A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

I'm not one to simply regurgitate news. However, on this day when the DNC is set to potentially decide the fate, not to mention the make up, of the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Democratic National Convention, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has a great timeline of events that led to this unprecedented meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Key dates related to the Democratic National Committee's handling of the 2008 Michigan and Florida primaries:

2006:

July 22: The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee recommends to the DNC that a Nevada caucus be held in 2008 between Iowa's Jan. 14 caucus and New Hampshire's Jan. 22 primary. The committee also suggests that South Carolina have an early primary after New Hampshire's and that other states cannot hold their contests before Feb. 5.

Aug. 19: The DNC approves the committee's recommendations and penalties against presidential candidates who campaign in states that cut in line. Candidates would be denied delegates from those contests.

2007:

Jan. 23: Florida lawmakers introduce legislation to move the date of the state's 2008 primary from March 4 to Jan. 29.

April 5: The two leaders of the rules committee notify the Florida congressional delegation about the penalties for states that violate the timing of primaries.

May 21: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signs a bill moving the state's presidential primary to Jan. 29, 2008.

July-early August: In discussions with the Florida Democratic officials, the DNC offers to pay about $880,000 for a state party-run caucus.

Aug. 25: The rules committee decides to strip Florida of its 210 presidential convention delegates. It gives the state party 30 days to comply with rules by moving its contest back at least seven days.

Aug. 30: The Michigan Legislature sends a bill to the governor setting the state's 2008 presidential primary for Jan. 15.

Aug. 31: Democratic presidential candidates Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden pledge not to campaign in states that hold early nominating contests in violation of party rules. The pledge is circulated by Democratic leaders of the early-voting states — Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Sept. 1: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards also sign on to a pledge to skip states that break party rules by holding early primaries.

Sept. 4: Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs a bill moving Michigan's presidential contests to Jan. 15, 2008.

Oct. 9: Democratic presidential candidates Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson file paperwork to withdraw from the Michigan ballot. Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich say in statements that they also were bypassing the primary. Chris Dodd and Clinton say their names will remain on the ballots.

Dec. 1: Democratic leaders strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates for scheduling an earlier-than-allowed primary.

2008:

Jan. 15: Michigan holds its primary; Clinton wins.

Jan. 29: Florida holds its primary; Clinton wins.

March 17: Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats abandon plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote.

April 4: The executive committee of the Michigan Democratic Party says "it is not practical" to conduct a party-run primary or caucus as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the Denver convention.

April 25: The leaders of the rules committee sends members a memo announcing a meeting on May 31 about the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries.

May 27: The Democratic Party's lawyers say the committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Clinton wants.

___

Source: Associated Press, Democratic National Committee.

The Florida and Michigan frontloading in 2008 is part of the progression of the general frontloading trend. It wasn't inevitable that either state would violate the "window rule" (period within which states could hold their nominating contests) of either party. In the post-reform era, states that wanted to move, moved to dates that fell within the window. The decision by the DNC to allow South Carolina and Nevada to move into the pre-window period, though, triggered a resumption of an age-old conflict in American history: small states vs. big states. So while the DNC's intent was to bring more diversity into the opening contests, they once again got some unintended consequences out of the changes (All you have to do is look at frontloading as an example of one of the DNC's post-reform, unintended consequences.).

Why South Carolina and Nevada and not Michigan and Florida? Of the ten states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina and West Virginia) that petitioned the DNC to move ahead of the window's starting point, Michigan was by far the largest (Measuring by electoral votes, Michigan was the only state with more than 10.). Yet, the DNC opted for two smaller states to fill those spots. And that decision, along with Florida and Michigan's defiance of these rules, underscores another of the problems facing the various reform plans that have been proposed. Big states still will not be allowed to go first. And that is why today's meeting is so important. If the sanctions for moving ahead of the window are not upheld, what will hold states back from moving to whatever date they choose in the future (whether reforms are enacted or not)? Michigan certainly wouldn't have gone on January 15 if any of the reform plans (save the one in four chance that Michigan's region in the NASS regional primary plan was chosen to go first) were in place in 2008. The same motivation, therefore, would have been there for lawmakers in Michigan even in a reformed system.

