Since early 2016, a trend has evolved in how the 2020 presidential nomination process will operate. In that time, several formerly caucus st...
Since early 2016, a trend has evolved in how the 2020 presidential nomination process will operate. In that time, several formerly caucus states have abandoned the format in favor of a state-funded primary. That has happened in states like Idaho and Nebraska where there was already a primary option included in state law, but also in states like Colorado and Minnesota, where citizen-driven initiative or the legislature, respectively, created the primary option.
The latter group used to include the caucus-to-primary shift in Maine.
Used to.
The 2016 effort to re-establish a presidential primary in the Pine Tree state passed and became law, but most of the provisions in the bill (then law) expired on December 1, 2018. The sole surviving component -- the only part that did not expire -- was the study the Maine secretary of state was to have conducted with respect to the funding of the election. And while that report was issued on December 1, 2017, as called for in the statute, questions lingered about how state reimbursement to the counties conducting the elections would function among other issues.
The impetus for the sunset provision, then, was to allow for some fact finding on the funding issue, but also in order to force legislators to consider those implications before solidifying the primary for 2020. That consideration continues now.
However, there is legislation -- LD 245 -- newly before the Maine legislature to make permanent the provisions that re-established the presidential primary, but which expired toward the end of 2018. As FHQ described in 2016, those provisions include the following:
- The secretary will then by November 1 of the year prior to a presidential election year set the date of the contest for some Tuesday in March. This date selection process will be done in consultation with the state parties.
- That last part is key. The state parties obviously have the final say in all of this. Despite there being presidential primary, the state parties are not required to opt into it. Those parties could continue to use caucuses as a means of both allocating and selecting delegates. But by providing some (early calendar) flexibility and by consulting with the parties, the new law maximizes the likelihood that the two state parties opt into the primary and allocate delegates through the vote in the contest.
- This legislation does a couple of interesting things. First, as mentioned above, the secretary of state has some carefully calibrated discretion on setting the date of the primary. The law does not set the primary for a specific date, but rather calls for it to happen on a Tuesday in March. More importantly, though, the decision on the date of the primary for 2020 and in the future rests with the secretary of state -- like in New Hampshire and Georgia -- instead of having to filter any date change through the legislative process. The discretion that the Maine secretary of state will have on this is far more restricted than in either New Hampshire or Georgia, but there is some flexibility there. That makes Maine a bit more adaptable than states with primaries scheduled for specific dates.
--
The Maine bill has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.
New State Polls (11/1/16) State Poll Date Margin of Error Sample Clinton Trump Undecided Poll Margin FHQ Margin Arizona Data Orbital 10/29-1...
New State Polls (11/1/16) |
State | Poll | Date | Margin of Error | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Undecided | Poll Margin | FHQ Margin |
|---|
Arizona | | 10/29-10/30 | +/-4.12% | 550 likely voters | 41 | 45 | 8 | +4 | +1.19 |
California | | 10/28-10/31 | +/-3.6% | 747 likely voters | 56 | 35 | 4 | +21 | +23.04 |
Illinois | | 10/26-10/27 | +/-4.0% | 600 likely voters | 48 | 37 | 10 | +11 | -- |
Illinois | | 10/27-10/30 | +/-4.3% | 500 likely voters | 53 | 41 | 2 | +11 | +15.08 |
Kentucky | | 10/26-10/28 | +/-3.44% | 811 likely voters | 32 | 56 | 5 | +24 | -- |
Kentucky | | 10/25-10/30 | +/-4.0% | 602 likely voters | 37 | 54 | 6 | +17 | +19.71 |
Maine | | 10/24-10/26 | +/-3.4% | 812 likely voters | 42 | 37 | 9 | +5 | -- |
Maine | | 10/28-10/30 | +/-3.5% | 750 likely voters | 46 | 42 | 5 | +4 | +6.75 |
Maine CD1 | | 10/24-10/26 | +/-4.7% | 429 likely voters | 45 | 33 | 9 | +12 | -- |
Maine CD1 | | 10/28-10/30 | +/-5.0% | 375 likely voters | 49 | 43 | 4 | +6 | +15.10 |
Maine CD2 | | 10/24-10/26 | +/-5.0% | 382 likely voters | 38 | 41 | 9 | +3 | -- |
Maine CD2 | | 10/28-10/30 | +/-5.0% | 375 likely voters | 44 | 42 | 6 | +2 | +3.06 |
Michigan | | 10/31 | +/-3.61% | 737 likely voters | 50 | 43 | 3 | +7 | +6.88 |
Missouri | | 10/28-10/31 | +/-4.9% | 405 likely voters | 38 | 52 | 4 | +14 | +7.51 |
New Hampshire | | 10/26-10/28 | +/-5.1% | 408 likely voters | 43 | 45 | 4 | +2 | -- |
New Hampshire | | 10/26-10/30 | +/-3.9% | 641 likely voters | 46 | 39 | 5 | +7 | +5.79 |
North Carolina | | 10/23-10/27 | +/-3.7% | 710 likely voters | 42 | 41 | 12 | +1 | -- |
North Carolina | | 10/28-10/31 | +/-3.7% | 718 likely voters | 44 | 51 | 3 | +7 | +1.55 |
Pennsylvania | | 10/26-10/30 | +/-5.1% | 652 likely voters | 49 | 38 | 7 | +11 | +5.53 |
Texas | | 10/27-10/29 | +/-3.13% | 980 likely voters | 39 | 52 | 4 | +13 | +6.96 |
Virginia | | 10/27-10/30 | +/-3.5% | 1024 likely voters | 48 | 42 | 1 | +6 | -- |
Virginia | | 10/28-10/30 | +/-3.4% | 800 likely voters | 49 | 45 | 2 | +4 | +6.70 |
--
Changes (11/1/16)
One more week.
