COLORADO
Election type: primary
Date: March 3
Number of delegates: 79 [14 at-large, 9 PLEOs, 44 congressional district, 12 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional caucuses
Delegate selection plan
--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.
That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.
While the position of the Colorado delegate selection event did not change between 2016 and 2020, the mode of delegate selection did. Colorado voters in 2016 passed a ballot initiative to bring a presidential primary back to the Centennial state for the first time since the 2000 cycle. And although the change granted the governor the ability to set the date of the contest for one of the first three Tuesdays of March, Governor Polis ultimately opted to slot the Colorado primary into Super Tuesday. That caucus-to-primary shift actually preceded the move by the DNC to encourage such changes for the 2020 cycle. Nonetheless, Colorado is one of the 11 states that made the change for 2020.
The other quirk in the newly re-etablished Colorado presidential primary is that the process works via vote-by-mail. Democratic registrants are mailed a Democratic ballot, while unaffiliated voters -- who are allowed to participate -- are mailed both a Democratic and Republican primary ballot from which they choose one. There is same-day registration as well for anyone who wants to participate as a Democrat.
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)
Colorado's 44 congressional district delegates are split across 7 congressional districts and have some variation across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Colorado Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 gubernatorial election in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 9 delegates*
CD2 - 9 delegates*
CD3 - 5 delegates*
CD4 - 5 delegates*
CD5 - 4 delegates
CD6 - 6 delegates
CD7 - 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. Colorado has a total of 4 districts with odd numbers of delegates -- more than half -- and the range is five delegates from a low of four delegates in a district to a high of nine (two districts). That is more variation compared to a state like California with many more districts.
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 44 district delegates in Colorado are chosen in April 2-17 district caucuses based on the results in the respective congressional districts. The 9 PLEO and then 14 at-large delegates are selected on April 18 at the state convention based on the statewide primary results.
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-April when the Colorado statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the March primary would be reallocated to Candidate X. [This same feature is not something that applies to district delegates.] This reallocation only applies if a candidate has fully dropped out. Candidates with suspended campaigns are still candidates and can fill those slots allocated them.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Colorado. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Colorado. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Date of 2016 Colorado Republican Caucuses Remains Unsettled
With New York officially moving back into compliance with national party delegate selection rules and North Carolina inching in that direction too, Colorado is the only state with any ties to a February primary/caucus position that is not also a carve-out state. Under Colorado state law, parties can call caucuses in a presidential primary year for either the first Tuesday in February or the first Tuesday in March. Democrats in the Centennial state have already staked a claim to the March 1 date, but on the Republican side, the choice is still unclear.
According to Colorado Republican Party chief of staff, Tyler Hart, that decision likely will not be made until late September (just prior to the October 1 Republican National Committee deadline by which state parties are required to have finalized delegate selection plans). The Colorado Republican Party Executive Committee will meet to discuss the options in a late August meeting and then the full State Central Committee will vote on the date as well as the method of delegate allocation.
All of this hinges on whether the party votes to hold a straw poll (to determine presidential preference). If the State Central Committee opts against a straw poll, then the caucuses are likely to be scheduled on the first Tuesday in February date; February 2 (the day after the proposed February 1 Iowa caucuses). Recall that in 2012, Colorado Republicans held early February caucuses, but conducted a non-binding straw poll that Rick Santorum won. Any straw poll vote like that -- concurrent with precinct caucuses -- in 2016 would bind any subsequent delegate allocation in the state based on rules changes that came out of the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. The rules change was partially motivated by contests like those in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri that had beauty contest votes that had little or no bearing on the simultaneous and subsequent delegate selection process (through precinct caucuses to county/district caucuses to the state convention).
Attempting to thread that needle -- early caucuses with no direct presidential preference vote1 -- echoes to some degree the experience Minnesota Republicans earlier this year. Minnesota was in a similar boat with Colorado in 2012 as alluded to above. Both state parties held early February caucuses and both parties allowed caucus participants to vote on their presidential preference in meaningless straw poll votes. However, both now face a cycle that will operate under a set of rules that prohibit a repeat of the non-binding straw polls at caucuses.
Minnesota Republicans, after agreeing with Democrats in the Gopher state to hold caucuses on March 1 next year, petitioned the RNC to allow its delegation to remain unbound heading to the national convention in Cleveland next July as has been the custom in Minnesota throughout the post-reform era. The party even considered skipping its own straw poll (with the March 1 caucuses) as a means of circumventing the new binding rules. Minnesota Republicans technically could not have gotten away with the maneuver since the state law requires a straw poll vote. Regardless, the RNC denied the request to allow the Minnesota delegation to remain unbound heading into the national convention. According to reports out the state at the time, that ruling did not address the potential for not holding a straw poll vote.
This is what Colorado Republicans are also considering now. And it is likely something that the RNC will have to address if the state party votes to go forward with a plan to forgo the straw poll. As the caucuses are likely to indirectly affect the delegate selection process (who the delegates are and are aligned with), the likelihood of it ending up like Minnesota -- request denied -- is high.
But the Colorado Republican Party could avoid all of that by choosing the March option for its 2016 caucuses. That decision will not (officially) come until September though.
--
1 Instead caucusgoers would be voting on delegate candidates (likely) aligned with particular candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination. Delegates would be selected/elected from that pool of (aligned) delegate candidates to move on to the next step of the caucus/convention process.
According to Colorado Republican Party chief of staff, Tyler Hart, that decision likely will not be made until late September (just prior to the October 1 Republican National Committee deadline by which state parties are required to have finalized delegate selection plans). The Colorado Republican Party Executive Committee will meet to discuss the options in a late August meeting and then the full State Central Committee will vote on the date as well as the method of delegate allocation.
