Alternate Missouri Senate bill would reestablish presidential primary and schedule for April

The fourth of four bills currently before the Missouri General Assembly in its 2025 state legislative session would also bring back the presidential primary nixed in 2022 but schedule the election for yet another -- a fourth -- distinct date on the calendar. 

SB 417, introduced by Senator Jill Carter (R-32nd, Jaspar/Newton), resurrects ideas first brought forth in discussions over similar legislation in 2023. Namely, the objective, then as now, would be to consolidate the presidential preference primary with the general election for municipal offices on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in April. Only, the 2025 version contains a twist. 

The catch to conducting concurrent presidential primaries with a general election for municipal offices is an administrative one. The consolidation would require election administrators to simultaneously print both partisan primary ballots and effectively nonpartisan general election ballots as one across all municipalities (and the offices contained therein) together. It was that issue that played at least some role in derailing the push to reinstate the presidential primary in the Show-Me state before 2024: Administrators balked at the potential complexity introduced into the process. 

However, there is a fix to that snag in Carter's SB 417. The senator would have all presidential candidates regardless of party listed on the ballot for the presidential primary/municipal general election. There would be no Democratic ballot, no Republican ballot, no ballot for those wishing to simply vote in municipal elections. Instead, everything would be on one ballot that all Missouri voters turning out in early April would receive. Results would then be delivered to state party chairs who would in turn allocate delegate slots to candidates identified with the respective parties. 

Left unspecified is how the uncommitted line (or lines) on the ballot would be treated. If there is merely one uncommitted option, then it could serve as a catch-all that is difficult to parse out along partisan lines for the purposes of allocation. That problem could potentially be solved by placing an uncommitted (Democratic) line in addition to an uncommitted (Republican) option on the ballot. But it is not clear in Carter's legislation which is the prescribed protocol. 

So, one leftover administrative issue is addressed, but in so doing, a possible unintended consequence is introduced. 

On the Missouri Senate side, bill would schedule a reinstated presidential primary in March

There are two bills currently in the Missouri state House to reinstate a presidential primary in the Show-Me state, but there is also action on the matter in the upper chamber in Jefferson City. 

In fact, legislation has also been introduced in the Missouri state Senate to bring back the state-funded presidential preference election eliminated by the General Assembly in 2022. One measure, SB 670 introduced by Senator David Gregory (R-15th, St. Louis), is more in line with HB 126 which would basically reset conditions to where they were with respect to the parameters of the presidential primary prior to 2022. That is to say that the primary election would revert to a position on the presidential primary calendar following Super Tuesday. 

But the two are not identical. The House version replicates the pre-2022 language in state law. In it, the primary would fall on the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. However, Gregory's SB 670 strips out the latter portion and simply schedules the presidential preference election for the second Tuesday in March. In most years, including 2028, there is no difference between the two: the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is often the second Tuesday in March. 

The exception is when March begins on a Tuesday. When March 1 falls on a Tuesday, then the second Tuesday in March is March 8. But the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March is not until March 15. It is the same reason it appears as if the Missouri presidential primary moved up a week from 2016 to 2020. In the former year, March began on a Tuesday. 

In the grand scheme of things, none of this is all that consequential. Yet, it is meaningful that none of the three Missouri bills discussed in this space thus far in 2025 are aligned on what the date of any reinstated presidential primary would be. And that is part of what derailed the 2023 efforts to revive the presidential primary in the Show-Me state. 

From Missouri, a competing bill to restore the Show-Me state presidential primary

Earlier this week, FHQ raised legislation introduced in Missouri that aims to reestablish the presidential primary formally nixed in 2022. That bill envisions a Super Tuesday primary in early March. But it is not the only measure seeking to reinstate the presidential preference election in the Show-Me state. 

A similar state House bill -- HB 126 -- would also bring back the state-funded presidential primary, but the legislation from Rep. Rudy Veit (R-59th, Wardsville) would schedule the election for the second Tuesday after the first Monday in March. Veit's legislation would turn back the clock, reestablishing the parameters under which the state's presidential primary was conducted before it was eliminated. There would be no Super Tuesday and no expansion of absentee voting as is the case in the competing House bill.

