A Very Rough Estimate of the Republican Delegate Math Ahead, Part One

One of the most frequent calls/requests FHQ receives from any and everybody is to provide a look forward and predict what will happen in any given upcoming contest or contests. And more often than not, I punt. Why? Much of what happens in presidential primary contests is seemingly predictable.

...in hindsight.

Well, often it is easy to say that the frontrunner coming into the election year ultimately won the nomination and move on. The reality, however, is that the "getting there" for the frontrunner can be much less easy to explain. The political science literature will lean on the amount of support various candidates have had entering the year of the election as quantified by FEC fundraising totals, poll position and more recently elite-level endorsements as a means of explaining the emergence of a frontrunner in a given nomination race. In recent cycles -- particularly 1996-2004¹ -- candidates were able to parlay success in fundraising, polls and endorsements during the invisible primary to early wins and put the nomination away fairly quickly.

Of course, one tie that binds those contests and not 2012 is the fact that the primary calendar is hugely different.² In the era cited, frontrunning candidates had the ability to turn early success in both the invisible primary and the first handful of contests into momentum that would pay dividends on Super Tuesday. Early wins begat a small delegate lead begat many wins on one day begat a big delegate lead.  Afterward, challenging candidates, while still mathematically able to catch up, tend to be overwhelmed by a combination of the frontrunner's momentum in the contest and a delegate margin that is big enough that given the rules in the remaining states makes a continued challenge near futile. [Look, I cite it all the time, but since we are seemingly headed down a road toward a delegate count, go and acquaint yourselves with Norrander's End Game article from the Journal of Politics (2000). Contained therein are the calculations/equations you'll likely be hearing a great deal about over the next few months.]

But as I said, 2012 is different. There weren't 25 contests awaiting the remaining candidates a week after the Florida primary in 2012 as was the case in 2008. No, it was just Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri and Maine with virtually no delegates directly at stake. Unless one candidate had come close to sweeping those contests and the ones preceding them, there really was not a viable knockout punch strategy for any of the candidates -- much less the race's nominal frontrunner, Mitt Romney.

So, when Neil King of the Wall Street Journal called this week to discuss how we might game this process out given the current dynamics, FHQ was typically hesitant. A presidential nomination race is a sequential process -- one step affects subsequent steps -- and attempting to parse out the possible scenarios can quickly become an exercise in futility. Yet, if we want to know if a knockout punch strategy is still possible, it might be helpful to actually examine a scenario or two to assess the odds of Romney extending his current delegate lead to a level that would be difficult for his opponents to overcome throughout the remainder of the calendar.

If you've read the Wall Street Journal today, you'll see some calculations attributed to FHQ. I thought that, in conjunction with Mr. King's piece, it might be helpful to show my work. Now, I cannot stress enough that what follows is not likely to happen. It is a thought exercise to help us all better understand the implications of not only wins for a candidate but how the candidates will potentially amass delegates moving forward in this race. I entered this process with a simple question/hypothesis: Can Mitt Romney deliver a series of wins on Super Tuesday that will end this contest on March 7? The answer there is pretty clear: No. Well, the answer is no based on the delegate count anyway. It is difficult to quantify the momentum coming off that sort of sweep. But even then, I think we can all agree that a Romney sweep -- John Avlon's North Korea-style election scenario -- of the Super Tuesday contests is unlikely.

The best test is to look at a couple of scenarios and compare them through Super Tuesday. King's WSJ piece alludes to these but let FHQ break them down.

Scenario #1: Super Tuesday South = South Carolina, Super Tuesday Northeast = New Hampshire

Again, these are hypotheticals. Obviously the dynamics of this race have changed since votes were cast in those early states. However, we do have information from those votes that may be useful if extrapolated onto other regionally similar contests. One but of information that is missing to this point in the race is that there has yet to be a midwestern primary. Michigan will be the first indication of what a vote in the midwest -- in a primary -- might look like. The Michigan numbers will -- or would for this analysis -- helpful for projecting Ohio. But alas...

Assumptions:
1) This only includes the primary states through Super Tuesday. Caucus states, due to their rules, were suppressed from the analysis.
2) Votes in the southern Super Tuesday states (GA, OK & TN) mimic the vote total in South Carolina, but with Santorum playing the Gingrich role (Santorum 40%, Romney 28%, Gingrich 17%). Delegates are then allocated according to the rules in each of those states. [South Carolina is a better reflection of the possible vote across the South than Florida because of the make up of the electorates in those two states relative to the rest of the South.]
3) Votes in the northeastern Super Tuesday states (MA & VT) mimic the vote total in New Hampshire, but with Paul and Romney splitting evenly the Huntsman votes from New Hampshire (Romney 48%, Paul 30%). Delegates are then allocated according to the rules in each of those states.
4) If there is a split in a state between the at-large (statewide) delegates and the congressional district delegates, the assumption is that the congressional district vote follows the statewide vote.

5) Romney wins Virginia and all 11 districts outright (+50%).

6) Michigan and Ohio are split roughly in half between a Romney and a non-Romney. In Michigan that means a split of the congressional districts and a split of the two at-large statewide delegates. In Ohio that means a split of the 16 congressional districts and a proportional allocation of the at-large delegates.
7) The threshold to win any at-large delegates in Ohio is 20%. The assumption is that only two candidates (Romney and non-Romney) clear that barrier.
8) Statewide votes translate to the congressional district as well. 