All of this hinges on whether the party votes to hold a straw poll (to determine presidential preference). If the State Central Committee opts against a straw poll, then the caucuses are likely to be scheduled on the first Tuesday in February date; February 2 (the day after the proposed February 1 Iowa caucuses). Recall that in 2012, Colorado Republicans held early February caucuses, but conducted a non-binding straw poll that Rick Santorum won. Any straw poll vote like that -- concurrent with precinct caucuses -- in 2016 would bind any subsequent delegate allocation in the state based on rules changes that came out of the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa. The rules change was partially motivated by contests like those in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri that had beauty contest votes that had little or no bearing on the simultaneous and subsequent delegate selection process (through precinct caucuses to county/district caucuses to the state convention).
Attempting to thread that needle -- early caucuses with no direct presidential preference vote1 -- echoes to some degree the experience Minnesota Republicans earlier this year. Minnesota was in a similar boat with Colorado in 2012 as alluded to above. Both state parties held early February caucuses and both parties allowed caucus participants to vote on their presidential preference in meaningless straw poll votes. However, both now face a cycle that will operate under a set of rules that prohibit a repeat of the non-binding straw polls at caucuses.
Minnesota Republicans, after agreeing with Democrats in the Gopher state to hold caucuses on March 1 next year, petitioned the RNC to allow its delegation to remain unbound heading to the national convention in Cleveland next July as has been the custom in Minnesota throughout the post-reform era. The party even considered skipping its own straw poll (with the March 1 caucuses) as a means of circumventing the new binding rules. Minnesota Republicans technically could not have gotten away with the maneuver since the state law requires a straw poll vote. Regardless, the RNC denied the request to allow the Minnesota delegation to remain unbound heading into the national convention. According to reports out the state at the time, that ruling did not address the potential for not holding a straw poll vote.
This is what Colorado Republicans are also considering now. And it is likely something that the RNC will have to address if the state party votes to go forward with a plan to forgo the straw poll. As the caucuses are likely to indirectly affect the delegate selection process (who the delegates are and are aligned with), the likelihood of it ending up like Minnesota -- request denied -- is high.
But the Colorado Republican Party could avoid all of that by choosing the March option for its 2016 caucuses. That decision will not (officially) come until September though.
--
1 Instead caucusgoers would be voting on delegate candidates (likely) aligned with particular candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination. Delegates would be selected/elected from that pool of (aligned) delegate candidates to move on to the next step of the caucus/convention process.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Electoral College Map (10/22/08)
Lots to look at today. There were 22 new polls out on Tuesday in 17 states, but what was different between the Tuesday polls and those that preceded them on Monday was that we got a broader sample of types of states on Tuesday. So, we got polls from Florida and North Carolina and Colorado, but there were also polls from Illinois and South Dakota and South Carolina. In the case of the latter group, we get a chance to see whether there was any continued post-Lehman movement in the polls in strong states or whether they held pat.
The Moore poll in Alaska is interesting. The tables there tell the tale. Since the Palin selection, McCain's numbers in the Last Frontier have remained virtually unchanged, but there has been a drop in the undecideds total and it is all going to Obama. That isn't enough to put Obama over the top there, but it is an interesting development in light of the state's popular governor being on the GOP ticket. Red state margins were down in South Carolina and South Dakota as well. The effect is more pronounced in South Dakota, where the Mount Rushmore state appears to be following its northern neighbor in the polls. But as was the case with our discussion of Virginia and North Carolina the other day, the starting position for both Dakotas was different. There have been more hints of competitiveness in North Dakota than in South Dakota, but neither would be especially close if the election were held today (...and assuming these averages are accurate). Both would be closer than they have been in quite a while but not close enough for the Democrats.
But what about the toss up states? Well, that group adds one more today. Indiana, after moving into the McCain lean category following the lowering of the lean/toss up threshold last week, is now back in the toss up category. The Public Policy Polling survey of the Hoosier state showed Obama with a slight lead there and pulled Indiana off the line between the two categories and into toss up status. Indiana, like Missouri, is much more likely to move more based on new polling. The two of those states have far fewer polls than is the case in North Carolina. If, then, those +2 margins were to continue for Obama in Indiana, that one could close pretty quickly. However, is that more a typical narrowing effect or a complete switch-over? Given that Obama is ahead -- and yes it is in just one poll -- that indicates the latter. As always, though, we'll need more data from the Hoosier state to tell for sure.
[Click Map to Enlarge]
McCain, then, loses 11 electoral votes from his "safer" total (strong plus lean states) and is now over 100 electoral votes down in the comparison of his total (163) to Obama's (273). Overall though, the projection still stands at 338-200 in favor of the Illinois senator. The GOP has argued that the CNN reports that the McCain campaign was pulling out of Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico were false, but all three continue to be uphill climbs for the McCain campaign. If those three are out of the mix then the Arizona senator either has to sweep FHQ's toss up states or pick up any combination of them that along with Pennsylvania would push McCain over 270 electoral votes. Pulling out of Iowa and New Mexico may be wise, as those resources could be used in other areas, but Colorado seems to be an odd choice to back out on -- or even quietly talk about. Seth Masket over at Enik Rising is in Colorado and has a different take on the GOP's potential intent.
Regardless, Colorado appears to be a vital piece to any combination of states that would get McCain an electoral college victory. We haven't discussed Colorado's position as the victory line in a while since the playing field shifted right, giving Obama the Virginia/Nevada/Ohio/Florida cushion, but the Centennial state still holds that distinction. If McCain can sweep the toss up states, he'd still need Colorado to get over the hump. With less than two weeks left in the race though, the options are growing fewer in number and the chances slim. As I argued a week ago when the category thresholds were lowered, three points is a lot to make up over the last two weeks and McCain would have to make up that much ground and more in states like Colorado or Pennsylvania to make the math work to his advantage in the electoral college.
