The Electoral College Map (7/28/16)

Latest Update

Polling Quick Hits:
If Wednesday brought red state polls, (late Wednesday and early) Thursday brought a series of surveys from traditionally blue states.

California
One could look at the new PPIC survey of California and at first glance see Clinton up 16 points before moving on. That isn't the wrong conclusion. However, there are a couple of factors to point out about this one. First, both Clinton and Trump dropped relative to their positions in the last poll from PPIC in May. And it should come as no surprise that the reason is due to the addition of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Second, the addition of the third party candidates is noteworthy because they hit Trump more than Clinton from May to July.

This is a phenomenon worth keeping tabs on. Some have found the third party candidates drawing more from Clinton in national polls and there have been hints of a similar trend in battleground state polling as well.  Still, there are not a lot of surveys out of reliably red and blue states at this point. That raises some potentially interesting questions. Notably, if the California trend holds elsewhere, does that mean minority partisans are more likely to consider their options while majority partisans stick with the presumptive statewide winner? Yes, yes. It the in-house transition from one poll to another, but it poses an interesting question.


Delaware:
Further east, Fairleigh Dickinson has the first look at the state of the race in the First state. Like polling in other states, the picture is one of the two major party nominees underperforming their counterparts from 2012. The undecided number is high (12 percent) as is the support in the survey going to Johnson and other (14 percent). Together, that represents a big chunk of the respondents in the poll. Nonetheless, the earliest glance at Delaware is one that has it within the Strong Clinton category at FHQ.


Oregon:
Back west in the Beaver state, Clout Research weighs in with another poll. Clout is the only survey shop to show Trump close in Oregon. And as was the case with the California poll above, the addition of third party candidates from May to July has weighed on Trump support more than Clinton's. It is still close through Clout's lens, but Trump's narrow May lead is now a small deficit (3 points) in July with Johnson and Stein included. Comparatively, the other polls in the state are more generous to Clinton, showing a wider margin more in line with where Oregon has ended up in November's past.


Pennsylvania:
The only true battleground state survey of the day comes from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Suffolk's first trip into the field there shows a Clinton lead (+9) consistent with the recent results from NBC/Marist. But while it is a bit rosier in the wider context of polling in the Keystone state, that may be a function of the data being gathered during the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. What is certain is that the poll further solidified Pennsylvania's position just inside the Toss Up Clinton category here at FHQ. It is locked in a cluster with New Hampshire and Virginia -- two states that displaced Pennsylvania as the tipping points in the electoral college spectrum -- just a fraction of a point from the Lean Clinton category (see Watch List below).


Vermont:
It is hard to know where to start with the initial poll of the Green Mountain state from VPR/Castleton. It is hard not to notice that Clinton is running about 30 points behind Obama 2012 in Vermont. But, but the same token, it is just as difficult not to see that Trump is in third in the state behind both Clinton and "someone else". Then again, it is also not a stretch of the imagination to determine who might be the stand-in for "someone else" for most respondents in this poll. Although he is not named, favorite son, Bernie Sanders is very likely depressing that Clinton number as the nomination process comes to an official close this week.

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
HI-42 (7)	NJ-14 (175)	VA-133 (269 | 282)	UT-6 (158)	LA-8 (55)
MD-10 (17)	DE-3 (178)	NH-43 (273 | 269)	AK-3 (152)	SD-3 (47)
RI-4 (21)	WI-10 (188)	IA-6 (279 | 265)	IN-11 (149)	ND-3 (44)
MA-11 (32)	NM-5 (193)	FL-29 (308 | 259)	MO-10 (138)	ID-4 (41)
VT-3 (35)	OR-7 (200)	NC-15 (323 | 230)	TX-38 (128)	NE-5 (37)
CA-55 (90)	CT-7 (207)	OH-18 (341 | 215)	KS-6 (90)	AL-9 (32)
NY-29 (119)	ME-4 (211)	AZ-11 (197)	TN-11 (84)	KY-8 (23)
IL-20 (139)	CO-9 (220)	NV-6 (186)	SC-9 (73)	WV-5 (15)
MN-10 (149)	MI-16 (236)	GA-16 (180)	AR-6 (64)	OK-7 (10)
WA-12 (161)	PA-20 (256)	MS-6 (164)	MT-3 (58)	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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 282 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 New Hampshire and Virginia are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Virginia and Trump, New Hampshire, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College.

