Tim Scott is making it tough for others in South Carolina

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• The Idaho Republican Party has been in a bit of a pickle since legislation unintentionally eliminated the presidential primary in the Gem state earlier this year. Later this month, the state party will choose from a pair of interesting alternatives to the primary for 2024. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

Just yesterday FHQ responded to a report that some in the DeSantis orbit have been complaining about the two South Carolinians in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. But perhaps DeSantis world is not -- or should not be -- alone in the griping. It was already going to be a little cramped to have two South Carolina heavyweights involved in the contest, but Senator Tim Scott is not just making things difficult for the Florida governor. His recent and robust endorsement list from the Palmetto state and subsequent show of donor strength in South Carolina is only going to raise eyebrows in the contest-within-a-contest between Scott and former Governor Nikki Haley. 

In the zero-sum game that the invisible primary can sometimes be, Scott is seemingly inching ahead of Haley in some important metrics within South Carolina. That is taking endorsements and potentially South Carolina donors away from every other candidate. But it arguably stands to hurt Haley and DeSantis the most. It will potentially force Haley deeper into Iowa-or-bust mode and could help to crowd Team DeSantis out of the Palmetto state if Donald Trump continues to fly high there. 

[No, the DeSantis campaign is not going to completely abandon South Carolina. But the overall effort could refocus its resources elsewhere, deemphasizing the first-in-the-South primary if Scott continues to build out his forces there.]

...

Harry Enten is good over at CNN discussing Chris Christie's odds in the Republican presidential nomination race. Enten ends up in a place similar to where FHQ was last week in talking about the Republican primary debate qualification rules. It is not so much about where Christie is now. It is about where Trump and DeSantis are combined at this moment in the invisible primary. Both are gobbling up most of the support. That is a different environment for long shot candidates, an environment that has not been conducive to dark horse success in the past.

...

A day after the Rhode Island House unanimously passed SB 1010, the state Senate followed suit on Tuesday, June 13, concurring by a 37-0 vote on HB 6309. That is the House version of the same legislation to shift the presidential primary in the Ocean state up to April 2 for the 2024 cycle alone. As was the case on the House side with the concurrence on the Senate version, the lower chamber took up the Senate's measure as part of a 44 bill/appointment consent calendar. The primary bill was not considered by itself, but rather passed on one vote as part of the larger package.

Both primary bills now head to Governor Dan McKee (D) for his consideration. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the endorsement primary, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum picked up the endorsement of former North Dakota governor and current Senator John Hoeven on Tuesday. All of the US senators from the Dakotas are now off the board. South Dakota's Rounds and Thune are behind South Carolina Senator Tim Scott's bid and now North Dakota's Hoeven and Cramer have backed Burgum.
• Oklahoma Senator James Lankford indicated that he intends to stay on the sidelines of the Republican presidential nomination race. Count Lankford among the pool of non-endorsements in the Republican invisible primary.
• In the money primary, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is on swing through California raising funds ahead of the end of the quarter at the close of June. 
• Over in the staff primary, Haley continues to fill out her Iowa team, naming Bill Mackey (Rep. Zach Nunn's former campaign manager) her director in the Hawkeye state. The former South Carolina governor also added state Sen. Chris Cournoyer and Rep. Austin Harris to her leadership team. Count those two as state legislative endorsements.

...

On this date...

...in 1976, Idaho Senator Frank Church ended his campaign for the Democratic nomination, throwing his support behind presumptive nominee, Jimmy Carter, and urging his delegates to do the same. 

...in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush won the North Dakota primary, the last contest on the calendar for the cycle. On the Democratic side, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis claimed victory in the beauty contest primary in the Peace Garden state. North Dakota Democrats had allocated and selected delegates through an earlier caucus process.

...in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the primary in the District of Columbia to close out primary season.

--

Recent posts:

Are the Two South Carolinians Hurting DeSantis in the Palmetto State?