[On the Watch List, the standard line applies. Florida, Missouri, Nevada and Ohio are still the states to watch most closely when new polls are released. But as you may or may not have noticed, North Carolina is now off the list. The Tar Heel state continues to draw closer and is now far enough into the McCain toss up category that it is no longer imminently vulnerable to a switch into the McCain lean category.]
Now, there could be a Bradley/Wilder effect at work as well, and I'll look at some scenarios later on this afternoon, where that could make a difference in this race. Under what circumstances and to what effect does that phenonmenon bring McCain back into the race in some states and make the race more competitive?
Recent Posts:
Map Update Coming...
The Electoral College Map (10/21/08)
Early Voting in Forsyth County, GA: Technology at Work
| New Polls (Oct. 21) | |||
| State | Poll | Margin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | Moore | +11 | |
| Colorado | Insider Advantage | +5 | |
| Florida | Public Policy Polling | +1 | |
| Illinois | Chicago Tribune | +24 | |
| Indiana | Public Policy Polling | +2 | |
| Kentucky | Survey USA | +13 | |
| Maine | Survey USA | +15 | |
| Nevada | Insider Advantage | 0 | |
| New Jersey | Monmouth | +17 | |
| New Jersey | Quinnipiac | +23 | |
| North Carolina | Civitas | +3 | |
| North Carolina | Survey USA | 0 | |
| North Carolina | Insider Advantage | +1 | |
| Oklahoma | Survey USA | +24 | |
| Oklahoma | TvPoll | +31.3 | |
| Pennsylvania | Muhlenberg College | +10 | |
| South Carolina | Rasmussen | +11 | |
| South Dakota | Mason-Dixon | +7 | |
| Vermont | Macro International | +22 | |
| West Virginia | Rasmussen | +9 | |
| Wyoming | Survey USA | +21 | |
| Wyoming | Mason-Dixon | +26 | |
The Moore poll in Alaska is interesting. The tables there tell the tale. Since the Palin selection, McCain's numbers in the Last Frontier have remained virtually unchanged, but there has been a drop in the undecideds total and it is all going to Obama. That isn't enough to put Obama over the top there, but it is an interesting development in light of the state's popular governor being on the GOP ticket. Red state margins were down in South Carolina and South Dakota as well. The effect is more pronounced in South Dakota, where the Mount Rushmore state appears to be following its northern neighbor in the polls. But as was the case with our discussion of Virginia and North Carolina the other day, the starting position for both Dakotas was different. There have been more hints of competitiveness in North Dakota than in South Dakota, but neither would be especially close if the election were held today (...and assuming these averages are accurate). Both would be closer than they have been in quite a while but not close enough for the Democrats.
| Changes (Oct. 21) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indiana | McCain lean | Toss Up McCain | |
But what about the toss up states? Well, that group adds one more today. Indiana, after moving into the McCain lean category following the lowering of the lean/toss up threshold last week, is now back in the toss up category. The Public Policy Polling survey of the Hoosier state showed Obama with a slight lead there and pulled Indiana off the line between the two categories and into toss up status. Indiana, like Missouri, is much more likely to move more based on new polling. The two of those states have far fewer polls than is the case in North Carolina. If, then, those +2 margins were to continue for Obama in Indiana, that one could close pretty quickly. However, is that more a typical narrowing effect or a complete switch-over? Given that Obama is ahead -- and yes it is in just one poll -- that indicates the latter. As always, though, we'll need more data from the Hoosier state to tell for sure.
[Click Map to Enlarge]McCain, then, loses 11 electoral votes from his "safer" total (strong plus lean states) and is now over 100 electoral votes down in the comparison of his total (163) to Obama's (273). Overall though, the projection still stands at 338-200 in favor of the Illinois senator. The GOP has argued that the CNN reports that the McCain campaign was pulling out of Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico were false, but all three continue to be uphill climbs for the McCain campaign. If those three are out of the mix then the Arizona senator either has to sweep FHQ's toss up states or pick up any combination of them that along with Pennsylvania would push McCain over 270 electoral votes. Pulling out of Iowa and New Mexico may be wise, as those resources could be used in other areas, but Colorado seems to be an odd choice to back out on -- or even quietly talk about. Seth Masket over at Enik Rising is in Colorado and has a different take on the GOP's potential intent.
| The Electoral College Spectrum* | ||||
| HI-4 (7)** | ME-4 (157) | NH-4 (264/278) | WV-5 (160) | LA-9 (67) |
| VT-3 (10) | NJ-15 (172) | CO-9*** (273/274) | MT-3 (155) | KY-8 (58) |
| RI-4 (14) | OR-7 (179) | VA-13 (286/265) | GA-15 (152) | KS-6 (50) |
| MA-12 (26) | WA-11 (190) | NV-5 (291/252) | SD-3 (137) | TN-11 (44) |
| MD-10 (36) | IA-7 (197) | OH-20 (311/247) | MS-6 (134) | NE-5 (33) |
| IL-21 (57) | MN-10 (207) | FL-27 (338/227) | TX-34 (128) | AL-9 (28) |
| NY-31 (88) | WI-10 (217) | MO-11 (349/200) | AR-6 (94) | WY-3 (19) |
| DE-3 (91) | PA-21 (238) | NC-15 (364/189) | AK-3 (88) | ID-4 (16) |
| CT-7 (98) | NM-5 (243) | IN-11 (375/174) | SC-8 (85) | OK-7 (12) |
| CA-55 (153) | MI-17 (260) | ND-3 (163) | AZ-10 (77) | UT-5 (5) |
| *Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. **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, McCain won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Obama's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 274 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics. ***Colorado is the state where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. It is currently favoring Obama, thus the blue text in that cell. | ||||
Regardless, Colorado appears to be a vital piece to any combination of states that would get McCain an electoral college victory. We haven't discussed Colorado's position as the victory line in a while since the playing field shifted right, giving Obama the Virginia/Nevada/Ohio/Florida cushion, but the Centennial state still holds that distinction. If McCain can sweep the toss up states, he'd still need Colorado to get over the hump. With less than two weeks left in the race though, the options are growing fewer in number and the chances slim. As I argued a week ago when the category thresholds were lowered, three points is a lot to make up over the last two weeks and McCain would have to make up that much ground and more in states like Colorado or Pennsylvania to make the math work to his advantage in the electoral college.
