If You Were Indiana, What Would You Do in 2012? A View from Similar States

Yesterday, I laid out a model for projecting how much attention the state of Indiana would have gotten had it held its presidential primary on an earlier date during previous cycles. Before we run the numbers, though, I thought it would be helpful to look at how other similar states have fared in moving their delegate selection events to earlier dates. Despite the fact that size just doesn't seem to matter (Neither my model here nor Ridout and Rottinghaus' model found the number of delegates a state has to be a significant factor in explaining the variation in a states decision to frontload or in the amount of attention said state receives.), my first inclination is to look at how similarly sized states fared after a frontloading move.

For our purposes, we'll use electoral votes as a proxy for size. Indiana has eleven electoral votes and fortunately, over the last several presidential election cycles there have been several similarly sized states that have made significant moves from one cycle to the next.

State Attention Changes (Delegates)
State	Before	After	Attention Change
Missouri (11)	March 7, 2000	February 3, 2004	-0.37%
Tennessee (11)	March 14, 2000	February 10, 2004	+1.32%
Wisconsin (10)	April 4, 2000	February 17, 2004	+2.39%

[NOTE: I should probably make at least some mention of the attention variable here. If you've had a chance to look at the Ridout and Rottinghaus paper cited above, the data they use to operationalize the concept is the number of candidate visits to and the number of ads run in a particular state. In the past I have used candidate spending and media coverage (a measure borrowed from Gurian and Haynes 1993) as a measure of this concept, but that series of measures has been compromised by both a change in what the FEC required candidates to file and by the proliferation of candidates opting out of the matching funds system.

As was my practice with the earlier set of data, I take the ads and visits data and convert it to percentages. Yes, that prevents us from saying, "Indiana would have gotten X more visits/ads had it moved its presidential primary Y number of of days/weeks forward." However, I find it powerful to look at this in terms of the share of attention each state got. "Could Indiana have increased its piece of the pie if it had been earlier?" If each state were created and treated equally then, we would expect them to each get about 2% of the total amount of attention (100%/50 states = 2% for each state). States, though, are not equal. Specifically, they are not equal in terms of size. A state like California, then, would be expected to net just more than ten percent of the total amount of candidate attention, while South Dakota would be expected to receive approximately one half of one percent. Indiana, in this case, is essentially right on average, expected to garner a hair more than 2%. From this, we can get a sense of whether a state has out- or under-performed based on what its expected share of the total amount of attention is.]

What, then, did Missouri, Tennessee and Wisconsin -- three states similar in size to Indiana -- gain from moving their presidential primaries to earlier dates between 2000 and 2004? In Missouri's case, not much. The Show-Me state actually lost ground, having gone from being lost in the Super Tuesday shuffle in 2000 to being stuck behind South Carolina and Arizona in 2004. The only reason I can think of to explain this is that the prevailing sentiment must have been that Missouri was going to be close in the general election anyway and that it was more important for the candidates to show strength in the South (in the Democrats' case) even if South Carolina was a done deal for November. First in the South status matters more than general election prospects, then.

While the Missouri case is somewhat puzzling, Tennessee and Wisconsin basically performed in the same way. Both went from essentially no attention in 2000 (both fell after Super Tuesday that year) to their expected levels of attention (give or take a few one-hundredths of a perentage point). What helped both in that regard was that both moved from inconsequential calendar positions to pre-Super Tuesday spots where they were not sharing the spotlight at all or with just one other state (Tennessee and Virginia went on the same date.). Overall though, this is a surprising finding (limited in scope though these cases may be). At least in terms of states around this size, we're talking about basically claiming a level of attention that should reasonably be expected and not out-performing that expectation. Basically, size may matter, but it is probably far less significant than how crowded the position to which a state of this size is moving.

Obviously size isn't all that matters, in fact across the two studies cited above, it has no real impact. But what are other means by which we can draw similarities between Indiana and other states? One thing that crossed my mind was that Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com put together a nice chart of State Similarity Scores during the summer months of the 2008 campaign. [Sadly, the chart is no longer up in the post and I've tried it with three different browers. However, due to the magic of the internet, I was able to unearth the chart. Safari will allow you to right click the icon that is in the place of the image and save the original. I'm assuming that the reason it has disappeared is because the 1 GB Blogger allowance for images has been exceeded. But I could be wrong. Anyway, I'll reproduce the chart here, but only with the understanding that this is NOT my work. I am merely borrowing it for the purposes of this analysis.] Basically, Silver attempted to discover the percentage of similarity between states based on 19 dimensions.

State Similarity Scores

[Chart via FiveThirtyEight.com. Click image to enlarge and here to go to the original post there.]

Across those 19 dimensions, Indiana has the most in common with neighbor Ohio, Kansas and North Carolina. Kansas is a caucus state (with the exception of 1992) which makes it more difficult to equate with other primary states and North Carolina has been on the same date as Indiana for all but two cycles in the post-reform era (1976 and 1988). The Tarheel state got more than its expected share of attention in 1976 and matched its expectation in 1988. North Carolina is slightly larger than Indiana and serves as a nice baseline for comparison. Again, we see that sharing the spotlight on a particular date makes a difference (on its face at least). North Carolina had its late March date in 1976 all to itself (and was consequential in the GOP nomination race) but was part of the larger Southern Super Tuesday in 1988, a year when the state did better in terms of receiving attention than in the past, but not as good as it would have been had all the other Southern states not gone simultaneously.

The state that shares the most in common with Indiana, though, is Ohio. And the Buckeye state certainly offers a cautionary tale when it comes to the impact of delegate-richness on the level of attention a state receives. Despite being a bellwether during the general election, Ohio has consistently come in under its expected level of attention. Much of that has to do with the state having a presidential primary mired in either May or June for much of the post-reform era. When the state jumped to March in 1996 and ended up coinciding with the Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin primaries, Ohio did gain attention from the candidates, but far less than would be expected for a state of its size and importance.* When Ohio moved again in 2000 (to Super Tuesday), the state actually lost ground. Again, the number of other states on the same date seems to matter.

Just looking through the data (without modeling and then predicting anything), then, size doesn't seem to matter that much. On top of that, if Indiana were smart, they would wait until the last possible moment in 2011 to decide on a date for its 2012 presidential primary (if they choose to go ahead with the move). In other words, the legislators in the Hooiser state would be wise to see where everyone else (or most everyone else) is going and then decide. The problems there, though, are twofold. The earliest allowed date, if party rules remain virtually unchanged, is going to be the first Tuesday in February, and as we've seen, it is going to be crowded. In other words, attention gains would be limited (The real gain would be in insuring that the state's voters have a say in who the party or parties' nominee(s) are going to be.). Relatedly, state legislators would also have to weigh the defiance option. If they go the Florida/Michigan route, Indiana risks losing delegates to the convention, but possibly gains much more attention in the process (especially if the "lose half their delegates" penalty on the GOP side remains the same). But the latter problem is more a problem for the national parties than it is for the states. The penalty just isn't strong enough to prevent states from defying party rules.

*This is even more curious since Ohio had aligned its primary with three other states in the region and those states had the date all to themselves. What didn't help was the fact that Dole's sweep through the remnants of the Southern Super Tuesday the week before forced his main rival, Steve Forbes, from the race, virtually assuring the senator of the GOP nomination


Recent Posts:
Indiana and 2012

Democratic Ulterior Motives for 2012 and Frontloading

Florida in 2012: Primary on the Move?

