Showing posts with label Delaware. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Delaware. Show all posts

Monday, October 5, 2020

The Electoral College Map (10/5/20)

Update for October 5.


After all of the poll additions and changes a day ago, the work week began with a fairly steady stream of new survey releases, but with none of the attendant changes that Sunday had. Helpfully, there were several updates in states that do not generally see any real frequency of polling, and those always serve to further clarify the overall swing from 2016 to now. That number has dropped of late. A month ago, the average swing toward the Democrats across all states stood at nearly eight points. Now, just a bit more than four weeks ahead of election day, that average shift has shrunk to just under seven points.

No, that is not representative of some fundamental shift in the race, but the dynamics driving it underneath the surface may be. The Biden side of that change has risen from three to four points, meaning that on average he is running about four points above Hillary Clinton from four years ago. Trump had been running about four points behind his 2016 pace a month ago, but that has decreased to around two points now. Both make sense as the candidates continue to consolidate support (from undecided voters and those heretofore aligned with other candidates). But again, Trump remains more than six points behind Biden, or about the current margin in Wisconsin, a state on the other side of the tipping point from the president's coalition of states. With 29 days to go, that is quite a bit of ground to make up.

On to the day's polls...


Polling Quick Hits:
Alabama
(Trump 57, Biden 37)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +20.40]
Auburn University-Montgomery was last in the field in the Yellowhammer state in July and found a race that was closer than usual there (Trump +14). But the transition to a likely voter screen in the time since then has only benefited Trump. Still, this poll finds the president running behind his 2016 share of support there while Biden is a handful of points ahead of Clinton's pace. No, that is not enough to come anywhere close to making up the difference, but even this poll in deep red Alabama is indicative of the shift toward the Democrats overall.


Arizona
(Biden 49, Trump 41)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.18]
Over in Arizona, Siena/NYT Upshot conducted its third survey in the state dating back to June. For those who came looking for big changes, look elsewhere. Each of those three times, Siena has had Biden in the 48-49 percent range and Trump back around the 40-41 percent range. Yes, that has Biden out to a lead that considerably wider than the current average margin at FHQ, but it has been a consistent finding for the college poll over time in Arizona. And Trump is running further behind his average here than Biden is running ahead of his.


Delaware
(Biden 54, Trump 33)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +27.21]
As with Alabama, it was good to get an update from the First state. And while Biden is ahead in the University of Delaware survey of his home state, the former vice president's 54 percent share of support is the lowest he has been in the state's limited number of surveys this year. And yet, in this poll Biden remains marginally ahead of Clinton's pace from 2016. Trump, on the other hand, lags well behind his support in the state from then. And that is not unexpected given Biden's favorite son status in Delaware (limited though that may be in the context of a polarized electorate).


Michigan
(Biden 48, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.07]
Glengariff Group was in the field for the third time this year in Michigan, and the polls shows Biden up by his biggest lead in the series. It is Biden's largest advantage, but the former vice president is not even at his high water mark in the series in this poll. But Trump has reached his nadir, falling below 40 percent for the first time in a poll that was conducted completely after last week's first presidential debate. Trump does not need Michigan to get to 270, but Biden has been approaching 50 percent in the averages in the Great Lakes state as the president has been mired in the low 40s.


North Carolina
(Biden 50, Trump 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.48]
North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling may be prolific in surveying the state, but this is the firm's first public survey of the Tar Heel state since July. And this poll is in line with the rest. Yes, the samples continue to be among registered and not likely North Carolina voters at this late stage, but the trend line, or lack thereof, has been consistent: Biden in the upper 40s or right at 50 percent and Trump in the mid-40s. That nails Trump's FHQ average share of support there and continues to have Biden out in front of his by a couple of points. But it is another poll that reflects a continued narrow lead for the former vice president in the state.


North Dakota
(Trump 51, Biden 37)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +26.25]
DFM Research returned to a "registered" voter sample in its latest survey of the Peace Garden state. [There is no voter registration in North Dakota.] It is an odd transition considering the firm's last two polls there were of likely voters. And while the transition from registered to likely meant a contracted margin from February to March, the transition back did not have the opposite effect. In fact, the margin shrunk by about a fifth since the last mid-September survey to its lowest level all year. This does not mean that North Dakota is suddenly competitive, but it does show that even in states about as far out to the right on the Electoral College Spectrum as a state can get, the shift has still generally been toward the Democrats since the last cycle. Biden may still be down over 25 points, but he is running ahead of Clinton's showing there in 2016 by more than seven points.


