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 (9/29/20)

Update for September 29.

Changes (September 29)
State	Before	After
Ohio	Toss Up Biden	Toss Up Trump

Debate day has arrived and with it a slew of new state-level surveys. Many of those were the first time some of these pollsters have conducted surveys in the 12 states polled on the day. Notably, Ohio has jumped back over the partisan line into Toss Up Trump territory after a brief stint shaded in a light blue. Now, those who were happy to see the Buckeye state move into the Toss Up Biden category a few days ago may grumble that it was the June-September waves from Survey Monkey that pushed Ohio back into the president's column. But as FHQ has said, it is not so much that Ohio is a toss up in Biden's or Trump's direction, so much as it is that the Buckeye state is close to tied. It may end up with Biden or Trump on (or after) election day, but if it continues to stay in this area in the order, then it suggests something about the extent to which things have shifted toward the Democrats since 2016. And if Ohio is among the most competitive states on election day, then it suggests that Biden is in good shape to get to and beyond 270.

Polling Quick Hits:
Alaska
(Trump 47, Biden 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +2.69]
There has not been a whole lot of polling of Alaska but what little has been done has pointed toward it being a bit more competitive than is typically the case in the Last Frontier. The Harstad Strategic Research survey has Trump up only one point. But the story is less about how much Trump is lagging behind his 2016 pace (nearly three points) there than it is about how much Biden has improved over Clinton's (almost nine points). That is a shift toward the Democrats that is above average compared to the rest of the country. Regardless, more polling of Alaska would seem warranted at this point.

Arizona

(Biden 47, Trump 47)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.457]
The Grand Canyon state, meanwhile, has been consistently tipped in Biden's direction by something north of three points in the FHQ averages. And that is still the case. However, the new Susquehanna survey of Arizona is the third over the last week or so to show the state either marginally favoring the president or tied. And that comes after a stretch 12 polls dating back to mid-August since the last Trump lead in an Arizona poll. That could be noise or it could be the start of a new trend in a state that has been a Biden toss up, but a reliable one thus far with some space (and states) between it and the partisan line.

Florida

(Biden 46, Trump 43)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.456]
Like Arizona, Florida, too, has been a reliable albeit close state for Biden, but one that has seen some narrowing in recent days. But as FHQ noted last week, things have tightened but only to a point and that is buttressed by a series of polls that have had Biden up three. The new Susquehanna survey of the Sunshine state falls into that category and adds at least some credence to the idea that things have now plateaued there. And the margin has stabilized in the mid-threes for Biden.

Georgia
(Biden 50, Trump 47 via Civiqs | Biden 50, Trump 47 via Quinnipiac)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.18]
Speaking of three point leads for the former vice president, he got a pair of them from a couple of new polls out of the Peach state. That was enough to push Georgia back up against the Trump side of the partisan line and back to being the most competitive of the states the president claims at this point. Civiqs was last in the field in Georgia in May and found Biden up a point in a registered voter sample. The switch to likely voters in the time since has only bolstered that advantage. Biden gained a couple of points and Trump remained stationary at 47 percent.

Illinois

(Biden 53, Trump 40)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +20.56]
The first poll of calendar 2020 in Illinois from Victory Research is perhaps a bit closer than one would expect given the nature of the swing from 2016 to now elsewhere across the country. Yes, Biden's lead is comfortable and unlikely to collapse in the next five weeks there, but this survey represents a slight decrease in support for Biden (relative to election day 2016) and marginal increase for the president. Still, as this is the lone survey in the Land of Lincoln, it remains tethered to the swings from other states that finished around it four years ago. That keeps the margin a bit above where this poll pegs it.

New Hampshire
(Biden 52, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.69]
The polls have been sporadic enough in New Hampshire that FHQ was surprised to find that there had been a survey other than the new UMass-Lowell poll this month. And it is more in line with the pre-September polling than was the earlier Siena poll of the Granite state. This UMass poll has both candidates running a bit ahead of their established levels of support here at FHQ. But Biden does marginally better to push the poll margin just beyond the FHQ average margin. But like Minnesota, New Hampshire does not exactly look like the flip opportunity the Trump campaign may have envisioned.

