Related:
--
Recent posts:
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Friday, February 3, 2023
Competing Oregon Senate Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday
Tuesday, January 10, 2023
A Super Tuesday Presidential Primary in Oregon?
If at first you don't succeed...
What did not work in 2019 and a revamped version of which also failed in 2021 will be back up for consideration in Salem in 2023. At stake is an earlier Oregon presidential primary.
--
A link to this legislation has been added to the 2024 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
Recent posts:
Friday, March 19, 2021
Oregon Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday
Legislation introduced earlier this month in Oregon would push the Beaver state's typical mid-May primary up to the first Tuesday in March.
SB 785, authored by Sen. Lee Beyer (D-6th, Springfield) resembles in part a bill from the last legislative session in 2019 which would have similarly moved the presidential primary up to Super Tuesday. However, the 2021 bill would move the entire consolidated primary -- including those for other offices -- into March in presidential election years only. The measure would additionally shift back the date on which the legislative session would commence in those years from February to May. The latter change also differs from the 2019 bill and saves state legislators from campaigning or raising money during the legislative session.
While that issue was not raised in the public hearing for the failed 2019 Super Tuesday bill, it was among the shortcomings of the legislation. The committee that heard the testimony on that bill also balked at the costs of a separate presidential primary and the impact it would have on election administrators.
SB 785 addresses those issues, but it remains to be seen whether it will be any more successful than its predecessor was. Neighboring states all hold March or earlier contests, but the year after a presidential election is not a time when this type of legislation tends to move. But it would align Oregon with its neighbors if signed into law.
--
A link to this legislation will be added to the 2024 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
Recent posts:
Thursday, October 1, 2020
The Electoral College Map (10/1/20)
Update for October 1.
Yesterday's update focused on states currently outside of toss up territory and while that is still the case today, there are a few battleground toss ups thrown into the mix. But even in those four states -- Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio -- the additions served to confirm what was already known in each: Iowa and Ohio are barely on the Trump side of the partisan line and Arizona and North Carolina, while toss ups, are further away from the partisan line and in Biden's column. And as today marks 33 days until election day on November 3, that alignment is not lost -- or should not be -- on those observers of the process. A couple of Trump states are closer to changing hands (and adding to Biden's already winning projected electoral vote total) than two states that the president is absolutely going to have to have to get to 270. Each day that the narrative does not change from that -- each day that the alignment stays the same -- is a day lost for President Trump.
Polling Quick Hits:
Arizona
(Biden 53, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +12.90]
That same sort of dynamic (but in reverse) was true of the update in Maine from Data for Progress. Two months ago, Biden held a ten point lead with 53 percent of the respondents supporting him. In that same timeframe, however, Trump lost four points to fall below 40 percent. And again, that is consistent with where the president sits statewide in the Pine Tree state in the FHQ averages. Those two statewide electors as stake in Maine have never really been in doubt and sadly, this poll did not also include data on the more competitive second district. But judging from the statewide data here and other polls in a similar range, Biden likely would have narrowly led there as well.
Michigan
There were scads of new polls again today, but little to show for it in terms of changes at FHQ. Both the map and the Watch List remained unchanged from a day ago on the last day of September. But the beginning of October saw a couple of shifts in the order of states depicted on the Electoral College Spectrum. The new poll of Kansas was enough to push it past Nebraska's first congressional district and deeper into the Lean Trump category. Also on the Trump side of the partisan line and right up against, Ohio jumped Georgia and reclaimed its position as the most competitive state among the Trump coalition. But it is worth noting just how close the trio of Georgia, Iowa and Ohio are to each other and the partisan line. The three states are all within about a quarter of a point of each other in their margins and all within a half a point of the partisan line. All three and Texas are closer to the partisan line than the Biden state next to it on his side, North Carolina. That is 78 electoral votes that are closer to jumping the partisan line into Biden territory than North Carolina's 15 are to moving to Trump's side.
Where things stood at FHQ on October 1 (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.
--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.
--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/30/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/29/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/28/20)
Yesterday's update focused on states currently outside of toss up territory and while that is still the case today, there are a few battleground toss ups thrown into the mix. But even in those four states -- Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina and Ohio -- the additions served to confirm what was already known in each: Iowa and Ohio are barely on the Trump side of the partisan line and Arizona and North Carolina, while toss ups, are further away from the partisan line and in Biden's column. And as today marks 33 days until election day on November 3, that alignment is not lost -- or should not be -- on those observers of the process. A couple of Trump states are closer to changing hands (and adding to Biden's already winning projected electoral vote total) than two states that the president is absolutely going to have to have to get to 270. Each day that the narrative does not change from that -- each day that the alignment stays the same -- is a day lost for President Trump.
Polling Quick Hits:
Arizona
(Biden 49, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.47]
Data for Progress was back in the field looking at competitive Senate races and in the case of Arizona has been less than a week since the firm last tested the presidential race. A one point Trump lead then is a four point Biden advantage now. And really, this survey is much more in line with where the FHQ averages currently peg the race in the Grand Canyon state: Biden up 48-44 (rounded).
(Trump 52, Biden 42)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +8.66]
There have been some closer than typical polls of the presidential race in Kansas this season, but the last couple of days have brought two that have shown a less competitive contest. The new Civiqs is the second of those two and serves to stretch out Trump's lead in the Sunflower state. Neither poll is unusual in the scope of the full universe of Kansas polling, but Trump is running near the top of his range in both while Biden is toward the lower end of his. Still, there was not much change in the Civiqs series from the last poll in June to now. Biden gained a couple of points and Trump was stable at 52 percent.