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.

*Due to the way in which states with no polling are treated in 2016 by FHQ -- uniform swing -- South Carolina has seen its "average" rise. In the last month, as more polling data has been accrued, that average uniform swing has shrunk from nearly three points to just a shade more than one point toward Clinton. That development has pushed South Carolina closer to the Strong Trump category and onto the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Alaska	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Arizona	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Arkansas	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
New Jersey	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Tennessee	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Utah	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Virginia	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/27/16)

2016 Democratic National Convention Presidential Nomination Roll Call Tally

The Electoral College Map (7/26/16)

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

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: VERMONT

This is part thirteen 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. 

VERMONT

Election type: primary
Date: March 1 
Number of delegates: 16 [10 at-large, 3 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (with majority (50%) winner-take-all trigger)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 20%
2012: proportional primary

-- 

Changes since 2012
There are only so many ways to allocate 16 delegates in a state with just one congressional district. Four years ago, Vermont Republicans met the less onerous RNC proportionality requirement by allocating its (11) at-large delegates in a proportionate manner to candidates with more than 20% of the vote statewide. The congressional district delegates (and automatic delegates -- 6 delegates total) were allocated in a winner-take-all fashion to the statewide winner as was allowed (considered proportional overall) in 2012.

The winner-take-all part of the 2012 Vermont delegate selection plan is not consistent with the changes the RNC has made to the national delegate selection rules for 2016; the stricter definition of proportionality. And that necessitated some form of change on the state level in a number of states. Rather than continue to make a distinction between the types of delegates and how they are allocated, for 2016, Green Mountain state Republicans have opted to pool all 16 delegates and allocate them proportionally based on the statewide vote.

And really, that was their only play if they were to comply with RNC rules given the March 1 presidential primary date. There are not multiple congressional districts in Vermont, and thus the single district vote is the statewide vote. As such, that synchronicity between state and district eliminates the ability to separately and proportionally allocate two different types of delegates (at-large and congressional district). For Vermont, then, there is no real meaningful distinction for the purposes of allocation. They are all just delegates.


Thresholds
The Vermont rules on 2016 delegate allocation set the bar for qualifying for delegates at 20% of the statewide vote. Candidates above that threshold are eligible for a share of the 16 delegates. Those below are left out. Importantly, though, there are triggers that would make Vermont a winner-take-all state. A candidate who receives more than 50% of the vote would be entitled to all 16 Vermont delegates. The usual field size caveats apply. The larger the field of candidates is on March 1, the less likely it is that one candidate will approach the 50% vote share mark. As the field is winnowed, however, that likelihood increases.

Additionally, there are scenarios where a crowded field might also force a winner-take-all allocation in Vermont. That happens in the situation in which only one candidate surpasses the 20% threshold. If there is only one candidate north of 20% then that candidate would -- like the candidate over 50% -- claim all of the Republican delegates from the Green Mountain state. There is nothing in the Vermont rules prohibiting such a backdoor winner-take-all allocation, and furthermore there are no detailed description of the "one candidate over 20%" contingency.

What the rules do lay out are plans for a situation in which no candidate receives more than 20% of the Vermont primary vote. In the event that no candidate is over 20%, the threshold drops to 15%. If no candidate is over 15% the threshold is lowered to 10%. Different states have dealt with this "no candidate over the minimum qualification threshold" differently. Some states, like Texas, define a specific number of (top) candidates to receive delegates if no one reaches the threshold. Others, like Tennessee (with its statewide, at-large delegates) or Minnesota, eliminate the minimum threshold altogether in the event that no candidate is above the threshold.

