2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Florida

This is the fifth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.¹ The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case. 

The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).

For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.


FLORIDA


Why, or perhaps more appropriately how, is the Florida Republican presidential primary winner-take-all?

FHQ has been meaning to address this for a while now, so here goes.

Under normal circumstances -- those where the state of Florida actually follows the timing rules set by the two national parties -- Florida Republicans would allocate their delegates in much the same way that South Carolina did earlier in the cycle. Unpenalized, Florida would have allocated 81 delegates (three in each of the Sunshine state's 27 congressional districts) winner-take-all based on which candidate won each congressional district. The remaining 15 at-large delegates would have been allocated, well, those delegates would have been allocated based on the statewide results.² The rules indicate that those at-large delegates would have been allocated winner-take-all, but in this alternate universe, where Florida is actually obeying the rules, winner-take-all allocation would have been in violation of the RNC rules if the contest was held prior to April 1.

But, of course, Florida jumped into the territory of the "carve out" states and lost half of its delegation in the process. On September 30, when the Presidential Preference Primary Date Selection Committee chose to place the Florida primary back on January 31 -- where it started the year based on the state law passed in 2007 that was altered creating the above committee in 2011 -- it set in motion everything  witnessed in the time since. Sure, most of us were paying attention to where Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would end up on the calendar after the Florida move, but in the meantime the RNC finalized plans to strip the Sunshine state of half of its delegates.

It was that move -- the official sanction -- that triggered the change to a straight winner-take-all allocation of the Florida delegates. [The same rule was triggered in 2008.] According to the final, unmarked paragraph in the Republican Party of Florida delegate selection rules, if the RNC fails to seat a full delegation from Florida, all the remaining delegates are designated at-large.³ That, in turn, meant that all 50 delegates would be winner-take-all based on the statewide vote as described in paragraph B of Rule 10. And that is in violation of rule 15b.2 that requires states holding contests prior to April 1 allocate delegates proportionally. [See definition of proportional here.]

In response to a second Florida violation, the RNC was quite limited in what the delegate selection rules allowed as far as further sanctions were concerned. Digging deep down into RNC rule 16e, all of the non-compliant states -- including Florida -- lost all three of their automatic delegates (rule 16e.1) and were further penalized, losing prime convention floor seating and hotel assignments as well as VIP passes (rule 16e.3). The only stone left unturned when the RNC once again confirmed these penalties at its winter meeting in New Orleans just after the New Hampshire primary was rule 16e.2, the rule that gave the RNC the latitude to further decrease a violating state's delegation.

No further sanctions are coming from the national party, but that doesn't mean that the saga is complete. Well, let me restate that: No further changes for Florida are coming from the national party unless the delegate selection process as currently laid out in the Sunshine state is contested by a registered, Republican residing, in this case, in Florida (Rule 22). Discussions of this sort of challenge have been going on since November and have continued recently. The recent Miami Herald account indicates that such challenges are supposedly to be adjudicated in May sometime.

...and as Marc Caputo at the Herald pointed out, that will likely occur after the nomination has been wrapped up.

As of now, however -- when it counts on Tuesday -- Florida Republicans will allocate their 50 delegates winner-take-all based on the statewide vote in a closed primary. But sure, IF things are still competitive then, it could be a real mess.

FHQ would advise not betting on that.

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.

² The three automatic delegates would have given the Republican Party of Florida 99 total delegates.

³ The following is Rule 10 of the Republican Party of Florida rules. It covers the party's method of delegate selection.
Republican Party of Florida Delegate Selection Rules: Rule 10

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maine

One More Last Ditch Effort to Cancel the 2012 Missouri Presidential Primary

Follow Up on Maine Republican Caucuses: Results on February 11

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maine

This is the fourth in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.¹ The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180º change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case. 

The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).

For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.


MAINE

With Maine Republicans kicking off their 2012 caucusing this afternoon, it may be appropriate for FHQ to step in and offer a glimpse at the delegate selection rules in the Pine Tree state.

