After being moved out of committee with a Do Pass recommendation earlier in the week, HB 138 was quickly considered on the floor of the Idaho House on Friday, February 24.
Related:
--
Recent posts:
Showing posts with label Idaho. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idaho. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2023
Thursday, February 23, 2023
Idaho Committee Advances May Primary Bill
The panel advanced HB 138 to the House floor with a Do Pass recommendation. Bill sponsor Rep. Dustin Manwaring (R-29th, Pocatello) made the case to the committee that consolidating the stand-alone March presidential primary with the primaries for other offices in May would save the state $2.7 million. And those savings were something Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane (R) reiterated in supporting the legislation according to the Idaho Capital Sun.
“As I came into office and began working on the budget for the office, this was one of the biggest things that stood out,” McGrane told legislators Wednesday. “So we started asking the question on what is the utility of what we are trying to do? I think Rep. Manwaring framed it very well — we just haven’t seen the return on investment.”
Indeed, it was always going to be a difficult proposition to draw presidential candidates to Idaho for a March primary that often got overshadowed by other, more delegate-rich contests. But with Michigan already having vacated that second Tuesday in March date for a spot in the pre-window on the Democratic party calendar, and Hawaii potentially shifting to a primary a week earlier, Idaho stands to actually be able to draw Republican candidates in March 2024. That is especially true in light of the fact that neighboring Washington also has a primary on the same date and will be the biggest delegate prize on a surprisingly thin date so early on the calendar. There would be more delegates at stake in the Pacific and Mountain northwest than in Mississippi, the only other state currently occupying the second Tuesday in March.
But those considerations seem to have taken a back seat to the cost considerations and the likely turnout gain for the May primary even with presidential primary that may fall after the nomination has been wrapped up.
--
As noted in the previous post on this bill, it still is not clear that this legislation builds back the same legal infrastructure that existed in 2011 when the presidential primary was wiped from the May primary portion of the electoral code and eliminated it altogether. The bill that created the separate presidential primary in 2012 (for the 2016 cycle) did not affect the May primary. However, that appeared to be of little concern to the State Affairs Committee on Wednesday. And it remains to be seen if that will be problematic to members on the floor of the state House.
--
Recent posts:
Tuesday, February 14, 2023
Idaho Bill Aims to Consolidate Presidential Primary with Others in May
Read the rest at FHQ Plus.
--
This legislation has been added to FHQ's updated 2024 presidential primary calendar.
--
Recent posts:
Monday, September 7, 2020
The Electoral College Map (9/7/20)
Update for September 7.
Although Monday is the Labor Day federal holiday, polling releases did not take the day off. But the extended holiday weekend did not bring with it a rush of new data. However, there was yet another glimpse at the presidential race Wisconsin, an update in California and the first survey of Idaho in calendar 2020.
Polling Quick Hits:
California
(Biden 56, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +29.05]
The Spry Strategies poll of the Golden state is the closest President Trump has been to Biden there in 2020. But it has the president over performing his FHQ weighted average share of support by about eight points in his high water mark in California polling. Biden, unsurprisingly, is running behind his average by about half that in this poll, a level of support that matches his low point in the state. It was enough to nudge the average margin below Biden +30 for the first time at FHQ. No, the former vice president is in no risk of losing the state in November, but what is perhaps more interesting is that he is uncharacteristically behind Hillary Clinton's showing in the state. Most states have Biden ahead of the Clinton pace from 2016 and California is one of the exceptions to that rule as of now.
Idaho
(Trump 60, Biden 34)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +17.89]
The first look at the race in the Gem state from Spry Strategies did little to change the previous outlook there based on the 2016 to 2020 swings in states that finished new Idaho in the order four years ago. Trump leads big in one of the reddest of states out there. But the survey has him right at his 2016 share of support and Biden just barely ahead of his. Like California above, Idaho is going to remain a Strong Trump state, but it is noteworthy that this poll looks an awful lot like 2016 in the state, a lack of movement that runs counter to the notion of a uniform swing since the last election. So while it is helpful to have some data from Idaho, a bit more would help to flesh out a more robust picture of the race there.
