2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: OKLAHOMA

Updated 3.1.16

This is part ten of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

OKLAHOMA

Election type: primary
Date: March 1 
Number of delegates: 43 [25 at-large, 15 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (with majority (50%) winner-take-all trigger statewide and in congressional districts)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15% (both statewide and within the congressional districts)
2012: proportional primary

--
Changes from 2012
The Oklahoma Republican Party made bigger changes to their method of delegate allocation from 2008-2012 than they did from 2012 until now. The state legislature in the Sooner state shifted back the presidential primary in the state by a month from February 2008 to March 2012. Squarely within the month-long -- all of March -- proportionality window for 2012, the reaction of the Republican Party in Oklahoma was to switch from winner-take-most (winner-take-all by congressional district) plan to an across-the-board proportional plan to comply with the new RNC rules four years ago.

But rather than proportionally allocating all of the delegates -- at-large and congressional district -- based on the statewide results, Oklahoma Republicans opted to award delegates in a proportionate manner based on the results statewide and in the several congressional districts. The at-large delegates were allocated and bound based on the statewide results and the congressional district delegates were awarded based on the results in each of the congressional districts.

That change ended up being more proportional than was necessary under the RNC rules in 2012. The only switch that was required to comply was the at-large delegate allocation. In 2012, a state could be considered compliant with the proportionality requirement if it proportionally allocated those at-large delegates. A state could continue to allocated congressional district delegates in a winner-take-all fashion (based on the congressional district results). Ohio made that incremental change, but states like Oklahoma and Georgia went the extra step and proportionalized the allocation of all of their delegates.

A total proportionalization for 2012 meant that states like Oklahoma and Georgia were ahead of the curve under the stricter definition of proportional the RNC has rolled out for the 2016 cycle; the one eliminating the winner-take-all allocation of congressional district delegates.

The historical rundown is intended to show that Oklahoma had no impetus to make any changes to its delegate allocation rules for 2016. And it has not really made any alterations.

So what does the process look like?


Thresholds
To win any delegates under the Oklahoma Republican Party delegate allocation rules, a candidate must pull in an at least 15% share of the vote in the March 1 presidential primary. That is true at both statewide and at the congressional district level. Should any candidate win a majority of the votes in the primary statewide or in a congressional district that candidate would be allocated all of the statewide, at-large delegates (25) or all of the congressional district delegates (3 in each district).

The usual caveats apply here. The more candidates who are alive by SEC primary day on March 1, the less likely it is that that majority winner-take-all trigger will be tripped. However, as the number of candidates drops, the likelihood of a majority winner either statewide or in a congressional district increases.

It should be noted also that the Oklahoma Republican Party delegate allocation rules do not prohibit the possibility of a backdoor winner-take-all allocation. That possibility is unit-specific and limited though. A candidate can be the only one to clear the 15% threshold either statewide or in a congressional district and claim all of the either at-large or congressional district delegates, respectively. It is not possible for a candidate to win all 43 delegates from Oklahoma unless that candidate is above the 50% threshold statewide and in each of the five congressional districts or unless that candidate is the only one above 15% statewide and in each of the five congressional districts. Both outcomes are possible but not probable. Call that a limited backdoor winner-take-all allocation or a backdoor winner-take-most plan.


Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
This is a simulation of the allocation; not a projection. The numbers are less important than how the rules operate in this exercise.

The at-large and automatic delegates -- 28 delegates in total -- will be proportionally allocated to candidates with a vote share above the 15% mark. Based on the last poll conducted on the race in Oklahoma (the mid-November Sooner poll), the statewide allocation would look something like this¹:

• Trump (27%) -- 7.560 delegates
• Carson (18%) -- 5.040 delegates
• Cruz (18%) -- 5.040 delegates
• Rubio (16%) -- 4.48 delegates

• Huckabee (4%) -- 0 delegates
• Bush (2%) -- 0 delegates
• Fiorina (2%) -- 0 delegates
• Paul (2%) -- 0 delegates
• Kasich (1%) -- 0 delegates


• Uncommitted -- 6 delegates

The first observation is that, as is the case in other states with a minimum qualifying threshold, Oklahoma's rules would limit the number of candidates who are actually allocated delegates. If a top tier emerges (and/or is maintained), then there will be a class of have candidates and a class of have not candidates. Of course, it should be noted that the carve-out contests have winnowed some of those have not candidates from the race.

