WEST VIRGINIA
Election type: primary
Date: June 9
[May 12 originally]
Number of delegates: 34 [6 at-large, 3 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 primary
Delegate selection plan (post-coronavirus)
--
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.
Other than Mountain state Republicans changing to a February convention for the 2008 cycle, West Virginia delegate allocation has happened in May since the 1988 cycle. That did not change in the lead up to 2020. However, there was a short-lived and unsuccessful effort in 2017 to move the West Virginia primary to the second Friday in February. That obviously would have conflicted with the national party rules on the timing of primaries and caucuses and died in committee.
However, there were changes to the ways in which West Virginia will conduct its 2020 primary triggered by the coronavirus. The initial response by Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) was to keep the primary on May 12 but work with county elections clerks to mail absentee vote-by-mail applications to all eligible West Virginia voters. But that was followed in quick succession at the beginning of April by an executive order from Governor Jim Justice (R) moving the primary back four weeks to June 9.
There will still be a ten day window for in-person early voting from May 27-June 6 and in-person election day voting remains an option as well. But the secretary of state is expecting record vote-by-mail numbers. Typically only 3 percent of West Virginians have voted in that manner in the past, but a little more than 20 percent had already requested ballots as of May 26. [UPDATE (6/9/20): As of election eve, 21.4 percent of registered voters in West Virginia had requested absentee ballots and 17.2 percent had cast them by June 8 according to the secretary of state in the Mountain state. Another 3 percent had voted during the early voting window.]
All vote-by-mail ballots are due to county elections offices postmarked on or before Tuesday, June 9.
Overall, the Democratic delegation in West Virginia changed by three delegates from 2016 to 2020. Among the categories of pledged delegates, the number of district delegates decreased by one while the totals of PLEO and at-large remained the same as they were four years ago. West Virginia Democrats also lost two superdelegates in that time.
[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]
Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies both statewide and on the congressional district level.
Delegate allocation (at-large and PLEO delegates)
To win any at-large or PLEO (pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials) delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the statewide vote. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the separate allocation of these two pools of delegates.
See New Hampshire synopsis for an example of how the delegate allocation math works for all categories of delegates.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
West Virginia's 19 congressional district delegates are split across three congressional districts and have a variation of four delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Mountain state Democrats are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 6 delegates
CD2 - 7 delegates*
CD3 - 6 delegates
*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.
Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.
[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]
Selection
The selection of the 28 pledged delegates to the national convention in West Virginia will follow a similar trajectory to the plan laid out prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus. But the kick off event -- the county caucuses -- will be later and the whole process will contain more virtual elements than had been the true with the plan originally approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in 2019. County conventions pushed back to May 16 will occur virtually and select delegates to the state convention. Once those wishing to participate file to do so via Google Forms (with the state party), the state party will electronically distribute ballots on May 13 to be completed by May 16.
Those delegates selected to attend the state convention will then be mailed or emailed ballots for remotely/virtually electing the 19 district delegates starting on May 25. Those ballots will be due to the West Virginia Democratic Party via email, mail or call by June 12.
A day later on June 13, the West Virginia Democratic Party State Executive Committee will convene virtually and select the PLEO and then at-large delegates to the national convention.
The dates of selection for all categories of pledged delegates fall on the same days they were before the coronavirus.
[The original timeline West Virginia Democrats planned to use in order to select delegates to the national convention began with pre-primary county caucuses on March 28. Participants at those county caucuses would have elected delegates to the post-primary state convention on June 12-13. District caucuses at the state convention would have selected the 19 district delegates. Then the PLEO and then at-large delegates would have been selected on June 13 by the West Virginia Democratic Party State Executive Committee.]
Importantly, if a candidate drops out of the race before the selection of statewide delegates, then any statewide delegates allocated to that candidate will be reallocated to the remaining candidates. If Candidate X is in the race in mid-June when the West Virginia statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the earlier June primary would be reallocated to Candidate X. [This same feature is not something that applies to district delegates.] This reallocation only applies if a candidate has fully dropped out. This is less likely to be a factor with just Biden left as the only viable candidate in the race, but Sanders could still gain statewide delegates by finishing with more than 15 percent statewide. Under a new deal struck between the Biden and Sanders camps, Biden will be allocated (or reallocated) all of the statewide delegates in a given state. However, during the selection process, the state party will select Sanders-aligned delegate candidates in proportion to the share of the qualified statewide vote.
