.png)
1144 delegates needed to win.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida
1144 delegates needed to win.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+
On the heels of the South Carolina primary, FHQ speculated that one of the main questions that emerged from the Gingrich win/Romney loss was the Southern question. Romney did not win the South Carolina primary and even if could win in Florida -- It is something of a foregone conclusion at this point that the former Massachusetts governor will win tonight in the Sunshine state. -- and use that as a springboard to wins in contests in hospitable areas in February, that Southern question remains. Romney will not have another opportunity to win in the South until March 6.
[Sidenote follow up to that Southern question:
The way that post seemed to be interpreted by those that built off it was that FHQ was saying Romney couldn't wrap things up until that point at the earliest. I suppose that is part of it, but it is deeper than that. What I meant was that Gingrich and Santorum could use that as a rallying point for voters and more importantly donors. But that has a shelf life. If Romney wins in the South -- and he's guaranteed at least one win in Virginia where only Paul is on the ballot opposite him 1 -- then that argument disappears. Support and contributions to the campaign also likely disappear or at the very least begin to drop off at that point. And keep in mind, FHQ is discussing this without accounting for any intra-party pressure on the candidates to drop out. In the past, those three things -- waning support, lower fundraising totals and pressure from the party -- often happen nearly simultaneously. That may happen this time as well. But it isn't about Romney wrapping things up so much as the way in which the others start to drop out, or arguments to stay in begin to disappear.]
The Gingrich campaign is mindful of this Southern question. In fact, the memo the campaign circulated on Monday about how a protracted primary battle might look was very heavy on the former Speaker doing well in the upcoming March contests in the region. And therein lies the trouble for the Gingrich campaign. Their hope is that a series of wins across the South evens the delegate total heading out of the contests. That may happen, but if that is the case, the Gingrich folks are going to run full on in a stiff wind. How is that any different than the strategy Mike Huckabee had in 2008? The former Arkansas governor came close to sweeping the region in 2008 and that got him nowhere. It had him out of the race in early March when McCain won on Huckabee's turf in Texas and in the process crossed the 50% plus one delegate threshold to become the presumptive nominee.
Now sure, the Gingrich folks would counter that the calendar is vastly different in 2012 than it was in 2008. There is no mammoth Super Tuesday a week from today's Florida primary like there was four years ago. However, Gingrich is going to have to find a way to win in a Romney state to effectively brush off the Huckabee comparison. February's line up of contests does not seem to offer too many opportunities for Gingrich and if Romney sweeps them all, the pressure is going to increase on the non-Romneys in that scenario to consider bowing out (...in the face of the Southern question for Romney).
If we are trying to game this out moving forward look for Gingrich wins in Romney states (as a signal of a protracted battle) and Romney wins in the South (as a signal that the process is winding down). As it is, Romney is playing the McCain part from 2008 and if the South is the only thing standing in the way, it won't be enough to stop a Romney nomination. The goal for Gingrich is to become Huckabee, but Huckabee plus.
--
1 This will be an interesting test case of the Romney/not-Romney theory that has been floated around about this Republican nomination race. If there is a significant protest/anti-Romney movement within the Republican primary electorate, and the field has not winnowed anymore by that point, then that two-person Virginia primary becomes the best possible test.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
[Sidenote follow up to that Southern question:
The way that post seemed to be interpreted by those that built off it was that FHQ was saying Romney couldn't wrap things up until that point at the earliest. I suppose that is part of it, but it is deeper than that. What I meant was that Gingrich and Santorum could use that as a rallying point for voters and more importantly donors. But that has a shelf life. If Romney wins in the South -- and he's guaranteed at least one win in Virginia where only Paul is on the ballot opposite him 1 -- then that argument disappears. Support and contributions to the campaign also likely disappear or at the very least begin to drop off at that point. And keep in mind, FHQ is discussing this without accounting for any intra-party pressure on the candidates to drop out. In the past, those three things -- waning support, lower fundraising totals and pressure from the party -- often happen nearly simultaneously. That may happen this time as well. But it isn't about Romney wrapping things up so much as the way in which the others start to drop out, or arguments to stay in begin to disappear.]
