Legislation to Alter Electoral Vote Allocation Introduced in Nebraska

Nebraska shifted away from a winner-take-all allocation of electoral college votes for the 1992 cycle and efforts have been continually mounted ever since to return to that method. None of them have been successful, including legislation from the 2021 legislative session that died in committee. 

But that has not stopped another bill from coming forward in 2023. Senator Loren Lippincott (34th, Central City) has become the latest to attempt to tackle the issue following a cycle in which the Cornhusker state again split its electoral college allocation between Democratic and Republican slates. LB 764 strikes all language from current law that references any distinction between at-large and congressional district electors. It further compels electors -- all five of them -- to cast their electoral votes for the presidential and vice presidential candidates with the highest number of votes statewide.

In eight presidential election cycles since the institution of the congressional district allocation, Nebraska electors have split just twice with the second congressional district around Omaha going for the Democratic candidate in 2008 and again in 2020. That frequency has been enough of an issue for similar legislation to have come up now at least six times, but not enough of a problem for the state to move back to a winner-take-all allocation. 

Perhaps 2023 will be different. LB 764 awaits action in the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee.

--

Recent posts:

Hawaii Senate Bill Proposes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary

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

Alternative Bill Would Schedule New York Presidential Primary for April

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

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

Early Signs: Nebraska Electoral Vote Allocation Likely to Stay the Same

Last week FHQ detailed new legislation in Nebraska that would shift the allocation of electoral college votes from a congressional district method back to the standard winner-take-all method used in 48 other states and Washington, DC.

And this latest effort to switch back to a winner-take-all format for the first time since 1988 looks to go down the same road the previous 16 over the years: nowhere. Martha Stoddard at the Omaha World-Herald reported that LB 76's hearing before the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee found more opposition than support in the comments brought before the panel. 

Only the bill's sponsor, Senator Julie Slama (R-1st, Peru) and Ryan Hamilton, the executive director of the Republican Party in the Cornhusker state, spoke in favor of the move back to a winner-take-all allocation. Slama called the current system "unfair" and that it places undue partisan pressure on lawmakers in the redistricting process. 

Both arguments received pushback from opponents of the bill, including the system's architect, former Senator DiAnna Schimek. Opposition argued that the current system at least potentially makes part of the state -- Omaha -- competitive during a presidential general elections and thus draws some attention to the state.

The bill is not dead, but the signal coming out of the initial hearing was not positive for those seeking a reversion to the winner-take-all system.

Recent posts: 

Why Can't Nevada Just Replicate New Hampshire's Calendar Strategy?

A Glance at Where the 2024 Republican Delegate Selection Rules Stand

Nevada Legislation Would Establish January Presidential Primary, but it's Flawed

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

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

Nebraska Once Again Considers Returning to a Winner-Take-All Electoral Vote Allocation

A committee hearing scheduled for next week will once again have the Nebraska legislature considering a return to a winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes in future Electoral College meetings. 

LB 76 would revert Nebraska to the same winner-take-all system that it utilized in the Electoral College prior to the 1992 cycle and which all states other than Maine also use. 

But these attempts are nothing new in the Cornhusker state. Ever since that 1991 legislative session ushered in the era of electoral vote allocation by congressional district in Nebraska, some legislator or legislators have introduced legislation to rejoin the majority of states in how they handle the process. Each time, however, those efforts have failed. In 1993. In 1995. And in 1997. Chatter ramped up again in the aftermath of the state's first split of electoral votes in 2008, but nothing came of it. The same was true in 2015-16 before the 2016 presidential election and then again after it during the 2017 session. 

Now though, on the heels of yet another split of the five electoral votes at stake in Nebraska -- with John Biden replicating Barack Obama's 2008 win in the state's second congressional district on the way to the White House -- talk has again escalated around the idea of abandoning the more proportional system. And that talk with continue at the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs committee hearing next Wednesday. 

--

The allocation method Nebraska utilizes is unique compared to most other states, but given its partisan bent, any split that occurs breaks with the overwhelming partisan sentiment in the state. And those are the ends of the spectrum: maintaining a unique system or preserving electoral votes for the Republican nominee. The former has won out to this point since 1992.

Nebraska may have had difficulty in breaking with that tradition, but other states have had their own issues in trying to move to a more proportional, Nebraska-style allocation method. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all considered that in the time after the 2012 election. All states were Republican-controlled, but all had gone for Obama in 2012. Efforts failed in all three and 2016 quickly proved the folly such a move would have presented. Trump narrowly won all three states and would have had to have split the electoral votes had those post-2012 plans been instituted. Unintended consequences are everywhere. 