Showing posts with label West Virginia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West Virginia. Show all posts
Saturday, May 30, 2020
Wednesday, April 1, 2020
Governor Justice's Executive Order Sends West Virginia Primary Back a Month to June 9
Governor Jim Justice (R) issued an executive order on Wednesday, April 1 moving the West Virginia primary from May 19 to June 9. The four week delay was forced by the growing threat of the coronavirus pandemic. Statewide states of emergency and stay-at-home orders are fundamentally reshaping how state governments (and state parties in some cases) are administering elections.
Already the state of West Virginia has come to the aid of county-level elections officials, promising to help with funding the distribution of absentee vote-by-mail applications for all registered voters in the Mountain state. That will still apply even now that the primary has been shifted back into June. But while West Virginia voters will have the option of voting absentee by mail, in-person early and in-person election day voting will remain available.
The West Virginia primary change has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar. The state now joins a growing list of states that have moved their nomination contests in the wake of the escalating pandemic. It is also another May state to pull up the tent stakes and move from a rapidly clearing out month for June or later dates on the calendar.
--
Governor Justice's executive order moving the primary to June 9 will be archived here.
--
Related Post:
West Virginia Secretary of State Lays the Groundwork for a Predominantly Vote-By-Mail Primary on May 12
Already the state of West Virginia has come to the aid of county-level elections officials, promising to help with funding the distribution of absentee vote-by-mail applications for all registered voters in the Mountain state. That will still apply even now that the primary has been shifted back into June. But while West Virginia voters will have the option of voting absentee by mail, in-person early and in-person election day voting will remain available.
The West Virginia primary change has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar. The state now joins a growing list of states that have moved their nomination contests in the wake of the escalating pandemic. It is also another May state to pull up the tent stakes and move from a rapidly clearing out month for June or later dates on the calendar.
--
Governor Justice's executive order moving the primary to June 9 will be archived here.
--
Related Post:
West Virginia Secretary of State Lays the Groundwork for a Predominantly Vote-By-Mail Primary on May 12
Friday, March 27, 2020
West Virginia Secretary of State Lays the Groundwork for a Predominantly Vote-By-Mail Primary on May 12
A week after he made the coronavirus threat a valid excuse for requesting an absentee ballot, West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner has announced that the state will help county elections officials with funding the mailing of absentee ballot applications to all Mountain state voters.
No, the date has not changed, but the way in which the May 12 primary (for presidential and other offices) is conducted will be. In-person early and in-person election day voting are still available options at this time, but all West Virginia voters will now have an alternative that will allow them to stay at home and still participate in the primary election.
There are now 46 days until the May 12 primary. In that window of time, the West Virginia secretary of state's office or local county elections officials will have to mail out absentee applications to all of the active voters in the state. One complicating factor on that front is that West Virginians still have until April 21 to register to vote in the upcoming primary. That may entail more than just one mass mailing of absentee applications.
After that voters have to fill out the application, return it via voter-paid postage to the county board and await the ballot's arrival. It is unclear whether voters can continue to use the online application that can be returned to the county board via email or fax and avoid paying postage with the mailed form. Regardless of the method, voters have until May 6 to submit their applications for an absentee ballot.
Once received, the ballot may be filled out and must be returned, postmarked by May 12 (primary election day) to be counted. That means that results will likely be slower in coming in and potentially undetermined until after election day.
West Virginia now joins a raft of other later-voting primary states in shifting in the direction of more widespread vote-by-mail systems in response to the coronavirus threat. The new West Virginia systems mimics the new protocols adopted in states like Georgia, where absentee applications are being mailed to all active voters. Ohio, on the other hand, is sending an informational mailing describing how voters can request an absentee ballot. That contrasts with a state like Alaska where the Democratic Party is allowing its party-run primary voters to download a ballot directly in order to participate.
This is an important point: States and state parties are dealing with the electoral impact the coronavirus presents, but are doing so in a wide range of ways. That will create uneven results for voters across states; more obstacles in some than in others.
No, the date has not changed, but the way in which the May 12 primary (for presidential and other offices) is conducted will be. In-person early and in-person election day voting are still available options at this time, but all West Virginia voters will now have an alternative that will allow them to stay at home and still participate in the primary election.