The other thing that stands out about the Oklahoma delegate allocation formula for at-large and automatic delegates is the calculation itself. Unlike most other states, the language in the Oklahoma Republican Party rules uses the total vote -- and not the qualifying vote -- as the denominator in the equation. This is similar to how New Hampshire allocated delegates. Such a plan tamps down on the number of delegates the qualifying candidates -- those over the 15% threshold -- receive, but it also leaves a cache of delegates in limbo. In New Hampshire, the rule has always been to allocated those leftovers to the statewide winner in the Granite state primary.

But such a contingency is not a part of the Oklahoma rules. In the simulated allocation above, six delegates would not be allocated.

...to anyone. They would remain uncommitted. This is similar to the state of affairs in the Louisiana rules. But here's the thing: there is a range of possibilities here. If three candidates -- say, Trump, Cruz and Rubio -- just barely clear the 15% threshold. They end up with around 45% of the total vote. That leaves 55% of the vote under the threshold. All three candidates would claim four delegates and the remaining 16 at-large/automatic delegates would be uncommitted.

If, however, those same three candidates all receive 30% of the vote -- no, that's not likely -- then they combine for 90% of the vote and leave only 10% unaccounted for. Collectively, Trump, Cruz and Rubio would receive 24 delegates and four would be uncommitted.

That is a big range, but the results are likely to be somewhere in between. However, that does mean that there will be a small group of uncommitted delegates coming out of the Oklahoma primary.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
If the above statewide numbers are extended to the congressional district level, there would be four candidates over the 15% threshold. However, there would only be three delegates to go around in a given district. Trump, Carson and Cruz would qualify for one delegate each and Rubio would be left out of the allocation.

That same sort of allocation -- one delegate each -- would also hold if three candidates cleared the 15% barrier. If only two candidates draw 15% or more of the vote in a congressional district, the district winner would win two delegates and the runner-up would be allocated the remaining delegate.   That is consistent with the baseline allocation of congressional district delegates in Alabama and Georgia.

And again, should only one candidate clear the 15% barrier (or if a candidate wins a majority of the vote) in a district, then that candidate would take all three delegates from that district.


Things left out/unclear
There are a number of matters left unclear in addition to the automatic delegate question above.

1. What are the rounding rules? There is little guidance in the Oklahoma rules here other than to "round to the nearest whole number". It appears as if there is no process for dealing with over- and under-allocated delegates. Yet, given the structure of the rules, it would seem as if most of this is taken care of in the uncommitted delegate procedure described above.
2. How long does the bind on delegates last? Again, this is something that is left unsaid in the Oklahoma Republican Party delegate allocation rules. 1st ballot? Two ballots? Infinitely. It is not clear. 
3. What if no one reaches 15%? Oklahoma Republicans do describe a number of scenarios for the allocation of delegates based on the numbers of candidates clearing the qualifying threshold. However, that list does not include contingencies for the case where no candidate clears the 15% threshold statewide or in a congressional district. This seems unlikely and would require something like a seven-way logjam, but again, this possibility is not covered. Given Oklahoma's position on the calendar -- after the carve-out states -- and the pretty clear top tier of candidates in polling, the chances of a "no one above 15%" scenario seems limited.

--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ This poll is being used as an example of how delegates could be allocated and not as a forecast of the outcome in the Sooner state presidential primary.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MINNESOTA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: GEORGIA

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: COLORADO

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

Oklahoma House Committee Defeats Bill to Move Presidential Primary Away from March 1

By a 5-2 vote, the Oklahoma House Committee on Elections and Ethics for the moment killed the bill that would have shifted the presidential primary in the Sooner state from back a month to the first Tuesday in April. SB 233 will stay in committee, but given the opposition voiced at the hearing and reflected in the vote, it will likely stay there.

The impact of the decision is that the Oklahoma presidential primary is very likely to remain where it is on the calendar, March 1. That keeps Oklahoma on what committee members and those speaking for and against the bill at the hearing called Super Tuesday. Typically, the earliest date on which the national parties have allowed states other than the four carve-out states to conduct primary and caucus elections has invited a significant amount of other states to cluster on that date. But for the 2016 cycle, a group of southern states have attempted to stake a claim to that date on the calendar and rebrand it the SEC primary. Oklahoma would stand pat with neighboring Texas on March 1 plus the SEC primary states, Tennessee definitely and likely Georgia and Alabama as well. That group and Virginia would tip the overall balance for March 1 toward the South. Massachusetts, Minnesota and Vermont are also currently slated to hold primaries on that date.

