CONNECTICUT
Election type: primary
Date: August 11
[April 28 originally and then June 2]
Number of delegates: 75 [14 at-large, 6 PLEOs, 40 congressional district, 15 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan (post-coronavirus)
--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.
That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.
Neither the state of Connecticut or Democrats in the Nutmeg state, however, did much to alter the regular methods for selecting or allocated delegates for the 2020 cycle. Not before 2020 and the coronavirus in any event. But once the calendar flipped to 2020, the primary process began and the global pandemic intervened, changes were made necessary by both the state and the political parties in the state.
The state government initially moved the April 28 primary away from its Acela primary position to June 2. But that did not prove to be enough time for elections officials to adequately prepare for a different type of election much less be out of the shadow of the coronavirus before any in-person voting in the early June primary. That forced Governor Ned Lamont (D) and Secretary of State Denise Merrill (D) to act again, consolidating the presidential primary with those primaries for other offices on August 11.
That primary, if it continues as planned, will be the latest presidential primary in the post-reform era and one that comes just days before the Democratic National Convention is set to commence. [More on state party changes to the delegate selection process below.]
Yet, the move to August does buy the state's elections officials time to implement a predominantly vote-by-mail system where one did not exist before. All registered voters in the state will receive an absentee ballot application, but in-person voting will remain an option for voters who do not take advantage of the remote alternative.
All absentee ballots are due to town clerks' offices before polls close on Tuesday, August 11.
Overall, the Democratic delegation in Connecticut changed by four delegates from 2016 to 2020. New York rejoining the Acela primary group of states reconnected Connecticut and Rhode Island to the regional primary, opening both up to not only timing bonuses but clustering bonuses as well. Connecticut Democrats saw their district delegate total increase by four delegates and the at-large number grow by two. Those gains were offset to some extent by a one delegate decrease in the PLEO delegate category.
[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]
Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies both statewide and on the congressional district level.
Delegate allocation (at-large and PLEO delegates)
To win any at-large or PLEO (pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials) delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the statewide vote. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the separate allocation of these two pools of delegates.
See New Hampshire synopsis for an example of how the delegate allocation math works for all categories of delegates.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Connecticut's 40 congressional district delegates are split across five congressional districts and have no delegate variation across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Democrats in the Nutmeg state are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 8 delegates
CD2 - 8 delegates
CD3 - 8 delegates
CD4 - 8 delegates
CD5 - 8 delegates
*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.
Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.
[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]
Selection
An originally post-primary process for the selection of Connecticut's 60 pledged delegates has been replaced by a pre-primary process because of the coronavirus. The new pre-primary process will pre-slate delegates who will then fill in delegate slots allocated in the August 11 presidential primary.
The 40 district delegates will be selected in virtual congressional district caucuses on June 30. Under the initial delegate selection plan, it was the campaigns who were charged with organizing and carrying out these caucuses (similar to California Democrats' process) on May 27, but that task will be handled by congressional district delegates to the Connecticut Democratic state convention now. The delegate candidate filing and candidate campaign review will happen from June 19-26 according to the new plan. All of that leads up to the virtual vote on June 30.
The statewide delegates will similarly be selected before the August 11 presidential primary. A virtual meeting of the state party committee will select PLEO and then at-large delegates on July 8. Delegate candidates selected for each presidential candidate will then be chosen from those slates based on the results of the primary. The working plan from which Connecticut Democrats were operating before the coronavirus set selection of the statewide delegates for a June 10 state party committee meeting.
Importantly, if a candidate drops out of the race before the selection of statewide delegates, then any statewide delegates allocated to that candidate will be reallocated to the remaining candidates. This applies less in the case of Connecticut for at least a couple of reason. First, Sanders has already dropped out of the race which will have some negative impact on his likely vote share in the primary in the Nutmeg state. That said, Senator Sanders did cut a deal with the Biden campaign to keep any statewide delegates won in the remaining contests. Second, delegates will be selected before the primary rather than after it. Delegates can only be allocated from the pre-selected slates based on the results of the primary in such a situation.
Showing posts with label Connecticut. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Connecticut. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Friday, April 17, 2020
Second Move's the Charm: Connecticut Shifts Its Presidential Primary to August
Connecticut on Tuesday became the third state in a little more than a week to move back its presidential primary for a second time in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Governor Ned Lamont (D) made the change via executive order and in concert with Secretary of State Denise Merrill (D).
Now, the Connecticut presidential primary will coincide with the primaries for state and local offices previously scheduled for August 11. While that will save the state the budgetary hit of a separate presidential primary election, an August primary comes with some problems. First, it obviously falls later than the national party rules allow, much later than any other state that has so far shifted its contest. But secondly, the new date of the presidential primary falls just days before the Democratic National Convention -- recently delayed as well -- is set to commence on August 17. That leaves little time for the results of the primary to be certified in order to allocated delegates. And that would be true even if Connecticut Democrats make plans to slate delegate candidates for presidential candidates ahead of the primary.
One option that was raised in the Hartford Courant in the paper's write up of the primary move is that if all candidates but one request that their names be removed from the ballot, then the contest could be cancelled. That would alleviate much of the pressure on the state and state party to complete the delegate selection process in the days before the national convention starts.
For now, however, the Connecticut presidential primary is part of a consolidated primary on August 11.
Governor Lamont's executive order will be archived here.
The Connecticut primary change has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
Related posts:
June 2 Presidential Primary Date Grows with Addition of Connecticut
Now, the Connecticut presidential primary will coincide with the primaries for state and local offices previously scheduled for August 11. While that will save the state the budgetary hit of a separate presidential primary election, an August primary comes with some problems. First, it obviously falls later than the national party rules allow, much later than any other state that has so far shifted its contest. But secondly, the new date of the presidential primary falls just days before the Democratic National Convention -- recently delayed as well -- is set to commence on August 17. That leaves little time for the results of the primary to be certified in order to allocated delegates. And that would be true even if Connecticut Democrats make plans to slate delegate candidates for presidential candidates ahead of the primary.
One option that was raised in the Hartford Courant in the paper's write up of the primary move is that if all candidates but one request that their names be removed from the ballot, then the contest could be cancelled. That would alleviate much of the pressure on the state and state party to complete the delegate selection process in the days before the national convention starts.
For now, however, the Connecticut presidential primary is part of a consolidated primary on August 11.
Governor Lamont's executive order will be archived here.
