The Associated Press reported earlier in the week that the Arkansas State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee rejected a bill to position the presidential primary in the Natural state on the proposed SEC primary date.
Now, as FHQ has detailed, there are two bills to move the Arkansas primary into that position. One would create a separate presidential primary election and the other proposes moving the entire May preferential primary to the first Tuesday in March. It is not clear which one was "rejected" and there is no record of any rejection.1
Regardless of that midweek development, the aforementioned Arkansas state Senate committee yesterday slightly tweaked SB 389 -- the bill to create the separate presidential primary -- and recommended it pass the chamber.2 And during floor time today -- Friday, March 27 -- the Senate passed SB 389 by a 20-5 vote.
The measure now heads to the state House for its consideration.
--
SB 765, the other bill, is still on the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs docket and may also be considered at some point. FHQ has discussed the trade-offs of creating a separate primary or moving everything up in the Arkansas case here.
--
1 It should be noted that this may or may not be an AP problem. It could be attributable to a less than user-friendly Arkansas legislature website not providing the information that sites in other states share more readily and easily.
2 The amendment had nothing to do with the date of the primary.
Showing posts with label Arkansas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arkansas. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2015
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
From Arkansas: A Separate Bill to Move All May Primaries to March
FHQ has held up Arkansas during this presidential election cycle as an example of a state facing a classic primary calendar dilemma. Arkansas has traditionally held a consolidated primary election in May. That includes a presidential primary and a congressional primary among others. The motivations for scheduling those elections are slightly different depending on the office. States, on the whole, tend to want earlier rather than later presidential primaries, but often also desire later rather than earlier primaries for the other offices. There is a competition among (some) states to position presidential primaries on the presidential primary calendar that does not exist for the primaries for other offices. Arkansas in not competing with New Hampshire to hold the first US senate primary, for instance.
Throughout the post-reform era, states have dealt with this issue differently. Some states -- mostly those with late primaries for other offices -- created separate and earlier presidential primaries right off the bat in 1972. They had to. A state like Florida could not hold a consolidated primary, including a presidential primary, in September because the state could not use the presidential primary to effectively allocated delegates to a national convention that would have already occurred during the summer months. To sequence it properly, then, Florida either had to abandon the late primary altogether and move the primary up to accommodate the presidential nomination process or create a separate presidential primary that could be scheduled earlier. Florida chose the latter. It incurred the start up costs for the separate presidential primary early and institutionalized the practice. In the process, Florida created a much more mobile presidential primary, one that could be moved around in an almost unfettered manner.
But contrast that scenario with that in a state like Arkansas. Following the reforms the Democratic National Committee instituted for the 1972 presidential election cycle, state government officials in Arkansas did not face the same issues that those in Florida did. Arkansas had a May primary for state and local offices. It was much easier to slap a presidential nomination line on the May primary ballot and have the presidential portion fit the sequence of the newly reformed presidential nomination process. The May primary preceded the national conventions.
Arkansas basically acted out of convenience and expediency. The Arkansas presidential primary and those in states like California and North Carolina that reacted to the reforms similarly became less adaptable in the process, however. Whereas a state like Florida ripped the band-aid right off at the outset, states like Arkansas deferred on that decision. When the frontloading trend emerged, it was the group of states like Florida that initially drove it. The primaries in those states were more easily moved to different, earlier positions on the calendar.
States like Arkansas faced and still face in 2016 a different calculus. Decision makers in Arkansas have to decide whether to create and fund a separate and earlier presidential primary or to move everything up to an earlier date. Both have their own sets off costs that have more often than not deterred these late presidential primary states from budging from their May and June positions on the calendar. The separate election is expensive. But moving everything up creates longer general election campaigns for everyone from US Senate candidates to the state legislators --the ones actually making the decision to move -- themselves.
In the other two instances in which Arkansas has moved up -- 1988 and 2008 -- the decision was made to bite the bullet and fund a separate and earlier presidential primary election. And in both cases, the decision was made almost immediately after those elections to eliminate the separate presidential primary, thus moving it back to May.
And so it seems that Arkansas will attempt to repeat the first part of that practice for 2016. That is why FHQ the other day used Sen. Gary Stubblefield's SB 389 as a foil to the failed attempt in New Mexico to shift all of the primaries in the Land of Enchantment from June to March. Whereas New Mexico was making some effort to shift a consolidated primary up to March, Arkansas is attempting again to create a separate and earlier presidential primary.
However, it now looks as if the other option -- move a consolidated primary to March -- is now also on the table in the Arkansas state Senate. The same sponsor as the separate presidential primary bill, Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch), has now also introduced legislation to move all of the May primaries in Arkansas to the first Tuesday in March. It is unclear whether the bill -- SB 765 -- makes the initial legislation moot, but there are both House and Senate co-sponsors signed onto this new bill. The initial separate presidential primary bill still lists only Stubblefield and continues to be deferred in the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee.
There may be a preference among legislators about how the move takes place (which bill to pass), but the end goal is the same: move the Arkansas primary up to join with the other SEC primary states. And Arkansas continues to be a great illustration of the different decision-making calculus that actors in late and consolidated presidential primary states have as compared to other states.
Throughout the post-reform era, states have dealt with this issue differently. Some states -- mostly those with late primaries for other offices -- created separate and earlier presidential primaries right off the bat in 1972. They had to. A state like Florida could not hold a consolidated primary, including a presidential primary, in September because the state could not use the presidential primary to effectively allocated delegates to a national convention that would have already occurred during the summer months. To sequence it properly, then, Florida either had to abandon the late primary altogether and move the primary up to accommodate the presidential nomination process or create a separate presidential primary that could be scheduled earlier. Florida chose the latter. It incurred the start up costs for the separate presidential primary early and institutionalized the practice. In the process, Florida created a much more mobile presidential primary, one that could be moved around in an almost unfettered manner.
But contrast that scenario with that in a state like Arkansas. Following the reforms the Democratic National Committee instituted for the 1972 presidential election cycle, state government officials in Arkansas did not face the same issues that those in Florida did. Arkansas had a May primary for state and local offices. It was much easier to slap a presidential nomination line on the May primary ballot and have the presidential portion fit the sequence of the newly reformed presidential nomination process. The May primary preceded the national conventions.
Arkansas basically acted out of convenience and expediency. The Arkansas presidential primary and those in states like California and North Carolina that reacted to the reforms similarly became less adaptable in the process, however. Whereas a state like Florida ripped the band-aid right off at the outset, states like Arkansas deferred on that decision. When the frontloading trend emerged, it was the group of states like Florida that initially drove it. The primaries in those states were more easily moved to different, earlier positions on the calendar.
