2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nebraska

This is the thirty-seventh 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.


NEBRASKA

As if it wasn't bad enough that the Nebraska presidential primary is non-binding, now everyone other than Mitt Romney has stopped contesting the nomination in the remaining primary and caucus states yet to have voted. That makes the primary in the Cornhusker state even less consequential. It has been a while since the presidential nomination campaign saw its last non-binding contest with delegates not also directly on the same ballot. One has to go back to the North Dakota caucuses on Super Tuesday for the last non-binding contest. And typically that is the mark of the caucus state: an early start allows for the caucus/convention process to have culminated with national convention delegate selection in a timely enough manner prior to the start of the national convention. Nebraska is atypical in that regard. The process there begins with a May beauty contest presidential preference primary that has no role in the selection of delegates, continues with early June (June 1-10) county conventions where delegates are chosen to attend the July 14 state convention. It is from the pool of county convention delegates at the state convention that the at-large and congressional district delegates are chosen to go to, in this case, Tampa.

In other words, there is a reason that most are following the Nebraska senate nomination races as opposed to the presidential primary. Well, actually there are few reasons.

Nebraska delegate breakdown:

• 35 total delegates
• 23 at-large delegates
• 9 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation:
Again, don't look to the primary as to how the delegates in Nebraska will be allocated. The state convention is where all the delegate action will happen. In terms of the at-large delegates, Article VII, Section 3.b,d of the Nebraska Republican Party constitution covers the selection of at-large delegates.² Delegate candidates file with the party no more than ten business days following the primary and are selected at the state convention. State law binds delegate candidates to the presidential candidate to whom they are aligned as indicated on the filing form. [Filing as an uncommitted delegate candidate is also an option.] This is a soft binding mechanism as delegates selected to attend the national convention are to use their "best efforts" to support the candidate to whom they have pledged. "Best efforts" is undefined in the statute and there is no specified penalty for not observing the intent of the pledge on the filing form.

Congressional district allocation:
Nebraska state law calls for district conventions to be held for the purposes of selecting congressional district delegates -- among other business -- "immediately after the adjournment of the state postprimary convention". That will take place on July 14. Article VII, Section 3.c further defines the procedure, calling for the district delegate candidates, like the at-large candidates, to file no later than 10 business days after May primary.

Automatic delegate allocation:
Though the national committeeman and committeewoman are elected at the state convention in presidential years (Article IV, Section 1), neither assumes office until after the national convention in the same year. Nebraska Republican Party state chairmen are elected in odd years (Article IX, Section 4). All three automatic delegates from Nebraska are in place then and will not change hands prior to the Tampa convention. All three are unbound and free to endorse or vote for any Republican presidential nomination candidate of their preference.

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

² Relevant sections of the Nebraska Republican Party constitution related to delegate selection:
Article IV
Representatives on Republican National Committee
Section 1.  In each year when a President of the United States is to be elected, the State Convention shall elect a National Committeeman and a National Committeewoman to take office at the close of the succeeding National Convention.  The State Chairman shall certify the names of the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman so elected to the National Committee.


Article VII
Post-Primary Conventions
Section 3. National Convention Delegates
(a)  In each Presidential election year, delegates and alternates to the Republican National Convention shall be elected in the manner specified in this Section 3, as authorized by the Rules of the National Convention.


(b)  All National Convention delegates designated by the Rules of the National Convention as at-large delegates shall be elected at-large by the State Convention.  All National Convention alternate delegates designated as at-large alternates shall be elected at-large by the State Convention following the election of at-large National Convention delegates.


(c)  All National Convention delegates and alternates designated by the Rules of the National Convention as district delegates or district alternates, respectively, shall be elected by the caucus of delegates of that U.S. House of Representatives district at the State Convention in accordance with the Congressional district boundaries delineated under Nebraska State law.  Candidates for National Convention District delegate and District alternate delegate shall file for election in person or by mailing a notice of intent to the State Headquarters postmarked no later than the 10th business day after the state primary election.  Only persons elected and credentialed as delegates or alternates to the State Convention shall be qualified to be elected at the State Convention as District National Convention delegates or alternates. 


(d)  At-large candidates for National Convention delegate and alternate delegate shall file for election in person or by mailing a notice of intent to the State Headquarters postmarked no later than the 10th business day after the state primary election.  Only persons elected and credentialed as delegates or alternates to the State Convention shall be qualified to be elected at the State Convention as at-large National Convention delegates or alternates. 


(e)   All candidates for delegate and alternate at the State Convention shall designate the presidential candidate to whom they are committed or state that they are uncommitted, and shall be bound by such commitment if elected, all in accordance with Nebraska State Law.  Delegate and alternate candidates shall indicate their commitments by mailing a notice to State Headquarters, postmarked no later than five business days prior to the date registration for the State Convention commences.


Article IX
State Party Administration
Section 4.  ELECTION AND TERMS OF OFFICE.  The Chairman and Treasurer shall be elected by the State Central Committee at a meeting held no later than May 1 of each odd-numbered year.  The Vice Chairman, the Assistant Chairmen, the Secretary, the General Counsel and the Finance Chairman shall be appointed by the State Chairman with the approval of the Executive Committee as soon as practicable after the election of the State Chairman and shall take office immediately, subject to the approval of their appointments by the State Central Committee at its next meeting.  The term of office of the State Officers and members of the State Central Committee shall be approximately two years.  They shall serve until their successors have been elected.

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana


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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: West Virginia

This is the thirty-sixth 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.