The Connecticut primary change has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
Related posts:
June 2 Presidential Primary Date Grows with Addition of Connecticut
Thursday, March 19, 2020
June 2 Presidential Primary Date Grows with Addition of Connecticut
Connecticut state officials including Governor Ned Lamont (D) and Secretary of State Denise Merrill (D) on Thursday, March 19 opted to push back the primary in the Nutmeg state to June 2.
Like Maryland two days earlier, the Connecticut presidential primary moves back five weeks from April 28 and joins a group of states with enough delegates at stake to now become the second-most delegate-rich state on the 2020 presidential primary calendar. For a state that first started conducting presidential primaries -- rather than caucuses -- in 1980, this is the latest Connecticut will have conducted a primary in the post-reform era. A Connecticut primary was never later than March until after the 2008 cycle, when the primary was shifted to the late April position it had occupied from 2012-2020 until today.
In moving the primary, Connecticut becomes the latest state to respond to the rise of the coronavirus threat by delaying its presidential primary. That number has now expanded to six -- Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland and Ohio -- and is likely to increase further in the coming days.
And like the other states, the change will have some effect on not only the timing of the delegate allocation from Connecticut but also the delegate selection process there. Connecticut Democrats are one of the few states that select district delegates in district caucuses organized by the campaigns themselves. That is a burden on campaigns in normal circumstances much less when the primary date is moving around. Those campaigns-organized district caucuses were to have taken place on May 27, nearly a month after the initial primary date, April 28. But with a June 2 primary, that may create an obstacle for the state party: move ahead with the delegate selection at that time and select slates of delegate candidates to fill any allocated slots won during the June 2 primary or delay that selection of district delegates until after the primary.
The statewide delegates will present fewer problems. PLEO and at-large delegates are scheduled to be selected by the state party committee -- and not any state convention or quorum of district delegates -- on June 10. That is a late enough point of selection to fall after the new early June primary date. And June 10 may also serve as a reasonable point on the delegate selection calendar to which to shift the district caucuses to select district delegates.
Regardless, the June 2 date not only keeps Connecticut in compliance with national party rules, but it allows the party some latitude in how to reformulate the delegate selection process.
--
The new Connecticut presidential primary date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
Like Maryland two days earlier, the Connecticut presidential primary moves back five weeks from April 28 and joins a group of states with enough delegates at stake to now become the second-most delegate-rich state on the 2020 presidential primary calendar. For a state that first started conducting presidential primaries -- rather than caucuses -- in 1980, this is the latest Connecticut will have conducted a primary in the post-reform era. A Connecticut primary was never later than March until after the 2008 cycle, when the primary was shifted to the late April position it had occupied from 2012-2020 until today.
In moving the primary, Connecticut becomes the latest state to respond to the rise of the coronavirus threat by delaying its presidential primary. That number has now expanded to six -- Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland and Ohio -- and is likely to increase further in the coming days.
And like the other states, the change will have some effect on not only the timing of the delegate allocation from Connecticut but also the delegate selection process there. Connecticut Democrats are one of the few states that select district delegates in district caucuses organized by the campaigns themselves. That is a burden on campaigns in normal circumstances much less when the primary date is moving around. Those campaigns-organized district caucuses were to have taken place on May 27, nearly a month after the initial primary date, April 28. But with a June 2 primary, that may create an obstacle for the state party: move ahead with the delegate selection at that time and select slates of delegate candidates to fill any allocated slots won during the June 2 primary or delay that selection of district delegates until after the primary.
The statewide delegates will present fewer problems. PLEO and at-large delegates are scheduled to be selected by the state party committee -- and not any state convention or quorum of district delegates -- on June 10. That is a late enough point of selection to fall after the new early June primary date. And June 10 may also serve as a reasonable point on the delegate selection calendar to which to shift the district caucuses to select district delegates.
Regardless, the June 2 date not only keeps Connecticut in compliance with national party rules, but it allows the party some latitude in how to reformulate the delegate selection process.
--
The new Connecticut presidential primary date has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Connecticut Republicans Add Subtle but Specific Change to 2020 Delegate Rules
Connecticut Republicans have planned to stick pretty close to the delegate selection plan the party utilized in 2016. The allocation looks just the same.
At-large delegates are all awarded to any majority winner. Absent a majority winner, the delegates are allocated proportionally to candidates with at least 20 percent of the vote statewide. On the congressional district level, it remains a winner-take-all scheme. A candidate who wins a congressional district with any plurality wins all three delegates from that district.
Nothing is different there.
However, there was one subtle change the party added to its formula in 2018 and it concerns any uncommitted delegate slots allocated because of votes for "uncommitted" on the primary ballot. Here's the new rule (Section 17(h)):
This rule would only apply in a scenario where 1) one of more of those Republican challengers make the presidential preference primary ballot, 2) enough Republican primary voters (more than 20 percent) flock instead to uncommitted as a protest to Trump and qualify uncommitted for delegates, and 3) Trump fails to get more than a majority of the vote statewide.
In that unusual scenario, and that scenario alone, would the state party chair choose those uncommitted delegates (and likely be inclined to choose delegates closely aligned with the incumbent).
Yes, this is a very subtle change to the Connecticut Republican delegate selection process. But it is one that, at least under these specific conditions, would stand to benefit the president.
It is also a rules change that one could file under the leave no [rules] stone unturned category.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
At-large delegates are all awarded to any majority winner. Absent a majority winner, the delegates are allocated proportionally to candidates with at least 20 percent of the vote statewide. On the congressional district level, it remains a winner-take-all scheme. A candidate who wins a congressional district with any plurality wins all three delegates from that district.
Nothing is different there.
However, there was one subtle change the party added to its formula in 2018 and it concerns any uncommitted delegate slots allocated because of votes for "uncommitted" on the primary ballot. Here's the new rule (Section 17(h)):
In the event that any delegates are awarded to the uncommitted spot on the Presidential Preference Primary Ballot, said delegate positions shall be filled by the state party chairman, and submitted in the same manner as prescribed in subsection (d).Theoretically, this rule cedes to the state party chairman the ability to name uncommitted delegates, delegates that could be picked to hypothetically align with an incumbent president seeking renomination. But this is a very narrowly applicable rule. Connecticut is a state that automatically cancels primaries if only one candidate appears on the ballot. Should none of President Trump's three challengers make the ballot, then there would not be a primary and thus no need for an uncommitted line on said ballot.