Veit filed similar legislation in late 2022 ahead of the 2023 legislative session in Jefferson City. It and other bills met roadblocks along the way in the legislative process and ultimately amounted to nothing.

Super Tuesday bill would reinstate Missouri presidential primary

Efforts have once again been revived in Missouri to rescue the Show-Me state's presidential primary after it was eliminated during the 2022 General Assembly session. Neither legislation filed in 2023 nor 2024 was successful in reinstating the state-funded option for the 2024 cycle. 

But work has started early in Jefferson City with 2028 in mind. One such bill, HB 367 from Rep. Brad Banderman (R-119th, St. Clair), would not only bring the presidential primary election back as a standalone contest, but would schedule the election for the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday. Unlike the other bills put forth, Banderman's legislation would also expand the window for early in-person absentee voting from two to six weeks. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Republican Race is Over?

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

The indictment of a former president is something new in American politics. Not in modern American politics, but in American politics, period. And that says nothing about how an indictment (or multiple indictments) would impact a former president seeking his party's presidential nomination for a third time. We do not have a clear understanding yet as to how any of that will impact the race. But that has not stopped folks from racing to conclusions or hypothesizing about the the effects without actually waiting for the hypothesis to be even minimally tested.

Count Tina Ngyuen from Puck News among them.

Look, FHQ noted earlier this week that "it's Trump's until it's not," but that is not anything new. The majority of invisible primary signals have been pointing in that direction for some time if not all along, but with the caveat that the former president's position in 2023 is not like it was in 2019 when Trump could lean on the advantages of incumbency. That is the story of the 2024 invisible primary on the Republican side: assessing where Trump's bid stands between the two poles of his previous two runs. 

Any apparent momentum Trump has enjoyed in 2023, after the midterms were a drag on the former president at the tail end of 2022, buoys the notions that 1) things have improved for Trump in the near term and 2) that nudges him closer to his 2019 position than to where he was in 2015. Part of what buttresses the improved outlook for Trump 2024 (at least with respect to the Republican nomination process) is that his poll position had improved and was improving before "indictment watch" really heated up this week. And the fact that elite Republicans are rallying to the former president as formal criminal charges loom may or may not trickle down and resonate at the rank and file level among potential Republican primary voters (who will not start voting on the nomination for another nine months or so). 

But first let's see and maybe test that again over time. Trump may win the 2024 Republican nomination, but that does not mean that a dynamic process does not lay stretched out before us. As has been said, the fun is in the journey. It may not exactly be fun, but the process very definitely has an impact on, if not the outcome of the nomination race, then how the party transitions to the general election. That is meaningful.

...

Nevertheless, they persisted. Trump's position may have improved, but the other candidates and prospective candidates are still, well, acting like candidates and not like the race is over. In fact, the broader DeSantis 2024 effort scored a bit of a coup in the staff primary a day ago when an aligned super PAC, Never Back Down, brought former Ted Cruz campaign manager, Jeff Roe, on board. This is no small thing. Yes, the Roe-led effort to help boost Cruz to the 2016 Republican presidential nomination fell short, but it also won some significant victories along the way. And it probably punched above its weight by out-hustling Trump in caucus states and in exploiting the delegate selection process as well. 

What is different now is that, while running a tight ship on the rules end in 2016 may prove a useful feather in the cap of the broader DeSantis presidential effort, Trump's 2024 team is more savvy than it was in 2015-16. State Republican parties are also littered with Trump-supportive if not Trump-aligned operatives. And the Republican rules are different in 2024 than they were in 2016. Exploiting the delegate selection process may be more difficult this time.

...

If the support from outside of Jefferson City is any indication, then it looks like Missouri might get its presidential primary back for 2024. But the election was eliminated last year by the state legislature for a reason, and despite support from both the Missouri Democratic and Republican parties, getting the presidential primary reinstated through the state legislature may be easier said than done. 

...

On this date...

...in 1976, Jimmy Carter bested George Wallace in the North Carolina primary, winning a majority of the vote and handing the Alabama governor a second loss in a southern state he had won in 1972. Also in the Tar Heel state that day, Ronald Reagan notched his first primary victory of the cycle, edging out President Ford.

