New York bill introduced to move February presidential primary to April

Last week new legislation was filed in the New York Assembly to shift the presidential primary in the Empire state from February to April. A 4421 would not only move the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in April, but would also push the late June congressional primary to August. 

But the bill from Assemblymember Andrew Molitor (R-150th, Westfield) requires some further unpacking.

First, this is not a new idea. Versions of this same legislation were put forth in each of the last two legislative sessions. And in neither case did the bills go anywhere. This is all despite the fact that the New York presidential primary ended up scheduled for sometime in April in each of the last four cycles. [Note: Covid did ultimately push the April 2020 presidential primary to June.]

The past inaction says something about those previous bills: They break (and have broken) with the post-2008 protocol that has been established in the Empire state for dealing with the scheduling of the presidential primary election. No legislation since 2007 has sought to permanently change the date of the election. Instead, when late spring rolls around in the year before the presidential election, the New York state legislature introduces legislation crafted in consultation with the state parties to not only set the date of the presidential primary in the state but to define the terms of delegate allocation and selection to be used by each of the major parties. That legislation then sunsets after the general election, reverting the primary to the date set for the 2008 primary in 2007: the (noncompliant) first Tuesday in February. 

There is no indication that there is any momentum behind this latest effort to change that protocol. While the current method does technically put New York parties in noncompliance with national party rules, that reality at the very least forces legislators to revisit both the timing and method of delegate selection every four years. And theoretically at least that provides them an opportunity to carve out an advantageous position on the calendar (even if the default has been to place the election in April sometime).

--

There is alternate legislation this session to permanently shift the primary to June as well.

Legislation introduced in New York would shift presidential primary to noncompliant date

Senator James Skoufis (D-42nd) has introduced a bill in the New York State Senate to consolidate the presidential primary in the Empire state with the primaries for state and local offices. 

S 1687, like the similar bills that have been filed in the three previous legislative sessions in Albany, would combine the presidential preference vote with other primaries on the fourth Tuesday in June. The intent is simple enough: to reduce the burden on both the state and its voters by forgoing the expense of administering a separate presidential primary election. 

But there is a catch. Noble though the goals of this legislation may or may not be, a late June presidential primary would run afoul of both national parties' delegate selection rules. The contest would fall too late in the cycle and would thus incur penalties for any New York state party that did not opt out of the primary and hold a party-funded and run contest on an earlier and compliant date. 

UPDATE (2/12/25): 

A companion bill, identical to the Senate version, has also been filed in the New York Assembly. A 5058, introduced by Assemblymember Jonathan Jacobson (D-104th, Newburgh), would also change the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in June (from one noncompliant date to another).

From FHQ Plus: Calendar Foreshadowing in New York

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From Lunchables -- 4/18/23:

One of the missing pieces of the 2024 presidential primary calendar is the primary in the Empire state. And the major reason for that is the standard protocol for scheduling the election every cycle dating back to 2012. Basically some variation of the following has taken place every cycle since the New York legislature moved the presidential primary — the “spring primary” — to February for 2008. 

1. Faced with a noncompliant primary, the New York legislature some time in the late spring sets the parameters of the next year’s presidential primary, including the date, method of delegate allocation, etc.

2. At the end of the presidential election year, the date of the primary — typically in April in 2012-20 period — reverts to the noncompliant February position it had to begin with.

3. The process starts anew for the next cycle.

In the 2024 cycle, New York is stuck somewhere in step one above: saddled with a February presidential primary date that no one with decision-making power over the date of the primary intends to keep. 

But that does not mean that there have not been hints about where the thinking is in the Empire state with respect to the primary date for 2024. Those hints, however, have not come from the legislature as of yet nor even from inside the state to this point. Instead, there has been talk of concurrent Connecticut and New York primaries in early April during a committee hearing concerning a bill to reschedule the presidential primary date in the Nutmeg state. And there was another mention of a cluster of contests involving Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island on the same April 2 date for 2024 in the draft delegate selection plan (DSP) of Ocean state Democrats. 

Now, there are further indications that actors actually in New York are targeting April 2. Quietly last week, the New York Democratic Party posted for public comment its draft delegate selection plan for the upcoming cycle. And in it were details of a presidential primary to take place on April 2, 2024. That is likely more than merely aspirational. The same basic pattern occurred four years ago when the 2020 draft delegate selection plan foreshadowed the legislative change to come in Albany.

And legislative action is still required in this instance. It just is unlikely to occur before June (if recent cycles are any indication). There are currently three bills dealing with the scheduling of the presidential primary already introduced in the New York Assembly or Senate, but none of them are necessarily candidates to be vehicles for the sort of change called for in the Democrats’ delegate selection plan. Sure, all three could be amended, but it has been standard for a clean bill with details of not just the timing of the presidential primary but the preferred delegate allocation method of each of the parties to be included in the introduced legislation.