This rule would only apply in a scenario where 1) one of more of those Republican challengers make the presidential preference primary ballot, 2) enough Republican primary voters (more than 20 percent) flock instead to uncommitted as a protest to Trump and qualify uncommitted for delegates, and 3) Trump fails to get more than a majority of the vote statewide.
In that unusual scenario, and that scenario alone, would the state party chair choose those uncommitted delegates (and likely be inclined to choose delegates closely aligned with the incumbent).
Yes, this is a very subtle change to the Connecticut Republican delegate selection process. But it is one that, at least under these specific conditions, would stand to benefit the president.
It is also a rules change that one could file under the leave no [rules] stone unturned category.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Monday, April 18, 2016
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: CONNECTICUT
This is part thirty-nine of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable.
CONNECTICUT
Election type: primary
Date: April 26
Number of delegates: 28 [10 at-large, 15 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: at-large/automatic delegates: proportional
congressional district delegates: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20% (statewide, for at-large/automatic delegates)
2012: winner-take-most primary
--
Changes since 2012
Compared the changes made to the Connecticut Republican Party delegate allocation method from 2008-12, the alterations made for the 2016 cycle are minor bordering on non-existent.
Despite seeing Democrats in the Nutmeg state government in 2011 move the presidential primary back from early February 2008 to late April 2012, Connecticut Republicans pushed forward with a plan to shift from a truly winner-take-all allocation plan to a more proportional method. That is "despite" since the primary moved to a later date, after the proportionality window had closed. In other words, the change was not necessary to comply with Republican National Committee rules for 2012. That plan called for both a winner-take-all element on the congressional district level and a proportional component statewide (if no candidate received a majority of the vote).
But that was 2012, and those were substantial changes. For 2016, the Connecticut Republican Party has only slightly tinkered with its rules.
The one big change?
A new section has empowered the state party chairman to fill any delegate slots awarded to the uncommitted option on the ballot (assuming "uncommitted" clears the qualifying threshold). While new, Section 17.H is more contingency planning than anything else; an insurance policy should "uncommitted" qualify.
Thresholds
Given scant changes, the ground rules are largely the same for Connecticut Republicans in 2016 as they were in 2012. The only difference is that the competitive phase of the race will stretch to late April on the calendar, unlike 2012. As the rules are the same, there is a qualifying threshold, but only under certain conditions. First, a candidate must receive at least 20 percent of the vote in order to qualify for any delegates in the Connecticut primary. But reaching that barrier only qualifies a candidate for a share of the states 13 at-large and automatic delegates. That is just a proportional share of a little less than half of the total number of delegates apportioned state Republicans by the RNC.
However, that proportional allocation of that group of delegates only holds if no one candidate wins a majority of the statewide vote. In the event that one candidate take a majority statewide, that candidate would be allocated all 13 at-large and automatic delegates.
There is, then, a qualifying threshold, but it is superseded by the winner-take-all trigger if a candidate wins more than 50 percent of the statewide vote. Additionally, there is no rule prohibiting the backdoor winner-take-all allocation of all 13 at-large and automatic delegates should only one candidate surpass the 20 percent qualifying threshold (given the equation described above and presumably assuming a large field of candidates).
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
The above thresholds affect just the allocation of the 13 at-large and automatic delegates. Assuming a proportional allocation of those delegates -- no one receives a majority of the vote statewide -- then the allocation equation divides each candidates share of the statewide vote by the total qualifying vote (just those over 20% rather than the total number of votes cast).
Fractional delegates from that calculation would be rounded to the nearest whole number. Those .5 and above would be round up and those below .5 would be rounded down.
Should there be an unallocated delegate due to rounding, the Connecticut Republican Party bylaws call for that slot to go to the winner of the statewide vote. Interestingly, there is no provision in the rules dealing with a rounding result that leads to an overallocation of delegates. There is no description laying out the procedure for removing the superfluous delegate from a particular candidate's total.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Matters are simpler with regard to the allocation of the congressional district delegates. Like Wisconsin or South Carolina before it, Connecticut Republicans allocate all three delegates to the plurality winner of a congressional district. There are no thresholds involved. A candidate need not win 20% of the vote to qualify for those three delegates. Having 19 percent of the vote, for example, is sufficient to claim all three congressional district delegates so long as that is the highest vote share in a given district. With a later primary and a winnowed field, however, such a winning share becomes less likely.
Binding
At-large and automatic delegates are bound to the majority winner statewide or to their respective candidates under a proportional allocation through the first ballot at the national convention. It is less clear whether congressional district delegates are bound for the same duration. The only mention of how long delegates are bound is in the section of the rules detailing the allocation of the at-large delegates (and only refers to "delegate[s]"). When the rules shift into a discussion of the allocation of congressional district delegates in a subsequent section, there is no provision detailing the length of the bond.
This sounds more provocative than it is in practice. And that is due to the way that delegates are selected. Connecticut is one of the states that chooses delegates from slates submitted by the various campaigns. If a candidate has filed a full slate of delegates and there is a majority winner statewide who also sweeps the congressional districts then the mystery is gone. There really is no selection so much as all the delegate slots are filled by the winner's slate.
There is only a choice in so much as there is 1) a proportional allocation in which delegates are being pulled from multiple slates or 2) a candidate has either filed too few or no delegates with the state party. The candidates and their campaigns choose the slates, but the state party at its May state central committee meeting selects which delegates from those slates fill the candidates' allocated slots. Unlike the majority of states where candidates have no direct influence over the delegate selection process, Connecticut Republicans allow for candidate input on the matter. Since the candidates have input in the matter, their delegates are likely to be with them on the first ballot (and beyond).
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
CONNECTICUT
Election type: primary
Date: April 26
Number of delegates: 28 [10 at-large, 15 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: at-large/automatic delegates: proportional
congressional district delegates: winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20% (statewide, for at-large/automatic delegates)
2012: winner-take-most primary
--
Changes since 2012
Compared the changes made to the Connecticut Republican Party delegate allocation method from 2008-12, the alterations made for the 2016 cycle are minor bordering on non-existent.
Despite seeing Democrats in the Nutmeg state government in 2011 move the presidential primary back from early February 2008 to late April 2012, Connecticut Republicans pushed forward with a plan to shift from a truly winner-take-all allocation plan to a more proportional method. That is "despite" since the primary moved to a later date, after the proportionality window had closed. In other words, the change was not necessary to comply with Republican National Committee rules for 2012. That plan called for both a winner-take-all element on the congressional district level and a proportional component statewide (if no candidate received a majority of the vote).