Ohio
(Trump 48, Biden 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.46]
This is the first Trafalgar Group survey of Ohio in calendar 2020. Despite generally being seen by many as a pollster with a fairly noticeable and consistent Republican house effect, this survey is not inconsistent with the recent polling witnessed in the Buckeye state. Trump's share is well within his range of recent results there, but Biden is at his lowest point in the state since a July Zogby survey had him at 43%. And this is below where the former vice president has generally been in August and September polling of Ohio. That is not to say that this survey is an outlier -- it is not exactly -- but it is particularly off on Biden's share of support.


Pennsylvania
(Biden 50, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.38]
The first of two Rust Belt surveys from Ipsos comes out of Pennsylvania. And it is the first of two polls from the firm that are right in line with the margins in both states. In the Keystone state, the president trails by five points with both candidates just over their respective FHQ averages shares of support. As in Michigan, the former vice president is approaching the 50 percent mark, leaving little room for the president to catch up and overtake Biden unless Trump can bring him down several notches. That may prove difficult in the coming days as the trajectory -- at least in some cases at the national level -- maybe heading in the opposite direction. Trump may not need Michigan, but if the order of states below holds, then he will need Pennsylvania to get to 270.


Utah
(Trump 50, Biden 40)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +14.58]
On the whole, the surveys of Utah from Y2 Analytics have shown a much closer than usual race for the Beehive state's six electoral votes. Whereas the previous two polls from back in the spring found a race in the low to mid-single digits, the latest update from the firm has that lead expanding but still falling below the average margin. Still, for the first time in the series, Y2 has Trump at 50 percent. Both candidates are running well ahead of either their or their party's showing in the state last time around and by substantial margins. Third party candidates are not pulling nearly what Evan McMullin received in the state in 2016. Trump is very likely to win in Utah and improve on his support in the process. But it looks like it will fall below the 60 percent Republican candidates have averaged there over the previous three cycles.


Wisconsin
(Biden 50, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.12]
Finally, the second of the Ipsos polls comes from out of the Badger state. And like the Pennsylvania poll above, this one, too, is right on target with the margin and candidate shares in Wisconsin as measured in the graduated weighted averages here at FHQ. It may or may not be a bit early for herding to have started in these polls, but FHQ will confess that that is among the thoughts that sprang to mind on seeing these results and comparing them to the averages in the dataset. That said, this one is consistent with other recent polls and marks very little change from the poll the firm conducted in the state a couple of weeks ago.


NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
DC-3
VT-3
(6)2
IL-20
(162)
WI-10
(253)
SC-9
(125)
TN-11
(60)
MA-11
(17)
NJ-14
(176)
PA-203
(273 | 285)
AK-3
(116)
KY-8
(49)
MD-10
(27)
OR-7
(183)
NV-6
(279 | 265)
MO-10
(113)
AL-9
(41)
CA-55
(82)
ME-2
(185)
FL-29
(308 | 259)
KS-6
(103)
SD-3
(32)
NY-29
(111)
CO-9
(194)
AZ-11
ME CD2-1
(320 | 230)
NE CD1-1
MT-3
(97)
ID-4
(29)
HI-4
(115)
VA-13
(207)
NC-15
(335 | 218)
NE-2
(93)
AR-6
(25)
DE-3
(118)
NH-4
(211)
GA-16
(203)
IN-11
(91)
OK-7
(19)
WA-12
(130)
NM-5
(216)
OH-18
(187)
UT-6
(80)
ND-3
(12)
CT-7
ME CD1-1
(138)
MN-10
(226)
IA-6
(169)
MS-6
(74)
WV-5
(9)
RI-4
(142)
MI-16
NE CD2-1
(243)
TX-38
(163)
LA-8
(68)
WY-3
NE CD3-1
(4)
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 (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 285 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trump's is on the right in bold italics.

3 Pennsylvania
 is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state. The tipping point cell is shaded in yellow to denote that and the font color is adjusted to attempt to reflect the category in which the state is.

