Legislative Inaction Struck a Blow Against a Primary Move in Connecticut, but the effort may not be dead

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

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• The effort to move the Connecticut presidential primary to early April may have failed earlier this week, but bills to move a couple of other states' primaries advanced on Thursday. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

The Associate Press account of how it came to pass that a Connecticut presidential primary bill was left to die in the state Senate Wednesday night before the legislature adjourned left a lot to be desired: 

Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff said in a statement that “unfortunately the bill had some opposition in the chamber and we didn’t have time to debate the bill and pass it.” 

Legislative records show the House of Representatives voted unanimously for the bill at 11:07 p.m., sending it to the Senate. Both the House and Senate adjourned at the midnight deadline.

First of all, the House passed HB 6908, the bill that would have shifted the presidential primary in the Nutmeg state up to April 2, at 11:07pm on Friday, June 2. That the state Senate was made to consider the bill at the last minute was not due to the lower chamber. It was all on the state Senate. And that body did not take up the presidential primary measure because a filibuster on an unrelated bill ate up much of the day on Wednesday before the legislature was constitutionally mandated to adjourn at midnight. 

Second, it is not at all clear whether the primary move was what helped keep the legislation on the back burner in the Senate. The primary date change was not the only provision in the bill. And it certainly was not controversial. Both parties in the state backed the change. What was problematic in the bill was a tweak to how minor parties file for ballot access. That got pushback in committee and drew an amendment before passing the House. That change may have driven some of the opposition on the Senate side.

That likely closes the door on the prospect of a presidential primary move in Connecticut in time for 2024. But the leaders of both major parties in the state stuck their foot in the door to leave open the possibility:

"Moving the Presidential Primary Election from the last Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday would have allowed Connecticut to join several other New England states, including New York, bringing more candidates, visibility and business to our state, and giving Connecticut voters a greater voice in their party’s Presidential nominee," the statement read. 

Both leaders added that they would continue discussions with lawmakers and the governor's office to "find a way to pass this legislation.”

Maybe a special session? Connecticut would not be the only state where legislative inaction  this year killed a primary (move) only to trigger calls for a special session. 

But here is the thing. When Connecticut moved to April from February for the 2012 cycle, the legislature in the Nutmeg state did not do what others joining the northeast/mid-Atlantic subregional primary that has been around in some form since that time. While others moved their primaries to the fourth Tuesday in April, Connecticut landed on the last Tuesday in April. Typically, that will not matter in most cycles. But most cycles are not like 2024, when April will have five Tuesdays. That difference already had the Connecticut presidential primary on a different date from the rest for next year. 

All the state legislative inaction does now is keep the primary there, alone as it would have been whether the other states moved or not. And it could all work out in the end. If the competitive phase of the Republican race stretches beyond April 2 when Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and maybe Pennsylvania hold their primaries, then Connecticut would be poised to gain a lot of attention from the candidates as the next contest in the sequence with a nice four week long lead in. That is not a bad place to be. Think Pennsylvania, 2008. Sure, it is a gamble that things will last that long -- a lot of delegates will have been allocated by that point -- but it would be better under that scenario than in one where Connecticut shares the limelight with up to five other states. 

...

FHQ commented on Pat Robertson's impact on the way in which some candidates have subsequently approached the delegate game in the Republican presidential nomination process. Chris Baylor pursued a similar line, adding to that picture in a fantastic deep dive on Robertson's grassroots political efforts in 1988 and beyond. It is a good one. 

...

Jonathan Bernstein looks at why candidates are still getting into the Republican presidential nomination race despite the fact that Trump and DeSantis are collectively pulling in around three-quarters of the polling support at the moment. Not to channel James Carville too much, but it is the uncertainty, stupid. Trump has some baggage and DeSantis has not closed the door. But Bernstein's note on winnowing bears repeating: the field may be growing now, but the process will exhaust the field in due time as winnowing kicks into full force.

...

In the endorsement primary, President Biden got the nod from the Laborers' International Union of North America, a construction workers union.

...

On this date...