WEST VIRGINIA

The story with West Virginia Republican delegate allocation is simple: see Illinois. Well, as FHQ hopes our readers will understand, it is never really as simple as that. Yes, in terms the allocation of congressional district delegates in the Mountain state, the plan is exactly like the method used in Illinois: a loophole primary. Primary voters cast ballots for congressional district delegates directly. And as was the case in Illinois -- unlike Pennsylvania -- those delegates' candidate affiliations are listed with the delegate candidates on the ballot. The twist in West Virginia is that, unlike Illinois, at-large delegates are also directly elected on the primary ballot.² With the exception of the automatic delegates, then, all of the delegates who will attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa will be selected in the primary election.

West Virginia delegate breakdown:

• 31 total delegates
• 19 at-large delegates
• 9 congressional district delegates 
• 3 automatic delegates

As FHQ has described in the past, loophole primaries -- even in instances when the delegates' candidate affiliations are listed on the ballot -- tend to favor the front-running and/or establishment candidate. That candidate is typically the one who is the most successful in enlisting the help of known political quantities in a state as delegates. And while that may be true in 2012 as well, this cycle and the candidate filings in West Virginia offer an interesting mathematical possibility. Now, to be sure, Mitt Romney did quite well in Pennsylvania by virtue of having locked in Pennsylvania Republican Party activists to delegate slots. As I said before Pennsylvania, Romney voters did not necessarily have cues other than name recognition that online-organized Paul voters had: a list of Paul-aligned delegates. That offered an interesting test case of name recognition versus organization and name recognition won over a small faction of organized Paul voters.

Similarly, there is an open door to Paul voters in Pennsylvania neighbor, West Virginia, as well. Romney will very likely have name recognition on his side in the Mountain state primary -- His name will be listed next to his delegates. -- but will more and potentially less disciplined Romney voters lose out mathematically to fewer Paul voters. Let me explain. The Romney campaign overfiled delegates in West Virginia. Instead of 19 at-large delegates, the Romney campaign filed 24. Instead of three delegates in each of the congressional districts, the Romney campaign filed at least seven. By contrast, the Paul campaign filed the bare minimum number of delegates in the state: three in each of the three congressional districts and 19 at-large delegates. All told, that means that Romney's likely greater number of total votes statewide and in each of the congressional districts will be split among a greater number of delegate slots. Voters are selecting delegates individually, not as candidate slates. That means that Romney voters may split their vote because the Romney campaign overfiled.

Paul voters, on the other hand, will not be diluting their voting power. If Ron Paul voters are voting for all of Paul's delegates and not for some of the uncommitted slots, then all of those Paul votes will go to all of Paul's delegates. They won't be split like the Romney vote.

The big question watching the West Virginia returns is whether there is enough of a split among Romney votes to allow Paul delegates to make up the likely differential between the two candidates statewide? We shall see.

[Hat tip to the anonymous commenters who asked about delegate vote dilution in the Question Time comments.]

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

² The at-large delegate slots in Illinois are chosen at the state convention.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana

Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada


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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: North Carolina

This is the thirty-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.



NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina delegate allocation is mostly uniform across both political parties. That is attributable to the fact that the matter is covered by the general statutes in the Tarheel state as opposed to being dictated by state party rules as in a great many other states. What that means is that there is little suspense as to how the 55 Republican delegates will be allocated to particular candidates. Little suspense. Let's look at the delegate breakdown and FHQ will explain what we mean by that.

North Carolina delegate breakdown:

• 55 total delegates
• 13 at-large delegates
• 39 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

As I said above, the North Carolina general statutes cover the method of allocation. Delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the vote in the presidential preference primary election. If Romney receives 60% of the vote, the former Massachusetts governor would be allocated approximately 60% of the delegate slots.² The question is: How many of those delegates will be proportionally allocated? The December RNC counsel memo indicated that the 52 non-automatic delegate slots are applicable -- bound -- but that the three automatic delegates remain unbound. However, the language of the North Carolina Republican Party rules leaves some doubt as to whether, in fact, that conclusion is accurate.³

Most of that doubt is a function of this line in the state party rules:

In order to comply with the rules of the National Republican Party and with the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically Section 163-213.8, immediately following the Presidential Preference Primary, the State Chairman, after consultation with the North Carolina Chairman for each Candidate receiving votes in the primary, shall allocate Delegate positions between the Candidates accurately reflecting the division of votes in the statewide primary, thereby requiring the election of the 3 Delegates and 3 Alternates 28 at the District Convention and the remaining Delegates at the State Convention, in such allocated numbers as to accurately reflect the results of the statewide primary

The use of the word remaining is similar to instances where state party rules in both Maryland and Wisconsin included the automatic delegates in the winner-take-all allocation in those states. In the North Carolina case, though, there is an out in the statute (Chapter 163, Section 213.8) that allows national party rules to take precedent over the statute should there be a conflict between the two. Yet, there does not appear to be a conflict here as the RNC rules leave the binding of delegates up to the state party, and the North Carolina Republican Party does not expressly indicate a specific binding mechanism for automatic delegates. Actually the NCGOP rules do not indicate that those three delegates are unbound. As such, the proper interpretation appears to be that those automatic delegates are included in the proportional allocation of the delegates by virtue of being included in the "remaining Delegates at the State Convention".

One additional note that should be made is that there is no vote threshold that a candidate has to meet in order to be eligible for delegates. A candidate only has to receive a share of the vote equal to or greater than percentage that would net said candidate at least half a delegate. In this case, 0.909%. In other words, 1% of the vote would make eligible a candidate for some share of the delegates. Both Gingrich, Santorum and a No Preference option are on the North Carolina ballot and may gain delegates. What becomes of the delegates -- the process for their release -- is not entirely clear, though all of the delegates with the exception of those committed to "No Preference" were McCain delegates in 2008.

