The Electoral College Map (9/6/20)

Update for September 6.

On the cusp of a new work week in which the countdown to election day will fall under eight weeks, there was a handful of polls to accompany the Sunday morning punditry. Yes, some battleground surveys were mixed in -- Texas and Wisconsin -- but there was also an update from New Mexico. Often talked about as a 2020 flip opportunity by the president's campaign, public polling in the Land of Enchantment, relatively scant though it has been, just has not reflected that opportunity. Rather, New Mexico has been camped out in the Strong Biden category all summer here at FHQ.


Polling Quick Hits:
New Mexico
(Biden 54, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +13.98]
And New Mexico's position as a Strong Biden state was not undermined by the Research and Polling Inc. survey. The former vice president has hovered in the lower 50s in all of the polling conducted there and that is true here as well. In fact, Biden is running about five points ahead of where Clinton ended up on election day 2016 in New Mexico, or right on the average share Democrats received in the Land of Enchantment over the last three presidential elections. In other words, it is a steady picture of sorts. Moreover, New Mexico is one of the states where Trump has not really gained nor lost ground relative to his showing there in 2016. Compared to more pronounced declines in other states, the president has lost less than a point off of the 40 percent he garnered there four years ago. Steady as it goes.


Texas
(Trump 48, Biden 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +1.16]
In the Lone Star state, UT-Tyler had another in its series of surveys there this calendar year. FHQ has spent some time in this space talking generally about the lack of volatility in this presidential race. The one exception is the ballooning margins Biden enjoyed in June that carried over into July. And like other pollsters, UT-Tyler saw a Biden bump during that period. In fact, that was Biden's only lead in this series of polls. It had been close with the race tied or Trump marginally ahead in all polls before June and is again at that level now. This survey has Trump running a little ahead of his FHQ weight average share of support while Biden is right on his. The bottom line is that this poll is just plain consistent with where the race is in Texas: much closer than usual, but still tipped in the president's favor.


Wisconsin
(Biden 50, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.31]
This past week has been one of those weeks where nearly every day brought an update the state of the presidential race from out of the Badger state. Sunday was no exception. The latest battleground tracker from CBS News/YouGov had its first survey in the field in Wisconsin since early August, and the outlook has not changed in the wake of the back-to-back national conventions. While both Biden and Trump gained a couple of points in the interim, the margin stayed stuck at six points. And that is basically where Biden's advantage has been over the last month there, inside the Lean Biden category and just off the Watch List. But again, as with the other states above, steady is the word in Wisconsin as well.



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

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	CT-7 (162)	WI-10 (252)	AK-3 (125)	UT-6 (60)
HI-4 (18)	NJ-14 (176)	PA-203 NE CD2-1 (273 | 286)	SC-9 (122)	IN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	OR-7 (183)	NV-6 (279 | 265)	MO-10 (113)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	NM-5 (188)	FL-29 (308 | 259)	MT-3 (103)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	CO-9 (197)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	KS-6 NE CD1-1 (100)	AL-9 (31)
WA-12 (117)	VA-13 (210)	NC-15 ME CD2-1 (335 | 219)	MS-6 (93)	ND-3 (22)
MD-10 (127)	ME-2 (212)	IA-6 (203)	AR-6 (87)	SD-3 (19)
IL-20 (147)	MN-10 (222)	OH-18 (197)	NE-2 (81)	OK-7 (16)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (152)	MI-16 (238)	GA-16 (179)	LA-8 (79)	WV-5 (9)
DE-3 (155)	NH-4 (242)	TX-38 (163)	TN-11 (71)	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 286 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 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 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.