States like Arkansas faced and still face in 2016 a different calculus. Decision makers in Arkansas have to decide whether to create and fund a separate and earlier presidential primary or to move everything up to an earlier date. Both have their own sets off costs that have more often than not deterred these late presidential primary states from budging from their May and June positions on the calendar. The separate election is expensive. But moving everything up creates longer general election campaigns for everyone from US Senate candidates to the state legislators --the ones actually making the decision to move -- themselves.
In the other two instances in which Arkansas has moved up -- 1988 and 2008 -- the decision was made to bite the bullet and fund a separate and earlier presidential primary election. And in both cases, the decision was made almost immediately after those elections to eliminate the separate presidential primary, thus moving it back to May.
And so it seems that Arkansas will attempt to repeat the first part of that practice for 2016. That is why FHQ the other day used Sen. Gary Stubblefield's SB 389 as a foil to the failed attempt in New Mexico to shift all of the primaries in the Land of Enchantment from June to March. Whereas New Mexico was making some effort to shift a consolidated primary up to March, Arkansas is attempting again to create a separate and earlier presidential primary.
However, it now looks as if the other option -- move a consolidated primary to March -- is now also on the table in the Arkansas state Senate. The same sponsor as the separate presidential primary bill, Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch), has now also introduced legislation to move all of the May primaries in Arkansas to the first Tuesday in March. It is unclear whether the bill -- SB 765 -- makes the initial legislation moot, but there are both House and Senate co-sponsors signed onto this new bill. The initial separate presidential primary bill still lists only Stubblefield and continues to be deferred in the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee.
There may be a preference among legislators about how the move takes place (which bill to pass), but the end goal is the same: move the Arkansas primary up to join with the other SEC primary states. And Arkansas continues to be a great illustration of the different decision-making calculus that actors in late and consolidated presidential primary states have as compared to other states.
Monday, March 2, 2015
County Elections Officials in Arkansas Mostly Supportive of SEC Primary Move
FHQ has mentioned more than once that moving the Arkansas presidential primary up from May to the SEC primary date in March would be more difficult than other southern states seeking to join the regional primary.1
Any resistance that does exist to SB 389 does not seem to extend to those -- in the Arkansas county Boards of Elections -- who will be tasked with administering the proposed March 1 primary election in 2016 nor to state legislators. At least in the populous far northwestern corner of the Natural state, there is no real fervent opposition to joining the SEC primary.
The most obstruction to the SEC primary move Dan Holtmeyer at the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette could find had more to do with certifying candidates over Christmas than the March primary itself.
--
1 The snag is a function of the resistance to moving the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- from the typical May position to March or facing the alternative of creating and funding a new and separate election for the presidential primary.
Any resistance that does exist to SB 389 does not seem to extend to those -- in the Arkansas county Boards of Elections -- who will be tasked with administering the proposed March 1 primary election in 2016 nor to state legislators. At least in the populous far northwestern corner of the Natural state, there is no real fervent opposition to joining the SEC primary.
The most obstruction to the SEC primary move Dan Holtmeyer at the Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette could find had more to do with certifying candidates over Christmas than the March primary itself.
[Washington County election coordinator Jennifer] Price said the primary itself wouldn't be a problem; her concern is it would push candidate certification and ballot draws 75 days before the primary, or into the holidays in late December, which could be more difficult with fewer election workers around.
"People kind of disappear over Christmas," Price said. She suggested allowing ballot draws and other requirements to take place in early December.Even the area state senator who sponsored legislation in the state House in 2009 to eliminate the separate presidential primary election and move it back to the May primary is open to supporting the shift to March. According to Holtmeyer, that support comes with something of a contingency:
"We quickly went to the back burner [in 2008] because it didn't matter," said [State Senator Jon] Woods, who led the effort in the House to return the primary to May in 2009 and is part of the Senate committee that will consider SB 389. He said he might support moving primaries if local races are moved as well, but for now, "I'm not sure I'm really sold on it." [Emphasis FHQ's]Of course, moving all the primaries to March would mean that the primaries for state legislators would overlap with the legislative session, something that has been frowned on in Arkansas in the past. That has been another impediment to primary movement in Arkansas.
--
1 The snag is a function of the resistance to moving the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- from the typical May position to March or facing the alternative of creating and funding a new and separate election for the presidential primary.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Arkansas Bid to Join SEC Primary Is In
Legislation was filed in the Arkansas state Senate on Tuesday, February 17 to create a separate presidential primary election and schedule it for the first Tuesday in March.
State Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) introduced SB 389 which would for a third time establish a separate presidential primary in the Natural state. For most of the post-reform era, Arkansas has held its regular primary -- which included a vote for presidential preference -- on the next to last Tuesday in May. However, before the 1988 cycle and the 2008 cycle, legislators in Arkansas created and funded a separate presidential primary in order to have an earlier election in the state to decide the allocation of delegates to the national conventions. In both cases, Arkansas was either overshadowed by larger neighbors (1988) or ignored because candidates with Arkansas ties (Clinton and Huckabee) were seeking the presidential nominations of their respective parties (2008). And in both cases, legislators quickly reversed course and consolidated the presidential primary with the May primaries for other offices.
Now, as in the lead up to 1988, Arkansas is once again attempting to join forces with its southern neighbors to affect the next (2016) presidential nominations process and hoping the third time is the charm. But getting there may not be as easy as it is in other southern states seeking to join the SEC primary on March 1. Unlike Alabama (that reestablished a consolidated primary but broke from tradition by placing it in March and not June in 2011) or Mississippi (which established and maintained consolidated primaries in March years ago), Arkansas has to justify the creation and funding of a separate presidential primary election in March. That fact is not necessarily prohibitive, but it adds a layer of complexity to the Arkansas decision-making calculus that does not exist in other states across the South.
There is no price tag specified in the bill, but the state will pick up the tab through the State Board of Elections. As of now the Board appropriations legislation does not include a substantial increase for fiscal years 2015-2016 than it did two years ago for 2013-2014. The separate presidential primary was estimated to have cost Arkansas $1.7 million in 2008.
The one thing that is different now as compared to the past in Arkansas is that the Republican Party is in unified control of the state government. The possibility of a competitive if not wide open Republican nomination race may make that partisan control more relevant in this case.
Recent Posts:
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?
