WASHINGTON, DC
Election type: primary
Date: June 2
Number of delegates: 44 [5 at-large, 2 PLEOs, 13 congressional district, 24 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the sub-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.
In 2016, Washington, DC Democrats brought up the rear of the primary calendar with a contest on the second Tuesday in June. But in a cost-saving move, the DC Council opted in 2017 to consolidate the presidential primary with local primaries and to schedule the contest for the third Tuesday in June. That date was chosen not only because local schools would be done for the year by then (and thus would reduce conflicts with the school calendar and operation), but also because the early voting window would not overlap with Memorial Day.
Granted, that late date while advantageous from those angles also would put the DC presidential primary in violation of the national parties' rules on the timing of delegate selection events. It would have been too late. As a result, the DC Council in 2019 worked to shift the primary up two weeks to the first Tuesday in June and tweak the early voting window to prevent the Memorial Day issue.
All of that happened before 2020 and before the coronavirus intervened and shook up election administration across the country. In the face of those challenges, DC did not move its primary again (as some states have done), but the decision was made by the Board of Elections to encourage all voters to request an absentee ballot in early April and the DC Council followed that up later in the month with an emergency coronavirus relief bill that called for the distribution of absentee vote-by-mail applications to all eligible District voters.1 As of three weeks ago -- a month after the Board of Elections began pushing voters to request absentee ballots -- 34,000 voters had requested them.
In-person voting has not been eliminated, began on May 22 and will conclude on Election Day, June 2. The Board of Elections will not open the usual 144 voting centers on election day, but will instead work with an unknown but reduced number of sites.
All mail-in ballots are due to the DC Board of Elections office postmarked on or before Tuesday, June 2. As long as the ballot is postmarked by election day, it will be accepted up to seven (7) days after June 2.
Overall, the Democratic delegation from Washington, DC changed by just one delegate from 2016 to 2020. The number of superdelegates increased by one while the three pledged delegate categories all remained the same.
[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)
Washington, DC's 13 "congressional" district delegates are split across two districts of four wards each. There is a variation across those districts of just one delegate from the measure of Democratic strength District of Columbia Democrats are using based on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections in the state (plus Democratic registration in the nation's capital on January 1, 2020). That method apportions delegates as follows...
District 1 (Wards 1, 2, 6 & 8) - 7 delegates*
District 2 (Wards 3, 4, 5 & 7) - 6 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
Delegate selection took a hit in Washington, DC as it did in other places because of the coronavirus, but it's impact was not as far-reaching. Like South Dakota, DC's comparatively late primary on the original calendar forced decision makers within the Democratic Party there to include some pre-primary elements. The district delegates, for instance, were to have been selected on April 18. However, the pandemic forced those in-person caucuses online and voting occurred from April 25-May 21 to determine slates of district delegates with which allocated slots will be filled after the primary.
Initially, the district-wide delegates were to have been selected at two separate post-primary meetings of the DC State Central Committee. PLEO delegates would have been chosen on June 4 and at-large delegates a week later on June 11. Now, in the wake of the coronavirus, the there will be just one meeting -- on June 11 -- and both sets of district-wide delegates will be selected there. That meeting is still tentatively planned to be an in-person affair unless social distancing measures remain in place. In that scenario, the June 11 Central Committee meeting will shift to Zoom.
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 Washington, DC district-wide 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.
--
1 Here is the language from the bill -- B23-0733 -- specific to the mailing of absentee applications (with paid-postage return envelopes):
"For the June 2, 2020, Primary Election, mail every registered qualified elector an absentee ballot application and a postage-paid return envelope."
Showing posts with label Washington DC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington DC. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Friday, April 3, 2020
DC Board of Elections Urging All District Voters to Request Absentee Ballots for June 2 Primary
As the calendar flipped from March to April, marking two months until the last major multi-state wave of primaries and caucuses, the Washington, DC Board of Elections began encouraging voters in the district to request absentee ballots ahead of the June 2 primary there.
This is a less proactive approach to alternative methods of voting in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Some states like Maryland have tentatively opted to mail all voters an absentee ballot, while other states like Nebraska and West Virginia have decided to mail application for absentee ballots to active voters. The DC encouragement is much less far-reaching at this point. That could change over time as June 2 approaches and the coronavirus situation evolves.
--
DC Board of Elections vote-by-mail encouragement archived here.
This is a less proactive approach to alternative methods of voting in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Some states like Maryland have tentatively opted to mail all voters an absentee ballot, while other states like Nebraska and West Virginia have decided to mail application for absentee ballots to active voters. The DC encouragement is much less far-reaching at this point. That could change over time as June 2 approaches and the coronavirus situation evolves.
--
DC Board of Elections vote-by-mail encouragement archived here.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
DC Council Advances June 2 Presidential Primary Bill
The DC Council on Tuesday, October 8 voted unanimously in favor of a consent agenda package including a bill -- B23-0212 -- that would shift the date of the presidential primary in the nation's capital from the third Tuesday in June to the first Tuesday in June.
This final reading consideration and passage now move the bill to the mayoral review stage of the process. So far, the bill has been uncontroversial and the expectation is that it will get the thumbs up from Mayor Bowser and head out for congressional review. The move is necessary because the third Tuesday in June date on which the primary is currently scheduled is not compliant with either national parties rules for the timing of primaries and caucuses.
A June 2 primary would align the Washington, DC primary with contests in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota a the tail end of the 2020 presidential primary calendar.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
This final reading consideration and passage now move the bill to the mayoral review stage of the process. So far, the bill has been uncontroversial and the expectation is that it will get the thumbs up from Mayor Bowser and head out for congressional review. The move is necessary because the third Tuesday in June date on which the primary is currently scheduled is not compliant with either national parties rules for the timing of primaries and caucuses.
A June 2 primary would align the Washington, DC primary with contests in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota a the tail end of the 2020 presidential primary calendar.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
June 2 Presidential Primary Bill Crawls Forward in Washington, DC
Earlier this week, the Washington, DC Council reconvened following a lengthy recess. Among the first items the body considered on the consent agenda on Tuesday, September 17 was the effort to shift the presidential primary (and those for other offices) from the third Tuesday in June to the first Tuesday in June, B23-0212.
Previously the council had passed both emergency and temporary legislation to ease along the legislative process but neither has a window of implementation that stretches far enough into 2020 to include the June 2 date the body is targeting. Permanent legislation, then, is needed, and that is what the above bill is intended to accomplish.
In the meeting earlier this week, the council adopted the consent agenda -- including B23-0212 -- on a unanimous 13-0 vote with no discussion. That represents passage on a first reading. The bill will require one more final reading and vote before passage.
The DC council next meets on October 8.
The move, should it be approved, signed and passed off on by congressional review, would align the DC primary with presidential primaries in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota on what would be the next to last date on the 2020 presidential primary calendar with a contest.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Previously the council had passed both emergency and temporary legislation to ease along the legislative process but neither has a window of implementation that stretches far enough into 2020 to include the June 2 date the body is targeting. Permanent legislation, then, is needed, and that is what the above bill is intended to accomplish.
In the meeting earlier this week, the council adopted the consent agenda -- including B23-0212 -- on a unanimous 13-0 vote with no discussion. That represents passage on a first reading. The bill will require one more final reading and vote before passage.
The DC council next meets on October 8.
The move, should it be approved, signed and passed off on by congressional review, would align the DC primary with presidential primaries in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota on what would be the next to last date on the 2020 presidential primary calendar with a contest.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Friday, July 19, 2019
Earlier June Presidential Primary Move Inches Forward in DC
But just because the bill to shift the presidential primary in the nation's capital up a two weeks to the first Tuesday in June has lain fallow since spring does not mean that the effort to move the primary has been on the back burner. And that is more a function of the legislative process in the District than it is neglect by the council.
