Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill

In a 29-18 vote that largely fell along party lines, the Washington state Senate passed SB 5273 on Wednesday. Two Republicans joined all but one of the Democrats in the upper chamber in forming a majority in support of the measure to shift up the date of the presidential primary in the Evergreen state but also define other aspects of the process like who can participate.

As the vote on final passage approached, the floor debate resembled the battle lines drawn earlier in committee hearings on this bill and a rival option state Senate Republicans and Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R) backed. The date change was consistent across both bills -- the second Tuesday in March -- but the dispute centered on whether unaffiliated voters would be able to participate in the process (without having to swear an oath to one party or the other in order to participate).¹

An amendment was offered to the bill by Senator Hans Zeigler (R-25th, Puyallup) to insert the provision allowing unaffiliated participation from the Republican-backed bill, but it was defeated in a near party-line vote. Despite the chamber's rejection of the amendment, Zeigler joined Democrats in passing the Democratic version creating a partisan presidential primary.

Proponents of the Democratic version of the bill, including Senator Sam Hunt (D-22nd, Olympia), the chair of the referring State Government Committee, argued that their alternative without the unaffiliated option conformed best to national party delegate selection rules. Furthermore, the argument went, given national party rule compliance, the Democratic alternative would best insure that the two parties could both utilize the presidential primary option rather than caucuses.

The lone Democrat to oppose final passage was Senator Tim Sheldon (D-35th, Mason) who balked at the use of taxpayer money to fund a partisan election that would exclude unaffiliated voters.

Wyman celebrated the passage of the legislation but lamented that it did not include any provision to allow unaffiliated voters to participate unfettered in the process. The measure now moves on to the state House for consideration there. Similar, House-originated legislation is already active in the lower chamber.

--
¹ Under the provisions of the Democratic alternative -- the one ultimately passed -- the decisions made by voters as to which party they swear an oath to, and thus which party's primary in which they are participating, would be made public. Essentially the ballot choice but not the vote choice is made public; information the political parties value for general election campaigns. Importantly, this is an action commonly taken in other states lacking formal party voter registration.


Related:
Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March

An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee

Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote

Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee

Two weeks ago legislation was introduced in the Washington state Senate to shift up the date of the presidential primary in the state from May to the second Tuesday in March.¹

This is not a new idea, and, in fact, was hashed out in the legislature in both 2015 and 2017-18. But in neither session did the legislation move past an affirmative vote in the originating chamber. That may or may not be the case in 2019.

The difference this time is that while Democrats in the Evergreen state enjoyed unified control of state government (in the last session at least), the urgency to move was lacking. That urgency is now present in two forms. First, the year before a presidential election is typically when most states make calendar moves. The date of a presidential primary is on more legislators' minds in 2019 than in 2017, in other words.

But another factor is that Washington Democrats have conducted, without exception, caucuses in lieu of a primary throughout the post-reform era. Democratic legislators, then, have never been particularly motivated to move a contest -- the presidential primary -- that the state Democratic Party was not going to use for the purposes of delegate allocation. However, following a 2016 cycle that saw enthusiastic caucusgoers in Washington and elsewhere overwhelm the party-run operations, some state parties and state legislatures have begun to reexamine the process. Externally, there has also been a push at the national party level on the Democratic side to encourage state government-run primaries over state party-run caucuses.

And the confluence of those factors has perhaps created a perfect storm in Washington. State legislative Democrats are motivated to establish a primary system that will entice the Democratic Party in the state to opt for the primary in 2020 over the caucuses the party has traditionally used.

So how have the bills been received in committee?

There is a partisan dimension to this, and that remains the best lens through which to examine the effort to move the Washington presidential primary to March. But then again, the date is not up for dispute. Both bills call for moving the primary to same date in March. Other sections of the bills are what is animating the partisan differences.

