The Electoral College Map (6/18/20)

Update for June 18.

It was a mostly quiet day on the survey front. While there were a handful of national polls showing former Vice President Biden maintaining a six to eight point lead, there was but one state-level poll released on June 18. And that Civiqs poll of Kentucky did little to alter the general outlook FHQ has point to in the initial days of this 2020 projection.

President Trump's 20 lead in the Bluegrass state may run a bit ahead of where previous polls there showed the race, but it was not something that raised the graduated weighted average margin in the state all that much. And it certainly did nothing to change the projection of Kentucky as anything but a strong state for the president. It is wedged firmly in the middle of the strong Trump states at this point in FHQ's averages.

And needless to say, a poll that did not move a strong state for either candidate, did little to change the picture on the map above. The tally stays at Biden 352, Trump 186 for the third day running. These are the slow (polling) days of late spring, and we should not necessarily expect to see either candidate's total change all that much. That is perhaps less true in some states where the overall polling is lacking and any seeming outlier could pull the average more wildly in one direction or the other. Few polls, more volatility in the averages.

That said, the expectation moving forward for the next little bit is to look for more changes within a candidate's total rather than across them. In other words, there are likely to be more category changes than changes in the electoral college vote total for the two candidates.

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	CT-7 (173)	NH-4 (249)	MO-10 (125)	NE-2 (56)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	FL-293 (278/289)	AK-3 (115)	TN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	WI-10 (288/260)	MT-3 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	AZ-11 (299/250)	SC-9 (109)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	PA-20 (319/239)	UT-6 (100)	ND-3 (31)
MD-10 (115)	VA-13 (210)	NC-15 (334/219)	LA-8 NE CD1-1 (94)	SD-3 (28)
IL-20 (135)	ME-2 (212)	OH-18 (352/204)	MS-6 (85)	AL-9 (25)
WA-12 (147)	MI-16 (228)	GA-16 (186)	IN-11 (79)	OK-7 (16)
RI-4 ME CD1-1 (152)	NE CD2-1 MN-10 (239)	IA-6 (170)	KS-6 (68)	WV-5 (9)
NJ-14 (166)	NV-6 (245)	TX-38 ME CD2-1 (164)	AR-6 (62)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Florida (Biden's toss up states up to  Florida), he would have 289 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Florida is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

The one exception to that for now is Ohio. The Buckeye state is the closest state to being tied between Biden and Trump and any Trump-favorable poll could tip the balance there and shift Ohio over the partisan line into Trump's column. Georgia is the next possibility behind Ohio, but it would have to move in the opposite direction to change the overall totals. But the Peach state is tipped slightly more toward Trump now than Ohio is to Biden.

--
Florida remains the tipping point state for the second day in a row, underlining just how important those 29 electoral votes are to whichever candidate is able to claim them in November. There are more paths to 270 if one can count Florida on one side or the other than any other state. And even if it is not in the median spot among the current Biden toss ups, Florida would pull Biden over the top if the election matched the projection. All the other states would be cushion.

After adding Minnesota a day ago, the Watch List remained static today. All the states within a point of switching categories stuck in their same positions. And yet another day has passed without any additional polling of Minnesota, Nevada and New Hampshire, three underpolled but close states that could use some updated data.

--
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Biden and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Louisiana	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Minnesota	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Montana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Nebraska CD1	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll the thad Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.

The Electoral College Map (6/17/20)

Update for June 17.

The battleground state polls from Change Research did little to shake things up in the FHQ state averages on Wednesday. Other than Florida, the surveys in the other states -- Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- showed a tighter race than has been the case in the most recent polling in those states. But compared to the FHQ projections, given the information at this point in the race, the picture was mixed.

Yes, Biden was ahead in all six states as he is in the averages here in this space. But compared to the averages, the Change polls had the margin running ahead of the averages (wider gap) in Florida, North Carolina and barely Wisconsin and behind in Arizona and Michigan (especially given the recent double digit margins that have come out of the Wolverine state). The poll in Pennsylvania, meanwhile, was basically on par with the FHQ averages.

What does that mean?

