Friday, July 1, 2016

Yue's Proposal to Freeze the 2012 Republican Rules

Some of the rules proposals for Cleveland are starting to leak, and Ari Melber has what one might call a status quo proposal from Oregon national committeeman, Solomon Yue. Here is the language of the simple change to Rule 42:
The Rules adopted by the 2012 Convention, as amended under Rule 12, shall constitute the Rules of the Republican National Committee and the 2016 Republican National Convention. Any amendments herein to these rules, as adopted by the 2016 Republican National Convention, shall take effect at the adjournment of the 2016 National Convention and constitute the Rules for the Republican National Committee and the temporary Rules of the 2020 National Convention. 
This rule replaces what has been the rule establishing the temporary rules for the next convention. Standard protocol within the Republican Party has always held that a convention of delegates crafts the rules that will govern their conduct. Furthermore, those rules serve as a temporary baseline from which the next succeeding convention can work. This saves the party from having to start from scratch for each convention. However, that process also tends to create something of a negative inertia that can make change more difficult (especially in a potentially highly charged setting like a national convention).

Yue's proposal breaks from that sequence. Rather than having the Convention Committee on Rules wrangle over new rules or rules changes for the 2016 convention, this change would have them haggling over the temporary rules for the 2020 convention. Any changes in Cleveland would take effect when the 2016 convention adjourns.

One way of looking at this is that freezes the current rules and punts any changes to after the convention. Setting that baseline is a powerful action as described above. And FHQ has often argued that that baselining is a powerful institutional function. Those are the rules unless there is agreement if not consensus about changing them at the convention or later by the RNC itself. That can be a high bar.

Another way of looking at this, though, is that it locks in the 2012 rules for 2016 but also sets any changes to Rules 26-42 in stone for another four years -- from Cleveland to the 2020 convention. The most controversial of those rules is the oft-maligned, too often over-discussed Rule 40. That eight state majority threshold could be changed and locked in -- again, as a placeholder -- in Cleveland for 2020. Given how often that rule came up in 2016, this would seem significant. On some level it is.

Yet, the overall scope of this change is pretty minimal, long term. In the short term, it absolutely would solidify Trump's nomination in Cleveland if passed through the Convention Rules Committee and by the convention. But unless that rules package calls for the post-convention elimination of Rule 12, then the Republican National Committee would retain the ability to amend the rules that would govern 2020 nomination process.

That makes this proposal a potentially weak bargaining chip in the broader discussion of the rules. If, to get it passed, concessions were made on changes to the future nomination process rules to lock, under this proposal, the 2012 rules in place for Cleveland, then those on the opposition side -- against Yue's proposal -- would almost have to call for the elimination of Rule 12 to remove any possibility that the RNC would revisit and alter those changes.

In the end, that is a hypothetical situation. And given the make up of the Convention Committee on Rules -- stacked with members of the RNC -- it is unlikely that any such sort of bargaining over the rules will occur. However, it is helpful to unpack all of this to see where the discussion might go and what the logical aims and ends of Yue's proposal are.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

The Electoral College Map (6/28/16)



Polling Quick Hits:
A wave of battleground polls from Public Policy Polling (four of the six states are in the middlemost column in the Electoral College Spectrum below; the most competitive states):

Arizona:
Of the six polls, only the Arizona survey showed Donald Trump in the lead. Yes, that four point edge was just outside the margin of error, but Trump's share in the poll was his highest in the state all year. However, it was not enough to push his average in the Grand Canyon state to his side of the partisan line. Arizona still projects as a Clinton state, but only by a narrow margin.

Iowa:
The polling drought in Iowa got a bit more relief, but, like last week, it was another poll from PPP that showed a slight Clinton advantage in the Hawkeye state. That drew the margin in Iowa a little closer and lodged the state firmly in the toss up area tipped toward Clinton. At this point, Iowa is still a want for Democrats, but is not a need. It remains superfluous to the chase for 270.