An Invisible Primary Round Up to Start the Week

Sunday Series: About that Unique Michigan Republican Primary-Caucus Plan (Part One)

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

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

Are the Two South Carolinians Hurting DeSantis in the Palmetto State?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• Haven't had a chance to check out the latest deep dive on the proposed Michigan Republican hybrid primary-caucus plan to allocate delegates in 2024? Go check it out. But coming later at FHQ Plus, Michigan Republicans may not have the only pre-Super Tuesday (but compliant) contest on March 2. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

Some folks in the DeSantis orbit are, according to Shelby Talcott at Semafor, griping about the impact the crowded field is having on the Florida governor. In particular, the focus appears to be on the injurious effect the two South Carolinians in the race -- former Governor Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott -- are having on DeSantis in the Palmetto state. 

But assertions that Haley and Scott are only in the race in pursuit of a spot on the ticket with Trump or a  slot in a hypothetical Trump cabinet aside, is the pair hurting DeSantis now or likely to in the future in the first-in-the-South primary state? 

Talcott hints at the answer being yes in her piece, citing current Real Clear Politics averages of polls of the race in South Carolina. The former president checks in just above 40 percent, DeSantis is about half that and both Haley and Scott are hovering just over ten percent. If one combines DeSantis, Haley and Scott support, then yes, the conglomerate (presumably headed by DeSantis) is competitive with if not slightly ahead of Trump in the state. 

Yet, would Haley's and/or Scott's South Carolina support go to DeSantis if either or both were suddenly on the sidelines? There is some evidence outside of mere speculation that it would be. An April survey of Palmetto state Republicans from National Public Affairs, for example, showed that Haley's and Scott's support was more correlated with DeSantis than Trump. But while that is suggestive, it is just one poll.

And the presidential nomination process is, after all, sequential. What happens between now and the South Carolina primary early next year will have some impact on the course of that election. The remainder of the invisible primary will matter. The Iowa caucuses will matter. That primary in New Hampshire will matter as well in terms of what is likely to transpire in the South Carolina primary. Haley and Scott may stay in the race through the third contest. But either or both could also pull out so as not to be embarrassed at home.

If one is in the DeSantis camp, the first point to focus on may be the filing deadline for candidates in the Palmetto state. Regardless of whether Haley and/or Scott withdraw from the race after Iowa or New Hampshire, or whether either or both are on the ballot in South Carolina at all matters. If both South Carolinians are still actively in the race at that point, they may pull a meaningful amount from DeSantis in South Carolina. However, even if both suspend their campaigns before their home state contest, they may still siphon off a smaller but sizable enough amount of support from DeSantis if Haley and Scott remain on the ballot. 

Those things matter, but what likely is of greater significance (or should be) to the broader DeSantis presidential effort is the Florida governor being able to pick off one of the first two contests. The worry is better trained on Haley and Scott in Iowa than it is on either one of them back home in the Palmetto state. 

Another question: How are Haley and Scott affecting DeSantis in South Carolina in terms of the invisible primary metrics? That may be the true source of the grumbling. It maybe less that Haley and Scott may rain on the DeSantis parade in the South Carolina primary and more that they are gobbling up institutional support in the state that might otherwise be receptive to DeSantis. There have been headline-grabbing waves of endorsements for the Florida governor in Iowa and New Hampshire. But something has deterred similar inroads (so far) in South Carolina. 

...

The Rhode Island House on Monday, June 12 unanimously passed SB 1010, concurring with the Senate version of legislation to move the presidential primary in the Ocean state up from the fourth Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in April for just the 2024 cycle. The House did not vote on the measure by itself. Rather, the body took up and adopted by a 67-0 vote a seven bill consent calendar package including SB 1010. 

The bill now heads off to Governor Dan McKee (D) for his consideration. However, it is likely to be joined shortly by HB 6309, the House version of the same bill, which is on the state Senate's consent calendar for Tuesday, June 13. Should the upper chamber concur, Rhode Island will join New York as states eyeing presidential primary shifts to April 2 where bills have fully cleared the legislative hurdle in the process.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Doug Burgum did not take long after his announcement last week to hit the airwaves. The North Dakota governor has ads up and running in Iowa and New Hampshire, part of a $3 million buy. 
• In the money primary, First Lady Jill Biden has been deployed on a fundraising junket ahead of the second quarter deadline at the end of the month.

