--
Recent posts:
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 1, 2023
Whitmer's Signature Sends Michigan Presidential Primary to February 27
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Michigan House Passes February Presidential Primary Bill
--
Recent posts:
Thursday, January 26, 2023
Michigan Senate Passes February Presidential Primary Bill
Thursday was that day.
Thursday, January 19, 2023
State House Companion Bill Would Also Push Michigan Presidential Primary to February 27
Read the rest at FHQ Plus.
--
This legislation has been added to the updated 2024 presidential primary calendar.
--
Recent posts:
Friday, January 13, 2023
Roadblock to an Earlier Michigan Presidential Primary?
Yes, Democrats control state government in Michigan after the 2022 midterms.
Yes, there is now legislation to bring the Michigan presidential primary in line with the calendar proposal adopted by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) last month.
But none of that necessarily means that obstacles do not stand in the way of the state's Democrats coming into compliance with the DNC's likely rules for the 2024 cycle. The legislation -- SB 13 -- is simple enough and non-controversial to the Democratic majority, but state legislative rules may gum up the works with respect to the legislation moving seamlessly through the legislature and being implemented in time for February of next year.
The Detroit News reports that even though the Democrats holding the levers of power in Lansing plan a "rapid" consideration of the presidential primary date change, they may need Republican help in the state House to make it happen.
The reason is because the Michigan Constitution requires bills to take effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session unless two-thirds of the lawmakers in each chamber vote to give them "immediate effect."
That "immediate effect" measure matters because Democrats hold only a narrow majority in the state House, short of a two-thirds advantage, and the legislature typically adjourns at the end of the year. Late December 2023 is within 90 days of the proposed new position of the Michigan presidential primary on February 27, 2024.
In other words, Michigan Democrats may need state House Republicans to get the primary date change over the finish line. And therein lies the rub. Although Republicans in the Great Lakes state may in theory support and earlier primary and a potentially larger voice in the presidential nomination process in 2024, Republican National Committee (RNC) rules prohibiting primaries and caucuses other than the four typical carve-out states before March 1 may deter cooperation in the effort. Assisting state Democrats now in shifting the presidential primary into February may cost Michigan Republicans around three-quarters of their national convention delegates in 2024.
That is a steep price and was intended to be when the RNC added the penalty for the 2016 cycle. But just because there are national party rules against any particular maneuver on the state level does not mean that Republicans in any given state will follow along blindly. There may, then, be enough Republican support to push SB 13 through the House and immediately thereafter take effect.
Of course, even if Republicans in the minority pull together in united opposition to the move in the Michigan state House, Democrats will still have tools at their disposal to bring the primary move to fruition. If the majority completes their 2023 work in time, the Democrats will still have the ability to adjourn the session early enough that there is at least a 90 day cushion between that point and February 27, 2024.
--
Two footnotes to this:
1. National party cross-pressures
The politics of this are interesting because of the dynamics that exist between what is happening in Lansing and how legislators there are being cross-pressured by the national parties' rules if not the national parties themselves. Michigan Democrats want SB 13 to move "rapid[ly]" in order to meet the February 1 deadline to have the primary moved that the DNCRBC-adopted calendar rules package set in December. There is probably some wiggle room on that deadline as long as the legislature is making progress.
But the Republican side of this equation raises some questions. Clearly, RNC penalties are on the radars of at least some Michigan Republican legislators. One Republican opposed state Senate-passed legislation in 2022 that would have pushed the presidential primary even earlier into February because of the rules implications.
Yet, at this point in time, how much are the feelings of that lone Republican, Senator Jim Runestad, being buttressed by representatives from the RNC? That is unclear. There is a large enough team at the RNC to be able to multitask on a variety of issues, but considering that a heated race for RNC chair is taking place in the same window in which the DNCRBC is requiring completed action on the primary move in Michigan, it could mean that resources may be diverted at the very time they are needed in Lansing. It is not that RNC backup is necessarily needed in Michigan to inform Republicans in the state legislature of the gravity of moving the presidential primary, but rather that the national party may be sidetracked at a point when that backup may matter most.