...in 2015, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) entered the Republican presidential nomination race.

...in 2020, both Alaska (Democrats) and Rhode Island delayed delegate selection events due to the coronavirus pandemic.

--

Recent posts:

Alternate Kansas Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in March

Committee Hearing Demonstrates Broad Support for Effort to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

Idaho Presidential Primary Inching Toward Move to May

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

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

Committee Hearing Demonstrates Broad Support for Effort to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

The push to reinstate the Missouri presidential preference primary finally got its day before committee on Wednesday, March 22. The House Special Committee on Public Policy heard testimony on two identical bills to put back in statute code that was eliminated as part of omnibus elections legislation that passed the General Assembly and was signed into law in 2022. 

A few things quickly became clear in the course of the hearing. First, but for one opponent and a handful of informational witnesses, everyone in a long list of those providing comments -- from voters to state and county party chairs to statewide and local elections officials to union lobbyists -- was in favor of the move. Rep. Rudy Veit (R-59th, Cole), the sponsor of one of the bills (HB 347) leaned heavily into the idea of caucuses disenfranchising military and government personnel (fire, police, etc.) relative to the options available in a state-run primary election. The sponsor of the other bill (HB 267), Rep. Cyndi Buchheit-Courtway (R-115th, Jefferson) mentioned that she got into politics with a simple slogan, "fighting for our voices to be heard," an idea she said was violated with no presidential primary. 

Notably, the leadership of both state parties -- Chair Nick Myers and Vice Chair Leann Green of the Missouri Republican Party and newly elected Missouri Democratic Party Chair Russ Carnahan -- supported the effort. Carnahan went so far as to say that hurting voters' ability to participate in the presidential nomination process would further erode perceptions about the legitimacy of elections. 

Second, the costs of such an election -- a stand-alone March presidential primary -- were repeatedly raised. Rep. Veit and others cited the estimated $10 million price tag, but shrugged it off, saying it was the price of democracy. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) in his testimony noted that the cost would not come out of one year of the budget but be spread across four. 

And while Ashcroft did not speak for or against the legislation, he urged lawmakers to "pick one," caucuses or a primary. But he also made a point, talking about the presidential primary, to say that he was "philosophically" against holding a vote that does not matter. The secretary did not mean that the March election would fall too late in the calendar. Rather, he wrongly suggested that the primary has no bearing on either delegate allocation or selection in Missouri; that delegates are not bound. 

[FHQ aside: Again, this is wrong. It is an impression that seems to have been forged during the 2012 cycle when Missouri lawmakers could not find a way to move or then cancel a primary that the Missouri Republican Party (who had the active nomination race that cycle) opted out of. The primary still occurred on the state's dime, but caucuses were where delegates were selected (and though unbound were largely committed to particular candidates). Missouri Republicans, however, did not operate in that manner during the last competitive cycle in 2016 (nor 2020 for that matter). The party allocated delegates based on the primary because RNC rules during that cycle mandated it and further backed up that binding in all states at the national convention.

Ashcroft also projects past Republican issues in Missouri onto Show-Me state Democrats, who do not and have not had those same problems as state Republicans because the process is more regulated at the national party level. But those problems have already been dealt with by the RNC.]

Finally, another theme that may end up affecting this legislation down the line was the idea of consolidating primaries. Elections officials in attendance and testifying described the difficulty of pulling off one presidential primary election in March only to have to turn around and do it all over again in April with nonpartisan local elections. But the same election administrators were cool to the notion of combining a partisan election with a nonpartisan election when it came up because of the impact it would have on correctly generating and distributing many different versions of a ballot to voters. 

But if there is no state law requiring a primary, then none of this matters anyway. A state law would, of course, require elections officials, regardless of the burdens, to implement whatever state law calls for. And although a consolidated election may increase some headaches for elections officials across Missouri, it would both tamp down on the costs borne by the state and maximize turnout.

No votes were taken on either HB 267 or HB 347 in committee on Wednesday, but the hearing showcased some of the common tradeoffs involved in the presidential nomination process. 