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

² Those are bound delegate slots. Actual delegates have already been selected in congressional district meetings and will continue to be selected at the state convention. The at-large delegates and both the national committeeman and national committeewoman will be elected at the June state convention. The latter two positions will be elected in June and will begin serving immediately. The state chairman -- the final automatic delegate -- is elected at odd-year state conventions. There will be no turnover in that position at the upcoming convention.

³ North Carolina Republican Party rules (see Article VII-F):
2011 NCGOP Plan of Organization

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana

Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada

Question Time: How Much Leverage Does Ron Paul Still Have?


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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Indiana

This is the thirty-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.


INDIANA

It really is a shame that the competitive portion of the Republican presidential nomination race did not stretch into May and the Indiana primary. In a year in which unique state-level rules have been under the microscope, the Hoosier state offered not a unique variation of proportional or winner-take-all rules, but an uncommon combination of contest types and allocation rules.

Indiana delegate breakdown:

• 46 total delegates
• 16 at-large delegates
• 27 congressional district delegates
• 3 automatic delegates

At-large allocation:
The process of selecting/electing the 16 at-large delegates is perhaps what sets the Indiana Republican Party delegate allocation method apart from other similar methods the most. Like both Illinois and Pennsylvania, Indiana Republican voters will directly elect delegates. Unlike the two previous loophole primaries, these delegates are not delegates to the national convention but to the state convention. Those primary-elected state convention delegates will in turn elect the 16 at-large delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. The twist, if there is need for another one, is that, like Pennsylvania, Indiana Republicans will place a blind vote for state convention delegates. The candidate affiliation -- if there is one -- of each of the delegates is not listed on the ballot. As FHQ discussed during the description of the Pennsylvania process, this tends to favor the front-running or establishment candidate the most because they have typically been able to corner the market on well-known elected (or formerly elected) officials who voters have tended to gravitate towards in these instances. It should additionally be noted that these delegates will vote on the at-large delegate recommendations from the state committee -- most likely in the form of a slate of delegates rather than individually -- as opposed to directly electing delegates from among those chosen on the primary ballot (see Chapter 9, Section 30²).

Congressional district allocation:
The three delegates apportioned to each of Indiana's nine congressional districts will be allocated winner-take-all based on the primary vote within each congressional district. This is not entirely clear in the rules of the Indiana Republican Party (see Chapter 9, Section 29).² There is no explicit mention of winner-take-all allocation within the rules. However, the RNC has interpreted the allocation as winner-take-all based on the primary vote and the rules on the state level have not been altered between cycles (see Chapter 9, Section 31 (2010)) and also Chapter 9. Section 31 (2008)). The elections at the congressional district meetings will be based on the recommendations of the district congressional committees.

Automatic delegate allocation:
The Indiana Republican State Committee meets and chooses a national committeeman and committeewoman outside of the state convention but before the Republican National Convention (see Chapter 10, Sections 3-5). However, those selected for these posts do not assume office until after the national convention in Tampa. That means that the current national committeeman and committeewoman will serve alongside the Indiana Republican Party chair as automatic delegates to the convention. Furthermore, all three delegates are unbound and free to choose a candidate of their preference.

The bottom line with the Indiana Republican Party method of delegate allocation is that there are a fair number of party-level filters through which the process has to progress. All of the delegates are selected based on the recommendations of party committees. Now, does that preclude any parliamentary/procedural maneuvers at, say, a state or district convention to override the recommendations of the respective party committees? Yes. The rules provide for an undebateable and unamendable motion to accept those recommendations, but if the motion is defeated then the process goes to the floor.

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

² Indiana Republican Party Rules (see Chapter 9, Section 29 and Section 30):2012 Indiana Republican Party Rules3.9.12



Recent Posts:
Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada

Question Time: How Much Leverage Does Ron Paul Still Have?

Question Time: What Happens to Santorum's Delegates?


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

Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada

Why is it that it often appears as if the political parties in Nevada are on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory concerning the matter of national convention delegate selection?

It mostly has to do with the scrutiny attendant to having the state's caucuses thrust into the early, pre-window portion of the presidential primary for 2008. Hillary Clinton brought suit against casino caucuses, won the 2008 Nevada Democratic caucuses anyway, but due to the construction of the state party delegate selection rules lost out in the delegate count to then-Senator Barack Obama.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney won the 2008 Nevada Republican caucuses while almost every other campaign was focused on the South Carolina primary on the same day. The January caucuses were on the up and up, but that a candidate overwhelmingly won them and then withdrew from the race ultimately had the effect of throwing subsequent steps in the delegate selection process into chaos. The void created allowed Ron Paul supporters -- and leftover Romney supporters aligned with them -- to overtake the process, leading to the cancelation of the state convention and later selection of national convention delegates by the Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee.

In each case, the legitimacy of the overall processes was called into question by at least some faction within each party. And by all indications the Nevada Republican Party may be heading down that very same road -- but for slightly different reasons -- in 2012.

FHQ was less concerned than most in February with the molasses-slow count of just less than 35,000 precinct caucus votes on February 4,¹ but it looks like that may have been an omen of things to come. If that wasn't, then the Paul efforts to overrun the special -- and later-than-the-rest caucus -- set up for Jewish caucusgoers observing the Sabbath should have served as a signal. Of course, unlike the 2008 experience, the Nevada Republican Party had at least laid the groundwork for a more orderly process in 2012 by making the vote in the precinct caucuses binding on the ultimate allocation of delegates. The winner of the caucuses, also unlike 2008, stayed in the race. Undeterred by either of those changes, however, Paul supporters pressed on; striving to -- like 2008 -- win as many delegate slots to the county and state conventions as possible.