In terms of scheduling, the Maine Republican Party provided municipalities with a window of time -- February 4-11 -- in which to hold municipal-level caucuses. A majority of the 97 municipalities were able to comply, but 22 caucuses will fall outside of that window. Eighteen of those 22 will fall between January 28 and February 3 while the remaining four will occur after the February 11 when the presidential straw poll results from the February 11 or before caucuses will be made public. As FHQ detailed a day ago, those four post-window caucus sites have opted not to participate in the straw poll. Maine Republican Party Executive Director Mike Quatrano informed FHQ that the party felt as if the 93 caucuses on or before February 11 would accurately reflect the opinions of Republican caucusgoers across the state. That is probably true. In any event, those first 93 caucuses will be the only ones with votes tabulated as part of the state party's results release on February 11.

In light of local caucus times, what impact will that municipal-level caucusing have on the allocation of the 24 Maine delegates? As was the case in Iowa, a presidential preference straw poll vote will be taken and delegates will be selected to move on to the net step of the caucus process -- the May 5-6 state convention. Also like the January 3 Iowa caucuses, the 24 delegates chosen at the May convention will go to the Republican National Convention in Tampa unbound. In other words, neither the municipal caucuses nor the state convention will have any direct impact on the preferences of the delegates representing the state at the national convention. Now, as FHQ has argued, it is naive to think that there is no transference of presidential preference from one step of the caucus process to the next. That is why it is incumbent on the campaigns to be organized in caucus states; to ensure that caucusgoers sympathetic to your campaign progress through the process. From a campaign perspective, the goal, then, is to maximize the number of those 24 delegates that are yours.

For those tracking the delegate count in this Republican nomination race, February 11 will mean very little. Well, the May state convention will mean very little, too, in that the results will in no way impact the binding of delegates. Each delegate will head to Tampa free to choose whomever they please.

[Note to news organizations: Do not attempt to allocate the Maine delegates proportionally based on the results released on February 11. That would be both inaccurate and misleading. The straw poll will be an indicator of support for a candidate or candidates and will be a feather in their caps, but will not add to anyone's delegate total.]

Thus far, FHQ has compared the Maine process with the process witnessed in Iowa a few weeks ago. One noteworthy difference between the two contests is that in Maine the caucuses are semi-closed to any person outside of the Republican Party.² Potential caucusgoers, if challenged, have to take an oath that they are Republicans. It is not clear how frequently challenges are issued, but there is a mechanism whereby registration is verified.

This process is no different than the one utilized four years ago by the Maine Republican Party.

For more see the Maine Republican Party caucus information page.

UPDATE: Of the 24 delegates Maine was apportioned by the RNC...

• ...15 delegates are at-large and chosen (ultimately uncommitted) at the state convention on the weekend of May 5-6.
• ...6 delegates are congressional district delegates chosen at congressional district caucuses held in conjunction with the May state convention.
• ...3 delegates are automatic, but two of those have already endorsed Mitt Romney.

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.

² Both unregistered and unenrolled voters can participate in the caucuses. Unregistered and unenrolled voters can both register to vote in the caucuses and enroll with the Republican Party. An unenrolled but registered voter may opt to enroll with the Republican Party and participate immediately. One can change enrollment -- from Democrat to Republican or vice versa -- but there is a 15 day waiting period before being able to participate (see Maine Code Title 21-A, Section 144).

Recent Posts:

One More Last Ditch Effort to Cancel the 2012 Missouri Presidential Primary

Follow Up on Maine Republican Caucuses: Results on February 11

Possible Repeal Would Place Ohio Presidential Primary Back in March for Future Cycles

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

One More Last Ditch Effort to Cancel the 2012 Missouri Presidential Primary

Earlier this month in the Missouri state House yet another bill was introduced dealing with the Show Me state presidential primary. As FHQ documented throughout 2011, the process of moving, not moving and then attempting to eliminate the state's presidential primary was nothing short of a roller coaster ride. I'll spare everyone the details -- If you want to catch up just click on the Missouri label below. -- but once the writing was on the wall and it was apparent that the legislature would be unable to shift the presidential primary into a RNC-compliant date on the primary calendar, the Missouri Republican Party switched from the primary to a later and compliant caucus in mid-March.