There are now 46 days until the May 12 primary. In that window of time, the West Virginia secretary of state's office or local county elections officials will have to mail out absentee applications to all of the active voters in the state. One complicating factor on that front is that West Virginians still have until April 21 to register to vote in the upcoming primary. That may entail more than just one mass mailing of absentee applications.
After that voters have to fill out the application, return it via voter-paid postage to the county board and await the ballot's arrival. It is unclear whether voters can continue to use the online application that can be returned to the county board via email or fax and avoid paying postage with the mailed form. Regardless of the method, voters have until May 6 to submit their applications for an absentee ballot.
Once received, the ballot may be filled out and must be returned, postmarked by May 12 (primary election day) to be counted. That means that results will likely be slower in coming in and potentially undetermined until after election day.
West Virginia now joins a raft of other later-voting primary states in shifting in the direction of more widespread vote-by-mail systems in response to the coronavirus threat. The new West Virginia systems mimics the new protocols adopted in states like Georgia, where absentee applications are being mailed to all active voters. Ohio, on the other hand, is sending an informational mailing describing how voters can request an absentee ballot. That contrasts with a state like Alaska where the Democratic Party is allowing its party-run primary voters to download a ballot directly in order to participate.
This is an important point: States and state parties are dealing with the electoral impact the coronavirus presents, but are doing so in a wide range of ways. That will create uneven results for voters across states; more obstacles in some than in others.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
West Virginia Republicans Adopt Winner-Take-All Allocation Scheme, Alter Delegate Selection Process for 2020
West Virginia Republicans at a recent Executive Committee meeting made changes to the way in which the party will select and allocate delegates to the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte. Gone is the loophole primary the state party has traditionally used, where voters would not only vote on presidential preference, but directly elect both at-large and congressional district delegates on the primary ballot.
Such a system puts the onus on campaigns to gain ballot access for their candidate but to also round up and file for delegate candidates supportive of the candidate. The former is easier than the latter as is evidenced by Rick Santorum's troubles in the Mountain state in 2012.
That system has been scrapped by the WVGOP for 2020 in favor of a more streamlined process. By a 92-12 vote, the West Virginia Republican Party executive committee opted to share the delegate selection process with the Trump campaign and shift to a winner-take-all method of allocation.
Under the new plan, Republican primary voters in West Virginia will only have one presidential choice before them, the presidential preference vote. Whichever candidate wins that vote would be awarded all of the delegates at stake in the West Virginia primary on May 12. On the selection side, delegate candidates would no longer be included on the primary ballot. Instead, prospective delegate candidates would apply and interview with the WVGOP executive committee and the Trump for President Committee to determine what that individual has done for the party/Trump and how loyal they are. Obviously, that would give much more discretion to the state party and the Trump campaign to identify and select delegates than under the loophole system.
This option was one of three being considered by the executive committee. The other two were 1) to keep the loophole (direct election of delegates) system the same or 2) to adopt a convention system similar to what the West Virginia Republican Party used in 2008. The latter was quickly dismissed and the alternative winner-take-all system was deemed preferable by the executive committee in its vote in late August.
One important coda to this maneuvering is that the change will sunset after 2020, reverting to the old loophole system for subsequent cycles (unless there is state party action to make other changes).
--
Yes, this change clearly gives the Trump campaign a great deal of discretion over the delegates chosen for the national convention from West Virginia. But bear in mind that Democratic National Committee rules allow candidates to reject delegates selected to fill delegate slots allocated them and then represent them at the convention. However, that right of refusal happens after the delegate selection process. The West Virginia Republican Party plan cedes a great deal of control to the Trump reelection effort before and/or during primary season, likely ahead of the West Virginia primary in May. That is an important distinction between how Democrats conduct the process and how West Virginia Republicans are handling theirs.
This also adds another data point to the growing list of states making a variety of changes to their delegate selection rules to help insulate the president from intra-party challenges and hypothetically keep divisiveness down within the party-in-the-electorate before the transition into the general election phase.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Such a system puts the onus on campaigns to gain ballot access for their candidate but to also round up and file for delegate candidates supportive of the candidate. The former is easier than the latter as is evidenced by Rick Santorum's troubles in the Mountain state in 2012.
That system has been scrapped by the WVGOP for 2020 in favor of a more streamlined process. By a 92-12 vote, the West Virginia Republican Party executive committee opted to share the delegate selection process with the Trump campaign and shift to a winner-take-all method of allocation.
