KENTUCKY
Election type: primary
Date: June 23
[May 19 originally]
Number of delegates: 60 [12 at-large, 6 PLEOs, 36 congressional district, 6 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan (pre-coronavirus)
[Summary of changes, post-coronavirus]
--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.
That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.
It was a quiet time in Kentucky after 2016, at least so far as the presidential primary and other delegate selection changes (especially on the Democratic side) were concerned. There was no effort to move or break up the consolidated primary scheduled for mid-May during the period from late 2016 through 2019.
But once the coronavirus pandemic came on the scene, Kentucky, like other states, changed the plans that had been laid out well in advance. On the state government level, Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) moved the primary from the May position it has been in since the 1992 cycle to June 23. And in a deal struck with Governor Andy Beshear (D), Adams also extended absentee voting to all registered Kentuckians. Postcards indicating the new voting option were mailed to all voters and an online application was created to allow all voters to request an absentee ballot. This is similar to the changes made in neighboring Ohio. Information about the change in voting was distributed, but not either absentee voting applications nor ballots were mailed directly to voters.
All ballots are due to county elections offices on or before 6pm on Tuesday, June 23.
Overall, the Democratic delegation in Kentucky changed by just one delegate from 2016 to 2020. Over the last four years, only the district delegates decreased by one while the remaining two categories of pledged delegates and superdelegates stayed the same.
[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the Kentucky Democratic Party 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)
Kentucky's 36 congressional district delegates are split across 6 congressional districts and have a fairly wide variation of seven delegates across districts based on the measure of Democratic strength the state party is using determined by the results of the 2016 presidential and 2019 gubernatorial elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 4 delegates
CD2 - 5 delegates*
CD3 - 10 delegates
CD4 - 6 delegates
CD5 - 3 delegates*
CD6 - 8 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
As it has elsewhere, the outbreak of the coronavirus has disrupted the delegate selection process in Kentucky. County/legislative district caucuses have been eliminated under the new plan and all registered Kentucky Democrats can remotely participate in the selection of district delegates. Any Kentucky Democrat can apply with the state party by June 6 to participate via Google Forms ballot in the pre-primary selection of district delegates that takes place from June 7-13. As this is a pre-primary election, delegate slates will be selected for participating candidates and delegate slots allocated on primary election day will be filled from those slates.
Both PLEO and then at-large delegates will be selected by the State Executive Committee on June 27 (if the results of the June 23 primary have been certified by that time).
[Initially, before the coronavirus pandemic hit, Kentucky Democrats had planned to hold post-primary county/legislative district caucuses on May 30 to select delegates to the state convention on June 6. State convention delegates broken into congressional districts were to have chosen district delegates there and the full convention would have selected the PLEO delegates. Following the conclusion of the June 6 state convention, the Kentucky Democratic Party State Executive Committee was to have selected the at-large delegates to go to the national convention from the commonwealth.]
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 late June when the Georgia statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the late June primary would be reallocated to Candidate X. [This same feature is not something that applies to district delegates.] This reallocation only applies if a candidate has fully dropped out. This is less likely to be a factor with just Biden left as the only viable candidate in the race, but Sanders could still gain statewide delegates by finishing with more than 15 percent statewide. Under a new deal struck between the Biden and Sanders camps, Biden will be allocated (or reallocated) all of the statewide delegates in a given state. However, during the selection process, the state party will select Sanders-aligned delegate candidates in proportion to the share of the qualified statewide vote.
Showing posts with label Kentucky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kentucky. Show all posts
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Kentucky Shifts Mid-May Primary to Late June in Response to Coronavirus
Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) on Monday, March 16 "exercising an emergency power granted to his Office under Kentucky law ... formally recommended to Governor Andy Beshear (D) that the elections scheduled for May 19 ... be delayed [until] June 23"
Beshear concurred with the recommendation and the primary in the Bluegrass state was shifted back five weeks to late June.