2. Maybe Michigan cannot help Georgia
On a different note, this potential legislative roadblock in Michigan complicates to some degree the Georgia primary situation for the Democratic National Committee (DNC). FHQ recently raised the prospect of the DNC switching the Georgia (February 13) and Michigan (February 27) primaries in the proposed calendar order as a means of actually getting the presidential primary in the Peach state into the pre-window.
However, such a switch was predicated on an unfettered Democratic majority in Lansing; a majority free to tweak legislation if necessary. Michigan Democrats in the legislature may still have that ability, but it appears that the entire Democratic apparatus in the state -- state party and legislature -- are taking the February 1 DNCRBC deadline seriously. The quicker the legislative majority in Michigan feels compelled to move on SB 13, the less likely it is that the Georgia situation can be fixed in a way that is amendable to the Republican secretary of state there.
Again, there is likely some latitude in that DNCRBC deadline if Michigan is moving positively toward the goal of changing its primary date. But that is a tricky position for the DNC. At once they want to convey the need to lock in the primary date change in Michigan, but to also find a way to accommodate the complications that are present in Georgia. And at some point the DNC is just going to have to finalize its calendar order and be ready to face whatever state-level reactions come. Still, the party does not want to finalize a calendar rules package that will be tough or impossible to implement and creates headaches down the road.
--
Recent posts:
Thursday, January 12, 2023
Bill Introduced in Michigan Senate to Move Presidential Primary to February 27
A day after the 2023 legislative session opened in Michigan, legislation has been introduced in the state Senate to move the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in February.
--
This legislation has been added to the updated 2024 presidential primary calendar.
--
Recent posts:
Thursday, December 15, 2022
Adjournment Kills Michigan Presidential Primary Bill
In the same week that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) met and adopted the proposal from President Biden to shuffle the early presidential primary calendar deck, the Michigan state Senate passed legislation that would shift the date of the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state up a month to the second Tuesday in February.
The two were not directly connected. However, coming out of that week there were lingering questions about whether that bill would serve as a vehicle to move the primary into the position carved out for the state by the DNCRBC rules. There are now answers to those questions.
The outgoing, Republican-controlled Michigan legislature adjourned its lame duck session last week, killing all active legislation not acted upon in the state House and Senate, including the presidential primary bill. But the incoming, Democratic-controlled legislature will likely take up the cause and align the date of the presidential primary with DNC rules on February 27.
With unified Democratic control across the executive and legislative branches in Michigan there will be a bill put forward and likely quickly advanced. But the big question surrounding that effort in 2023 will be what the narrowly divided legislature will do with Republicans. A February 27 date for the presidential primary would conflict with Republican National Committee rules for the timing of delegate selection events. That means Republican legislators in the Great Lakes state will have to use what little leverage they have to advocate for split primaries -- a February 27 Democratic primary and a later, compliant Republican primary -- or face the prospect of having to hold a party-run contest after March 1.
--
Recent posts:
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Stuck in End-of-Session Rush
The countdown is on for SB 1207, the current legislation that would shift the Michigan presidential primary up to the second Tuesday in February.
But the bill may become a casualty of the legislative hustle and bustle as the 2021-22 legislation approaches its adjournment. Michigan Radio/WVPE reports that the bill may take a backseat to other priorities in the state House. Rep. Ann Bollin (R-42nd, Brighton), who chairs the House Elections and Ethics Committee, indicated that she would be more inclined to move on legislation focused on moving the August primary for other offices to June.
“The most important date that the local clerks want changed is to move the August primary to June. That’s what I hear most about and that’s what their greatest concern is, is that we should be looking at an election that can really make a difference,” Bollin said.
But Bollin struck a positive tone on the possibility of a deal to pass the presidential primary bill in exchange for passage of the August-to-June House bill in the Senate.