Unpledged Add-On Delegates

Well, we can thank the lengthy and competitive race for the Democratic nomination for bringing to light any number of rules and political players during this current nomination season. I mean, who among you was talking about the primary/caucus in Texas in 2004? Did Al Gore even care that there were superdelegates in 2000? And what about the timing of nominating contests? That never warranted any discussion before this year. Well, I suppose that has been discussed some (here and elsewhere).

As we glance forward at the race post-North Carolina/Indiana there are a couple of related questions that come readily to mind: 1) What are the numbers? and 2) Is it over? I'll leave the latter to the pundits and Hillary Clinton. The former, however, has been covered and seems to point toward the affirmative on the latter (See, the pundits are already at work.). If you are Hillary Clinton and her campaign, though, you are trying to find a way to cobble together an unlikely coalition of delegates to somehow pull this thing out. We all know the math on the pledged delegates and the superdelegates, but what about these mysterious unpledged, add-on delegates? Could this potentially be a hidden bastion of support that Clinton could use to get her close enough to Obama's tally; close enough that legitimately begin making the electability arguments again?

Possibly, but it's doubtful. There are only 76 add-ons (81 if you count Florida and Michigan's) and this group insn't going to act anymore monolitically than any other group of Democratic delegates. In fact, Obama already has a lead among those add-ons that have been selected. Most are selected at state conventions (others by committees of state party leaders) to represent their states as unpledged delegates to the national convention. Only a hanful have been chosen thus far but more will follow as the process transitions into the state convention phase for both caucus states and primary states.

Want more? If the link to 2008 Democratic Convention Watch isn't enough, NPR ran a story on the add-ons just last week as well.


Recent Posts:
Kansas is Back in for 2012! But for How Long?

The Electoral College Maps (5/7/08)

Identity Politics (Brazile v. Begala)

The Rules and Bylaws Committee vs. The Credentials Committee

Let's assume for a moment that Clinton and Obama split Indiana and North Carolina, respectively, tomorrow. That outcome is the status quo outcome in the race for the Democratic nomination. Obama is "supposed" to win North Carolina, and the way polls are trending in Indiana, Clinton is "supposed" to win there. We've argued in campaign discussion group here at UGA that this race will continue until one candidate wins somewhere where they aren't "supposed" to win. If the above scenario plays out tomorrow (and remember few things have gone as expected during the 2008 cycle, though predicting the outcomes has become easier as certain demographic groups have line up behind each of the candidates), then that's two fewer contests that can decide the outcome; leaving only six contests (WV, KY, OR, PR, SD and MT) between Wednesday and the end of the primary phase of the election year 2008. And what that means is that the two most-often mentioned contests of this cycle will once again be thrust back into the spotlight.

What will the Democrats do with Florida and Michigan and their delegates? That is the question. If neither Clinton nor Obama wins one on their rival's turf, then the DNC's decision on Florida and Michigan's delegates becomes crucial to deciding the margins in both the delegate and popular vote counts. And that decision comes down to something of a battle between the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee.

Who are the members of these committees and who/what do they support? As of now, the Rules and Bylaws Committee has jurisdiction over this issue. The folks on that committee appear to favor Clinton over Obama (in terms of superdelegates supporting each). And while that potentially bodes well for Clinton, the members of the committee have several other things to consider outside of their own personal preferences.

• First of all, as Thomas Edsall mentions in his Huffington Post piece, the Rules and Bylaws Committee members would have to deal with the perception that they have overturned the will of the people if they were to rule that Florida and Michigan should be counted.

• Secondly, they have to deal with the inevitable challenge of the decision by the Obama campaign to the Credentials Committee.
  

• Finally, and perhaps this should be first, the members of the R&B would have to confront the idea of going back on a penalty that they initiated.

Yes, it was the Rules and Bylaws Committee that levied the "lose all your delegates" penalty against both Florida and Michigan in the first place. Something tells me that the members of the committee may not be interested in completely emasculating the national party when it comes to the matter of the timing of future delegate selection events. If they reverse their own decision from last August, then they risk the DNC losing what little power it does have to deal with the frontloading of presidential primaries and caucuses. This consideration, and this one alone, is why I keep arguing that the DNC will go back to the original penalty (half the delegates from each state) and justify the move by saying that the complete stripping of delegates was too severe a penalty. This is the least talked about aspect of this decision but it may be the most important when it comes to the perceived strength of the DNC in relation to both the candidates and the state parties, but also in relation to its counterpart on the Republican side, the RNC.

[Of course, nothing regarding Florida or Michigan will be decided without intense consultation between the two candidates and the party. Obama won't budge if the plan means he loses the delegate or popular vote lead. And Clinton won't move from her position that they should be counted in some way. If there is a way to avoid this being a zero-sum game, neither the party nor the candidates have come up with it yet.]

What happens if we run the gauntlet on this decision, though? ...if the Rules and Bylaws Committee opts to count Florida and Michigan and as a result hands the nomination over to Clinton, for the time being? Well, if the R&B fails to act prior to the end of June, the jurisdiction on the matter goes over to the Credentials Committee anyway. But let's assume that R&B does, in fact, act to fully include Florida and Michigan. The decision on the nomination then goes from one committee to the next. And the Credentials Committee seems to lean in Obama's direction (based on the results of the 2008 primaries and caucuses so far and the Dean 25--those members appointed by the current DNC chair, Howard Dean.).

Does the appeal then reverse the reversal? Possibly. But that probably wouldn't be the final word. That's right, the floor fight we all envisioned last year as the least likely contingency plan for the nomination decision, could come to pass. And in that event, all the divisiveness, doomsday scenarios laid out by Howard Dean, Joe Andrew and some of the other party elites would come into play. All the while John McCain gets to practice saying his name with President in front of it.

It should be an interesting and well-covered meeting of the R&B on May 31.

...if Indiana and North Carolina go the way of the current polls.


Recent Posts:
Obama's Caucus Strategy

7! 7 Votes in Guam!

"We'll know it when we see it."

"We'll know it when we see it."

Ever mindful of the potential magic numbers, goalposts and other measuring sticks, the Clinton campaign* is now attempting to "undefine" what victory is in the race for the Democratic nomination. Weeks ago, I wrote that 100 was the final delegate deficit for which Clinton was hoping in terms of framing an argument to the late deciding superdelegates. [Of course, if superdelegates are like primary voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas, they may break for Clinton in the end. The news on that front isn't all that rosy for Clinton though.] As the race has changed, though, so too have those markers. The decision-making calculus is relatively straightforward for the superdelegates now. It comes down to delegates, popular vote and states won. And if you want to extend it to general election prospects against McCain you could factor in national polls and state polls/electoral college projections. Obama is ahead in delegates, popular vote and states won, and the Jeremiah Wright flap has not really affected Obama in the national polls and only moderately in the state polls/electoral college (much of that is in states that were already very close and are still close but favoring McCain).

So what does, "We'll know it when we see it," mean? Ultimately it is going to mean that the marker of success in this race for Clinton is no longer on the field of play. That what they "see" is the writing on the wall.

Having said that though, there are two races coming up on Tuesday (and one tomorrow. Hey, eight delegates is eight delegates in this race.). How will the race be affected by the potential outcomes in North Carolina and Indiana?

Obama sweeps: Equals curtains for Clinton. Whether she gets pressure to drop out or not, the superdelegates will begin flocking to Obama at that point.

Obama in NC and Clinton in IN: The status quo result. The Clinton campaign would argue a small margin in North Carolina is a win for her. And one could argue that a win is a win for Obama in the face of the Wright situation. That's a slippery slope though, and is tantamount to saying that it affected the race (Not the message they want to send to the GOP). On the flip side, if Obama matches or surpasses the "expected" barrier (We've called it ten points in the UGA discussion group and I'll adopt it here.), he can make the argument, that despite Wright, he still did well. In Indiana, a win is a win for either candidate. A NC win for Obama and a Clinton win in IN will keep the contest going and push the nomination decision back to after June 3.