Maine[Current FHQ margin: Biden +3.47]
Data for Progress was back in the field looking at competitive Senate races and in the case of Arizona has been less than a week since the firm last tested the presidential race. A one point Trump lead then is a four point Biden advantage now. And really, this survey is much more in line with where the FHQ averages currently peg the race in the Grand Canyon state: Biden up 48-44 (rounded).
Iowa
(Trump 47, Biden 44 via Data for Progress | Biden 48, Trump 46 via RABA Research)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.39]
One can take one's pick in the pair of new Iowa polls added today. Each of the two major party candidates had a lead in one and they average out to a half a point lead for the president. In the context of all of the other calendar 2020 polling in the Hawkeye state, however, and through the lens of the graduated weighted average used here at FHQ, the president's edge is 0.39 points. There is some difference there, but not much. Likewise, Trump leads in Iowa, but not by much.
Kansas(Trump 47, Biden 44 via Data for Progress | Biden 48, Trump 46 via RABA Research)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.39]
One can take one's pick in the pair of new Iowa polls added today. Each of the two major party candidates had a lead in one and they average out to a half a point lead for the president. In the context of all of the other calendar 2020 polling in the Hawkeye state, however, and through the lens of the graduated weighted average used here at FHQ, the president's edge is 0.39 points. There is some difference there, but not much. Likewise, Trump leads in Iowa, but not by much.
(Trump 52, Biden 42)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +8.66]
There have been some closer than typical polls of the presidential race in Kansas this season, but the last couple of days have brought two that have shown a less competitive contest. The new Civiqs is the second of those two and serves to stretch out Trump's lead in the Sunflower state. Neither poll is unusual in the scope of the full universe of Kansas polling, but Trump is running near the top of his range in both while Biden is toward the lower end of his. Still, there was not much change in the Civiqs series from the last poll in June to now. Biden gained a couple of points and Trump was stable at 52 percent.
(Biden 53, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +12.90]
That same sort of dynamic (but in reverse) was true of the update in Maine from Data for Progress. Two months ago, Biden held a ten point lead with 53 percent of the respondents supporting him. In that same timeframe, however, Trump lost four points to fall below 40 percent. And again, that is consistent with where the president sits statewide in the Pine Tree state in the FHQ averages. Those two statewide electors as stake in Maine have never really been in doubt and sadly, this poll did not also include data on the more competitive second district. But judging from the statewide data here and other polls in a similar range, Biden likely would have narrowly led there as well.
(Biden 52, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.02]
Another day brings another poll in Michigan, the most frequently surveyed state of calendar 2020. And the latest from ALG Research is like a number of the other polls today: consistent with existing averages -- both candidate shares and margin -- in the state. This is the first time ALG has conducted a poll -- one that has been publicly released -- in the Great Lakes state. The big thing in Michigan now is Biden's proximity to 50 percent. Of the 20 polls conducted in the state in whole or in part in September, the former vice president was at or above 50 percent in 13 of them. Furthermore, he was at 49 percent in four of the remaining three. That is a troubling sign for a president trying to defend the state in 2020.
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.02]
Another day brings another poll in Michigan, the most frequently surveyed state of calendar 2020. And the latest from ALG Research is like a number of the other polls today: consistent with existing averages -- both candidate shares and margin -- in the state. This is the first time ALG has conducted a poll -- one that has been publicly released -- in the Great Lakes state. The big thing in Michigan now is Biden's proximity to 50 percent. Of the 20 polls conducted in the state in whole or in part in September, the former vice president was at or above 50 percent in 13 of them. Furthermore, he was at 49 percent in four of the remaining three. That is a troubling sign for a president trying to defend the state in 2020.
New Hampshire
(Biden 53, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.96]
There have been several new polls of New Hampshire this week, a veritable flood of new data in a state that has likely been underpolled in 2020 given its position in the order of states (not to mention its close finish in 2016). But the latest three polls including the new one from American Research Group have expanded Biden's advantage in the Granite state, pushing the former vice president's average share of support at FHQ above 50 percent. Near each other on election day in 2016, New Hampshire and Michigan have both exhibited similar shifts since then up to now. Both are right in line with a seven or eight point shift toward the Democrats over the last four years.
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.(Biden 53, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +7.96]
There have been several new polls of New Hampshire this week, a veritable flood of new data in a state that has likely been underpolled in 2020 given its position in the order of states (not to mention its close finish in 2016). But the latest three polls including the new one from American Research Group have expanded Biden's advantage in the Granite state, pushing the former vice president's average share of support at FHQ above 50 percent. Near each other on election day in 2016, New Hampshire and Michigan have both exhibited similar shifts since then up to now. Both are right in line with a seven or eight point shift toward the Democrats over the last four years.
North Carolina
(Biden 50, Trump 47)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.46]
In North Carolina, the polls continue to fall in the same tight range from Biden +3 to Trump +3. The latest addition from ALG Research is on the high end of the Biden side of that range, but nevertheless in that range. It is typical then that while both candidates are running ahead of their established FHQ averages in the Tar Heel state, Biden is running a bit more ahead than is Trump. But as has become the mantra around here, North Carolina is close and this new poll does little to shake the state from its position in the rank order. With Ohio now on the other side of the partisan line, North Carolina is the most competitive of the Biden coalition of states.
Ohio
(Biden 48, Trump 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.13]
Speaking of Ohio, ALG Research was also in the field there (and for the first time in calendar 2020) as well. But this poll, dated yesterday on the release, was conducted as August turned to September. The addition is new, but the data is on the old side. But it fits in with other polling around the same time or those conducted since. Sure, Biden is on the high side of his range over that period in this one, but not by a whole lot. The firm nailed the Trump share. And while that cut into the president's advantage, it did not eliminate it. That said, Ohio has once again changed positions with Georgia and is now up against the partisan line, the most competitive state on the Trump side.