But that was 2012, and those were substantial changes. For 2016, the Connecticut Republican Party has only slightly tinkered with its rules.
The one big change?
A new section has empowered the state party chairman to fill any delegate slots awarded to the uncommitted option on the ballot (assuming "uncommitted" clears the qualifying threshold). While new, Section 17.H is more contingency planning than anything else; an insurance policy should "uncommitted" qualify.
Thresholds
Given scant changes, the ground rules are largely the same for Connecticut Republicans in 2016 as they were in 2012. The only difference is that the competitive phase of the race will stretch to late April on the calendar, unlike 2012. As the rules are the same, there is a qualifying threshold, but only under certain conditions. First, a candidate must receive at least 20 percent of the vote in order to qualify for any delegates in the Connecticut primary. But reaching that barrier only qualifies a candidate for a share of the states 13 at-large and automatic delegates. That is just a proportional share of a little less than half of the total number of delegates apportioned state Republicans by the RNC.
However, that proportional allocation of that group of delegates only holds if no one candidate wins a majority of the statewide vote. In the event that one candidate take a majority statewide, that candidate would be allocated all 13 at-large and automatic delegates.
There is, then, a qualifying threshold, but it is superseded by the winner-take-all trigger if a candidate wins more than 50 percent of the statewide vote. Additionally, there is no rule prohibiting the backdoor winner-take-all allocation of all 13 at-large and automatic delegates should only one candidate surpass the 20 percent qualifying threshold (given the equation described above and presumably assuming a large field of candidates).
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
The above thresholds affect just the allocation of the 13 at-large and automatic delegates. Assuming a proportional allocation of those delegates -- no one receives a majority of the vote statewide -- then the allocation equation divides each candidates share of the statewide vote by the total qualifying vote (just those over 20% rather than the total number of votes cast).
Fractional delegates from that calculation would be rounded to the nearest whole number. Those .5 and above would be round up and those below .5 would be rounded down.
Should there be an unallocated delegate due to rounding, the Connecticut Republican Party bylaws call for that slot to go to the winner of the statewide vote. Interestingly, there is no provision in the rules dealing with a rounding result that leads to an overallocation of delegates. There is no description laying out the procedure for removing the superfluous delegate from a particular candidate's total.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Matters are simpler with regard to the allocation of the congressional district delegates. Like Wisconsin or South Carolina before it, Connecticut Republicans allocate all three delegates to the plurality winner of a congressional district. There are no thresholds involved. A candidate need not win 20% of the vote to qualify for those three delegates. Having 19 percent of the vote, for example, is sufficient to claim all three congressional district delegates so long as that is the highest vote share in a given district. With a later primary and a winnowed field, however, such a winning share becomes less likely.
Binding
At-large and automatic delegates are bound to the majority winner statewide or to their respective candidates under a proportional allocation through the first ballot at the national convention. It is less clear whether congressional district delegates are bound for the same duration. The only mention of how long delegates are bound is in the section of the rules detailing the allocation of the at-large delegates (and only refers to "delegate[s]"). When the rules shift into a discussion of the allocation of congressional district delegates in a subsequent section, there is no provision detailing the length of the bond.
This sounds more provocative than it is in practice. And that is due to the way that delegates are selected. Connecticut is one of the states that chooses delegates from slates submitted by the various campaigns. If a candidate has filed a full slate of delegates and there is a majority winner statewide who also sweeps the congressional districts then the mystery is gone. There really is no selection so much as all the delegate slots are filled by the winner's slate.
There is only a choice in so much as there is 1) a proportional allocation in which delegates are being pulled from multiple slates or 2) a candidate has either filed too few or no delegates with the state party. The candidates and their campaigns choose the slates, but the state party at its May state central committee meeting selects which delegates from those slates fill the candidates' allocated slots. Unlike the majority of states where candidates have no direct influence over the delegate selection process, Connecticut Republicans allow for candidate input on the matter. Since the candidates have input in the matter, their delegates are likely to be with them on the first ballot (and beyond).
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
Thursday, June 4, 2015
March Presidential Primary Effort Ends at Close of Connecticut Legislative Session
Back in January, Connecticut Republicans had visions of a potentially more open primary process and an earlier presidential primary. And while Democrats in control of the state legislature and Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill (D) closed the door on an earlier primary (eliminating the possibility of a more open primary in the process), the end of the Connecticut General Assembly session on Wednesday, June 3, served as the final official death knell for such a change through legislative channels.
Still undecided is how hard the Connecticut Republican Party is going to push to hold caucuses at an earlier date than the late April presidential primary. The state law does not seemingly provide the party with the latitude to make the switch, but whether they want to go through the time and expense of a court challenge has yet to be fully determined.
Connecticut Democrats are locked into that April 26 primary date, but Republicans in the Nutmeg state are hoping they will not be.
Again, the two parties are differently motivated. Republicans, with a wide open presidential primary field of candidates are motivated to hold earlier contests. Democrats, on the other hand, have a far less competitive nomination battle ahead of them. Absent that perceived need to influence the nomination process, Democratic-controlled states have incentive to hold later contests, and where possible, to do so with neighboring states (see mid-Atlantic primary in 2012). That means more delegates from the state will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Connecticut already has the later primary date and one regional partner in Rhode Island. The clustering bonus will depend on what compromise is hammered out in New York in the coming weeks.
Still undecided is how hard the Connecticut Republican Party is going to push to hold caucuses at an earlier date than the late April presidential primary. The state law does not seemingly provide the party with the latitude to make the switch, but whether they want to go through the time and expense of a court challenge has yet to be fully determined.
Connecticut Democrats are locked into that April 26 primary date, but Republicans in the Nutmeg state are hoping they will not be.
Again, the two parties are differently motivated. Republicans, with a wide open presidential primary field of candidates are motivated to hold earlier contests. Democrats, on the other hand, have a far less competitive nomination battle ahead of them. Absent that perceived need to influence the nomination process, Democratic-controlled states have incentive to hold later contests, and where possible, to do so with neighboring states (see mid-Atlantic primary in 2012). That means more delegates from the state will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Connecticut already has the later primary date and one regional partner in Rhode Island. The clustering bonus will depend on what compromise is hammered out in New York in the coming weeks.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
An Update on Connecticut Republicans and 2016 Caucuses
FHQ mentioned the Connecticut delegate selection situation in the earlier Rhode Island post, but it is something I've been meaning to revisit for a few weeks (and have not gotten around to yet).
