INDIANA
Election type: primary
Date: June 2
[May 5 originally]
Number of delegates: 89 [18 at-large, 9 PLEOs, 55 congressional district, 7 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan (pre-coronavirus)
--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.
That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.
Very little changed for Indiana Democrats before the coronavirus pandemic reared its head in the 2020 presidential nomination process. There was no effort to shift the presidential primary from its traditional early May position; a position the state has occupied throughout the post-reform era.
But the pandemic did affect the nature of the state-level process mid-primary season in 2020. On March 20, Indiana Governor Holcomb (R) pushed the May 5 primary back to June 2 via executive order. Less than a week later, the State Elections Commission voted to waive the excuse requirement to vote absentee (by mail), and on May 11 voted again to move to a primarily vote-by-mail election. In-person early voting will be opened to voters from May 26-June 1, but at fewer locations than during a normal election. Additionally, Indiana voters will have until May 21 to request an absentee ballot. Unlike other states, Indiana is not mailing out absentee applications or ballots. The onus is on the voter to request the application, fill it out, return that and have it approved before receiving a ballot that will also have to be mailed back in.
All ballots are due to county elections offices by noon on Tuesday, June 2. That is received and not postmarked by June 2.
Overall, the Democratic delegation in Indiana changed by just three delegates from 2016 to 2020. The number of district delegates decreased by one and the other two categories of pledged delegates stayed exactly the same. And the number of superdelegates shrunk by two in the Hoosier state.
[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]
Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies both statewide and on the congressional district level.
Delegate allocation (at-large and PLEO delegates)
To win any at-large or PLEO (pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials) delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the statewide vote. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the separate allocation of these two pools of delegates.
See New Hampshire synopsis for an example of how the delegate allocation math works for all categories of delegates.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Indiana's 55 congressional district delegates are split across nine congressional districts and have a variation of three delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Indiana Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential and gubernatorial elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 8 delegates
CD2 - 5 delegates*
CD3 - 5 delegates*
CD4 - 5 delegates*
CD5 - 8 delegates
CD6 - 5 delegates*
CD7 - 8 delegates
CD8 - 5 delegates*
CD9 - 6 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
The 55 district delegates in Indiana will now be virtually selected by state convention delegates elected on the June 2 primary ballot. Online voting will take place from June 13-17. Ballots will be sorted based on both congressional district and presidential preference. Only Joe Biden-aligned state convention delegates from a particular district, for example, will select the district delegates allocated to Biden in the June 2 primary.
Those district delegate votes will be tabulated on June 18 and then all of the district delegates will convene on June 19 and select the PLEO and then at-large delegates to the national convention.
It is not specified in the May 2 addendum to the Indiana Democratic Party delegate selection plan whether that national convention delegation meeting -- the one where statewide delegates are selected -- will be held virtually or in person.
It should additionally be noted that the Indiana Democratic Party has also filed a waiver request with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to delay the selection process by about a month. Under that proposed revision, ballots to elect district delegates would be mailed to state convention delegates on June 22. Those state convention delegates would then have until July 10 to return those ballots. Results would then be tabulated from July 13-15 and a national convention delegation meeting would then occur on July 16 where a quorum of district delegates would select PLEO and then at-large delegates. Under the waiver, Indiana Democrats would have a bit more time to conduct and finalize the delegate selection process.
[Initially, before the coronavirus pandemic hit, Indiana Democrats had planned to hold post-primary state convention on June 13 at which district delegates would have been selected. A quorum of those district delegates to the national convention would then have selected PLEO and 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 mid-June when the Indiana statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the early June 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. This is less likely to be a factor with just Biden left as the only viable candidate in the race, but Sanders could still gain statewide delegates by finishing with more than 15 percent statewide. Under a new deal struck between the Biden and Sanders camps, Biden will be allocated (or reallocated) all of the statewide delegates in a given state. However, during the selection process, the state party will select Sanders-aligned delegate candidates in proportion to the share of the qualified statewide vote.
Showing posts with label Indiana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indiana. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
Thursday, March 26, 2020
Indiana Elections Commission Authorizes No Excuse Absentee Voting in June 2 Primary
The Indiana Elections Commission on Wednesday, March 25 voted to allow for no excuse absentee voting in the now June 2 primary in the Hoosier state. While Indiana allows absentee voting, it has in the past been allowed only with an excuse.
