"2028 presidential hopefuls flock to key battleground states: Where have they traveled?"

Oren Oppenheim at ABC News:

"One year out from the 2026 midterms, major Democratic Party names have been taking the show on the road, saying that they’re helping the party lay the groundwork to battle for the U.S. House.

"They also might be preparing to run for president."

...

"ABC News has tracked at least 43 visits or planned visits so far in 2025 and 2026 by Democratic presidential hopefuls to key early or battleground presidential election states. Some of those states are also expected to be key House battlegrounds in 2026."

courtesy of ABC News

--

Noteworthy: This is not the first and will not be the last glimpse at the travel of prospective 2028 Democratic presidential candidates, but it is a check-in following the 2025 off-year elections. There is nothing all that surprising in the pattern of the candidate visits thus far. 

However, despite its double billing as both (very likely) early 2028 primary state and general election battleground, Nevada still does not garner that much attention. ABC News could have (should have?) discounted travel by candidates to neighboring states. Under those conditions, the Silver state has had just three candidates drop in during 2025 (or that are scheduled to trek that way in early 2026). 

Nevada has been a part of the early window on the Democratic calendar for nearly 20 years now -- five, and likely six, cycles -- and in many ways that still has not translated. By comparison, Iowa, a state that is very likely to be excluded from the early window on the 2028 calendar (but could go rogue!), is seeing more visitors. A visit to Iowa still carries more weight.

Will that affect Nevada's attempt to nail down the lead-off spot in the order for 2028? It may be a knock on Silver state Democrats' case. But it is still early yet. 

[From FHQ Plus] The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo"

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's subscription newsletter. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

From The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo":

FHQ always follows along with rules meetings when I have the time. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) meeting late last week from Minneapolis was no exception. It was a productive if not eventful meeting. Among other things, the panel extended the early calendar waiver for New Hampshire and took up 19 state delegate selection plans, clearing 15 of them as conditionally compliant. 

Much of it seemed straightforward enough. But then I read some of the recaps and kept asking myself if folks had watched the same meeting I had. Sure, rules can have their various interpretations, but these sorts of sessions — those where delegate selection plans are being reviewed — can be pretty technical, pretty black and white. Yet, that did not stop some folks from reading shades of gray into matters where there really is none. Or in the case of the New Hampshire waiver, seeing what they wanted to see.

The consideration of the Georgia presidential primary (and any waiver extension for it) at the DNCRBC meeting last week was one of those situations. Like New Hampshire, the presidential primary in the Peach state had a spot in the early window of the Democratic calendar reserved for it for 2024, but ran into resistance with Republican state officials back home. However, unlike the situation in New Hampshire, the date of the Georgia primary has been set by the secretary of state. That deal is done. 

And DNCRBC co-Chair Minyan Moore seemed to acknowledge that in her comments about what she and fellow co-Chair Jim Roosevelt would recommend to the committee. She conceded that, despite the efforts of Democrats in Georgia and nationally, Peach state Republicans would not budge. They would not cooperate with the proposed change. And though Moore did not acknowledge it, it was an entirely understandable position. Any Georgia primary in mid-February would have cost Peach state Republicans a sizable chunk of their delegation to the national convention in Milwaukee next summer. Their hands were tied. They always were with respect to a February 13 position under Republican National Committee rules. [There were, however, other early window options that may have worked.]

But after that explanation, Moore said…

“…it does not seem to make sense to extend the Georgia waiver at this point. Regardless, I think the foundation has been laid for 2028, and it is a discussion that we need to continue.”

The key phrase in that statement is the highlighted one, at this point. Its addition was enough for the Associated Press to say that the Georgia primary was in limbo, that the committee had “opted not to immediately offer such an extension to another battleground state, Georgia.”

Look, the at this point was in reference to 2024 in its entirety, not this particular point in the 2024 cycle. And the reference to 2028 should have driven that point home. There is no number of waivers that the DNCRBC could offer Georgia Democrats that could get the state-run primary out of that March 12 slot. None. It is not in limbo. It is set for 2024. And this discussion can continue. 

…for 2028.

But it should be noted that there is a loose thread in all of this. There still is no draft delegate selection plan from the Georgia Democratic Party. Its absence at this time could create enough uncertainty that one may be inclined to suggest that maybe a party-run primary of some sort is in the works. 

Maybe. 

But if that was the case, then the DNCRBC would have granted an extension on the Georgia waiver last week. They did not. And they held back on that waiver extension because Georgia is done. The primary is set. 

The committee is set to address delegate selection plans from the southern region at its July meeting, so this all should clear up to some degree by then. 

--

Recent posts:

The difference in how the national parties approve delegate selection plans

Nevada responds to State Republican Party suit against the new presidential primary

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Missing the Real Story on the New Hampshire Primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• How does Iowa fit into the Republican National Committee delegate rules? A deeper dive on the history of Rule 16 and how Iowa Republicans have no real recourse if New Hampshire leapfrogs the Hawkeye state into the first slot on the 2024 calendar. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

Another day, another story from out of one of the traditionally early primary calendar states. Yesterday, it was Iowa. Today, New Hampshire is on the docket. 

But folks, in their zeal to make a story out of something that probably will not be a much of a story in 2024, some outlets have missed the real story in the battle between New Hampshire Democrats and the Democratic National Committee over the primary calendar next year. Well, most have missed the true story in Iowa and thus miss the bigger picture story on the evolution of the beginning of the 2024 calendar. 

That bigger picture story? How much differently Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire are approaching the threat of 2024 calendar rules that shift each from their traditional positions. Look, as FHQ noted yesterday, Iowa Democrats' draft delegate selection plan was a deescalatory document. Yes, the date of the more primary-like preference vote is still unknown, but the signals from out of the Hawkeye state are that Iowa Democrats are playing for a spot -- any spot -- in the early window on the Democratic primary calendar. In other words, they are not fighting for first. South Carolina already has that (official) distinction They are fighting for early. Iowa Democrats are demonstrating flexibility. They appear willing to play ball with the DNC.

New Hampshire Democrats do not. 

To this point, from the draft delegate selection plan to comment after comment from New Hampshire Democrats to state legislative actions that Democratic state legislators have supported, the picture is just the opposite of what is coming out of Iowa. It is all still shock and anger and disbelief. The pose New Hampshire Democrats have struck remains defiant. And the one good thing that the latest story from Politico by Holly Otterbein and Lisa Kashinsky does is showcase how very rigid and inflexible New Hampshire Democrats are being on this. 

A party-run primary as a possible alternative?

Meanwhile, Democrats in the state are shutting down the idea of a party-run primary before they’ve even formally been approached about it. Buckley said a party-run primary would be a logistical nightmare and extremely expensive, costing upwards of $7 million. 

“Absolutely impossible,” he said. “Where would I rent 2,000 voting machines? Hire 1,500 people to run the polls? Rent 300 accessible voting locations? Hire security? Print 500,000 ballots. Process 30,000 absentee ballots.”

Never mind that states equal in size or bigger than New Hampshire held first-time, vote-by-mail party-run primaries in 2020. ...during a pandemic. Democratic parties in both Hawaii and Kansas pulled that off in the last cycle. Any thought in New Hampshire of consulting with those state parties to discover best practices, potential problems, anything? Nope. Just overestimates on scale and costs and a complete inability to think even a little outside of the box. 

And that fig leaf that was a feeble attempt at passing no-excuse absentee voting in New Hampshire?

New Hampshire Democrats also argue they’ve made a good-faith effort to meet the second part of the party’s requirements to stay in the official early-state window — expanding voting access by pushing Soucy’s legislation to create no-excuse absentee voting in the state, albeit to no avail.