North Carolina
(Biden 47, Trump 47)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.43]
UMass-Lowell was also in the field in North Carolina and found a race knotted at 47. That is not too far off from the former vice president's 47-46 (rounded) lead in the weighted averages of both candidates' shares of support. North Carolina continues to be close, but like Arizona and Florida, also is still tilted consistently toward Biden.

North Dakota
(Trump 56, Biden 37)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +19.17]
That same consistency was also seen in the latest update from DFM Research in North Dakota. DFM has been the only pollster to test the presidential trial heat in the Peace Garden state all year, and the firm has shown a similar picture each time: Trump in the mid- to upper 50s and Biden in the mid- to upper 30s. Like Illinois, North Dakota is a safe state, but a safe state for the president. But unlike the sole survey in Illinois thus far, the DFM update in North Dakota continues to show Trump running well behind the 62 percent he received there in 2016 and Biden nearly ten points ahead of Clinton's pace. North Dakota will end up a red state in November, but its swing toward the Democrats is notable.

Ohio
(Trump 50, Biden 48)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.24]
The four waves of Survey Monkey polls of the Buckeye state may be new to the FHQ dataset, but the 50-48 advantage for the president there is not. Trump held the same lead a month ago in the August survey. And while that represents no change in Ohio in this series, the addition of those four monthly surveys nudges the Buckeye state back over the partisan line onto Trump's side of the ledger. Yet, as this poll is fairly close to Biden's rounded average share of support (47 percent), it has Trump running a few points ahead of his (also 47 percent, rounded). Again, however, the Buckeye state remains within a quarter of a point of the partisan line.

Pennsylvania
(Biden 49, Trump 40 via Siena/NYT Upshot | Biden 54, Trump 45 via ABC/WaPo)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.33]
For the first time in a while a pair of polls came along and inched Pennsylvania deeper into the Lean Biden category and outside of a tenth of a point of the Lean/Toss Up line. But it took a couple of nine point leads in those two polls to do it. The ABC/WaPo survey was its first there of calendar 2020, but Siena has conducted a survey in the commonwealth before. And the picture back in mid-June looked awfully similar. Biden's 50-40 edge in June has shrunk to 49-40 in September. No, that is not much shrinking. In fact, that that lead has held up -- from a time when Biden was surging in the polls across the nation -- says something about the overall steadiness of this race in the Keystone state and elsewhere. The case for narrowing in Pennsylvania is less solid than, say, Florida, and it is mainly due to polls like these.

Texas
(Trump 49, Biden 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +1.20]
September polls in Texas have been dominated by a host of small leads for the president, a group that now includes this UMass-Lowell. It was the first survey of the Lone Star state from the university pollster and is consistent with the average share of support Biden enjoys in the state, but has Trump a bit out in front of his. Still, that 49 precent share of support is not foreign to the president. It just happens to be toward the upper end of his range in recent polling in Texas. Like North Carolina, Texas remains close. Unlike the Tar Heel state, however, it is tipped in Trump's direction.

Wisconsin
(Biden 48, Trump 46 via Susquehanna | Biden 48, Trump 45 via Trafalgar)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.21]
Some of the above is good for the president, but the pair of polls out of Wisconsin today represented the brightest ray of hope for Trump. The Badger state had not seen a poll with a Biden lead less than four points all month until these two polls. However, both have Biden slightly under his FHQ average share of support in the state and Trump right at the upper end of his range in group of September polls that have all too often found him in the lower 40s.


Also added:

• June, July, August and September waves of Rust Belt polling in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin form Survey Monkey. [Be aware that the September wave is still being updated until the end of the month. Those numbers can shift and have shifted and will be updated at FHQ as they do.]
• Battleground polling from Hart Research Associates out of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

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 MA-11 (14)2	CT-7 (162)	WI-10 (253)	AK-3 (125)	AL-9 (60)
HI-4 (18)	NJ-14 (176)	PA-203 (273 | 285)	MO-10 (122)	IN-11 (51)
CA-55 (73)	OR-7 (183)	NV-6 (279 | 265)	SC-9 (112)	UT-6 (40)
VT-3 (76)	NM-5 (188)	AZ-11 (290 | 259)	KS-6 (103)	KY-8 (34)
MD-10 (86)	ME-2 (190)	FL-29 ME CD2-1 (320 | 248)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (97)	SD-3 (26)
NY-29 (115)	CO-9 (199)	NC-15 (335 | 218)	LA-8 (93)	ID-4 (23)
WA-12 ME CD1-1 (128)	VA-13 (212)	GA-16 (203)	MS-6 (85)	ND-3 (19)
RI-4 (132)	MN-10 (222)	OH-18 (187)	AR-6 (79)	OK-7 (16)
DE-3 (135)	MI-16 (238)	IA-6 (169)	NE-2 (73)	WV-5 (9)
IL-20 (155)	NE CD2-1 NH-4 (243)	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 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.

