2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: IDAHO

IDAHO

Election type: primary
Date: March 10
Number of delegates: 25 [4 at-large, 3 PLEOs, 13 congressional district, 5 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional caucuses
Delegate selection plan


--
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.

Although Idaho's Republican-controlled state government reestablished a presidential primary in 2015 for the 2016 cycle, Democrats in the Gem state opted instead to utilize caucuses for the purposes of allocating delegates to the national convention. But even before the Democratic National Committee adopted delegate selection rules for 2020 that encouraged the use of government-run primaries over caucuses (where available), Idaho Democrats made the decision in 2018 to shift to a primary. That change will likely bring an increase in turnout, but also had the effect of pushing the delegate selection event from the fourth Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in March on the 2020 primary calendar.

In addition to that change the Idaho Democratic delegation shrunk from 2016 to 2020. Democrats in the state lost two district delegates and one at-large delegate, but gained a superdelegate in that time. Idaho Democrats continue to have among the smallest delegations to the Democratic National Convention and is almost the least delegate-rich state with a contest on March 10.


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)
Idaho's 13 congressional district delegates are split across 2 congressional districts and have a variation of just one delegate across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Idaho Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 gubernatorial election in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 6 delegates
CD2 - 7 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
All 20 pledged delegates in Idaho are chosen at the state conventions on June 6 based on the results in the respective congressional districts for congressional district delegates and statewide results for PLEO delegates and then at-large delegates.

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. If Candidate X is in the race in early June when the Idaho statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the March primary would be reallocated to Candidate X. [This same feature is not something that applies to district delegates.] This reallocation only applies if a candidate has fully dropped out. Candidates with suspended campaigns are still candidates and can fill those slots allocated them. This is unlikely to be a factor with just two viable candidates in the race.

Idaho Republicans Face Deadline on 2020 Presidential Primary

As the October 1 RNC deadline for state parties to finalize plans for 2020 delegate selection approaches, Idaho Republicans face a decision.

Under the rules of the Idaho Republican Party, the state party chairman has until the final Monday in September to opt into or out of the state government-run presidential primary. That last Monday in September falls on Monday, September 30, the day before the RNC deadline. And Chairman Raúl Labrador could follow the raft of other Republican state parties that have chosen already to cancel their delegate selection events or presidential preference votes ahead of a cycle in which the party is likely to renominate President Trump.

But it should be noted that in past instances in which Republican presidents have run for renomination, Idaho Republicans have no recent history of canceling primaries or caucuses. That did not happen in 1992 nor did it happen in 2004. That said, in a season in which an increasing number of state Republican parties are opting out of primaries and caucuses, Idaho could join the group in an effort to smooth the president's path to renomination.

Finally, the Idaho Republican Party when it adopted changes to its rules in April 2019 made no significant changes to the delegate allocation rules for 2020. There remains a 20 percent threshold to qualify for delegates, a level that may be high enough to keep the president's opponents away from qualification. And Idaho is a backdoor winner-take-all state. If only one candidate surpasses 20 percent, then that candidate receives all of the delegates from the Gem state. And that is in addition to the winner-take-all threshold the party has in place, a 50 percent threshold that, if triggered, would also award all of the delegates to the majority winner. This is all consistent with how the party operated its delegate allocation in 2016.

Regardless, for those watching state party-level maneuvering, Idaho bears some attention as the week progresses and the calendar eases into the weekend.


--
The Idaho Republican Party state central committee also passed a resolution at its June meeting supporting President Trump. That move may or may not serve as some evidence that the party will move to ease Trump's road to the nomination through a primary cancelation.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Funding for the Idaho Presidential Primary "Slipped Through the Cracks"

Just when it looked like both Idaho parties would use the presidential primary election in 2020...


...came this news from Betsy Z. Russell at the Idaho Press:

Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney forgot to budget for the 2020 presidential primary, creating an unpleasant $2 million surprise for legislative budget writers who set his office’s budget on Wednesday. 

