2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: UTAH

UTAH

Election type: primary
Date: March 3
Number of delegates: 35 [6 at-large, 4 PLEOs, 19 congressional district, 6 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional caucuses
Delegate selection plan


--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.

That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.

Utah, like ten other states for the 2020 cycle, shifted from a caucus in 2016 to a primary. The state legislature built in the funding for the primary in 2017 and then pushed the date of the contest up three weeks from late March to Super Tuesday in 2019. The Beehive state Democrats, then consistent with the later encouragements from the DNC, opted for a more participatory election in 2020 than has been the case in Utah for much of the post-reform era when they have held caucuses.

Additionally, the Utah delegation shrunk for 2020 as compared to 2016. Democrats in the state lost 3 district delegates and one at-large delegate, but gained two superdelegates.


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)
Utah's 19 congressional district delegates are split across 4 congressional districts and have a variation of five delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Utah Democrats are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 2 delegates
CD2 - 6 delegates
CD3 - 4 delegates
CD4 - 7 delegates*

*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.


Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.

[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]


Selection
All 29 pledged delegates in Utah are chosen at the April 24-25 state convention based on the results in the respective congressional districts for district delegate and statewide results for PLEO delegates and then at-large delegates.

Importantly, if a candidate drops out of the race before the selection of statewide delegates, then any statewide delegates allocated to that candidate will be reallocated to the remaining candidates. If Candidate X is in the race in late April when the Utah statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the March primary would be reallocated to Candidate X. [This same feature is not something that applies to district delegates.] This reallocation only applies if a candidate has fully dropped out. Candidates with suspended campaigns are still candidates and can fill those slots allocated them.

Utah Republicans Will Hold a 2020 Presidential Primary

UtahPolicy is reporting that the Utah Republican Party is planning to stick with its presidential primary for the 2020 cycle. Unlike the handful of Republican state parties that have opted out of primaries and caucuses during the summer months of 2019, Beehive state Republicans are carrying over their 2016 process and actually upgrading to a state-run presidential primary for 2020.

But everything else will remain the same. That means that Republican candidates will face the same thresholds for delegate allocation in 2020 that were in place for 2016. If a candidate wins a majority of support statewide, then the allocation is winner-take-all. Otherwise, the allocation is proportional to candidates clearing a 15 percent qualifying threshold. However, should no candidate win a majority and fewer than three candidates break 15 percent, then the threshold disappears and the allocation if truly proportional. It seems likely at this time that President Trump will clear that majority threshold in 2020 and trigger the winner-take-all allocation.

The one thing that is different in Utah for 2020 is the date of the primary. It will fall on Super Tuesday, three weeks earlier than would have been the case under the primary law under with the 2016 presidential primary operated.

But the bottom line in Utah is that there was no mechanism in state law or state party bylaw to allow the state party to opt out of the presidential primary. That drove the decision.


NOTE: Counter to what the Utah GOP chair, Derek Brown, said in the UtahPolicy article, this is not the first time Utah's primary has fallen on Super Tuesday. The Utah primary was part of the massive Super Tuesday logjam on February 5 in 2008.



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

Utah Democrats Will Use New Presidential Primary Option for 2020

With the release of a draft of its 2020 delegate selection plan, the Utah Democratic Party has confirmed that it will utilize the new presidential primary signed into law recently by Governor Gary Herbert (R).

The confirmation means that Utah Democrats will return to a primary for delegate allocation for the first time since the 2008 cycle. The state party opted for caucuses in 2012 when there was no national party rules-compliant primary option. The February date in state statute was too early and the late June option added that cycle for state Republicans was too late. Both parties used caucuses in 2016 when the presidential primary was not funded by the state.

Like the last time Utah Democrats used a primary for delegate allocation in 2008, the election will fall on Super Tuesday. In the Democratic delegate apportionment formula, Utah is not delegate-rich, falling behind ten of the 13 states now slated to hold delegate selection events on Super Tuesday.

Finally, in the switch from 2016 caucuses to 2020 primary, Utah becomes part of another trend. The Beehive state now joins Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska and Washington state as states to have opted into state government-run primary elections for the 2020 cycle.