That move by Missouri Republicans partially stripped the February 7 primary of its significance, and at least to some extent, removed any need to hold the contest at all. That was why there was some effort at the end of he 2011 special session to cancel the primary (in addition to trying to move it). The rationale is simple: Why fund a contest that is not even going to be used? [I'll get back to that in a moment.]

That rationale has, now that the Missouri General Assembly has reconvened for 2012, worked its way back into the legislative process. Representative Mark Parkinson (R-16th) introduced HB 1183 to cancel the 2012 presidential primary and save the state of Missouri the money needed to conduct the election. There are a few things that will hinder any action on the bill, however. First of all, the bill was introduced on January 5 and referred to committee four days later. In addition to that lack of legislative momentum -- much less urgency -- time is running short before the February 7 primary. Finally, and this gets back to the question above, the Missouri Democratic Party is actually utilizing the February primary as a means of beginning its delegate selection process. Even if Republicans could get this legislation through the two chambers, it would never get past Governor Jay Nixon (D).

Last ditch effort? Yes. Going anywhere? Not any time soon. Republicans will have a non-binding primary and Democrats in the state will have a non-competitive primary on February 7.

Recent Posts:

Follow Up on Maine Republican Caucuses: Results on February 11

Possible Repeal Would Place Ohio Presidential Primary Back in March for Future Cycles

Pair of Introduced Bills Would Eliminate Idaho Presidential Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Follow Up on Maine Republican Caucuses: Results on February 11

In response to an email inquiry from FHQ, Maine Republican Party Executive Director Mike Quatrano indicated that while the Maine caucuses will begin this weekend and not end until March 3, the results will still be released as planned on February 11. The three four caucus sites that have opted to hold later caucuses -- Rome on February 16, Aurora/Amherst, Eastbrook, Franklin, Mariaville and Osborn collectively (District 6) on February 18, Gouldsboro, Hancock, Lamoine, Waltham, Sorrento, Sullivan, Winter Harbor and Fletcher's Landing collectively (District 5) on February 18, and Castine on March 3 -- have thus opted not to take part in the official straw poll to be taken and reported on February 11. The presidential preference results released that day -- two weeks from Saturday -- will only include the presidential preference votes from the municipal caucuses held on or before February 11.

NOTE: This walks back and clarifies at least one comment FHQ made in our initial post about the Maine Republican caucuses starting this weekend. [Mainly, that the results will not be held until those final three four caucus meetings can take place as originally speculated.]

Recent Posts:

Possible Repeal Would Place Ohio Presidential Primary Back in March for Future Cycles

Pair of Introduced Bills Would Eliminate Idaho Presidential Primary

Maine Democrats to Caucus on February 26, but...

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Possible Repeal Would Place Ohio Presidential Primary Back in March for Future Cycles

Before FHQ gets into this, let me state that none of the following would in any way affect the date of the 2012 Ohio presidential primary. Ohio will hold its presidential primary on March 6, 2012. 

Last year the Ohio legislature passed a controversial elections bill that would have impacted absentee voting and restricted early voting. The bill also shifted the presidential primary in the Buckeye state from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in May. It was the other provisions that led to a petition drive to place the new election law on the November 2012 ballot. That has implications for when future presidential primaries will be held in Ohio. The primary issue came back up in the discussions around the redrawing of the congressional district lines in the state and was placed back on the original early March date in a round of late-December 2011 legislation, but only for the 2012 cycle.

That would put the scheduling of future presidential primaries in Ohio in limbo until at least November when voters will either confirm or reject the new law. The former would move the primary to May while the latter would keep the primary in March.

However, an alternative option has been raised by Ohio Secretary of State John Husted. Secretary Husted has brought up with members of the Ohio legislature the idea of repealing HB 194 before it appears on the ballot. Such a move, if proposed, passed and signed into law, would make March the regular date for the presidential primary in Ohio in 2016 and beyond. And barring further action by the legislature on the full host of issues contained in the new law, that would be where the primary would stay. Now, given Secretary Husted's comments today, it is not a foregone conclusion that the legislature would not address some of the early and absentee voting provisions in the law, but it would seem unlikely that legislators would address the primary date again. The catalyst for the primary date change was the looming possible fight over new congressional districts. Secretary Husted in January 2011 cautioned that a primary date change may be necessary for local and state elections officials to get prepared for the 2012 primaries -- particularly the new districts. [Yes, the fight went into December and the primary remained on March 6.]