Yes, this is another coronavirus-related calendar change, but it is a move that brings with it some risks for the Kentucky Democratic Party. First of all, like Louisiana, the change positions the Kentucky primary outside of the rules-mandated window in which primaries and caucuses can occur in either party. The cut-off on the Democratic side is June 9, so a primary two weeks later in Kentucky opens the Democratic state party there to the penalties associated with a timing violation: a 50 percentage reduction in the national convention delegation to the national convention. And this is something the Democratic National Committee has raised as a warning.
And there are at least a couple of reasons for that.
One is that a June 23 primary in Kentucky comes just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention is scheduled to gavel in. That is a potential logistical nightmare for not only the credentialing process for the convention, but also the Kentucky Democratic Party and the delegates that will represent the state at the convention.
But couple that possible credentialing issue with the process of actually filling any delegate slots allocated to candidates in the June 23 Kentucky primary. That selection process as laid out in the Kentucky Democratic Party delegate selection plan was to have followed the May 19 primary. State legislative district caucuses were to have taken place on May 30 to elect delegates to the June 6 state convention where national convention delegates would be chosen.
On the one hand, keeping that same sequence -- a primary to allocate delegates completely followed by a caucus/convention process to select delegates -- is likely impossible with a June 23 primary. The last date on which any delegate selection occurs on the Democratic side this cycle is Saturday, June 20. The primary, then, comes after that and any caucus/convention process thereafter would run even closer to the start of the scheduled national convention in Milwaukee.
But on the other hand, a June 23 primary may be marginally workable if the Kentucky Democratic Party maintains the same selection sequence but have it precede the primary. In other words, rather than filling specific delegate slots for particular candidates at a state convention after the now potentially too late primary, the state party can continue with the caucus/convention process as scheduled and slate full groups of delegate candidate for any active candidate at that point. Then, the party could quickly take the results of the primaries and fill delegates slots allocated based on the primary results from those previously selected candidate slates.
No, that does not completely resolve all of the issues with such a late primary, but it would potentially mitigate some of the issues. After all, a number of states with late primaries conduct selection processes before their primaries by design with these very issues in mind.
--
As a coda, there are couple of other notes. First, it should be added that the June 23 date Kentucky has chosen also violates the Republican National Committee rules on timing. June 13 is the Republican cut-off. That said, with an August convention, the RNC has a bit more latitude on this than does the DNC with a mid-July convention scheduled. Kentucky Republicans could still complete the delegate selection process in a timely enough manner to make thing work with that August convention start point.
The other thing to consider in the context of any Democratic penalties for scheduling the primary too late is that the rules do provide the state parties some cover. But it is unlikely to apply in either Kentucky's or Louisiana's cases. In both instances Republican secretaries of state acted to delay the primaries and schedule them for points on the calendar that are in violation of the national party rules. Normally, that would help a Democratic state party avoid sanction from the national party. A change made by someone of the opposite party is out of the hands of any state party.
But in both of these cases -- Kentucky and Louisiana -- Democratic governors had to and did sign off on the date changes. In other words, a Democratic official was involved in the change. It was this sort of conflict that helped sink Florida Democrats in 2008 when the Sunshine state moved to hold its primary to a position too early under the rules. The Republican-controlled Florida legislature passed the bill to move the primary and it was signed into law by a Republican governor. But Democrats in the legislature voted for the change too. The result? An initial 100 percent reduction in the Florida delegation.
Kentucky and Louisiana may not get that level of punishment given the circumstances, but they may be levied the 50 percent reduction called for in the DNC rules.
--
Kentucky secretary of state press release on the primary move archived here.
Beshear concurred with the recommendation and the primary in the Bluegrass state was shifted back five weeks to late June.
Yes, this is another coronavirus-related calendar change, but it is a move that brings with it some risks for the Kentucky Democratic Party. First of all, like Louisiana, the change positions the Kentucky primary outside of the rules-mandated window in which primaries and caucuses can occur in either party. The cut-off on the Democratic side is June 9, so a primary two weeks later in Kentucky opens the Democratic state party there to the penalties associated with a timing violation: a 50 percentage reduction in the national convention delegation to the national convention. And this is something the Democratic National Committee has raised as a warning.
And there are at least a couple of reasons for that.
One is that a June 23 primary in Kentucky comes just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention is scheduled to gavel in. That is a potential logistical nightmare for not only the credentialing process for the convention, but also the Kentucky Democratic Party and the delegates that will represent the state at the convention.