There was a lot to look at to open the work week, but unlike Sunday did not bring nearly as much change. In fact, the additions today did not trigger any change. The map, Spectrum and Watch List all stayed just as they were on Sunday evening. And with 29 days to go, that has to be at least somewhat troubling for the president. There just are not that many states in range of changing categories much less jumping the partisan line into Trump territory. Those states that are even in range of the partisan line are already states the president counts in his column. Any changes in either Georgia or Ohio would hurt rather than help the president. Time is dwindling for the president and so are his chances in this race with just more than four weeks to go until election day.



Where things stood at FHQ on October 5 (or close to it) in...
2016
2012
2008


--
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 Biden 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
Potential Switch
Georgia
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Biden
New Hampshire
from Strong Biden
to Lean Biden
New Mexico
from Lean Biden
to Strong Biden
Ohio
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Biden
Pennsylvania
from Lean Biden
to Toss Up Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/4/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/3/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/2/20)


Follow FHQ on TwitterInstagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

The Electoral College Map (8/25/20)

Update for August 25.


The Republican National Convention enters day two today with just ten weeks now separating this presidential race from election day. But the polls added at FHQ today all came from states that have favored Joe Biden from the jump, all were in the field during or just after the virtual Democratic confab a week ago, and all were consistent with previous polling or existing (FHQ) averages in each. None of that adds up to big sweeping changes. But in a couple of deep blue states -- Biden's home of Delaware and New York -- the updates were helpful in contextualizing both with respect to the swings witnessed from 2016 to now.

And no, the Empire state does not appear to be moving into a more competitive space, contra some recent claims.


Polling Quick Hits:
Delaware 
(Biden 58, Trump 37)
Public Policy Polling dropped into the First state to conduct the first survey there since January. And things really have not changed all that much. Unsurprisingly, the Democratic nominee (and favorite son) is doing quite well in Delaware. Yet, even with a 21 point lead, the former vice president has only matched the average share Democratic presidential candidates have received there over the last three cycles. And while Biden has gained five points on Hillary Clinton's showing in Delaware four years ago, the president has lost nearly five off his. That makes the swing in Delaware a bit above average.


Florida
(Biden 48, Trump 44)
The North Carolina-based polling firm, Public Policy Polling, was also in the field in Florida over the weekend (which FHQ was surprised to see was their first time conducting a public poll there in calendar 2020). But the survey was not all that inconsistent with the current FHQ averages frr both candidates in the Sunshine state. In fact, when those averages are rounded, they come to Biden 48, Trump 44. Understandably, that hardly shook Florida from its position as a state flirting with the line between the Biden Toss Up and Lean categories.


New York
(Biden 63, Trump 32)
The third of Public Policy Polling's trio of weekend surveys was in the Empire state. If not for the April Siena poll of the state, this would have marked both Biden's high water mark in New York and his largest margin in a poll there in calendar 2020. Instead, it is more evidence that New York is among the bluest of states. The Trump share is right on his New York average at FHQ, but in this poll, Biden is running a bit ahead of his. But that is with a decent number of undecideds still out there.


North Carolina
(Biden 49, Trump 46)
Finally, Morning Consult fielded a survey in the Tar Heel state that stretched through the duration of the Democratic convention and into the weekend following it. And like many recent polls of North Carolina, it fell in a relatively tight range of Biden +4 to Trump +2. As FHQ said a day ago about in a synopsis of where things stand in Texas, North Carolina is one of those states that is simply close, but unlike Texas is tipped fairly consistently in the former vice president's direction. And while Biden may be a bit ahead of his averages there in this poll, Trump is near enough his.



NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112
(14)
CT-7
(162)
WI-10
(252)
AK-3
(125)
UT-6
(60)
HI-4
(18)
NJ-14
(176)
PA-203
NE CD2-1
(273 | 286)
MO-10
(122)
IN-11
(54)
CA-55
(73)
OR-7
(183)
FL-29
(302 | 265)
SC-9
(112)
ID-4
(43)
VT-3
(76)
CO-9
(192)
NV-6
(308 | 236)
KS-6
(103)
KY-8
(39)
NY-29
(105)
NM-5
(197)
AZ-11
(319 | 230)
MT-3
NE CD1-1
(97)
AL-9
(31)
WA-12
(117)
ME-2
(199)
NC-15
(334 | 219)
MS-6
(93)
ND-3
(22)
MD-10
(127)
VA-13
(212)
ME CD2-1
OH-18
(353 | 204)
AR-6
(87)
SD-3
(19)
IL-20
(147)
MN-10
(222)
IA-6
(185)
NE-2
(81)
OK-7
(16)
ME CD1-1
RI-4
(152)
MI-16
(238)
GA-16
(179)
LA-8
(79)
WV-5
(9)
DE-3
(155)
NH-4
(242)
TX-38
(163)
TN-11
(71)
WY-3
NE CD3-1
(4)
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 (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 286 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden'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 Pennsylvania
 is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state. The tipping point cell is shaded in yellow to denote that and the font color is adjusted to attempt to reflect the category in which the state is.