That is likely still a ways off, but this is one more clue that New York is going to have a primary cluster with Connecticut and Rhode Island on April 2. And Hawaii and Missouri could be there too.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- How the Republican Candidates Line Up in South Carolina

Invisible Primary: Visible -- DeSantis Wilts in the Glare of the National Spotlight

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Chris Christie's Decision

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

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

Alternative Bill Would Schedule New York Presidential Primary for April

An alternative proposal for scheduling the 2024 presidential primary has been introduced in the New York state Assembly. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

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

--

Recent posts:

New Hampshire Senate Moves to Further Protect First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary with Constitutional Amendment

Hawaii Bill Would Establish a Presidential Primary

State House Companion Bill Would Also Push Michigan Presidential Primary to February 27

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

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

Assembly Companion Introduced to Consolidate New York Primaries in June

As has been the case in past cycles, an Assembly companion -- A 1109 -- to a state Senate bill to consolidate the New York presidential primary with primaries for other offices in June has now been introduced.

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

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

--

Recent posts:

West Virginia Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to February

Post-2022 Partisan Control of State Government and 2024 Presidential Primary Movement

Iowa Back in the Democratic Pre-Window?

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

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

New York Bill Would Consolidate Primaries in June

The adjournment of one legislative session had only just killed the last effort to consolidate primaries in New York before two Democratic legislators, Sen. James Skoufis (D-42nd) and Sen. Brad Hoylman (D-47th), revived it during the January 4 opening of the 2023 legislative session in the Empire state. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

Recent posts:

Primary Movement Starts with the State Legislatures (2023)

"It will be a state-sponsored public opinion poll"

It Isn't Just the Democrats Who Are Shaking up the 2024 Presidential Primary 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.   

New York Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June, but...

For the last several cycles, the scheduling of the New York presidential primary has fallen into a regular rhythm. Following the end of any presidential election year, the date of the primary -- wherever it has been scheduled in the previous cycle -- reverts to an early February date that is non-compliant with national party rules. 

That routine is no different as the 2020 cycle transitions to 2024. 

What initially was set before the Covid-19 outbreak as a late April primary date has once again been automatically pushed back to the first Tuesday in February, the day after the (would-be) Iowa caucuses (if the scheduling of the past few cycles carries over to 2024). But that has been the placeholder for the presidential primary -- the spring primary -- in the Empire state since the 2008 cycle. One could argue, and FHQ has, that this forces state legislators to revisit the date of the primary every cycle and to consider alternatives that might be advantageous to the state. The clearer argument just jumps to the latter explanation. Legislators in New York do not need to be forced, but rather they collectively and voluntarily reexamine the date of the presidential primary in the light of the national party rules that have been released during the midterm election year. 

But now, newly introduced legislation would disrupt this regular rhythm of the last decade and consolidate the presidential primary with the primaries for state offices. S 1819 would eliminate the spring primary language and move the date of the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in June.

Astute readers and calendar watchers will no doubt spot the problem with the legislation introduced and sponsored by two Democratic legislators, Sen. James Skoufis (D-39th) and Sen. Brad Hoylman (D-27th). Yes, the plan would move the New York presidential primary out of the early calendar problem area  near or before the four carve-out states. But it would create the same problem on the back end of the calendar. The late June primary was fine in 2020, however, only because of latitude provided to the states/state parties due to the pandemic. Assuming there is no global outbreak in 2024 and that the national party rules on timing carry over to the coming presidential primary season, then a fourth Tuesday in June primary in the Empire state would also be non-compliant. 

Now, obviously this has not stopped New York legislators in the past. Again, see the description of that "regular rhythm" above. They could as they have over the last several cycles schedule the primary for an alternative (and compliant) time, but if this legislation passes and is signed into law, there would also be the matter of the state primaries tethered to the presidential primary. Would legislators move the entire consolidated primary to an earlier date or would they merely split them again, shifting the presidential primary alone to different point on the calendar? 

That remains to be seen should this legislation actually make it through the legislative branch and end up signed into law. But the one thing that is for certain is that it would be tempting from a cost savings perspective to keep the two sets of contests together. And that is likely the main thrust of this legislation.

--

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

Recent posts: 

Iowa Will Not Go Gentle into That Good Night for 2024

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Actions versus Words

Missouri House Bill Would Eliminate Presidential Primary

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

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

The Electoral College Map (10/30/20)

Update for October 30.