The Gingrich campaign is mindful of this Southern question. In fact, the memo the campaign circulated on Monday about how a protracted primary battle might look was very heavy on the former Speaker doing well in the upcoming March contests in the region. And therein lies the trouble for the Gingrich campaign. Their hope is that a series of wins across the South evens the delegate total heading out of the contests. That may happen, but if that is the case, the Gingrich folks are going to run full on in a stiff wind. How is that any different than the strategy Mike Huckabee had in 2008? The former Arkansas governor came close to sweeping the region in 2008 and that got him nowhere. It had him out of the race in early March when McCain won on Huckabee's turf in Texas and in the process crossed the 50% plus one delegate threshold to become the presumptive nominee.
Now sure, the Gingrich folks would counter that the calendar is vastly different in 2012 than it was in 2008. There is no mammoth Super Tuesday a week from today's Florida primary like there was four years ago. However, Gingrich is going to have to find a way to win in a Romney state to effectively brush off the Huckabee comparison. February's line up of contests does not seem to offer too many opportunities for Gingrich and if Romney sweeps them all, the pressure is going to increase on the non-Romneys in that scenario to consider bowing out (...in the face of the Southern question for Romney).
If we are trying to game this out moving forward look for Gingrich wins in Romney states (as a signal of a protracted battle) and Romney wins in the South (as a signal that the process is winding down). As it is, Romney is playing the McCain part from 2008 and if the South is the only thing standing in the way, it won't be enough to stop a Romney nomination. The goal for Gingrich is to become Huckabee, but Huckabee plus.
--
1 This will be an interesting test case of the Romney/not-Romney theory that has been floated around about this Republican nomination race. If there is a significant protest/anti-Romney movement within the Republican primary electorate, and the field has not winnowed anymore by that point, then that two-person Virginia primary becomes the best possible test.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?
In a run through the future stops on the presidential primary calendar late last week, Jake Tapper of ABC News wondered whether Texas Republicans -- having been forced by the courts to shift back the presidential primary past April 1 in the Lone Star state -- would entertain the idea of switching from proportional to winner-take-all allocation of their 155 delegates.
FHQ wrote about this in December when courts pushed Texas back to April and was told pretty much the same thing that Republican Party of Texas Communications Director Chris Elam told Aman Betheja of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Friday. Basically, RPT is not changing its delegate allocation rules. In the month since I spoke with RPT about the issue, though, the argument has evolved. In December, FHQ was -- correctly, I might add -- told that the rules were final because the RNC rules require state parties to have set delegate selection rules by October 1. I countered that Ohio had changed -- or at least allowed a trigger mechanism in their rules that switched their delegate selection method dependent upon the date the primary was held -- and was informed that the Ohio condition was part of the rules package submitted by Ohio to the RNC prior to October 1. And of course, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all settled on their plans -- the dates in particular -- after October 1. All pointed to some wiggle room in the national party rules that may allow Texas Republicans -- under unusual circumstances -- to change back to the winner-take-all allocation method the party has traditionally used.
Again, the answer from RPT in December was that the rules were set.
But now, instead of leaning on the RNC deadline as in December, RPT has shifted to a Voting Rights Act/preclearance argument for fending off inquiries about switching back to winner-take-all rules. FHQ must confess that this one is new to me. DOJ has the final say on redistricting plans in certain states and districts under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but that authority stretching into delegate selection rules is something I haven't encountered outside of the past use of the unit rule (which has been outlawed in both national parties). This implies that Texas Republicans should have had to have received preclearance from the Justice Department for the change back in October from winner-take-all to proportional; something FHQ never heard about if it happened. [And that isn't to suggest that it did not.] But it seems odd that DOJ would have preclear a change back to a system that has been in place on the Republican side in Texas up until this cycle; October 2011 to be exact.