Vermont, though, is like Georgia (with its statewide, at-large delegates). Both have created a graduated threshold that decreases incrementally, but still maintains a minimum qualifying threshold. That moving target has implications. The cut points in the graduated threshold are somewhat arbitrary, and that has a decided impact on how delegates are ultimately allocated. If the winner finished at 15.1% and the runner-up was at 14.9%, the Vermont threshold would decrease to 15% and the winner would take all of the delegates despite winning only narrowly. And that is a different result than if the threshold dropped to 10% initially. In that case, the runner-up would claim some delegates.

FHQ understands the obvious counter to this: "Well, we're only talking about 16 delegates here." Absolutely, but a 16-0 delegate advantage is a lot better than a 9-7 edge and that is even more true when discussing states with a larger delegate cache. The point to all of this is that the moving target threshold is not without potentially significant ramifications.


Delegate allocation
The Vermont delegates -- all 16 delegates in total -- will be proportionally allocated to candidates with a vote share above the 20% mark. There are no polls that have been conducted in Vermont and the state of the Republican presidential nomination race there. Our best option then for exploring the impact of the rules in the Green Mountain state is to look at how the 2012 allocation would have been different had the 2016 rules been in place. In 2012 there were three candidates with a vote share greater than 20%. Mitt Romney claimed nine delegates and Ron Paul and Rick Santorum evenly split the remaining eight.¹  Applying the 2016 rules to 2012 results, Vermont's allocation would look something like this²:

• Romney (40%) -- 7.600 delegates
• Paul (26%) -- 4.874 delegates
• Santorum (24%) -- 4.526 delegates

• Gingrich (8%) -- 0 delegates
• Huntsman (2%) -- 0 delegates
• Perry (1%³) -- 0 delegates

In this case, all three candidates who qualified for delegates would round up, but that would lead to an overallocation of delegates. Rounding Romney (8), Paul (5) and Santorum (5) up would allocate 18 instead of 17 delegates. Under Vermont Republican Party rules, any overallocation is squared by subtracting the necessary number -- one delegate in this case -- away from the qualified candidate with the fewest votes.⁴ That would yield an allocation as follows:

• Romney -- 8 delegates
• Paul -- 5 delegates
• Santorum 4 delegates

Compared to 2012, the allocation under 2016 rules would shift one delegate away from Romney's total and add it to Paul's. A minor change at best. That, however, is more a function of Vermont's small number of delegates than anything else. As the delegation size increases, so, too, does the impact.


Binding
All 16 Vermont Republican delegates are bound through the first ballot at the national convention according to the provisions of Rule 11.i of the state party bylaws. The release process entails a delegate being freed if their candidate does not have their name placed in nomination at the national convention or if their candidate has suspended their campaign or withdrawn from the race.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ Vermont Republicans had 17 delegates in 2012 and has subsequently lost a bonus delegate for 2016, dropping their total to 16.

² Again, this is a simulation of the impact of the Vermont rules for 2016. Note also, that this simulation will be done using the 17 delegates from 2012. That will allow a better comparison of the impact of the rules.

³ The total sums to more than 100% because the percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. The allocation is based on the full, voted-based percentage.

⁴ The Vermont rules also account for an under-allocation. Should, after rounding, there be an allocation of fewer delegates than are available, the unallocated delegate(s) are awarded to the top vote-getter.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: TEXAS

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: TENNESSEE

The Real Import of Rule 40 in 2016

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

Vermont Tries a Different Tack in Challenging New Hampshire's First in the Nation Status

With legislation to move the Vermont presidential primary up to coincide with the New Hampshire primary stuck in neutral, a couple of Democratic legislators in the Green Mountain state are taking an alternate approach. Last week, Rep. David Deen (D-136th, Putney) and Rep. Michael Mrowicki (D-138th, Putney) introduced Joint (House) Resolution 11. The measure is a scaled back version of the previously filed bills in the state House and Senate. Instead of giving the power to set the date of the primary to the Vermont secretary of state, the proposed resolution would request that the office of the secretary of state study the feasibility of shifting into an earlier New Hampshire-aligned presidential primary election.

