If one goes on headlines alone, then SB 655 passing the North Carolina state senate with no dissent is a rather mundane if not arcane legislative action. However, as is often the case, there is some nuance to what Tar Heel state legislators in the state's upper chamber accomplished.
The accomplishment?
The state senate passed legislation setting the date of a consolidated primary -- presidential, state and local primaries -- for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
Of course, the real value in this bill is certainty. By selecting a fixed date, legislators eliminated the atypical biennial rotation the North Carolina primary was stuck in after the passage of an omnibus elections law package in 2013. For much of the post-reform era -- 1972 to now -- North Carolina has had a consolidated primary election. And for much of that period, the Tar Heel state was rooted on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. Since the state concurrently held all of its primaries, the state enjoyed a smaller budgetary hit as compared to states with separated presidential and state/local primaries; two separate elections to fund. Granted, the trade-off was that North Carolina witnessed an increasing number of states shift to ever-earlier dates on the presidential primary calendar over the course of that period.
But the elections package the North Carolina General Assembly passed in 2013 altered that. First, it separated the presidential primary from the primaries for other offices and tethered it to the fluid, but protected early presidential primary calendar date of the South Carolina presidential primary.1 In other words, there was no North Carolina primary scheduled until there was a South Carolina primary scheduled.
Moreover, this was a provocative action on the part of Republicans holding unified control of not only the General Assembly but including the governor's mansion as well. Being tethered to the early, but unknown date of the South Carolina primary meant that the newly separate North Carolina presidential primary would run afoul of national party rules governing the timing of presidential primaries and caucuses. The severe delegate penalties the state potentially faced in that too early primary forced legislators back into action in 2015. To avoid those penalties, North Carolina legislators settled on a couple of tweaks. The first was to set the date of the presidential primary for March 15, while the second was to reconsolidate all of the primaries (but in March).
However, that move was only temporary. It affected only the primaries in 2016. That sunset provision expired at the end of the year and the primaries reverted to their post-2013 state: a tethered North Carolina presidential primary and May primaries for other offices. This is a messy, irregular manner in which to schedule and conduct elections. The practical effect since the 2013 changes has been to have the other primaries in May during midterm years and in flux during presidential years due to the statute's treatment of the presidential primary. If it is unknown when the presidential primary will be under current law, then there will be uncertainty as to whether there will be a move later to reconsolidate the primaries on an earlier date.
Again, this is complicated.
But state Senator Andrew Brock's (R-34th, Davie, Rowan) SB 655 streamlines all of it. The bill proposes shifting up the date of the primaries for other offices by two months in all even years (covering presidential and midterm years) and consolidates the presidential primary with them every four years. Further, the legislation would remove the Tar Heel state from the list of potential troublemakers for 2020. The national parties would have no need penalize North Carolina if its primary was scheduled on the earliest date allowed under the rules in both parties.2
More importantly, perhaps, the change would align the North Carolina presidential primary with primaries in neighboring states (Tennessee, Virginia and likely Georgia). Alabama and Texas also have primaries scheduled for that date at this time. All were part of the first iteration of the SEC primary in 2016. Adding North Carolina would shift the delegates of the tenth most populous state -- a not insubstantial number of delegates -- into the fifth slot on the calendar. In 2016, that was a position on the calendar on which the 25% delegates allocated mark was passed.
Without passing too much judgment, this move to simplify the primary schedule is a win for elections administrators in the state as well as voters. And given the unanimity of support in the state Senate, legislators on some level see it that way too.
--
Related:
6/12/18: Revived March Presidential Primary Bill Passes North Carolina Senate
6/6/17: Amended Primary Legislation Passes North Carolina House
6/1/17: North Carolina Inches Toward Joining a Nascent SEC Primary for 2020
--
1 The legislation and ultimately the law actually left the presidential primary in May unless South Carolina had a primary before March 15. Given the first in the South status the Palmetto state primary has enjoyed in both parties since 2006, it was a virtual certainty that that North Carolina provision would be triggered. And that would have the effect of shifting North Carolina to the Tuesday following the South Carolina primary.
2 It is still early in the 2020 cycle, but there is no indication that either party is looking to alter the basic primary calendar structure: carve-out states in February followed by all other states within a March to early June window.
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
California and the 2020 Prime Time Primary
Legislators in California are eyeing an earlier position on the 2020 presidential primary calendar.
