Delaware as a Pre-Window Calendar Stand-in on Standby? On Threats, Substitutes and Calendar Shake-Ups

It was reported in the time after January 5 that Delaware was being used as a cudgel to help the DNC/White House nudge New Hampshire Democrats closer to compliance with the president's primary calendar plan adopted by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) in December. As Jake Luhut wrote at The Daily Beast then: 

"The proposal? Not only should South Carolina go first, but if New Hampshire won’t acquiesce to the Democratic National Committee’s demands, Biden’s home state of Delaware should also leapfrog New Hampshire as further punishment."

Well, Delaware "leapfrogging" New Hampshire into the pre-window of the Democratic primary calendar would not exactly be "further punishment." January 5, after all, was the deadline that South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, Georgia and Michigan -- the states granted contingent waivers to go early in 2024 at the December 2 DNCRBC meeting -- were given to show progress on state-specific goals toward the calendar changes called for in the adopted proposal. New Hampshire was obviously given a list of requirements that were, to put it mildly, a tall order considering Republicans control the levers of power in the state (and thus the ability to change anything to do with the first-in-the-nation primary). The Delaware threat was less a threat and more a reality. If New Hampshire Democrats cannot meet the requirements for the waiver they were conditionally given in December, then they will not have a waiver at all under DNC rules for 2024. Delaware is not the "further punishment." New Hampshire Democrats not getting a waiver like every other year following the 1980 cycle is. Actually, that is the punishment. "Further punishment" will likely come from the DNCRBC should 1) the DNC adopt some version of the president's calendar proposal at its February winter meeting and 2) New Hampshire Democrats continue to strike a defiant pose on the first-in-the-nation primary thereafter.

--

But why Delaware? 

Yes, it is President Biden's home state. And while that may be part of the calculus for those in the White House, it is not the only part or even the main part of the thinking. 

Like New Hampshire, Delaware is small. Retail politics would be just as possible there as they are in the Granite state. 

Both states lag the national average on the Census Bureau's diversity index (61.1%), but Delaware (59.6%) is less than two points shy while New Hampshire (23.6%) falls nearly 40 points short. 

However, unlike New Hampshire, Delaware is no presidential battleground in the general election. There are some tradeoffs on that front in view of campaign advertising/spending. Swapping Boston media market buys to advertise in New Hampshire for Philadelphia buys to target First state primary voters is an interesting exchange. The former has the benefit of priming New Hampshire primary voters with the general election in mind, but the latter would hit voter not only Delaware voters but Pennsylvania voters ahead of a primary in the Keystone state and a fight for more electoral votes (relative to New Hampshire) in the general election there as well. 

Plus, what Delaware lacks in general election competitiveness relative to the Granite state, it makes up for in feasibility of movement. New Hampshire cannot comply with the likely DNC rules and may or may not try to find alternatives in the end. A Democratic-controlled state government in Dover can and likely very happily would bend over backwards to work toward a pre-window presidential primary if granted a waiver by the DNCRBC. 

But FHQ tends to agree with the anonymous Democratic strategist who questioned the optics of an earlier Delaware primary in the Daily Beast piece:

“I don’t know what value that adds. It’s not a demographically diverse state, it’s not a significantly cheaper media market,” the strategist said. 

“I don’t know if the University of Delaware is gonna become the new Saint Anselm, which is probably the best analogy, but I just don’t see the point,” they continued. “There’s nothing to this that makes this more valuable, and the tourism argument for early primary states is overblown. The TV one is the strongest, because it’s the most sustained form of revenue for these states.”

All of that aside, DNCRBC member, Elaine Kamarck, said it better this past summer after the panel had heard the early primary pitch from the Delaware delegation. Basically, a president has nothing to gain and everything to lose in a home state contest that is first in the order. At best (for the incumbent president), no one shows up as with Tom Harkin in Iowa in 1992. In that case, Delaware would be little more than a beauty contest first primary that most candidates would skip. At worst (again, for the incumbent president), other candidates do show up and either win outright or relative to what would be low expectations. In that case, Delaware would win, but the president would not. 

