Showing posts sorted by date for query 50-75 rule. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query 50-75 rule. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, May 27, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] The Trump Trial and the Primary Calendar

The following is cross-posted from FHQ Plus, FHQ's subscription newsletter. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

The former president's hush money payment trial in Manhattan is set to start in the sweet spot of the 2024 presidential primary calendar.

Former President Donald Trump beamed into a New York courtroom via video on Tuesday, May 23 for a hearing in which, among other things, the start date of the trial stemming from the 2016 hush money payments investigation was revealed. And the March 25, 2024 date falls right into the heart of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. It is not just that the trial will begin as March winds down following the opening of the (more) winner-take-all phase of the Republican presidential nomination process. 

Yes, the calendar of contests is still evolving, but the tentative start of the trial is a big deal for at least a couple of reasons based on where it looks as if the calendar will end up settling for 2024.

Sure, March 25 will be well after Iowa and New Hampshire have officially kicked off the voting phase of the Republican presidential nomination race. It will follow Super Tuesday. And it will hit right after the time on the calendar — March 15 — when states are allowed to allocate delegates to candidates in a winner-take-all fashion. But more importantly, March 25 falls in what is likely to be the decisive zone on the presidential primary calendar next year. 

In the last three competitive Republican presidential nomination cycles, the candidate who has held the delegate lead when 50 percent of the total number of delegates have been allocated has gone on to clinch the nomination around the point on the calendar when 75 percent of the delegates have been allocated. And in 2024, the 50 percent mark will likely fall somewhere between Super Tuesday on March 5 and the first round of winner-take-all-eligible primaries on March 19. Just two weeks later, on April 2, the 75 percent mark will likely be crossed with an anticipated subregional primary in the northeast and mid-Atlantic (with Wisconsin along for the ride).

March 25 is right in that window. 

But look at the 50-75 rule in the context of the last few competitive Republican cycles. 

  • In 2008, John McCain came out of Super Tuesday on February 5 with a sizable delegate lead that he did not relinquish down the stretch. Super Tuesday was the point on the calendar when the 50 percent mark was passed and McCain had wrapped up the nomination by early March when the 75 percent point came and went. 

  • Four years later, the calendar was different. Yes, Florida again pushed the earliest contests into January, but California was no longer in early February. The primary in Texas was no longer in early March. Instead, both delegate-rich states were toward the end of the calendar and that influenced where the 50-75 rule was activated in 2012. 50 percent of the Republican delegates had not been allocated that cycle until after 75 percent of them had been allocated in 2008. The 75 percent mark did not come in 2012 until the Texas primary at the end of May. That is a significant difference, but Mitt Romney was the delegate leader in late March and secured the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination in the Lone Star state in late May. 

  • In 2016, the calendar changed again, but the 50-75 rule remained fairly predictive. Donald Trump was the delegate leader when the 50 percent mark was crossed on March 15 and had a nearly insurmountable advantage after wins in the northeast and mid-Atlantic in late April, when the process pushed past the 75 percent point on the calendar. No, Trump did not clinch that day, but his last challengers withdrew a week later. 

The 2024 calendar is not shaping up to be like any of those examples exactly. 50 percent of the delegates will have been allocated around the same point on the calendar in 2024 as 2016, but the 75 percent mark will come in much quicker succession thereafter. Again, it comes just two weeks later. That is a rapid delegate distribution. It is not 2008 fast, but it is fast. And March 25 is right there, late enough in process, but right in that calendar sweet spot where nomination decisions tend to be made in the Republican process.

The Emerging April Gap

Fast forward to March 25, 2024. The 50 percent mark has been surpassed in terms of delegates allocated and a candidate has a clear advantage in the delegate count. That candidate is almost always the frontrunner heading into primary season. Not always, but often enough. At this point in time, seven months out from Iowa starting the voting phase, that frontrunner is Donald Trump. He may not be in seven or nine months time. 