Wisconsin
(Biden 51, Trump 43)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.36]
Finally, another poll out of Wisconsin -- this one from Pulse Opinion Research -- served to maintain the status quo there. The number of mid- to upper single digit leads for Biden in surveys conducted in the Badger state has proliferated since convention season began, this poll included. Pulse was in the field there in early August and had Biden up 12. The lead is still there and large enough in a state that basically ended in a tie in 2016, but it does represent some contract in the margin over the last month across the Pulse polls. More interesting is the fact that Pulse was also recently in the field in another flipped blue wall state, Pennsylvania. The results in that poll resembled the 2016 results: a virtual tie. Yes, polls vary, but a Biden +8 in Wisconsin and a tie in Pennsylvania from Pulse is not exactly in line with how those two states are aligned compared to each other. Sure, the order is right, but the margins are off what has been established though other polling in the states.
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.
There was a lot of status quo maintenance in the three surveys added for today's update. All three states stayed the same shades on the map and the Watch List continued to include the same ten states and districts that it did a day ago. Those remain the states to be on the look out for new polls. It could mean changes to their designations here at FHQ. One thing that did change today was Idaho's positioning on the Electoral College Spectrum. The first poll of the calendar year in the Gem state pushed it deeper into the Strong Trump category, shifting two cells toward the right extreme in the order.
Where things stood at FHQ on September 7 (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.
--
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 (9/6/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/5/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/4/20)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Although Monday is the Labor Day federal holiday, polling releases did not take the day off. But the extended holiday weekend did not bring with it a rush of new data. However, there was yet another glimpse at the presidential race Wisconsin, an update in California and the first survey of Idaho in calendar 2020.
Polling Quick Hits:
California
(Biden 56, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +29.05]
The Spry Strategies poll of the Golden state is the closest President Trump has been to Biden there in 2020. But it has the president over performing his FHQ weighted average share of support by about eight points in his high water mark in California polling. Biden, unsurprisingly, is running behind his average by about half that in this poll, a level of support that matches his low point in the state. It was enough to nudge the average margin below Biden +30 for the first time at FHQ. No, the former vice president is in no risk of losing the state in November, but what is perhaps more interesting is that he is uncharacteristically behind Hillary Clinton's showing in the state. Most states have Biden ahead of the Clinton pace from 2016 and California is one of the exceptions to that rule as of now.
Idaho
(Trump 60, Biden 34)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +17.89]
The first look at the race in the Gem state from Spry Strategies did little to change the previous outlook there based on the 2016 to 2020 swings in states that finished new Idaho in the order four years ago. Trump leads big in one of the reddest of states out there. But the survey has him right at his 2016 share of support and Biden just barely ahead of his. Like California above, Idaho is going to remain a Strong Trump state, but it is noteworthy that this poll looks an awful lot like 2016 in the state, a lack of movement that runs counter to the notion of a uniform swing since the last election. So while it is helpful to have some data from Idaho, a bit more would help to flesh out a more robust picture of the race there.
Wisconsin
(Biden 51, Trump 43)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.36]
Finally, another poll out of Wisconsin -- this one from Pulse Opinion Research -- served to maintain the status quo there. The number of mid- to upper single digit leads for Biden in surveys conducted in the Badger state has proliferated since convention season began, this poll included. Pulse was in the field there in early August and had Biden up 12. The lead is still there and large enough in a state that basically ended in a tie in 2016, but it does represent some contract in the margin over the last month across the Pulse polls. More interesting is the fact that Pulse was also recently in the field in another flipped blue wall state, Pennsylvania. The results in that poll resembled the 2016 results: a virtual tie. Yes, polls vary, but a Biden +8 in Wisconsin and a tie in Pennsylvania from Pulse is not exactly in line with how those two states are aligned compared to each other. Sure, the order is right, but the margins are off what has been established though other polling in the states.