An emergency bill of the same intent passed earlier in the spring, was signed by Mayor Bowser, and passed congressional review to enact the move for just 90 days. A temporary measure in a similar vein was also passed the council, was signed by the mayor and is under congressional review to stretch that 90 enactment to 225 days. Neither window pushes far enough into the future to encompass the proposed date of the presidential primary, so a permanent solution is warranted.
And that is why the council has shifted its focus back to B23-0212: to make the change to the first Tuesday in June permanent in presidential election years.
But why go to the trouble of the two intermediary temporary acts? In this context, it is to signal that the primary date change is coming but has to navigate the lengthy DC legislative process first. The same basic path was followed in 2017 effort to push back the date of the primary from the second Tuesday in June to the third Tuesday in June.
In other words, the Washington, DC presidential primary will fall on June 2 in 2020, but there is a bit of a wait in getting to that point based on how a bill becomes a law under the DC charter.
--
Related:
5/6/19: Committee Hearing Finds Both DC Parties in Favor of a Presidential Primary Move
4/5/19: DC Council Eyes Earlier Primary with New Bill
2/7/19: DC Presidential Primary on the Move Again?
5/15/18: Washington, DC Eases Back a Week on the Calendar
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Monday, May 6, 2019
Committee Hearing Finds Both DC Parties in Favor of a Presidential Primary Move
Both DC Republican Committee executive director, Patrick Mara, and DC Democratic State Committee chair, Charles Wilson, spoke in favor of pushing the district's primary up two weeks to the first Tuesday in June and both for the same reason. Where the DC primary is scheduled now -- a position it was moved to in 2017 -- it falls too late on the calendar under the rules of both the Democratic and Republican National Committees. Each party would face penalties reducing the size of already small delegations to the respective national conventions in 2020. The DC Republican Party position was simple enough: pick a date, any date between the first Tuesday in March and the second Saturday in June in order for the Republicans in the district to avoid paying for their own party-run and limited process (as the party did in 2016).
Wilson, however, brought up the more robust discussion the DC Democrats had back in early March. At that party meeting, the committee considered not only the June 2 date, but also an April 28 alignment with other regional partners in the Acela primary. The issue with the latter that was raised both at that meeting and in the context of the Council hearing last week was that the window for petition gathering would encompass holiday season at the end of December. While that may not be as large an issue for Democratic presidential candidates, it would potentially harm the efforts of local candidates vying for a spot on the consolidated primary ballot.
It was that snag that kept District Democrats from latching onto the April 28 position, despite the 25 percent bonus (10 percent for an April primary and 15 percent for clustering the contest with two or more regional partners) the party would receive for conducting a primary on that date. Splitting the presidential and district primaries was a non-starter in the committee hearing because of the attendant costs associated with funding an additional election.
June 2, then, looks like the date that threads the needle of bipartisan support, national party rules compliance, cost effectiveness and is candidate/campaign friendly. And for Democrats in the District, not all is lost. The bonus associated with a June 2 primary is 20 percent, an additional two DC delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
--
Related:
7/19/19: Earlier June Presidential Primary Move Inches Forward in DC
4/5/19: DC Council Eyes Earlier Primary with New Bill
2/7/19: DC Presidential Primary on the Move Again?
5/15/18: Washington, DC Eases Back a Week on the Calendar
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Friday, April 5, 2019
DC Council Eyes Earlier Primary with New Bill
But there are at least a couple of catches with the third Tuesday in June date outlined in the law. First, that date is too late in the calendar and thus non-compliant under national party rules. The district party would face penalties from both national parties if it chose to allocate delegates through a primary scheduled so close to the convention. Alternatively, it might force one or both major parties in the district to shift to a caucus/convention as DC Republicans did for 2016.
What has also given DC Democrats pause in filling in the primary date in the delegate selection plan is that there is some uncertainty about where on the calendar the primary will land. Yes, the date is currently set, but the DC Council is considering a change. Only, the change is not nearly as dramatic as some of the Democratic members of the Council were speculating about during a February meeting of the DC Democratic Party district central committee. Back then there was talk of aligning the DC presidential primary with the primaries in Maryland and Pennsylvania at the end of April.
Now, however, there has been a bill introduced in the DC Council to move the primary, but not into April. Instead, the plan laid out in B23-0212 is to nudge the DC primary up to the first Tuesday in June in presidential years (leaving the primary in midterm years to remain on the third Tuesday in June). This is a modest shift but it would be enough to move the DC presidential primary back into compliance with the national party rules.
--
One footnote to add to the predicament in which the DC parties and Council find themselves, is that if this shift is successful it would represent the second change to the DC primary schedule since 2017. The Council made the decision in 2018 to move the primary from the second Tuesday in June to the third Tuesday in June. In other words, one step back was needed to move two steps forward.
--
Related:
7/19/19: Earlier June Presidential Primary Move Inches Forward in DC
5/6/19: Committee Hearing Finds Both DC Parties in Favor of a Presidential Primary Move
2/7/19: DC Presidential Primary on the Move Again?
5/15/18: Washington, DC Eases Back a Week on the Calendar
--
The Washington, DC presidential primary bill has been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Thursday, February 7, 2019
DC Presidential Primary on the Move Again?
To say that primary scheduling in Washington, DC has been chaotic in the 21st century is perhaps an understatement.
It is an understatement because the District has not had a primary date carry over from one cycle to the next since it used the first Tuesday in May position in both 1996 and 2000. That's right. In every year since the year 2000, the District of Columbia has had a different primary date than the previous cycle each time.
What is the regular rhythm of the 21st century?
Either there is no rhythm, or it is that the dates change every cycle.
And now officials in Washington are again considering a change to move the primary from June to April where it may once again coincide with contests in the mid-Atlantic/northeast. Those concurrent regional primaries involving DC happened with the Potomac Primary in 2008, alongside Maryland and Virginia, and with Delaware and Maryland in 2012.
And the arguments for are the same as is typical in other states:
Of course in the case of the Washington, DC primary, earlier is compliant. After moving the primary back a week to the third Tuesday in June during its 2017 session to accommodate school schedules in the district, the primary fell out of compliance with both parties 2020 rules. The primary is too late and would potential open the parties in the District to penalties from the national parties. A move, then, would be necessary unless petitioning for a waiver was successful.
But first the council in DC will likely take up legislation to move the primary. Democrats in the District took up the idea at their state committee meeting, but tabled it until March. A recommendation from DC Democrats will likely prompt some action on the council.
--
Related:
7/19/19: Earlier June Presidential Primary Move Inches Forward in DC
5/6/19: Committee Hearing Finds Both DC Parties in Favor of a Presidential Primary Move
4/5/19: DC Council Eyes Earlier Primary with New Bill
5/15/18: Washington, DC Eases Back a Week on the Calendar
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
It is an understatement because the District has not had a primary date carry over from one cycle to the next since it used the first Tuesday in May position in both 1996 and 2000. That's right. In every year since the year 2000, the District of Columbia has had a different primary date than the previous cycle each time.
2000: first Tuesday in MayThat is a lot of movement. And add to that the fact that in 2012 the council in DC passed legislation that ultimately became law to consolidate the primary election for other offices in the district with the presidential primary. If there was a regular rhythm to the nomination processes in the capital before the turn of the century, it was a steady May date for the presidential primary and a September date for all other offices.
2004: second Tuesday in January (non-compliant with national party rules)
2008: second Tuesday in February
2012: first Tuesday in April
2016: second Tuesday in June
2020 (tentative pending any future changes): third Tuesday in June
What is the regular rhythm of the 21st century?
Either there is no rhythm, or it is that the dates change every cycle.