--

As a footnote, in recent years (during the 2010s) there have been more, although not more successful, bids to transition Nebraska into the national popular vote pact. There have been at least five (unsuccessful) bills on that front in that time.

Recent posts: 

Are the Parties Taking Different Paths on the 2024 Primary Calendar?

Where Does New Hampshire Fit into All the Early 2024 Calendar Jockeying?

Montana Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to March

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

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

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: NEBRASKA

NEBRASKA

Election type: primary
Date: May 12
Number of delegates: 33 [6 at-large, 3 PLEOs, 20 congressional district, 4 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional caucuses
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.

Unlike some states where most of the changes from 2016 to 2020 occurred because of the coronavirus in 2020, Nebraska Democrats saw changes to their delegate selection on both sides of the pandemic. The biggest pre-coronavirus changes instituted were in response to the Democratic National Committee rules changes encouraging increased participation in the delegate selection process. In December 2018, Nebraska Democrats opted to shift from the caucuses the party had used from 2008-2016 to the state-run primary. That not only changed the format for participation but also had the effect pushing the date of the Nebraska Democratic delegate selection event back by more than two months.

After the coronavirus pandemic turned the 2020 presidential nomination process upside down, the initial reaction from the state government was to mail early/absentee voting applications to all eligible Nebraska voters. But that late March decision was followed by another executive order that canceled all in-person voting in the May 12 primary.

All ballots are due to county elections offices by 8pm (CT) Tuesday, May 12. That is received and not postmarked by May 12. 

[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]

Overall, the Democratic delegation in Nebraska changed by three delegates from 2016 to 2020. The number of pledged delegates increased by four (three district delegates and one at-large delegate), but lost one superdelegate. The majority of the increase to the delegation was based on the later contest. That move from March in 2016 to May in 2020 qualified the state party for bonus delegates.


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)
Nebraska's 20 congressional district delegates are split across three congressional districts and have a variation of five delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Nebraska Democrats are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 7 delegates*
CD2 - 9 delegates*
CD3 - 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
The 20 Nebraska district delegates will be selected by district caucuses (subdivided by presidential preference) at the virtual state convention on June 13 via phone/video conference. That is a week later than the in-person state convention had been planned prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus. Post-primary virtual county conventions that feed into the district and state conventions will be held May 17-31. That, too, is marginally later than was originally planned. In-person county conventions were initially slated to fall in a May 14-24 window. Smaller Nebraska counties -- those with fewer than 50,000 residents -- will conduct their teleconference conventions from May 17-24 while the four largest counties in the Cornhusker state will distribute paper ballots on May 17 to be returned to the state party by May 27. Virtual conventions will follow in those largest counties on May 30-31.

The PLEO and then at-large delegates will be selected on June 14 at and by the virtual state convention based on the statewide results in the primary. Again, the May county conventions choose delegates to attend the virtual state convention.


Importantly, if a candidate drops out of the race before the selection of statewide delegates, then any statewide delegates allocated to that candidate will be reallocated to the remaining candidates. If Candidate X is in the race in mid June when the Nebraska statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the May party-run primary would be reallocated to Candidate X. [This same feature is not something that applies to district delegates.] This reallocation only applies if a candidate has fully dropped out.  This is less likely to be a factor with just Biden left as the only viable candidate in the race, but Sanders could still gain statewide delegates by finishing with more than 15 percent statewide. Under a new deal struck between the Biden and Sanders camps, Biden will be allocated (or reallocated) all of the statewide delegates in a given state. However, during the selection process, the state party will select Sanders-aligned delegate candidates in proportion to the share of the qualified statewide vote.

Nebraska Will Now Mail Absentee Ballot Applications to Every Voter Ahead of May 12 Primary

Nebraska joined the ranks of states turning toward absentee vote-by-mail as a response to the coronavirus pandemic's impact on the electoral process.

On Thursday, March 26, Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) announced that the state, through the secretary of state's office, or county elections officials would mail out to every voter in the Cornhusker state an application for an absentee ballot for the May 12 primary. This process is akin to those adopted in states like Georgia and West Virginia thus far. In-person early voting (April 13-May 11) and in-person election day voting remain in place, but all Nebraska voters will have the capacity to vote-by-mail if they so choose in order to avoid the further spread of the coronavirus.

