Now that the Republican presidential primary process has entered March and hit hyperdrive, many are beginning to more closely examine the rules changes the Republican National Committee (and the Republican National Convention in Tampa) made for the 2016 cycle. At the core of that is a simple question: How have the rules impacted the progress of the race?
The answer to that simple question, however, is not so simple. Some have blamed the proportionality requirement at the beginning of the March part of the primary calendar. Others have pointed the finger at the newly compressed 2016 primary calendar for the results in the contests to date. The problem is that both of those explanations miss the mark by failing to take a deeper look at what has really changed with the rules for 2016 and how that has affected the actual delegate count. Both arguments basically hide behind the complexity of both changes without really offering an adequate answer to the original question.
There are at least two other explanations that better explain the differences in the delegate counts at similar points in the 2012 and 2016 cycles.
1) Texas
The Texas primary -- and its 155 delegates -- were in May in 2012. Think about that. That is 155 delegates that were virtually at the end of the 2012 process. In fact, it was those Texas delegates that pushed Mitt Romney past the 1144 delegates he needed to clinch the Republican nomination four years ago.
But the Texas primary was only scheduled for May because a redistricting dispute in the courts forced its delay. Originally, it was planned -- by state law -- for the first Tuesday in March. Just like this cycle (and every other one from 2008 back to 1988).1
With Texas back to normal in March for the 2016 cycle, those 155 delegates -- 12.5% of the number of delegates required to clinch the nomination -- ended up at a considerably earlier point on the calendar than had been the case since the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday. Not only was the Texas primary earlier for 2016, but the Lone Star state had a favorite son vying for the nomination. Without those 104 delegates, that favorite son -- Ted Cruz -- would not be in nearly the favorable position in the delegate count as he is at this point in early March on the calendar.
Cruz would lose 56 delegates to Donald Trump. That is the surplus he had over the real estate tycoon in the Texas delegate count. Furthermore, he would lose the 101 delegate advantage he had over Marco Rubio leaving Texas. Without an early Texas primary win, Cruz would not be as close to Trump in the delegate count and would be closer to Rubio and third place in the delegate count than Trump in first. In other words, Cruz would look a lot more like Gingrich and Santorum did relative to Romney in 2012.
It just cannot be understated how important that Texas win was for Cruz. And no, the position of the Texas primary on the 2016 calendar had nothing to do with the Republican rules changes in Tampa and thereafter.
2) Unbound delegates
While the Texas factor is not a rules-based change, there is one rules change that to this point has taken a back seat to other explanations; those arguing that the course of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination race is a function of proportional rules and/or a compressed calendar. The focus on those two changes is mostly misguided as the national party rules changes -- particularly with regard to proportional delegate allocation -- did not really yield that much change in the state-level rules. It has not to this point anyway.
The one thing that many are missing that has actually more directly affected (made things appear more competitive) the current delegate count relative to the one four years ago, is the new binding requirement the RNC instituted for the 2016 cycle. Gone is the fraction of automatic delegates who were more like superdelegates four years ago. Gone are the fantasy delegates from all those non-binding caucuses. Those delegates are mostly bound or will be bound in 2016. Iowa, Minnesota and Maine (and eventually Washington and Missouri) were all non-binding in 2012. Not in 2016. In the case of those first three, the delegates were allocated proportionally with either no or a very low threshold. That is making the delegate count more competitive. Delegates were allocated to a larger number of candidates in 2016 rather than being unbound as they were in 2012.
That is not necessarily affecting the gap between candidates in the current delegate count, but it is providing more delegates to more candidates instead of no candidates.
--
What effect have those two changes had on the delegate count cycle over cycle from 2012 to 2016?
If one backs out the Texas delegates and the unbound delegates (based on the formerly non-binding caucus state that have conducted caucuses at this time) from the 2016 count, 2016 looks even more like 2012. Cruz is, perhaps, a stronger version of Santorum (each won/has won multiple states) and Rubio is a weaker Gingrich (still each has/had two wins). Kasich stands in as Ron Paul; not winning contests, but winning delegates. Here is what that comparison looks like:
2016 (25 states)
Trump: 391
Cruz: 221
Rubio: 126
Kasich: 51
Unbound: 17
2012 (26 binding states, 32 total)
Romney: 454 R
Santorum: 172 S
Gingrich: 138 G
Paul: 27 P
Unbound/Unpledged: 2922
Again, there has been no accounting for the calendar changes -- other than a non-rules-based shift of the Texas primary -- or proportionality rules in this. In this exercise, the Texas delegates have been removed from the 2016 total as have the formerly unbound delegates in now-binding Iowa, Maine and Minnesota. The picture that leaves is one where the delegate leaders are within about 50 delegates of each other. Perhaps that is attributable to a newly compressed calendar and/or (an admittedly smaller) proportionality window in 2016. But a strong argument could also be made that the differences in the leaders' totals at similar points on the calendars in 2012 and 2016 is explained by a weaker frontrunner in 2016 than in 2012. That seems to be demonstrated by what looks like a basically 50 delegate shift between first and second place in 2012 versus 2016.
This is a surface level exercise, but it is quite suggestive.
Blame the rules?
Not really. The rules in 2016 -- as has been the case for the rules of the Republican process in the past -- are still designed to aid frontrunners/winners; to ease the way to a presumptive nominee. That is still happening.
The bottom line is that the rules changes have had an effect, but not in the way that many think. Maybe the finger should be pointed not at the compressed calendar and the proportional rules, but somewhere else instead.
--
1 Texas did shift from the second week in March to the first week in March in its law ahead of the 2004 cycle, but that change was delayed until 2008. From 1988-2004, then, Texas was on the second week in March on the calendar.
2 That this number is so much higher is a function of there being six more contests in 2012 than in 2016. Those non-binding contests drove up the total number of delegates.
Showing posts with label delegate count. Show all posts
Showing posts with label delegate count. Show all posts
Friday, March 11, 2016
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
The New Hampshire Delegate Count and Beyond -- Automatic Delegates
There was some confusion throughout New Hampshire primary day about just how many of the Republican delegates were on the line in the Granite state. If one looks at New Hampshire state law, it sets the basic terms of delegate allocation in the state. The shorthand of this is that the secretary of state allocates delegates to the national convention to candidates who receive more than 10 percent of the statewide vote in the New Hampshire primary.
That is just "delegates", not at-large delegates or district delegates. Just delegates.
However, the New Hampshire Republican Party has traditionally pooled its at-large and district delegates and allocated them proportionally based on the statewide result. According to party bylaws (see Article II, Section 1 and Article III), though, the three party or automatic delegates have traditionally been unbound. The state party chair, the national committeeman and national committeewoman are prohibited from supporting any candidates. The party rules keep them "neutral".
That would seem to indicate that only 20 of the 23 New Hampshire delegates were at stake in Tuesday's primary. That was how FHQ interpreted the rules and we were not alone. That has been the way that delegates have been allocated in New Hampshire in the Republican contest.1
But this interpretation ignores changes made to the national party delegate selection rules for 2016. New to the Rules of the Republican Party for this cycle is a requirement binding delegates to candidates based on the results of statewide contests like the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses a week ago.
That rule, Rule 16(a)(1), states:
That fairly inclusive-seeming definition leaves open to interpretation just how state parties like New Hampshire's or Virginia's deal with the potential ambiguity in the national party rules as compared to state party bylaws that explicitly keep the party/automatic delegates neutral or unbound. Typically, the RNC has left much of the minutiae of delegate selection up to the states to decide.