And now officials in Washington are again considering a change to move the primary from June to April where it may once again coincide with contests in the mid-Atlantic/northeast. Those concurrent regional primaries involving DC happened with the Potomac Primary in 2008, alongside Maryland and Virginia, and with Delaware and Maryland in 2012.
And the arguments for are the same as is typical in other states:
At a meeting Thursday, the D.C. Democratic State Committee will consider whether to recommend moving up the District’s primary from June 16 to April 28, or some other early spring date.
“If you want to be competitive in the democratic process, you need to be early up,” said D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who represents the District on the Democratic National Committee.Earlier is better.
Of course in the case of the Washington, DC primary, earlier is compliant. After moving the primary back a week to the third Tuesday in June during its 2017 session to accommodate school schedules in the district, the primary fell out of compliance with both parties 2020 rules. The primary is too late and would potential open the parties in the District to penalties from the national parties. A move, then, would be necessary unless petitioning for a waiver was successful.
But first the council in DC will likely take up legislation to move the primary. Democrats in the District took up the idea at their state committee meeting, but tabled it until March. A recommendation from DC Democrats will likely prompt some action on the council.
--
Related:
7/19/19: Earlier June Presidential Primary Move Inches Forward in DC
5/6/19: Committee Hearing Finds Both DC Parties in Favor of a Presidential Primary Move
4/5/19: DC Council Eyes Earlier Primary with New Bill
5/15/18: Washington, DC Eases Back a Week on the Calendar
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
[2017-18 State Legislative Review: Proposed Primary Movement] Washington, DC Eases Back a Week on the Calendar
This post is part of a series examining efforts -- both attempted and successful -- to move presidential primary election dates for 2020 during the now-adjourning 2017-2018 state legislative sessions in capitols across the country. While shifts tend to be rare in sessions immediately following a presidential election, introduced legislation is more common albeit unsuccessful more often than not.
--
During the spring of 2017, legislation was introduced in the Washington, DC Council to shift the date on which future primary elections in the district would be held. The impetus behind Councilmember Charles Allen's (D-Ward 6) B22-0197 was multifaceted.
Primarily, shifting local primaries out of September (to where the elections had been returned in 2014) was intended to ease pressure on district compliance with the federal MOVE act. The timeline of the certification for September primary winners threatened to overlap with the 45 day window required by the federal law to distribute general election ballots to military and other officials registered in a jurisdiction but abroad during an election year.
But motivated by cost-savings, Allen also sought to consolidate those local elections with the the presidential election. And the legislation threaded another needle by scheduling the concurrent primaries a week later than the 2016 presidential primary -- the third Tuesday in June rather than the second Tuesday in June. That maneuver helped the primary avoid conflicting with school calendars. Schools are where most of the elections are conducted and will be out for the year by that point in June. Additionally, the shift guarantees that the opening of the early voting window before the primary will not push into the Memorial Day weekend.
It all works out perfectly.
Perfectly except for the fact that in two years, that third Tuesday in June date for the 2020 presidential primary will be non-compliant with national party rules. The window in which states can hold primaries and caucuses closes on the second Saturday in June in the Republican process (Rule 16(c)(1)) and on the second Tuesday in June on the Democratic side (the would-be Rule 12.A.1; Rule 11.A.1 in 2016).
District Republicans had to shift to a party-run (and funded) caucus in March 2016 while Democrats in the district occupied the last date available in the 2016 Democratic National Committee process.
This issue was raised in the public testimony during the committee hearing for B22-0197. While the Lars Hydle from the DC Republican Party voiced party support for the 2018 primary move, he urged the committee to consult with the parties on the 2020 primary.
That is something both DC parties will prefer if they want to avoid national party penalties, the need to apply for waivers, or having to provide for an alternate and earlier (likely party-funded) contest in the 2020 presidential nomination process.
--
The DC date change has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.
--
Related:
7/19/19: Earlier June Presidential Primary Move Inches Forward in DC
5/6/19: Committee Hearing Finds Both DC Parties in Favor of a Presidential Primary Move
4/5/19: DC Council Eyes Earlier Primary with New Bill
2/7/19: DC Presidential Primary on the Move Again?
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
--
During the spring of 2017, legislation was introduced in the Washington, DC Council to shift the date on which future primary elections in the district would be held. The impetus behind Councilmember Charles Allen's (D-Ward 6) B22-0197 was multifaceted.
Primarily, shifting local primaries out of September (to where the elections had been returned in 2014) was intended to ease pressure on district compliance with the federal MOVE act. The timeline of the certification for September primary winners threatened to overlap with the 45 day window required by the federal law to distribute general election ballots to military and other officials registered in a jurisdiction but abroad during an election year.
But motivated by cost-savings, Allen also sought to consolidate those local elections with the the presidential election. And the legislation threaded another needle by scheduling the concurrent primaries a week later than the 2016 presidential primary -- the third Tuesday in June rather than the second Tuesday in June. That maneuver helped the primary avoid conflicting with school calendars. Schools are where most of the elections are conducted and will be out for the year by that point in June. Additionally, the shift guarantees that the opening of the early voting window before the primary will not push into the Memorial Day weekend.
It all works out perfectly.
Perfectly except for the fact that in two years, that third Tuesday in June date for the 2020 presidential primary will be non-compliant with national party rules. The window in which states can hold primaries and caucuses closes on the second Saturday in June in the Republican process (Rule 16(c)(1)) and on the second Tuesday in June on the Democratic side (the would-be Rule 12.A.1; Rule 11.A.1 in 2016).
District Republicans had to shift to a party-run (and funded) caucus in March 2016 while Democrats in the district occupied the last date available in the 2016 Democratic National Committee process.
This issue was raised in the public testimony during the committee hearing for B22-0197. While the Lars Hydle from the DC Republican Party voiced party support for the 2018 primary move, he urged the committee to consult with the parties on the 2020 primary.
That is something both DC parties will prefer if they want to avoid national party penalties, the need to apply for waivers, or having to provide for an alternate and earlier (likely party-funded) contest in the 2020 presidential nomination process.
--
The DC date change has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.
--
Related:
7/19/19: Earlier June Presidential Primary Move Inches Forward in DC
5/6/19: Committee Hearing Finds Both DC Parties in Favor of a Presidential Primary Move
4/5/19: DC Council Eyes Earlier Primary with New Bill
2/7/19: DC Presidential Primary on the Move Again?
--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Saturday, March 12, 2016
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
This is part twenty-eight of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable.
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Election type: convention
Date: March 12
Number of delegates: 19 [16 at-large, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (with majority winner-take-all trigger)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15% (districtwide)
2012: winner-take-all primary
--
Changes since 2012
Quite a bit has changed with the way Republicans in the District of Columbia will allocate delegates in 2016 as compared to 2012. First, the District government shifted back the primary from April to June. The second Tuesday in June on which the primary falls in 2016 is outside of the window in which nominating contests can occur under Republican National Committee rules.
Faced with sanctions from the national party, DC Republicans opted out of the June primary election, replacing it with an earlier convention to select, allocate and bind delegates to the national convention. Curiously, the party scheduled that convention just inside the proportionality window on the tail end. That normally is of little consequence, but in this case it meant the DCGOP giving up its traditional winner-take-all method of delegate allocation. Instead of the party allocating all 19 delegates to the winner of the primary as in the past, in 2016, those delegates will be proportionally allocated. That cuts into the already small power and influence of the delegation. 19 delegates bound as a bloc is more beneficial to a candidate and the party is more meaningful than a proportional split of those 19 delegates.