There has been legislation (SB 568) to do something with the California presidential primary that has been active in the Golden state legislature since February. Amendments quietly added at the end of March garnered more attention yesterday with a press release from the secretary of state and the bill's author in the state Senate.
The change? Move California's June primary up in the process. But not just move it up, shift it into a position on the heels of Iowa and New Hampshire at the front of the 2020 queue.
In reality, this sounds more provocative than it actually is. This is not Florida or Michigan moving into January for the 2008 cycle. Instead, the California maneuvering is more subtle, yet motivated by similar reasoning. States, regardless of size, mainly want a couple of things out of the presidential nomination process: 1) their voters to have a say in the identity of the nominees and 2) to have the candidates pay some attention to -- spend money and time on -- them.
The best ways to accomplish those two goals are to be early and/or to have a specific spot on the calendar for your contest and your contest alone. Iowa and New Hampshire, and since 2008, Nevada and South Carolina have each of those in spades. There are many reasons for that, but currently, the important fact is that all four are protected by the delegate selection rules of the national parties. Without a change there -- to the national party rules -- efforts by California or any other state to move up usually means settling for the earliest allowed date after the four carve-out states or taking a substantial penalty. The former is an attractive gathering point for other states, which gets them early but not alone. And the latter -- the penalty -- reduces a state's clout, affecting the campaigns' calculi in approaching the state.
This is what happened when the California state legislature shifted the Golden state primary in both 2000 and 2008. California was early in both cases, but shared the date with numerous other states, giving campaigns options in terms of where and how to expend the finite resources at their disposal. These are not problems unique to the Golden state.
What is unique in California's case is its size. But the number, diversity and wealth of the population are both blessing and curse. Enough wealth is concentrated in the state that the candidates of all stripes have been more than willing to come into the state early to raise funds. But then they go spend it elsewhere; Iowa and New Hampshire chief among the recipients. Californians have often bemoaned this ATM treatment, and have at various points (1996, 2000, 2008) seen their legislatures seek a different relationship; a different, earlier position on the calendar that allows both fundraising and fund spending in the state. But again, all of those experiments got the state early, but not alone.
And the proposed 2020 experiment will not end any differently.
Let's game this out in a way that the proponents of this legislation have only partially thought out.
First, the SB 568 moves not only the California presidential primary to the third Tuesday in March, but everything else traditionally scheduled for June. That spares the state the $100 million plus price tag of a separate presidential primary, but also creates extended general election campaigns for all those down ballot who win February or March primaries.
But the legislation also provides another scheduling option on top of that baseline March primary date. Like other states which have mimicked New Hampshire to some degree, the California bill grants an individual -- not the state legislature -- the final say in the matter. States like Arizona, Georgia and New Mexico have experimented with allowing one individual -- typically the secretary of state as in New Hampshire, or the governor -- set the date of the presidential primary. In those cases the state legislature ceded the power to an executive branch actor in order to streamline the date setting process. It is understating things, but the legislative process can be messy and slow, and a political question like when a presidential primary should be held can trigger divisions that can derail legislation. Legislatures across the country are also not always in session during the second half of a year. That time constraint often compounds the problem of a glacial legislative process.
To be more nimble and reactive, then, a handful of state legislatures have given up the date-setting powers, granting them to an individual not hampered by internal division nor similar time constraints.
This California proposal partially ventures down the same road. The legislature sets the mid-March date, but gives the governor the ability to shift the primary up even further by proclamation. This is where most of the quick reaction analysis on this legislation has ended; with California's governor of the future hypothetically moving the California primary into the third position on the calendar behind Iowa and New Hampshire.
But there is more to the story than that.
This future California governor, if empowered by the provisions of this bill, is not unfettered. He or she would have to make a decision on the date a full 240 days prior to the proposed new/earlier presidential primary date. Now, if it is assumed that Iowa and New Hampshire will fall roughly in the same spots on the calendar as each did in 2016, then the calendar looks something like this (on the Democratic side) in 2020:
Monday, February 3: Iowa
Tuesday, February 11: New Hampshire
Tuesday, February 18: California
Saturday, February 22: Nevada
Saturday, February 29: South Carolina
Of course, it is anything but assured that the four carve-outs will be in those positions come 2020. And the reason why is because of ambitious states like California that introduce uncertainty into the process of the calendar coming together. Since that uncertainty has been routinized -- not to mention counterbalanced by national party rules -- the early four states usually hold off on formally scheduling their contests until the fall in the year prior to the presidential election. In other words, those states will not have official dates until fall 2019. Keep that in mind.