--
The Utah Democratic Party decision opt into the primary will be reflected on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.



Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

3/14/19: Utah House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

4/1/19: Utah Presidential Primary Shifts to Super Tuesday


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

Utah Presidential Primary Shifts to Super Tuesday

On Wednesday, March 27, Governor Gary Herbert (R) signed SB 242 into law.

The bill reestablished and the law now explicitly schedules a presidential primary in the Beehive state for the first Tuesday in March during presidential election years. Utah will rejoin Super Tuesday for the first time since the 2008 cycle when the primary coincided with a de facto national primary day with over twenty contests in both parties.

Utah at this time becomes the thirteenth state to schedule a primary or caucus for Super Tuesday. Of the 13, Utah will have fewer delegates at stake in the Democratic process than ten of the Super Tuesday states or territories. Only Vermont and Democrats Abroad will offer fewer delegates on Super Tuesday. Typically, that has been a combination -- few delegates at stake on a date that offers many more delegate-rich states -- that has led to smaller states getting lost in the shuffle.

--
The Utah presidential primary change will be reflected on the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

3/14/19: Utah House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill


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

Utah House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

On the final day of the 2019 regular legislative session, the Utah House passed SB 242 by a vote of 66-1 after no discussion on the floor. The measure reestablishes, funds and schedules the presidential primary in the Beehive state for the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday.

The change would align the Utah presidential primary with contests in 11 other states and territories (at this time) on the 2020 presidential primary calendar if Governor Gary Herbert (R) signs it into law.

This would potentially be the first time since the 2008 cycle that both parties have had the option of a primary in Utah. It was also held on Super Tuesday that year on February 5. Four years later, only Republicans in Utah held a late June primary; one that would have been non-compliant under DNC rules in 2012 had the party had a competitive nomination race that cycle. Instead Utah Democrats allocated and selected delegates to the national convention in a caucus/convention system. The legislature refused to fund the primary for the 2016 cycle and did not act on legislation to move the February primary option into compliance with national party rules.

SB 242 now heads to Governor Herbert for his consideration.



Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill


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

Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

In the waning days of the 2019 regular session, the Utah legislature is in hurry up mode. The state Senate today suspended the rules on required third readings of bills before blitzing through all the legislation remaining before it that originated in the upper chamber.

That included the first substitute to SB 242, the bill to reestablish a presidential primary in the Beehive state and schedule it for March 3. State Senator Curtis Bramble (R-16th, Utah/Wasatch) quickly introduced the bill on the floor and got an immediate thumbs up on the caucus-to-primary transition from Democratic Senate caucus manager, Senator Derek Kitchen (D-2nd, Salt Lake), who cited the last two cycles with troublesome caucuses on the Democratic side in Utah. The only question Bramble received on the bill concerned its fiscal impact. The $3 million price tag cited in response to Senator Lyle Hillyard's (R-25th, Cache) query was enough to push him into the nay column when the bill came up for a vote.

But Hillyard was only joined by one other member in opposition to the measure, and the bill passed 25-2 (with two additional members absent). SB 242 now moves over to the House side. The session comes to a close on Thursday, March 14.



Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah


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

Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

With little discussion on Friday, March 8, the Utah Senate Government Operations Committee unanimously sent SB 242 on to the full state Senate for its consideration.

The committee favorably reported the measure to reestablish a presidential primary in the Beehive state and schedule it for March 3 for the 2020 cycle. The state was without a presidential primary in 2016 and it has been since the 2008 cycle that both major parties in Utah used an available presidential primary in lieu of caucuses. The Utah presidential primary was on Super Tuesday in 2008 as well.

Technically, the bill passed and favorably reported was a substitute version of the original bill introduced by Senator Curtis Bramble (R-16th, Utah/Wasatch). But the change was made in a section concerning the canvassing process and not when or whether the primary would be held or funded.


Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill


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

Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

With the 2019 Utah state legislative session in its waning days, legislation has been introduced to schedule the newly funded presidential primary in the Beehive state for Super Tuesday.