But couple that possible credentialing issue with the process of actually filling any delegate slots allocated to candidates in the June 23 Kentucky primary. That selection process as laid out in the Kentucky Democratic Party delegate selection plan was to have followed the May 19 primary. State legislative district caucuses were to have taken place on May 30 to elect delegates to the June 6 state convention where national convention delegates would be chosen.
On the one hand, keeping that same sequence -- a primary to allocate delegates completely followed by a caucus/convention process to select delegates -- is likely impossible with a June 23 primary. The last date on which any delegate selection occurs on the Democratic side this cycle is Saturday, June 20. The primary, then, comes after that and any caucus/convention process thereafter would run even closer to the start of the scheduled national convention in Milwaukee.
But on the other hand, a June 23 primary may be marginally workable if the Kentucky Democratic Party maintains the same selection sequence but have it precede the primary. In other words, rather than filling specific delegate slots for particular candidates at a state convention after the now potentially too late primary, the state party can continue with the caucus/convention process as scheduled and slate full groups of delegate candidate for any active candidate at that point. Then, the party could quickly take the results of the primaries and fill delegates slots allocated based on the primary results from those previously selected candidate slates.
No, that does not completely resolve all of the issues with such a late primary, but it would potentially mitigate some of the issues. After all, a number of states with late primaries conduct selection processes before their primaries by design with these very issues in mind.
--
As a coda, there are couple of other notes. First, it should be added that the June 23 date Kentucky has chosen also violates the Republican National Committee rules on timing. June 13 is the Republican cut-off. That said, with an August convention, the RNC has a bit more latitude on this than does the DNC with a mid-July convention scheduled. Kentucky Republicans could still complete the delegate selection process in a timely enough manner to make thing work with that August convention start point.
The other thing to consider in the context of any Democratic penalties for scheduling the primary too late is that the rules do provide the state parties some cover. But it is unlikely to apply in either Kentucky's or Louisiana's cases. In both instances Republican secretaries of state acted to delay the primaries and schedule them for points on the calendar that are in violation of the national party rules. Normally, that would help a Democratic state party avoid sanction from the national party. A change made by someone of the opposite party is out of the hands of any state party.
But in both of these cases -- Kentucky and Louisiana -- Democratic governors had to and did sign off on the date changes. In other words, a Democratic official was involved in the change. It was this sort of conflict that helped sink Florida Democrats in 2008 when the Sunshine state moved to hold its primary to a position too early under the rules. The Republican-controlled Florida legislature passed the bill to move the primary and it was signed into law by a Republican governor. But Democrats in the legislature voted for the change too. The result? An initial 100 percent reduction in the Florida delegation.
Kentucky and Louisiana may not get that level of punishment given the circumstances, but they may be levied the 50 percent reduction called for in the DNC rules.
--
Kentucky secretary of state press release on the primary move archived here.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
Kentucky Republicans Change Presidential Caucus Process
In any event, there are some tea leaves to read that point in the direction of the Republican Party of Kentucky (RPK) using the caucus/convention format again in 2020. For starters, the party adopted rules changes to the caucus section of the RPK's rules added in 2015. Back at the June 15 meeting of the RPK state central committee the rules were changed for 2020. The party not only changed the date of the contest, but altered the method of delegate allocation as well. And the former made the latter possible. First, the date of the caucuses was moved back on the calendar from the first Saturday in March. In 2020, if Republicans in the Bluegrass state hold caucuses, the event will fall on the third Saturday in March.
That new position on the calendar allowed the party to then trade out the proportional allocation method used in 2016 for a winner-take-all method in the current cycle. Under Republican National Committee rules, no contest before March 15 can allocated delegates in a winner-take-all fashion without having a winner-take-all threshold (no less than 50 percent of the vote) in place. RPK skipped that, opting for a later date -- March 21 -- and a true winner-take-all plan with no trigger.
Those would be inconsequential rules changes if the RPK ultimately decided to use the May state-run presidential primary for allocating delegates instead. Why go to the trouble? That does not confirm that Republicans in Kentucky will use the caucuses again, but it certainly points in that direction.
