The Extent of Jeb Bush's Alabama "Problem"

This story that the Jeb Bush campaign and its supporters failed to line up a full slate of delegate candidates littered the FHQ Twitter stream last night and has picked up some steam this morning. Let's be real here: It is certainly something of a problem, but the degree of that problem is being overstated. Much of the reporting thus far on the matter -- on the heels of the Alabama filing deadline late last week -- is missing quite a bit of context. And, really, much of it has missed the real story.

But first, Jeb.

Alabama Republicans will send 50 delegates to the national convention in Cleveland next year. Three of those are automatic delegates (the state party chair, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman) which leaves 47 other delegate slots that candidates, their campaigns and supporters have to fill by filing to run. Of those 47 spots, Bush has 32 delegate candidates covering 29 vacancies. That is short of the more than full slates that candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio had filing in support of them.

Looks bad, right?

It is. If a campaign touts its strength in filing a full slate of delegate candidates in Tennessee -- as the Bush campaign has done and others have reported -- then it says something that the campaign has missed the mark further south in Alabama. It says something about organization in an area of the country -- SEC primary territory -- where Bush has spent some time this fall. It says something more that, compared to the other candidates, Bush ranks sixth in terms of the number of Alabama delegate candidates that filed pledged to the former Florida governor.

There are, however, a couple of matters that have gone unsaid and/or underreported in this story. One is that the above it just one comparison. The second is that the process in Alabama -- the rules -- are being overlooked. Both factors when not considered help to overstate the extent of the problem for Bush in Alabama.

2012
Sure, when we look at the 32 delegate candidates that filed on Jeb Bush's behalf compared to the 76 potential delegates that aligned with Carson and Cruz, it looks kind of ominous. Again, it is. FHQ does not want to understate that. In the invisible primary, that is a signal that organizationally, Bush is lagging behind his competitors. Think of this as a straw poll of activists in Alabama, which it functionally is. Jeb Bush just came in sixth. That's winnowing territory.

Yet, look back four years and you will see that all four candidates who made the Alabama presidential primary ballot -- Gingrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum -- all had gaps in the delegate slates that appeared on the ballot next to their names. And yes, that is more an excuse from the Bush perspective than anything else. 2016 is not 2012. However, if FHQ had asked you before the Alabama filing deadline -- so absent this revelation about delegate slates there -- whether Bush would get more or less than 12 delegates (of 47 total), I suspect most would have taken the under given the crowded field of candidates.

Why 12 delegates?

That is the number of delegates Mitt Romney won after the March 13 Alabama presidential primary in 2012. If Bush is a stand-in for 2012 Romney, then those 32 delegate candidates covering 29 slots do not really look all that bad. They cover the bases. Romney won 8 delegates statewide. Bush has 14 at-large delegate candidates covering 13 (of 26) slots. Romney won the first congressional district in 2012 but with less than a majority (two delegates) and was runner up in the fifth and sixth districts (one delegate each). Bush has at least two delegate candidates in each of those three districts.

The delegates slots that Bush is most likely to win, then, are covered. The harder part, perhaps, is getting to the 20% of the vote statewide and in the congressional districts to qualify for those delegates. That strikes FHQ as a much larger Alabama problem at the moment.

Process
Well, what if the at this moment problem is not a problem after the March 1 primary in the Yellowhammer state? What happens if Bush actually exceeds expectations and wins more delegates than his campaign has delegate candidates to cover?

First of all, Bush would still likely have enough delegate candidates to cover his bases even given a winnowed field. But on the offhand chance that Bush really exceeds expectations, and he wins, say, 35 delegates, what happens?

The Alabama Republican Party allocation rules state that voters cannot vote for Jeb Bush and then vote for delegate candidates aligned another candidate to fill in blanks left by Bush. There is no procedure to discard ballots for conflicts (i.e.: voting for Bush and then voting for a Rubio delegate where there is no Bush delegate), but the comments of the Alabama Republican Party seem to indicate that the topline, presidential preference vote has precedence over the delegate votes.¹ The candidate is going to get their delegates in other words.

But how?

Well, if a voter cannot vote for Bush and then a delegate candidate not aligned with Bush, then that means that Bush is winning the top line vote. However, that also means those delegate slots are not being filled. Those slots are vacant.

The first step in filling those vacancies is through the alternate delegate process. The alternate delegates are not elected directly on the ballot. Instead, the state party executive committee selects alternates for the statewide at-large delegates while alternates for congressional district delegate slots are selected by the congressional district committees. There could theoretically be some jockeying on these committees to stack the alternate slates, but recall that these decisions are being made after the vote in the presidential primary. And again, the state party has said that the candidates will receive their rightful share of the delegates based on the vote in the primary.