But in the wake of the developing coronavirus pandemic and Governor Holcomb's response to it -- pushing back the primary by a month -- the state elections commission has eased that restriction. Voters will still have to file a request for an absentee ballot by May 21, 12 days before the primary and eight weeks from now. Although that deadline is 56 days off, efficiently processing absentee requests will hinge on whether the county election board is open. But voters will have until noon on June 2 to get their ballots in to the county to be counted.
At this time, early and in-person voting are still planned for the June 2 Indiana primary, but the state Elections Commission will have another meeting on April 22 to decide whether the election should shift to a completely vote-by-mail process.
--
Related Posts:
Indiana Delays Presidential Primary, Moves to June 2
But in the wake of the developing coronavirus pandemic and Governor Holcomb's response to it -- pushing back the primary by a month -- the state elections commission has eased that restriction. Voters will still have to file a request for an absentee ballot by May 21, 12 days before the primary and eight weeks from now. Although that deadline is 56 days off, efficiently processing absentee requests will hinge on whether the county election board is open. But voters will have until noon on June 2 to get their ballots in to the county to be counted.
At this time, early and in-person voting are still planned for the June 2 Indiana primary, but the state Elections Commission will have another meeting on April 22 to decide whether the election should shift to a completely vote-by-mail process.
--
Related Posts:
Indiana Delays Presidential Primary, Moves to June 2
Friday, March 20, 2020
Indiana Delays Presidential Primary, Moves to June 2
On Friday, March 20, Indiana became the latest state to shift back the date on which it will conduct its presidential primary in the face of the threat of coronavirus spread. Governor Eric Holcomb (R) issued an executive order to move the May 5 primary in the Hoosier state back four weeks to June 2.
The change not only buys the state some time to potentially avoid any further fallout from coronavirus, but to implement other elections changes that may increase the voters options and ease of voting. But while the date change buys some time on those fronts, it tightens the window for the process the Indiana Democratic Party has laid out for completing its delegate selection.
It was not just the presidential candidates that were to appear on the May 5 primary ballot. As a consolidated primary, the election also included nomination contests for other federal, state and local offices. Also on the ballot were to be state convention delegate candidates. State convention delegates elected on the May 5 ballot would then have have gone on to the June 13 state convention. In district caucuses there, national convention district delegates would be chosen. And a quorum of those district delegates would then choose PLEO and then at-large delegates.
All of that can still happen with a June 2 primary, but those 28 days now lost because of the primary move are 28 fewer days to certify the election results and credential state convention delegates to the proposed June 13 gathering. That, in turn, affects how, how quickly and when national convention delegates will be selected to the national convention.
These are the trade-offs state parties are having to deal with now, juggling public health concerns with the impact electoral changes have on the carefully laid delegate selection plans made well in advance. Indiana Democrats have to answer the time crunch issues from the change Governor Holcomb made today.
--
March 20 press release from Governor Holcomb's office on the primary move archived here.
--
Related Posts:
Indiana Elections Commission Authorizes No Excuse Absentee Voting in June 2 Primary
The change not only buys the state some time to potentially avoid any further fallout from coronavirus, but to implement other elections changes that may increase the voters options and ease of voting. But while the date change buys some time on those fronts, it tightens the window for the process the Indiana Democratic Party has laid out for completing its delegate selection.
It was not just the presidential candidates that were to appear on the May 5 primary ballot. As a consolidated primary, the election also included nomination contests for other federal, state and local offices. Also on the ballot were to be state convention delegate candidates. State convention delegates elected on the May 5 ballot would then have have gone on to the June 13 state convention. In district caucuses there, national convention district delegates would be chosen. And a quorum of those district delegates would then choose PLEO and then at-large delegates.
All of that can still happen with a June 2 primary, but those 28 days now lost because of the primary move are 28 fewer days to certify the election results and credential state convention delegates to the proposed June 13 gathering. That, in turn, affects how, how quickly and when national convention delegates will be selected to the national convention.
These are the trade-offs state parties are having to deal with now, juggling public health concerns with the impact electoral changes have on the carefully laid delegate selection plans made well in advance. Indiana Democrats have to answer the time crunch issues from the change Governor Holcomb made today.
