Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Colorado. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Colorado. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Colorado

This is the seventh in a multipart series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation by state.1 The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2012 -- especially relative to 2008 -- in order to gauge the impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. As FHQ has argued in the past, this has often been cast as a black and white change. That the RNC has winner-take-all rules and the Democrats have proportional rules. Beyond that, the changes have been wrongly interpreted in a great many cases as having made a 180ยบ change from straight winner-take-all to straight proportional rules in all pre-April 1 primary and caucus states. That is not the case. 

The new requirement has been adopted in a number of different ways across the states. Some have moved to a conditional system where winner-take-all allocation is dependent upon one candidate receiving 50% or more of the vote and others have responded by making just the usually small sliver of a state's delegate apportionment from the national party -- at-large delegates -- proportional as mandated by the party. Those are just two examples. There are other variations in between that also allow state parties to comply with the rules. FHQ has long argued that the effect of this change would be to lengthen the process. However, the extent of the changes from four years ago is not as great as has been interpreted and points to the spacing of the 2012 primary calendar -- and how that interacts with the ongoing campaign -- being a much larger factor in the accumulation of delegates (Again, especially relative to the 2008 calendar).

For links to the other states' plans see the Republican Delegate Selection Plans by State section in the left sidebar under the calendar.


COLORADO

As unique as the Nevada caucuses were -- in terms of being the rare binding caucus -- the Colorado caucuses represent a different atypical attribute. The rules behind most caucuses are within the domain of the state parties, but in Colorado -- and as we will see later today, Minnesota as well -- the basic structure of the presidential precinct caucuses is derived from state law. While that state law dictates the date (or dates) on which the caucuses can be held, who can participate and where caucuses can be held among other requirements, the state parties are not without influence over the process. The Colorado state parties just have slightly less control over every aspect of the process than most of the remaining caucus states.

On the Republican side, the Colorado Republican Party has some latitude in allocating the 36 delegates apportioned to it by the RNC. The four step caucus process starts with the precinct caucuses tonight -- the only event other than the state convention on one uniform date -- and moves through county assemblies (February 17-March 28) and then congressional district assemblies (March 29-April 13) before finishing at the state convention on April 14. Delegates are chosen in the precinct caucuses to move on to the county caucuses, and so on through the remaining steps of the process.

  • 21 of the national convention delegates from those who have moved on to that step will be selected at the congressional district assemblies (3 delegates for each of Colorado's seven congressional districts). 
  • 12 of the remaining 15 delegates -- the at-large delegates -- are chosen at the state convention from among the delegates who have been selected to attend the state convention. 
  • The final three delegates are the Centennial state's automatic delegates (the state party chair, the national committeeman and the national committeewoman). 

A few notes on the delegate selection process in Colorado:

  1. Technically, the delegates selected throughout the process and more importantly those selected to go to the Republican National Convention in Tampa are unbound to any candidate. 
  2. However, and this is an important point that is not receiving much attention today, if a delegate has pledged support for a candidate, then that pledge is valid until the candidate to whom that delegate is pledged withdraws from the race, releases his or her delegates or is not nominated.2 
  3. Not to repeat what we said in the post on Iowa delegate allocation, but there are no formalized rules for selecting delegates at the precinct level to move on to the county assemblies. In other words, the number of delegates moving out of any given precinct caucus, may be proportionate to the vote for the candidates, but it is not required. It may be that those county assembly slots go to the folks that hang around at the meeting the longest. [This is the part that causes so many to say that organization matters in caucuses. Being organized enough to contact and make sure that your supporters claim those spots is a big deal.]
  4. Due to the above, as FHQ has said in the past, it is naive to think that there is no transference of presidential preference from one caucus step to the next. But for Colorado, as was the case in Iowa, there is no requirement that it be proportional or winner-take-all.
  5. Finally, the whole process will be complete and delegates will be selected to go to the national convention by April 14. That is a fairly big deal when taken with the "National Delegate Intent Form". Though Colorado delegates are unbound, not all are likely to be unpledged. No, FHQ doesn't want to get mired in a discussion of semantic, but those two -- unbound and unpledged -- are terms that can and often are (accurately) used interchangeably. The only truly unbound delegates from Colorado are the three automatic delegates and those unpledged delegates who emerge from the congressional district conventions.
--
1 FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.