Regardless, this big external event is plopped down right in the middle of primary season. And it will not be over and done with on March 25. That trial will last a little bit and draw a lot of attention in the process. It will additionally likely overlap with the April 2 round of primaries. 

Now, the calendar is not set yet. But April 2 is poised to grow its footprint on the 2024 process in the coming days and weeks. Officially, Wisconsin is the only contest on that date as of now. However, bills have been proposed to move the ConnecticutDelaware and Rhode Island primaries to that date. There are signals that legislation is forthcoming from New York to move the presidential primary in the Empire state to April 2 as well. And talk is ramping up that Pennsylvania’s primary may land there also. 

Yet, in moving, those states are pulling up tent posts in late April and shifting them to the beginning of the month. That is going to hollow out the rest of April on the Republican calendar after April 2. There will potentially be no contests scheduled for the rest of the month.

There will potentially be no primaries or caucuses again until the Indiana primary on May 7. 

That is a five week gap with no contests. That is a five week gap that will exert a tremendous amount of pressure on the candidates trailing in the delegate count to close up shop and call it a day. That is a five week gap into which a trial that starts on March 25 will potentially creep and suck up even more attention (potentially away from those trailing candidates who need it most). 

However, that trial, while possibly drawing attention away from the campaign trail, will also create uncertainty; uncertainty as to the viability of the potential frontrunner and delegate leader. And despite feeling pressure to drop out, that may have the effect of, as Julia Azari and Seth Masket recently pointed out, keeping candidates who may otherwise have dropped out in past cycles in this race longer. 

But the point here is that this emerging April gap in the calendar is at the very point in the process when this trial is set to be going on. And there will be no contests or results to divert attention after April 2. Trump could have the nomination close to wrapped up by that point, but other trailing candidates could still be hanging around even as there are no primaries and caucuses for weeks. 

Look, this is already a weird dynamic. But throwing a trial into this rapid succession of delegate allocation followed by a gap in the action right as someone potentially gets close to clinching would create a strange matrix of incentives for all players involved. And that has implications for how the Republican nomination process winds down and transitions into the convention phase typically set aside to bring the party together for a general election run. 




--

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

Trump and the 2024 Delegate Allocation Rules

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • South Carolina is unique among states with state-run and funded presidential primaries. In some ways that helped elevate the Palmetto state to the first slot on the 2024 Democratic primary calendar. But quirkiness presents some challenges as well. All the details at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
Gregory Korte had a nice piece up at Bloomberg the other day concerning the delegate allocation rules and how the Trump campaign's efforts to massage them in 2020 may pay dividends for the former president in 2024. As he notes, however, there will not be a complete picture of the state-level delegate allocation rules until October 1. That makes it tough to game out the impact of the rules for next year. 

Moreover, the various campaigns are doing the same thing. They are currently trying to plan this out, but they are also simultaneously trying to affect what those rules are to lay the groundwork for advantageous allocation rules next year. And that makes for some potential, if not likely, cross-pressures with which state-level party officials/committees/conventions making these decision will have to deal. Together that makes for a challenging decision-making environment. FHQ talked about this in setting the 2024 Republican delegate allocation rules baseline back in March:
If decision makers in state parties across the country cannot see a clear advantage to an allocation change one way or the other, then it is more likely that the 2020 baseline method survives into 2024. That theoretically helps Trump. ...if he is the frontrunner. But if Trump is not the frontrunner once primary season kicks off, then any shift away from the 2020 baseline -- a baseline with the knobs turned toward incumbent defense (or frontrunner defense) -- may end up helping a candidate other than the one intended. 

Another factor adding to this uncertainty is how decision makers view a change playing with rank and file members of the party. If elected officials or other elites in the party are wary of endorsing one Republican candidate or another, then they may also be less willing to make an allocation change for fear that it would be viewed as helping or hurting Trump. In other words, it looks like they are putting their thumb on the scale one way or the other. That is the sort of view that augurs against change. And again, the status quo likely helps Trump (if current conditions persist). 