This was borne out in the initial committee hearing on SB 5229 and SB 5273. While a representative of the Washington secretary of state's office talked up the earlier date and adding a third unaffilated voter list of candidates to the ballots mailed out to Washington primary voters, DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) member and Washington Democratic Party parliamentarian, David McDonald chimed in that the measure had a handful of provisions that would make it less likely that the RBC would approve of a delegate selection plan using the primary. He cited the Republican bill's lack of a recount provision (especially in a crowded field) and an uncommitted option as reasons the RBC may reject a plan that included the primary, making it more likely that the state party would opt for a caucus again. In addition, McDonald cast doubt on how the RBC would approach a plan including a primary allowing unaffiliated voters to participate without having that information made public or automatically registering the voters with the party in the process.

[Those issues are all avoided in the Democratic bill.]

Holes, then, were poked in the Republican bill from the secretary of state. And that is where partisanship returns, or rather where partisan control more clearly enters the picture. Democrats have unified control of state government in the Evergreen state in 2019-20 and the State Government Committee if not the Democratic caucus in the state Senate seem motivated to move the Democratic bill, SB 5273. Originally that bill had as sponsors nearly all of the party leadership in the chamber. That sponsor list has expanded in the time since the bill was introduced to include over half of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

Additionally, the Democratic bill, after a minor technical change altering the canvassing and certification process for the primary, passed the Senate State Government Committee with a do pass recommendation by a 5-2 vote. The two dissenting votes were two of the three Republicans on the committee. One recommended no passage, while the other voted to refer the measure to the Rules Committee without any recommendation.

What the last two weeks have brought is some clarity in terms of which version of the bill to move the Washington presidential primary to March would win out. Clearly the Democratic bill is going to be moved by a Democratic-controlled chamber. SB 5229, the Republican version, looks as if it will remain in committee not to see the light of day.

Another test comes when the House begins its consideration of those versions.

Related:
Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March

Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill

Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote

Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill


--
¹ Subsequent companion legislation, matching the two state Senate versions, has been introduced in the state House. HB 1262 mirrors the language of the bill that has the backing of Washington secretary of state, Kim Wyman (R) while HB 1310 is a replica of the bill Senate Democrats have put forth. Neither bill has had a hearing as of yet in the House committee to which they were referred.


Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March

Legislators are back at it in Washington state.

Since eliminating the presidential primary for the 2012 cycle, there have been ongoing, albeit unsuccessful, attempts made to not only reposition the presidential contest on the primary calendar, but to reconfigure the process in the Evergreen state as well.

The sticking point in 2015, as illustrated in the descriptions linked to above as well as in 2017 when similar legislation was introduced, has always been how to balance both the lack of party registration in Washington and the history of a top two primary ballot in the context of a presidential primary.

None of the remedies to this point have been sufficient enough to get an omnibus presidential primary bill passed. And that has continued to keep the contest in its relatively late May position, but has also given Democrats continued opportunities to opt for caucuses in lieu of the presidential primary.

And now there are competing, partisan bills in the Washington state Senate to again make some attempt in 2019 at changing several aspects of presidential nomination process in the state. The Republican version -- SB 5229, and its House companion, HB 1262 -- would move the primary from the fourth Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in March. This mirrors the date on which neighboring Idaho currently has its presidential primary scheduled and the date legislation in southern neighbor, Oregon, is targeting in a similar move.

In addition, the bill would also grant the secretary of state the ability to shift the date of the primary from that new March position to a date as early as February 15 or to move it to a later date. The added flexibility is intended to help the secretary to potentially facilitate a western regional primary with any state from among Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, or Utah.

The current law already gives the secretary the power to initiate a date change, but the ultimate decision to do so resides in a bipartisan group that includes the secretary as well as state legislative and state party leadership. Changes outlined in the new legislation would shift even more discretion to the secretary of state, but not without some guardrails. Should any new date chosen deviate from the second Tuesday in March date by more than three weeks, then the secretary would continue to have to receive a green light from bipartisan committee detailed above in order to move the primary.

All of that is relatively uncontroversial. Again, the point of contention has always been over who gets to participate in the presidential primary in a state with no party identification. Under the Republican proposal all registered voters would be able to participate, but it would be up to the state parties to decide which of those votes actually counts toward their delegate allocation.