...in 1987, Delaware Senator Joe Biden entered the race for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 1992, President George H.W. Bush won the North Dakota Republican primary. The beauty contest Democratic presidential primary was won by Ross Perot, a victory that was disputed by Lyndon LaRouche. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, won had won the March caucuses on which delegate allocation was based, came in a distant fifth in the primary, all on write-in votes. 

...in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden won the pandemic-delayed primaries in Georgia and West Virginia.

--

Recent posts:

Pat Robertson, 1988 and the Modern Caucus Strategy in Republican Presidential Politics

Is the RNC Using the Debate Criteria to Winnow the Field?

Launch Week Continues & Biden and the Iowa "Caucuses"

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Connecticut Parties Behind Effort to Move Presidential Primary

The Connecticut Joint Committee on Governmental Administration and Elections convened on Monday, March 20 to conduct initial public hearings for a number of bills, HB 6908 among them. That legislation would shift up the date of the presidential primary in the Nutmeg state to the first Tuesday in April starting in the 2024. 

No votes were taken on the measure, but the testimony given offered insight into the motivation behind the bill. Testifying together, the chairs of the two major state parties supported the move and indicated that it was the potential for greater influence in the presidential nomination process that prompted them to cooperatively help craft the legislation. Nancy DiNardo, the Connecticut Democratic Party chair noted that the change would give the state a "stronger voice in choosing a presidential candidate" and was furthermore "proud to say this legislation is bipartisan."

Connecticut Republican Party Chair Benjamin Proto said that an earlier primary would give Connecticut "more influence within the presidential nominating system as well as to provide voters more engagement within their party and with candidates."

Nowhere in either the oral or written testimony did either mention the current primary date's conflict with Passover in 2024. Instead, the parties were motivated by potential influence rather than that conflict in moving the primary. However, the move would shift the Connecticut presidential primary out of a conflict with the tail end of Passover.

None of this is groundbreaking news. State legislators consider presidential primary bills every year (but particularly in the year before a presidential election) to move contests around. And frequently among the top stated reasons for the legislation being introduced is the quest for more influence in and resources from the presidential nomination process. Often it is a fool's errand because the states that draw that kind of influence are the (protected) earliest states and the next wave is a cluster of contests within which states -- especially smaller ones like Connecticut -- often get lost. 

However, what was noteworthy about the testimony of DiNardo specifically was that she noted that shifting the Connecticut presidential primary to early April would align the election with the primary in New York. Now, either that was a mistake or there have been conversations among Democratic state parties about coordinating a landing spot for the two neighboring states' primaries. There are efforts to move the New York primary. However, none of them target an early April date. Plus, the standard operating procedure in New York for setting the primary date is for that work to be done in the late spring (in the year before a presidential election) in consultation with the state parties in the Empire state. 

Nonetheless, this potential cooperation makes sense. But for Covid, the Connecticut and New York primaries would have coincided in two of the last three cycles. And that sort of subregional cluster of contests would potentially be a bigger draw to candidates than if either state were to go it alone. On the Republican side, an early April position would also allow both Connecticut and New York Republicans to retain their current variations of the winner-take-most rules. 

Of course, both efforts have to make it through the legislative process first. And the Connecticut push has only just begun. In New York, they are not even that far along. 

Related:

3/15/23: Connecticut Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary

2/26/23: Passover Will Conflict with Late April Primaries in 2024

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Pence's Predicament

Invisible Primary: Visible -- It's Trump's until it's not

Primary or Caucus in 2024? For Michigan Republicans, it's still up in the air

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- 2024 Presidential Primary Movement So Far

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

It has been a quiet 2023 for presidential primary movement. 

And there are a couple of reasons for that. First, counter to some of the thinking with respect to the early calendar maneuvering on the Democratic side, the change in rules has not resulted in states clamoring to join the fray against national party rules. [It has led to a different kind of rogue state, perhaps, but it has yet to invite chaos.] Second, there are no heavy hitters involved. There may be bills in delegate-rich states like California and New York, but they have shown no signs, at least not to this point, of going anywhere. 

But that does not mean that there has not been a typical pre-election year uptick in state-level legislation to reposition primaries for the 2024 cycle. Barely two months into the 2023 legislative sessions in most states, there have been a lot of bills introduced. But the success rate is not there. ...yet. Only Michigan has moved to this point. 