The Legislature’s Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee had already set all but 4 percent of the state’s general fund budget for next year, working through it agency by agency over the past month, when Denney’s came up with a $2 million hole in it.

This is atypical. Usually if there is a funding issue with a presidential primary, it something that is initiated by the secretary of state or state legislature to save funds in a given state. Washington state, for example canceled its presidential primary during the 2012 cycle to cut back on expenditures and states like Alabama, California and New Jersey consolidated separate presidential primaries in the same cycle with the same intent.

But forgetting the appropriation entirely is a different matter. That is a new one to FHQ. But in Secretary Denney's defense, he is right that the appropriation for the 2016 primary was included in a parallel bill to the legislation to reestablish the presidential primary in the Gem state and not in the funding package. If one starts a new legislative year with the items in the appropriation package the session before, then something funded outside the main appropriations bill can potentially get lost in the shuffle.

Still...


What is at least somewhat noteworthy about all of this is that Idaho Democrats came to the conclusion last summer to utilize the primary in lieu of caucuses during the 2020 cycle and have already made plans -- via their draft delegate selection plan -- to do just that.

This will likely get worked out, but it is not a snafu that is all that common.

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Idaho Democrats Announce Shift from "Unwieldy" Caucuses to State-Funded Presidential Primary for 2020

Betsy Z. Russell writing for the Idaho Press:

Idaho Democrats will switch to a presidential primary, rather than a caucus, for the next presidential election in 2020.  

The party announced the change during its state party convention Saturday at the College of Idaho in Caldwell.  

“We’re looking to move to a system that we have a primary, so that everybody can vote,” said Van Beechler, the party’s first vice chair.  

Party Chairman Bert Marley said, “It’s been obvious the last couple presidential elections that the caucus system for us, in most parts of the state, is pretty unwieldy.”

And it is exactly that "pretty unwieldy" part that has been a common bond among those states that have either moved to primaries or have signaled that such a move was on the way for the 2020 cycle. Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota all made the change in 2016, the legislature in Utah added funding for a presidential primary to the budget, and Democrats in Nebraska and Washington have both voted on or voiced support for a transition from caucuses to a primary.

In each case, the administrative and financial burdens to the state parties were raised in the argument for a switch to a primary. Participation was up enough in caucus states across the board to nudge up administrative snafus and with it, the attendant disgruntlement with the process from those who were able to withstand long lines and longer meetings.

Idaho was no exception to this trend. But then, even with a state-funded option available to the state Democratic Party, the organization stuck with the caucuses for 2016. Much of that decision has to do with the on-again off-again nature of the presidential primary in the state. The state Republican Party opted for early March caucuses for the 2012 cycle in 2011, and Republicans in control of the Gem state legislature followed that by eliminating the presidential primary option in 2012.

Idaho Republicans reversed course for 2016. The party passed a resolution to trade in the once-utilized caucus system for a primary in February 2015, and then the Republican-controlled legislature passed legislation to re-establish the primary in spring 2015. This left Idaho Democrats little time to adapt while devising a delegate selection plan due to the Democratic National Committee by the early parts of May 2015.

But even with that excuse, Idaho Democrats have never had a post-reform relationship with the presidential primary that has been on the books in the state. The historical reasons have been twofold. First, the primary was always scheduled late, often after many presidential nomination races had been resolved. But second, the primary was always open, which the parties at state and national levels have tended to resist.

Those historical reasons for opting into the caucus system despite a state-funded primary option are now gone in Idaho. When state Republicans re-established the primary in 2015, it was scheduled for March (earlier in the process than had traditionally been the case) and gave the state parties the option of allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in the primary.

As Idaho Democratic Party Chair Bert Marley recently said at the state convention:

“This is the system that’s in place — we’re [Idaho taxpayers] paying for it, we’re going to use it.”