Not much this early in the race. The map remains unchanged above, but there was some meaningful movement in the rank ordering of states in the Electoral College Spectrum below. Importantly, Arizona and Florida switched places around Wisconsin, changing and raising the tipping point one cell. Florida is now that tipping point state where the candidates would cross the 270 electoral vote threshold if Biden or Trump won all of the states up to and including the Sunshine state in the order.

And Florida will be pivotal throughout this campaign. With 29 electoral votes at stake, it provides a level of cushion to the candidate who can claim it relative to some of the other toss up states.

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	CT-7 (173)	NH-4 (249)	MO-10 (125)	NE-2 (56)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	FL-293 (278/289)	AK-3 (115)	TN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	WI-10 (288/260)	MT-3 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	AZ-11 (299/250)	SC-9 (109)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	PA-20 (319/239)	UT-6 (100)	ND-3 (31)
MD-10 (115)	VA-13 (210)	NC-15 (334/219)	LA-8 NE CD1-1 (94)	SD-3 (28)
IL-20 (135)	ME-2 (212)	OH-18 (352/204)	MS-6 (85)	AL-9 (25)
WA-12 (147)	MI-16 (228)	GA-16 (186)	IN-11 (79)	OK-7 (16)
RI-4 ME CD1-1 (152)	NE CD2-1 MN-10 (239)	IA-6 (170)	KS-6 (68)	WV-5 (9)
NJ-14 (166)	NV-6 (245)	TX-38 ME CD2-1 (164)	AR-6 (62)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Florida (Biden's toss up states up to Florida), he would have 289 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Florida is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

Another day passes without any new information out of Minnesota, Nevada or New Hampshire, a trio of states where polling has been scant and unavailable in recent weeks. That is also a group of states that may appear a little closer than they actually are because of that recent relative lack of survey work in each. Movement that has been picked up in other states is not reflected in the FHQ averages, Instead, the most recent poll continues to carry full weight while older polls continue to have a decreasing influence in the equation.

In any event, those three states are worth keeping an eye on simply because any new polling may change the outlook. Two of the three remain, however, off the Watch List below. As it stands, the only two toss up states on the List are Minnesota and Ohio (as is Nebraska's second congressional district). And while Ohio jumping to its nearest adjoining category would alter the electoral vote tally, Minnesota and Nebraska's second are on the verge of pushing into safer Biden territory and contract the overall group of toss up states on both sides of the partisan line.

*Minnesota did join the Watch List today because the change in daily weight decay on older polls pushed the margin there just above four points. It is now within less than a point of moving into the Lean Biden category, but only just barely.

--
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Biden and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Louisiana	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Minnesota	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Montana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Nebraska CD1	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll the thad Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: CONNECTICUT

CONNECTICUT

Election type: primary
Date: August 11
    [April 28 originally and then June 2]
Number of delegates: 75 [14 at-large, 6 PLEOs, 40 congressional district, 15 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan (post-coronavirus)


--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.

That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.

Neither the state of Connecticut or Democrats in the Nutmeg state, however, did much to alter the regular methods for selecting or allocated delegates for the 2020 cycle. Not before 2020 and the coronavirus in any event. But once the calendar flipped to 2020, the primary process began and the global pandemic intervened, changes were made necessary by both the state and the political parties in the state.

The state government initially moved the April 28 primary away from its Acela primary position to June 2. But that did not prove to be enough time for elections officials to adequately prepare for a different type of election much less be out of the shadow of the coronavirus before any in-person voting in the early June primary. That forced Governor Ned Lamont (D) and Secretary of State Denise Merrill (D) to act again, consolidating the presidential primary with those primaries for other offices on August 11.

That primary, if it continues as planned, will be the latest presidential primary in the post-reform era and one that comes just days before the Democratic National Convention is set to commence. [More on state party changes to the delegate selection process below.]

Yet, the move to August does buy the state's elections officials time to implement a predominantly vote-by-mail system where one did not exist before. All registered voters in the state will receive an absentee ballot application, but in-person voting will remain an option for voters who do not take advantage of the remote alternative.