If the resolution is passed, the secretary of state's office would, again, be requested to complete the study before December 15, 2015. If the study takes that long -- completion in mid-December -- that would give the state a very small window in which to prepare for an earlier than usual primary for the 2016 cycle. And that depends on the Secretary of State Jim Condos actually going along with the plan. He was skeptical of the move to encroach on New Hampshire's first in the nation turf after the state Senate bill became public and said as much in the original committee hearing for the bill back in February.

The resolution/study route is not a unique one when it comes to presidential primary positioning. Indiana attempted to do something similar with its later (May) primary during its 2009 legislative session.

Recent Posts:
Another "January" Presidential Primary Bill Out of Nevada

Arkansas Senate Passes Bill to Create Separate March Presidential Primary

Michigan Democrats Opt In to March 8 Presidential Primary

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

Democrats Pushing Challenge to New Hampshire Primary in Vermont House

Identical legislation to the Vermont state Senate bill proposing to schedule the presidential primary in the Green Mountain state for the same date as the New Hampshire primary has now been introduced in the Vermont state House.

Like S76, the House version -- H 239 -- calls for the Vermont secretary of state to schedule the presidential primary for the same date as the first in the nation presidential primary in New Hampshire. What is different on the House side is who filed the legislation. Instead of being pushed by a Progressive Party legislator (a party loosely aligned with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)), the House bill was introduced and co-sponsored by four majority party Democrats. Neither the bill's sponsor Rep. Sam Young (D-121st, Orleans-Caledonia), nor the three co-sponsors (Rep. Jim Condon (D-69th, Chittenden), Jim Masland (D-82nd, Windsor-Orange) and George W. Till (D-143rd, Chittenden)) are among the Democratic leadership in the House, but all four sit on the House Ways and Means Committee. That means there is no one sponsor to directly shepherd the bill through the Government Operations Committee (to which it has been referred). However, since the House Ways and Means Committee primarily deals with revenue coming into the state, it would seem clear that the rationale behind the bill is much the same as that espoused by the Senate version's author: to provide the state with an economic shot in the arm.

Regardless of who is promoting the bill, challenging New Hampshire's status, as FHQ has pointed out, is easier said than done. All that has changed is that there is a second version attempting to pull this off.

Recent Posts:
March Presidential Primary Bill Moves Forward in Washington State

New Mexico March Primary Bill Meets Committee Roadblock

North Carolina Republican Party Chair Calls for March 1 Presidential Primary

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

Vermont Primary Bill Sponsor After a "Shot in the Arm"

Morgan True at VTDigger has the motivation behind Sen. Anthony Pollina's (P/D-28th, North Middlesex) effort to sync the Vermont presidential primary with the first in the nation primary next-door in New Hampshire. And it is standard fare.

While Pollina downplayed any benefits Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) might gain from an early home state primary, he did say that an earlier primary would be an "economic shot in the arm" to the state. Pollina added:

"There’s a lot of money generated during primary season, and there’s no reason why Vermont shouldn’t reap some of the benefits of the early primary.”

He also indicated that the presidential nomination process would benefit from “hav[ing] more liberal and progressive voices heard”. Neither of those explanations is foreign to states that shuffle on the calendar or those that have traditionally been left behind in the process (for whatever reason).

As True notes there are already reservations from the would-be empowered secretary of state's office, the entity charged with carrying out the election under the provisions of the bill if passed. Those logistical concerns do not even directly address whether the expected financial windfall of the earlier primary would offset the costs of separating the primary from the traditional first Tuesday in March town meeting day that has more often run concurrently with the presidential primary, beauty contest or not.