Not only did Ohio change shades on the map and push over the partisan line into Trump territory, but it was jumped on the other side by Georgia. The Peach state settled in next to the partisan line on the Electoral College Spectrum above as the most competitive of the Trump states. But the difference between the two is negligible. But not as negligible as the one one-thousandth of a point difference in the average margins in Arizona and Florida. The two Sun Belt state remained next to each other in the order on the Spectrum but swapped spots with Florida now the closer of the two.

Further out on the blue side of the Spectrum. New Hampshire and Wisconsin once again switched places with Wisconsin rejoining the states in the competitive, middle column. And the first poll in Illinois pushed it down the bottom cell in the far left column. The same could be said for North Dakota all the way on the right end of the Spectrum. The Peace Garden state moved one cell closer to the far end of Trump's coalition of states.

All that shuffling on the Spectrum was offset by a day of little change on the Watch List. The same nine states that were there a day ago are still there with only Ohio's potential shift being different after its change to Toss Up Trump.

But for all those polls, the story remains much the same around FHQ, give or take those 18 electoral votes that keep shifting as Ohio does.



Where things stood at FHQ on September 29 (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
Arkansas	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Georgia	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Louisiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
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 (9/28/20)

The Electoral College Map (9/27/20)

The Electoral College Map (9/26/20)

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

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS

Election type: primary
Date: March 17
Number of delegates: 182 [34 at-large, 20 PLEOs, 101 congressional district, 27 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan


--
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.

The Illinois primary for the third consecutive cycle -- and for the eleventh out of 12 post-reform cycles -- will fall on the third Tuesday in March, a couple of weeks after Super Tuesday. But in 2020, Illinois will be joined on the middle Tuesday in March by a different group of states (Arizona and Florida) in the Democratic process. Regardless of the calendar changes around the Land of Lincoln, Illinois Democrats will have the second most delegates at stake on March 17.

While the date of delegate allocation did not change, the Illinois Democratic delegation only marginally changed from 2016 to 2020. However, the number of pledged delegates decreased by one district delegate, but gained three superdelegates. On the whole, though, there were little to no changes in Illinois since 2016.


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)
Illinois's 101 congressional district delegates are split across 18 congressional districts and have a variation of five delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Illinois Democrats are using. The formula for apportioning delegates to congressional district in the Land of Lincoln is based on three equally weighted measures of Democratic support:

That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 8 delegates
CD2 - 7 delegates*
CD3 - 6 delegates
CD4 - 5 delegates*
CD5 - 7 delegates*
CD6 - 6 delegates
CD7 - 8 delegates
CD8 - 5 delegates*
CD9 - 8 delegates
CD10 - 5 delegates*
CD11 - 5 delegates*
CD12 - 5 delegates*
CD13 - 5 delegates*
CD14 - 5 delegates*
CD15 - 3 delegates*
CD16 - 4 delegates
CD17 - 5 delegates*
CD18 - 4 delegates


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


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

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


Selection
All 101 of the district delegates in Illinois will be elected on the March 17 primary ballot. Filing for ballot access closed on January 3, 2020. While a campaign's inability to file a full slate by then is often a signal of lack of organization, those same campaigns are not shut out of delegate positions if they are allocated them in the primary but do not have a full slate to fill them. In that case, the campaign would have an opportunity to fill those empty allocated slots at post-primary meetings to be scheduled within 30 days of the primary by the state committeeman and committeewoman from the congressional district. The PLEO and then at-large delegates will be selected on April 27 by quorum of national convention district delegates based on the statewide results in the primary.

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 late April when the Illinois statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the March 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. Candidates with suspended campaigns are still candidates and can fill those slots allocated them. This is unlikely to be a factor with just two viable candidates in the race.