And in the event there are any shenanigans based on one candidate exceeding expectations -- at least as measured by a comparison to how well their campaign did in lining up delegate candidates -- then the state executive committee will fill those slots.

--
Is all this a black eye for Jeb Bush and his campaign during a downward trend for them? Sure, but is it the end of the world? No. Bush seems to have his bases covered for even a reasonable result for him in Alabama. But even if he exceeds even the 2012 Romney baseline, the Alabama rules provide cover.

...and that is true for the other candidates who played the delegate filing game even worse than Bush as well.


--
¹ Those comments from Reed Phillips at ALGOP (via Daniel Malloy at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution):

A candidate that wins enough of the vote to be allocated any delegates, will still receive the number of delegates that they won in the primary. If there are any vacancies in delegate slots then the delegates that did qualify will vote to fill those vacancies for that candidate. If a candidate didn’t have anyone qualify as a delegate for them but wins enough of the vote to have delegates, then the state executive committee will vote to fill those slots.

Recent Posts:
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: ALABAMA

Karl Rove Tries His Hand at a Brokered Deadlocked Convention Scenario...

South Carolina Democrats Are Not Getting Snubbed

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Jeb Bush, Puerto Rico and Backdoor Winner-Take-All Delegate Allocation

It is not some mistake that Jeb Bush is in Puerto Rico this week for a fundraiser and town hall meeting.

According to law in the territory, there is to be a primary election next March; on the third Sunday in March unless that date conflicts with Easter or Palm Sunday.¹ In 2016, it does. Instead of being on March 20, then, the Puerto Rico primary will fall on Sunday, March 13; just at the tail end of the proportionality window.

But why would a candidate make the effort to venture into Puerto Rico in April in the year before a presidential nomination race at the prospect of gaining some proportional share of the territory's 23 delegates? The answer is twofold. First, and Lesley Clark at McClatchy raises this, is that there are potential primary and general election ramifications in Florida's Puerto Rican community to making an appearance in and talking about issues important to folks on the island and in the continental United States.

That is true, but there are broader strategic implications at play here as well that piggyback on that Florida-Puerto Rico connection. The Florida primary is scheduled for Tuesday, March 15. Florida Republicans are also talking about a winner-take-all delegate allocation plan. However, it is unclear if those plans include a truly winner-take-all allocation method or the more-often-used (sans national party penalty) winner-take-most allocation. Let's assume here that it is the former (and FHQ thinks it will be).

The Puerto Rico primary is situated just a couple of days earlier, just inside the proportionality window on March 13. If the party utilizes the same type of allocation plan it used in 2012, then it has the potential to be a backdoor winner-take-all contest. There are no congressional districts in Puerto Rico, so there cannot be any differentiation between congressional district delegates and at-large delegates. All 23 are at-large delegates. That has the practical implication of making the Puerto Rico Republican delegate allocation either truly proportional or truly winner-take-all. Given, the date of the primary, it cannot be the latter.

Recall, however, that a party can include certain thresholds in its delegate allocation plan to guide the process (and still meet the proportionality requirements). In 2012, Puerto Rico Republicans required candidates to received at least 15% of the vote to be allocated any delegates, but if one candidate wins a majority of the vote, then that candidate is awarded all 23 delegates. The latter threshold was cleared by Mitt Romney in 2012 when the former Massachusetts governor won nearly 90% of the vote.

That backdoor winner-take-all scenario in Puerto Rico plus a win in winner-take-all Florida (outside the proportionality window) is a significant one-two punch (over 120 delegates). If a candidate can pull that off in what appears to be a protracted race (at that point), that is important. The key here is that there is less difference between a winner-take-most contest and a proportional contest than there is between a winner-take-all primary or caucuses and everything else. Not all states after March 14 are rushing to be winner-take-all. But some are, and if this race keeps going, targeting those winner-take-all states -- as John McCain did in 2008 -- is a big part of the puzzle in the race to 1235.

Jeb Bush is making that play.


--
¹ Here is the text of that primary law:

Those primaries to be held pursuant to the provisions of this subtitle shall be held on the third Sunday of March of the year in which the general election is to be held, except if said Sunday is Palm Sunday or Easter Sunday, in which case, the primaries shall be held on the second Sunday of March of the same year. Primaries shall be held on the first Sunday of March if the aforementioned holidays fall on the second and third Sunday. 