Oregon
(Biden 56, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +14.61]
Oregon has only seen a couple of polls in 2020 and the Civiqs survey added for today is the second. The earlier survey very closely resembled the results from 2016, and although this poll has Trump stationary at 39 percent (as compared to the last survey), Biden has pushed into the upper 50s. That pulls the Beaver state closer in line with a more uniform swing toward the Democrats since 2016. It remains below average, but there is now a swing where there really was not before with just the previous poll. [Note, however, that that initial poll was factored in alongside consideration of the shifts in other states that finished near Oregon in the order four years ago.]
Pennsylvania
(Biden 50, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.34]
Like its poll of Ohio, the final ALG Research survey release on the day from Pennsylvania was actually in the field a month ago and released just yesterday. But it is a poll that rests comfortably within the context of other recent polls of the Keystone state. FHQ currently has the race for those 20 electoral votes at Biden 49-44 (rounded), so this ALG survey is very much in line with that. Biden is approaching 50 percent there as well. Of the 26 polls conducted since (and including) the ALG poll, half of them have had the former vice president at or above 50 percent. All eyes may be on tipping point state Pennsylvania in the Trump campaign, but it is a lot like Michigan above in terms of how Biden is closing in on 50 percent. Pennsylvania is closer than Michigan, but continues to present the president's reelection effort with some significant obstacles.
South Carolina
(Trump 47, Biden 43)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +5.67]
Lastly, in South Carolina, Data for Progress also sees a close contest for the Palmetto state's nine electoral votes. Only, things are not quite as close as the Quinnipiac poll from a day ago. Still, like that poll, this one has Trump lagging behind the 50 percent (rounded) he carries currently in the FHQ averages. Where the DfP survey is a bit more consistent is on the Biden number. His 43 percent share of support in the poll nearly matches his 44 percent share in the averages. Even with the lead, South Carolina has shifted nearly eight points in the Democrats' direction over the last four years.
(Biden 50, Trump 47)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.46]
In North Carolina, the polls continue to fall in the same tight range from Biden +3 to Trump +3. The latest addition from ALG Research is on the high end of the Biden side of that range, but nevertheless in that range. It is typical then that while both candidates are running ahead of their established FHQ averages in the Tar Heel state, Biden is running a bit more ahead than is Trump. But as has become the mantra around here, North Carolina is close and this new poll does little to shake the state from its position in the rank order. With Ohio now on the other side of the partisan line, North Carolina is the most competitive of the Biden coalition of states.
(Biden 48, Trump 46)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +0.13]
Speaking of Ohio, ALG Research was also in the field there (and for the first time in calendar 2020) as well. But this poll, dated yesterday on the release, was conducted as August turned to September. The addition is new, but the data is on the old side. But it fits in with other polling around the same time or those conducted since. Sure, Biden is on the high side of his range over that period in this one, but not by a whole lot. The firm nailed the Trump share. And while that cut into the president's advantage, it did not eliminate it. That said, Ohio has once again changed positions with Georgia and is now up against the partisan line, the most competitive state on the Trump side.
(Biden 56, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +14.61]
Oregon has only seen a couple of polls in 2020 and the Civiqs survey added for today is the second. The earlier survey very closely resembled the results from 2016, and although this poll has Trump stationary at 39 percent (as compared to the last survey), Biden has pushed into the upper 50s. That pulls the Beaver state closer in line with a more uniform swing toward the Democrats since 2016. It remains below average, but there is now a swing where there really was not before with just the previous poll. [Note, however, that that initial poll was factored in alongside consideration of the shifts in other states that finished near Oregon in the order four years ago.]
(Biden 50, Trump 44)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +5.34]
Like its poll of Ohio, the final ALG Research survey release on the day from Pennsylvania was actually in the field a month ago and released just yesterday. But it is a poll that rests comfortably within the context of other recent polls of the Keystone state. FHQ currently has the race for those 20 electoral votes at Biden 49-44 (rounded), so this ALG survey is very much in line with that. Biden is approaching 50 percent there as well. Of the 26 polls conducted since (and including) the ALG poll, half of them have had the former vice president at or above 50 percent. All eyes may be on tipping point state Pennsylvania in the Trump campaign, but it is a lot like Michigan above in terms of how Biden is closing in on 50 percent. Pennsylvania is closer than Michigan, but continues to present the president's reelection effort with some significant obstacles.
(Trump 47, Biden 43)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +5.67]
Lastly, in South Carolina, Data for Progress also sees a close contest for the Palmetto state's nine electoral votes. Only, things are not quite as close as the Quinnipiac poll from a day ago. Still, like that poll, this one has Trump lagging behind the 50 percent (rounded) he carries currently in the FHQ averages. Where the DfP survey is a bit more consistent is on the Biden number. His 43 percent share of support in the poll nearly matches his 44 percent share in the averages. Even with the lead, South Carolina has shifted nearly eight points in the Democrats' direction over the last four years.