That affects California. If the governor waited until the end of September to set a date around the same time that the carve-outs settle on their own dates, then the 240 day buffer provision would mean that the earliest the future California governor could schedule the presidential primary for would be the very end of May. That would default to basically the same position California occupies now on the calendar.
But the reality of the provision is that it calls for the governor to move the date up from mid-March to an earlier date, not a later one. The 240 day buffer means the governor cannot wait to the fall to make a decision alongside Iowa, New Hampshire and the others. Waiting means giving up that power and falling back on the baseline March date the legislators are attempting to establish.
And making a decision earlier means the governor would be making the decision earlier and with less than complete information. To schedule a February 18 primary, a decision would have to be made by late June. A number of state legislatures will be out of session by that time and that may cut down on any potential clustering around a February 18 California primary. But that would be a decision that would give the carve-out states plenty of time to react accordingly and schedule their contests ahead of California.
That all leads to one conclusion: The third spot is out of the question for California.
The best they can hope for is fifth; playing the Florida role from 2012. That is the "we don't want to be first, we want to be early all by ourselves" argument. California's proposal logistically prevents it from getting the third slot, and the national party rules, unless amended, will prevent it from claiming a spot that is fifth in the order and before March. California could move up to the first Tuesday in March, but as the earliest date allowed by the national parties, that is a date that California would share with a number of other states, just like the 2000 and 2008 experiments.
What in the national party rules would prevent California from going before March? Penalties. Now, the national party rules can change and likely will in the coming months. But there is no apparent desire to alter basic framework of the calendar: carve-outs in February and everyone else between March and early June. A rules-defying February primary would cost California half of their delegates on the Democratic side and would reduce the Republican delegation from 172 to 12, a 93 percent reduction. Additionally, any Democratic candidates who campaign in a rogue California would lose any delegates won from the reduced pool. In that scenario, California could move up, be early and alone. Alone on the calendar and alone in terms of candidates spending time and money there.
This is a long and winding path with exit ramps that end in dead ends.
One cannot fault California legislators for walking down this path. They are not alone, and have adopted some innovations from other states. Still, the thinking is old and somewhat outdated. The race to the front is one that cannot be won. However, there are alternatives. A savvier approach might be to choose a spot on the calendar that is pretty barren. There is a lot of space in early and mid-April that could potentially benefit California. No, the primary would not be among the first to winnow the field, but it could serve as a knockout blow in the race for the nomination. Sure, proportional rules on the Democratic side work against that theory as does California's size. An April California primary would give those mid-Atlantic/northeastern states with later April primaries pause. California's gravitational pull in the delegate math means that states that want to give their voters a say -- any say -- in the nominations would want to be before a state as delegate-rich as California.
Even that route is fraught with peril and uncertainty. And keep in mind that the proposed proclamation power would only allow the governor to move the date up, not back to April. It really is a toothless provision.
So, third Tuesday in March? Set the date. Join Illinois. Join Arizona.
There has been legislation (SB 568) to do something with the California presidential primary that has been active in the Golden state legislature since February. Amendments quietly added at the end of March garnered more attention yesterday with a press release from the secretary of state and the bill's author in the state Senate.
The change? Move California's June primary up in the process. But not just move it up, shift it into a position on the heels of Iowa and New Hampshire at the front of the 2020 queue.
In reality, this sounds more provocative than it actually is. This is not Florida or Michigan moving into January for the 2008 cycle. Instead, the California maneuvering is more subtle, yet motivated by similar reasoning. States, regardless of size, mainly want a couple of things out of the presidential nomination process: 1) their voters to have a say in the identity of the nominees and 2) to have the candidates pay some attention to -- spend money and time on -- them.
The best ways to accomplish those two goals are to be early and/or to have a specific spot on the calendar for your contest and your contest alone. Iowa and New Hampshire, and since 2008, Nevada and South Carolina have each of those in spades. There are many reasons for that, but currently, the important fact is that all four are protected by the delegate selection rules of the national parties. Without a change there -- to the national party rules -- efforts by California or any other state to move up usually means settling for the earliest allowed date after the four carve-out states or taking a substantial penalty. The former is an attractive gathering point for other states, which gets them early but not alone. And the latter -- the penalty -- reduces a state's clout, affecting the campaigns' calculi in approaching the state.
