Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight gave an example on Twitter: “I see 3 Florida polls taken since Clinton won the nomination: Clinton +3 (YouGov), Clinton +13 (St Leo), Clinton +8 (Q-Pac),” and “if Clinton won Florida/Virginia, she could lose OH, PA, NH, 1 electoral vote in Maine, Iowa, and Colorado, so long as she won Nevada/NM.”

Nate Before getting into Florida, I just want to note that the battleground state polls have generally been of fairly low quality. A lot of the better ones are from YouGov, which also shows a fairly close race nationally. The one live interview survey that is fairly comparable to the national polls is from Marquette, and it shows Clinton up nine points in Wisconsin.

That said, I’m not surprised that Florida looks so bad for the Republicans. There’s been a lot of demographic change there over the last decade, and the only reason it stayed close is because Obama did particularly poorly with white voters in Florida. It was a bad fit for him: a mix of older voters, Southern voters, Jewish voters.

Now the G.O.P. nominates Trump, who has alienated Latino voters in the state where the Republicans are most dependent on them, and the Democrats nominate Clinton, who is relatively strong among older, Jewish and Southern white voters. You can imagine this getting out of hand pretty quickly.

Toni I would think Clinton would do better with Jewish voters. She was a senator from New York, for one thing, and has worked to earn their support there. She knows them; they know her.

Nate Well, she definitely beat Obama in the ’08 primary among Jewish voters.

Clinton basically swept everywhere in South Florida in the 2016 primary, including relatively Jewish areas. It was really one of her best regions of the entire country. She won 70 percent of the vote in all of the major counties there along Florida’s Gold Coast.

Toni I encourage readers to play with this interactive website to see how hard it is for the G.O.P. to win without Florida. But there’s another terrifying map for Republicans.