Clinton in NC and Obama in IN: This one hasn't really been talked about anywhere and probably is the least likely outcome (even less so than a Clinton sweep). If it were to come to pass though, it would likely send the press off trying to find new story lines. They'll manage. This gives Clinton a win on Obama turf, but would give him a win in a competitive state. I don't know. I'll yield to the comments section on this one. Thoughts?

Clinton sweeps: A Clinton sweep on Tuesday likely would cause a great many superdelegates (both those who are undecided and those who back Obama) to rethink their feelings on the race. With Clinton-friendly West Virginia and Kentucky up next, a sweep would make for a nice little streak of victories for Clinton since Texas-Ohio. Like the both the split decisions above, this outcome keeps the contest going through June 3, but also nudges this race ever closer to Carter-Kennedy territory. And that divisiveness is not where the DNC likely wants to be heading into the general election.

Four possibilities. Three keep the race going and one likely ends it. Which way will it go? If the Real Clear Politics averages today are any indication: Obama takes NC and Clinton wins IN. Those margins, though, would leave a lot of room for interpretation from both campaigns.

*Well, Clinton campaign strategist, Geoff Garin is at least.

Recent Posts:
Kansas' On-Again-Off-Again Presidential Primary

The Dakota Effect

Obama's Slide: Is Clinton Taking Advantage?

The State of the Race: Counting Delegates in the North Carolina Primary

After yesterday's look at the playing field for the upcoming primary in Indiana, the focus now shifts toward the Tar Heel state. North Carolina also holds a primary on May 6 and things in the Democratic race are heating up there as they are in Indiana. Polls show Obama with a pretty good lead over Clinton in the state and the Real Clear Politics average (see link) has only dropped slightly following Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last week (15. 5 points before to 12.6 points now). In the interim the North Carolina GOP has publicized and aired a TV ad featuring both Obama and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, in an attack on the two main Democrats vying for the state's Democratic gubernatorial nomination (both of whom have endorsed Obama). Will those numbers continue to trend downward for Obama with Clinton picking up the endorsement of Democratic governor, Mike Easley today.

The primary in North Carolina is a modified, open primary that allows independents to vote but prohibits Republicans from participating. There is evidence of party switching among registered Republicans in the lead up to the primary, but with a competitive gubernatorial primary on the GOP side, one has to wonder whether those are sincere switches or Republicans seeking to throw a monkeywrench in the Democratic contest. It seems less likely that these are Rush Limbaugh voters with the presence of a GOP primary for governor because the Republicans in the state must be energized to take back the governor's mansion after 16 years out of it.

At stake are 77 delegates allocated to the winner of each of the state's 13 congressional districts and another 38 based on the statewide results (source: The Green Papers). The number of congressional district delegates varies from a low of 4 in more Republican districts (6 of the 13 districts are held by Republicans) to a high of nine in the more heavily Democratic districts. The split in which candidate gets what number of delegates from a district depends on the following rules:

The delegate distributions:

• Those districts with four delegates will split two to two (delegates to each candidate) unless one candidate clears 62.5% of the vote in that district for a three to one advantage.

• The districts with five delegates will split three to two in favor of the winner unless the winner of the district surpasses 70% of the vote for a four to one edge.

• The districts with six delegates will split the delegates evenly unless the winning candidate in such a district garners more than 58.33% of the vote for a four to two lead. 75% would be necessary to win a five to one delegate advantage coming out of a six delegate district.

• The districts with seven delegates will divide those delegates 4 to 3, in favor of the winner, unless the winner receives more than 64.29% of the vote in that district. The winner would take home a five to two delegate advantage from that district in that case.
  

• The district with nine delegates will split those delegates 5 to 4 unless the winner surpasses 61% of the vote in the district, giving the winner a six to three edge. 72% of the vote is necessary to give the winner a 7 to 2 lead.

How does the race look on the district level? With the race shifting south, the focus shifts almost exclusively to the percentage of the district that is black. North Carolina is not on par with South Carolina (where Obama has already won) in terms of its concentration of African American, but it is nearly equivalent to another neighboring state, Virginia (another state Obama won), in that regard.

1st District (Northeast corner, bordering Virginia/6 delegates): This Democratic-controlled district is 50% African American and contains the East Carolina University community. Both bode well for Obama despite this being a rural and agricultural district as does the endorsement of Rep. G.K. Butterfield.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-4

2nd District (East Central, surrounding the Raleigh area/6 delegates): This is another of the Democratic districts in the Tar Heel state. It stretches from south of the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area and around the to the east northeast of the state capital. The 2nd is 30% black and has all or part of several of the military bases in the state. Obama could flirt with the 58% barrier here, but this one is likely a split.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-3

3rd District (Coastal North and Outer Banks/4 delegates): The 3rd has been represented by Republican, Walter Jones for the past seven terms and has a far smaller black population than the previous two districts. The third also has a military presence and could be an area where Clinton could find some support.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-2

4th District (Research Triangle Park area, Durham, Chapel Hill/9 delegates): The 4th is the most heavily Democratic district in the state, is very young (only 8% over 65) and holds Research Triangle Park, the University of North Carolina and Duke University. It is also one-fifth African American. In other words, the state's big delegate prize favors Obama. But by how much? The endorsement of Rep. David Price won't hurt Obama either.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-6

5th District (Northwest, bordering Virginia/5 delegates): This Republican district stretches westward into the Appalachian Mountains from Winston-Salem and is only 7% black. It does have the area in and around Appalachian State University, but looks to favor Clinton. She won the bordering area in Virginia during Obama's convincing win there in mid-February.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-2

6th District (Piedmont, West of RTP/5 delegates): Similar to the 5th, the 6th is safely Republican and has a black population that only comprises a tenth of the total population. The good news for Clinton is that it is another district with 5 delegates at stake, so the delegate distribution won't be even. She could do well here but won't pass 70% to get anything more than a one delegate advantage out of it.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-2

7th District (Coastal Southeast, Wilmington/6 delegates): A solid coalition of African Americans and blue collar workers has kept Democratic congressman, Mike McIntyre safely in office since 1996. Those groups are at odds if this district trends the way the rest of the nation has in the states that have held delegate selection events thus far.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-3

8th District (South Piedmont, East of Charlotte/5 delegates): The 8th is one of just 15 districts that CQ rates as "No Clear Favorite" in the congressional race that will take place this fall. What does that mean for this Democratic presidential primary, though? Three in ten in the district are black and nearly a third have a blue collar background. As in the 7th, and nationwide for that matter, those groups are at odds. The tiebreaker could come from the exurban Charlotte population. Obama has done well in and around urban centers and that could give him enough support to manage a win and the one delegate advantage coming out of this five delegate district.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-3

9th District (South Piedmont, South and West of Charlotte/6 delegates): The ninth is my hometown district and has been represented by Republican and former-Charlotte mayor, Sue Myrick, for so long that calling her the former Charlotte mayor is outdated. This is a district that cedes much of the area's African American populace to the neighboring, majority-minority 12th district. The result is a district that is less black and more blue collar among the Democratic electorate. There is some exurban Charlotte development in the Gastonia area, but not enough to offset Clinton's strength.
The Score: Clinton-4, Obama-2