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) |
SC-9
(122)
|
IN-11
(54)
|
CA-55
(73)
|
OR-7
(183)
|
NV-6
(279 | 265)
|
MO-10
(113)
|
KY-8
(43)
|
VT-3
(76)
|
NM-5
(188)
|
FL-29
(308 | 259)
|
MT-3
(103)
|
AL-9
(35)
|
NY-29
(105)
|
CO-9
(197)
|
AZ-11
(319 | 230)
|
KS-6
NE CD1-1
(100)
|
ID-4
(26)
|
WA-12
(117)
|
VA-13
(210)
|
NC-15
ME CD2-1
(335 | 219)
|
MS-6
(93)
|
ND-3
(22)
|
MD-10
(127)
|
ME-2
(212)
|
IA-6
(203)
|
AR-6
(87)
|
SD-3
(19)
|
IL-20
(147)
|
MN-10
(222)
|
OH-18
(197)
|
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. | ||||
There was a lot of status quo maintenance in the three surveys added for today's update. All three states stayed the same shades on the map and the Watch List continued to include the same ten states and districts that it did a day ago. Those remain the states to be on the look out for new polls. It could mean changes to their designations here at FHQ. One thing that did change today was Idaho's positioning on the Electoral College Spectrum. The first poll of the calendar year in the Gem state pushed it deeper into the Strong Trump category, shifting two cells toward the right extreme in the order.
Where things stood at FHQ on September 7 (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
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
from Toss Up Biden
|
to Lean 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
| |
Nebraska CD2
|
from Lean Biden
|
to Toss Up Biden
| |
Nevada
|
from Toss Up Biden
|
to Lean Biden
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Biden
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Lean Biden
|
to Toss Up Biden
| |
South Carolina
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
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 (9/6/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/5/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/4/20)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Monday, March 9, 2020
2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: IDAHO
IDAHO
Election type: primary
Date: March 10
Number of delegates: 25 [4 at-large, 3 PLEOs, 13 congressional district, 5 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.
Although Idaho's Republican-controlled state government reestablished a presidential primary in 2015 for the 2016 cycle, Democrats in the Gem state opted instead to utilize caucuses for the purposes of allocating delegates to the national convention. But even before the Democratic National Committee adopted delegate selection rules for 2020 that encouraged the use of government-run primaries over caucuses (where available), Idaho Democrats made the decision in 2018 to shift to a primary. That change will likely bring an increase in turnout, but also had the effect of pushing the delegate selection event from the fourth Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in March on the 2020 primary calendar.
In addition to that change the Idaho Democratic delegation shrunk from 2016 to 2020. Democrats in the state lost two district delegates and one at-large delegate, but gained a superdelegate in that time. Idaho Democrats continue to have among the smallest delegations to the Democratic National Convention and is almost the least delegate-rich state with a contest on March 10.
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)
Idaho's 13 congressional district delegates are split across 2 congressional districts and have a variation of just one delegate across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Idaho 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 - 6 delegates
CD2 - 7 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
All 20 pledged delegates in Idaho are chosen at the state conventions on June 6 based on the results in the respective congressional districts for congressional district delegates and statewide results for PLEO delegates and then at-large delegates.
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 early June when the Idaho 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. This is unlikely to be a factor with just two viable candidates in the race.
Election type: primary
Date: March 10
Number of delegates: 25 [4 at-large, 3 PLEOs, 13 congressional district, 5 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.
Although Idaho's Republican-controlled state government reestablished a presidential primary in 2015 for the 2016 cycle, Democrats in the Gem state opted instead to utilize caucuses for the purposes of allocating delegates to the national convention. But even before the Democratic National Committee adopted delegate selection rules for 2020 that encouraged the use of government-run primaries over caucuses (where available), Idaho Democrats made the decision in 2018 to shift to a primary. That change will likely bring an increase in turnout, but also had the effect of pushing the delegate selection event from the fourth Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in March on the 2020 primary calendar.
In addition to that change the Idaho Democratic delegation shrunk from 2016 to 2020. Democrats in the state lost two district delegates and one at-large delegate, but gained a superdelegate in that time. Idaho Democrats continue to have among the smallest delegations to the Democratic National Convention and is almost the least delegate-rich state with a contest on March 10.
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)
Idaho's 13 congressional district delegates are split across 2 congressional districts and have a variation of just one delegate across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Idaho 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 - 6 delegates
CD2 - 7 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
All 20 pledged delegates in Idaho are chosen at the state conventions on June 6 based on the results in the respective congressional districts for congressional district delegates and statewide results for PLEO delegates and then at-large delegates.