Granted, being low on the priority list and the session nearing a close are not the only roadblocks facing SB 1207. And that is doubly true now that the Democratic National Committee has taken the first step toward adding Michigan to the group of early states at the front of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. The DNC positioning of the contest for the fourth Tuesday in February (February 27, 2024) conflicts with the second Tuesday in February (February 13, 2024) date for the primary called for in the Republican-sponsored legislation in Michigan. Despite the fact the the Republican majority state Senate got all voting Democrats to side with them on SB 1207, the Republican majority in the House may not be able to similarly count on Democratic support without a change to align the date in the legislation with the DNC calendar outline.1
And even if there is a deal across chambers to pass both primary bills without any changes, Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) may veto it to protect Michigan's newly won position in the Democratic process, opting to wait on Democratic control in the 2023-24 legislature.
Yet, SB 1207 could still be amended to reflect the DNC date for the Michigan primary at the end of February and work its way through the legislative process. But the fact remains that at this point, it is not clear whether this bill will be the actual vehicle for changing the presidential primary date in Michigan or whether that task will be punted to Democratic legislators in the majority early next year.
Given the hoops the Michigan Democratic Party has to jump through for the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, an amended SB 1207 could be preferable. Under the new guidelines from the DNC, the Michigan Democratic Party has to secure signed letters from the governor, the incoming state House majority leader and the incoming state Senate majority -- all Democrats -- pledging to pass legislation to enable a February 27 primary date. The party has to hand those letters off to the co-chairs of the DNCRBC by January 5, 2023. All such legislative changes are to be finalized by February 1, 2023.
That is a quick turnaround for new legislation to have been passed and signed into law, especially when the new Democratic majority will be interested in moving other items on its agenda.
None of this is to suggest that this will not get done. It will. Michigan will have a February 27 Democratic presidential primary. The uncertainty that exists now surrounds how it all happens in the legislature: now or next year.
--
1 Republicans also have a compliance problem with the Republican National Committee rules if the primary is scheduled for any time in February. The Michigan Republican Party may support the primary move in SB 1207, but any intervention from the national party level may additionally slow things down, forcing state Republicans to focus on finding a way to split the presidential nomination process in the Great Lakes state into two partisan primaries.
--
Recent posts:
Wednesday, November 30, 2022
Michigan Senate Passes Bill Moving Presidential Primary to February
The Michigan State Senate on Tuesday passed SB 1207, a simple measure that would move the presidential primary in the state from the second Tuesday in March up to the second Tuesday in February.
While significant in the context of the pending changes the Democratic National Committee may make to the 2024 presidential primary calendar this week -- including a potential addition of Michigan to the early window -- this near-unanimous vote of the Republican-controlled Senate is likely symbolic.1 It was little more than a bipartisan show ahead of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting starting on December 1.
That is not to say that Michigan legislators are not serious about helping to ease the state's presidential primary to a more prime position on the calendar, but there are a few moving parts here that should be accounted for.
First, the Senate vote comes in the waning days of the 2021-22 legislative session. Now, strange things can happen as sessions come to a close -- including the expedited consideration of legislation -- but there are just a handful of days left in the state House session. One day this week and three more next week are it.
Second, Sen. Wayne Schmidt's (R-37th) legislation was discharged from the Elections Committee on the same day it passed with no committee hearing preceding it since it was introduced in October. And simple though this bill may be -- it is a one page bill -- it is one that could benefit from increased scrutiny. For starters, elections officials might like to chime in, as they always do, on how the new date would affect filing deadlines and their general timeline for elections. And it is also worth noting that Republicans supported this bill but stand to lose a lot if the Michigan presidential primary ends up on the second Tuesday in February. A Republican primary in that position would violate Republican National Committee rules and decrease the Michigan delegation to the 2024 convention by more than three-quarters.
Michigan may get a go-ahead from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee to hold an earlier primary in their meeting this week, but there will be some Michigan-specific factors that will have to be considered in scheduling an early window primary. One option is to mirror what South Carolina does and hold those primaries on separate days. That is one avenue, but it would be an expensive one, and one that is not common among states with government-run primaries. South Carolina is the exception rather than the rule. Michigan is also a much bigger and more expensive state.