| The Watch List* | |||
| State | Switch | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | from Obama lean | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Florida | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Indiana | from Toss Up McCain | to McCain lean | |
| Minnesota | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Missouri | from Toss Up McCain | to Toss Up Obama | |
| Nevada | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| New Mexico | from Obama lean | to Strong Obama | |
| Ohio | from Toss Up Obama | to Toss Up McCain | |
| Pennsylvania | from Obama lean | to Strong Obama | |
| Virginia | from Toss Up Obama | to Obama lean | |
| Wisconsin | from Strong Obama | to Obama lean | |
| *Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. | |||
[On the Watch List, the standard line applies. Florida, Missouri, Nevada and Ohio are still the states to watch most closely when new polls are released. But as you may or may not have noticed, North Carolina is now off the list. The Tar Heel state continues to draw closer and is now far enough into the McCain toss up category that it is no longer imminently vulnerable to a switch into the McCain lean category.]
Now, there could be a Bradley/Wilder effect at work as well, and I'll look at some scenarios later on this afternoon, where that could make a difference in this race. Under what circumstances and to what effect does that phenonmenon bring McCain back into the race in some states and make the race more competitive?
Recent Posts:
Map Update Coming...
The Electoral College Map (10/21/08)
Early Voting in Forsyth County, GA: Technology at Work
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Colorado Democrats Signal Super Tuesday Presidential Primary in Draft Delegate Selection Plan
The public release late last week of the Colorado Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan contained at least some indication that the newly reestablished presidential primary in the Centennial state will fall on Super Tuesday.
Indeed, that is the earliest date on which the Colorado governor in consultation with the secretary of state can set the date. But the pair have until September 1, 2019 under the new law to set the date for a Tuesday between the first and third Tuesdays of the March. That gives them a bit of discretion in choosing the most advantageous spot on the calendar for the Colorado primary. And that window is going to be jam-packed with contests. As of now, the first Tuesday in March -- Super Tuesday -- is the most delegate-rich date on the calendar, followed by the second Tuesday in March (if Washington finalizes a move to that date), and that is followed by the third most delegate-rich date on the third Tuesday in March.
That is the range in which Colorado can settle. And there are a number of different paths that can be taken. Again, the state Democratic Party and the secretary of state are assuming a March 3 date for the primary. That would not only be the earliest date allowed by the national parties for states other than the carve-out states to hold primaries and caucuses, but would be the earliest under Colorado law that the date could be set. But that is a date devoid of regional partners (unless one considers the behemoth contest further west in California). Utah, too, could end up on Super Tuesday. Other western partners -- Idaho and likely Washington -- would coincide with a Colorado primary a week later and neighbor Arizona has its primary on the third week in March.
Regardless, the governor and secretary of state have until September 1 to make that decision. All we have from Colorado Democrats and the secretary are assumptions -- signals -- that the primary in the Centennial state will fall on that date. However, the date remains an unknown and Colorado something of a wildcard on the 2020 presidential primary calendar.
Indeed, that is the earliest date on which the Colorado governor in consultation with the secretary of state can set the date. But the pair have until September 1, 2019 under the new law to set the date for a Tuesday between the first and third Tuesdays of the March. That gives them a bit of discretion in choosing the most advantageous spot on the calendar for the Colorado primary. And that window is going to be jam-packed with contests. As of now, the first Tuesday in March -- Super Tuesday -- is the most delegate-rich date on the calendar, followed by the second Tuesday in March (if Washington finalizes a move to that date), and that is followed by the third most delegate-rich date on the third Tuesday in March.
That is the range in which Colorado can settle. And there are a number of different paths that can be taken. Again, the state Democratic Party and the secretary of state are assuming a March 3 date for the primary. That would not only be the earliest date allowed by the national parties for states other than the carve-out states to hold primaries and caucuses, but would be the earliest under Colorado law that the date could be set. But that is a date devoid of regional partners (unless one considers the behemoth contest further west in California). Utah, too, could end up on Super Tuesday. Other western partners -- Idaho and likely Washington -- would coincide with a Colorado primary a week later and neighbor Arizona has its primary on the third week in March.
Regardless, the governor and secretary of state have until September 1 to make that decision. All we have from Colorado Democrats and the secretary are assumptions -- signals -- that the primary in the Centennial state will fall on that date. However, the date remains an unknown and Colorado something of a wildcard on the 2020 presidential primary calendar.
--
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
An Update on 2020 Colorado Republican Delegate Allocation
Last week, FHQ pointed out in a post that, under its at-the-time rules, the Colorado Republican Party had a 2020 delegate allocation problem. The party in March adopted at its state convention a set of delegate allocation rules that eliminated a proportional option and substituted a winner-take-all allocation option for it. The latter would not be compliant with national party rules because of the Super Tuesday date of the Colorado presidential primary. It falls too early for a party to conduct a winner-take-all allocation.
