On the Binding of Missouri Republican Delegates

Over the weekend, FHQ had a few thoughts on the apparent binding of county-level delegates to the Republican congressional district and state conventions in Missouri. But that elicited one very interesting question from an anonymous reader/commenter:

"Does the RNC rule [15.b.1] prevent the State Convention to bind National Convention delegates to the results of the February primary?"

FHQ will put on its RNC thinking cap for this one. The easy answer is, well yeah, any attempt by Missouri Republicans to bind delegates to the national convention based on the results of the non-binding February 7 primary would open the Show Me state delegation to penalties from the RNC. But the key to this is that there is a discrepancy between that answer -- a rules-based answer -- and the question above.

The RNC rule only refers to the binding of national convention delegates; not state (or congressional district) delegates. There is nothing in the rules -- whether RNC rules or Missouri Republican Party rules -- about the binding of state or congressional district delegates based on the results of the February primary.  Now, of course, this would mean -- if every delegate to the state or congressional district convention was bound according to the results of the primary -- that the Missouri delegates to the national convention would be bound based on what would be a non-compliant contest.

...but only indirectly.

The entire Missouri delegation to the national convention in Tampa -- all 52 delegates -- is bound, but bound based on the decisions made at the state convention or the congressional district conventions; not the February primary. Now sure, logically, if the state and/or congressional district delegates are bound at the county-level caucuses based on the results of the primary, then any decision those bound delegates make during subsequent steps of the caucus/convention process is also bound based on the results of a non-compliant (too early) primary.

...but, again, only indirectly.

FHQ gets it. That is a bit of a cop out. But honestly, I think that is how this particular situation would be interpreted by the RNC. The catch here is that it isn't likely to be all that problematic anyway. Notice that I added that italicized "every" to the sentence about bound state/congressional district Missouri delegates above. From the look of it, the Santorum folks telegraphed their binding strategy during the Thursday night caucus in Brunswick County. Campaigns', and more importantly campaigns' strategic, decisions are not made in a vacuum. And that fact appears to have been highlighted by the reality that during the Saturday round of caucuses across Missouri (the day with the largest number of county-level meetings), Romney and Paul supporters prevented or attempted to prevent the passage of similar binding rules that would benefit the Santorum campaign.

What we are left with, then, is the potential for some delegates from the Missouri delegation to be indirectly bound according to the results of the non-binding -- and what would be a non-compliant -- primary. The RNC rules don't really address that, and unless a challenge to a handful of delegates is all that consequential within the context of this race, it probably isn't going to matter all that much.

But as always, there is a chance. It isn't impossible; just very, very improbable.


Recent Posts:
Disputed Wyoming County Delegate Awarded to Romney

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Illinois

Race to 1144: Southern Tuesday/Puerto Rico

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

Disputed Wyoming County Delegate Awarded to Romney

The Park County (WY) Republican Party Executive Committee voted on Monday night allocate its previously disputed delegate -- one Rick Santorum had won on a third ballot -- to Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has won the second ballot vote at the county convention, but that vote was contested leading to a third vote. In a release tonight, the Park County Republican Party described why the third vote should not have taken place and the second vote should have ended the proceedings:

Release from the Park County Republican Party Executive Committee Tonight, the Park County Republican Executive Committee in an unanimous decision determined that Mr. Charles Cloud was the rightful winner of the Park County Convention RNC delegate election. Accordingly, the County Chairwoman, Geri Hockhalter, has transmitted to the Chair of the Wyoming State Republican Party notification that Mr. Cloud is the elected RNC delegate from Park County, Wyoming.

Mr. Cloud won a majority vote on the second round of balloting at the Park County Convention. The motion to cancel his election and proceed to a third round of balloting did not pass by the required 2/3 vote. Accordingly, the third round of balloting should not have taken place and was invalid.-
Park County National Delegate awarded to Romney.
Mr. Cloud won a majority vote on the second round of balloting at the Park County Convention. The motion to cancel his election and proceed to a third round of balloting did not pass by the required 2/3 vote. Accordingly, the third round of balloting should not have taken place and was invalid.-Park County National Delegate awarded to Romney.