More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move
Second Bill to Reestablish Presidential Primary Emerges in Idaho
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
State Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) introduced SB 389 which would for a third time establish a separate presidential primary in the Natural state. For most of the post-reform era, Arkansas has held its regular primary -- which included a vote for presidential preference -- on the next to last Tuesday in May. However, before the 1988 cycle and the 2008 cycle, legislators in Arkansas created and funded a separate presidential primary in order to have an earlier election in the state to decide the allocation of delegates to the national conventions. In both cases, Arkansas was either overshadowed by larger neighbors (1988) or ignored because candidates with Arkansas ties (Clinton and Huckabee) were seeking the presidential nominations of their respective parties (2008). And in both cases, legislators quickly reversed course and consolidated the presidential primary with the May primaries for other offices.
Now, as in the lead up to 1988, Arkansas is once again attempting to join forces with its southern neighbors to affect the next (2016) presidential nominations process and hoping the third time is the charm. But getting there may not be as easy as it is in other southern states seeking to join the SEC primary on March 1. Unlike Alabama (that reestablished a consolidated primary but broke from tradition by placing it in March and not June in 2011) or Mississippi (which established and maintained consolidated primaries in March years ago), Arkansas has to justify the creation and funding of a separate presidential primary election in March. That fact is not necessarily prohibitive, but it adds a layer of complexity to the Arkansas decision-making calculus that does not exist in other states across the South.
There is no price tag specified in the bill, but the state will pick up the tab through the State Board of Elections. As of now the Board appropriations legislation does not include a substantial increase for fiscal years 2015-2016 than it did two years ago for 2013-2014. The separate presidential primary was estimated to have cost Arkansas $1.7 million in 2008.
The one thing that is different now as compared to the past in Arkansas is that the Republican Party is in unified control of the state government. The possibility of a competitive if not wide open Republican nomination race may make that partisan control more relevant in this case.
Recent Posts:
Return to a February Wisconsin Presidential Primary?
More on Minnesota March 1 Caucuses Move
Second Bill to Reestablish Presidential Primary Emerges in Idaho
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Will a Calendar Bump Up Mean More Candidate Visits in SEC Primary States?
Just this morning Alabama Secretary of State-elect, John Merrill (R) clearly added his voice to the chorus of SEC presidential primary supporters in an op-ed at Yellowhammer News. He repeated a variation of the refrain that has become one of the go-to lines during the frontloading wave of the post-McGovern-Fraser reforms era:
If the focus shifts to a micro-examination of just those states looking to move to March 1 to be a part of the so-called SEC primary the advantages -- as measured by candidate visits -- are not all that clear.
Clearly earlier is better (see Ridout and Rottinghaus 2008; Mayer and Busch 2003). Alabama and Arkansas were lodged in June and late May primaries respectively in 2000 and 2004 while Georgia and Mississippi were in March in those years. Georgia benefited. Mississippi did not. Georgia has consistently been scheduled on the earliest date allowed by the national parties during this period (save 2004) and was delegate-rich enough to draw attention from the candidates despite being on dates shared by a large number of states.
In 2008, all of the above states were scheduled on the first Tuesday in February with the exception of Mississippi which as a month later on the second Tuesday in March. All gained over the previous couple of cycles.1 Mississippi was later on the calendar but took advantage of the fact that it was the lone contest on its date in the midst of a tightly contested two-candidate race for the Democratic nomination.
As we look toward 2016, however, 2012 may be not only a decent guide but a cautionary tale for this. Arkansas was both late and after the point at which most of the Republican candidates had dropped out of the Republican nomination race.2 The Natural state got one lone visit from Herman Cain. The other states potentially moving to a March 1 SEC primary for 2016 were earlier on the 2012 calendar. Georgia incrementally gained over 2008 despite just one party having a contested nomination race and sharing the most crowded date on the calendar with 11 other states; the earliest date allowed by the national party delegate selection rules.
Alabama and Mississippi were together a week later. The Deep South duo's power in 2012 may have been their sub-regional contiguity and that together the two dominated a day that also included caucuses in Hawaii and the American Samoa (neither large draws).
That raises questions if not red flags for a move for 2016 for those latter couple of states. Does a move away from a date that still finds Alabama and Mississippi dominant and to a date shared by a number of larger southern states (Florida, Georgia and Texas among them) net more or fewer visits in 2016 over 2012? If Ohio vacates March 8 to join a later March midwestern primary, would it not be more beneficial to stick with a date you dominate versus a date shared with others? Is a visit to Texas -- a regional visit -- the same as a candidate visit in Alabama or Mississippi?
These are tough questions to answer for state actors who have a limited state legislative session window in which to act in the spring of the year before the primary. And these folks tend to be risk-averse. Alabama and Mississippi would only gain by sticking with a later date is the nomination races are ongoing once they get to the second Tuesday in March. The field may be winnowed too much by then dropping the number of visits to either.
This is the mindset that has dominated the frontloading era. Move up or get left behind. But it isn't clear in this instance that states in the South will receive the attention they crave. In the meantime, decision makers in both Alabama and Mississippi seem to have forgotten what they gained in 2012 with their sub-regional coalition. Surely "cheesy grits" would have proven more memorable to elected officials in the Deep South.
--
1 Some of that has to do with how and when the visits data was gathered, but some of that also has a great deal to do with how many parties had contested/competitive campaigns and how many candidates were involved in the race at the time of the primaries in these states.
2 Romney had not clinched enough delegates to assume the mantle of presumptive nominee, but was approaching that mark with only Ron Paul actively running in the later primary states.
Recent Posts:
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
"The main goal of this effort is to create an environment that forces candidates to appeal to the an even larger and more complete constituency than they currently do. Southerners, and more specifically Alabamians, represent a largely conservative, working class group of voters, but because of the timing of our primary elections, our calls for more conservative candidates have gone unheard."
...This echoes what Merrill's counterpart in neighboring Mississippi, Delbert Hosemann, has said:
"As your Secretary of State and Chief Elections Official, I will do all that I can to help position the South — and more specifically Alabama — as a place that all Presidential candidates will make an effort to visit and meet our remarkable people." [Emphasis is FHQ's.]
"With Georgia, and Tennessee and Arkansas and Louisiana we are putting together a group where we would have a super SEC Tuesday where basically the candidates would have to come through Mississippi before they got elected president of the United States. Both Democrats and Republicans." [Again, emphasis is FHQ's.]But would moves by Alabama or Mississippi or Arkansas to earlier dates on the 2016 presidential primary calendar do anything to really improve the lot of southern states in terms of attention paid them by the various presidential candidates in 2016? That remains to be seen. Such moves have not been a cure-all for states in the South or elsewhere in the past. Both Merrill and Hosemann seem to be talking about this as an increase in visits/attention. That may be the case, but it could also be that these states are merely splitting up a finite number of visits -- or visits within a rather finite window of time -- and aren't necessarily gaining attention to issues of, say, the Deep South. Is a visit to Texas or Tennessee a proxy visit to Alabama or Mississippi, for example?