Of course, Kamarck's comments were about Delaware as the first contest to which Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), as a part of the state's delegation before the DNCRBC, countered that Delaware was not vying only for the first spot, but for any one of the available slots in the pre-window. And maybe Kamarck's rules apply in that situation -- a slightly later early Delaware presidential primary -- or maybe they do not. It could also be that President Biden, with or without a pre-window Delaware primary, runs largely unopposed in 2024 and that this whole effort is not to secure his renomination but geared more toward a paradigm shift in how the pre-window part of the calendar is devised every four years. 

--

And that is kind of the thing. Viewed through the lens of a White House seeking renomination in an environment where it is largely unopposed is the sort of confluence of conditions a national party would need in place to make any big change to the beginning of the presidential primary calendar. 

Well, that and said national party would have to be willing to take on Iowa and New Hampshire. The DNCRBC, before the president weighed in, seemed willing to shunt Iowa out of the pre-window. But the president's input added New Hampshire to that mix. Both directly and indirectly.¹ Again, the DNCRBC set a difficult set of criteria before New Hampshire Democrats. But they have a chance at an early window waiver (just not one in the position they want or that they could comply with, they would argue). They could give an inch, but have not. Yet. And New Hampshire Democrats may concede nothing. They seem willing at this point to let this play out, take their punishment (if the DNC can enforce it), and try to live to see another cycle in 2028 with a new membership on the DNCRBC.

But all of this -- pushing South Carolina to the first spot, nixing Iowa, trying to bend New Hampshire to the calendar change, substituting Delaware (or Iowa back) into the pre-window, or even adding Georgia and Michigan -- comes with trade-offs. That gets lost in all the post-January 5 chatter about New Hampshire. 

Yes, there is something to be gained by opening up the pre-window to any state that wants to pitch their virtues to the DNCRBC every four years. That gives the national party the flexibility to add and subtract states based on the criteria the DNCRBC has leaned on this cycle. If Nevada, for example, becomes less competitive in general elections, then add Arizona. If Georgia elects more Democrats to statewide office (like secretary of state), then replace South Carolina with the Peach state. If New Hampshire becomes more diverse (in addition to being a battleground), then keep it around or officially add it back. That flexibility is, in the abstract, a good thing for the national party. ...if it can overcome the start-up costs and establish it in the first place.  

However, there is something lost in that transition and it is not just tradition. The continuity of Iowa and New Hampshire every cycle was (and is in the Republican process) arguably a good thing as well for the national parties and for the candidates. There has been certainty there, and with that certainty comes knowledge, or if not knowledge, then an understanding about the rhythms of the nomination system; how it works. And that is true even when the first two states are not well aligned with the overall constituency of a party's primary electorate. 

The path of least resistance for the DNCRBC this cycle would have been to leave well enough alone -- as has almost always been the case for national parties with incumbent presidents seeking reelection -- and just add Michigan to the end of the four state lineup that has existed in the Democratic presidential nomination process since 2008. Iowa and New Hampshire are not perfect fits for the party, but they have the infrastructure in place to dependably go first. Well, maybe not Iowa after 2020. But even after that, there would have been an even greater asterisk placed by Iowa and would continue to place one on New Hampshire. Again, as FHQ has argued elsewhere in this space, the results in those two contests are discounted in the Democratic process. Voters know they are not representative of the broader party. The media knows it and discusses the results in that context and that affects how candidates approach and, afterward, talk about those two contests.

And Raymond Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, even talked about a version of this in his recent conversation with Politico, saying basically that New Hampshire winnows the field and sets up a state like South Carolina to be decisive. That has not been untrue. And if that is the case, then why mess with a system that, on some level, works?

Mainly, the answer lies in the fact that the current system with the same old calendar was no longer tenable to the president, major parts of the DNCRBC and likely DNC. The DNCRBC did adopt the calendar proposal with just two dissenting votes -- the two members from Iowa and New Hampshire. And the reactions from folks of color on the panel, from members to the DNC chair, spoke volumes about the meaning of the proposed change. 

That is why some version of the president's plan will be adopted next month in Philadelphia. It has been a process that has involved trade-offs with the same old calendar and will likely have some more as the DNCRBC and the rest of the party seeks to fill out the rest of the pre-window lineup should there be vacancies created by a rogue New Hampshire. Perhaps that will be Delaware. ...or perhaps not. Maybe Georgia cannot get there. Maybe it can. Things remain in flux as the party heads into its winter meeting.