Yet, in December, FHQ was told that there were no unbound delegates at the outset of the Republican nomination process. There can be unbound delegates, but only if they are released by candidates who have withdrawn from the race. That meant that in the 40 percent of states where state party rules left the automatic delegates unbound there was something of a conflict. That is what prompted us to begin adding riders like the following to the FHQ explainers on delegate allocation at the state level. Here's an example from the Virginia post:
In New Hampshire, then, the party delegates are lumped in with the full allotment of delegates and allocated proportionally. The same would be true in Virginia (rendering Morton Blackwell's endorsement of Ted Cruz somewhat moot). A state like Tennessee, where only the at-large delegates are proportionally allocated based on the statewide results (and the district level delegates based on the congressional district results), those party delegates would treated as another three at-large delegates.
This is bigger than New Hampshire, then. Other state are affected as well, and FHQ's state-level allocation primers will be updated to reflect the clarified interpretation of the rules.
--
1 Of course, it has been since 2000 that that traditional method had been used. Penalties imposed by the national party for going too early in the last two competitive cycles -- 2008 and 2012 -- meant that New Hampshire lost its automatic delegates. New Hampshire is rules compliant for 2016 and they have their automatic delegates.
That is just "delegates", not at-large delegates or district delegates. Just delegates.
However, the New Hampshire Republican Party has traditionally pooled its at-large and district delegates and allocated them proportionally based on the statewide result. According to party bylaws (see Article II, Section 1 and Article III), though, the three party or automatic delegates have traditionally been unbound. The state party chair, the national committeeman and national committeewoman are prohibited from supporting any candidates. The party rules keep them "neutral".
That would seem to indicate that only 20 of the 23 New Hampshire delegates were at stake in Tuesday's primary. That was how FHQ interpreted the rules and we were not alone. That has been the way that delegates have been allocated in New Hampshire in the Republican contest.1
But this interpretation ignores changes made to the national party delegate selection rules for 2016. New to the Rules of the Republican Party for this cycle is a requirement binding delegates to candidates based on the results of statewide contests like the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses a week ago.
That rule, Rule 16(a)(1), states:
Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters. [Emphasis FHQ's]Like the New Hampshire state law, the terms of the Republican Party rule are ambiguous. It just says that a state's delegates must be allocated proportionally or winner-take-all based on primary or caucus results. There is no distinction between types of delegates. It is just delegates or in this case a state's delegation.
That fairly inclusive-seeming definition leaves open to interpretation just how state parties like New Hampshire's or Virginia's deal with the potential ambiguity in the national party rules as compared to state party bylaws that explicitly keep the party/automatic delegates neutral or unbound. Typically, the RNC has left much of the minutiae of delegate selection up to the states to decide.
Yet, in December, FHQ was told that there were no unbound delegates at the outset of the Republican nomination process. There can be unbound delegates, but only if they are released by candidates who have withdrawn from the race. That meant that in the 40 percent of states where state party rules left the automatic delegates unbound there was something of a conflict. That is what prompted us to begin adding riders like the following to the FHQ explainers on delegate allocation at the state level. Here's an example from the Virginia post:
The automatic delegates -- the state party chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman -- from Virginia are explicitly unbound according to the September resolutions adopted by the state party. That has been the case in the past, but FHQ was informed in recent conversations with the Republican National Committee that Rule 16(a)(1) binds all delegates from a delegation. The only exception is for delegates elected directly (on the ballot). That does not include party/automatic delegates. How those delegates are allocated/bound when the state rules are not clear on their allocation is a bit of an unknown and something of a wildcard.The Republican National Committee has a more rigid interpretation of Rule 16(a)(1) and its effect on the binding of the three party delegates when such a binding process is not specified on the state level. In a January 29 memo to RNC members, the RNC general counsel's office, citing both Rule 16(a)(1) and the November call to the 2016 convention, detailed the binding of party delegates in those states. In a state where the allocation of party delegates is not specified, those delegates are to be treated as at-large delegates and allocated in a manner consistent with the allocation of that subset of delegates.
In New Hampshire, then, the party delegates are lumped in with the full allotment of delegates and allocated proportionally. The same would be true in Virginia (rendering Morton Blackwell's endorsement of Ted Cruz somewhat moot). A state like Tennessee, where only the at-large delegates are proportionally allocated based on the statewide results (and the district level delegates based on the congressional district results), those party delegates would treated as another three at-large delegates.
This is bigger than New Hampshire, then. Other state are affected as well, and FHQ's state-level allocation primers will be updated to reflect the clarified interpretation of the rules.
--
1 Of course, it has been since 2000 that that traditional method had been used. Penalties imposed by the national party for going too early in the last two competitive cycles -- 2008 and 2012 -- meant that New Hampshire lost its automatic delegates. New Hampshire is rules compliant for 2016 and they have their automatic delegates.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
The Iowa Delegate Count
FHQ has fielded some questions in various forms about the delegate count coming out of Monday's Iowa caucuses. There already appear to be a few details about the minutiae of it all that are not exactly clear. Let's add some clarity to this as best we can.
The Associated Press is reporting a delegate count in the Hawkeye state that looks something like this:
Many -- well, many in my Twitter feed and inbox anyway -- have speculated and/or questioned whether FHQ just has it wrong. That there are three outstanding, unallocated delegates would, on the surface, suggest that perhaps the three unallocated delegates are intentionally unallocated. As the argument goes, those three are the three party/automatic delegates. And perhaps those delegates, as is the case in a number of other states are very simply unbound by the results of the caucuses.
It is a somewhat persuasive argument, but this is a situation where appearance and reality are at odds. Here's why:
First, FHQ spoke with Charlie Szold, the Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) Communications Director, back in August about Iowa's placement on the our primary calendar. But I took the opportunity to ask him about the newly adopted delegate allocation plan as well. Recall that Iowa's was a non-binding caucus in 2012. Adding a binding element and a proportional allocation, then, constituted a pretty large change from four years ago. Mr. Szold shared with me the new rules, I glanced them over and seeing that the Iowa rules seemed to suggest that all 30 of the delegates would be allocated and bound, followed up for assurance. After double checking with the party's expert on the delegate process, Mr. Szold confirmed that all 30 would be proportionally allocated based on the caucus results, including the party delegates.
This was a process that FHQ repeated yesterday given some pushback. The answer from RPI was the same: all 30 of the delegates, including the automatic delegates, will be allocated and bound to candidates based on the results in Monday's caucuses.
Well, here we are, two days after the caucuses, and the same 27 delegates above are the only delegates that have been allocated (unofficially by the AP). Why?
As I speculated yesterday it could be because not all precincts were in in Iowa. There is such a cluster of candidates around the 1.9 percent mark that any additions or subtractions of votes to/from the total could affect whether Fiorina, Kasich, Huckabee or Christie receive a delegate. But 100 percent of precincts are now reporting. There is now an unofficial tally. Yet, there still is not a full allocation out of Iowa.
The reason for that is that the tally is unofficial. Until the results are certified by the RPI there will not be a full delegate count out of Iowa. Let us not forget that four short years ago, Mitt Romney was declared the (narrow) winner in Iowa late on caucus night. However, a little more than two weeks later, Romney's 8 vote win became a 34 vote loss to Santorum. There is, then, a cautionary approach to the vote certification and delegate count in Iowa this time around.
Again, the issue is that four candidates are vying for three remaining delegates. Fiorina, Kasich, Huckabee and Christie all are eligible to round up to a delegate, but there are only three delegates. Christie is at the bottom of the order and would appear to be the odd man out. But it is too close to call until the vote is certified. How close? The four candidates' fractional delegate shares range from .527 to .559. That is four candidates separated by just .032 delegates. In other words, the shifting of a few votes here and there is consequential to the final delegate count.