That just is not very likely to carry much if any weight with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. Is it a good-faith effort at a provable positive step toward the changes the national party requested of New Hampshire Democrats. It is! But it is also a very small step in the grand scheme of the plan the national party has put forth for the 2024 presidential nomination process. 

It is a half step at best. All the DNC wants in something like this is a willing partner to come to the table and work toward a compromise of some sort. New Hampshire Democrats' my way or the highway approach to all of this will put them in the same boat that Florida and Michigan Democrats found themselves in 2007-08. Democratic legislators (and governors in Michigan's case) supported those rogue primaries and when the DNC suggested alternative caucuses to comply with the national party rules, both state parties threw up their hands and balked at the prospect. That got each a full 100 percent reduction in their 2008 national convention delegations.¹ New Hampshire is likely looking at the same fate. 

And that is the story here. It is tale of two "aggrieved" states and how differently each is reacting to the threat of calendar rules changes for 2024. It is the rigidity of the New Hampshire Democratic Party compared to the flexibility of Iowa Democrats. What it is not is a "predicament ... of the president's own making." It just is not. That is like saying the Florida and Michigan ordeal was one of the DNC's own design. Those states broke the rules the DNC put in place for 2008. Those state parties refused to explore alternatives for delegate selection. Those parties paid a price. The 55 other states and territories followed the rules. 

In 2023, all signs point toward 56 states and territories following the DNC calendar rules. [There are other budding violations of other rules elsewhere.] Only one state, New Hampshire, is indicating that it not only will not but also will not doing anything to meet the national party even part of the way there. Folks, that is not the president's problem. It is not the DNC's problem. It is New Hampshire's problem and Democrats there are trying to blackmail the national party into caving because of the possible general election implications. That is not a new practice, but in 2024 that is a recipe for sanctions from the national party. 

[One option in New Hampshire that FHQ has suggested and still has not seen anywhere else is tying something -- party-run primary, alternative state-run primary -- to town meeting day in March. That is when the New Hampshire presidential primary is supposed to be anyway. Or would be if not for the law that says it will fall on town meeting day unless another similar election is before the primary in the Granite state. Town meeting day is going to happen after the January presidential primary regardless. It could be an option for the Democrats in New Hampshire. It could be, but again, the party so far has not been receptive to alternatives.]

...

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is going to announce a presidential run? If only there had been some signs that this was coming. Seriously though, DeSantis closed the deal on 99 Republican state legislative endorsements (out of 113) in the Sunshine state on Wednesday, May 16. The floodgates referred to in this space yesterday were opened up. And DeSantis has a more than reasonable endorsement primary counterweight to the Trump rollout of Florida congressional delegation endorsements in recent weeks.

...

FHQ could use the Landmark Communications poll in Georgia out yesterday to point out how poorly Governor Brian Kemp would do in a Republican presidential primary in his home state. But that is unnecessary -- Kemp is not running -- and would miss an opportunity to talk about delegate allocation in the Peach state next year anyway. Yet, that is something of a question mark. Georgia will have an earlier presidential primary in 2024 than it (initially) did in 2020, and Republicans in the state will have to change the delegate allocation system they used in the last go-round to something more proportional (as the RNC defines it). 

Also, it is worth noting that Trump will address Georgia Republicans at their state convention next month where delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle may be on the agenda.

...

On this date...

...in 1976, California Governor Jerry Brown won the battle but lost the war in the Maryland Democratic primary. But since Brown had not filed a slate in the Old Line state, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter won the delegate fight and also won in the Michigan primary. On the Republican side, President Gerald Ford swept both the Maryland and Michigan primaries.

...in 1987, Illinois Senator Paul Simon formally entered the contest for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry swept primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and Oregon.

--

¹ Yes, both Florida and Michigan Democrats had half of their delegations restored by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee during Memorial Day weekend in 2008 and full delegations from both were seated at the Denver convention with full voting rights after a concession from the Obama campaign. But the conditions will be different for New Hampshire in 2024. Team Biden and the DNC will potentially be less willing to show such leniency. The incumbent president will not be coming off a hard-fought nomination win in the primaries and needing to bring two sides of an evenly split party together. Instead, it will be two sides: one comprised of 56 states and territories and the other of one state delegation that wants to hold onto a first-in-the-nation relic that the president is trying to change in favor of a rotation system at the beginning of the calendar. Sure, there are general election implications here as well because of New Hampshire's status as a battleground state. But it is a battleground state with just four electoral votes.

--

Recent posts:

Chaos? What Chaos? Iowa Republicans signal January caucuses, but that has been clear for a while.

Trump and the 2024 Delegate Allocation Rules

DeSantis is not without Organizational Strengths in the Republican Nomination Race

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

[From FHQ Plus] A Curious Decision on the Georgia Presidential Primary

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

From Evening Digest 5/4/23:

As mentioned earlier over at FHQ, it was reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today that Raffensperger had made his decision and that March 12 was the choice for the date on which to schedule the Georgia presidential primary for 2024. That instantly makes the Peach state the biggest draw on a day that includes primaries in Mississippi and Washington and Republican caucuses in Hawaii.

But it is a curious selection. Most outlets are treating the news as a denial of the proposed elevation of Georgia in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) calendar rules for next year. And it is, but that misses the point. First of all, the proposed February 13 date for the Georgia primary was never workable without either breaking the Republican National Committee (RNC) timing rules or splitting up the Democratic and Republican primaries and holding them on different dates.

That was clear last December when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) first adopted the calendar rules. And it was even clearer when the full DNC followed suit this past February and when Raffensperger’s office drew a red line because of the aforementioned conflicts.
But what makes this curious and also is being missed is that there was a middle ground in this case that was never really considered. And it is not clear why. As FHQ has noted in February, the secretary could have scheduled the Georgia primary for March 1 or 2 and the move would have met the criteria set by his office. The contest would shift into the early window on the Democratic calendar, albeit later than February 13, would not violate RNC rules and would keep the two parties’ primaries together.

The only catch was that the Georgia Republican Party may have wanted to retain its winner-take-all by congressional district method of delegate allocation. That would potentially have kept the primary in the second half of March. But by selecting March 12, Raffensperger took that discretion away from Georgia Republicans. The party will be stuck with some version of proportional rules for the 2024 cycle.

Without that hitch — without Peach state Republicans insisting on winner-take-most allocation methods — there was no difference between March 1 and March 12. The winner-take-all prohibition treats both dates, and all dates before March 15, the same. But those dates, March 1 or 2 and March 12, are separated by miles in terms of potential impact. A solitary primary before Super Tuesday stands to carry a lot more weight than a primary, especially a proportional primary on the same date as other contests, a week after Super Tuesday. The former is a guaranteed impact, an influence on the Super Tuesday contests. The latter is influenced by Super Tuesday and may — MAY (It would be a gamble.) — put a candidate over the top in the delegate count or be enough to winnow the remaining viable challengers.

That point, however, is moot now. The Georgia presidential primary will fall on March 12. But that does not make it any less strange a decision.

--

Recent posts:

Checking in on 2024 Republican Delegate Math

Raffensperger Zeros in on Date for Georgia's Presidential Primary

Iowa Democratic Draft Delegate Selection Plan Points Toward Changes Ahead

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Raffensperger Zeros in on Date for Georgia's Presidential Primary

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• More on the delegate selection plan from Iowa Democrats (and an update on that caucus bill working its way through the state legislature there as the session winds down), a final update on Hawaii's presidential primary and Iowa's was not the only delegate selection plan to go live on Wednesday. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

Georgia to March 12? Greg Bluestein and Mark Niesse at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are reporting this morning that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) is set to schedule the presidential primary in the Peach state on Thursday, May 4. And the choice is an interesting one. 

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger plans to announce the decision on Thursday to establish Georgia’s primary date for March 12, according to several people with direct knowledge of the decision who aren’t authorized to speak publicly ahead of a press conference.