Recent Posts:
Bernie Sanders and Vermont's Attempt at Challenging the New Hampshire Primary

Utah Bill Would Shift February Presidential Primary Option Back to March

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Passes State Senate, but...

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

Bernie Sanders and Vermont's Attempt at Challenging the New Hampshire Primary

Favorite sons and their influence on state delegate selection rules are in the news these days. But it is not all Rand Paul requesting Kentucky Republicans to switch to a caucuses/convention process.

News out of Vermont that legislation had been proposed to move the Green Mountain state presidential primary to the same date as the New Hampshire primary came out of left field the other day. For starters, Vermont has never really been a big player in the presidential nomination process. The state is just not that delegate-rich, and it has always taken a backseat to its eastern neighbor on that front. In recognition of that Vermont has not been much of a primary calendar mover over the years. Since abandoning beauty contest primaries and/or caucuses after 1992 for binding primaries in 1996, Vermont has been stationed on the first Tuesday in March.¹ Not even when former Vermont Governor Howard Dean sought the Democratic nomination in 2004 did Vermont relent in holding onto that early March position.²

The record is pretty clear, then, that Vermont has not really been a factor in nomination races nor on the primary calendar. But what is different about 2016? Why is there interest in moving the presidential primary in Vermont and challenging New Hampshire's long-held first in the nation status?

One fairly convincing idea is that the move is intended to help Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is considering a challenge to a potential Hillary Clinton campaign for the Democratic nomination. This sort of action is not foreign to the history of presidential nomination politics. There was talk of Utah moving its primary to benefit Mitt Romney in 2012. Part of the rationale behind Illinois' uncharacteristic shift out of its traditional third Tuesday in March calendar position for 2008 was to provide then-Senator Barack Obama with a counterweight to Hillary Clinton wins on Super Tuesday. President Carter's reelection campaign sent envoy Hamilton Jordan to Georgia (and Alabama) to talk to legislators there about moving their primaries to dates that serve as a counterbalance to any gains Ted Kennedy might receive from early contests in New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1980.

States moving primaries or caucuses around to help presidential candidates from that state is nothing new.

What helps the idea along that this is what is happening in Vermont with Bernie Sanders is that the bill came from a state legislator not in the Democratic or Republican parties but from a state senator -- Sen. Anthony Pollina (P/D-28th, North Middlesex) -- who is a member of the Progressive Party. Now, Sen. Sanders is an independent (who caucuses with Democrats) from Vermont in the United States Senate, but that does not mean he is not often associated with the Progressive Party in Vermont  or that the party does not claim him as one of their own.

Now a former Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate and current state senator has introduced legislation in the Vermont legislature to move the Green Mountain state presidential primary to the same date as the New Hampshire primary. FHQ will not advance into the strategic considerations of what a Vermont primary on the same day as New Hampshire would mean for a contest between Clinton and Sanders.³ However, it is interesting to consider how home state legislators will address such a bill. The Progressives are a small cadre of legislators in both chambers of the Vermont legislature, so they would need help moving this bill. Would some Democrats join them to help Sanders and/or promote Vermont's position? Would some Republicans get behind the effort to promote Vermont or potentially hurt Clinton (whether it actually would or not)?⁴ Could a little of both happen and get the bill close to passage or over that hurdle?

In the end, considering those questions is nothing more than a thought exercise. There are too many ifs involved at this point to even really consider passage of the bill. But even if it becomes law, Bernie Sanders might be the only one campaigning (if he chose to) in a throwback beauty contest primary in Vermont while all the attention remains further east in New Hampshire.

--
¹ Even during the beauty contest primary years, the primary fell on the first Tuesday in March (see 1976, 1980 and 1988). Actually, the fact that the Vermont primary was not binding in those years is the only reason that it escaped penalties from the national parties. The Democratic Party, for instance, did not allow non-Iowa/New Hampshire contests to be held before the second Tuesday in March. That did not change -- moving up a week to the first Tuesday in March -- until the 1992 cycle.