This is what happened when the California state legislature shifted the Golden state primary in both 2000 and 2008. California was early in both cases, but shared the date with numerous other states, giving campaigns options in terms of where and how to expend the finite resources at their disposal. These are not problems unique to the Golden state.
What is unique in California's case is its size. But the number, diversity and wealth of the population are both blessing and curse. Enough wealth is concentrated in the state that the candidates of all stripes have been more than willing to come into the state early to raise funds. But then they go spend it elsewhere; Iowa and New Hampshire chief among the recipients. Californians have often bemoaned this ATM treatment, and have at various points (1996, 2000, 2008) seen their legislatures seek a different relationship; a different, earlier position on the calendar that allows both fundraising and fund spending in the state. But again, all of those experiments got the state early, but not alone.
And the proposed 2020 experiment will not end any differently.
Let's game this out in a way that the proponents of this legislation have only partially thought out.
First, the SB 568 moves not only the California presidential primary to the third Tuesday in March, but everything else traditionally scheduled for June. That spares the state the $100 million plus price tag of a separate presidential primary, but also creates extended general election campaigns for all those down ballot who win February or March primaries.
But the legislation also provides another scheduling option on top of that baseline March primary date. Like other states which have mimicked New Hampshire to some degree, the California bill grants an individual -- not the state legislature -- the final say in the matter. States like Arizona, Georgia and New Mexico have experimented with allowing one individual -- typically the secretary of state as in New Hampshire, or the governor -- set the date of the presidential primary. In those cases the state legislature ceded the power to an executive branch actor in order to streamline the date setting process. It is understating things, but the legislative process can be messy and slow, and a political question like when a presidential primary should be held can trigger divisions that can derail legislation. Legislatures across the country are also not always in session during the second half of a year. That time constraint often compounds the problem of a glacial legislative process.
To be more nimble and reactive, then, a handful of state legislatures have given up the date-setting powers, granting them to an individual not hampered by internal division nor similar time constraints.
This California proposal partially ventures down the same road. The legislature sets the mid-March date, but gives the governor the ability to shift the primary up even further by proclamation. This is where most of the quick reaction analysis on this legislation has ended; with California's governor of the future hypothetically moving the California primary into the third position on the calendar behind Iowa and New Hampshire.
But there is more to the story than that.
This future California governor, if empowered by the provisions of this bill, is not unfettered. He or she would have to make a decision on the date a full 240 days prior to the proposed new/earlier presidential primary date. Now, if it is assumed that Iowa and New Hampshire will fall roughly in the same spots on the calendar as each did in 2016, then the calendar looks something like this (on the Democratic side) in 2020:
Monday, February 3: Iowa
Tuesday, February 11: New Hampshire
Tuesday, February 18: California
Saturday, February 22: Nevada
Saturday, February 29: South Carolina
Of course, it is anything but assured that the four carve-outs will be in those positions come 2020. And the reason why is because of ambitious states like California that introduce uncertainty into the process of the calendar coming together. Since that uncertainty has been routinized -- not to mention counterbalanced by national party rules -- the early four states usually hold off on formally scheduling their contests until the fall in the year prior to the presidential election. In other words, those states will not have official dates until fall 2019. Keep that in mind.
That affects California. If the governor waited until the end of September to set a date around the same time that the carve-outs settle on their own dates, then the 240 day buffer provision would mean that the earliest the future California governor could schedule the presidential primary for would be the very end of May. That would default to basically the same position California occupies now on the calendar.
But the reality of the provision is that it calls for the governor to move the date up from mid-March to an earlier date, not a later one. The 240 day buffer means the governor cannot wait to the fall to make a decision alongside Iowa, New Hampshire and the others. Waiting means giving up that power and falling back on the baseline March date the legislators are attempting to establish.
And making a decision earlier means the governor would be making the decision earlier and with less than complete information. To schedule a February 18 primary, a decision would have to be made by late June. A number of state legislatures will be out of session by that time and that may cut down on any potential clustering around a February 18 California primary. But that would be a decision that would give the carve-out states plenty of time to react accordingly and schedule their contests ahead of California.