As was the case a day ago, today's batch of additions to the 2020 state-level polling dataset were all about the maintenance of the status quo. And as such, none of the three changed shades on the map, moved positions on the Electoral College Spectrum or moved onto the Watch List below. Of the three, Texas is closest to being placed on the List (within a fraction of a point of changing categories), but Wisconsin is not far behind. The difference between the two is that if the race is tightening then things are moving in Trump's direction. That would tend to push Texas further away from the partisan line and inclusion on the List and narrow the Biden advantage in Wisconsin. But it is not clear that there has been significant narrowing in the states that matter most in the quest for 270 electoral votes. Rather, the prevailing story continues to be just how steady this race is and has been other than in late June and early July. 2020 is not as stable as 2012 was -- especially here at FHQ -- but it has been pretty steady nonetheless.


Where things stood at FHQ on September 6 (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
Florida	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Maine	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Maine CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
Nevada	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
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.


--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/5/20)

The Electoral College Map (9/4/20)

The Electoral College Map (9/3/20)


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

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: NEW MEXICO

NEW MEXICO

Election type: primary
Date: June 2
Number of delegates: 46 [7 at-large, 4 PLEOs, 23 congressional district, 12 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan [includes post-coronavirus plans]


--
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.

For the third straight cycle, New Mexico Democrats will occupy what has historically been the typical spot for the consolidated primary in the Land of Enchantment: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June. There was no change to the date of the contest nor any effort to push the primary to an earlier date.

There also was very little movement with respect to the state party's delegate selection plan for 2020. And that was true at least until the coronavirus pandemic hit. After that, there were some fairly significant tweaks to the process if not the plan. County clerks and the New Mexico secretary of state petitioned the state courts to allow an all-mail primary on June 2. But that request was denied based on state law that requires voters to formally apply fo an absentee ballot. However, the judge did allow absentee ballot applications to be sent to every New Mexico voter registered with a major party, a process that began in late April.

May 28 is the last day for voters to request an absentee ballot. In-person early and in-person election day voting will continue to be offered under the court ruling but will occur under the conditions set forth in the public health proclamations issued by the governor according to the court decision.

All ballots are due to county elections offices locations on or before 7pm on Tuesday, June 2. 

Overall, the Democratic delegation in New Mexico changed by just two delegates from 2016 to 2020. The number of pledged delegates stayed the same in all three categories but the number of superdelegates rose by two.


[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)
New Mexico's 23 congressional district delegates are split across eight congressional districts and have a variation of just two delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength New Mexico Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential and 2018 gubernatorial elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 9 delegates*
CD2 - 5 delegates*
CD3 - 9 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 selection of the 23 district delegates in New Mexico will occur on June 13 in virtual post-primary district conventions. Democrats registered by May 5 and who reside in a congressional district can register with the state party to participate as "qualified post-primary electors" in those district conventions. The state party staff will then verify the credentials of those who register to be "electors."

Those same "qualified post-primary electors" will vote again on June 19 in the first part of a virtual state convention to select the four PLEO delegates. The second part of that virtual state convention will take place a day later on June 20 to select the seven at-large delegates.


[The coronavirus pandemic forced New Mexico Democrats to significantly truncate their delegate selection process. Initially, the party planned on a four step caucus/convention process. That was to have started with in-person ward/precinct meetings on June 3-6 where county convention delegates would be selected. The county conventions on June 6 were to have elected delegates to both the in-person district and state conventions on June 13 and June 20, respectively. Only those who had been elected to the county conventions could participate in the votes to send delegates to the district and state conventions. Only those who had been elected to the district and state conventions could vote on national convention delegates. Now that the coronavirus has intervened, the some of those steps have been removed and conceivably the pool of participants in electing national convention delegates has expanded. The gatekeeping of the ward/precinct and county meetings has been replaced by the state party verifying who can participate in the votes on national convention delegates based on who applies.]


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- to late June when the New Mexico 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.