But that is a minor point in the grand scheme of things. Texas Republicans won't be changing back to winner-take-all rules. And it has very little to do with Section 5. It has more to do with the the seeming lack of desire to make the change within the state party. And even if independent of the state party, a Republican in Texas challenged the allocation method in a reverse of what we are witnessing in Florida with its adherence to winner-take-all allocation in a timeframe reserved for at least partially proportional allocation, that case would stand very little chance of going anywhere. The big issue in the Florida situation -- if the system there were to be challenged -- is that the state party is breaking a national party rule; that winner-take-all allocation instead of some "proportional" allocation is illegal.
But in a similar Texas situation there would be no similar rules-breaking. The RNC rules prohibit straight winner-take-all allocation of all of a states delegates before April 1, but that doesn't mean that it is against the rules if state parties after that point opt for a proportional plan, a winner-take-all plan or something in between. No, the RNC leaves it up to the states after March to decide on their own method of allocation in the way the RNC used to do for all states throughout the whole calendar. That would not be a winning argument. The state, acting in accordance with the RNC rules, should be made to change its method of delegate allocation because someone within the state (of Texas in this scenario) challenges it. The RNC has already seemingly indicated that challenges -- even in Florida's case -- were likely to go nowhere. And if a challenge to get a state to actually follow the rules is stuck in neutral, then a plan to force a state in full compliance with the rules to alter its delegate selection plan is going to go in reverse.
Texas Republicans will have proportional allocation whether the primary is on April 3 or some other later date.
UPDATE: Richard Winger of Ballot Access News sent along news that the courts (Larouche v. Fowler, 1999) have ruled in the past that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not applicable in cases of party rules changes for delegate allocation.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
FHQ wrote about this in December when courts pushed Texas back to April and was told pretty much the same thing that Republican Party of Texas Communications Director Chris Elam told Aman Betheja of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Friday. Basically, RPT is not changing its delegate allocation rules. In the month since I spoke with RPT about the issue, though, the argument has evolved. In December, FHQ was -- correctly, I might add -- told that the rules were final because the RNC rules require state parties to have set delegate selection rules by October 1. I countered that Ohio had changed -- or at least allowed a trigger mechanism in their rules that switched their delegate selection method dependent upon the date the primary was held -- and was informed that the Ohio condition was part of the rules package submitted by Ohio to the RNC prior to October 1. And of course, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all settled on their plans -- the dates in particular -- after October 1. All pointed to some wiggle room in the national party rules that may allow Texas Republicans -- under unusual circumstances -- to change back to the winner-take-all allocation method the party has traditionally used.
Again, the answer from RPT in December was that the rules were set.
But now, instead of leaning on the RNC deadline as in December, RPT has shifted to a Voting Rights Act/preclearance argument for fending off inquiries about switching back to winner-take-all rules. FHQ must confess that this one is new to me. DOJ has the final say on redistricting plans in certain states and districts under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but that authority stretching into delegate selection rules is something I haven't encountered outside of the past use of the unit rule (which has been outlawed in both national parties). This implies that Texas Republicans should have had to have received preclearance from the Justice Department for the change back in October from winner-take-all to proportional; something FHQ never heard about if it happened. [And that isn't to suggest that it did not.] But it seems odd that DOJ would have preclear a change back to a system that has been in place on the Republican side in Texas up until this cycle; October 2011 to be exact.
But that is a minor point in the grand scheme of things. Texas Republicans won't be changing back to winner-take-all rules. And it has very little to do with Section 5. It has more to do with the the seeming lack of desire to make the change within the state party. And even if independent of the state party, a Republican in Texas challenged the allocation method in a reverse of what we are witnessing in Florida with its adherence to winner-take-all allocation in a timeframe reserved for at least partially proportional allocation, that case would stand very little chance of going anywhere. The big issue in the Florida situation -- if the system there were to be challenged -- is that the state party is breaking a national party rule; that winner-take-all allocation instead of some "proportional" allocation is illegal.