2 The catch here is that delegate preference is not necessarily known the night of the precinct caucuses. Delegate candidates can chose to run pledged to a particular candidate or unpledged, but that preference has to be made official 13 days prior to either the congressional district assemblies (in the case of congressional district delegates) or the state convention (in the case of at-large delegates). The Colorado Republican Party keeps tabs on this by requiring each potential national convention delegate file a "National Delegate Intent Form".




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

Friday, September 23, 2011

Colorado Republicans Set to Vote on Moving Precinct Caucuses to February

The Colorado Republican Party State Central Committee is scheduled to meet this coming Saturday, September 24. According to a report from Caitlin Gibbons at the Denver Post, among the items to be considered is a plan to move the party's precinct caucuses from the first Tuesday in March (Super Tuesday, March 6) to the first Tuesday in February (February 7). This is a move that is allowed by state law and is -- despite the date -- compliant with the RNC rules concerning presidential delegate allocation.

As has been the case with similar non-binding caucuses that have been scheduled in February thus far (Maine and Minnesota), Colorado would avoid the threat of sanction from the Republican National Committee based on the fact that no delegates to the national convention are being directly allocated based on the first step (precinct level) of the caucus process. This was the same rule that in 2008 allowed Iowa and Nevada to circumvent sanction while the other pre-February 5 states -- including New Hampshire and South Carolina -- lost half of their delegates.1 In other words, there is something of a loophole to Republican delegate selection rules that is motivating at least some caucus states like Colorado to move up  in an attempt to influence the nomination process.

As FHQ has stated, however, the question as to whether these non-binding contests will have an impact on the finalization of the 2012 presidential primary calendar, much less the race for the nomination itself, remains an open one. With Minnesota Republicans already scheduled on February 7 and Missouri poised to officially join that date tomorrow should the legislature in the Show Me state not reconcile differences in a March presidential primary bill currently stalled there, one can at least partially provide an affirmative answer to that question.

A few thoughts:
1) Despite saying earlier that a move to February was not likely -- though technically possible given Colorado state election law -- Colorado Republican Party Chairman Ryan Call and the state central committee appear to see a penalty-free, non-binding February caucus as too irresistible. And with Maine and Minnesota operating under a similar rationale, why not roll the dice? Colorado has what neither of those states nor Missouri has: swing state status in the general election. [Sorry Missouri. The one silver lining in the Show Me state is that a primary allows for the possibility of energizing a larger set of voters than the caucuses are likely to have. But let's see what happens in Jefferson City on Friday before going down that road.]

2) Strategically, February 7 -- aside from being penalty-free -- is probably more attractive than March 6 for Colorado Republicans based on the numbers alone. It is better to share a date with Minnesota and maybe Missouri than it is to share the spotlight with nearly ten other contests -- mostly primaries -- on March 6. Why pass that up?

3) Additionally, Iowa is often accused of having two bites at the apple with the Ames Straw Poll and the first-in-the-nation caucuses. Would Colorado and other non-binding caucus states have that same privilege? They could. The delegates chosen at the precinct level are not bound by the results of the first step of the process. [Truth be told, though, it is probably a touch naive to think that these are all open-minded delegates moving on to the county level without some holding some allegiance to one candidate or another.] Technically speaking, then, the candidates would potentially be interested in returning to the state during the point at which delegates are actually being allocated to attempt to lobby delegates for their support.

4) Speaking of Missouri, let's say that nothing is done about the March primary legislation tomorrow and the special session ends. Missouri would be locked into February 7. But why wouldn't Republicans there -- and there are at least two Republican state senators that support this -- opt out of the primary and hold an early, non-binding caucus on February 7? Well, the party would likely lose a great number of participants in the switch, but Republicans in Missouri could also circumvent the RNC rules that way and not lose half of their delegates. Again, FHQ will hit the pause button on this one until Friday afternoon.

5) FHQ has said it before and has received some push back, but Romney won caucuses in ColoradoMaine and Minnesota in 2008. Sure, he positioned himself differently in 2008 than in 2012. Yes, the Tea Party has impacted caucus states in the time since then. But as we have seen with debate performances from the former Massachusetts governor, there is something to be said for having done this before. Romney has been able to put together a winning slate of delegates in these states before. That doesn't mean the other candidates cannot, but it does mean that Romney -- even if all the 2008 caucus-going supporters don't come back -- has something of an organizational infrastructure advantage over his counterparts. Quietly, Romney was to caucuses in 2008 what Obama was on the Democratic side. His efforts just got lost among a sea of losses elsewhere on Super Tuesday.