All absentee ballots are due to town clerks' offices before polls close on Tuesday, August 11. 

Overall, the Democratic delegation in Connecticut changed by four delegates from 2016 to 2020. New York rejoining the Acela primary group of states reconnected Connecticut and Rhode Island to the regional primary, opening both up to not only timing bonuses but clustering bonuses as well. Connecticut Democrats saw their district delegate total increase by four delegates and the at-large number grow by two. Those gains were offset to some extent by a one delegate decrease in the PLEO delegate category.


[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]


Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies both statewide and on the congressional district level.


Delegate allocation (at-large and PLEO delegates)
To win any at-large or PLEO (pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials) delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the statewide vote. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the separate allocation of these two pools of delegates.

See New Hampshire synopsis for an example of how the delegate allocation math works for all categories of delegates.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Connecticut's 40 congressional district delegates are split across five congressional districts and have no delegate variation across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Democrats in the Nutmeg state are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 8 delegates
CD2 - 8 delegates
CD3 - 8 delegates
CD4 - 8 delegates
CD5 - 8 delegates

*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.


Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.

[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]


Selection
An originally post-primary process for the selection of Connecticut's 60 pledged delegates has been replaced by a pre-primary process because of the coronavirus. The new pre-primary process will pre-slate delegates who will then fill in delegate slots allocated in the August 11 presidential primary.

The 40 district delegates will be selected in virtual congressional district caucuses on June 30. Under the initial delegate selection plan, it was the campaigns who were charged with organizing and carrying out these caucuses (similar to California Democrats' process) on May 27, but that task will be handled by congressional district delegates to the Connecticut Democratic state convention now. The delegate candidate filing and candidate campaign review will happen from June 19-26 according to the new plan. All of that leads up to the virtual vote on June 30.

The statewide delegates will similarly be selected before the August 11 presidential primary. A virtual meeting of the state party committee will select PLEO and then at-large delegates on July 8. Delegate candidates selected for each presidential candidate will then be chosen from those slates based on the results of the primary. The working plan from which Connecticut Democrats were operating before the coronavirus set selection of the statewide delegates for a June 10 state party committee meeting.

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. This applies less in the case of Connecticut for at least a couple of reason. First, Sanders has already dropped out of the race which will have some negative impact on his likely vote share in the primary in the Nutmeg state. That said, Senator Sanders did cut a deal with the Biden campaign to keep any statewide delegates won in the remaining contests. Second, delegates will be selected before the primary rather than after it. Delegates can only be allocated from the pre-selected slates based on the results of the primary in such a situation.

The Electoral College Map (6/16/20)

With 20 weeks until election day 2020, it is time to dust off the old electoral college map.

Even as the coronavirus-delayed presidential nomination races trundle on toward their respective ends, we have known since at least April who the two major party candidates will be in November. And as more state-level polling has rolled in over the first five plus months of 2020, the picture of the state of that race between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden has taken on a clearer shape. That is not exactly unexpected. After all, as election day grows nearer, minds get made and certainty as to the outcome tends to increase.

But what early on in 2020 may have looked like a close election between Biden and Trump looks different now that the incumbent has two crises yoked to his reelection efforts. The social, economic and public health stresses placed on the American public due to the coronavirus and the civil unrest stemming from law enforcement abuses have not done Trump any favors. As his approval numbers have declined so, too, have his prospects in state-level preference polls gauging the state of the race between Biden and Trump.

On the one hand, that does not look unlike what the picture did just four years ago. But Trump was not an incumbent with more than three years of White House experience under his belt at that point. Questions remained in 2016 about whether and to what extent Republicans would rally around Trump as their standard bearer. Those questions persisted into the nominating convention and were periodically raised again thereafter, most famously following the revelations in the Access Hollywood tapes.

Those types of questions -- about Republicans coalescing behind the president -- do not exist today. Self-identified Republicans are with Trump. Democrats and a fluctuating number of independents are not. And that is borne out in the polling data time and time again in the waning days of spring 2020.