10th District (Western, foothills/5 delegates): Like the 9th, the 10th district is less than a tenth black and holds a significant number of blue collar workers. It should grant Clinton a comfortable margin, but not enough to emerge with more than a one delegate advantage.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-2

11th District (Western tip of the state, Asheville/6 delegates): This westernmost district is only 5% black and nearly a third blue collar, but the Asheville area offsets those Clinton advantages with a highly educated population.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-3

12th District (I-85 district, running from Charlotte to Greensboro/7 delegates): The 12th is the most controversial district in the state because it is always the one challenged in courts after the post-census redrawing of the lines. If ever Elbridge Gerry had a salamander, this would have been it. Snaking along I-85 from Gastonia through Charlotte to the Winston-Salem and Greenboro areas, the 12th has a black population approaching 50%. That will comprise a significant portion of the Democratic primary electorate. Mel Watt, the district's representative, has endorsed Obama as well.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-5

13th District (Northern Piedmont, bordering Virginia/7 delegates): This district runs along the border area of Virginia where Obama did well in his victory there. It also includes areas of Raleigh and Greensboro that cobble together a significant white collar population and a black community that makes up over one quarter of the district's population. This district could go for Obama but not by as much as in the 12th.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-4

Total Score: Clinton-36, Obama-41

A five delegate advantage in the districts combined with a ten point win (21 of the 38 statewide delegates) would give Obama a nine delegate advantage overall in North Carolina. If the projections from Indiana and North Carolina hold, then both candidates would emerged with one win apiece on May 6. No, that doesn't account for the expectations game. Obama is "supposed" to win North Carolina and the 10 point margin used above is the line he probably needs to clear in order for that to remain a "win" for him in the state. That scenario pushes the game into the next week when West Virginia (Clinton territory) holds its primary.

Recent Posts:
The State of the Race: Counting Delegates in the Indiana Primary

The Electoral College Maps (4/23/08)

Back to the Original "Too Early" Sanction

The State of the Race: Counting Delegates in the Indiana Primary

Well, Pennsylvania is out of the way. Guam is done. Oh wait. Guam is this weekend! But if the loyal Guamanian readers of FHQ don't mind, I'm going to skip ahead for a look at the May 6 contests in Indiana and North Carolina. I'll look at the rules in each state and the state of the game on the congressional district level. Indiana is up today and North Carolina will get a more thorough examination tomorrow.
The Hoosier state will hold an open primary with 85 delegates at stake in the May 6 contest. 47 of those delegates will be allocated based on the outcome of the race in each of the state's nine congressional districts with 25 others coming from the statewide results (source: The Green Papers). Of those nine districts, five are held by Democrats. Those five districts have six delegates apiece while three of the four Republican held districts have four delegates each. The sixth district has five delegates on the line.

The delegate distributions:

• Those districts with four delegates will split two to two (delegates to each candidate) unless one candidate clears 62.5% of the vote in that district for a three to one advantage.

• The district with five delegates will split three to two in favor of the winner unless the winner of the district surpasses 70% of the vote for a four to one edge.

• The districts with six delegates will split the delegates evenly unless the winning candidate in such a district garners more than 58.33% of the vote for a four to two lead. 75% would be necessary to win a five to one delegate advantage coming out of a six delegate district.
  

Of the Indiana delegation to Congress (and thus superdelegates) only Sen. Evan Bayh and Rep. Andre Carson (7th-Indianapolis) have endorsed candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination. Bayh is backing Clinton and Carson has come out in favor of Obama. The rest of the Democratic elected officials in the state are neutral in the lead up to next week's contest.
So how does this race break down on the district level? In other words, in what districts are we likely to see anything other than an even (or near even) split of the delegates?

1st District (Northwest, along the border with Illinois/6 delegates): This is the district that we often hear referred to as a place where Obama is almost a native son. It is certainly in the footprint of the Chicago media. The district is 18% black, 13% over 65 and 31% blue collar. The 1st has been held since 1984 by Democrat, Peter Visclosky. The Chicago connection and the higher percentage of blacks in the district could prove a good combination for Obama to offset a fairly high population of blue collar workers.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-4

2nd District (North Central, borders Michigan/6 delegates): The district is 8% black, 13% over 65 and 35% blue collar. This Democratic district is less black than the 1st and has a higher percentage of blue collars; a good recipe for the Clinton campaign. However, Notre Dame is in the district and could prove a neutralizer for Obama.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-3

3rd District (Northeast, borders Michigan and Ohio/4 delegates): The district is 6% black, 11% over 65 and 36% blue collar. Slightly less black than the 1st and the 2nd and among the most heavily blue collar districts in the state, the 3rd could be a possible two delegate margin district for Clinton. It also borders on two states she has won already (though Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan). Despite that, it will be tough for any candidate to clear 62.5% in a Republican-controlled, four delegate district.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-2

4th District (Central, West of Indianapolis/4 delegates): The district is 1% black, 11% over 65 and 30% blue collar. This Republican district has a balance of strengths between Clinton and Obama. Clinton will have a pretty solid blue collar presence here, but Obama will have the Purdue University community to lean on and keep Clinton under 62.5% there.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-2

5th District (Central, East Northeast of Indianapolis/4 delegates): The district is 3% black, 11% over 65 and 25% blue collar. It is also a Republican district, but has a smaller blue collar presence. 30% blue collar seems to be a dividing line of sorts between these districts and this one falls below that point for Clinton to take anything more than an even split in delegates away from this district.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-2

6th District (East Central, borders Ohio/5 delegates): This Republican-held district borders an area of Ohio that Clinton swept in the March 4 primary there. The district is 4% black, 14% over 65 and 36% blue collar and with an odd number of delegates, the junior senator from New York will come away from the 6th with a one delegate edge.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-2

7th District (Indianapolis/6 delegates): The lone district where a Democratic member of Congress from Indiana has endorsed one of the two Democratic contenders. Andre Carson has given the nod to Obama and represents a district that is 29% black, 11% over 65 and 26% blue collar. Other than the 1st, this is the only district where Obama can hope to gain a couple of delegates on Clinton.
The Score: Clinton-2, Obama-4

8th District (Southwest corner, bordering Illinois/6 delegates): Democrat Brad Ellsworth represents the 8th district. He came in with the Democratic wave in 2006. The district is 4% black, 14% over 65 and 33% blue collar. This is a district bordering Illinois, but one that favors Clinton demographically. That's enough of a balance to keep a likely win there for Clinton under 58%.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-3

9th District (Southeast corner, bordering Kentucky/6 delegates): Like the 8th, this district saw Baron Hill swept into office in the Democratic surge of 2006. It is 2% black, 12% over 65 and 35% blue collar. Home to Indiana University, the 9th also has nearly a quarter of its population with some form of higher education degree.
The Score: Clinton-3, Obama-3

Total Score: Clinton-22, Obama-25

Obama, then, has a slight edge in this Indiana delegate projection, based on enough African American support in a couple of districts, friendly territory along the Illinois border and some well placed university communities that help offset the blue collar percentages in some districts. Clinton, however, could win the statewide vote and eke out a slim delegate victory. And with the popular vote argument she's been making since Pennsylvania, she would stand to gain on Obama in that count in Indiana. She would need to offset Obama's strength in the 1st and the 7th with a number of steady, if unremarkable in terms of delegates, victories in the other districts to win statewide. And that isn't out of the question. Regardless, it looks tight in the Hoosier state.

CQ gives a slight edge to Clinton in Indiana (24 delegates-23). If anything this confirms what the polls in the state are saying: it will be close.