Today's new polls add new understanding about where this presidential race currently stands, and it is not more than a stone's throw away from where it has been: showing Biden comfortably enough ahead to have a more than 80 electoral vote cushion in the projected electoral college tally. Now again, the race still has 70 days to go, so that can change. But it is remarkable just how stable things have been. New York and the two Biden toss ups all kept their positions on the Electoral College Spectrum above, but Delaware shifted even further into Biden's coalition of states, pushing three more cells over into the far left column.

However, the Watch List remained unchanged from a day ago. The same 12 states and districts that were within a fraction of a point of changing categories are still there, joined by underpolled Nevada. Those states and districts are the ones to watch. But even then, if the objective is to witness change in the overall tally, then that list is pared down to just three. Georgia, Iowa and Ohio are the states that are positioned closest to the partisan line and most likely to alter the projected number of electoral votes for each major party candidate.

--
There were no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 117.

--
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 Biden 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
Potential Switch
Florida
from Toss Up Biden
to Lean Biden
Georgia
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Biden
Iowa
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Biden
Maine
from Strong Biden
to Lean Biden
Maine CD2
from Toss Up Biden
to Toss Up Trump
Mississippi
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Missouri
from Toss Up Trump
to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2
from Lean Biden
to Toss Up Biden
Ohio
from Toss Up Biden
to Toss Up Trump
Pennsylvania
from Lean Biden
to Toss Up Biden
South Carolina
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Virginia
from Strong Biden
to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Recent posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/24/20)

One Thing About Convention Bounces

The Electoral College Map (8/22/20)


Follow FHQ on TwitterInstagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: DELAWARE

DELAWARE

Election type: primary
Date: July 7
    [April 28 originally and then June 2]
Number of delegates: 32 [5 at-large, 2 PLEOs, 14 congressional district, 11 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the subdivision level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan (mid-coronavirus)
    [Updated plan after primary move to July 7]


--
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.

Little changed in the delegate selection process for Delaware Democrats from 2016 until the beginning of 2020. There was an effort to consolidate all of the primaries in a presidential election year for the last Tuesday in April slot that the Delaware presidential primary has occupied since the 2012 cycle. But the non-presidential primary stayed in September and the presidential primary remained in April.

And that was the case until the coronavirus pandemic and its attendant impact on the electoral process happened. That triggered not one, but two presidential primary moves. First, Delaware Governor John Carney (D) in late March pushed the primary back to June 2. However, that date proved difficult not only because the virus and its potential for spread during in-person voting even in June, but because of the tiny window to jumpstart no-excuse absentee voting in a state that did not have that infrastructure in place.

That led to a subsequent change in the Delaware election calendar in early May. Governor Carney moved the Delaware presidential primary back to July 7 (a move for which Delaware Democrats received a DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee waiver because the date falls after June 9), and also called for all eligible Delaware voters to be mailed an absentee ballot application. These changes conform with what a number of other states -- both Democratic and Republican-controlled -- that have had to make changes in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak have done.

All absentee ballots are due to county elections offices on before Tuesday, July 7. That is received and not postmarked by 8pm on June 7. 

Overall, the Democratic delegation from Delaware changed by just two delegates from 2016 to 2020. All of the pledged delegate categories remained the same and First state Democrats added 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)
Delaware's 14 congressional district delegates are split across four subdivision districts -- Wilmington city and three counties -- carved out of the one congressional district state. Those districts have a variation of just two delegates across them from the measure of Democratic strength First state Democrats are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
Wilmington city - 2 delegates
New Castle County - 8 delegates
Kent County - 2 delegates
Sussex County - 2 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 Delaware's 21 pledged delegates go through a multi-tiered process starting with "representative district-level" caucuses (RDLC). Those events were planned throughout March (and before April 28), but were interrupted by the spread of the coronavirus and subsequent lockdowns. That meant that some of those caucuses were completed in-person while alternate plans had to be made for the remaining caucuses. All Democrats registered by January 1, 2020 were eligible to participate in the RDLCs and ballots were made available for download on April 15. Participants could mail those ballots postmarked by May 15 or email them (or take advantage of the drive-up option if given the okay) by May 18.