² The primary could have been moved as early as the first Tuesday in February in 2004. That was the year that the DNC joined the RNC in allowing non-Iowa/New Hampshire states to conduct nominating contests in February. The RNC had allowed a handful of February contests as early as 1996. It should also be pointed that the Vermont House was under Republican control at the time and the chamber may have been less amenable to a change in the primary date intended to help a Democrat, even a Vermont Democrat.

³ It really is moot. New Hampshire is more than adept at fending off these types of challenges.

⁴ There are not enough Progressives and Republicans to overcome the Democratic majorities in either chamber.

Recent Posts:
Utah Bill Would Shift February Presidential Primary Option Back to March

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Passes State Senate, but...

Oklahoma Presidential Primary Bill Gets the Green Light from Senate Committee

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

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

Legislation was introduced in the Vermont state Senate on Tuesday, February 10 to move the Green Mountain state presidential primary in line with the first in the nation primary in New Hampshire.

State Senator Anthony Pollina (PD-28th, North Middlesex)¹ introduced S 76 to not only schedule the Vermont presidential primary for the same date as the New Hampshire primary, but to also leave that date setting power to the Vermont secretary of state. This would not only tether the Vermont primary to its counterpart in neighboring New Hampshire, but it also mimics the New Hampshire presidential primary law to some degree by ceding the date-setting power to the secretary of state.

Now, FHQ says to some degree. The New Hampshire law sets the Granite state primary for the second Tuesday in March. If, however, other states opt to go earlier than that point on the calendar -- an outcome that is a given in the post-reform era -- the New Hampshire secretary of state has the ability/requirement to move the presidential primary to a spot on the calendar seven days before any other similar election. The Vermont bill does not really provide its secretary of state with such power. The bill calls for the primary date to be the same as New Hampshire's and would require the secretary of state to set that date once New Hampshire's date is settled.

That is not the same as the New Hampshire law. But that is not the key point here. The important thing is that we have witnessed all of this before. New Hampshire and Secretary of State Bill Gardner in particular has been adept at playing this waiting game; not setting a date for New Hampshire until the dust has either completely settled or has all but reached that state (see 2011 for examples here, here and here). Adept is an apt description, but seasoned would be accurate as well. Gardner and New Hampshire have been through this before. His office has the ability to wait other states out and in turn the state's election administration apparatus has to be able to respond quickly and hold an essentially snap election just weeks later (a less than two month turnaround in 2008 and 2012).

But this potential Vermont challenge is slightly different than the normal threat to New Hampshire's first in the nation status. This is similar to the North Carolina threat to South Carolina. This is not a situation where a state has drawn a specific line in the sand (see Texas) that only requires New Hampshire to jump to an earlier date. Rather, Vermont -- like North Carolina -- has tethered the date of its contest to that of another state. In other words, there is no escaping the challenging state.

Nevertheless, this tethering is not unusual territory for New Hampshire and Secretary Gardner. Delaware coupled its primary to New Hampshire's in 1996 and 2000; the Saturday after New Hampshire. Wyoming Republicans in 2007 initially scheduled their caucuses for the same date as New Hampshire for 2008 before opting to go before the Granite state. In both instances, New Hampshire escaped. In the Delaware case, the candidates were basically blackballed by the parties in New Hampshire if they campaigned in Delaware. That rendered the contest in the First state virtually meaningless. The candidates and press were in New Hampshire. Wyoming is a tough draw for the candidates and media in the best of times, but in January neither group was likely to provide caucuses with much attention. [See also Nevada in 2011]

If the party rules do not dissuade Vermont, then look for the parties in New Hampshire to put pressure on the candidates to steer clear of the Green Mountain state. That is how it has worked in New Hampshire in the post-reform era.