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

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

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

On to the polls...

Polling Quick Hits:

Connecticut

(Biden 51, Trump 26 via Sacred Heart University)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +23.99] 

Biden 47, Trump 34 in April poll

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

Florida

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

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.08] 

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

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

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

Georgia

(Trump 48, Biden 47 via Landmark Communications)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +0.41] 

Trump 49, Biden 45 in poll last week

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

Kentucky

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

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +18.09] 

No previous Bluegrass poll

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

Michigan

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

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

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

Kiaer Research: Biden 50, Trump 35 in June poll

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

Nevada

(Biden 50, Trump 44 via Gravis Marketing)

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +4.65] 

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

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

New Hampshire

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

[Current FHQ margin: Biden +10.81] 

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

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

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

North Carolina

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

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

No previous Harris poll

Cardinal Point: Trump 48, Biden 47 in July poll

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

Marist: Biden 51, Trump 44 in July poll

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

Pennsylvania

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

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

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

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

Texas

(Trump 50, Biden 46 via RMG Research)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +1.45] 

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

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

Wyoming

(Trump 59, Biden 31 via University of Wyoming)

[Current FHQ margin: Trump +39.52] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida: Trump 51, Biden 46

Texas: Trump 49, Biden 48

Georgia: Biden 51, Trump 48

North Carolina: Biden 50, Trump 48

Pennsylvania: Biden 52, Trump 46

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

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

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

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

Michigan: Biden 59, Trump 40

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: 

A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
DC-3 VT-3 (6)2	NJ-14 (156)	WI-10 (253)	AK-3 (125)	TN-11 (60)
MA-11 (17)	OR-7 (163)	PA-203 (273 | 285)	MO-10 (122)	KY-8 (49)
MD-10 (27)	IL-20 (183)	NV-6 (279 | 265)	SC -9 (112)	SD-3 (41)
HI-4 (31)	ME-2 (185)	FL-29 (308 | 259)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (103)	AL-9 (38)
NY-29 (60)	CO-9 (194)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	KS-6 (99)	ID-4 (29)
CA-55 (115)	VA-13 (207)	NC-15 ME CD2-1 (335 | 219)	IN-11 (93)	AR-6 (25)
DE-3 (118)	NH-4 (211)	GA-16 (351 | 203)	NE-2 (82)	OK-7 (19)
WA-12 (130)	NM-5 (216)	IA-6 (187)	UT-6 (80)	ND-3 (12)
ME CD1-1 CT-7 (138)	MN-10 (226)	OH-18 (181)	MS-6 (74)	WV-5 (9)
RI-4 (142)	NE CD2-1 MI-16 (243)	TX-38 (163)	LA-8 (68)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 285 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trump's is on the right in bold italics. 3 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state. The tipping point cell is shaded in yellow to denote that and the font color is adjusted to attempt to reflect the category in which the state is.

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

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

4 days to go.

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


--
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Biden and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.

The Watch List1
State	Potential Switch
Georgia	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Kansas	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
New Hampshire	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
New Mexico	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Related posts:

The Electoral College Map (10/29/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/28/20)

The Electoral College Map (10/27/20)

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

The Electoral College Map (10/2/20)

Update for October 2.

Well, this has been a week.

The work week comes to a close with a handful of new surveys from five states and another wave of polls from Redfield and Wilton Strategies in the six core battlegrounds. Of those five, surveys of Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire were all in the field after the first presidential debate on Tuesday night. But of those only the polls in Georgia and Michigan had pre-debate surveys from the same firms. In both there was movement in Biden's direction following the debate. The swing in Georgia from an August Landmark Communications survey to now was more pronounced, but that preceding survey last month, in retrospect, was a fairly clear outlier. It, too, had a survey that preceded it. And using that one as the point of comparison rather than the outlier shows a smaller shift, but still one in the former vice president's direction.  The change in Michigan was more modest from one Public Policy Polling survey (on behalf of Progress Michigan) to another. All in all, the changes were small enough to have potentially just been statistical noise than from anything stemming from the debate itself. Still, this is likely something worth tracking heading forward.

On to the other surveys...

Polling Quick Hits:
Arizona

(Biden 50, Trump 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.47]
The Suffolk poll of likely voters in the Grand Canyon state is the firm's first conducted there in calendar 2020. And while there is no natural point of comparison, the survey is not inconsistent with the established averages at FHQ. The margin is on target, but both candidates are running a couple of points ahead of their FHQ average shares of support. As has been noted a few times in this space, that sort of dynamic should continue as election day approaches and more undecideds come off the board. That should increasingly have one or both of the candidates out in front of their averages.

