting in Michigan which could potentially favor Trump. Although it long seemed like Michigan was a lock for Clinton, her campaign clearly feels that it’s at least slightly vulnerable because, at the last minute, they scheduled events with Bill Clinton Sunday in Lansing, Hillary in Grand Rapids on Monday and President Obama in Ann Arbor on Monday. Trump’s jobs message plays well in the Wolverine State and, although it’s a real long-shot, he needs a long-shot win and this one is worth targeting. A Michigan win could provide a 270 to 286 vote victory for Trump. It’s not surprising that the Clinton campaign is being a bit defensive in Michigan. The polls are right most of the time but one occurrence where they were wrong was when Bernie Sanders upset her there during the primaries.

Breaking news at 5:00p PT: Monday this is a just released poll (from the Trafalgar Group) which shows Trump leading in Michigan by two points. This same outfit also shows him leading in Pennsylvania and Florida. So if, just if, they know something that all of the other pollsters don’t, then perhaps Trump has some hope behind the blue wall. This is a Republican-based poll which should lend one to be a bit skeptical. This particular poll had a 10% sample of African-American voters. In 2012, black voters represented 16% of the Michigan so that may explain the poll. Still, if white voters show out in droves (as Trump claims they will) maybe this poll is on to something. I don’t think so but now you have the info. It should be noted that another poll (the Gravis poll) also released today showed Hillary with a 5 point lead. The Gravis poll is done in conjunction with Breitbart News Network (that’s Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon’s network)!

— Wisconsin: the Badger State, with 10 electoral votes, hasn’t been a true swing state in presidential races for decades. Even with native son Paul Ryan on the ticket, Mitt Romney lost by over 6 points in 2012. Still, the polls are close enough that it deserves a look. If Wisconsin is the only flip from the blue wall, Trump would have to hold North Carolina. He could afford to lose both Nevada (or Iowa) and New Hampshire but nothing else. Wisconsin and North Carolina could provide a win from between 270 to 280 electoral votes. The Clinton campaign, by its actions, seems confident but not certain that Wisconsin is safe. They dispatched VP nominee Tim Kaine to three locations on Sunday to rally the get out the vote efforts. Kaine is the weakest of Hillary’s surrogates but his presence is meaningful.

— Minnesota:  like Wisconsin, there are 10 electoral votes available. I will say this for Minnesota: this is a state that has elected Jesse Ventura as its Governor and Al Franken as Senator so maybe Trump is perfect for the good citizens of the North Star State but Trump’s visit to Minneapolis on Sunday feels like a Hail Mary. The Republicans haven’t won in Minnesota in presidential elections since 1972. It was the only state that Reagan lost in 1984. Still, polling here is limited so maybe Trump’s campaign knows something that the rest of us don’t. However, the fact that the Clinton campaign with all of its advanced analytics did not dispatch even one of its many surrogates to the North Star State in the final week tells me that they are convinced that it’s in the bag.

— Colorado: the prize here is 9 electoral votes and Trump has been campaigning hard to win the Centennial State. To me, this is a little more plausible than Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota since polls dating back to September showed a it to be a true toss-up. In addition, a recent University of Denver poll showed a statistical tie. So it’s possible for a Trump win here. Colorado does all of its balloting by mail (although you can hand-deliver your ballot on Election Day). That fact would be to Clinton’s advantage due to Trump’s bad press when citizens started mailing in their ballots. On the flip side, the absence of in-person voting does to a certain degree blunt the “get out the vote” advantage that the Democrats have. Of all of the blue wall states, this might be Trump’s best hope. A Colorado win would allow for a loss in Nevada, Iowa or New Hampshire but only a loss in one of those states, not two.