Will the sanctions stay or will they go? The educated guess is that half the delegates from Florida and Michigan will make it to the convention in Denver, but how will that half be determined and what effect would that have on the delegate counts for Clinton and Obama?

Recent Posts:
Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

The Electoral College Maps (5/28/08)

Test Run: The McCain-Obama Map (5/28/08)

Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

This is probably about a week too late, but it's a question that's been floating around in my head recently that I've yet to see addressed anywhere. Ted Kennedy's ominous diagnosis last week underscores what is going to be a major issue in this presidential campaign: age. Rep. John Murtha (PA-D) has said McCain is too old, Howard Dean has said it won't be an issue and McCain himself has taken the self-deprecating route on his age. But like Nixon's five o'clock shadow during the televised debate against John Kennedy in 1960, the age difference between McCain and VANP (That's very almost nearly presumptive) Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, is going to be noticeable.

Is that necessarily a bad thing for McCain? No, because on the one hand you have age, but on the other is experience. The former carries something of a negative connotation while the latter is more positive. When voters begin to see more of the contrast between Obama and McCain will that trigger thoughts on age or experience? Do they see a 76 year old politician diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor and project that onto a presidential candidate who would be 76 himself at the tail end of his first term as president? Or do voters see an experience gap between the two (Obama playing the naive role and McCain the role of someone who has been around the block a time or two)?

I suspect that this may vary based on party identification: Democrats see an old man in McCain while those on the right see an experienced candidate and a "reckless" younger candidate. But what do those independents think when they see that contrast? Where they fall will more than likely tip the balance toward age or experience emerging as the dominant view. As we've seen throughout the Democratic primaries, though, a person's age has a lot to do with this as well. Older voters have gravitated toward Clinton while younger voters have overwhelmingly backed Obama. Party ID may supersede age in the general election, but a voter's age may have some part in determining whether age or experience becomes the prevailing view.

In the end, age will take a backseat to the economy or the Iraq war, but it is a distinction that could prove consequential in an Obama-McCain general election campaign (especially if the election proves to be as close as it has look in some of the electoral college maps). What are your thoughts? Is it age, is it experience, or does it even matter? The comments section beckons.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Maps (5/28/08)

Test Run: The McCain-Obama Map (5/28/08)

Kansas Final Tally: 73.9% of the Vote, 71.8% of the Delegates

The Electoral College Maps (5/28/08)

There were quite a few new polls this past week (plus one day). With 29 polls in 20 different states (and the addition of some backlogged polls in 11 other states), there was as much chance this week for a large number of shifts as we've seen in number of weeks. However, the changes from one category to the next are still confined mostly to the swing states or in states where the number of polls are minimal. For instance, North Dakota moved from being a toss up favoring Obama to a toss up leaning toward McCain based on the addition of one poll to the only other poll in the Peace Garden state (Yeah, I didn't know that was North Dakota's nickname either.).

Other than North Dakota, though, there were several changes to the McCain-Obama map.
Colorado: The Centennial state continues to look like a fall battleground state by flipping back toward Obama this week.

Indiana: The Hoosier state shifted from McCain lean to Toss Up McCain.

Michigan: Michigan is shaping up to be a valuable piece of the next president's path to the White House. The Wolverine state had been favoring Obama for the last several weeks, but shifted back toward McCain over the course of the last week. Along with Indiana above, Michigan forms a band of competitive states in a McCain-Obama match up. This grouping stretches from Wisconsin through Michigan and down through and across Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Minnesota: On the western border with Wisconsin, though, is a state that is going in the other direction. Minnesota is getting less competitive and is now in the Strong Obama category. The North Star state could certainly come back into play if McCain opts for the state's Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty, as his running mate. And he may have to if the state continues to trend toward Obama while proving a potentially valuable 10 electoral votes.

South Dakota: Both Dakotas have given Obama some positive poll numbers, but both have been solidly Republican at the presidential level for a while now and have certainly moved back in that direction with the most recent polls. South Dakota had been a toss up state for McCain, but has jumped into the solid McCain area now.