UPDATE: Is this bill meant to help Senator Bernie Sanders?
UPDATE (2/18/15): Identical legislation introduced in state House

--
¹ Senator Pollina is a member of the Progressive Party in Vermont.

Recent Posts:
Texas Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to January

Idaho Republican Party Votes to Return to Presidential Primary, but...

DC Presidential Primary Continues Slow Crawl to June

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

Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters

Legislation has been introduced in Vermont to allow military personnel and other overseas voters to utilize rank choice voting in presidential primaries.

Vermont has in-person absentee voting in the 45 days before an election, but the proposal in H 115 would allow those voters overseas and/or in the military to cast a rank choice vote in a presidential primary. The secretary of state in Vermont would prepare the ballot as usual, but military/overseas voters would rank all of the candidates based on preference instead of choosing just one from the pool of candidates. If the most preferred candidate has dropped out/withdrawn from the race by the time of the Vermont primary on March 1, then the highest choice among the remaining active candidates would receive the vote.

For example, if voter X overseas has a rank ordering on his or her ballot of George Pataki followed by Jeb Bush (then the rest), and Pataki has withdrawn, then Bush receives the vote.

This is a clever way of avoiding a wasted vote in a situation where ballots have to go out to military personnel well in advance of primary election day when the field of candidates is still in flux.

NOTE: There is also similar draft legislation in Massachusetts (HD 2394). The Bay state also has a March 1 primary.

Recent Posts:
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?

Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary

SEC Primary Bill Finds Early Support in Mississippi House Committee

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

The Electoral College Map (8/22/12)

Wednesday brought eleven new polls into the FHQ weighted averages from nine states. Nine surveys were newly released and two (from California and Georgia) were older polls from July that we are just adding in now.

And yeah, collectively the new additions created some changes in our customary graphics.

New State Polls (8/22/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
California	PPIC	7/10-7/24	+/- 3.6%	1131 likely voters	51	40	7	+11	+18.84
California	LA Times/USC	8/3-8/7	+/- 3.0%	1041 likely voters	55.6	32.7	8	+22.9	--
Florida	Gravis Marketing	8/20	+/- 3.8%	728 likely voters	45	48	--	+3	+0.11
Georgia	Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion	7/24	+/- ?.?%	591 likely voters	40.5	49.8	6.6	+9.3	+8.07
Georgia	20/20 Insight	8/15-8/18	+/- 2.9%	1158 likely voters	46	49	4	+3	--
Massachusetts	Public Policy Polling	8/16-8/19	+/- 2.9%	1115 likely voters	55	39	6	+16	+18.01
Montana	Rasmussen	8/20	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	38	55	4	+17	+10.32
Nevada	LVRJ/Survey USA	8/16-8/21	+/- 3.4%	869 likely voters	47	45	4	+2	+4.79
New Mexico	Rasmussen	8/21	+/- 4.5%	500 likely voters	52	38	1	+14	+11.61
Vermont	Castleton State	8/11-8/21	+/- 4.5%	477 registered voters	62	25	8	+37	+34.79
Wisconsin	Marquette Law School	8/16-8/19	+/- 4.2%	576 likely voters	49	46	4	+3	+4.87

Polling Quick Hits:
[There is an awful lot to unpack in all of these, so this will be a super quick hits.]

California:
Nothing much to see here. The eleven point margin in the July PPIC poll is on the low side, but that was more a function of the Romney share being the highest he has garnered in any other poll of the Golden state than anything else. The Obama share in the poll was well within range of previous polls.

Florida:
Another day, another poll showing a slight Romney lead in the Sunshine state. The former Massachusetts governor has a number of these in recent days following a long dry stretch where Obama held small leads in Florida. The average does continue to creep closer to a tie. For those looking for FHQ's 332-206 electoral college outlook to change, Florida is the first state at which to look.

