The Electoral College Map (10/25/16)

New State Polls (10/25/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Monmouth	10/21-10/24	+/-4.9%	401 likely voters	45	46	3	+1	+1.12
Arkansas	Hendrix	10/21	+/-4.6%	463 likely voters	33	56	5	+23	+18.20
Colorado	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.46%	1581 likely voters	45	43	4	+2	+4.19
Florida	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.41%	1646 likely voters	46	46	5	+/-0	--
Florida	Survey USA	10/20-10/24	+/-2.8%	1251 likely voters	48	45	0	+3	+2.38
Idaho	Emerson	10/21-10/23	+/-3.0%	1023 likely voters	23	52	9	+29	+25.16
Indiana	Gravis	10/22-10/24	+/-2.3%	1596 registered voters	38	49	8	+11	+9.41
Michigan	Mitchell Research	10/23	+/-2.78%	1241 likely voters	49	41	5	+8	+6.91
Minnesota	Mason-Dixon	10/20-10/22	+/-4.0%	625 likely voters	47	39	6	+8	+6.93
Nevada	Rasmussen	10/20-10/22	+/-3.5%	826 likely voters	46	42	4	+4	--
Nevada	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.68%	1332 likely voters	44	47	3	+3	--
Nevada	Bendixen & Amandi	10/20-10/23	+/-3.5%	800 likely voters	48	41	4	+7	+1.24
North Carolina	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.33%	1764 likely voters	44	47	5	+3	--
North Carolina	New York Times (Upshot)/Siena	10/20-10/23	+/-3.5%	792 likely voters	46	39	6	+7	+1.61
Ohio	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.2%	1971 likely voters	42	46	6	+4	+0.68
Pennsylvania	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.19%	1997 likely voters	45	42	7	+3	+5.44
South Dakota	Mason-Dixon	10/18-10/20	+/-5.0%	400 registered voters	37	44	12	+7	+12.12
Virginia	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/-2.31%	1787 likely voters	48	43	5	+5	+6.68
Wisconsin	Remington	10/20-10/22	+/- 2.31%	1795 registered voters	46	41	6	+5	+6.58

Polling Quick Hits:
Two weeks left.

The day brought with it 19 new survey releases from 15 states from across the Spectrum. Only the Strong Clinton group of states lacked any polls.


Arizona:
Monmouth's first poll in the Grand Canyon state looked a lot more like some of the head-to-head polls there throughout the year with both major party candidates in mid-40s. But this was a multi-way survey. Both have had those surveys with third party candidates included where they have pushed into the mid-40s, but not with any level of consistency (and it has rarely been both simultaneously). The one constant is that the margin is narrow, matching the overall average in the state. Arizona along with Iowa and Ohio are the three closest states at FHQ.


Arkansas:
Being the former first lady in the Natural state does not appear to be paying Clinton any dividends there. Arkansas continues to be in the right most column on the Electoral College Spectrum and the new Hendrix College poll did little to change that picture.


Colorado:
The first of the eight battleground polls from Remington is from Colorado. Generally speaking, this series is a bit more Republican-leaning than most polls in these states have been of late. There have been some close polls in the Centennial state since the first debate, but they have been outnumbered by those finding a wider Clinton advantage. Clinton's lead is only two points, but that did little to shake Colorado's position as the least competitive of the eight FHQ toss up states. It is much closer to being a Lean Clinton state than jumping the partisan line into Trump territory.


Florida:
There just is not a lot of evidence of anything other than a narrow, but durable Clinton lead in Florida.  Things look as they did four years ago in the state, but with Clinton about two points ahead of where Obama was relative to Romney in 2012. The two new polls did not change that.


Idaho:
Without more data, there is nothing yet to suggest that Evan McMullin is replicating his near parity with Trump in Utah polling in Idaho. Trump is still well ahead in the Gem state and the Republican vote there is not split like it is in Utah.