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)
|
VT-3
(76)
|
NM-5
(188)
|
AZ-11
(290 | 259)
|
MT-3
(103)
|
KY-8
(34)
|
MD-10
(86)
|
ME-2
(190)
|
FL-29
ME CD2-1
(320 | 248)
|
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)
|
OH-18
(203)
|
MS-6
(85)
|
ND-3
(19)
|
RI-4
(132)
|
MN-10
(222)
|
GA-16
(185)
|
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. | ||||
There were scads of new polls again today, but little to show for it in terms of changes at FHQ. Both the map and the Watch List remained unchanged from a day ago on the last day of September. But the beginning of October saw a couple of shifts in the order of states depicted on the Electoral College Spectrum. The new poll of Kansas was enough to push it past Nebraska's first congressional district and deeper into the Lean Trump category. Also on the Trump side of the partisan line and right up against, Ohio jumped Georgia and reclaimed its position as the most competitive state among the Trump coalition. But it is worth noting just how close the trio of Georgia, Iowa and Ohio are to each other and the partisan line. The three states are all within about a quarter of a point of each other in their margins and all within a half a point of the partisan line. All three and Texas are closer to the partisan line than the Biden state next to it on his side, North Carolina. That is 78 electoral votes that are closer to jumping the partisan line into Biden territory than North Carolina's 15 are to moving to Trump's side.
Where things stood at FHQ on October 1 (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 (9/30/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/29/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/28/20)
Friday, September 11, 2020
The Electoral College Map (9/11/20)
Update for September 11.
As the work week came to a close there were six more state or district-level surveys released, helping to further clarify the post-convention picture of the race to 270 electoral votes. And while there were certainly a few polls from battlegrounds mixed in, it was updates in some more sporadically surveyed areas like Indiana and Oregon that did a lot of that clarifying.
Polling Quick Hits:
Indiana
(Trump 53, Biden 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +13.95]
The Hoosier state has not been polled all that often, but the surveys that have been conducted, including the latest update from Change Research have been remarkably stable. That is not only true within the two polls Change has had in the field in Indiana, but also across all pollsters that have done public opinion work there in 2020. Simply put, Trump has reliably been in the low 50s for the most part as Biden has been camped out in the upper 30s. And that does not diverge much from where Indiana ended up on election day 2016. Trump is running behind where he was four years ago and Biden has only slightly improved on Clinton's showing there.
Maine CD1
(Biden 58, Trump 35)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +22.51]
The AARP survey of Maine that was released a day ago also broke the race down by congressional district and the results were not all that surprising. Biden is handily ahead in the first district which is what drives the 14 point margin statewide. Even then, the former vice president is running a couple of points ahead of Clinton's pace in CD1 while Trump is more than five points off his performance there four years ago. This is an electoral vote that is safely in Biden's column.
Maine CD2
(Biden 49, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.07]
And while the second district is currently in Biden's column as well, it is not nearly so safely there. In fact, the second remains the most competitive state or district on the Biden side of the partisan line. The AARP survey is consistent with that albeit with a margin that is tilted the most toward the former vice president of any of the scant polling conducted in the more rural northern district that Trump carried in 2016. But again, things have swung toward the Democrats in 2020 polling relative to the election results in 2016. There Biden has improved more than four points on Clinton's showing in the second and Trump is running more than seven points off his 2016 win in the second. That is a significant 11 point swing, one that comes in above the average swing of 7.5 points across all states.
North Carolina
(Trump 49, Biden 48)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.55]
After recently polling the competitive and/or targeted states within the Rust Belt, Pulse Opinion Research went back into the field in North Carolina and found President Trump up a point. That is the same margin the president enjoyed in the Tar Heel state in the firm's August survey. So there is no net difference from before the conventions to after them. This poll does fit in with the September polling in the state, but it does not exactly jibe well with a post-convention series from Pulse that also had Ohio as Biden +4. Given where each state is in the order below on the Spectrum, one might expect to see the two trade those poll numbers. That variability is not out of the ordinary however, and both states are close, but on opposite sides of the partisan line at FHQ than where recent Pulse polling found them.
Wisconsin
(Biden 52, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.31]
Finally, Emerson conducted a survey of likely voters in Wisconsin. This is the sixth day out of the last seven in which at least one poll of the Badger state has been released. This poll and others in that span have all painted a particular picture of the battle for the ten electoral votes in one of the most closely contested states of the 2016 cycle. It is a picture of Biden consistently ahead by 5-8 points, a range that has kept the vice president's edge in Wisconsin stable at more than six points. Wisconsin is just to the Biden side of tipping point Pennsylvania in the order on the Spectrum below and is one of those states that has more noticeably shifted toward the Democrats since 2016.
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.
It was another day with another pretty healthy polling output, but one that did not shake the status quo much at FHQ. The map and Spectrum look on Friday just as they did on Thursday, but the Watch List lost Maine's second congressional district. That one electoral vote is no longer within a fraction of a point of jumping the partisan line back into Trump territory, but it is only just outside that one point threshold at this point. That is not a major change -- ME CD2 is still close. -- but it is a change nonetheless. The List of states to watch for new polling data is now down to just ten states and districts and only three of those -- a trio of Trump Toss Ups -- are in any measurable way close to moving into Biden's coalition of states and changing the overall electoral vote tally.
In the end, this has been a work week that has been pretty stable through the lens of the FHQ graduated weighted average formula. And stable is not what the president needs now with just 53 days to go until election day (not to mention voters already voting).
Where things stood at FHQ on September 11 (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.
--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.
--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/10/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/8/20)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
As the work week came to a close there were six more state or district-level surveys released, helping to further clarify the post-convention picture of the race to 270 electoral votes. And while there were certainly a few polls from battlegrounds mixed in, it was updates in some more sporadically surveyed areas like Indiana and Oregon that did a lot of that clarifying.
Polling Quick Hits:
Indiana
(Trump 53, Biden 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Trump +13.95]
The Hoosier state has not been polled all that often, but the surveys that have been conducted, including the latest update from Change Research have been remarkably stable. That is not only true within the two polls Change has had in the field in Indiana, but also across all pollsters that have done public opinion work there in 2020. Simply put, Trump has reliably been in the low 50s for the most part as Biden has been camped out in the upper 30s. And that does not diverge much from where Indiana ended up on election day 2016. Trump is running behind where he was four years ago and Biden has only slightly improved on Clinton's showing there.