That all leads to one conclusion: The third spot is out of the question for California.
The best they can hope for is fifth; playing the Florida role from 2012. That is the "we don't want to be first, we want to be early all by ourselves" argument. California's proposal logistically prevents it from getting the third slot, and the national party rules, unless amended, will prevent it from claiming a spot that is fifth in the order and before March. California could move up to the first Tuesday in March, but as the earliest date allowed by the national parties, that is a date that California would share with a number of other states, just like the 2000 and 2008 experiments.
What in the national party rules would prevent California from going before March? Penalties. Now, the national party rules can change and likely will in the coming months. But there is no apparent desire to alter basic framework of the calendar: carve-outs in February and everyone else between March and early June. A rules-defying February primary would cost California half of their delegates on the Democratic side and would reduce the Republican delegation from 172 to 12, a 93 percent reduction. Additionally, any Democratic candidates who campaign in a rogue California would lose any delegates won from the reduced pool. In that scenario, California could move up, be early and alone. Alone on the calendar and alone in terms of candidates spending time and money there.
This is a long and winding path with exit ramps that end in dead ends.
One cannot fault California legislators for walking down this path. They are not alone, and have adopted some innovations from other states. Still, the thinking is old and somewhat outdated. The race to the front is one that cannot be won. However, there are alternatives. A savvier approach might be to choose a spot on the calendar that is pretty barren. There is a lot of space in early and mid-April that could potentially benefit California. No, the primary would not be among the first to winnow the field, but it could serve as a knockout blow in the race for the nomination. Sure, proportional rules on the Democratic side work against that theory as does California's size. An April California primary would give those mid-Atlantic/northeastern states with later April primaries pause. California's gravitational pull in the delegate math means that states that want to give their voters a say -- any say -- in the nominations would want to be before a state as delegate-rich as California.
Even that route is fraught with peril and uncertainty. And keep in mind that the proposed proclamation power would only allow the governor to move the date up, not back to April. It really is a toothless provision.
So, third Tuesday in March? Set the date. Join Illinois. Join Arizona.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
The 2016 Electoral College Spectrum
Final version (certified results)
The 2016 Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
DC-3
HI-4
(7)2
| CT-7
(173)
| MI-16
(248 | 306)
| ME CD2-1 SC-9
(126)
|
TN-11
(60)
|
CA-55
(62)
| DE-3
(176)
| PA-20 (268 | 290) | AK-3
(116)
| AR-6
(49)
|
MA-11
(73)
| OR-7
(183)
| WI-103 (278 | 270) | MS -6
(113)
| AL-9
(43)
|
MD-10
(83)
|
NM-5
(188)
| FL-29 NE CD2-1
(260)
| UT-6
(107)
| SD-3
(34)
|
VT-3
(86)
| VA-13
(201)
| AZ-11
(230)
| MO-10
(101)
| KY-8
(31)
|
NY-29
(115)
| CO-9
(210)
| NC-15
(219)
| IN-11
(91)
| ID-4
(23)
|
IL-20
(135)
| ME-2
(212)
|
GA-16
(204)
| LA-8
(80)
| ND-3
(19)
|
WA-12
(147)
|
NV-6
(218)
| OH-18
(188)
| MT-3
(72)
| OK-7
(16)
|
RI-4
(151)
|
MN-10
(228)
| TX-38
(170)
| KS-6 NE CD1-1
(69)
|
WV-5
(9)
|
ME CD1-1 NJ-14
(166)
| NH-4
(232)
| IA-6
(132)
| NE-2
(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, Clinton won all the states up to and including Wisconsin (Trump's toss up states through Wisconsin), she would have 278 electoral votes. Clinton's numbers are only totaled through the states she would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trump's is on the right in bold italics. 3 Wisconsin is the state where Trump crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state. The tipping point cell is shaded in yellow to denote that and the font color is adjusted to attempt to reflect the category in which the state is. | ||||
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
2016 Election Night
11/28/16 3:30pm:
The Michigan results are certified, handing the Great Lakes state to Trump.
11/14/16 5:30pm:
The Trump camp failed to request a recount in New Hampshire before the 5pm deadline. Clinton takes the Granite state's four electoral votes.
11/10/16 7:45pm:
Arizona added to Trump's column.