Here's how that would work:

• All candidates -- Democrats and Republicans -- would be listed on the ballot with their party affiliation listed as well. 
• Partisans who wish to declare and affiliation with a particular party -- swear an oath through a mark on the ballot -- would only be able to vote for a candidate who shares that affiliation. Democrats can vote for Democrats in other words. 
• Unaffiliated voters  -- whether they wish to declare that they are unaffiliated on the ballot or not -- would be able to vote for whomever they want, regardless of party, but may not ultimately have that vote counted toward the delegate allocation. 
• Again, that decision rests with the state parties. 

Under the Republican plan none of the information stemming from the party declarations would be made public as it is in semi-open primary states with similar sorts of oaths.

In contrast, the Democratic bill, sponsored by nearly the entire Democratic leadership in the Washington state Senate and including the chair of the State Government, Tribal Relations and Election committee to which the bill has been referred, differs in subtle ways. SB 5273 would also shift the date of the presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in March. And the measure would also allow the secretary of state to alter the date in order to form a western regional primary (with the same group of nine states).

However, the secretary, unlike under the provisions in the Republican bill, would only be allowed to shift the date of the primary up as far as the national parties' delegate selection rules would allow (the first Tuesday in March under the current national party rules). That eliminates the potential for Washington to go rogue as is allowed under the Republican legislation.

Moreover, the secretary would have similar discretion to what secretaries of state have under the current law. Deviations from the second Tuesday could continue to occur, but not without a thumbs up from two-thirds of the bipartisan committee described above.

Again, these are subtle differences, but the secretary of state would have less latitude under the Democratic bill than the Republican one.

The framework also differs under the Democratic plan with respect to participation. The all-encompassing ballot would remain as would the partisan declarations. But the Democratic plan does not include the possibility of unaffiliated declarations; declarations that a voter is unaffiliated with a party. Yet, any voter who does not declare an affiliation could vote, but at the discretion of a state party, not have their votes counted toward the the delegate allocation. Finally, the Democratic legislation would make public partisan declarations of affiliation sworn to on the ballot.

There is a lot to digest in these bills, but the main takeaways are that both seek to change the date of the primary and both make some attempt at balancing the history in the state of a blanket primary-type ballot and the state parties' desire to tamp down on crossover voting in particular, but potentially curbing unaffiliated voters influencing the presidential nomination process.


Related:
An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee

Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill

Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote

Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill


--
The Washington bills have been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.

The Electoral College Map (11/5/16)

New State Polls (11/5/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Colorado	Gravis	11/1-11/2	+/-2.9%	1125 registered voters	40	40	3	+/-0	+4.00
Iowa	Loras	11/1-11/3	+/-4.4%	500 likely voters	44	43	7	+1	--
Iowa	Selzer/Des Moines Register	11/1-11/4	+/-3.5%	800 likely voters	39	46	6	+7	+1.33
Pennsylvania	Gravis/Breitbart	11/1-11/2	+/-3.1%	1016 registered voters	47	45	3	+2	--
Pennsylvania	Muhlenberg/Morning Call	10/30-11/4	+/-5.5%	405 likely voters	44	40	5	+4	+5.08
Washington	Survey USA	10/31-11/2	+/-3.8%	681 likely voters	50	38	4	+12	+12.52

--
Changes (11/5/16)
3 days left.

Compared to the Saturday before election day four years ago, the 2016 edition was fairly slow. Whereas there were 20 polls released on November 3, 2012, there were just six new surveys added to the dataset with just three days remaining until the election.

The polls added did little to change the picture painted here at FHQ, but underneath that, the trajectory of the race continues to indicate a narrowing of the margins in the states where Clinton is ahead in the one to seven point range. Notably, that included a handful of surveys out of Colorado and Pennsylvania. No, the change was not significant in either, but both continued to track toward the partisan line and toward Trump. But both the Centennial and Keystone states remain clustered on the Watch List around that Lean/Toss Up line (+5) on the Clinton side of the ledger.