This is a wait and see sort of thing and nothing more. The count at the top of the order -- where it matters -- is not going to change.
--
One more thing to add to this:
If one calculates the allocation of 27 delegates, the distribution would look like this:
--
Another astute question FHQ has received concerns that Huckabee delegate. And now that Rand Paul has also withdrawn, another delegate can be added to that mix. What happens with those delegates?
They stay bound to Huckabee and Paul regardless. The only out for Iowa delegates is if only one name is placed in nomination at the convention. If only one candidate is placed in nomination, as has been the case throughout the post-reform era (save one contest, the Republicans' first under the new system in 1976), then all of the delegates are bound to that candidate.
Unlike some other states, Iowa does not permit the release of delegates nor for them to become unbound in any way.
--
There are also some questions out there concerning the delegate count on the Democratic side. Much of this seems to be the result of a lack of clarity concerning how many delegates Iowa Democrats actually have. The Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan suggests that there are 54 delegates, but the Democratic National Committee count (still being reviewed, so not final) has Iowa with just 52 delegates, 44 pledged and 8 unpledged (superdelegates).1 It is difficult to speculate on the tentative delegate count in Iowa anyway since the delegates will not be chosen until the later stages of the process. But that process is made even more difficult when there is some doubt about how many delegates the Iowa Democratic Party has been apportioned by the DNC.
--
More post-Iowa delegate count thoughts here.
UPDATE: Certified Republican Party of Iowa caucus results and official delegate allocation.
--
1 While the link to the IDP delegate selection plan was to a draft FHQ had stowed away, I doubled checked it against the plan on the party website at the time of the original posting. It seems to have been updated as of Thursday, February 4 and now reflects the 52 delegates the DNC has apportioned to the Iowa at this time.
The Associated Press is reporting a delegate count in the Hawkeye state that looks something like this:
- Cruz 8
- Trump 7
- Rubio 7
- Carson 3
- Paul 1
- Bush 1
Many -- well, many in my Twitter feed and inbox anyway -- have speculated and/or questioned whether FHQ just has it wrong. That there are three outstanding, unallocated delegates would, on the surface, suggest that perhaps the three unallocated delegates are intentionally unallocated. As the argument goes, those three are the three party/automatic delegates. And perhaps those delegates, as is the case in a number of other states are very simply unbound by the results of the caucuses.
It is a somewhat persuasive argument, but this is a situation where appearance and reality are at odds. Here's why:
First, FHQ spoke with Charlie Szold, the Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) Communications Director, back in August about Iowa's placement on the our primary calendar. But I took the opportunity to ask him about the newly adopted delegate allocation plan as well. Recall that Iowa's was a non-binding caucus in 2012. Adding a binding element and a proportional allocation, then, constituted a pretty large change from four years ago. Mr. Szold shared with me the new rules, I glanced them over and seeing that the Iowa rules seemed to suggest that all 30 of the delegates would be allocated and bound, followed up for assurance. After double checking with the party's expert on the delegate process, Mr. Szold confirmed that all 30 would be proportionally allocated based on the caucus results, including the party delegates.
This was a process that FHQ repeated yesterday given some pushback. The answer from RPI was the same: all 30 of the delegates, including the automatic delegates, will be allocated and bound to candidates based on the results in Monday's caucuses.
Well, here we are, two days after the caucuses, and the same 27 delegates above are the only delegates that have been allocated (unofficially by the AP). Why?
As I speculated yesterday it could be because not all precincts were in in Iowa. There is such a cluster of candidates around the 1.9 percent mark that any additions or subtractions of votes to/from the total could affect whether Fiorina, Kasich, Huckabee or Christie receive a delegate. But 100 percent of precincts are now reporting. There is now an unofficial tally. Yet, there still is not a full allocation out of Iowa.
The reason for that is that the tally is unofficial. Until the results are certified by the RPI there will not be a full delegate count out of Iowa. Let us not forget that four short years ago, Mitt Romney was declared the (narrow) winner in Iowa late on caucus night. However, a little more than two weeks later, Romney's 8 vote win became a 34 vote loss to Santorum. There is, then, a cautionary approach to the vote certification and delegate count in Iowa this time around.
Again, the issue is that four candidates are vying for three remaining delegates. Fiorina, Kasich, Huckabee and Christie all are eligible to round up to a delegate, but there are only three delegates. Christie is at the bottom of the order and would appear to be the odd man out. But it is too close to call until the vote is certified. How close? The four candidates' fractional delegate shares range from .527 to .559. That is four candidates separated by just .032 delegates. In other words, the shifting of a few votes here and there is consequential to the final delegate count.
This is a wait and see sort of thing and nothing more. The count at the top of the order -- where it matters -- is not going to change.
--
One more thing to add to this:
If one calculates the allocation of 27 delegates, the distribution would look like this:
- Cruz 7
- Trump 7
- Rubio 6
- Carson 3
- Paul 1
- Bush 1
- Fiorina 1
- Kasich 1
--
Another astute question FHQ has received concerns that Huckabee delegate. And now that Rand Paul has also withdrawn, another delegate can be added to that mix. What happens with those delegates?
They stay bound to Huckabee and Paul regardless. The only out for Iowa delegates is if only one name is placed in nomination at the convention. If only one candidate is placed in nomination, as has been the case throughout the post-reform era (save one contest, the Republicans' first under the new system in 1976), then all of the delegates are bound to that candidate.
Unlike some other states, Iowa does not permit the release of delegates nor for them to become unbound in any way.
--
There are also some questions out there concerning the delegate count on the Democratic side. Much of this seems to be the result of a lack of clarity concerning how many delegates Iowa Democrats actually have. The Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan suggests that there are 54 delegates, but the Democratic National Committee count (still being reviewed, so not final) has Iowa with just 52 delegates, 44 pledged and 8 unpledged (superdelegates).1 It is difficult to speculate on the tentative delegate count in Iowa anyway since the delegates will not be chosen until the later stages of the process. But that process is made even more difficult when there is some doubt about how many delegates the Iowa Democratic Party has been apportioned by the DNC.
--
More post-Iowa delegate count thoughts here.
UPDATE: Certified Republican Party of Iowa caucus results and official delegate allocation.
--
1 While the link to the IDP delegate selection plan was to a draft FHQ had stowed away, I doubled checked it against the plan on the party website at the time of the original posting. It seems to have been updated as of Thursday, February 4 and now reflects the 52 delegates the DNC has apportioned to the Iowa at this time.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Question Time: What Happens to Santorum's Delegates?
Via the comments:
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
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.
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 168.619But 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.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Race to 1144: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Primary
Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
Delegate breakdown (post-CT, DE, NY, PA & RI primaries):
Changes since Minnesota and Missouri district conventions (4/21/12):
- Romney: +150 delegates (New York: +92, Connecticut: +25, Delaware: +17, Rhode Island: +12, Pennsylvania: +3, Virgin Islands: +1)
- Santorum: +/- 0 delegates
- Paul: +4 delegates (Rhode Island: +4)
- Gingrich: +/- 0 delegates
1) It should be noted that the delegates are difficult to classify in both Nevada and Vermont as both sets of automatic delegates are bound and proportionally allocated with either all of the delegates (Nevada) or with the at-large delegates (Vermont). Those six delegates are in the bound/pledged category in the spreadsheet above but are considered "contest delegates" in the bar chart at the top. It would not be surprising to see those six delegates among those who signed pledges to Romney at the RNC meeting in Scottsdale this past week when and if that list is made public.
2) Mitt Romney swept the delegates in New York (statewide and across all 29 congressional districts), Connecticut (statewide and across all 5 congressional districts) and Delaware.