New Hampshire:
The picture in New Hampshire is similar to the one in Iowa: the margin inched toward being more competitive but without taking the Granite state out of the category it has been in for the last two weeks. But whereas Iowa was a toss up state for Clinton, New Hampshire is a heavier lean in the former secretary's direction.

Ohio:
In perennial battleground, Ohio, the PPP survey was right in line with where the extant polling has placed the race. Trump is flirting with 40 percent with Clinton a nearly three points clear of him. If that stands, Ohio will end up about where it was in 2012; approximately D+3. Ohio has not really moved then. However, Florida is running less competitive by comparison and Colorado more so as compared to 2012. The usual caveats apply though: More polling, more polling, more polling.

Pennsylvania:
So far, Pennsylvania is doing what Pennsylvania does: inching closer to the partisan line, cycle over cycle. The polling in the Keystone state has consistently shown Clinton ahead during all of 2016 and this latest PPP survey is no exception. The difference, at least as compared to past cycles, is that the Democrats' advantage is shrinking. Pennsylvania is a little more than a point more Republican in average than was the result in 2012, but is still hovering close to the boundary between the toss up and lean Clinton categories.

Wisconsin:
Wisconsin is the least competitive of the states polled in this series of surveys from PPP. It is also the least competitive of the six in the averages. While Pennsylvania is on the Watch List below on the cusp of pushing over into the Lean Clinton category, Wisconsin is one step up teetering on the brink of shifting back into the Strong Clinton category. This PPP poll only confirmed that.





The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
WA-12
(164)
VA-13
(249)
GA-16
(164)
LA-8
(55)
VT-3
(10)
NJ-14
(178)
PA-203
(269/289)
MS-6
(148)
SD-3
(47)
MD-10
(20)
WI-10
(188)
FL-293
(298/269)
UT-6
(142)
ND-3
(44)
RI-4
(24)
NV-6
(194)
OR-7
(305/240)
AK-3
(136)
NE-5
(41)
MA-11
(35)
MI-16
(210)
OH-18
(323/233)
IN-11
(133)
AL-9
(36)
IL-20
(55)
NM-5
(215)
IA-6
(329/215)
TX-38
(122)
KY-8
(27)
NY-29
(84)
CT-7
(222)
NC-15
(344/209)
SC-9
(84)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(87)
ME-4
(226)
CO-9
(353/194)
TN-11
(75)
ID-4
(14)
CA-55
(142)
KS-6
(232)
AZ-11
(364/185)
AR-6
(64)
OK-7
(10)
MN-10
(152)
NH-4
(236)
MO-10
(174)
MT-3
(58)
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 289 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 Florida and Pennsylvania
 are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Pennsylvania and Trump, Florida, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College.



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 Arizona to the the previous (6/27/16) update.



The Watch List1
State
Switch
Alaska
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Arizona
from Toss Up Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
Arkansas
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Colorado
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
to 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 Lean Clinton
to Strong Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.


Monday, June 27, 2016

The Electoral College Map (6/27/16)






Polling Quick Hits:
Changes (June 27)
StateBeforeAfter
ColoradoLean ClintonToss Up Clinton
MaineStrong ClintonLean Clinton
WisconsinStrong ClintonLean Clinton
Arkansas:
The Hendrix College survey out of the Natural state provides yet another poll in what has been a deep red state over the last four presidential election cycles. Anything out of reliably red states is valuable data at this point as those states are the most underpolled in 2016. Arkansas was the sixth most Republican state in 2012. There were no polls there that showed the race then any closer than 20 points. Yet, in 2016, the first survey out of the state has presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, up only 11 points. Sure, it is early and this is just one poll, but Arkansas joins Kansas, Utah and Texas as red states that are closer in the early polling of 2016 than in the past.

