KANSAS
Election type: primary (party-run)
Date: May 2
Number of delegates: 45 [9 at-large, 4 PLEOs, 26 congressional district, 6 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.
Unlike some states where most of the changes from 2016 to 2020 occurred because of the coronavirus in 2020, Kansas Democrats saw changes to their delegate selection on both sides of the pandemic. The biggest pre-coronavirus changes instituted were in response to the Democratic National Committee rules changes encouraging increased participation in the delegate selection process. Kansas Democrats' original delegate selection plan called for a May 2 party-run primary that included both in-person and mail-in ranked choice voting. That May end point was eight weeks later than the weekend after Super Tuesday date on which the Kansas Democratic caucuses were in 2016.
Those are not changes without significance. Kansas Democrats, even days before May 2, was a success story for the DNC changes in Rule 2 calling for increased participation. Even then, turnout in the mail-in party-run primary was triple what it was in the 2016 caucuses.
After the coronavirus pandemic turned the 2020 presidential nomination process upside down, the Kansas Democratic Party's initial reaction was to continue as planned with the party's delegate selection plan. They planned to retain the in-person voting component but emphasize the vote-by-mail system the groundwork of which had been laid in the original plan. This emphasis included mailing ballots to all registered Democrats in the Sunflower state. Those registered by March 30 were to have been mailed ballot by the party by April 10. Additionally, Kansas Democrats could request ballots from the party until April 24. Less than two weeks later the party opted to nix in-person voting (just as Alaska, Hawaii and Wyoming have done in party-run contests).
All ballots are due to the state party by Saturday, May 2. That is received and not postmarked by May 2.
[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]
Overall, the Democratic delegation changed by eight delegates from 2016 to 2020. The number of pledged delegates increased by six (four district delegates and two at-large delegates), and gained two superdelegates. The majority of the increase to the delegation was based on the decision of Kansas Democrats to switch to a later contest. That move from March in 2016 to May in 2020 qualified the state party for bonus delegates.
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)
Kansas's 26 congressional district delegates are split across 4 congressional districts and have a variation of three delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Kansas Democrats are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 5 delegates*
CD2 - 7 delegates*
CD3 - 8 delegates
CD4 - 6 delegates
*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.
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 26 of the Kansas district delegates will be selected through online voting on May 29 and 30. Any registered Democrat can participate in the selection election by registering either with their congressional district chair or the state party by Monday, May 4. The PLEO and then at-large delegates will be selected on June 3-4 by the State Committee based on the statewide results in the primary. This selection will also take place virtually.
[The dates of selection have been modified for all pledged delegates because of the coronavirus. The district delegates were to have been selected in district conventions on May 16 while the PLEO and at-large delegates were to have been selected by the Kansas Democratic State Committee on June 6.]
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 Kansas statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the May party-run 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 Kansas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kansas. Show all posts
Friday, May 1, 2020
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Kansas Democrats Eliminate In-Person Voting in May 2 Party-Run Presidential Primary
The Kansas Democratic Party on Monday, March 30 made the decision to end in-person voting in its upcoming May 2 party-run primary.
That move comes less than two weeks after the party opted to push forward with their plans to carry out the election with both vote-by-mail and in-person voting. But Kansas Democrats arrived at the same conclusion other states with party-run contests recently have. Democrats in Alaska, Hawaii and Wyoming all chose to end their in-person voting on April 4 and completely lean on the mail-in option each had layered into their delegate selection plans from the start. That insurance policy -- the presence of and planning for a vote-by-mail system -- gave each state party something to fall back on given the threat the coronavirus now poses to in-person voting this spring.
Typically, state parties are at a disadvantage in implementing these types of party-run elections. Those parties just do not have the (funding) resources that state governments do. But in this case, careful planning ahead of time -- and in response to new DNC encouragements in Rule 2 to increase participation -- laid the groundwork for this unique alternative option. Now, states with primaries but no vote-by-mail infrastructure -- states like Delaware -- have had to change the dates of their primaries to hopefully shift out of the window of time in which the coronavirus may reach its peak.
But Kansas Democrats have not. They will press forward with plans to have an all-mail May 2 party-run primary. Voters will need to register as Democrats by April 7 in order to automatically be mailed a ballot for the race.
Voters already registered as Democrats were mailed a ballot on March 30, more newly registered voters have until April 7, and those who have not received a ballot by April 10 can still request a ballot until April 24.