And that has the Nevada Republican delegate selection process at a crossroads heading into the state convention this coming weekend. On the one hand, Paul forces are well-positioned to affect a repeat of the 2008 state convention (...albeit, the campaign would hope without the cancelation and selection of delegates by the state central committee). But on the other hand, the Republican National Committee Legal Counsel's Office has intervened,²  threatening the state party with just that: ensure that the delegate selection rules laid out carry the day or run the risk of a challenge to the delegation at the national convention in Tampa.

In sum, this is a recipe -- a match and a canister of gasoline -- for an interesting state convention. The first test case of this will occur early on Saturday (10:30a-12:15p) at the state convention when there is a vote scheduled to adopt the proposed rules. If onlookers are attempted to game where the potential points of derailment are, this is the first. Recall that the RNC legal counsel pointed out that it would find any attempt to alter any of the rules "improper". But it is just that sort of thing that the faction of Paul delegates at the state conventions to be held thus far have attempted.

Overall, both sides, I would argue, have pretty good arguments no matter how this progresses, but arguments not without flaws.

The RNC is making the case that rules are in place and that the delegate selection and allocation should reflect those guidelines. The proportional allocation of the state's 28 delegates, in the RNC's view, should allot Romney 20 and Paul the remaining 8.³ Of course, the reallocation of delegate positions bound to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum is potentially premature. Both candidates have suspended their campaigns but the Nevada Republican Party rules call for a withdrawal from the race for delegates to be released. That is debatable, but the RNC seems to be assuming a withdrawal nonetheless. The key on this point is if there are any Santorum or Gingrich delegates at the state convention who are willing to fight for those spots. Additionally, it should be noted that the withdrawal scenario described in the rules fits in a different window of time: a withdrawal after the state convention but before the national convention. There is seemingly no pre-state convention withdrawal scenario accounted for in the NVGOP rules.

Expect to hear this from Paul-aligned delegates on Saturday. They will make the case that those Santorum and Gingrich bound-delegates are fair game and should not be redistributed based on a reallocation of the total number of delegates according to the collective Romney-Paul share and division of the precinct caucus vote. Instead, Romney should have his base 14 delegates allotted to him and Paul, his 5 with the nine other delegates still bound to Gingrich (6 delegates) and Santorum (3 delegates). If there are Gingrich and Santorum delegates there, then they can claim those slots. Otherwise, the remaining top vote-getting delegates -- be they Paul or Romney supporters -- claim those spots. If the Paul forces involved in Nevada are as strong as some are indicating, that would allow them to pick off all or most of those nine delegates. That would in turn equalize the delegate count between Paul and Romney in the state.

Granted, this all assumes that there is a relatively tame fight over the small segment of the rules discussing but not completely specifying the withdrawal of candidates. The Paul campaign could settle for a 14-14 delegate count out of Nevada, but it could also attempt to completely overwrite the proposed rules for the convention during that adoption vote, swinging even more -- or all -- of the delegation Paul's way.

Strategically, the split is probably a more reasonable route -- as opposed to completely rewriting the rules -- simply because attempting to bite off more than Paul state convention delegates can chew may force the Nevada GOP's hand. And by that, I mean, pulling the plug on the convention, as was the case in 2008. That would throw the delegate selection decision to the state central committee again. [The committee is slated to meet the Sunday after the convention is set to adjourn.]

--
One other note (or perhaps notes): The national committeeman and national committeewoman posts are up for election at the state convention as well. Those are obviously two of the three automatic delegates (who are also proportionally allocated -- but bound to the candidate of their preference) from Nevada. The catch is that their term of service does not begin until they are ratified by the Republican National Convention. It isn't clear what would happen if there is a snag in that ratification process -- whether the current members would cast votes during the roll call or what. But a roadblock seems more likely if committee-people-elect come from what is viewed as an illegitimate state convention. Much, it seems, would depend on when that ratification vote took place relative to the roll call vote (likely before it as it has some bearing on the credentialing process).

--
Buckle up, folks. This convention promises to be a fun one.

--
¹ As I've argued, following the 2008 experience and what had happened just a month earlier in Iowa, the Nevada GOP was probably right to take their time counting ballots (...even if the outcome was not nearly as uncertain as had been the case in the Iowa caucuses).

² To follow up on the post from yesterday on Paul's leverage moving forward, take the RNC's letter as at least some evidence of the national party/the Romney campaign attempting to engage in this process to avert any chaos at the national convention.

³ Fabulous Las Vegas Sun reporter Jon Ralston cited the 20 Romney delegates in his write-up of the letter from the RNC last night and confirmed with FHQ that that is based on the reallocation of Gingrich and Santorum delegates from the first round.


Recent Posts:
Question Time: How Much Leverage Does Ron Paul Still Have?

Question Time: What Happens to Santorum's Delegates?

Massachusetts Republican Caucuses: Sigh and Questions that Need to Be Asked/Answered


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

Question Time: How Much Leverage Does Ron Paul Still Have?

The above is not the question that FHQ specifically received, but neatly encapsulates the breadth and depth of the questions that have rolled into either the comments section or my inbox concerning the Ron Paul campaign's continued efforts to amass delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. As opposed to answering them one by one, I figured that I would take a step back and provide an overview of where the so-called delegate strategy is and what if anything it is likely to yield Paul and/or his supporters before, during or after the August convention.