3) In Rhode Island, Mitt Romney won 63% of the vote and 75% of the total, non-automatic delegates at stake. Ron Paul won 24% of the vote and qualified for delegates by surpassing the 15% threshold for receiving delegates. That netted the Texas congressman 4 delegates; 25% of the total, non-automatic delegates.
4) Pennsylvania is a bit tricky. Though delegates are unbound, some have expressed a presidential preference. The Romney site points to previous endorsements from three delegates directly elected in the primary on Tuesday (see Gerlach, Shuster and English). Additionally, the Ron Paul site has an official list of Pennsylvania delegates that identifies five of the 59 delegates elected on Tuesday are aligned with Paul. The Newt Gingrich site has no such endorsements. However, Gingrich-related sites do have lists of delegates aligned with those candidates. There is also another fabulous thread on another conservative site that breaks this down in even greater detail. The numbers there do jibe well with the Romney, Paul and Gingrich site endorsements. That count -- which FHQ will wait until it is independently verified -- would yield Romney 26 delegates (which counts the four in the spread sheet above), Paul 5, Gingrich 3 and Santorum 2 (or 3). Another 12 or 13 delegates are uncommitted while 10 more are county party-endorsed candidates, former national delegates or alternates or elected officials. That latter group is obviously made up of more establishment/elite figures within the Pennsylvania Republican Party.
5) Mitt Romney has also picked up the lone remaining uncommitted delegate (of two originally) in the Virgin Islands, giving the former Massachusetts governor 8 total delegates in the territory. Thanks to Matthew Wilder Tanner for the link.
6) Two of the unpledged delegates coming out of the Colorado conventions a week ago are Ron Paul supporters. Don't be surprised when and if more of the other 12 unpledged Colorado delegates reveal themselves to be aligned with Paul. If anyone has links to any of these delegates revealing their preferences, please feel free to forward them to me in the comments section.
7) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich one additional delegate (which has been taken from Romney's total). Due to the way the Georgia Republican Party rounds fractional delegates, the FHQ count was off by one delegate (+Romney/-Gingrich). The congressional district count is unaffected (Gingrich 31, Romney, 8 and Santorum 3), but the way the at-large delegates are allocated to Gingrich and Romney -- the only candidates over 20% statewide -- is a bit quirky. Gingrich's portion of the vote would have entitled him to 14.6 delegates and Romney's 8.0. Under Georgia Republican rules, Gingrich is given 14 delegates and Romney 8. That leaves nine delegates unclaimed because the remaining candidates did not clear the 20% threshold. The candidate with the highest "remainder" is awarded the first delegate and the candidates over 20% trade turns until all of those delegates are allocated. Remember, Gingrich did not round up to 15 delegates (14.6), but that 0.6 gives him a larger "remainder" than Romney. The former speaker, then, is allocated the first of nine delegates. With an odd number of delegates leftover, Gingrich would have a fifth turn after Romney's fourth and that would end the allocation of those "extra" delegates. Gingrich would claim five to Romney's four. Of the 31 at-large delegates, Gingrich is allocated 19 and Romney 12. Please note that for winning the statewide vote, Gingrich is allocated the three automatic delegates. That makes the final allocation Gingrich 53, Romney 20 and Santorum 3. The RNC, though, has a different interpretation.
Recent Posts:
A Few Notes on the RNC Meeting and the 2016 Rules
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Pennsylvania
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Delaware
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Race to 1144: MN, MO & WY Conventions
.png)
Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
Delegate breakdown (post-MN, MO & WY conventions):
Changes since Colorado, Minnesota and North Dakota state/district conventions (4/17/12):
- Romney: +31 delegates (Wyoming: +14, Missouri: +12, Tennessee: +2, Arkansas: +1, Illinois: +1, Oregon: +1, Alabama: +1)
- Santorum: +7 delegates (Missouri: +7)
- Paul: +16 delegates (Minnesota: +10, Missouri: +4, Colorado: +2)
- Gingrich: +/- 0 delegates (Missouri: +1, Alabama: -1)
1) It should be noted that the delegates are difficult to classify in both Nevada and Vermont as both sets of automatic delegates are bound and proportionally allocated with either all of the delegates (Nevada) or with the at-large delegates (Vermont). Those six delegates are in the bound/pledged category in the spreadsheet above but are considered "contest delegates" in the bar chart at the top. It would not be surprising to see those six delegates among those who signed pledges to Romney at the RNC meeting in Scottsdale this past week when and if that list is made public.
2) Speaking of that list of pledges, at least five of the automatic delegates have been identified.
3) FHQ remembered to follow Colorado and Minnesota last weekend while I was on the road at a conference in Chicago, but the Wyoming Republican Party state convention was something I missed. All 14 of the delegates to be allocated at the state convention were allocated to Mitt Romney:
"The Wyoming Republican Party chose 14 delegates Saturday to this summer's Republican National Convention and all of them are committed to support Romney. The state will send a total of 29 delegates to the RNC."4) Two of the unpledged delegates coming out of the Colorado conventions a week ago are Ron Paul supporters.
"Todd King of Lewis and Luke Kirk of Bayfield, both supporters of Texas congressman Ron Paul, were elected delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in August. They edged out the official slate of Romney delegates at Friday evening’s convention of 3rd Congressional District Republicans."Don't be surprised when and if more of the other 12 unpledged Colorado delegates reveal themselves to be aligned with Paul.
5) The four congressional district conventions that have been held in Minnesota have favored Texas congressman, Ron Paul, thus far. Ten of his supporters won slots in the four conventions held over the weekend, bringing Paul's total delegates won in the North Star state to 20 -- half the total Minnesota delegation. The affiliation of the weekend's remaining two delegates are unknown.
6) In the eight Missouri congressional district conventions over the weekend, Mitt Romney won half of the 24 total delegates at stake. The other twelve delegates were divided among Santorum (7 delegates), Paul (4 delegates) and Gingrich (1 delegate). Romney swept all of the delegates in the 4th and 8th districts. Ron Paul did the same in the 5th district. Three candidates took delegates in each of the 1st and 6th districts while the final three districts elected Romney-Santorum slates.
7) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich one additional delegate (which has been taken from Romney's total). Due to the way the Georgia Republican Party rounds fractional delegates, the FHQ count was off by one delegate (+Romney/-Gingrich). The congressional district count is unaffected (Gingrich 31, Romney, 8 and Santorum 3), but the way the at-large delegates are allocated to Gingrich and Romney -- the only candidates over 20% statewide -- is a bit quirky. Gingrich's portion of the vote would have entitled him to 14.6 delegates and Romney's 8.0. Under Georgia Republican rules, Gingrich is given 14 delegates and Romney 8. That leaves nine delegates unclaimed because the remaining candidates did not clear the 20% threshold. The candidate with the highest "remainder" is awarded the first delegate and the candidates over 20% trade turns until all of those delegates are allocated. Remember, Gingrich did not round up to 15 delegates (14.6), but that 0.6 gives him a larger "remainder" than Romney. The former speaker, then, is allocated the first of nine delegates. With an odd number of delegates leftover, Gingrich would have a fifth turn after Romney's fourth and that would end the allocation of those "extra" delegates. Gingrich would claim five to Romney's four. Of the 31 at-large delegates, Gingrich is allocated 19 and Romney 12. Please note that for winning the statewide vote, Gingrich is allocated the three automatic delegates. That makes the final allocation Gingrich 53, Romney 20 and Santorum 3. The RNC, though, has a different interpretation.