Thresholds
To qualify for a proportional share of those 19 delegates, under DCGOP rules, a candidate must first win at least 15 percent in the presidential preference vote at the district convention. Should no candidate reach the 15 percent barrier, then the threshold is lowered to ten percent. There is an additional contingency in place if no candidate reaches ten percent -- dropping the threshold to eight percent -- but with a winnowed field, it seems likely that those alternate thresholds are little more than insurance.
Additionally, there is nothing in the rules of the Washington, DC Republican Party delegate selection plan prohibiting a backdoor winner-take-all outcome if only one candidate surpasses whatever defined threshold above is being used. Yet, a winnowed field makes it less likely that any candidate will take a backdoor to all 19 delegates.
And while the timing of the convention forced the party to abandon its past winner-take-all allocation method, such an option -- some candidate winning all 19 delegates -- is still on the table, but only if a candidate wins a majority of the vote districtwide. As the field of candidates shrinks, the odds of only one candidate reaching the 15 percent threshold decreases, but the chances of the winner-take-all trigger being tripped increase.
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
The allocation calculation the Republican Party is using in the district divides the candidate share of the vote by the total qualifying vote; just those over 15 percent (or whatever threshold is being used). The smaller the field is, the less likely it is that any candidate will receive anything more than a proportional share of the 19 delegates. But if any candidate or candidates fall(s) below that threshold, the delegate share for the qualifying candidates increases beyond a simple proportional share. All that really means is that as the unqualified share of the vote increases, the share of the delegates allocated to those above the threshold increases as well.
Candidates have to win at least 15 percent of the vote to qualify. One cannot round up to that threshold from 14.8 percent, for example.
Fractional delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number. If the allocation results in an overallocation of delegates, then the superfluous delegate is removed from the total of the candidate furthest from the rounding threshold. In the event of an under-allocation, an extra delegate -- one to get the total to 19 delegates allocated -- is awarded to the candidate closest to the round threshold. Compared to other states, these rounding rules do not by default favor those at the top of the vote order in the preference vote.
Binding
The binding rules hold delegates in place -- bound to a particular candidate -- through the first ballot at the national convention. There are only a couple of exceptions to that rule. For starters, when candidates withdraw from the race, any delegates allocated to that candidate are released and immediately unbound for the convention. However, if only one candidate's name is placed in nomination at the national convention, then the DC delegates are bound to vote as a bloc for that candidate.
Delegates will not only be allocated and bound at the March 12 convention, but they will be selected as well. In a vote similar to the one called for in the Virgin Islands rules, the top 16 votegetters become national convention delegates and the next 16 in the order are the alternates. Candidates for delegate file to run on their own, but can accept the endorsement the candidates and their campaigns along the way. The delegate candidate either affirms that endorsement or does not. In the case of the former, the delegate is listed on the convention ballot with the candidate they are supporting listed with the delegate.
Even if an endorsement is not accepted by the delegate candidate or is not made in the first place, a delegate still has to sign an affidavit that he or she will support the candidate to whom they are bound by the results of the convention. The endorsement part of that would tend to help the candidates to handpick delegates or at the very least indirectly influence who their delegates are. But in the end, the delegates would have accept the endorsement and be elected in the delegate preference vote. That means that there could emerge from the DCGOP convention delegates who prefer another candidate, but are bound to another.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Election type: convention
Date: March 12
Number of delegates: 19 [16 at-large, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional (with majority winner-take-all trigger)
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15% (districtwide)
2012: winner-take-all primary
--
Changes since 2012
Quite a bit has changed with the way Republicans in the District of Columbia will allocate delegates in 2016 as compared to 2012. First, the District government shifted back the primary from April to June. The second Tuesday in June on which the primary falls in 2016 is outside of the window in which nominating contests can occur under Republican National Committee rules.
Faced with sanctions from the national party, DC Republicans opted out of the June primary election, replacing it with an earlier convention to select, allocate and bind delegates to the national convention. Curiously, the party scheduled that convention just inside the proportionality window on the tail end. That normally is of little consequence, but in this case it meant the DCGOP giving up its traditional winner-take-all method of delegate allocation. Instead of the party allocating all 19 delegates to the winner of the primary as in the past, in 2016, those delegates will be proportionally allocated. That cuts into the already small power and influence of the delegation. 19 delegates bound as a bloc is more beneficial to a candidate and the party is more meaningful than a proportional split of those 19 delegates.
Thresholds
To qualify for a proportional share of those 19 delegates, under DCGOP rules, a candidate must first win at least 15 percent in the presidential preference vote at the district convention. Should no candidate reach the 15 percent barrier, then the threshold is lowered to ten percent. There is an additional contingency in place if no candidate reaches ten percent -- dropping the threshold to eight percent -- but with a winnowed field, it seems likely that those alternate thresholds are little more than insurance.
Additionally, there is nothing in the rules of the Washington, DC Republican Party delegate selection plan prohibiting a backdoor winner-take-all outcome if only one candidate surpasses whatever defined threshold above is being used. Yet, a winnowed field makes it less likely that any candidate will take a backdoor to all 19 delegates.
And while the timing of the convention forced the party to abandon its past winner-take-all allocation method, such an option -- some candidate winning all 19 delegates -- is still on the table, but only if a candidate wins a majority of the vote districtwide. As the field of candidates shrinks, the odds of only one candidate reaching the 15 percent threshold decreases, but the chances of the winner-take-all trigger being tripped increase.
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
The allocation calculation the Republican Party is using in the district divides the candidate share of the vote by the total qualifying vote; just those over 15 percent (or whatever threshold is being used). The smaller the field is, the less likely it is that any candidate will receive anything more than a proportional share of the 19 delegates. But if any candidate or candidates fall(s) below that threshold, the delegate share for the qualifying candidates increases beyond a simple proportional share. All that really means is that as the unqualified share of the vote increases, the share of the delegates allocated to those above the threshold increases as well.
Candidates have to win at least 15 percent of the vote to qualify. One cannot round up to that threshold from 14.8 percent, for example.
Fractional delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number. If the allocation results in an overallocation of delegates, then the superfluous delegate is removed from the total of the candidate furthest from the rounding threshold. In the event of an under-allocation, an extra delegate -- one to get the total to 19 delegates allocated -- is awarded to the candidate closest to the round threshold. Compared to other states, these rounding rules do not by default favor those at the top of the vote order in the preference vote.
Binding
The binding rules hold delegates in place -- bound to a particular candidate -- through the first ballot at the national convention. There are only a couple of exceptions to that rule. For starters, when candidates withdraw from the race, any delegates allocated to that candidate are released and immediately unbound for the convention. However, if only one candidate's name is placed in nomination at the national convention, then the DC delegates are bound to vote as a bloc for that candidate.
Delegates will not only be allocated and bound at the March 12 convention, but they will be selected as well. In a vote similar to the one called for in the Virgin Islands rules, the top 16 votegetters become national convention delegates and the next 16 in the order are the alternates. Candidates for delegate file to run on their own, but can accept the endorsement the candidates and their campaigns along the way. The delegate candidate either affirms that endorsement or does not. In the case of the former, the delegate is listed on the convention ballot with the candidate they are supporting listed with the delegate.
Even if an endorsement is not accepted by the delegate candidate or is not made in the first place, a delegate still has to sign an affidavit that he or she will support the candidate to whom they are bound by the results of the convention. The endorsement part of that would tend to help the candidates to handpick delegates or at the very least indirectly influence who their delegates are. But in the end, the delegates would have accept the endorsement and be elected in the delegate preference vote. That means that there could emerge from the DCGOP convention delegates who prefer another candidate, but are bound to another.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
Thursday, August 27, 2015
DC GOP Laying Groundwork for March Convention in 2016
The details will be ironed out during September meetings, but the Washington, DC Republican Party is preparing to hold a convention during the second half of March to allocate and bind its delegates to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland next year.