It should additionally be noted that in 2015 when the party added the caucuses language to the party rules, that August state central committee meeting was the setting in which the decision to use the caucuses for delegate allocation in 2016 was made as well. Now, whether that same protocol was utilized at the June 2019 meeting is unclear. But if the pattern in 2015 was the same in 2019, then the party will be using a winner-take-all caucus on March 21 of next year.
Kentucky, then, potentially fits the pattern of state parties making rules changes that might benefit the president's renomination outlook.
FHQ will add the new date of the Kentucky Republican caucuses to the 2020 presidential primary calendar, but with an asterisk until the move is confirmed with the party.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe for daily updates via Email.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
The Electoral College Map (11/1/16)
New State Polls (11/1/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona
|
10/29-10/30
|
+/-4.12%
|
550 likely voters
|
41
|
45
|
8
|
+4
|
+1.19
| |
California
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/-3.6%
|
747 likely voters
|
56
|
35
|
4
|
+21
|
+23.04
| |
Illinois
|
10/26-10/27
|
+/-4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
48
|
37
|
10
|
+11
|
--
| |
Illinois
|
10/27-10/30
|
+/-4.3%
|
500 likely voters
|
53
|
41
|
2
|
+11
|
+15.08
| |
Kentucky
|
10/26-10/28
|
+/-3.44%
|
811 likely voters
|
32
|
56
|
5
|
+24
|
--
| |
Kentucky
|
10/25-10/30
|
+/-4.0%
|
602 likely voters
|
37
|
54
|
6
|
+17
|
+19.71
| |
Maine
|
10/24-10/26
|
+/-3.4%
|
812 likely voters
|
42
|
37
|
9
|
+5
|
--
| |
Maine
|
10/28-10/30
|
+/-3.5%
|
750 likely voters
|
46
|
42
|
5
|
+4
|
+6.75
| |
Maine CD1
|
10/24-10/26
|
+/-4.7%
|
429 likely voters
|
45
|
33
|
9
|
+12
|
--
| |
Maine CD1
|
10/28-10/30
|
+/-5.0%
|
375 likely voters
|
49
|
43
|
4
|
+6
|
+15.10
| |
Maine CD2
|
10/24-10/26
|
+/-5.0%
|
382 likely voters
|
38
|
41
|
9
|
+3
|
--
| |
Maine CD2
|
10/28-10/30
|
+/-5.0%
|
375 likely voters
|
44
|
42
|
6
|
+2
|
+3.06
| |
Michigan
|
10/31
|
+/-3.61%
|
737 likely voters
|
50
|
43
|
3
|
+7
|
+6.88
| |
Missouri
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/-4.9%
|
405 likely voters
|
38
|
52
|
4
|
+14
|
+7.51
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/26-10/28
|
+/-5.1%
|
408 likely voters
|
43
|
45
|
4
|
+2
|
--
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/26-10/30
|
+/-3.9%
|
641 likely voters
|
46
|
39
|
5
|
+7
|
+5.79
| |
North Carolina
|
10/23-10/27
|
+/-3.7%
|
710 likely voters
|
42
|
41
|
12
|
+1
|
--
| |
North Carolina
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/-3.7%
|
718 likely voters
|
44
|
51
|
3
|
+7
|
+1.55
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/26-10/30
|
+/-5.1%
|
652 likely voters
|
49
|
38
|
7
|
+11
|
+5.53
| |
Texas
|
10/27-10/29
|
+/-3.13%
|
980 likely voters
|
39
|
52
|
4
|
+13
|
+6.96
| |
Virginia
|
10/27-10/30
|
+/-3.5%
|
1024 likely voters
|
48
|
42
|
1
|
+6
|
--
| |
Virginia
|
10/28-10/30
|
+/-3.4%
|
800 likely voters
|
49
|
45
|
2
|
+4
|
+6.70
| |
--
Changes (11/1/16)
One more week.