While there were changes in the map, there were only a handful of consequential shifts. Michigan's move toward McCain shifted those 17 electoral votes into his column, and in the process, turned a two electoral vote McCain victory into a more solid (Bush/Kerry-esque) 281-257 edge for McCain (with the North Dakota and Colorado shifts). And what about the Clinton map? There was plenty of movement, but the movement was toward the extremes. Blue states became bluer and red states became redder. Pennsylvania got darker for Clinton and Texas fell in line behind McCain as it has reliably for the GOP during recent cycles. The McCain-Clinton map already looked similar to the maps from both 2000 and 2004 and could still end up that way. And those battleground states are largely the same, though, some (most notably Florida, Michigan and Ohio) have switched sides. Clinton would narrowly win the electoral college if these weighted averages reflected how each state will vote just over five months from now.
So Clinton does better against McCain and the Democrats have picked the wrong nominee again. Well, yes and no. Yes, the New York senator has a slight advantage over McCain in the electoral college, but it doesn't amount to too terribly much in relation to Obama. As we have seen, just one state (Michigan, for example) can turn the tide. And when we examine the McCain margin (the difference between each candidates margins against McCain in all 50 states), what we see is that neither candidate makes all that much difference. The darker a state is, the greater a difference a candidate makes (green for Clinton and blue for Obama). What we see below is a very light map. There just aren't that many states where one Democrat fares much better against McCain than the other (...that they aren't going to win or lose anyway). For Obama, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa and Oregon are states he is in a position to win where Clinton lags. Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia are those states for Clinton. All three are firmly in the GOP column in an Obama-McCain pairing, but are much more competitive when Clinton is the nominee.
While both candidates take different routes to their electoral vote totals, they are both close enough to each other relative to McCain in most of the swing states. Close enough that one state flipping into or out of the Republican total could give either Democratic candidate more than 270 electoral votes. As of now, Michigan, Nevada and Ohio are the most likely to shift to the other side of the aisle on the McCain-Obama map, whereas Missouri is the most likely to shift in the coming weeks (or week if this nomination race comes to a close after Montana and South Dakota) if Clinton were considered the nominee.

*I should also note that any and all feedback on the new look maps is welcomed and appreciated. Thanks again to all those who chimed in over the weekend.

***Please see the side bar for links to past electoral college comparisons.***


Recent Posts:
Test Run: The McCain-Obama Map (5/28/08)

Kansas Final Tally: 73.9% of the Vote, 71.8% of the Delegates

Reader Feedback Wanted: New Electoral College Maps?

Test Run: The McCain-Obama Map (5/28/08)

Well, Wednesday came and went with no new maps. What's up with that? Personally, I hate letting a day pass without posting something, but I'm not a big fan of shallow blog posts, so I try to refrain from such. What I did do was put some time in on a variation of the old map style that added in the color scheme of the new maps I posted on Sunday. Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone who stopped by and added their two cents (A special tip of the cap in reader, Anton P.'s direction is necessary also. Thanks for the gif editing suggestion. I hadn't thought about--or wasn't willing to take the time on--that.). I think you'll all find that the map below is a much more polished product.
I'll let this map stand alone for the time being, but will be back later today with the McCain-Clinton and McCain Margin maps and some analysis as well.


Recent Posts:
Kansas Final Tally: 73.9% of the Vote, 71.8% of the Delegates

Reader Feedback Wanted: New Electoral College Maps?

Alaska + Wyoming = Obama + 1 Delegate

Kansas Final Tally: 73.9% of the Vote, 71.8% of the Delegates*

The good folks at the Kansas Democratic Party **contacted me this afternoon and shared with me the finalized slate of delegates headed to the national convention from the Sunflower state. The results in Kansas are similar to what we saw in Colorado; namely Hillary Clinton improved slightly upon her Super Tuesday showing in Kansas. If the delegates had been awarded on a purely proportional basis following the precinct/county level meetings, Clinton would have secured just 8 delegates. In the end, she walked away from the May 17 state convention with 9 delegates.

