Showing posts with label delegate count. Show all posts
Showing posts with label delegate count. Show all posts

Saturday, March 10, 2012

About that RNC Delegate Count...

Now, FHQ makes no bones about it: We are no fans of the Associated Press delegate projection. Yeah, that's right. I said it. The AP has a projection of delegates; not a count. The distinction is important if we are to accurately count the number of delegates allocated to each candidate. What the AP is doing is taking delegates bound to candidates (but not, truth be told, actually allocated yet) by the primaries and a handful of binding caucuses thus far and adding on top of that total a fantasy proportional allocation of delegates in the non-binding caucus states.1

But enough AP bashing.

You will also notice that FHQ has yet to update its delegate count to include the numbers from Super Tuesday. That is equal parts slow wading through the results and waiting on the RNC delegate count which FHQ uses as a kind of baseline check on our count. Now that the RNC count is out though, I take issue with some of their count based on the numbers I have. Overall they have:
Romney: 339
Gingrich: 107
Santorum: 95
Paul: 22 
But the issues:
  1. No one -- or very few anyway -- have access to the Tennessee numbers; particularly the results by congressional district. The Tennessee secretary of state did not tabulate the vote by congressional districts. Well, they tabulated the delegate elections by congressional districts but not the topline presidential preference vote. It was the Tennessee Republican Party that did that tabulation, and they aren't releasing the numbers until the vote is certified or close to certified. TNGOP asked me to call back on Monday or Tuesday to check on their progress. [Note to self: Be more persistent next time. And hey, don't they know who I am? That ridiculously nitpicky delegate counter.] So we are all kind of taking AP's or the RNC's word on this one. And yes, FHQ is fully aware of the fact that the TNGOP is way more likely to share their results with the national party than FHQ. The Tennessee results are a minor point but still worth noting.
  2. There is a discrepancy between the RNC count of the county delegates allocated thus far in Wyoming and what is being reported in the Equality state. The RNC says Romney has won three delegates, Paul one and that one other delegate will head to the convention uncommitted. But six counties have elected delegates thus far and as the Casper Star-Tribune reports Romney has received four with Paul at one and the remaining delegate uncommitted.2 
  3. Finally, FHQ has done the math at least three times now for Georgia based on the results currently being reported by the secretary of state's office in the Peach state. FHQ has Gingrich with 47% of the vote pulling in 20 of the proportionally allocated 31 at-large delegates and Romney with the remaining 11 as the only other candidate over the 20% threshold to receive delegates. Gingrich by virtue of his statewide win is also entitled to the three Georgia automatic delegates. In the congressional count, Gingrich won 12 of the 14 districts (5 of them with a majority of the vote). That nets Gingrich 31 of the 42 district delegates. Romney won the two remaining congressional districts (but not with a majority) and placed second (worth one delegate) in four other districts. Santorum placed second in three districts which would have gotten him three delegates.
If you have been adding these up that yields:
Gingrich: 54
Romney: 19
Santorum: 3
But the RNC has the count at:
Gingrich: 52
Romney: 21
Santorum: 3
It is worth pointing out that while the Georgia secretary of state is reporting all of the precincts in, only 99% of the votes are in. Now that is likely provisional ballots that are still outstanding. FHQ has no indication of how many of those votes are out. But the thing is that nothing in the reported results indicates that Gingrich and Romney are all that close in a district or statewide to warrant a two delegate swing anywhere. It is curious.
All told, FHQ now has problems with the AP projection and the RNC count. Again, the RNC has the preferred method in our neck of the woods, but they seem to be off a little -- at least based on the information FHQ has access to. Pushing aside the Tennessee issue -- until the count can be adequately dealt with -- the RNC count would need to be adjusted:

Romney: 339 (+1 Wyoming, -2 Georgia) = 338
Gingrich: 107 (+2 Georgia) = 109
Santorum: 95
Paul: 22 

I know what you're saying. C'mon FHQ! We're talking about three delegates here. True, but if we're all going to attempt to be accurate with this, then we need to be accurate.

...not partially accurate. 