--
March 20 press release from Governor Holcomb's office on the primary move archived here.
--
Related Posts:
Indiana Elections Commission Authorizes No Excuse Absentee Voting in June 2 Primary
Monday, October 31, 2016
The Electoral College Map (10/31/16)
New State Polls (10/31/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
10/30
|
+/-3.17%
|
952 likely voters
|
45
|
44
|
4
|
+1
|
+4.01
| |
Florida
|
10/30
|
+/-3.11%
|
989 likely voters
|
44
|
48
|
4
|
+4
|
+2.08
| |
Georgia
|
10/25-10/27
|
+/-4.1%
|
594 likely voters
|
42
|
49
|
6
|
+7
|
+2.89
| |
Indiana
|
10/27-10/30
|
+/-4.9%
|
402 likely voters
|
39
|
50
|
5
|
+11
|
+9.56
| |
Nevada
|
10/30
|
+/-3.49%
|
787 likely voters
|
44
|
48
|
3
|
+4
|
+1.02
| |
North Carolina
|
10/30
|
+/-2.85%
|
1176 likely voters
|
44
|
47
|
4
|
+2
|
+1.74
| |
Ohio
|
10/30
|
+/-2.84%
|
1187 likely voters
|
43
|
48
|
5
|
+5
|
+0.52
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/25-10/30
|
+/-1.7%
|
3217 likely voters
|
47
|
44
|
4
|
+3
|
--
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/30
|
+/-2.77%
|
1249 likely voters
|
45
|
43
|
6
|
+2
|
+5.40
| |
Virginia
|
10/30
|
+/-2.94%
|
1106 likely voters
|
47
|
43
|
5
|
+4
|
+6.81
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/30
|
+/-2.86%
|
1772 likely voters
|
46
|
42
|
5
|
+4
|
+6.44
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
8 days until Election Day.
At first glance, there is a bit of a rightward shift. At first glance. The bulk of the polling ushering in the new week is from Remington in a set of eight battlegrounds. But following the baseline the firm established a week ago, there was little change; even in a series of surveys in the field after the Friday revelations concerning the FBI and emails potentially linked to Clinton. That is not to say that the race is not in the midst of a bit of a narrowing period or that another email story will not have an effect, but there are not clear signs of that yet from the state level polls.
Colorado:
Clinton has consistently been in the mid-40s in Colorado. The question remains whether Trump can pull above and away from the 40 percent mark. The Remington survey is some evidence that he can, but will that happen across other polls in the Centennial state over the next week? Consistency is the name of the game there.
Florida:
Trump has not been as high as 48 percent in a multi-way poll all year in Florida. Ahead, yes, but not that close to 50 percent. That Remington finds him there is exception rather than rule. Clinton in the mid-40s is more typical.
Georgia:
Survey USA has not been in the field in the Peach state since just after convention season and Clinton is still stuck at 42 percent, just below Obama's share of support there in 2012. Meanwhile, Trump has bumped up to near 50 percent. That is a newish development in multi-way Georgia polls. Newish because Opinion Savvy had Trump stretching up to around that mark last week. Those types of polls make Georgia look a lot more like 2012 again with perhaps a modest shift toward the Democrats.
Indiana:
In two and half weeks the Monmouth polls in Indiana have shifted toward Trump. Like the typical lean state (on either side of the partisan line) the leading candidate is in the mid- to upper 40s while the trailing candidate is tethered to the 40 percent threshold. Clinton is that trailing candidate in the Hoosier state and Trump-Pence seem well-positioned in the VP nominee's home state.
Nevada:
Remington is the only firm to find Trump at or above 47 percent in a multiple candidate survey all year in the Silver state. There is some wiggle room in Nevada since that level has been foreign territory for both candidates. It would not be odd to see support moving away from undecided and the third party candidates as Election Day approaches. Remington may be the first to show that moving toward Trump, but they are alone in a close state just a hair more than a point overall in Clinton's favor.
North Carolina:
In the Tar Heel state, Remington is the only firm to find Trump ahead in the time since the first debate. The data may be turning but are not there yet.