State Senator Curtis Bramble (R-16th, Utah/Wasatch) has filed SB 242. The bill would not only schedule the presidential primary funded during the 2017 session for the first Tuesday in March, but would make some other technical corrections to the presidential primary code that has remained as part of the Utah statutes.

Mainly, those corrections consist of a couple of matters with respect the timing of the presidential primary. First, it strikes the outdated language referring to the contest as the Western States Presidential Primary, an artifact from the early 2000s when the presidential primary was first created. But second and more importantly, the legislation also removes a clause -- "the the legislature makes the appropriation" -- that makes the the default funding mechanism conditional on the legislature. Of course, the legislature retains the ability to end those appropriations, but now it is a given rather than requiring the legislature to take the proactive step of adding the funding.

The legislative session ends on March 14, so this one will have to move quickly.



Related:
2/25/19: Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill


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

Legislation Would Push Reestablished Utah Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

Legislation is in the works in Utah to set the date of the newly (re)funded presidential primary in Utah for Super Tuesday 2020.

Senator Curtis Bramble (R-16th, Utah/Wasatch), the floor sponsor of the House legislation two years ago that appropriated money for a 2020 presidential primary, is back to complete the task that was in 2017 left for the 2019 legislature to consider: where on the calendar to schedule the event. While Bramble is seeking to align the newly constituted presidential primary with other delegate selection events in at least 10 states, UtahPolicy.com reports that elections officials in the Beehive state are advocating for a later March or even April date. There is more open space on the 2020 calendar in April and the primary would not conflict with the state legislative session.

Utah is no stranger to Super Tuesday. The state held a Friday-after-Super-Tuesday primary in 2000 alongside neighbors Colorado and Wyoming and moved the rest of the way up to Super Tuesday in 2004. The primary remained there as part of the de facto national primary that formed and took place on February 5, 2008. Technically that February date carried over to the 2012 cycle, but the legislature added an option to consolidate the presidential primary with the late June primary for other offices.

Both the February and June options are now included in the state's statute creating a Western States Presidential Primary, but are only in effect if the legislature appropriates money to conduct the election. And it should be noted that both dates are currently non-compliant with national party rules. The February date is too early (and would fall the day after the caucuses in Iowa in 2020) and the June date is too late. That along with the lack of state legislative appropriation for a primary factored into the decisions by the state parties in 2015 to abandon primaries in favor of caucuses for the 2016 cycle.

2020 will be different for Utah. The primary option was funded in 2017, but no date was set then. Bramble's forthcoming legislation will begin those deliberations. But a Super Tuesday date would align the Utah primary with potentially the newly reestablished Colorado primary.


A tip of the cap to Bryan Schott at UtahPolicy.com for sharing the news of Utah bill with FHQ.


--
Related:
3/7/19: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Utah

3/11/19 (a): Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Senate Committee Stage in Utah

3/11/19 (b): Utah Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill


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

[2017-18 State Legislative Review: Proposed Primary Movement] Utah Will Have a Presidential Primary Option in 2020

This post is part of a series examining efforts -- both attempted and successful -- to move presidential primary election dates for 2020 during the now-adjourning 2017-2018 state legislative sessions in capitols across the country. While shifts tend to be rare in sessions immediately following a presidential election, introduced legislation is more common albeit unsuccessful more often than not.

--
For much of the post-2016 period, FHQ, in looking ahead to the 2020 cycle, has often raised the caucus-to-primary shifts in Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota. All three formerly caucus states in various ways laid the groundwork in 2016 for 2020 presidential primaries. But that trio of states is not alone in the switch.

In its 2017 session, the Utah state legislature passed legislation -- which was ultimately signed into law -- to provide for a state-funded and run presidential primary option in the Beehive state for the 2020 cycle. And the motivation for HB 204 was borne out of the chaotic Utah caucuses of 2016 the turnout of which overwhelmed both parties in the state. Both the primary sponsor of the bill -- Representative Patrice Arent (D-36th, Millcreek) -- and others providing testimony in committee hearings for the legislation recounted stories of long lines, lack of parking, and understaffed caucus locations in both parties' processes. That prompted Rep. Arent to introduce the bill to "leave running elections to the experts -- our state elections office and the county clerks. Because political parties should be in the business of winning elections, not run[ning] them."