That brings the Romney total in Wyoming up to 8 (plus an automatic delegate) and takes the Santorum total in the Equality state down to 2.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Illinois

Race to 1144: Southern Tuesday/Puerto Rico

About that RNC Delegate Count, Part Two

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Illinois

This is the twenty-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.


ILLINOIS

Since Cokie Roberts was on Morning Edition this morning hyping the impact of the new "proportional" rules in tomorrow's Illinois Republican primary, FHQ is of the opinion that it is incumbent upon us to, well, at the very least, lead from behind in setting the record straight.

The rules in the Illinois primary tomorrow are exactly the same as they were in the Land of Lincoln four years ago. There is no change. The Illinois Republican Party had a fairly animated internal discussion between Romney and Perry factions [Yes, that Perry.] within the party back in late August and early September 2011. Those discussions also involved significant input from the Paul campaign and its supporters from outside. But at the end of it all, the party stuck with the delegate selection plan that it has employed throughout the post-reform era.

And for the record, that plan has never been proportional or winner-take-all. Illinois has a loophole primary.

A loophole primary is not unlike the array of state-level rules for Republican delegate allocation this cycle in that the ultimate allocation is not quite proportional and not quite winner-take-all. Winners of loophole primaries have historically not necessarily taken all of a state's delegates from a victory, but more than their share of the vote would otherwise indicate. Jimmy Carter, for instance, exploited loophole primaries in 1976 on his way to the Democratic nomination.² The loophole primary takes its name from the fact that such rules allowed states to skirt the Democratic Party ban on winner-take-all allocation, and while not entirely winner-take-all, the results were not that far removed such an allocation in most cases.

Loophole primary bans came to the Democratic Party rules in the 1980s, but were never restricted on the Republican side. And though the Republican Party allowed loophole rules, a decreasing number of states over time actually utilized them. The two mainstays are Illinois and Pennsylvania, but West Virginia Republicans have also adopted, in part, some elements of a loophole allocation in its primary for 2012.

The loophole primary is one that is not quite proportional and not quite winner-take-all, but how are the rules constructed to allow for this winner-take-more/most allocation?

Illinois delegate breakdown:

• 69 total (unbound) delegates
• 12 at-large delegates
• 54 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

Re-read that. All 69 delegates are unbound heading into the convention. While that is technically true, it is also a bit misleading. Tomorrow night those reporting the results will go out of their way to tell us who is winning the presidential preference vote. The only problem is that that vote is completely meaningless. That vote for Gingrich or Paul or Romney or Santorum will mean nothing to the ultimate allocation of delegates. That has something to do with the fact all of the delegates will ultimately be unbound, but that does not provide a full picture of the situation.

The only vote(s) that will matter in Illinois tomorrow -- at least in terms of delegate allocation -- are the votes for delegates. Primary voters will be voting for delegates directly on the ballot; for two to four congressional district slots (depending on which congressional district). Those voters will have the advantage of knowing which candidates the delegates support or if they are uncommitted. That information appears on the ballot. Now, one would think that perhaps this would in practice end up close to proportional. Often, however, it depends on who the delegates are. For instance, John McCain four years ago counted among his filed Illinois delegates former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. Known political names -- whether national or locally -- like that have a way of attracting voters' attention. That is a function of organization. McCain, like Jimmy Carter in Texas in 1976, was able to parlay a plurality win in Illinois (47%) on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008) into a nearly 95% share of the delegates. He won in the primary vote 54 of the available 57 congressional district delegate slots. Mitt Romney won the remaining three delegates.

That sort of process will play out across the 18 Illinois congressional districts in tomorrow's primary.³ And though the Illinois Republican Party -- or more accurately the RNC -- will consider those delegates unbound, due to the fact that they were filed by or for the campaigns, those delegates are set in their preferences. However, that amounts to nothing more than a pledge. Loyalty oaths are not required and those delegates could change their minds if they so chose.

As for the 12 at-large delegates, those will be chosen at the state convention, but will also remain unbound. The same goes for the three automatic delegates.