At its most basic, earlier this year Republican state legislators in the Nutmeg state introduced legislation to move the late April presidential primary into the first week in March. That effort was stonewalled by majority Democrats who are differently motivated with respect to its presidential primary. A later primary in conjunction with primaries in two or more neighboring states would net the Connecticut Democratic Party two bonuses to its national convention delegation under DNC delegate selection rules. The race for the Democratic nomination is also not quite the competition the Republican nomination process appears to be. Democratic legislators, then, are not clamoring to move to earlier spots on the presidential primary calendar.
But Republicans in the state would rather have a say in the Republican nomination race rather than be stuck with a primary at a point on the calendar that is closer to where the last two Republican nominees clinched the nomination (as measured by the percentage of total delegates allocated). With no viable route to an earlier, potentially more consequential primary, Connecticut Republicans have considered shifting to a caucus/convention system that would give the state party the freedom to move around as they see fit.
Of course, state law is seemingly restrictive in terms of the leeway allowed state parties to determine whether it selects and allocates delegates to the national convention through a primary or caucuses. And it is. To just scratch the surface, the presidential primary law no longer includes a provision to allow for caucuses. That was repealed.
In reality, though, there is nothing to prevent Connecticut Republicans from conducting caucuses. The law just requires state parties to allocate delegates to the national conventions based on the results of the presidential primary. That statute does this in a couple of ways. First, the primary law lays out the guidelines for how a state party must inform the secretary of state of which delegate selection/allocation plan they will use. Secondly, the available formulas for allocating delegates are specified in the law. Taken alone this second part could open the door to Connecticut Republicans holding caucuses and a presumably later presidential primary but heading to the Cleveland convention having allocated delegates based on the results of the earlier caucuses. But that requirement of a written notification eliminates that possibility or at least complicates it.
Let's step back for a moment, though. FHQ, when discussing this possible Connecticut Republican primary/caucuses switch before, said that the party "would be on firm ground legally" if it wanted to make the switch. That may obscure a larger point here. Yes, the courts tend to defer to the parties in determining how to run their own nominations. However, tends to is not the same as a sure thing. Additionally, Connecticut Republicans would have to make a decision on the feasibility of having to 1) pay for the caucuses and 2) having to initiate and pay for a court challenge to the law. Scheduling caucuses early enough to matter -- however you want to define that -- may be deemed important, but is it important enough to shell out party money on both of the aforementioned fronts in the lead up to an election year?
That is the big question that faces Connecticut Republicans now. They feel pretty good about their chances of challenging the law and ultimately holding caucuses, but are they willing to pay for it?
At its most basic, earlier this year Republican state legislators in the Nutmeg state introduced legislation to move the late April presidential primary into the first week in March. That effort was stonewalled by majority Democrats who are differently motivated with respect to its presidential primary. A later primary in conjunction with primaries in two or more neighboring states would net the Connecticut Democratic Party two bonuses to its national convention delegation under DNC delegate selection rules. The race for the Democratic nomination is also not quite the competition the Republican nomination process appears to be. Democratic legislators, then, are not clamoring to move to earlier spots on the presidential primary calendar.
But Republicans in the state would rather have a say in the Republican nomination race rather than be stuck with a primary at a point on the calendar that is closer to where the last two Republican nominees clinched the nomination (as measured by the percentage of total delegates allocated). With no viable route to an earlier, potentially more consequential primary, Connecticut Republicans have considered shifting to a caucus/convention system that would give the state party the freedom to move around as they see fit.
Of course, state law is seemingly restrictive in terms of the leeway allowed state parties to determine whether it selects and allocates delegates to the national convention through a primary or caucuses. And it is. To just scratch the surface, the presidential primary law no longer includes a provision to allow for caucuses. That was repealed.
In reality, though, there is nothing to prevent Connecticut Republicans from conducting caucuses. The law just requires state parties to allocate delegates to the national conventions based on the results of the presidential primary. That statute does this in a couple of ways. First, the primary law lays out the guidelines for how a state party must inform the secretary of state of which delegate selection/allocation plan they will use. Secondly, the available formulas for allocating delegates are specified in the law. Taken alone this second part could open the door to Connecticut Republicans holding caucuses and a presumably later presidential primary but heading to the Cleveland convention having allocated delegates based on the results of the earlier caucuses. But that requirement of a written notification eliminates that possibility or at least complicates it.
Let's step back for a moment, though. FHQ, when discussing this possible Connecticut Republican primary/caucuses switch before, said that the party "would be on firm ground legally" if it wanted to make the switch. That may obscure a larger point here. Yes, the courts tend to defer to the parties in determining how to run their own nominations. However, tends to is not the same as a sure thing. Additionally, Connecticut Republicans would have to make a decision on the feasibility of having to 1) pay for the caucuses and 2) having to initiate and pay for a court challenge to the law. Scheduling caucuses early enough to matter -- however you want to define that -- may be deemed important, but is it important enough to shell out party money on both of the aforementioned fronts in the lead up to an election year?
That is the big question that faces Connecticut Republicans now. They feel pretty good about their chances of challenging the law and ultimately holding caucuses, but are they willing to pay for it?
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Connecticut Republicans Looking Toward 2016 Caucuses with Presidential Primary Seemingly Anchored in Late April?
Two Republican-sponsored bills to move the Connecticut presidential primary to the first week in March have been bottled up in committee within the Democratic-controlled state legislature since being introduced in late January. Republicans in the Nutmeg state, however, are apparently not content to conduct the party's delegate selection process in a primary on the last Tuesday in April. The impasse has the Connecticut Republican Party considering a switch to caucuses at an earlier point on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.
Neil Vigdor from Hearst Connecticut Media:
Democrats in the Nutmeg state would/could continue with the primary. That would allow Connecticut Democrats to align their nomination contest with the primary in neighboring Rhode Island. If New York moves back into April that would connect Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York with contests in Pennsylvania, Delaware and likely Maryland.
Republicans, assuming the state party moves to a date in March, could caucus on March 1 which would group them with other primaries in the region in Massachusetts and Vermont.
Though there would appear to be an appeal to going earlier, even among Democrats, that is balanced by the fact that Connecticut Democrats stand to gain delegates for having an April primary and, if New York joins the discussion, for clustering its contest with two or more regional partners. [This was something that Joe Lenski and FHQ discussed in a Twitter back and forth back when the aforementioned Connecticut bill were introduced.] The Democratic nomination race is also shaping up to be far less competitive than the Republican race, decreasing the urgency to move up to an earlier calendar position among state Democrats.