Those RDLCs elect delegates to the post-primary Delaware Delegate Selection Caucus (DDSC), the voting window of which is tentatively scheduled fall on July 9-13. Delegates to the DDSC will elect the 14 subdivision (district) delegates in an online vote. Finally, the national convention district delegates will then meet in the Delaware Democratic Delegate Selection Convention proposed for July 16. A quorum of those 14 delegates will select the 2 PLEO and then 5 at-large delegates to the national convention.

[The originally approved Delaware delegate selection plan called for the RDLCs to occur before April 28 as mentioned above, and for the district and statewide delegate selections to both occur on May 9 after the April 28 primary. Those in-person May 9 DDSCs would have chosen the district delegates, a quorum of which would thereafter have picked the PLEO and then at-large delegates to the national convention.]


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-July when the Delaware statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the early July 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.

Thursday, May 7, 2020

Delaware Presidential Primary Pushed Back Another Five Weeks

Delaware Governor John Carney (D) on Thursday, May 7, signed yet another amendment to his state of emergency declaration in response to the coronavirus pandemic. This one, like the change in late March, shifts the presidential primary in the First state back by another five weeks to July 7.

Delaware now joins neighboring New Jersey on a date just after the Fourth of July holiday weekend. Typically, those types of summer primaries come with their own issues. Voters may find conflicts with schedule while they are on vacation, for example. But part of Carney's order addresses that issue. Not only does the presidential primary in Delaware move back another 35 days, but that buys state elections officials some additional time to send out absentee ballot applications to all eligible Delaware voters. Again, that is applications and not ballots. The additional time will also give elections officials time to process those requests and mail out ballots to those voters who are approved.

While this order opens the door to another wider form of participation in the primary, it importantly does not eliminate in-person voting. At least six sites in each county across Delaware will continue to offer in-person voting for those who prefer that option. Under the order municipalities are also given the latitude to extend the hours in which polling stations are open on primary day.

No, Delaware is not a large state and there are only 21 pledged delegates at stake in the Democratic primary, but the date change is yet another statement about the broader impact of the coronavirus pandemic on elections in 2020. This primary move is a second change for Delaware, but also one beyond the June 9 deadline by which states must have conducted their primaries or caucuses under Democratic National Committee rules. The state joins Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey and New York in that distinction.


The change in Delaware has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Governor Carney's emergency declaration will be archived here.

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Carney Executive Order Moves Delaware Presidential Primary to June 2

On Tuesday, March 24, Governor John Carney (D-DE) amended his coronavirus emergency declaration to include a shift in the Delaware presidential primary. Like Connecticut, Maryland and Rhode Island before it, the presidential primary in the First state now moves back five weeks from April 28 to June 2.

Those four states' changes have left just New York and Pennsylvania on the fourth Tuesday in April date that all six states had occupied until the recent threat of the coronavirus began to wreak havoc with the 2020 primary calendar. Pennsylvania, too, is working on abandoning what is left of the former Acela primary in favor of a June 2 primary.

As with all of the other states that have changed their primary dates, the move changes when delegates are allocated, but potentially has a much greater impact on the sequence of the delegate selection process. Delaware is no exception.

Last week, on Monday, March 16, the Delaware Democratic Party altered the schedule for its state House district caucuses, the first step in the selection process. And although most of those district caucuses had been held and their work completed -- selecting delegates to subdivision caucuses (Delaware's "congressional districts") to be held May 9 -- the party over the weekend opted to postpone the remaining meetings. Remote and electronic meetings may be an option for Delaware Democrats, something other states have utilized in the early caucus stages of the selection process.

Regardless, some decisions will have to be made. A stoppage in the selection of subdivision delegates at state House caucuses affects the ultimate selection of district delegates on May 9 or whatever alternative date the state party might gravitate toward. And the selection of those delegates in turn influences the selection of statewide delegates. Those at-large and PLEO delegates to the national convention were also to have been selected on May 9 by a quorum of the very same district delegates also to have been selected on that date.