And with that, add Idaho to list of states moving toward primaries for 2020.

The Electoral College Map (10/28/16)

New State Polls (10/28/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Saguaro Strategies	10/22-10/24	+/-3.0%	2385 likely voters	48	46	0	+2	--
Arizona	Data Orbital	10/26-10/27	+/-4.12%	550 likely voters	40	42	10	+2	+1.03
California	Sacramento State	10/7-10/13	+/-7.0%	622 likely voters	61	25	8	+36	+23.16
Florida	St. Leo	10/22-10/26	+/-3.0%	1028 likely voters	50	37	7	+13	+2.38
Idaho	Rasmussen	10/23-10/24	+/-4.0%	750 likely voters	29	48	8	+19	+24.22
Louisiana	University of New Orleans	10/15-10/21	+/-4.0%	603 likely voters	35	49	6	+14	+13.69
Missouri	Remington	10/23-10/25	+/-1.94%	2559 likely voters	39	50	4	+11	--
Missouri	Mason-Dixon/St Louis Post-Dispatch	10/24-10/26	+/-4.0%	625 likely voters	42	47	7	+5	+7.11
Texas	Pulse/Crosswind	10/22-10/24	+/-3.5%	800 likely voters	38	45	10	+7	+6.52
Virginia	Christopher Newport	10/23-10/26	+/-4.2%	814 likely voters	46	39	8	+7	+6.87

Polling Quick Hits:
11 days to go.

As the work week comes to a close, allow FHQ an opportunity to address the "tightening" talk that has been a feature of the week. To first state the obvious, this was a pretty good week for Trump. Now, that "good" is very much dependent on how one defines it. For October Trump, a good week is one in which negative news about him and his past actions does not dominate. By that measure, Trump is in relatively good standing.

But let us be frank about his positioning. The race is in one of those lulls that has been a feature of general election Trump. And those lulls tend to see a rebound of Trump's numbers.

Negative event --> widening gap --> heat dies down --> regression to the mean --> repeat

Clinton's numbers at the state level have mostly stabilized or at least entered into a phase of very modest gains. [Of course, another email story may alter that trajectory.] Trump, on the other hand, bottomed out again and has seen his numbers turn around. Again. This is the pattern. This is the regular rhythm of this race (on the Trump side of the equation). Part of this is skittish Republicans and Republican-leaning independents coming back home; drifting away from Johnson or coming back out of the ranks of the undecided (again). Call it differential response in surveys or chalk it up to indecision among folks who do not want to vote for Clinton but who also have deep reservations about Trump. Whatever it is, this pattern has occurred with regularity since June.

As of now the closest states are Arizona, Iowa and Ohio. Those are the states most likely to move across the partisan line on the Electoral College Spectrum below. They are all three also superfluous to Clinton in her chase for 270 electoral votes. That is a pretty clear signal about the state of this race. Now, the pollsters could be off, bringing a few more states into that group as this election winds down. However, there are a lot of smart people who have made a lot of (mostly clear) assumptions (in the aggregate) about what the electorate will look like in the end. That collective picture put together over the last few months would have to be historically wrong for Trump to approach 270. For now, this one looks like 2012 plus or minus a small handful of states.

To the day's polls...


Arizona:
It is rare to see both candidates in the upper 40s in a multi-way Arizona poll. More often than not, both Clinton and Trump have been stuck in the upper 30s and lower 40s. The Saguaro poll is unique in that regard, but more in line with the rest of the polling in the state in finding the race there close. Arizona has had its moments along the way where it appeared as if it was tracking toward the Lean Trump category, but it has been a toss up throughout. That has not changed. The trajectory of movement has. As election day approaches the race in the Grand Canyon state is slowly narrowing while continuing to advantage Trump. [Late addition:] The update to the Data Orbital polling is consistent with that overall picture.