As a result, Colorado Republicans would be vulnerable to the 50 percent delegation reduction penalty for conducting a winner-take-all primary too early (prior to March 15).
In other words, something had to give if Colorado Republicans wanted a full delegation to attend the Republican National Convention in Charlotte next year. And something did happen late in the window to make rules changes before the October 1 deadline for state parties to finalize delegate selection plans for 2020. The Colorado Republican Party state central committee met on September 21 and passed a series of amendments affecting the delegate selection process.
Article XIII had the non-compliant winner-take-all option removed and replaced with a couple of contingencies. If the primary is late enough or a candidate receives enough support in the primary, then that candidate is eligible for all of the delegates from the Centennial state. The former accounts for timing of the primary, but also establishes a minimum threshold for triggering a winner-take-all allocation (regardless of timing). Under the new rules, if a candidate receives 50 percent or more of the vote, then the winner-take-all trigger is tripped.
That rule stands regardless: a majority winner in the Colorado presidential primary gets all of the delegates regardless of timing. However, if no candidate reaches that winner-take-all threshold (and the primary is early), then a proportional means of allocation is instituted. To qualify for delegates under this contingency, the new rules call for candidates to have received 20 percent or more of the vote; the highest qualifying threshold allowed under RNC rules.
Both the addition of the winner-take-all contingency and the new qualifying threshold under the proportional option bring the Colorado Republican Party back into compliance with RNC rules. And both are set to points that nearly guarantee that Trump will win all of the delegates from the state. Both changes also bring Colorado in line with the delegate allocation rules in most other states on Super Tuesday.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
As a result, Colorado Republicans would be vulnerable to the 50 percent delegation reduction penalty for conducting a winner-take-all primary too early (prior to March 15).
In other words, something had to give if Colorado Republicans wanted a full delegation to attend the Republican National Convention in Charlotte next year. And something did happen late in the window to make rules changes before the October 1 deadline for state parties to finalize delegate selection plans for 2020. The Colorado Republican Party state central committee met on September 21 and passed a series of amendments affecting the delegate selection process.
Article XIII had the non-compliant winner-take-all option removed and replaced with a couple of contingencies. If the primary is late enough or a candidate receives enough support in the primary, then that candidate is eligible for all of the delegates from the Centennial state. The former accounts for timing of the primary, but also establishes a minimum threshold for triggering a winner-take-all allocation (regardless of timing). Under the new rules, if a candidate receives 50 percent or more of the vote, then the winner-take-all trigger is tripped.
That rule stands regardless: a majority winner in the Colorado presidential primary gets all of the delegates regardless of timing. However, if no candidate reaches that winner-take-all threshold (and the primary is early), then a proportional means of allocation is instituted. To qualify for delegates under this contingency, the new rules call for candidates to have received 20 percent or more of the vote; the highest qualifying threshold allowed under RNC rules.
Both the addition of the winner-take-all contingency and the new qualifying threshold under the proportional option bring the Colorado Republican Party back into compliance with RNC rules. And both are set to points that nearly guarantee that Trump will win all of the delegates from the state. Both changes also bring Colorado in line with the delegate allocation rules in most other states on Super Tuesday.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
The Electoral College Map (8/7/12)
Meh.
FHQ tries to drive home the idea that no one poll is all that consequential. However, days with polls released from competitive states sometimes test that proposition. Such was the case today with new polls from both Colorado and North Carolina. Still, the result was a continued steady state. [And as sure as I'm saying that, you can be certain I would have called anything else an outlier. ...probably.]
Again, meh.
Polling Quick Hits:
Colorado:
Two polls, two different results. But the tie from Rasmussen and +4 (for Obama) from Public Policy Polling did little to move the needle in the Centennial state where polling had trailed off of late. The common refrain around here in the event of a nearly simultaneous survey releases with differing results is to just take the average of both. An averaged +2 for Obama lags behind where the Colorado weighted average is now, but is not an terribly divergent from it either. It is good to have the data, but it really only confirms what we already knew of Colorado: Obama's slightly ahead there.
North Carolina:
Public Policy Polling has been the only firm other than NBC/Marist since May to show President Obama ahead in the Tarheel state. Every other poll has shown Governor Romney with the lead. Yet, none of those leads is ever greater +5 and most are in the 0-3 range in either direction. This poll is the rare poll to give the president the edge is North Carolina, but the result was well within the range of other polls we have seen in the lone remaining toss up state favoring Romney.
Needless to say, none of these surveys did anything to shift either Colorado or North Carolina on the map or in the Electoral College Spectrum. Colorado remains just on the Romney side of the tipping point -- Ohio -- but continues to be among a group of toss up states that are tilt collectively toward the president at the moment. North Carolina is the lone hold out; a state with a weighted average within 5 points of tied.
The +5 for Romney from Rasmussen in North Carolina last week took North Carolina off the Watch List and the latest PPP survey with Obama up 3 points puts the Tarheel state back on the list. North Carolina is now within a fraction of a point -- and just barely -- of switching from Toss Up Romney to Toss Up Obama. It also adds a little light red (pink) to a sea otherwise predominantly made up shades of blue.
Please see:
FHQ tries to drive home the idea that no one poll is all that consequential. However, days with polls released from competitive states sometimes test that proposition. Such was the case today with new polls from both Colorado and North Carolina. Still, the result was a continued steady state. [And as sure as I'm saying that, you can be certain I would have called anything else an outlier. ...probably.]
Again, meh.