In fact, the number of bills introduced in 2023 thus far is on par with the number proposed in all of 2007, the year of chaos leading up to a calendar of contests that saw Florida and Michigan (in)famously go rogue. However, while the bills are there in 2023, none of it really points toward states pushing the boundaries (going before March 1) or crowding around the first Tuesday in March. That was the story of 2007 (although then the operative date was the first Tuesday in February). 

Instead, 2023 has offered a mixed bag. States like Hawaii, Kansas and Missouri are attempting to establish state-run primary contests. Legislation in other states, like Idaho and Ohio, has proposed moving back. Oregon, like Hawaii, is eyeing Super Tuesday and only West Virginia has proposed breaking the rules to conduct a February primary.

But what is most likely to affect the success rate of bills proposing presidential primary moves for the 2024 cycle is what will happen in the group of mid-Atlantic and northeastern states with primaries currently scheduled for late April, the contests that conflict with the observance of Passover in 2024. The break up of that regional(-ish) primary that has existed in one form or another since 2012 is a true break up. The three late April states with active legislation to vacate their current positions -- Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania -- are targeting three different landing spots, none before March 19. 

...

Speaking of Connecticut, legislation introduced there yesterday would push the presidential primary up to the first Tuesday in April. Now, of the late April states, only Delaware has not publicly introduced or discussed legislation shifting a presidential primary away from the Passover conflict. Of course, it is probably only a matter of time until the First state follows suit. Importantly, that would likely create a five week gap from the first Tuesday in April until the first Tuesday in May with no presidential primaries. The calendar is fluid, so there is still some chance that a caucus state or two will fill a weekend slot somewhere in there, but that will leave a lot of time for other things. As mentioned in this space earlier this week, it was during a similar gap in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race into which the Jeremiah Wright story was inserted, taking up a lot of oxygen and putting candidate Obama on the defensive. 

And this may not even be the only pronounced gap in the 2024 presidential primary calendar. The Democratic calendar maneuvering will likely push the beginning of the Republican process well into January and create a gap that will cover most of February. Together, those two factors -- Passover and the Democrats' changes -- may create a very disjointed Republican presidential primary calendar in 2024. Early state activity in January and very early February would yield to a gap followed by a flurry of events starting either at the end of February or on Super Tuesday in early March. If March does not resolve the Republican nomination, then the battle will progress into another gap in April and then a resumption of activities in early May. 

And FHQ is just spitballing here, but the scenario in which the Republican nomination is unresolved coming out of March, is likely a scenario where everyone will be subjected to incessant stories about a "brokered convention" during that second potential gap in the calendar. And who know what else? Stories of Trump winning the delegate selection game despite breaking even or losing the delegate allocation game? Some other negative story or series of stories? 

States that gamble on a later primary this cycle may reap many of the benefits that do come out of that gap. Candidates will be campaigning there. The bottom line is that the calendar and the sequencing of events on the calendar matters to how the nomination races evolve if not resolve.

...

FHQ is going to try to avoid any quick hits or hot takes about presidential primary polling. That is definitely true at this early juncture and I will keep my word on that regardless with regard to the horserace polling. Others can (and will) cover that territory. But results like the divide among the Republican primary electorate raised in the recent CNN poll are potentially important. After a midterm cycle in which candidate quality was of concern on the Republican side, a survey pointing toward a primary electorate that values candidates being more proximate to them on issues over electability signals a possible deja vu moment down the line.  Maybe that opinion changes in the aggregate as primary season approaches. Maybe it does not. Maybe it all works out and/or Biden's approval is low because of a faltering economy. In the near term, it just signals a defiant Republican primary electorate that is not interested in what "the establishment," however one defines that, has to offer.

...

Trump attacks on DeSantis were/are inevitable, but this is a unique attack in the half century of the post-reform era. Ethics complaint aside, DeSantis is doing nothing out of the ordinary for a prospective candidate during the invisible primary. It is just that Florida has a resign to run law in place. ...for now. 

...

On this date...