As it stands now, just 20 states -- worth a total of 125 electoral votes -- are either strongly or leaning toward the president. Another three -- Georgia, Iowa and Texas along with Maine's second congressional district -- are Trump toss up states, states that are tipped toward the Republican but where he only enjoys a lead of less than five points in the FHQ graduated weighted averages. And those toss up states (and congressional district) total another 61 electoral votes, a little less than a third of what Trump can claim at this point in the race.

Trump's has lost nearly four and a half points on average from his November 2016 share of support to where he stands now in the state-level polls. He is running behind 2016 almost everywhere where polls have been conducted. His only increases are in states unlikely to be competitive in the fall: dark blue Maryland and typically ruby red Utah. That is it. [He is also running even with his share in New Mexico compared to 2016.]

Biden, on the other hand, has gained on what Hillary Clinton managed in 2016, having added almost two and three-quarters points on average through the polling released so far in calendar 2020. Together that is a more than seven point shift toward the Democrat. If Trump is down nearly everywhere, then Biden up if not everywhere then in consequential locales. The former vice president is running even with or ahead of Clinton in 26 states. 19 of those states were red in 2016 and of those six -- Arizona, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas -- are currently toss ups. Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio are already shaded in light blue, so they would, meaningfully, be flips from 2016.

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	CT-7 (173)	NH-4 (249)	MO-10 (125)	NE-2 (56)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	AZ-11 (260)	AK-3 (115)	TN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	WI-103 (270/278)	MT-3 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	FL-29 (299/268)	SC-9 (109)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	PA-20 (319/239)	UT-6 (100)	ND-3 (31)
MD-10 (115)	VA-13 (210)	NC-15 (334/219)	LA-8 NE CD1-1 (94)	SD-3 (28)
IL-20 (135)	ME-2 (212)	OH-18 (352/204)	MS-6 (85)	AL-9 (25)
WA-12 (147)	MI-16 (228)	GA-16 (186)	IN-11 (79)	OK-7 (16)
RI-4 ME CD1-1 (152)	NE CD2-1 MN-10 (239)	IA-6 (170)	KS-6 (68)	WV-5 (9)
NJ-14 (166)	NV-6 (245)	TX-38 ME CD2-1 (164)	AR-6 (62)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Wisconsin (Biden's toss up states up to Wisconsin), he would have 278 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Wisconsin is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

Perhaps all of this can change as it did four years ago. Again, through the lens of the electoral college, Biden is starting out roughly where Clinton did at this time in 2016: seemingly comfortably ahead. And although that still looked the case in November 2016, the trajectory of (electoral college) change over the course of the general election campaign was if not toward Trump then toward a tightening in the polls over time (that created a tightening in the electoral college projection). That could still happen in 2020, but the incumbent is off to a less than stellar start and his fundamentals are not being helped at all by current conditions in the country.

It is early yet, but it could get late early in this race if current trends hold. But time will tell that tale over the next 140 days.

--
A few thoughts now that FHQ has gone through all the calendar year 2020 state-level polling over the last few days.
1) Not surprisingly, the blue wall states are the most-polled states of 2020 with Michigan at the head of the pack. Florida and North Carolina are up there too as is Texas which had not been polled once at this point in 2016. I would not exactly call those states over-polled at this juncture in the race, but the picture is clearer there than it is in some states that could really use some survey activity. Minnesota, Nevada and New Hampshire stand out as a cohort of states in the Electoral College Spectrum above that seem to be lagging behind some other states that have shifted more since 2016. And there is good reason for that: polling in each of the three states has been sporadic at best and nearly non-existent of late. Some more data would help clarify things among that trio of states. Add those three to the Watch List; not for potentially changing categories, but because more polling is needed in each.

2) Texas and to a lesser extent Arizona may grab all of the headlines because both may flip blue in November after being staples among the red states for more than 20 years (much longer in the case of Texas). But if you had told me in 2008 that Colorado and Virginia would be strong blue states out of the gates in 2020, I would have been surprised. As consistent at the ordering of states can be from cycle to cycle, there are noteworthy -- and consequential! -- changes to it over time.