New State Polls (8/7/12)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
8/6
|
+/- 4.5%
|
500 likely voters
|
47
|
47
|
2
|
0
|
+3.40
| |
Colorado
|
PPP1
|
8/2-8/5
|
+/- 3.5%
|
779 likely voters
|
46
|
42
|
7
|
+4
|
--
|
North Carolina
|
8/2-8/5
|
+/- 3.4%
|
813 likely voters
|
49
|
46
|
5
|
+3
|
+0.91
| |
1 The poll numbers used from the Public Policy Polling survey of Colorado include Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. The former New Mexico governor received the support of 6% of the respondents. Without Johnson, Obama (49%) leads Romney (43%) by 6%. Using that data would have increased the FHQ weighted average margin to 3.62 in favor of the president.
| |||||||||
Polling Quick Hits:
Colorado:
Two polls, two different results. But the tie from Rasmussen and +4 (for Obama) from Public Policy Polling did little to move the needle in the Centennial state where polling had trailed off of late. The common refrain around here in the event of a nearly simultaneous survey releases with differing results is to just take the average of both. An averaged +2 for Obama lags behind where the Colorado weighted average is now, but is not an terribly divergent from it either. It is good to have the data, but it really only confirms what we already knew of Colorado: Obama's slightly ahead there.
North Carolina:
Public Policy Polling has been the only firm other than NBC/Marist since May to show President Obama ahead in the Tarheel state. Every other poll has shown Governor Romney with the lead. Yet, none of those leads is ever greater +5 and most are in the 0-3 range in either direction. This poll is the rare poll to give the president the edge is North Carolina, but the result was well within the range of other polls we have seen in the lone remaining toss up state favoring Romney.
Needless to say, none of these surveys did anything to shift either Colorado or North Carolina on the map or in the Electoral College Spectrum. Colorado remains just on the Romney side of the tipping point -- Ohio -- but continues to be among a group of toss up states that are tilt collectively toward the president at the moment. North Carolina is the lone hold out; a state with a weighted average within 5 points of tied.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
RI-4
(7)2
|
NJ-14
(160)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
AZ-11
(167)
|
MS-6
(55)
|
HI-4
(11)
|
WA-12
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
MT-3
(156)
|
ND-3
(49)
|
NY-29
(40)
|
MN-10
(182)
|
CO-9
(284/263)
|
GA-16
(153)
|
AL-9
(46)
|
VT-3
(43)
|
NM-5
(187)
|
VA-13
(297/254)
|
WV-5
(137)
|
KY-8
(37)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
CT-7
(194)
|
IA-6
(303/241)
|
IN-11
(132)
|
KS-6
(29)
|
CA-55
(108)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
SC-9
(121)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
MA-11
(119)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
LA-8
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
IL-20
(139)
|
WI-10
(231)
|
TN-11
(191)
|
NE-5
(104)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
NV-6
(237)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
AR-6
(99)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
MI-16
(253)
|
SD-3
(170)
|
TX-38
(93)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
The +5 for Romney from Rasmussen in North Carolina last week took North Carolina off the Watch List and the latest PPP survey with Obama up 3 points puts the Tarheel state back on the list. North Carolina is now within a fraction of a point -- and just barely -- of switching from Toss Up Romney to Toss Up Obama. It also adds a little light red (pink) to a sea otherwise predominantly made up shades of blue.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Connecticut
|
from Strong Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
Georgia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Michigan
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
Nevada
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
New Mexico
|
from Strong Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
North Carolina
|
from Toss Up Romney
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
West Virginia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Please see:
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/6/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/2/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/1/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/6/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/2/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/1/12)
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Colorado Republicans Opt to Forgo Presidential Preference Vote at 2016 Caucuses
The Executive Committee of the Colorado Republican Party unanimously voted late last week to skip the presidential preference vote at its precinct caucuses in 2016.
On the surface this is an interesting if not strange decision. As the Associated Press reported, it is a move to diminish the role of the state in the Republican presidential nomination process. Perhaps, but FHQ is not of the opinion that that tells the full story here.
For practical purposes, all this means is that Colorado Republicans will caucus on either February 2 (the day after the presumed February 1 Iowa caucuses) or March 1 (the day of the so-called SEC primary). The process will likely look the exact same as it did four years ago when the party conducted caucuses on the first Tuesday in February. The only difference is in 2016, that exercise will not have a presidential preference vote as part of the proceedings.
And bear in mind that the vote at the 2012 Colorado Republican caucuses did not bind delegates to the national convention. It was one of the non-binding caucuses. The very same sort of affair that the Republican National Committee sought to change at the 2012 convention in Tampa and in rules changes in the time since. At least part of the intent in that move toward binding contests was not only to eliminate fantasy delegates, but to create a more orderly delegate count over the course of primary season and ultimately a less controversial (lead up to the) roll call vote for the nomination at the next national convention.
However, the RNC provided one out to states wanting to maintain a practice of sending unbound delegates to the national convention. Basically, it gave the handful of caucus states that have in the past held non-binding caucuses the ability to opt out of a presidential preference vote altogether. Now, there is nothing in Rule 16(a)(1) that invites states to do this, but there is also nothing there -- no penalty -- to prevent states from not holding a presidential preference vote. The only penalty is that states taking that path are gambling with the attention they might receive in the nomination process.
And that brings this discussion back to the contention from the AP above; that Colorado Republicans, by making this decision, have counterintuitively shrunk their own role in the process. That all depends. Recall that the preference vote meant very little in 2012. It was a straw poll, a beauty contest. But that allowed us to say that Rick Santorum had "won" Colorado. We will not have the ability to as easily declare a winner in 2016 in the Centennial state.