8) The Alabama primary results by congressional district have not been released by the Alabama Republican Party. UPDATE (4/23/12, 1pm): Admittedly, FHQ had not checked on the Alabama delegate situation in a while [BOO! -- But thanks to Matt for prompting me to check in the comments below.]. In the meantime, the Alabama Republican Party revamped their website and now glosses over the delegate allocation. The press releases section now skips from April to February in the inverted chronology with nothing from March. I was still unable to track down the certified results by congressional district, but there is a certified delegate allocation from the Alabama Republican Party floating around out there:
Alabama Republican Presidential Primary Certified Results
What was "preliminary" about the delegate list in the memo on March 23 was "confirmed" by the Alabama Republican Party on or around April 6.
Recent Posts:
Another Weekend, Another Mixed Bag for Romney in Caucus State Delegate Allocation
In Missouri, A Bill to Bind Delegates Based on the Presidential Primary; Not the Caucus
Race to 1144: CO, MN & ND Conventions
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Race to 1144: CO, MN & ND Conventions
.png)
Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
Delegate breakdown (post-CO, MN & ND conventions):
Changes since Maryland, Washington, DC & Wisconsin (4/3/12):
- Romney: +25 delegates (Colorado: +14, North Dakota: +7, New York: +2, Connecticut: +1, Massachusetts: +1)
- Santorum: +15 delegates (North Dakota: +7, Colorado: +6, Minnesota: +2)
- Paul: +12 delegates (Minnesota: +10, North Dakota: +2)
- Gingrich: +1 delegate (North Dakota: +1)
1) Mitt Romney has picked up five automatic delegates in the time since the April 3 primaries: two in New York and one each in Colorado, Connecticut and Massachusetts.
2) The AP reported in the week after the North Dakota Republican state convention that of the 25 total delegates, Romney added 12, Santorum 8, Paul 2 and Gingrich 1. The remaining two contest delegates were uncommitted.
3) In Colorado, Romney was awarded 13 delegates, Santorum 6 and the final 14 contest delegates remained uncommitted following the state and congressional district conventions over the weekend.
4) The four congressional district conventions that have been held in Minnesota have favored Texas congressman, Ron Paul, thus far. Ten of his supporters have won slots while Santorum delegates filled out the 12 delegate slate.
5) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich one additional delegate (which has been taken from Romney's total). Due to the way the Georgia Republican Party rounds fractional delegates, the FHQ count was off by one delegate (+Romney/-Gingrich). The congressional district count is unaffected (Gingrich 31, Romney, 8 and Santorum 3), but the way the at-large delegates are allocated to Gingrich and Romney -- the only candidates over 20% statewide -- is a bit quirky. Gingrich's portion of the vote would have entitled him to 14.6 delegates and Romney's 8.0. Under Georgia Republican rules, Gingrich is given 14 delegates and Romney 8. That leaves nine delegates unclaimed because the remaining candidates did not clear the 20% threshold. The candidate with the highest "remainder" is awarded the first delegate and the candidates over 20% trade turns until all of those delegates are allocated. Remember, Gingrich did not round up to 15 delegates (14.6), but that 0.6 gives him a larger "remainder" than Romney. The former speaker, then, is allocated the first of nine delegates. With an odd number of delegates leftover, Gingrich would have a fifth turn after Romney's fourth and that would end the allocation of those "extra" delegates. Gingrich would claim five to Romney's four. Of the 31 at-large delegates, Gingrich is allocated 19 and Romney 12. Please note that for winning the statewide vote, Gingrich is allocated the three automatic delegates. That makes the final allocation Gingrich 53, Romney 20 and Santorum 3. The RNC, though, has a different interpretation.
6) The Alabama primary results by congressional district have not been released by the Alabama Republican Party. The distribution above is based on the RNC interpretation of the allocation.
7) Iowa Republican Party Chairman Spiker was a part of the Paul campaign in Iowa and resigned his position upon taking up the post of party chair. While he has expressed his intent to side with whomever the Republican nominee will be, Spiker has not also directly signaled any neutrality in the race. The door is open for his support of Paul at a potential contested convention. While FHQ includes Spiker in Paul's delegate total, it is necessary to make note of the possible future subtraction of one delegate that would bring the Texas congressman's total to 26.
Recent Posts:
Mixed Results for Romney in First Contests Since Becoming Presumptive Nominee
Hey Hey, Ho Ho. This Romney Protest's Got to Go?
Santorum Suspends: A Nomination Race in Context
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, April 9, 2012
More on Santorum Delegate Math and Some Thoughts on Texas as Winner-Take-All
FHQ won't belabor the point on the Santorum delegate math. We're late to this anyway, as the Santorum campaign put out their memo, "The Media's Delegate Math is Wrong" last Thursday. There are degrees to delegate counting. As much as the AP projection is rosy for Romney (It is actually not that bad for Santorum, while we're on the subject.), the Santorum count is equally -- well, way more so in truth -- Santorum-friendly.
The truth lies somewhere in between; closer to the AP projection, but in the between nonetheless. At least with the AP's math, we know that there is a proportional projection of the delegates across most of the group of non-binding caucus states. That can be accounted for, and in fact, FHQ attempts to do just that by backing out those delegates until they are actually allocated at congressional district and/or state conventions. Those delegates are unbound. To take one example, the AP initially -- based on the March 6 caucus straw poll results -- awarded Rick Santorum 11 delegates in North Dakota, Ron Paul eight, Mitt Romney seven and Newt Gingrich two delegates. [Yes, that proportionally allocates the three automatic delegates also.] The reality following the late March state convention in the Peace Garden state was that the slate of delegates selected favored Romney. Once the dust settled the AP was able to report that of that elected slate of delegates, 12 supported Romney, eight Santorum, two Paul and one delegate came out for Gingrich.1 Two others remained uncommitted and that rounded out the 25 non-automatic delegates. Of those three automatic delegates, one, the national committeewoman Sandy Boehler endorsed Romney while the other two stayed on the sidelines.
Is the media's count wrong?
Yes, their projection was. Reality versus projection shows aneight seven delegate swing in Romney's direction.
The advantage to that is that we have the ability to pinpoint mistakes; or at least perceived mistakes. Such a benefit is not afforded us in the Santorum count. This is what prompted me to say -- via tweet -- that it was put up or shut up time for the Santorum campaign. Either demonstrate -- state-by-state -- what the count is or stop pretending.2 FHQ is absolutely fine with the Arizona or Florida argument. It is wrong to reallocate those delegates strictly proportionally, but that is an area I'm willing to play along with the Santorum folks. But if they want anyone to believe that the campaign is having any success in this, well, Paul-like caucus strategy, then it is time to show who the delegates are and it would help to share a line of endorsement from those delegates as well. The Santorum campaign needs fewer North Dakotas and much fewer "You'll just have to trust us, but we have almost 200 more delegates than anyone is giving us credit for" press releases. The proof is in the pudding and I don't think the Santorum folks have gotten us to that point in the meal yet. [Heck, I don't think we're seated at the table yet.]
The question is simple: If you have more delegates when are you going to share with everyone from where those delegates are?
--
The far more interesting piece of information from the Santorum delegate memo was that Texas would be moving to a winner-take-all allocation of its delegates. FHQ has a few comments on this:
1 From the AP's Dale Wetzel:
Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: MD, DC & WI Primaries
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maryland
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The truth lies somewhere in between; closer to the AP projection, but in the between nonetheless. At least with the AP's math, we know that there is a proportional projection of the delegates across most of the group of non-binding caucus states. That can be accounted for, and in fact, FHQ attempts to do just that by backing out those delegates until they are actually allocated at congressional district and/or state conventions. Those delegates are unbound. To take one example, the AP initially -- based on the March 6 caucus straw poll results -- awarded Rick Santorum 11 delegates in North Dakota, Ron Paul eight, Mitt Romney seven and Newt Gingrich two delegates. [Yes, that proportionally allocates the three automatic delegates also.] The reality following the late March state convention in the Peace Garden state was that the slate of delegates selected favored Romney. Once the dust settled the AP was able to report that of that elected slate of delegates, 12 supported Romney, eight Santorum, two Paul and one delegate came out for Gingrich.1 Two others remained uncommitted and that rounded out the 25 non-automatic delegates. Of those three automatic delegates, one, the national committeewoman Sandy Boehler endorsed Romney while the other two stayed on the sidelines.