For Oklahoma Republicans, staying on March 1 would mean having to maintain some semblance of the proportional delegate allocation plan they were forced to install (based in RNC rules) for 2012. Part of the motivation for SB 233 was to allow Sooner state Republicans to return to the winner-take-all (by congressional district) plan the state party had operated under prior to 2012.

The Oklahoma Republican Party is set to meet for its state convention on April 11, where this presidential primary date-related proportional versus winner-take-all discussion may extend.

Recent Posts:
Idaho Presidential Primary Bill Passes State House, Off to Governor Otter

Mississippi SEC Primary Bill Derailed in Conference

Resolution Circulating at Republican County Conventions Calling on a Later North Carolina Presidential Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Amended Oklahoma Presidential Primary Bill Stymied in Committee

The Oklahoma state House Committee on Elections and Ethics convened on Wednesday, March 25 to  consider several state Senate-passed bills. Among them was SB 233, the legislation proposing the Oklahoma presidential preference primary be shifted back three weeks on the primary calendar. The bill was originally requested by the Oklahoma Republican Party with the intention of it returning to a more winner-take-all method of delegate allocation (after one cycle of dabbling with a more proportional method required by Republican National Committee rules).¹

Due to conflicts raised by elections administrators in the state, an amendment was offered in the committee to push the date of the primary back two additional weeks in order to have it coincide with an election date called for in state law. The state provides for an opportunity to hold various elections on the first Tuesday in March and the first Tuesday in April. Adding a third election in that window is a perceived burden on those elections officials.

That amendment -- to move the Oklahoma primary to the first Tuesday in April -- was unanimously accepted by the Elections and Ethics Committee.

However, the move back -- in general, not just the further push back into April -- raised some concerns. After passing the state Senate with only a handful of dissenting votes, SB 233 faced some backlash from not only House committee members but in public testimony as well. That back and forth between the House author of the bill, Rep. Gary Banz (R-101st, Midwest City), and members of the committee was instructive in highlighting the trade-offs involved in the potential move.

Basically...

1. ...staying in an earlier March position with potentially more candidate/media attention but at the price of having to proportionally allocate delegates, or...
2. ...shifting back to a later (relative to the March position) April date that satisfies election administrators in the state and allows the Oklahoma Republican Party to allocate convention delegates on a winner-take-all basis, but at a cost of the primary falling after the point on the calendar at which someone has clinched the nomination (or is likely too far ahead to be caught in the remaining contests).

That really does neatly encapsulate the competing interests involved in these decisions: state parties, state governments, national parties (rules) and the voters themselves.

As for the Wednesday committee hearing, the bill was laid over for future consideration not so much because there was an impasse on SB 233, but because the full committee was not present and the no one from the Oklahoma Republican Party was on hand to (directly) offer their reasoning for the later primary date.

The clock is ticking on this. Oklahoma House committees have to have voted up or down on Senate-passed legislation by April 10. The provides the Elections and Ethics Committee only a couple of additional opportunities to tie up any loose ends with SB 233. If they cannot, Oklahoma will stay on March 1 and Republicans would be forced to proportionally allocate their national convention delegation to the various candidates.

For now, however, this one is on pause.

Hat tip to Randy Krehbiel at the Tulsa World whose story alerted FHQ to yesterday's hearing.


--
¹ The modifiers are important on the types of allocation in this instance. Oklahoma Republicans have had a winner-take-all by congressional method of delegate allocation in the past, not a true winner-take-all distribution. In addition, the proportional method the party utilized in 2012 was conditionally winner-take-all by congressional district, but functionally proportional by congressional district. If no candidate received a majority of the vote either statewide or in the Sooner state's five congressional districts, then the allocation was proportional within those units (statewide and congressional district). That is not a truly proportional plan in the conventional sense.

Recent Posts:
Kansas Senate Unanimously Passes Bill Repealing Presidential Primary

Amended Kansas Senate Bill Would Now Eliminate Presidential Primary Altogether

Nevada Won't Have a January Presidential Primary in 2016

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Oklahoma Senate Passes Bill to Move Presidential Primary Back Three Weeks

By a vote of 39-2, the Oklahoma state Senate passed SB 233 on Tuesday, March 3. The measure would shift the presidential primary in the Sooner state from the first Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in March.