In the case of national primaries, these may be held on any date after the first Tuesday of March of the year in which the general election is to be held, up to June fifteenth (15th) of that same year, as determined by the local body of the national party.

The Republican Party in Puerto Rico used the second part of the law as its motivation for setting the date of its 2012 primary, but ended up scheduling it on the date called for in the first part -- the third Sunday in March (March 18, 2012).

Recent Posts:
South Carolina Republicans Eyeing February 20 Presidential Primary Date

Both Utah Democrats and Republicans Appear Headed for March 22 Caucuses

Proposed Massachusetts House Budget Includes Money for 2016 Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Bush Involved in Recent Florida Presidential Primary Legislation?

This is interesting. From Lee Fang at The Intercept:

State Representative Matt Gaetz wrote to Bush on January 2nd that he is “concerned that Florida’s current primary date will lead to proportional allocation of delegates” and that a “winner take all” system would be preferable. 

“Unless you ask me otherwise, I’ll file legislation to move our primary date back a week,” Gaetz told Bush, who responded to say that his political advisor Sally Bradshaw would give Gaetz a call. “10 4,” Gaetz shot back. [Emphasis FHQ's]

Fang couches this exchange as coordination between Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature. Maybe, but there are a few things that cast some doubt on that assertion.

First, given the RNC penalty structure, the date of the Florida primary under the 2013 law was a bit unclear. That was not a new issue in 2015.

Secondly, Rep. Gaetz did not actually sponsor the legislation that came out of the Florida House and was subsequently signed into law. That plus the fact that the action the state legislator calls for in the email did not match with what some in Florida interpreted as the move in the recently passed legislation.¹

In any event, Florida Republicans have historically had some form or fashion of winner-take-all or winner-take-most delegate allocation rules. Neither that, nor the fact that Florida Republicans wanted to extend that tradition should come as a surprise. It would likely have been true with or without Bush or Rubio eyeing runs at the White House.

But the thing is Rubio was involved in the 2013 law change that initially brought Florida back under compliance with the Republican National Committee rules. That was clearer than this exchange.

--
¹ Some interpreted the presidential primary law change as affecting a two week change from March 1 to March 15.

Recent Posts:
Massachusetts Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters

Presidential Primary or Caucuses? In Washington State It Hinges on What State Democrats Decide

Efforts to Cancel 2016 Presidential Primary Move Forward in Kansas

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

The Death of the Ames Straw Poll?

Here we are a little less than three years away -- a long time in politics -- from the likely August 2015 Ames Straw Poll; an event that is often heralded as the beginning of the Republican presidential nomination process. Of course, the real beginning of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process was sometime either late on November 6 or in the wee hours of the morning of November 7 when the 2012 election was called for Barack Obama. Never the less, many look upon the late summer event in Iowa in the year immediately prior to a presidential election year as important; a point at which people are actually casting ballots for would-be/actually-are candidates in the state that quadrennially kicks off the new primary season.

Non-binding on the actual nomination race or not, some -- Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA) -- are now calling for an end to the process.

To which FHQ responds, "Not so fast." Here's why:

1. It is a little early to be talking about death knells for 2016 campaign events.
2. As Republican Party of Iowa Chairman AJ Spiker rightfully pointed out, Branstad will not be the one making this decision.
3. The 2016 Republican nomination race is wide open from our vantage point here in November 2012. It may not be in 2015 (but probably will be to some extent).
4. Calling for or forecasting the end to events in Iowa is an age-old past time in the political sphere.

There are probably other reasons too, but let's focus on these interrelated four.

At least during the 2012 cycle folks waited until February 2011 to start questioning the utility of the Iowa caucuses. Built on the same house of cards reasoning -- that social conservative Iowa Republicans would select someone who was too conservative to do well in the remaining primaries and caucuses and by extension the general election --  some continued to question Iowa's usefulness at the beginning of the Republican nomination process after Michele Bachmann won the 2011 straw poll. That reasoning is predicated on the false notion that these events -- whether the straw poll or the first in the nation caucuses -- have to be or should be predictive of the final outcome. This is the wrong way to think about the role of either event. Both the straw poll and the caucuses due to their positioning are not predictive events. They are winnowing events. Sometimes the stars align and the straw poll and more often the caucuses crown (or as luck would have it, "pick") the nominee.¹ But that is not always the case. And it doesn't have to be. Leave the picking to other states. Iowa's power has always been in winnowing the choice set.