What isn't as clear in the Kansas case as it was in the Colorado case, is how big and vocal the Clinton presence in Topeka was. There is at least some evidence to suggest that Clinton's support in Colorado Springs was great compared with the campaign's efforts leading up to and during the precinct caucuses. Is that enough to say that it was the Clinton support that managed one more delegate than expected from the Colorado state convention and not simply statistical artifact? No, but it is more of an indication of that than what came out of Kansas. Clinton was able to round up higher delegate totals in 2 the 4 Kansas congressional district meetings in April. She also rounded up in the at-large delegate allocation at the state convention. In the end then, Clinton's gains appear to be a function of rounding up to the nearest delegate and not of her campaign pressing for support in Kansas two weekends ago.

With Kansas complete, six of the 14 caucus states have completed their delegate selection to the Democratic National Convention in August. And there is some symmetry to how things have come out. Two have moved toward Obama throughout the process (Alaska and Nevada), two have stayed put (North Dakota and Wyoming) and two have moved toward Clinton (Colorado and Kansas). Reviews then are mixed as to whether the caucus question hypothesis holds any water. Obama won all six caucuses, but has only managed to increase his totals in one-third of those states once the process ran its course. What does that mean? Well, it could mean that the is an unprecedented campaign. Yeah, but you knew that already. It could also mean that no one has ever done as good a job at coming in second as Hillary Clinton has. That seems like an insultingly back-handed compliment, but it is true. No one that has ever competed and has come in second in a nomination battle has ever been this close. This has just been a close campaign and that has stretched deep into the caucus process as well (deeper than the first step). I'm anxious to attempt to get my hands on some of the past caucus data to see if the movement I've been speculated about in this space actually came to pass (in something other than in anecdotal accounts). That way, we'd at least have that baseline of comparison to be able to put this year into context.


*I should have noted this in past posts about the final results from caucus states. The results in the title line reflect the percentage won in the original step of the caucus by Obama. I've opted to use him as the baseline of comparison for a couple of reasons: 1) He has had much more success in the caucus states and 2) In keeping with the caucus question hypothesis, it is the front-runner/presumptive nominee who stands to gain from the results from the precinct level.

**A big thanks to Jenny Davidson from the KDP for the information. She also writes for the party's Buffalo Blog. Below are the results from the KDP (note that all the alternates are for Obama):

Kansas Democratic Party National Convention Delegates Elected at Congressional District Conventions

Topeka – On Saturday, April 12, Kansas Democratic Party Congressional District Conventions elected 21 delegates and four alternates to attend the Democratic National Convention to be held August 25-28 in Denver.

The National Convention Delegates and Alternates are as follows:

National Convention Delegates pledged to Sen. Clinton:

First Congressional District:

Etta Walker, Sharon Springs

Second Congressional District:

John Settich, Atchison

Margie Wakefield, Lawrence

Third Congressional District:

Tess Banion, Lawrence

Bill Roy Jr., Lenexa

Fourth Congressional District:

John Carmichael, Wichita

National Convention Delegates/Alternates pledged to Sen. Obama:

First Congressional District

Shala Mills, Hays

Leonard Schamber, Damar

Bobby Whitten, Junction City

*Sean Buchanan (alternate), Hutchinson

Second Congressional District

Cori Allen, Lawrence

Terry Crowder, Topeka

Vernon Mills, Lansing

Teresa Sims, Lawrence

*Joyce Williams (alternate), Lansing

Third Congressional District

Stanley Adams, Overland Park

Rep. Paul Davis, Lawrence

Jan McConnell, Overland Park

Clarissa Unger, Lawrence

Rep. Valdenia Winn, Kansas City

*Eli Tate (alternate), Fairway

Fourth Congressional District:

Elizabeth Kinch, Derby

Pat Lehman, Wichita

Matthew Vines, Wichita

*Chelsea Loehr (alternate), Garden Plain

Kansas Democratic Party National Convention

Delegates Elected at State Convention

Topeka – On Saturday, May 17, the Kansas Democratic State Committee elected 11 pledged delegates, one pledged alternate, and one unpledged add-on delegate to attend the Democratic National Convention to be held August 25-28 in Denver.