That March Republican convention will replace the June 14 primary scheduled in the district. The change from a primary to convention was actually necessary. June 14 falls outside of the window in which the Republican National Committee (and the Rules of the Republican Party) allows states and territories to conduct delegate selection events. With the window due to close on the second Saturday in June, Republicans in the district had to begin a search for a back up plan.
By positioning the convention during the second half of March, Republicans in the District of Columbia will be able to continue allocating their delegates in a winner-take-all if the party chooses to follow its past practice. But again, those details along with matters of ballot access will be determined at the September meeting.
DC Democrats will still hold a primary on June 14.
That March Republican convention will replace the June 14 primary scheduled in the district. The change from a primary to convention was actually necessary. June 14 falls outside of the window in which the Republican National Committee (and the Rules of the Republican Party) allows states and territories to conduct delegate selection events. With the window due to close on the second Saturday in June, Republicans in the district had to begin a search for a back up plan.
By positioning the convention during the second half of March, Republicans in the District of Columbia will be able to continue allocating their delegates in a winner-take-all if the party chooses to follow its past practice. But again, those details along with matters of ballot access will be determined at the September meeting.
DC Democrats will still hold a primary on June 14.
Monday, May 4, 2015
DC Presidential Primary to June 14
The Washington, DC legislation shifting the presidential primary in the district from April to June cleared its final hurdle over the weekend.
B20-0265 passed the DC Council late in 2014 and was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser earlier this year. However, the bill just made it through its formal congressional review period and has now become law. The DC presidential primary now moves from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in June. That new calendar position likely makes the vote in the district the last in the sequence of states on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.
On the Republican side, Washington, DC Republicans have traditionally allocated national convention delegates in a winner-take-all fashion. That winner-take-all contest for 19 delegates will now bring up the rear on the calendar. But don't read too much into that.
--
Hat tip to Joe Wenzinger for passing news of this along to FHQ.
B20-0265 passed the DC Council late in 2014 and was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser earlier this year. However, the bill just made it through its formal congressional review period and has now become law. The DC presidential primary now moves from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in June. That new calendar position likely makes the vote in the district the last in the sequence of states on the 2016 presidential primary calendar.
On the Republican side, Washington, DC Republicans have traditionally allocated national convention delegates in a winner-take-all fashion. That winner-take-all contest for 19 delegates will now bring up the rear on the calendar. But don't read too much into that.
--
Hat tip to Joe Wenzinger for passing news of this along to FHQ.
Monday, February 9, 2015
DC Presidential Primary Continues Slow Crawl to June
The Washington, DC presidential primary move to June has seemed inevitable since December. However, procedurally, it has taken some time to get to that end.
When FHQ last updated the situation, the 2013 bill to move the District's 2016 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in June had unanimously passed the Council vote and the time for mayoral review had seemingly passed. Yet, the bill carried over into the new legislative period, giving newly inaugurated mayor, Muriel Bowser, the opportunity to register an opinion on the move. The Washington mayor does not have to act for legislation to become an act of the Council. In this instance, though, Mayor Bowser gave the June primary a thumbs up last week on February 6.
That initiates a window in which Congress will have the chance -- if it chooses to exercise that option -- to review the move. Such a review is more a formality than anything else.
In a cycle when the only states that are moving to later primary dates are the straggling rogues from 2012, Washington, DC represents a state/territory with an already late date moving even later on the calendar. In fact, the second Tuesday in April would be the last possible date for the primary to be held without sanction under the national parties' delegate selection rules.
Recent Posts:
Evidence of a Big Ten Presidential Primary?
New Mexico Attempt to Join Would-Be Western Regional Presidential Primary is In
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
When FHQ last updated the situation, the 2013 bill to move the District's 2016 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in June had unanimously passed the Council vote and the time for mayoral review had seemingly passed. Yet, the bill carried over into the new legislative period, giving newly inaugurated mayor, Muriel Bowser, the opportunity to register an opinion on the move. The Washington mayor does not have to act for legislation to become an act of the Council. In this instance, though, Mayor Bowser gave the June primary a thumbs up last week on February 6.
That initiates a window in which Congress will have the chance -- if it chooses to exercise that option -- to review the move. Such a review is more a formality than anything else.
In a cycle when the only states that are moving to later primary dates are the straggling rogues from 2012, Washington, DC represents a state/territory with an already late date moving even later on the calendar. In fact, the second Tuesday in April would be the last possible date for the primary to be held without sanction under the national parties' delegate selection rules.
Recent Posts:
Evidence of a Big Ten Presidential Primary?
New Mexico Attempt to Join Would-Be Western Regional Presidential Primary is In
Connecticut Republicans Strategize About Opening Primaries, Moving Presidential Primary Up
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Update on 2016 DC Presidential Primary: Off to June
Just before the holidays, the Washington, DC District Council voted unanimously to shift the presidential primary in the District from April to June.
As FHQ noted at the time, the 2013 bill then moved on to lame duck Mayor Vincent Gray for his consideration. However, given that the bill was passed unanimously there was no utility in issuing a veto on a bill that would be overridden by the council. Regardless, B20-0265 -- the primary bill -- was never signed into law. But the DC system does not require a signature anyway. The mayor has three options when confronted with a bill from the council: sign the bill, do nothing or veto the bill. In the case of the first two actions, the bill becomes law.
Council Period 20 (2013-2015) came to a close at the end of 2014 and there is no evidence that a mayoral veto was issued on the June primary legislation. It thus becomes law, moving the DC presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in June. That moves DC from a point on the calendar just beyond the 50% delegates allocate threshold to the very last week of the calendar. The move also breaks up any lasting remnants of the 2008 Potomac primary (DC, Virginia and Maryland). Washington, DC and Maryland were concurrent again in 2012, but that coalition will not survive to 2016.
The bill does have to go before Congress for review -- as all DC legislation does -- but if there is no review or no disapproval from the House of Representatives within a 30 day window, the bill becomes an act and is law.
FHQ will keep the Washington, DC primary on the first Tuesday in April for now, but that will change to June when and if this becomes an act.
Recent Posts:
Bill Introduced to Merge Democratic and Republican Presidential Primaries in South Carolina
California: Damned if you do, Damned of you don't [Move] in Presidential Primary Politics
2016 Texas Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: A New Caveat to Consider
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
As FHQ noted at the time, the 2013 bill then moved on to lame duck Mayor Vincent Gray for his consideration. However, given that the bill was passed unanimously there was no utility in issuing a veto on a bill that would be overridden by the council. Regardless, B20-0265 -- the primary bill -- was never signed into law. But the DC system does not require a signature anyway. The mayor has three options when confronted with a bill from the council: sign the bill, do nothing or veto the bill. In the case of the first two actions, the bill becomes law.
Council Period 20 (2013-2015) came to a close at the end of 2014 and there is no evidence that a mayoral veto was issued on the June primary legislation. It thus becomes law, moving the DC presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in June. That moves DC from a point on the calendar just beyond the 50% delegates allocate threshold to the very last week of the calendar. The move also breaks up any lasting remnants of the 2008 Potomac primary (DC, Virginia and Maryland). Washington, DC and Maryland were concurrent again in 2012, but that coalition will not survive to 2016.
The bill does have to go before Congress for review -- as all DC legislation does -- but if there is no review or no disapproval from the House of Representatives within a 30 day window, the bill becomes an act and is law.
FHQ will keep the Washington, DC primary on the first Tuesday in April for now, but that will change to June when and if this becomes an act.
Recent Posts:
Bill Introduced to Merge Democratic and Republican Presidential Primaries in South Carolina
California: Damned if you do, Damned of you don't [Move] in Presidential Primary Politics
2016 Texas Republican Delegate Allocation Rules: A New Caveat to Consider
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
In late November the Council of the District of Columbia -- the lawmaking body for the nation's capital -- resurrected a bill from 2013 that would shift the presidential primary in the district from the first Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in June.