Alternatively, Michigan Republicans could simply opt out of the presidential primary and conduct a primary or caucus on their own. But that is expensive as well and party coffers are tougher to fill than those of the state governments. Plus, that money is often better used elsewhere. Of course, the new Democratic unified government in the Great Lakes state could also force the hands of state Republicans by going with the mid-February date in SB 1207 anyway. That would force Republicans to forge ahead with the new date on the hopes that a waiver might successfully be won, or push them to a later and compliant caucus. And a waiver could work, although that would have implications for the scheduling of other early contests that the Republicans set in stone before 2016 (and have carried over in subsequent cycles).
Granted, there is a third route that would work for all parties concerned. A loophole in RNC rules would allow for the Michigan primary to be scheduled as early as March 1 without penalty from the RNC. A Saturday, March 2 primary would fall in the early window on the Democratic calendar right before Super Tuesday and also be compliant -- or unpenalized -- under Republican rules.
But that is a great deal to hash out, and typically states -- either governments or parties -- tend to wait until after the two major parties have finalized the rules before making decisions on when to schedule their primary elections or caucuses. Yes, that has typically been done by now in the process. The DNC is a little late this cycle.
With that step in place after the early December DNCRBC meeting, the new Michigan legislature -- one controlled by Democrats -- will likely look to put its own stamp on whatever the DNC hands down in terms of overarching guidelines.
But for now, this vote on SB 1207 was a show vote to demonstrate to national players that Michigan is ready to be early. And if one has followed along with the various calendar machinations over time, Michigan is not an unfamiliar character.
--
1 Assistant Majority Caucus Chair Jim Rundestad (R-15th) was the lone dissenting vote. Two Democrats and one other Republican were excused.
--
Recent posts:
Monday, November 2, 2020
The Electoral College Map (11/2/20)
Update for November 2.
As FHQ noted over the weekend, it was/is going to take a lot to move the needle down the stretch in any state, much less the core battlegrounds that have witnessed by far the most polling activity all year. And that is borne out in what follows. Yes, Arizona and Florida traded spots in the order yesterday, but both remained on the Biden side of the partisan line. No, neither is there comfortably. They both continue to fall under Biden +3. [But the two states did revert to form today with Florida nudging past Arizona away from the partisan line.] Everything else, however remains the same with respect to the order of these states. There was some subtle shifting in this last mega-batch of surveys, but the order (from most to least Biden favorable) is intact: Michigan > Wisconsin > Pennsylvania > Florida > Arizona > North Carolina. The same Rust Belt/Sun Belt divide that has been evident nearly throughout these updates continues right up to the last day in the run up to the end of the voting phase of this campaign.
Below FHQ will go through a pretty simple checklist with each of the six battlegrounds:
1. Who did the movement within polls -- from the preceding poll to the most recent -- benefit?
2. How many times did Biden hit 50 percent in this last wave of polls? [Interestingly or not, this metric actually pretty closely mirrors the order in the FHQ average margins.]
On to the polls...
Polling Quick Hits:
NOTE:
Where things stood at FHQ a day 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.
--
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:
Polling Quick Hits:
Arizona
(Biden 50, Trump 48 via Ipsos | Biden 48, Trump 48 via Marist | Biden 50, Trump 47 via Change Research | Biden 50, Trump 47 via Data for Progress | Biden 48, Trump 46 via Morning Consult | Biden 46, Trump 45 via Data Orbital | Biden 50, Trump 46 via Redfield and Wilton Strategies)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +2.82]
Ipsos: Biden 47, Trump 47 in poll last week
Marist: Biden 50, Trump 45 in July poll
Change Research: Biden 51, Trump 45 in mid-October poll
Data for Progress: Biden 49, Trump 45 in September poll
Morning Consult: Trump 48, Biden 47 in mid-October poll
Data Orbital: Biden 47, Trump 42 in mid-October poll
Redfield and Wilton: Biden 49, Trump 43 in early October poll
In Arizona, most of the last minute movement was toward President Trump. They were not big shifts, but in five of the seven polls that had a previous survey in the series, Trump gained ground. Yet, Biden was over 50 percent in the final poll in four of the seven pollsters with new surveys in the Grand Canyon state. But the former vice president's average lead ticked down a few one-hundredths of a point on the final day before election day.