...

On this date...

...in 2011, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. 

...in 2015, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton officially launched her campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

--

Recent posts:

An Invisible Primary Round Up to Start the Week

Sunday Series: About that Unique Michigan Republican Primary-Caucus Plan (Part One)

[From FHQ Plus] Folks, the new caucus law in Iowa does not affect state Democrats' plans for 2024

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

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

Indications Rhode Island Will Re-explore Presidential Primary Date

The Providence Journal reports that Rhode Island, too, may shift the date on which the Ocean state's presidential primary falls in 2024 because of a conflict with the Passover holiday.

Rep. Rebecca Kislak, D-Providence, has quietly raised the issue behind the scenes with the secretary of state's office and Democratic Party Leadership. She said Thursday she is "confident that over the next days or weeks" she will be able to introduce legislation to move the date.  

...

"We are exploring the possibility of moving the primary," echoed state Rep. Joseph McNamara, the state Democratic chairman. House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi said Kislak had briefed him on the problem, and he was open to a legislative fix. 

Secretary of State Gregg Amore also told The Journal: "Yes. It needs legislative action."

Legislators in Maryland are already moving legislation to push the primary in the Old Line state back into May, and in a change prompted not by the Passover conflict, two bills in Pennsylvania (also in conflict with Passover) would shift the primary in the Keystone state up to mid-March. If all of those changes occur, that would leave Delaware alone on the fourth Tuesday in April in 2024, the lone remnant of a subregional mid-Atlantic/northeastern primary that has existed in one form or another since the 2012 cycle. 

Connecticut has also been a part of that group but because there are five Tuesdays in April in 2024, the differing language of the laws in these states matters. The states with primaries conflicting with Passover specify the fourth Tuesday in April whereas the Connecticut law sets the date of the presidential primary in the Nutmeg state for the last Tuesday of April, the 30th in 2024. That difference has not mattered until now.

In a mark of just how quiet things have been on the calendar front in 2023 (relative to previous cycles), it may be that the Passover conflict could be the impetus for most of the calendar changes in the 2024 cycle. 

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Presidential Primary Runoffs?

Maryland Bills Would Resolve Presidential Primary Conflict with Passover...

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Doing the things that prospective candidates do

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

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

2020 Democratic Delegate Allocation: RHODE ISLAND

RHODE ISLAND

Election type: primary
Date: June 2
    [April 28 originally]
Number of delegates: 35 [5 at-large, 3 PLEOs, 18 congressional district, 9 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan [includes post-coronavirus plans]


--
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.

Content to remain a part of the evolving regional primary collective that formed ahead of the 2012 presidential nomination cycle, majority party Democratic decision makers in Rhode Island did little to shake up the delegate selection process in the Ocean state for 2020. The date of the contest remained on the last Tuesday in April and other elements of the delegate selection plan stayed much the same as they were in 2016.

However, as with virtually every other state, Rhode Island had to adapt to the realities of the coronavirus pandemic. Like other states involved in the Acela primary regional primary -- Maryland and Pennsylvania among them -- Rhode Island also shifted its presidential primary election from April 28 to June 2. But the protocol the state adopted for dealing with the public health concerns around in-person voting wedged just in between where Maryland and Pennsylvania ended up. Whereas the state of Maryland sent all eligible voters a primary ballot and commonwealth of Pennsylvania opted not to do anything, Rhode Island decision makers chose to shift to a predominantly mail election. But unlike Maryland, Rhode Island mailed all eligible voters an absentee voting application rather than a ballot. Voters had until May 19 to apply.

In-person voting locations will continue to operate on election day, but will be reduced in number.