If the focus shifts to a micro-examination of just those states looking to move to March 1 to be a part of the so-called SEC primary the advantages -- as measured by candidate visits -- are not all that clear.
| Total Presidential Candidate Visits by SEC Primary States (2000-2012) | ||||
| State | 20001 | 20041 | 20082 | 20123 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 0 | 5 | 13 | 27 |
| Arkansas | 0 | 10 | 16 | 1 |
| Georgia | 2 | 32 | 38 | 47 |
| Mississippi | 0 | 1 | 13 | 20 |
1 Data from Ridout and Rottinghaus (2008). The 2000 data are via the Washington Post; gathered from October 1, 1999-primary season 2000. Hotline provided the 2004 data; gathered from June 1, 2003-primary season 2004.
2 Data from Frontloading HQ via Slate.com Map the Candidates visits tracker.
3 Data from the Washington Post Campaign 2012 Republican Primary Tracker; gathered from June 2011-primary season 2012.
* For the calendar dates of the contests in these from 2000-2012 click on the year. | ||||
Clearly earlier is better (see Ridout and Rottinghaus 2008; Mayer and Busch 2003). Alabama and Arkansas were lodged in June and late May primaries respectively in 2000 and 2004 while Georgia and Mississippi were in March in those years. Georgia benefited. Mississippi did not. Georgia has consistently been scheduled on the earliest date allowed by the national parties during this period (save 2004) and was delegate-rich enough to draw attention from the candidates despite being on dates shared by a large number of states.
In 2008, all of the above states were scheduled on the first Tuesday in February with the exception of Mississippi which as a month later on the second Tuesday in March. All gained over the previous couple of cycles.1 Mississippi was later on the calendar but took advantage of the fact that it was the lone contest on its date in the midst of a tightly contested two-candidate race for the Democratic nomination.
As we look toward 2016, however, 2012 may be not only a decent guide but a cautionary tale for this. Arkansas was both late and after the point at which most of the Republican candidates had dropped out of the Republican nomination race.2 The Natural state got one lone visit from Herman Cain. The other states potentially moving to a March 1 SEC primary for 2016 were earlier on the 2012 calendar. Georgia incrementally gained over 2008 despite just one party having a contested nomination race and sharing the most crowded date on the calendar with 11 other states; the earliest date allowed by the national party delegate selection rules.
Alabama and Mississippi were together a week later. The Deep South duo's power in 2012 may have been their sub-regional contiguity and that together the two dominated a day that also included caucuses in Hawaii and the American Samoa (neither large draws).
That raises questions if not red flags for a move for 2016 for those latter couple of states. Does a move away from a date that still finds Alabama and Mississippi dominant and to a date shared by a number of larger southern states (Florida, Georgia and Texas among them) net more or fewer visits in 2016 over 2012? If Ohio vacates March 8 to join a later March midwestern primary, would it not be more beneficial to stick with a date you dominate versus a date shared with others? Is a visit to Texas -- a regional visit -- the same as a candidate visit in Alabama or Mississippi?
These are tough questions to answer for state actors who have a limited state legislative session window in which to act in the spring of the year before the primary. And these folks tend to be risk-averse. Alabama and Mississippi would only gain by sticking with a later date is the nomination races are ongoing once they get to the second Tuesday in March. The field may be winnowed too much by then dropping the number of visits to either.
This is the mindset that has dominated the frontloading era. Move up or get left behind. But it isn't clear in this instance that states in the South will receive the attention they crave. In the meantime, decision makers in both Alabama and Mississippi seem to have forgotten what they gained in 2012 with their sub-regional coalition. Surely "cheesy grits" would have proven more memorable to elected officials in the Deep South.
--
1 Some of that has to do with how and when the visits data was gathered, but some of that also has a great deal to do with how many parties had contested/competitive campaigns and how many candidates were involved in the race at the time of the primaries in these states.
2 Romney had not clinched enough delegates to assume the mantle of presumptive nominee, but was approaching that mark with only Ron Paul actively running in the later primary states.
Recent Posts:
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Why Getting Arkansas into an SEC Primary is More Difficult
As the 2015 state legislative sessions draw nearer, primary movement for the 2016 cycle is back on the radar. Lately, much of that discussion has centered on the possibility of a southern regional primary forming on the first date allowed by the national parties, March 1. As FHQ has mentioned previously, this effort is being spearheaded by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R). Secretary Kemp has reached out to his counterparts in a number of other SEC states to gauge their interest in their states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi -- joining Georgia (and a number of other southern and border states) on March 1.
Louisiana has already bumped their primary up in 2014 and is not necessarily eager to shift -- even if only slightly -- again.
Alabama and Mississippi coordinated their primary dates on the second Tuesday in March for 2012. Neither state would seemingly face too much resistance to moving up another week for 2016.
In Georgia, the power to set the presidential primary date lies with the secretary of state and Kemp seems more than inclined to keep Georgia on the first Tuesday in March for a second straight cycle.
There is also some interest in Arkansas, but the decision-making calculus on moving the presidential primary is different in the Natural state than it is in the other states. That is true for a few reasons:
When the Arkansas presidential primary was shifted up for the 1988 and 2008 cycles, the decision was made to create an all new and separate presidential primary election at an earlier point on the calendar. Traditionally, the majority of Arkansas primary elections have been consolidated in mid- to late May. In 1988 and 2008, everything but the presidential primary stayed in May while a presidential primary was created and moved into March and February, respectively.
Relatedly, to do that again, Arkansas state legislators would have to consider whether to incur the costs associated with a separate presidential primary as has been the case in the past. In 2008, that meant an extra $1.7 million to conduct that additional election. The alternative is to do what Alabama and Mississippi have done: consolidate all primary elections on the earlier presidential primary date. Mississippi has been doing this for years, but Alabama shifted both its presidential primary from February to March and its other primaries from June to March in 2008.
Arkansas could follow suit. But there is one catch that was raised in 2009 when Arkansas legislators were considering (and ultimately deciding on) eliminating the presidential primary and consolidating it with the other 2012 primaries. A constitutional amendment was passed by Arkansas voters in 2008 that moved the state legislatures sessions from biennially to annually. Annual sessions meant that the possibility existed for campaigning and fundraising to take place (for state legislators) during the state legislative session, violating a self-imposed rule (for those activities not to overlap). A March 1 [consolidated] primary would fall in the midst of the 2016 state legislative session.