The map holds steady at 340-198. However, the bevy of new polls pushed New Hampshire back onto the Watch List. The Granite state is now within a point of the Lean/Toss Up line on Clinton's side of the Spectrum below. Despite all the poll releases, the movement on the Electoral College Spectrum from a day ago was minimal. Michigan and Maine traded positions in the Lean Clinton area and Kentucky likewise was nudged past Nebraska on the far right end of the Spectrum.
It is notable that all of the blue states above with exception of Pennsylvania saw their FHQ average margins slightly decrease upon the introduction of these new polls to the dataset. Most of that shift is attributable to Trump gains rather than Clinton declines across those states. Clinton continues to have less variable numbers while Trump continues to climb/consolidate Republican support as election day nears.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
MD-102
(13)
|
RI-4
(162)
|
PA-20
(263)
|
TX-38
(161)
|
TN-11
(61)
|
HI-4
(17)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
MO-10
(123)
|
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) |
UT-6
(104)
|
NE-53
(41)
|
CA-55
(86)
|
MN-10
(198)
|
NV-6
(322 | 222)
|
IN-11
(98)
|
KY-8
(36)
|
NY-29
(115)
|
MI-16
(214)
|
OH-18
(340 | 216)
|
MS-6
(87)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20+13
(136)
|
ME-23
(216)
|
IA-6
(198)
|
KS-6
(81)
|
ID-4
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
VA-13
(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)
|
AK-3
(164)
|
MT-3
(64)
|
WY-3
(3)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category. | ||||
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Colorado
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Indiana
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Oregon
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Strong Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Utah
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
Happy Halloween, 2016
The Electoral College Map (10/31/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/30/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
The Electoral College Map (8/9/16)
New State Polls (8/9/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
7/30-8/7
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1056 likely voters
|
43
|
43
|
3
|
+0
|
+2.27
| |
Illinois
|
7/11-7/14
|
+/- 3.5%
|
800 likely voters
|
51
|
32
|
--
|
+18
|
--
| |
Illinois
|
8/1-8/4
|
+/- 3.5%
|
800 likely voters
|
51
|
32
|
--
|
+18
|
+19.03
| |
Kentucky
|
7/31-8/1
|
+/- 4.4%
|
500 registered voters
|
36
|
49
|
7
|
+13
|
+13.00
| |
Missouri
|
8/5-8/6
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1280 likely voters
|
42
|
44
|
7
|
+2
|
+4.50
| |
North Carolina
|
8/5-8/7
|
+/- 3.4%
|
830 likely voters
|
43
|
41
|
8
|
+2
|
+1.88
| |
Ohio
|
7/30-8/7
|
+/- 3.4%
|
812 likely voters
|
44
|
42
|
4
|
+2
|
+1.87
| |
Pennsylvania
|
7/30-8/7
|
+/- 3.4%
|
815 likely voters
|
48
|
39
|
3
|
+9
|
+5.95
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
Eight new polls from seven states are new to the FHQ polling dataset. The bulk of them are reinforcing polls; those within range of the FHQ graduated weighted average margin in the states.
Florida:
Three of the those polls -- battleground state surveys from Quinnipiac -- fell mostly in line with where the majority of post-convention polls have found the three most electoral vote-rich states. Florida and Ohio are tightly contested and Pennsylvania appears to be reverting to form as the margin in the Keystone state continues to grow for Clinton.
Though Florida and Ohio are close, Florida has tended to lean a bit more heavily toward Clinton given the full universe of 2016 data from both states. That is not the case here as Quinnipiac finds Florida tied and Clinton with a small lead in Ohio. But then the previous Quinnipiac surveys have had a seemingly Republican-leaning house effect relative to other polling outlets. The transposing of Florida and Ohio may be a function of that. Of course, it should be noted that Florida swung more intensely toward Clinton since the last Q-poll in the Sunshine state (+5 in Clinton's direction) than in Ohio (+3 toward Clinton since July).
Illinois:
There is very little to say about the two newly added polls out of the Land of Lincoln. Both from Democratic firm, Norrington Petts (one from July and one from August), find Clinton ahead by a similar margin to Illinois survey a month ago. Additionally, both polls show a race stuck in neutral in that time with Clinton up 19. Both nominees are running behind their 2012 counterparts, but the margin is approximately where it was in November 2012: comfortably Democratic.