--
1 And then there is the AP's contention that the Santorum win in Minnesota was enough to warrant a winner-take-all allocation of its 37 delegates. Don't get me started on the logic of that decision. Suffice it to say, there is nothing in Minnesota Republican Party rules that indicates any such allocation based on the precinct caucuses.

2 The remaining six county delegates will be chosen on March 10 in Wyoming

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Fantasy Delegates

Look, FHQ has been stubbornly adamant that the bulk of the delegate counts for the 2012 Republican nomination race out there are artificially inflated.1 This is due in part to either a misguided application of the Democratic Party's proportional delegate allocation rules (see Iowa, Colorado, Maine and now Wyoming) or an equally skewed application of winner-take-all rules (see Minnesota) in all the caucus states but Nevada which have held caucuses thus far. But this is a misleading practice and is obviously based on a flawed logic. I realize that we all want to get a grasp of what the true delegate count is, but over-inflating the count serves no purpose.2 [I'll spare you having to read once again that delegates from these states attend the convention technically unbound anyway. Oops.]

Again, it is the caucus states that are driving the discrepancies in the various delegate counts.3 First of all, there are no rules at the state party level in any of these states (Iowa, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and now Wyoming) that indicates either a winner-take-all or proportional allocation of the delegates. In fact, there are no guidelines in any of these states to determine how many of any given candidate's supporters in attendance at the precinct caucuses get selected to move on to the next step of the process; either the county, district or state convention level. All we know is what a non-binding straw poll of precinct caucus attendees tells us. But as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are plenty of opportunities for people to vote in the straw poll and opt out of the lengthy caucus meeting process before the county, district or state convention delegates are chosen from among the caucusgoers at the precinct caucuses.

Up until now, FHQ has made the point that this would advantage the Ron Paul campaign -- the campaign with the seemingly most committed supporters in the race.4 But let me flesh that point out a bit and offer a hypothesis. First, a question: Who are Rick Santorum voters at these caucuses? There are a few different ways of thinking about this:
  1. They are sincere Santorum voters.
  2. They are sincere not Romney voters, but not necessarily committed to Santorum.
  3. They are Democrats attempting to prolong the Republican nomination process.
I'll dismiss the third option for now, as it is only going to affect things -- at the most -- at the margins. Plus the only clear evidence -- or actually push from the Santorum campaign -- of Democratic support has been in Michigan. But the other two types of Santorum voters are worth looking at in more detail. Are Santorum voters, then, true Santorum supporters or just committed to casting a protest vote against Romney?

The hypothesis: True Santorum supporters are more likely to stick it out through the whole delegate selection process at the precinct-level meeting, but "not Romney" Santorum voters are more likely to be satisfied with simply casting a not Romney vote in the non-binding straw poll.

The truth of the matter is that we don't know the answer to this question. And yes, I know, the Santorum folks are going to come after me on this one. But I don't think this is something that we can dismiss as a factor. The fact is that we simply don't know and that complicates even further our ability to project much of anything about the nature of the eventual allocation of delegates in these caucus states.

Until such time that someone/some outlet with the resources -- FHQ does not have them. -- can talk to all of the county, district or state convention delegates in these states and get an accurate feel for their candidate preferences, these delegates that the AP, New York Times and others are allocating to Paul, Romney or Santorum are fantasy delegates.5

--
Post script: Now, to head off the likely Santorum backlash from this, FHQ will wholeheartedly admit that none of this is static; that either these Santorum voters are sincere Santorum voters or not Romney voters or that the line between those two groups is well-defined and consistent across states. It isn't. Again, it is an unknown. For one thing, raising $9 million in a short month is indicative of some level of enthusiasm for the Santorum candidacy. So before my good Santorum friends return the volley with stories of enthusiasm and committed support (and with claims that those levels can grow over time), please note that FHQ is in no way dismissing the possibility that that level of support exists or can grow over time. I am only attempting to point out that there is a discrepancy here driven by the fact that we don't have a firm answer to the above question. Nothing more, nothing less.

--
1 Yeah, I know. That description is redundantly redundant. ...but allow me to emphasize my point.

2 It gets supporters' hopes up and forces them to counterintuitively throw, of all delegate counts, the New York Times' delegate count at FHQ as evidence of the "true" count.