All mail-in ballots are due to state election office on or before 8pm on Tuesday, June 2. 

Overall, the Democratic delegation in Rhode Island changed by three delegates from 2016 to 2020. The number of pledged delegates increased by two -- three district delegates gained and one at-large delegate lost -- while the number of superdelegates increased by one.


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


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)
Rhode Island's 18 congressional district delegates are split across two congressional districts and have no variation across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Rhode Island Democrats are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 9 delegates*
CD2 - 9 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
Rhode Island, like a number of the other former Acela primary states, has a delegate selection process that is more insulated from the effects of the coronavirus than some others. That is mainly a function of the fact that the district delegate selection process is run through the primary itself. Those 18 district delegates are directly elected on the primary ballot. Yes, the primary date shifted from April 28 to June 2, but filing had already been completed before the coronavirus and there was no need for the selection process to be shifted online or to some vote-by-mail system as has been common in some other states.

While the district delegates will be selected as previously planned but on June 2, the process for the selection of the eight statewide delegates -- five at-large and three PLEO delegates -- was more disrupted. The Rhode Island Democratic Party State Committee will continue to be the body that selects the statewide delegates, but that process will now take place virtually rather than in-person and will happen on June 15 about a month later than was originally planned.


[Initially, Rhode Island's district delegates were to have been selected on the April 28 primary ballot and the statewide delegates on May 17 at a meeting of the state committee. The coronavirus shifted both back on the calendar.]


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 Rhode Island statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the early June 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.

Rhode Island Primary Moves to June 2 Following Executive Order

Following the recommendation of the Rhode Island Board of Elections last week, Governor Gina Raimondo (D) issued on Monday, March 23 an executive order moving the Ocean state presidential primary from April 28 to June 2.

Rhode Island becomes the eighth state to move away from a pre-scheduled presidential primary in 2020 amid the coronavirus pandemic. It is the fourth state so far to land on June 2. Pending decisions in Ohio and Pennsylvania, potentially among others, June 2 now offers 489 delegates to the Democratic national convention in July.

Yes, this change only moves 26 pledged delegates back five weeks on the calendar, but it does have some impact on the delegate selection process. While the election of district delegates will be minimally affect -- all 18 of them are elected directly on the primary ballot -- something will have to give in the sequence for selecting the statewide delegates. At-large and PLEO delegates are due to be selected by the Rhode Island Democratic party state committee on May 17.

There are a handful of issues attendant to that date of selection. First of all, district delegates are typically selected before statewide delegates. To go ahead with the May 17 selection would mean that statewide delegates would be chosen before the district delegates on the now-June 2 primary ballot. Second, Rhode Island is in the fortunate position of having empowered the state committee rather than a state convention to select statewide delegates. It is easier to reschedule that meeting or have it remotely than to do either with a larger state convention.

However, the state committee will have a decision to make regarding statewide delegate selection. They could on the one hand press forward with the May 17 meeting and select for each of the active candidates slates of delegates for each of the eight statewide delegate positions and fill any allocated in the June 2 primary after its results are certified. Alternatively, they could push the meeting of the state committee back from May 17 to a calendar spot after the June 2 primary.

Regardless, Rhode Island Democrats will have some decisions to make in terms of how the delegate selection process will proceed. But at least it is in just one facet of the process -- statewide delegates -- rather than adjusting for the whole delegation.

Beyond that, the secretary of state will also be working with local elections officials to accommodate a "predominantly" mail-in primary, one that provides in-person options for those with disabilities (and any other need for accommodation) and mail-in options for everyone else.


--
Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea's press release on the Rhode Island presidential primary change archived here.


--
¹ Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland and Ohio all have moved from March or April dates to later May and June calendar positions.

Rhode Island Moving Toward Presidential Primary Date Change

Another April 28 primary state may be on the move.