--
Kansas Democratic Party press release on ending in-person voting archived here.
--
Related Posts:
Kansas Democrats Forge Ahead with May 2 Party-Run Presidential Primary, but...
That move comes less than two weeks after the party opted to push forward with their plans to carry out the election with both vote-by-mail and in-person voting. But Kansas Democrats arrived at the same conclusion other states with party-run contests recently have. Democrats in Alaska, Hawaii and Wyoming all chose to end their in-person voting on April 4 and completely lean on the mail-in option each had layered into their delegate selection plans from the start. That insurance policy -- the presence of and planning for a vote-by-mail system -- gave each state party something to fall back on given the threat the coronavirus now poses to in-person voting this spring.
Typically, state parties are at a disadvantage in implementing these types of party-run elections. Those parties just do not have the (funding) resources that state governments do. But in this case, careful planning ahead of time -- and in response to new DNC encouragements in Rule 2 to increase participation -- laid the groundwork for this unique alternative option. Now, states with primaries but no vote-by-mail infrastructure -- states like Delaware -- have had to change the dates of their primaries to hopefully shift out of the window of time in which the coronavirus may reach its peak.
But Kansas Democrats have not. They will press forward with plans to have an all-mail May 2 party-run primary. Voters will need to register as Democrats by April 7 in order to automatically be mailed a ballot for the race.
Voters already registered as Democrats were mailed a ballot on March 30, more newly registered voters have until April 7, and those who have not received a ballot by April 10 can still request a ballot until April 24.
--
Kansas Democratic Party press release on ending in-person voting archived here.
--
Related Posts:
Kansas Democrats Forge Ahead with May 2 Party-Run Presidential Primary, but...
Friday, March 20, 2020
Kansas Democrats Forge Ahead with May 2 Party-Run Presidential Primary, but...
Kansas Democrats are not planning at the moment to make any changes to their Saturday, May 2 party-run primary.
And that is because, the party, like those in Hawaii and Wyoming has an insurance policy: mail-in voting. As in Hawaii and Wyoming, Kansas Democrats, too, had a pre-existing mail-in option in place as part of their original delegate selection plan. It was part of the the party's response to new Rule 2 encouragements to increase participation from the DNC for the 2020 cycle. That uniquely positions these states to lean on those mail-in options in lieu of in-person voting amid the coronavirus outbreak without having to change much about what they are doing.
Alaska also has a party-run primary with a mail-in option, but unlike Hawaii, Kansas and Wyoming, Alaska is not mailing out ballots to all registered Democrats in the state. Again, that uniquely positions the above trio of states to quickly and easily respond to the crisis. They were all already planning on mailing ballots to all Democrats in the state. Alaskans are not without that option. But Democrats in the Last Frontier have to request a ballot and have it postmarked by this coming Tuesday, March 24.
But for now in Kansas, Democrats are holding pat with their originally laid out delegate selection plan -- including in-person voting -- but are encouraging the use of the mail-in option.
--
March 17 Kansas Democratic Party press release on party-run presidential primary archived here.
--
Related Posts:
Kansas Democrats Eliminate In-Person Voting in May 2 Party-Run Presidential Primary
And that is because, the party, like those in Hawaii and Wyoming has an insurance policy: mail-in voting. As in Hawaii and Wyoming, Kansas Democrats, too, had a pre-existing mail-in option in place as part of their original delegate selection plan. It was part of the the party's response to new Rule 2 encouragements to increase participation from the DNC for the 2020 cycle. That uniquely positions these states to lean on those mail-in options in lieu of in-person voting amid the coronavirus outbreak without having to change much about what they are doing.
Alaska also has a party-run primary with a mail-in option, but unlike Hawaii, Kansas and Wyoming, Alaska is not mailing out ballots to all registered Democrats in the state. Again, that uniquely positions the above trio of states to quickly and easily respond to the crisis. They were all already planning on mailing ballots to all Democrats in the state. Alaskans are not without that option. But Democrats in the Last Frontier have to request a ballot and have it postmarked by this coming Tuesday, March 24.
But for now in Kansas, Democrats are holding pat with their originally laid out delegate selection plan -- including in-person voting -- but are encouraging the use of the mail-in option.
--
March 17 Kansas Democratic Party press release on party-run presidential primary archived here.