Once applications are distributed, voters will then have until May 1 to request an absentee ballot. Although the application will be a hard copy that requires a physical signature, voters have the option of signing them and then either taking a picture of the form or scanning it, before returning it via email or fax. Mail and physical drop offs at the county offices are other options available to voters to submit their applications.

Requested ballots will begin being mailed out to voters on April 6. Voters will then have until election day -- May 12 at 8pm when polls close -- to have mail-in ballots returned to county elections administrators. The postmark of any mail-in ballot is immaterial. The ballot has to physically be into the county offices by the close of the polls on election day.



--
Nebraska Secretary of State Evnen (R) statement archived here.

Nebraska Democrats Opt to Move Back to Presidential Primary for 2020

Nebraska Democrats voted on December 8 during their quarterly State Central Committee meeting to conduct the state party's 2020 national delegate allocation process through a presidential primary.

This is a reversion to the mode of delegate selection Cornhusker state Democrats used prior to 2008. For that cycle and the succeeding two cycles, the party held caucuses. And the primary motivation for the switch from primary to caucus ahead of 2008 was to move to an earlier date on the presidential primary calendar. That allowed for (Saturday after Super Tuesday) February caucuses as opposed to the traditional May primary.

But that move never got rid of the primary. By Nebraska law, caucus or not, a party's candidates appear on the presidential primary ballot. And in both of the competitive Democratic presidential cycles of 2008 and 2016 the later primary added two turnout data points for comparison to the caucuses. Despite the later date of the non-binding primary contests, the turnout was higher than in the caucuses.

That has remained a sticking point in discussions in and out of the state party in Nebraska and has been a primary incentive to move back to a primary election currently scheduled for May.

Nebraska now becomes the sixth state to make a switch from a 2016 caucus to a 2020 presidential primary; joining Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, and Utah.

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

--
Related Posts: 
Caucus or Primary? Nebraska Democrats Have the Decision Before Them

Nebraska Democratic Party Platform Committee Passes Caucus-to-Primary Resolution

Nebraska Democrats Signal Caucus-to-Primary Switch for 2020

Caucus or Primary? Nebraska Democrats Have the Decision Before Them

Nebraska Democrats will convene this weekend to conduct their quarterly State Central Committee meeting. And on the agenda is the caucus or primary question as the group continues to consider the state party's draft delegate selection plan for 2020.

Yet, the party is not newly coming into this discussion. In fact, at its 2018 state convention this past June, Democratic delegates considered the matter as well. The state convention platform committee at the time ultimately passed a resolution calling for a switch to a primary from the caucus system the party has used to select and allocate national convention delegates from the Cornhusker state for each of the last three cycles (since 2008).

But news of the inner workings within the party on the caucus-to-primary question went quiet after that point. The convention resolution on the matter did not (and does not now) appear among the listed resolutions that were passed on the floor of the convention at the time.

However, it was listed among the passed resolutions in late June. Here's the language:

Why it disappeared from the passed resolutions was a mystery; one that was not settled later when I tried to reach out to the Nebraska Democratic Party (NDP) about it in July once I returned from vacation. Nor were they answered to any greater degree by the resolution's sponsor, Angela Thomas when FHQ reached out to her once news of the December State Central Committee meeting was reported toward the end of November.

Ultimately, this really is neither here nor there, but it was odd.

Regardless, the resolution would have been non-binding on the party. Additionally, the progression of the idea -- switching from a caucus to a primary -- has followed if not taken an expedited path as laid out by NDP Chair Jane Kleeb at the time of the state convention:

The party’s State Central Committee most likely won’t make a final decision until March, after the national Democratic Party issues guidance to the states, said Chairwoman Jane Kleeb.

The party has seemingly moved the consideration of caucus-to-primary up a quarter from March 2019 to December 2018 in order to incorporate the decision on mode of delegate selection into the party's draft delegate selection plan to be submitted to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee by early May.

Heading into the decisive State Central Committee meeting December 7-8, it should be noted that the resolution to eliminate the caucuses drew cheers back at the state convention when it was introduced in the platform committee and as of late November the idea of a caucus-to-primary shift was said by party Chair Kleeb to have held a three to one advantage among the party's grassroots.

Take that as internal momentum to change the state Democrats' mode of delegate selection for 2020. And that parallels the external momentum to move from caucuses to primaries in Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, and Utah that has already produced change in 2016-18.

Nebraska Democratic Party Platform Committee Passes Caucus-to-Primary Resolution

From the Omaha World-Herald:

Nebraska Democrats are weighing whether to scrap their decade-old practice of holding presidential caucuses.  