In essence, the pause button has been hit on the Delaware delegate selection process. And needless to say, with a new June 2 primary date, the selection will likely have to be adjusted anyway. The May 9 selection cannot go on as planned without the results of an April 28 primary. Slates of delegates could be chosen and filled later once allocated delegate slots are determined for each candidate, but it is more likely that Delaware Democrats will choose to conduct the selection process a bit later in the calendar, after the now June 2 primary.


--
Governor Carney's press release on the executive order to move the primary is archived here.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Signs Delaware Presidential Primary is Staying Put

Back in January, FHQ, discussing prospective primary movement during the 2019 state legislative sessions convening across the country, highlighted the group of mid-Atlantic/northeastern states that have seeming settled in late April since the 2012 cycle. Under Democratic control, states like Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island not only moved away from February presidential primary dates leftover from the 2008 cycle, but moved deeper into the calendar for the 2012 cycle and have stayed there.

That made more sense in 2012 when Barack Obama was seeking renomination on the Democratic side -- the stakes were lower and the costs of a later primary less -- but that group of Acela corridor states maintained their April positions despite an open nomination in 2016. Now, it could be argued that during the time that primary date changes were being considered by state legislatures in 2015, Hillary Clinton was a prohibitive favorite to win the 2016 nomination. States with Democrats in control of state government, in turn, may have been less likely to make any changes to the presidential primary date.

But the outlook for the 2020 nomination is and has been a wide open race. Yet, in none of those states, save New York (which operates under a unique set of circumstances), have made any moves toward a presidential primary change. All has been quiet. And that silence typically will signal no primary movement.

However, there has been an additional signal out of Delaware. No, there is no proposed presidential primary date change, but for the second consecutive state legislative session in the First state, there is an effort underway to attempt to align the September primaries for state and local offices with the presidential primary in April. HB 89 passed the state House in Delaware in 2017, but died in the state Senate. And now in 2019, HB 41, a nearly identical proposal, has so far followed a similar trajectory. The plan to consolidate state primaries with the April presidential primary flew through the state House in January, but has again hit the wall in the state Senate.

The legislative session adjourns in June and the bill still has time to work its way through the state Senate, but the proposed move is less important for the move than it is for the anchor point on the calendar.1 Linking those primaries for state and local offices to the presidential primary in Delaware is the clearest active effort among those April Acela primary state signaling a non-movement. The others have been more passive at this point.



As of now, Delaware is scheduled to have an April 28 presidential primary on the latter half of the 2020 presidential primary calendar.


--
1 Delaware was a late mover in 2011, the last time the state shifted its presidential primary date. That legislation was passed toward the end of the legislative session that cycle.

Monday, October 3, 2016

The Electoral College Map (10/3/16)




New State Polls (10/3/16)1
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Colorado
9/27-9/29
+/- 4.0%
602 likely voters
44
33
6
+11
--
Colorado
9/29-10/2
+/- 4.9%
400 likely voters
49
38
3
+11
+4.24
Delaware
9/16-9/28
+/- 4.1%
762 likely voters
51
30
9
+11
+13.60
Florida
9/27-10/2
+/- 4.2%
545 likely voters
46
41
5
+5
+2.13
North Carolina
9/27-10/2
+/- 4.4%
507 likely voters
46
43
3
+3
--
North Carolina
9/29-10/2
+/- 3.5%
805 likely voters
46
45
5
+1
+1.14
Ohio
9/27-10/2
+/- 4.4%
497 likely voters
42
47
4
+5
+0.46
Pennsylvania
9/27-10/2
+/- 4.2%
535 likely voters
45
41
6
+4
+4.86
Virginia
9/27-9/30
+/- 3.7%
892 likely voters
42
35
3
+7
+5.73
1Includes latest wave (9/9-9/29) of Ipsos/Reuters polls from the majority of states.


Polling Quick Hits:
The new work week began with nine new surveys from seven states and another wave of the Ipsos/Reuters States of the Nation polls.

Colorado:
Changes (October 3)
StateBeforeAfter
OregonLean ClintonStrong Clinton
Two eleven point leads will tend to catch one's eye any time they pop up among a series of data in a state that had seen its lead contract in recent days. The polling has fluctuated wildly in Colorado, but the bottom line remains the same: Who is above 40 percent. At the moment Clinton is more consistently above that level. That is certainly true in the Monmouth and Keating polls released today.