--
FHQ really wishes Mr. Vigdor had not recycled some of the problematic material from his article two months ago on the two bills to move the Connecticut primary. We dispensed with that already.
Neil Vigdor from Hearst Connecticut Media:
A task force created by the Connecticut GOP is seeking legal opinions on whether Republicans could bypass the Legislature to adopt the caucus model, an alternative that the group's chairman, Bridgeport's Michael Garrett, said is intriguing to party.
"They're open-minded," said Garrett, a Republican State Central Committee member.
Based on preliminary discussions, a GOP caucus would be held in each of the state's 36 state senatorial districts, with the state party printing out standard ballots and local Republican Town Committees shouldering election administration costs, according to Garrett. If a change in the law is required, Garrett acknowledged that the plan doesn't stand much of a chance.Connecticut Republicans would be on firm ground legally if the state party voted to switch to a caucuses/convention system. That is a matter -- the rules behind the nomination of a party's candidate or in this case reflecting presidential preference in the state for that purpose -- that is left up to party discretion. Republican candidates would still appear on the April primary ballot, but the primary would be a beauty contest for Connecticut Republicans, falling after the proposed earlier caucuses that would have initiated the delegate selection/allocation process.
Democrats in the Nutmeg state would/could continue with the primary. That would allow Connecticut Democrats to align their nomination contest with the primary in neighboring Rhode Island. If New York moves back into April that would connect Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York with contests in Pennsylvania, Delaware and likely Maryland.
Republicans, assuming the state party moves to a date in March, could caucus on March 1 which would group them with other primaries in the region in Massachusetts and Vermont.
Though there would appear to be an appeal to going earlier, even among Democrats, that is balanced by the fact that Connecticut Democrats stand to gain delegates for having an April primary and, if New York joins the discussion, for clustering its contest with two or more regional partners. [This was something that Joe Lenski and FHQ discussed in a Twitter back and forth back when the aforementioned Connecticut bill were introduced.] The Democratic nomination race is also shaping up to be far less competitive than the Republican race, decreasing the urgency to move up to an earlier calendar position among state Democrats.
--
FHQ really wishes Mr. Vigdor had not recycled some of the problematic material from his article two months ago on the two bills to move the Connecticut primary. We dispensed with that already.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Neil Vigdor has the story at the Connecticut Post about Nutmeg state Republicans' short-term (move the presidential primary)/long-term (open primaries to independents/unaffiliateds) plans.
In Democratic-controlled Connecticut, the state GOP will need some help from across the aisle in the state legislature to make either happen.
--
A couple of quickie clarifications on this one:
Recent Posts:
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
In Democratic-controlled Connecticut, the state GOP will need some help from across the aisle in the state legislature to make either happen.
--
A couple of quickie clarifications on this one:
- "Until 2008, both parties in Connecticut held their primaries on Super Tuesday, which fell in early February and drew visits from then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and future first lady Michelle Obama."
- "In 2011, looking to create a regional primary with New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware, the General Assembly ended the tie-in with Super Tuesday. But the inability of the states to get on the same page for setting a date for the proceedings relegated the regional primary to April 24. By that point in 2012, Mitt Romney had all but wrapped up the GOP's nomination."
- Connecticut did not join Super Tuesday -- typically the earliest date the national parties allow contests to be held -- until 1996. And then, the primary was on the first Tuesday in March. It stayed there until the 2008 cycle, when the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February. 2004 was a bit quirky too. Democrats caught up with an RNC that was already allowing February contests, but few states actually moved for 2004. Connecticut, like many states, waited until 2008 to react to that change.
- This sequence is strange. New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware created a regional primary on April 24 for the 2012 cycle, but could not get on the "same page" to do it? FHQ would argue that four Democratic-controlled states opted to join perpetually-April Pennsylvania on that late April date, and they did it on purpose. Democratic states that were non-compliant under the new 2012 rules moved back much further on the calendar than Republican-controlled states. There may or may not have been ulterior motives involved.
Recent Posts:
Idaho Bill Reestablishing Presidential Primary Introduced
Uncertainty surrounds NC primary
Michigan Inches Toward March Presidential Primary Move
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Pair of Bills Propose Earlier Presidential Primary in Connecticut
Two bills introduced in the Connecticut state Senate this morning would alter the position of the Nutmeg state presidential primary in 2016. Both pieces of legislation were sponsored by minority party Republicans, but are not replicas of each other.1 One is actually quite unique.
Senator Joe Markley (R-16th, Cheshire) put forth SB 610, which would shift the Connecticut presidential primary from the last Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in March. Now, it should be noted that Connecticut moved from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February for the 2008 cycle. That move brought the presidential primary there back to the earliest allowed date according to national party rules at the time. When those rules changed for the 2012 electoral cycle, Connecticut was one of those 18 states that had to move back to comply with the rules eliminating February contests. Instead of opting to move back a month to the then newly established earliest date -- the first Tuesday in March -- Democratic-controlled Connecticut decided to move back in to April to hold a primary concurrently with contests in Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Democratic states with non-compliant primaries were much more likely to move to late March and even April dates than non-compliant states under unified Republican control.
Now, it appears that at least some elected Republicans in the Nutmeg state want to reverse course and hold an earlier primary in 2016. But they -- along with Democrats in the state Senate -- will have a couple of options to discuss.
SB 610 shifts the presidential primary to the first Tuesday in March, but SB 599 -- introduced by Senator Michael A. McLachlan (R-24th, Bethel) and co-sponsored by Representative Richard A. Smith (R-108th, New Fairfield) on the House side -- would move only the Republican presidential primary in Connecticut and move it to the first Thursday in March.
This one is quirky for a couple of reasons:
First, the bill proposes splitting up the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries. The Republican contest would move to March while the Democratic contest would continue to be scheduled for April. This happens in some states, but typically it means that one party has opted into the state-funded primary election while the other major party has opted to fund its own (usually) caucuses to select and allocate delegates. We also see this in states where both parties conduct caucuses. Those cross-party contests are sometimes on the same date, but often not. With the exception of South Carolina, states do not often fund two separate presidential primary elections.2 It is expensive. That could be a roadblock to minority party Republicans trying to find support for this measure.