The Nebraska Democratic Party’s platform committee voted with no dissent Friday at Southeast Community College to advance a resolution calling for the elimination of presidential caucuses before the 2020 election.  

When the resolution was introduced, there were cheers from the group, and several people exclaimed that they dislike the caucuses.

The unanimously passed resolution to abandon the caucuses for a primary to allocate national convention delegates will now go before the state convention. Win or lose there, the decision will likely not be finalized by the state central committee until 2019 after the Democratic National Committee has set its rules for delegate selection for the 2020 cycle.

Related:
Nebraska Democrats Signal Caucus-to-Primary Switch for 2020
March Presidential Primary Bill Dies as Nebraska Legislature Adjourns

Nebraska Democrats Signal Caucus-to-Primary Switch for 2020

Citing party resources stretched too thin and depressed primary turnout, the Nebraska Democratic Party is considering abandoning its caucuses for a primary to allocate national convention delegates in 2020.

Prompted by the promise of an earlier voice in the presidential nomination process and no clear hope of a legislative move to shift up the primary in the Cornhusker state, Nebraska Democrats in 2007 first established a (then-compliant) February caucus/convention system for allocating national convention delegates in 2008. And while the move has driven grassroots enthusiasm and drawn candidate attention over the last three cycles in a way that a May primary may not have, the caucus/convention process has diverted party resources (around $150,000) that could otherwise have been spent winning elected offices further down the ballot.

The process of creating that separate caucus has also had implications for the May primary. First, the switch to a caucus rendered the presidential contest on the May primary ballot a beauty contest, meaningless to the allocation of delegates to the national convention. With the allocation decided, there was far less interest in the primary and has yielded lower turnout in primary elections for state and local offices.

And that is not all that uncommon for states with later and consolidated primaries combining presidential preference and a vote for nominations to down ballot positions. States that opt to create a new and separate presidential primary earlier in the calendar leave behind later primaries for other offices. Those primaries, asking voters to return to the polls again in a relatively short window of time, tend to see far lower participation.

Nebraska Democrats have apparently felt those pressures and are open to a return to the primary in 2020. The preference seems to be for an earlier primary, but state party chair (and Unity Reform Commission member), Jane Kleeb has also indicated that even a May primary may work given the outlook for 2020 (a big field of candidates).

Democrats have not exactly balked at a primary date change in the non-partisan Nebraska Unicam, but efforts to shift the contest into April (in 2014) or March (in 2016 and 2018) have all fallen flat in recent years. It is unclear whether Republican aligned legislators will be receptive to a date change in a cycle in which Republicans may not see a contested presidential nomination race.

One thing is clear: In the wake of 2016, caucuses are under scrutiny at almost all levels of the Democratic Party. Yes, the Unity Reform Commission made some recommendations regarding caucuses, but independent of that push, a handful of states have already made the caucus-to-primary switch. Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota all made the change in 2016 and Utah laid the groundwork for a primary option (by funding the election) in 2017. The number of caucus states looks to contract substantially with or without a Nebraska shift.

March Presidential Primary Bill Dies as Nebraska Legislature Adjourns

As expected, a bill that would have established a separate and earlier presidential primary in Nebraska quietly died when the legislature in the Cornhusker state adjourned in mid-April.

While the bill -- LB 1032 -- received a hearing in committee, it failed to gain traction just as a similar effort did in 2016.

The push in Nebraska is yet another primary movement casualty during the 2017-18 legislative sessions across the country. To this point, only California has successfully shifted the date of its presidential primary for the 2020 cycle. Every other bill in other states failed at some point in the legislative process. While the pace of 2020 primary movement has been slow thus far in the cycle, that is fairly common. Most of that activity continues to take place in the year before the presidential election year. Shifts happen during the other three years in a cycle, but it tends to be exception rather than rule.

Bill to Move Nebraska Presidential Primary to March Shelved

Similar to a 2016 push, legislation to establish a separate presidential primary has stalled in the Nebraska legislature. Same sponsor, same intent, same opposition.

Senator John Murante (49th, Gretna) introduced legislation -- LB 1032 -- to create a new statewide presidential primary election, severe it from the consolidated May primary, and shift the new election into March. The 2018 legislation is basically the same as the bill from 2016, but rather than move the new election to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, the 2018 version would schedule the primary for the second Tuesday in March.

In a late February hearing on the bill in the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, Murante, via the Lincoln Journal Star, argued for an earlier Nebraska role in the nomination process:

"Trump won Indiana and Cruz withdrew from the race and that ended Nebraska's opportunity to have a voice," Murante said. 