The Electoral College Map (11/7/16)

New State Polls (11/7/16)
Morning Polls
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Colorado	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-2.27%	1863 likely voters	42	41	6	+1	+3.91
Florida	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-2.02%	2352 likely voters	45	48	3	+3	--
Florida	Quinnipiac	11/3-11/6	+/-3.3%	884 likely voters	46	45	5	+1	+1.98
Georgia	Landmark	11/6	+/-2.8%	1200 likely voters	46	49	2	+3	+3.04
Missouri	Emerson	11/4-11/5	+/-3.5%	750 likely voters	41	47	4	+6	+8.02
Nevada	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-2.31%	1793 likely voters	45	46	4	+1	--
Nevada	Emerson	11/4-11/5	+/-3.9%	600 likely voters	47	46	2	+1	+0.96
New Hampshire	Emerson	11/4-11/5	+/-3.0%	1000 likely voters	45	44	3	+1	--
New Hampshire	UNH/WMUR	11/3-11/6	+/-3.7%	707 likely voters	49	38	4	+11	+4.82
New Mexico	ZiaPoll	11/6	+/-1.8%	8439 likely voters	46	44	1	+2	+6.44
North Carolina	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.92%	2596 likely voters	45	48	2	+3	--
North Carolina	Quinnipiac	11/3-11/6	+/-3.3%	870 likely voters	47	45	4	+2	--
North Carolina	Siena/New York Times (Upshot)	11/4-11/6	+/-3.5%	800 likely voters	44	44	6	+/-0	+1.36
Ohio	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.94%	2557 likely voters	44	45	3	+1	--
Ohio	TargetSmart	10/31-11/3	--	1194 likely voters	40	43	2	+3	--
Ohio	Emerson	11/4-11/5	+/-3.2%	900 likely voters	39	46	6	+7	+0.01
Pennsylvania	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.89%	2683 likely voters	46	45	3	+1	+5.00
Virginia	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.77%	3076 likely voters	46	44	3	+2	--
Virginia	Christopher Newport	11/4-11/6	+/-3.6%	1193 likely voters	48	42	5	+6	+6.20
Wisconsin	Remington	11/1-11/2	+/-1.88%	2720 likely voters	49	41	4	+8	+6.49
Afternoon Polls
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Data Orbital	11/4-11/6	+/-4.12%	550 likely voters	44	47	1	+3	+1.71
Florida	Opinion Savvy	11/5-11/6	+/-3.4%	853 likely voters	48	46	1	+2	--
Florida	Trafalgar	11/6	+/-2.89%	1100 likely voters	46	50	1	+4	+1.89
Georgia	YouGov/CBS	11/3-11/5	+/-4.6%	995 likely voters	43	49	3	+6	+3.14
Michigan	Trafalgar	11/6	+/-2.77%	1200 likely voters	47	49	1	+2	+6.51
Nevada	Trafalgar	11/1-11/4	+/-3.02%	1100 likely voters	45	50	2	+5	+0.80
Pennsylvania	Trafalgar	11/3-11/5	+/-2.68%	1300 likely voters	47	48	2	+1	--
Pennsylvania	YouGov/CBS	11/3-11/5	+/-4.3%	931 likely voters	45	43	4	+2	+4.84
Utah	Trafalgar	11/3-11/5	+/-2.67%	1350 likely voters	30	40	2	+10	--
Utah	YouGov/CBS	11/3-11/5	+/-4.9%	762 likely voters	23	40	4	+17	+9.971
Evening Polls
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Florida	Gravis	11/1-11/2	+/-2.8%	1220 registered voters	46	45	2	+1	+1.87
Michigan	Gravis	11/1-11/4	+/-3.0%	1079 registered voters	46	41	3	+5	+6.46
Nevada	Gravis	11/3-11/6	+/-2.9%	1158 likely voters	45	43	5	+2	+0.83
New Mexico	Gravis	11/1-11/2	+/-2.7%	1327 registered voters	45	37	2	+8	+6.58
North Carolina	Gravis	11/1-11/4	+/-2.8%	1250 registered voters	46	45	3	+1	+1.36
Virginia	Gravis	11/1-11/4	+/-2.7%	1362 registered voters	47	42	3	+5	--
Virginia	Hampton	11/2-11/6	+/-4.4%	802 likely voters	45	41	14	+4	+6.12
1Excluding the two head-to-head online panel surveys in Utah lowers Trump's average advantage there to 8.48 points. Those polls are outliers in view of the majority of surveys in the Beehive state during 2016 and serve as an anchor on the data. The change would shift Utah within the Lean Trump category, closer to Toss Up Trump. McMullin garnered 24% in the YouGov survey and 25% support in the Trafalgar survey. He currently has an FHQ graduated weighted average share of support of 23.39%, trailing both Trump and Clinton.