Related:

2/7/23: Senate Companion Introduced to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

1/12/23: Identical Third Bill Would Reestablish Missouri's Presidential Primary

12/20/22: Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

--

Recent posts:

Idaho Presidential Primary Inching Toward Move to May

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Where are all the delegate selection plans?

Ohio Bill to Move Presidential Primary to May Has Second Committee Hearing

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

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

Senate Companion Introduced to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

The effort to reestablish the Missouri presidential primary continues. 

No, there has not been any movement on any of the three identical bills in the Show-Me state House to resurrect the presidential primary that was cancelled in 2022. However, now there is a Senate companion to one of those prior bills. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

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

Related:

1/12/23: Identical Third Bill Would Reestablish Missouri's Presidential Primary

12/20/22: Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

--

Recent posts:

Raffensperger Weighs in on Early Georgia Presidential Primary

OK. The DNC Has a New and Different Calendar for 2024. Now What?

DNC Adopts 2024 Primary Calendar Plan

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

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

Identical Third Bill Would Reestablish Missouri's Presidential Primary

There may or may not be enough support across both the Missouri state House and Senate to pass legislation to bring back the presidential primary in the Show-Me state, but there are now three separate and identical bills that seek to do that. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

This legislation has been added to the updated 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

--

Recent posts:

Progress Report: New Hampshire's calendar status, post-deadline day

Legislation is on the way to move Pennsylvania presidential primary up

Progress Report: A view of an early Georgia Democratic Presidential Primary, post-deadline day

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

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

Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

Yes, that's right. Reestablish. 

The effort in Missouri to eliminate the presidential primary failed in 2021, but was resurrected earlier this year as part of a state Senate substitute to a House-passed omnibus elections bill. And the impetus behind the push is, well, interesting. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

Both bills have been added to the updated 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

--

Recent posts:

What Happens if States Don't Go Along with the National Party? [Annotated]

New Hampshire Congressional Delegation Defends First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary

Democrats Mull Changes to the 2024 Calendar?

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

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

Missouri House Bill Would Eliminate Presidential Primary

A bill filed earlier this month in the Missouri House of Representatives would repeal the requirement to conduct a presidential primary in the Show-Me state. 

First term Representative Adam Schwadron (R-106th, St. Charles) on January 6 introduced HB 680. The legislation would strip out two separate sections of Missouri election law referring to the scheduling and conduct of a presidential preference primary election, thus eliminating the contest in future cycles. 

While there were a spate of Republican state parties that in 2019 canceled presidential primaries (or caucuses) in order to conduct precinct caucuses instead, those actions are more common than a 2024 cancelation in Missouri would be. What prompted state parties in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina to make those moves was that President Trump was running virtually unopposed for the Republican nomination. On the one hand, the maneuvering was viewed as a means of protecting the president. However, none of the prospective competition to Trump was ever really viable in a party that continued to overwhelmingly back the president. Through that lens, the actions were fairly normal for parties with incumbents seeking renomination largely unopposed. Often it is merely a cost-savings change. 

But Schwadron's bill in Missouri does not fit that trend. Missouri has shifted in the 21st century from general election bellwether to reliably red state for Republican candidates. And canceling -- or potentially canceling -- a presidential primary breaks 1) with a trend toward more presidential primaries in the post-reform era and 2) with a trend that only sees contrary movement on that front during uncontested cycles. 2024 is not shaping up to be an uncontested cycle on the Republican side. 

...unless former President Trump jumps into the race and is able to simultaneously ward off any viable competition. [Alternatively, this could be a means through which to aid a presidential bid from favorite son, Sen. Josh Hawley (R) should he opt to run and make it to the point on the calendar when hypothetical Missouri caucuses are held. see Rand Paul and Kentucky in 2015. That plan did not work.] Even then, this would be an atypical move by a Republican legislator much less in an early-ish Republican primary state. 

--

A link to this legislation has been added to the 2024 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

Recent posts: 

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- RNC Neutrality in 2024

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Hawley and Shermanesque/Sherman-ish Statements

A Presidential Primary in Lieu of Caucuses in Nevada?