(Biden 58, Trump 35)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +22.51]
The AARP survey of Maine that was released a day ago also broke the race down by congressional district and the results were not all that surprising. Biden is handily ahead in the first district which is what drives the 14 point margin statewide. Even then, the former vice president is running a couple of points ahead of Clinton's pace in CD1 while Trump is more than five points off his performance there four years ago. This is an electoral vote that is safely in Biden's column.
Maine CD2
(Biden 49, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.07]
And while the second district is currently in Biden's column as well, it is not nearly so safely there. In fact, the second remains the most competitive state or district on the Biden side of the partisan line. The AARP survey is consistent with that albeit with a margin that is tilted the most toward the former vice president of any of the scant polling conducted in the more rural northern district that Trump carried in 2016. But again, things have swung toward the Democrats in 2020 polling relative to the election results in 2016. There Biden has improved more than four points on Clinton's showing in the second and Trump is running more than seven points off his 2016 win in the second. That is a significant 11 point swing, one that comes in above the average swing of 7.5 points across all states.
North Carolina
(Trump 49, Biden 48)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +1.55]
After recently polling the competitive and/or targeted states within the Rust Belt, Pulse Opinion Research went back into the field in North Carolina and found President Trump up a point. That is the same margin the president enjoyed in the Tar Heel state in the firm's August survey. So there is no net difference from before the conventions to after them. This poll does fit in with the September polling in the state, but it does not exactly jibe well with a post-convention series from Pulse that also had Ohio as Biden +4. Given where each state is in the order below on the Spectrum, one might expect to see the two trade those poll numbers. That variability is not out of the ordinary however, and both states are close, but on opposite sides of the partisan line at FHQ than where recent Pulse polling found them.
Oregon
(Biden 51, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +15.16]
DHM Research provided the first glimpse at the race in Oregon during calendar 2020. And the battle for the Beaver state's seven electoral votes looks a lot like where the Clinton-Trump race ended there in 2016, stability that runs counter to the 2016-to-2020 swing witnessed in other states across the country. That may offer some data, but not data that really clarified things in Oregon other than to indicated that Biden's advantage there is likely safe.
(Biden 51, Trump 39)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +15.16]
DHM Research provided the first glimpse at the race in Oregon during calendar 2020. And the battle for the Beaver state's seven electoral votes looks a lot like where the Clinton-Trump race ended there in 2016, stability that runs counter to the 2016-to-2020 swing witnessed in other states across the country. That may offer some data, but not data that really clarified things in Oregon other than to indicated that Biden's advantage there is likely safe.
(Biden 52, Trump 45)
[Current FHQ margin: Biden +6.31]
Finally, Emerson conducted a survey of likely voters in Wisconsin. This is the sixth day out of the last seven in which at least one poll of the Badger state has been released. This poll and others in that span have all painted a particular picture of the battle for the ten electoral votes in one of the most closely contested states of the 2016 cycle. It is a picture of Biden consistently ahead by 5-8 points, a range that has kept the vice president's edge in Wisconsin stable at more than six points. Wisconsin is just to the Biden side of tipping point Pennsylvania in the order on the Spectrum below and is one of those states that has more noticeably shifted toward the Democrats since 2016.
NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2020 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
MA-112
(14)
|
CT-7
(162)
|
WI-10
(252)
|
AK-3
(125)
|
UT-6
(60)
|
HI-4
(18)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
PA-203
NE CD2-1
(273 | 286) |
SC-9
(122)
|
IN-11
(54)
|
CA-55
(73)
|
OR-7
(183)
|
NV-6
(279 | 265)
|
MO-10
(113)
|
KY-8
(43)
|
VT-3
(76)
|
NM-5
(188)
|
FL-29
(308 | 259)
|
MT-3
(103)
|
AL-9
(35)
|
NY-29
(105)
|
CO-9
(197)
|
AZ-11
(319 | 230)
|
KS-6
NE CD1-1
(100)
|
ID-4
(26)
|
WA-12
(117)
|
ME-2
(199)
|
NC-15
ME CD2-1
(335 | 219)
|
MS-6
(93)
|
ND-3
(22)
|
MD-10
(127)
|
VA-13
(212)
|
OH-18
(203)
|
AR-6
(87)
|
SD-3
(19)
|
IL-20
(147)
|
MI-16
(228)
|
IA-6
(185)
|
NE-2
(81)
|
OK-7
(16)
|
ME CD1-1
RI-4
(152)
|
MN-10
(238)
|
GA-16
(179)
|
LA-8
(79)
|
WV-5
(9)
|
DE-3
(155)
|
NH-4
(242)
|
TX-38
(163)
|
TN-11
(71)
|
WY-3
NE CD3-1
(4)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 286 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state. The tipping point cell is shaded in yellow to denote that and the font color is adjusted to attempt to reflect the category in which the state is. | ||||
It was another day with another pretty healthy polling output, but one that did not shake the status quo much at FHQ. The map and Spectrum look on Friday just as they did on Thursday, but the Watch List lost Maine's second congressional district. That one electoral vote is no longer within a fraction of a point of jumping the partisan line back into Trump territory, but it is only just outside that one point threshold at this point. That is not a major change -- ME CD2 is still close. -- but it is a change nonetheless. The List of states to watch for new polling data is now down to just ten states and districts and only three of those -- a trio of Trump Toss Ups -- are in any measurable way close to moving into Biden's coalition of states and changing the overall electoral vote tally.