--
Changes (11/7/16) -- Early edition
One last day.

Changes (November 7 -- Morning)
State	Before	After
Ohio	Toss Up Clinton	Toss Up Trump

• Ohio jumped the partisan line from Toss Up Clinton to Toss Up Trump, but note the average: +0.01. The Buckeye state is close here at FHQ. 
• Nevada rejoins the Watch List, slipping under the Clinton +1 threshold, but the Silver state has been hovering there. 
• Colorado slides off the Watch List. It is now just a bit more than a point from the Lean/Toss Up line (+5) on the Clinton side of the partisan line. 
• The ZiaPoll survey of New Mexico -- given the sample size, it was the whole state -- drew the average in a bit further. It has tracked down to about a six and a half point lead for Clinton in the Land of Enchantment. That pushed New Mexico down to the lower half of the Lean Clinton group of states on the Electoral College Spectrum. 

Late edition

Changes (November 7 -- Afternoon)
State	Before	After
Pennsylvania	Lean Clinton	Toss Up Clinton

• The Trafalgar and YouGov surveys were enough of a drag on the FHQ average in Pennsylvania that the Keystone state slipped just under the Lean/Toss Up line. Pennsylvania, then, follows New Hampshire as states that have until recently been just above that line but have hopped over it into the Toss Up Clinton area. Both remain clustered around that line, however; just on the opposite side.  
• That move also flips Pennsylvania on the Watch List, but keeps it in the same position on the Spectrum. 
• The Trafalgar survey of Michigan is the first to show Trump ahead since 2015. It may be a sign of something in the Great Lakes state or it could be an outlier (balancing out that MSU survey from last week). Either way, it decreased the average margin enough to ease Michigan past Maine on the Spectrum. 
• Also, Utah once again traded spots with Indiana, pushing to the very end of the Lean Trump area. The new polls out of the Beehive state nudge Trump even closer to 40 percent in the averages. Again, that will be enough to keep Clinton and McMullin at bay there and Utah in the Republican column.

Late late edition

• The Breibart wave of last minute Gravis polling releases mostly confirmed the state of the race in each of the states. There was some shuffling among the New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin cluster in the Lean Clinton area. New Mexico bounced back slightly after pushing down that column earlier in the day. Everything else held steady.

Barring anything unforeseen or any straggler surveys, this is likely what the final map will look like on election day. There are a few polls yet to be added into the dataset (the non-Breitbart wave of Gravis polls), but the expectation is that that will not alter the bottom line any if at all. It will not where it counts in any event: Clinton 322, Trump 216.

--

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)	NH-4 (263)	TX-38 (161)	TN-11 (61)
HI-4 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	SC-9 (123)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	OR-7 (183)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	MO-10 (114)	ND-3 (44)
MA-11 (31)	MN-10 (193)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	IN-11 (104)	NE-53 (41)
CA-55 (86)	ME-23 (195)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	UT-6 (93)	KY-8 (36)
NY-29 (115)	NM-5 (200)	OH-18 (216)	MS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20+13 (136)	WI-10 (210)	IA-6 (198)	SD-3 (81)	ID-4 (19)
DE-3 (139)	MI-16 (226)	AZ-11 (192)	KS-6 (78)	WV-5 (15)
WA-12 (151)	VA-13 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (158)	PA-20 (259)	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
Indiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Ohio	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Oregon	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean 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 (11/6/16)

The Electoral College Map (11/5/16)

The Electoral College Map (11/4/16)

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