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

The Electoral College Map (10/31/20)

Update for October 31.

The sleepy weekend a week ago has given way to a busier Saturday this time around with just three days to go until election day on Tuesday. If one follows the path laid by yesterday's update, then all eyes are on Georgia, Iowa and Ohio as within range of jumping the partisan line. But the day offered no new polls from either of those Watch List states. However, the polling movement continued away from Biden and toward the partisan line in both Arizona and Florida. Both now have average margins here at FHQ under Biden +3. However, despite the trajectory of change, neither will make it close the Watch List between now and Tuesday. There just is not enough time nor will there be enough of a tsunami of surveys to trigger such a change. Yet, both Sun Belt states stand as states where the margins are narrowing, but Biden is increasingly hitting 50 percent in polls. 

On the whole, however, the movement on the day was toward Trump. Most of that was fueled by a series of newly released Trafalgar Group polls that dominated the 14 polls from 11 different states. There will be more on that below. 

On to the polls...

Polling Quick Hits:

Florida

(Biden 49, Trump 49 via AtlasIntel)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +2.98] 

AtlasIntel: Biden 45, Trump 45 in March poll

The margin in the Sunshine state ticked under Biden +3 on Saturday on the weight of two polls that either favored Trump or came in under Biden's average advantage. In the latter case -- the tie in the AtlasIntall update -- the race was knotted at 49. That is a result that is not at all inconsistent with the recent Florida     polling and is actually consistent with the firm's last poll there way back in March. Then, the race was tied at 45 (also among likely voters).

Minnesota

(Biden 54, Trump 43 via Public Policy Polling

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +8.30] 
Public Policy Polling: Biden 52, Trump 44 in September poll

Outside of the recent Minnesota polls in the Survey USA series, the race for the 10 electoral votes on the line in the Land of 10,000 Lakes has not been particularly close. Yet, despite that and despite the fact that the margin widened in the PPP series in Minnesota since the last poll in September, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump were in the state on Friday. The former vice president's share of support in the North Star state is above 50 percent and his lead over eight points there. Minnesota and Michigan resemble one another at FHQ, but there has been three times more polling in the Great Lakes state than in Minnesota. Than again, Democrats are fighting the last battle in a way in region in 2020 after Hillary Clinton's campaign was perceived to have dropped the ball down the stretch four years ago. 

Missouri

(Trump 50, Biden 45 via Remington Research)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +6.40] 

Remington: Trump 51, Biden 45 in mid-October poll

One could quibble over the one point contraction in the Remington series of polls in the Show-Me state since the last poll the firm had in the field there two weeks ago. But taking a longer view of the series, that one point change is part of a downward trajectory through the lens of Remington polls in Missouri. In the last four polls the firm has conducted there since September the Trump's margin has gradually decreased from eight to five points. But the last three have been in the Trump +5-6 point range. Missouri will be closer in 2020 than it was four years ago, but the competitiveness of the state will only bring the Show-Me state toward the Toss Up/Lean line on the Trump side of the ledger. Again, that is closer but not close enough to be a state that would tip toward Biden in even his rosiest landslide scenarios. 

North Carolina

(Biden 48, Trump 45 via Meeting Street Insights)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.86] 
Meeting Street: Biden 47, Trump 47 in May poll

Much of North Carolina polling operates within three points range of three points from a tie. And Meeting Street Insights actually found the race moving from a tie in its May poll to a three point Biden advantage in its latest update. Again, the race for the Tar Heel state's 15 electoral votes is close and this update did little to shake the state from its position tilted between one and two points in the former vice president's direction. It is also in line with the current 48-46 (rounded) Biden lead in the FHQ averages. 

Pennsylvania

(Biden 49, Trump 44 via Muhlenberg)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.36] 
Muhlenberg: Biden 51, Trump 44 in poll last week

The only thing one really needs to check in any poll of Pennsylvania is whether it breaks with the pattern of Biden landing somewhere around 50 percent with Trump in the mid-40s. The update from Muhlenberg to a survey last week checks that box, but it also saw the gap between the two major party candidates contract by a couple of points. Biden lost two points while the president remained stationary at 44 percent. Barring an onslaught of new Keystone state polling between now and election day, the margin in the commonwealth is going to end up near Biden +5 heading into Tuesday. 