Basically, the bottom line is this. Allocation changes are tough. They are tough to make because there is uncertainty in the impact those changes will have. It is much easier to see the potential impact of moving a primary to an early date for example. It could help a favorite son or daughter candidate. But an earlier primary or caucus definitely better insures that the state influences the course of the nomination race. If a contest falls too late -- after a presumptive nominee has emerged and clinched the nomination -- then that contest has literally no impact. Some impact, no matter how small, is better than literally zero impact. The same is true with respect to the decision to conduct a primary election or caucuses. There are definite turnout effects that come with holding a primary rather than caucuses. And greater participation in primaries typically means a more diverse -- less ideologically homogenous or extreme -- electorate.

Things are less clear with allocation rules changes. 
There is much more in that post. FHQ will be drawing from it throughout the remainder of the invisible primary if not into primary season in 2024. Go read it. But in the meantime, a couple of additional things:
  1. Yes, more truly winner-take-all states help Trump at this time. But they would help any frontrunner. These are, after all, frontrunner rules. They help build and pad a delegate lead once the RNC allows winner-take-all rules to kick in on March 15, entering 50-75 rule territory.
  2. But Team Trump is likely looking toward (and looking to maintain) the other rules changes from 2020 for an earlier-on-the-calendar boost. An earlier (technical) knock out for a 2024 frontrunner may come from states earlier than March 15 with winner-take-all triggers. If a candidate wins a majority of the vote statewide and/or at the congressional district level, then that candidate wins all of the delegates from that jurisdiction (or all of a state's delegates available if the delegates are pooled). Alternatively, if no other candidates hit the qualifying thresholds (set to their max of 20 percent in most proportional states in 2020), then the winner is allocated all of the delegates in some states even if they do not have a majority. And the name of the game here is not necessarily winning all of the delegates, but maximizing the net delegate advantage coming out of any given state. All of the Republican campaigns are asking how much they can improve on a baseline proportional allocation, and picking spots on the map and calendar where they can do. Well, campaigns are doing that if they know what they are doing anyway.

...
In the travel primary, former Vice President Mike Pence will be back in New Hampshire on Tuesday, May 16. And it looks at if a super PAC has formed around his before the end of June presidential launch. The interesting thing is less the formation of an aligned super PAC and more about some of the staff primary hires the new group has made. There are folks from the orbits of a former Republican presidential nominee (Scott Reed, former campaign manager of the 1996 Dole campaign), a once talked-about possible 2024 aspirant who declined to run (Mike Ricci, former spokesman for former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan) and a still-talked about possible 2024 candidate who says he is not running (Bobby Saparow, former campaign manager for current Georgia Governor Brian Kemp). In total, that makes for an interesting mix of old school Republican politics and new school Trump resistance within the party. That may not represent a winning path in the Republican nomination race, but it is indicative of a unique course forward for Pence relative to his competition.


...
Endorsement Math. Yesterday, FHQ raised the sizable number of Iowa state legislative endorsements Florida Governor Ron DeSantis rolled out before his weekend trek to the Hawkeye state. And on Monday, Never Back Down, the super PAC aligned with DeSantis, released another 49 new endorsements from fellow early state, New Hampshire. [That is 51 endorsements minus the previously revealed support of New Hampshire House Majority Leader Jason Osborne and the double endorsement -- of both Trump and DeSantis -- from Juliet Harvey-Bolia.] Three of those DeSantis endorsements in the Granite state are from representatives who have supported Trump in the past.

But the math is different across both of those waves of DeSantis endorsements from Iowa and New Hampshire. The 37 state legislative endorsements from the Hawkeye state accounted for more than a third of all of the possible Iowa Republican legislators -- House and Senate. In New Hampshire, those 50 endorsements, all from members of the state House, register differently. They make up just a quarter of the total number of possible endorsements from the lower chamber alone. Yes, that may be splitting hairs, but it is also a long way of saying the pool of endorsements is bigger in New Hampshire. Others will be vying for the support of the remaining 150 Granite state House members. 