11/9/16 11:30am:
The AP calls Minnesota for Clinton. That is a narrow hold for Democrats.
11/9/16 2:40am:
Wisconsin puts Trump over the top; another flip for the Republican.
11/9/16 2:15am:
Alaska stays in the Republican column.
11/9/16 2:10am:
And the second congressional district in Nebraska is called for Trump.
11/9/16 2am:
The Maine call is in and we have the second electoral vote split in the Maine/Nebraska era. Maine's second congressional district follows Nebraska's second district in 2008 in going against the statewide result. Clinton wins the state and CD1 while Trump takes CD2.
11/9/16 1:40pm:
Pennsylvania flips to Trump. That 20 electoral votes puts Trump within range of 270 (and with some networks having called Wisconsin for him).
11/9/16 12:25am:
Clinton holds Nevada.
11:35pm:
Trump flips Iowa; something that has been in the cards since at least the conventions. Trump also holds Georgia after a lengthy wait.
11:25pm:
Utah goes for Trump. He will lag behind Romney there, but still take the Beehive state with relative ease.
11:15pm:
North Carolina is a Republican hold for Trump. Oregon is another non-Rust Belt leaner to stay with the Democrats.
11pm:
The next round of closings out west put California, Hawaii and Washington into the Clinton category. Trump takes Idaho. The close night in the Rust Belt extends to the electoral vote count for the time being.
10:55pm:
Florida follows Ohio as a Trump flip. Understatement alert: That is a big one.
10:40pm:
Colorado stays in the blue column. The outside the Rust Belt/midwest leaners are falling into place for Clinton. Those in that region are tighter.
10:25pm:
Ohio goes to Trump and Virginia to Clinton. One of those is bigger symbolically than the other.
10:10pm:
Missouri to Trump and New Mexico to Clinton.
10pm:
Closings in Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, and Utah. No calls. Montana to Trump.
9:30pm:
Arkansas and Louisiana turn red and Connecticut falls into Clinton's column.
9:00pm:
An extended radio hit pulled FHQ away. We will feel in the gaps in time. As for now a big jump for both candidates.
7:30pm:
West Virginia to Trump. North Carolina and Ohio are too close to call as of now.
7:00pm:
Wasting no time, Indiana and Kentucky go Trump and Vermont is added to Clinton's column.
6:00pm:
Let's color this thing in. FHQ will have maps and comments both here and on twitter (@FHQ) all evening.
--
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (11/8/16) -- Election Day
The Electoral College Map (11/7/16)
The Electoral College Map (11/6/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
The Michigan results are certified, handing the Great Lakes state to Trump.
11/14/16 5:30pm:
The Trump camp failed to request a recount in New Hampshire before the 5pm deadline. Clinton takes the Granite state's four electoral votes.
11/10/16 7:45pm:
Arizona added to Trump's column.
11/9/16 11:30am:
The AP calls Minnesota for Clinton. That is a narrow hold for Democrats.
11/9/16 2:40am:
Wisconsin puts Trump over the top; another flip for the Republican.
11/9/16 2:15am:
Alaska stays in the Republican column.
11/9/16 2:10am:
And the second congressional district in Nebraska is called for Trump.
11/9/16 2am:
The Maine call is in and we have the second electoral vote split in the Maine/Nebraska era. Maine's second congressional district follows Nebraska's second district in 2008 in going against the statewide result. Clinton wins the state and CD1 while Trump takes CD2.
11/9/16 1:40pm:
Pennsylvania flips to Trump. That 20 electoral votes puts Trump within range of 270 (and with some networks having called Wisconsin for him).
11/9/16 12:25am:
Clinton holds Nevada.
11:35pm:
Trump flips Iowa; something that has been in the cards since at least the conventions. Trump also holds Georgia after a lengthy wait.
11:25pm:
Utah goes for Trump. He will lag behind Romney there, but still take the Beehive state with relative ease.
11:15pm:
North Carolina is a Republican hold for Trump. Oregon is another non-Rust Belt leaner to stay with the Democrats.
11pm:
The next round of closings out west put California, Hawaii and Washington into the Clinton category. Trump takes Idaho. The close night in the Rust Belt extends to the electoral vote count for the time being.
10:55pm:
Florida follows Ohio as a Trump flip. Understatement alert: That is a big one.