First of all, as far back as January 4 -- the day after the Iowa caucuses -- FHQ was expounding upon the the Paul strategy and how it compared to/differed from the approach the campaign had in 2008. Periodically, I have also revisited the strategy in the Race to 1144 posts and when necessary on Twitter. Still, the matter really has not received the attention it probably deserves. [Yeah, on that point I respectfully disagree with Dave Weigel. Yes, there are realities/constraints to media coverage, but for selfish reasons, I sincerely wish this story had been followed more closely.] The point then, as now, was to point out that the Paul campaign and its supporters were, have been and are organized. They have thus far been more successful in winning delegate slots to the national convention than they were four years ago.

Paul, for instance, looks very well positioned to control not just the bare minimum delegation pluralities in states unbound caucus states like Colorado, Iowa and Minnesota, but majorities of those delegations at the Tampa convention. That is on top of the news from over this past weekend from Massachusetts, that despite being bound to Mitt Romney on the first ballot at the convention there are at least 16 Paul supporters elected to the Bay state Republican delegation (of 41 total delegates).

But the question remains, so what? What does any of this mean (...especially if it is highly unlikely to derail a Romney nomination in Tampa)?

Well, as FHQ pointed out in January, if there was or is an over/under on the number of delegates Ron Paul's campaign is likely to get to the national convention, take the over. The Paul coalition has and will continue to see varied success across the remaining states to select delegates. There are, after all, two parallel tracks in a Republican presidential nomination race: 1) the contests that we have all followed the results of on nearly every Tuesday (and sometimes Saturdays) for much of the year and 2) the actual delegate selection. The former in most cases only binds delegates to particular candidates, but that leaves the later selection of delegates. That process does not necessarily entail selecting folks who are supportive of the candidate to whom they are bound.¹ In fact, the Paul campaign and/or its supporters on the state level are turning that logic on its head.

Again, what does any of this gain for Ron Paul and/or his supporters? I fundamentally disagree with Dave Weigel that these delegate victories are an attempt by the RNC or state parties to give the Paul coalition some "wins". That "own goal" mentality is misguided because those wins are not likely to abate any time soon. There is no giving. The Paul folks are using superior organization -- in some states -- to take Romney-bound delegate slots (or delegate slots bound to or prematurely allocated by the AP and other outlets to other candidates).

Is Paul after the nomination? I don't know. But his supporters sure are.

And procedurally, they have a legitimate albeit longshot strategy to get there. That strategy first involves the continued accrual delegates; delegates bound to Paul through the remaining May and June primaries and delegates bound to any other candidate but carrying a Paul preference in the congressional district caucuses and state conventions yet to be held. Of course, having a fair number of Paul supporters as delegates does not keep Mitt Romney under the 1144 delegates necessary to clinch the nomination at the convention when they are Paul supporters bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot.

That triggers the second part of the strategy: Paul-supportive but Romney-bound delegates abstaining on the first vote. This is a tricky maneuver, but not one that is prohibited by the Republican Party delegate selection rules. It does, however, run up against state-level delegate rules that in some cases legally bind delegates to a particular candidate through one or more ballots at the national convention. But that is uncharted waters in this process. How does one take such a challenge of the rules to court in a way that resolves the issue expeditiously within the window of time in which the party is meeting in Tampa? It doesn't. The result is probably a huge embarrassment for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party; not something it wants when attempting to successfully challenge a vulnerable incumbent president.²

The question that emerges from that is the same as the questions that faced all of the other non-Romney candidates throughout primary season: Can Romney be kept under 1144 (but at the convention)? To do that Paul and his supporters would indeed face an uphill climb. That doesn't mean that they would have to amass 1144 delegates on their own. It would mean a combination of Paul-bound delegates, Paul-supportive but other candidate-bound delegates and those delegates won by candidates who have since suspended their campaigns. The Paul-bound delegates are easy enough, but those other two groups of delegates are shrouded in questions marks. Concerning the delegates bound to other candidates, the state of those campaigns are important. Well, it is not the state of the campaigns so much as the distinction they bear at that point in the race. A suspended campaign at that point is still a campaign that is active; active in terms of not having released its delegates. None of the candidates that have withdrawn from contention and have been allocated delegates (or bound delegates) has formally withdrawn from the race. Huntsman and Santorum have both suspended their campaigns which protects their delegates (...in most cases, but with exception). Gingrich appears to be doing the same.

There is the potential for a great deal of overlap between the delegates bound to other candidates and those that are Paul-supportive but bound to another candidate. But they are distinct enough from each other if only because in the event that they are ever released by the candidates to whom they have been bound they are free to unite behind Romney or join an effort to oppose the nomination. The district and state conventions in the coming weeks will likely settle that matter. As selected delegates are going to come from either the Paul or Romney camps -- more bound to the former than the latter.

It is that process -- the selection of delegates -- that so significantly clouds the outlook on this though. There is no one good independent source tracking the preferences of delegates actually selected to attend the national convention. As such that is the great unknown not so much of the Paul strategy but of the prospects for this materializing in any overt way that causes headaches for the Romney campaign and/or the Republican Party; both of which are merging their efforts with November in mind.

To some extent, then, the question of how much leverage Paul or Paul's supporters have is unanswerable. Are there enough of those "secret" Paul delegates to prevent Romney from getting to 1144 on the first ballot at the convention if they abstain?  We don't and probably won't know with any level of certainty until sometime in June or even later. That is a while for Romney -- the presumptive Republican nominee -- to live with some level of even under the radar uncertainty. But that also presents them with a decision: Make some form of concession to Paul now(-ish) or wait and see Paul's cards later and make concessions then.  Waiting is a gamble. Paul could show his cards close to the convention and really present some problems for Romney; forcing a larger concession (VP slot, cabinet position, convention speaking spot, etc.). The best indication of the level of threat the Romney team perceives in Ron Paul will be the efforts it makes in the remaining district and state conventions. If they counter the Paul organization it is a pretty clear signal that there is an issue. If not, it indicates either they are blind to this issue -- particularly if Paul continues to win delegates bound to other candidates (Romney) -- or don't view it as a problem at all (or both). Obviously, the level of threat the Romney team perceives affects the extent of any concessions it feels are necessary to satisfy Paul and/or his supporters.