--
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Biden and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Louisiana	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Montana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Nebraska CD1	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll the thad Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.

One of Biden's Magic Numbers is Now a Little Different

No, not among pledged delegates.

Former Vice President Joe Biden clinched the Democratic presidential nomination over the weekend, surpassing the 1991 pledged delegates necessary to reach a majority. But with nearly one-fifth of all delegates yet to be allocated in the remaining contests, it remains to be seen whether Biden will earn enough pledged delegates and open the door to superdelegate participation in the presidential nomination roll call vote during the national convention.

To do that the presumptive Democratic nominee would have to be allocated a majority of all delegates (in pledged delegates). That way superdelegates would be unable to overturn a tight pledged delegate majority -- one that does not exist in 2020 -- if the group voted as a bloc. But again, that will not be necessary in 2020. Biden has a wide enough pledged delegate lead to have clinched the nomination by the pledged delegate method. The only question left outstanding is whether he will win enough delegates to allow superdelegate participation on the first ballot.

Biden is on pace to do that, but that number -- the majority of all delegates -- has changed during primary season. Appendix B to the Call for the Convention had the number of superdelegates at 771 at the end of 2019. For the 2020 cycle, however, the secretary of the Democratic National Committee had to certify the number of superdelegates to each state party by March 6, 2020 under Rule 9 of the 2020 delegate selection rules.

That subsequent certification adjusted the number of superdelegates in 23 states and territories. And those changes ranged from an addition of four (4) superdelegates in New York to a loss of two (2) superdelegates in three jurisdictions (District of Columbia, Illinois and Oregon).


Although, in the aggregate, the changes across all 23 states and territories largely cancelled each other out. There ended up being three more delegates added from states than subtracted. And that increases not only the number of superdelegates to 774, but slightly raises the magic number of all delegates Biden would have to win in order to allow superdelegates into the roll call voting at the convention.

So, instead of that number being 2376 delegates, Biden will have to get to 2378 pledged delegates to trigger the superdelegate voting privileges. No, that is unlikely to be too high a bar for the former vice president to clear. But it is a change.

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: PUERTO RICO

PUERTO RICO

Election type: primary
Date: July 12
    [March 29 originally and then April 26]
Number of delegates: 58 [11 at-large, 7 PLEOs, 33 congressional district, 7 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan (post-coronavirus)


--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.

That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.

For years Puerto Rico Democrats have maintained their early June position on the presidential primary calendar. But with a competitive race and multi-candidate field on the horizon for the 2020 cycle the legislature in the island US territory opted in mid-2019 to move the election up more than two months to the end of March.

Although, as with so much else in 2020, the best laid plans for an earlier contest and consequential impact on the race were scuttled by the outbreak of the coronavirus in mid-March. And with that late March contest, Puerto Rico was very much in the crosshairs, more immediately in need of a change to the date of the contest and/or the method by which it would be conducted. The initial legislative response to the coronavirus was to shift the primary to a later date, one month later on the last Sunday in April. And that option wisely provided a fallback option to postpone the Democratic presidential primary and have the party, in consultation with the elections commission, choose a different and later date. The coronavirus's spread forced the issue soon thereafter in early April, and the Puerto Rico Democratic Party indefinitely delayed the primary. The contest was not rescheduled again until late May when the party selected a July 12 date for its presidential primary (a calendar position that had been hinted at during a DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) meeting).

As with other states that have technically broken the DNC rules on the timing of delegate selection events after June 9, Puerto Rico Democrats also had to seek a waiver from the DNCRBC in order to move forward with a contest on the new July date. That waiver was granted.

While the date of the primary has changed, little else has. Early and absentee voting remain very limited on the island, and unless the laws are changed before the primary, the contest will be predominantly in-person.

--

Overall, the Democratic delegation in Puerto Rico changed by nine delegates from 2016 to 2020. Since the primary in the territory moved from June in 2016 to March in 2020, Democrats in Puerto Rico lost their timing bonus and saw their district delegates decrease by seven and their at-large delegate pool shrink by two delegates. The PLEO and superdelegate totals remained the same in 2020 as they were in 2016.