But long story short, a repeal of the legislation would take the future primary date issue out of limbo, but of course, leave open the option for the legislature to revisit the matter prior to 2016, if they so chose. But with no further redistricting on the horizon between now and, say, 2015, there is and would be no impetus for a change.

Recent Posts:

Pair of Introduced Bills Would Eliminate Idaho Presidential Primary

Maine Democrats to Caucus on February 26, but...

Race to 1144: South Carolina Primary

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Pair of Introduced Bills Would Eliminate Idaho Presidential Primary

Last week the Idaho House State Affairs Committee introduced two pieces of legislation that would eliminate the Gem state presidential primary. Idaho Democrats for years have used a caucus as a means of allocating delegates to the national convention and Republicans in the state opted to follow suit for 2012, abandoning the mid-May primary. That cleared the way for the presidential primary line to be removed from the May ballot on which are choices for state and local office nominations as well.

The first bill, H 391, would simply strike the references to the presidential primary from the existing elections code while the second, H 392, would strike those references but also move the primaries for state and local office from the third Tuesday in May to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in August in even years.

This will have no bearing on the 2012 presidential primary calendar as both Idaho political parties have already decided to hold caucuses, but the change -- if passed -- would remove the presidential primary line from the primary ballot whether that election takes place in May or August. That distinction will become clearer when and if one of these two bills passes the legislature and is signed into law.

Thanks to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for passing along the news of these bills.

Recent Posts:

Maine Democrats to Caucus on February 26, but...

Race to 1144: South Carolina Primary

Maine GOP Begins Caucusing Saturday

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Maine Democrats to Caucus on February 26, but...

...those municipal caucuses will not serve as the first determining step in the Maine Democratic delegate selection process.

FHQ just spoke with Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Mary Erin Casale about the apparent date change and the motivation behind the move. The Maine Democratic Party Executive Committee made the decision to shift to the earlier date and that move was finalized at the State Committee meeting on January 22. [It should be noted that the call to the Maine Democratic Convention posted on or before January 9 mentioned the February caucus date.] The primary motivating factor behind moving the Democratic municipal caucuses from March 11 to February 26 was that the earlier caucuses would help down-ballot candidates for state House and Senate collect the required signatures ahead of a March 15 deadline. The earlier organizing effort would mean that there is more time in which to complete the collection.

Whether for the presidential delegate selection process or those down-ballot races, the move to February 26 raises another set of questions. Namely, either A) does the move to a date before March 6 require a waiver from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (Was it granted?) or B) in what other way does the move comply with the Democratic National Committee's rules on delegate selection? According to Ms. Casale the first determining step -- the one the Democratic Party eyes in these matters of compliance -- will not occur at the February 26 uniform municipal caucuses. There is no required presidential preference vote at those meetings, but caucusgoers and potential delegates to the next step in the process are free to make their preference known. This is all made easier by the fact that President Obama is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination. The official first step will occur during county meetings to occur throughout March but after March 6; the earliest date on which non-exempt states can hold a primary or caucus according to the DNC rules. That keeps the state party in compliance with the national party rules. Delegates to the state convention will be chosen at the county meetings.

Since the Maine Democratic caucuses on February 26 will produce no presidential nomination results, FHQ will keep Maine as a March state on our calendar and maps. Maine differs from Minnesota in that the latter will actually have a presidential preference vote at the state-funded caucuses on February 7, but the results will not be affirmed until March 6.

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: South Carolina Primary

Maine GOP Begins Caucusing Saturday

Musings on the Republican Nomination Race, Post-South Carolina

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Race to 1144: South Carolina Primary

A few thoughts on the South Carolina results:

[For a view of the state of the overall race for the Republican nomination after the South Carolina Republican primary, see our earlier post.]