The Rhode Island state Board of Elections voted 6-1 on Tuesday, March 17 to recommend to Governor Gina Raimondo (D) delaying the presidential primary in the Ocean state and scheduling it for June 2. The impetus for the change was the threat of further spread of coronavirus, but the Board also argued that the potential delay would allow them more time to better prepare for a possible all-mail ballot, something that Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea (D) argued for in a letter to the Board.

The one dissenting vote on the Board sided with Gorbea on not only to shifting to an all-mail ballot but to continue with the April 28 date. Gorbea cited concerns about the date change's impact on the preparations for the September primary for other offices and the general election.

But for the time being it appears as if Rhode Island will be on the move. Legal counsel for the Board was preparing a draft emergency executive order for the governor to issue to override the state law.

--
This would be the latest the Rhode Island presidential primary has fallen on the calendar since the early cycles of the post-reform era. The Ocean state primary was on the very same first Tuesday in June date for both the 1976 and 1980 cycles before moving into March for 1984.

Rhode Island GOP Inserts Winner-Take-All Trigger into 2020 Delegate Allocation

Late last month as the RNC deadline for state Republican parties to finalize delegate selection procedures for the 2020 cycle, Rhode Island Republicans made some adjustments.

Four years ago, the party allocated its 19 delegates in a proportional manner to candidates who received more than 10 percent of the vote either statewide or in the two Ocean state congressional districts. Little of that has made its way into the process the party has set up for 2020.

First of all, RIGOP has pooled all of its delegates -- at-large, congressional district and automatic -- instead of allocating them as separate categories. Additionally, there is now (as of a September 20 meeting of the state central committee) a winner-take-all trigger included. Should a candidate win a majority of the vote statewide, then that candidate would receive all 19 delegates in the Rhode Island delegation to the Republican National Convention. It is clear that the latter was added during that September meeting, but it is not as clear that the decision to pool all of the delegates occurred at that time as well.

There are at least some hints that some changes were made to the Rhode Island Republican Party delegate selection process before September. For example, the Providence Journal article outlining the new winner-take-all trigger also mentioned that the qualifying threshold to receive any delegates was set at 20 percent. That, too, is new for 2020. Again, the threshold for 2016 was just 10 percent. It has doubled to the RNC's maximum-allowed threshold and applies collectively to all 19 Rhode Island delegates.

No, 19 delegates is not likely to fundamentally affect the race for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination, but Rhode Island Republicans have made some changes to streamline their process and potentially maximize their influence (to the extent that can be done in the context of a regional primary with five other, often more delegate-rich, states). It also represents another datapoint in the narrative of how these state-level rules have come together on the Republican side ahead of 2020. State parties have moved in subtle and dramatic ways to increase the usage of winner-take-all rules or make other changes to potentially advantage the president's path to renomination.



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

The Electoral College Map (10/6/16)

New State Polls (10/6/16)
State	Poll	Date	Margin of Error	Sample	Clinton	Trump	Undecided	Poll Margin	FHQ Margin
Arizona	OH Predictive Insights	9/28-9/30	+/- 3.66%	718 likely voters	42	42	9	+/-0	--
Arizona	Emerson	10/2-10/4	+/- 3.9%	600 likely voters	44	42	6	+2	+1.80
Florida	University of North Florida	9/27-10/4	+/- 3.8%	686 likely voters	41	38	10	+3	--
Florida	Emerson	10/2-10/4	+/- 3.9%	600 likely voters	44	45	4	+1	+2.04
Indiana	Public Opinion Strategies/Howey	10/3-10/5	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	38	43	8	+5	+11.11
Maryland	Washington Post/University of Maryland	9/27-9/30	+/- 4.0%	706 likely voters	63	27	2	+36	+28.28
Michigan	EPIC/MRA	10/1-10/3	+/- 4.0%	600 likely voters	43	32	12	+11	+6.22
Nevada	Emerson	10/2-10/4	+/- 3.6%	700 likely voters	43	43	2	+/-0	+0.25
New Hampshire	Suffolk	10/3-10/5	+/- 4.4%	500 likely voters	44	42	8	+2	+5.10
Ohio	Anzalone	9/27-10/2	+/- 3.46%	800 likely voters	44	42	4	+2	+0.56
Rhode Island	Emerson	10/2-10/4	+/- 3.9%	600 likely voters	52	32	6	+20	+12.29
Tennessee	Vanderbilt	9/19-10/2	+/- 3.7%	1000 registered voters	33	44	14	+11	+14.52
Texas	Dixie Strategies	9/29-10/1	+/- 3.51%	780 likely voters	37.95	44.87	10.26	+6.92	+8.63
West Virginia	Garin Hart Yang	9/13-9/17	+/- 5.0%	500 likely voters	28	60	12	+32	+24.70