You’ll notice that I didn’t cover either Virginia or New Mexico here. Those states are pipe dreams for the Republicans this year. I understand why Trump is tempted to play in them because the polls are tightening. However, there’s not one poll in the last two months showing anything less than a 3-point lead for Clinton in Virginia and there have been lots of polls, including many from respected polling organizations. New Mexico hasn’t had a lot of polling and there’s a fairly significant Gary Johnson vote which could theoretically shift to Trump. So I suppose it’s possible that the state could be in play but with a heavy Latino population and the fact that Romney lost by 10 points there in 2012, this seems like a real shot in the dark.

Anyway, I’m dubious that Trump will be able to flip any of the states on the Dems’ “blue wall” but it is really important for him to try. I understand the all-out push in Pennsylvania and Michigan because a win in either would potentially cover for a couple of losses. I’m going to briefly comment on the states that Trump must win in order for any of these scenarios to work.

— Florida: with 29 electoral votes, the Sunshine State is an absolute must for Trump to have any chance whatsoever. Theoretically, he could blow it if he won both Pennsylvania and another blue wall state but if he doesn’t win a true toss-up state, he’s not going to win a blue state. Early voting trends show a decline in African-American voters but an increase in Latino voters from the previous presidential race. Neither is surprising. Obama is trying hard to get out the black vote in Florida but he’s not as good as it when his name isn’t on the ballot. And, of course, Trump’s immigration policies are motivating Latinos to go the polls. Some experts feel that the Cuban-American vote will go Democratic in the presidential election for the first time ever (although they’ll probably ticket-split to help Marco Rubio hold his Senate seat). This is a true toss-up and a must-win for Trump to have any realistic chance.

— Ohio: the polls show Trump with a fairly solid lead to capture Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Trump had no events scheduled in Ohio, either with himself or with his running mate Mike Pence, during the last two days of the campaign. In the meantime, Clinton had a concert with Beyonce and Jay-Z Friday night and had a rally Sunday with NBA star LeBron James to get out the vote and challenge Trump’s lead in the Buckeye State. Trump has to go on offense to go after the “blue wall” but also needs to play defense in this must-win state.

— North Carolina: the Tar Heel state has 15 electoral votes and is a near must win. He could blow it in North Carolina and still win with a pickup of either Pennsylvania and Michigan but it would be a really bad loss. Romney won this state four years ago and, if Trump can’t hold it, it means that the nationwide trend is decidedly against him and it will be very unlikely he’ll flip one of the blue wall states. Still, as in Florida, the percentage of black voters is down in early voting. This is another state that Obama has been campaigning in for that reason. The “Upshot” from The New York Times has estimated that 62% of the state’s eventual votes have already been cast. If that’s true, when the polls close at 7:30p ET on Monday, the networks should have a very large swath of votes to report. That early report will likely favor Clinton because Democrats do better in early voting in general. A higher proportion of GOP voters are older and retired and used to voting on Election Day. When the first results appear on your TV screen on Tuesday, if Trump is within two or three points, he will likely win the state. If she’s up by six points or more, it’s game over.

— New Hampshire (4 electoral votes): I really have no idea what will happen here but, if I had to put money on it, I would pick Hillary. This state was heavily in Clinton’s favor a few weeks ago but has shifted from a likely Hillary win to a true toss-up. Granite State voters delight in torturing pollsters: the polls have ranged from Trump winning by 5% to Clinton winning by 11%. No kidding!  It is another state that does not have in-person early voting which bodes well for the challenger.

— Iowa: it’s ironic that this state, where Trump lost to Ted Cruz during the primaries, appears to be a good chance for a win for the Donald. It’s only 6 electoral votes but he needs every one he can get. Trump’s biggest voting demographic weakness is with minority voters and since both New Hampshire and Iowa don’t have a lot of them, it’s a big reason why he’s doing well in these two states.