So, in Arkansas it is a decision between the financial costs of creating and scheduling an earlier presidential primary or breaking the norm of state legislators campaigning/fundraising during their legislative session. The former has been the (less cost-effective) precedent in Arkansas in the past while the latter will potentially serve as a deterrent to moving up. Every additional roadblock makes moving a presidential primary forward and joining the proposed SEC primary that much more difficult, and Arkansas has a list of obstacles that other southern states involved do not have. That does not mean the presidential primary in the Natural state will not end up on March 1. Rather, it does indicate a more difficult path to that end.
Recent Posts:
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Louisiana has already bumped their primary up in 2014 and is not necessarily eager to shift -- even if only slightly -- again.
Alabama and Mississippi coordinated their primary dates on the second Tuesday in March for 2012. Neither state would seemingly face too much resistance to moving up another week for 2016.
In Georgia, the power to set the presidential primary date lies with the secretary of state and Kemp seems more than inclined to keep Georgia on the first Tuesday in March for a second straight cycle.
There is also some interest in Arkansas, but the decision-making calculus on moving the presidential primary is different in the Natural state than it is in the other states. That is true for a few reasons:
When the Arkansas presidential primary was shifted up for the 1988 and 2008 cycles, the decision was made to create an all new and separate presidential primary election at an earlier point on the calendar. Traditionally, the majority of Arkansas primary elections have been consolidated in mid- to late May. In 1988 and 2008, everything but the presidential primary stayed in May while a presidential primary was created and moved into March and February, respectively.
Relatedly, to do that again, Arkansas state legislators would have to consider whether to incur the costs associated with a separate presidential primary as has been the case in the past. In 2008, that meant an extra $1.7 million to conduct that additional election. The alternative is to do what Alabama and Mississippi have done: consolidate all primary elections on the earlier presidential primary date. Mississippi has been doing this for years, but Alabama shifted both its presidential primary from February to March and its other primaries from June to March in 2008.
Arkansas could follow suit. But there is one catch that was raised in 2009 when Arkansas legislators were considering (and ultimately deciding on) eliminating the presidential primary and consolidating it with the other 2012 primaries. A constitutional amendment was passed by Arkansas voters in 2008 that moved the state legislatures sessions from biennially to annually. Annual sessions meant that the possibility existed for campaigning and fundraising to take place (for state legislators) during the state legislative session, violating a self-imposed rule (for those activities not to overlap). A March 1 [consolidated] primary would fall in the midst of the 2016 state legislative session.
So, in Arkansas it is a decision between the financial costs of creating and scheduling an earlier presidential primary or breaking the norm of state legislators campaigning/fundraising during their legislative session. The former has been the (less cost-effective) precedent in Arkansas in the past while the latter will potentially serve as a deterrent to moving up. Every additional roadblock makes moving a presidential primary forward and joining the proposed SEC primary that much more difficult, and Arkansas has a list of obstacles that other southern states involved do not have. That does not mean the presidential primary in the Natural state will not end up on March 1. Rather, it does indicate a more difficult path to that end.
Recent Posts:
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, December 29, 2014
But Southern States Will Have to Be Proportional
Throughout 2014 the idea of a southern regional primary has gathered some steam. Thanks to the efforts of Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R), that has taken hold among a handful of secretaries of state across the Deep South and gotten some scrutiny in the media as well. Most of that examination tends to focus on the Republican side of the looming 2016 presidential nomination contest. The partisan focus in combination with the likely March 1 date for the proposed SEC presidential primary comes with the typical caveats about the Republican National Committee requirement for a proportional allocation of delegates for any contest held before March 15.
In other words, southern states are going to potentially cluster their contests on the earliest date allowed by the major parties, but with the implication that they will have to dilute the significance of the primaries by allocating delegates in a proportional manner; not winner-take-all.
But here's the thing (actually two things, but bear with me): 2012 showed that that dilution was not all that strong in the first place. That has something to do with the dispersion of primaries and caucuses across the calendar, but also is a function of the RNC definition of "proportional". Proportional does not mean proportional in the mathematical sense. Rather, it means that one candidate cannot receive all of a state's bound delegates (unless that candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote in a given primary, for example). Proportional simply means not winner-take-all.
For southern states considering a shift up to March 1 to be a part of this SEC primary, though, there is another important layer to add: They were all "proportional" in 2012. With the exception of Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas, every southern state had a primary or caucuses before April 1.1 And regardless of timing, all southern states either already had or transitioned an allocation plan with the necessary proportional element for 2012. Alabama was proportional. Georgia was proportional. Mississippi was proportional. Arkansas was funky, but it was proportional too (...even in late May).
There may be some revisions to those plans by state Republican parties in 2015, but across the states that are a part of this proposed SEC primary, the allocation plans are already proportional.
Will that dilute the power of the South on March 1, 2016? Perhaps, but recall that Democratic contests during the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday were proportional also. That fact did not hurt the southern states then as much as the diversity of winners of contests on that second Tuesday in March in 1988.
--
1 April 1 was the threshold before which states had to allocate delegates proportionally in 2012. That was shifted up to March 15 by the RNC for 2016.
Recent Posts:
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
In other words, southern states are going to potentially cluster their contests on the earliest date allowed by the major parties, but with the implication that they will have to dilute the significance of the primaries by allocating delegates in a proportional manner; not winner-take-all.
But here's the thing (actually two things, but bear with me): 2012 showed that that dilution was not all that strong in the first place. That has something to do with the dispersion of primaries and caucuses across the calendar, but also is a function of the RNC definition of "proportional". Proportional does not mean proportional in the mathematical sense. Rather, it means that one candidate cannot receive all of a state's bound delegates (unless that candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote in a given primary, for example). Proportional simply means not winner-take-all.
For southern states considering a shift up to March 1 to be a part of this SEC primary, though, there is another important layer to add: They were all "proportional" in 2012. With the exception of Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas, every southern state had a primary or caucuses before April 1.1 And regardless of timing, all southern states either already had or transitioned an allocation plan with the necessary proportional element for 2012. Alabama was proportional. Georgia was proportional. Mississippi was proportional. Arkansas was funky, but it was proportional too (...even in late May).
There may be some revisions to those plans by state Republican parties in 2015, but across the states that are a part of this proposed SEC primary, the allocation plans are already proportional.
Will that dilute the power of the South on March 1, 2016? Perhaps, but recall that Democratic contests during the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday were proportional also. That fact did not hurt the southern states then as much as the diversity of winners of contests on that second Tuesday in March in 1988.
--
1 April 1 was the threshold before which states had to allocate delegates proportionally in 2012. That was shifted up to March 15 by the RNC for 2016.