Texas

(Biden 50, Trump 48 via Public Policy Polling)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +1.37] 

Public Policy Polling: Biden 50, Trump 49 in early October poll

Just yesterday FHQ discussed the president's proximity to 50 percent in Lone Star state polling. Trump has only been at or north of the majority mark about a fifth of the time all year in Texas, but today it is Biden who hits the mark for only the second time in 2020. And that also has now happened in the second consecutive PPP survey in the state. In the end, that may say more about PPP than about Biden and how near he is to 50 percent. Texas continues to be a state that is stuck on a 48-46 Trump lead. That is about seven points closer than in 2016 and close enough to be a toss up, but still a state that is going to fall short of ending up on the Watch List as this race draws to a close. 

Virginia

(Biden 53, Trump 42 via Roanoke College)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +11.74] 
Roanoke: Biden 53, Trump 38 in mid-October poll

Trump gained ground in the latest update in the Roanoke College series of polls in the Old Dominion, but that actually only served to pull him in line with the FHQ averages Virginia. Biden now leads on that count by a 53-41 (rounded) margin. If anything, the previous Roanoke polls overrated the former vice president's lead in the commonwealth. Overall, the averages in Virginia now have Biden running about three points ahead of Clinton's pace in 2016 and Trump lagging nearly three points behind his. That is a slightly below average swing from the results there in 2016 to the polling average now. 

Trafalgar Group (late October battleground polls):

Arizona: Trump 49, Biden 46 (Trump 48, Biden 44 in early October poll) [Current FHQ margin: Biden +2.91] 

Florida: Trump 50, Biden 47 (Trump 48, Biden 46 in mid-October poll) 

Michigan: Trump 49, Biden 47 (Trump 47, Biden 45 in mid-October poll) [Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.32] 

Pennsylvania: Trump 48, Biden 48 (Biden 48, Trump 46 in mid-October poll) 

Wisconsin: Biden 48, Trump 47 (Biden 48, Trump 46 in mid-October poll) [Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.49] 

Nevada: Biden 49, Trump 47 (No previous Trafalgar poll) [Current FHQ margin: Biden +4.50] 

Minnesota: Biden 48, Trump 45 (Biden 47, Trump 47 in August poll) 

Rather than take these seven polls from Trafalgar Group individually, FHQ will look at them as a group. Clearly, Trafalgar is a firm that produces some of the most Republican-friendly surveys out there, but pushing that aside -- or merely assuming that fact for that matter -- the trajectory of change in those polls is still important relative to other pollsters at work on the state-level across the country. What emerges from this batch from the firm with right-leaning results is a mixed message. There is not clear signal. Arizona and Pennsylvania narrowed, moving toward Trump poll-over-poll. Florida Michigan and Wisconsin, on the other hand, witnessed either minimal change or maintained the previous margin. And the margin in the Trafalgar series in Minnesota actually widened, helping Biden. The only tie that binds is that all seven states are within three points. Yet, at FHQ, only Arizona and Florida meet that bar, and only just barely at that. 

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.

It was another day with a fair number of polls and very little to show for it at FHQ. The map and tally remain unchanged from a day ago as does the order of states depicted on the Electoral College Spectrum. And the eight state within a point of changing categories at FHQ were the same as they were at the close of business on Friday. There are some subtle movements afoot, but this still looks like a pretty steady race.

3 days to go.

Where things stood at FHQ on October 31 (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 (10/30/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/29/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/28/20)

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

The Electoral College Map (10/17/20)

Update for October 17.

The weekend began slowly. There was just one new survey released out of Missouri on Saturday to go along with a trio of battleground polls from HarrisX that came in after FHQ's update had posted a day ago. Consider it the calm before the storm that will likely be on the polling front in the 17 days between now and the culmination of the voting phase on election day. The campaigns will hit high gear (if they have not already with what is now more than 26 million early and mail-in votes cast) and pollsters will race to get in a few more rounds of polling both nationwide and on the state level.

On to the polls... 