--
Related Posts:
Kansas Democrats Eliminate In-Person Voting in May 2 Party-Run Presidential Primary
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Kansas Democrats Settle on May Party-Run Primary
Like Alaska, Hawaii and North Dakota Democrats, Democrats in Kansas are shifting away from traditional caucuses and toward a mode of delegate selection closer to a primary. While the window for voting in the May 2 party-run primary in the Sunflower state is fairly narrow -- 10am-2pm -- that is offset by 1) the contest being scheduled for a Saturday and 2) the party allowing for absentee voting (by mail) from March 30 through April 24. Additionally, although the field is likely to have winnowed to some degree by the beginning (March 30) of that absentee window, registered Democrats in Kansas will use a ranked choice voting ballot. Absent additional details, it would appear that voters will have a full list of candidates to rank order on the ballot (unlike the variation in Alaska where voters choose/rank their top three).
Moreover, Kansas would become the largest state to adopt a party-run primary approach to delegate selection process, and that bigger potential electorate entails a larger cost to the process. Those costs are borne out through the need for addition voting locations and volunteers to staff them. The draft Kansas plan does indicate that the party will have at least one primary day voting location in each of the Sunflower state's 40 state senate districts. While the allocation of delegates to the national convention will be based on the results of the May 2 primary, the selection process will follow starting with May 9 state senate district conventions, May 16 congressional district conventions (where congressional district delegates will be chosen) and a June 6 state convention (where at-large and PLEO delegates will be selected).
Finally, Kansas Democrats have 39 delegates (which includes six superdelegates) under the Democratic Party delegate apportionment formula. However, due to the proposed date of the party-run primary -- after the May 1 -- the party would gain an additional 20 percent bonus on its base delegation. That would likely tack another six delegates onto the total number of Kansas delegates heading to the national convention in Milwaukee.
Related:
3/13/19: North Dakota Democrats Plan to Hold March 10 Firehouse Caucuses
3/26/19: Hawaii Democrats Aim for an April Party-Run Primary in Lieu of Caucuses
3/31/19: Alaska Democrats Plan on April 4 Party-Run Primary
--
The Kansas Democratic party-run primary date is now reflected on the 2020 FHQ Presidential Primary Calendar.
--
Saturday, January 26, 2019
#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Republicans Opting Out of Primaries and Caucuses for 2020
Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the days that recently were...
FHQ will say that it has quite enjoyed David Drucker's periodic check ins with Republican state parties about their plans for 2020 delegate selection. Some are opting to drop presidential primaries in favor of caucuses, while others a contemplating dropping their caucuses.1 And as he noted in his initial dispatch about South Carolina Republicans forgoing a presidential primary is standard protocol during a cycle where an incumbent Republican president is seeking renomination.
Incumbent renomination cycles are littered with examples of the scaling down of delegate selection operations. Florida and Michigan, famous rules breakers in the 2008 cycle for scheduling primaries in calendar positions too early based on national party rules, were repeat offenders along with Arizona in 2012. Those too-early primaries forced Democratic parties in those states to opt for caucuses that could be scheduled later in the process. The same was true during a competitive cycle in 2000 when the Republican Party allowed February contests, but the Democratic Party did not. Several Republican-controlled states held early primaries that cycle that potentially put Democrats in their states in a bind. The way out for those Democratic state parties -- in Arizona and Michigan, oddly enough -- was to hold caucuses that could be scheduled in compliant calendar positions.
Of course, it is worth pointing out that the above scenarios all differ from what is happening among Republican state party actors ahead of the 2020 primaries and caucuses. None of these parties are opting out of primaries or caucuses because of something out of their control (eg: the date of a state-funded primary out of compliance with national party rules).
But even this is fairly typical. And the answer ultimately is based in reasoning that we see layered into election law in a number of states. It is not unusual to see states with laws that eliminate primaries, presidential or otherwise, when there is just one candidate on the ballot.
Yes, it is perhaps presumptuous for Republican actors to assume that President Trump will remain unopposed for the Republican nomination in 2020. The ballots, after all, have not been set as of yet. Of course, through another lens, the act of choosing a caucus over a primary can also be viewed as protective of the president.