— How Trump wins even if he loses Florida: well, if this happens, that’s 29 lost electoral votes from the “inside straight” outcome I shared earlier. The only way Trump could overcome the loss of those 29 votes is if he wins two big states from the blue wall or a combination of three. So this would require wins in both Pennsylvania and Michigan or Michigan, Wisconsin and Colorado. This is a “lightning striking twice” (or three times) hope and extraordinarily unlikely. Trump has won just one out of dozens of Pennsylvania polls. And he hasn’t been shown with the lead in one single poll in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, or New Mexico during the entire election cycle. Not a single one. (except for the just released at 5:00p PT Trafalgar poll, which shows Trump up by 2 in Michigan, see comments above).

4. Is it possible that the polls are fundamentally wrong?

So the only way Trump can win without Florida is if all of the polls are fundamentally wrong. So let’s re-visit the idea that the polls in their totality are incorrect, that we have a Brexit situation with Trump’s support being under-polled in a systematic manner nationwide. Clearly the Trafalgar Group polls released Monday are making that case.

One of the theories behind the idea that the polls are fundamentally wrong is that there’s a hidden Trump vote, a percentage of the population that is either being under-surveyed or is embarrassed to admit to a pollster that they’re voting for the Donald. I’m not buying it. From my personal interactions and from what I’ve observed, the Trump vote is loud and proud. I think it’s equally possible that there’s a silent Clinton vote among lifelong GOP supporters, people who would never admit to their Republicans friends that they’re voting for Crooked Hillary.  (No, by the way, I’m not among them, still voting for Gary Johnson).

Another possibility of the polls being wrong en masse has nothing to do with respondents lying to the pollsters. It is the possibility that the polls are over or under sampling certain demographic groups. Ir should be noted that the IBT/TIBB tracking poll (which has been one of the most accurate in recent presidential elections) has consistently shown a near dead heat in this race, while other respected polls (from ABC/Washington Post, CBS/NY Times, NBC/Wall Street Journal, CNN/ORC and Fox News) have shown Clinton consistently in the lead.

It also should be noted that there are still a lot of undecided voters in the collection of polls, a total of 5.8% that did not indicate a preference, with 4.8% choosing Gary Johnson and 1.8% for Jill Stein. That means that only 87.6% of the electorate has stated a preference between the two major party nominees. In 2012, 98.3% of the voters said they were with Romney or Obama. So the eventual disposition undecided and third party voters are huge unknown. Undecideds often go with the challenger which could be a boon for Trump.

It also should be noted that, in 2012, the polls actually were a bit off, both nationwide and in the swing states. Take a look at the chart below, showing the predicted outcome (based on the polls) in the Romney-Obama race and the actual outcome. Note that the polls I’m showing here were all taken after Hurricane Sandy, which blunted Romney’s momentum and gave Obama a bi-partisan photo op with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Wordpress Table Plugin

So, the Real Clear Politics predicted outcome was correct (except in Florida) but Obama ran up bigger margins than expected, both nationwide and in the key swing states. The collective polling underestimated Obama’s win by about 3 points nationwide. The most obvious reasons for this is that the Obama campaign had a superior ground game and that the pollsters didn’t expect the African-American vote to be equal to what it had been in the “Hope and Change” election of 2008. In both ’08 and ’12, African-Americans represented 13% of the total vote nationwide. Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher has warned that, if it dips to 10% or 11%, that could tilt the election to Trump.

So, if the collective polling is off by 3 points nationwide this year (as it was in 2012), it could elect President Trump. Of course, the opposite could be true, where the “silent” Hillary vote is underrepresented and her ground game (which is vastly superior to Trump’s) gives her a bigger vote percentage than the polling predicts. Personally, I think the ground game advantage of the Clinton campaign will ultimately outweigh any potential flaws in the polling.

5. Predictions for the general election and the battle for the Senate

Anyway, if I’m wrong, if the underlying dynamics of the race do more closely favor Trump in the seven states from Hillary’s blue wall, if he actually has a chance to win more than one of them, then he could win in a landslide. In this crazy election season, nothing would really shock me.