--

¹ The president's proposal directly hit New Hampshire by not placing the presidential primary in the Granite in the first position on the calendar. But it indirectly knocked the state by erecting a significant set of barriers for New Hampshire Democrats to successfully win a pre-window waiver.

--

Recent posts:

Legislation to Alter Electoral Vote Allocation Introduced in Nebraska

Hawaii Senate Bill Proposes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary

On "The People of New Hampshire vs. Joe Biden"

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 (10/5/20)

Update for October 5.

After all of the poll additions and changes a day ago, the work week began with a fairly steady stream of new survey releases, but with none of the attendant changes that Sunday had. Helpfully, there were several updates in states that do not generally see any real frequency of polling, and those always serve to further clarify the overall swing from 2016 to now. That number has dropped of late. A month ago, the average swing toward the Democrats across all states stood at nearly eight points. Now, just a bit more than four weeks ahead of election day, that average shift has shrunk to just under seven points.

No, that is not representative of some fundamental shift in the race, but the dynamics driving it underneath the surface may be. The Biden side of that change has risen from three to four points, meaning that on average he is running about four points above Hillary Clinton from four years ago. Trump had been running about four points behind his 2016 pace a month ago, but that has decreased to around two points now. Both make sense as the candidates continue to consolidate support (from undecided voters and those heretofore aligned with other candidates). But again, Trump remains more than six points behind Biden, or about the current margin in Wisconsin, a state on the other side of the tipping point from the president's coalition of states. With 29 days to go, that is quite a bit of ground to make up.

On to the day's polls...

Polling Quick Hits:

Alabama

(Trump 57, Biden 37)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +20.40]
Auburn University-Montgomery was last in the field in the Yellowhammer state in July and found a race that was closer than usual there (Trump +14). But the transition to a likely voter screen in the time since then has only benefited Trump. Still, this poll finds the president running behind his 2016 share of support there while Biden is a handful of points ahead of Clinton's pace. No, that is not enough to come anywhere close to making up the difference, but even this poll in deep red Alabama is indicative of the shift toward the Democrats overall.

Arizona

(Biden 49, Trump 41)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.18]
Over in Arizona, Siena/NYT Upshot conducted its third survey in the state dating back to June. For those who came looking for big changes, look elsewhere. Each of those three times, Siena has had Biden in the 48-49 percent range and Trump back around the 40-41 percent range. Yes, that has Biden out to a lead that considerably wider than the current average margin at FHQ, but it has been a consistent finding for the college poll over time in Arizona. And Trump is running further behind his average here than Biden is running ahead of his.

Delaware

(Biden 54, Trump 33)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +27.21]
As with Alabama, it was good to get an update from the First state. And while Biden is ahead in the University of Delaware survey of his home state, the former vice president's 54 percent share of support is the lowest he has been in the state's limited number of surveys this year. And yet, in this poll Biden remains marginally ahead of Clinton's pace from 2016. Trump, on the other hand, lags well behind his support in the state from then. And that is not unexpected given Biden's favorite son status in Delaware (limited though that may be in the context of a polarized electorate).

Michigan

(Biden 48, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.07]
Glengariff Group was in the field for the third time this year in Michigan, and the polls shows Biden up by his biggest lead in the series. It is Biden's largest advantage, but the former vice president is not even at his high water mark in the series in this poll. But Trump has reached his nadir, falling below 40 percent for the first time in a poll that was conducted completely after last week's first presidential debate. Trump does not need Michigan to get to 270, but Biden has been approaching 50 percent in the averages in the Great Lakes state as the president has been mired in the low 40s.

North Carolina

(Biden 50, Trump 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.48]
North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling may be prolific in surveying the state, but this is the firm's first public survey of the Tar Heel state since July. And this poll is in line with the rest. Yes, the samples continue to be among registered and not likely North Carolina voters at this late stage, but the trend line, or lack thereof, has been consistent: Biden in the upper 40s or right at 50 percent and Trump in the mid-40s. That nails Trump's FHQ average share of support there and continues to have Biden out in front of his by a couple of points. But it is another poll that reflects a continued narrow lead for the former vice president in the state.