But another reason this is more customary on the Republican side -- standard protocol as described above -- is that the rules of the Republican Party have always allowed state committees to choose delegates to the national convention. That institutional valve has traditionally allowed Republican state parties to cancel primaries as New York, for example, has in uncompetitive Republican nomination cycles (see 2004), or for state parties to go the caucus route rather than conduct a primary as South Carolina Republicans have done in the past (particularly in the era prior to 2008 when state parties were on the hook for primary costs).
So what is happening, or potentially is happening, in Kansas -- the state Republican party likely opting out of its caucuses next year -- is not unusual. What may be considered unusual in today's light is what Kansas Republicans did in 1996, a competitive Republican nomination cycle. Not only did the Republican-controlled state government decide not to fund the presidential primary in the state, but the state party opted not to hold caucuses and allocated delegates via its state committee.
The reason? The party thought native son, Bob Dole, would win anyway. Kansas Republicans in 2019 may feel the same way about President Trump, but at least he is an incumbent president. Times change, but these types of activities are not unusual.
--
1 The latter is a cost-saving measure for the state party.
--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...
1. Gillibrand's hired a press secretary with some connections to New Hampshire.
2. Speaking of the Granite state, no, Harris has not visited yet, but her campaign's first state-based field director hire is for New Hampshire.
3. Exploratory committee: √; planning a trip to Iowa: Buttigieg is working on it.
4. There are undoubtedly Biden allies in Michigan who would support a White House bid by the former vice president, but there may be fewer in the sixth congressional district if the district Democratic Party chair is any indication.
5. Paul Kane looks in on the House Democrats considering 2020 runs.
6. Early travel plans among those Democrats who have announced include Puerto Rico. [I don't know that I buy the headline that Iowa should move over. When the formation of the primary calendar is more orderly, there is more certainty that allows candidates and campaigns to look further down the calendar to other contests/constituencies. Iowa will be fine.]
7. Finally, longshot presidential contender and former West Virginia state senator, Richard Ojeda quietly bows out of the 2020 race.
Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.
FHQ will say that it has quite enjoyed David Drucker's periodic check ins with Republican state parties about their plans for 2020 delegate selection. Some are opting to drop presidential primaries in favor of caucuses, while others a contemplating dropping their caucuses.1 And as he noted in his initial dispatch about South Carolina Republicans forgoing a presidential primary is standard protocol during a cycle where an incumbent Republican president is seeking renomination.
Incumbent renomination cycles are littered with examples of the scaling down of delegate selection operations. Florida and Michigan, famous rules breakers in the 2008 cycle for scheduling primaries in calendar positions too early based on national party rules, were repeat offenders along with Arizona in 2012. Those too-early primaries forced Democratic parties in those states to opt for caucuses that could be scheduled later in the process. The same was true during a competitive cycle in 2000 when the Republican Party allowed February contests, but the Democratic Party did not. Several Republican-controlled states held early primaries that cycle that potentially put Democrats in their states in a bind. The way out for those Democratic state parties -- in Arizona and Michigan, oddly enough -- was to hold caucuses that could be scheduled in compliant calendar positions.
Of course, it is worth pointing out that the above scenarios all differ from what is happening among Republican state party actors ahead of the 2020 primaries and caucuses. None of these parties are opting out of primaries or caucuses because of something out of their control (eg: the date of a state-funded primary out of compliance with national party rules).
But even this is fairly typical. And the answer ultimately is based in reasoning that we see layered into election law in a number of states. It is not unusual to see states with laws that eliminate primaries, presidential or otherwise, when there is just one candidate on the ballot.
Yes, it is perhaps presumptuous for Republican actors to assume that President Trump will remain unopposed for the Republican nomination in 2020. The ballots, after all, have not been set as of yet. Of course, through another lens, the act of choosing a caucus over a primary can also be viewed as protective of the president.
But another reason this is more customary on the Republican side -- standard protocol as described above -- is that the rules of the Republican Party have always allowed state committees to choose delegates to the national convention. That institutional valve has traditionally allowed Republican state parties to cancel primaries as New York, for example, has in uncompetitive Republican nomination cycles (see 2004), or for state parties to go the caucus route rather than conduct a primary as South Carolina Republicans have done in the past (particularly in the era prior to 2008 when state parties were on the hook for primary costs).
So what is happening, or potentially is happening, in Kansas -- the state Republican party likely opting out of its caucuses next year -- is not unusual. What may be considered unusual in today's light is what Kansas Republicans did in 1996, a competitive Republican nomination cycle. Not only did the Republican-controlled state government decide not to fund the presidential primary in the state, but the state party opted not to hold caucuses and allocated delegates via its state committee.