The main thing is that you can treat the topline presidential preference vote in Illinois tomorrow either like a caucus state straw poll or a semi-official poll of the primary electorate. Other than that, it is meaningless. To adequately track the results look down the ballot to where the delegates are being selected. Who among those folks are making it through and more importantly whom do they support? That will tell you what you need to know for Wednesday morning.

And no, Illinois isn't proportional, Cokie. Not now, not in the past and likely not in the future. The Republican delegate selection rules have no impact on Republicans in the Land of Lincoln.

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

² As Elaine Kamarck explains about the 1976 Texas primary, Carter was able to win 94% of the delegates in the Lone Star state with just over 47% of the vote. Again, it isn't quite winner-take-all but it certainly isn't proportional; something for which many within the Democratic Party at the time were striving.

³ It should be noted that Rick Santorum was short of the required number of signatures for 12 delegates across 10 congressional districts in Illinois. That is over 20% of the total number of congressional district delegates at stake for which the former Pennsylvania senator will not be eligible.


Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Southern Tuesday/Puerto Rico

About that RNC Delegate Count, Part Two

A Few Thoughts on the Missouri Caucuses

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

Race to 1144: Southern Tuesday/Puerto Rico

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

Delegate breakdown (post-Southern Tuesday, Puerto Rico):


Notes:
1) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich two additional delegates (which have been taken from Romney's total).

2) The Alabama primary results by congressional district have not been released by the Alabama Republican Party. The allocation above is based on the RNC interpretation of the allocation.

3)  Iowa Republican Party Chairman Spiker was a part of the Paul campaign in Iowa and resigned his position upon taking up the post of party chair. While he has expressed his intent to side with whomever the Republican nominee will be, Spiker has not also directly signaled any neutrality in the race. The door is open for his support of Paul at a potential contested convention. While FHQ includes Spiker in Paul's delegate total, it is necessary to make note of the possible future subtraction of one delegate that would bring the Texas congressman's total to 26.


Recent Posts:
About that RNC Delegate Count, Part Two

A Few Thoughts on the Missouri Caucuses

Unbound vs. Unpledged Delegates

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

About that RNC Delegate Count, Part Two

Look, FHQ does not want to do this every time the RNC releases an updated delegate count, but to the extent there are discrepancies between the released count and the intent of the delegate allocation rules on the state level, that needs to be discussed. To wit:

• Georgia: You will remember from part one the discussion of the delegate allocation from Georgia. The vote totals have been updated on the Georgia Secretary of State website as of March 14 -- this past Wednesday -- and given those numbers both statewide and throughout each of the congressional districts, the GAGOP rules-based allocation does not jibe with the RNC count. That count, unchanged since the RNC's post-Super Tuesday delegate count press release, shows Gingrich with a 52 to 21 advantage with Santorum netting three delegates. However, the Georgia election results, as most currently updated, still show a 54 to 19 Gingrich lead over Romney with Santorum still pulling in three delegates. 
• Alabama & Tennessee: The Tennessee Republican Party has still not released the primary results by congressional district and the Alabama results by congressional district released by the state party reflect only the election of delegates (which was done directly on the primary ballot) and not the allocation of delegates. That is to say, we are not privy to the topline presidential preference vote by congressional district; the one that determines the allocation of delegates. And lest you say, "Well, shouldn't the delegate election reflect what we see in those presidential preference numbers?", it should be noted that Santorum did not file a full slate of delegates to appear on the ballot in Alabama. No one is talking about Santorum potentially losing delegates over this. And that is because he isn't. Despite not having delegates on the ballot, Santorum still has slots allocated to him based on his performance in the presidential preference vote. The short of all of this on both Alabama and Tennessee is that for the time being we will have to take the RNC's word for it on the delegate allocation there. Without the results by congressional district, there is little chance of accurately checking the math in either state. 
• Hawaii: First, the RNC delegate count for Hawaii is correct, but it is worthwhile to look at why it is right. Now, as an astute reader pointed out to FHQ, the rounding discussed in our rundown of the delegate allocation in the Aloha state, applied to not only the statewide vote, but the congressional district vote as well. That allowed Romney to round up to two delegates in each of the two Hawaii congressional districts. With the former Massachusetts governor's five delegates statewide, that made nine total delegates. Based on the rules used by the Hawaii Republican Party, any fractional delegate is rounded up and the allocation is handled in descending order from the top vote-getter all the way down to the candidate with the least number of votes. The congressional district allocation is easy enough. Romney was allocated two delegates and Santorum one in both congressional districts. Statewide, Romney's 44% of the vote granted him 4.84 delegates (5), Santorum's 25% netted him 2.75 delegates (3) and Ron Paul's 19% awarded him 2.09 delegates (3). That allocated all 11 at-large delegates and Newt Gingrich's vote total was not considered even though his 11% of the vote would have -- under a different set of rules -- one delegate. But, rules are rules, and the delegate allocation in Hawaii shuts Gingrich out of delegates. 