1. The streak is over. [See link above for why.] South Carolina Republican primary voters have enjoyed a three decades long streak of picking the ultimate nominee. [NOTE: That streak is only five cycles long: 1980, 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2008.] With an anti-establishment winner, South Carolina voters shed the formerly pragmatic streak they once collectively held. Of course, John McCain cut it quite close four years ago in South Carolina; winning by only an approximately three percentage point margin. Of course, Mitt Romney outperformed his 2008 total in the Palmetto state, but underperformed McCain's (establishment) total as well.

Looking at South Carolina long term in the presidential primary process, I don't know that this result is enough of an indictment on the state than, say, what happened in the Iowa Republican caucuses. Neither is going anywhere. However, as I heard on the radio and TV reports surrounding the primary in a state just thirty miles away, this is it for South Carolina. The general election will not bring the presidential candidates back to the state. And that is what separates the Palmetto state from the other three "carve out" states. Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada can claim to be or have recently and fairly consistently been competitive general election states. That is a good argument to take to the national parties: organizing for the primary/caucus equals early organizing for the general election. South Carolina cannot make that argument, but on the flip side of the coin, it has been able to make the argument of being the conservative firewall that typically sends the frontrunner -- and presumptive nominee -- off to other states heading in the right direction. The state also, given its first in the South moniker, also gives voice to southern voters, a valuable constituency within the party. Finally, while the presidential nominees won't return to South Carolina in the fall, the early organizing -- it could be argued -- would help in down ballot races there. ...it could be argued.

2. Romney effect. FHQ has not seen this theory postulated anywhere else -- forgive me if it has been written or said elsewhere -- but I'm wondering if it is possible that something akin to the Bradley effect is going on with Mitt Romney. Before I explain let me say that what we saw last Saturday in South Carolina could have been nothing more or less than undecideds breaking for Newt Gingrich on election day. After all, Romney's support in the state didn't shrink so much as flatline as the election grew near. That said, Public Policy Polling consistently found in South Carolina that while there was some discomfort with the idea of a Mormon president, there was a three-fifths to two-thirds majority of respondents who were not bothered by that notion in the least. But in a race in which "anti-religious bigotry" has made an appearance in the rhetoric, I'm curious if there may have been at least some social desirability bias involved here; that respondents who might otherwise answer in the negative to that question might feel pressured, in the interest of not seeming intolerant, to say the Mormon issue is not bothersome. [Yes, PPP utilizes telephone robocalls to administer their surveys, so that removes that particular layer from this equation.]

It is too true that this -- the Mormon comfort question -- is a step removed from the response on the candidate choice question, but still, the thought has crossed my mind. A couple of other points on this issue: A) This is harder to examine in a multi-candidate primary setting than it would if we had just two candidates left. B) This potentially dovetails nicely with FHQ's "southern question" as this phenomenon, I would suspect, would be more pronounced in the South than elsewhere in the country. [I'm open to counterpoints on that hypothesis, though. Thought exercise.]

--

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

[NOTE: There is still no allocation of delegates in Iowa. FHQ is looking at you, uh, most major news outlets. Iowa's delegates will be allocated in June at the state convention and will go to Tampa unbound.]

The race for delegates has also tightened up post-South Carolina.

• Gingrich and Romney both added one automatic delegate each in the lead up to or immediate aftermath of the South Carolina primary.
• The primary netted Gingrich 23 delegates -- by virtue of having won the statewide vote and the congressional district vote in six of South Carolina's seven districts. Mitt Romney seemingly won the first district and its two delegates. 
• NOTE: Please note that there is nothing official being reported by the South Carolina State Elections Commission in terms of the congressional district by congressional district vote. In large part that is due to the fact that the current (newly redrawn) districts are being challenged in court and may [MAY] change. Depending on the outcome of that case and any subsequent redrawing of the lines, the allocation may also change. [The new lines were precleared by the Obama administration's Department of Justice.] As of now, FHQ will treat the allocation as if the new boundaries will hold. We shall see. 