--
1 Incidentally, one aspect of all of this that is not being talked about at the moment is that if Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are forced into January, all but Iowa would face the 50% delegation penalty that  all other pre-March 6 states will face. That includes Nevada in 2012 because as a means of attracting candidate/media attention, Nevada Republicans elected to make the precinct caucus results proportional and determinative in terms of the delegate allocation.



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

Sunday, September 25, 2016

The Electoral College Map (9/25/16)



New State Polls (9/25/16)
State
Poll
Date
Margin of Error
Sample
Clinton
Trump
Undecided
Poll Margin
FHQ Margin
Colorado
9/21-9/23
+/- 4.4%
991 likely voters
40
39
10
+1
+4.04
Maine
9/15-9/20
+/- 4.3%
513 likely voters
40
36
7
+4
+4.95
Missouri
9/21-9/23
+/- 3.9%
1087 likely voters
37
46
7
+9
+7.23
Utah
9/12-9/19
+/- 3.4%
820 likely voters
25
34
8
+9
+9.95
Virginia
9/21-9/23
+/- 3.3%
1237 likely voters
45
37
8
+8
+6.22


Polling Quick Hits:
If it is Sunday, it usually means some battleground polls from YouGov/CBS. Today was no exception as the internet-based polling firm served up new surveys from Colorado, Missouri and Virginia. Plus there was another poll added in from UNH in Maine. [...and a late add from Utah.]

Most significantly, Colorado and Maine jump the Lean/Toss Up line on the Clinton side of the Spectrum into the Toss Up Clinton area. Now, that line -- the 5 point mark -- is completely arbitrary, but the introduction of these new polls pushing the two states from Lean to Toss Up is not. To this point, Clinton had lost some of her cushion among the Toss Up states, but had maintained at least a five point lead in enough states to clear 270. That symbolic advantage is now gone, the product of a few weeks of tightening in the polls. That is good news for Trump in that a couple of states are perhaps within reach. However, it should be noted that heading into debate season Clinton still maintains at least a four point edge here at FHQ in states equalling 273 electoral votes.

Colorado:
Changes (September 25)
StateBeforeAfter
ColoradoLean ClintonToss Up Clinton
MaineLean ClintonToss Up Clinton
On the one hand, the new YouGov survey in Colorado is an exact replication of what the firm in the state back in its last poll there in June. However, on the other hand, this is yet more evidence of the narrowing of the polls -- if not volatility of them -- not only in the Centennial state but elsewhere as well.

There are two things worth noting about Colorado in general. First, polling in the state got off to a slow start this year, and has not really caught back up in the time since. For a battleground, it is underpolled. Second, any safety Clinton had in Colorado after the conventions has disappeared. To the extent that is about Clinton, it has to do with her campaign being unable to push significantly above 40 percent. She is still there. Meanwhile, Trump bottomed out following his post-convention comments and has subsequently rebounded, moving back into the upper 30s. Call it a regression to the equilibrium if one will.


Maine:
The Pine Tree state, too, has been underpolled, and the dynamic there is similar. Like Colorado, Clinton has been around but above 40 percent most of the year with Trump lagging behind in the mid- to upper 30s more often than not. In both cases, there is a segment of the respondents either lined up behind a third party option or undecided. That wiggle room creates quite a bit of uncertainty heading into the last six weeks of the campaign.

And that does not even factor in the fact that Maine splits the allocation of its electoral votes. FHQ will account for those congressional district electoral votes in not only Maine but Nebraska as well starting in October.


Missouri:
The first pair of states resemble each other, but so does the second pair. Only, instead of Missouri and Virginia shifting in concert, they are in some ways mirror images of each other on different sides of the partisan line. In both cases, one candidate has carved out a position in the mid- to upper 40s as the other has remained stuck in the upper 30s. That is a recipe for a Lean state no matter the side and that is exactly where Missouri and Virginia fall.

Trump has the advantage in the Show-Me state and that lead has only grow since narrowing in the lead up to the conventions. In the time since, Clinton support has ebbed a bit, taking her back into the 30s, while Trump has stabilized in the mid-40s. And that is just what YouGov found there in their latest poll of Missouri.


Virginia:
The firm's findings in Virginia are similar, but transposed. The Old Dominion was never really as close as Missouri was, but the post-convention period saw the Clinton-Kaine ticket's fortunes swell. Those double digit leads have since subsided and the polling in Virginia has settled down with Clinton occupying the mid-40s position and Trump fighting to get to and/or above 40 percent on a consistent basis.