...in 1976, it was the day of the Illinois primary. March 16 was also the date on which Jerry Brown announced he was running for the Democratic nomination, eight weeks after the Iowa caucuses. Clearly, it was a different era. In just the second cycle post-reform, candidates were still entering the nomination race during primary season. And it was not just during primary season. It was after nearly 20 percent of the delegates had been allocated. Brown went on to win three contests in May and June and competed to the convention, ceding the nomination there to Jimmy Carter.

...in 1984, Senator John Glenn (D-OH) withdrew from the Democratic nomination race a few days after Super Tuesday. 

...in 2004, it was the day of the Illinois primary. There is some primary movement. Or non-movement. Only once during the post-reform era has the Land of Lincoln not held its presidential primary on the third Tuesday in March. That was in 2008 when an Illinois resident and senator was vying for the Democratic nomination.

--

Recent posts:

Connecticut Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Republican Non-Endorsements

Maryland Presidential Primary Move Passes State Senate

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Connecticut Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary

A committee bill would move the Connecticut presidential primary up a few weeks on the 2024 calendar. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

This legislation has been added to FHQ's updated 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

Related:

2/26/23: Passover Will Conflict with Late April Primaries in 2024

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Republican Non-Endorsements

Maryland Presidential Primary Move Passes State Senate

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Running for 2024

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

The Electoral College Map (10/30/20)

Update for October 30.

The final full work week prior to election day next Tuesday came to a close Friday laden with another [totally expected] round poll releases. In all, there were 37 new surveys added from 21 states, fueled by a 16 state wave from Swayable that offered some interesting results that were not necessarily in sync with what has been established in state-level polls across the country in 2020. Across the full set of the day's surveys five of the FHQ categories were represented with only the small group of Lean Trump states left out. 

But as this race eases into the weekend before voting concludes next week, things are probably pretty close to locked in at FHQ. As the days dwindle, movement in the order will likely be confined to the states on the Watch List below. And even among that group of eight states -- now that New Hampshire has rejoined the List -- only three are within a fraction of a point of shifting over the partisan line and altering the overall electoral vote tally. The trajectory of recent polling suggests that Georgia is likely to stay on the Biden side of the line and that Iowa is closing, pushing toward the former vice president as well. Ohio, on the other hand, has moved in the opposite direction toward the periphery of even being included on the Watch List. 

Aside from those three and barring an absolute flood of polling from North Carolina and/or Texas (and Maine's second congressional district for that matter), those states are also likely to stay just where they are at FHQ. Both have proven to be have been consistently close but persistently on their respective sides of the partisan line. That does not mean, however, that either is destined to fall in their projected categories come Tuesday (or in the following few days), but rather that each is within a range where a polling error of two or three points could easily place either in the other candidate's coalition of states once the dust has settled.

On to the polls...

Polling Quick Hits:

Connecticut

(Biden 51, Trump 26 via Sacred Heart University)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +23.99] 

Biden 47, Trump 34 in April poll

Clearly Sacred Heart does not aggressively push their undecideds. There is still a 20 percent chunk of respondents in this latest survey that fall in that category. But even with such a high share of undecideds, Biden still has a 25 point advantage over Trump in a state that will be blue when the votes come in. 

Florida

(Biden 52, Trump 45 via Public Policy Polling | Biden 50, Trump 47 via Harris Poll)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.08] 

Public Policy Polling: Biden 48, Trump 44 in August poll

Harris: Biden 48, Trump 48 in mid-October poll

FHQ mentioned this yesterday and will repeat it today given these two new surveys out of the Sunshine state: The race in Florida may in fact be narrowing, but Biden continues to hit 50 percent in polls at a higher clip as election day approaches than he did in earlier times. Both updates also shifted in the Democratic nominee's favor as well. 

Georgia

(Trump 48, Biden 47 via Landmark Communications)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +0.41] 

Trump 49, Biden 45 in poll last week

The Landmark Communications series of polls in the Peach state this year has tended to favor the president with only one exception: the poll in the field the day after the first presidential debate at the end of September. Biden led that survey by a couple of points, but has consistently trailed Trump in the series. Yet, the president's edge shrunk in the last week since the previous Landmark survey. Although the poll shows Trump in the lead, the movement toward Biden is consistent with other recent polling of Georgia.