Georgia added some flexibility to the timing of its presidential primary back in the lead up to the 2012 nomination cycle. Instead of the state legislature handling those scheduling duties, the body ceded that authority to the secretary of state and empowered the office with rather broad latitude on the matter. Despite that discretion, the presidential primary in the Peach still ended up on Super Tuesday in both 2012 and 2016, consistent with where the primary had been stationed in every cycle dating back to 1992.

But Raffensperger broke with that pattern for the 2020 cycle, initially setting the date for the fourth Tuesday in March, three weeks later than had become usual. And the move was something of a nod to Georgia Republicans. The state Republican Party took the opportunity of the later date to increase the delegate prize for anyone victorious in the Republican presidential primary. Delegate allocation shifted from a more proportional method to one that was winner-take-all by congressional district. Georgia was another piece in the bigger puzzle that was President Trump's renomination race. As in other states across the country, Georgia's 2020 plan made it harder for other candidates to win any delegates and easier for Trump to win, if not all, then most of the delegates in the state. 

All of that is important context for the decision Secretary Raffensperger is apparently set to make. Moving to March 12 would not only impact the ill-fated plans of national and Georgia Democrats to move the primary to a pre-Super Tuesday position, but it would affect the delegate allocation scheme Georgia Republicans would be able to use. Any plan like the one used in 2020 would not comply with Republican National Committee rules. Winner-take-most methods like the one used by Georgia Republicans in the last cycle are prohibited by RNC rules before March 15. 

That means that Georgia Republicans will have to return to a more proportional method similar to the ones utilized by the party in either 2012 or 2016. It may take some folks a bit of time to get there on this, but some will likely eventually argue that this move by Raffensperger hurts Trump because it dilutes any potential net delegate advantage the former president may take out of the Peach state next March. But honestly, that conclusion is not exactly clear at this point in time. The difference between a winner-take-all by congressional district method and a proportional one that has a winner-take-all trigger (as Georgia's did in 2016) can be negligible. If Trump is in the position he is in now in polls when votes are cast next year in primaries and caucuses, then it is likely that he would take fairly significant net delegate gains from Georgia regardless of the methods mentioned above. 

That, however, hinges on what Georgia Republicans decide about delegate allocation rules in the coming months. It seems unlikely, but the state party could opt for a strictly proportional method that really could hurt Trump or at the very least potentially stunt any significant delegate gain from the Peach state. 

All this just triggers the usual mantra used around these parts: The rules matter. And this calendar decision of Raffensperger's moves the needle there. 

...

Iowa Leftovers. I still do not feel like many folks have spent much time reading the Iowa Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan. Some of the reporting has been bad and some of the reactions have been worse.

From New Hampshire, Michael Graham at The New Hampshire Journal had this lede:

The Democratic National Committee may have killed the Iowa caucuses, but Hawkeye State Democrats aren’t going down without a fight. Their problem is that, even if they can somehow battle their way past the DNC, they’ve still got to contend with New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan.

This is just wrong. 

The Iowa plan in no way signaled that Iowa is fighting anything. In fact, it indicated just the opposite. If anything, the Iowa plan was a deescalation in its back and forth with the Democratic National Committee. Yes, it laid out a delegate selection process that will start with the likely January precinct caucuses. But the allocation process, the important one based on the vote-by-mail preference vote, will not kick in until that preference vote is completed. The Iowa plan went to some lengths to separate those two processes so as not to run afoul of the DNC rules for the 2024 cycle. It stands to reason, then, that the preference vote will not be complete until some time that is compliant with DNC rules. 

Now, those mail ballots may be sent out to Iowa Democrats at some point in January, but that is no different from absentee ballots being mailed to voters or early voting starting before early contests like New Hampshire's primary conclude. Hey, Californians started voting as early as February 3 in 2020, the same day as Iowa's caucus (and before the New Hampshire primary!). But results were not reported until Super Tuesday, well after the early contests in 2020. And guess what! New Hampshire's primary law was not "triggered."

Sure, there is a new secretary of state in New Hampshire this cycle, but the dynamic is no different. New Hampshire's results will very likely be in and part of the fabric of the 2024 presidential nomination races before Iowa Democrats begin to report on the preference vote there. 

Graham really should have led with Secretary Scanlan's last line from the New Hampshire Journal story: “We’re just going to have to watch and see what they do.” Indeed. If the Iowa Democratic preference vote ultimately is scheduled to conclude before New Hampshire, then there may be a fight, but all this "fight" talk is wholly premature in light of the plan Iowa Democrats shared on Wednesday.

--

And from Iowa, FHQ hates to disagree with our friend Tim Hagle, but I do disagree with elements of his reaction to the Iowa Democratic delegate selection plan here:

“It’s polite to say it’s in flux.” He [Hagle] added, “Nobody knows what’s going on at this point. ... The plan that the Democrats are putting through with a mail-in caucus, there won’t be that sort of that intensity where you’ve got to get people ready by caucus night. And so we’re probably not going to see a lot of candidates. It’s basically a disservice to Iowa voters.”

It is fact to say that the draft delegate selection plan is in flux. Plans from all 57 states and territories are at this point. But Iowa's plan made things a lot clearer about the path forward there. The disservice that the Iowa Democratic Party is doing is continuing to call the entire process a caucus. Yes, there is a brand there. But the plan offered by the party is no longer a caucus. The delegate selection process is through a caucus, but the allocation part of this -- the part that matters to everyone watching -- is going to be routed through a separate vote-by-mail preference vote. Folks, Iowa now has a party-run primary if some version of this basic plan is approved. That is what this is. Continuing to call it a caucus just confuses that reality. 

...

Polls may be flashing warning signs at President Biden, but just as troubling, if not more so, is the fact that a major union, the United Autoworkers, is holding off on endorsing the president. That is a biggish story about the potential Democratic coalition in 2024. Granted, the polling and the UAW not endorsing at this time may just fit into a broader narrative that is in vogue at this juncture of the invisible primary: embattled Biden. It is something of a theme this week, what with there being a story about Biden's possible troubles with African American voters recently as well. 

Of course, all of this comes before the reelection campaign has kicked into full gear for the president, the sorts of activities meant to woo valuable constituencies back into the Democratic fold for the general election in 2024. Voters are just not engaged yet. As Karl Rove noted over at the Wall Street Journal just this morning, Barack Obama was not in the best of positions at this point in 2011 either. Let's get into (or at least closer to) 2024 and see what the fundamentals look like and then we can talk about warning signs. They may be there now, but odds are high that the UAW will endorse Biden in the end and African Americans will solidly back the president (Yes, the margins matter.).

...

On this date...

...in 1972, Alabama Governor George Wallace (D) won the first Tennessee presidential primary.

...in 1976, both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan swept primaries in Alabama, Georgia and Indiana. Reagan's Indiana victory was his first primary win outside of the South. 

...in 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) won the Indiana primary on his way to the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 2015, Carly Fiorina entered the 2016 Republican presidential nomination race.

...in 2016, Ohio Governor John Kasich bowed out of the contest for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

--

Recent posts:

Iowa Democratic Draft Delegate Selection Plan Points Toward Changes Ahead

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Did Glenn Youngkin Run for 2024?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- New Hampshirites Are Not Surprisingly Defending the New Hampshire Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Did Glenn Youngkin Run for 2024?

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• That caucus bill in Iowa got tweaked, but it probably does not offer the fixes Democrats in the Hawkeye state want. The Missouri presidential primary drama could go to overtime. FHQ was wrong about the territories. Is there finally momentum for a primary move in Pennsylvania? All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

...

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) seemed to pass on a 2024 presidential bid in response to a question on Monday, May 1. 