UPDATE:
Utah:
Trump is still likely to win Utah and its six electoral votes because Clinton is mired in the mid-20s and the third party candidates are splitting the remainder. But it is still eye-opening to see the third party candidate collectively pulling in as much support (34 percent) as the overall leader in the poll.


--
Yes, Colorado and Maine shift categories on the map and Spectrum, but both remain on Watch List, now on the opposite side of the Lean/Toss Up line. Virginia and Missouri maintain the same shades on the map, but shift subtly on the Spectrum and off the Watch List below. Utah joins the Watch List as it has inched to within a very small fraction of a point of pushing into the Strong Trump category.




The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42
(7)
NJ-14
(175)
ME-4
(264)
MS-6
(126)
TN-11
(56)
MD-10
(17)
DE-3
(178)
CO-93
(273 | 274)
MO-10
(120)
AR-6
(45)
MA-11
(28)
NM-5
(183)
FL-29
(302 | 265)
SC-9
(110)
SD-3
(39)
VT-3
(31)
MN-10
(193)
NC-15
(317 | 236)
AK-3
(101)
ND-3
(36)
CA-55
(86)
WI-10
(203)
OH-18
(335 | 221)
KS-6
(98)
ID-4
(33)
NY-29
(115)
MI-16
(219)
NV-6
(203)
UT-6
(92)
NE-5
(29)
IL-20
(135)
VA-13
(232)
IA-6
(197)
IN-11
(86)
OK-7
(24)
WA-12
(147)
PA-20
(252)
AZ-11
(191)
MT-3
(75)
WV-5
(17)
CT-17
(154)
NH-4
(256)
GA-16
(180)
KY-8
(72)
AL-9
(12)
OR-7
(161)
RI-4
(260)
TX-38
(164)
LA-8
(64)
WY-3
(3)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.

2 
The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 274 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.

To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.

3 Colorado
 is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.



NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.


The Watch List1
State
Switch
Colorado
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Delaware
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Indiana
from Strong Trump
to Lean Trump
Iowa
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
Maine
from Toss Up Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Nevada
from Toss Up Trump
to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
New Jersey
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Ohio
from Toss Up Clinton
to Toss Up Trump
Oregon
from Strong Clinton
to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
Rhode Island
from Lean Clinton
to Toss Up Clinton
Utah
from Lean Trump
to Strong Trump
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/24/16)

The Electoral College Map (9/23/16)

The Electoral College Map (9/22/16)

Follow FHQ on TwitterGoogle+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Colorado Republican Precinct Caucuses Shifted Up to February 7

[Click to Enlarge]

The Colorado Republican Party State Central Committee voted at their fall meeting on Saturday, September 24 to move the precinct caucuses up four weeks -- as parties are allowed to do according to state law passed prior to the 2008 cycle -- to February 7.1 Date-wise, the move is seemingly out of compliance with Republican National Committee rules on delegate selection. However, as there are no delegates directly allocated to the national convention in Tampa at that level of the caucus/convention process, the new position is rules-compliant.

As FHQ has mentioned previously, this is not new. Iowa and Nevada both skirted Republican National Committee rules in 2008 under similar circumstances. Nevada Republicans have since altered their rules as a means of attracting candidate attention, and while neither Iowa nor Nevada were proactively attempting to defy national party rules in 2008,2 both ended up bringing attention to a loophole in the Republican delegate selection rules that is now being exploited by at least three caucus states -- Colorado, Maine and Minnesota.

The Colorado Republican caucuses now bring to four the number of contests currently scheduled for Tuesday, February 7,3 a date the media continue to point out is just a day after the Iowa caucuses. That is true, but most outlets are not following that up by pointing out that the date in Iowa is contingent upon the dates in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia. Those states will decide if Colorado, Maine and Minnesota are true threats to their positions on the calendar and whether Iowa will, in fact, end up on February 6 as laid out in the Democratic National Committee rules for delegate selection.4 It is and has been a safe bet for a while now that Iowa will not be holding caucuses on February 6. There is a slim, outside chance of that, but only probably equal to or slightly greater than the probability that the first four states kick off primary season in December. In other words, neither are happening. In fact, the major campaigns are and have been behaving as if the calendar will begin at some point in January. The only remaining question is when. That is something that will continue to be defined over the course of the next few weeks.

No, don't look for everything to fall in place on or before October 1 -- the deadline by which the RNC requires delegate selection plans to be in place. Things will get clearer with the Florida decision later this week, but the calendar will not be finalized then. There is no penalty for deciding beyond that date.