3 FHQ has among the most conservative delegate counts out there, but the RNC's is by far the most conservative. They are not, as of yet, counting any automatic delegates who have endorsed a candidate already. For states that have held contests and in which the automatic delegates are not bound by the results of the primary or caucus, the RNC is considering those automatic delegates as unbound. That is consistent with the RNC delegate selection rules which call for those delegates to be unbound unless otherwise bound according to state party rules.

4 Even David Frum is starting to look into the Paul delegate strategy.

5 Newt Gingrich has as of yet been unable to cross the threshold (voter percentage necessary) to receive any delegates in most of these states. The former speaker's delegate total is fairly consistent across counts. That is because his delegates are all primary delegates from states with clearly defined rules on binding delegates.

Recent Posts:
Texas Primary Set for May 29

On the Shifting/Not Shifting of Michigan Delegate Allocation Rules

Race to 1144: Arizona Primary


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

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)


Delegate breakdown (post-Maine caucuses):
Romney: 91 delegates (New Hampshire: 7, South Carolina: 2, Florida: 50, Nevada: 14, Automatic: 18)
Gingrich: 32 delegates (South Carolina: 23, Nevada: 6, Automatic: 3)
Paul: 8 delegates (New Hampshire: 3, Nevada: 5)
Santorum: 4 delegates (Nevada: 3, Automatic: 1)
Unbound: 126 delegates (Iowa: 25, Colorado: 33, Minnesota: 37, Maine: 21 Automatic: 8, Huntsman: 2)


--
As Maine goes, so goes the...

...well, so has gone New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada thus far anyway. The Maine Republican Party revealed Saturday night that Mitt Romney had won its caucuses. Now, it should be noted that there are several caucus meetings that have yet to occur and will be held between now and March 3, but as Maine Republican Party Executive Director Mike Quatrano informed FHQ a couple of weeks ago, only the caucuses held on or before February 11 would be included in the straw poll results. It was the party's opinion that the 502 (of 600) precincts reporting up to February 11 would be a reflection of the Pine Tree state's Republican caucusgoers as a whole.

Whether it accomplishes that goal or not, Romney emerges with a win that coupled with a straw poll win at CPAC helps to change the narrative around the race following the Santorum sweep of February 7 contests. The other side of this is that Ron Paul, a close runner-up, has made a push to collect as many county convention delegate slots as possible. To this point, that is the one unanswered question to could determine the outcome of the selection of delegates from Maine. All 24 delegates go to the Tampa convention unbound, but that doesn't mean they don't have a presidential preference in tow. Of course, Romney has already claimed the endorsements of two of the Maine automatic delegates and the Paul campaign may further focus on the remaining caucuses in the state as a means of solidifying either its total number of county convention delegates or its lead in county convention delegates. [Again, we don't have a full set of information on the latter, but the possibility is worth noting.]

Where does that leave the total overall delegate count?

Ah, yes. It's time for FHQ's post-contest crankiness over the various projections of delegates coming off of yet another non-binding caucus, a total process from which unbound delegates will be selected to attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Look, I can appreciate the need to report some delegate count, but the simple truth of the matter is that while Maine delegates or Colorado delegates may have a particular preference for one candidate or another, we have no idea how many of which candidate's supporters moved through to the next step of the caucus process. None or at least only anecdotal evidence. What that evidence does not seem to suggest, however, is that the count is proportional.

...as it is being projected in WAY too many places.

The saving grace in all of this is that a flood of upcoming primaries will begin to render the discrepancies across various delegate counts less significant. Most of the primaries on the Republican side are binding in a way that these past several caucuses -- with the exception of Nevada -- have not been. As the delegate totals overall grow, the differences based on the falsely projected proportional allocation of non-binding caucus state delegates will have less and less influence.

...at least that is what I keep telling myself.

No candidate padded his total after Maine, but Paul seemingly picked up the support of one automatic delegate from Iowa with the election of one of the Texas congressman's co-chairs in Iowa as chairman of the Republican Party in the Hawkeye state. However, Chairman Spiker, upon that election resigned his post with the Paul campaign and stated that he would support whomever the national party nominee is. As a result, the totals from following the Colorado/Minnesota/Missouri troika of contests remains unchanged. The unbound category, though, increases by 22 (Maine) delegates.