Wall Street Journal editor-at-large Gerard Baker asked Youngkin on Monday at a “Governing America” conversation with the Milken Institute: “Are you going to be dusting off that fleece jacket and getting out on the presidential campaign trail later this year? 

“No ... I’m going to be working in Virginia this year,” Youngkin said.

This is not exactly news. Youngkin has stated numerous times that his focus is on Virginia and the state legislative elections in the Old Dominion later this year. The new element yesterday was the no. Yes, some are picking up on that "this year" that was appended to the no, but that makes this more of a Sherman-ish rather than Shermanesque statement. It may provide an out next year, but the cold, hard truth of the matter is that if Youngkin is not entering the race this year, then he is not going to get in next year (or is unlikely to do so successfully anyway). Things can certainly change between now and then. However, it is perhaps fantastical (at this time) that Trump would collapse and all the other challengers to him for the Republican nomination would fall flat, opening the door to a white knight to come to the rescue. Again, that is fantasy, but a fantasy that is entertained by some every four years when the US goes through the exercise that is the presidential nomination process. There may be something of a repeat of 2012's discover-scrutiny-decline phenomenon in the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race, as Seth Masket notes, but getting a discovery surge to take off in 2024 during the primaries is just a tall order. 

"This year" effectively means "I'm not running."

Yet, the fact that Youngkin is out(-ish) does raise a question. Did the Virginia governor run for 2024? That is a tough question to answer. Clearly, Youngkin traveled, but it was not to, shall we say, calendar-specific locales like DeSantis or Pompeo or Haley have done. Nor did he, as the governor noted in his response to Baker at Milken, put out a book as DeSantis and Pompeo have done. However, the travel that he did do -- to New York, to Texas etc. -- was often to meet with big donors. Clearly there was some testing of the waters -- on both sides -- in those meetings. It was enough that those same donors questioned whether or not Youngkin was even into the idea of running at all. 

Did Youngkin run? Again, that is tough to discern. He did some things that prospective presidential candidates do, but fell well short of what some of those who have entered or look to be entering the 2024 race have done. And that is a good example of the conceptual squishiness of the notion of running for 2024 but not running in 2024. Where does one draw the line? Are interactions between a possible candidate and donors enough? Because outside of that, all that is really out there is some constant chatter about a Republican who won an off-year gubernatorial election in a blue state making a reasonable presidential candidate and folks asking said Republican about whether he is running or not. 

Youngkin is simply not a clear case.

UPDATE: Apparently Team Youngkin is trying to push the door back open on 2024. But yeah, see above.

...

Okay. Here is another line from that Richmond Times-Dispatch story on Youngkin:

As for wiggle room, Youngkin said he would not embark on a presidential campaign “this year.” But the Republican Iowa caucuses are Feb. 5, 2024.

Nope. The Republican Iowa caucuses are still not scheduled for February 5, 2024. They never have been. If anything, Youngkin has even less "wiggle room." The caucuses are likely to be in early to mid-January next year. 

...

Speaking of early primaries, there is no date for the Georgia presidential primary. It will not be on February 13 as the Democratic National Committee may want, but Greg Bluestein at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution looks at the options Secretary Brad Raffensperger (R) has before him in terms of where he may schedule the primary for next year. 

A pre-Super Tuesday option could make a lot of sense:

Georgia can hold a single primary for both parties as early as March 1 under RNC rules. Any earlier than that and Republicans in the Peach state would be vulnerable to the RNC super penalty for timing violations. That would knock the Georgia delegation to the Milwaukee convention down to just twelve delegates. 

Democrats' efforts to push the primary up to the February 13 position prescribed in the new DNC rules are likely to be futile given those penalties. And now that Michigan has passed legislation to move into its February 27 spot -- not to mention that the DNC has now also adopted its rules -- flipping Georgia and Michigan in the order seems out of the question. 

However, if the DNC is serious about nudging the Georgia primary into the pre-window and it does not mind a Michigan-and-then-Georgia pairing to close the pre-window, then perhaps the Georgia primary could fit into the space between the Michigan primary on February 27 and Super Tuesday on March 5.

Saturday, March 2 would work.

...

On this date...

...in 1972, Sen. Scoop Jackson (D-WA) withdrew from the race for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination on the same day as primaries in Alabama, Indiana, Ohio and Washington, DC. Jackson won just once, in his home state of Washington.

...in 2000, Bush and Gore swept through late season primaries in Indiana, North Carolina and Washington, DC.

...in 2012, Newt Gingrich suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2019, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D) announced his bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 2020, Kansas Democrats concluded their party-run presidential primary.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- New Hampshirites Are Not Surprisingly Defending the New Hampshire Primary

Sunday Series: Have the Democrats Actually Created Calendar Chaos for 2024 and Beyond?

From FHQ Plus: The State of Democratic Delegate Selection Plans for 2024

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Raffensperger Weighs in on Early Georgia Presidential Primary

For the first time since the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) officially elevated Georgia in the discussions of early presidential primary states in December, Peach state Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) has publicly shared his thoughts. 

As the AP's Bill Barrow reports, Raffensperger likes the idea: 

“Georgia would be a great early primary state in 2028. It has a good cross-section of engaged voters from both parties."

And therein lies the rub. Georgia's fate on the Democratic calendar for 2024 remains unresolved and state Democrats have until June 3, 2023 to find a fix in order receive a pre-window waiver from the national party. But the problem is that the two national parties' calendars are misaligned more than usual for 2024. The RNC voted in April 2022 on amendments to the 2024 presidential nomination rules and opted to stick with the early calendar the party has used every cycle since 2008. 

That leaves Georgia on the outside looking in on that side of the equation. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada will once again be the four early states in the Republican process, and the national party now has no means of changing it. All rules changes had to be made by September 30, 2022. But once amendments were adopted by the national party last April, that was it. There is nothing the RNC can do at this point to change its calendar.

But as Raffensperger noted in his brief comments, things could be different for the Peach state when planning for 2028 commences. 

However, an early position in 2024 is still not necessarily out of the question for Georgia. There is just very little wiggle room at this point. The rules are locked in. But Raffensperger's office has set the criteria for cooperation from their office on the primary scheduling matter. In reaction to the DNCRBC calendar vote in December, Jordan Fuchs, deputy secretary of state set the parameters:

"We’ve been clear: This needs to be equitable so that no one loses a single delegate and needs to take place on the same day to save taxpayer funds."

Georgia can hold a single primary for both parties as early as March 1 under RNC rules. Any earlier than that and Republicans in the Peach state would be vulnerable to the RNC super penalty for timing violations. That would knock the Georgia delegation to the Milwaukee convention down to just twelve delegates. 

Democrats' efforts to push the primary up to the February 13 position prescribed in the new DNC rules are likely to be futile given those penalties. And now that Michigan has passed legislation to move into its February 27 spot -- not to mention that the DNC has now also adopted its rules -- flipping Georgia and Michigan in the order seems out of the question. 

However, if the DNC is serious about nudging the Georgia primary into the pre-window and it does not mind a Michigan-and-then-Georgia pairing to close the pre-window, then perhaps the Georgia primary could fit into the space between the Michigan primary on February 27 and Super Tuesday on March 5.

Saturday, March 2 would work. 

However, wedging Georgia into that spot creates a potential spacing issue with the Michigan and Georgia contests so close together on top of Super Tuesday. That spacing is less consequential on the Democratic side if President Biden seeks reelection and faces only nominal opposition. 

But that still leaves the issue of how a primary on that date fits into the Republican calculus both nationally and in Georgia. Peach state Republicans, of which Raffensperger is one, may like the idea of the Georgia primary playing a role similar to what South Carolina's did in the Democratic process in 2020. From the same Saturday-before-Super-Tuesday position, the Palmetto state primary catapulted then-candidate Biden into Super Tuesday victorious. It is an outcome that has been viewed in retrospect as decisive. And that is not a bad spot in which to potentially be. 