Under the new plan, Republican primary voters in West Virginia will only have one presidential choice before them, the presidential preference vote. Whichever candidate wins that vote would be awarded all of the delegates at stake in the West Virginia primary on May 12. On the selection side, delegate candidates would no longer be included on the primary ballot. Instead, prospective delegate candidates would apply and interview with the WVGOP executive committee and the Trump for President Committee to determine what that individual has done for the party/Trump and how loyal they are. Obviously, that would give much more discretion to the state party and the Trump campaign to identify and select delegates than under the loophole system.
This option was one of three being considered by the executive committee. The other two were 1) to keep the loophole (direct election of delegates) system the same or 2) to adopt a convention system similar to what the West Virginia Republican Party used in 2008. The latter was quickly dismissed and the alternative winner-take-all system was deemed preferable by the executive committee in its vote in late August.
One important coda to this maneuvering is that the change will sunset after 2020, reverting to the old loophole system for subsequent cycles (unless there is state party action to make other changes).
--
Yes, this change clearly gives the Trump campaign a great deal of discretion over the delegates chosen for the national convention from West Virginia. But bear in mind that Democratic National Committee rules allow candidates to reject delegates selected to fill delegate slots allocated them and then represent them at the convention. However, that right of refusal happens after the delegate selection process. The West Virginia Republican Party plan cedes a great deal of control to the Trump reelection effort before and/or during primary season, likely ahead of the West Virginia primary in May. That is an important distinction between how Democrats conduct the process and how West Virginia Republicans are handling theirs.
This also adds another data point to the growing list of states making a variety of changes to their delegate selection rules to help insulate the president from intra-party challenges and hypothetically keep divisiveness down within the party-in-the-electorate before the transition into the general election phase.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
[2017-18 State Legislative Review: Proposed Primary Movement] February Presidential Primary Bill Fails to Gain Traction in West Virginia
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.
--
Midway through the 2017 session of the West Virginia legislature then-state senator, Jeff Mullins (R-9th(A), Raleigh) introduced SB 33. The intent of the bill was to uproot the biennial state primary -- which includes the presidential primary every fourth year -- from its traditional second Tuesday in May position to the second Friday in February.
Although the bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration, it was never taken up by the panel. It never received a hearing and languished there the rest of the session. There are a number of reasons for that. Year after presidential election year shifts of primary elections are not all that common.
But the proposed change probably had something to do with the stalled progress of SB 33 as well. The proposed February timing obviously violates the national party rules on presidential primary scheduling. That would have made national convention delegations from the state vulnerable to penalties reducing the number of delegates. Such a shift into February would also have placed the primary in the middle of the state legislative session, forcing state legislators to campaign for their own renominations during the session. Primary scheduling around legislative sessions remains a hang up for many states with consolidated primaries.
In the bigger picture -- historically -- West Virginia has also been hampered by what one might call the negative inertia of tradition. The Mountain state has held a primary on dates other than the second Tuesday in May in the post-reform era, but it has been rare. Other than the two cycles -- 1980 and 1984 -- when the presidential primary was in early June, the only other West Virginia exception is when Mountain state Republicans allocated delegates in a February state convention in 2008.1
That confluence of factors derailed this bill from the start.
--
One note on the proposed Friday primary:
They have not been typical in the post-reform era, but there have been some. Notably, the Colorado/Utah/Wyoming subregional primary in 2000 fell on a Friday. But under the current national party rules, a hypothetical second Friday in February West Virginia primary would fall just three days after the New Hampshire primary position carved out in Democratic Party rules. That would violate New Hampshire state law.
--
1 No, West Virginia is not exactly part of the South, but when the Southern Super Tuesday of 1988 was forming, West Virginia moved up, too, but only back to its traditional position in May from early June.
--
The West Virginia bill has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.
--
Although the bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration, it was never taken up by the panel. It never received a hearing and languished there the rest of the session. There are a number of reasons for that. Year after presidential election year shifts of primary elections are not all that common.
But the proposed change probably had something to do with the stalled progress of SB 33 as well. The proposed February timing obviously violates the national party rules on presidential primary scheduling. That would have made national convention delegations from the state vulnerable to penalties reducing the number of delegates. Such a shift into February would also have placed the primary in the middle of the state legislative session, forcing state legislators to campaign for their own renominations during the session. Primary scheduling around legislative sessions remains a hang up for many states with consolidated primaries.