Colorado:
Yes, polling in gap states like Arkansas, where there has been little polling so far is valuable, but battleground polling is just as important. That is especially true in Obama-era swing state, Colorado, where polling has been severely lacking in 2016. Much of that has to do with the fact that Republicans in the Centennial state opted not to have a preference vote in their March caucuses (and thus there was less need to poll), but even given that, there has been a surprising shortage of survey work in Colorado. However, the first 2016 survey in the 2012 tipping point state shows a tight race.  Early on the overall picture on the state level has shown a slight swing (about a point and a half) toward the Democrats since 2012. However, Colorado -- and this is reflected in just one poll after all -- has drawn closer and toward the Republicans.

Florida:
YouGov also polled in Florida and essentially reaffirmed the small advantage Clinton has had in the Sunshine state in the FHQ graduated weighted average. Since May there has been a range in polling there from Trump +1 to Clinton +8 and this survey falls right in the sweet spot in between.

Maine:
The polling from UNH in New Hampshire has been widely variable over the last two presidential election cycles, so take their first foray into Maine for 2016 with something of a grain of salt. Clinton's seven point lead statewide is narrower than anything since 2000 and is actually closer to the eight point edge (Bill) Clinton had in the Pine Tree state in 1992. The common bond across those cycles was a third party candidate taking more than five percent of the vote. That share -- the one for "others" -- in this UNH poll was at 19 percent. The key will be whether that trend persists in subsequent polling. Not far behind that in importance is if Trump maintains a lead in the second congressional district (a result that would net him an electoral vote even if he loses statewide).

[*It is worth noting that the congressional district level samples in this poll consisted of fewer than 250 respondents.]

North Carolina:
Like Florida, the YouGov poll in North Carolina basically was in line with where the average has had it: tipped ever so slightly toward Clinton. The Tar Heel state is on the Clinton side of the partisan line in the Electoral College Spectrum below, but it continues to be superfluous to the Democrats' efforts to retain the White House. Keeping it out of the Trump column makes it very difficult for him to get to 270. That is even more true when the alignment of states is considered.

Texas:
On some level, one could argue that the YouGov survey in Texas echoes the closer than typical result from the recently released Leland Beatty poll. The margins are similar (in the Lean Trump range) and Trump is underperforming Romney's 2012 share of the vote in the Lone Star state. However, the Leland poll likely would have been slightly different had the nearly one-third of the respondents in the undecided category had been pushed on their preference. That may not have closed the gap between Romney and Trump, but it likely would have decreased it some. Still, the picture in Texas, for now, is one of a red state staying red in 2016 but taking on a lighter shade in the process.

Wisconsin:
The last of the YouGov polls is currently an outlier in the context of the other polling in Wisconsin. There have been other polls in the Badger state that have shown a Lean Clinton range margin, but this is the tightest of any of the 2016 polling the state. The Trump share is in line with where it has been in other polling, but the Clinton share is at its lowest point of any survey of Wisconsin. That is enough to bring Wisconsin just below the line between Strong and Lean Clinton. However, the state remains on the Watch List below.


The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
WA-12
(164)
VA-13
(249)
GA-16
(164)
LA-8
(55)
VT-3
(10)
NJ-14
(178)
PA-203
(269/289)
MS-6
(148)
SD-3
(47)
MD-10
(20)
WI-10
(188)
FL-293
(298/269)
UT-6
(142)
ND-3
(44)
RI-4
(24)
NV-6
(194)
OR-7
(305/240)
AK-3
(136)
NE-5
(41)
MA-11
(35)
MI-16
(210)
IA-6
(311/233)
IN-11
(133)
AL-9
(36)
IL-20
(55)
NM-5
(215)
AZ-11
(322/227)
TX-38
(122)
KY-8
(27)
NY-29
(84)
CT-7
(222)
OH-18
(340/216)
SC-9
(84)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(87)
ME-4
(226)
NC-15
(355/198)
TN-11
(75)
ID-4
(14)
CA-55
(142)
KS-6
(232)
CO-9
(364/183)
AR-6
(64)
OK-7
(10)
MN-10
(152)
NH-4
(236)
MO-10
(174)
MT-3
(58)
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 289 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 
Florida and Pennsylvania are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Pennsylvania and Trump, Florida, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College.