Pair of Bills Seek to Move Illinois Presidential Primary

Earlier this session, there were a couple of bills introduced in the Illinois state House to move the date on which the general primary election is held. The thing about tracking the movement of presidential primaries is that one has to adapt to the differences across states in terms of what each calls its presidential primary elections. In the case of Illinois, the state has traditionally held a third Tuesday in March primary that is not only the date for the presidential primary but those for other state and federal offices as well. It is a consolidated primary every even-numbered year.

And it should be additionally noted that the general primary in Illinois has only been on a date other than the third Tuesday in March in a presidential year once in the post-reform era. That was during the 2008 cycle when then-Illinois senator, Barack Obama, was seeking the Democratic nomination. Illinois, then, has been less likely to uproot its consolidated general primary election and shift it to an alternate date.

Moreover, that fact is also relevant when trying to handicap the likelihood of passage for any bill with the goal of moving the general primary away from that traditional third Tuesday in March date. Attempts after the 2011 move back the traditional March date have generally languished in committee and died at the end of legislative sessions. That was true of a push by one legislator to move the consolidated primary to June in both 2013 and 2015 and again in 2017. It was also true of a 2015 bill to move the primary into July as well. And it was true again of 2018 legislation that proposed a marginal move to the first Tuesday in April that also failed.

Now the 2019 session has brought two more bills once again promoting a change in the general primary date. One, HB 3476, represents a subtle change to the existing law. It would keep the primary in March and even keep it in the third week in March. The only change is to push the primary back from a Tuesday to the third Saturday in March. The other, HB 2531, is more in line with the repetitive 2013-2017 attempts to ease the primary into June. Although the 2019 version is by a different legislator -- this time a Republican rather than a Democrat -- and calls for a third Tuesday in June primary. While that is a week earlier than the bills from recent past sessions, it would still place the Illinois presidential primary just outside of the window in which states and territories are allowed by the national parties to hold primaries.

Neither 2019 bill has seen any significant action following February introductions. One can draw from that what one may, but if past is prelude to either effort, then they are unlikely to advance. And that means that Illinois is most likely to retain its traditional March date.


--
The Illinois presidential primary bills have been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

[2017-18 State Legislative Review: Proposed Primary Movement] Third Time Is Not the Charm for June Illinois Primary

This post is part of a series examining efforts -- both attempted and successful -- to move presidential primary election dates for 2020 during the now-adjourning 2017-2018 state legislative sessions in capitols across the country. While shifts tend to be rare in sessions immediately following a presidential election, introduced legislation is more common albeit unsuccessful more often than not.

--

Rare are the times when Illinois has pulled up the stakes on its traditional third Tuesday in March primary to move elsewhere on the presidential primary calendar. In fact, the only time in the post-reform era legislators in the Land of Lincoln shifted what is called the general primary -- a consolidated primary that includes the presidential primary -- was ahead of a cycle when a favorite son was seeking the Democratic nomination.

While other states are moving around from cycle to cycle, that just does not happen in Illinois. Like other states, Illinois is a victim of the same negative inertia of traditional fixed primary date. However, that has not stopped Illinois state Representative Scott Drury (D-58th, Highwood) from proposing legislation in the last three sessions to push the general primary back from March to the fourth Tuesday in June. Drury raised the issue in 2013 and again in 2015. And a similar bill -- HB 334 -- was introduced for a third time in 2017 and met the same fate: being referred to committee following introduction, where it died.

The intent of this is less about the presidential primary tethered to the general primary and likely more about shortening the general election campaign for all the other candidates nominated for state and local offices across the state. But a fourth Tuesday in June Illinois presidential primary would have implications. It would place the contest in the same position as the back up option in Utah. And while that worked for the Utah GOP in the 2012 cycle, that position on the calendar is now non-compliant with the national party rules on primary and caucus timing. The fourth Tuesday in June is too late on the calendar, falling outside of the window in which states can conduct primaries and caucuses.

This June primary idea keeps coming up in Illinois, but legislators have not gravitated to it in the past and likely will not in the future (should it come up again in 2019).


--
The Illinois bill has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.