But in a similar Texas situation there would be no similar rules-breaking. The RNC rules prohibit straight winner-take-all allocation of all of a states delegates before April 1, but that doesn't mean that it is against the rules if state parties after that point opt for a proportional plan, a winner-take-all plan or something in between. No, the RNC leaves it up to the states after March to decide on their own method of allocation in the way the RNC used to do for all states throughout the whole calendar. That would not be a winning argument. The state, acting in accordance with the RNC rules, should be made to change its method of delegate allocation because someone within the state (of Texas in this scenario) challenges it. The RNC has already seemingly indicated that challenges -- even in Florida's case -- were likely to go nowhere. And if a challenge to get a state to actually follow the rules is stuck in neutral, then a plan to force a state in full compliance with the rules to alter its delegate selection plan is going to go in reverse.
Texas Republicans will have proportional allocation whether the primary is on April 3 or some other later date.
UPDATE: Richard Winger of Ballot Access News sent along news that the courts (Larouche v. Fowler, 1999) have ruled in the past that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not applicable in cases of party rules changes for delegate allocation.
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, January 30, 2012
I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race
Way back in the summer (of 2011), FHQ began fielding calls and emails from a number of media outlets asking about the filing deadlines for primaries and caucuses in the various states. It really picked up in late September and into October as some folks in the press continued to, well, press the notion of a late Palin candidacy. From that point onward, the Palin speculation may have dropped off to some extent, but a cottage industry has popped up in the wake of it and proliferated throughout the Republican presidential primary landscape around the notion of late entry. Candidates go up, candidates come down, Romney stays the same and the overall field is weak are among the various catalysts for continued speculation. And when Newt Gingrich won South Carolina (the third winner in three contests), casting some doubt on the ability of Republican primary voters to come to a consensus on any one of the declared candidates, the whirling dervish of late entry speculation spun even faster.
Sure, the naysayers would say, "Well, it is too late. Deadlines have passed. No one else can get in." But that never really stopped the drum beat of late entry. FHQ has been in this latter group, but has been as guilty as others from not having fully dug into the matter. Let's throw some data at the issue. What follows will either put things to rest once and for all that it is too late or embolden those champing at the bit for another round or future rounds of late entry talk. [Yeah, Bill Kristol, I'm looking at you.]
So, is it possible for another candidate to get in?
Below are the filing deadlines in the remaining states. And hey, because FHQ is feeling generous let us also consider whether those states also allow uncommitteed/no preference slots on the primary ballot -- Voters have the option to vote for uncommitted or no preference on the ballot. -- and/or allow write-in votes. Let's open this door as wide as it will open and look at the delegates at stake in those states. The filing deadlines have passed in the February states, and the list below is of states with March or later contests -- with the exception of Michigan which allows voters to choose "uncommitted". If a state does not appear, all options are closed off to any potential late entrants. [Georgia, for instance, had a deadline 60 prior to the March 6 primary in which the candidate list was set, prohibits the uncommitted line on the ballot and does not allow write-in votes.] Finally, there are also a number of states where none of this information is known. Those states are included in the table only because it isn't known whether those three options have been closed off.
That's 1768 delegates where either the filing deadlines have not passed, uncommitted lines are on or can be added to the ballot or write-in votes are allowed. If the states where not enough information is known (American Samoa, Missouri, Puerto Rico and Wyoming) and those where a deadline has passed and legislation to add an uncommitted line to ballot is under consideration in the state legislature (Virginia) are subtracted from the total, that leaves us with 1606 delegates. However, if we add back in the delegates from the early caucuses where delegates will eventually go to the Tampa convention unbound (Iowa, Maine, Colorado and maybe Minnesota -- see the delegate allocation by state) that adds back up to 128 delegates for 1734 delegates. If the list is constrained more simply to the states where filing deadlines have not passed, the total delegates open to a late entrant drops to 1157. After Tuesday, when Kentucky's (and Indiana's petition -- see footnote 17 above) deadlines pass that total will drop below 1144 to 1066.
No matter how you look at it, then, there are or would be enough delegates for a late entrant to possibly get to 1144, or in the more chaotic, yet more likely late entry (if it were to happen), scenario after Tuesday, earn enough support to keep another candidate from getting there, sending the decision to the convention; a brokered, uh, deadlocked convention.