Throughout December the legislation -- B20-0265 -- received more scrutiny from the Council and was opened to the amendment process. However, that yielded little in the way of substantive change for the presidential primary.1 The original legislation introduced in May 2013 would have shifted the presidential primary back to the second Tuesday in June. But that date has been bumped up a week to the first Tuesday in June in the version that got a final unanimous thumbs up from the Council on December 17.
The bill will now be transmitted to Mayor Vincent Grey for his consideration. A signature would move the presidential primary in DC to a date in June on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that coincides with California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota; a departure from the subregional primaries the District has been a part of the last two cycles.
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing the bill's revival to FHQ's attention.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review
--
1 The introduced legislation consolidated the presidential primary and those for other offices in the District on that June date, but that was altered in the final amended version. The primaries will remain concurrent in 2016, but the non-presidential primaries will be moved to September starting in 2018. Read more about the move here.
Throughout December the legislation -- B20-0265 -- received more scrutiny from the Council and was opened to the amendment process. However, that yielded little in the way of substantive change for the presidential primary.1 The original legislation introduced in May 2013 would have shifted the presidential primary back to the second Tuesday in June. But that date has been bumped up a week to the first Tuesday in June in the version that got a final unanimous thumbs up from the Council on December 17.
The bill will now be transmitted to Mayor Vincent Grey for his consideration. A signature would move the presidential primary in DC to a date in June on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that coincides with California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota; a departure from the subregional primaries the District has been a part of the last two cycles.
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing the bill's revival to FHQ's attention.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review
--
1 The introduced legislation consolidated the presidential primary and those for other offices in the District on that June date, but that was altered in the final amended version. The primaries will remain concurrent in 2016, but the non-presidential primaries will be moved to September starting in 2018. Read more about the move here.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
DC Bill Would Move District's Presidential Primary to June
A bill introduced in early May in the Council of the District of Columbia would shift back the date of the presidential primary in the nation's capital. B20-0265 proposes moving the primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in June.
This potential move in interesting in a couple of respects.
--
UPDATE (12/17/14): Bill passes DC Council
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review
--
1 Of course, in years in which June 1 is on a Tuesday, the second Tuesday after the first Monday in June would actually be the third Tuesday in June. Noncompliant under the parties' current rules.
This potential move in interesting in a couple of respects.
- The introduced 2011 legislation that ultimately moved the Washington, DC primary from the second Tuesday in February, where it coincided with primaries in neighboring Maryland and Virginia -- the Potomac Primary -- in 2008, called for shifting the primary back to June. That bill started off in the same form before being amended in committee and passed/signed, moving the DC primary to April.
- This push back to June is not motivated by a need to consolidate the presidential primaries with those for other District-wide offices. The same 2011 legislation accomplished that as well. This was the same sort of cost-saving measure that was taken in other states across the country in 2011 including in Alabama, California and New Jersey.
--
UPDATE (12/17/14): Bill passes DC Council
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review
--
1 Of course, in years in which June 1 is on a Tuesday, the second Tuesday after the first Monday in June would actually be the third Tuesday in June. Noncompliant under the parties' current rules.
Recent Posts:
Friday, October 19, 2012
The Electoral College Map (10/19/12)
For as many polls that were released on Friday -- 19 surveys from 15 states -- there just weren't that many changes to the steady state that has been FHQ's look at the electoral college. However, other than an Ohio bright spot for the president, this was a good Romney polling day.
Polling Quick Hits:
California:
The pattern is not really changing in the Golden state. Obama's share of support in recent polling has settled into an area in the mid- to upper 50s while Romney has consistently nailed down about 2 of every 5 California poll respondents. It's a blue state, folks.
Florida:
If California is settled, Florida is not. Well, Florida isn't to the same extent anyway. The FHQ weighted average is still ever so slightly pointed in Obama's direction, but it is tracking downward closer to parity between the two candidates, or perhaps more accurately, a Romney lead. Of the 14 October polls conducted in the Sunshine state, Mitt Romney has held the advantage in 11 of them. Most of those leads have been on the smaller side, but the trend is clearly in the governor's direction as evidenced by the quartet of Friday polling releases.
Iowa:
The day after a Marist poll showed the president's lead in the Hawkeye state nudging up to six points, PPP finds a dead heat, but one with a slight edge to Romney. In surveys following the first debate in Denver, Obama had continued to maintain a lead in most polls. [There was a tie in the one post-debate ARG survey.] But Romney has pulled ahead in the first non-partisan survey conducted since a mid-September Rasmussen poll. The post-debate picture in Iowa has been a closer, nearly tied race and this poll does little to break from that trend other than indicating a Romney lead. Since the immediately prior PPP survey, Romney has gained five points and Obama has lost three.
Maryland:
See California, but with a lighter supply of polling data. The WaPo poll shows a not too terribly uncharacteristic (or surprising) 20+ point lead for Obama. That is consistent with both electoral history and the handful of 2012 polls that have been in the field in the Old Line state. It's blue. Moving on...
Missouri:
If Maryland is blue, Missouri is red; albeit a lighter shade. There was some variability in the numbers coming out of the Show Me state around the time of the Todd Akin comments but that has settled down in the time since. Missouri is a solid Lean Romney state and the current Rasmussen poll only bolsters that position.
Nevada:
Mark Mellman may have been right about the Harry Reid/Sharon Angle senate race in the Silver state in 2010, but an Obama +8 seems out of place at the moment given the polling data we are privy to right now. Regardless of the margin (It seems to be more a function of Romney's share of support.), Obama's consistent proximity to the 50% mark is noteworthy. Obama has not been below the 47% level in any post-debate (Denver) poll. That gives Romney very little margin for error coming down the home stretch.
New Hampshire:
The same can be said of New Hampshire as well, but perhaps not quite to the same degree. There is less data from the Granite state then in Nevada following the first debate, but Obama appears to be well positioned in New Hampshire as well. The catch is that Romney is in a comparatively better spot -- relative to Nevada -- in New Hampshire as the PPP above indicates. In fact, the governor has a lead of nearly a point in the raw average of post-debate polling in the Granite state. That has the FHQ weighted average for New Hampshire on the verge of passing Ohio (...something FHQ discussed in some detail earlier in the week). Romney simply has less ground to make up in New Hampshire.
New Jersey:
See California and Maryland. A couple of new polls show Obama ahead by a margin somewhere in the mid-teens in the Garden state. With just over two weeks to go, that's out of Romney's reach.
North Carolina:
If New Jersey is out of Romney's reach, North Carolina is out of the president's. ...despite this positive poll from Grove Insight. The movement this cycle is against the president (or at least the baselines set in 2008), and North Carolina has been the one toss up state to consistently enough favor Mitt Romney. The Tarheel state remains close, but not close enough. It looks likely to flip back into the red officially on November 6.
Ohio:
The two FOX polls out today seem about right. Florida is a +3 for Romney and Ohio is a +3 for Obama. Unlike in Florida, though, the Ohio number pretty closely resembles the FHQ weighted average margin in the Buckeye state. That number, in turn, is awfully close to the raw average of post-debate polling in Ohio; just a hair over to points. The president continues to hold the lead in Ohio through the tightening that we have witnessed more clearly in some other toss up states.
Oregon:
The narrow five point lead the president held in Washington earlier in the week had FHQ calling for an update in Oregon. Survey USA delivered and the president still has a lead that keeps the Beaver state firmly lodged in the Lean Obama category. The only drawback to that is the fact that Survey USA has done the majority of the polling work in Oregon in 2012. We just don't have any other comparison points outside of a couple of blips from PPP.