...
On this date...
...in 1972, Alabama Governor George Wallace, a day after being shot campaigning in Maryland, won primaries in the Old Line state and in Michigan

...in 2000, long after becoming the presumptive nominees of their parties, George W. Bush and Al Gore won the Oregon presidential primary.

...in 2019, long shots, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Rocky de la Fuente, respectively entered the Democratic and Republican presidential nomination races. 



--

Sunday, May 14, 2023

Sunday Series: An Update on 2024 Presidential Primary Movement

Back in March, FHQ had an initial glimpse at early legislation to move, establish or eliminate state-run presidential primary elections for the 2024 cycle. And the picture then was one of a fairly sleepy cycle for movers and shakers on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. In the two months since, things have changed, but the story has basically stayed the same. 


First of all, 2023 looks a lot like the other years immediately prior to a presidential election year during the 21st century. That is the year -- the legislative session -- in the cycle that sees the most activity. To most state legislators, there is more, or has proven to be more, urgency to establish and/or position state-run (and funded) contests at that point than at any other time. It is on their radars. 

The 2023 legislative session has not strayed from that trend, but two months further on into it, the activity has not necessarily remained sleepy. In fact, there are now more bills that have been introduced in state legislatures across the country to schedule or reschedule presidential primaries for 2024 than there were in all of 2019 ahead of the competitive Democratic presidential nomination race. Part of the reason for that is partisan. Despite Democratic gains in state legislatures in the 2018 midterm cycle, Republicans continued to control the bulk of state legislatures in 2019. Presidential primary positioning may have been on the minds of Republican majorities in state legislatures, but it was not the priority to them that it would have been to Democratic legislators. 

However, even with fewer bills introduced overall, 2019 saw a higher success rate -- primary scheduling bills signed into law -- than the 2023 session has seen to this point. Yes, more and more state legislatures are adjourning their regular sessions for the year, but 2023 is still young. Primary bills have passed and been signed into law in four states as of mid-May: Idaho, Kansas, Maryland and Michigan. But there are more in the pipeline that look poised to pass (Connecticut, Rhode Island) and others where legislation is likely to eventually move (Pennsylvania) or be introduced in the first place (New Jersey, New York).

And that particular subset of states -- those in the northeast and mid-Atlantic -- are all signaling (or potentially signaling) an alignment that will have some impact on the overall calendar. Most of those states have in recent cycles occupied spots on the calendar in late April. Yet, with Passover falling in that window in 2024, legislators in some of those states are looking at a point a little earlier in the calendar: April 2. If Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island all join Wisconsin on that first Tuesday in April, then it will likely serve as the backside bookend of the delegate sweet spot on the calendar. All at once, the winner-take-all window will open in the Republican process on March 19 and the number of delegates allocated will hit 50 percent and then 75 percent in quick succession by April 2.1 And that would trigger the 50-75 rule that has so often been a guide to when Republican nomination races of the recent past have signaled the presumptive nominee. 

But all of that depends to some degree on what happens in that group of northeastern/mid-Atlantic states. Legislators actually have to do the hard work of legislating. And as both Idaho and Missouri have proven already in 2023, that endeavor is easier said than done. Regular sessions have ended in both states and neither has a state-run presidential primary option for 2024. Idaho eliminated their stand-alone March presidential primary and Missouri failed to reestablish their own. Yet, the door is not completely closed on either state. Revived pushes for a presidential primary option may come up in special sessions should they be called. That not only raises the possibility of primaries coming back, but also more bills to be added to the mix above both in terms of the overall number of primary bills and the success rate as well. 

Finally, note that none of the bills discussed or hinted at thus far are in any way threatening the beginning of the calendar. That is significant. Yes, that Michigan bill that was signed into law shifted the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state into the early window in the Democratic process, but that will have limited impact on how the beginning of the 2024 presidential primary calendar shakes out during the rest of 2023. Iowa Democrats appear to have found a way out of the penalties trap and New Hampshire continues to indicate its intention to go rogue, but how far into January Iowa Republicans and New Hampshire end up depends on what Nevada Republicans opt to do (and to a lesser extent how South Carolina Republicans react to that).