The Electoral College Map (11/1/16)

New State Polls (11/1/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	Data Orbital	10/29-10/30	+/-4.12%	550 likely voters	41	45	8	+4	+1.19
California	Survey USA	10/28-10/31	+/-3.6%	747 likely voters	56	35	4	+21	+23.04
Illinois	Loras	10/26-10/27	+/-4.0%	600 likely voters	48	37	10	+11	--
Illinois	Emerson	10/27-10/30	+/-4.3%	500 likely voters	53	41	2	+11	+15.08
Kentucky	Cygnal	10/26-10/28	+/-3.44%	811 likely voters	32	56	5	+24	--
Kentucky	Western Kentucky University	10/25-10/30	+/-4.0%	602 likely voters	37	54	6	+17	+19.71
Maine	Maine People's Resource Center	10/24-10/26	+/-3.4%	812 likely voters	42	37	9	+5	--
Maine	Emerson	10/28-10/30	+/-3.5%	750 likely voters	46	42	5	+4	+6.75
Maine CD1	Maine People's Resource Center	10/24-10/26	+/-4.7%	429 likely voters	45	33	9	+12	--
Maine CD1	Emerson	10/28-10/30	+/-5.0%	375 likely voters	49	43	4	+6	+15.10
Maine CD2	Maine People's Resource Center	10/24-10/26	+/-5.0%	382 likely voters	38	41	9	+3	--
Maine CD2	Emerson	10/28-10/30	+/-5.0%	375 likely voters	44	42	6	+2	+3.06
Michigan	Mitchell	10/31	+/-3.61%	737 likely voters	50	43	3	+7	+6.88
Missouri	Monmouth	10/28-10/31	+/-4.9%	405 likely voters	38	52	4	+14	+7.51
New Hampshire	Inside Sources	10/26-10/28	+/-5.1%	408 likely voters	43	45	4	+2	--
New Hampshire	UNH	10/26-10/30	+/-3.9%	641 likely voters	46	39	5	+7	+5.79
North Carolina	Elon	10/23-10/27	+/-3.7%	710 likely voters	42	41	12	+1	--
North Carolina	Survey USA	10/28-10/31	+/-3.7%	718 likely voters	44	51	3	+7	+1.55
Pennsylvania	Franklin & Marshall	10/26-10/30	+/-5.1%	652 likely voters	49	38	7	+11	+5.53
Texas	Dixie Strategies	10/27-10/29	+/-3.13%	980 likely voters	39	52	4	+13	+6.96
Virginia	Washington Post	10/27-10/30	+/-3.5%	1024 likely voters	48	42	1	+6	--
Virginia	Emerson	10/28-10/30	+/-3.4%	800 likely voters	49	45	2	+4	+6.70

--
Changes (11/1/16)
One more week.

The map holds steady at 340-198. However, the bevy of new polls pushed New Hampshire back onto the Watch List. The Granite state is now within a point of the Lean/Toss Up line on Clinton's side of the Spectrum below. Despite all the poll releases, the movement on the Electoral College Spectrum from a day ago was minimal. Michigan and Maine traded positions in the Lean Clinton area and Kentucky likewise was nudged past Nebraska on the far right end of the Spectrum.

It is notable that all of the blue states above with exception of Pennsylvania saw their FHQ average margins slightly decrease upon the introduction of these new polls to the dataset. Most of that shift is attributable to Trump gains rather than Clinton declines across those states. Clinton continues to have less variable numbers while Trump continues to climb/consolidate Republican support as election day nears.

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

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MD-102 (13)	RI-4 (162)	PA-20 (263)	TX-38 (161)	TN-11 (61)
HI-4 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	MO-10 (123)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	OR-7 (183)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	SC-9 (113)	ND-3 (44)
MA-11 (31)	NM-5 (188)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	UT-6 (104)	NE-53 (41)
CA-55 (86)	MN-10 (198)	NV-6 (322 | 222)	IN-11 (98)	KY-8 (36)
NY-29 (115)	MI-16 (214)	OH-18 (340 | 216)	MS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20+13 (136)	ME-23 (216)	IA-6 (198)	KS-6 (81)	ID-4 (19)
DE-3 (139)	VA-13 (229)	AZ-11 (192)	SD-3 (75)	WV-5 (15)
WA-12 (151)	WI-10 (239)	GA-16+13 (181)	LA-8 (72)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (158)	NH-4 (243)	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
Colorado	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Indiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
New Hampshire	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Ohio	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
Oregon	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Utah	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
Happy Halloween, 2016

The Electoral College Map (10/31/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/30/16)

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