[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specific to the delegate selection process.]


Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies both statewide and on the congressional district level.


Delegate allocation (at-large and PLEO delegates)
To win any at-large or PLEO (pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials) delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the statewide vote. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the separate allocation of these two pools of delegates.

See New Hampshire synopsis for an example of how the delegate allocation math works for all categories of delegates.


Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Puerto Rico's 33 congressional district delegates are split across eight senatorial districts and have a variation of just one delegate across districts. There is no measure of Democratic strength based on past elections because Puerto Ricans are not involved in presidential general elections. The party, then, apportions delegates as follows...
District 1 (San Juan) - 4 delegates
District 2 (Bayamon) - 4 delegates
District 3 (Arecibo) - 5 delegates*
District 4 (Mayaguez) - 4 delegates
District 5 (Ponce) - 4 delegates
District 6 (Guayama) - 4 delegates
District 7 (Humacao) - 4 delegates
District 8 (Carolina) - 4 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
The selection of delegates in Puerto Rico was not fundamentally affected. While the timing was pushed back as with the primary itself, the mechanics of delegate selection have not been changed all that much. District delegates will continue to be directly elected on the July 12 presidential primary ballot just as they would have been on either March 29 or April 26 before.

Both PLEO and then at-large delegates will be chosen at the state convention on July 26. The voting members of the convention who will select PLEO delegates include the central committee and the district delegates (to the national convention) elected on the July 12 ballot. At-large delegates will then be chosen by the same central committee members and district delegates plus the just selected PLEO delegates.

None of that -- other than the timing -- is different from what was planned before the coronavirus.


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 mid- to late July when the Puerto Rico statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the mid-July 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.

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: GUAM

GUAM

Election type: territorial caucuses
Date: June 6
    [May 2 originally]
Number of delegates: 13 [7 at-large delegates, 6 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional territory-wide
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: territorial caucuses (proportional)
Delegate selection plan (post-coronavirus)


--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.

That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.

Changes have not exactly been plentiful in Guam over the years with respect to how Democrats in the US territory allocate and select their delegates to the national convention. After all there are only so many ways to conduct that process with a small number of people and with only seven at-large delegates to allocate and select.

But the coronavirus forced Guam Democrats out of their comfort zone and out of the party's first Saturday in May calendar position; the one typically set aside for presidential caucuses. Some time during March or April the territorial party made the decision to indefinitely postpone the caucuses due to the spread of the pandemic. And it was not until June 3 that the party submitted and had approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee a revised delegate selection plan.

That plan basically looks like a normal Guam Democratic Party delegate selection plan. The party will caucus on June 6, gauge presidential preference and allocate delegates in proportion to the share of the qualified vote (15 percent or more) each candidate receives. Given the time available, the party indicates in the plan, it will not be able to conduct any mail-in voting. The Saturday, June 6 caucuses, then, will be an in-person affair among registered Guam Democrats. [Prospective voters can registered at the caucuses.] Additionally, a drive-thru option will be available in some caucus locations.


Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies territory-wide for the allocation of the seven at-large delegates.


Delegate allocation (at-large)
To win any at-large delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the territory-wide vote in the caucuses. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the allocation of those 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)
There are no congressional districts or other subdivisions within Guam and as such there are no district delegates to allocate in the June 6 caucuses.


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
The seven at-large delegates to the national convention from Guam will be selected at the June 6 territory-wide caucuses. Delegate candidates were to have filed by May 30 and will be selected in proportion to the vote of qualifying candidates in the caucuses.

Importantly, if a candidate drops out of the race before the selection of territory-wide delegates, then any territory-wide delegates allocated to that candidate will be reallocated to the remaining candidates. However, given the simultaneity of the allocation and selection on June 6 in Guam, that means that there is no real potential for reallocation of those territory-wide delegates. This reallocation would only applyi 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 territory-wide delegates by finishing with more than 15 percent territory-wide. Under a new deal struck between the Biden and Sanders camps, Biden will be allocated (or reallocated) all of the territory-wide 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 territory-wide vote.