I'll be back tomorrow with a look at North Carolina.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Maps (4/23/08)

Back to the Original "Too Early" Sanction

Jeremiah Wright to Sit Down with Bill Moyers (Friday, April 25)

The Credentials Committee and "The Dean 25"

Depending on how the next handful of nominating contests go for the Democrats, the Florida/Michigan situation may once again be resurrected (In fact, Michigan Dems are going ahead with their delegate selection process despite the DNC sanctions.) and prove crucial to the outcome of the party's nomination race. In the UGA Campaign Discussion Group on Wednesday, the issue of the Credentials Committee and its role in deciding the fate of those delegates from Florida and Michigan was raised. This 186 member group is comprised of 1) party members from the states based on each state's primary or caucus results (not clear whether the results are from this cycle or from the past) and 2) party members appointed by the chairman of the party. There are 161 of the former and 25 members appointed by DNC chairman, Howard Dean. This committee is a completely separate entity from the Rules and Bylaws Committee that opted to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates for violating the contest scheduling rules in their delegate selection plans. The "make an example of them" approach may not be felt as intensely in the Credentials Committee as it was in the Rules Committee. However, "the Dean 25" (as Avi Zenilman of Politico is calling them) may have something to say about that.

The question though, is, are these appointees in lock step with the positions Howard Dean has taken on the Florida and Michigan question. One thing that the Politico analysis fails to examine directly is when these appointments were made. They do come to the conclusion that these Credentials members may not be beholden to what Dean wants. But if these appointments were made when he became chairman in 2005, there's no way this was even an issue in the appointment decisions. Like everyone else then, these folks are faced with having to choose between Clinton and Obama. And just like in the primaries and caucuses and just like with the superdelegates, there is a pretty even split in who members of the Credentials Committee appear to backing. Based on the "hints" information in the Politico piece, eight support Clinton, eleven favor Obama, five are neutral and one has donated to both and favors the 50 state strategy under which Dean has the party operating. Obama then, has a slight edge with five or six members holding all the power. Even if that 50 state strategy backer opts for Obama (And as FHQ has speculated, Obama puts more states in play on the electoral college landscape than Clinton, with the result of promoting the strategy more effectively.), the Illinois senator only has 12 of the 25 members of the committee in his corner. The other five would all have to break for Clinton though to give her an edge.

Is that good news for Florida and Michigan? Probably not. But it won't necessarily be because of the Credentials Committee bowing to Dean's desires on the matter.

I still feel like the party will quietly punish Florida and Michigan, but will ultimately strip half their delegations as called for in the original rules for 2008 delegate selection. But that will only be "quiet" if Florida and Michigan are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things in this nomination race. However, predictions are made to be broken in this primary season. So don't hold me to that.

In Search of Ron Paul Delegates

Arizona senator John McCain may lay claim to being the Republican party's presumptive nominee, but efforts to shape the party behind the scenes during this presidential election year continue. While the much of the talk has centered around McCain uniting the various segments of the party behind him as the Democrats continue to wage a battle for their nomination, stories of dissension among the ranks continue to surface (and get lost in the headlines about bowling and sniper fire and "bitter" comments). Much of the dissension has been driven by Ron Paul (or at least by his supporters). And even though the Texas congressman scaled back his presidential efforts in the lead up to his early March congressional seat primary, those supporters have carried on, influencing the nomination system by alternate means.

What's on the table? Though Paul has admitted that winning the nomination isn't going to happen (see above link and a more recent reminder following the Texas primary), message boards devoted to the candidate's presidential run and the libertarian ideas he backs are littered with how to guides on how Paul can still become the nominee. Whether that is the unifying cry from these members of the Ron Paul Revolution though, is beside the point. That goal may never be realized but the byproduct of those efforts may influence to some extent who the delegates to September's convention are and the direction of state and national party platforms. And both may cause headaches for John McCain at a convention that is supposed to be all about him and his run for the White House.

It was easy early on to dismiss these stories as rabble rousing, but more and more evidence of these sorts of efforts has emerged to indicate that it is more than simply coincidence. The big questions then are, where are Paul supporters making inroads and in what ways? Much of this can be viewed through the lens of which type of delegate selection event a state uses, primary or caucus. As has been demonstrated in this space over the last few weeks (see posts on The Caucus Question here, here and here), caucuses offer an opportunity for a bit more delegate tweaking. This has been discussed in the context of the race for the Democratic nomination, but Ron Paul (or at least his supporters) has taken advantage of the caucuses as well. In Minnesota, Nevada and Washington (all caucus states) Paul has parlayed his initial showings into various levels of success.

In Minnesota, Paul supporters overran the congressional district caucuses during the first weekend in April and managed to win six of the twelve national convention delegates at stake during that phase of the process.

After placing a distant second in the Nevada caucuses in January, Paul stands a good chance of sending some delegates to the national convention from the Silver state after the next step, the state convention on April 26. He will be speaking at that convention as well. There's no better way to drum up some extra support than by making an appearance. It will be interesting to see if John McCain, who finished third behind Paul in the state, will show up to speak as well. There are an awful lot of Romney delegates available since the former Massachusetts governor secured a victory with over 51% of the vote.

Following a solid showing during the Washington caucuses in early February (Paul was third in a four candidate cluster with each winning between 15 and 26%), Paul supporters have pushed some Paul delegates through to the state convention. There is evidence of this out of Jefferson County and plenty of other anecdotal, yet unconfirmed, incidents of this in other parts of Washington as well.*

In primary states, the rules are much more clear cut and there obviously aren't as many steps in the process. People vote and the the outcome directly affects the number of delegates allocated to the winning candidate or candidates. The route Paul supporters have gone in several primary states has been to operate through the state party apparatus to influence delegate selection rules and state party platforms. The process then, to elect delegates to the state conventions in some primary states have seen increased participation from Ron Paul supporters. Again, this has no direct bearing on the national convention delegates allocated in the primary, but a Paul presence could affect those allocation rules and the platform planks decided upon in the state party platform.

In Florida, this has meant that some Paul backers have been blocked in their efforts to become precinct captains and to make it on to the Republican Executive Committee in the Sunshine state. The objective of Paul supporters is clear: to influence the Republican party's agenda in the state.

Paul supporters in Missouri found more success, hijacking several county caucuses in the Show-Me state. In Jackson County (in the Kansas City area) there was enough Paul support to send over 175 delegates to the next level of the caucus process. Those 175 will have some influence over the 55 delegates the state will send to the GOP convention and over the platform that emerges from the state convention.

The situation was similar in Oklahoma, where only one of the state's five congressional district conventions failed to send at least one Paul supporter on to the state convention next month. And while the rules require delegates to vote for the primary's victorious candidate, there is some indication that the Paul backers at the convention will attempt to change those rules in order to send some of their own to the national convention.

Paul's home state of Texas also saw action to push the Paul agenda onto the national party's radar. In both Travis and Tarrant Counties, Paul's supporters were able win or draw in senate districts in both counties.

In isolation these events don't seem to make that much of a difference in the race for the Republican nomination. Together however, they add up to a potential problem for McCain and the national party at their September convention in St. Paul, MN. The more Paul delegates that make it through to state and national conventions, the more Paul's agenda will be discussed. And what that translates into is a battle over the platform and potential ideological fissure within the GOP. So while all the talk has been about division within the Democratic party, something appears to be brewing on the Republican side as well. And the division here isn't over who is best able to answer and deal with a 3am phone call, it is division that gets to the heart of some basic Republican principles. The heights this grows to though depends in large measure on how many Paul delegates can make it through the process. Thus far, it has been more than one might expect given recent coverage of the race for the White House.