Maine Results:


Recent Posts:


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

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Race to 1144: Santorum Tuesday (Colorado, Minnesota & Missouri*)


Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

Delegate breakdown (post-February 7 contests):
Romney: 91 delegates (New Hampshire: 7, South Carolina: 2, Florida: 50, Nevada: 14, Automatic: 18)
Gingrich: 32 delegates (South Carolina: 23, Nevada: 6, Automatic: 3)
Paul: 8 delegates (New Hampshire: 3, Nevada: 5)
Santorum: 4 delegates (Nevada: 3, Automatic: 1)
Unbound: (Iowa: 25, Colorado: 33, Minnesota: 37, Automatic: 7, Huntsman: 2)

A few notes on the delegates and delegate counts:
1. The Romney campaign was right Tuesday when it released its memorandum detailing essentially how inconsequential the contests that day were. There were no delegates directly on the line -- no delegates to the national convention anyway -- in any of the three contests. However, there were delegates selected in both Colorado and Minnesota to move on the next steps in their respective caucus/convention processes. And that is where the problem lies. If this was the Democratic Party process it would be much easier to track as the totals from one step to the next maintain -- minus some occasional rounding error to prevent fractional delegates -- the proportion of the candidates' vote shares from the first determining step of the caucus. If Obama receives 50% of the vote in a given caucus, Obama would be allocated approximately 50% of the delegates throughout and at the end of the process. Again, approximately.

But the Republican process isn't like that. There is no requirement from the national party that any part of the caucus process be proportional. And no step of the caucus process in any caucus state is proportional unless that is the preference of the state party as codified in either their state party rules, bylaws or constitutions. As such, delegates from those states cannot be allocated until, well, they are allocated. In Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and over the weekend add Maine to the mix, that won't happen until the congressional district or state conventions.

Now, some will say that we have more information than that. We do, and I wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Bernstein that the straw poll results at the precinct caucuses provide us with something of a baseline from which to project the eventual delegate allocation. It is a good baseline, but it is a flawed baseline for projection. The problem is that we have no idea how close or how far off that proportional estimate is. We know the straw poll results, but we don't have one iota of evidence one way or the other about the precinct caucusgoers who were either selected or volunteered to be county or district delegates. Nor do we have an accurate picture of their presidential preferences. Things like the following also give me some pause (from a press release from Paul national campaign manager, John Tate):

“We are thrilled with the yesterday’s results. Our campaign to Restore America continues to gain ground, and we are poised to pick up even more delegates from Minnesota and Colorado adding to our delegates in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. 
“As people across the country view the results of  yesterday’s contests, it is important to consider a few facts that have not been clearly reported.  Not one single delegate was awarded yesterday, instead the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado were the very first step in the delegate selection process. And there are still over 40 states left to go. The Ron Paul campaign plans to continue to vie for delegates nationwide. 
“There are a few significant takeaways from yesterday’s contests to remember: 
1) The Missouri primary means nothing. It was a non-binding beauty contest, and the contest that matters in the ‘show me’ state won’t take place for another month. The Ron Paul campaign is well positioned to win delegates in Missouri’s caucus a month from now. 
2) As in Iowa where not 1 of the 28 delegates has been awarded yet, in Colorado and Nevada the Paul campaign will do very well in the state delegate counts. We will have good numbers among the actual delegates awarded, far exceeding our straw poll numbers. 
3) In Minnesota where we have finished a solid second, we also have a strong majority of the state convention delegates, and the process to elect delegates has also just begun, the Paul campaign is well-organized to win the bulk of delegates there. 
“We are confident in gaining a much larger share of delegates than even our impressive showing yesterday indicates. As an example of our campaign’s delegate strength, take a look at what has occurred in Colorado:
  • In one precinct in Larimer County, the straw poll vote was 23 for Santorum, 13 for Paul, 5 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich.  There were 13 delegate slots, and Ron Paul got ALL 13.
  • In a precinct in Delta County the vote was 22 for Santorum, 12 for Romney, 8 for Paul, 7 for Gingrich. There were 5 delegate slots, and ALL 5 went to Ron Paul.
  • In a Pueblo County precinct, the vote was 16 for Santorum, 11 for Romney, 3 for Gingrich and 2 for Paul. There were 2 delegate slots filled, and both were filled by Ron Paul supporters.