Is the media's count wrong?
Yes, their projection was. Reality versus projection shows an
The advantage to that is that we have the ability to pinpoint mistakes; or at least perceived mistakes. Such a benefit is not afforded us in the Santorum count. This is what prompted me to say -- via tweet -- that it was put up or shut up time for the Santorum campaign. Either demonstrate -- state-by-state -- what the count is or stop pretending.2 FHQ is absolutely fine with the Arizona or Florida argument. It is wrong to reallocate those delegates strictly proportionally, but that is an area I'm willing to play along with the Santorum folks. But if they want anyone to believe that the campaign is having any success in this, well, Paul-like caucus strategy, then it is time to show who the delegates are and it would help to share a line of endorsement from those delegates as well. The Santorum campaign needs fewer North Dakotas and much fewer "You'll just have to trust us, but we have almost 200 more delegates than anyone is giving us credit for" press releases. The proof is in the pudding and I don't think the Santorum folks have gotten us to that point in the meal yet. [Heck, I don't think we're seated at the table yet.]
The question is simple: If you have more delegates when are you going to share with everyone from where those delegates are?
--
The far more interesting piece of information from the Santorum delegate memo was that Texas would be moving to a winner-take-all allocation of its delegates. FHQ has a few comments on this:
- This has come up several times since it became apparent that Texas would not be able to hold a March 6 presidential primary. The Republican Party of Texas voted in September 2011 to shift to a proportional method of allocation to comply with RNC rules. But then, due to the dispute of congressional district lines, the March primary became unfeasible.
- This had RPT arguing that the [proportionality] rules were set in stone prior to October 1 (the deadline for states to have rules in place according to the RNC rules) and that was that. But that had FHQ asking in December why it was not possible to argue before the RNC that circumstances out of the control of RPT forced the switch to proportionality in the first place and that with an after-April 1 primary Texas could transition back to its former delegate allocation method.
- Of course, arguing that RPT would have an argument before the RNC is not anything that has any basis in reality in the Republican rules. There is -- as RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer pointed out -- no waiver process. That is only something that occurs on the Democratic side. The RNC delegate selection process is, as FHQ has attempted to point out, much more decentralized. Traditionally, states have had the latitude to decide how they will allocate their apportioned delegates. In 2012, that leeway was only afforded to states with contests after April 1. But just as there is no waiver process on the Republican side, there is nothing in the RNC delegate selection rules to prevent a post-October 1 change on the state level to state-level delegate rules. There is no direct penalty for such a move. Would there be a challenge to such a change at the convention (if it mattered)? Sure, but it would still be possible. Several states finalized plans after October 1, 2011. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all moved the dates of their contests after that point. Any penalties incurred were due to the earliness of those contests and not because they had shifted the dates of their primaries or caucuses after October 1. Who else changed dates after October 1? Texas did; twice.
- Can RPT change to a winner-take-all method of allocation? Yes, but there apparently is not enough willingness to do so where it counts in the Lone Star state. Back at the end of February, when the state party had to finalize plans to deal with the new court-arbitrated May 29 primary date, the [State Republican Executive Committee of the] Republican Party of Texas voted down at least three resolutions to change the proportional allocation method to something else.
- Now there is a movement within at least some factions of the party to revert to the rules as they were before: winner-take-all. Of course, just as many thought that all the pre-April 1 states would have strictly proportional allocation, many are of the opinion that Texas will be strictly winner-take-all. To return to the rules as they were in 2008 in Texas, though, the party would be returning to a conditional system of allocation. A majority winner, either statewide or on the congressional district level, would receive all of the at-large or the three delegates per congressional district, respectively. Otherwise, everything is proportional. This is not a statewide winner-take-all delegate system like what was witnessed in Washington, DC last week (or Florida or Arizona for that matter). What that means is that Santorum would not necessarily receive all of the delegates from Texas.
- ...and even if Santorum did win all of the Texas delegates would it keep Romney from 1144? It would reduce his cushion some.
1 From the AP's Dale Wetzel:
"The state GOP initially said delegates would be awarded in proportion to the caucus results, though the delegates would remain free to vote their conscience. If delegates were awarded proportionally, Santorum would get 11, Paul would get eight, Romney would get seven and Gingrich would get two.
But at the state convention, Romney supporters successfully elected the most delegates — even though the former Massachusetts governor finished third in the caucuses. In interviews with the AP, 12 delegates said they backed Romney, eight supported Santorum, two favored Paul and one preferred Gingrich. Two delegates said they had no favorite.
Rounding out North Dakota's 28 delegates are three members of the Republican National Committee who will automatically attend the convention. Among them, Sandy Boehler supports Romney while Curly Haugland and Stan Stein, the state GOP chairman, are uncommitted.
The delegates said they plan to meet prior to the national convention to decide how they will vote with the idea that they would divvy up votes to reflect the results of the caucuses."2 This prompted Jon Bernstein to respond that it was the campaign's job to pretend. And I totally agree. It is the Santorum campaign's right to pretend. However (and this is where so many conversations between political scientists end up), I would argue that there are degrees of pretending and the Santorum folks do themselves no favors by not presenting even one shred of evidence that they have any more delegates than the press gives them credit for. [I genuinely hope that Jon comes back at this with a reference to the Seinfeld episode where Elaine and the Eastern European author are arguing in an elevator about whether there are "just coincidences" or if there are degrees of coincidences.] If Santorum campaign wants to push back against the AP projection, it isn't had to do, but do it by producing at least one, say, Missouri congressional district delegate who is supporting Santorum or at least one more than the AP is attributing to Santorum.
Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: MD, DC & WI Primaries
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maryland
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Race to 1144: MD, DC & WI Primaries
.png)
Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC, Georgia Secretary of State)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
Delegate breakdown (post-MD, DC & WI):
Changes since Louisiana (3/24/12):
- Romney: +92 delegates (Maryland: +37, Washington, DC: +16, Wisconsin: +33, North Dakota: +5, Tennessee: +1)
- Santorum: +10 delegates (Wisconsin: +9, North Dakota: +1)
- Gingrich: -1 delegate (Tennessee: -1)
1) Mitt Romney won all of the at-large and automatic delegates in both Maryland and Wisconsin, all eight congressional districts in Maryland, five of eight districts in Wisconsin and all of the at-large delegates from DC. Rick Santorum won the remaining three congressional districts in Wisconsin.
2) Of the slate of 25 delegates selected at the North Dakota Republican state convention on March 31, five are pledged Romney supporters and one is a known Santorum advocate.
3) The Tennessee Republican Party finalized the congressional district vote count and delegate allocation this week. The effects were minimal. One delegate shifted from Newt Gingrich's total in Tennessee to Mitt Romney's column.
4) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich one additional delegate (which has been taken from Romney's total). ***UPDATE*** Due to the way the Georgia Republican Party rounds fractional delegates, the FHQ count was off by one delegate (+Romney/-Gingrich). The congressional district count is unaffected (Gingrich 31, Romney, 8 and Santorum 3), but the way the at-large delegates are allocated to Gingrich and Romney -- the only candidates over 20% statewide -- is a bit quirky. Gingrich's portion of the vote would have entitled him to 14.6 delegates and Romney's 8.0. Under Georgia Republican rules, Gingrich is given 14 delegates and Romney 8. That leaves nine delegates unclaimed because the remaining candidates did not clear the 20% threshold. The candidate with the highest "remainder" is awarded the first delegate and the candidates over 20% trade turns until all of those delegates are allocated. Remember, Gingrich did not round up to 15 delegates (14.6), but that 0.6 gives him a larger "remainder" than Romney. The former speaker, then, is allocated the first of nine delegates. With an odd number of delegates leftover, Gingrich would have a fifth turn after Romney's fourth and that would end the allocation of those "extra" delegates. Gingrich would claim five to Romney's four. Of the 31 at-large delegates, Gingrich is allocated 19 and Romney 12. Please note that for winning the statewide vote, Gingrich is allocated the three automatic delegates. That makes the final allocation Gingrich 53, Romney 20 and Santorum 3.
5) The Alabama primary results by congressional district have not been released by the Alabama Republican Party. The allocation above is based on the RNC interpretation of the allocation.
6) Iowa Republican Party Chairman Spiker was a part of the Paul campaign in Iowa and resigned his position upon taking up the post of party chair. While he has expressed his intent to side with whomever the Republican nominee will be, Spiker has not also directly signaled any neutrality in the race. The door is open for his support of Paul at a potential contested convention. While FHQ includes Spiker in Paul's delegate total, it is necessary to make note of the possible future subtraction of one delegate that would bring the Texas congressman's total to 26.
Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maryland
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington, DC
Americans Elect and the Electoral College
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Santorum Super PAC Doubles Down on Ludicrous Delegate Count Claim
Sigh.
FHQ doesn't know where to start on this one. The Red White & Blue Fund -- the super PAC supporting Rick Santorum -- today again pushed its needlessly long plan to reallocate delegates across many of the states to have finalized the binding of delegates.1 That RWB is claiming this based on the rules only reinforces the growing notion that they have no idea what the rules are. Let's look at a few examples.
Florida:
Romney: 50
Florida (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 23
Gingrich: 16
Santorum: 7
Paul: 4
Arizona:
Romney 29
Arizona (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 14
Santorum: 8
Gingrich: 5
Paul: 2
FHQ notes: Look, both RWB and the Santorum campaign have a leg to stand on in this argument. That Florida and Arizona not only held non-compliant primaries in terms of timing, but also held winner-take-all violations is a clear [double] violation of the RNC delegate selection rules. However, as I have tried to point out -- and this is where RWB and the Santorum campaign begins to show their lack of knowledge about the rules -- they are assuming a directly proportional allocation at the convention. That may happen in a challenge situation, but strict proportionality is not the only way a state can be "proportional" under the rules created in 2010. The delegate allocation can be divided into winner-take-all by congressional district (for the congressional district delegates) and proportional statewide (for the at-large delegates). Under that sort of allocation -- again, that is perfectly proportional under the rules -- Santorum would gain some delegates on Romney, but not nearly to the extent laid out above. The point is that this issue is anything but settled and both RWB and the Santorum campaign are only providing the polar opposite of the current allocation; a polar opposite with several options in between it and a winner-take-all allocation.
Additional note: It is poor form to cherrypick certain bits of rule 15 without considering the whole rule (see below for more of this).
--
Idaho:
Romney: 32
Idaho (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 20
Santorum: 6
Gingrich: 6
Puerto Rico:
Romney: 20
Puerto Rico (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 18
Santorum: 2
FHQ notes: These are just painful to read. It is an absolutely laughable proposition to claim that either Idaho or Puerto Rico are not abiding by the rules. Did both end up being winner-take-all in their final allocations? Yes, but that is because -- in a manner compliant with the RNC definition of proportionality -- Mitt Romney won over 50% of the vote in each. Again, that is the minimum conditional threshold by which a state with a primary or caucus before April 1 can allocate delegates winner-take-all if it chooses. If a candidate is over a majority of the vote that candidate receives all of that state's delegates. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote then the allocation is proportional. This is A-OK with RNC rules. There is no "valid and viable challenge" that Santorum can bring on this. None. Idaho and Puerto Rico are compliant. Ridiculous.
--
Michigan:
Romney: 16
Santorum: 14
Michigan (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 15
Santorum: 15
FHQ notes: I've dealt with this one already, but the bottom line is that at least those two at-large delegates should be looked at in Michigan. The original plan called for the full -- unpenalized -- allotment of at-large delegates be proportionally allocated to candidates over the 15% threshold. The Michigan Republican Party did a bad job of rolling out the altered plan to allocate its delegates and a winner-take-all allocation of the at-large delegates is a violation of the RNC rules on the same grounds as Florida and Arizona.
Of course, if this whole thing comes down to one delegate...
--
I don't know that I have the heart to address the Red, White and Blue Fund's position on the delegate allocation in the islands. Here is that rationale via Jon Ward at HuffPo:
FHQ notes: Really!?!
--
Look, as FHQ mentioned last week in response to the Santorum campaign delegate count conference call -- a count that differs from the RWB's tortured math -- I take them at their word on their efforts in the non-binding caucus states. Can Santorum overperform in the delegate allocation relative to the vote share in those non-binding straw polls? Sure. Will they? That remains to be seen and it is certainly true that they are not the only campaign attempting to pull off such a feat. The Santorum folks are not operating in a vacuum in that regard. Bernstein argues -- and I agree -- that it is those with enthusiasm and organization who will be well-positioned to do well with unbound delegates in the non-binding caucus states.
Even if we give Santorum all of the unbound delegates (336) -- right now and not when they will actually be allocated -- the former Pennsylvania senator only just edges ahead of Romney by 27 delegates in FHQ's count. That's all. And that's before any of the April contests that favor Romney anyway. [Note also that that 336 unbound delegates includes automatic delegates from states that have held contests thus far. Of the automatic delegates who have endorsed a candidate to this point in the race, Romney has gotten the nod from 86% of them. There are only about 85 total automatic delegates left to endorse.]
Yeah, but wouldn't that hurt Romney's efforts to get to 1144? It would, but the jury is still out on exactly how close that would cut it for the former Massachusetts governor.
...stay tuned on that front.
--
1 I suppose a couple of tweets on the matter weren't enough from FHQ. Truth be told, I was going to come back to this anyway, but thought this memo might have disappeared. Apparently not.
RWB Delegate Analysis 3-22-2012
Recent Posts:
There's a reason the Santorum campaign didn't mention West Virginia in its delegate conference call last week
Race to 1144: Louisiana Primary
The Myth of Proportionality's Impact is Dead
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
FHQ doesn't know where to start on this one. The Red White & Blue Fund -- the super PAC supporting Rick Santorum -- today again pushed its needlessly long plan to reallocate delegates across many of the states to have finalized the binding of delegates.1 That RWB is claiming this based on the rules only reinforces the growing notion that they have no idea what the rules are. Let's look at a few examples.