*There is an awful lot of material online to support such events happening across Washington as well as in other parts of the country. My rule on this is to only proceed with information that has been verified by, at least, a local news outlet. If it has been mentioned on any of the various Ron Paul Forums, and only there, such events were excluded. There is talk that similar sorts of activities have taken place in Alaska, Colorado and Louisiana as well. Most of the sources there are Ron Paul-related sources though.

[Thanks to campaign discussion group participant and UGA grad student, Patrick Rhamey, for planting this idea in my head.]

The Clark County (NV) Re-Vote & The Caucus Question Revisited

[Well, it is more a do-over than a re-vote, but I'll stick with the descriptor I used on Friday.] After an inundation of alternate delegates postponed the initial attempt to hold a second step caucus on February 23, Clark County (Las Vegas) Democrats were finally able to gather to vote on and send delegates to the state convention next month. And while there were Obama gains from the precinct level to the county level, they were not as strong as the gains he enjoyed in a similar situation in Texas late last month. Unlike in Texas however, he finished second to Clinton (at least in Clark County), but made up ground in the race for national convention delegates coming out of the state.

Following Saturday's caucus in Las Vegas, Clinton dropped slightly from 55% of precinct delegates in the area to 54% of the county's delegates to the state convention. Oppositely, Obama managed to increase his support from 44% in Clark County in the initial caucuses to 46% in this latest round. Keep in mind though, that these delegates are not pledged (per se) to either candidate, which means that the battle by both campaigns for every delegate will continue in Nevada until those numbers are solidified by the state convention in mid-May.

During this cycle caucuses have come under more scrutiny because of the closeness of the race, and it has been the variations in the rules of all these caucuses that has driven most of the conversation. One distinction to be made is the number of steps in the process. There have been 14 caucuses (counting Texas but not those in the territories) and nine have multiple steps while the other five go from the initial caucus step to the state convention (only two steps). It could be hypothesized then that the greater the number of steps in the caucus process, the greater the chance would be for a candidate's support (in the aggregate) across a state to shift in some way.

Among the group of multiple step caucuses (CO, IA, KS, MN, NE, NV, ND, TX and WA), Iowa was the most likely to see some movement in the support levels of the candidates from one step to the next. More candidates were involved in that initial step who subsequently withdrew from the race. Both Clinton and Obama should have gained at the county convention levels. And both did...depending on who you ask (MSNBC or Politico's Ben Smith). Obama jumped from 37% support in the first step to either 51% or 56% on the county level. Clinton gained also, but only modestly; going from 29% support in the January 3 caucuses to either 31% or 36% support in the 99 Democratic county conventions. And there's still some wiggle room for both to tweak their numbers in the state convention because John Edwards maintains a small amount of support even after the county convention phase.

There has also been some delegate shift in Texas and Colorado. Including Nevada, that makes four of the eight multiple step states that have seen some changes from one phase to the next. Two others, Kansas and North Dakota, did not have any changes since the first step predetermined the outcome of the second step. That leaves Minnesota, Nebraska and Washington. Minnesota's Democratic Farm-Labor party allotted the month after the state's February 5 caucuses for "county unit" contests to elect delegates to the congressional district conventions to be held any time starting this coming Saturday (April 19) but before the beginning part of June (source: TheGreenPapers.com). Results then come in at a staggered pace. The results out of Washington will be similarly staggered. The Democratic party there runs a convoluted system of events that is dependent upon whether a county is completely within a legislative district, split between districts or is split into several legislative districts (Seattle area). Nebraska will not hold its second step until next month.

Of the two step states, none have held their state conventions. Only North Dakota among the caucus states has held its state convention.

Moving forward then, Iowa, with its contingent of Edwards delegates is the most likely to see any significant shift in national convention delegate numbers between now and the end of the delegate selection process in June. Nevada though is a close second because the delegates to the state convention are not pledged to any one candidate.

The movement continues to be toward Obama, which isn't helping Clinton close the gap in the number of delegates (or make a case to superdelegates to align behind her).

The Re-Vote Idea is Still Alive

No, not in Florida or Michigan. [But I got your attention, didn't I?] Nevada, however, has had a hold-up in the second step in its three-tiered caucus process. The county convention phase (February 23) on the Democratic side following the Silver state's January 19 caucuses went off without a hitch in 15 of the state's 16 counties. That one county though, is Clark County, home to Las Vegas and a majority of Nevada's Democratic delegates to the state convention. So while Obama has taken 512 of the 900 delegates at stake in those 15 counties, the results from Clark County hold the key to which candidate will gain the most delegates to next month's Democratic state convention.

What went wrong on February 23 in Las Vegas? Yes, there were crowds of delegates, but the extra 13,000 to 18,000 people beyond the seven thousand delegates that were to attend the county convention were primarily folks who were prospective alternate delegates. Those alternates are out for Saturday's do over, so the rush of people heading into the Thomas and Mack Center (home to UNLV Runnin' Rebel basketball) should decrease. Should being the operative word there.

The issue that arises out of this though (ah, unintended consequences), is that Clark County is voting seven weeks after the other 15 counties. Well, what does that matter? These delegates from the precinct caucuses are pledged, right? No, as a matter of fact, they aren't. Delegates from Clark County have the benefit of having more (negative) information on both Clinton and Obama than their counterparts in the other counties had. Both the Wright and Bosnia revelations appeared after February 23. Does that cause a shift? Who knows? But what we do know is that those delegates not being pledged adds another layer to the caucus question that has been a topic here since mid-March (or here for a discussion of the caucus question as it applied to the second step in Texas). Will one candidate gain delegate support on the other in these subsequent steps? Obama has gained in proportion to his statewide numbers in the non-Clark counties, but he won nine of those 15 counties anyway. Clinton took Clark by ten points (with Edwards only winning two percent) and that is the line to keep our eye on coming out of Saturday's contest. Can Obama emerge from the do over Saturday with a smaller gap (less than ten) in the percentage of Clark delegates than after the precinct caucuses?

The stakes are high in Nevada on Saturday, and as such, it is interesting that this story has not received any more attention than it has on the national level. Sure, Pennsylvania is coming up and that is perceived to be a big swing state in the general election (That has been echoed in the state head-to-head polls.), but Nevada is shaping up to be similarly competitive in the fall as well. And in a close contest, every delega...uh, electoral vote counts.

[Big thanks to Paul Gurian for the heads up on the information and the CQ article.]

The New Michigan Delegate Plan

The longer this drags out the more complicated the resolutions get. As Michigan and Florida have grappled with the DNC over seating delegates at this summer's convention, several plans have surfaced to deal with the stand-off. Despite rejections of do-over primaries (mail-in or in-person) and even distributions of the delegates between the candidates, some momentum remains behind the idea of solving this issue before it is arbitrated by the Credentials Committee at the convention.

The newest plan put forth by US Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) applies to the situation in Michigan. Under his plan all 156 of Michigan's Democratic delegates would be restored (I'm sure the DNC is already madly in love with the idea of their sanctions being thrown by the wayside here.), with basically half being allocated based on the January 15 primary and the other half based on the popular primary vote nationwide. The former appeals to Clinton because she won the Michigan primary and the latter to Obama since he will more than likely maintain his popular vote lead nationwide as the contest phase of the campaign wanes.