Many wondered aloud whether the Democratic National Committee decision to shuffle the primary calendar would set off a rush to the beginning of the calendar like in 2008. It has not. However, that decision has increased the level of uncertainty about the early part of the calendar. But the South Carolina Democratic primary being scheduled on February 3 means that there is a pretty narrow range of possibilities for the remaining undecided early states on the Republican side of the ledger. The big thing about the early calendar to internalize at this point is that neither Iowa nor New Hampshire are scheduled for early February. They never have been and will not be from the look of things at this point in 2023.


--
1 A reminder: Just because the Republican winner-take-all window opens on March 15 does not mean that every state after that point will use winner-take-all rules. It just means that they all will have that option. 


--

Monday, October 31, 2016

The Electoral College Map (10/31/16)



New State Polls (10/31/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Colorado
10/30
+/-3.17%
952 likely voters
45
44
4
+1
+4.01
Florida
10/30
+/-3.11%
989 likely voters
44
48
4
+4
+2.08
Georgia
10/25-10/27
+/-4.1%
594 likely voters
42
49
6
+7
+2.89
Indiana
10/27-10/30
+/-4.9%
402 likely voters
39
50
5
+11
+9.56
Nevada
10/30
+/-3.49%
787 likely voters
44
48
3
+4
+1.02
North Carolina
10/30
+/-2.85%
1176 likely voters
44
47
4
+2
+1.74
Ohio
10/30
+/-2.84%
1187 likely voters
43
48
5
+5
+0.52
Pennsylvania
10/25-10/30
+/-1.7%
3217 likely voters
47
44
4
+3
--
Pennsylvania
10/30
+/-2.77%
1249 likely voters
45
43
6
+2
+5.40
Virginia
10/30
+/-2.94%
1106 likely voters
47
43
5
+4
+6.81
Wisconsin
10/30
+/-2.86%
1772 likely voters
46
42
5
+4
+6.44


Polling Quick Hits:
8 days until Election Day.

At first glance, there is a bit of a rightward shift. At first glance. The bulk of the polling ushering in the new week is from Remington in a set of eight battlegrounds. But following the baseline the firm established a week ago, there was little change; even in a series of surveys in the field after the Friday revelations concerning the FBI and emails potentially linked to Clinton. That is not to say that the race is not in the midst of a bit of a narrowing period or that another email story will not have an effect, but there are not clear signs of that yet from the state level polls.


Colorado:
Clinton has consistently been in the mid-40s in Colorado. The question remains whether Trump can pull above and away from the 40 percent mark. The Remington survey is some evidence that he can, but will that happen across other polls in the Centennial state over the next week? Consistency is the name of the game there.


Florida:
Trump has not been as high as 48 percent in a multi-way poll all year in Florida. Ahead, yes, but not that close to 50 percent. That Remington finds him there is exception rather than rule. Clinton in the mid-40s is more typical.


Georgia:
Survey USA has not been in the field in the Peach state since just after convention season and Clinton is still stuck at 42 percent, just below Obama's share of support there in 2012. Meanwhile, Trump has bumped up to near 50 percent. That is a newish development in multi-way Georgia polls. Newish because Opinion Savvy had Trump stretching up to around that mark last week. Those types of polls make Georgia look a lot more like 2012 again with perhaps a modest shift toward the Democrats.


Indiana:
In two and half weeks the Monmouth polls in Indiana have shifted toward Trump. Like the typical lean state (on either side of the partisan line) the leading candidate is in the mid- to upper 40s while the trailing candidate is tethered to the 40 percent threshold. Clinton is that trailing candidate in the Hoosier state and Trump-Pence seem well-positioned in the VP nominee's home state.