Recent Posts:
Louisiana not inclined to join 'SEC' presidential primary day in 2016
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, November 10, 2014
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
Jim Galloway and Greg Bluestein at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution report that Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R) is still working on a southern regional primary for March 1, 2016:
A few things either mentioned or neglected:
1) Kemp seems focused on that March 1 date for the Georgia presidential primary in 2016. The secretary has signaled more than once now that this is a likely destination for the primary in the Peach state. That is a change from the 2012 cycle when the date of the Georgia primary was an unknown through much of 2011 after the state legislature ceded the date-setting authority to the secretary of state.
2) Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama are the low hanging fruit of potential presidential primary moves for 2016. Here's the calendar. Tennessee is already on March 1 (as Galloway and Bluestein mention) and Louisiana is now locked into a Saturday, March 5 primary date after legislation moving the primary up by two weeks was signed into law this summer. That will be as far as Louisiana moves up; the same week as the other southern states. Alabama and Mississippi are already slated for primary dates just a week later on March 8. Those states bumping their dates up by a week is not all that heavy a lift. Arkansas is a different matter. Having gotten lost in the early state shuffle during the Southern Super Tuesday in 1988 and the Titanic Tuesday of 2008, state legislators moved the presidential primary back to the traditional May date in the immediately subsequent cycles. However, Republicans now have unified control of the state government in the Natural state after the 2014 midterms and may be more receptive to such a move.
3) Perhaps more importantly, it should be noted that the two biggest SEC states -- Florida and Texas are already positioned on March 1. It leaves one to wonder if this version of a Southern Super Tuesday plays out the same way as it did in 1988, but in reverse. Spurred by the action of Southern Democratic action, most southern states moved up to the second Tuesday in March in 1988. There was a split decision on the Democratic side with Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson all laying some claim to having won the day. While Democrats had a split decision across the South, George HW Bush swept the region. Such a reversal may be less about the decisions throughout the South to cluster primaries on the same date than how the Republican and Democratic nomination races are shaping up at this point in late 2014. Still...
Recent Posts:
2014 Senate Forecast
Michigan Bill Would Undermine February Presidential Primary
Michigan Republicans Green Light March 15, but...
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
"Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s efforts to build what he calls an “SEC” presidential primary in 2016 appear to be proceeding apace.
"Kemp is working with his counterparts in Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama to arrange a coordinated, regional primary for the first Tuesday in March 2016.
"In a letter to six Southern secretaries of state, Kemp confirmed that he intends to set March 1 as the date for Georgia’s presidential primary:--
'It is my hope that our region will participate together that day and that the voters of the Southeast will have a major impact in the selection of the presidential nominees of both parties.'"
A few things either mentioned or neglected:
1) Kemp seems focused on that March 1 date for the Georgia presidential primary in 2016. The secretary has signaled more than once now that this is a likely destination for the primary in the Peach state. That is a change from the 2012 cycle when the date of the Georgia primary was an unknown through much of 2011 after the state legislature ceded the date-setting authority to the secretary of state.
2) Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama are the low hanging fruit of potential presidential primary moves for 2016. Here's the calendar. Tennessee is already on March 1 (as Galloway and Bluestein mention) and Louisiana is now locked into a Saturday, March 5 primary date after legislation moving the primary up by two weeks was signed into law this summer. That will be as far as Louisiana moves up; the same week as the other southern states. Alabama and Mississippi are already slated for primary dates just a week later on March 8. Those states bumping their dates up by a week is not all that heavy a lift. Arkansas is a different matter. Having gotten lost in the early state shuffle during the Southern Super Tuesday in 1988 and the Titanic Tuesday of 2008, state legislators moved the presidential primary back to the traditional May date in the immediately subsequent cycles. However, Republicans now have unified control of the state government in the Natural state after the 2014 midterms and may be more receptive to such a move.
3) Perhaps more importantly, it should be noted that the two biggest SEC states -- Florida and Texas are already positioned on March 1. It leaves one to wonder if this version of a Southern Super Tuesday plays out the same way as it did in 1988, but in reverse. Spurred by the action of Southern Democratic action, most southern states moved up to the second Tuesday in March in 1988. There was a split decision on the Democratic side with Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson all laying some claim to having won the day. While Democrats had a split decision across the South, George HW Bush swept the region. Such a reversal may be less about the decisions throughout the South to cluster primaries on the same date than how the Republican and Democratic nomination races are shaping up at this point in late 2014. Still...
Recent Posts:
2014 Senate Forecast
Michigan Bill Would Undermine February Presidential Primary
Michigan Republicans Green Light March 15, but...
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The Electoral College Map (10/24/12)
The pace of polling picked up a bit on Wednesday, but of the 18 surveys in 11 states, 12 were in the field on the day/night of the final debate on Monday night. Just the trio of Rasmussen surveys were conducted following the debate. This isn't to suggest that the last debate from Boca Raton will have a huge impact on the course of the race, or even affect it much at all. Rather the intent is to point out that we have yet to really see the expected wave of polls that we are likely to get now that debate season is complete.
On the whole, the polling data released on Wednesday offered something of a mixed view of the state of the race, but in some of the key toss ups, the numbers were favorable to the president. The leads were certainly narrow, but the polls pointed in the direction of the president more often than not.
Polling Quick Hits:
Arkansas:
There wasn't much to write home about in the University of Arkansas poll of the Natural state. Believe it or not, Arkansas is solidly in Romney's column and the new data -- nice though it was to have -- confirmed what we already knew and really only slightly changed the FHQ weighted average that had existed prior.
Connecticut:
Following on the heels of a day yesterday with two polls released from the Nutmeg state, the extra poll today from Quinnipiac did essentially what the Arkansas poll above did. It confirmed the low to mid-teens lead the president holds in Connecticut. That said, this poll did overstate Obama's share of support relative to the FHQ average in the same way that the Rasmussen poll found a higher Romney share. That drove a couple of polls that were wider or more narrow, respectively, than the weighted average share of support established throughout the year.
Florida:
Mark Mellman has branched out beyond Nevada polling to Florida (and Virginia) today. The results are on some level consistent with the Obama +7 the firm found in Nevada. The order is correct anyway, but Virginia is probably not seven points closer than Nevada nor is Florida eight points closer than the Silver state. But if this series of polls is tilted toward the Democrat in this case, then one could see a Romney +2 in Florida or a Romney +1 in Virginia concurrent with a +5 in Nevada. That may overstate the gap between the two peripheral South states and Nevada a bit, but it is not too far out given the typical polling variation that we see.