Still, my default position is to go with the numbers and the vastly superior ground game for the Clinton camp (they literally have one million door-knocking or phone-calling volunteers). So my prediction here is that the seven states in Hillary’s “blue wall” all hold and that she wins the true toss-up states, yielding the following outcome:

• Hillary Clinton: 323 electoral votes (she wins Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, Maine’s 2nd CD)
• Donald Trump: 215 electoral votes (he wins Georgia, Arizona, Ohio and Iowa)

I would be really surprised if Trump wins Florida or Nevada and would not be stunned if Hillary squeaks out a win in Ohio. North Carolina is a true toss-up (Romney won barely in 2012) so a win for Trump there would not be surprising. As for New Hampshire, I really have no idea but I think the fundamentals are in her favor in general.

Before wrapping up, let me just throw out a thought on the impact of the third party candidates.

If the Trump-Clinton race turns out to be decided by one or two states, there is a distinct possibility that people will be talking about the impact of third party candidates Johnson and Stein. If, for example, Trump ekes out a win by 0.5% in Florida and Stein finishes with 1.5% of the vote, there’s going to be a prevailing narrative that Stein pulled a Nader on Clinton. In 2000, Al Gore lost Florida (and the presidency) by a mere 537 votes (out of nearly 6 million cast). During that election, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader earned over 97,000 votes. It doesn’t take a climate change scientist to figure out that Gore would have gotten the lion’s share of those 97,000 votes if Nader had not been on the ballot.

Regarding Johnson, his impact is less clearly defined on a single candidate than Stein’s. I’ve heard Trump supporters say “a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary Clinton” and I’ve heard Clinton supporters say “a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Donald Trump.” The Libertarian candidate pulls votes from both the Republican and Democratic candidates so, unless there’s some specific exit polling about it, we won’t really know what impact he had on any individual state race.

Finally, for point of reference, please enjoy the charts below. The first chart shows the up to date Senate polls. You can real full details about the Senate races in my post last week. The second chart, for handy reference, shows you a chronological list of poll closing times. The final one is a repeat of the earlier chart which shows the latest polling in the swing states (placed here again for easier reference).

Below are the RCP polling averages in eight key Senate races. Accounting for the “safe” seats and the seats in which there is no election this year, each party has 46 seats they can count on. To control the Senate, the party that holds the White House needs just 50 seats (with the VP as a potential tie-breaking vote). For the opposing party, 51 seats are required to have control of the chamber.

The polling averages on Sunday predicted that the GOP would control 52 seats but a late poll moved blue in Nevada. For the same reason why I’m predicting a Clinton victory in Nevada (the superior Harry Reid ground game in Las Vegas), I think that Catherine Cortez Masto win over Joe Heck and so the Republicans will have 51 Senators in the next Congress. The polling margins in North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana and New Hampshire are really close. Because Missouri and Indiana are strong Trump states I would expect Roy Blunt and Todd Young to win. The ones to really watch are the Ayotte-Hassan race in New Hampshire and the Burr-Ross race in North Carolina. To hold the Senate without counting on Nevada, the GOP candidates will need to win five out of the Eastern and Central time zones battleground match-ups. If they win only four, then the late results from Nevada will hold the keys to the Senate.

This chart was updated at 4:30p PT on Monday.

Wordpress Table Plugin

Next, here’s the list of poll closing times. You can expect the states with early voting to have a lot of results to report as soon as the polls close. Remember, though, that Democrats inherently do better with early voting while Republicans do better on Election Day. So when you see the early numbers, pay attention to the margins. If Clinton (or the Democratic Senate candidate) has a very narrow lead when the first results are in, Trump (and the GOP) will have a good chance. Also, I recommend CNN’s election site online to track the percentage of votes counted in key counties. As an example, if you’re looking at Pennsylvania and Trump has a narrow lead but virtually no votes are counted yet in Philadelphia, that’s a bad sign.

Wordpress Table Plugin

And finally, another look at the swing state polls.

Wordpress Table Plugin

Thanks for reading!