Nevada:
Remington is the only firm to find Trump at or above 47 percent in a multiple candidate survey all year in the Silver state. There is some wiggle room in Nevada since that level has been foreign territory for both candidates. It would not be odd to see support moving away from undecided and the third party candidates as Election Day approaches. Remington may be the first to show that moving toward Trump, but they are alone in a close state just a hair more than a point overall in Clinton's favor.


North Carolina:
In the Tar Heel state, Remington is the only firm to find Trump ahead in the time since the first debate. The data may be turning but are not there yet.


Ohio:
Consistently variable Ohio has shifted into a period during the second half of October favoring Trump. The established range in the polling during that time is tied to Trump +5. This Remington survey is on the upper end of that range while FHQ's average in the Buckeye state is closing in on a tie. The trajectory of this one is in Trump's direction and it could cross over the partisan line in the next week.


Pennsylvania:
Trump still has not trailed in a Pennsylvania poll in 2016. The margin has contracted some here at FHQ as the space between the candidates in the Keystone state has narrowed, but it will have to close a lot more and consistently and frequently over the next week to change course in a state that has been out of Trump's reach and almost necessary to getting to 270.


Virginia:
Virginia has been even more impervious to Trump's entreaties than Pennsylvania has. That is true even in a series of Republican-leaning polls.


Wisconsin:
The Badger state is somewhere in between Pennsylvania and Virginia both in term of outlook and its position on the Electoral College Spectrum below. It is very simply the classic Lean state this cycle, and in this case, Trump is the trailing candidate stuck around 40 percent.

--
Changes (10/31/16)
Nothing changed on the map, Spectrum or Watch List from a day ago.




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)
KY-8
(41)
CA-55
(86)
MN-10
(198)
NV-6
(322 | 222)
IN-11
(98)
NE-53
(33)
NY-29
(115)
ME-23
(200)
OH-18
(340 | 216)
MS-6
(87)
AL-9
(28)
IL-20+13
(136)
MI-16
(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
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 (10/30/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/29/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/28/16)

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

Thursday, October 27, 2016

The Electoral College Map (10/27/16)



New State Polls (10/27/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
California
10/14-10/23
+/-4.3%
1012 likely voters
54
28
5
+26
+22.41
Florida
10/20-10/25
+/-3.39%
786 likely voters
43
39
9
+4
--
Florida
10/25-10/26
+/-3.71%
698 likely voters
42
46
6
+4
+2.17
Georgia
10/20-10/26
+/-3.7%
707 likely voters
43
44
5
+1
+2.72
Iowa
10/20-10/26
+/-3.5%
791 likely voters
44
44
6
+/-0
+0.971
Massachusetts
10/24-10/26
+/-4.4%
500 likely voters
57
25
12
+32
+23.21
Michigan
10/22-10/24
+/-4.0%
600 adults
41
34
13
+7
--
Michigan
10/20-10/24
+/-2.78%
1030 likely voters
48
42
5
+6
+6.87
New Hampshire
10/17-10/21
+/-4.5%
772 likely voters
43
38
4
+5
+6.12
North Carolina
10/20-10/26
+/-3.7%
702 likely voters
47
43
4
+4
+1.67
Pennsylvania
10/23-10/25
+/-3.4%
824 likely voters
46
39
6
+7
+5.48
Texas
10/14-10/23
+/-3.16%
959 likely voters
42
45
0
+3
+6.47
Virginia
10/20-10/26
+/-3.6%
749 likely voters
50
38
5
+12
+6.86
Washington
10/6-10/13
--
750 likely voters
53
39
22
+14
+12.59
1The Quinnipiac survey reduces the FHQ average for Iowa to below one point, moving the Hawkeye state onto the Watch List.


Polling Quick Hits:
12 more days.

Thursday brought 14 new surveys from twelve states.


California:
Clinton lagging about six points behind Obama 2012 in California would perhaps mean a great deal more if she was not still ahead of Trump by more than thirty points. The Golden state is still blue.