While that sentiment was not exactly shared by the two political parties in the state, both the chairs of the Utah Republican Party, James Evans, and the Utah Democratic Party, Peter Carroon, voiced support for the move. Evans, in particular, supported the state providing for a presidential primary election, but leaving it up to the state parties to opt into using the election as a means of allocating national convention delegates.

The state did not fund a presidential primary in either of the 2012 or 2016 cycles. It did for 2012 give parties the option of using the June state primary for expressing presidential preference to allocate delegates. The Utah Republican Party opted into in that June primary in 2012, but its late June date was non-compliant (too late) with both parties timing rules in 2016. A failed effort to move (from February to March) and fund a separate presidential primary in 2016 occurred in the same winter/spring 2015 time period that the Utah Republican Party was signaling an inclination to conduct the delegate allocation/selection process through a caucus/convention system.

For 2020, Utah Republicans, with it uncertain to unlikely that President Trump will face any competition for the Republican presidential nomination, will retain the ability to hold caucuses. However, both state parties will have the ability to avoid the caucus chaos of 2016 with an option of a state-run 2020 presidential primary. The state will put up some funds for the primary, but local/county  governments will seemingly bear the brunt of most of the costs.

--
What is and was left unclear in 2017 effort to fund a 2020 presidential primary is when that primary will be held. Currently, state parties have two options on that front. The Western States Presidential Primary is scheduled for the first Tuesday in February. If and only if that option is not funded by the state -- and it was not in either 2012 or 2016 -- then the state parties can opt into the late June state primary. But neither date fits into the window -- first Tuesday in March to mid-June (different June cutoffs for both parties) -- allowed by the national parties for states to conduct their delegate selection events.

That means that with the funding now there, the Utah legislature will have to revise the date of the 2020 presidential primary during its 2019 session.

It should be noted that the legislation -- HB 204 -- signed into law funds/requires a "presidential primary", but not the Western States Presidential Primary specifically. Now, that requirement does appear in the Western State Presidential Primary section of the Utah Code, but is not exactly a requirement for that February contest. FHQ raises this uncertainty with respect to its treatment of the Utah presidential primary on the 2020 presidential primary calendar. The Utah legislature will set the date in 2019, and for now, FHQ is categorizing the primary in the Beehive state as having no date (due to the lack of clarity in the code). It is a fine distinction, but FHQ categorizes Utah as in need of setting a date and not in need of changing a non-compliant date.


--
The Utah law has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.

The Electoral College Map (11/3/16)

New State Polls (11/3/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Saguaro Strategies	10/29-10/31	+/-3.0%	2229 likely voters	45	44	0	+1	--
Arizona	Marist/NBC/Wall Street Journal	10/30-11/1	+/-3.7%	719 likely voters	40	45	1	+5	+1.46
Arkansas	University of Arkansas	10/18-10/27	+/-4.1%	585 likely voters	31	51	18	+20	+11.64
California	Field	10/25-10/31	--	1498 likely voters	53	33	7	+20	+22.88
Colorado	University of Colorado	10/17-10/24	--	1004 adults	44	34	0	+10	--
Colorado	Magellan	11/1-11/2	+/-4.38%	500 likely voters	44	38	7	+6	+4.18
Florida	Opinion Savvy	11/1-11/2	+/-4.0%	603 likely voters	49	45	2	+4	+2.09
Georgia	Marist/NBC/Wall Street Journal	10/30-11/1	+/-3.7%	707 likely voters	44	45	1	+1	+3.05
Michigan	Mitchell	11/2	+/-2.89%	1150 likely voters	47	44	2	+3	+7.04
New Hampshire	MassINC/WBUR	10/29-11/1	+/-4.4%	500 likely voters	39	40	4	+1	--
New Hampshire	American Research Group	10/31-11/2	+/-4.0%	600 likely voters	43	48	4	+5	--
New Hampshire	Suffolk/Boston Globe	10/31-11/2	+/-4.4%	500 likely voters	42	42	8	+/-0	+5.09
North Carolina	Trafalgar	10/27-11/1	+/-2.88%	1150 likely voters	44	49	3	+5	+1.45
Texas	Marist/NBC/Wall Street Journal	10/30-11/1	+/-3.8%	679 likely voters	40	49	1	+9	--
Texas	Emerson	10/31-11/1	+/-3.6%	700 likely voters	35	49	8	+14	+7.51
Utah	Rasmussen	10/29-10/31	+/-4.0%	750 likely voters	31	42	2	+11	--
Utah	Monmouth	10/30-11/2	+/-4.9%	402 likely voters	31	37	2	+6	--
Utah	Emerson	11/1-11/2	+/-3.0%	1000 likely voters	20	40	8	+20	+9.861
1Excluding the two head-to-head online panel surveys in Utah lowers Trump's average advantage there to 8.00 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 21% in the Rassmussen survey, 24% support in the Monmouth survey and 28% in the Emerson poll. He currently has an FHQ graduated weighted average share of support of 22.81%, trailing both Trump and Clinton.