Indiana:
Indiana is like a lot of the lean states on both sides of the partisan line: one candidate is in the mid- to upper 40s while the other is hovering around the 40 percent mark. This Gravis poll fits that pattern. That trend has been more of a barrier to Trump as he has needed at least one Lean Clinton state (and all of the toss ups) to get to 270. While Clinton is in a similar position in Lean Trump states, those have not been necessary to her path to 270.


Michigan:
Trump has gained ground on Clinton in Michigan across the two Mitchell surveys out over the last two weeks. But that is of less consequence when the New York businessman continues to consistently trail there by margins within the lean range.


Minnesota:
Minnesota is a lot like Michigan but less frequently surveyed. And as of now, both are right next to each other in the Spectrum below. Like the description of lean states above, the leader in Minnesota is in the mid-40s and the trailing candidate is around 40 percent.


Nevada:
Remington provides a break in the Clinton run of polling leads in the Silver state since the first debate. But that one Trump lead does little to uproot Nevada's position as a state just slightly tipped toward the former Secretary of State.


North Carolina:
See Nevada. The story is the same in the Tar Heel state with Clinton having established a small but consistent lead since the first debate.


Ohio:
While the first debate can be seen as a turning point in some states -- like Nevada and North Carolina above -- that has not been the case in Ohio. There was a spike in Clinton support, but it was shorter lived. After the second debate -- the town hall and Trump tape -- the polls narrowed in the Buckeye state. The data are not robust in that time, but the established range across the scant polling is roughly tied to Trump +4. That change in trajectory has drawn the average closer here at FHQ, but kept Ohio just on the Clinton side of the partisan line.


Pennsylvania:
The Remington poll in Pennsylvania may be some sign of a change in direction in the Keystone state,  but the evidence since the first debate has been clear enough: Pennsylvania is a Lean Clinton state and one that has moved away from Trump in October. There has not been a poll this close since before the first debate.


South Dakota:
Polling has been light in South Dakota, but what little there has been has the Mount Rushmore state in exactly the same spot on the Electoral College Spectrum that it was in after the election in 2012. It is still a red state.


Virginia:
This Remington poll is a good one for Trump in Virginia. But since the first debate, he has been in the 30s in about three-quarters of the polls since then. That is not a winning position with two weeks to go, especially if Clinton is inching toward the 50 percent mark.


Wisconsin:
Wisconsin is much like its midwestern brethren above. Like Michigan and Minnesota, Trump is stuck around 40 percent and not showing any signs of pushing above that threshold. And with just 14 days until November 8, Clinton does not appear to be coming down to Trump's level in the polls across these states either.


--
Changes (10/25/16)
The day's flood of polling could only be felt here at FHQ on the Electoral College Spectrum. There was some shuffling among the clustered Lean Clinton states with Minnesota most noticeably jumping three spots deeper into the Clinton group of states. Meanwhile, a rare poll from South Dakota also shifted the Mount Rushmore state three positions toward Clinton and the partisan line while remaining in the Strong Trump group of states. Idaho pushed in the opposite direction on the Spectrum, moving toward the very end of the line up against neighboring Wyoming.

Both the map and the Watch List remained unchanged from a day ago.

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

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)
CA-55 (75)	NM-5 (188)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	IN-11 (104)	KY-8 (41)
MA-11 (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)	ME-23 (216)	IA-6 (198)	KS-6 (81)	WV-5 (19)
DE-3 (139)	VA-13 (229)	AZ-11 (192)	SD-3 (75)	OK-7 (14)
CT-7 (146)	WI-10 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	ID-4 (7)
WA-12 (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
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 (10/24/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/23/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/22/16)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: SOUTH DAKOTA

This is part fifty-three of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

SOUTH DAKOTA

Election type: primary
Date: June 7
Number of delegates: 29 [23 at-large, 3 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-all
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: proportional primary

--
Changes since 2012
Much like New Mexico, South Dakota Republicans have traditionally had a late-calendar primary with proportional allocation of delegates. Also like New Mexico, a high qualifying threshold has tended to translate into a presumptive nominee and primary winner taking all of the delegates from the Mount Rushmore state. However, unlike New Mexico, South Dakota Republicans have made a change for 2016. The primary date is the same (first Tuesday after the first Monday in June), but the party has discarded the proportional method of allocation for a winner-take-all scheme.