Now, just as the Romney memo above was setting the expectations low on Tuesday, the Paul campaign may have cherrypicked a few instances where Paul supporters were able to dominate the county/district delegate selection. The thing is, we don't know. And that is the problem. If, on the one hand, we have a straw poll for a rough estimate of support of those in attendance at the caucuses, then on the other, we have also have some evidence that organization is potentially playing a role in if not taking all the delegate slots then flipping the tables and taking more than would be proportionally allocated to a particular candidate based on the straw poll results. The straw polls favored Santorum in Colorado and Minnesota, but did that enthusiasm to vote for Santorum or against Romney stretch into the delegate selection process or is that where organization -- mostly from Paul, but to a lesser extent from Romney -- picked up and took over? [Actually, Paul supporters likely have a combination of both things: organization and enthusiasm.] The answer is likely somewhere in the middle as opposed to one extreme or the other. And that is enough to make FHQ wary of pushing any delegate toward any one candidate based on the straw poll alone.

The state parties are unlikely to provide a breakdown of those delegates' preferences at any step in the caucus process and in the end they all technically go to the convention unbound anyway.

One thing to eye throughout the race as it moves forward is -- and I mentioned this in the Missouri rules post Tuesday night -- what the dynamics are in the race when the district and state conventions roll around in the caucus states. If the race is competitive, the ultimate delegate allocation may trend toward  something more proportional. If, on the other hand, one candidate has broken from the pack in the delegate count and is either approaching 1144 or has established a margin that would be difficult to overcome given the remaining delegates available (and allocation), then the caucuses may end up doing what they usually end up doing regardless of the initial precinct caucus straw poll: side with the presumptive nominee heading into the convention anyway.

2. FHQ likes being on the conservative end of the spectrum on these things; whether it is a delegate count or an electoral college projection.

3. The results:
a. Colorado

b. Minnesota
c. And just for the fun of it, Missouri's non-binding caucuses (which have absolutely nothing to do with the delegate allocation in the Show Me state. That process begins with precinct caucuses on March 17.)

4. This whole delegate counting process is easier in primary states with defined rules and binding mechanisms.



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

Monday, February 6, 2012

Race to 1144: Nevada Caucuses


I don't know that I have too much to add to what has already been said about the Nevada caucuses Saturday night. Nothing that happened was all that unexpected. On Saturday Romney basically outperformed to the expectations set by the scant polling conducted in the Silver state in the lead up to the caucuses and left with a greater than 2:1 delegate advantage over his nearest rivals. Yes, the count took a long time and yes, the turnout was down relative to 2008, but neither is particularly noteworthy.

As inept as the Nevada Republican Party has/has not seemed in the last two presidential caucuses -- and by all accounts, it is the former -- there was no way they were going to take any chances on having another Iowa on their hands. The party erred on the side of caution and took their time. It helped that the outcome -- who had won in particular -- was never in doubt. Things could have been dicey (Iowa-like) between Gingrich and Paul for second, but it never came to that.

FHQ is with Jon Bernstein on the turnout comparison. Don't read too much into that drop from 2008 to 2012. Turnout is a funny business anyway, but it is a particularly strange animal in caucus states.  2008 had the novelty (and chaos) of being Nevada's first time under the early state spotlight, and it had competitive races in both parties. Of course, the 2008 Nevada caucuses were largely ignored as most of the candidates focused on the South Carolina primary occurring on the same January 19 date. What we are left with, then, is a comparison between a secondary contest in 2008 that saw little in the way of candidate attention/campaign effects versus a 2012 contest that was viewed as a Romney firewall and saw increased attention but only in the few days after Florida. It is a flawed comparison ladened with caveat after caveat.

Both the count and the turnout were the stories in a contest that lacked them. The former will certainly be pushed from everyone's minds as soon as the next seemingly big procedural deal arises.