Yet, that does not also prevent the candidates and their campaigns from spending time there. It just changes the incentives. The "winner" tag will be gone, but campaigns will still have decisions to make. Do you invest resources in a contest that pays no immediate dividends? Do you invest in the type of organization that gets candidate-aligned delegates elected to move from the precinct caucuses to county assemblies and from there to district conventions and from there to the state convention and beyond to Cleveland?
Perhaps Colorado Republicans did not just diminish their role so much as narrow the field of candidates who are willing to gamble; willing to expend those resources there. The party has condensed the field to three main categories: 1) those with grassroots support, 2) those who have the money and resources to organize or 3) those who have both. The rest won't bother and probably because they cannot afford to.
And if the Republican Party in Colorado opts for a February 2 date for its caucuses, it increases the likelihood that candidates would be willing to make that gamble. Remember also that with no binding presidential preference vote, Colorado would not be penalized any delegates under the RNC rules.
--
One more thing that has not come out in the reporting here is that this -- the executive committee vote -- may only be step one in this decision-making process. When FHQ spoke with the party last month, party chief of staff, Tyler Hart, informed us that ultimately the state central committee will have to sign off on any changes coming out of the executive committee meeting during its own meeting next month. Given that the executive committee vote was unanimous, though, the direction of that vote seems quite clear.
They have a date decision to make as well.
On the surface this is an interesting if not strange decision. As the Associated Press reported, it is a move to diminish the role of the state in the Republican presidential nomination process. Perhaps, but FHQ is not of the opinion that that tells the full story here.
For practical purposes, all this means is that Colorado Republicans will caucus on either February 2 (the day after the presumed February 1 Iowa caucuses) or March 1 (the day of the so-called SEC primary). The process will likely look the exact same as it did four years ago when the party conducted caucuses on the first Tuesday in February. The only difference is in 2016, that exercise will not have a presidential preference vote as part of the proceedings.
And bear in mind that the vote at the 2012 Colorado Republican caucuses did not bind delegates to the national convention. It was one of the non-binding caucuses. The very same sort of affair that the Republican National Committee sought to change at the 2012 convention in Tampa and in rules changes in the time since. At least part of the intent in that move toward binding contests was not only to eliminate fantasy delegates, but to create a more orderly delegate count over the course of primary season and ultimately a less controversial (lead up to the) roll call vote for the nomination at the next national convention.
However, the RNC provided one out to states wanting to maintain a practice of sending unbound delegates to the national convention. Basically, it gave the handful of caucus states that have in the past held non-binding caucuses the ability to opt out of a presidential preference vote altogether. Now, there is nothing in Rule 16(a)(1) that invites states to do this, but there is also nothing there -- no penalty -- to prevent states from not holding a presidential preference vote. The only penalty is that states taking that path are gambling with the attention they might receive in the nomination process.
And that brings this discussion back to the contention from the AP above; that Colorado Republicans, by making this decision, have counterintuitively shrunk their own role in the process. That all depends. Recall that the preference vote meant very little in 2012. It was a straw poll, a beauty contest. But that allowed us to say that Rick Santorum had "won" Colorado. We will not have the ability to as easily declare a winner in 2016 in the Centennial state.
Yet, that does not also prevent the candidates and their campaigns from spending time there. It just changes the incentives. The "winner" tag will be gone, but campaigns will still have decisions to make. Do you invest resources in a contest that pays no immediate dividends? Do you invest in the type of organization that gets candidate-aligned delegates elected to move from the precinct caucuses to county assemblies and from there to district conventions and from there to the state convention and beyond to Cleveland?
Perhaps Colorado Republicans did not just diminish their role so much as narrow the field of candidates who are willing to gamble; willing to expend those resources there. The party has condensed the field to three main categories: 1) those with grassroots support, 2) those who have the money and resources to organize or 3) those who have both. The rest won't bother and probably because they cannot afford to.
And if the Republican Party in Colorado opts for a February 2 date for its caucuses, it increases the likelihood that candidates would be willing to make that gamble. Remember also that with no binding presidential preference vote, Colorado would not be penalized any delegates under the RNC rules.
--
One more thing that has not come out in the reporting here is that this -- the executive committee vote -- may only be step one in this decision-making process. When FHQ spoke with the party last month, party chief of staff, Tyler Hart, informed us that ultimately the state central committee will have to sign off on any changes coming out of the executive committee meeting during its own meeting next month. Given that the executive committee vote was unanimous, though, the direction of that vote seems quite clear.
They have a date decision to make as well.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The Electoral College Map (8/8/12)
New today were five polls from three states. While none of them really shook up the existing FHQ weighted averages, the continued two-day progression across surveys of Colorado drew the most reaction.
Polling Quick Hits:
Colorado:
I'm entirely sympathetic to the charge that the Quinnipiac/NYT/CBS poll released out of the Centennial state today is an outlier. Look, Sesame Street -- as I recall (my kids are well past enjoying those sorts of shows) -- devotes quite a bit of time to teaching kids to choose the item or items out of a group that doesn't/don't match the others. It is a basic skill. And yes, this poll does appear to be an outlier on the surface. None of the surveys that have been in the field in Colorado in 2012 have shown Romney ahead; tied with Obama a few times, but not ahead. The president's share of support in the poll (45%) is in line with others there, but the Romney share (50%) is definitely a high water mark for the governor thus far.
...by three percentage points.
But that is just polling variability -- broader than we have witnessed in Colorado for Romney at this point, but polling variability nonetheless. Again, the true test is to see whether the same sort of result repeats itself in subsequent polling. Of course, that polling is likely to show even more variability across the board with a vice presidential announcement and a couple of conventions.
