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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Via the comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uphill sledding...

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts:
Question Time

Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses 

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


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

Question Time

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

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

--
¹ Seriously, keep it substantive, folks.

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

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

Recent Posts:
Iowa GOP considers new rule for close caucuses 

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

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


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