In the end, this has been a work week that has been pretty stable through the lens of the FHQ graduated weighted average formula. And stable is not what the president needs now with just 53 days to go until election day (not to mention voters already voting).
Where things stood at FHQ on September 11 (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
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
from Toss Up Biden
|
to Lean Biden
| |
Georgia
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Biden
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Biden
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Missouri
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Nebraska CD2
|
from Lean Biden
|
to Toss Up Biden
| |
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
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
--
Methodological Note: In past years, FHQ has tried some different ways of dealing with states with no polls or just one poll in the early rounds of these projections. It does help that the least polled states are often the least competitive. The only shortcoming is that those states may be a little off in the order in the Spectrum. In earlier cycles, a simple average of the state's three previous cycles has been used. But in 2016, FHQ strayed from that and constructed an average swing from 2012 to 2016 that was applied to states. That method, however, did little to prevent anomalies like the Kansas poll that had Clinton ahead from biasing the averages. In 2016, the early average swing in the aggregate was too small to make much difference anyway. For 2020, FHQ has utilized an average swing among states that were around a little polled state in the rank ordering on election day in 2016. If there is just one poll in Delaware in 2020, for example, then maybe it is reasonable to account for what the comparatively greater amount of polling tells us about the changes in Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico. Or perhaps the polling in Iowa, Mississippi and South Carolina so far tells us a bit about what may be happening in Alaska where no public polling has been released. That will hopefully work a bit better than the overall average that may end up a bit more muted.
--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/10/20)
The Electoral College Map (9/8/20)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: OREGON
OREGON
Election type: primary
Date: May 19
Number of delegates: 73 [13 at-large, 7 PLEOs, 41 congressional district, 12 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan
--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.
That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.
Oregon Democrats saw very few changes from 2016 to 2020. There were several bills that were introduced in 2018 in the state legislature to change the date of the presidential primary, shifting it into March in all three cases. But for the sixth straight cycle, the Oregon primary remained in mid-May.
The date stayed the same and the administration of the election by the state government remained vote-by-mail. That insulated Oregon Democrats from changes to the delegate allocation process in the face of the coronavirus. There was no need to eliminate in-person voting in Oregon where there was in other states.
All ballots are due to county elections offices by 8pm (PT) Tuesday, May 19. That is received and not postmarked by May 19. Voters who complete their ballots after the Wednesday before the election are encouraged to drop the ballot off rather than mail it.
[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]
Overall, the Democratic delegation in Oregon changed by just one delegate from 2016 to 2020. The number of pledged delegates in all three categories stayed exactly the same, and the delegation gained one superdelegate.
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)
Oregon's 41 congressional district delegates are split across five congressional districts and have a variation of six delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Oregon Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 gubernatorial election in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 9 delegates*
CD2 - 6 delegates
CD3 - 12 delegates
CD4 - 7 delegates*
CD5 - 7 delegates*
*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.
Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.
[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]
Selection
All 65 Oregon pledged delegates will be selected in a new vote-by-mail system open to all registered Oregon Democrats. Those Oregon Democrats can apply online by May 21 in order to receive ballot instructions on May 27. And participation means either voting for delegate candidates or running for district, at-large or PLEO delegate positions. All three categories of delegates will be elected through the same system. Ballots will be due by June 12.
[Initially, before the coronavirus pandemic hit, Oregon Democrats had planned to hold post-primary district caucuses on June 6 and a state convention on June 20. The former would have selected the 41 district delegates while the latter would have been charged with choosing the 20 statewide (at-large and PLEO) delegates. Those in-person gatherings were eliminated in a revised delegate selection plan that received approval from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 4.]
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 Oregon statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the May 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.
Election type: primary
Date: May 19
Number of delegates: 73 [13 at-large, 7 PLEOs, 41 congressional district, 12 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan
--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.
That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.
Oregon Democrats saw very few changes from 2016 to 2020. There were several bills that were introduced in 2018 in the state legislature to change the date of the presidential primary, shifting it into March in all three cases. But for the sixth straight cycle, the Oregon primary remained in mid-May.
The date stayed the same and the administration of the election by the state government remained vote-by-mail. That insulated Oregon Democrats from changes to the delegate allocation process in the face of the coronavirus. There was no need to eliminate in-person voting in Oregon where there was in other states.
All ballots are due to county elections offices by 8pm (PT) Tuesday, May 19. That is received and not postmarked by May 19. Voters who complete their ballots after the Wednesday before the election are encouraged to drop the ballot off rather than mail it.
[Please see below for more on the post-coronavirus changes specifically to the delegate selection process.]
Overall, the Democratic delegation in Oregon changed by just one delegate from 2016 to 2020. The number of pledged delegates in all three categories stayed exactly the same, and the delegation gained one superdelegate.
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)
Oregon's 41 congressional district delegates are split across five congressional districts and have a variation of six delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Oregon Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 gubernatorial election in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 9 delegates*
CD2 - 6 delegates
CD3 - 12 delegates
CD4 - 7 delegates*
CD5 - 7 delegates*
*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates.
Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.
[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]
Selection
All 65 Oregon pledged delegates will be selected in a new vote-by-mail system open to all registered Oregon Democrats. Those Oregon Democrats can apply online by May 21 in order to receive ballot instructions on May 27. And participation means either voting for delegate candidates or running for district, at-large or PLEO delegate positions. All three categories of delegates will be elected through the same system. Ballots will be due by June 12.