Polling Quick Hits:
Yesterday's trickle is today's relative flood of new state-level polling data to dig into.

Arizona:
The most recent wave of UPI/CVOTER polls had Trump ahead by ten points in the Grand Canyon state. And it stands alone in a series of around two point leads in surveys throughout 2016 in the state.  Even without cell phone users included in the sample, Emerson falls in that range in its new Arizona poll. Of course, this is the first poll Clinton has led there since the end of August. The balance of narrow leads had shifted primarily toward Trump through September; building a small but seemingly durable lead for the New York businessman. The tie in the OH Predictive Insights polls is in a similar position, although this is the closest Trump has been in a series of surveys that have favored Clinton all year.


Florida:
The two new polls from the Sunshine state can tell a couple of different stories taken on their face(s). On the one hand, they represent more evidence that Florida is close. But Florida is always close. On the other, one could take a slightly out of context position that, together, they offer a mixed message about who is ahead. Of the 14 polls in the field after September 11 that FHQ has included in the averages, Clinton has led in 11 of them. Out of the two new polls, take that Emerson one with a grain of salt.


Indiana:
Before jumping to conclusions on the latest Howey survey out of Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence's home state, some context. The last poll there was pretty close to the same. Trump is pulling the same 43 percent he did at the beginning of September as he is now. The difference is on Clinton's side, and it is a minimal two percentage point shift in her share of support. Things have gotten marginally closer, then, but only slightly lowers the FHQ graduated weighted average in a Strong Trump state.


Maryland:
Two things on this latest Washington Post poll of Maryland:
1. It looks a lot like the 2012 vote (share) distribution in the Old Line state (only Trump is lagging behind Romney).
2. It also closely resembles the poll the paper conducted in the state in March. Clinton's share is the same and Trump's has increased by one percent.

Mark Maryland as safely blue.


Michigan:
One could argue that Clinton got a bounce in Michigan out of the first debate. Across the last two EPIC/MRA surveys -- one last month before the debate and one this week -- her margin in the Great Lakes state has ballooned from three to eleven. Yet, that may miss part of the story in Michigan. What is interesting is that the two candidates shares of support in the firm's surveys of Michigan have snapped back to exactly where they were just after the two conventions had wrapped up.

Michigan remains one of those 40 percent states for Trump, a state where Trump has struggled to reach and/or stay around 40 percent. Two things do work in Trump's favor there. Clinton has not really broken out of the low 40s and there continues to be a sizable chunk of undecideds there. Granted, Trump would have to win a significant portion of them to even pull even with Clinton.


Nevada:
Nevada is the closest state in FHQ's averages. Just a quarter of a point separates Clinton and Trump there. It is fitting, then, that the new Emerson poll of the Silver state finds the race knotted up. But in the post-debate landscape, this is a good poll for Trump. Everything since that point has turned in Clinton's direction in Nevada, but the leads have been slight.


New Hampshire:
Including the recent UPI/CVOTER survey the last two polls of the Granite state have shown a much tighter race than has been the case for much of the year. Unlike most states in the immediate aftermath of Clinton's mid-September illness, the polls did not really budge in New Hampshire. After the margins briefly climbed into the low double digits in some surveys just after the conventions, most settled into a Clinton +5 to +9. That trend persisted even when the polls narrowed elsewhere in September. These two could be a blip on the radar or be a sign of some new trend. However, it should be said that this is Suffolk's first trip into New Hampshire this cycle.