Delegate count (given those assumptions -- Click link to see full breakdown):

1) Romney would pick up an additional 192 contest/bound automatic delegates (distinct from automatic delegates who are not bound by primary results) in the primary states. That total would be 221 with Arizona
2) That would bring his binding delegate total to 265 or 294 with Arizona.
3) Santorum (or candidate in second place X) would pick up an additional 143 delegates or with Arizona 172 delegates.
4) That would bring Santorum's total to 146 or 175 with Arizona. 
5) Paul would pick up 19 delegates in the northeast (because of NH) bringing his total to 27.
6) Gingrich would pick up 8 delegates in Oklahoma for clearing the 15% threshold (because of SC), bringing his total to 37.
7) Post-Super Tuesday, then, it would be: 

• Romney 265 or 294
• Santorum 146 or 175
• Gingrich 37
• Paul 27

Notes:
1) The delegate margin would increase by about 90-150 delegates for Romney depending on Arizona.

2) That assumes, again, that one non-Romney consolidates that non-Romney vote. 

3) In this case, the assumption is that Santorum is that candidate.
4) Virginia helps Romney neutralize other losses across the South on Super Tuesday.
5) Arizona along with modest gains in the northeast and breaking even across Michigan and Ohio is what drives Romney's delegate margin up.

Scenario #2: Romney's Rosy Outlook

The intent of this scenario is to provide a kind of best-case scenario for Romney, albeit a limited one. FHQ will throw the other candidates a bone here and assume that Romney gets up to 49% of the vote across the board. That allows Romney to take a great many delegates, but not trigger the winner-take-all allocation of at-large delegates in the states where the allocation is conditioned on one candidate receiving a majority of the statewide vote. This is another way of saying that FHQ will allow for the proportional allocation of those at-large delegates.

Assumptions:
1) This only includes the primary states through Super Tuesday.
2) Romney wins 49% statewide and in the congressional districts. This is more likely in some states than in others, but recall that this is a baseline sort of scenario for comparison's sake only. 
3) Related to #2, it is probably out of reach for anyone to get to the 66% threshold in Tennessee, so I'll treat it like the rest: Romney gets 49% statewide and on the congressional district level.
4) This may be a shortcut and kind of undermine the "best case scenario" argument, but I'll assume that the remaining vote and delegate allocation centers around one candidate (Santorum) instead of it being split among Santorum, Gingrich and Paul.
5) Romney wins Virginia and all 11 districts outright (+50%).

Delegate count (given those assumptions -- Click link to see full breakdown):
1) Romney would pick up an additional 281 contest/bound automatic delegates (distinct from automatic delegates who are not bound by primary results) in the primary states.
2) That would bring his binding delegate total to 354.
3) Santorum (or candidate in second place X) would pick up an additional 110 delegates.
4) That would bring Santorum's total to 113 or Gingrich's to 139.

Notes:
1) The delegate margin would increase to about 215-230 delegates for Romney.
2) That assumes, again, that one non-Romney consolidates that non-Romney vote. 
3) Due to the nature of the rules, Romney would win all the delegates in Michigan, Arizona and Virginia.
4) Again, that likely places some pressure on the non-Romney candidates and makes their quest -- compared to Scenario #1 -- more a matter of keeping Romney from getting to 1144 rather than achieving that level of delegates themselves. This is a point that is receiving very little discussion. How that narrative exerts pressure on or has the RNC exert pressure on the other candidates will be an important factor to watch. We may see that manifest itself in the form of automatic delegate endorsements (or additional elected official endorsements).

In other words, the odds of a momentum contest are quickly dissipating as we look ahead to what the state of the race is likely to be post-Super Tuesday and giving way to a nomination race focused on the gradual accumulation of delegates. The above comparison gives the impression that under certain circumstances -- and there are a lot of assumptions there -- the delegate count will be close after Super Tuesday. However, it is important to note that those sort of analyses fail to capture the dynamics of the race at any given point (momentum, polling snapshots, etc.). It is easy, then, to count delegates without factoring in how primary/caucus results and those very same delegate counts impact the race.

Now, a number of folks have already looked at the delegate math ahead and have come to the conclusion that this race will go on for a while. FHQ agrees but urges caution in counting delegates too far in advance. There are any number of permutations that could occur and thus momentum to potentially develop from that. It could also be that it becomes easier to project as we gather more information from future contests.

FHQ will take a crack at one such permutation in Part 2 tomorrow; an extension of the baseline model above through the end of the calendar. As a baseline, it will give us some understanding of just how far the delegate race may extend.

--
¹ One could add to this McCain's clinching of the 2008 Republican nomination as well. There are some elements of this pattern in the Arizona senator's run to the nomination then.

² The other major difference in 2012 relative to the past is the volatility of support for the candidates in the polls. That isn't to be discounted.