In 2016, that would mean moving out of the proposed SEC primary slot on March 1 and to March 22. That spot on the calendar is currently occupied by only Arizona. Utah legislation would make that date an option in the Beehive state if passed as well.

The legislation now moves on to the Oklahoma state House.

--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing news of the bill's passage on to FHQ.

Recent Posts:
Bill to Move Illinois Presidential Primary from March to July Introduced

The Slippery Slope in North Carolina Rogue Primary Coverage

March 15 Presidential Primary Bill Sails Through Florida House Committee

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Oklahoma Presidential Primary Bill Gets the Green Light from Senate Committee

The legislation to move the Oklahoma presidential primary back three weeks in 2016 passed the state Senate Rules Committee by an 8-4 vote on Wednesday, February 11. The vote largely broke along party lines with one Republican joining the three Democrats on the committee in dissent.

SB 233 would shift the Oklahoma presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in March. The move may be more about a return to a districted winner-take-all allocation method among Oklahoma Republicans than it is about regional calendar clustering. The Republican Party has traditionally utilized a districted winner-take-all plan, but strayed from that tradition in 2012 to maintain compliance with the new RNC proportionality requirement.

If that is the case, Oklahoma would join Arizona as the only states shifting to later dates on the 2016 presidential primary calendar to retain a winner-take-all allocation method on the Republican side.

The bill now moves to the state Senate floor for consideration.

--
UPDATE (3/3/15): Bill passes Senate


Recent Posts:
Texas Presidential Primary Bill Challenging Carve-Out States Does Not Have State Party Support

Mississippi Presidential Primary Bills Pass

Vermont Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to Same Date as New Hampshire's

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Oklahoma Bill Would Move Presidential Primary Back Three Weeks

The Oklahoma legislature has yet to officially convene, but already there is a bill pre-filed to shift the Sooner state presidential primary back three weeks in 2016.

The legislation, SB 233, was pre-filed/introduced on Thursday, January 15 by state Senator Brian Crain (R-39th, Tulsa). If passed by the legislature and signed into law, the bill would move the  Oklahoma presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in March. For 2016, that would mean moving the Oklahoma primary out of the shadow of not only neighboring Texas but the other southern states endeavoring to cluster in the so-called SEC primary on March 1.

But does shifting the primary back three weeks offer Oklahoma voters relief from the possibility of being lost in the shuffle on March 1 with Texas, Florida, Georgia and Alabama; all with larger Republican delegations -- delegates -- than Oklahoma? It could. The calendar spot three weeks later on March 22 is far less crowded than March 1 looks to be.¹ Arizona is the only other state currently occupying that slot. Less competition among states on March 22 -- at least as of now -- may translate to more attention for Oklahoma and Oklahoma issues should the races for the Democratic and Republican nominations still be unsettled that deep into March.

However, that may not be the only motivation behind the proposed move in Oklahoma. At least part of what drove the Arizona primary from the last Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday following March 15 in legislation passed last year was the preferred method of Republican Party delegate allocation in the the Grand Canyon state.² Arizona Republicans have for the last few cycles utilized a winner-take-all allocation of delegates. To preserve that, Arizona shifted its primary back beyond the March 15 winner-take-all threshold detailed in the RNC rules (Rule 17.a).

Oklahoma could be moving in a similar direction (or at least motivated to move in a similar direction). That does run counter to the traditional delegate allocation method in the Sooner state. It has been common for Oklahoma Republicans to allocate congressional district delegates in a winner-take-all fashion based on the vote tally in each congressional district. The at-large delegates were similarly allocated winner-take-all based on the statewide vote.³ That, too, would comply with the post-March 15 RNC guidelines, but would not mean that the statewide winner would be entitled to all of the Oklahoma delegates (as in Arizona or Florida in 2012).

Hat tip to Richard Winger for passing news of this legislation on to FHQ.

UPDATE (2/12/15): Bill passes Senate Rules Committee
UPDATE (3/3/15): Bill passes Senate

--
¹ As the earliest date on which non-carve-out states can hold delegate selection events, March 1 is attractive not only to southern states attempting to form a regional primary, but all states.

² The other was that the Arizona primary would have violated the RNC rules on timing with a February primary which would have greatly penalized the state's delegation size.