Kentucky

(Trump 52, Biden 39 via Bluegrass Community and Technical College)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +18.09] 

No previous Bluegrass poll

That the president had but 52 percent of respondents backing him in this Bluegrass C&T  poll is largely attributable to the nearly 10 percent of the sample that remained undecided. Like Connecticut, however, Kentucky is a safe state, but one that tips in Trump's direction. But it should be noted that this matches the lowest share of support the president has had in any Kentucky poll all year. But Biden has been fairly stable in the upper 30s in recent polls and the Bluegrass state will be red on Tuesday or soon thereafter.

Michigan

(Biden 54, Trump 44 via Public Policy Polling | Biden 51, Trump 44 via RMG Research | Biden 54, Trump 41 via Kiaer Research)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.43] 
Public Policy Polling: Biden 50, Trump 43 in poll last week

RMG Research: Biden 48, Trump 42 in mid-October poll

Kiaer Research: Biden 50, Trump 35 in June poll

The big thing in Michigan at this late date is that after weeks of being on the cusp of cresting above 50 percent in the FHQ averages, Biden has finally done so after another batch surveys on Friday showing the former vice president over that threshold across the board. And with the exception of the Kiaer survey, the Democratic nominee's edge has increased from poll-to-poll as well. Even in that survey, Biden maintains a double digit lead.

Nevada

(Biden 50, Trump 44 via Gravis Marketing)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +4.65] 

No previous Gravis poll [Current FHQ averages in Nevada: Biden 49, Trump 44 (rounded)]

While this Gravis poll of the Silver state basically falls right on the established FHQ average margin in Nevada, it did bump the margin up toward the five point line that separates the Toss Up and Lean categories. Nevada remains a toss up under the FHQ averages, but that may be partially explained by the general lack of polling overall in the state. There have been just 21 surveys of Silver state voters, but Biden has been hovering around 50 percent much of the time. The former vice president has hit or surpassed that threshold eight time with half coming during the month of October alone. 

New Hampshire

(Biden 53, Trump 45 via University of New Hampshire | Biden 52, Trump 44 via Saint Anselm)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +10.81] 

UNH: Biden 55, Trump 43 in mid-October poll

Saint Anselm: Biden 53, Trump 41 in early October poll

While much of the new polling today shifted in Biden's direction, the latest updates from Granite state university polls saw some contraction in the margins in both over the last surveys in the series. Despite that decrease, however, the president continues to lag overall by more than ten points in a state that was decided by less than a point four years ago. Trump did make up some ground, pulling out of the low 40s in both polls. He currently sits at 42 percent in the FHQ averages.

North Carolina

(Trump 48, Biden 47 via Pulse Opinion Research | Biden 51, Trump 46 via Harris Poll | Trump 48, Biden 46 via Cardinal Point Analytics | Biden 50, Trump 48 via East Carolina | Biden 52, Trump 46 via Marist)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.85] 
Pulse Opinion Research: Trump 49, Biden 48 in mid-October poll

No previous Harris poll

Cardinal Point: Trump 48, Biden 47 in July poll

ECU: Biden 51, Trump 47 in mid-October poll

Marist: Biden 51, Trump 44 in July poll

The one take home message from another slew of polling out of the Tar Heel state is that North Carolina is close. That is not news. But on top of that, there is little change across any of these polls from their prior times in the field in the state. It was movement of a point for either candidate and no more than a two point swing in any of them. Of course, a two point swing can matter in a tightly contested state. But there was a two point swing in each candidate's favor.

Pennsylvania

(Biden 52, Trump 45 via Public Policy Polling | Biden 51, Trump 46 via Harris Poll)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.43] 
Public Policy Polling: Biden 51, Trump 46 in poll last week

Harris: Biden 51, Trump 46 in mid-October poll

As tiring as it might get saying this, there were another two polls in the Keystone state today and both, again, had Biden around 50 percent and Trump in the mid-40s. The consistency across pollsters in Pennsylvania is what continues to be most noteworthy. The uncertainty in the commonwealth is less in the polls and more about turnout and any court challenges about the vote counting process there. 