Recent Posts:
A Follow Up on the Maine Republican Caucuses


2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New York

April Primary Given the Heave Ho in Texas

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

A Follow Up on the Maine Republican Caucuses

A great many folks have happened upon FHQ's "No Conspiracy in Maine" post from last Sunday throughout the week, and apparently have felt obligated to either push back against that notion and/or fill me in on all the news that has subsequently come out on the matter. Grant me a few follow up comments:

1. First of all, that post was written on Sunday morning; the morning following the release of the caucus results by Pine Tree state Republicans. The main premise of the piece was to point out that looking back at 2008 caucus turnout, there simply weren't enough votes in either Washington County -- the one county with a grievance in all of this vote counting because of its scheduled-on-time-but-postponed meeting -- or the remaining caucus areas that will either caucus this weekend or on March 3. Even if the vote totals from 2008 were adjusted to reflect the rise in turnout statewide in 2012 relative to 2008 (152 votes), it still would not have provided enough votes -- if split among candidates -- to put any candidate ahead of Mitt Romney. Even if Ron Paul was able to win all those votes, he still would have come up short.

Now, it should be noted that by taking the stand that it did -- that only caucuses on or before February 11 would be counted -- MEGOP raised the stakes in Washington County in particular, increasing the likelihood that more caucusgoers in that area could be mobilized in a way that overperformed the increase in turnout witnessed elsewhere in the state relative to 2008.

2. To that end, the Maine Republican Party has attempted to defuse the situation:

AUGUSTA, ME -Today the Executive Committee of the Maine State Republican Party met to discuss the Presidential Preference Poll results and have approved the following statement from Chairman Charlie Webster. 

“We have worked diligently to contact town chairmen throughout Maine to reconfirm the results of their individual caucuses. These totals once confirmed will be posted on the Maine Republican Party Web site 

All Republicans are keenly aware of the intense interest in the results of the Maine Republican Party Presidential Preference Poll. In fact, I have had numerous conversations with Senate President Kevin Raye and Washington County Commissioner Chris Gardner regarding their concerns that the Washington County poll results be included in our final tally. As a result of these conversations I called a meeting of the Executive Committee to discuss this matter. 

The results of the Washington County caucus will be reviewed at the March 10 Republican State Committee Meeting. The Executive Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the State Committee that they include the results in the final tally for the Presidential Preference Poll as their caucus had been scheduled to occur by the February 11 deadline, however it was postponed due to inclement weather.” -- MEGOP press release "Chairman Webster Meets with Maine Republican Party Executive Committee", 2/16/12

Regardless, a new vote total showing the Romney lead increasing by a "not significant number" is expected from the party today that should remedy the "spam folder" votes that were never counted. Now, whether that lessens or increases the turnout in Washington County and other areas tomorrow or on March 3 won't be known until later. But there is some ray of light in the above release that the Washington County votes may be added to the total when the Executive Committee meets again on March 10. [At that point why not just count the other areas as well?]

3. That question above gets us back to the rules to which the Maine Republican Party has stuck. A portion of the flak I have gotten over the Maine aftermath post was from Ron Paul folks arguing that FHQ was missing the point by focusing on past turnout and not the efforts that could be made to further mobilize in Washington County. Point well taken, but the idea of Washington County making the difference in the outcome was entirely dependent upon the Maine Republican Party backing off on its stubborn February 11 or before stance that excluded Washington County from the count. Now, that the party has seemingly backed off that stance -- or at least appeared open to considering the inclusion of those votes -- this is a non-issue unless and until the Washington County vote overperforms turnout elsewhere in the state and provides Paul with a margin that helps the Texas congressman surpass the 194+ vote margin Mitt Romney now has in the eyes of the Maine Republican Party.

4. As for the rest of the conspiracy theories that are and have been floating around out there, FHQ never really commented on those -- just the mathematically insignificant previous vote totals in the outlying areas yet to caucus. We'll (thankfully) defer to the Maine Republican Party on that matter.

But as I tweeted yesterday, we aren't likely to see any of those results rom Washington County or even the other areas until Super Tuesday -- or now later, given the March 10 Executive Committee meeting. By then the focus will have shifted to the state of the race for the Republican nomination after Super Tuesday and the other upcoming contests.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New York

April Primary Given the Heave Ho in Texas

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Michigan

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New York

This is the eleventh 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.


NEW YORK

Normally, FHQ would not put the cart before the horse like this and jump not only a description of the Arizona delegate selection process, but the processes in the March and most of the April primary and caucus states as well. Yet, for New York, a blow-by-blow account of the delegate selection there is necessary now for one particularly pertinent reason. While most of us were glued to a kind of ho-hum night of Florida primary returns on January 31, a deadline came and went that set in stone the Republican delegate selection process in the Empire state. Since no congressional district boundaries had been settled upon by the New York legislature that had the effect of triggering the enactment of one of two delegate selection plans the New York Republican Party had submitted to the RNC.

The rationale behind that boundary issue being relevant is that one delegate selection plan operated under what would have been a new 27 seat (congressional district) map while the latter -- the safety plan -- accounted for the possibility that a deal on the districts could not be reached. That plan was based on the old 29 seat map that existed before the 2010 census reapportionment.

And what does that mean for the New York primary, the delegate selection there and the race for the Republican nomination?

The big differences are:

1. Instead of having 3 delegates per congressional district, under the 29 seat plan that was triggered on January 31, there are 2 delegates per congressional district. 
2. Importantly, that reduces the total congressional district delegates from 81 to 58, which in turn, increases the number of total at-large delegates from 11 to 34. 