Florida:
In the Sunshine state, the Dixie Strategies poll looks something like the Selzer survey from a day ago: inconsistent with the bulk of recent polling in Florida, but the individual candidate levels of support are not out of the ordinary. Chalk it up to polling variation. Meanwhile, the UNF survey is more in line with the polling since the first debate in Florida.


Georgia:
Clinton has inched up to within range of where Obama was in Georgia four years ago. But her movement is within a much tighter range. Trump, on the other hand, is operating in a wider, more variable window in the Peach state as evidence by his share of support in the new Quinnipiac survey. The combination of the two has closed the gap some in Georgia, keeping the state on the Trump side of the partisan line.


Iowa:
Of the three closest states at FHQ -- Arizona, Iowa and Ohio -- only Ohio has been polled with any level of frequency all year much less over the course of the last month since the first debate. Iowa has only seen a handful of polls in that period. Those surveys have mostly leaned in Trump's direction, but when there is any variation in that, it tends to end in a tie rather than favoring Clinton. That is the case with this new Quinnipiac poll. But that tie is an improvement over the seven point deficit Clinton was facing a month ago in the same poll in the Hawkeye state. The thing is, Trump 44 percent is typical. Clinton's share is well above the 40 percent mark she has tended to hover under for much of 2016.


Massachusetts:
There are many parallels in the presidential race between California and Massachusetts. Both share a similar space on the Electoral College Spectrum below and the Bay state matches almost perfectly the description of California above. Clinton is behind where the typical Democratic candidate has ended up there, but when Trump is running about ten points behind Romney, that is of less significance.


Michigan:
Two new surveys in Michigan. There is some variation in terms of the shares of support the two candidates garner, but the margins are right in line with where FHQ has the race in the Great Lakes state in the averages. There is no evidence of any cracks in the lead Clinton has there.


New Hampshire:
A day after Monmouth appeared to show the race tightening in the Granite state, things are back to what has passed for normal there in the new UMass survey. Polls fluctuate. One can choose to ride the roller coaster or can simply follow the averages. The latter route has New Hampshire a little more than Clinton +6. The race in New Hampshire has been around there since the summer.


North Carolina:
That Remington poll from earlier in the week looks more and more like an outlier.  The simple fact of the matter is that North Carolina has consistently been in the narrow, but consistent Clinton lead area since the first debate..


Pennsylvania:
Like North Carolina, the talking points here on Pennsylvania polling has been a bit of a broken record. There have been some breaks in the lean area leads in the Keystone state, but they have been exception rather than rule. Even rarer are polls in Pennsylvania with Trump ahead. Other than the early waves of the online UPI panels, Trump has trailed there all year.


Texas:
The evidence continues to accumulate that the margin between Clinton and Trump in the Lone Star state has narrowed. Those lean area margins have shrunk to a consistent two to four point Trump lead in the last few weeks. By extension, that has slowly narrowed the average margin here to a point where it is approaching the lean/toss up line. This is one that might narrow but is unlikely to jump the partisan line given the trajectory of current polling in Texas.


Virginia:
See Pennsylvania. Virginia may not favor Clinton by 12 points like this Quinnipiac survey has found, but it has consistently had her in the lead. It is difficult to make states like Virginia and Pennsylvania -- states Republicans would normally target to most easily get to 270 -- interesting when they so clearly advantage Clinton.


Washington:
Washington is a state where Clinton has underperformed Obama 2012 all year, but has maintained a lead just over the strong/lean line on Clinton's side of the Spectrum throughout. And that is right around where the Evergreen state ended up then.


--
Changes (10/27/16)
Nothing changed on the map from a day ago. However, Iowa entered the Watch List, and there were a few small shifts on the Spectrum. Massachusetts and California switched spots, Washington pushed a slot deeper into the Strong Clinton area and Virginia nudged past Maine, settling next to Michigan.




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)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(139)
ME-23
(229)
AZ-11
(192)
SD-3
(75)
OK-7
(14)
WA-12
(151)
WI-10
(239)
GA-16+13
(181)
LA-8
(72)
ID-4
(7)
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 (10/26/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/25/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/24/16)

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