North Dakota

(Trump 51, Biden 37)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +26.25]
DFM Research returned to a "registered" voter sample in its latest survey of the Peace Garden state. [There is no voter registration in North Dakota.] It is an odd transition considering the firm's last two polls there were of likely voters. And while the transition from registered to likely meant a contracted margin from February to March, the transition back did not have the opposite effect. In fact, the margin shrunk by about a fifth since the last mid-September survey to its lowest level all year. This does not mean that North Dakota is suddenly competitive, but it does show that even in states about as far out to the right on the Electoral College Spectrum as a state can get, the shift has still generally been toward the Democrats since the last cycle. Biden may still be down over 25 points, but he is running ahead of Clinton's showing there in 2016 by more than seven points.

Ohio

(Trump 48, Biden 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.46]
This is the first Trafalgar Group survey of Ohio in calendar 2020. Despite generally being seen by many as a pollster with a fairly noticeable and consistent Republican house effect, this survey is not inconsistent with the recent polling witnessed in the Buckeye state. Trump's share is well within his range of recent results there, but Biden is at his lowest point in the state since a July Zogby survey had him at 43%. And this is below where the former vice president has generally been in August and September polling of Ohio. That is not to say that this survey is an outlier -- it is not exactly -- but it is particularly off on Biden's share of support.

Pennsylvania

(Biden 50, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.38]
The first of two Rust Belt surveys from Ipsos comes out of Pennsylvania. And it is the first of two polls from the firm that are right in line with the margins in both states. In the Keystone state, the president trails by five points with both candidates just over their respective FHQ averages shares of support. As in Michigan, the former vice president is approaching the 50 percent mark, leaving little room for the president to catch up and overtake Biden unless Trump can bring him down several notches. That may prove difficult in the coming days as the trajectory -- at least in some cases at the national level -- maybe heading in the opposite direction. Trump may not need Michigan, but if the order of states below holds, then he will need Pennsylvania to get to 270.

Utah

(Trump 50, Biden 40)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +14.58]
On the whole, the surveys of Utah from Y2 Analytics have shown a much closer than usual race for the Beehive state's six electoral votes. Whereas the previous two polls from back in the spring found a race in the low to mid-single digits, the latest update from the firm has that lead expanding but still falling below the average margin. Still, for the first time in the series, Y2 has Trump at 50 percent. Both candidates are running well ahead of either their or their party's showing in the state last time around and by substantial margins. Third party candidates are not pulling nearly what Evan McMullin received in the state in 2016. Trump is very likely to win in Utah and improve on his support in the process. But it looks like it will fall below the 60 percent Republican candidates have averaged there over the previous three cycles.

Wisconsin

(Biden 50, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.12]
Finally, the second of the Ipsos polls comes from out of the Badger state. And like the Pennsylvania poll above, this one, too, is right on target with the margin and candidate shares in Wisconsin as measured in the graduated weighted averages here at FHQ. It may or may not be a bit early for herding to have started in these polls, but FHQ will confess that that is among the thoughts that sprang to mind on seeing these results and comparing them to the averages in the dataset. That said, this one is consistent with other recent polls and marks very little change from the poll the firm conducted in the state a couple of weeks ago.

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	IL-20 (162)	WI-10 (253)	SC-9 (125)	TN-11 (60)
MA-11 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	PA-203 (273 | 285)	AK-3 (116)	KY-8 (49)
MD-10 (27)	OR-7 (183)	NV-6 (279 | 265)	MO-10 (113)	AL-9 (41)
CA-55 (82)	ME-2 (185)	FL-29 (308 | 259)	KS-6 (103)	SD-3 (32)
NY-29 (111)	CO-9 (194)	AZ-11 ME CD2-1 (320 | 230)	NE CD1-1 MT-3 (97)	ID-4 (29)
HI-4 (115)	VA-13 (207)	NC-15 (335 | 218)	NE-2 (93)	AR-6 (25)
DE-3 (118)	NH-4 (211)	GA-16 (203)	IN-11 (91)	OK-7 (19)
WA-12 (130)	NM-5 (216)	OH-18 (187)	UT-6 (80)	ND-3 (12)
CT-7 ME CD1-1 (138)	MN-10 (226)	IA-6 (169)	MS-6 (74)	WV-5 (9)
RI-4 (142)	MI-16 NE CD2-1 (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.