Now, what emerges from this is that the balance between winner-take-all and proportional allocation shifts. Those congressional district delegates will be allocated winner-take-all based on the vote in each of the 29 existing congressional districts, but the at-large delegates will be proportionally allocated if no candidate receives over 50% of the vote statewide. Again, April 24 is a long way off and it is a fool's errand to assume that a volatile race won't in some ways continue to fluctuate between now and then. Things will likely remain competitive barring a sudden string of victories by one candidate, but it is entirely possible that a candidate will be well-positioned to capture greater than 50% of the statewide vote in New York in late April. It is also entirely possible that the conditional winner-take-all/proportional allocation of those 34 (rather than 11) at-large delegates could be consequential depending on the dynamics of the race -- and the delegate count -- at that time.²

There is one other note to make concerning New York and the state Republican Party method of delegate allocation in 2012. The primary moved back from February to April, and contrary to what the rules would seemingly allow, shifted from a straight winner-take-all primary (see Florida) in 2008 to a system that divided the allocation of delegates across congressional districts (still winner-take-all by district) and at-large delegates (conditional winner-take-all/proportional based on the statewide vote). The point is that despite being free to maintain the winner-take-all rules after April 1, the New York Republican Party opted to shift in a slightly more proportional direction. Part of this is explained by the fact that the party made the decision on delegate allocation -- the overall method -- early in 2011 before the legislature moved the primary from February to April. However, the legislation was signed well in advance of when the rules needed be finalized in the eyes of the RNC (October 1, 2011), so at least in theory a change back to straight winner-take-all allocation could have been made but was not.

Let's close with a look at the New York GOP delegate allocation plan:

• 58 congressional district delegates (2 per each of the existing 29 congressional districts -- unchanged since census reapportionment): Delegates will be allocated winner-take-all based on the vote within each congressional district.
• 34 at-large delegates: Delegates will be allocated proportionally based on each candidate's share of the statewide vote unless one candidate clears the 50% share of the vote threshold. In that event, the 34 delegates will be allocated winner-take-all.
• 3 automatic delegates: Delegates are unbound and free to endorse any candidate.

Again, the 29 congressional district plan is potentially slightly more proportional than the 27 seat version. With only two delegates in each congressional district the remainder -- thus at-large delegates -- are greater in number in the former than in the latter.

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

² It would most likely be consequential in terms of the ongoing tabulation of the delegates, but not in the overall delegate count at the end of primary season. The overall Democratic delegate count in 2008 for instance gave Obama a more than 200 delegate lead by even some of the more conservative estimates.

Recent Posts:
April Primary Given the Heave Ho in Texas


2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Michigan


Bill Would Repeal Arizona Presidential Primary

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

April Primary Given the Heave Ho in Texas

And so it has come to this in Texas.

Unable to draw congressional (and state Senate and House) district boundaries in time now to pull off a primary across court-cleared districts without a hitch (Well, with minimal hitches anyway.), unable to settle matters in time to get ballots printed and off to overseas military personnel (in compliance with the mandates of the federal MOVE act), and unable to do any of the above without in some way negatively affecting local elections officials tasked with implementing any agreed upon districts/primary date in the process, the federal court in San Antonio today put to rest any enduring hope of an April 3 primary in Texas. In fact, the hour is late enough at this point that a primary at any point in April or much of May for that matter was simply unworkable for myriad reasons.

The earliest the Texas presidential primary could be held is May 29, and even that date is dependent upon the progress made on interim maps. Any delays there would push the primary into June.

What might be more interesting is how the Texas state parties will deal with the delegate selection process in light of the fact that both are sticking with state conventions in early June and would have to alter state party rules to accommodate any changes to the delegate selection because of the tight window around the primary and conventions.

...but that's a story for another day.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Michigan


Bill Would Repeal Arizona Presidential Primary

No Conspiracy in Maine

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Michigan

This is the tenth 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.


MICHIGAN

One of the most fascinating aspects of this presidential primary cycle -- to FHQ anyway -- has been the ways in which the early and non-compliant states have adapted their regular delegate selection rules to their after-penalty delegate apportionment from the Republican National Committee. Penalized states are left to their own devices to devise an altered formula that differs from the usual three delegates per congressional district and an n number of at-large delegates alignment. South Carolina, for instance, reduced the per-district delegate count from three to two (14 of 25 delegates) and designated the remaining 11 delegates at-large. Additionally, FHQ speculated that the Republican Party of Florida could do something similar if forced to go "proportional". However, in order not to exceed the Sunshine state at-large delegate total, the party would have to reduce the number of delegates per each of the 27 districts to one with the remaining 23 (out of 50) delegates being at-large.

Michigan is another early primary state carrying a penalized delegation that has to rejigger its delegate allocation to account for the changes. The original plan adopted by the Michigan GOP -- the one with 59 total delegates -- looked like this:

• 42 congressional district delegates (3 in each of the 14 congressional districts in the Great Lakes state): allocated winner-take-all based on the congressional district vote
• 14 at-large delegates: allocated proportionally to candidates surpassing 15% of the statewide vote
• 3 automatic delegates: free to choose whomever.