Kentucky:
The first look at neighboring Kentucky indicates a similarly comfortable, albeit, Republican state. Harper's survey has Trump ahead by double digits, but has the New York businessman lagging about ten points behind the pace Romney established in 2012. Clinton, meanwhile, is in range of Obama 2012. Under normal circumstances one might expect any undecideds to break toward the Republican, but that is less than clear in a cycle that has proven anything but normal thus far.
Missouri:
| Changes (August 9) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri | Lean Trump | Toss Up Trump | |
North Carolina:
PPP has made up a little more than a third of the 2016 polling in North Carolina, and while other firms' polls have jumped around relative to each other, the PPP surveys have always seen a close race between Clinton and Trump in the Tar Heel state. This August poll is no exception. The difference is that Clinton is now the candidate with the lead, and one in this poll that is right on the FHQ average in the state: close but on the Clinton side of the partisan line.
Ohio:
And the interesting thing now is that Ohio is now right there with North Carolina after a period in which there had been some space between the two in the FHQ averages. Like the PPP North Carolina poll, the Q-poll of Ohio is right in line with where the average is in the state. And the one trend that is clear here and in all the states above is that the polling is tilting in the immediate aftermath of the conventions and Trump's rough week last week toward Clinton.
Pennsylvania:
Another day and another poll out of Pennsylvania showing Clinton up by a margin hovering around the strong-lean line (+10 points). But this one represents quite a shift, in-house. The last Quinnipiac survey of the commonwealth showed Trump up six points in a multi-candidate race. However, this month Clinton is ahead nine; a 15 point shift. Although it has moved in the same direction as the Florida poll -- toward Clinton -- the change is three times greater. That is a pretty significant change month over month. One that for the first time brings the Quinnipiac numbers much more in line with the rest of the current polling in the Keystone state. Again, Pennsylvania is a state that Trump needs to get to 270. And if Quinnipiac is showing a nearly 10 point advantage for Clinton, well...
Pennsylvania retains its position on the spectrum below and inches closer still to moving off the Watch List into a safer -- from the Clinton perspective -- position within the Lean category.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
NJ-14
(175)
|
VA-133
(269 | 282)
|
MO-10
(158)
|
TN-11
(58)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
DE-3
(178)
|
NH-43
(273 | 269)
|
AK-3
(148)
|
LA-8
(47)
|
RI-4
(21)
|
WI-10
(188)
|
IA-6
(279 | 265) |
UT-6
(145)
|
SD-3
(39)
|
MA-11
(32)
|
NM-5
(193)
|
FL-29
(308 | 259) |
IN-11
(139)
|
ND-3
(36)
|
VT-3
(35)
|
MI-16
(209)
|
NC-15
(323 | 230)
|
TX-38
(128)
|
ID-4
(33)
|
CA-55
(90)
|
OR-7
(216)
|
OH-18
(341 | 215)
|
KS-6
(90)
|
NE-5
(29)
|
NY-29
(119)
|
CT-7
(223)
|
NV-6
(197)
|
SC-9
(84)
|
AL-9
(24)
|
IL-20
(139)
|
ME-4
(227)
|
GA-16
(191)
|
AR-6
(75)
|
OK-7
(15)
|
MN-10
(149)
|
CO-9
(236)
|
AZ-11
(175)
|
MT-3
(69)
|
WV-5
(8)
|
WA-12
(161)
|
PA-20
(256)
|
MS-6
(164)
|
KY-8
(66)
|
WY-3
(3)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 282 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 New Hampshire and Virginia are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Virginia and Trump, New Hampshire, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College. | ||||
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
*Due to the way in which states with no polling are treated in 2016 by FHQ -- uniform swing -- South Carolina has seen its "average" margin shrink. In the last month, as more polling data has been accrued, that average uniform swing has increased to just a shade more than one and a half points toward Clinton. That development has pushed South Carolina further away from the Strong Trump category and off the Watch List below.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Arizona
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Arkansas
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Georgia
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Nevada
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Virginia
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/8/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/7/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/5/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
The Electoral College Map (8/8/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/7/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/5/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)