Again, we aren't talking about much of a difference here, but accuracy is accuracy:

Romney: 433 (-2)
Santorum: 173
Gingrich: 138 (+2)
Paul: 27
Unbound: 240

Recent Posts:
A Few Thoughts on the Missouri Caucuses

Unbound vs. Unpledged Delegates

On the State of the Republican Nomination Race, Post-AL/MS

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

A Few Thoughts on the Missouri Caucuses

• Rules
• Not a one day caucus: The March 17 caucus date was not one that was universally adopted statewide throughout Missouri. Caucusing began as early as March 13 and will continue until March 24.
• Rules, part two: Jeff Zeleny had a nice piece of reporting in the New York Times yesterday; pointing out that at least one county caucus had adopted an internal rule to bind all of their delegates -- the ones moving on to the next steps of the process -- based on the results of the non-binding primary held in the Show Me state on February 7. That adds a new layer to the process in Missouri.

--
Now, FHQ has dealt with the subtleties of a multi-day caucus before, but this new wrinkle of binding delegates moving from one step to the next is something that warrants some attention.¹ First of all, this is an opportunity for Santorum to potentially show some organizational prowess or to at the very least demonstrate that he and his campaign can marshall such an effort. Secondly, this is a shrewd procedural maneuver, whether orchestrated by the Santorum campaign or by forces outside of his campaign passionate about throwing up any and every roadblock to Romney getting to 1144. And honestly, there is nothing in the Missouri Republican Party rules for delegate selection to prevent this. It is a procedural move well within the guidelines of the Robert's Rules for Order. These rules govern not only the Missouri caucuses, but many of the other caucuses as well. There is nothing to prevent someone at a meeting operating under these rules from proposing such a rule -- to bind the delegates -- and another from motioning to have it voted upon. 

And no, this isn't just in Missouri. As mentioned above, most of the other caucus states operate under the Robert's rules. That means that Missouri could be a trial run for similar actions elsewhere. So long as there is nothing in the state party rules on delegate selection specifically prohibiting the binding of delegates and that the vote passes on the rule passes, then there is no reason that this would not or could not happen in other caucus states. 

In truth, many of the caucus state to have held votes already produce unbound delegates at the end of the process. But that is a technicality in a couple of respects. First, if someone has a preexisting candidate preference already, being dubbed "unbound" is next to meaningless. It just means the delegate is free to choose (...the candidate they preferred in the first place). Secondly, since there could be some argument made that the system is supposed to create an unbound delegation, the binding of delegates could be challenged in house -- at the state convention. That could happen, but what the binding in Brunswick County, Missouri demonstrated was that there is a loophole that could be exploited within the caucus system. The Missouri delegation is bound in the end -- unlike, say, Iowa or Colorado -- but what the action Thursday night pointed out was that it is possible potentially to bind delegates at the earlier steps of the process without necessarily binding them at the end of the process. 

...even though, technically, those delegates would have a preference because of the binding filter they had been run through. 

If you, like FHQ, were wondering how Rick Santorum could be reasonably confident on Meet the Press last week that he and his campaign could pick off the majority of unbound delegates in some of these caucus states, then this likely sheds some light on the matter. Santorum had already done well in a great many of these caucuses, so his campaign already had something of an advantage, but this could open the door to procedural/organizational advantage that could aid the campaign in potentially overperforming his straw poll performances. That will take some organization and some ground troops anyway, but this type of procedural move requires only a majority of the voting caucus-goers to bind. 