Massachusetts:
Obama gained a handful of points over the last WBUR poll of the Bay state while Romney held steady. That really is about all one can say about a poll that confirms a wide margin in Massachusetts; a lead that has been repeated in a slew of polls emerging from an otherwise noncompetitive state. This one is blue. Nothing more, nothing less.
Michigan:
The Foster McCollum White/Baydoun polls of Michigan have tended to show a much narrower Obama lead in the Great Lakes state than other polls conducted in the state over the course of 2012. In some instances this has been a function of understating Obama's share of support relative to the FHQ weighted average share for the president. But in other instances, it is a matter of simultaneously overstating Romney's share and understating Obama's. Given the other polling information that has been made public recently, this poll falls more into the latter category. In fairness, though, this poll will only be an outlier when and if no other similar information comes out of Michigan in the next few days.
Nevada:
The story told through the polls in Nevada today was one of very little change. Neither the Rasmussen nor the PPP survey showed any significant movement since the last time the two firms were in the field in the Silver state. Importantly, both firms find the president awfully close to the 50% mark there and combined with consistency of that over time, that is noteworthy.
New Hampshire:
Thought the FHQ weighted average has not closed that much, the days polling in the Granite state was reminiscent of the back and forth, Romney-leads-Obama-leads polling we have seen in states like Virginia and to a lesser extent Colorado in the time since the first debate. Of course, both the Rasmussen and Lake Research surveys broke from the limited string of tied and one point margins that had become the norm in New Hampshire since the first debate. Again, the average is closing -- closing in on Ohio in particular -- but New Hampshire is not quite on par with the Tier 1 states we discussed yesterday. ...yet.
New York:
As someone said on Twitter in response to my retweet of these results from Marist poll of the Empire state, "#Breaking!". Indeed. As was the case in Arkansas and Massachusetts above, this poll didn't break any news much less the conventional wisdom regarding the state of the race in New York. It is a blue state to the extent that Arkansas is a red state. The weighted average margin in each is approaching 25 points.
Ohio:
The four polls out of Ohio were a microcosm of the state of recent polling in the Buckeye state. It ran the gamut from tied to about a three point lead for the president with one outlier thrown in from Time magazine for good measure. The Survey USA poll ran the closest to where FHQ has the Buckeye state in our weighted averages. Obama has led 15 of 23 post-Denver polls in Ohio and of the other eight, Romney held the advantage in three and the remainder were tied. That is indicative of an Obama edge, but a small one.
Virginia:
Tossing out the somewhat dated ODU poll (It was in the field for almost a month.), the polling in the commonwealth favored the president today. Of course, one of those polls was from Zogby which has tended to favor the president and the other was from a Democratic pollster. Still, that Mellman survey was not that far off from other polling we have seen in Virginia in October. But for once, this was not a day where the candidates traded leads in Virginia polls.
Wisconsin:
Mason-Dixon had yet to go into the field in the Badger state in 2012 until this survey, but found the president ahead by a margin roughly on the lower end of the range of polling that has existed in the state since the first debate. That is, it found the race to be at Obama +2 when the established range has favored the president anywhere from 1-4 or 5 points.
Consistent with at least one view of the state of the race in the time since about a week after the first debate, things seem to have leveled off in some respects in terms of the movement toward Romney. To the extent that compression of the averages continues, it has slowed down considerably here at FHQ. The averages in those Tier 1 states (Colorado, Florida and Virginia) have only very gradually tracked down while continuing to hold (very tenuously indeed in the case of Florida) in the Toss Up Obama category. Florida continues to teeter on the brink of pushing across the partisan line into Romney territory, but has remained resistant under the weight of the past polls. Though that leveling off has been felt in some other states, it is most consequential for now in those Tier 1 states.
Needless to say, if the story is leveling off then it is indicative of a status quo day here at FHQ. In most of the toss ups, the new data only reinforced the current averages. Only in New Hampshire did things track down noticeably behind the strength of a Rasmussen poll that showed Romney with something greater than a one point lead; a gap that has been the norm in the Granite state. The map stayed the same, the tally stayed the same and the Electoral College Spectrum, too, stayed the same as it was a day ago.
Ho-hum. The Watch List also was comprised of the exact same group of eight states with the five hovering around the toss up lines continuing to be the states from which to watch for new polling the most.
Please see:
On the whole, the polling data released on Wednesday offered something of a mixed view of the state of the race, but in some of the key toss ups, the numbers were favorable to the president. The leads were certainly narrow, but the polls pointed in the direction of the president more often than not.
New State Polls (10/24/12)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arkansas
|
10/9-10/14
|
+/- 4.0%
|
642 likely voters
|
31
|
58
|
11
|
+27
|
+24.17
| |
Connecticut
|
10/19-10/22
|
+/- 2.6%
|
1412 likely voters
|
55
|
41
|
4
|
+14
|
+11.85
| |
Florida
|
10/18-10/21
|
+/- 3.4%
|
800 likely voters
|
47
|
47
|
6
|
0
|
+0.55
| |
Massachusetts
|
10/21-10/22
|
+/- 4.4%
|
516 likely voters
|
56
|
36
|
7
|
+20
|
+19.80
| |
Michigan
|
10/22-10/23
|
+/- 2.93%
|
1122 likely voters
|
46.92
|
46.56
|
4.23
|
+0.36
|
+5.70
| |
Nevada
|
10/23
|
+/- 4.5%
|
500 likely voters
|
50
|
48
|
1
|
+2
|
+4.07
| |
Nevada
|
10/22-10/24
|
+/- 3.9%
|
636 likely voters
|
51
|
47
|
2
|
+4
|
--
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/18-10/22
|
+/- 4.9%
|
400 likely voters
|
48
|
45
|
7
|
+3
|
+3.24
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/23
|
+/- 4.5%
|
500 likely voters
|
48
|
50
|
1
|
+2
|
--
| |
New York
|
10/18-10/21
|
+/- 4.1%
|
565 likely voters
|
61
|
35
|
3
|
+26
|
+24.92
| |
Ohio
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/- 4.1%
|
609 likely voters
|
47
|
44
|
6
|
+3
|
+3.06
| |
Ohio
|
10/20-10/23
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
46
|
44
|
9
|
+2
|
--
| |
Ohio
|
10/22-10/23
|
+/- -.-%
|
742 likely voters
|
49
|
44
|
6
|
+5
|
--
| |
Ohio
|
10/23
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
48
|
48
|
3
|
0
|
--
| |
Virginia
|
9/19-10/17
|
+/- 3.4%
|
465 likely voters
|
50
|
43
|
3
|
+7
|
+2.29
| |
Virginia
|
10/18-10/21
|
+/- 3.46%
|
800 likely voters
|
46
|
45
|
8
|
+1
|
--
| |
Virginia
|
10/21-10/23
|
+/- 3.5%
|
827 likely voters
|
49
|
46
|
--
|
+3
|
--
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/15-10/17
|
+/- 4.0%
|
625 likely voters
|
48
|
46
|
--
|
+2
|
+4.65
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
Arkansas:
There wasn't much to write home about in the University of Arkansas poll of the Natural state. Believe it or not, Arkansas is solidly in Romney's column and the new data -- nice though it was to have -- confirmed what we already knew and really only slightly changed the FHQ weighted average that had existed prior.