There was a lot to look at to open the work week, but unlike Sunday did not bring nearly as much change. In fact, the additions today did not trigger any change. The map, Spectrum and Watch List all stayed just as they were on Sunday evening. And with 29 days to go, that has to be at least somewhat troubling for the president. There just are not that many states in range of changing categories much less jumping the partisan line into Trump territory. Those states that are even in range of the partisan line are already states the president counts in his column. Any changes in either Georgia or Ohio would hurt rather than help the president. Time is dwindling for the president and so are his chances in this race with just more than four weeks to go until election day.



Where things stood at FHQ on October 5 (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 Trump	to Toss Up Biden
New Hampshire	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
New Mexico	from Lean Biden	to Strong 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 (10/4/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/3/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/2/20)

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

The Electoral College Map (8/25/20)

Update for August 25.

The Republican National Convention enters day two today with just ten weeks now separating this presidential race from election day. But the polls added at FHQ today all came from states that have favored Joe Biden from the jump, all were in the field during or just after the virtual Democratic confab a week ago, and all were consistent with previous polling or existing (FHQ) averages in each. None of that adds up to big sweeping changes. But in a couple of deep blue states -- Biden's home of Delaware and New York -- the updates were helpful in contextualizing both with respect to the swings witnessed from 2016 to now.

And no, the Empire state does not appear to be moving into a more competitive space, contra some recent claims.


Polling Quick Hits:
Delaware 
(Biden 58, Trump 37)
Public Policy Polling dropped into the First state to conduct the first survey there since January. And things really have not changed all that much. Unsurprisingly, the Democratic nominee (and favorite son) is doing quite well in Delaware. Yet, even with a 21 point lead, the former vice president has only matched the average share Democratic presidential candidates have received there over the last three cycles. And while Biden has gained five points on Hillary Clinton's showing in Delaware four years ago, the president has lost nearly five off his. That makes the swing in Delaware a bit above average.


Florida
(Biden 48, Trump 44)
The North Carolina-based polling firm, Public Policy Polling, was also in the field in Florida over the weekend (which FHQ was surprised to see was their first time conducting a public poll there in calendar 2020). But the survey was not all that inconsistent with the current FHQ averages frr both candidates in the Sunshine state. In fact, when those averages are rounded, they come to Biden 48, Trump 44. Understandably, that hardly shook Florida from its position as a state flirting with the line between the Biden Toss Up and Lean categories.


New York
(Biden 63, Trump 32)
The third of Public Policy Polling's trio of weekend surveys was in the Empire state. If not for the April Siena poll of the state, this would have marked both Biden's high water mark in New York and his largest margin in a poll there in calendar 2020. Instead, it is more evidence that New York is among the bluest of states. The Trump share is right on his New York average at FHQ, but in this poll, Biden is running a bit ahead of his. But that is with a decent number of undecideds still out there.


North Carolina
(Biden 49, Trump 46)
Finally, Morning Consult fielded a survey in the Tar Heel state that stretched through the duration of the Democratic convention and into the weekend following it. And like many recent polls of North Carolina, it fell in a relatively tight range of Biden +4 to Trump +2. As FHQ said a day ago about in a synopsis of where things stand in Texas, North Carolina is one of those states that is simply close, but unlike Texas is tipped fairly consistently in the former vice president's direction. And while Biden may be a bit ahead of his averages there in this poll, Trump is near enough his.



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 (162)	WI-10 (252)	AK-3 (125)	UT-6 (60)
HI-4 (18)	NJ-14 (176)	PA-203 NE CD2-1 (273 | 286)	MO-10 (122)	IN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	OR-7 (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)	MS-6 (93)	ND-3 (22)
MD-10 (127)	VA-13 (212)	ME CD2-1 OH-18 (353 | 204)	AR-6 (87)	SD-3 (19)
IL-20 (147)	MN-10 (222)	IA-6 (185)	NE-2 (81)	OK-7 (16)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (152)	MI-16 (238)	GA-16 (179)	LA-8 (79)	WV-5 (9)
DE-3 (155)	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. 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.

