Throughout primary season Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, repeated a familiar refrain. Whether asked about the possible nomination of Trump or the New York businessman's potential impact on the party platform, Priebus kept saying essentially the same thing: it is up to the delegates. The intent now as then is the same. It is a balance between a party apparatus wanting to assure those affiliated with it that has some control over a process but that does not want it to appear as if it has its thumb on the scale. That is a balancing act that is tough under normal conditions, but takes on a heightened level of difficulty when a party is divided and/or has a unique frontrunner/presumptive nominee.
In 2016 the Republican Party has both. It has an unconventional presumptive nominee who has not only faced resistance all along, but who has reactivated traditional dividing lines within the party and animated dormant or latent ones.1 And both facets feed each other. Seemingly every word or deed from Donald Trump fuels the fire of opposition that has been longer in duration than that of any other cycle since the nearly evenly matched fight for the 1976 Republican nomination between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.
The difference from 1976 to now is that Trump warded off all of his challengers on his way to a clear majority of bound delegates. Yet, pockets of resistance remain, small though they may be when compared to the full population of national convention delegates, and continue to search for outlets for their collective opposition to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The latest, spurred by an organizing minority faction of delegates, revisits the oft-discussed proposal to unbind the delegates through a change of the Rules of the Republican Party at the convention in Cleveland. An alternative change -- a conscience clause -- would allow delegates an out if they disagree with the presumptive nominee to whom they are bound.
Either proposal makes enough sense in theory (for that minority faction), but getting to that point -- a rules change -- is another endeavor altogether. There are a couple of layers to this. First, the path leads through the Convention Rules Committee. Some have argued that it would take just 57 votes to change the rules; to unbind the delegates or at the very least provide some of them with an opportunity to opt out of supporting Trump in a roll call vote on the floor of the convention.
But that is an oversimplification that obscures two important points:
1) It largely ignores the membership of the committee. The majority of the publicly known members of the Convention Rules Committee are members of the RNC themselves. That suggests at least something about the motivations of the committee. While they may not necessarily be Trump supporters, members of the RNC -- national committeemen and committeewomen and state party chairs -- are more likely than the elected at-large and congressional district delegates to defend the bulk of the rules that govern the Republican nomination process. To be clear, these automatic delegates on the Convention Rules Committee are not stooges of the Republican National Committee. The three of them from each state are elected at the state level and carry with them to national party functions the diversity of views represented across the country. That said, those delegates are more likely to fall in line with the balancing act described above; to carefully consider not only rules changes, but their implications as well.
All this is to say that those members of the Convention Rules Committee may not support Trump (or be bound to him on the roll call vote), but they have a common interest in A) (theoretically) defending the current rules2 and B) avoiding the sort of chaos that detracts from the goal of the modern national convention. In other words, letting a rules fight get out of the Committee and onto the floor hurts the ability of the party to demonstrate some semblance of unity before a national audience.3
2) It is also worth noting that the bar is not actually as high as 57 votes -- a simple majority of the 112 member Convention Rules Committee -- to change the rules. That is the surest way of making a change, but there are other, perhaps more plausible goals for those seeking to halt a Trump nomination or at the very least make his getting to a formal nomination more difficult. If the Stop Trump delegates fail to get an unbinding rules change through Rules, the current rules do allow them the ability to send a minority report (amendment) to the floor for consideration by the convention. That maneuver, under the provisions of Rule 34, only requires the support of one quarter of the membership of the Convention Rules Committee (or 23 votes). This is a pretty limited power, however. Such an amendment (from a minority faction) can be tabled and very likely would be if the chair of the convention does not back the move.
Limited though that power could be, getting a minority report to the floor would be a step up from the small scale backlash from Ron Paul supporters in Tampa in 2012. Again, the formal party within the convention would be motivated to avoid the 2012 ante being upped in 2016. As such, this is a bit of leverage for those who want Stop Trump. This was likely at least part of the calculus behind Priebus's call to state party leaders to assess the extent of anti-Trump sentiment among the 56 delegations. Getting a sense of that whip count both in the Rules Committee and on the floor is an important piece of information
The flashpoint for all of this -- this back and forth -- is the Convention Rules Committee meeting before the convention commences. A very likely middle ground is that the Rules Committee report to the full convention is likely to keep the bulk of the rules in place for consideration after the convention in 2017-18. That means that any move to unbind the delegates or provide for a conscience clause is likely to be dead on arrival or barring that doomed to fall short.
Yet, the one tweak that might make it out of committee that also might provide some level of protest against Trump is some variation of the Blackwell amendment tabled at the RNC winter meeting in Charleston earlier this year. The mechanics of this can be technical, but essentially what the amendment would do is clean up the language in Rule 16 (the rule binding delegates to candidates) and bring it in line with Rule 40 (the rule that lays out the process for placing candidates in nomination). As it stands now, only those votes (whether bound or from the small number of unbound delegates) for candidates placed in nomination are counted. Votes for, say, Rubio or Kasich -- candidates who control a majority of delegates in fewer than eight states -- would not be counted. Even if they were released, those delegates votes would only be recorded if they opted to vote for Trump (or Cruz if he hangs on to his delegates and has his name placed in nomination).4
Relaxing the provisions of Rule 16 to allow votes for other (now) non-qualifiers to be recorded and counted by the secretary of the convention is not a cure-all. In fact, as this latest, delegate-driven attempt to derail Trump's nomination is still in its infancy, the idea may seem quite unpalatable to those folks. However, while it is also a limited bargaining chip, it one that might give those in the Stop Trump faction one last outlet of opposition to Trump's nomination.
Of course, there is still about a month until the convention and this latest Stop Trump iteration may not have crescendoed yet. Given where the other attempts have ended up, history, it seems, does not appear to be on their side. And the balancing act is all up to the delegates.
--
1 This likely requires further explication. No, Trump has not necessarily directly charged the historical fault lines within the party. However, none of the factions in it have been able to coalesce around an effective plan to slow down or prevent a Trump nomination. The lack of agreement there has had the indirect effect of exacerbating the extant divisions.
2 This is certainly true if there is any stalemate on the committee regarding the package of rules change recommendations Rules makes or individual changes the committee may discuss. In both cases, if the committee grinds to a halt, the likelihood of the status quo rules (or something very close to them) carrying over increases.
3 That may, admittedly, be difficult regardless in 2016.
4 That does not seem likely at this point.
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/21/16)
The Electoral College Map (6/17/16)
The Electoral College Map (6/16/16)
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
The Electoral College Map (6/21/16)
Florida:
Despite the headline-grabbing margin in the Quinnipiac battleground survey of Florida, the Sunshine state still remains very much in the heart of the Toss Up Clinton category in the FHQ graduated weighted average. Sure, Florida inched closer to the Lean category, but the more notable fact is perhaps that Florida is on the Democratic of Ohio on the Electoral College Spectrum below. The opposite was true in both 2008 and 2012 (though both states ended up in the Democratic column both times).
Ohio:
Quinnipiac's efforts in Ohio are a bit different than in Florida. The Q-poll is the only one to consistently show Trump ahead in the Buckeye state. Other than a Baldwin Wallace internet poll from February, Quinnipiac is the only one to show something other than a modest Clinton advantage. Without the handful of Q-polls, then, Clinton's lead approaches five points and the Lean category at FHQ.
Pennsylvania:
Contrary to the pattern in Ohio, the Quinnipiac polls in Pennsylvania have been consistent with the majority of polling in the Keystone state. With the exception of a couple of outliers (from other firms) indicating a double digit Clinton lead there, most of the survey work in Pennsylvania has shown a close race; Quinnipiac included. Pennsylvania is one of the few states that has thus far run contrary to the average uniform swing, toward rather than from Trump. A small consolation given the next state.
Utah:
The story in the Beehive state is not that race is close between Clinton and Trump. While Clinton is running marginally ahead of Obama's 2012 share of the vote in Utah in the latest survey from Dan Jones/Utah Policy, it really is all about where Trump is relative to Romney's 2012 support there. Currently, the New York businessman lags about 50 percent behind Romney 2012. Some to a lot of that will perhaps come back to Trump by November, but having to make up ground in Utah means effort and resources not used elsewhere.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
MN-10
(156)
|
NH-4
(245)
|
GA-16
(164)
|
SD-3
(53)
|
VT-3
(10)
|
WA-12
(168)
|
VA-13
(258)
|
MS-6
(148)
|
ND-3
(50)
|
MD-10
(20)
|
WI-10
(178)
|
PA-203
(278/280)
|
UT-6
(142)
|
NE-5
(47)
|
RI-4
(24)
|
NJ-14
(192)
|
FL-29
(307/260)
|
AK-3
(136)
|
AL-9
(42)
|
MA-11
(35)
|
NV-6
(198)
|
OR-7
(314/231)
|
IN-11
(133)
|
KY-8
(33)
|
IL-20
(55)
|
MI-16
(214)
|
IA-6
(320/224)
|
SC-9
(122)
|
AR-6
(25)
|
NY-29
(84)
|
NM-5
(219)
|
OH-18
(338/218)
|
TN-11
(113)
|
WV-5
(19)
|
DE-3
(87)
|
CT-7
(226)
|
AZ-11
(349/200)
|
MT-3
(102)
|
ID-4
(14)
|
CA-55
(142)
|
CO-9
(235)
|
NC-15
(364/189)
|
TX-38
(99)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
KS-6
(241)
|
MO-10
(174)
|
LA-8
(61)
|
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 Pennsylvania (all Clinton's toss up states plus Pennsylvania), he would have 280 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 Pennsylvania 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. | ||||
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 List adds Utah to the the previous (6/17/16) update.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Tennessee
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Utah
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Virginia
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Friday, June 17, 2016
The Electoral College Map (6/17/16)
Latest Update
Polling Quick Hits:
Washington:
The good news is that there is now polling data from Washington. However, that poll -- from Public Policy Polling -- was not all that revealing. In fact, it is the most Washington poll of Washington polls. Both the candidates' positions and margin are entirely in line with the majority of the polling in the Evergreen state over the last two cycles. Take for instance, PPP's June 2012 survey of Washington: Obama 54, Romney 41. The first glimpse of Washington 2016, then, shows a race squarely in the same low double digits (Democratic) area it has been.
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.
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 List remains unchanged from the previous (6/16/16) update.
Washington:
The good news is that there is now polling data from Washington. However, that poll -- from Public Policy Polling -- was not all that revealing. In fact, it is the most Washington poll of Washington polls. Both the candidates' positions and margin are entirely in line with the majority of the polling in the Evergreen state over the last two cycles. Take for instance, PPP's June 2012 survey of Washington: Obama 54, Romney 41. The first glimpse of Washington 2016, then, shows a race squarely in the same low double digits (Democratic) area it has been.
NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
MN-10
(156)
|
NH-4
(245)
|
GA-16
(164)
|
SD-3
(53)
|
VT-3
(10)
|
WA-12
(168)
|
PA-20
(265)
|
MS-6
(148)
|
ND-3
(50)
|
MD-10
(20)
|
WI-10
(178)
|
VA-133
(278/273)
|
UT-6
(142)
|
NE-5
(47)
|
RI-4
(24)
|
NJ-14
(192)
|
OR-7
(285/260)
|
AK-3
(136)
|
AL-9
(42)
|
MA-11
(35)
|
NV-6
(198)
|
FL-29
(314/253)
|
IN-11
(133)
|
KY-8
(33)
|
IL-20
(55)
|
MI-16
(214)
|
IA-6
(320/224)
|
SC-9
(122)
|
AR-6
(25)
|
NY-29
(84)
|
NM-5
(219)
|
OH-18
(338/218)
|
TN-11
(113)
|
WV-5
(19)
|
DE-3
(87)
|
CT-7
(226)
|
AZ-11
(349/200)
|
MT-3
(102)
|
ID-4
(14)
|
CA-55
(142)
|
CO-9
(235)
|
NC-15
(364/189)
|
TX-38
(99)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
KS-6
(241)
|
MO-10
(174)
|
LA-8
(61)
|
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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 273 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 Virginia 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. | ||||
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 List remains unchanged from the previous (6/16/16) update.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Tennessee
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Virginia
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Thursday, June 16, 2016
The Electoral College Map (6/16/16)
California:
No, the recent survey of the Golden state from Survey Monkey and the LA Times (via Pollster) did not do anything but reinforce the fact that California is still reliably blue at the moment. And given the consistency of even the early state-level polling, that is not likely to change.
Iowa:
Over in first in the nation territory, the first new polling in Iowa since January continued to show a close race. The range established in the scant survey work thus far in the Hawkeye state is from tied to Clinton +8 and this PPP poll falls right in between. However, the bottom line in Iowa is that for a battleground state there just is not a lot of 2016 data with which to work. However, this poll displaces the tied poll as the most recent in the FHQ graduated weighed average for Iowa and widens the margin in Clinton's direction enough to pull it off the Watch List. Iowa is no longer within a percentage point of shifting across the partisan line into the Toss Up Trump category.