--
Now, procedurally, none of this is likely to matter. There are seemingly enough failsafes in the RNC rules to prevent an outcome that does not have Romney as the nominee. But that doesn't mean that Ron Paul or those delegates aligned with him have to make it easy for Romney. The rules regarding the abstention strategy are not unlike the rules of keeping Romney under 1144 generally. For the sake of the exercise, let's assume that Romney has at least 1144 bound delegates in Tampa, but that enough of those Romney-bound delegates are Paul supporters to keep the former Massachusetts governor under that number on the first ballot through abstentions. Given the unknowns above, that is a fairly sizable assumption.

But let's look at the structure of this anyway.

Many want to focus on RNC Rule 40 that requires a candidate to have plurality control of at least five state delegations to be nominated. As stated above, Paul is in good shape to do that. But that isn't really the concern here. The roadblock to this being a more significant threat to Romney is Rule 37 regarding the procedure for roll call voting. Rule 37 gives a certain amount of power to the individual state delegation chairs. If the state delegation chairs see abstentions or the potential for abstentions, they are very likely to pass on their vote with the roll call progressing to the next state alphabetically. This is why the election of state delegation chairpeople is so important and why the reports that a Paul-aligned candidate in Colorado defeated Colorado Republican Party chair, Ryan Call, for the distinction are consequential. Passes are less likely to come from Paul-aligned delegation chairs than Romney or establishment-aligned chairs.

What is not clear in the RNC is rules on the roll call procedure is whether states can pass more than once if bound delegates do not vote in accordance with their "commitment". The rules indicate that no state can change votes until each state has had a second (post-pass) opportunity to vote. What is less clear is whether that constitutes a second ballot. FHQ's reading is that it would not. That is a secondary concern to the multiple pass question though. If the chairs from "problem state" delegations -- those with Paul-aligned but Romney-bound delegates threatening abstentions -- can pass more than once, then the roll call can quickly devolve into a feedback loop where the convention gets stuck. Again, that is embarrassing for the party and Romney. It is not a desired outcome.

Of course, if it gets to that point, that will be the true surprise. If Paul-aligned delegates are a threat, the RNC and the Romney campaign will undoubtedly have done some sort of informal delegate whip count ahead of time and have other failsafes set up in the credentialing process or something else to prevent convention floor chaos.

--
Look, I don't want to make too much of this. As I said, it is a legitimate strategy, but it is a longshot to work in terms of preventing a Romney nomination much less creating a Paul nomination. However, it is a unique strategy worth exploring. The main thing moving forward will be to watch how the Romney campaign operates in the upcoming state conventions and district caucuses/conventions where delegate selection is on the agenda. If the Paul folks continue to nab delegate slots -- bound to Paul or not -- it could prove to be a headache at some point over the summer for Romney. But we won't know how much leverage Ron Paul and his supporters may have until we have a firmer handle on just how many bound delegates the Texas congressman has and more importantly how many "stealth" delegates he has.

--
¹ It should be noted that this is mainly how it has worked in the past. People who are elected delegates are either supporters of the candidate to whom they are bound or are folks just happy to be selected as delegates and thus willing to go along with the party's choice of nominees.

² Of course, if that happened, it might very well overshadow the Democratic convention in Charlotte the following week. [Silver lining?]


Recent Posts:
Question Time: What Happens to Santorum's Delegates?

Massachusetts Republican Caucuses: Sigh and Questions that Need to Be Asked/Answered

Question Time: Big [Early] States & Future Primary Calendars


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

Question Time: What Happens to Santorum's Delegates?

Via the comments:

Will you start classifying Santorum's delegates as uncommitted?

The classification of Santorum's delegates in FHQ's Race to 1144 posts is a bit of a tricky issue. The easiest answer is to say that we will do exactly what we did with the Huntsman delegates in New Hampshire. First of all, know that the decision on the Huntsman delegates was, well, ad hoc. Though the process had yet to play out on the state level, the RNC almost immediately shifted those delegates to the "uncommitted" column in its delegate count. I suspect if the RNC had not already shifted to general election mode and was still regularly updating its in-house delegate count, the Communications folks there would similarly shift some or all of the Santorum delegates into the "uncommitted" category as well.

Yet there is a difference between a candidate with two delegates and another with more than 200 delegates. FHQ is much more inclined -- perhaps, contradictorily so -- to take the slow approach with the Santorum delegates as opposed to the Huntsman delegates. Think of primary season as a spool of thread. It is much easier to wrap an unraveled inch of thread back around the spool in an orderly way than it is to attempt re-spin 20% of the total thread unraveled to this point.

One other issue worth raising is that one of those two New Hampshire delegates for Huntsman later came out in support of Mitt Romney.¹ None of Santorum's delegates have yet to do anything like this.

Moving forward, then, the most appropriate way to deal with this issue to pull those delegates back from Santorum's total when and if state party rules or state law forces a change in their categorization. For instance, Michigan state law, not state party rules as has been reported, releases a candidate's delegates upon

...the withdrawal of that presidential candidate from contention for that party's nomination or by written release of that presidential candidate to the chairperson of the national convention, whichever is earliest. -- Act 116-1954-XXV, Section 168.619

But if you look closely at that AP account of Santorum's Michigan delegates, you will note that the actual delegates have not been selected yet. The Santorum campaign withdrew a challenge in order to safeguard the proportional selection of Santorum supporters to delegate slots by the party. [Paul campaign supporters may have something to say about that at upcoming county conventions, congressional district caucuses and the state convention.] But it doesn't really work that way. There are no safeguards.