Florida
(Trump 48, Biden 47 via Insider Advantage | Biden 45, Trump 43 via AYTM | Biden 51, Trump 48 via Change Research | Biden 47, Trump 42 via Quinnipiac | Biden 51, Trump 47 via Ipsos | Biden 51, Trump 48 via Data for Progress | Trump 51, Biden 49 via Frederick Polls | Biden 52, Trump 45 via Morning Consult | Trump 51, Biden 47 via Targoz Market Research | Biden 50, Trump 46 via Redfield and Wilton Strategies)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +2.92]
Insider Advantage: Trump 46, Biden 43 in early October poll
No previous AYTM poll
Change Research: Biden 51, Trump 44 in mid-October poll
Quinnipiac: Biden 45, Trump 42 in late October poll
Ipsos: Biden 48, Trump 47 in poll last week
Data for Progress: Biden 46, Trump 43 in September poll
No previous Frederick poll
Morning Consult: Biden 52, Trump 45 in mid-October poll
No previous Targoz poll
Redfield and Wilton: Biden 49, Trump 44 in early October poll
In the Sunshine state, the picture was a bit more muddled. Trump closed the gap in some polls (three) as they transitioned to their last surveys, but Biden widened his in a nearly equivalent number of polls (two). And the status quo carried over in another couple pollsters final snapshots. But importantly, the former vice president hit or exceeded 50 percent in seven of the ten surveys and saw his FHQ average margin push up (and past Arizona in the order) on the final day before the election.
Michigan
(Biden 50, Trump 43 via Research Company | Biden 51, Trump 44 via Change Research | Trump 48, Biden 46 via Trafalgar Group | Biden 48, Trump 46 via AtlasIntel | Biden 52, Trump 45 via Morning Consult | Biden 53, Trump 39 via Targoz Marketing Research | Biden 54, Trump 41 via Redfield and Wilton Strategies)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.28]
No previous Research Company poll
Change Research: Biden 51, Trump 44 in mid-October poll
Trafalgar: Trump 49, Biden 47 in late October poll
No previous AtlasIntel poll
Morning Consult: Biden 52, Trump 44 in mid-October poll
No previous Targoz poll
Redfield and Wilton: Biden 50, Trump 42 in early October poll
The story was quite similar in Michigan as compared to Florida. More polls remained exactly the same from next to last to last poll in the sequence than moved toward Biden or Trump in that transition. And Biden was at or over 50 percent in five of the seven surveys. Yet, the Democratic nominee's average advantage in the Great Lakes state slightly shrunk while his average share of support remained north of 50 percent here at FHQ.
North Carolina
(Biden 49, Trump 47 via Change Research | Biden 50, Trump 48 via Ipsos | Biden 50, Trump 48 via Data for Progress | Biden 51, Trump 49 via Frederick Polls | Biden 49, Trump 48 via Morning Consult | Trump 49, Biden 47 via Redfield and Wilton Strategies)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.81]
Change Research: Biden 50, Trump 47 in mid-October poll
Ipsos: Biden 49, Trump 48 in poll last week
Data for Progress: Biden 48, Trump 44 in mid-October poll
No previous Frederick poll
Morning Consult: Biden 50, Trump 47 in mid-October poll
Redfield and Wilton: Biden 49, Trump 44 in early October poll
As in Arizona, most of the final movement in the surveys of the Tar Heel state was toward Trump. More polls (four) had the president making up ground in their final iterations than was the case for Biden (one). And befitting North Carolina's status among these six states as the closest, Biden only reached or surpassed 50 percent in half of the six surveys that were released on the Monday prior to election day. As has been the case all along, North Carolina is close, but is and has been consistently tipped toward the Democratic nominee throughout the summer and into the fall. And his FHQ average lead over the president nudged up on the final day.