Today's new polls add new understanding about where this presidential race currently stands, and it is not more than a stone's throw away from where it has been: showing Biden comfortably enough ahead to have a more than 80 electoral vote cushion in the projected electoral college tally. Now again, the race still has 70 days to go, so that can change. But it is remarkable just how stable things have been. New York and the two Biden toss ups all kept their positions on the Electoral College Spectrum above, but Delaware shifted even further into Biden's coalition of states, pushing three more cells over into the far left column.

However, the Watch List remained unchanged from a day ago. The same 12 states and districts that were within a fraction of a point of changing categories are still there, joined by underpolled Nevada. Those states and districts are the ones to watch. But even then, if the objective is to witness change in the overall tally, then that list is pared down to just three. Georgia, Iowa and Ohio are the states that are positioned closest to the partisan line and most likely to alter the projected number of electoral votes for each major party candidate.

--
There were no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 117.

--
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
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.


--
Recent posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/24/20)

One Thing About Convention Bounces

The Electoral College Map (8/22/20)


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

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: DELAWARE

DELAWARE

Election type: primary
Date: July 7
    [April 28 originally and then June 2]
Number of delegates: 32 [5 at-large, 2 PLEOs, 14 congressional district, 11 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the subdivision level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan (mid-coronavirus)
    [Updated plan after primary move to July 7]


--
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.

Little changed in the delegate selection process for Delaware Democrats from 2016 until the beginning of 2020. There was an effort to consolidate all of the primaries in a presidential election year for the last Tuesday in April slot that the Delaware presidential primary has occupied since the 2012 cycle. But the non-presidential primary stayed in September and the presidential primary remained in April.

And that was the case until the coronavirus pandemic and its attendant impact on the electoral process happened. That triggered not one, but two presidential primary moves. First, Delaware Governor John Carney (D) in late March pushed the primary back to June 2. However, that date proved difficult not only because the virus and its potential for spread during in-person voting even in June, but because of the tiny window to jumpstart no-excuse absentee voting in a state that did not have that infrastructure in place.

That led to a subsequent change in the Delaware election calendar in early May. Governor Carney moved the Delaware presidential primary back to July 7 (a move for which Delaware Democrats received a DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee waiver because the date falls after June 9), and also called for all eligible Delaware voters to be mailed an absentee ballot application. These changes conform with what a number of other states -- both Democratic and Republican-controlled -- that have had to make changes in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak have done.

All absentee ballots are due to county elections offices on before Tuesday, July 7. That is received and not postmarked by 8pm on June 7. 

Overall, the Democratic delegation from Delaware changed by just two delegates from 2016 to 2020. All of the pledged delegate categories remained the same and First state Democrats added two superdelegates in that time.


[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)
Delaware's 14 congressional district delegates are split across four subdivision districts -- Wilmington city and three counties -- carved out of the one congressional district state. Those districts have a variation of just two delegates across them from the measure of Democratic strength First state Democrats are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
Wilmington city - 2 delegates
New Castle County - 8 delegates
Kent County - 2 delegates
Sussex County - 2 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 Delaware's 21 pledged delegates go through a multi-tiered process starting with "representative district-level" caucuses (RDLC). Those events were planned throughout March (and before April 28), but were interrupted by the spread of the coronavirus and subsequent lockdowns. That meant that some of those caucuses were completed in-person while alternate plans had to be made for the remaining caucuses. All Democrats registered by January 1, 2020 were eligible to participate in the RDLCs and ballots were made available for download on April 15. Participants could mail those ballots postmarked by May 15 or email them (or take advantage of the drive-up option if given the okay) by May 18.

Those RDLCs elect delegates to the post-primary Delaware Delegate Selection Caucus (DDSC), the voting window of which is tentatively scheduled fall on July 9-13. Delegates to the DDSC will elect the 14 subdivision (district) delegates in an online vote. Finally, the national convention district delegates will then meet in the Delaware Democratic Delegate Selection Convention proposed for July 16. A quorum of those 14 delegates will select the 2 PLEO and then 5 at-large delegates to the national convention.