The only problem is that once word gets out, other campaigns can do the same thing and or organize against such efforts. [UPDATE: It is also a less effective strategy if two other campaigns work together against this or any other effort within the caucuses. Think West Virginia 2008.]

Getting all the unbound delegates doesn't get Santorum to 1144, but it would help him close on Romney in the delegate count and prop him up at a contested convention; the only play they have at this point. This bears watching. 

--

¹ The basic take home is that multi-day events have the potential to expose one group of voters to an external political shock to which those who have already voted would not be exposed. In other words, there is not a constant political climate; it is ever-changing. The same has been said of early voting. 

Recent Posts:
Unbound vs. Unpledged Delegates

On the State of the Republican Nomination Race, Post-AL/MS

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Puerto Rico

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

Unbound vs. Unpledged Delegates

FHQ has recently received a fair number of requests from a variety folks to explain the subtle differences between unbound and unpledged delegates in the current Republican nomination race. The short answer is that the two distinctions are often one and the same. FHQ is fond of saying that the delegates emerging from most of the non-binding (straw poll) caucus states are unbound at the end of the process (post-state convention). Similarly, the majority of automatic delegates are unbound.

But some from each group are both unbound and unpledged.

What separates the two?

The first layer of this is to define an unbound delegate relative to a bound delegate. This is pretty easy. Either a delegate selected is bound according to the results of any given primary or caucus or they are not. Now, FHQ has gone into the variety of rules regarding how delegates can be bound, but let's shunt that to the side for this exercise. If a state or state party binds its delegates through a written or verbal oath, then that delegate is locked into a particular candidate through -- in most cases -- the first ballot at the convention based on the results of the primary or caucus.¹ Unbound delegates, though, are free to choose -- to pledge their support to -- any candidate they prefer.

The best examples to illustrate this are the automatic delegates. Those three RNC delegates that each state has are unbound according to the RNC rules unless the state party rules bind them. Most states leave the automatic delegates unbound, but some, like Georgia, for instance, bind the automatic delegates to, in their case, the winner of the statewide vote. For our purposes, let's focus on those automatic delegates who are left unbound based on the combination of national and state party rules. If any of those unbound delegates endorse a candidate -- as over 30 automatic delegates have done in endorsing Mitt Romney -- then they are pledging but not necessarily binding themselves to that candidate. There is nothing binding about the action, but the automatic delegate has come out in support of a particular candidate and, truth be told, can change his or her mind at any time before the convention vote(s).

That leaves us with a couple of possible categories of delegates:

1. Unbound, unpledged delegates: These are the automatic delegates who are not bound as described above and who have not endorsed a candidate. They don't have to be automatic delegates, but these are the only delegates who have qualified for this distinction at this time. The congressional district and at-large delegates in non-binding caucus states have yet to actually be selected yet. Their slots are, I suppose, unbound and unpledged if we are doing the proper accounting here, but the selected/elected delegates at the end of the process will only definitely come out of said process officially unbound, but not necessarily unpledged. There is a reason the Santorum strategy memo emphasized his ability to win over -- the pledges of -- unbound delegates.
2. Pledged, unbound delegates: These are the automatic delegates who are not bound as described above, but who have endorsed a candidate in the race for the Republican nomination. [See the above caveat on not-yet-selected delegates in non-binding caucus states.]

It is impossible for a delegate to be both bound and unpledged because a bound delegate is by the rules a pledged delegate.

...pledged whether they like or not.

That's why we hear so much about making it through that first ballot from the not-Romney campaigns. If no candidate has the 1144 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination at the convention on the first ballot then a great many of those bound delegates become unbound but not necessarily unpledged delegates.

--
¹ In some states the threshold for releasing delegates from the binding mechanism is greater than one ballot. The majority of states/state parties set the threshold at just one ballot though.