California:
The temptation with this Sacramento State poll is to say that Clinton is near Obama-level support from 2012. She is. But she has not been all that for off his mark all along. What gives pause concerning this survey is that +/-7.0 percent margin of error. Look, Clinton is well ahead in the Golden state. This poll mostly confirms that, but with a lower level of certainty.


Florida:
This Saint Leo poll is an outlier in the context of recent polling in the Sunshine state. Granted, Clinton has not really budged since the mid-September Florida St. Leo survey. She was hovering around 50 percent then and is now. The change happened on the Trump side. The New York businessman's support flagged in the time since that last poll, dropping six points. St. Leo was an outlier then as now, but the change is in the direction most surveys have gone in Florida since debate season intervened.


Idaho:
There has yet to be any evidence that Evan McMullin is replicating his Utah rise anywhere else. Idaho is most often discussed in those conversations, but while McMullin is siphoning off support from Trump, it is not enough to draw the two of them into a near three way tie with Clinton. Instead, McMullin seems to be pulling enough from Trump to lower the typical share of support a Republican nominee would receive in the Gem state. A modest spoiler vote only serves to lower the margin by which Trump wins Idaho rather than threatening the likely victory.


Louisiana:
Through the lens of this UNO poll, Louisiana looks a lot like 2012 with both candidates nearly equivalent amounts behind their counterparts from four years ago. The last Clinton won Louisiana twice. That will not happen in 2016.


Missouri:
A couple of surveys out of the Show-Me state find differing margins, but the number to focus on is Trump's. Across the two polls, the Republican nominee is hovering around 50 percent in the former bellwether. Alternatively, Clinton is in the familiar lean state position for the trailing candidate: stuck around 40 percent with no sign that the trend will break. And with a little more than a week in the race, that break does not seem to be in the offing.


Texas:
This Pulse survey is a break from the string of two to four point margins that have popped up in recent polls of the Lone Star state. But it is right around the FHQ average and does little to shift the outlook in Texas. This is a state where the margin has been narrowing, but where the Republican candidate maintains a consistent lead.


Virginia:
Like the St. Leo poll of Florida, this Christopher Newport survey in Virginia finds little movement over polls in the Clinton numbers. All the changes are on the Trump side. But whereas Trump lost ground across the series of St. Leo polls of the Sunshine state, he made up some of the larger deficit in last week's CNU survey. This one is consistent with the tightening narrative, then, but more or less brings the series of polls back in line with where the bulk of the polling in the Old Dominion have been of late.


--
Changes (10/28/16)
Nothing changed on the map or Watch List from a day ago, and only Idaho shifted on the far reaches of the Strong Trump category on the Spectrum.

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MD-102 (13)	RI-4 (162)	PA-20 (263)	MO-10 (126)	TN-11 (61)
HI-4 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	AK-3 (116)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	OR-7 (183)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	SC-9 (113)	ND-3 (44)
MA-11 (31)	NM-5 (188)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	IN-11 (104)	KY-8 (41)
CA-55 (86)	MN-10 (198)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	UT-6 (93)	NE-53 (33)
NY-29 (115)	MI-16 (214)	OH-18 (340 | 216)	MS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20+13 (136)	VA-13 (227)	IA-6 (198)	KS-6 (81)	ID-4 (19)
DE-3 (139)	ME-23 (229)	AZ-11 (192)	SD-3 (75)	WV-5 (15)
WA-12 (151)	WI-10 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (158)	NH-4 (243)	TX-38 (164)	MT-3 (64)	WY-3 (3)
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 Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.

