Santorum Has Rule #40 Problems, Too

The folks at NBC News have dug down into the 2008 Rules of the Republican Party -- the rules governing the 2012 presidential nomination process -- and have found that Rule #40 may stand in the way of Newt Gingrich having his named placed into nomination at the convention in Tampa this summer.

Here's the pertinent text of Rule 40.b:

Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

Read that closely. That isn't -- as the NBC piece emphasizes -- five wins. The rule states that a candidate is required to control pluralities of the delegates in at least five states. By that metric, as of now, Rick Santorum is not really out of the woods yet either. The former Pennsylvania senator has won nine contests -- ten if you count the non-binding Missouri primary -- but only half of those states have actually allocated delegates as of March 21, 2012. Further, Santorum only has clear delegate pluralities in three of those states: Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee. In Mississippi and Oklahoma, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are within a couple of automatic delegate endorsements of controlling a plurality of the delegation.

Now, more than likely one of a couple of scenarios is likely to play out. Either:

1. Santorum ends up winning the plurality of delegates in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri and North Dakota, controls those delegations and has no problems being nominated -- if it comes to that.
2. The delegate math will have become so impossible and the pressure from within the party will have grown so high that Santorum will exit the race and delegates in those non-binding/unbound caucus states will end up supporting the inevitable nominee (Romney) anyway, seeing that there will not be a contested convention. 

Rules, rules, rules...


Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Illinois Primary
Why Santorum's Delegate Math Isn't So Bad But the Explanation Is

On the Binding of Missouri Republican Delegates

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

Race to 1144: Illinois Primary

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

Delegate breakdown (post-Illinois):


Changes since Puerto Rico (3/18/12):
Romney: +44 delegates (Illinois: +42, Puerto Rico: +1, Wyoming: +1)
Santorum: +12 delegates (Illinois: +12, Alaska: +1, Wyoming: -1)
Gingrich: -1 delegate (Alaska: -1)


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. The same is true in Tennessee

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.

4) There are still three delegate races that have not been officially called in Illinois. Santorum leads for the final delegate in IL-18 and a split of the final two delegates in IL-16 between Romney and Santorum would result given returns available via AP as of 9:30am, Wednesday morning (3/21/12). Those delegates have been allocated above -- 42-12 for Romney -- but will be changed should the result reflect a different reality.


Recent Posts:
Why Santorum's Delegate Math Isn't So Bad But the Explanation Is

On the Binding of Missouri Republican Delegates

Disputed Wyoming County Delegate Awarded to Romney

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

Why Santorum's Delegate Math Isn't So Bad But the Explanation Is

The Santorum campaign held a twisting and turning conference call on the delegate math as the campaign sees it today. FHQ does not mean twisting and turning as in "twisting the math" so much as I mean seemingly making a rather easy argument more difficult than it needs to be. Here is the Santorum campaign delegate estimation:

Romney: 435
Santorum: 311
Gingrich: 158
Paul: 91

Forgive me Gingrich and Paul supporters, but FHQ will focus on how the Romney and Santorum numbers got to where they are in the Santorum estimation. Let's assume the baseline for the Romney number is his current allocation according to the FHQ (454 delegates¹). To get to 435, then, we would have to subtract the delegates that would be lost if Florida and Arizona were reallocated under proportional rules (-42 delegates -- -27 in Florida and -15 in Arizona) plus the Santorum campaign estimation of the how many delegates Romney has won in the congressional district conventions held thus far (+23 delegates, approximately) in non-binding/unbound caucus states.

The Santorum number is trickier and for similar reasons. We don't know the baseline number of delegates from which they are starting. FHQ has that number pegged at 172 (170 bound delegates plus 2 automatic delegates). That means that we have to find 139 additional delegates somewhere. 15 come from the reallocation of delegates from Florida and Arizona. That leaves us with a surplus of 124 delegates.

Now, the Santorum math is predicated on overperforming in the steps of the caucus/convention process beyond the precinct phase in the non-binding/unbound caucus states. In those states -- Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, Washington and North Dakota -- there are 230 delegates at stake.² One way of thinking about this is that Santorum would need to receive about 54% of those delegates for 124.

That may not be that far-fetched. If we take the AP delegate projections in these states -- a projection that is proportionally based with the exception of Minnesota -- then Santorum is already starting out with 85 delegates in those states. That would mean that to get to that magic 124 number, Santorum would either have to win 39 of the 49 delegates in Missouri or scale down that Missouri number and add in numbers that overperform Santorum's showings in the various precinct caucus straw polls. Again, it isn't all that far-fetched.

Of course, none of this comes problem-free. And what I mean by that is that this is all based on the perspective of the Santorum campaign. If they are adding in delegates as they come in from congressional district caucuses, then the above analysis can be thrown out the window. Their count, in that instance, would be a count and not a projection (outside of the whole Florida/Arizona thing). That implies that they have some room to grow -- to gain on Romney. If, however, they are using a combination of projection and counting as they go along, then the Santorum campaign has a lot less wiggle room. They are in essence already accounting for the discrepancy in the various delegate projections and the RNC delegate count. And that was a discrepancy driven by how various outlets ar dealing with the unbound caucus state delegates.

FHQ has pushed those delegates to the side in our models for the most part. Our estimates of future delegate allocation based on our 50% model get Romney over 1144 without those delegates.

...but with very few delegates to spare.

Basically, all of this delegate talk from the Santorum campaign amounts to nothing. Their plan may help them to gain a little on Romney, but doesn't really affect the bottom line that Romney is likely to get to 1144. Certainly, if Romney does not get to that majority threshold, then if things go according to the Santorum plan, the former Pennsylvania senator heads into a contested convention with a very slightly larger delegation (but one that would still need assistance from either or both of the Gingrich and Paul campaigns).

--
¹ That is 423 bound delegates and 31 pledged delegates. The alternative is to take the curious RNC view that the 12 automatic delegates from the territories (not counting Puerto Rico) are bound, which would in the Santorum calculation move the Romney number to 435, thus making the remaining 19 automatic delegates free agents that the Santorum campaign can attempt to woo. I think I just convinced myself that the latter is the Santorum view.

² That total does not include the three automatic delegates from each state.


Recent Posts:
On the Binding of Missouri Republican Delegates

Disputed Wyoming County Delegate Awarded to Romney

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Illinois

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

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.