Virginia:
The surveys out of Virginia today were more of the same. The president leads there, but it is a marginal/competitive edge. The new Rasmussen poll was an almost exact replica of the firm's July poll in the Old Dominion. The new Q-poll, while being within range of other recent polls, departs from the last poll conducted in the commonwealth which showed a tie. Romney's share is largely the same, but Obama's grew by five points over a poll that was in the field just a couple of weeks ago. FHQ won't make much of this because, again, one can fine quirks in just about any poll, and this is just polling noise. In the aggregate the noise favored Romney in Colorado and Obama in Virginia.
Wisconsin:
The two new Wisconsin polls, well, what's really to say? Both were mirror images of each other and were similar to other recent surveys of the Badger state. Call Colorado too hot, Virginia too cold and Wisconsin just right for Quinnipiac. All three states overall, stayed pretty much where they started in the FHQ weighted averages.
That means no change to the map and only a small shift on the Electoral College Spectrum. Colorado and Virginia switch places without fundamentally changing the calculus of how each candidate gets to 270 electoral votes. Obama could do without either state as long as he holds Ohio and New Hampshire, and Romney needs both barring an uncharacteristic win -- assuming he doesn't swing Virginia and Colorado -- in one of the Lean Obama states. That isn't to suggest that it won't happen, but rather that it is unlikely that one (Lean Obama state flipping) happens without the other (Romney winning in most of or sweeping the Toss Up states).
The Watch List remained unchanged by Wednesday's polls.
Please see:
New State Polls (8/8/12)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
7/31-8/6
|
+/- 2.6%
|
1463 likely voters
|
45
|
50
|
4
|
+5
|
+2.76
| |
Virginia
|
8/7
|
+/- 4.5%
|
500 likely voters
|
48
|
46
|
3
|
+2
|
+3.01
| |
Virginia
|
7/31-8/6
|
+/- 2.6%
|
1412 likely voters
|
49
|
45
|
5
|
+4
|
--
| |
Wisconsin
|
8/2-8/5
|
+/- 2.9%
|
1188 likely voters
|
50
|
45
|
5
|
+5
|
+5.92
| |
Wisconsin
|
7/31-8/6
|
+/- 2.6%
|
1428 likely voters
|
51
|
45
|
4
|
+6
|
--
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
Colorado:
I'm entirely sympathetic to the charge that the Quinnipiac/NYT/CBS poll released out of the Centennial state today is an outlier. Look, Sesame Street -- as I recall (my kids are well past enjoying those sorts of shows) -- devotes quite a bit of time to teaching kids to choose the item or items out of a group that doesn't/don't match the others. It is a basic skill. And yes, this poll does appear to be an outlier on the surface. None of the surveys that have been in the field in Colorado in 2012 have shown Romney ahead; tied with Obama a few times, but not ahead. The president's share of support in the poll (45%) is in line with others there, but the Romney share (50%) is definitely a high water mark for the governor thus far.
...by three percentage points.
But that is just polling variability -- broader than we have witnessed in Colorado for Romney at this point, but polling variability nonetheless. Again, the true test is to see whether the same sort of result repeats itself in subsequent polling. Of course, that polling is likely to show even more variability across the board with a vice presidential announcement and a couple of conventions.
Virginia:
The surveys out of Virginia today were more of the same. The president leads there, but it is a marginal/competitive edge. The new Rasmussen poll was an almost exact replica of the firm's July poll in the Old Dominion. The new Q-poll, while being within range of other recent polls, departs from the last poll conducted in the commonwealth which showed a tie. Romney's share is largely the same, but Obama's grew by five points over a poll that was in the field just a couple of weeks ago. FHQ won't make much of this because, again, one can fine quirks in just about any poll, and this is just polling noise. In the aggregate the noise favored Romney in Colorado and Obama in Virginia.
Wisconsin:
The two new Wisconsin polls, well, what's really to say? Both were mirror images of each other and were similar to other recent surveys of the Badger state. Call Colorado too hot, Virginia too cold and Wisconsin just right for Quinnipiac. All three states overall, stayed pretty much where they started in the FHQ weighted averages.
That means no change to the map and only a small shift on the Electoral College Spectrum. Colorado and Virginia switch places without fundamentally changing the calculus of how each candidate gets to 270 electoral votes. Obama could do without either state as long as he holds Ohio and New Hampshire, and Romney needs both barring an uncharacteristic win -- assuming he doesn't swing Virginia and Colorado -- in one of the Lean Obama states. That isn't to suggest that it won't happen, but rather that it is unlikely that one (Lean Obama state flipping) happens without the other (Romney winning in most of or sweeping the Toss Up states).
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
RI-4
(7)2
|
NJ-14
(160)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
AZ-11
(167)
|
MS-6
(55)
|
HI-4
(11)
|
WA-12
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
MT-3
(156)
|
ND-3
(49)
|
NY-29
(40)
|
MN-10
(182)
|
VA-13
(288/263)
|
GA-16
(153)
|
AL-9
(46)
|
VT-3
(43)
|
NM-5
(187)
|
CO-9
(297/250)
|
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)
|
TN-11
(191)
|
NE-5
(104)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
NV-6
(237)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
AR-6
(99)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
MI-16
(253)
|
SD-3
(170)
|
TX-38
(93)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 272 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
The Watch List remained unchanged by Wednesday's polls.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Connecticut
|
from Strong Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
Georgia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Michigan
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
Nevada
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
New Mexico
|
from Strong Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
North Carolina
|
from Toss Up Romney
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
West Virginia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
1 Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Please see:
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/7/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/6/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/2/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/7/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/6/12)
The Electoral College Map (8/2/12)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)