So how this thing ultimately breaks down will determine whether that conclusion holds. Let's do the math. Under the Stupak plan, Clinton would get 47 of the 83 primary delegates and Obama the remaining 36. Votes on these delegates would take place at the congressional district conventions April 19. But what about the other 73 (national popular vote) delegates? For the time being, let's assume that the margin Obama holds now in the category will be the margin once all the contests have been completed. That means (according to Real Clear Politics) that Obama leads either 49.5 to 46.9 without Florida and Michigan or 47.6 to 47.2 with them included (but excluding estimates of some of the caucus states). Those are the two extremes here; one where Obama is advantaged and one that is to Clinton's detriment. When we convert these to two candidate totals (reallocating the support of other candidates who have dropped out), the margins remain the same while the overall percentages now sum to 100 (See, I told you this had gotten confusing.). The two sets of possible popular vote numbers I'm working with here though are 51.3 to 48.7 favoring Obama or 50.2 to 49.8 also favoring Obama. Either way you cut it, Obama ends up with 37 delegates while Clinton gains 36. Adding the popular vote totals to the primary delegates gives Clinton a ten delegate advantage in Michigan.

That's fine, but what about the other problem child? What happens if we extend this same plan to the Sunshine state? Florida has 210 Democratic delegates that were stripped by the DNC. Using essentially the same breakdown, 110 delegates would be awarded based on the January 29 primary and the remaining 100 would be allocated based on the national popular vote from all nominating contests. The numbers aren't as tricky in the Florida case because both candidates were on the ballot. If the 17% of the Florida primary vote is reallocated evenly to each of the candidates, Clinton would have won 58% of the vote to Obama's 42%. From that Clinton would take 64 delegates to Obama's 46.

For the remaining 100 delegates (based on the popular vote), the same ranges that were used in the Michigan case will be used here as well (50.2 to 49.8 or 51.3 to 48.7). Again, one scenario helps Obama and the other helps Clinton. The difference though is only one delegate. Either the delegates would be split 50/50 or 51/49 in favor of Obama. The result is an 18 or 19 delegate advantage for Clinton coming out of Florida.

Overall then, between both Florida and Michigan, this plan nets Clinton 28 or 29 delegates at Obama's expense. And even that won't help erase the deficit unless she begins winning big in some of the remaining contests she's projected to do well in. So while the DNC may not go for this plan because it discards their sanctions, Obama's camp may actually be willing to listen since it won't change the current state of play (especially in view of the superdelegates who are siding with him--see here, here and here).

The Caucus Question: Texas 2008

Last week I posed the caucus question; the idea that as the steps in the caucus process progress, the percentage of support for the winning candidate from the first step increases. Anecdotally at least, that has been the conventional wisdom on the subject for the post-McGovern-Fraser reform period. Of course, when the field of candidates is winnowed, the possibility of the winning candidate (in one of the early caucuses) gaining support increases substantially. When the environment remains competitive, as it has among the top two candidates on the Democratic side during the 2008 cycle, the likelihood of such a substantial increase is far smaller. In fact, the Colorado caucuses from this year offer some potential evidence of the opposite happening: a second place finisher gaining delegates as the process continues.

Yesterday, Texas Democrats held their second round contests; the state senate district conventions. In the Dallas area, Obama managed to maintain the same level of support in the second round in the area's five senate districts that he brought in from the first step on March 4. In El Paso County, where Hillary Clinton won, both in the caucuses and the primary, Clinton's support increased to around 94%. What that is up from is a bit of an unknown. The New York Times' Election Guide shows Clinton with a 3:1 lead in El Paso County with 58% of the precincts reporting. So, we know it is an increase, but just don't know by exactly how much. [UPDATE: Across Texas, we now have a better idea about how the most recent step in the Texas caucus system went. Obama seems to have bumped up his statewide total to 58% heading into June's state convention (Thanks to Paul Gurian for the link.).] If that number holds steady when the delegates are allocated at that convention, Obama would net 37 39 of the 67 delegates at stake in the caucus portion of the Texas delegate selection process. That margin would yield a three delegate lead over Clinton across both contests (despite Obama losing the primary). As it stands Clinton holds a 65-61 advantage in primary delegates, but that seven delegate margin in caucus delegates would put Obama over the top in Texas.

What both of these examples illustrate is that there is another layer to be added to the explanation of the caucus question. To assume then, that the overall winner or loser of the contest's first step gains or loses support statewide becomes an issue of aggregation. Precinct-level winner continue to maintain support or gain in those areas as the process continues. It isn't enough to say that Obama won 37% of caucus support in the precinct caucuses in Iowa and then upped that to 52% in the county caucuses. The question becomes one of whether he maintained and increased the lead in the areas he did well on during the original caucus.

While we wait for Pennsylvania on April 22, the second step caucuses occurring in the interim are worth watching. With the delegate margin where it is (between 100 and 150 delegates), fluctuations in these pre-convention steps could alter the ultimate count of delegates that heads to the convention in August. Which states are we looking at then?

April 4-6: North Dakota state convention
April 5: Delaware state convention
Washington legislative district conventions
April 5-May 3: Mississippi congressional district conventions
April 12: Kansas district conventions
April 19: Washington county and legislative district conventions

[source: The Green Papers]

No matter which candidate we're talking about, every little bit helps.

The Caucus Question

During the last (pre-hiatus) discussion group meeting, Paul [Gurian] brought up the idea that in typical (Super Tuesday era) nomination campaigns, caucus winners usually gain support as the number of steps in the process increase. There are a few issues at work here:

1) Some (or all) of the candidates, who won support initially, have dropped out of the race. By the time the second step rolls around, those free agents move over to the leader (or presumptive nominee).

2) If the nomination is still in doubt as subsequent caucus steps begin, the first step winner's supporters use that original plurality/majority to tweak the numbers for the next step even further in their direction. In a competitive environment then, this majority builds a modest level of momentum throughout the process, giving the original winner a delegate total greater than the projection following the first step.

As best Paul and I can ascertain, there really isn't any literature addressing this question directly, only anecdotal evidence from campaigns past. In the Super Tuesday era though, this hasn't been an issue because the field had been winnowed significantly ahead of any second step caucus meetings. This anecdotal evidence then would come from the elections after reform but prior to 1984 or 1988. In other words, the Carter vs. the field in 1976, Carter/Kennedy and Mondale/Hart match ups. Carter was a steady force throughout the 1976 nomination phase. After doing well early in 1980, Carter's support faded down the stretch as Kennedy made gains. Mondale, after having lost in early caucus rounds to Hart in 1984, gained delegates in subsequent rounds to take a significant pledged delegate lead into that year's convention.

There are two hypotheses that emerges from this:
1) The winner of the first step gains delegates in subsequent steps.
2) The frontrunner (but not necessarily the winner) gains delegates as to process progresses.
Both require controlling for either the level of competition or the amount of candidate winnowing that has taken place. And in the frontloaded era, that winnowing has been rapid enough that the second steps fell after the point at which a presumptive nominee had been determined.

[The question then becomes one of data collection and this is the tricky part, simply because the transparency of the caucus process is less than that of a primary election. The reporting just isn't the same.]

The 2008 campaign though, fits the pre-Super Tuesday era model in that the competition has extended beyond the massive, early clustering of state contests. Given Obama's success in the caucuses then, it stands to reason that he would gain even more ground in the delegate count over Clinton as the next steps are held. However, there may actually be some evidence to the contrary: that Clinton has made some gains in the lead up to the second step caucuses. The Monkey Cage (via Enik Rising) has shown that in Colorado, the post-caucus numbers have fluctuated some in the time after the precinct caucuses were held on February 5. This whole thing is speculative, but it is a means through which the Clinton campaign could make strides in the delegate disparity between the two Democratic candidates. In one state, flipping a delegate or two won't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, but if this is happening across all the caucus states, then those changes could become significant.