Georgia:
The Peach state is hardly on the Obama wish list this fall. However, the two most recent polls included in the FHQ weighted averages have pulled the margin between the president and Mitt Romney under the 10 point Strong/Lean line into the Lean Romney area. Georgia is not consequential in determining a winner in the electoral college tally. It is a safe Romney state and fits well -- as it did down the stretch in 2008 -- in the lean area. Keep in mind that FHQ will change the parameters of these categories -- shrinking them -- as we approach election day. That will have the effect of moving Georgia into the strong category barring any continued narrowing in the Peach state polling.

Massachusetts:
Well, the Bay state is a blue state. An argument could be made that this is a particularly lackluster showing for Obama there. That said, this PPP survey is not much unchanged from their last poll of the state earlier this year.

Changes (August 22)
State	Before	After
Georgia	Strong Romney	Lean Romney
Montana	Lean Romney	Strong Romney
Nevada	Lean Obama	Toss Up Obama

Montana:
In 2008, the margin was anything but big in Big Sky Country between Obama and McCain, but in 2012, the distance between the two contenders vying for the presidency is living up to that name. Consecutive Rasmussen polls have bumped the Treasure state into the Strong Romney designation.

Nevada:
Perhaps more consequentially, the new poll in Nevada from Survey USA eases the Silver state into the Toss Up Obama category. Everyone of the three states highlighted last week -- Wisconsin, Michigan and now Nevada -- have moved from the Lean Obama area into the more competitive toss up distinction. This has had the impact of really squeezing the Lean Obama category. Only Pennsylvania and Oregon remain. That, in turn, makes it harder to resist the urge to treat the Obama side of the ledger in binary -- safe or not for Obama -- terms instead our customary three-tiered approach. [We won't make that change.]

New Mexico:
While there has been some polling volatility in New Mexico, the Land of Enchantment has just not swung back toward the Republicans (2008 vs. 2012) in the way that many other states have. There has been some shift in that direction, but not as much as we have more uniformly witnessed elsewhere. One footnote to New Mexico is that former governor and Libertarian Party nominee, Gary Johnson, has been included in a fair number of polls and has had some impact on any 2012 to 2008 comparison.

Vermont:
It is good to see Rich Clark's (Castleton State) name pop up. He's an old hand for my UGA days. It is also nice to have the data from very blue Vermont to confirm what we all already knew: chalk those three electoral votes up for Obama.

Wisconsin:
There is not much to add today to the picture in Wisconsin. The Marquette poll shows Obama ahead in the Badger state and while Wisconsin certainly tips in the president's direction, it is safe to call -- and the data backs it up -- it a toss up state.

I won't belabor this too much, but despite the above changes, the electoral college count remains unchanged at 332-206 in favor of the president. Of more consequence -- as alluded to above -- is the shuffling of states on the Electoral College Spectrum. With additions of Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin to the toss up category, the 2012 Spectrum has the look -- at least in terms of how the colors match up but to some extent the states as well -- to 2004. The terrain on which the presidency will be fought and won dominates the most competitive middle column, but has now drawn in the bottom portions of the second column from the left.

I'll have more on this later. I had planned a post comparing the polling at this point in 2004, 2008 and 2012, but the week has filled up quickly. I hope to get to that before I head out for Tampa.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3 (6)2	NJ-14 (160)	MI-16 (257)	AZ-11 (167)	MS-6 (55)
RI-4 (10)	WA-12 (172)	OH-183 (275/281)	GA-16 (156)	ND-3 (49)
HI-4 (14)	NM-5 (177)	CO-9 (284/263)	MT-3 (140)	AL-9 (46)
NY-29 (43)	MN-10 (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)	NH-4 (241)	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.

New Mexico is off and Nevada is reassigned on the Watch List for today. There are a number of states that are on the cusp on entering the Lean Obama category, but as of now the number of states in that category has dwindled to two.

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

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 (8/21/12)

The Electoral College Map (8/20/12)

The Electoral College Map (8/17/12)

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