--
1 The following are the resolutions voted on and passed by the Colorado Republican Party State Central Committee on Saturday and passed on to FHQ by Colorado Republican Party Chair Ryan Call:
Precinct Caucus Date Resolution Draft.revised

Embedded in the resolutions are the primary -- public -- motivations behind the move: more attention, a full slate of active Republican candidates, energizing the Republican base, more preparation time for local party/elections officials. At the end of the day, February 7 was a legal move for the party to make with respect to Colorado state law, and it was a less-crowded date than March 6. That, along with the fact that there were no national party penalties associated with the move, made for a recipe for a February 7 date for precinct caucuses.

2 Both were merely following traditional practices on the state level in terms of how and at what point in the caucus/convention process both were allocating delegates. For instance, even if there had been penalties levied against caucus states, Iowa and Nevada Republicans still would have moved up. Iowa Republicans would have to maintain their first-in-the-nation status and Nevada Republicans would have to match the move made by Nevada Democrats who won the ability to hold an exempt contest from the DNC. It isn't clear that Colorado Republicans would have opted to move to February 7 if it would have meant taking a 50% delegate hit. In fact, it is probably safe to assume that they would not have.

3 The legislature has passed legislation to move the New Jersey presidential primary to June, but that bill has not been signed to this point by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. In Missouri, special session legislation to move the primary there to March is still mired in an inter-chamber squabble that could extend into November.

4 To reiterate a point made here several times, but one that is not made clear in most accounts of the situation, the RNC rules do not specify dates for the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The rules only guideline on timing is that those contests occur at some point in February (but not before). Ideally, they would match up with the Democratic contests in those states, but it isn't a requirement. Only New Hampshire is guaranteed to have Democratic and Republican primaries on the same date. Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina have more state party influence over the date and do not have the uniformity called for in New Hampshire law (as it is in most primary states).



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

Sunday, August 17, 2008

The Electoral College Map (8/17/08)

The latter half of the week closed with just a handful of new polls. That is quite a departure from recent weeks when the bulk of polling releases had been backloaded, occurring between Wednesday and Friday (No, there have not been many polls released over the weekend since primary season ended, and yes, I did put Wednesday's polls in the mid-week update due to the delay caused by my foray into the 2004 data.). Still, even with just six new polls from five states out, there were some shake ups throughout FHQ's various depictions of the race's dynamics.

New Polls (Aug. 14-17)
StatePollMargin
(With Leaners/ Without Leaners)
Colorado
Rocky Mountain News
+3
Colorado
Rasmussen
+1/+2
Maine
Rasmussen
+14/+13
Minnesota
Rasmussen
+4/+4
North Carolina
Rasmussen
+6/+4
Texas
University of Texas
+10

The first impression is that that is a lot of red. Must be good for McCain, right? Yes, but maybe not for that reason. North Carolina and Texas are a toss up and a lean state, respectively and both continue to hold steady in those positions favoring McCain. The same is true of Maine, though the Pine Tree state is blue, not red. With the new polls in Colorado and Minnesota, though, we see a bit of a divergence from what we have become accustomed to in both. Colorado is beginning to look a lot like Nevada: a western state that remains blue but is trending in McCain's direction. Each have been and continue to be toss up states and the polls in each reflect that. An overwhelming majority of the Colorado polls released since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination have been within the margin of error, but since mid-July half of the six polls have favored McCain. That's departure from the pattern that had dominated before that: close polls favoring Obama. And Minnesota? The North Star state also saw a change from typical polling patten.

Changes (Aug. 14-17)
StateBeforeAfter
Minnesota
Strong ObamaObama lean

Minnesota becomes the first blue state to move away from Obama into another category since Ohio turned pink based on a Rasmussen poll in late July. But Ohio is a toss up state. We'd expect, to some extent, a toss up state to be more volatile than a state that is either a lean or strong. Minnesota was actually the last such state to move away from Obama all the way back on June 3. [Yeah, the day Obama wrapped up the nomination.] I glanced back through the maps to the point where I adopted the weighted average on April 30, and Minnesota -- a state that has hovered around the line between strong and lead all along -- was the only blue state (lean or strong) to have moved away from Obama in that time. By comparison, McCain has had 6 lean or strong states (Alaska, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and Texas) move away from him since mid-June (not counting the states that shifted in one direction and moved back). Just two of those six (Alaska and South Dakota) have come since mid-July, though.
[Click Map to Enlarge]

So, while some states have shown signs of trending toward McCain of late, that movement has yet to manifest itself in the electoral vote tally. The electoral college still favors Obama by a 298-240 margin. