The Electoral College Map (8/24/20)

Update for August 24.

Changes (August 24)
State	Before	After
Louisiana	Lean Trump	Strong Trump

As the Republican Party opened their national convention in Charlotte with a unanimous roll call vote in favor of President Trump, convention week part two kicked off. And with it came a handful of state-level polls that shed more light on the state of play in a pair of the most competitive states at FHQ and another survey that drew the average in Louisiana to a more normal area given how other states have swung from 2016 to now. Let's start there.


Polling Quick Hits:
Louisiana 
(Trump 54, Biden 38)
Trafalgar Group's latest was a survey that was in the field in the Pelican state the weekend before the virtual Democratic National Convention and it found a race not too far from how the picture looked on election day 2016. Biden actually hit Clinton's total in the state while President Trump ran four points behind the share he received there four years ago. But those numbers are perhaps less interesting than the fact that this survey brought the swing in Louisiana to a level on par with the average swing that has been established across all states at FHQ. Trump's share there has him about six points behind his 2016 pace while Biden is a couple of points ahead of where Hillary Clinton ended up there. That eight point swing is consistent with an average swing across all state that is now at 7.65 points in the Democrats' direction. Call Trafalgar an outlier if one must, but recognize that in this case it serves as a counterbalance to last week's survey of Louisiana that was probably an outlier in the other direction.


Ohio
(Biden 47, Trump 46)
In the Buckeye state, the closest state on the Biden side of the partisan line on the Electoral College Spectrum below, TargetSmart had a new poll in the field as July turned to August. The results did not differ too much from much of the polling over the same late July and August period, which is to say it showed a close race. But in this case, the poll found a slight advantage for the former vice president. Biden's margin there is +0.22 now which keeps the typical battleground squarely in battleground territory despite Trump's rather comfortable 2016 win there. And really, this poll is does not miss the, um, target by much. The average shares for each candidate (rounded) have them both at 46 percent.


Texas
(Biden 48, Trump 47)
Finally, in Texas, Public Policy Polling also has Biden up by a point. But that is close to the rosiest picture for the former vice president in polling that has been released from the Lone Star state since mid-July. That is one end of the range while Trump's recent leads there have ballooned to the mid-single digits. So it should come as no surprise that Biden is running ahead of his FHQ average in this survey while PPP has Trump right on his. Texas is close, but it is not as close as Ohio and probably best thought of as the North Carolina on Trump's side of the partisan line: a state that is close but has consistent favored one candidate over the other.


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

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	NJ-14 (173)	WI-10 (252)	AK-3 (125)	UT-6 (60)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	PA-203 NE CD2-1 (273 | 286)	MO-10 (122)	IN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	FL-29 (302 | 265)	SC-9 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	NV-6 (308 | 236)	KS-6 (103)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (97)	AL-9 (31)
WA-12 (117)	ME-2 (199)	NC-15 (334 | 219)	MS-6 (93)	ND-3 (22)
MD-10 (127)	VA-13 (212)	ME CD2-1 OH-18 (353 | 204)	AR-6 (87)	SD-3 (19)
IL-20 (147)	MN-10 (222)	IA-6 (185)	NE-2 (81)	OK-7 (16)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (152)	MI-16 (238)	GA-16 (179)	LA-8 (79)	WV-5 (9)
CT-7 (159)	NH-4 (242)	TX-38 (163)	TN-11 (71)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 286 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

Republican convention week began with a fair number of releases considering most polls would be expected to have been in the field during the weekend interregnum between conventions. That may produce some more state-level polling as the week progresses, but it likely will not be a torrent of them. And this series did little to fundamentally change things here at FHQ. Yes, Louisiana shifted back into Strong Trump territory, pushing it down a few cells deeper into the president's coalition of states and off the Watch List, but that was it. When it came to two of the closest states in the order -- Ohio and Texas -- little changed. Sure, those average margins moved, but both maintained their positions on the Spectrum close to the partisan line and Ohio continued to be among the states on the Watch List.

Since Louisiana came off the List, the number of states and districts represented fell to just 12. Those states and underpolled Nevada remain the ones to watch as new surveys are released in the coming days. They are the ones most likely to change categories.

--
There were no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 116.

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

The Watch List1
State	Potential Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Georgia	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Maine	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Maine CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Missouri	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

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


--
Recent posts:
One Thing About Convention Bounces

The Electoral College Map (8/22/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/21/20)


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

One Thing About Convention Bounces

This first thing that FHQ does every four years -- if not more often -- around national convention time is go back and consult Thomas Holbrook's classic, Do Campaigns Matter? on the matter of convention bounces. Yes, there are more recent treatments of the phenomenon, but this one was integral to my formative thoughts on what a candidate may gain -- or in some cases lose -- in the aftermath of their national conventions.

One such updated notion is that in an era of increased polarization between the two major parties, the bump is much reduced compared to earlier cycles (those during the latter half of the 20th century, say). And that does seem to hold up for the most part. Since the turn of the 21st century, these convention bounces have been more muted. There are far more one and two point changes and far fewer bounces approaching double digit gains, for example.

But as some of the Sunday morning show chatter naturally turned to the impact of the virtual Democratic National Convention this past week, FHQ was left with one seemingly important question: Does a bounce depend at all on where a candidate began? In other words, if a candidate starts convention week at 40 percent, then does that candidate receive a larger bounce than someone who entered their convention at 49 percent, for example?

Hypothetically at least, the higher a candidate's standing heading into their convention, the lower the bounce would be expected to be. At least that was my thought before looking at the data (a limited version of it anyway). The American Presidency Project has the data on the bounces the two major party candidates have received since the 1964 cycle. And while Holbrook has some exploration of a candidate's pre-convention standing in the polls in his book, it relies on the share of the two party level of support. I wanted to look at it based just on where the candidates stood in public opinion polling the day before their convention commenced without that adjustment. That includes support for other candidates and undecideds; some measure of any given candidate's room for improvement (the pool from which they will draw their bump).

For that pre-convention starting point, then, FHQ turned to the archives of the Real Clear Politics averages of national presidential trial heat polls dating as far back as those go. No, going back to only the 2004 cycle is likely not the rigorous examination that everyone would prefer, but this is a quick and dirty (first glance) look at the bivariate relationship between a candidate's starting position and the bounce they received from their convention.

And when one regresses the starting positions of the eight candidates across those four cycles on the bounces they got out of them, well, the results are not terribly revealing. For starters, there really is not that much of a relationship between the two.



In fact, at an R² 0.075, there is next to no relationship at all. But the relationship is in the hypothesized direction: negative. As a candidate's pre-convention share rises, that candidate's expected bounce decreases. More precisely, a one point increase in a candidate's standing in the polling averages the day before the convention starts decreases the bounce for that candidate, post-convention by 0.35 points. On the surface that appears at least substantively significant (without being at all statistically significant). But one has to consider the range of the independent variable. That is the gum in the works here. If not for Trump's 40.6 percent share in the RCP averages before the 2016 Republican convention in Cleveland, the range would have run from McCain's 44.2 percent share in 2008 to Obama's 46.4 percent level of support in 2012. That is seven candidates clustered into a range of just around two points.

And that brings this discussion full circle because the reason FHQ even thought about this potential relationship is due to Biden's standing heading into last week's convention. Over these last four cycles, the former vice president's 50.2 percent share in last Sunday's RCP averages was head and shoulders above every other candidate since 2004. It is nearly double the range in the data discussed above (minus the Trump outlier).

Biden's position could also be considered an outlier in the data. However, using that (admittedly weak) regression model above, the predicted bounce for a candidate with a 50.2 percent share heading into a national convention is 0.25 points. And that is not too distant from the "no bounce" many pundits are talking about when looking at the handful of post-convention polls that have been released.

Furthermore and for what it is worth, Trump's standing as of now -- August 22 data -- at RCP is 42.4 percent. The predicted bounce for a candidate beginning convention week there is right under three points. But take that with a huge quarry-full of salt grains. Again, this was just for fun. But it was interesting on some level.

The key in all of this remains the fact that in the 21st century Biden entered the convention last week at a level that we just have not witnessed. And it is worth questioning exactly how much a candidate in that position would gain in an era when many/most are lock in on their team's candidate.


--
Recent posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/22/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/21/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/20/20)


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

The Electoral College Map (8/22/20)

Update for August 22.

The work week closed with a couple of late releases of two different series of midwestern/battleground polls that did not quite make it into the Friday update of the electoral map at FHQ. However, they collectively make for a nice Saturday edition.

Polling Quick Hits:
Civiqs ("Rust Belt rising" polls)

The round of rust belt polls from Civiqs was the firm's first (public) foray into any of the four states thus far during calendar 2020. And for the most part, they were all consistent with the pre-existing state of play in each at FHQ with one exception: Michigan. And is not so much where Biden is as it is where the survey has Trump. The former vice president has occupied a space in the upper 40s or lower 50s for much of the summer in the Wolverine state, but the president has been stuck in the lower 40s there for much of the year with some exceptions. That Trump has crept into the mid-40s is new. That may be an outlier position. It may be a new trend.

Michigan: Biden +3
Ohio: tied
Pennsylvania: Biden +7
Wisconsin: Biden +6



Redfield and Wilton Strategies (August wave of battleground polls)

And if one looks at the latest series of battleground polls from Redfield and Wilton, Trump is at the other end of the spectrum in Michigan while Biden remains consistent. But while that is true, there was not that much change from the July poll of Michigan from R&W. In fact, that is true across much of the set of August surveys. They either did not change all that much for the candidates' shares of support or did not see the margins budge all that much. Again, however, there was one exception in this bunch as well. But in this case it was North Carolina where the president jumped into the lead after trailing by varying degrees in every wave since May. Yet, the issue here is not the Trump share of support, but with the Biden responses. Trump is at least in the ballpark of where he has been in much of the Tar Heel state polling over the summer, but Biden comes in a few points lower than where the averages have him here at FHQ. In the end, North Carolina is close. One should expect to see some variation, including some polls with the president ahead. This is one of those polls.

Arizona: Biden +9 (Biden +1 since July wave)
Florida: Biden +8 (Biden -1)
Michigan: Biden +12 (Biden +1, Trump -1)
North Carolina: Trump +2 (Biden +1, Trump +4)
Pennsylvania: Biden +7 (no change)
Wisconsin: Biden +10 (Biden +4, Trump +4)



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

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	NJ-14 (173)	WI-10 (252)	AK-3 (125)	UT-6 (60)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	PA-203 NE CD2-1 (273 | 286)	MO-10 (122)	IN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	FL-29 (302 | 265)	SC-9 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	NV-6 (308 | 236)	KS-6 (103)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (97)	AL-9 (31)
WA-12 (117)	ME-2 (199)	NC-15 (334 | 219)	LA-8 (93)	ND-3 (22)
MD-10 (127)	VA-13 (212)	ME CD2-1 OH-18 (353 | 204)	MS-6 (87)	SD-3 (19)
IL-20 (147)	MN-10 (222)	IA-6 (185)	AR-6 (79)	OK-7 (16)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (152)	MI-16 (238)	GA-16 (179)	NE-2 (73)	WV-5 (9)
CT-7 (159)	NH-4 (242)	TX-38 (163)	TN-11 (71)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 286 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

Despite a raft of new polling in many of the closest (or most closely watched anyway) states, nothing really changed where it matters here at FHQ. The map, Electoral College Spectrum and Watch List all look just as they did on Friday. Biden maintains leads in all seven states ranging from a near tie in Ohio (Biden +0.15) to what doesn't look all that much like a battleground in Michigan (Biden +7.58).   What that means is that Pennsylvania keeps its status as the current tipping point state in the order and the same 13 states and districts -- plus underpolled Nevada -- continue to be the states to eye most closely when new polls are released. Those are the states where changes are most likely here at FHQ.

--
There were no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 114.

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

The Watch List1
State	Potential Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Georgia	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Louisiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Maine	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Maine CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Missouri	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

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


--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/21/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/20/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/19/20)


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

The Electoral College Map (8/21/20)

Update for August 21.

Democrats wrapped up their convention Thursday night with Joe Biden accepting the party's presidential nomination. While it will be at least a little while before any sort of bounce can be detected coming out of this virtual convention, the former vice president emerges from the quadrennial gathering in much the same position today as he was last weekend before the meeting officially gaveled in. That is to say that Biden still maintains the same 353-185 electoral vote edge that he did before the convention. And the pair of polls added to the mix at FHQ did little to change that.


Polling Quick Hits:
New Hampshire
(Biden 51, Trump 43):
In New Hampshire, St. Anselm was back in the field for the first time since mid-June and finds the race for the White House looking much the same in the Granite state as it did then. Biden has pushed past the 50 percent mark with Trump still stuck in the low 40s. But then again, that has been the sort of snapshot the college survey has shown every other month since April. It is a steady race through their lens and fairly consistent with the 50-42 advantage Biden has in the FHQ averages in the state.


New Jersey
(Biden 52, Trump 33):
The first update in New Jersey since last month also carries with it a tale of status quo maintenance. In fact, the latest DKC Analytics survey of the Garden state look nearly identical to the firm's poll of the state a month ago. And while Biden is ahead, the former vice president is running behind Hillary Clinton's pace in the state four years ago. At this point, Biden is about two points behind where Clinton was in New Jersey in November 2016. [That said, this survey looks an awful lot like the Washington Post poll of the state, the lone August 2016 poll there.] Trump, on the other hand, is more than six points behind his position in New Jersey in the 2016 election results there.



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

The Electoral College Spectrum1
MA-112 (14)	NJ-14 (173)	WI-10 (252)	AK-3 (125)	UT-6 (60)
HI-4 (18)	OR-7 (180)	PA-203 NE CD2-1 (273 | 286)	MO-10 (122)	IN-11 (54)
CA-55 (73)	DE-3 (183)	FL-29 (302 | 265)	SC-9 (112)	ID-4 (43)
VT-3 (76)	CO-9 (192)	NV-6 (308 | 236)	KS-6 (103)	KY-8 (39)
NY-29 (105)	NM-5 (197)	AZ-11 (319 | 230)	MT-3 NE CD1-1 (97)	AL-9 (31)
WA-12 (117)	ME-2 (199)	NC-15 (334 | 219)	LA-8 (93)	ND-3 (22)
MD-10 (127)	VA-13 (212)	ME CD2-1 OH-18 (353 | 204)	MS-6 (87)	SD-3 (19)
IL-20 (147)	MN-10 (222)	IA-6 (185)	AR-6 (79)	OK-7 (16)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (152)	MI-16 (238)	GA-16 (179)	NE-2 (73)	WV-5 (9)
CT-7 (159)	NH-4 (242)	TX-38 (163)	TN-11 (71)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states plus the Pennsylvania), he would have 286 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 Pennsylvania is the state where Biden crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point state.

It goes without saying that two polls like those above that did little to change the outlook in either New Hampshire or New Jersey did not do much to altered the overarching state of the race at FHQ. The did not. Neither budged on the Electoral College Spectrum above nor was either added to the Watch List below.

The same 13 states and districts along with underpolled Nevada remain the state to watch as more polls are released in the coming days. It is those states that have the highest potential to switch categories given new polling data.

--
There were no new polls from Nevada today.

Days since the last Nevada poll was in the field: 113.

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

The Watch List1
State	Potential Switch
Florida	from Toss Up Biden	to Lean Biden
Georgia	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Iowa	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Biden
Louisiana	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Maine	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
Maine CD2	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Mississippi	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Missouri	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Nebraska CD2	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
Ohio	from Toss Up Biden	to Toss Up Trump
Pennsylvania	from Lean Biden	to Toss Up Biden
South Carolina	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Virginia	from Strong Biden	to Lean Biden
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

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


--
Related posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/20/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/19/20)

The Electoral College Map (8/18/20)


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