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 early June when the Idaho 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. This is unlikely to be a factor with just two viable candidates in the race.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Idaho Republicans Face Deadline on 2020 Presidential Primary
As the October 1 RNC deadline for state parties to finalize plans for 2020 delegate selection approaches, Idaho Republicans face a decision.
Under the rules of the Idaho Republican Party, the state party chairman has until the final Monday in September to opt into or out of the state government-run presidential primary. That last Monday in September falls on Monday, September 30, the day before the RNC deadline. And Chairman Raúl Labrador could follow the raft of other Republican state parties that have chosen already to cancel their delegate selection events or presidential preference votes ahead of a cycle in which the party is likely to renominate President Trump.
But it should be noted that in past instances in which Republican presidents have run for renomination, Idaho Republicans have no recent history of canceling primaries or caucuses. That did not happen in 1992 nor did it happen in 2004. That said, in a season in which an increasing number of state Republican parties are opting out of primaries and caucuses, Idaho could join the group in an effort to smooth the president's path to renomination.
Finally, the Idaho Republican Party when it adopted changes to its rules in April 2019 made no significant changes to the delegate allocation rules for 2020. There remains a 20 percent threshold to qualify for delegates, a level that may be high enough to keep the president's opponents away from qualification. And Idaho is a backdoor winner-take-all state. If only one candidate surpasses 20 percent, then that candidate receives all of the delegates from the Gem state. And that is in addition to the winner-take-all threshold the party has in place, a 50 percent threshold that, if triggered, would also award all of the delegates to the majority winner. This is all consistent with how the party operated its delegate allocation in 2016.
Regardless, for those watching state party-level maneuvering, Idaho bears some attention as the week progresses and the calendar eases into the weekend.
--
The Idaho Republican Party state central committee also passed a resolution at its June meeting supporting President Trump. That move may or may not serve as some evidence that the party will move to ease Trump's road to the nomination through a primary cancelation.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Under the rules of the Idaho Republican Party, the state party chairman has until the final Monday in September to opt into or out of the state government-run presidential primary. That last Monday in September falls on Monday, September 30, the day before the RNC deadline. And Chairman Raúl Labrador could follow the raft of other Republican state parties that have chosen already to cancel their delegate selection events or presidential preference votes ahead of a cycle in which the party is likely to renominate President Trump.
But it should be noted that in past instances in which Republican presidents have run for renomination, Idaho Republicans have no recent history of canceling primaries or caucuses. That did not happen in 1992 nor did it happen in 2004. That said, in a season in which an increasing number of state Republican parties are opting out of primaries and caucuses, Idaho could join the group in an effort to smooth the president's path to renomination.
Finally, the Idaho Republican Party when it adopted changes to its rules in April 2019 made no significant changes to the delegate allocation rules for 2020. There remains a 20 percent threshold to qualify for delegates, a level that may be high enough to keep the president's opponents away from qualification. And Idaho is a backdoor winner-take-all state. If only one candidate surpasses 20 percent, then that candidate receives all of the delegates from the Gem state. And that is in addition to the winner-take-all threshold the party has in place, a 50 percent threshold that, if triggered, would also award all of the delegates to the majority winner. This is all consistent with how the party operated its delegate allocation in 2016.
Regardless, for those watching state party-level maneuvering, Idaho bears some attention as the week progresses and the calendar eases into the weekend.
--
The Idaho Republican Party state central committee also passed a resolution at its June meeting supporting President Trump. That move may or may not serve as some evidence that the party will move to ease Trump's road to the nomination through a primary cancelation.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Funding for the Idaho Presidential Primary "Slipped Through the Cracks"
Just when it looked like both Idaho parties would use the presidential primary election in 2020...
...came this news from Betsy Z. Russell at the Idaho Press:
But forgetting the appropriation entirely is a different matter. That is a new one to FHQ. But in Secretary Denney's defense, he is right that the appropriation for the 2016 primary was included in a parallel bill to the legislation to reestablish the presidential primary in the Gem state and not in the funding package. If one starts a new legislative year with the items in the appropriation package the session before, then something funded outside the main appropriations bill can potentially get lost in the shuffle.