Texas

(Trump 50, Biden 46 via RMG Research)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +1.45] 

No previous RMG poll [Current FHQ averages in Texas: Trump 48, Biden 46 (rounded)]

FHQ often talks about how often Biden tops 50 percent in the blue wall states that are in the Lean Biden category, but it is an indicator of sorts for the president in red state polling as well. Of the 67 surveys conducted thus far in the Lone Star state, Trump has hit or surpassed the majority mark in roughly a fifth of them. A little less than a quarter of those have fallen in the month of October, a pace similar to the rest of the year. Biden, on the other, hand has been there just once. It is that difference that helps to explain the narrow lead the president has maintained in Texas throughout 2020. The Lone Star state has been close all along, but like North Carolina on the other side of the partisan line for Biden, has been tipped in the president's favor.

Wyoming

(Trump 59, Biden 31 via University of Wyoming)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +39.52] 

No previous University of Wyoming poll [Current FHQ averages in Wyoming: Trump 68, Biden 29 (rounded)]

A rare update in Wyoming shows Trump coming in well under what one might expect in the Equality state for a Republican presidential nominee. However, even with a share of support under 60 percent and nearly ten points off his average at FHQ, the president is far out in front in the state occupying the last cell on the far right end of the Electoral College Spectrum below. The polling has been scant in the Cowboy state in 2020, but it collectively has both candidates within a point of their parties' presidential performance in the state in 2016.

Swayable (October battleground and assorted polls -- initial public wave of releases):

Alabama: Trump 56, Biden 37 [Current FHQ margin: Trump +19.75] 

Ohio: Trump 55, Biden 44 [Current FHQ margin: Trump +1.00] 

Indiana: Trump 53, Biden 42 [Current FHQ margin: Trump +11.36] 

Florida: Trump 51, Biden 46

Texas: Trump 49, Biden 48

Georgia: Biden 51, Trump 48

North Carolina: Biden 50, Trump 48

Pennsylvania: Biden 52, Trump 46

Arizona: Biden 52, Trump 44 [Current FHQ margin: Biden +2.98] 

Wisconsin: Biden 54, Trump 45 [Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.49] 

Virginia: Biden 55, Trump 44 [Current FHQ margin: Biden +11.79] 

Illinois: Biden 54, Trump 43 [Current FHQ margin: Biden +18.32] 

Michigan: Biden 59, Trump 40

New Jersey: Biden 62, Trump 38 [Current FHQ margin: Biden +20.09] 

California: Biden 62, Trump 35 [Current FHQ margin: Biden +29.36] 

New York: Biden 65, Trump 33 [Current FHQ margin: Biden +29.56] 

This is an interesting wave of polls from Swayable made all the more so by a couple of glaring standouts. Not only is the order not particularly in line with the established order of states at FHQ, but the world where Trump is ahead by 12 in Ohio and Biden is up 19 in neighboring Michigan is a strange world indeed. But a 31 point gap between the two in these surveys is a significant departure from the eight points that separated the two Rust Belt states in 2016 and the roughly equivalent space between them in the averages at FHQ. The picture here at FHQ is one of a uniform swing for Michigan and Ohio relative to each other from four years ago. Yet, the snapshot in the small sample Swayable polls is one big shifts but in opposite directions. Take these with a grain of salt. 

One other footnote here with respect to Ohio is that the average margin in the Buckeye state rounds up to Trump +1 right on the nose. But since the margin there is technically Trump +0.9985, the Buckeye state remains on the Watch List below, but only just barely. 