--
Changes (11/3/16)
5 days to go.

Another fairly busy day brought 18 surveys from eleven different states. For the most part the drift toward Trump continued, but that trend was clearer in some states than others. It was a bad day for Clinton, for example, in New Hampshire where a trio of polls found her tied or behind the New York businessman. What is interesting about New Hampshire is that it had been rather impervious to Trump for Clinton. Through that late September period before the first debate when the former Secretary of State's fortunes were ebbing, her support in the Granite state barely budged. That is different now. Although the tide has turned, the echo of the older data is keeping Clinton's advantage there comfortable enough. It is notable, though, that Pennsylvania and New Hampshire swapped spots on the Electoral College Spectrum. Typically those within category shifts are pretty minor, but any movement among states near or next to the tipping point state is worth highlighting.

But that tipping point state -- Colorado -- is back on the list of states with new polls today. While the Centennial state turned in a decent day for Trump yesterday -- pulling closer but not into the lead -- it reversed course today with a couple of wider margins in Clinton's favor. Yes, one of those is dated, but that poll plus another Clinton +6 was enough to ease Colorado back onto the Watch List. If Trump is going to get to 270, the shortest path will be to sweep the toss ups and take the two states above -- Colorado and New Hampshire -- where the durability of Clinton's leads has faltered to some degree. That is still a tall order, but not as tall as it once was. And mind you, that path heads straight up to the top of the middle column in the Spectrum in order.

The only other change was in Utah. The Beehive state switched places with Indiana on the Spectrum at the far end of the Lean Trump category. It is worth noting that Trump has consolidated enough support in Utah to push back within range of 40 percent. No, that does not look great, but when one's main rivals in the state are roughly splitting the remaining 60 percent, then one is in good enough shape to win. [Incidentally, that same sort of Trump consolidation seems to be at work in Texas. But instead of topping out at 40 percent as in Utah, he is closing in on 50 percent. Gone are those recent polls that had Trump and Clinton tight in the low to mid-40s in the Lone Star state.]

The map and the 340-198 electoral vote distribution remain the same as they have, but that is more a function of there being no new surveys in Ohio and Nevada and a favorable Clinton poll in North Carolina. If any states are going to flip given the current trajectory of the race, then it will be those three. Florida remains slightly more insulated, but could be considered a fourth state, taking things right up to that tipping point.


--

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)	NM-5 (188)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	IN-11 (104)	NE-53 (41)
CA-55 (86)	MN-10 (198)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	UT-6 (93)	KY-8 (36)
NY-29 (115)	MI-16 (214)	OH-18 (340 | 216)	MS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20+13 (136)	ME-23 (216)	IA-6 (198)	KS-6 (81)	ID-4 (19)
DE-3 (139)	WI-10 (226)	AZ-11 (192)	SD-3 (75)	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
Colorado	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Indiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
New Hampshire	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Ohio	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
Oregon	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (11/2/16)

The Electoral College Map (11/1/16)

Happy Halloween, 2016

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