An early presidential primary election would provide that opportunity, he said.

The reasoning for the move is the same as it was two years ago even before Nebraskans had cast their 2016 primary votes. It was additionally a goal of the sponsor to entice Nebraska Democrats -- already with an earlier caucus -- to opt into the earlier primary with the potential for increased participation.

However, the reasoning against was similarly as consistent in 2018 as it was in 2016. The costs of primaries in the Cornhusker state are laid on the shoulders of the counties, and county officials in the committee hearing again balked at the $1.6 million price tag.

State actors often have the willingness to make these moves to earlier dates, but do not always have an ability to bring such a change to fruition. Often the ability portion of the equation -- especially when it is lacking -- comes down to the hit such a move would have on the budget. If the costs are too high, a primary stays where it is.

LB 1032 according to the Journal Star failed to gain priority and will see no further legislative action in 2018. Most primary moves occur in the year before the presidential primary.

--
More: 2020 Presidential Primary Calendar

The Electoral College Map (10/1/16)

Before jumping into the new polls for the day, allow FHQ a moment to make a few technical points now that the calendar has flipped from September to October. First, as promised, the possibility of electoral vote splits in Maine and Nebraska are now accounted for. One can most easily see that in the map above where the districts are being tracked now on the right side above the date. But that change is also reflected in the Electoral College Spectrum below (see particularly footnote #3). 

Second, not only are the day's new polls added, but so too are the 50 state surveys from UPI and Ipsos. As the latter are a rolling three week tracking poll, FHQ has made the editorial decision to include just the most recent version. That will be the case until there is no longer any overlap across versions. The inclusion of those series of surveys has shuffled a few states around as the changes table below notes. Alaska, Kansas and Utah shifted into deeper red territory and Mississippi inched just inside the Strong/Lean line on the Lean side. Meanwhile, on the Clinton side of the partisan line, Maine and Oregon continued to huddle around two different lines of demarcation between the categories here at FHQ. Both Maine and Oregon nudged back into the Lean Clinton category but from different directions. Overall, the shake up in the Spectrum -- the underlying order of states -- was pretty minimal.

New State Polls (10/1/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Nevada	Bendixen & Armandi/LVRJ	9/27-9/29	+/- 3.5%	800 likely voters	45	44	5	+1	+0.29
New Hampshire	GBA Strategies	9/25-9/27	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	43	37	2	+6	+5.77
New Jersey	Stockton Polling Institute	9/22-9/28	+/- 3.9%	638 likely voters	46	40	5	+6	+11.37

Polling Quick Hits:
Three new polls were released on the first Saturday in October.

Nevada:

Changes (October 1)
State	Before	After
Alaska	Lean Trump	Strong Trump
Kansas	Lean Trump	Strong Trump
Maine	Toss Up Clinton	Lean Clinton
Mississippi	Strong Trump	Lean Trump
Oregon	Strong Clinton	Lean Clinton
Utah	Lean Trump	Strong Trump

The Bendixen poll for the Las Vegas Review-Journal is as much of a confirming poll as one could expect. Yesterday's Suffolk poll pushed the Silver state back to the Clinton side of the partisan line, but only barely. This poll is consistent with that positioning and is further evidence that there has been a shift away from that September streak of polls that established a range from Clinton and Trump tied to Trump +3.


New Hampshire:
Let's put it this way about the race in the Granite state: Clinton has not trailed in a poll there since July and that poll was an outlier. While other states have seen the race dance around a bit, New Hampshire has consistently had Clinton ahead in the five to seven point range. This GBA Strategies survey echoes that general dynamic.


New Jersey:
Before the Obama era -- especially during the Bush elections -- New Jersey always seemed to tighten up toward the end of the presidential race. It was never enough to make it competitive, but enough to grab the attention of poll watchers. This Stockton poll feels a little like those 2000 and 2004 days. Still, while Clinton lags behind Obama's 2012 performance in the Garden state, Trump is similarly trailing Romney's pace there. However, it should be noted that this poll has Trump right where Romney ended. But that 40 percent is on the high side of where he has been across the full series of New Jersey surveys.


--
The technical additions triggered a heavier load of changes than normal. Yet, the map and Spectrum remained largely unchanged. There was some more shuffling on and off the Watch List -- around the category lines -- than anything else.