The reason? The party thought native son, Bob Dole, would win anyway. Kansas Republicans in 2019 may feel the same way about President Trump, but at least he is an incumbent president. Times change, but these types of activities are not unusual.
--
1 The latter is a cost-saving measure for the state party.
--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...
1. Gillibrand's hired a press secretary with some connections to New Hampshire.
2. Speaking of the Granite state, no, Harris has not visited yet, but her campaign's first state-based field director hire is for New Hampshire.
3. Exploratory committee: √; planning a trip to Iowa: Buttigieg is working on it.
4. There are undoubtedly Biden allies in Michigan who would support a White House bid by the former vice president, but there may be fewer in the sixth congressional district if the district Democratic Party chair is any indication.
5. Paul Kane looks in on the House Democrats considering 2020 runs.
6. Early travel plans among those Democrats who have announced include Puerto Rico. [I don't know that I buy the headline that Iowa should move over. When the formation of the primary calendar is more orderly, there is more certainty that allows candidates and campaigns to look further down the calendar to other contests/constituencies. Iowa will be fine.]
7. Finally, longshot presidential contender and former West Virginia state senator, Richard Ojeda quietly bows out of the 2020 race.
Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.
Friday, November 4, 2016
The Electoral College Map (11/4/16)
New State Polls (11/4/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/-4.12%
|
550 likely voters
|
39
|
47
|
7
|
+8
|
+1.67
| |
California
|
10/22-10/30
|
+/-2.3%
|
1382 likely voters
|
54
|
30
|
7
|
+24
|
+22.93
| |
Colorado
|
10/31-11/3
|
+/-3.02%
|
1150 likely voters
|
45
|
44
|
2
|
+1
|
--
| |
Colorado
|
11/2-11/3
|
+/-4.0%
|
605 likely voters
|
43
|
38
|
6
|
+5
|
--
| |
Colorado
|
11/3-11/4
|
+/-3.7%
|
704 likely voters
|
48
|
43
|
3
|
+5
|
+4.13
| |
Florida
|
10/31
|
+/-2.2%
|
1995 registered voters
|
49
|
46
|
1
|
+3
|
+2.11
| |
Georgia
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/-4.2%
|
538 likely voters
|
45
|
49
|
1
|
+4
|
--
| |
Georgia
|
11/3-11/3
|
+/-3.1%
|
1000 likely voters
|
46
|
48
|
2
|
+2
|
+3.05
| |
Indiana
|
10/30-11/1
|
+/-4.9%
|
399 registered voters
|
39
|
49
|
9
|
+10
|
--
| |
Indiana
|
11/1-11/3
|
+/-4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
37
|
48
|
6
|
+11
|
+9.71
| |
Iowa
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/-3.0%
|
1076 likely voters
|
41
|
44
|
6
|
+3
|
--
| |
Iowa
|
11/1-11/3
|
+/-3.6%
|
700 likely voters
|
41
|
44
|
5
|
+3
|
+1.17
| |
Kansas
|
9/1-10/13
|
+/-3.2%
|
892 likely voters
|
39
|
47
|
0
|
+8
|
--
| |
Kansas
|
11/1-11/3
|
+/-5.5%
|
313 likely voters
|
34
|
58
|
0
|
+24
|
+12.48
| |
Massachusetts
|
10/23-11/2
|
+/-5.0%
|
417 likely voters
|
56
|
26
|
7
|
+30
|
+23.92
| |
Michigan
|
11/1-11/3
|
+/-4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
42
|
38
|
13
|
+4
|
--
| |
Michigan
|
11/3-11/4
|
+/-3.2%
|
957 likely voters
|
46
|
41
|
6
|
+5
|
+6.86
| |
Missouri
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/-3.0%
|
1083 likely voters
|
41
|
52
|
7
|
+11
|
+8.13
| |
Nevada
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/-3.7%
|
688 likely voters
|
48
|
45
|
7
|
+3
|
+1.02
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/-3.5%
|
781 likely voters
|
48
|
43
|
9
|
+5
|
--
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/28-11/2
|
+/-4.28%
|
695 likely voters
|
44
|
44
|
4
|
+/-0
|
--
| |
New Hampshire
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/-2.0%
|
1001 registered voters
|
41
|
43
|
3
|
+2
|
+4.75
| |
New Jersey
|
10/27-11/2
|
+/-3.75%
|
678 likely voters
|
51
|
40
|
6
|
+11
|
+11.79
| |
New Mexico
|
11/1-11/2
|
+/-3.0%
|
1102 likely voters
|
46
|
43
|
1
|
+3
|
+7.21
| |
North Carolina
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/-2.9%
|
1169 likely voters
|
49
|
47
|
4
|
+2
|
+1.46