Other than that, there is only so much that six polls can do in the grand scheme of things. Iowa, a Toss Up Trump state since the conventions, showed no signs of flipping back to Clinton. If anything, the Hawkeye state, while still close, is seemingly firmly rooted on the Trump side of the partisan line.

The map, Electoral College Spectrum and Watch List all remain unchanged from a day ago.


--

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)	UT-6 (104)	NE-53 (41)
CA-55 (86)	MN-10 (198)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	IN-11 (98)	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)	SD-3 (81)	ID-4 (19)
DE-3 (139)	WI-10 (226)	AZ-11 (192)	KS-6 (78)	WV-5 (15)
WA-12 (151)	VA-13 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (158)	PA-20 (259)	AK-3 (164)	MT-3 (64)	WY-3 (3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.

NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Alaska	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Colorado	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Indiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean 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 (11/4/16)

The Electoral College Map (11/3/16)

The Electoral College Map (11/2/16)

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

The Electoral College Map (10/27/16)

New State Polls (10/27/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
California	PPIC	10/14-10/23	+/-4.3%	1012 likely voters	54	28	5	+26	+22.41
Florida	University of North Florida	10/20-10/25	+/-3.39%	786 likely voters	43	39	9	+4	--
Florida	Dixie Strategies	10/25-10/26	+/-3.71%	698 likely voters	42	46	6	+4	+2.17
Georgia	Quinnipiac	10/20-10/26	+/-3.7%	707 likely voters	43	44	5	+1	+2.72
Iowa	Quinnipiac	10/20-10/26	+/-3.5%	791 likely voters	44	44	6	+/-0	+0.971
Massachusetts	Suffolk/Boston Globe	10/24-10/26	+/-4.4%	500 likely voters	57	25	12	+32	+23.21
Michigan	EPIC-MRA/Detroit Free Press	10/22-10/24	+/-4.0%	600 adults	41	34	13	+7	--
Michigan	Mitchell	10/20-10/24	+/-2.78%	1030 likely voters	48	42	5	+6	+6.87
New Hampshire	UMass/WBZ	10/17-10/21	+/-4.5%	772 likely voters	43	38	4	+5	+6.12
North Carolina	Quinnipiac	10/20-10/26	+/-3.7%	702 likely voters	47	43	4	+4	+1.67
Pennsylvania	Siena/New York Times (Upshot)	10/23-10/25	+/-3.4%	824 likely voters	46	39	6	+7	+5.48
Texas	YouGov/University of Texas	10/14-10/23	+/-3.16%	959 likely voters	42	45	0	+3	+6.47
Virginia	Quinnipiac	10/20-10/26	+/-3.6%	749 likely voters	50	38	5	+12	+6.86
Washington	Crosscut/Washington Poll	10/6-10/13	--	750 likely voters	53	39	22	+14	+12.59
1The Quinnipiac survey reduces the FHQ average for Iowa to below one point, moving the Hawkeye state onto the Watch List.

Polling Quick Hits:
12 more days.

Thursday brought 14 new surveys from twelve states.


California:
Clinton lagging about six points behind Obama 2012 in California would perhaps mean a great deal more if she was not still ahead of Trump by more than thirty points. The Golden state is still blue.


Florida:
In the Sunshine state, the Dixie Strategies poll looks something like the Selzer survey from a day ago: inconsistent with the bulk of recent polling in Florida, but the individual candidate levels of support are not out of the ordinary. Chalk it up to polling variation. Meanwhile, the UNF survey is more in line with the polling since the first debate in Florida.


Georgia:
Clinton has inched up to within range of where Obama was in Georgia four years ago. But her movement is within a much tighter range. Trump, on the other hand, is operating in a wider, more variable window in the Peach state as evidence by his share of support in the new Quinnipiac survey. The combination of the two has closed the gap some in Georgia, keeping the state on the Trump side of the partisan line.