The map holds steady at 340-198. However, the bevy of new polls pushed New Hampshire back onto the Watch List. The Granite state is now within a point of the Lean/Toss Up line on Clinton's side of the Spectrum below. Despite all the poll releases, the movement on the Electoral College Spectrum from a day ago was minimal. Michigan and Maine traded positions in the Lean Clinton area and Kentucky likewise was nudged past Nebraska on the far right end of the Spectrum.
It is notable that all of the blue states above with exception of Pennsylvania saw their FHQ average margins slightly decrease upon the introduction of these new polls to the dataset. Most of that shift is attributable to Trump gains rather than Clinton declines across those states. Clinton continues to have less variable numbers while Trump continues to climb/consolidate Republican support as election day nears.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 |
MD-102 (13) | | | | |
HI-4 (17) | | | | |
VT-3 (20) | | | | |
MA-11 (31) | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | OK-7 (10) |
CT-7 (158) | | | | WY-3 (3) |
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above.
4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category. |
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1 |
State | Switch |
|---|
Alaska | from Lean Trump | to Toss Up Trump |
Colorado | from Toss Up Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Indiana | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
Iowa | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
Mississippi | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
New Hampshire | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Ohio | from Toss Up Clinton | to Toss Up Trump |
Oregon | from Lean Clinton | to Strong Clinton |
Pennsylvania | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Utah | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories. |
Recent Posts:
Happy Halloween, 2016
The Electoral College Map (10/31/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/30/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
New State Polls (10/30/16) State Poll Date Margin of Error Sample Clinton Trump Undecided Poll Margin FHQ Margin Alaska Craciun Research 10/...
New State Polls (10/30/16) |
State | Poll | Date | Margin of Error | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Undecided | Poll Margin | FHQ Margin |
|---|
Alaska | | 10/21-10/26 | +/-4.9% | 400 likely voters | 47 | 43 | 0 | +4 | +5.89 |
Arizona | | 10/26-10/28 | +/-4.3% | 994 likely voters | 42 | 44 | 5 | +2 | +1.07 |
Florida | | 10/25-10/26 | +/-2.7% | 1301 registered voters | 48 | 47 | 3 | +1 | -- |
Florida | | 10/25-10/26 | +/-3.5% | 779 likely voters | 45 | 44 | 2 | +1 | -- |
Florida | | 10/25-10/27 | +/-3.4% | 814 likely voters | 42 | 46 | 6 | +4 | +2.19 |
Maine | | 10/20-10/25 | +/-3.8% | 670 likely voters | 48 | 37 | 3 | +11 | +7.16 |
Maine CD1 | | 10/20-10/25 | +/-5.4% | 317 likely voters | 54 | 34 | 4 | +20 | +17.53 |
Maine CD2 | | 10/20-10/25 | +/-5.3% | 329 likely voters | 43 | 40 | 3 | +3 | +3.05 |
North Carolina | | 10/25-10/26 | +/-2.8% | 1273 registered voters | 49 | 47 | 3 | +2 | -- |
North Carolina | | 10/25-10/26 | +/-3.5% | 780 likely voters | 47 | 41 | 2 | +6 | -- |
North Carolina | | 10/26-10/28 | +/-4.1% | 992 likely voters | 48 | 45 | 2 | +3 | +1.82 |
Pennsylvania | | 10/26-10/28 | +/-3.7% | 1091 likely voters | 48 | 40 | 2 | +8 | +5.55 |
Utah | | 10/20-10/27 | +/-3.42% | 823 likely voters | 24 | 32 | 8 | +8 | +9.391 |
1Excluding the two head-to-head online panel surveys in Utah lowers Trump's average advantage there to 7.08 points. Those polls are outliers in view of the majority of surveys in the Beehive state during 2016 and serve as an anchor on the data. The change would shift Utah within the Lean Trump category, closer to Toss Up Trump. McMullin garnered 30% support in the Dan Jones survey. |
Polling Quick Hits:
9 more days.
A busy Sunday had eleven new survey releases in seven states across mostly lean and toss up states.
--
Changes (10/30/16)
Nothing changed on the map, but Alaska was added to the Watch List along the Lean/Toss Up line. That moved the Last Frontier up a couple of spots on the Spectrum, hopping Missouri and Texas. Maine (statewide) also shifted two positions, pushing past Virginia and Michigan deeper into the Lean Clinton category. Finally, Utah and Indiana traded spots on the Strong side of the Lean Trump category.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 |
MD-102 (13) | | | | |
HI-4 (17) | | | | |
VT-3 (20) | | | | |
MA-11 (31) | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | OK-7 (10) |
CT-7 (158) | | | | WY-3 (3) |
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above.
4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category. |
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1 |
State | Switch |
|---|
Alaska | from Lean Trump | to Toss Up Trump |
Colorado | from Toss Up Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Indiana | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
Iowa | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
Mississippi | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
Ohio | from Toss Up Clinton | to Toss Up Trump |
Oregon | from Lean Clinton | to Strong Clinton |
Pennsylvania | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Utah | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories. |
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/29/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/28/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/27/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
![[2017-18 State Legislative Review: Proposed Primary Movement] Bids to Move Back to March Meet Dead Ends in Arkansas](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif4jA4ZAoL4KQqZXT25xV-4mIqfot51VDIxAfcNVb95qf5fggcKWANY0S5gcJXZtk7-5PN_Prsho-oT5myU40dDD3EFigTq_xqNhyphenhyphen0oJZ3Afvf1_BWLmGRimCLt4ZvJSABp_JiQv9KhAsm/s72-c/ar2017_2020.png)
Follow Us
Were this world an endless plain, and by sailing eastward we could for ever reach new distances