[Initially, before the coronavirus pandemic hit, Oregon Democrats had planned to hold post-primary district caucuses on June 6 and a state convention on June 20. The former would have selected the 41 district delegates while the latter would have been charged with choosing the 20 statewide (at-large and PLEO) delegates. Those in-person gatherings were eliminated in a revised delegate selection plan that received approval from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee on May 4.]
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 Oregon statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the May 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.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Oregon Senate Bill Would Create Separate Super Tuesday Presidential Primary
In the meantime on the state Senate side of the capitol, a Republican-introduced bill would create a separate presidential primary and schedule it on the first Tuesday in March, Super Tuesday. And that bill -- SB 779 -- has had its initial public hearing where Rules Committee senators discussed some of the trade-offs involved in such a move. Obviously, creating a separate presidential primary bears some costs. Not only would the change require an extra appropriation, but it would additionally carry some costs relative to the second primary for state and local offices (still on the third Tuesday in May). There was, however, some question raised about just how much turnout would suffer given that the state of Oregon is a vote by mail state. Another point that was raised by those representing county clerks in the Beaver state was that they would be responsible for three elections in the span of about six months: the November 2019 general election, the proposed March presidential primary and the regular May primary. Filing for the March presidential would begin during the certification process attendant to the general election and continue through the holidays.
It is noteworthy that this last problem would not really be that much different for elections administrators if either of the two Democratic-introduced bills were to pass the state House. The late fall time constraints would remain, but there would not be a third election that would follow the presidential primary. Under the two House bills, the presidential primary would remain consolidated with the primaries for state and local office and everything would move into March. That said, the sponsor of one of the House bills -- HB 2107 -- Representative Brian Clem (D-21st, Salem), is the House co-sponsor of this Senate legislation as well alongside Senator Tim Knopp (R-27th, Bend).
The Senate Rules Committee did not act on SB 779, but it has cleared the public hearing hurdle whereas competing legislation in the House has yet to reach that stage despite being proposed earlier. All of the bills would pair Oregon with regional partners: California and likely Utah on March 3 or Idaho and Washington on March 10.
Related:
1/11/19: Pair of Oregon Bills Would Move Primary to March, but with a Twist
The Oregon legislation will be added to the evolving FHQ 2020 Presidential Primary Calendar.
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Pair of Oregon Bills Would Move Primary to March, but with a Twist
Both bills seek to move the Oregon primary from the third Tuesday in May up to the second Tuesday in March not just in presidential election years but in all even-numbered years. This differs from when Oregon shifted in the past (for 1996) or when attempts were made in the recent past to move the primary (2007 and 2015). In those instances, the presidential primary was split from the May primary for other offices and moved (or proposed to be moved) to March or earlier dates. In 2019, the legislation proposes moving everything up to March, thus saving the expense of funding a new and stand-alone presidential primary.
However, both 2019 bills offer a twist on this scheduling.
HB 2107 calls for a move the second Tuesday in March, but also is a bit more provocative in giving the Oregon secretary of state the discretion to change the would-be standardized March date "if the date change will result in the primary election being held seven or more days after the date on which the first primary election held during that election cycle is held in any other state."
In other words, this is a bill that could threaten New Hampshire if it becomes law.
If the first primary -- New Hampshire's -- is seven or more days before the second Tuesday in March -- it always is -- then the Oregon secretary of state would have the discretion to move the primary and time before December 1 of the year prior to a presidential election. Ostensibly, the intention is for the secretary of state to have the discretion to move forward on the calendar, but he or she would also have the ability to move the primary back. That is not something -- at least in the introduced version of this legislation that is prohibited.
The second bill -- HB 2279 -- is similar but less provocative. At the request of the secretary of state, this legislation was introduced and would not only move the primary from May to the second Tuesday in March, but it would allow the secretary of state to join a regional primary if two or more states from among Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, or Washington wind up clustered on a date other than the second Tuesday in March. Nevada will be among the carve-out states in February and California already has a primary scheduled for the first Tuesday in March. But Idaho is is currently stationed on the second Tuesday in March and Washington has eyed that position in the past. Utah also has a primary option, but a date has not been settled on yet.
It look as though the second Tuesday in March could end up as post-California/Super Tuesday western states/PAC 12 regional primary spot.
But first the Oregon legislature has to act on this legislation and other pieces elsewhere have to fall into place. The Oregon part of the equation will become clearer when the legislature convenes on January 22.