Florida:
Romney: 50
Florida (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 23
Gingrich: 16
Santorum: 7
Paul: 4
Arizona:
Romney 29
Arizona (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 14
Santorum: 8
Gingrich: 5
Paul: 2
FHQ notes: Look, both RWB and the Santorum campaign have a leg to stand on in this argument. That Florida and Arizona not only held non-compliant primaries in terms of timing, but also held winner-take-all violations is a clear [double] violation of the RNC delegate selection rules. However, as I have tried to point out -- and this is where RWB and the Santorum campaign begins to show their lack of knowledge about the rules -- they are assuming a directly proportional allocation at the convention. That may happen in a challenge situation, but strict proportionality is not the only way a state can be "proportional" under the rules created in 2010. The delegate allocation can be divided into winner-take-all by congressional district (for the congressional district delegates) and proportional statewide (for the at-large delegates). Under that sort of allocation -- again, that is perfectly proportional under the rules -- Santorum would gain some delegates on Romney, but not nearly to the extent laid out above. The point is that this issue is anything but settled and both RWB and the Santorum campaign are only providing the polar opposite of the current allocation; a polar opposite with several options in between it and a winner-take-all allocation.
Additional note: It is poor form to cherrypick certain bits of rule 15 without considering the whole rule (see below for more of this).
--
Idaho:
Romney: 32
Idaho (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 20
Santorum: 6
Gingrich: 6
Puerto Rico:
Romney: 20
Puerto Rico (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 18
Santorum: 2
FHQ notes: These are just painful to read. It is an absolutely laughable proposition to claim that either Idaho or Puerto Rico are not abiding by the rules. Did both end up being winner-take-all in their final allocations? Yes, but that is because -- in a manner compliant with the RNC definition of proportionality -- Mitt Romney won over 50% of the vote in each. Again, that is the minimum conditional threshold by which a state with a primary or caucus before April 1 can allocate delegates winner-take-all if it chooses. If a candidate is over a majority of the vote that candidate receives all of that state's delegates. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote then the allocation is proportional. This is A-OK with RNC rules. There is no "valid and viable challenge" that Santorum can bring on this. None. Idaho and Puerto Rico are compliant. Ridiculous.
--
Michigan:
Romney: 16
Santorum: 14
Michigan (RWB interpretation):
Romney: 15
Santorum: 15
FHQ notes: I've dealt with this one already, but the bottom line is that at least those two at-large delegates should be looked at in Michigan. The original plan called for the full -- unpenalized -- allotment of at-large delegates be proportionally allocated to candidates over the 15% threshold. The Michigan Republican Party did a bad job of rolling out the altered plan to allocate its delegates and a winner-take-all allocation of the at-large delegates is a violation of the RNC rules on the same grounds as Florida and Arizona.
Of course, if this whole thing comes down to one delegate...
--
I don't know that I have the heart to address the Red, White and Blue Fund's position on the delegate allocation in the islands. Here is that rationale via Jon Ward at HuffPo:
Torchinsky said the estimates that Santorum can pick up delegates in the territories were "educated guesses based on rough numbers," rather than being based on any real political intelligence.
"Seems that of 18 people, convincing 4 that Rick is the right guy is reasonable," Torchinsky told HuffPost.
FHQ notes: Really!?!
--
Look, as FHQ mentioned last week in response to the Santorum campaign delegate count conference call -- a count that differs from the RWB's tortured math -- I take them at their word on their efforts in the non-binding caucus states. Can Santorum overperform in the delegate allocation relative to the vote share in those non-binding straw polls? Sure. Will they? That remains to be seen and it is certainly true that they are not the only campaign attempting to pull off such a feat. The Santorum folks are not operating in a vacuum in that regard. Bernstein argues -- and I agree -- that it is those with enthusiasm and organization who will be well-positioned to do well with unbound delegates in the non-binding caucus states.
Even if we give Santorum all of the unbound delegates (336) -- right now and not when they will actually be allocated -- the former Pennsylvania senator only just edges ahead of Romney by 27 delegates in FHQ's count. That's all. And that's before any of the April contests that favor Romney anyway. [Note also that that 336 unbound delegates includes automatic delegates from states that have held contests thus far. Of the automatic delegates who have endorsed a candidate to this point in the race, Romney has gotten the nod from 86% of them. There are only about 85 total automatic delegates left to endorse.]
Yeah, but wouldn't that hurt Romney's efforts to get to 1144? It would, but the jury is still out on exactly how close that would cut it for the former Massachusetts governor.
...stay tuned on that front.
--
1 I suppose a couple of tweets on the matter weren't enough from FHQ. Truth be told, I was going to come back to this anyway, but thought this memo might have disappeared. Apparently not.
RWB Delegate Analysis 3-22-2012
Recent Posts:
There's a reason the Santorum campaign didn't mention West Virginia in its delegate conference call last week
Race to 1144: Louisiana Primary
The Myth of Proportionality's Impact is Dead
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
About that RNC Delegate Count, Part Two
Look, FHQ does not want to do this every time the RNC releases an updated delegate count, but to the extent there are discrepancies between the released count and the intent of the delegate allocation rules on the state level, that needs to be discussed. To wit:
Recent Posts:
A Few Thoughts on the Missouri Caucuses
Unbound vs. Unpledged Delegates
On the State of the Republican Nomination Race, Post-AL/MS
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
- Georgia: You will remember from part one the discussion of the delegate allocation from Georgia. The vote totals have been updated on the Georgia Secretary of State website as of March 14 -- this past Wednesday -- and given those numbers both statewide and throughout each of the congressional districts, the GAGOP rules-based allocation does not jibe with the RNC count. That count, unchanged since the RNC's post-Super Tuesday delegate count press release, shows Gingrich with a 52 to 21 advantage with Santorum netting three delegates. However, the Georgia election results, as most currently updated, still show a 54 to 19 Gingrich lead over Romney with Santorum still pulling in three delegates.
- Alabama & Tennessee: The Tennessee Republican Party has still not released the primary results by congressional district and the Alabama results by congressional district released by the state party reflect only the election of delegates (which was done directly on the primary ballot) and not the allocation of delegates. That is to say, we are not privy to the topline presidential preference vote by congressional district; the one that determines the allocation of delegates. And lest you say, "Well, shouldn't the delegate election reflect what we see in those presidential preference numbers?", it should be noted that Santorum did not file a full slate of delegates to appear on the ballot in Alabama. No one is talking about Santorum potentially losing delegates over this. And that is because he isn't. Despite not having delegates on the ballot, Santorum still has slots allocated to him based on his performance in the presidential preference vote. The short of all of this on both Alabama and Tennessee is that for the time being we will have to take the RNC's word for it on the delegate allocation there. Without the results by congressional district, there is little chance of accurately checking the math in either state.
- Hawaii: First, the RNC delegate count for Hawaii is correct, but it is worthwhile to look at why it is right. Now, as an astute reader pointed out to FHQ, the rounding discussed in our rundown of the delegate allocation in the Aloha state, applied to not only the statewide vote, but the congressional district vote as well. That allowed Romney to round up to two delegates in each of the two Hawaii congressional districts. With the former Massachusetts governor's five delegates statewide, that made nine total delegates. Based on the rules used by the Hawaii Republican Party, any fractional delegate is rounded up and the allocation is handled in descending order from the top vote-getter all the way down to the candidate with the least number of votes. The congressional district allocation is easy enough. Romney was allocated two delegates and Santorum one in both congressional districts. Statewide, Romney's 44% of the vote granted him 4.84 delegates (5), Santorum's 25% netted him 2.75 delegates (3) and Ron Paul's 19% awarded him 2.09 delegates (3). That allocated all 11 at-large delegates and Newt Gingrich's vote total was not considered even though his 11% of the vote would have -- under a different set of rules -- one delegate. But, rules are rules, and the delegate allocation in Hawaii shuts Gingrich out of delegates.
Romney: 433 (-2)
Santorum: 173
Gingrich: 138 (+2)
Paul: 27
Unbound: 240
Recent Posts:
A Few Thoughts on the Missouri Caucuses
Unbound vs. Unpledged Delegates
On the State of the Republican Nomination Race, Post-AL/MS
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)