The National Convention delegates and alternate are as follows:

National Convention Un-pledged Add-on Delegates:

Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, Olathe

National Convention Delegates/Alternate pledged to Sen. Clinton:

KDP Treasurer Dan Lykins, Topeka

Steve Cadue, Lawrence

Elizabeth Bustamante, Garden City

Sidwell Jones, Atchison - alternate

National Convention Delegates pledged to Sen. Obama:

Mayor Joe Reardon, Kansas City

Sen. Anthony Hensley, Topeka

Shawnee County Treasurer Larry Wilson, Topeka

Barb Shirley, Salina

Dan Watkins, Lawrence

Denise Cassells, Mound City

Rep. Raj Goyle, Wichita

Kathy Greenlee, Lawrence

Recent Posts:
Reader Feedback Wanted: New Electoral College Maps?

Alaska + Wyoming = Obama + 1 Delegate

Alaska and Wyoming: State Convention Day (18 Delegates at Stake)

Reader Feedback Wanted: New Electoral College Maps?

I've been tinkering around this week with a new map making utility based on the Google Chart API in R (via the Social Science Statistics Blog) and was thinking of switching out the new maps for the old ones.

The advantages? More color options. Red, orange and brown just don't cut for the Republican leaning states. Sure that color combination was unique, but it wasn't entirely intuitive in the way that dark red, primary red and pink are. Someone can look at that and see strong McCain states, leaning McCain states and toss ups trending toward the Arizona senator without having to scour a the map for a key.

The other advantage is that the "Where Democrat X Does Best" maps can be condensed into one map. With more than six colors at my disposal (the price for using a free, online map utility), it is much easier to show where Clinton and Obama are doing better than the other and by how much.

The disadvantages? Well, they are the same here as they are with any electoral college map. The result is typically a lot of red. Every map looks like a Republican landslide. But as I told my son today, "People vote. Land doesn't. Do you recall any dirt walking into the fire station to vote when we were there in February?"

"No."

"That's because land area doesn't vote."

Seriously though, you have a decision to make in this endeavor: use a regular map and have a lot of red (distorting the perception of who has the most electoral votes) or use a cartogram that distorts the map beyond recognition (but makes California look bigger than Wyoming to reflect which state has the most electoral college votes). The answer is that you maintain the state shape but expand or contract it in relation to the number of electoral votes. That's something Paul Gurian has been doing for years, but we haven't gotten that up and ready for primetime exposure in this forum yet. By the time of the general election hopefully we will.

Here, though, is what I've got now and would appreciate any feedback on. These are the maps with data updated through today sans analysis (There have been a ton of new polls this week so I'll let the weekly cycle complete itself before I fully comment on it).

The Clinton Map
Clinton: McCain:
272 266


The Obama Map
Obama: McCain:
274 264


McCain Margin
Clinton states (green): 13 Obama states (blue): 37
*The darker a state is the more it favors one candidate over the other.

The comments section awaits.

[Thanks to Robi Ragan for the link to the Soc. Sci. Stat. blog post.]

Recent Posts:
Alaska + Wyoming = Obama + 1 Delegate

Alaska and Wyoming: State Convention Day (18 Delegates at Stake)

Colorado Final Tally: Clinton Gains 1 Delegate

Alaska + Wyoming = Obama + 1 Delegate

A week after Clinton emerged from the Colorado state convention with one extra delegate (compared to her estimated share in the precinct level vote), Obama returned the favor by duplicating his Nevada gain at Alaska's state convention last night. During the February 5 caucuses in the Last Frontier, Obama just missed out on gaining 10 delegates to Clintons 3. The estimated spread then was 9-4. The Obama campaign got just enough more support in the state convention to push that edge to 10-3. Factoring in the superdelegates (plus former governor, Tony Knowles as an add-on superdelegate supporting Obama), Obama will carry a 14-4 advantage over Clinton within the Alaskan delegation to the national convention.