Ohio:
The Anzalone survey in Ohio looks a lot like another recent poll of the state. While there is some consistency across those two surveys, the reality is that the polling is mixed in Ohio. The Buckeye state is close; not Nevada close, but not far off from that either.


Rhode Island:

Changes (October 6)
State	Before	After
Rhode Island	Lean Clinton	Strong Clinton

In 2012, the Rhode Island vote distribution ended up looking a lot like that of Maryland's. Four years later, however, the similarity has disappeared. Maryland seems the same, but Rhode Island, while still comfortably blue, has seen the gap between candidates contract. The story there is not that Trump has made any gains. He is, in fact, currently only slightly -- a point -- ahead of Romney's pace. Rather, the issue is that Hillary Clinton has consistently run well behind where Obama was in the Ocean state four years ago. Even in this new Emerson poll -- one where the former Secretary of State is well ahead of Trump -- she is about ten points behind Obama 2012.

Rhode Island could do with some more polling.


Tennessee:
Sure, both candidates are lagging behind their 2012 counterparts in this Vanderbilt poll of the Volunteer state. And Trump is even further behind Romney than Clinton is Obama. However, that does not change the fact that Trump continues to be around 15 points ahead of Clinton in Tennessee. It is still falls well into the Strong Trump group of states.


Texas:
FHQ does a mini-double take every time we see a Texas poll with Trump only ahead by a margin in the upper single digits. But those sorts of surveys have been the rule rather than the exception during 2016. While the Lone Star state has been polled infrequently, they collectively paint a picture of a consistent -- albeit it smaller than normal -- Republican advantage.


West Virginia:
For every Maryland on the Democratic side of the partisan line there is a West Virginia on the Republican side. The Mountain state is nearly the surest thing for Donald Trump, but it still amazing how far West Virginia has traveled across the Electoral College Spectrum in the time since another Clinton was the last Democrat to carry the state.


--
There was a lot to look at, but not much to show for it. The bulk of the figures had mostly Rhode Island flavored changes. The Ocean state inched back into a more typical Strong Democratic position on the map, taking its four electoral votes with it. Additionally, it represented the largest moving state on the Electoral College Spectrum; shifting three spots toward the Democratic end. The other shifts on the Spectrum were only small flips of one spot. Finally, the Watch List lost both Rhode Island and Michigan.

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

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MD-102 (13)	WA-12 (162)	PA-20 (263)	SC-9 (154)	MT-3 (53)
HI-4 (17)	NJ-14 (176)	CO-94 (272 | 275)	TX-38 (145)	AR-6 (50)
VT-3 (20)	OR-7 (183)	FL-29 (301 | 266)	AK-3 (107)	ND-3 (44)
CA-55 (75)	NM-5 (188)	NC-15 (316 | 237)	MS-6 (104)	KY-8 (41)
MA-11 (86)	ME-23 (190)	OH-18 (334 | 222)	IN-11 (98)	NE-53 (33)
NY-29+13 (116)	MN-10 (200)	NV-6 (340 | 204)	KS-6 (87)	AL-9 (28)
IL-20 (136)	MI-16 (216)	IA-6 (198)	UT-6 (81)	OK-7 (19)
DE-3 (139)	WI-10 (226)	AZ-11 (192)	LA-8 (75)	ID-4 (12)
CT-7 (146)	VA-13 (239)	GA-16 (181)	TN-11 (67)	WV-5 (8)
RI-4 (150)	NH-4 (243)	MO-10+13 (165)	SD-3 (56)	WY-3 (3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.

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

The Watch List1
State	Switch
Alaska	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Colorado	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Maine CD2	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
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
New Jersey	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Ohio	from Toss Up Clinton	to Toss Up Trump
Oregon	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
Virginia	from Lean Clinton	to Toss Up Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/5/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/4/16)

The Electoral College Map (10/3/16)

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