10:40pm:
Colorado stays in the blue column. The outside the Rust Belt/midwest leaners are falling into place for Clinton. Those in that region are tighter.
10:25pm:
Ohio goes to Trump and Virginia to Clinton. One of those is bigger symbolically than the other.
10:10pm:
Missouri to Trump and New Mexico to Clinton.
10pm:
Closings in Arizona, Iowa, Nevada, and Utah. No calls. Montana to Trump.
9:30pm:
Arkansas and Louisiana turn red and Connecticut falls into Clinton's column.
9:00pm:
An extended radio hit pulled FHQ away. We will feel in the gaps in time. As for now a big jump for both candidates.
7:30pm:
West Virginia to Trump. North Carolina and Ohio are too close to call as of now.
7:00pm:
Wasting no time, Indiana and Kentucky go Trump and Vermont is added to Clinton's column.
6:00pm:
Let's color this thing in. FHQ will have maps and comments both here and on twitter (@FHQ) all evening.
--
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (11/8/16) -- Election Day
The Electoral College Map (11/7/16)
The Electoral College Map (11/6/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
The Electoral College Map (11/8/16) -- Election Day
Changes (11/8/16):
Election Day.
As there were only a few more polls added to the mix on the final day of the 2016 campaign -- or in just under the wire yesterday -- there were only a few subtle changes to the figures here at FHQ.
- South Carolina pushed past Texas toward the partisan line on the Electoral College Spectrum below, but neither will budge from the Trump column. Both had at various points shown to be much closer than normal. Neither, however, will end up anywhere other than red as the results trickle in.
- Wisconsin once again traded spots with Michigan on the Spectrum. Similar to the two Trump states above, neither state seems poised to jump the partisan line away from Clinton. The trajectory of the race has headed in that general direction here at the end, but it is likely that that was more consolidation of partisan support (for Trump) than any wholesale shift away from Clinton or the Democrats. The temptation is there to suggest that the tightening in states like Michigan and Wisconsin is perhaps a reversion to the pre-Obama mean for the pair. Yet, that simply is not the case. Both are within range of exactly where they were in the Obama-Romney race four years ago.
- The map and Watch List remained unchanged from a day ago.
Changes since June 13 (first map of the cycle):
Rather than a noisy race, the opposite occurred instead. It has been a steady race through the lens of the graduated weighted average FHQ utilizes. Yes, that is largely a function of methodology. As the dataset grows -- as the number of polls increase -- shocks become less likely. Note, however, that even with the pedestrian methodology and the limitations it carries, FHQ ended up where a great many of the more sophisticated models are. We will have more on this in the aftermath of the election, but for now, what has changed since June:
- The map always seemingly had 2012 as a jumping off point. Most presidential elections tend to build on the previous elections. The order of states remains largely the same and the movement tends to be more of a uniform shift one way or the other (with exceptions -- see Utah, 2016).
- If 2012 was the starting point, then the first map was the 2012 Obama states plus North Carolina and Arizona. Arizona pushed back across the partisan line toward Trump around the conventions and settled in. North Carolina did not. There have been fluctuations from one poll to another in the Tar Heel state, but it, too, settled into the Clinton column.
- Arizona was not alone in jumping the partisan line over the last few months. The general election campaign witnessed Iowa cross the partisan line into the red and never really look back. Ohio, here at FHQ anyway, was more resistant. While the Buckeye state hopped the partisan line into Trump territory just yesterday, the second debate -- the town hall debate immediately after the Access Hollywood tape was released -- was the turning point in Ohio. The polls shifted toward Trump after that point and the average here shrunk smaller and smaller over time.
- One final change in comparing the first and last maps was the addition of the congressional districts in Maine and Nebraska. FHQ had not previously focused any on any of them, but added them since there was some data. We will confess that it was probably not enough data, but they were added nonetheless. Adding them did shift what had been a reliably electoral vote under the statewide distribution from Maine's second congressional district to Trump's total.
- The tipping point state has changed over time as well. Virginia was the initial spot where either Clinton or Trump would have crossed 270 electoral votes, but that changed a number of times and often included pairs of states as things split at 269-269 over the summer. That settled down later as the order of the states along the Lean/Toss Up line on the Clinton side of the Spectrum reshuffled. Colorado has been in that position since just before the first debate. And bear in mind, while the states have changed, the position of the tipping point state has not. The order has been that stable.