But here's the thing: Who is that candidate? Let me rephrase that. Who is the candidate who can not only successfully enter the race late, but who can also marshal the organization necessary to cobble together enough delegates to take the nomination or throw enough of a monkeywrench into the process and still maintain support in the party to win the nomination at the convention? Let's think about this for a moment. There are people in this race now actively seeking the nomination (and who have been running for president for quite some time) who cannot get on the ballots in some states. And we are expecting someone to come in and immediately be able to beat these deadlines, organize write-in efforts and uncommitted slates of delegates to get within shouting distance of 1144 or a lower total held by the frontrunner.
I apologize, folks. But I just don't see it. There is no silver bullet. There is no white knight.
...unless someone else's name -- someone other than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul -- is put forth at a brokered, uh, deadlocked convention.
Is that possible?
Sure.
Is that probable?
There is nothing that has happened in the post-reform era (1972-present) that would lead anyone to the conclusion that it is.
Sure, the naysayers would say, "Well, it is too late. Deadlines have passed. No one else can get in." But that never really stopped the drum beat of late entry. FHQ has been in this latter group, but has been as guilty as others from not having fully dug into the matter. Let's throw some data at the issue. What follows will either put things to rest once and for all that it is too late or embolden those champing at the bit for another round or future rounds of late entry talk. [Yeah, Bill Kristol, I'm looking at you.]
So, is it possible for another candidate to get in?
Below are the filing deadlines in the remaining states. And hey, because FHQ is feeling generous let us also consider whether those states also allow uncommitteed/no preference slots on the primary ballot -- Voters have the option to vote for uncommitted or no preference on the ballot. -- and/or allow write-in votes. Let's open this door as wide as it will open and look at the delegates at stake in those states. The filing deadlines have passed in the February states, and the list below is of states with March or later contests -- with the exception of Michigan which allows voters to choose "uncommitted". If a state does not appear, all options are closed off to any potential late entrants. [Georgia, for instance, had a deadline 60 prior to the March 6 primary in which the candidate list was set, prohibits the uncommitted line on the ballot and does not allow write-in votes.] Finally, there are also a number of states where none of this information is known. Those states are included in the table only because it isn't known whether those three options have been closed off.
| 2012 Presidential Primary Filing Deadlines | ||||||
| State1 | Contest Date | Filing Deadline | Uncommitted/ No Preference | Write-In | Delegates | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | 2/28 | 12/9 | Uncommitted | -- | 30 | |
| Alaska | 3/6 | 2/4 | No preference | -- | 27 | |
| Idaho | 3/6 | 2/4 | Uncommitted | -- | 32 | |
| Massachusetts | 3/6 | 1/6 | No preference | √ | 41 | |
| North Dakota | 3/6 | Ballot set 2/12 | n/a | n/a | 28 | |
| Tennessee | 3/6 | 12/6 | Uncommitted3 | √ | 58 | |
| Vermont | 3/6 | 1/9 | -- | √ | 17 | |
| Virginia | 3/6 | 12/22 | Bill to allow uncommitted | -- | 49 | |
| Wyoming | 3/6 | n/a4 | n/a | n/a | 29 | |
| Kansas | 3/10 | 12/31 | Uncommitted | -- | 40 | |
| Virgin Islands | 3/10 | 2/10 | Uncommitted | -- | 9 | |
| Alabama | 3/13 | 1/13 | Uncommitted | √ | 50 | |
| American Samoa | 3/13 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 9 | |
| Hawaii | 3/13 | 2/285 | Uncommitted6 | √7 | 20 | |
| Mississippi | 3/13 | 1/14 | -- | √8 | 40 | |
| Missouri | 3/17 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 52 | |
| Puerto Rico | 3/18 | 1/18 | n/a | n/a | 23 | |
| Illinois | 3/20 | 1/6 | Uncommitted9 | -- | 69 | |
| Louisiana | 3/24 | 12/9 | Uncommitted10 | -- | 46 | |
| Maryland | 4/3 | 1/11 | Uncommitted11 | √12 | 37 | |
| Texas | 4/3 | Uncommitted | √ | 155 | ||
| Washington, DC | 4/3 | 1/4 | Uncommitted | -- | 19 | |
| Wisconsin | 4/3 | Uninstructed | √ | 42 | ||