The only real, definitive bit of information that we have to have at this point in 2012 about the future of the Ames Straw Poll is that the Republican Party of Iowa is not going to unilaterally disarm.² That is certainly true given the discussions of who may run on the Republican side in 2016. There continue to be discussions about how deep the Republican bench is and if that comes to fruition -- if Rubio, Bush, Christie, Jindal, Ryan and Paul all run or even if half of them run -- then Iowa Republicans are not going to discontinue the straw poll.

Well, the party would not end the straw poll unless there was clear evidence that all of the candidates, especially the big name candidates, would skip the event. Even then, the party may persist with the straw poll. But that scenario isn't likely to happen because if all or half of those candidates listed above run, it will only take one opting into the straw poll process -- as is or tweaked in some way, shape or form -- to bring the others in. The Ames Straw Poll is or would be too big of a deal to miss from an organizational standpoint. 2016 is not shaping up to be a John McCain (2008) or Mitt Romney (2012) sort of cycle for the Republicans; a cycle where a seemingly more moderate candidate is the frontrunner -- nominal or otherwise.³ Unless all of the above pass on 2016 for some strange reason, then all will be motivated to participate in the straw poll. That is more true in light of the fact that there does not seem to be a true social conservative on the short list of candidates. In Ben Domenech's taxonomy, Rubio (or Bush) is the establishment candidate, Jindal is the populist, Christie is the moderate and Rand Paul is the libertarian. That leaves room for one dark horse, who could be a social conservative, but absent such a candidate, all of the others would have some selling to do to the social conservative Iowa crowd.  That portion of the caucusgoing electorate would matter, but would likely be split to varying degrees unless one of the candidates emerged or had emerged prior to the straw poll as a clear frontrunner.

The bottom line is that, yes, like Craig Robinson, I agree that the candidates will be the ones deciding the future of Ames Straw Poll. If they show up, it matters. If they don't, then it won't. But depending on how the eternity that is the next two and a half years of the invisible primary progresses, there will likely be incentives for the candidates to throw their hat in the ring. That comes with some consequences -- a poor showing could mean lights out -- but the reward of meeting or exceeding expectations could be greater than that risk of not.

It's just too early folks. Call me in late 2014 to discuss the death of Ames. November 2012 is too early.

--
¹ Much of this has to do with the extent to which a consensus frontrunner has emerged by the time of either the straw poll or the caucuses. If that consensus exists as it did in 2000, for instance, then the majority/plurality of Iowa caucusgoers often make the pragmatic choice whether it overlaps completely with their ideological position or not.

² Terry Branstad might want to discontinue the practice, but the RPI does not and will not.

³ Another way of thinking about this is that there was 1) no clear frontrunner and 2) the overall field was viewed as weak in both cycles. Both factors seem to have applied in 2012, but neither seems to fit the conditions of 2008.

Recent Posts:
2012 Electoral College Wrap Up, Part 2

2012 Electoral College Wrap Up, Part 1

332-206

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

2012 Presidential Trial Heats: PPP (Sept. '09)

Let's have a glance at those Public Policy Polling 2012 presidential trial heat numbers from earlier but add in the graphics to give us some context.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 50%
Bush: 37%
Undecided: 13%

Obviously, there is no over time element to the Obama/Bush numbers, but FHQ felt compelled to add some sort of graphic to accompany the former Florida governor's numbers against the president. Other than that, there isn't that much more to say about this head-to-head match up. We will say this, though: Jeb Bush filled in and probably closely matched where Newt Gingrich would have been relative to Obama had the former Speaker been included in the poll this month (both in terms of the numbers and in terms of relative order of the Republican candidates). Still, it was nice to see another name in the mix.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 48%
Huckabee: 41%
Undecided: 11%

It is hard to look at Huckabee's numbers against Obama this year and wonder which recent poll is the anomaly. The former Arkansas governor peaked in last month's PPP poll and then bottomed out in the Clarus Research Group poll in the field almost simultaneously. If you split the difference between those two August polls, you end up with Huckabee at around where he is in September; still trailing Obama but performing better than the other Republicans.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 53%
Palin: 38%
Undecided: 9%

July was a good month for Sarah Palin, but since actually leaving office in the Last Frontier, the 2008 Republican VP nominee has slid in the polls; not just in these 2012 trial heats but in other national polls gauging respondents' perceptions of her favorability. This month is no different, though she is in a better position in the PPP polls versus the aforementioned Clarus poll or the August Marist poll. It seems as if Palin was in a better position when people were talking about her leaving office in Juneau rather than her actually doing it.