See previous results here:
New Hampshire
Iowa (certified)

Recent Posts:

Maine GOP Begins Caucusing Saturday

Musings on the Republican Nomination Race, Post-South Carolina

Race to 1144: Iowa Caucuses Redux

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Maine GOP Begins Caucusing Saturday

In the midst of some research on the filing deadlines -- grand manifesto on filing to come later -- FHQ happened upon the state party site devoted to the Maine Republican caucuses (information on locations, dates, times, etc.). What I found was fairly interesting and obviously isn't being talked about probably outside of the Pine Tree state. As it turns out, Maine Republicans in a few towns will caucus this Saturday (January 28). The original plan I spoke with the Maine Republican Party about back in September revolved around the idea of holding caucuses within a window from February 4 and February 11 with a big reveal on that final date. That is still mostly true as most of the caucus venues will hold party meetings within that window. However, there are a few caucuses that branch out quite far from those two bookend dates. The collective caucus Lincoln, Lowell, Burlington, Chester, Enfield, Winn and Howland will take place the Saturday and the precinct caucus process will not officially wind down until the caucuses in Castine take place on March 3.

Now, this is not all that unusual. Well, it is unique, but it isn't unprecedented. Caucus states will often not have a uniform date for caucuses at the precinct or county level. That said, that phenomenon is typically limited to caucus states of the in-party (in the White House); especially in those cycles where there is no competition for the in-party nomination. Those state parties have little incentive to force precinct caucuses onto one date or a small window of time because the results are not all that consequential outside of choosing delegates. The news is not needed, in other words, to update a ongoing delegate count.

But the Maine Republican Party will begin caucusing this weekend and not be able to report final official results until the weekend immediately prior to Super Tuesday (March 6). That is not to suggest that results won't trickle out over the course of that month long period, but they will not be complete results until March.

[The three "overflow" caucuses will not take part in the official straw poll. Those results will still be released on February 11.]

Now, which candidate will make a last minute trip up to Penobscot County before Saturday?

Recent Posts:

Musings on the Republican Nomination Race, Post-South Carolina

Race to 1144: Iowa Caucuses Redux

Of Course Rick Santorum Won Iowa...

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Musings on the Republican Nomination Race, Post-South Carolina

Where do we go from here?

Following the Gingrich victory in South Carolina, the race for the Republican presidential nomination has taken yet another turn. And this time, for the first time since probably early December, the contest is lodged in the gray area between being a momentum contest¹ and a delegate counting contest.² Truth be told, the line is often blurred between those two distinctions. Most nominations in the post-reform era have tended to be momentum contests with a frontrunner -- having been established in the invisible primary -- winning early and often and using those early wins as  springboard into a Super Tuesday series of contests to build a seemingly insurmountable lead (both in momentum and in delegates).

Due to the way the primary calendar is set up in 2012 and the current fits and starts nature of the dynamic in the race, however, this cycle is shaping up differently. The notion of Mitt Romney sweeping or nearly sweeping the January contests and putting the nomination race to rest are gone -- even with a Florida win. But the idea of a momentum contest -- one that will typically develop behind the frontrunner, no matter how nominal -- is not completely dead.  Romney remains the frontrunner. The former Massachusetts governor is viewed as the establishment choice and is the only candidate to this point to have placed in the top two in each of the first three contests. He is still the favorite to build a consensus around his candidacy -- just not as much as he was in the five days or so after the New Hampshire primary.

But the question remains just how will Romney, or any other candidate for that matter, build a consensus and win the nomination. There are two main avenues from FHQ's perspective; one narrow and one fairly broad. The narrow path to the nomination is that Mitt Romney bounces back from the South Carolina primary, wins Florida, uses his organizational advantage over Gingrich and Santorum in the February caucus states, and then wins in Arizona and Michigan. The broader path is one that devolves into a contest-by-contest struggle; a battle for delegates the end game of which is the point where one candidate has a wide enough delegate margin that cannot be overcome given the number of delegates to be allocated remaining. [See Norrander, 2000]

FHQ is conservative in how we approach these things. Our basic rules of thumb are: 1) No option is off the table until it is off the table. 2) Past precedent tells us that the frontrunner usually ends up the nominee. [See, Mayer 2003] Now, past is not necessarily prologue, especially when the dynamics, calendars and rules differ across such a comparatively small number of observations in the post-reform era. But in this case, FHQ sees the narrow path described above as the likely outcome; more likely than the delegate counting route.