The other strange thing about this second bill -- SB 599 -- is that it seeks to move the primary from a Tuesday in April to a nontraditional Thursday position in March. This would appear to be a nod to the reality that the first Tuesday in March -- the earliest allowed date -- may be a crowded slot on the calendar. It does have a southern flavor to it at this point and looks to be getting even more so, but could be attractive to any state, southern or not, seeking to attempt to influence the presidential nomination races. Moving to a Thursday may achieve the attention while avoiding the crowd.
Of course, the expenditure for the separate contest kind of cancels out the potential good a nontraditional Thursday, March 3 primary might have.
Both bills offer something for Connecticut lawmakers trying to gain the state some influence in the process (if not just putting voters in a position to vote ahead of the point on the calendar on which one candidate wraps up the nomination). Moving to March 1 -- as called for in SB 610 -- would mean a primary on the likely SEC primary date, but all the non-southern states on March 1 are all northeastern neighbors of Connecticut -- Massachusetts and Vermont. Small though that collection of states may be, they would collectively serve as some counterbalance to the series of southern contests. Most likely, however, they would be ignored as most candidates focus on the southern states with more delegates.
That is what makes the Thursday option potentially more attractive -- minus the expenditure. Connecticut would be the only contest on that date in between the SEC primary and the Louisiana primary that following weekend. And the proposal is not as off-the-wall as it may seem on the surface. Both Georgia and Florida considered Thursday primaries in 2012.
Both bills now head off for consideration in the Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections.
--
1 This differs from the two bills introduced to move the presidential primary in Mississippi on parallel tracks, one in each chamber.
2 South Carolina has had separate dates for the parties' presidential primaries, but does that to provide some flexibility to state parties that are also attempting to maintain the first in the South spot on the calendar. There is legislation currently before the South Carolina legislature to merge those two primaries.
Recent Posts:
Companion Bills Introduced to Move Mississippi Presidential Primary into SEC Primary Position
Primary Movement, 2015 v. 2011
State Legislatures Move Most Presidential Primaries. ...But They Have to Change State Law First
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Senator Joe Markley (R-16th, Cheshire) put forth SB 610, which would shift the Connecticut presidential primary from the last Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in March. Now, it should be noted that Connecticut moved from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February for the 2008 cycle. That move brought the presidential primary there back to the earliest allowed date according to national party rules at the time. When those rules changed for the 2012 electoral cycle, Connecticut was one of those 18 states that had to move back to comply with the rules eliminating February contests. Instead of opting to move back a month to the then newly established earliest date -- the first Tuesday in March -- Democratic-controlled Connecticut decided to move back in to April to hold a primary concurrently with contests in Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Democratic states with non-compliant primaries were much more likely to move to late March and even April dates than non-compliant states under unified Republican control.
Now, it appears that at least some elected Republicans in the Nutmeg state want to reverse course and hold an earlier primary in 2016. But they -- along with Democrats in the state Senate -- will have a couple of options to discuss.
SB 610 shifts the presidential primary to the first Tuesday in March, but SB 599 -- introduced by Senator Michael A. McLachlan (R-24th, Bethel) and co-sponsored by Representative Richard A. Smith (R-108th, New Fairfield) on the House side -- would move only the Republican presidential primary in Connecticut and move it to the first Thursday in March.
This one is quirky for a couple of reasons:
First, the bill proposes splitting up the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries. The Republican contest would move to March while the Democratic contest would continue to be scheduled for April. This happens in some states, but typically it means that one party has opted into the state-funded primary election while the other major party has opted to fund its own (usually) caucuses to select and allocate delegates. We also see this in states where both parties conduct caucuses. Those cross-party contests are sometimes on the same date, but often not. With the exception of South Carolina, states do not often fund two separate presidential primary elections.2 It is expensive. That could be a roadblock to minority party Republicans trying to find support for this measure.
The other strange thing about this second bill -- SB 599 -- is that it seeks to move the primary from a Tuesday in April to a nontraditional Thursday position in March. This would appear to be a nod to the reality that the first Tuesday in March -- the earliest allowed date -- may be a crowded slot on the calendar. It does have a southern flavor to it at this point and looks to be getting even more so, but could be attractive to any state, southern or not, seeking to attempt to influence the presidential nomination races. Moving to a Thursday may achieve the attention while avoiding the crowd.
Of course, the expenditure for the separate contest kind of cancels out the potential good a nontraditional Thursday, March 3 primary might have.
Both bills offer something for Connecticut lawmakers trying to gain the state some influence in the process (if not just putting voters in a position to vote ahead of the point on the calendar on which one candidate wraps up the nomination). Moving to March 1 -- as called for in SB 610 -- would mean a primary on the likely SEC primary date, but all the non-southern states on March 1 are all northeastern neighbors of Connecticut -- Massachusetts and Vermont. Small though that collection of states may be, they would collectively serve as some counterbalance to the series of southern contests. Most likely, however, they would be ignored as most candidates focus on the southern states with more delegates.
That is what makes the Thursday option potentially more attractive -- minus the expenditure. Connecticut would be the only contest on that date in between the SEC primary and the Louisiana primary that following weekend. And the proposal is not as off-the-wall as it may seem on the surface. Both Georgia and Florida considered Thursday primaries in 2012.
Both bills now head off for consideration in the Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections.
--
1 This differs from the two bills introduced to move the presidential primary in Mississippi on parallel tracks, one in each chamber.
2 South Carolina has had separate dates for the parties' presidential primaries, but does that to provide some flexibility to state parties that are also attempting to maintain the first in the South spot on the calendar. There is legislation currently before the South Carolina legislature to merge those two primaries.
Recent Posts:
Companion Bills Introduced to Move Mississippi Presidential Primary into SEC Primary Position
Primary Movement, 2015 v. 2011
State Legislatures Move Most Presidential Primaries. ...But They Have to Change State Law First
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, November 2, 2012
The Electoral College Map (11/2/12)
24 new polls from 17 states closed out the final work week before election day. Additionally, there were two other surveys from earlier in October factored in as well from a couple of non-competitive states -- Maine and Nebraska.
This was another seemingly good polling day for the Obama campaign on the state level. Among the toss up states, the president held small leads in Colorado and Virginia (tier one states) and more comfortable advantages in polls in states like New Hampshire, Ohio and Iowa; those Tier two states. Also, there was a bit more distance between the president and Mitt Romney in the Tier three states, Nevada and Wisconsin. Strategically, Romney has to do well in at least the Tier one and Tier two states. And by do well, I mean nearly sweep them. The former Massachusetts governor could -- if the order of states below in the Electoral College Spectrum holds -- cede New Hampshire or Iowa, or Colorado and still get to 270 with North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Ohio. But Romney would have to have two of those three smaller states to get there. If the rank order is correct, New Hampshire would be that state.