Of course, that may not be the case in the Republican process and especially with a possible Michigan primary just a few days prior to a hypothetical March 2 Georgia primary. And that Michigan Republican primary on February 27 is "possible" because the Michigan GOP faces the same issue Georgia Republicans would encounter on February 13: penalties from the national party. Michigan Republicans may yet opt out of the state-run primary and hold later caucuses that comply with RNC rules. 

The RNC may also not be on board with any of this. Signaling a green light to a Georgia move -- again, within the rules -- to Saturday, March 2 may set off a race toward a Super Saturday among other states. And the national party may or may not want that complication. Granted, Raffensperger has under Georgia law until December 1 to set the date of the Georgia presidential primary. There is no rush. That may help mitigate some of the potential for a rush to March 2. 

Still, that is a lot of moving parts, not to mention the number of interested decision makers, to pull something like that off in such a narrow window. But at this point, if Georgia is to be a part of the pre-window on the Democratic side, then it may be March 2 or bust. 

Honestly, it always has been.

--

Recent posts:

OK. The DNC Has a New and Different Calendar for 2024. Now What?

DNC Adopts 2024 Primary Calendar Plan

Bill in the Works to Move Ohio Presidential Primary to May

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Extends Waiver Compliance Window for Georgia and New Hampshire

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) met remotely on Wednesday, January 25 to consider extensions for Georgia and New Hampshire to comply with the national party's proposed calendar for 2024. In order to attain waivers to appear in the early calendar slots reserved for them, Democrats in Georgia and New Hampshire must either complete the requirements put before them by the DNCRBC or show provable, positive steps toward their completion by June 3, 2023.

In Georgia's case, Peach state Democrats must get some buy-in from Republicans in the state who control the scheduling of the presidential primary. There are ways of getting there with Republican help -- the Georgia secretary of state's office has set the criteria -- but it will likely take the DNCRBC bending a little on the president's vision for the calendar adopted in December.

But Georgia did not come up much in the context of the conversation among DNCRBC members. Instead, much of the period in which the floor was open for comment was dominated by the roadblocks obstructing New Hampshire's path to compliance with the waiver mandates and the reaction in the Granite state to the DNCRBC's adoption of the calendar proposal. DNCRBC member from New Hampshire, Joanne Dowdell, delivered the familiar arguments that have made the rounds over the last month from the Granite state. Her's was a simple recitation of the facts. Basically: New Hampshire Democrats are stuck; stuck between a state law that places the decision on the presidential primary's date in the hands of the secretary of state and a Republican-controlled state government with a demonstrated lack of interest in changing either the primary scheduling law or adding no-excuse absentee voting. Folks outside of the New Hampshire Democratic Party organization in the state may be more agitated and use more inflammatory arguments as this process continues, but the state party itself will likely continue along the above lines. 

What is likely to be the dug-in position of the DNCRBC, if not the DNC, with regard to the ongoing New Hampshire situation is something voiced by DC DNCRBC member, Mo Elleithee. His contention was that New Hampshire has not over the course of the last five decades been the first contest in the primary calendar order. In fact, the Granite state has been second and has had that position protected by the DNC (explicitly starting in 1984). The current plan continues to protect that (second) position and asks that New Hampshire share the space with Nevada. 

Of course, that is the crux of the problem. New Hampshire Democrats cannot comply with that. ...if they intend to operate under the state law. Unmentioned by Dowdell was any potential alternate course the state party could take to select/allocate delegates and come into compliance with a calendar plan that will not be fully adopted until June at the earliest. The DNCRBC may be trying to nudge New Hampshire Democrats in that direction, but they may not find a receptive audience. To move to an alternative is to undermine the very state law that protects the New Hampshire primary. The incentives just may not be there to move Democrats in the Granite state from that position.

But they and Georgia Democrats -- and the DNCRBC -- now have until June to figure all of that out. 

--

The DNCRBC unanimously adopted the Georgia and New Hampshire extensions with all 25 members present on the call in support. That means that these two waiver extensions extend past when initial draft delegate selection plans are due to the DNCRBC for review on May 3. Additionally, the new June 3 deadline for Georgia and New Hampshire to comply is around nine months later in the cycle than when the DNC has in the past finalized the calendar rules/waivers. That is not exactly time lost for the 55 other states and territories to prepare and finalize their plans (with DNCRBC approval), but it does leave some important particulars about the Georgia and New Hampshire primaries -- their dates -- unresolved. That affects state-level preparation for those contests but also impacts the candidates. 

Now that means little if President Biden opts to seek reelection and runs largely unopposed. But this process could bleed over into the Republican nomination race. It will not affect Republicans in New Hampshire. The secretary of state will schedule the presidential primary for some time seven or more days before any other contest that is not Iowa. Likely sometime in January 2024. Yet, if Georgia can be slipped into the end of the pre-window (and that takes a while to play out on the Democratic side) that could affect Republican candidates' preparation for a pre-Super Tuesday primary in the Peach state if not a soon-to-follow Super Tuesday. Granted, that is likely to factor into Republican decision makers' thinking on helping Democrats out with this plan.  

The bottom line is that the DNCRBC took a rather unprecedented step -- leaving this unresolved until the late spring of the year prior to the presidential election -- but that underscores how serious the panel is about finalizing the president's calendar plan as close to its initially presented form as possible. 

--

Recent posts:

Delaware as a Pre-Window Calendar Stand-in on Standby? On Threats, Substitutes and Calendar Shake-Ups

Legislation to Alter Electoral Vote Allocation Introduced in Nebraska

Hawaii Senate Bill Proposes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.

Progress Report: A view of an early Georgia Democratic Presidential Primary, post-deadline day

Last week's DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee-imposed deadline for states granted contingent waivers for early contests to update their progress came and went on January 5 with little new light shed on the subject. 

Yes, South Carolina, Nevada and Michigan gave favorable reports and received positive marks from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC). And all of that was expected because of either how dates are chosen (South Carolina), being on the prescribed date already (Nevada) or the midterms shifting state legislative control in the direction of Democrats (Michigan). None of that was new or unexpected. 

Neither was it unexpected that New Hampshire, Iowa and Georgia may present some problems for the recently adopted calendar proposal put forth by President Biden and his team. It came as little surprise, then, that the DNCRBC co-chairs granted both New Hampshire and Georgia some extra time beyond January 5 to work toward the plan outlined in the proposed pre-window calendar in the Democratic presidential nomination process for 2024. 

And that is less a story of backlash than it is about the political realities of changing the lineup at the beginning of the calendar. Again, if it was so easy to change, then it would have changed by now. 

Look, the calendar proposal, as is, was unworkable from the start. New Hampshire Democrats were most assuredly going to balk at losing their position atop the primary calendar, and their defiant reaction is mostly just par for the course. Plus, given the hoops that Granite state Democrats were given to jump through to retain their waiver, the very clear signal was that 1) the DNCRBC never really thought New Hampshire Democrats were going to play along and/or 2) the panel was going to have this standoff with them anyway and boot the state from the pre-window altogether. 

[But FHQ digresses. We will return to the Granite state in a separate post.]

Georgia is much the same. As in New Hampshire, Republicans control the levers of power with respect to the selection of a date for the presidential primary. Thus far, the secretary of state's office in Georgia has resisted entreaties about shifting up the date of presidential primary in the Peach state:

"We’ve been clear: This needs to be equitable so that no one loses a single delegate and needs to take place on the same day to save taxpayer funds."

-- Jordan Fuchs, Georgia Deputy Secretary of State

And representatives in Secretary Raffensperger's (R) office have not been doing this just recently. Democrats, in the state of Georgia and nationally, have been repeatedly rebuffed throughout the course of Georgia Democrats' efforts to appeal to the DNCRBC to add the Peach state to the pre-window lineup. 