Recent Posts:
On the State of the Republican Nomination Race, Post-AL/MS

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Puerto Rico

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Hawaii

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

On the State of the Republican Nomination Race, Post-AL/MS

A few lingering thoughts from the aftermath of Tuesday night's/Wednesday morning's contests in Alabama, American Samoa, Hawaii and Mississippi:

1. Any day Santorum doesn't cut into Romney's delegate lead is an opportunity lost. 
2. Any day Romney doesn't grow his delegate lead is an opportunity lost.
3. Momentum is dead. ...until it isn't.
4. In-or-out Newt?

The story on Wednesday was the same story as the Wednesday following Super Tuesday. Delegates were on the line and no one cut into Mitt Romney's delegate advantage, but Romney also failed to break through once again in the South. FHQ has not pulled any punches in saying that Santorum has no mathematical shot at 1144 if the current dynamic in this race is extended through the rest of the race. None. But as I have also pointed out, that fact alone does not mean that Romney is a shoo in to get to a delegate majority himself.

I won't belabor the point in #1 above anymore as it is fairly obvious, but #2 deserves some attention.  Any series of contests that passes where Mitt Romney does not significantly increase his delegate lead -- inching closer to 1144 -- removes from the former Massachusetts governor another passel of delegates that a larger portion of which would serve as cushion for a solid frontrunner. Put another way, any time Romney is not hitting that seemingly magic number of 48% of the delegates, his campaign's job of getting him to the requisite number of delegates necessary to clinch the nomination gets slightly more difficult.

So, on Tuesday, Romney gained but he didn't gain. He added to his lead in the delegate count but did not necessarily help his chances of getting to the goal of 1144.

--
What we all witnessed Tuesday night was not momentum. There is no momentum in this race. Deep South voters did not exactly reject the notion of a Gingrich candidacy and they didn't exactly fully embrace Santorum (or Romney for that matter) either. The two candidates who would be expected to do well in the South did so well in the South. The presidential primary process in 2012 has progressed far enough now that we have a fair amount of data at our disposal. This is oversimplifying matters, but Mitt Romney is likely to do well in the west and in the northeast, Santorum has carved out a stronghold in the prairie states and stretching into the South and Newt Gingrich has been reduced to a niche southern candidate who is trying to play delegate spoiler.

No, Romney has still not answered the "Southern question" and he isn't likely to (at least not until maybe North Carolina at the earliest¹). But the take home here is that this is all rather predictable based on the regional alignment described above. We can kind of eyeball it and say that Santorum is likely to do well in Missouri and Louisiana later in March and that Maryland, DC, Delaware, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut are states where Mitt Romney would be expected to do well. And that is the way the race has been. The volatile "swings" have not been all that volatile. Heck, they haven't really been swings so much as the establishment of a pattern in this race. There will only be momentum in this race when and if someone wins, and probably wins consistently thereafter, on another candidate's turf.

--
If you read closely enough, you will have already noted that FHQ made no mention of either the Rust Belt or the midwest. That is because that is the only area where the predictable is not all that predictable. Santorum has come close twice now to beating Romney on Romney turf, but failed to break through in either Michigan or Ohio. Illinois (March 20), Wisconsin (April 3) and Pennsylvania (April 24) offer Santorum an opportunity to change that.²

What potentially shakes all of this up is the presence or absence of Newt Gingrich in the race. If Gingrich is not in the game in Michigan or Ohio, it is not a stretch to see the overall balance shifting toward Santorum in those states. [I know. The Santorum campaign has been making this claim for weeks.] And that could be an issue again in Illinois or Wisconsin, where something like a second conservative candidate not being on the ballot could benefit the other conservative candidate if that candidate (Santorum) is close again against Romney in the popular vote.

The Gingrich impact is more black and white in states that look to be close, but outside of the Rust Belt, the former speaker's influence is more nuanced. Does that help/hurt Romney or Santorum? Well, that all depends on what the delegate selection rules are on the state level. To the extent that Gingrich is able to clear the necessary threshold in the popular vote to qualify for delegates, he is likely to hurt Romney/help Santorum (by hurting Romney) by peeling off delegates in proportional states. But in the few remaining (strictly) winner-take-all states and the winner-take-all by congressional district states, Gingrich's presence is likely to help Romney/hurt Santorum. Coming in third over and over again does nothing for Gingrich in those states. It nets him no delegates. But coming in third siphons off votes and potentially delegates from Santorum, helping Romney to gain delegates at a healthier clip.