One other issue that has been raised in the fallout of yet another quirky caucus is the likelihood of a switch -- in Nevada -- from a caucus to a primary. Jon Ralston has been tweeting about this on and off today, and I've got to say that I'm skeptical of a switch. 2016 is approximately 23 quadrillion political lifetimes away  -- which is to say a lot can happen. However, far more will be forgotten between now and when that decision is made. That said, there are a few things to bear in mind.

  • First, the economics of the situation matter. Will a state bearing quite a load in the current economic environment be either willing and/or able to pay for a separate presidential primary? I don't know. 
  • Second, are the parties willing to make the switch? Often, state parties will opt for the cost savings -- to the party itself --  of taking a state-funded primary over state party-funded caucuses. That isn't always the case though. In some cases, the state party prefers the relative control over the process a closed caucus provides as opposed to a more open (in terms of higher turnout) primary. The last thing the Nevada state legislature will want to do in 2013 or more likely 2015 is create a primary election that neither party will opt into or even only one party will opt into. Look to the state parties on that one. 
  • Finally, what will the national parties do with Nevada and its position at the front of the queue? More importantly, perhaps, will we see some divergence between the two national parties on how they designate Nevada in the process (ie: the Democrats allowing Nevada to retain the third spot and the Republicans moving another state into the slot).

All of those things factor into a decision on the mode of delegate allocation, and it certainly isn't clear -- though certainly brought into sharp contrast immediately after the caucuses -- what impact any of the events of the weekend will have on the ultimate decision on the 2016 contest.

--

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

And what about the delegate count post-Nevada?

Since the Florida primary, there have been 28 contest delegate slots allocated and one additional automatic delegate has endorsed. Of those 29 delegates:

  • Romney won 14 (from Nevada)/88 total
  • Gingrich won 7 (6 from Nevada and one automatic delegate from Minnesota)/31 total
  • Paul picked up 5 (from Nevada)/8 total
  • Santorum received 3 (from Nevada)/4 total 

NOTE: Iowa has yet to allocated any of its 28 delegates. One of the three automatic delegates has endorsed (Santorum) and the remaining 25 will be allocated at the June state convention and go to Tampa unbound. As such they are factored into the "unbound" category (29 total delegates) in the graphic above.

Interestingly, of the 21 automatic delegates to have endorsed, very few come from states that have participated in the process thus far. One Iowa automatic delegate (Santorum), two of the Maine automatics (both Romney) and one Minnesota automatic (Gingrich) have weighed in. [NOTE: As Matt astutely pointed out in the comments below, this is for a very good reason (...and more than just me having a long day). The early states with the exception of Iowa either bind their automatic delegates or lost them as part of the penalty for holding a non-compliant contest.]

Less than 5% of the total 2286 delegates have been allocated and there are only 6.25% of the total delegates in the first five states.



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

Friday, February 3, 2012

Race to 1144: Florida Primary



The numbers keep changing daily with the vote tabulation in Florida -- see, it has already changed1 -- but FHQ will go ahead and post this today in the interest of making a few points about the overall delegate count. However, the vote total will be changed -- and folks, it is only changing slightly and will in no way affect the outcome -- when and if the Division of Elections within the Florida Secretary of State's office adds, or in some cases, subtracts votes from a candidate's total.

Now, about those delegate counts...

--



Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

FHQ wants to get out ahead of as much of this delegate count talk as possible because most of it is very, very wrong. In fact, an NPR story this morning -- one FHQ was quoted in -- incorrectly stated that Ron Paul is fourth in the delegate count. That statement followed a clip of Paul correctly stating that he was in third. He is according to the RNC.

As such, FHQ will call its delegate count the RNC+ delegate count. The Republican National Committee stated this week that it had the delegate count at Romney: 59, Gingrich: 23, Paul: 3, Santorum: 0 and there are 30 unbound delegates. Let's dig into that.

  • Romney: 59 (50 Florida delegates, 7 New Hampshire delegates, 2 South Carolina delegates)
  • Gingrich: 23 (23 South Carolina delegates)
  • Paul: 3 (3 New Hampshire delegates)

Yes, that's right. Santorum has 0 delegates according to the RNC.