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 Arkansas and Colorado, and loses North Carolina from the the previous (6/23/16) update.


The Watch List1
State
Switch
Alaska
from Lean Trump
to Toss Up Trump
Arkansas
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Colorado
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
Utah
from Toss Up Trump
to Lean Trump
Virginia
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Wisconsin
from Lean Clinton
to Strong Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.




Recent Posts:
On the Federal Lawsuit to Unbind Virginia Delegates

The Electoral College Map (6/23/16)

The Latest Installment of Stop Trump and the Rules


Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

On the Federal Lawsuit to Unbind Virginia Delegates

A new front has opened in the late-stage, intra-party battle over the Republican Party nominating Donald Trump in Cleveland. Those against the New York tycoon's nomination now have a multi-pronged approach that stretches beyond pushing for changes through the Convention Committee on Rules to now include legal action. A lawsuit has been filed in federal court by a Virginia delegate, Beau Correll, seeking relief from prosecution under Virginia code should he not vote for Trump at the convention.

There are advantages to allowing a convention of delegates to set the rules that will guide them as the Rules of the Republican Party allow. It grants the group the ability to tailor rules to suit a given convention at a given time and place. However, there are drawbacks to this approach as well. This lawsuit is one of them. The complaint the plaintiff brings in this case is expansive, but it boils down to a problem with the uncertainty of the rules that will govern the 2016 convention. If it was certain at this time -- that is, if the Republican Party had a locked-in set of rules -- that Rule 16(a)(2) was going to be in effect in Cleveland, then this case would be moot. There would literally be no potential for injury. In this instance injury is prosecution in Virginia for not following the candidate binding at the national convention as laid out in state law.

Even if the delegate voted contrary to how they were bound and even if the delegation chair from their state called out that "improper" vote in the tally, the secretary of the convention is charged under the current Rule 16(a)(2) with not recognizing that vote and announcing and recording it as bound. One could counter that that delegate vote was cast and contrary to the binding. In the sequence, that offending act according to Virginia state law precedes the secretary of the convention not recognizing it. The problem there is that there is no one at the convention from the Virginia State Board of Elections to say, "Beau Correll didn't vote according to how he was bound."

Furthermore, procedurally, the delegation chair does not call out individual votes. He or she announces the tally from the state. The bind breaker would not be known, then, unless there was a public poll (not a secret ballot) of the delegation by the chair of the delegation (and either the chair or another delegate comes forward with the revelation that someone has broken their bind). However, there is no procedure for this sort of voting in Republican Party of Virginia rules. Under those state party rules, there is no need for such a vote or poll of the delegation. Those results are already locked in based on the results of the March 1 presidential primary in the state.

All that is laid out in the Declaration and Statement of Qualifications that all delegate candidates in Virginia had to submit to run for delegate vacancies in the first place. Here is the important third and final paragraph from that form:
I further acknowledge, understand, and agree that if elected and if given the ability to vote at the Republican National Convention, my vote on the first ballot will be bound by the results of the March 1, 2016 Virginia Presidential Primary, in accordance with the Allocation Resolution adopted by the RPV State Central Committee on September 19, 2015. I further acknowledge that all costs associated with my candidacy and potential service as a National Delegate Alternate are my own responsibility. [Emphasis is FHQ's]
Now, the language here does leave open the notion that Virginia delegates will vote at the convention. Yet, that vote on the presidential nomination is bound based on the results of the primary under state party resolution and not state law. That is an important distinction because this lawsuit is being brought against the penalties in state law and not state party rules. State party actions bind the Virginia delegates.