The original precinct vote numbers didn't allow either candidate much room to maneuver in Wyoming. The predicted 7-5 split favoring Obama was what came out of the Democrats' convention in the Equality state last night. According to The Green Papers, 4 of the 5 Wyoming superdelegates have endorsed Obama, while the fifth remains undecided. There was no word on who the add-on superdelegate, determined at the convention yesterday, was backing between Clinton and Obama. UPDATE: The AP says that the Wyoming add-on did back Obama and so too did the one chosen at the Georgia state convention. In all, Obama picked up 4 delegates yesterday: one extra pledged delegate out of Alaska, add-ons in Alaska, Georgia and Wyoming.

So, Obama gained one delegate this weekend. That isn't a resounding finding in favor of the caucus question. However, the winner from the original step gained through the process in Alaska (albeit slightly) and that falls in line with what we witnessed in Nevada. The lack of shift in Wyoming is similar to what came out of North Dakota's convention at the end of March. Finally, Colorado has been the only caucus state to break with expectations, handing Clinton more support in the final step than in the original one. And the Kansas Democratic Party has yet to confirm the final numbers that I've seen floating around.

Up next? Well, Puerto Rico has its primary next Sunday, but Maine holds its state convention and has 24 of the state's 32 delegates at stake. FHQ will be back with more on that one later in the week.


Recent Posts:
Alaska and Wyoming: State Convention Day (18 Delegates at Stake)

Colorado Final Tally: Clinton Gains 1 Delegate

Clinton in 2012: The Caucus Quandary

Alaska and Wyoming: State Convention Day (18 Delegates at Stake)

The weekend isn't just slow for political news. There isn't much going on by way of delegate selection either. Two of the least Democratic states have state conventions scheduled for today and offer both Clinton and Obama one last opportunity to shift the pledged delegate numbers in Alaska and Wyoming before the convention.

In Alaska, all 13 of the state's pledged delegates are on the line. If the convention voting follows the precinct/county level vote, then Obama will walk away with an estimated 9-4 advantage from The Last Frontier. That count is slightly more advantageous to Clinton since she was outpaced in the state's February 5 meetings by a 3:1 margin. Obama may be able to squeeze one more delegate out for a seven delegate advantage. That is Obama's best case scenario, whereas the 9-4 count is Clinton's best but Obama's worst case scenario. According to the party's agenda, that process should be completed by 10pm eastern. Also, as this is the state convention, one add-on superdelegate will be selected. As we saw with Kansas (another caucus state that leaned heavily toward Obama) last weekend, that person is likely to be (but not assured of being) an Obama supporter.

Further south and east of Alaska, Democrats in the Equality state are also meeting to put the finishing touches on their slate of pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer in Denver. Wyoming Democrats selected 7 of the state's delegates at the precinct meetings on March 8. Clinton was able to keep Obama from getting over 64% of the vote that would have given him a 5-2 edge among those 7 delegates. So, even though Obama received over 61% of the vote in the Wyoming caucuses, he only got just more than 57% of the delegates. For the Illinois senator to get anything more than a 3-2 split among the remaining 5 (state convention) delegates he'll need to get 70% of the vote. The most likely result, then, is that 3-2 split which will produce a final tally 7 Obama delegates and 5 Clinton delegates from the state. As with Alaska, Wyoming also has one add-on superdelegate to be allocated at the state's convention. And given the vote spread, that add-on is most likely to be an Obama backer. The delegate portion of the convention should be completed by around 8pm eastern tonight.

At the end of the day, Obama may be able to add one more delegate than has been estimated from these two state combined. That would fall in line with the results in Nevada (which was supportive of the caucus question hypothesis: A winner in the original step of the caucus or the presumptive nominee stands to gain as the process continues.

Hopefully the results are a bit quicker to emerge from these two states than they were from Kansas or Washington last weekend.


Recent Posts:
Colorado Final Tally: Clinton Gains 1 Delegate

Clinton in 2012: The Caucus Quandary

Rules Matter...but Luck Does Too

Colorado Final Tally: Clinton Gains 1 Delegate

From the precinct level to the state convention, Hillary Clinton (ever so) slightly improved her standing in the Centennial state. The initial vote percentages (67%-32 in favor of Obama with 1% opting for "uncommitted") would have yielded a 37-18 delegate edge in a purely proportional system. With the process being filtered through both congressional district caucuses and Colorado Democrats' state convention last weekend, there were opportunities for each candidate to tweak those numbers. Granted, the movement that was witnessed from early February to last weekend could be due simply to the rounding of delegates during each step of the process. As I mentioned in the congressional district caucus post earlier in the week, there had been reports of the Clinton camp making efforts in the state following the initial defeat there. But as the good folks at Enik Rising point out, it all seems too little, too late for Clinton, especially when the alternate delegates are included in the equation (all are Obama supporters).