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
DC-3 VT-3 (6)2	NJ-14 (156)	WI-10 (253)	AK-3 (125)	TN-11 (60)
MA-11 (17)	OR-7 (163)	PA-203 (273 | 285)	MO-10 (122)	KY-8 (49)
MD-10 (27)	IL-20 (183)	NV-6 (279 | 265)	SC -9 (112)	SD-3 (41)
HI-4 (31)	ME-2 (185)	FL-29 (308 | 259)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (103)	AL-9 (38)
NY-29 (60)	CO-9 (194)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	KS-6 (99)	ID-4 (29)
CA-55 (115)	VA-13 (207)	NC-15 ME CD2-1 (335 | 219)	IN-11 (93)	AR-6 (25)
DE-3 (118)	NH-4 (211)	GA-16 (351 | 203)	NE-2 (82)	OK-7 (19)
WA-12 (130)	NM-5 (216)	IA-6 (187)	UT-6 (80)	ND-3 (12)
ME CD1-1 CT-7 (138)	MN-10 (226)	OH-18 (181)	MS-6 (74)	WV-5 (9)
RI-4 (142)	NE CD2-1 MI-16 (243)	TX-38 (163)	LA-8 (68)	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 Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 285 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 Trump's is on the right in bold italics. 3 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses 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.

All those surveys -- again, 37 polls in 21 states -- and there was little in the way of change that materialized at FHQ. The new Swayable poll out of the Land of Lincoln decreased the margin there enough to shift Illinois past both New Jersey and Oregon in the order, moving it closer to the partisan line. The same was true in neighboring Indiana, where the margin contract to the point that the Hoosier state traded spots in the order with Nebraska. Indiana is now the most competitive of the Strong Trump states. And the two university surveys out of the Granite state nudged New Hampshire back onto the Watch List a day after at least one outlier from ARG moved it off the list.

But that was it.  Friday came and went with a raft of new polling data that mostly confirmed the status quo in this race for the White House. 

4 days to go.

Where things stood at FHQ on October 30 (or close to it) in...
2016
2012
2008


--
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	Potential Switch
Georgia	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Kansas	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
New Hampshire	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
New Mexico	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up 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 that had 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.


--
Related posts:

The Electoral College Map (10/29/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/28/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/27/20)

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

The Electoral College Map (8/15/20)

Update for August 15.

Saturday kicked off the weekend with just one new poll release, a backdated survey from Connecticut. But like the polls out of California and Massachusetts on Friday, this survey, too, adds to our understanding of states deeper in each candidates' coalition of states. However, also like the polls from a day ago, the one in the Nutmeg state maintains the status quo more than anything else.


Polling Quick Hits:
Connecticut
(Biden 53, Trump 33):
The status quo maintained in Connecticut comes from the fact that this late May to early June poll from Survey USA comes in right in the vicinity of the existing average margin for the state at FHQ. And while that is true, what is perhaps more interesting is that Connecticut is one of the states -- at least to this point in the race -- where Biden is actually running slightly behind where Clinton was in the state in 2016. That is not really any sign of weakness for the former vice president in a decidedly blue state, but it is noteworthy. Yet, it should also be noted that Trump is also behind his 2016 pace in the Nutmeg state.


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)	NJ-14 (173)	WI-10 (252)	AK-3 (125)	UT-6 (60)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	PA-203 NE CD2-1 (273 | 286)	MO-10 (122)	IN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	FL-29 (302 | 265)	SC-9 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	NV-6 (308 | 236)	KS-6 (103)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (97)	AL-9 (31)
WA-12 (117)	ME-2 (199)	NC-15 (334 | 219)	LA-8 (93)	ND-3 (22)
MD-10 (127)	VA-13 (212)	ME CD2-1 OH-18 (353 | 204)	MS-6 (87)	SD-3 (19)
IL-20 (147)	MN-10 (222)	GA-16 (185)	AR-6 (79)	OK-7 (16)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (152)	MI-16 (238)	IA-6 (169)	NE-2 (73)	WV-5 (9)
CT-7 (159)	NH-4 (242)	TX-38 (163)	TN-11 (71)	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 Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 286 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 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

One status quo maintaining poll did little to shake things up here at FHQ. The Spectrum above and the Watch List below remain as they were on Friday. Pennsylvania is still the tipping point state and is among the group of 13 states and districts that are within a fraction of a point of changing categories. Those continue to be the states to watch along with underpolled Nevada.

--
There were no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 107.

--
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	Potential Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Georgia	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Louisiana	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Maine	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Maine CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Missouri	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up 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 that had 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.


--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/14/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/13/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/12/20)


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