In the bigger picture -- historically -- West Virginia has also been hampered by what one might call the negative inertia of tradition. The Mountain state has held a primary on dates other than the second Tuesday in May in the post-reform era, but it has been rare. Other than the two cycles -- 1980 and 1984 -- when the presidential primary was in early June, the only other West Virginia exception is when Mountain state Republicans allocated delegates in a February state convention in 2008.1
That confluence of factors derailed this bill from the start.
--
One note on the proposed Friday primary:
They have not been typical in the post-reform era, but there have been some. Notably, the Colorado/Utah/Wyoming subregional primary in 2000 fell on a Friday. But under the current national party rules, a hypothetical second Friday in February West Virginia primary would fall just three days after the New Hampshire primary position carved out in Democratic Party rules. That would violate New Hampshire state law.
--
1 No, West Virginia is not exactly part of the South, but when the Southern Super Tuesday of 1988 was forming, West Virginia moved up, too, but only back to its traditional position in May from early June.
--
The West Virginia bill has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
The Electoral College Map (10/6/16)
New State Polls (10/6/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona
|
9/28-9/30
|
+/- 3.66%
|
718 likely voters
|
42
|
42
|
9
|
+/-0
|
--
| |
Arizona
|
10/2-10/4
|
+/- 3.9%
|
600 likely voters
|
44
|
42
|
6
|
+2
|
+1.80
| |
Florida
|
9/27-10/4
|
+/- 3.8%
|
686 likely voters
|
41
|
38
|
10
|
+3
|
--
| |
Florida
|
10/2-10/4
|
+/- 3.9%
|
600 likely voters
|
44
|
45
|
4
|
+1
|
+2.04
| |
Indiana
|
10/3-10/5
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
38
|
43
|
8
|
+5
|
+11.11
| |
Maryland
|
9/27-9/30
|
+/- 4.0%
|
706 likely voters
|
63
|
27
|
2
|
+36
|
+28.28
| |
Michigan
|
10/1-10/3
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
43
|
32
|
12
|
+11
|
+6.22
| |
Nevada
|
10/2-10/4
|
+/- 3.6%
|
700 likely voters
|
43
|
43
|
2
|
+/-0
|
+0.25
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/3-10/5
|
+/- 4.4%
|
500 likely voters
|
44
|
42
|
8
|
+2
|
+5.10
| |
Ohio
|
9/27-10/2
|
+/- 3.46%
|
800 likely voters
|
44
|
42
|
4
|
+2
|
+0.56
| |
Rhode Island
|
10/2-10/4
|
+/- 3.9%
|
600 likely voters
|
52
|
32
|
6
|
+20
|
+12.29
| |
Tennessee
|
9/19-10/2
|
+/- 3.7%
|
1000 registered voters
|
33
|
44
|
14
|
+11
|
+14.52
| |
Texas
|
9/29-10/1
|
+/- 3.51%
|
780 likely voters
|
37.95
|
44.87
|
10.26
|
+6.92
|
+8.63
| |
West Virginia
|
9/13-9/17
|
+/- 5.0%
|
500 likely voters
|
28
|
60
|
12
|
+32
|
+24.70
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
Yesterday's trickle is today's relative flood of new state-level polling data to dig into.
Arizona:
The most recent wave of UPI/CVOTER polls had Trump ahead by ten points in the Grand Canyon state. And it stands alone in a series of around two point leads in surveys throughout 2016 in the state. Even without cell phone users included in the sample, Emerson falls in that range in its new Arizona poll. Of course, this is the first poll Clinton has led there since the end of August. The balance of narrow leads had shifted primarily toward Trump through September; building a small but seemingly durable lead for the New York businessman. The tie in the OH Predictive Insights polls is in a similar position, although this is the closest Trump has been in a series of surveys that have favored Clinton all year.
Florida:
The two new polls from the Sunshine state can tell a couple of different stories taken on their face(s). On the one hand, they represent more evidence that Florida is close. But Florida is always close. On the other, one could take a slightly out of context position that, together, they offer a mixed message about who is ahead. Of the 14 polls in the field after September 11 that FHQ has included in the averages, Clinton has led in 11 of them. Out of the two new polls, take that Emerson one with a grain of salt.