Why quadrennially be backdoor winner-take-all when the national party rules allow for a straight winner-take-all allocation? Why indeed. Both the motivation and rationale for a change were clear enough. And the South Dakota Republican Party followed through.


Thresholds
In the proportional era, the threshold to qualify for delegates was 20 percent. Now however, there is no threshold for candidates to meet to qualify for delegates under a winner-take-all method.


Delegate allocation (at-large, congressional district and automatic delegates)
The allocation of South Dakota's 29 delegates are clear enough: the statewide plurality winner of the primary takes all of the state's delegates. As a one congressional district state, there is little need to split the delegates. The result is a pool delegation either proportionally allocated or all awarded to the winner. South Dakota now fits into the latter category.


Binding
The South Dakota delegates selected in March are bound to the winner of the primary for the first vote at the national convention. That is true in all cases except scenarios in which the South Dakota primary winner withdraws from the race, suspends campaign activities or does not have his or her name placed in nomination at the national convention. If someone other than the South Dakota primary winner is the only candidate placed in nomination (and the South Dakota primary winner is not), then all 29 delegates are bound to that candidate if that candidate received votes in the South Dakota primary.¹ Otherwise, the delegates are unbound on the first ballot. It is much more likely, given the late date of the primary and a likely winnowed field that the presumptive nominee will win the South Dakota primary, be the only name placed in nomination, and have the delegates from the Mount Rushmore state cast their votes for him or her.


--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
¹ This is one method of avoiding a white knight candidate -- or someone who did not compete during the primaries -- at the national convention. Of course, such a method would have to be employed in more states than just one. The language of this rule is unique to South Dakota Republicans.


--
Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW MEXICO

More Past Primary Calendar Revisionism

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NEW JERSEY

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Earlier Convention Forcing South Dakota to Push Presidential Primary Up?

Bob Mercer, reporter with Aberdeen American News, raises the question.

--
First of all, the answer seems to be no. Mr. Mercer details well the history of South Dakota legislators moving the presidential primary in the Mount Rushmore state up to the tail end of February (from June) for the 1988 cycle and maintaining that position through 1996. The motivation for the February move, as it always seems to be, was to garner more attention for South Dakota and South Dakota issues. The problem was that the earlier primary was not an effective draw to those candidates actually seeking the nominations. That precipitated a return to June and consolidated presidential and other primaries. From 2000 onward, South Dakota has been lumped in with a small group of states at the very end of the primary calendar.

That did not mean, however, that South Dakota has not revisited the idea of an earlier presidential primary in the time since. Like a great many states in the lead up to the competitive -- on both sides -- 2008 primaries, South Dakota considered legislation to shift the presidential primary to an earlier date on the calendar. Bills met resistance in the legislature and died in both 2006 and 2007, as Mr. Mercer describes.

The 2016 presidential cycle offers, perhaps, a new wrinkle to the date-setting calculus in the later states on the calendar. That decision-making process is typically leave well enough alone if not non-existent. States at the end of the process tend to have consolidated primaries and often find the cost savings associated with one contest difficult to give up. That is no different in South Dakota.

What is different for the 2016 cycle is the push from the national parties to schedule earlier national conventions.¹ But the question Mr. Mercer poses from the South Dakota perspective is different now that the two major parties have scheduled July conventions than it was when the RNC was considering a June convention. A June convention really would have exerted some pressure on June primary states to consider earlier contests. That pressure -- mostly from the RNC side -- would have come in the form of a kind of backwards delegate selection process. For the logistics to work -- convention credentialing of delegates, etc. -- delegates would have to be selected, presumably via a caucuses/convention process, before the individual slots would be allocated to particular candidates based on the primary results.² That can make the process feel more top-down than bottom-up to rank-and-file members of a party/primary voters.