³ That was the method used in 2008. In 2012, the Republican Party in Oklahoma made some attempt to proportionalize the delegate allocation; a move that was beyond the bare minimum required by the RNC rules that governed the 2012 process.


Recent Posts:
Oregon Bill Would Split Presidential, Other Primaries

Has the RNC Set a Later Starting Date for the First Primaries and Caucuses?

Post-2014 State Government Partisan Control and 2016 Presidential Primary Movement

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Electoral College Map (10/26/12)

There were 17 more polls from 12 states released on Friday to close out the work week. Now the race heads into the next to last weekend before election day with an only slightly refined outlook here at FHQ. Three pollsters had multiple surveys released across a series of states and two of the three were internally consistent in terms of the established -- here at FHQ anyway -- order of states.

The series of Purple Strategies polls indicated quite a tight-knit jumble from Ohio at Obama +2 to a tie in Virginia (with Colorado at Obama +1). FHQ has been saying for a while now that Colorado and Virginia were close to tied in the post-Denver polling, so that those two are flip-flopped compared to the FHQ order is a minor difference.

The order is right on in the Rasmussen polling with Wisconsin tied on the left (Obama) end of the distribution and Arizona off to the right end. Both the Florida poll and the Arizona poll were consistent with the FHQ weighted average margin, but the tie in Wisconsin was a bit further off.

Gravis Marketing's polls were a little bit harder to swallow. Given the information we have to this point it is difficult to see Iowa (Obama +4) and North Carolina (Romney +8) being as far apart as they are in terms of absolute distance. Nevada being closer than Iowa is also noteworthy but not necessarily out of the ordinary. However, the North Carolina result seems to off the mark (though in line with the firm's previous poll in the state) compared to other recent polling outside of the last couple of Rasmussen polls there.

New State Polls (10/26/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Rasmussen	10/21	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	44	52	2	+8	+6.69
Colorado	Purple Strategies	10/23-10/25	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	47	46	5	+1	+1.68
Florida	Sunshine State News	10/22-10/24	+/- 3.1%	1001 likely voters	46	51	2	+5	+0.36
Florida	Rasmussen	10/25	+/- 4.0%	750 likely voters	48	50	1	+2	--
Iowa	Gravis Marketing	10/24	+/- 4.3%	517 likely voters	50	46	4	+4	+2.70
Nevada	Gravis Marketing	10/24	+/- 3.2%	955 likely voters	50	49	2	+1	+3.92
New Hampshire	New England College	10/23-10/25	+/- 4.1%	571 likely voters	49	46	4	+3	+3.23
New York	Siena	10/22-10/24	+/- 3.6%	750 likely voters	59	35	6	+24	+24.82
North Carolina	Civitas/National Research	10/20-10/21	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	47	48	5	+1	+1.54
North Carolina	Gravis Marketing	10/24	+/- 2.4%	1723 likely voters	45	53	2	+8	--
Ohio	American Research Group	10/23-10/25	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	49	47	3	+2	+3.02
Ohio	CNN	10/23-10/25	+/- 3.5%	741 likely voters	50	46	4	+4	--
Ohio	Purple Strategies	10/23-10/25	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	46	44	8	+2	--
Oklahoma	Sooner Poll	10/18-10/24	+/- 5.61%	305 likely voters	32.7	58.6	8.6	+25.9	+28.78
Virginia	JZ Analytics	10/23-10/25	+/- 3.5%	834 likely voters	48.0	47.5	4.5	+0.5	+2.11
Virginia	Purple Strategies	10/23-10/25	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	47	47	7	0	--
Wisconsin	Rasmussen	10/25	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	49	49	2	0	+4.56

Polling Quick Hits:
Arizona:
Rasmussen was in the field in the Grand Canyon state a month ago and things have barely changed. The president has ticked up a couple of points and Romney has held steady in a state that has been rather firmly lodged in the Lean Romney category all cycle. ...despite talk of Arizona being a swing state during 2011.

Colorado:
Back in September, Purple Strategies showed Obama up by three. That lead is now down to one point based on a zero-sum exchange of a point between Romney and the president. I'm not going to say that either FHQ or Purple Strategies is correct, but this poll is a mirror image of the weighted average shares for both candidates. Colorado is close but just ever so slightly tips toward Obama right now. But let's not overstate that advantage. Down-the-stretch volatility could easily push Colorado toward Romney on election day.