But that is not what the plan looks like anymore. According to Michigan Republican Party Communications Director, Matt Frendewey, the party will plan on sending the original 59 delegates to the Tampa convention, but with the knowledge that only 30 will be recognized. For all intents and purposes, then, the party is going ahead with its original delegate selection plan. However, the question remains: How are those 30 chosen out of the 59?

According to the updated Michigan Republican Party delegate rules forwarded to FHQ by Neil King at the Wall Street Journal it looks like this:

• 28 congressional district delegates (2 per each of the 14 districts): allocated winner-take-all based on the vote in the congressional district
• 2 at-large delegates: allocated winner-take-all²
• 0 automatic delegates: Penalized states lose their automatic delegates.

[SIDE NOTE: The alternative, FHQ supposes, could have apportioned 1 delegate in each congressional district with the remaining 15 delegates being at-large. That would have tipped the balance toward the at-large total -- actually increasing it by one over the original plan. That also would have made over half of the state's delegates proportional.]

Now, this has a couple of significant implications:

1. The Michigan Republican Party completely gutted its at-large delegate total and kind of sort of skirted the proportionality requirement in the process. Hey, it is hard to allocate two delegates proportionally.
2. With such a reduced at-large total, the real battle in the Great Lakes state is not statewide, but from congressional district to congressional district. Strategically, the, if you're Mitt Romney or a Romney-aligned super PAC, you focus on the districts in and around the Detroit area and perhaps cede the rest of the state to Santorum. And if you're the Santorum camp you try and gobble up as much of the remainder as you can and hope to crack into those Detroit areas. 

The bottom line is that barring an overwhelming victory for one candidate in Michigan, the delegate margin is very likely to be close coming out of the Great Lakes state on February 28. In any event, all the attention there should be placed not on the statewide race, but on how things are progressing on the congressional district level. That is where the action will be.

*A tip of the cap to Neil King at the Wall Street Journal for passing along the Michigan rules and to Matt Frendewey at the Michigan GOP for clarifying them.

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

² The rules state that the statewide winner receives the two at-large delegates, but MIGOP's Frendewey conceded that if the top two voter-getters in the statewide vote over 15% -- the threshold required to receive any at-large delegates -- are sufficiently close in the final results, then the allocation of those two delegates would be proportional; each candidate getting one delegate.

Recent Posts:
Bill Would Repeal Arizona Presidential Primary

No Conspiracy in Maine

Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses

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

Bill Would Repeal Arizona Presidential Primary

Senator Steve Gallardo (D-13th) two weeks ago introduced legislation in the Arizona state Senate to repeal in its entirety the section of the Grand Canyon state's election code dealing the presidential preference election. SB 1429 would strike Title 16, article 4 from the existing revised statutes.

And no, this would in no way affect the presidential primary coming up in Arizona at the end of the month. Even if the Democratic-sponsored legislation was able to make it through both of the Republican-controlled chambers in the Arizona state legislation, Governor Jan Brewer (R) would likely veto the legislation for much the same reason Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed legislation in the Show Me state over the summer to change the primary date there. The resulting change to the election code would have removed some gubernatorial power. In Missouri's case, the veto was based on the mostly unrelated (to the presidential primary) power of the governor to make appointments to fill vacant or vacated statewide offices. For Brewer and other subsequent Arizona governors, a repeal of the presidential preference election would strip governors of the ability to set the date of the primary.

More to the point, the legislation would not take effect until December 31, 2012 if it passed the legislature and was signed into law. The February 28 primary is safe.

Now, as FHQ mentioned last month, this is something that the Arizona Democratic Party considered last year. There was a plan in place for the party to shift from using the primary as a means of allocating delegates -- no matter what date it fell on -- to a caucus as early as May 2011. Part of the consideration was an effort -- which included the possibility of a similar repeal bill -- to put Republicans in the state legislature on the defensive over the $5 million state expenditure on the election. That part of the considerations went nowhere at the time, but has been resurrected with little chance of advancing in 2012.


Recent Posts:
No Conspiracy in Maine

Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses

Idaho Bill Eliminating Presidential Primary Passes House

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

No Conspiracy in Maine

UPDATE (2/17/12): Please see our follow up post on Maine.

There was quite a bit of ex post facto finger pointing going on in the Twitterverse -- FHQ's tiny circle of it anyway -- last night after the Maine Republican caucuses results were released by the state party. There was a lot of handwringing over the -- according to Google Elections -- nearly 17% of precincts that were not reporting results last night. Now, the Maine Republican Party advised those localities holding caucus meetings to hold them between February 4-11. But as FHQ has pointed out, several areas caucused early and others will caucus on either February 18 or March 3. However, only those caucuses that were conducted on or before February 11 were -- and will be -- counted in the final straw poll count. Well, in a close election -- one decided by just 194 votes¹ -- having votes not counted in the straw poll from anywhere is a problem.

...on its face anyway.

But that leaves two unanswered questions:
1) Is not counting those caucuses in the final non-binding straw poll really a problem?
2) If so, how big of a problem is it?

Now, as is our custom, FHQ will avoid the normative question of whether caucus votes totals being excluded from the total straw poll vote should be viewed as a problem. That is a question that the Maine Republican Party is best positioned to answer. But the answer is pretty obvious as to why the totals are not being counted. [The problem is that it has not been explained all that adequately by the Maine Republican Party.]