Still...
What is at least somewhat noteworthy about all of this is that Idaho Democrats came to the conclusion last summer to utilize the primary in lieu of caucuses during the 2020 cycle and have already made plans -- via their draft delegate selection plan -- to do just that.
This will likely get worked out, but it is not a snafu that is all that common.
...came this news from Betsy Z. Russell at the Idaho Press:
Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney forgot to budget for the 2020 presidential primary, creating an unpleasant $2 million surprise for legislative budget writers who set his office’s budget on Wednesday.
The Legislature’s Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee had already set all but 4 percent of the state’s general fund budget for next year, working through it agency by agency over the past month, when Denney’s came up with a $2 million hole in it.This is atypical. Usually if there is a funding issue with a presidential primary, it something that is initiated by the secretary of state or state legislature to save funds in a given state. Washington state, for example canceled its presidential primary during the 2012 cycle to cut back on expenditures and states like Alabama, California and New Jersey consolidated separate presidential primaries in the same cycle with the same intent.
But forgetting the appropriation entirely is a different matter. That is a new one to FHQ. But in Secretary Denney's defense, he is right that the appropriation for the 2016 primary was included in a parallel bill to the legislation to reestablish the presidential primary in the Gem state and not in the funding package. If one starts a new legislative year with the items in the appropriation package the session before, then something funded outside the main appropriations bill can potentially get lost in the shuffle.
Still...
What is at least somewhat noteworthy about all of this is that Idaho Democrats came to the conclusion last summer to utilize the primary in lieu of caucuses during the 2020 cycle and have already made plans -- via their draft delegate selection plan -- to do just that.
This will likely get worked out, but it is not a snafu that is all that common.
--
Monday, July 9, 2018
Idaho Democrats Announce Shift from "Unwieldy" Caucuses to State-Funded Presidential Primary for 2020
Idaho Democrats will switch to a presidential primary, rather than a caucus, for the next presidential election in 2020.
The party announced the change during its state party convention Saturday at the College of Idaho in Caldwell.
“We’re looking to move to a system that we have a primary, so that everybody can vote,” said Van Beechler, the party’s first vice chair.
Party Chairman Bert Marley said, “It’s been obvious the last couple presidential elections that the caucus system for us, in most parts of the state, is pretty unwieldy.”And it is exactly that "pretty unwieldy" part that has been a common bond among those states that have either moved to primaries or have signaled that such a move was on the way for the 2020 cycle. Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota all made the change in 2016, the legislature in Utah added funding for a presidential primary to the budget, and Democrats in Nebraska and Washington have both voted on or voiced support for a transition from caucuses to a primary.
In each case, the administrative and financial burdens to the state parties were raised in the argument for a switch to a primary. Participation was up enough in caucus states across the board to nudge up administrative snafus and with it, the attendant disgruntlement with the process from those who were able to withstand long lines and longer meetings.
Idaho was no exception to this trend. But then, even with a state-funded option available to the state Democratic Party, the organization stuck with the caucuses for 2016. Much of that decision has to do with the on-again off-again nature of the presidential primary in the state. The state Republican Party opted for early March caucuses for the 2012 cycle in 2011, and Republicans in control of the Gem state legislature followed that by eliminating the presidential primary option in 2012.
Idaho Republicans reversed course for 2016. The party passed a resolution to trade in the once-utilized caucus system for a primary in February 2015, and then the Republican-controlled legislature passed legislation to re-establish the primary in spring 2015. This left Idaho Democrats little time to adapt while devising a delegate selection plan due to the Democratic National Committee by the early parts of May 2015.
But even with that excuse, Idaho Democrats have never had a post-reform relationship with the presidential primary that has been on the books in the state. The historical reasons have been twofold. First, the primary was always scheduled late, often after many presidential nomination races had been resolved. But second, the primary was always open, which the parties at state and national levels have tended to resist.
Those historical reasons for opting into the caucus system despite a state-funded primary option are now gone in Idaho. When state Republicans re-established the primary in 2015, it was scheduled for March (earlier in the process than had traditionally been the case) and gave the state parties the option of allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in the primary.