"Sterling said the agency 'has been telling Democrats for over a year that we will do nothing that would require having two dates' for the parties’ primaries. He said that because of the national GOP’s calendar, holding Georgia’s Republican primary before March 1 'would cut their delegate count in half.'”

-- Gabriel Sterling, COO  Georgia Secretary of State

[Actually, a primary before March 1 would cost Georgia Republicans around 85 percent of their delegates.]

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R) also opposes the move. A spokesman said, "the governor has no role in this process and does not support the idea." Well, under Georgia law, the governor issues a proclamation about the presidential primary, but that follows the secretary of state scheduling the contest. Informally, the governor could lobby on behalf of such a move. ...if he was so inclined. 

And in this case, Kemp is not. 

That is a fair amount of resistance to the calendar proposal adopted by the DNCRBC in December to shift the Georgia primary to February 13. But that just makes February 13 unworkable.  

In looking at the above comments from folks in the Georgia secretary of state's office, there is a path for Georgia to be added to the pre-window that satisfies the two main criteria: 1) the state holds just one primary for both parties and 2) neither party loses delegates (for going too early). Just because February 13 is unworkable for Georgia does not mean that the DNCRBC does not have a set of workable component parts, New Hampshire aside, to assemble an alternate pre-window calendar. 

Nevada is likely locked into the February 6 position called for in state law. But everything else is maneuverable. 

If the space between South Carolina and Nevada(/New Hampshire) is deemed to be too small and the three state cluster in the calendar's first four days too heavy a lift in the eyes of the DNCRBC, then South Carolina could be shifted up slightly (if the panel and the president remain wedded to the idea of the Palmetto state primary leading off the proceedings).

Michigan is also maneuverable. Yes, Democrats in power in the state recently submitted their letters to the DNCRBC pledging to make the necessary changes to state law to add the Great Lakes state to the early window. But those Democrats are also in "you say jump and we'll ask how high" mode. In other words, they are happy to be a part of the conversation and could just as easily shift up to an earlier date if necessary to better space out currently listed contests across February 2024.

There is no reason the DNCRBC cannot work with the component parts already described in the proposal. To that end, just swap Georgia and Michigan in the order. Move Michigan up a week or two and slot Georgia into a spot on Saturday, March 2. Democrats in Michigan can make that sort of change just as easily as they can moving to February 27, and Georgia can be the lead-in contest to Super Tuesday on March 2 without costing Peach state taxpayers any additional money for a second presidential primary election or the Georgia Republican Party any delegates to the national convention. 

The beginnings of the Democratic and Republican calendars are unaligned in the rules and a contest can slip into a slot ahead of the first Tuesday in March (Democratic) but after March 1 (Republican) in 2024. Again, February 13 is unworkable for a Georgia Democratic presidential primary, but there are tweaks the DNCRBC can make to create a doable pre-window slate of contests that also satisfies the basic premise of the Biden proposal.

They will still have the New Hampshire problem, but the DNCRBC was always going to have to have that fight if they and the president are serious about dislodging the Granite state from the first primary position in the Democratic order. But as I say, that is a story for a separate post. 

Everything else? That is fixable. 

--

Recent posts:

A Super Tuesday Presidential Primary in Oregon?

New York Bill Would Consolidate Primaries in June

Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures (2023)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.   

The Electoral College Map (11/13/20) -- 306-232

Update for the afternoon of November 13.

The final calls were made on Friday afternoon with Georgia's 16 electoral votes going to Biden and North Carolina's 15 to Trump. That brings the final 2020 electoral vote tally to Biden 306, Trump 232, the exact same final total in 2016 but on opposite sides of the partisan line. 

The scorecard for FHQ was similar to the 2008 projection when we missed on Indiana, North Carolina and Nebraska's second congressional district. Then, the polls-based projection understated Obama's strength. But in 2020 the projection understated President Trump's position in several states through the lens of the state-level polls. So whereas in 2008 the polls lagged behind the eventual winner's performance, in 2020, the issue was the opposite: running in front of the eventual winner. Although the FHQ projection had President-elect Biden winning Florida, Maine's second congressional district and North Carolina, he fell short in all three. 

But FHQ will have a more robust rundown of how the projection in the days to come. For now, the wait is on for state-level certification, the Electoral College vote in December, the congressional count in early January and inauguration on January 20, 2021. All that will occur in the next 68 days.

--
Recent posts:

The Electoral College Map (11/12/20) -- Biden Adds Arizona

The Electoral College Map (11/11/20) -- Alaska Raises Trump's Total

The Electoral College Map (11/7/20) -- Biden Tops 270

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

The Electoral College Map (11/1/20)

Update for November 1.

Well, if Saturday was a break from what have often been quiet weekends on the polling front in the 2020 presidential race, then Sunday was a decibel-filled cacophony. There were new data from 57 polls in 16 states -- plus surveys that covered both congressional districts in Maine and the second in Nebraska -- and it was all concentrated in the 13 states from New Mexico on the left to Texas on the right in the heart of the Electoral College Spectrum order. 

What was unique about this batch of new surveys was that a raft of them came from right-leaning pollsters. And across the states that count -- those six core battlegrounds of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- the margins all decreased, benefiting President Trump. However, there are two sizable caveats to that. First, despite the decreases, the map and projection remained unchanged after the introduction of those polls. That means that none of those battlegrounds changed categories. But second, in drilling down just a smidgen, there was either no movement or movement toward Biden since the last polls in the majority of surveys in those series. 

They may have -- and may yet on Monday -- flood the zone with new polls, but those data from right-leaning pollsters are unlikely to change anything around here before tomorrow. Even Georgia, which has lately been precariously perched on either side of the partisan line has shifted enough into the Biden column at this point, that it, too, is likely locked in there. Again, this has been a steady race, and while these polls may have brought down the average margins some in states where Biden has been ahead throughout, in the end it is but a small sliver of a change.

On to the polls...

Polling Quick Hits:

Arizona

(Trump 50, Biden 48 via AtlasIntel | Biden 48, Trump 46 via Emerson | Biden 49, Trump 43 via Siena/NYT Upshot | Biden 50, Trump 46 via CNN | Biden 50, Trump 47 via Y2 Analytics)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +2.89] 

No previous AtlasIntel poll

Emerson: Biden 53, Trump 47 in August poll

Siena: Biden 49, Trump 41 in early October poll

CNN: Biden 49, Trump 45 in July poll

No previous Y2 Analytics poll

FHQ will start each of these polling vignettes today with the current FHQ average in each state. In Arizona, Biden's (rounded) advantage is 48-45. Of the day's polls in the Grand Canyon state, Emerson, CNN and Y2 Analytics most fall in line with that long established state of affairs in Arizona. It is and has been close, but it has also, more often than not been tipped in the former vice president's direction in individual polls. There is some narrowing across a few of these from their last iterations, but it is not to the level of tightening that the president is going to need to pull out wins in some of these states below. 

Colorado

(Biden 53, Trump 41 via Keating Research)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +12.82] 

Keating: Biden 54, Trump 39 in mid-October poll

Currently, the averages in this former perennial battleground has Biden out to a 53-40 (rounded) lead. Colorado simply has not been close in 2020 and is not still in an update that falls right on the candidates' averages here.