From the Obama perspective, it is still a matter of holding Nevada and Wisconsin (along with the other Lean Obama states where the margins have contracted) and tacking on Ohio or Virginia and New Hampshire for example to just push north of 270. But there are a number of other combinations of paths to 270 for the president as well if polling like that above continues to come in.
The map (changes since 11/1):
No change in the overall tally. Obama: 332, Romney: 206.
Nevada barely shifts back into the Lean Obama category (> 4%).
The Electoral College Spectrum (changes since 11/1): No change in the order among the toss up states.
Nevada holds its position but slides into the Lean category.
Maine and Washington trade places.
The Watch List (changes since 11/1): Nevada, given the shift above, is now within a fraction of a point of moving back into the Toss Up Obama category. Put simply, the Silver state is going to hug that line the rest of the way without a significant change in the polling data there.
Please see:
New State Polls (11/2/12)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/- 3.8%
|
695 likely voters
|
47
|
45
|
--
|
+2
|
+1.65
| |
Colorado
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- -.-%
|
825 likely voters
|
50
|
46
|
4
|
+4
|
--
| |
Connecticut
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/- 2.8%
|
1220 likely voters
|
55
|
42
|
3
|
+13
|
+11.64
| |
Georgia
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/- 2.7%
|
1316 likely voters
|
46
|
52
|
1
|
+6
|
+9.04
| |
Hawaii
|
10/24-10/26
|
+/- 2.8%
|
1218 likely voters
|
61
|
34
|
5
|
+27
|
+29.35
| |
Indiana
|
10/28-10/30
|
+/- 3.5%
|
800 likely voters
|
41
|
50
|
--
|
+9
|
+12.01
| |
Indiana
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
41
|
54
|
5
|
+13
|
--
| |
Iowa
|
11/1
|
+/- 4.0%
|
594 likely voters
|
49
|
45
|
6
|
+4
|
+2.67
| |
Maine
|
10/7-10/8
|
+/- 4.0%
|
500 likely voters
|
48
|
44
|
--
|
+4
|
+13.21
| |
Maine
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/- 2.4%
|
1633 likely voters
|
55
|
42
|
2
|
+13
|
--
| |
Massachusetts
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- 3.48%
|
761 likely voters
|
54.0
|
41.4
|
4.6
|
+12.6
|
+19.56
| |
Massachusetts
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1089 likely voters
|
57
|
42
|
2
|
+15
|
--
| |
Michigan
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- -.-%
|
500 likely voters
|
52
|
46
|
2
|
+6
|
+5.72
| |
Michigan
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- 4.4%
|
500 registered voters
|
48
|
41
|
9
|
+7
|
--
| |
Michigan
|
11/1
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
52
|
47
|
1
|
+5
|
--
| |
Minnesota
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/- -.-%
|
772 likely voters
|
53
|
44
|
3
|
+9
|
+7.90
| |
Montana
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/- 3.5%
|
800 likely voters
|
41
|
49
|
--
|
+8
|
+9.11
| |
Nebraska
|
10/23-10/25
|
+/- 3.8%
|
679 likely voters
|
38
|
52
|
--
|
+14
|
+13.76
| |
Nebraska
|
11/1
|
+/- 2.95%
|
1178 likely voters
|
41
|
54
|
3
|
+13
|
--
| |
Nevada
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
50
|
44
|
4
|
+6
|
+4.06
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/- 3.7%
|
1017 likely voters
|
50
|
44
|
4
|
+6
|
+3.30
| |
Ohio
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/- 2.6%
|
1649 likely voters
|
50
|
46
|
--
|
+4
|
+2.86
| |
Ohio
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/- 3.5%
|
796 likely voters
|
50
|
47
|
3
|
+3
|
--
| |
Ohio
|
11/1
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
49
|
49
|
1
|
0
|
--
| |
Virginia
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1069 likely voters
|
49
|
48
|
--
|
+1
|
+1.69
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1210 likely voters
|
52
|
45
|
--
|
+7
|
+4.57
| |
This was another seemingly good polling day for the Obama campaign on the state level. Among the toss up states, the president held small leads in Colorado and Virginia (tier one states) and more comfortable advantages in polls in states like New Hampshire, Ohio and Iowa; those Tier two states. Also, there was a bit more distance between the president and Mitt Romney in the Tier three states, Nevada and Wisconsin. Strategically, Romney has to do well in at least the Tier one and Tier two states. And by do well, I mean nearly sweep them. The former Massachusetts governor could -- if the order of states below in the Electoral College Spectrum holds -- cede New Hampshire or Iowa, or Colorado and still get to 270 with North Carolina, Florida, Virginia and Ohio. But Romney would have to have two of those three smaller states to get there. If the rank order is correct, New Hampshire would be that state.
From the Obama perspective, it is still a matter of holding Nevada and Wisconsin (along with the other Lean Obama states where the margins have contracted) and tacking on Ohio or Virginia and New Hampshire for example to just push north of 270. But there are a number of other combinations of paths to 270 for the president as well if polling like that above continues to come in.
The map (changes since 11/1):
| Changes (November 2) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | Toss Up Obama | Lean Obama | |
Nevada barely shifts back into the Lean Obama category (> 4%).
The Electoral College Spectrum (changes since 11/1): No change in the order among the toss up states.
Nevada holds its position but slides into the Lean category.
Maine and Washington trade places.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
ME-4
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
GA-16
(167)
|
MS-6
(58)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
SD-3
(151)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
NY-29
(39)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
SC-9
(148)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
RI-4
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
IN-11
(139)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
TN-11
(128)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
MA-11
(64)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
IL-20
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
WV-5
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
TX-38
(107)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
ND-3
(69)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
WA-12
(154)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
MT-3
(170)
|
LA-8
(66)
|
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. | ||||
The Watch List (changes since 11/1): Nevada, given the shift above, is now within a fraction of a point of moving back into the Toss Up Obama category. Put simply, the Silver state is going to hug that line the rest of the way without a significant change in the polling data there.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Toss Up Romney
| |
Georgia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Montana
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Nevada
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
New Hampshire
|
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)