What that means, though, is that the Santorum campaign has or hopes he has 14 theoretical delegates "bound" to him in Michigan. Once those delegates are selected, however, they will not be bound to him and chances are good that the chosen delegates will not necessarily prefer him as a candidate; opting instead for Romney or Paul.

Of course, this is just one state. The rules regarding the commitments/binding of delegates differs from state to state and the changes in the delegate count need to reflect that reality. In most instances, delegates have not been selected, but rather slots set aside for one candidate or another (via rules- or law-based binding mechanisms), and in most cases, those commitments are in place until the candidate releases them.² Those delegates will remain in Santorum's column until he releases those delegates or the actual delegates chosen come forward with publicly stated preferences indicating support for another candidate. That is similar to the treatment of the Huntsman delegates.

NOTE: The case is fairly solid in terms of moving the 14 Santorum delegates in Michigan to uncommitted in the FHQ count. That change will be made in the next update after the Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia primaries on May 8.

--
¹ Truth be told, one of those two New Hampshire delegates is still a Huntsman delegate. It just did not make sense, however, to continue setting aside a column in the spreadsheet or bar in the bar chart for just two delegates. That one contest delegate in the unbound/unpledged section is still a Huntsman delegate. [Note to self: Add a footnote to that effect in the next update.]

² The withdrawal from contention clause in the Michigan law is a necessary but not sufficient condition in most other states. It is not either/or in other words. Rather, a withdrawal and release is necessary to unbind delegates.

Recent Posts:
Massachusetts Republican Caucuses: Sigh and Questions that Need to Be Asked/Answered

Question Time: Big [Early] States & Future Primary Calendars

Question Time


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

Massachusetts Republican Caucuses: Sigh and Questions that Need to Be Asked/Answered

This is one of those things where if folks -- and by folks I mean the press -- had been following along with both the Paul campaign/the efforts of Paul's supporters and the rules of the game in states across the county, the situation in Massachusetts this weekend likely would not have come across as that much of a shock.

The reality is that the Paul supporters, as they are doing throughout the country, are striving to elect as many Paul-aligned delegates to the national convention in Tampa as possible -- bound to Paul or whomever (more on this later in a separate post). Such was the case in caucuses across the Bay state on Saturday. Outside of the surprise/symbolism of the Romney slate not emerging victorious in the former governor's home state, there really is little else to the story. The 38 at-large and congressional district delegates are still bound to the winner of the March 6 Massachusetts primary through the first ballot at the national convention. And that is that.

--
The other interesting aspect of this is that the reporting thus far is emphasizing the fact that former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey (R) lost in her race to become a delegate. This is strange because Healey is already a delegate having been selected by the Massachusetts Republican State Committee as the Republican National Committeewoman from the state earlier this month. In that role, Healey is already an automatic delegate to the convention. Viewed from that perspective, it is odd that Healey was even running. The position of national committeewoman is one voted on, according to Massachusetts Republican Party bylaws, by the State Committee. The State Committee members were elected through the primary on March 6 -- not in the caucuses over the weekend. That eliminates the possibility of State Committee members being elected and then turning around and selecting national committeepeople or state party chairs. The elections of those officials are outlined in Article III, Section 2 of the state party bylaws. If anyone can get through to the Romney campaign, it may perhaps be worth asking why Healey was running for a position (delegate) she could not occupy.

...since she is already a delegate.


Recent Posts:
Question Time: Big [Early] States & Future Primary Calendars

Question Time

Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses 


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

Question Time: Big [Early] States & Future Primary Calendars

Via the comments:

Is there a movement afoot in either party to move one of the big swing states (OH PN, ect.[sic]) either to inside the "carve out" category or close to it? If not (as I suspect) why do you think that is? I mean there would be a lot of benefits to the party not just for the nomination but also the general election.

The simplest answer is "I don't know."

However, that is mainly because I'm iffy about the word "movement". Is there any movement? No, but there are factions/people within the decision-making bodies in both the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee that have voiced or seemed supportive of such ideas (albeit more for selfish, state-specific reasons rather than for reasons of general election electoral benefits). Beyond that, though, I don't know. But I do have a few educated/informed impressions.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee mostly punted -- and rightly so with an incumbent seeking re-election¹ -- on rules changes in 2010. The overwhelming sentiment that prevailed in the Washington meeting that FHQ attended was that no one on the committee wanted to rock the boat. There was, as I'm sure there inevitably is at these things, some brief discussion of the early states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. I say that there are inevitably discussions along these lines, but I left with the feeling that this was among the least contentious, shallowest dives into the question of early states in quite a while. Some members harped on the idea of reshuffling the deck at the front of the calendar, but that went nowhere. What did move the needle ever so slightly among the group or at least enough among them was a process similar to what guided the commission that tweaked the Democratic delegate selection rules prior to 2008. This was the group that essentially held auditions for states that wanted to move into the, what the Democrats call, pre-window period. This was the point at which Nevada and South Carolina were added to the mix. The Rules and Bylaws Committee left it at that in 2010; open the early calendar up to a couple of additional states from among a group that applies.