How obvious? For that, let's glance back at the vote totals from the 2008 Maine Republican caucuses. [Here are the relevant localities isolated from the full dataset.] First of all, there is an equivalence issue here as the Maine Republican Party in 2008 reported total towns reporting and not the precincts reporting that Google, the AP and others are using in 2012. From the party's perspective, 95.95% (332 of 346) of all towns reported results in 2008. That denominator -- 346 towns -- is based on the number of towns that had announced caucuses.² FHQ does not know how much of an issue that is in the grand scheme of things in this case, but it is worth noting.

The towns yet to hold caucuses are in three counties -- Hancock, Kennebec and Washington. With the exception of Washington County -- where snowstorms postponed until February 18 caucuses that were originally scheduled for February 11 -- the sites within Hancock and Kennebec were previously scheduled outside of and after the window designated by the state party for holding caucuses. In other words, if there is a gripe about the certification of these results without certain areas, then the complaint about Washington County should be the loudest.

Still, combined, caucuses in those same areas -- if they had announced caucuses in 2008 -- only accounted for 148 total votes (out of 5431 votes statewide) four years ago.³ That's 2.7% of the total vote in 2008. More importantly, 113 of those 148 votes were in Washington County. Both totals are less than the margin by which Romney edge Paul last night in the straw poll.

Of course, as the Paul campaign pointed out last night, the straw poll is less important to them than the delegate count. Whether Paul is/was able to cobble together enough votes in the remaining precinct caucuses to pull ahead of Romney is not as important -- to the Paul campaign -- as is gobbling up delegate slots to the district/state conventions from not only those straw poll-excluded areas but statewide.

But back to the, uh, main questions: Were the Maine caucuses rigged as some are claiming? No. First of all, the Maine Republican Party did not go out of its way to single out these areas that will hold caucuses over the next two weeks to go later than everywhere else. The localities voluntarily opted for a time outside of that window, knowing that the state party planned to release straw poll numbers on February 11. Secondly, even if it was rigged, the state party could not have picked a collection of areas  less equipped to swing the election. Is it a problem that those areas will go later than the rest of the state? FHQ will leave that question to someone else. The bottom line is that Ron Paul could have won all the votes in those areas and still come up short in the straw poll. Now, having said that, the Paul campaign could certainly focus on dominating those caucuses over the next two weeks and gathering all the available district/state convention delegate slots.

--
¹ Eyeballing it, that looks like a small number, but the reality is that that 194 vote margin was enough to provide Mitt Romney with a fairly comfortable 3.5% victory in an election with 5585 votes cast. That is a level that would not trigger an automatic recount in a general election.

² One additional point of clarification needed here from the Maine Republican Party is whether towns with "announced" caucuses were states that held them on or before the February 1-3 window in which caucuses were held in 2008. If they were announced but perhaps after February 3, were they "announced" in the eyes of the party in the linked tabulation above? FHQ doesn't know. Whether there were any localities with caucuses after February 3 is also unknown.

³ Adjusting that 148 vote total from 2008 for the modest increase in turnout from 2008 to 2012 would only increase the total number of votes in these areas to 152 in 2012. Admittedly, that's a crude estimate, but it provides a decent baseline for comparison.


Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses

Idaho Bill Eliminating Presidential Primary Passes House

Don't Hold Your Breath: Caucus States Aren't Going Anywhere

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

Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)


Delegate breakdown (post-Maine caucuses):
Romney: 91 delegates (New Hampshire: 7, South Carolina: 2, Florida: 50, Nevada: 14, Automatic: 18)
Gingrich: 32 delegates (South Carolina: 23, Nevada: 6, Automatic: 3)
Paul: 8 delegates (New Hampshire: 3, Nevada: 5)
Santorum: 4 delegates (Nevada: 3, Automatic: 1)
Unbound: 126 delegates (Iowa: 25, Colorado: 33, Minnesota: 37, Maine: 21 Automatic: 8, Huntsman: 2)


--
As Maine goes, so goes the...

...well, so has gone New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada thus far anyway. The Maine Republican Party revealed Saturday night that Mitt Romney had won its caucuses. Now, it should be noted that there are several caucus meetings that have yet to occur and will be held between now and March 3, but as Maine Republican Party Executive Director Mike Quatrano informed FHQ a couple of weeks ago, only the caucuses held on or before February 11 would be included in the straw poll results. It was the party's opinion that the 502 (of 600) precincts reporting up to February 11 would be a reflection of the Pine Tree state's Republican caucusgoers as a whole.

Whether it accomplishes that goal or not, Romney emerges with a win that coupled with a straw poll win at CPAC helps to change the narrative around the race following the Santorum sweep of February 7 contests. The other side of this is that Ron Paul, a close runner-up, has made a push to collect as many county convention delegate slots as possible. To this point, that is the one unanswered question to could determine the outcome of the selection of delegates from Maine. All 24 delegates go to the Tampa convention unbound, but that doesn't mean they don't have a presidential preference in tow. Of course, Romney has already claimed the endorsements of two of the Maine automatic delegates and the Paul campaign may further focus on the remaining caucuses in the state as a means of solidifying either its total number of county convention delegates or its lead in county convention delegates. [Again, we don't have a full set of information on the latter, but the possibility is worth noting.]