As Idaho Democratic Party Chair Bert Marley recently said at the state convention:
“This is the system that’s in place — we’re [Idaho taxpayers] paying for it, we’re going to use it.”And with that, add Idaho to list of states moving toward primaries for 2020.
Friday, October 28, 2016
The Electoral College Map (10/28/16)
New State Polls (10/28/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona
|
10/22-10/24
|
+/-3.0%
|
2385 likely voters
|
48
|
46
|
0
|
+2
|
--
| |
Arizona
|
10/26-10/27
|
+/-4.12%
|
550 likely voters
|
40
|
42
|
10
|
+2
|
+1.03
| |
California
|
10/7-10/13
|
+/-7.0%
|
622 likely voters
|
61
|
25
|
8
|
+36
|
+23.16
| |
Florida
|
10/22-10/26
|
+/-3.0%
|
1028 likely voters
|
50
|
37
|
7
|
+13
|
+2.38
| |
Idaho
|
10/23-10/24
|
+/-4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
29
|
48
|
8
|
+19
|
+24.22
| |
Louisiana
|
10/15-10/21
|
+/-4.0%
|
603 likely voters
|
35
|
49
|
6
|
+14
|
+13.69
| |
Missouri
|
10/23-10/25
|
+/-1.94%
|
2559 likely voters
|
39
|
50
|
4
|
+11
|
--
| |
Missouri
|
10/24-10/26
|
+/-4.0%
|
625 likely voters
|
42
|
47
|
7
|
+5
|
+7.11
| |
Texas
|
10/22-10/24
|
+/-3.5%
|
800 likely voters
|
38
|
45
|
10
|
+7
|
+6.52
| |
Virginia
|
10/23-10/26
|
+/-4.2%
|
814 likely voters
|
46
|
39
|
8
|
+7
|
+6.87
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
11 days to go.
As the work week comes to a close, allow FHQ an opportunity to address the "tightening" talk that has been a feature of the week. To first state the obvious, this was a pretty good week for Trump. Now, that "good" is very much dependent on how one defines it. For October Trump, a good week is one in which negative news about him and his past actions does not dominate. By that measure, Trump is in relatively good standing.
But let us be frank about his positioning. The race is in one of those lulls that has been a feature of general election Trump. And those lulls tend to see a rebound of Trump's numbers.
Negative event --> widening gap --> heat dies down --> regression to the mean --> repeatClinton's numbers at the state level have mostly stabilized or at least entered into a phase of very modest gains. [Of course, another email story may alter that trajectory.] Trump, on the other hand, bottomed out again and has seen his numbers turn around. Again. This is the pattern. This is the regular rhythm of this race (on the Trump side of the equation). Part of this is skittish Republicans and Republican-leaning independents coming back home; drifting away from Johnson or coming back out of the ranks of the undecided (again). Call it differential response in surveys or chalk it up to indecision among folks who do not want to vote for Clinton but who also have deep reservations about Trump. Whatever it is, this pattern has occurred with regularity since June.
As of now the closest states are Arizona, Iowa and Ohio. Those are the states most likely to move across the partisan line on the Electoral College Spectrum below. They are all three also superfluous to Clinton in her chase for 270 electoral votes. That is a pretty clear signal about the state of this race. Now, the pollsters could be off, bringing a few more states into that group as this election winds down. However, there are a lot of smart people who have made a lot of (mostly clear) assumptions (in the aggregate) about what the electorate will look like in the end. That collective picture put together over the last few months would have to be historically wrong for Trump to approach 270. For now, this one looks like 2012 plus or minus a small handful of states.
To the day's polls...
Arizona:
It is rare to see both candidates in the upper 40s in a multi-way Arizona poll. More often than not, both Clinton and Trump have been stuck in the upper 30s and lower 40s. The Saguaro poll is unique in that regard, but more in line with the rest of the polling in the state in finding the race there close. Arizona has had its moments along the way where it appeared as if it was tracking toward the Lean Trump category, but it has been a toss up throughout. That has not changed. The trajectory of movement has. As election day approaches the race in the Grand Canyon state is slowly narrowing while continuing to advantage Trump. [Late addition:] The update to the Data Orbital polling is consistent with that overall picture.