| Connecticut | 4/24 | 3/2 | Uncommitted | √14 | 28 | |
| Delaware | 4/24 | 2/24 | -- | √ | 17 | |
| New York | 4/24 | 2/9 | Uncommitted15 | √ | 95 | |
| Pennsylvania | 4/24 | 2/14 | Uncommitted16 | √ | 72 | |
| Rhode Island | 4/24 | 1/21 | Uncommitted | -- | 19 | |
| Indiana | 5/8 | 2/1017 | -- | -- | 46 | |
| North Carolina | 5/8 | 3/618 | Uncommitted | -- | 55 | |
| West Virginia | 5/8 | 1/28 | Uncommitted19 | √ | 31 | |
| Nebraska | 5/1520 | 3/7 | Uncommitted | -- | 35 | |
| Oregon | 5/15 | 3/6 | -- | √ | 28 | |
| Arkansas | 5/22 | 3/1 | Uncommitted21 | --22 | 36 | |
| Kentucky | 5/22 | 1/31 | Uncommitted | --23 | 45 | |
| California | 6/5 | 3/23 | Uncommitted | √24 | 172 | |
| Montana | 6/5 | 3/1225 | Uncommitted | √ | 26 | |
| New Jersey | 6/5 | 4/2 | -- | √ | 50 | |
| New Mexico | 6/5 | 3/16 | -- | -- | 23 | |
| South Dakota | 6/5 | 3/27 | Uncommitted26 | -- | 28 | |
| Utah | 6/26 | 3/15 | -- | -- | 40 | |
Source: FEC, state election law, state party rules
1 States included above are those where there is still an option for a candidate not currently declared in the 2012 Republican presidential nomination (ie: filing deadline has not passed, there is an uncommitted or no preference line on the ballot or where write-in is a possibility).
2 Candidates placed on ballot according to who is an announced candidate by February 1. 3 See Tennessee Code (Title 2, Chapter 13, Part 3).
4 Precinct caucuses begin 2/9.
5 Candidates who enter race after 2/1 can be given an extension. 6 It is not clear whether there is an "uncommitted" line on the Hawaii caucus ballot. The evidence seems to suggest that only votes for actual declared candidates count. That said, delegates do not not have to commit to any candidate, but if they do that delegate is committed to that candidate -- if still in the race -- through the first ballot at the Republican National Convention. The delegates can go to the convention uncommitted, but it is a different process than is being talked about in the other cases where voters are marking a ballot for "uncommitted". 7 Write-in votes are only counted if they are cast for candidates registered with the FEC. 8 See Mississippi Code (Title 23, Chapter 15, Article 13B). 9 Delegates (or slates of delegates) file at the same time as candidates, but those delegates can file as "uncommitted" and is listed as such on the ballot. However, there is no "uncommitted" list on the presidential preference portion of the ballot. 10 There is no uncommitted line on the Louisiana primary ballot, but delegates may be uncommitted if no candidate receives over 25% of the primary vote. Those delegates would go to the national convention uncommitted. The congressional district delegates automatically go to the national convention unpledged. 11 Maryland delegates can run as "uncommitted" and be marked that way on the primary ballot if the party requests such of the State Board of Elections. [Maryland Code Title 8, Subtitle 5, 8-501] There is no evidence that the Maryland GOP has made such a request in 2012. The Maryland Secretary of State's office confirmed to FHQ on February 2, 2012 that only the Democratic presidential primary ballot will include an uncommitted line. The Republican primary ballot will not. 12 Write-ins are allowed if a candidate files a certificate of candidacy to run as a write-in candidate. The deadline for that is the earlier of either within a week of filing with the FEC or the Wednesday before the election. [Maryland Code Title 5, Subtitle 3, 5-303] 13 February 1 is the end of the filing period established by the courts in the Texas redistricting case, but any changes to those districts may ultimately affect both the date of the primary and the close of the filing period. On January 27, the February 1 filing deadline was suspended until further order by the San Antonio court. 14 Write-in votes are allowed so long as the candidate has registered his or her candidacy with the Connecticut secretary of state. 15 The "uncommitted" line is allowed on the presidential primary ballot in New York so long as the procedures to file -- as if a candidate -- are followed. 16 Delegates (or slates of delegates) file as the presidential candidate and indicate whether they are committed or uncommitted which is in turn listed on the ballot. As is the case on the Illinois ballot, there is no line for "uncommitted" on the presidential preference portion of the ballot. 