Florida

(Trump 47, Biden 46 via Susquehanna | Biden 48, Trump 47 via Pulse Opinion Research | Biden 47, Trump 44 via Siena/NYT Upshot | Biden 49, Trump 48 via St. Pete Polls | Biden 52, Trump 46 via Emerson | Biden 51, Trump 47 via RMG Research | Trump 50, Biden 48 via ABC/WaPo | Biden 49, Trump 47 via YouGov/CCES)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +2.88] 

Susquehanna: Trump 49, Biden 44 in poll last week

Pulse Opinion Research: Trump 50, Biden 46 in mid-October poll

Siena: Biden 47, Trump 42 in early October poll

St. Pete Polls: Biden 49, Trump 47 in mid-October poll

Emerson: Biden 51, Trump 48 in mid-October poll

RMG Research: Biden 50, Trump 48 in mid-October poll

ABC/WaPo: Trump 51, Biden 47 in September poll

No previous YouGov/CCES poll

In the Sunshine state, Trump lags Biden by a 49-46 (rounded) margin, and most of the eight new polls out of Florida today fit right in that general range. There are some exceptions like Susquehanna, but it remains a steady picture in this case. Like Arizona, it has been close in Florida almost all along. There was a brief five day period in late July when the Sunshine state drifted over into Lean Biden territory, but that moment was fleeting. Yet, the fact remains that as close as Florida has been, it has been consistently tipped toward the former vice president throughout much of 2020. The addition of these polls does not alter that. Even the polls that had Trump ahead -- Susquehanna, RMG and WaPo -- all either saw no shift since the last polls in the series or tightening that benefited Biden. And surveys that moved toward Trump tended to bring them in line with the prevailing average in the state at FHQ.

Georgia

(Trump 48, Biden 46 via Insider Advantage | Biden 49, Trump 49 via Emerson | Biden 48, Trump 47 via YouGov/CCES)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +0.36] 

No previous Insider Advantage poll

Emerson: Trump 48, Biden 47 in mid-October poll

No previous YouGov/CCES poll

In the Peach state, once the average shares of both candidates are rounded, the count comes to a 47-47 tie. And again, the new surveys are largely in line with that. Only the Emerson poll offered a comparison to an earlier poll, and even there, the change was minimal. Georgia is close, the closest state on the board at the moment. 

Iowa

(Trump 49, Biden 48 via Civiqs | Trump 49, Biden 47 via Emerson | Trump 48, Biden 46 via Insider Advantage | Trump 48, Biden 41 via Selzer)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.89] 

Civiqs: Biden 48, Trump 47 in early October poll

Emerson: Trump 48, Biden 48 in mid-October poll

Insider Advantage: Trump 45, Biden 45 in mid-October poll

Selzer: Trump 49, Biden 47 in September poll

Speaking of the closest states on the board, Iowa also fits that bill with Trump maintaining a narrow 47-46 (rounded) edge in the FHQ averages. Again, as in Georgia above, most of the new polls today are consistent with that established average. However, the one that stands out is the one that is often called he gold standard of polling in the Hawkeye state. And in that Selzer poll, the president stayed in the upper 40s like the last survey in September but Biden trailed off, dropping in to the low 40s. What is different from that last poll to the latest update is that five percent of the respondents refused to say who they were supporting in the new one. That was a segment of the electorate that was not accounted for in the previous poll. The crosstabs on that subsample of around 40 respondents in that poll would have been interesting to look at; not necessarily representative, but interesting. 

Maine

(Biden 54, Trump 43 via Emerson

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +13.40] 

Maine CD1

(Biden 58, Trump 39 via Emerson

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +22.92] 

Maine CD2

(Biden 50, Trump 47 via Emerson

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.88] 

No previous Emerson poll

FHQ will keep the focus in Maine on the second congressional district where the competition is. There has been no previous Emerson poll of the Pine Tree state, so there is no natural comparison, but Biden's lead in the averages there has stabilized around 47-45 (rounded). That is behind this poll of the district, yet not exactly inconsistent with it. Although there have been just 14 surveys in the field in ME CD2, 11 of them have favored the former vice president. Like the rest of those other toss ups close to the partisan line on the Biden side, the second is and has been close throughout, but consistently tilted toward the Democratic nominee. 

Michigan

(Biden 53, Trump 45 via Ipsos | Biden 49, Trump 47 via Insider Advantage | Biden 52, Trump 46 via Emerson | Biden 53, Trump 41 via CNN | Biden 52, Trump 45 via Mitchell Research | Biden 48, Trump 41 via EPIC-MRA)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.31] 

Ipsos: Biden 53, Trump 43 in poll last week

No previous Insider Advantage poll

Emerson: Biden 54, Trump 43 in early October poll

CNN: Biden 52, Trump 40 in July poll

Mitchell: Biden 52, Trump 42 in poll last week

EPIC-MRA: Biden 48, Trump 39 in mid-October poll

 

Here is the deal in the Great Lakes state: Biden is already averaging over a 50 percent share of support there. Despite the fact that each of these polls today -- those with a predecessor in the series anyway -- show some narrowing, it is almost all on the Trump side of the equation. The former vice president is still stable and at or over the majority mark in each of these updates. The president may or may not close the gap some on election day, but if Biden is over 50 percent, it will not matter. 

Minnesota

(Biden 54, Trump 39 via St. Cloud State

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +8.52] 
No previous St. Cloud State poll

This St. Cloud State survey of the North Star state may be on the high side of the range for Biden and low side for Trump, but it remains in line with the 51-42 (rounded) average the race is currently at under the FHQ methodology. And as was said in Saturday's update, other than the Survey USA series, the majority of pollsters have generally found a race with Biden over 50 percent and Trump stuck in the low 40s, the latter of which is in the range of the president's overall job approval numbers nationally. 

Nebraska CD2

(Biden 50, Trump 48 via Emerson)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.69] 

No previous Emerson poll

The difference between this latest poll and the FHQ averages for NE CD2 are fairly stark. As of now, Biden holds a 51-44 (rounded) lead that looks a lot like the early polls out of the district over the summer. But that discrepancy likely has more to do with the general lack of polling activity in the Omaha area this year. The big polling issue on the state level in 2016 was that there were not a lot of polls in the field in the days before the election. Now, the swing is much less likely to be as large this time around -- there are fewer undecideds after all -- but the same sort of thing could be happening Nebraska's second as election day nears and partisans/partisan leaners come home. Regardless, Biden has been at or over 50 percent in all but one of the (yes, just) six public polls conducted in the district in 2020.

Nevada

(Biden 49, Trump 47 via Emerson)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +4.34] 
No previous Emerson poll

 

Nevada is another jurisdiction where polling has been lacking all year, but where Biden has trailed only once. This Emerson poll hits the vice president's average FHQ share but has Trump running about three points ahead of his average share of support. That tighter margin may be partisans coming home to the president, Biden struggling with Latinos in the state and/or signs of the vaunted Harry Reid turnout machine faltering in the midst of a global pandemic. But the Silver state is another state where it is striking how close the Democratic nominee is to 50 percent. He is not there in this case, but Biden is approaching it in a way that neither Clinton nor Trump did four years ago. 

New Mexico

(Biden 54, Trump 42 via Research & Polling Inc.)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +10.64] 
Research & Polling: Biden 54, Trump 39 in September poll

In the Land of Enchantment, the FHQ averages have the race for the state's five electoral votes at 53-42 (rounded) in favor of the former vice president. This poll is evidence of the race coming in line with that more than it is about Trump gaining ground. This may have been a flip opportunity -- or a state that was eyed as one by the president's campaign operation -- but that has not panned out in any of the New Mexico polling in 2020.  