In the end, Colorado will send 36 Obama delegates and 19 Clinton delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. And while this is a "victory" for Clinton in the delegate count, it is certainly outweighed by the much more skewed numbers (favoring Obama) coming out of Nevada last weekend as well. Skewed as Nevada may have been (in the translation from vote totals to actual delegates), the gain Obama got from the beginning of the process in the Silver state to the state convention was the same 1 delegate that Clinton got in Colorado. The result? A wash.

Of course, we're still awaiting word out of Kansas and Washington from last weekend. One blogger posted the results of the 8th district meeting in Washington and another has revealed the breakdown in the 3rd and an Obama slate of delegates to the convention from an Obama site (unconfirmed by the Washington state Democratic Party). By my count, that's 34 Obama delegates and 9 Obama alternates. That 34 is roughly equivalent to the percentage of the vote Obama received in the the state's February 9 caucus. That's 2/3rds of the delegates that were on the line in last weekend's congressional district caucuses. Obama got nearly 68% of the vote in the precinct level meetings.


Recent Posts:
Clinton in 2012: The Caucus Quandary

Rules Matter...but Luck Does Too

The Electoral College Maps (5/21/08)

Clinton in 2012: The Caucus Quandary

Let's assume for a moment that Obama wins the Democratic nomination, but goes on to lose to John McCain in the general election. Let us also assume that Hillary Clinton is true to her word and campaigns vigorously and wholeheartedly for Obama ahead of said general election. Finally, let's assume that the rules governing the selection of national convention delegates is not altered in any significant way. Iowa and New Hampshire still get to go first, and the rest of the states inch ever closer to a national primary.

Would the Democratic Party automatically unite behind Clinton on November 5 following an Obama loss the day before (...or for that matter between then and the beginning of the 2012 cycle)? Whether the party does or doesn't is inconsequential because a challenger (or challengers) would emerge regardless. With Iowa set to lead off the process again (given no change in the rules), would Clinton have a problem in 2012? There has been an awful lot of talk about the caucus process during 2008. But because Clinton's performance was less than stellar in caucus states and because she and her surrogates have questioned the level of democracy inherent in them, would she have a problem in the first and most visible caucus? The Hawkeye takes pride in being the first caucus in the nation; a distinction that allows them to go before New Hampshire each cycle.

I don't doubt that Clinton would be more organized in caucus states if she were to run in 2012, but could her stance on caucuses in 2008 give an opponent, say (Sen.?) Mark Warner, an opening in Iowa? As Barack Obama proved, getting off to a good start and proving the viability of your candidacy can be hugely important. Yes, Warner's record and experience speak for themselves and he would potentially be an attractive candidate anyway, but could he (or any challenger) effectively use Clinton's late 2008 caucus position against her? If the economy has rebounded and the Iraq situation has calmed somewhat, then perhaps. But if that is the case, McCain would have a strong case to take to the American electorate and any Democrat (Clinton included) would find it difficult to topple him. If those issues are still the issues of 2012 and if the major Democratic candidates have largely similar methods of dealing with them (sound familiar?), then the caucus quandary could rear its head in Iowa.

The big issue for challengers to overcome would be the idea that 2012 is Clinton's turn. Undoubtedly, that would be a tough mountain to climb. But it looked like a tough mountain to climb in 2008 as well. And then Iowa launched Obama's candidacy. Barring any changes to the rules, though, Iowa will still have the first caucus in 2012.


Recent Posts:
Rules Matter...but Luck Does Too

The Electoral College Maps (5/21/08)

Colorado Congressional District Caucuses Final Tally: 67% of the Vote, 64% of the Delegates