Incorrect Projections?
- FHQ has the least confidence in a few areas. First, Ohio is very close; the closest of all the states here at FHQ. It would not be a surprise if if jumped back over the partisan line into Clinton's column. At the same time, that is not what we are predicting.
- Second, the lack of data from Maine's second congressional district does not inspire confidence. The recent polling has favored Clinton by narrow margins, but a handful of Trump-favorable outliers from the late summer -- even when discounted in the weighted average -- still has that one tipped toward Trump here at FHQ.
- Tough-to-poll Nevada is always a bit of a problem child. It has been biased toward the Republican (compared to the final results) in each of the last two cycles. It would not be a shock if the Silver state is not a more comfortable win for Clinton. But again, that is not the prediction here.
| Final FHQ Margins -- 11/8/16 | ||
State
| Margin | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama |
+20.86
|
Strong Trump
|
| Alaska |
+5.59
|
Lean Trump
|
| Arizona |
+1.73
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Arkansas |
+18.46
|
Strong Trump
|
| California |
+22.89
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Colorado |
+3.83
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| Connecticut |
+12.45
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Delaware |
+13.19
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Florida |
+1.87
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| Georgia |
+3.17
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Hawaii |
+28.24
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Idaho |
+24.19
|
Strong Trump
|
| Illinois |
+15.07
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Indiana |
+9.71
|
Lean Trump
|
| Iowa |
+1.33
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Kansas |
+12.50
|
Strong Trump
|
| Kentucky |
+19.70
|
Strong Trump
|
| Louisiana |
+12.71
|
Strong Trump
|
| Maine |
+6.74
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Maine CD1 |
+15.08
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Maine CD2 |
+3.05
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Maryland |
+28.12
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Massachusetts |
+23.92
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Michigan |
+6.46
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Minnesota |
+7.39
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Mississippi |
+10.69
|
Strong Trump
|
| Missouri |
+8.02
|
Lean Trump
|
| Montana |
+14.16
|
Strong Trump
|
| Nebraska |
+19.42
|
Strong Trump
|
| Nevada |
+0.81
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| New Hampshire |
+4.82
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| New Jersey |
+11.79
|
Strong Clinton
|
| New Mexico |
+6.58
|
Lean Clinton
|
| New York |
+19.73
|
Strong Clinton
|
| North Carolina |
+1.36
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| North Dakota |
+19.01
|
Strong Trump
|
| Ohio |
+0.14
|
Toss Up Trump
|
| Oklahoma |
+24.96
|
Strong Trump
|
| Oregon |
+9.01
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Pennsylvania |
+4.86
|
Toss Up Clinton
|
| Rhode Island |
+12.52
|
Strong Clinton
|
| South Carolina |
+7.50
|
Lean Trump
|
| South Dakota |
+12.03
|
Strong Trump
|
| Tennessee |
+14.50
|
Strong Trump
|
| Texas |
+7.52
|
Lean Trump
|
| Utah |
+9.97
|
Lean Trump
|
| Vermont |
+24.07
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Virginia |
+6.12
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Washington |
+12.77
|
Strong Clinton
|
| Washington, DC |
+65.00
|
Strong Clinton
|
| West Virginia |
+24.76
|
Strong Trump
|
| Wisconsin |
+6.36
|
Lean Clinton
|
| Wyoming |
+35.69
|
Strong Trump
|
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
RI-4
(162)
|
NH-4
(263)
|
SC-9
(161)
|
TN-11
(61)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
TX-38
(152)
|
AR-6
(50)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
OR-7
(183)
|
FL-29
(301 | 266) |
MO-10
(114)
|
ND-3
(44)
|
MA-11
(31)
|
MN-10
(193)
|
NC-15
(316 | 237) |
IN-11
(104)
|
NE-53
(41)
|
CA-55
(86)
|
ME-23
(195)
|
NV-6
(322 | 222)
|
UT-6
(93)
|
KY-8
(36)
|
NY-29
(115)
|
NM-5
(200)
|
OH-18
(216)
|
MS-6
(87)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20+13
(136)
|
MI-16
(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
| |
Indiana
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Nevada
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Oregon
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Strong Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean 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 (11/7/16)
The Electoral College Map (11/6/16)
The Electoral College Map (11/5/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)