Delaware:
Delaware has been lightly polled this cycle -- it always is -- and while Clinton leads, she is overall well behind Obama's 2012 mark in the First state. To be clear, Trump lags Romney from four years ago as well, but by about half as much a Clinton relative to Obama. However, this latest poll from the University of Delaware finds a margin similar to that of the final result in the state in 2012. In other words, Delaware is still a blue state.


Florida:
As strange as it is to see it, Quinnipiac, at this point in the race, finds Clinton up five points in Florida and Trump five points ahead in Ohio. Now, there are certainly some unique (to 2016) demographic reasons why that it is, but it is something to see Florida on the Democratic side of Ohio on the Electoral College Spectrum below. That order has tended to be in reverse -- Ohio to the Democratic side of Florida -- during the Obama era and even stretching back to 2004. But both quadrennial battleground states have consistently fallen in this order since before the conventions.

What is noteworthy about the Florida polling during the back half of September is that both candidates have risen into the 40s, but Clinton has more consistently pushed into the mid-40s with Trump just behind in the low to mid-40s. The Q-poll fits that trend.


North Carolina:
Two polls in North Carolina and two narrow Clinton leads. Like Florida, both candidates have clearly established footholds in the 40s; the mark, perhaps, of the most highly contested states (where third party support is flagging to some extent). The race in the Tar Heel state is close, but the trading of narrow leads there has been displaced with a run of Clinton leads in polls in the field after the first debate a week ago. She already held a very small lead there, but this has solidified it.


Ohio:
This is the one spot of red in an otherwise blue day of poll releases. Whereas Florida saw a tied last Quinnipiac survey give way to a five point Clinton advantage now, the Ohio trendline across Q-polls has moved in the opposite direction. A modest Trump edge in the Buckeye state earlier in the month has become a slightly wider lead now. But that shift occurred in the midst of a continued volatile series of surveys in the state. Ohio remains on the Clinton side of the partisan line here at FHQ, but by less than half a point. Only Nevada is closer.


Pennsylvania:
FHQ could dig into the Q-poll from Pennsylvania, but the story is really the same as it has been there: Clinton is ahead and by a margin that continues to hover around the Lean/Toss Up line.

...which is where the last Quinnipiac poll was (and a great many others have been of late).


Virginia:
Finally, in the Old Dominion, yet another survey -- this one from Christopher Newport -- sees Clinton ahead by six to eight points. That has been the established range there both before and after the first debate. Both candidates gained over their positions in the school's poll from last week, but the story is still the same there.


--
The addition of these nine polls plus the Ipsos data did little to fundamentally alter the outlook here at FHQ. The electoral count remains unchanged and only Oregon change categories, pushing to the strong side of the Strong/Lean line. There were some subtle moves on the Electoral College Spectrum, but outside of Delaware and New Jersey, nothing was more than a cell or two in one direction or the other. The Watch List was more active. Notably, Iowa came back on while Maine dropped off. Both shifted in Clinton's direction.




The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
NJ-14
(172)
PA-20
(263)
SC-9
(154)
MT-3
(53)
MD-10
(17)
OR-7
(179)
CO-94
(272 | 275)
TX-38
(145)
AR-6
(50)
VT-3
(20)
RI-4
(183)
FL-29
(301 | 266)
MS-6
(107)
ND-3
(44)
CA-55
(75)
MN-10
(193)
NC-15
(316 | 237)
AK-3
(101)
NE-53
(41)
MA-11
(86)
ME-23
(195)
OH-18
(334 | 222)
KS-6
(98)
KY-8
(36)
NY-29+13
(116)
NM-5
(200)
NV-6
(340 | 204)
IN-11
(92)
AL-9
(28)
IL-20
(136)
WI-10
(210)
IA-6
(198)
UT-6
(81)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(139)
MI-16
(226)
AZ-11
(192)
LA-8
(75)
OK-7
(14)
CT-7
(146)
VA-13
(239)
GA-16
(181)
SD-3
(67)
ID-4
(7)
WA-12
(158)
NH-4
(243)
MO-10+13
(165)
TN-11
(64)
WY-3
(3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.

3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above.

4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.



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


The Watch List1
State
Switch
Alaska
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Colorado
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Iowa
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
Michigan
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
Mississippi
from Lean Trump
to Strong 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 Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Rhode Island
from Lean Clinton
to Strong 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 (10/2/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/1/16)

The Electoral College Map (9/30/16)

Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.