North Carolina

(Trump 50, Biden 48 via AtlasIntel | Trump 48, Biden 44 via Insider Advantage | Biden 47, Trump 47 via Emerson | Biden 51, Trump 45 via CNN | Trump 49, Biden 47 via Trafalgar Group | Biden 49, Trump 45 via YouGov/CCES)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.77] 

No previous AtlasIntel poll

No previous Insider Advantage poll

Emerson: Biden 49, Trump 49 in mid-October poll

CNN: Biden 49, Trump 46 in September poll

Trafalgar: Trump 49, Biden 46 in poll last week

No previous YouGov/CCES poll

Only half of the polls out today in North Carolina had a previous survey to which to compare, and two of those had Trump uncharacteristically ahead in a state where Biden has carried a narrow but consistent lead in the FHQ averages for much of the year. Currently, Biden is up 48-46 (rounded) and most of the surveys today are consistent with that. Some, like the CNN poll have Biden running toward the top end of this range while others like AtlasIntel have the president outperforming his average. The margin may have inched down a tick, but it remains tipped in Biden's direction in the Tar Heel state. 

Ohio

(Trump 49, Biden 48 via Civiqs | Biden 50, Trump 49 via Emerson)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.95] 

Civiqs: Trump 50, Biden 47 in mid-October poll

Emerson: Trump 51, Biden 49 in May poll

One could make a mountain out of a molehill and suggest that the gap narrowed in both Buckeye state polls released today, but the truth is that both maintain an established status quo Trump lead in Ohio. With election day in sight, the president's 47-46 (rounded) advantage in the FHQ averages of Ohio are reflected in both surveys. But the key is less about who leads than how much Ohio has swung toward the Democrats since 2016. The shift there is in line with the seven point average swing across the whole country in 2020 polls. That Ohio is close at all is the story here. Whether Biden can flip it or Trump narrowly defend it is mostly immaterial to the quest for 270 electoral votes (especially in the winning Biden scenarios). 

Pennsylvania

(Biden 52, Trump 46 via Ipsos | Trump 49, Biden 47 via Insider Advantage | Biden 49, Trump 43 via Siena/NYT Upshot | Biden 52, Trump 47 via Emerson | Trump 50, Biden 49 via AtlasIntel | Biden 51, Trump 44 via ABC/WaPo | Biden 52, Trump 44 via YouGov/CCES)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.28] 

Ipsos: Biden 51, Trump 44 in poll last week

Insider Advantage: Trump 48, Biden 46 in poll last week

Siena: Biden 49, Trump 42 in early October poll

Emerson: Biden 51, Trump 47 in early October poll

No previous AtlasIntel poll

ABC/WaPo: Biden 54, Trump 45 in September poll

No previous YouGov/CCES poll

There is a prevailing take home that has emerged in the most frequently surveyed state in the 2020 presidential race. The first point on the checklist is always to ask whether Biden is around 50 percent and if Trump is in the mid-40s. This batch of polls checks that box for the most part. Those that do not, like the Emerson survey show no real movement poll-to-poll from the last update, have Biden over the majority mark (ABC/WaPo) or have the president ahead in a state where polls have shown that less than a tenth of the time. But that 50-44 (rounded) edge the former vice president has had has been among the most consistent realities of this race for months. That consistency has kept the Keystone state firmly lodged in the tipping point position well inside Biden's coalition of states.

Texas

(Trump 50, Biden 49 via Emerson | Trump 50, Biden 45 via Gravis Marketing | Trump 49, Biden 47 via YouGov/CCES)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +1.45] 

Emerson: Trump 52, Biden 48 in May poll

Gravis: Trump 46, Biden 44 in July poll

No previous YouGov/CCES poll

Like Iowa and Ohio, Texas has been a state that has swung toward the Democrats since 2016, but shifted in a manner that is in line with the average change across the country. That has made the Lone Star state look much more competitive in 2020, but it continues to be basically the North Carolina of the Trump side of the partisan line. The president has led throughout, but has maintained a narrow -- and at this point 48-46 (rounded) -- edge in the FHQ averages. The newly added surveys do little to disrupt that general outlook in Texas. 

Utah

(Trump 51, Biden 44 via Y2 Analytics)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +13.44] 

Y2 Analytics: Trump 50, Biden 40 in early October poll

Look, this is among the rosiest polls a Democrat will likely ever get in the Beehive state. But then, the Y2 Analytics series of polls this year in Utah, has been that way for Joe Biden. But the fact remains that no Democrat has cleared 40 percent in Utah since Johnson carried the state in 1964. Obama came closest in 2008 with 35 percent there, but this series polls stands out in a state where the FHQ average has settled in at 52-39 (rounded) with Trump out in front.

Wisconsin

(Biden 51, Trump 47 via Civiqs | Biden 53, Trump 45 via Ipsos | Biden 51, Trump 49 via AtlasIntel | Biden 53, Trump 45 via Emerson | Biden 49, Trump 46 via Susquehanna | Biden 52, Trump 41 via Siena/NYT Upshot | Trump 52, Biden 44 via CNN)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.39] 

Civiqs: Biden 53, Trump 45 in mid-October poll

Ipsos: Biden 53, Trump 44 in poll last week

No previous AtlasIntel poll

Emerson: Biden 52, Trump 45 in September poll

Susquehanna: Biden 46, Trump 45 in mid-October poll

Siena: Trump 51, Biden 41 in mid-October poll

CNN: Biden 52, Trump 42 in September poll

There just is not that much different from one poll to the latest in this group of new surveys out of the Badger state. And two of the three polls that find a greater than one point change increase the former vice president's advantage there. But the bigger thing in Wisconsin is that Biden's average FHQ share has now, as in Michigan, surpassed the 50 percent threshold, a point he passes in six of the seven new polls today. Trump does not need Wisconsin, but with Biden north of 50 percent at FHQ in both Michigan and Wisconsin now, the president's margin for error is quite low. Without those two, Trump absolutely has to run the table through the Biden toss ups and claim the one remaining blue wall state he flipped (and where Biden is barely below 50 percent at FHQ), Pennsylvania. 

NOTE: 

A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
DC-3 VT-3 (6)2	NJ-14 (156)	NE CD2-1 WI-10 (253)	AK-3 (125)	TN-11 (60)
MA-11 (17)	OR-7 (163)	PA-203 (273 | 285)	MO-10 (122)	KY-8 (49)
MD-10 (27)	IL-20 (183)	NV-6 (279 | 265)	SC -9 (112)	SD-3 (41)
HI-4 (31)	ME-2 (185)	AZ-11 (290 | 259)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (103)	AL-9 (38)
NY-29 (60)	CO-9 (194)	FL-29 (319 | 248)	KS-6 (99)	ID-4 (29)
CA-55 (115)	VA-13 (207)	ME CD2-1 NC-15 (335 | 219)	IN-11 (93)	AR-6 (25)
DE-3 (118)	NH-4 (211)	GA-16 (351 | 203)	NE-2 (82)	OK-7 (19)
WA-12 (130)	NM-5 (216)	IA-6 (187)	UT-6 (80)	ND-3 (12)
CT-7 ME CD1-1 (138)	MN-10 (226)	OH-18 (181)	MS-6 (74)	WV-5 (9)
RI-4 (142)	MI-16 (242)	TX-38 (163)	LA-8 (68)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
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 or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 285 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trump's is on the right in bold italics. 3 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state. The tipping point cell is shaded in yellow to denote that and the font color is adjusted to attempt to reflect the category in which the state is.

57 new polls from 16 states and another poll out of the second district in Nebraska led to the following changes:

• Nebraska CD2 moves into the middle column at the very top, a once cell shift toward the partisan line.
• Arizona and Florida traded spots on the Electoral College Spectrum with the Sunshine state moving closer the partisan line. 
• Speaking of the partisan line, Maine CD2 moved away from it and to the other side of North Carolina in the order. 
• Wisconsin saw Joe Biden's share of support push across the 50 percent barrier there. 

2 days to go.

Where things stood at FHQ two days before election day (or close to it) in...
2016
2012
2008


--
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Biden and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State	Potential Switch
Georgia	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Kansas	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
New Hampshire	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
New Mexico	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Recent posts:

Happy Halloween, 2020

The Electoral College Map (10/31/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/30/20)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.