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
HI-42 (7)	DE-3 (171)	PA-20 (263)	SC-9 (154)	MT-3 (53)
MD-10 (17)	OR-7 (178)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	TX-38 (145)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	RI-4 (182)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	MS-6 (107)	ND-3 (44)
CA-55 (75)	NM-5 (187)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	AK-3 (101)	KY-8 (41)
MA-11 (86)	MN-10 (197)	OH-18 (334 | 222)	KS-6 (98)	AL-9 (33)
NY-29 (115)	WI-10 (207)	NV-6 (340 | 204)	IN-11 (92)	NE-53 (24)
IL-20 (135)	MI-16 (223)	IA-6 (198)	UT-6 (81)	WV-5 (19)
NJ-14 (149)	NH-4 (227)	AZ-11 (192)	LA-8 (75)	ID-4 (14)
WA-12 (161)	ME-33 (230)	GA-16 (181)	SD-3 (67)	OK-7 (10)
CT-7 (168)	VA-13 (243)	MO-10+13 (165)	TN-11 (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 Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Delaware	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Maine	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Michigan	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Mississippi	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up 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 Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Rhode Island	from Lean Clinton	to Strong Clinton
Virginia	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/30/16)

The Electoral College Map (9/29/16)

The Electoral College Map (9/28/16)

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

The Electoral College Map (9/28/16)

New State Polls (9/28/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Michigan	Mitchell Research	9/27	+/- 2.2%	1956 likely voters	46	41	4	+5	+5.92
Nebraska	Emerson	9/25-9/27	+/- 3.6%	700 likely voters	29.3	55.7	6.6	+26.4	+20.59
Washington	Emerson	9/25-9/26	+/- 3.6%	700 likely voters	44.2	38.4	5.6	+5.8	+11.19

Polling Quick Hits:
Midweek brought the first post-debate state-level poll and a couple of others from Emerson that overlapped with the first debate on Monday night.

Michigan:
That first completely post-debate poll was from Mitchell Research out of the Great Lakes state. Throughout September, the Michigan average margin has narrowed as the polls have ranged from about a one to six point Clinton advantage. This latest Mitchell poll is on the upper side of that spread, but shaves a point off the early September survey from the firm. In the grand scheme of things in this race, it represents no real change. However, it is noteworthy that this is Trump's third consecutive poll in the 40s (rather than below that threshold).


Nebraska:
In Nebraska, Emerson's debate-straddling survey finds Trump inching up to within range of where Romney was in the state four years ago. Clinton, on the other hand, is lagging well behind not only Trump in one of the reddest states, but trailing Obama's final share of support by around ten points as well.


Washington:
If the trajectory of the race is toward a more normal position in the Cornhusker state, the opposite is true in Washington. There, though the polling has been light, the margin has been off the track as compared to the vote distribution in the Evergreen state during the Obama era. One thing can be said about the polling in Washington: it has been quite volatile. Clinton has led across the full set of surveys there in 2016, but both candidates' shares of support has varied widely; Clinton within a 14 point window and Trump in a 19 point range. Those are wild fluctuations given such a sporadically surveyed state.


--
Michigan trades spots with Virginia on the Spectrum and moves onto the Watch List. Other than that, all remains unchanged from a day ago.

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
HI-42 (7)	NJ-14 (175)	ME-4 (264)	MS-6 (126)	TN-11 (56)
MD-10 (17)	DE-3 (178)	CO-93 (273 | 274)	MO-10 (120)	AR-6 (45)
VT-3 (20)	NM-5 (183)	FL-29 (302 | 265)	SC-9 (110)	SD-3 (39)
MA-11 (31)	MN-10 (193)	NC-15 (317 | 236)	AK-3 (101)	ND-3 (36)
CA-55 (86)	WI-10 (203)	OH-18 (335 | 221)	KS-6 (98)	ID-4 (33)
NY-29 (115)	VA-13 (216)	NV-6 (203)	UT-6 (92)	NE-5 (29)
IL-20 (135)	MI-16 (232)	IA-6 (197)	IN-11 (86)	OK-7 (24)
WA-12 (147)	NH-4 (236)	AZ-11 (191)	MT-3 (75)	WV-5 (17)
CT-17 (154)	RI-4 (240)	GA-16 (180)	KY-8 (72)	AL-9 (12)
OR-7 (161)	PA-20 (260)	TX-38 (164)	LA-8 (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 274 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 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
Delaware	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Indiana	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Maine	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Michigan	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Nevada	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Ohio	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
Oregon	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Rhode Island	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:
The Electoral College Map (9/27/16)

The Electoral College Map (9/26/16)

The Electoral College Map (9/25/16)

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