The hold that has on our thinking, though, is very tenuous indeed. It is not far-fetched to see Romney rebounding from South Carolina to win in Florida on January 31. It is not far-fetched to foresee the former governor parlay that win into wins in the remaining February contests -- though that mid-February gap in the calendar is a great unknown in terms of these calculations. Previously, FHQ has argued that that February period with no contests would put significant strain on candidates financially. That view was predicated on a Romney (near-)sweep in January forcing amped up pressure on the remaining candidates to drop out. Gingrich's South Carolina win alleviates some of that potential pressure. A win allows a non-frontrunner candidate in these early stages to get his or her foot in the door for arguing viability. Romney, then, would have a more difficult time shutting the door on Gingrich and to some extent Santorum (if he can survive that long). [Ron Paul is in it for the long haul. That is why this discussion is light on the Texas congressman.]

But even a February sweep -- if we are constraining our view to the narrow path to the nomination -- is  likely not enough to close this out for Romney or more to the point, to force the others from the race. There is one lingering question coming out of South Carolina that cannot be answered until Super Tuesday/March 6 at the earliest. Even if Romney wins all of the February contests he is still vulnerable to the charge that he has not won in the South; a core constituency within the Republican Party.³ Now, that is not to suggest that Romney as the Republican nominee would struggle in the South in the general election. Yet, not winning in the reddest region of the country in the primary phase does signal that the part of the core of the party is not on board with the former Massachusetts governor's nomination. That may or may not be enough to "veto" a Romney nomination, but it does provide his opponents with a solid argument for staying in -- particularly if it is the same candidate (presumably Gingrich) winning there.

The other layer to this -- the one about which FHQ has received the most inquiries since Saturday -- how the rules for delegate allocation begin to affect all of this. To reiterate an earlier point, the rules are the exact same as they were in 2008 in each of the states with contests prior to March. To the extent we witness differences, it will be due to the dynamics of the race and not the delegate allocation rules. The changes brought about because of the new "proportionality" requirement on the Republican side begin to kick in once the calendar flips to March. Now, it is still too early to tell what impact those rules will have. Mainly, that is due to the fact that we just don't know which candidates -- or how many candidates, really -- will still be alive at that point. The modal response from the states to the RNC proportionality rule was to make the allocation of delegates conditional on a certain threshold of the vote. If a candidate receives at least 50% of the vote, then the allocation is winner-take-all (or the at-large delegate allocation is winner-take-all). But if no candidate crosses that bar, the allocation is proportional (overall or for just the at-large delegates). The more candidates that survive, in other words, the more likely it is that the allocation is proportional. It would be more difficult for one candidate to receive 50% of the vote. The double-edged sword of proportional allocation is that while it may make it harder -- take longer -- for the leading candidate to reach 1144 delegates (if triggered), it also makes it more difficult for those attempting to catch the leader as well. The margin (of delegates) for the winners is often not that large.

Taken together, the South questions and the proportionality requirement jumble the outlook for this race. Romney may or may not be required to win in the South to win the nomination. But winning there would go a long way toward forcing other candidates from the race and preventing the nomination from falling into a delegate count. The problem is that those two things -- the race turning South again and the potential proportionality kicking in -- hit at the same point. And that leaves us with any number of permutations for directions in which the race could go, whether taking the narrow path or broad path.

Will the rules matter? They always do, but they will really matter when and if Romney is unable to rebound and run off a series of February wins. That is what we should be looking at now.

--
¹ Defined by a candidate sweeping or nearly sweeping the early contests to overwhelm his or her opponents.

² Defined by a candidate at some point beyond the first handful of contests either crosses the 50% plus one delegate threshold or develops a big enough lead to force his or her opponents from the race at some point outside of the first handful of contests.

³ There are no southern primaries or caucuses after South Carolina until a series of contests on March 6.

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: Iowa Caucuses Redux

Of Course Rick Santorum Won Iowa...

About Those Two Huntsman Delegates

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.