Indiana:
Before jumping to conclusions on the latest Howey survey out of Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence's home state, some context. The last poll there was pretty close to the same. Trump is pulling the same 43 percent he did at the beginning of September as he is now. The difference is on Clinton's side, and it is a minimal two percentage point shift in her share of support. Things have gotten marginally closer, then, but only slightly lowers the FHQ graduated weighted average in a Strong Trump state.
Maryland:
Two things on this latest Washington Post poll of Maryland:
1. It looks a lot like the 2012 vote (share) distribution in the Old Line state (only Trump is lagging behind Romney).
2. It also closely resembles the poll the paper conducted in the state in March. Clinton's share is the same and Trump's has increased by one percent.
Mark Maryland as safely blue.
Michigan:
One could argue that Clinton got a bounce in Michigan out of the first debate. Across the last two EPIC/MRA surveys -- one last month before the debate and one this week -- her margin in the Great Lakes state has ballooned from three to eleven. Yet, that may miss part of the story in Michigan. What is interesting is that the two candidates shares of support in the firm's surveys of Michigan have snapped back to exactly where they were just after the two conventions had wrapped up.
Michigan remains one of those 40 percent states for Trump, a state where Trump has struggled to reach and/or stay around 40 percent. Two things do work in Trump's favor there. Clinton has not really broken out of the low 40s and there continues to be a sizable chunk of undecideds there. Granted, Trump would have to win a significant portion of them to even pull even with Clinton.
Nevada:
Nevada is the closest state in FHQ's averages. Just a quarter of a point separates Clinton and Trump there. It is fitting, then, that the new Emerson poll of the Silver state finds the race knotted up. But in the post-debate landscape, this is a good poll for Trump. Everything since that point has turned in Clinton's direction in Nevada, but the leads have been slight.
New Hampshire:
Including the recent UPI/CVOTER survey the last two polls of the Granite state have shown a much tighter race than has been the case for much of the year. Unlike most states in the immediate aftermath of Clinton's mid-September illness, the polls did not really budge in New Hampshire. After the margins briefly climbed into the low double digits in some surveys just after the conventions, most settled into a Clinton +5 to +9. That trend persisted even when the polls narrowed elsewhere in September. These two could be a blip on the radar or be a sign of some new trend. However, it should be said that this is Suffolk's first trip into New Hampshire this cycle.
Ohio:
The Anzalone survey in Ohio looks a lot like another recent poll of the state. While there is some consistency across those two surveys, the reality is that the polling is mixed in Ohio. The Buckeye state is close; not Nevada close, but not far off from that either.
Rhode Island:
| Changes (October 6) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rhode Island | Lean Clinton | Strong Clinton | |
Rhode Island could do with some more polling.
Tennessee:
Sure, both candidates are lagging behind their 2012 counterparts in this Vanderbilt poll of the Volunteer state. And Trump is even further behind Romney than Clinton is Obama. However, that does not change the fact that Trump continues to be around 15 points ahead of Clinton in Tennessee. It is still falls well into the Strong Trump group of states.
Texas:
FHQ does a mini-double take every time we see a Texas poll with Trump only ahead by a margin in the upper single digits. But those sorts of surveys have been the rule rather than the exception during 2016. While the Lone Star state has been polled infrequently, they collectively paint a picture of a consistent -- albeit it smaller than normal -- Republican advantage.
West Virginia:
For every Maryland on the Democratic side of the partisan line there is a West Virginia on the Republican side. The Mountain state is nearly the surest thing for Donald Trump, but it still amazing how far West Virginia has traveled across the Electoral College Spectrum in the time since another Clinton was the last Democrat to carry the state.