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 Clinton 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	Switch
Colorado	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Indiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Ohio	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
Oregon	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/27/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/26/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/25/16)

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

The Electoral College Map (10/25/16)

New State Polls (10/25/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Monmouth	10/21-10/24	+/-4.9%	401 likely voters	45	46	3	+1	+1.12
Arkansas	Hendrix	10/21	+/-4.6%	463 likely voters	33	56	5	+23	+18.20
Colorado	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.46%	1581 likely voters	45	43	4	+2	+4.19
Florida	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.41%	1646 likely voters	46	46	5	+/-0	--
Florida	Survey USA	10/20-10/24	+/-2.8%	1251 likely voters	48	45	0	+3	+2.38
Idaho	Emerson	10/21-10/23	+/-3.0%	1023 likely voters	23	52	9	+29	+25.16
Indiana	Gravis	10/22-10/24	+/-2.3%	1596 registered voters	38	49	8	+11	+9.41
Michigan	Mitchell Research	10/23	+/-2.78%	1241 likely voters	49	41	5	+8	+6.91
Minnesota	Mason-Dixon	10/20-10/22	+/-4.0%	625 likely voters	47	39	6	+8	+6.93
Nevada	Rasmussen	10/20-10/22	+/-3.5%	826 likely voters	46	42	4	+4	--
Nevada	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.68%	1332 likely voters	44	47	3	+3	--
Nevada	Bendixen & Amandi	10/20-10/23	+/-3.5%	800 likely voters	48	41	4	+7	+1.24
North Carolina	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.33%	1764 likely voters	44	47	5	+3	--
North Carolina	New York Times (Upshot)/Siena	10/20-10/23	+/-3.5%	792 likely voters	46	39	6	+7	+1.61
Ohio	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.2%	1971 likely voters	42	46	6	+4	+0.68
Pennsylvania	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.19%	1997 likely voters	45	42	7	+3	+5.44
South Dakota	Mason-Dixon	10/18-10/20	+/-5.0%	400 registered voters	37	44	12	+7	+12.12
Virginia	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.31%	1787 likely voters	48	43	5	+5	+6.68
Wisconsin	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/- 2.31%	1795 registered voters	46	41	6	+5	+6.58

Polling Quick Hits:
Two weeks left.

The day brought with it 19 new survey releases from 15 states from across the Spectrum. Only the Strong Clinton group of states lacked any polls.


Arizona:
Monmouth's first poll in the Grand Canyon state looked a lot more like some of the head-to-head polls there throughout the year with both major party candidates in mid-40s. But this was a multi-way survey. Both have had those surveys with third party candidates included where they have pushed into the mid-40s, but not with any level of consistency (and it has rarely been both simultaneously). The one constant is that the margin is narrow, matching the overall average in the state. Arizona along with Iowa and Ohio are the three closest states at FHQ.


Arkansas:
Being the former first lady in the Natural state does not appear to be paying Clinton any dividends there. Arkansas continues to be in the right most column on the Electoral College Spectrum and the new Hendrix College poll did little to change that picture.


Colorado:
The first of the eight battleground polls from Remington is from Colorado. Generally speaking, this series is a bit more Republican-leaning than most polls in these states have been of late. There have been some close polls in the Centennial state since the first debate, but they have been outnumbered by those finding a wider Clinton advantage. Clinton's lead is only two points, but that did little to shake Colorado's position as the least competitive of the eight FHQ toss up states. It is much closer to being a Lean Clinton state than jumping the partisan line into Trump territory.


Florida:
There just is not a lot of evidence of anything other than a narrow, but durable Clinton lead in Florida.  Things look as they did four years ago in the state, but with Clinton about two points ahead of where Obama was relative to Romney in 2012. The two new polls did not change that.


Idaho:
Without more data, there is nothing yet to suggest that Evan McMullin is replicating his near parity with Trump in Utah polling in Idaho. Trump is still well ahead in the Gem state and the Republican vote there is not split like it is in Utah.


Indiana:
Indiana is like a lot of the lean states on both sides of the partisan line: one candidate is in the mid- to upper 40s while the other is hovering around the 40 percent mark. This Gravis poll fits that pattern. That trend has been more of a barrier to Trump as he has needed at least one Lean Clinton state (and all of the toss ups) to get to 270. While Clinton is in a similar position in Lean Trump states, those have not been necessary to her path to 270.