Florida:
The polling was quite favorable to Governor Romney in Florida today. The Sunshine State News poll -- at Romney +5 -- is perhaps outside of where most of the polling has been in the state following the first debate. However, the poll is more a bookend on the range of polls there than an outlier. Florida continues to stubbornly stick in the Toss Up Obama category, but as is the case with Colorado above, to call the state anything other than a tie (that may be slightly more favorable to Romney than the averages here indicate) is pushing the envelope.

Iowa:
The Gravis poll of Iowa seems fine on its surface. It is the firm's first poll in the Hawkeye state and is within range of the FHQ averages (both margin and individual candidate shares of support). Yet, Gravis now joins Marist and YouGov as the only firms since the first debate to show the race in Iowa outside of one or two points in either direction.

Nevada:

Changes (October 26)
State	Before	After
Nevada	Lean Obama	Toss Up Obama

Unlike in Iowa, where it nailed the Romney share of support relative to the FHQ weighted average, the Gravis survey of Nevada, was right on the Obama share of support -- right at 50% -- and was further off on the Romney share of support. Again, as we described yesterday, Nevada seems to be in a position where the president is hovering above that threshold and Romney is in need of not only catching up but of bringing Obama down some. The catching up seems to be happening, but the bringing down does not. Both candidates, for instance, gained a point each since the last Gravis poll in the Silver state.

That said, Nevada did ease over into the Toss Up Obama category after clinging to the line on the opposite end of the line between the Lean and Toss Up categories.

New Hampshire:
+/-3 seems like the range in the Granite state at the moment. Sure, there are some polls with margins beyond that range, but they are the exceptions post-Denver. This New England College poll meets that criterion. The leads since the first debate have split evenly between the two candidates and the median poll margin value is zero. It is tight in New Hampshire and the averages here at FHQ are playing catch up.

New York:
New York, New York. It is still blue and the Siena poll is hovering right around the weighted average margin FHQ finds in the Empire state.

North Carolina:
As was mentioned at the outset of this post, the Gravis poll is a bit of an outlier compared to most over polls in the Tarheel state of late. That said, the poll is in line with the firm's previous post-Denver poll. Most polls, however, show a much closer race, but one that continues to favor the former Massachusetts governor. Again, North Carolina is the one toss up state that has been tipped toward Romney all along, and there really is little evidence to the contrary in the polls that continue to come out  of the state.

Ohio:
The one factor that is seemingly relevant in the Buckeye state is that the president's leads have contracted some, but continue to be in his direction. Romney simply has not been able to get over the hump in Ohio and that is true across the three polls in the table above. It is a modest advantage, mind you, but it is a persistent lead for the president.

Oklahoma:
Is there really all that much to say about another poll showing Romney crushing the president in the Sooner state? No, not really. Oklahoma is very comfortably red -- one of the few states that did not swing toward the Democrats and Obama in 2008.

Virginia:
Instead of trading leads in the surveys released from Virginia today, the two candidates settled on ties in the two newly added polls. As FHQ has mentioned, that has had the effect of bringing the average down, but very gradually. Both polls indicate a steady share for Obama and show a slight growth for Romney since the last polls conducted in the state.

Wisconsin:
In the Badger state, Rasmussen polling has stayed very close between the two candidates and lingers in the 49-49 area poll after poll. That differs slightly from the 3-4 point leads most other firms have fairly consistently found in Wisconsin in the time since the first debate. The clearest indication about the feelings in the campaigns about the Badger state is how much spending is taking place there and how many visits are being made there compared to other toss up states. Other than that, Obama is at or above 50% in a great many Wisconsin polls; putting the state in the same boat with Nevada.

There was very little change on the map or below on the Spectrum. Consequentially, Nevada slips over into the Toss Up Obama category, but only jus barely. Still, a toss up is a toss up, and Nevada has closed enough now that it is and should be considered as such. At the same time, the leads for Obama there have been consistent and modest. From the Romney perspective, that is attainable, but difficult in the waning days of the campaign.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3 (6)2	WA-12 (158)	NH-4 (257)	MT-3 (159)	ND-3 (55)
HI-4 (10)	NJ-14 (172)	OH-183 (275/281)	GA-16 (156)	KY-8 (52)
RI-4 (14)	CT-7 (179)	IA-6 (281/263)	SD-3 (140)	AL-9 (44)
NY-29 (43)	NM-5 (184)	VA-13 (294/257)	IN-11 (137)	KS-6 (35)
MD-10 (53)	MN-10 (194)	CO-9 (303/244)	SC-9 (126)	AR-6 (29)
IL-20 (73)	OR-7 (201)	FL-29 (332/235)	NE-5 (117)	AK-3 (23)
MA-11 (84)	PA-20 (221)	NC-15 (206)	TX-38 (112)	OK-7 (20)
CA-55 (139)	MI-16 (237)	AZ-11 (191)	WV-5 (74)	ID-4 (13)
DE-3 (142)	WI-10 (247)	MO-10 (180)	LA-8 (69)	WY-3 (9)
ME-4 (146)	NV-6 (253)	TN-11 (170)	MS-6 (61)	UT-6 (6)
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 won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