What is missing is clear guidance from the party as to how the delegation chair is to behave at the convention. If the chair takes the vote in the primary as guide, then there is no need for a poll of the delegates. By extension that means that there is no potential for rogue action on the part of a delegate, no discovery of it and thus no violation of the state law. But if a vote is held -- and it would have to be public and/or someone from the Virginia State Board of Elections (or some representative from the state) would have to be there at the time of the vote -- then the potential exists for a violation of state law.

The Republican Party of Virginia has most of its bases covered on this one; that it is the governing authority over the process in Virginia and not state law. But it is not air-tight. The if associated with the actions of the delegation chair cited above is part of that. However, there is also the matter of state law versus state party rule/bylaw/resolution. The Rules of the Republican Party -- Rule 16(b) -- gives precedence to state party actions over state law. Yet, since the rules are not set in stone, and will not be until the convention in Cleveland, that cover is not officially there. Unlike Rule 16(a)(2), though, Rule 16(b) is not controversial and is likely to be carried over by the 2016 convention.

Though the complaint is long, this lawsuit essentially amounts to those two questions. The rest of it is just a series of distractions. State law simply is not the guiding force over delegate selection and allocation in Virginia, though there is the potential for prosecution on the grounds of violating the binding established in that law. Decided narrowly, a federal court could deem the state penalty unconstitutional. But the Republican Party of Virginia has measures in place to bind the delegates without that. That is an in-house, intra-party battle the courts have generally been unwilling to weigh in on, leaving it up to the party to settle. And the matter will be settled at the convention in Cleveland, starting with the Convention Committee on Rules.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/23/16)

The Latest Installment of Stop Trump and the Rules

The Electoral College Map (6/21/16)

Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

The Electoral College Map (6/23/16)



Polling Quick Hits:
Arizona:
The Grand Canyon state is one of those states that Democrats have mentioned the last few cycles as a state that could turn blue because of the growing Hispanic population there. However, it usually comes off the wish list as fall approaches and the focus shifts toward a narrower set of battleground states. A Trump nomination on the Republican side may change that sequence. May. Without additional polling, it is difficult to tell at this point. There have only been a handful of surveys in Arizona, and the most recent one from OH Predictive Insights has Trump at his high water mark in general election polling in the state. The firm has him at 42 percent and trailing Clinton. Not the best combination. But just so this note is somewhere in this update: It is early and more polling is needed. That goes for the following states as well.

North Carolina:
There have been 12 polls out of the Tar Heel state in 2016 and exactly half of them have been from North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling (including the latest). The Democratic-leaning firm has consistently shown a tight race between Clinton and Trump for the state's 15 electoral votes. There is something to be said about that consistency, but the rest of the polling in the state has been a mixed bag of results that seem to indicate wild fluctuations (Civitas) or a house effect that tilts in Clinton's direction (Elon). Without the PPP surveys, the Elon polls push the FHQ graduated weighted average in North Carolina more toward Clinton than is the case with them included. Clinton's advantage grows from around a point with the PPP polls to a little more than two points without. The key in the Tar Heel state is getting more polling -- like everywhere else -- but also a greater diversity of poll(-ing firms).

Texas:
The Leland Beatty poll of Texas is not really worth dwelling on. Yes, it is the first publicly available survey data out of the Lone Star state in 2016, but the poll comes from a firm that had no polls released in either 2008 or 2012. A Republican +7 margin is not unheard of in Texas, but nearly a third of the survey respondents were unsure. Those seem to have come disproportionately from Trump's support.






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)
TX-38
(133)
KY-8
(33)
IL-20
(55)
MI-16
(214)
IA-6
(320/224)
IN-11
(95)
AR-6
(25)
NY-29
(84)
NM-5
(219)
AZ-11
(331/218)
SC-9
(84)
WV-5
(19)
DE-3
(87)
CT-7
(226)
OH-18
(349/207)
TN-11
(75)
ID-4
(14)
CA-55
(142)
CO-9
(235)
NC-15
(364/189)
MT-3
(64)
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 North Carolina to the the previous (6/21/16) 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
North Carolina
from Toss Up Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
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.