[The originally approved Delaware delegate selection plan called for the RDLCs to occur before April 28 as mentioned above, and for the district and statewide delegate selections to both occur on May 9 after the April 28 primary. Those in-person May 9 DDSCs would have chosen the district delegates, a quorum of which would thereafter have picked the PLEO and then at-large delegates to the national convention.]


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-July when the Delaware statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the early 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.

Delaware Presidential Primary Pushed Back Another Five Weeks

Delaware Governor John Carney (D) on Thursday, May 7, signed yet another amendment to his state of emergency declaration in response to the coronavirus pandemic. This one, like the change in late March, shifts the presidential primary in the First state back by another five weeks to July 7.

Delaware now joins neighboring New Jersey on a date just after the Fourth of July holiday weekend. Typically, those types of summer primaries come with their own issues. Voters may find conflicts with schedule while they are on vacation, for example. But part of Carney's order addresses that issue. Not only does the presidential primary in Delaware move back another 35 days, but that buys state elections officials some additional time to send out absentee ballot applications to all eligible Delaware voters. Again, that is applications and not ballots. The additional time will also give elections officials time to process those requests and mail out ballots to those voters who are approved.

While this order opens the door to another wider form of participation in the primary, it importantly does not eliminate in-person voting. At least six sites in each county across Delaware will continue to offer in-person voting for those who prefer that option. Under the order municipalities are also given the latitude to extend the hours in which polling stations are open on primary day.

No, Delaware is not a large state and there are only 21 pledged delegates at stake in the Democratic primary, but the date change is yet another statement about the broader impact of the coronavirus pandemic on elections in 2020. This primary move is a second change for Delaware, but also one beyond the June 9 deadline by which states must have conducted their primaries or caucuses under Democratic National Committee rules. The state joins Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey and New York in that distinction.


The change in Delaware has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Governor Carney's emergency declaration will be archived here.

Carney Executive Order Moves Delaware Presidential Primary to June 2

On Tuesday, March 24, Governor John Carney (D-DE) amended his coronavirus emergency declaration to include a shift in the Delaware presidential primary. Like Connecticut, Maryland and Rhode Island before it, the presidential primary in the First state now moves back five weeks from April 28 to June 2.

Those four states' changes have left just New York and Pennsylvania on the fourth Tuesday in April date that all six states had occupied until the recent threat of the coronavirus began to wreak havoc with the 2020 primary calendar. Pennsylvania, too, is working on abandoning what is left of the former Acela primary in favor of a June 2 primary.

As with all of the other states that have changed their primary dates, the move changes when delegates are allocated, but potentially has a much greater impact on the sequence of the delegate selection process. Delaware is no exception.

Last week, on Monday, March 16, the Delaware Democratic Party altered the schedule for its state House district caucuses, the first step in the selection process. And although most of those district caucuses had been held and their work completed -- selecting delegates to subdivision caucuses (Delaware's "congressional districts") to be held May 9 -- the party over the weekend opted to postpone the remaining meetings. Remote and electronic meetings may be an option for Delaware Democrats, something other states have utilized in the early caucus stages of the selection process.

Regardless, some decisions will have to be made. A stoppage in the selection of subdivision delegates at state House caucuses affects the ultimate selection of district delegates on May 9 or whatever alternative date the state party might gravitate toward. And the selection of those delegates in turn influences the selection of statewide delegates. Those at-large and PLEO delegates to the national convention were also to have been selected on May 9 by a quorum of the very same district delegates also to have been selected on that date.

In essence, the pause button has been hit on the Delaware delegate selection process. And needless to say, with a new June 2 primary date, the selection will likely have to be adjusted anyway. The May 9 selection cannot go on as planned without the results of an April 28 primary. Slates of delegates could be chosen and filled later once allocated delegate slots are determined for each candidate, but it is more likely that Delaware Democrats will choose to conduct the selection process a bit later in the calendar, after the now June 2 primary.


--
Governor Carney's press release on the executive order to move the primary is archived here.