Michigan:
Trump has gained ground on Clinton in Michigan across the two Mitchell surveys out over the last two weeks. But that is of less consequence when the New York businessman continues to consistently trail there by margins within the lean range.


Minnesota:
Minnesota is a lot like Michigan but less frequently surveyed. And as of now, both are right next to each other in the Spectrum below. Like the description of lean states above, the leader in Minnesota is in the mid-40s and the trailing candidate is around 40 percent.


Nevada:
Remington provides a break in the Clinton run of polling leads in the Silver state since the first debate. But that one Trump lead does little to uproot Nevada's position as a state just slightly tipped toward the former Secretary of State.


North Carolina:
See Nevada. The story is the same in the Tar Heel state with Clinton having established a small but consistent lead since the first debate.


Ohio:
While the first debate can be seen as a turning point in some states -- like Nevada and North Carolina above -- that has not been the case in Ohio. There was a spike in Clinton support, but it was shorter lived. After the second debate -- the town hall and Trump tape -- the polls narrowed in the Buckeye state. The data are not robust in that time, but the established range across the scant polling is roughly tied to Trump +4. That change in trajectory has drawn the average closer here at FHQ, but kept Ohio just on the Clinton side of the partisan line.


Pennsylvania:
The Remington poll in Pennsylvania may be some sign of a change in direction in the Keystone state,  but the evidence since the first debate has been clear enough: Pennsylvania is a Lean Clinton state and one that has moved away from Trump in October. There has not been a poll this close since before the first debate.


South Dakota:
Polling has been light in South Dakota, but what little there has been has the Mount Rushmore state in exactly the same spot on the Electoral College Spectrum that it was in after the election in 2012. It is still a red state.


Virginia:
This Remington poll is a good one for Trump in Virginia. But since the first debate, he has been in the 30s in about three-quarters of the polls since then. That is not a winning position with two weeks to go, especially if Clinton is inching toward the 50 percent mark.


Wisconsin:
Wisconsin is much like its midwestern brethren above. Like Michigan and Minnesota, Trump is stuck around 40 percent and not showing any signs of pushing above that threshold. And with just 14 days until November 8, Clinton does not appear to be coming down to Trump's level in the polls across these states either.


--
Changes (10/25/16)
The day's flood of polling could only be felt here at FHQ on the Electoral College Spectrum. There was some shuffling among the clustered Lean Clinton states with Minnesota most noticeably jumping three spots deeper into the Clinton group of states. Meanwhile, a rare poll from South Dakota also shifted the Mount Rushmore state three positions toward Clinton and the partisan line while remaining in the Strong Trump group of states. Idaho pushed in the opposite direction on the Spectrum, moving toward the very end of the line up against neighboring Wyoming.

Both the map and the Watch List remained unchanged from a day ago.

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MD-102 (13)	RI-4 (162)	PA-20 (263)	MO-10 (126)	TN-11 (61)
HI-4 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	AK-3 (116)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	OR-7 (183)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	SC-9 (113)	ND-3 (44)
CA-55 (75)	NM-5 (188)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	IN-11 (104)	KY-8 (41)
MA-11 (86)	MN-10 (198)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	UT-6 (93)	NE-53 (33)
NY-29 (115)	MI-16 (214)	OH-18 (340 | 216)	MS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20+13 (136)	ME-23 (216)	IA-6 (198)	KS-6 (81)	WV-5 (19)
DE-3 (139)	VA-13 (229)	AZ-11 (192)	SD-3 (75)	OK-7 (14)
CT-7 (146)	WI-10 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	ID-4 (7)
WA-12 (158)	NH-4 (243)	TX-38 (164)	MT-3 (64)	WY-3 (3)
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 Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.

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 Clinton 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	Switch
Colorado	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Indiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Ohio	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
Oregon	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/24/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/23/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/22/16)

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