Pennsylvania:
This is the first lead Romney has held in a Pennsylvania poll since Susquehanna also showed the governor ahead in a February survey. The firm did seem to be out ahead of the movement in Romney's direction in the Keystone state a week ago -- and this one may also be prophetic -- but Romney +4 there looks a little off. It is a result that is well within the realm of possibility/probability given random sampling, but it is an outlier considering the other polling information we have in Pennsylvania. Tighter? Sure, but not tipped toward Romney.
Virginia:
Rasmussen had Romney up three in its update to its poll last week. That is not a big change. The governor gained a point over last week and the president held steady. Since the first debate, the candidates have traded small leads in the polls that have been conducted and released. FHQ has things favoring Obama in the weighted averages, but that may be overstating the matter given the post-debate polling. The raw average of polls over that time have Obama and Romney knotted at 47% and some change. [Romney holds a 0.1% lead in that average.] That has had the FHQ weighted tracking down, but tracking down more slowly than if the polling had broken more clearly toward Romney. And by "more clearly" I mean consistently showing a Romney lead as was the case in the Florida polling above. What's clear in Florida is not quite so clear in Virginia.
Washington, DC:
Hmm. Speaking of clear, it seems plainly clear that Obama has an impenetrable margin in the District. ...not that that is surprising. There's a reason DC is only an asterisk on the Electoral College Spectrum below: It overwhelmingly favors the Democratic candidate. That isn't any less different in 2012 than in 1972 or 1984 when even in the face of Republican electoral college routs, DC went for the Democratic nominee.
Wisconsin:
Has the race for Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes drawn closer in the period since the first presidential debate? Yes, it has. However, Obama has yet to relinquish the lead in any poll of the Badger state during that time. In fact, this Rasmussen poll looks a lot like the raw averages of the polls since the first debate. Obama leads by a couple of points and is hovering around the 50% mark in the state. Minus the handful of outlier polls, Wisconsin looks an awful lot like Nevada right now: tight but giving the president a slight competitive advantage.
Oddly -- or perhaps not so oddly -- enough, all the new data above yielded very little in the way of changes to the FHQ electoral college outlook. The map, the tally and the Electoral College Spectrum did not change at all. There are some hints at movement among the most competitive states, but that has yet to manifest itself in any way. More or less, we continue to see the compression of averages that began in the time just before and obviously following the first debate in Denver. Virginia, Colorado and Florida are closing in on the partisan line in a very real way and New Hampshire, Ohio and Iowa -- as the next wave of states for Romney to gain on in the Spectrum -- are recalibrating somewhat among themselves. As was mentioned above, New Hampshire is closing in on Ohio in the averages. Iowa also is hovering right at about a three point lead for the president.
The Watch List witnessed the only distinct change today. Both Iowa and Oregon dropped off. Oregon is now solidly within the Lean Obama area and Iowa slipped back into the Toss Up Obama category (and rightfully so given the data to which we have access). Of those on the list, Florida and the final four states merit watching. And any poll from Colorado or Virginia is worthy as well. There has been some fairly even trading of leads between the two candidates in those two states and if a pattern emerges in the direction of one candidate or the other, it may be telling.
Please see:
New State Polls (10/19/12)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
California
|
10/11-10/15
|
+/- 5.1%
|
696 likely voters
|
53
|
38
|
5
|
+15
|
+18.51
| |
Florida
|
10/14-10/16
|
+/- 3.4%
|
828 likely voters
|
47
|
44
|
10
|
+3
|
+0.53
| |
Florida
|
10/17-10/18
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1215 likely voters
|
45
|
48
|
6
|
+3
|
--
| |
Florida
|
10/17-10/18
|
+/- 4.0%
|
681 likely voters
|
48
|
49
|
2
|
+1
|
--
| |
Florida
|
10/18
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
46
|
51
|
2
|
+5
|
--
| |
Iowa
|
10/17-10/19
|
+/- 3.3%
|
869 likely voters
|
48
|
49
|
4
|
+1
|
+2.92
| |
Maryland
|
10/11-10/15
|
+/- -.-%
|
843 likely voters
|
60
|
36
|
4
|
+24
|
+21.06
| |
Missouri
|
10/17
|
+/- 4.5%
|
500 likely voters
|
43
|
54
|
3
|
+11
|
+7.54
| |
Nevada
|
10/15-10/17
|
+/- 4.0%
|
600 likely voters
|
51
|
43
|
--
|
+8
|
+4.26
| |
New Hampshire
|
10/17-10/19
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1036 likely voters
|
48
|
49
|
3
|
+1
|
+3.51
| |
New Jersey
|
10/12-10/18
|
+/- 3.5%
|
811 likely voters
|
53
|
38
|
--
|
+15
|
+12.53
| |
New Jersey
|
10/17-10/18
|
+/- 4.2%
|
577 likely voters
|
54
|
40
|
4
|
+14
|
--
| |
North Carolina
|
10/17-10/18
|
+/- 4.4%
|
500 likely voters
|
47
|
44
|
--
|
+3
|
+1.31
| |
Ohio
|
10/17-10/18
|
+/- 3.0%
|
1131 likely voters
|
46
|
43
|
10
|
+3
|
+3.40
| |
Oregon
|
10/16-10/18
|
+/- 4.2%
|
579 likely voters
|
49
|
42
|
5
|
+7
|
+7.65
| |
Pennsylvania
|
10/11-10/13
|
+/- 2.64%
|
1376 likely voters
|
45
|
49
|
2
|
+4
|
+6.30
| |
Virginia
|
10/18
|
+/- 4.0%
|
750 likely voters
|
47
|
50
|
2
|
+3
|
+2.33
| |
Washington, DC
|
10/12-10/14
|
+/- 2.8%
|
122 likely voters
|
88
|
8
|
--
|
+80
|
+80.25
| |
Wisconsin
|
10/18
|
+/- 4.5%
|
500 likely voters
|
50
|
48
|
--
|
+2
|
+4.84
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
California:
The pattern is not really changing in the Golden state. Obama's share of support in recent polling has settled into an area in the mid- to upper 50s while Romney has consistently nailed down about 2 of every 5 California poll respondents. It's a blue state, folks.
Florida:
If California is settled, Florida is not. Well, Florida isn't to the same extent anyway. The FHQ weighted average is still ever so slightly pointed in Obama's direction, but it is tracking downward closer to parity between the two candidates, or perhaps more accurately, a Romney lead. Of the 14 October polls conducted in the Sunshine state, Mitt Romney has held the advantage in 11 of them. Most of those leads have been on the smaller side, but the trend is clearly in the governor's direction as evidenced by the quartet of Friday polling releases.
Iowa:
The day after a Marist poll showed the president's lead in the Hawkeye state nudging up to six points, PPP finds a dead heat, but one with a slight edge to Romney. In surveys following the first debate in Denver, Obama had continued to maintain a lead in most polls. [There was a tie in the one post-debate ARG survey.] But Romney has pulled ahead in the first non-partisan survey conducted since a mid-September Rasmussen poll. The post-debate picture in Iowa has been a closer, nearly tied race and this poll does little to break from that trend other than indicating a Romney lead. Since the immediately prior PPP survey, Romney has gained five points and Obama has lost three.
Maryland:
See California, but with a lighter supply of polling data. The WaPo poll shows a not too terribly uncharacteristic (or surprising) 20+ point lead for Obama. That is consistent with both electoral history and the handful of 2012 polls that have been in the field in the Old Line state. It's blue. Moving on...
Missouri:
If Maryland is blue, Missouri is red; albeit a lighter shade. There was some variability in the numbers coming out of the Show Me state around the time of the Todd Akin comments but that has settled down in the time since. Missouri is a solid Lean Romney state and the current Rasmussen poll only bolsters that position.