How then does this fit in with the research question posed above? Well, it adds another layer to consider. Things get more complicated as a factor like specific candidate strategy to protect or steal delegates as the process progresses. Much of this would depend again on the competitiveness of the race and how each candidate is positioned in relation to the other. That we have witnessed a virtual tie in the 2008 Democratic race is something of an anomaly compared to races past (even competitive nomination races). And that is where the extra layer--the possibility of delegate shifting--originates. If it is perceived that the options are still open, then delegates are as a result more likely to entertain the idea of shifting. Whereas, if the race was signaling the emergence of one candidate over the other (no matter how small that lead), delegates would be less likely to move.

This is an interesting question that even just a case study of how the 2008 race (in caucuses) would provide some enlightening answers.

Curiouser and Curiouser: The Fight for...Pledged Delegates?

With each passing day, something new enters the fray in the Democratic nomination race. First it was the race going past Super Tuesday without a presumptive nominee. Then the talk of a brokered convention grew to a fevered pitch (Sure the idea had been out there, but before the Super Tuesday split, no one quite wanted to take it seriously.). The protracted race for each and every delegate then ushered superdelegates into the view as the potentially decisive group. With that came questions of the fairness of having party elites possibly swing the nomination against what the will of the people was in the delegate selection events.

Now though, comes the big kahuna (Yes, Hawaii Democrats are holding their caucuses today, so I thought I'd give them a nod.). Politico is reporting that the Clinton camp has a strategy in place to go after Obama's PLEDGED delegates if she needs them to secure the Democratic nomination (There's no doubt that the Obama camp would follow suit.). Now of all the doomsday scenarios that have surfaced on the Democratic side, this chaotic free-for-all would take the cake. All four thousand plus delegates at stake in a grander scale version of what we witnessed in the televised Iowa caucuses on January 3. Yeah, remember the one woman backing Richardson in the CSPAN-covered Democratic caucus who made you want to vote for anyone else, even if it meant Mike Gravel. Well, that was in a room with around three hundred people. What we're talking about here is four thousand people plus the Clinton and Obama campaigns trying to decipher who the nominee for the party will be. That type of event may actually bring back wall-to-wall coverage of the convention this August in Denver.

I honestly thought that the campaigns may actually campaign in states where second round caucuses were being held before a drastic measure like this was considered.

Well, I've rattled enough cages with this one. I'll be back shortly to discuss what's on the line tonight in Wisconsin, Washington and Hawaii. If last week was convenient with a set of east coast contests, this week is far less hospitable. The action in Hawaii kicks off at midnight in the east and given how difficult the count in the GOP caucus was in Washington on February 9 (They're still stuck on 99.99% of precincts reporting ten days later.), I'm not optimistic that those numbers will surface very soon after polls close there.

The Weekend Wrap Up--The Presidents' Day Edition

Well, this post won't break any new ground, but is simply a selfish attempt to catalog the events of the last several days for my own personal use (Hey, someone else may want to look at it too!). So what has happened to change the landscape? Let's look at the events for each party:

Republicans
--Romney endorses McCain: This move doesn't affect McCain as much as it affects Huckabee. McCain will get the nod (eventually), but Huckabee's time in the race is dependent upon the time it takes McCain to get to the 1191 delegates necessary to secure the GOP nomination. CNN is giving all of Romney's delegates in this story; getting McCain to within 78 delegates of the threshold. There must have been some movement in the unpledged delegate area because those numbers don't jibe well with the cable network's current delegate tally. By the current count (and remember, these things vary) McCain would be within 75 delegates of 1191. Handing all those Romney delegates over though is misguided. Their release is dependent upon the rules in each of the states in which Romney was able to capture delegates. That's seventeen states:

State	Delegates	Contest	Bound?
CA	6	P	B (2nd ballot)
UT	36	P	B (1st ballot)
IL	2	P	NB
AR	1	P	B (1st ballot)
MA	22	P	B (2nd ballot)
TN	8	P	B (2nd ballot)
MI	24	P	B (1st ballot)
NH	4	P	B
MN	38	C	NB
AK	12	C	NB
ND	8	C	B (1st ballot)
MT	25	C	NB
CO	43	C	B (1st ballot)
ME	18	C	NB
NV	18	C	NB
WY	9	C	NB
IA	12	C	NB
Total	286
Key:	P	Primary
	C	Caucus
	B	Bound
	NB	Not Bound

But how many of those delegates can be released to McCain within the rules in each of these states? This may be a less than scientific approach, but applying the rules of the 2004 GOP delegate selection (concerning which states' delegates were bound), 133 of those 286 Romney delegates are not bound. Returning to CNN's delegate count, that would move McCain up to 963, but would keep him 228 away from the mark that would knock Huckabee out. [One thing I should note is that only Utah's delegate binding rules are known of the 17 states above. The language in the bylaws of the other state parties was less than forthcoming.]

UPDATE: The first President Bush has endorsed McCain now. Now if the McCain folks could figure out how to use the current President Bush in their campaign. They face a similar quandary to the one faced by Al Gore during the 2000 election. That balance will go a long way toward determining how successful McCain will be in the general election.

--Huckabee takes a vacation: Here's all you need to know (from The Caucus this morning):

"Meanwhile, as the Democrats were dealing with the snowstorm, Mike Huckabee’s greatest immediate problem was perhaps his reddened face, scorched by the intense Cayman Islands sun, writes Katharine Q. Seelye of The Times. Mr. Huckabee, the G.O.P. candidate, spent the weekend on the resort island while he addressed a crowd and collected a speaker’s fee.

Mr. Huckabee turned the occasion into an opportunity to point out that his chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, John McCain of Arizona, and the two Democrats seeking their party’s nomination are senators and that unlike them, he did not receive a taxpayer-financed salary while campaigning.

'No taxpayers pay for me to have health insurance, to pay my mortgage, to pay my bills,” Mr. Huckabee said. “And so to me, it’s not just absurd, it’s beyond absurd — it’s insulting — to think that there’s something nefarious about my being here when nobody has raised the question about sitting U.S. senators taking their full paycheck and enjoying all the magnificent perks they get from the U.S. taxpayers.'"

I liked this story and especially Huckabee's response to questions of his means of acquiring necessary campaign funds. One of his marks on this race will not only be how his performance questioned McCain's standing among the very conservative within the party, but his campaign's wit. He's been consistently good at delivering clever one-liners for a while now.


Democrats
--Clinton wins New Mexico: Since this decision came to light after the Super Tuesday vote, some have speculated that this win breaks Obama's streak of recent victories. Possibly. However, what it does do is give the Clinton campaign a break in the slew of negative stories that have hit her campaign of late (personal loan to campaign, losing campaign and deputy campaign managers, losing eight contests in a row). The polls continue to look favorable in Wisconsin and good in both Ohio and Texas.

--SEIU endorses Obama: On the heels of the endorsement of the United Food and Commercial Workers, the SEIU endorsement further bolsters Obama's support among the unions. As the UFCW link on The Caucus points out, there are many Hispanics among the ranks of both unions and that could help Obama in Texas on March 4.

--Wisconsin turns "ugly": It really remains to be seen whether this will help or hurt Clinton in Wisconsin. One thing's for sure, we'll be able to start putting together an answer to that question when tomorrow's results start coming in. Obama has been up to the task thus far though; dispatching Wisconsin governor, Jim Doyle, to counter Clinton's claims. The Obama camp has been very disciplined in responding to attacks.

--The Lewis flip-flop: This has already been discussed in the comments section, but like the Romney delegates' release, it has real ramifications during this cycle.