17 Petitions to file for candidacy in Indiana are due to the secretary of state by January 31. 18 The North Carolina State Board of Elections meets to set the ballot based on a list of candidates provided by the state parties and those candidates having filed by petition by the Monday (3/5/12) preceding the Board meeting. 19 The delegates listed on the West Virginia ballot have their presidential preference (or "uncommitted") listed next to their names on the primary ballot, but their is no "uncommitted" line among the presidential preference portion of the ballot. 20 The Nebraska primary is non-binding. All delegates will be allocated at the July state convention. 21 See Arkansas Code (Title 7, Chapter 8, Section 201). 22 See Arkansas Code (Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 525). 23 Write-ins are not expressly forbidden according to Kentucky code, but the allowance and declaration of intent for are only associated with general elections. Recent past presidential primary elections have also had no write-in votes cast. 24 Voters can write in anyone on a ballot, but those ballots will only be counted if the candidate voted for has filed as a write-in candidate with the state. 25 Montana has an advisory/non-binding primary on the Republican side. All delegates are selected at the mid-June state convention. 26 The uncommitted provision in the state law is dependent upon the state parties not having delegate selection rules prohibiting such a designation on the ballot. The South Dakota Republican Party allows uncommitted slates to appear on the ballot. | ||||||
That's 1768 delegates where either the filing deadlines have not passed, uncommitted lines are on or can be added to the ballot or write-in votes are allowed. If the states where not enough information is known (American Samoa, Missouri, Puerto Rico and Wyoming) and those where a deadline has passed and legislation to add an uncommitted line to ballot is under consideration in the state legislature (Virginia) are subtracted from the total, that leaves us with 1606 delegates. However, if we add back in the delegates from the early caucuses where delegates will eventually go to the Tampa convention unbound (Iowa, Maine, Colorado and maybe Minnesota -- see the delegate allocation by state) that adds back up to 128 delegates for 1734 delegates. If the list is constrained more simply to the states where filing deadlines have not passed, the total delegates open to a late entrant drops to 1157. After Tuesday, when Kentucky's (and Indiana's petition -- see footnote 17 above) deadlines pass that total will drop below 1144 to 1066.
No matter how you look at it, then, there are or would be enough delegates for a late entrant to possibly get to 1144, or in the more chaotic, yet more likely late entry (if it were to happen), scenario after Tuesday, earn enough support to keep another candidate from getting there, sending the decision to the convention; a brokered, uh, deadlocked convention.
But here's the thing: Who is that candidate? Let me rephrase that. Who is the candidate who can not only successfully enter the race late, but who can also marshal the organization necessary to cobble together enough delegates to take the nomination or throw enough of a monkeywrench into the process and still maintain support in the party to win the nomination at the convention? Let's think about this for a moment. There are people in this race now actively seeking the nomination (and who have been running for president for quite some time) who cannot get on the ballots in some states. And we are expecting someone to come in and immediately be able to beat these deadlines, organize write-in efforts and uncommitted slates of delegates to get within shouting distance of 1144 or a lower total held by the frontrunner.
I apologize, folks. But I just don't see it. There is no silver bullet. There is no white knight.
...unless someone else's name -- someone other than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul -- is put forth at a brokered, uh, deadlocked convention.
Is that possible?
Sure.
Is that probable?
There is nothing that has happened in the post-reform era (1972-present) that would lead anyone to the conclusion that it is.