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/31
|
+/-1.9%
|
2606 registered voters
|
47
|
46
|
3
|
+1
|
--
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/-3.0%
|
1050 likely voters
|
48
|
44
|
8
|
+4
|
--
| |
Pennsylvania
|
11/2-11/3
|
+/-4.4%
|
504 likely voters
|
46
|
46
|
4
|
+/-0
|
+5.16
| |
Utah
|
10/30-10/31
|
+/-2.6%
|
1424 registered voters
|
29
|
35
|
8
|
+6
|
--
| |
Utah
|
11/1-11/3
|
+/-4.38%
|
500 likely voters
|
24
|
33
|
7
|
+9
|
+9.631
| |
Virginia
|
10/29-11/2
|
+/-3.8%
|
654 likely voters
|
45
|
38
|
9
|
+7
|
--
| |
Virginia
|
11/3-11/4
|
+/-2.8%
|
1238 likely voters
|
48
|
43
|
4
|
+5
|
+6.35
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/-4.4%
|
500 likely voters
|
44
|
38
|
9
|
+6
|
--
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/-3.3%
|
891 likely voters
|
48
|
41
|
10
|
+7
|
+6.43
| |
1Excluding the two head-to-head online panel surveys in Utah lowers Trump's average advantage there to 7.95 points. Those polls are outliers in view of the majority of surveys in the Beehive state during 2016 and serve as an anchor on the data. The change would shift Utah within the Lean Trump category, closer to Toss Up Trump. McMullin garnered 28% in the Y2 survey and 24% support in the Gravis survey. He currently has an FHQ graduated weighted average share of support of 23.23%, trailing both Trump and Clinton.
| |||||||||
--
Changes (11/4/16)
4 more days.
| Changes (November 4) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Hampshire | Lean Clinton | Toss Up Clinton | |
There were another 34 survey releases from across 20 states to close the final full work week before election day. The partisan consolidation that happened for Hillary Clinton after the first debate continued for Donald Trump following the latest round of FBI/emails revelations. That has triggered a subtle but consistent narrowing of the margins in Clinton lean and toss up states.
But those subtle shifts have not translated to many changes to the alignment of states on the Electoral College Spectrum and the shading of states has been steady. However, while no states jumped the partisan line changing the distribution of electoral votes, New Hampshire did inch across the Lean/Toss Up line it has recently been hovering around. But like Colorado, the Granite state remains tilted in Clinton's direction.
Elsewhere, both Iowa and Nevada shifted off the Watch List, moving deeper into their respective candidate's columns. Both are still toss ups, but neither is within one point of pushing across the partisan line any longer. That leaves Ohio as the only state at FHQ that is within range of changing categories and altering the electoral vote breakdown.
On the Electoral College Spectrum, there was only some minor shuffling among a small group of solid Trump states. Utah once again flip-flopped spots with Indiana and the far end of the Lean Trump area and the new polling out of Kansas pushed the Sunflower state past South Dakota among the Strong Trump states.
Again, it is a steady picture here heading into the last weekend before next Tuesday's election.
--
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
MD-102
(13)
|
RI-4
(162)
|
NH-4
(263)
|
TX-38
(161)
|
TN-11
(61)
|
HI-4
(17)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
SC-9
(123)
|
AR-6
(50)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
OR-7
(183)
|
FL-29
(301 | 266) |
MO-10
(114)
|
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)
|
SD-3
(81)
|
ID-4
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
WI-10
(226)
|
AZ-11
(192)
|
KS-6
(78)
|
WV-5
(15)
|
WA-12
(151)
|
VA-13
(239)
|
GA-16+13
(181)
|
LA-8
(72)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
CT-7
(158)
|
PA-20
(259)
|
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
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean 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:
The Electoral College Map (11/3/16)
The Electoral College Map (11/2/16)
The Electoral College Map (11/1/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)