But we do have additional information. We also have automatic delegates, technically unbound, who have stated preferences for one candidate or another. That adds fifteen delegates to Romney's total, two to Gingrich's total and pushes Santorum's count from zero to one.

You will also notice that the Huntsman column from previous "Race to 1144" posts has disappeared and been replaced with an "Unbound" column. This brings up a couple of additional points. First of all, the two delegates Huntsman won in the New Hampshire primary have not been officially released. The RNC is counting them among the unbound delegates. The remaining unbound delegates are the 28 delegates at stake in Iowa. Remember, none of those delegates has been allocated yet. That will happen at the Iowa state convention in June and even after that point, those delegates will head to Tampa unbound. That said, one of those Iowa delegates, Kay Lehman, the Iowa Republican Party national committeewoman, has come out in support of Rick Santorum. That's Santorum's lone delegate. What that means for those keeping track at home is that two of those unbound delegates are Huntman's two contest delegates from New Hampshire while the remaining 27 unbound delegates are Iowa's 25 contest delegates and the remaining two Iowa automatic delegates who have yet to endorse a candidate.

[NOTE: Due to the fact that New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida were all penalized for holding their primaries too early, they lost their 3 automatic delegates according to the RNC delegate selection rules.]


The Nevada caucuses this weekend will add no unbound delegates to the equation. All 28 delegates are bound according to the results of the precinct caucuses on Saturday. The delegate allocation in the Silver state will be completely proportional.

--
Changes to the delegate count since South Carolina:

--
1 The vote totals seem to have stabilized on February 6. The vote totals in the graphic above reflect the numbers as they were as of then.



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

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Race to 1144: South Carolina Primary


A few thoughts on the South Carolina results:

[For a view of the state of the overall race for the Republican nomination after the South Carolina Republican primary, see our earlier post.]

1. The streak is over. [See link above for why.] South Carolina Republican primary voters have enjoyed a three decades long streak of picking the ultimate nominee. [NOTE: That streak is only five cycles long: 1980, 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2008.] With an anti-establishment winner, South Carolina voters shed the formerly pragmatic streak they once collectively held. Of course, John McCain cut it quite close four years ago in South Carolina; winning by only an approximately three percentage point margin. Of course, Mitt Romney outperformed his 2008 total in the Palmetto state, but underperformed McCain's (establishment) total as well.

Looking at South Carolina long term in the presidential primary process, I don't know that this result is enough of an indictment on the state than, say, what happened in the Iowa Republican caucuses. Neither is going anywhere. However, as I heard on the radio and TV reports surrounding the primary in a state just thirty miles away, this is it for South Carolina. The general election will not bring the presidential candidates back to the state. And that is what separates the Palmetto state from the other three "carve out" states. Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada can claim to be or have recently and fairly consistently been competitive general election states. That is a good argument to take to the national parties: organizing for the primary/caucus equals early organizing for the general election. South Carolina cannot make that argument, but on the flip side of the coin, it has been able to make the argument of being the conservative firewall that typically sends the frontrunner -- and presumptive nominee -- off to other states heading in the right direction. The state also, given its first in the South moniker, also gives voice to southern voters, a valuable constituency within the party. Finally, while the presidential nominees won't return to South Carolina in the fall, the early organizing -- it could be argued -- would help in down ballot races there. ...it could be argued.

2. Romney effect. FHQ has not seen this theory postulated anywhere else -- forgive me if it has been written or said elsewhere -- but I'm wondering if it is possible that something akin to the Bradley effect is going on with Mitt Romney. Before I explain let me say that what we saw last Saturday in South Carolina could have been nothing more or less than undecideds breaking for Newt Gingrich on election day. After all, Romney's support in the state didn't shrink so much as flatline as the election grew near. That said, Public Policy Polling consistently found in South Carolina that while there was some discomfort with the idea of a Mormon president, there was a three-fifths to two-thirds majority of respondents who were not bothered by that notion in the least. But in a race in which "anti-religious bigotry" has made an appearance in the rhetoric, I'm curious if there may have been at least some social desirability bias involved here; that respondents who might otherwise answer in the negative to that question might feel pressured, in the interest of not seeming intolerant, to say the Mormon issue is not bothersome. [Yes, PPP utilizes telephone robocalls to administer their surveys, so that removes that particular layer from this equation.]