...if Romney is presumably the one in the lead in that three candidate scenario.

Now, if Gingrich is out of the race, it does not necessarily reverse those trends above, but may in some cases. If Gingrich is out then the proportional state delegates are allocated among just two candidates. That is a plus for Romney and Santorum. It gets Romney closer to 1144 and Santorum closer to Romney if he is the beneficiary of a consolidation of the conservative vote and thus the delegate winner. You can see this more in a state like North Carolina than in a state like Rhode Island though; both of which are strictly proportional. In the winner-take-all by congressional district states, Santorum is again potentially able to take advantage of that consolidation to win some or more districts in states like Maryland or Wisconsin, but while still facing the possibility of losing the statewide vote and the at-large delegates in the process. [The bonus there is that quite a few of these winner-take-all by congressional district states are fairly blue and thus have a limited number of at-large delegates. Losing them, then, is not a killer if you are Rick Santorum.]

--
The bottom line is that this race is clearer now. We know where the candidates' strengths are now and where the true battlegrounds lie. We know that to settle this even further is going to take candidates winning on the others' turf. [This is more necessary for Santorum/Gingrich than for Romney.] We know that, right now, the only strategy Santorum and Gingrich have -- absent the sort of "winning on the other guy's turf" shake up described above -- is to keep Romney under 1144, sending this to the convention. We know that "keep Romney under 1144" is a suitable strategy when the candidate promoting it is winning, but is bound to be much less effective if they are not (and by extension someone is moving toward 1144). We know that Missouri and Louisiana are good targets for Santorum. We know that much of April shapes up well for Mitt Romney. We know that absent any shake up Romney is on track to get not only the most delegates but to get at or around the 1144 mark.

What we don't know is if Santorum can break through on Romney's turf. Illinois would be a good place to start. Otherwise time is -- and delegates are -- running out.

--
¹ North Carolina represents the last best hope more than likely for Romney to break through and avoid being the only potential Republican nominee to have been swept in the South during the primaries.

² Yes, the homestate advantage Santorum has in Pennsylvania might offset -- or more than offset -- what might be a slight Romney advantage in a state like the Keystone state.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Puerto Rico

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Hawaii

About that Santorum Campaign Delegate Strategy Memo

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Puerto Rico

This is the twenty-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.


PUERTO RICO

This seems to be a running theme in the last few of these glances at state-level delegate allocation, but the RNC memo released in December gave the wrong impression of the delegate allocation in Puerto Rico. That document indicated that the Atlantic island US commonwealth would be allocating its delegates winner-take-all. Well, that set off a whole host of "But Puerto Rico is scheduled to hold its primary before April 1. How are they winner-take-all and not penalized?" questions.

The answer is simple: no violation, no penalty. Puerto Rico is conditionally winner-take-all/proportional.² Depending on whether a candidate receives a majority of the vote across the island in the primary, the winning candidate will receive either all of the island's at-large delegates or divide them proportionally with any other candidate receiving over 15% of the vote. If, then, a candidate wins a majority, he will be allocated all 20 at-large delegates. If not, then the allocation is proportional. Easy enough, right?

Puerto Rico delegate breakdown:

• 23 total delegates
• 20 at-large delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

The three automatic delegates are free to endorse or pledge to any candidate of their choice. Thus far, both Mitt Romney has claimed endorsements from two Puerto Rico automatic delegates and Newt Gingrich one each.

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

² Here is the relevant section of the Puerto Rico Republican Party delegate selection rules that FHQ has received on background:

• All twenty (20) delegates and twenty (20) alternate delegates from Puerto Rico are delegates at large.