If I had to guess now, I would say that Florida and Michigan have a leg up on the competition. Now, that's counterintuitive, right? It was after all four short years ago that Florida and Michigan threatened to rip the Democratic Party apart over how both states' delegates would be counted. But the simple truth of the matter is that both are already there. That is almost more important than the "Hey, those two states could be swing states in the general election" argument. This is a big deal: being able to move the primary or caucus. Florida will likely be there regardless. It does not seem likely that the Florida legislature will change hands -- moving from Republican control to Democratic -- any time within the 2012-15 window which means that about two-thirds of the date-setting process will rest with the Republicans.² Unless the RNC comes up with a penalty that actually deters rogue states from scheduling primaries out of compliance with the national party delegate selection rules, Florida is very likely to go early again. Republican actors in the state are very serious -- it seems -- to make Florida the fifth contest at the latest on the calendar. Is there any sense in potentially re-fighting 2008/Florida again? I wouldn't think so. The Michigan primary is already scheduled, according to state law, for the fourth Tuesday in February.  Again, why fight it?

The one wildcard to keep an eye on Arizona. The Arizona primary is already scheduled for the same date as the Michigan primary and the law there adds the flexibility for the governor to shift the date up to an earlier date. That is a problem for the, in this case, Democrats (...but the Republicans too). There will have to be some new sanctions in place to dissuade Arizona from additional moves.³ What works against Arizona is that "the West" is already represented by Nevada. Florida fills the "big state" role. Michigan is the "blue collar" or "labor" or "midwestern" state. Arizona has no such similar role. But it can argue that it might be electorally important to the party in the general election in the future.

--
On the Republican side, there was little discussion of overturning the early calendar apple cart in the Scottsdale RNC meeting recently. Additionally, there was no talk -- at least that I heard -- of putting together a commission to re-examine the RNC delegate selection rules outside of the convention as was the case with the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee (2009-10). This was the first, and perhaps only, foray the party has or will make into the midstream delegate rules changing arena in the post-reform era.

But the RNC is faced with a similar quandary to what the Democrats will encounter: How to keep states in line, or more to the point from breaking in line? That is the key question for both parties. The RNC, I think, realizes that the same three states -- Arizona, Florida and Michigan -- present it with a certain immovable object problem; one that cannot be remedied without some form of actual deterrent.⁴ What that penalty is, though, is unknown as of now, but I'm sure will be discussed in the months leading up to the Tampa convention.

--
Will there be additions to the carve out states in 2016? I think that is a safe bet at this time? Will those additions make sense in terms of why they were added? Sure. States will be added mostly because the alternative of not adding them is counterproductive to the parties. Are the states best positioned to take advantage of those new carve out spots potentially important in a general election for both parties? Coincidentally enough, yes, but only coincidentally enough. If the parties wanted to actually confront such a coordination problem (putting together with states and state parties a primary calendar that paid electoral dividends in November) on their own, they would be hard-pressed to muster the willingness much less the ability to actually pull that off.

Uphill sledding...

--
I should take a moment to mention that I will be taking part in a workshop at the Harvard Institute of Politics in May that will bring together folks from the Rules Committees in both major parties in addition to folks from the National Association of Secretaries of State and National Conference of State Legislatures. Selfishly, I hope to get a better picture on what is happening in both parties concerning the rules for 2016, but I also hope a productive dialog is started/continued on the nomination process and the limit to which it can in reality be reformed given all the competing interests.

--
¹ Folks have been persuasive in arguing that if a party is going to make changes, the best time -- or the time with the least number of potential conflicts within a party -- is when the stakes are low. You know, when a reasonably popular incumbent is seeking re-election; an incumbent who has a party rallying behind him like Obama had in 2010 and has now.

² State law now gives the speaker of the Florida House, the president of the Florida Senate and the governor three selections each to the committee that sets the date. If Governor Scott is not re-elected in 2014, Democrats will be able to muster four selections to the committee. No one member-naming authority can name more than two members of his or her own party to the committee. The speaker and the president would have to name two Democrats and the presumed Democratic governor would name two additional Democrats. But that is just four out of nine slots; not enough for Democrats to gain control of the process.

³ Of course, it should be noted that the Democratic Party has for the last two cycles now had a sanction on the books that penalizes not only the states for going to early, but any candidates who campaign in violating states as well. States move up for attention and if that attention is affected by candidates/media not showing up, then there is little utility in moving forward. ...or at least that will be the test in 2016 should the Democrats stand pat with their current penalties regime.

⁴ The same is true of some of these non-binding caucus states that have been able to skirt Republican rules most noticeably in 2012 (...but the issue was around in 2008 too). That is a different story or one for a different time anyway.

Recent Posts:
Question Time

Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses 

Pair of Missouri Bills Would Shift Future Presidential Primaries Back to April


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

Question Time

For some time I have admired -- and totally wanted to rip off -- the Question Day posts that Bernstein does on occasion. To this point, I had neither the time or inclination to do so. But the combination of the desire to try out the format and the influx of good questions via comments or email this week, I think, has pushed me over the edge.

In a nod to Question Time in the British House of Commons (and to acknowledge the fact that today is looking crazy time-wise), I'm going to field (good, quality¹) questions and spread the answers out over more than just today. I've already got three really good questions with which I definitely want to deal,² but if you have any others questions feel free to drop in in the comments section below or via Twitter under the hashtag, #fhqquestiontime.

--
¹ Seriously, keep it substantive, folks.

² To avoid overlap, I already have and plan to answer questions concerning:

• Ron Paul's delegate strategy (and the convention)
• Turnout in upcoming primaries
• The status of Rick Santorum's delegates (post-suspension)

Recent Posts:
Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses 

Pair of Missouri Bills Would Shift Future Presidential Primaries Back to April

House-Passed Bill in Virginia to Consolidate Primaries in Presidential Election Years to Be Considered in 2013 in State Senate 


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