But with June off the table and two July conventions, this appears to be less of an issue for the South Dakotas and Montanas and Californias of the process, all the way at the end of the primary calendar. July conventions are not anything new. In fact, July conventions for the party out of the White House were the norm as recently as 2004. Sure, the Republican National Convention is the earliest since 1980, but there were a number of contests on that first Tuesday in June (an equivalent amount of time, then as in 2016) ahead of the convention.

Will South Dakota move? Indications at the state legislative level seem to suggest no according to Mr. Mercer. The legislators that sponsored bill during the 2008 cycle are not actively pushing legislation and do not foresee any push. Beyond that, there is not any added pressure from the national parties. The conventions will be earlier in 2016, but not in June; a time that would really have forced the primary movement issue in South Dakota and other states.

--
¹ The Republican National Committee was responsible for the majority of this push, considering June and July convention times before settling on a convention in Cleveland during the week of July 18, 2016. In a reactive move, the Democratic National Committee then set the date of their 2016 convention for a week later in a location yet to be determined.

² This sounds worse than it probably would be in practice. The reversing of the selection and allocation processes would only be consequential (controversial) if a nomination race was still competitive at that late point in the calendar. The odds are against that, however.


Recent Posts:
Pair of Bills Propose Earlier Presidential Primary in Connecticut

Companion Bills Introduced to Move Mississippi Presidential Primary into SEC Primary Position

Primary Movement, 2015 v. 2011

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

The Electoral College Map (11/3/12)

So much for lazy weekends. There were 20 new polls from 14 states on Saturday and one dated poll from Utah added to mix. Again, most of the action was in either toss up states or in the series of Lean Obama states that have seen some margin contraction over the last few weeks as the polls first drew closer then leveled off. But there were a handful of polls in a few Strong Obama/Romney states that help to round out the overall picture of the race.

[And since we mentioned Utah, I'll go ahead and comment to put your mind at ease about the Beehive state. Romney won't lose that one.]

New State Polls (11/3/12)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Obama	Romney	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
California	Field	10/17-10/30	+/- 2.6%	1566 likely voters	54	39	5	+15	+17.60
Florida	Mason-Dixon	10/30-11/1	+/- 3.5%	800 likely voters	45	51	4	+6	+0.24
Florida	Marist/Wall Street Journal/NBC	10/31-11/1	+/- 2.7%	1545 likely voters	49	47	2	+2	--
Georgia	Insider Advantage	11/1	+/- 4.7%	426 likely voters	42.0	54.1	3.1	+12.1	+9.38
Iowa	Mellman Group	10/30-11/1	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	46	44	10	+2	+2.73
Iowa	Selzer/Des Moines Register	10/30-11/2	+/- 3.5%	800 likely voters	47	42	2	+5	--
Iowa	Grove Insight	11/1-11/2	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	47	44	8	+3	--
Michigan	Public Policy Polling	11/1-11/3	+/- 3.7%	700 likely voters	52	46	1	+6	+5.73
Minnesota	NMB Research	10/29-10/31	+/- 4.38%	500 likely voters	45	46	--	+1	+7.34
Minnesota	Public Policy Polling	11/1-11/3	+/- 2.9%	1164 likely voters	53	45	2	+8	--
New Hampshire	Gravis Marketing	11/1	+/- 4.3%	497 likely voters	50	49	1	+1	+3.10
New Hampshire	University of New Hampshire/WMUR	10/31-11/2	+/- 4.4%	502 likely voters	48	48	3	0	--
Ohio	Marist/Wall Street Journal/NBC	10/31-11/1	+/- 3.1%	971 likely voters	51	45	3	+6	+2.92
Ohio	Grove Insight	11/1-11/2	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	49	45	4	+4	--
Oregon	Public Policy Polling	10/31-11/1	+/- 3.2%	921 registered voters	52	46	3	+6	+6.19
Pennsylvania	Public Policy Polling	11/2-11/3	+/- 3.5%	790 likely voters	52	46	1	+6	+5.95
South Dakota	Nielson Brothers Polling	10/28-10/31	+/- 3.53%	795 likely voters	42	50	8	+8	+9.96
Utah	BYU/Key Research	10/9-10/13	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	20	71	9	+51	+45.33
Utah	Dan Jones	10/26-11/1	+/- 3.4%	870 registered voters	26	69	--	+43	--
Washington	Public Policy Polling	11/1-11/3	+/- 3.2%	932 likely voters	53	46	1	+7	+13.33
Wisconsin	Grove Insight	11/1-11/2	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	48	42	8	+6	+4.60