Connecticut:
Following on the heels of a day yesterday with two polls released from the Nutmeg state, the extra poll today from Quinnipiac did essentially what the Arkansas poll above did. It confirmed the low to mid-teens lead the president holds in Connecticut. That said, this poll did overstate Obama's share of support relative to the FHQ average in the same way that the Rasmussen poll found a higher Romney share. That drove a couple of polls that were wider or more narrow, respectively, than the weighted average share of support established throughout the year.
Florida:
Mark Mellman has branched out beyond Nevada polling to Florida (and Virginia) today. The results are on some level consistent with the Obama +7 the firm found in Nevada. The order is correct anyway, but Virginia is probably not seven points closer than Nevada nor is Florida eight points closer than the Silver state. But if this series of polls is tilted toward the Democrat in this case, then one could see a Romney +2 in Florida or a Romney +1 in Virginia concurrent with a +5 in Nevada. That may overstate the gap between the two peripheral South states and Nevada a bit, but it is not too far out given the typical polling variation that we see.
Massachusetts:
Obama gained a handful of points over the last WBUR poll of the Bay state while Romney held steady. That really is about all one can say about a poll that confirms a wide margin in Massachusetts; a lead that has been repeated in a slew of polls emerging from an otherwise noncompetitive state. This one is blue. Nothing more, nothing less.
Michigan:
The Foster McCollum White/Baydoun polls of Michigan have tended to show a much narrower Obama lead in the Great Lakes state than other polls conducted in the state over the course of 2012. In some instances this has been a function of understating Obama's share of support relative to the FHQ weighted average share for the president. But in other instances, it is a matter of simultaneously overstating Romney's share and understating Obama's. Given the other polling information that has been made public recently, this poll falls more into the latter category. In fairness, though, this poll will only be an outlier when and if no other similar information comes out of Michigan in the next few days.
Nevada:
The story told through the polls in Nevada today was one of very little change. Neither the Rasmussen nor the PPP survey showed any significant movement since the last time the two firms were in the field in the Silver state. Importantly, both firms find the president awfully close to the 50% mark there and combined with consistency of that over time, that is noteworthy.
New Hampshire:
Thought the FHQ weighted average has not closed that much, the days polling in the Granite state was reminiscent of the back and forth, Romney-leads-Obama-leads polling we have seen in states like Virginia and to a lesser extent Colorado in the time since the first debate. Of course, both the Rasmussen and Lake Research surveys broke from the limited string of tied and one point margins that had become the norm in New Hampshire since the first debate. Again, the average is closing -- closing in on Ohio in particular -- but New Hampshire is not quite on par with the Tier 1 states we discussed yesterday. ...yet.
New York:
As someone said on Twitter in response to my retweet of these results from Marist poll of the Empire state, "#Breaking!". Indeed. As was the case in Arkansas and Massachusetts above, this poll didn't break any news much less the conventional wisdom regarding the state of the race in New York. It is a blue state to the extent that Arkansas is a red state. The weighted average margin in each is approaching 25 points.
Ohio:
The four polls out of Ohio were a microcosm of the state of recent polling in the Buckeye state. It ran the gamut from tied to about a three point lead for the president with one outlier thrown in from Time magazine for good measure. The Survey USA poll ran the closest to where FHQ has the Buckeye state in our weighted averages. Obama has led 15 of 23 post-Denver polls in Ohio and of the other eight, Romney held the advantage in three and the remainder were tied. That is indicative of an Obama edge, but a small one.
Virginia:
Tossing out the somewhat dated ODU poll (It was in the field for almost a month.), the polling in the commonwealth favored the president today. Of course, one of those polls was from Zogby which has tended to favor the president and the other was from a Democratic pollster. Still, that Mellman survey was not that far off from other polling we have seen in Virginia in October. But for once, this was not a day where the candidates traded leads in Virginia polls.
Wisconsin:
Mason-Dixon had yet to go into the field in the Badger state in 2012 until this survey, but found the president ahead by a margin roughly on the lower end of the range of polling that has existed in the state since the first debate. That is, it found the race to be at Obama +2 when the established range has favored the president anywhere from 1-4 or 5 points.
Consistent with at least one view of the state of the race in the time since about a week after the first debate, things seem to have leveled off in some respects in terms of the movement toward Romney. To the extent that compression of the averages continues, it has slowed down considerably here at FHQ. The averages in those Tier 1 states (Colorado, Florida and Virginia) have only very gradually tracked down while continuing to hold (very tenuously indeed in the case of Florida) in the Toss Up Obama category. Florida continues to teeter on the brink of pushing across the partisan line into Romney territory, but has remained resistant under the weight of the past polls. Though that leveling off has been felt in some other states, it is most consequential for now in those Tier 1 states.
Needless to say, if the story is leveling off then it is indicative of a status quo day here at FHQ. In most of the toss ups, the new data only reinforced the current averages. Only in New Hampshire did things track down noticeably behind the strength of a Rasmussen poll that showed Romney with something greater than a one point lead; a gap that has been the norm in the Granite state. The map stayed the same, the tally stayed the same and the Electoral College Spectrum, too, stayed the same as it was a day ago.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
MT-3
(159)
|
ND-3
(55)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
GA-16
(156)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
RI-4
(14)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
SD-3
(140)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
NY-29
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
IN-11
(137)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
SC-9
(126)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
IL-20
(73)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
TX-38
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
WV-5
(74)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
LA-8
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
TN-11
(170)
|
MS-6
(61)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
Ho-hum. The Watch List also was comprised of the exact same group of eight states with the five hovering around the toss up lines continuing to be the states from which to watch for new polling the most.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Toss Up Romney
| |
Georgia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Minnesota
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Strong Obama
| |
Montana
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Nevada
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
1 The Watch list shows those states in the FHQ Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. The List is not a trend analysis. It indicates which states are straddling the line between categories and which states are most likely to shift given the introduction of new polling data. Montana, for example, is close to being a Lean Romney state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.
| |||
Please see:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)