Iowa:
Of the three closest states at FHQ -- Arizona, Iowa and Ohio -- only Ohio has been polled with any level of frequency all year much less over the course of the last month since the first debate. Iowa has only seen a handful of polls in that period. Those surveys have mostly leaned in Trump's direction, but when there is any variation in that, it tends to end in a tie rather than favoring Clinton. That is the case with this new Quinnipiac poll. But that tie is an improvement over the seven point deficit Clinton was facing a month ago in the same poll in the Hawkeye state. The thing is, Trump 44 percent is typical. Clinton's share is well above the 40 percent mark she has tended to hover under for much of 2016.


Massachusetts:
There are many parallels in the presidential race between California and Massachusetts. Both share a similar space on the Electoral College Spectrum below and the Bay state matches almost perfectly the description of California above. Clinton is behind where the typical Democratic candidate has ended up there, but when Trump is running about ten points behind Romney, that is of less significance.


Michigan:
Two new surveys in Michigan. There is some variation in terms of the shares of support the two candidates garner, but the margins are right in line with where FHQ has the race in the Great Lakes state in the averages. There is no evidence of any cracks in the lead Clinton has there.


New Hampshire:
A day after Monmouth appeared to show the race tightening in the Granite state, things are back to what has passed for normal there in the new UMass survey. Polls fluctuate. One can choose to ride the roller coaster or can simply follow the averages. The latter route has New Hampshire a little more than Clinton +6. The race in New Hampshire has been around there since the summer.


North Carolina:
That Remington poll from earlier in the week looks more and more like an outlier.  The simple fact of the matter is that North Carolina has consistently been in the narrow, but consistent Clinton lead area since the first debate..


Pennsylvania:
Like North Carolina, the talking points here on Pennsylvania polling has been a bit of a broken record. There have been some breaks in the lean area leads in the Keystone state, but they have been exception rather than rule. Even rarer are polls in Pennsylvania with Trump ahead. Other than the early waves of the online UPI panels, Trump has trailed there all year.


Texas:
The evidence continues to accumulate that the margin between Clinton and Trump in the Lone Star state has narrowed. Those lean area margins have shrunk to a consistent two to four point Trump lead in the last few weeks. By extension, that has slowly narrowed the average margin here to a point where it is approaching the lean/toss up line. This is one that might narrow but is unlikely to jump the partisan line given the trajectory of current polling in Texas.


Virginia:
See Pennsylvania. Virginia may not favor Clinton by 12 points like this Quinnipiac survey has found, but it has consistently had her in the lead. It is difficult to make states like Virginia and Pennsylvania -- states Republicans would normally target to most easily get to 270 -- interesting when they so clearly advantage Clinton.


Washington:
Washington is a state where Clinton has underperformed Obama 2012 all year, but has maintained a lead just over the strong/lean line on Clinton's side of the Spectrum throughout. And that is right around where the Evergreen state ended up then.


--
Changes (10/27/16)
Nothing changed on the map from a day ago. However, Iowa entered the Watch List, and there were a few small shifts on the Spectrum. Massachusetts and California switched spots, Washington pushed a slot deeper into the Strong Clinton area and Virginia nudged past Maine, settling next to Michigan.

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)	PA-20 (263)	MO-10 (126)	TN-11 (61)
HI-4 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	AK-3 (116)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	OR-7 (183)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	SC-9 (113)	ND-3 (44)
MA-11 (31)	NM-5 (188)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	IN-11 (104)	KY-8 (41)
CA-55 (86)	MN-10 (198)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	UT-6 (93)	NE-53 (33)
NY-29 (115)	MI-16 (214)	OH-18 (340 | 216)	MS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20+13 (136)	VA-13 (227)	IA-6 (198)	KS-6 (81)	WV-5 (19)
DE-3 (139)	ME-23 (229)	AZ-11 (192)	SD-3 (75)	OK-7 (14)
WA-12 (151)	WI-10 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	ID-4 (7)
CT-7 (158)	NH-4 (243)	TX-38 (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
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
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 (10/26/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/25/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/24/16)

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