Shifting to the Watch List, there was again very little change. Nevada moved from one end of the Lean/Toss Up line to the other, but the take home is that it is positioned more closely to that line than the partisan line separating both candidates' shares of states.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up Romney
Georgia	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Minnesota	from Lean Obama	to Strong Obama
Montana	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Nevada	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
Ohio	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
Wisconsin	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
1 The Watch list shows those states in the FHQ Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. The List is not a trend analysis. It indicates which states are straddling the line between categories and which states are most likely to shift given the introduction of new polling data. Montana, for example, is close to being a Lean Romney state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.

Please see:

Frequently Asked Questions about FHQ graduated weighted average methodology.
&
An Update on how to read it in 2012.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/25/12)

The Electoral College Map (10/24/12)

The Electoral College Map (10/23/12)

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Electoral College Map (8/20/12)

Slow Monday.

New State Polls (8/20/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Oklahoma	Sooner Poll	7/26-8/14	+/- 4.4%	495 likely voters	29	58	13	+29	+31.16

Polling Quick Hits:
Oklahoma:
Hmmm.

What can you say about the new Sooner Poll of likely voters in Oklahoma? I can think of a couple. First of all, this is the first poll out of a Strong Romney state in quite a while. The market has been flush with surveys covering the gamut of every state categorization but this one. In that regard, the silver lining is that we have some -- superfluous, perhaps -- confirmation from new data that Obama is not going to win Oklahoma. As I said earlier today, "Everyone put your purple crayons away." The other thing is that Obama gained a couple of points since the last Sooner Poll and Romney dropped a handful. And well, that got things under 30 points for the president, which takes us right back to point number one above.

Status quo. The map is unchanged and ruby red Oklahoma maintains its position deep in the heart of the Republican side of the ledger on the Electoral College Spectrum.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
RI-4 (7)2	NJ-14 (160)	NH-4 (257)	AZ-11 (167)	MS-6 (55)
HI-4 (11)	WA-12 (172)	OH-183 (275/281)	MT-3 (156)	ND-3 (49)
NY-29 (40)	MN-10 (182)	CO-9 (284/263)	GA-16 (153)	AL-9 (46)
VT-3 (43)	NM-5 (187)	VA-13 (297/254)	WV-5 (137)	KY-8 (37)
MD-10 (53)	CT-7 (194)	IA-6 (303/241)	IN-11 (132)	KS-6 (29)
CA-55 (108)	OR-7 (201)	FL-29 (332/235)	SC-9 (121)	AK-3 (23)
MA-11 (119)	PA-20 (221)	NC-15 (206)	LA-8 (112)	OK-7 (20)
IL-20 (139)	WI-10 (231)	MO-10 (191)	NE-5 (104)	ID-4 (13)
DE-3 (142)	NV-6 (237)	TN-11 (181)	AR-6 (99)	WY-3 (9)
ME-4 (146)	MI-16 (253)	SD-3 (170)	TX-38 (93)	UT-6 (6)
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 won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The Watch List? I'll tell you what: If Oklahoma ever enters the Watch List, Obama will have won the election or the polling industry has crumbled. Neither's happening.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Connecticut	from Strong Obama	to Lean Obama
Georgia	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Michigan	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
Missouri	from Toss Up Romney	to Lean Romney
Nevada	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
New Mexico	from Strong Obama	to Lean Obama
North Carolina	from Toss Up Romney	to Toss Up Obama
West Virginia	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Wisconsin	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Please see:

Frequently Asked Questions about FHQ graduated weighted average methodology.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/17/12)

The Electoral College Map (8/16/12)

2012 Starts in Tampa

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.