Where does that leave the total overall delegate count?

Ah, yes. It's time for FHQ's post-contest crankiness over the various projections of delegates coming off of yet another non-binding caucus, a total process from which unbound delegates will be selected to attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Look, I can appreciate the need to report some delegate count, but the simple truth of the matter is that while Maine delegates or Colorado delegates may have a particular preference for one candidate or another, we have no idea how many of which candidate's supporters moved through to the next step of the caucus process. None or at least only anecdotal evidence. What that evidence does not seem to suggest, however, is that the count is proportional.

...as it is being projected in WAY too many places.

The saving grace in all of this is that a flood of upcoming primaries will begin to render the discrepancies across various delegate counts less significant. Most of the primaries on the Republican side are binding in a way that these past several caucuses -- with the exception of Nevada -- have not been. As the delegate totals overall grow, the differences based on the falsely projected proportional allocation of non-binding caucus state delegates will have less and less influence.

...at least that is what I keep telling myself.

No candidate padded his total after Maine, but Paul seemingly picked up the support of one automatic delegate from Iowa with the election of one of the Texas congressman's co-chairs in Iowa as chairman of the Republican Party in the Hawkeye state. However, Chairman Spiker, upon that election resigned his post with the Paul campaign and stated that he would support whomever the national party nominee is. As a result, the totals from following the Colorado/Minnesota/Missouri troika of contests remains unchanged. The unbound category, though, increases by 22 (Maine) delegates.

Maine Results:

Recent Posts:

Idaho Bill Eliminating Presidential Primary Passes House

Don't Hold Your Breath: Caucus States Aren't Going Anywhere

Race to 1144: Santorum Tuesday (Colorado, Minnesota & Missouri*)

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

Idaho Bill Eliminating Presidential Primary Passes House

The less extensive of two presidential primary bills passed the Idaho state House on Wednesday, February 8. H 391 found broad support in the chamber passing by a 56-12 margin. Both bills would eliminate the presidential primary line from the Gem state primary ballot, and that is the sole intent of H 391. The sister legislation (H 392) would also strike the presidential preference line from the primary ballot but would shift the remaining primaries for state and local office from May to August.

Idaho Democrats have traditionally held early caucuses in lieu of the state-funded primary in May. For the 2012 cycle, Idaho Republicans followed suit, abandoning the May presidential primary for a March caucus. With neither party utilizing the May primary as a means of allocating/binding delegates to the national conventions, the presidential primary option on the May ballot became unnecessary. That the Republican-controlled legislature is seemingly willing to eliminate the presidential primary signals something of a longer term commitment to the caucus process instead of a primary.

[NOTE: I'll try hard not to mention the fact that this would fly right in the face of supposed reforms. Oops.]

Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing the news along to FHQ.

Recent Posts:

Don't Hold Your Breath: Caucus States Aren't Going Anywhere

Race to 1144: Santorum Tuesday (Colorado, Minnesota & Missouri*)

Northern Marianas Republicans Set for March 10 Convention

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

Don't Hold Your Breath: Caucus States Aren't Going Anywhere

Subtitle: The post in which FHQ takes out its scalpel and carves up a story overstating the likelihood of reform. I do not agree with Reid Wilson's piece up at the National Journal today.

...and there is a lot with which to disagree. What that article needs most, however, is context.

Look, FHQ doesn't have a dog in this fight. Unlike many others (mainly in the punditry), I don't engage in the normative arguments about the plusses and minuses of caucuses versus primaries. The simple fact of the matter is that it is up to the parties to decide. And throughout the post-reform era (1972-present), the national parties have deferred to the state parties on this issue of which mode of delegate allocation to utilize. The intention of the McGovern-Fraser reforms that took effect on the Democratic side in 1972 was actually to create more caucuses; to allow some participation of rank-and-file members of the party as a means of growing the party up from the grassroots. But state-level convenience overrode that unwritten intention. In reaction to the DNC's new mandate -- about binding delegates -- most states simply added presidential preference votes to their preexisting primary elections (assuming they fell roughly between a March-June window). Other states either immediately created separate presidential primary elections or gradually added them over time. It was the creation of those separate contests and in some cases the switch over from state party-funded caucuses to state-funded primaries also that most caused the frontloading of presidential nomination contests in the period between 1980-2008. [And don't hold your breath that that is over just because of what happened in the lead up to 2012.]

The point is that caucuses have largely disappeared as a part of that process. Yet, some states continue to use that mode of delegate allocation. And, again, that is something with which the national parties have been more than glad to go along. One of the pieces of political science research that FHQ cites most frequently on this front is the Meinke et al (2006) piece that makes quite clear the reason that some state parties prefer a caucus to a primary: It allows the state party more control over the process. The basic finding is that states where there is a lack of ideological convergence between the state party and the rank-and-file members of the party in the state are states where a closed caucus system is most often found (...closed primaries, too).

Now, again, pin whatever normative argument you please to that, but that is the way that it has been and the national parties have been fine with that. It would be completely out of character for the RNC to begin dictating to states what they can and can't do in terms of delegate allocation. The party has put in place some minimal restrictions on timing of primaries and caucuses over the years. It added rules that minimally changed the method of delegate allocation for 2012 -- curbing winner-take-all contests prior to April 1. And while FHQ has long argued that that latter change was a big step for the RNC, the change is not nearly as big as most have thought. Very plainly, the RNC is mostly hands off when it comes to this stuff.