Pennsylvania
(Trump 49, Biden 48 via Susquehanna | Biden 50, Trump 47 via Pulse Opinion Research | Biden 50, Trump 44 via Research Company | Biden 51, Trump 49 via AYTM | Trump 51, Biden 46 via Marist | Biden 50, Trump 46 via Change Research | Biden 50, Trump 45 via Monmouth | Biden 52, Trump 45 via Data for Progress | Trump 52, Biden 48 via Frederick Polls | Trump 48, Biden 46 via Trafalgar Group | Biden 52, Trump 43 via Morning Consult | Biden 56, Trump 42 via Targoz Market Research | Biden 50, Trump 45 via Redfield and Wilton Strategies)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.22]
Susquehanna: Biden 44, Trump 42 in September poll
Pulse Opinion Research: Biden 50, Trump 47 in mid-October poll
No previous Research Company poll
No previous AYTM poll
Marist: Biden 53, Trump 44 in September poll
Change Research: Biden 49, Trump 47 in mid-October poll
Monmouth: Biden 53, Trump 45 in early October poll
No previous Data for Progress poll
No previous Frederick poll
Trafalgar: Trump 48, Biden 48 in poll last week
Morning Consult: Biden 52, Trump 43 in mid-October poll
No previous Targoz poll
Redfield and Wilton: Biden 49, Trump 42 in early October poll
There is a distinction to be made, FHQ thinks, in looking at these battlegrounds between Trump turning things around and merely making up ground. The latter is most often about partisans -- partisan leaners and/or undecideds -- coming home as election day nears. Much of what appears to be happening in this wave of surveys is the latter. Biden is relatively stationary in most of these states and in polls where Trump made gains, it is about closing the gap rather than taking the lead. Pennsylvania is probably the best microcosm of this. And that is fitting since the Keystone state is still the pivotal state in the order on the Electoral College Spectrum below. Most of the movement in the polling of the commonwealth represented here (at least where there was a prior survey) shifted things toward Trump. However, in this wave of 13 new polls, Biden was at or over 50 percent in 11 of them. That is some striking consensus across a number of polls/series of polls. Voters are going to vote and actually decide this election, but one would rather be the Biden campaign than the Trump campaign ending it in Pennsylvania above 50 percent. Of course, the former vice president falls just short of the majority mark in his average share of support in the Keystone state (49.8 percent), failing to match Michigan and Wisconsin on that count.
Wisconsin
(Biden 50, Trump 42 via Research Company | Biden 53, Trump 45 via Change Research | Biden 54, Trump 41 via Morning Consult | Biden 53, Trump 41 via Redfield and Wilton Strategies)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.61]
No previous Research Company poll
Change Research: Biden 52, Trump 44 in mid-October poll
Morning Consult: Biden 54, Trump 42 in mid-October poll
Redfield and Wilton: Biden 51, Trump 41 in early October poll
Survey activity has slowed down considerably in Wisconsin as election day has approached. The Badger state is still among these core battleground states, but there is a reason polling has decreased: all of the movement is in Biden's direction. More importantly, perhaps, the Democratic nominee was at or north of 50 percent in all four new polls released in Wisconsin today. And, again, Biden's average share there is over the majority mark as well.
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)
| FL-29
(308 | 259)
| MT-3 NE CD1-1
(103)
| AL-9
(38)
|
NY-29
(60)
|
CO-9
(194)
| AZ-11
(319 | 230)
| 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. | ||||
These 47 new surveys from the six core battlegrounds tell a similar tale to the one that has been told throughout the summer and into the fall of this race for the White House. Biden is ahead and ahead in this group of states in an order that has been established and maintained here at FHQ. The math of this in view of the 270 electoral votes necessary to claim the White House is simple enough. If this is how things shake out tomorrow in these states, then Biden will win. Trump has to have the three Sun Belt states that are now Biden toss ups and pick off at least one of those Rust Belt states in order to successfully defend his 2016 win. And Pennsylvania as the tipping point is the most likely of those three states. In fact, that is where the campaigns have turned their attention as the days in this race have dwindled.
1 day to go.
Where things stood at FHQ a day 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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)