California:
The temptation with this Sacramento State poll is to say that Clinton is near Obama-level support from 2012. She is. But she has not been all that for off his mark all along. What gives pause concerning this survey is that +/-7.0 percent margin of error. Look, Clinton is well ahead in the Golden state. This poll mostly confirms that, but with a lower level of certainty.
Florida:
This Saint Leo poll is an outlier in the context of recent polling in the Sunshine state. Granted, Clinton has not really budged since the mid-September Florida St. Leo survey. She was hovering around 50 percent then and is now. The change happened on the Trump side. The New York businessman's support flagged in the time since that last poll, dropping six points. St. Leo was an outlier then as now, but the change is in the direction most surveys have gone in Florida since debate season intervened.
Idaho:
There has yet to be any evidence that Evan McMullin is replicating his Utah rise anywhere else. Idaho is most often discussed in those conversations, but while McMullin is siphoning off support from Trump, it is not enough to draw the two of them into a near three way tie with Clinton. Instead, McMullin seems to be pulling enough from Trump to lower the typical share of support a Republican nominee would receive in the Gem state. A modest spoiler vote only serves to lower the margin by which Trump wins Idaho rather than threatening the likely victory.
Louisiana:
Through the lens of this UNO poll, Louisiana looks a lot like 2012 with both candidates nearly equivalent amounts behind their counterparts from four years ago. The last Clinton won Louisiana twice. That will not happen in 2016.
Missouri:
A couple of surveys out of the Show-Me state find differing margins, but the number to focus on is Trump's. Across the two polls, the Republican nominee is hovering around 50 percent in the former bellwether. Alternatively, Clinton is in the familiar lean state position for the trailing candidate: stuck around 40 percent with no sign that the trend will break. And with a little more than a week in the race, that break does not seem to be in the offing.
Texas:
This Pulse survey is a break from the string of two to four point margins that have popped up in recent polls of the Lone Star state. But it is right around the FHQ average and does little to shift the outlook in Texas. This is a state where the margin has been narrowing, but where the Republican candidate maintains a consistent lead.
Virginia:
Like the St. Leo poll of Florida, this Christopher Newport survey in Virginia finds little movement over polls in the Clinton numbers. All the changes are on the Trump side. But whereas Trump lost ground across the series of St. Leo polls of the Sunshine state, he made up some of the larger deficit in last week's CNU survey. This one is consistent with the tightening narrative, then, but more or less brings the series of polls back in line with where the bulk of the polling in the Old Dominion have been of late.
--
Changes (10/28/16)
Nothing changed on the map or Watch List from a day ago, and only Idaho shifted on the far reaches of the Strong Trump category on the Spectrum.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
MD-102
(13)
|
RI-4
(162)
|
PA-20
(263)
|
MO-10
(126)
|
TN-11
(61)
|
HI-4
(17)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
AK-3
(116)
|
AR-6
(50)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
OR-7
(183)
|
FL-29
(301 | 266) |
SC-9
(113)
|
ND-3
(44)
|
MA-11
(31)
|
NM-5
(188)
|
NC-15
(316 | 237) |
IN-11
(104)
|
KY-8
(41)
|
CA-55
(86)
|
MN-10
(198)
|
NV-6
(322 | 222)
|
UT-6
(93)
|
NE-53
(33)
|
NY-29
(115)
|
MI-16
(214)
|
OH-18
(340 | 216)
|
MS-6
(87)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20+13
(136)
|
VA-13
(227)
|
IA-6
(198)
|
KS-6
(81)
|
ID-4
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
ME-23
(229)
|
AZ-11
(192)
|
SD-3
(75)
|
WV-5
(15)
|
WA-12
(151)
|
WI-10
(239)
|
GA-16+13
(181)
|
LA-8
(72)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
CT-7
(158)
|
NH-4
(243)
|
TX-38
(164)
|
MT-3
(64)
|
WY-3
(3)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category. | ||||
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Indiana
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Oregon
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Strong Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Utah
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/27/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/26/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/25/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)