The Oregon legislation will be added to the evolving FHQ 2020 Presidential Primary Calendar.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
The Electoral College Map (11/2/16)
New State Polls (11/2/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/-3.6%
|
700 likely voters
|
43
|
47
|
5
|
+4
|
--
| |
Arizona
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-3.5%
|
769 likely voters
|
44
|
49
|
0
|
+5
|
--
| |
Arizona
|
10/28-11/1
|
--
|
1113 likely voters
|
41
|
42
|
6
|
+1
|
+1.42
| |
Colorado
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/-3.5%
|
750 likely voters
|
44
|
41
|
3
|
+3
|
--
| |
Colorado
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/-4.2%
|
550 likely voters
|
39
|
39
|
9
|
+/-0
|
--
| |
Colorado
|
10/28-11/1
|
--
|
972 likely voters
|
44
|
37
|
8
|
+7
|
+3.94
| |
Florida
|
10/25-10/30
|
--
|
718 likely voters
|
48
|
40
|
0
|
+8
|
--
| |
Florida
|
10/27-10/31
|
+/-2.89%
|
1150 likely voters
|
45
|
49
|
3
|
+4
|
--
| |
Florida
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-3.5%
|
773 likely voters
|
49
|
47
|
0
|
+2
|
--
| |
Florida
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-3.9%
|
626 likely voters
|
46
|
45
|
4
|
+1
|
+2.06
| |
Georgia
|
10/29-10/31
|
+/-3.8%
|
650 likely voters
|
42
|
51
|
2
|
+9
|
+3.13
| |
Kansas
|
10/26-10/30
|
+/-4.0%
|
624 likely voters
|
38
|
49
|
6
|
+11
|
+11.64
| |
Louisiana
|
10/15-10/21
|
--
|
614 likely voters
|
40
|
43
|
7
|
+3
|
+12.72
| |
Michigan
|
9/1-10/31
|
+/-3.6%
|
746 likely voters
|
47
|
28
|
8
|
+19
|
--
| |
Michigan
|
11/1
|
+/-3.29%
|
887 likely voters
|
47
|
44
|
3
|
+3
|
+7.20
| |
Missouri
|
10/28-10/31
|
+/-3.8%
|
650 likely voters
|
37
|
52
|
4
|
+15
|
--
| |
Missouri
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-4.4%
|
508 likely voters
|
38
|
47
|
11
|
+9
|
+7.92
| |
Nevada
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-3.5%
|
790 likely voters
|
43
|
49
|
1
|
+6
|
--
| |
Nevada
|
10/28-11/1
|
+/-4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
45
|
45
|
4
|
+/-0
|
--
| |
Nevada
|
10/28-11/1
|
--
|
892 likely voters
|
45
|
38
|
7
|
+7
|
+0.77
| |
New Mexico
|
10/28-11/1
|
--
|
567 likely voters
|
39
|
31
|
7
|
+8
|
+7.85
| |
North Carolina
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-4.0%
|
602 likely voters
|
47
|
44
|
5
|
+3
|
+1.58
| |
Ohio
|
10/24-10/26
|
+/-2.89%
|
1150 likely voters
|
44
|
49
|
5
|
+5
|
--
| |
Ohio
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-4.0%
|
589 likely voters
|
41
|
46
|
5
|
+5
|
+0.25
| |
Oregon
|
10/25-10/29
|
+/-4.4%
|
504 likely voters
|
41
|
34
|
11
|
+7
|
+9.43
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-3.5%
|
799 likely voters
|
48
|
44
|
0
|
+4
|
--
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/27-11/1
|
+/-4.0%
|
612 likely voters
|
48
|
43
|
2
|
+5
|
--
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/29-11/1
|
+/-4.9%
|
403 likely voters
|
48
|
44
|
3
|
+4
|
--
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/31-11/1
|
+/-3.76%
|
681 likely voters
|
45
|
43
|
6
|
+2
|
+5.38
| |
Virginia
|
10/23-10/30
|
+/-3.6%
|
712 likely voters
|
44
|
39
|
7
|
+5
|
--
| |
Virginia
|
10/26-10/30
|
+/-4.37%
|
802 likely voters
|
41
|
44
|
15
|
+3
|
+6.37
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/26-10/31
|
+/-3.5%
|
1255 likely voters
|
46
|
40
|
4
|
+6
|
+6.42
| |
--
Changes (11/2/16)
6 days left.
There is lots to look at today. 32 polls from 16 states were released, offering quite a bit of data in a number of battleground states. Additionally, there were a few other surveys from several Lean Clinton states where Trump has peel off at least one in addition to sweeping the toss ups to get to 270.
All of that data was noisy, but the underlying picture is one of stability. Yes, part of that is the methodology behind the FHQ graduated weighted averages. But the race, not to mention the map, has been in stasis at 340-198 since the beginning of October. That remains true even with the addition of these polls. Ohio continues to close in on a tie here at FHQ, moving toward Trump. Any more results resembling today's polls of the Buckeye state will likely push it over the partisan line. Of course, Ohio has been on the Watch List for a while now. It was joined again by Nevada which slipped under the Clinton +1 mark on the weight of three new surveys.
The order of states on the Electoral College Spectrum also held mostly steady. Virginia and Wisconsin swapped spots in the Lean Clinton area, and Missouri pushed past South Carolina in the Lean Trump area. Other than that, everything held steady.
Late add:
The University of Denver poll of Colorado pulls the Centennial state off the Watch List. It is now firmly within the Toss Up Clinton area (in addition to being the tipping point state below on the Spectrum).
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
MD-102
(13)
|
RI-4
(162)
|
PA-20
(263)
|
TX-38
(161)
|
TN-11
(61)
|
HI-4
(17)
|
NJ-14
(176)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
SC-9
(123)
|
AR-6
(50)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
OR-7
(183)
|
FL-29
(301 | 266) |
MO-10
(114)
|
ND-3
(44)
|
MA-11
(31)
|
NM-5
(188)
|
NC-15
(316 | 237) |
UT-6
(104)
|
NE-53
(41)
|
CA-55
(86)
|
MN-10
(198)
|
NV-6
(322 | 222)
|
IN-11
(98)
|
KY-8
(36)
|
NY-29
(115)
|
MI-16
(214)
|
OH-18
(340 | 216)
|
MS-6
(87)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20+13
(136)
|
ME-23
(216)
|
IA-6
(198)
|
KS-6
(81)
|
ID-4
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
WI-10
(226)
|
AZ-11
(192)
|
SD-3
(75)
|
WV-5
(15)
|
WA-12
(151)
|
VA-13
(239)
|
GA-16+13
(181)
|
LA-8
(72)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
CT-7
(158)
|
NH-4
(243)
|
AK-3
(164)
|
MT-3
(64)
|
WY-3
(3)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category. | ||||
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Indiana
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean 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 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 (11/1/16)
Happy Halloween, 2016
The Electoral College Map (10/31/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)