Virginia:
The picture in the Old Dominion is not significantly different from Iowa. The very earliest 2016 polls in Virginia demonstrate a bit more distance between Clinton and Trump than the more recent polling conducted in the time since both virtually wrapped up their respective nominations. That set of polls shows a state consistently in Clinton's column but one firmly in the Toss Up area. The newly released PPP survey did little to change that.
It is worth mentioning that these state-level polls -- especially those in traditionally competitive states -- have not shown the growth in Clinton's lead as in the national polling. The former secretary's consolidating of the Democratic base is evident there, but has not clearly stretched to the state level. But it is still early and polling has been pretty light in the post-clinch period of the race.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(245)
|
GA-16
(164)
|
SD-3
(53)
|
VT-3
(10)
|
MN-10
(168)
|
PA-20
(265)
|
MS-6
(148)
|
ND-3
(50)
|
MD-10
(20)
|
WI-10
(178)
|
VA-133
(278/273)
|
UT-6
(142)
|
NE-5
(47)
|
RI-4
(24)
|
NJ-14
(192)
|
OR-7
(285/260)
|
AK-3
(136)
|
AL-9
(42)
|
MA-11
(35)
|
NV-6
(198)
|
FL-29
(314/253)
|
IN-11
(133)
|
KY-8
(33)
|
IL-20
(55)
|
MI-16
(214)
|
IA-6
(320/224)
|
SC-9
(122)
|
AR-6
(25)
|
NY-29
(84)
|
NM-5
(219)
|
OH-18
(338/218)
|
TN-11
(113)
|
WV-5
(19)
|
DE-3
(87)
|
CT-7
(226)
|
AZ-11
(349/200)
|
MT-3
(102)
|
ID-4
(14)
|
CA-55
(142)
|
CO-9
(235)
|
NC-15
(364/189)
|
TX-38
(99)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
KS-6
(241)
|
MO-10
(174)
|
LA-8
(61)
|
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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 273 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 Virginia 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. | ||||
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 List loses Iowa from the previous (6/15/16) update.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Tennessee
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Virginia
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
The Electoral College Map (6/15/16)
Polling Quick Hits:
Wisconsin:
It is not terribly instructive to focus on just one poll. Some chose to focus on the implications of the switch from registered to likely voters in the Marquette Law School survey of the Badger state (Clinton counterintuitively gained). However, FHQ was struck by the fact that regardless of the screen, this is only the second 2016 poll in the state to show Clinton up by anything other than double digits. That actually narrowed the gap -- ever so slightly -- between Clinton and Trump, drawing Wisconsin onto the Watch List below. It is still within the Strong Clinton category (>10 percent), but the FHQ average inched closer to the Lean Clinton group where the state has resided for much of the last two cycles.
Of course, it is still early and there have still only been a handful of polls conducted in the state in 2016. But thus far it appears as if Wisconsin has shifted a little in the direction of the Democrats which is consistent with the modest average uniform swing gleaned from state-level polling.
NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(245)
|
GA-16
(164)
|
SD-3
(53)
|
VT-3
(10)
|
MN-10
(168)
|
PA-20
(265)
|
MS-6
(148)
|
ND-3
(50)
|
MD-10
(20)
|
WI-10
(178)
|
VA-133
(278/273)
|
UT-6
(142)
|
NE-5
(47)
|
RI-4
(24)
|
NJ-14
(192)
|
OR-7
(285/260)
|
AK-3
(136)
|
AL-9
(42)
|
MA-11
(35)
|
NV-6
(198)
|
FL-29
(314/253)
|
IN-11
(133)
|
KY-8
(33)
|
IL-20
(55)
|
MI-16
(214)
|
OH-18
(332/224)
|
SC-9
(122)
|
AR-6
(25)
|
NY-29
(84)
|
NM-5
(219)
|
AZ-11
(343/206)
|
TN-11
(113)
|
WV-5
(19)
|
DE-3
(87)
|
CT-7
(226)
|
NC-15
(358/195)
|
MT-3
(102)
|
ID-4
(14)
|
CA-55
(142)
|
CO-9
(235)
|
IA-6
(364/180)
|
TX-38
(99)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
ME-4
(146)
|
KS-6
(241)
|
MO-10
(174)
|
LA-8
(61)
|
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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 273 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 Virginia 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. | ||||
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 List adds Wisconsin to the previous (6/14/16) update.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Pennsylvania
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Tennessee
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Virginia
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/14/16)
The Electoral College Map (6/13/16)
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: SOUTH DAKOTA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)