Ohio:
Consistently variable Ohio has shifted into a period during the second half of October favoring Trump. The established range in the polling during that time is tied to Trump +5. This Remington survey is on the upper end of that range while FHQ's average in the Buckeye state is closing in on a tie. The trajectory of this one is in Trump's direction and it could cross over the partisan line in the next week.
Pennsylvania:
Trump still has not trailed in a Pennsylvania poll in 2016. The margin has contracted some here at FHQ as the space between the candidates in the Keystone state has narrowed, but it will have to close a lot more and consistently and frequently over the next week to change course in a state that has been out of Trump's reach and almost necessary to getting to 270.
Virginia:
Virginia has been even more impervious to Trump's entreaties than Pennsylvania has. That is true even in a series of Republican-leaning polls.
Wisconsin:
The Badger state is somewhere in between Pennsylvania and Virginia both in term of outlook and its position on the Electoral College Spectrum below. It is very simply the classic Lean state this cycle, and in this case, Trump is the trailing candidate stuck around 40 percent.
--
Changes (10/31/16)
Nothing changed on the map, Spectrum or Watch List from a day ago.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
MD-102
(13)
|
RI-4
(162)
|
PA-20
(263)
|
TX-38
(161)
|
TN-11
(61)
|
HI-4
(17)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
MO-10
(123)
|
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) |
UT-6
(104)
|
KY-8
(41)
|
CA-55
(86)
|
MN-10
(198)
|
NV-6
(322 | 222)
|
IN-11
(98)
|
NE-53
(33)
|
NY-29
(115)
|
ME-23
(200)
|
OH-18
(340 | 216)
|
MS-6
(87)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20+13
(136)
|
MI-16
(216)
|
IA-6
(198)
|
KS-6
(81)
|
ID-4
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
VA-13
(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)
|
AK-3
(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
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
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 (10/30/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/29/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/28/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
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
|
10/21-10/24
|
+/-4.9%
|
401 likely voters
|
45
|
46
|
3
|
+1
|
+1.12
| |
Arkansas
|
10/21
|
+/-4.6%
|
463 likely voters
|
33
|
56
|
5
|
+23
|
+18.20
| |
Colorado
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-2.46%
|
1581 likely voters
|
45
|
43
|
4
|
+2
|
+4.19
| |
Florida
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-2.41%
|
1646 likely voters
|
46
|
46
|
5
|
+/-0
|
--
| |
Florida
|
10/20-10/24
|
+/-2.8%
|
1251 likely voters
|
48
|
45
|
0
|
+3
|
+2.38
| |
Idaho
|
10/21-10/23
|
+/-3.0%
|
1023 likely voters
|
23
|
52
|
9
|
+29
|
+25.16
| |
Indiana
|
10/22-10/24
|
+/-2.3%
|
1596 registered voters
|
38
|
49
|
8
|
+11
|
+9.41
| |
Michigan
|
10/23
|
+/-2.78%
|
1241 likely voters
|
49
|
41
|
5
|
+8
|
+6.91
| |
Minnesota
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-4.0%
|
625 likely voters
|
47
|
39
|
6
|
+8
|
+6.93
| |
Nevada
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-3.5%
|
826 likely voters
|
46
|
42
|
4
|
+4
|
--
| |
Nevada
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-2.68%
|
1332 likely voters
|
44
|
47
|
3
|
+3
|
--
| |
Nevada
|
10/20-10/23
|
+/-3.5%
|
800 likely voters
|
48
|
41
|
4
|
+7
|
+1.24
| |
North Carolina
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-2.33%
|
1764 likely voters
|
44
|
47
|
5
|
+3
|
--
| |
North Carolina
|
10/20-10/23
|
+/-3.5%
|
792 likely voters
|
46
|
39
|
6
|
+7
|
+1.61
| |
Ohio
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-2.2%
|
1971 likely voters
|
42
|
46
|
6
|
+4
|
+0.68
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-2.19%
|
1997 likely voters
|
45
|
42
|
7
|
+3
|
+5.44
| |
South Dakota
|
10/18-10/20
|
+/-5.0%
|
400 registered voters
|
37
|
44
|
12
|
+7
|
+12.12
| |
Virginia
|
10/20-10/22
|
+/-2.31%
|
1787 likely voters
|
48
|
43
|
5
|
+5
|
+6.68
| |
Wisconsin
|
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)