[Click to Enlarge]

Obama: 48%
Romney: 39%
Undecided: 13%

Finally, Mitt Romney continues to minimize Barack Obama's reach while simultaneously underperforming Mike Huckabee. Throughout much of the year's polling, Romney has been able to keep Obama under the 50% mark (as has Huckabee), but has struggled to break 40% himself (unlike Huckabee). Republicans (in these polls) just seem more comfortable with Huckabee than Romney at this point.

Notes:
Tom Jensen at PPP speculated that much of the difference in this month's results against August's is attributable to the inclusion of Bush in the poll ( This seems an ideal explanation on its face considering the partisan breakdown underlying both polls was largely similar). The candidates have in the past been listed and tested against Obama alphabetically and that meant that instead of Gingrich being first this month, Bush was. In other words, respondents may have been primed because of Jeb's inclusion to consider the most recent Bush administration when thinking about the general election race in 2012. That ends up being a nice recipe for getting similar results to the electoral outcome from last November.

Obviously, Huckabee continues to fare the best against President Obama in these PPP poll, while Mitt Romney lags in terms of favorability and overall support. The gap between the two is particularly surprising given that both have been rather tightly clustered in the 2012 primary polling that has been done. Again, though, this has been a consistent theme in PPP's 2012 trial heat polling since April.

The other theme that has consistently run throughout PPP's and other polls is that a potential Sarah Palin candidacy does nothing to neutralize the typical (though variable) advantage Democrats have among women. In fact, her male counterparts continue to do better among women nationally than does Palin. But that gap is pretty narrow at this point between the former Alaska governor and Jeb Bush.

One last thing to look at is the candidates' abilities to retain their parties' voters from the 2008 election. In this poll Obama held onto 90% of his 2008 voters, while all four Republicans were only able to keep about three-quarters of 2008 McCain voters. [Huckabee is the exception. He kept 80% of McCain's voters.] Of course, if there was some certainty behind the identity of the Republican nominee for 2012, I suspect that McCain voter retention rate would be higher.


Recent Posts:
PPP 2012 Presidential Poll: Huckabee Still Does Best, but All GOP Candidates Drop Off Against Obama

Tracking Pawlenty for 2012

FHQ Reading Room (9/23/09)

PPP 2012 Presidential Poll: Huckabee Still Does Best, but All GOP Candidates Drop Off Against Obama

Public Policy Polling today released their monthly look at the 2012 presidential terrain. Other than dropping Newt Gingrich this month and replacing him with Jeb Bush, the news is that Obama stretched his advantages relative to all four prospective Republican candidates (versus last month).

Here are the results:

Obama: 50%
Bush: 37%
Undecided: 13%

Obama: 48%
Huckabee: 41%
Undecided: 11%

Obama: 53%
Palin: 38%
Undecided: 9%

Obama: 48%
Romney: 39%
Undecided: 13%

Margin of error: +/- 3.9%
Sample: 621 voters (nationally)
Conducted: 9/18-21/09



Recent Posts:
Tracking Pawlenty for 2012

FHQ Reading Room (9/23/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (9/22/09)

Is a Week Old New? 2012 GOP Primary Poll

FHQ is late on this -- about a week late -- but we find it necessary to keep a log of 2012 polls even if it means a delay.

CNN released a second poll on the 2012 GOP primary race; an update from February.

Pollster: CNN/Opinion Research
Date: 5/14-17/2009
Sample: 1010 adults (nationwide phone survey)
Margin of error: +/-4.5 points
Results:
Huckabee -- 22%
Palin -- 21%
Romney -- 21%
Gingrich -- 13%
Other -- 10%
Jeb Bush -- 6%

Not included: Bobby Jindal (in February -- 9%)

This isn't exciting because there aren't many polls, but like the trial heats PPP is doing with Obama, I feel compelled to create a visual for this:
Palin and Huckabee slip some from February, but both are still very much clustered together with Mitt Romney atop the pack still. Much of that could be attributable to Gingrich's inclusion in the second poll. The former Speaker pulled in 13% while Palin and Huckabee lost 12% combined. That conclusion, though, is a leap of faith to some degree. What's interesting is that 10% of Republicans are still planning on supporting "somone else," a result that didn't change with Jindal being dropped and Bush and Gingrich being added. I wonder if that is Ron Paul? Some of it likely is.

But all of this is silly. The 2012 campaign hasn't started yet.

...or has it.

Hat tip: GOP12, which wasn't late with poll commentary on this one.


Recent Posts:
Virginia is for Voters

The Calm After the... Well, It Wasn't a Storm.

Past is Prologue? The New Jersey Governor's Race