It is too true that this -- the Mormon comfort question -- is a step removed from the response on the candidate choice question, but still, the thought has crossed my mind. A couple of other points on this issue: A) This is harder to examine in a multi-candidate primary setting than it would if we had just two candidates left. B) This potentially dovetails nicely with FHQ's "southern question" as this phenomenon, I would suspect, would be more pronounced in the South than elsewhere in the country. [I'm open to counterpoints on that hypothesis, though. Thought exercise.]

--

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)

[NOTE: There is still no allocation of delegates in Iowa. FHQ is looking at you, uh, most major news outlets. Iowa's delegates will be allocated in June at the state convention and will go to Tampa unbound.]

The race for delegates has also tightened up post-South Carolina.

  • Gingrich and Romney both added one automatic delegate each in the lead up to or immediate aftermath of the South Carolina primary.
  • The primary netted Gingrich 23 delegates -- by virtue of having won the statewide vote and the congressional district vote in six of South Carolina's seven districts. Mitt Romney seemingly won the first district and its two delegates. 
  • NOTE: Please note that there is nothing official being reported by the South Carolina State Elections Commission in terms of the congressional district by congressional district vote. In large part that is due to the fact that the current (newly redrawn) districts are being challenged in court and may [MAY] change. Depending on the outcome of that case and any subsequent redrawing of the lines, the allocation may also change. [The new lines were precleared by the Obama administration's Department of Justice.] As of now, FHQ will treat the allocation as if the new boundaries will hold. We shall see. 

See previous results here:
New Hampshire
Iowa (certified)



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

Friday, January 20, 2012

Race to 1144: Iowa Caucuses Redux


[An earlier version of the above total showed Mitt Romney with 29,305 votes instead of 29,805 votes.]

Though the newly certified results from the Republican Party of Iowa in no way affect the delegate total from the Hawkeye state, FHQ would like to take the opportunity -- pre-South Carolina primary -- to update both the vote totals from the Iowa caucuses and the delegate totals as they have shifted due to the developments this week.

  • John Huntsman has not issued any public release of his two New Hampshire delegates and as such, those two delegates remain in his column. Again, this [the release] is based on New Hampshire state law
  • Rick Perry also had delegates, but since they were automatic delegates there was no binding mechanism behind their support. [That is true of most automatic delegates.] Unbound as they are, those three delegates are now free agents following Perry's withdrawal from the race; free to choose whomever they please. One, Henry Barbour, has already opted to side with Mitt Romney
  • Newt Gingrich has also picked up an automatic delegate.

--

Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
--
See also: New Hampshire results



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

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Race to 1144: New Hampshire Primary



See also: Iowa Results


--

Automatic Delegate Count Source: Democratic Convention Watch
Note: Contest delegate total based on results in New Hampshire primary



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

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Race to 1144: Iowa Caucuses


FHQ will let the graphics speak for themselves here. However, I did want to make a statement about the delegate totals below and Iowa last night. There are a few things to know about the delegate selection process the Republican Party of Iowa utilizes. First of all, there were NO delegates at stake last night. Second, the 28 delegates Iowa was apportioned by the Republican National Committee will be selected at the state convention in June. Third, every delegate selected in June will go to the Republican National Convention in Tampa unpledged. Finally and relatedly, there is no formal method -- winner-take-all or proportional -- for allocating those delegates. They will remain unbound.

All of that makes the CNN delegate total FHQ has seen cited several times today all the more frustrating to see. It is a myth rooted in fantasy. That the cable network has tentatively allocated/projected the Iowa Republican delegates proportionally is misleading and it is irresponsible. There is no mention of proportionality anywhere in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Republican Party of Iowa. Period. As such, what you see below is a delegate total that is comprised of the 15 automatic delegates who have endorsed a candidate to this point and are not bound by the results of a presidential primary or caucus.

--

Source: Democratic Convention Watch




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