Georgia
(Biden 47, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.10]
As noted above, FHQ will throw out the immediately previous Landmark Communications survey in favor of the one that was released two weeks before that in mid-August. It fit in more with the other polls in the field in the Peach state around the same time and represented a four point swing toward Biden (rather than a nine point shift). And really, the two polls -- minus the outlier -- are much more in line with the ranges of support in which both candidates have much more consistently ended up in. Georgia is most often in a Biden +3 to Trump +3 range at the moment and this latest Landmark poll fits well in there.


Michigan

(Biden 50, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.04]
Meanwhile, in Michigan, Public Policy Polling offered an opportunity to examine the possible pre- and post-debate effects. And the movement in the Great Lakes state was toward Biden as well. However, it did not really come at Trump's expense. The president was stable at 44 percent across the two surveys and Biden picked up a couple of points from other-undecided in that time. But again, while it may be easy to chalk that up to some impact from the debate earlier this week, the shift is small enough to just as easily have been some more pedestrian polling variability instead. The bottom line is that the former vice president maintains a smaller than average advantage in these surveys than the full world of Michigan polls.

New Hampshire
(Biden 53, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.96]
Emerson waded into the Granite state to gauge public opinion on the presidential race for the first time in calendar 2020 and found what the slew of other recent survey of the state have found: Biden up by a margin in the upper single digits. As with the Arizona poll above, this survey nailed the margin, but had both candidates a couple of points out in front of their established average shares of support here at FHQ.


New York

(Biden 61, Trump 29)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +28.35]
Over in the Empire state Siena_ was back in the field, but for the first drew a likely rather than registered voter sample. That shift was beneficial to the Democratic nominee. Biden gained four percent since the June Siena survey to push back above the 60 percent mark. Trump, on the other, hand lost out in the registered-to-likely transition. The president not only lost ground because of Biden's gain, but also saw his own support decay, nudging his support below 30 percent in his former home state for the first time since an April Siena survey there. Look, Biden is unlikely to lose New York on November 3, but he is running a hair above Hillary Clinton's pace in the state from four years ago while Trump has lost nearly six points off his 2016 showing in the state.

Redfield & Wilton Strategies (late September wave of battleground polls)

Arizona: Biden +3 (Biden +/-0, Trump +2  since mid-September wave)
Florida: Biden +5 (Biden +1, Trump -1) [Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.49]
Michigan: Biden +9 (Biden +2, Trump +3)
North Carolina: Biden +2 (Biden +/-0, Trump +/-0) [Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.47]
Pennsylvania: Biden +6 (Biden +1, Trump +/-0) [Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.35]
Wisconsin: Biden +5 (Biden +1, Trump +2) [Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.18]

Finally, there was another wave of battleground surveys from Redfield and Wilton. And again, the changes were minimal from the last wave less than two weeks ago. What continues to stand out in these is the extent to which the order in these polls differs from the established order on the Electoral College Spectrum. Some variability in the margins is to be expected between the two, but the Arizona is now back to being on the low side of Florida and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are flipped in the order. Those are, however, small differences.

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)	SC-9 (122)	IN-11 (51)
CA-55 (73)	OR-7 (183)	NV-6 (279 | 265)	MO-10 (113)	UT-6 (40)
MD-10 (83)	NM-5 (188)	FL-29 (308 | 259)	MT-3 (103)	KY-8 (34)
VT-3 (86)	ME-2 (190)	AZ-11 ME CD2-1 (320 | 230)	NE CD1-1 KS-6 (100)	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)	NH-4 (226)	IA-6 (169)	NE-2 (73)	WV-5 (9)
IL-20 (155)	MI-16 NE CD2-1 (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.

Like yesterday's update, the polls added to the dataset today did nothing to alter either the map or the Watch List. But the did have some impact on the order among four important toss up states. Arizona and Florida again changed places with the Grand Canyon state moving one cell closer to the partisan line. And in Trump territory, there was more shuffling among the the group of states clustered within a point of the partisan line. The new Georgia poll brought the average margin down enough in the Peach state to jump it over Ohio in to the most competitive position right up against the barrier separating Trump from Biden states. But again, both are so close to one another right now that one is likely to see more of this moving forward. And importantly, both states are within two-tenths of a point of shifting over onto Toss Up Biden turf.

That is no small thing. As has become the mantra of sorts around here, if the chatter about the most competitive states on election day is about Georgia, Iowa and Ohio rather than, say, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, then one will have a pretty good idea of where the election is likely headed.



Where things stood at FHQ on October 2 (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
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was  too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.


--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/1/20)

The Electoral College Map (9/30/20)

The Electoral College Map (9/29/20)

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