Nevada:
Mark Mellman may have been right about the Harry Reid/Sharon Angle senate race in the Silver state in 2010, but an Obama +8 seems out of place at the moment given the polling data we are privy to right now. Regardless of the margin (It seems to be more a function of Romney's share of support.), Obama's consistent proximity to the 50% mark is noteworthy. Obama has not been below the 47% level in any post-debate (Denver) poll. That gives Romney very little margin for error coming down the home stretch.
New Hampshire:
The same can be said of New Hampshire as well, but perhaps not quite to the same degree. There is less data from the Granite state then in Nevada following the first debate, but Obama appears to be well positioned in New Hampshire as well. The catch is that Romney is in a comparatively better spot -- relative to Nevada -- in New Hampshire as the PPP above indicates. In fact, the governor has a lead of nearly a point in the raw average of post-debate polling in the Granite state. That has the FHQ weighted average for New Hampshire on the verge of passing Ohio (...something FHQ discussed in some detail earlier in the week). Romney simply has less ground to make up in New Hampshire.
New Jersey:
See California and Maryland. A couple of new polls show Obama ahead by a margin somewhere in the mid-teens in the Garden state. With just over two weeks to go, that's out of Romney's reach.
North Carolina:
If New Jersey is out of Romney's reach, North Carolina is out of the president's. ...despite this positive poll from Grove Insight. The movement this cycle is against the president (or at least the baselines set in 2008), and North Carolina has been the one toss up state to consistently enough favor Mitt Romney. The Tarheel state remains close, but not close enough. It looks likely to flip back into the red officially on November 6.
Ohio:
The two FOX polls out today seem about right. Florida is a +3 for Romney and Ohio is a +3 for Obama. Unlike in Florida, though, the Ohio number pretty closely resembles the FHQ weighted average margin in the Buckeye state. That number, in turn, is awfully close to the raw average of post-debate polling in Ohio; just a hair over to points. The president continues to hold the lead in Ohio through the tightening that we have witnessed more clearly in some other toss up states.
Oregon:
The narrow five point lead the president held in Washington earlier in the week had FHQ calling for an update in Oregon. Survey USA delivered and the president still has a lead that keeps the Beaver state firmly lodged in the Lean Obama category. The only drawback to that is the fact that Survey USA has done the majority of the polling work in Oregon in 2012. We just don't have any other comparison points outside of a couple of blips from PPP.
Pennsylvania:
This is the first lead Romney has held in a Pennsylvania poll since Susquehanna also showed the governor ahead in a February survey. The firm did seem to be out ahead of the movement in Romney's direction in the Keystone state a week ago -- and this one may also be prophetic -- but Romney +4 there looks a little off. It is a result that is well within the realm of possibility/probability given random sampling, but it is an outlier considering the other polling information we have in Pennsylvania. Tighter? Sure, but not tipped toward Romney.
Virginia:
Rasmussen had Romney up three in its update to its poll last week. That is not a big change. The governor gained a point over last week and the president held steady. Since the first debate, the candidates have traded small leads in the polls that have been conducted and released. FHQ has things favoring Obama in the weighted averages, but that may be overstating the matter given the post-debate polling. The raw average of polls over that time have Obama and Romney knotted at 47% and some change. [Romney holds a 0.1% lead in that average.] That has had the FHQ weighted tracking down, but tracking down more slowly than if the polling had broken more clearly toward Romney. And by "more clearly" I mean consistently showing a Romney lead as was the case in the Florida polling above. What's clear in Florida is not quite so clear in Virginia.
Washington, DC:
Hmm. Speaking of clear, it seems plainly clear that Obama has an impenetrable margin in the District. ...not that that is surprising. There's a reason DC is only an asterisk on the Electoral College Spectrum below: It overwhelmingly favors the Democratic candidate. That isn't any less different in 2012 than in 1972 or 1984 when even in the face of Republican electoral college routs, DC went for the Democratic nominee.
Wisconsin:
Has the race for Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes drawn closer in the period since the first presidential debate? Yes, it has. However, Obama has yet to relinquish the lead in any poll of the Badger state during that time. In fact, this Rasmussen poll looks a lot like the raw averages of the polls since the first debate. Obama leads by a couple of points and is hovering around the 50% mark in the state. Minus the handful of outlier polls, Wisconsin looks an awful lot like Nevada right now: tight but giving the president a slight competitive advantage.
Oddly -- or perhaps not so oddly -- enough, all the new data above yielded very little in the way of changes to the FHQ electoral college outlook. The map, the tally and the Electoral College Spectrum did not change at all. There are some hints at movement among the most competitive states, but that has yet to manifest itself in any way. More or less, we continue to see the compression of averages that began in the time just before and obviously following the first debate in Denver. Virginia, Colorado and Florida are closing in on the partisan line in a very real way and New Hampshire, Ohio and Iowa -- as the next wave of states for Romney to gain on in the Spectrum -- are recalibrating somewhat among themselves. As was mentioned above, New Hampshire is closing in on Ohio in the averages. Iowa also is hovering right at about a three point lead for the president.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
VT-3
(6)2
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(257)
|
MT-3
(159)
|
MS-6
(58)
|
HI-4
(10)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
OH-183
(275/281)
|
GA-16
(156)
|
KY-8
(52)
|
RI-4
(14)
|
CT-7
(179)
|
IA-6
(281/263)
|
SD-3
(140)
|
AL-9
(44)
|
NY-29
(43)
|
NM-5
(184)
|
VA-13
(294/257)
|
IN-11
(137)
|
KS-6
(35)
|
MD-10
(53)
|
MN-10
(194)
|
CO-9
(303/244)
|
SC-9
(126)
|
AR-6
(29)
|
MA-11
(64)
|
OR-7
(201)
|
FL-29
(332/235)
|
NE-5
(117)
|
AK-3
(23)
|
IL-20
(84)
|
PA-20
(221)
|
NC-15
(206)
|
ND-3
(112)
|
OK-7
(20)
|
CA-55
(139)
|
MI-16
(237)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
TX-38
(109)
|
ID-4
(13)
|
DE-3
(142)
|
WI-10
(247)
|
MO-10
(180)
|
WV-5
(71)
|
WY-3
(9)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
NV-6
(253)
|
TN-11
(170)
|
LA-8
(66)
|
UT-6
(6)
|
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 won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Romney won all the states up to and including Ohio (all Obama's toss up states plus Ohio), he would have 281 electoral votes. Romney's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and Romney's is on the right in italics. 3 Ohio is the state where Obama crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. | ||||
The Watch List witnessed the only distinct change today. Both Iowa and Oregon dropped off. Oregon is now solidly within the Lean Obama area and Iowa slipped back into the Toss Up Obama category (and rightfully so given the data to which we have access). Of those on the list, Florida and the final four states merit watching. And any poll from Colorado or Virginia is worthy as well. There has been some fairly even trading of leads between the two candidates in those two states and if a pattern emerges in the direction of one candidate or the other, it may be telling.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Florida
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Toss Up Romney
| |
Georgia
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Minnesota
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Strong Obama
| |
Montana
|
from Strong Romney
|
to Lean Romney
| |
Nevada
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
Ohio
|
from Toss Up Obama
|
to Lean Obama
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Lean Obama
|
to Toss Up Obama
| |
1 The Watch list shows those states in the FHQ Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories. The List is not a trend analysis. It indicates which states are straddling the line between categories and which states are most likely to shift given the introduction of new polling data. Montana, for example, is close to being a Lean Romney state, but the trajectory of the polling there has been moving the state away from that lean distinction.
| |||
Please see:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)