• Each candidate for President shall be awarded at-large delegates from Puerto Rico authorized by the Republican National Committee proportionately, according to the ratio of votes they received to the total votes cast on an islandwide basis. Provided however, no delegates shall be awarded to any candidate for President receiving less than fifteen percent (15%) of the vote, and such votes shall be allocated among the other candidates in proportion to their total vote. If one candidate for President receives a majority (50%) of the total islandwide votes cast, then that candidate shall be awarded all at-large delegates from Puerto Rico.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Hawaii

About that Santorum Campaign Delegate Strategy Memo

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Mississippi

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Hawaii

This is the twenty-third 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.


HAWAII

Hawaii, like Mississippi, is another state where the RNC memo on state-by-state delegate allocation is somewhat misleading. At the very least, that December memo left several things unsaid while making it appear as if Hawaii was a state that allocates its delegates proportionally. The Aloha Republicans do use a proportional forumla, but with some caveats.

Hawaii delegate breakdown:

• 20 total delegates
• 11 at-large delegates
• 6 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

Right off the bat, FHQ should note a couple of things:

1. There is no conditionality to the allocation of the delegates in Hawaii. Even if one candidate receives a majority of the vote, the delegate allocation will remain proportional.
2. Though the RNC memo cited above indicates that there is a 15% threshold for receiving delegates, there is nothing in the Hawaii rules on delegate allocation signaling that that is in fact the case.² With the threshold the allocation looks a lot like Mississippi. Without the threshold, Hawaii looks like a cross between Mississippi (congressional district delegates) and Alaska (proportional caucus state with no threshold).  

At-large allocation: With the above notes in mind, the allocation of the 11 at-large delegates will either be proportional to all candidates or proportional to all candidates over 15% of the vote statewide. That distinction may make some differences but only at the margins and mostly only for any candidate(s) who does (do) not receive over 15% of the vote. Plus, all that we are really talking about here is 11 delegates divided up among two or three or four candidates. The key to remember here is that the allocation is done in descending order starting with the top vote-getter and moving down the line. In other words, the statewide winner will have his delegate total rounded up to the nearest whole number and so on until all of the delegates are allocated. For example (alphabetically) we could simulate the delegate allocation based on the following results (assuming no 15% threshold)³:

Vote Share:
Gingrich: 27%
Paul: 26%
Romney: 24%
Santorum: 23%

Delegates:
Gingrich: 2.97
Paul: 2.86
Romney: 2.64
Santorum: 2.53

This ends up being a nice, fictitious example because all of the candidates would theoretically round up to three delegates. But there are not 12 at-large delegates to allocate; only 11. Again, in descending order, then, Gingrich would round up to three delegates, then Paul would round up to three delegates, then Romney would round up to three delegates and Santorum would receive the final two delegates available. In that scenario, despite being above half a delegate, Santorum could not round up to the next highest number according to the Hawaii rules.

Congressional district allocation: As is the case in most states, there are three delegates apportioned to each of the two congressional districts in Hawaii. Those three delegates will be allocated proportionally as well. But recall that it is unclear whether there is a 15% threshold in place in Hawaii. That matters at the margins here because depending on how many candidates surpass that barrier, it may make the the difference between some candidate receiving delegates or not. [But it appears that there is no threshold. See note 3 below.] This means that unless a candidate receives a majority of the votes within a congressional district, then no one will receive over one delegate per congressional district. In other words, if no one is over 50% then the top three vote-getters will be allocated one delegate each. If a candidate is able to get a majority on the congressional district level, then their delegate total will round up to two delegates. But at the end of the day, all we're talking about are 6 delegates. No one is likely to take a huge margin out of these districts, much less the entire state, without a fairly broad victory.

Automatic delegate allocation: All three Hawaii automatic delegates are unbound and unaffected by tonight's results. They are all free to endorse or pledge to whichever candidate they choose.

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

² Hawaii Republican Party delegate selection rules (sections 214-216):
Hawaii Republican Party Rules-2011
³ A new RNC blog post out this afternoon seems to indicate that there is no 15% threshold for wither at-large or congressional district delegates.

Recent Posts:
About that Santorum Campaign Delegate Strategy Memo

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Mississippi

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Alabama

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