--
There was a lot to look at, but not much to show for it. The bulk of the figures had mostly Rhode Island flavored changes. The Ocean state inched back into a more typical Strong Democratic position on the map, taking its four electoral votes with it. Additionally, it represented the largest moving state on the Electoral College Spectrum; shifting three spots toward the Democratic end. The other shifts on the Spectrum were only small flips of one spot. Finally, the Watch List lost both Rhode Island and Michigan.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
MD-102
(13)
|
WA-12
(162)
|
PA-20
(263)
|
SC-9
(154)
|
MT-3
(53)
|
HI-4
(17)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
TX-38
(145)
|
AR-6
(50)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
OR-7
(183)
|
FL-29
(301 | 266) |
AK-3
(107)
|
ND-3
(44)
|
CA-55
(75)
|
NM-5
(188)
|
NC-15
(316 | 237) |
MS-6
(104)
|
KY-8
(41)
|
MA-11
(86)
|
ME-23
(190)
|
OH-18
(334 | 222)
|
IN-11
(98)
|
NE-53
(33)
|
NY-29+13
(116)
|
MN-10
(200)
|
NV-6
(340 | 204)
|
KS-6
(87)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20
(136)
|
MI-16
(216)
|
IA-6
(198)
|
UT-6
(81)
|
OK-7
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
WI-10
(226)
|
AZ-11
(192)
|
LA-8
(75)
|
ID-4
(12)
|
CT-7
(146)
|
VA-13
(239)
|
GA-16
(181)
|
TN-11
(67)
|
WV-5
(8)
|
RI-4
(150)
|
NH-4
(243)
|
MO-10+13
(165)
|
SD-3
(56)
|
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 Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Colorado
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Maine CD2
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
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
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Oregon
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Virginia
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/5/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/4/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/3/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
The Electoral College Map (9/1/16)
New State Polls (9/1/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona
|
8/27
|
+/- 2.8%
|
1244 likely voters
|
40
|
44
|
--
|
+4
|
--
| |
Arizona
|
8/26-8/28
|
+/- 3.4%
|
837 likely voters
|
43
|
46
|
11
|
+3
|
+1.50
| |
Missouri
|
8/26-8/27
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1055 likely voters
|
41
|
47
|
11
|
+6
|
+4.04
| |
New Hampshire
|
8/26-8/28
|
+/- 3.1%
|
977 likely voters
|
46
|
40
|
14
|
+6
|
+5.14
| |
North Carolina
|
8/26-8/27
|
+/- 2.9%
|
1177 likely voters
|
45
|
44
|
12
|
+1
|
+1.75
| |
Ohio
|
8/26-8/27
|
+/- 2.9%
|
1134 likely voters
|
46
|
42
|
12
|
+4
|
+2.30
| |
Pennsylvania
|
8/26-8/27
|
+/- 2.8%
|
1194 likely voters
|
48
|
43
|
9
|
+5
|
--
| |
Pennsylvania
|
8/25-8/29
|
+/- 4.6%
|
736 registered voters
|
41
|
38
|
13
|
+3
|
+5.84
| |
Virginia
|
8/24-8/28
|
+/- 4.7%
|
801 likely voters
|
43
|
41
|
16
|
+2
|
+6.49
| |
West Virginia
|
8/9-8/28
|
+/- 4.7%
|
386 likely voters
|
31
|
49
|
6
|
+18
|
+20.99
| |
Wisconsin
|
8/26-8/27
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1054 likely voters
|
48
|
41
|
12
|
+7
|
+8.13
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
September dawned with a flood of battleground surveys from Public Policy Polling and assorted other updates in a handful of other states.
Arizona:
The two additions from the Grand Canyon state look a lot like most of the polling -- those not from OH Predictive Insights -- there in the post-convention period throughout August. That is to say that both Gravis and PPP find Trump ahead in the two to four point range. On the weight of those two new surveys, the margin stretches out just enough in Arizona to pull it back off the Watch List. No longer is Arizona on the cusp of jumping over the partisan line into Clinton territory.
Missouri:
Over in fellow Trump toss up Missouri, the story is largely similar to one in Arizona. Most of the post-convention polling in the Show-Me state has had Trump out to a narrow lead in the two to four point range. This latest survey from PPP breaks from that trend, however. Over the last two polls of Missouri -- a couple of head-to-head surveys rather than multi-candidate ones -- the margin has doubled. That was enough to put Missouri back in range of the Toss Up/Lean line and thus back on the Watch List.
New Hampshire:
The first new poll of the Granite state in two weeks show a bit of a contraction of the margin in the state. Gone are the double digit advantages Clinton enjoyed in New Hampshire in the couple of weeks after convention season. In that void is a PPP survey with Clinton holding steady in the same basic mid- to upper 40s range she has been in in New Hampshire. The difference is that Trump's dip into the 30s has given way to the a position around 40 percent where he has often found himself in surveys nationally and in the more competitive states.