Polling Quick Hits:

Florida

(Biden 48, Trump 48)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.31]
These HarrisX polls in Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania today are all the first time the firm has conducted a survey in any of the three in calendar 2020. And that leaves no real natural comparison other than the overall FHQ averages in those battlegrounds. In Florida, the poll was on target on the Biden number (relative to the former vice president's FHQ average share of support) but had Trump three points out in front of where the established averages have had him in the Sunshine state. Yet the president has seen his recent range inch upward into the upper 40s more regularly since the first week in October. Biden,  meanwhile, is at the lower end of his range in polls conducted over the same period. One can therefore pick their poison here, or merely accept that this one is well within the scope of presidential poll results in Florida. 

Michigan

(Biden 54, Trump 43)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.14]

The same thing is not exactly true in the HarrisX survey of Michigan. In that poll of the Great Lakes state it is the president's level of support that is in line with his established average share of support at FHQ. Biden, on the other hand, is at level that he has not been in since an Emerson poll last week. That said, the former vice president has not risen that high in Michigan polling since his polling surge across the country in June and July. This one is, perhaps, a bit optimistic for the Democratic nominee, but it does continue a trend of his average support approaching the 50 percent mark at FHQ.

Missouri

(Trump 51, Biden 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +6.52]

The Missouri poll from Remington is thankfully part of a series the firm has conducted in the Show-Me state throughout 2020. And the new one is consistent with the other polls Remington has had in the field there. Trump has generally been in the low 50s while Biden has been in the mid-40s in the post-convention period. [The former vice president was in the low 40s in the firm's two polls in the summer before the conventions.] This survey, then, is par for the course in Missouri. Trump is comfortably enough ahead but 2020 is not 2016. Yes, Trump lags more than four points behind the pace he set four years ago, but Biden is approaching a seven point improvement on how Clinton fared there in the last election. That is an above average swing (6.84 points on average toward the Democrats) from then to now. 

Pennsylvania

(Biden 51, Trump 46)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.48]

Finally, the last HarrisX survey from Pennsylvania tracks closely with the current FHQ average in the commonwealth. Biden's holds a 50-44 (rounded) advantage in the FHQ formula and one could quibble about the changes in this poll relative to that, but both candidates' shares in this poll are honestly well within the range of both in recent Keystone state polls. And again, since Pennsylvania is the tipping point state in the rank order of states depicted in the Electoral College Spectrum below, it represents the very least of what the president has to make up between now and election day to pull back into a position to collect 270 electoral votes and defend the White House. 

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)	MO-10 (125)	TN-11 (60)
MA-11 (17)	OR-7 (169)	PA-203 (273 | 285)	AK-3 (115)	KY-8 (49)
MD-10 (27)	NJ-14 (183)	NV-6 (279 | 265)	SC -9 (112)	AL-9 (41)
HI-4 (31)	ME-2 (185)	FL-29 (308 | 259)	KS-6 (103)	SD-3 (32)
CA-55 (86)	CO-9 (194)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	NE CD1-1 MT-3 (97)	ID-4 (29)
NYI-29 (115)	VA-13 (207)	NC-15 ME CD2-1 (335 | 219)	NE-2 (93)	AR-6 (25)
DE-3 (118)	NH-4 (211)	GA-16 (351 | 203)	IN-11 (91)	OK-7 (19)
WA-12 (130)	NM-5 (216)	OH-18 (187)	UT-6 (80)	ND-3 (12)
ME CD1-1 CT-7 (138)	MN-10 (226)	IA-6 (169)	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.

Understandably, the fewer the number of polls to come out, the less the chances are to see any changes at FHQ (or anywhere else for that matter). And collectively this group of polls did not exactly shake the race from its current steady course. Missouri stayed in its position as the Lean Trump state next to the Lean/Toss Up line, but is still almost five points outside of the least competitive Toss Up Trump state (Texas). And Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania have dug into their positions on the Spectrum and are unlikely to, barring a string of contrary polls, to budge in the next two and a half weeks. But time will tell that tale. 

17 days to go.

Where things stood at FHQ on October 17 (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
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 (10/16/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/15/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/14/20)

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