The DNC, on the other hand, is not. The Democratic Party routinely tweaks its delegate selection rules from cycle to cycle and has over the years switched from a hands off entity on delegate selection to more hands on. The party since the 1980s, for instance, has required the proportional allocation of delegates to its national convention based either on a primary or the first step of a caucus/convention process.  During the intervening period between the 2008 and 2012 cycles, both the Democratic Change Commission and then the Rules and Bylaws Committee, acting on the former's recommendations, looked into the caucus process in the wake of the benefits the Obama campaign reaped from the caucus process during the 2008 Democratic nomination race. And result was not to tear down the caucus process. Instead, the result was to honor "the spirit of caucuses as an institution and an in-person party building tool." The commission recommended developing a set of "best practices" for caucuses with the goal of making the caucus process more uniform across states. [It should be noted that those recommendations led to no noticeable changes to the DNC delegate selection rules in 2012 relative to 2008.]

FHQ doesn't know what will happen specifically with Iowa and Nevada on the Republican side in the future, but there likely won't be anything more that emerges from the 2016 rules than a set of best practices for caucus states generally from either party.¹ Those best practices may include some way of dealing with the vote counting issue. [Is it just FHQ or is anyone else of the opinion that the length of the count in Nevada was a direct response to the counting issues in Iowa? Knowing the process was messed up in 2008, the Nevada Republican Party erred on the side of caution and made sure they had the count right. Of course, that doesn't explain the closed door policy surrounding the count, but that's a different issue.] As I have said repeatedly -- and perhaps you've ascertained as much by now as well -- this quadrennial dance whereby the national parties set rules and states and state parties respond is a messy one.  Each of those entities -- national parties, state parties and states -- has a vested interest in the process, and getting them all on the same page across 50 states and additional territories is no small task.   Iowa and New Hampshire and a handful of other states realize this and have exploited the extant tensions between various combinations of those groups to maintain or force their way into privileged positions on the calendar. Iowa's parties band together. Nevada's don't. And that may be the downfall latter's Republicans if they can't stand up for their position or demonstrate that there will be changes in place for future cycles.

Regular readers will know that FHQ is extremely skeptical of any broad, sweeping reform to the presidential nomination system. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight. Change or no change, it provides me with a research agenda either way. But the above reasons are why it is unlikely. What we are likely to see -- or should logically see perhaps -- is the parties go one step beyond the informal coordination they had in formulating a calendar and basic rules for 2012 and coordinate uniform penalties across the parties for states in violation of the rules. Otherwise the state parties and states will continue to pit the national parties against each other to game the system. Regardless, none of the changes are going to come anywhere close to ending the presence of caucuses in the process.

--
Some other items in Wilson's piece that need some response:
1) "Thanks to movements inside both the Republican and Democratic national committees, 2012 may mark the end of this presidential nominating system."

Movements? What movements? Are there people in both parties that would like to see a change to the system? Yes. Is there a consensus on doing anything or in terms of what to do? No. Are we close to that? Well, the RNC passed the Ohio plan in 2008 which would have fundamentally rewritten the presidential nomination process, but it was quashed at the St. Paul convention and was never really a seriously discussed alternative at the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee meetings that recommended changes to the Republican Party's delegate selection rules. 

2) "The sticks established in 2010—namely, halving a state’s convention delegation and giving them lousy hotel rooms—weren’t enough."

The sticks on the Republican side were not enough. But it bears repeating that the Democrats, both in 2008 and now in 2012, have a penalty in place to strip any candidate of their delegates from any state in violation of the party's rules if the candidate campaigns in that violating state. The rationale: Penalties keep the candidates away and in the process keeps the media away. States that desire an early slot want that attention. If said attention is not forthcoming, the motivation to move up is removed. In isolation -- used by only one party as the Democrats found out in 2008 with Florida and Michigan -- that is perhaps an ineffective tool; particularly if Republicans control the strings that set the date of a primary or caucus in a state. However, across both parties -- with both enforcing it -- that is likely a fairly adequate deterrent. 

3) "Because Iowa and Nevada don’t actually allocate delegates until much later, they thrive only on media attention."

Wilson also raises the notion of delegates being allocated at district and state conventions in caucus states, and that the precinct vote is nothing but a straw poll. True. Nevada is an exception and that is not made clear in his piece. The allocation and binding of the Nevada Republican delegates is based on the proportion of the vote each candidate received in the caucuses on February 4.

And while we're on the subject, it should be noted that all states allocate their delegates "later". Yes, even in primary states where there is a parallel process whereby delegates are selected. That allocation, however, is binding based on the results of the primary or caucus (in the case of Nevada.) 

4) "Reform is coming soon..."

Perhaps, but don't hold your breath that it will fundamentally change the current system. The national parties are plenty satisfied to incrementally chip away at reform whenever it becomes necessary.

--
¹ I don't know what will happen but I have my doubts that either -- Iowa or Nevada -- is going anywhere.

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: Santorum Tuesday (Colorado, Minnesota & Missouri*)

Northern Marianas Republicans Set for March 10 Convention

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Missouri

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