North Carolina:
Another day and another minimal margin poll out of North Carolina. There have been eight polls conducted in the Tar Heel state since convention season wrapped up on Philadelphia. Three-quarters of those polls have shown a race within two points. The new PPP survey is right in line with trend. As that Clinton +9 outlier from Marist loses weight and additional tight polls come online, the North Carolina margin here at FHQ continues to shrink. Clinton maintains the advantage, but it is becoming increasingly closer in North Carolina.
Ohio:
In Ohio, the consistency is similar to that seen in North Carolina. The difference, however, is that Clinton's lead in the Buckeye state is more comfortable. That is less clear in the averages here at FHQ, but in the post-convention polling, her edge has been in the four point range. The new PPP poll does not change that.
Pennsylvania:
Like Arizona, there were a couple of new polls out of Pennsylvania added to the FHQ dataset. Trump, perhaps, gets some good news in the multi-candidate survey from Franklin and Marshall -- the margin is down to just three -- but both candidates are around 40 percent. This may be evidence that Clinton is on the decline in the Keystone state, but it is also well under where Clinton has been in recent surveys. There is more out there to suggest -- as in the new PPP survey -- that Clinton is holding relatively steady in the mid-40s while Trump has bounced back from bottoming out during the first half of August. In any event, the margin is down in Pennsylvania and that has drawn the state back onto the Watch List, within a point of the Lean/Toss up line.
Virginia:
Outlier? The new Hampton poll certainly looks like it in light of the majority of post-convention polling in the Old Dominion showing the state potentially moving out of reach for Trump. But like a number of other states discussed in this latest wave of poll releases the closing of the gap is more about Trump pulling back to around 40 percent rather than Clinton entering a free fall. Her share in the poll is low but still on the lower end of her recent range.Virginia is still a Clinton lean at this point.
West Virginia:
A rare update from Repass in West Virginia is about what one would expect. Trump leads in a ruby red state -- and comfortably -- but is running a little more than ten points behind Romney in the Mountain state in 2012. Clinton, on the other hand, is in range of where Obama was four years ago. The end result is still the same: five electoral votes in the Republican nominee's column.
Wisconsin:
After a quiet month for polling in Wisconsin, there has been a flurry of survey activity the last two days. The new PPP survey echoes the two from a day ago. Though the point of comparison is one Marquette poll from right after the convention, the 13 point lead there has more than halved in each of the three late August polls just released. The Badger state remains a solid Clinton lean at this point, but the margin there is slowly shrinking.
--
The map again remains unchanged. However, the Watch List loses one state (Arizona) but adds two more (Missouri and Pennsylvania). On the Electoral College Spectrum things held steady for the most part. West Virginia shifts up a couple of spots but continues to be among the most Republican states.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
NJ-14
(175)
|
PA-203
(269 | 289)
|
MO-10
(155)
|
TN-11
(58)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
DE-3
(178)
|
NH-43
(273 | 269)
|
AK-3
(145)
|
LA-8
(47)
|
RI-4
(21)
|
ME-4
(182)
|
FL-29
(302 | 265) |
KS-6
(142)
|
SD-3
(39)
|
MA-11
(32)
|
NM-5
(187)
|
OH-18
(320 | 236) |
UT-6
(136)
|
ND-3
(36)
|
VT-3
(35)
|
WI-10
(197)
|
IA-6
(326 | 218)
|
TX-38
(130)
|
ID-4
(33)
|
CA-55
(90)
|
OR-7
(204)
|
NC-15
(341 | 212)
|
IN-11
(92)
|
NE-5
(29)
|
NY-29
(119)
|
MI-16
(220)
|
NV-6
(347 | 197)
|
MS-6
(81)
|
WV-5
(24)
|
IL-20
(139)
|
CT-7
(227)
|
GA-16
(191)
|
AR-6
(75)
|
AL-9
(19)
|
WA-12
(151)
|
CO-9
(236)
|
AZ-11
(175)
|
MT-3
(69)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
MN-10
(161)
|
VA-13
(249)
|
SC-9
(164)
|
KY-8
(66)
|
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 Pennsylvania (all Clinton's toss up states plus Pennsylvania), he would have 289 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Arkansas
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Delaware
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Georgia
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Indiana
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Nevada
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/31/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/30/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/29/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
The Electoral College Map (8/31/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/30/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/29/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)