There was little that changed the overall outlook on the electoral college here at FHQ given the day's polling. Romney was quite strong in the states he was already just fine in and Obama continued to get some good results in the toss up and lean (Obama) states. Public Policy Polling was the most prolific firm on the day (with five total surveys) and the results largely followed the FHQ rank order of states. Michigan, Oregon and Pennsylvania were all bunched together at Obama +6 -- just as they are in the FHQ weighted averages -- and Minnesota was, as here at FHQ, on the Obama side of that group of states. The lone exception to that rule was Washington. It settled in in between Minnesota and that aforementioned group; much closer than our averages have it. Washington state has now slipped into the furthest column to the left on the Electoral College Spectrum below, but PPP has had it closer for the last couple of polls it has conducted in the Evergreen state.

Florida and Ohio should probably also be mentioned. There were polar opposites coming out of the Sunshine state from Mason-Dixon and Marist. The former was more favorable to Romney than the latter. Marist also had the race for Ohio at Obama +6 which is outside where most recent polling has had it. If the Florida poll from the Marist/Wall Street Journal/NBC was similarly Obama-favorable, then that may say something about which one of the two Florida polls was closer to reality. In truth, the answer in the last week has been somewhere in the middle. The average here at FHQ has the balance tipped the slightest of margins -- just 0.24% at this point -- toward the president, but the polling in October has probably inched a little closer to Romney.

The map (changes since 11/2): No change. Obama: 332, Romney 206.

The Electoral College Spectrum (changes since 11/2): No change.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
VT-3 (6)2	ME-4 (158)	NH-4 (257)	GA-16 (167)	MS-6 (58)
HI-4 (10)	NJ-14 (172)	OH-183 (275/281)	SD-3 (151)	KY-8 (52)
NY-29 (39)	CT-7 (179)	IA-6 (281/263)	SC-9 (148)	AL-9 (44)
RI-4 (43)	NM-5 (184)	VA-13 (294/257)	IN-11 (139)	KS-6 (35)
MD-10 (53)	MN-10 (194)	CO-9 (303/244)	TN-11 (128)	AR-6 (29)
MA-11 (64)	OR-7 (201)	FL-29 (332/235)	NE-5 (117)	AK-3 (23)
IL-20 (84)	PA-20 (221)	NC-15 (206)	WV-5 (112)	OK-7 (20)
CA-55 (139)	MI-16 (237)	AZ-11 (191)	TX-38 (107)	ID-4 (13)
DE-3 (142)	WI-10 (247)	MO-10 (180)	ND-3 (69)	WY-3 (9)
WA-12 (154)	NV-6 (253)	MT-3 (170)	LA-8 (66)	UT-6 (6)
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 won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.

The Watch List (changes since 11/2): No change among the toss up states.
South Dakota enters the list and is within a fraction of a point of shifting into the Lean Romney category.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Obama	to Toss Up Romney
Georgia	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Montana	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Nevada	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Obama	to Lean Obama
South Dakota	from Strong Romney	to Lean Romney
Wisconsin	from Lean Obama	to Toss Up Obama
1 The Watch list shows those states in the FHQ Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. The List is not a trend analysis. It indicates which states are straddling the line between categories and which states are most likely to shift given the introduction of new polling data. Montana, for example, is close to being a Lean Romney state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.

Please see:

Frequently Asked Questions about FHQ graduated weighted average methodology.
&
An Update on how to read it in 2012.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (11/2/12)

The Electoral College Map (11/1/12)

Live by the 3, Die by the 3 (...and other thoughts on what November 6, 2012 is testing)

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.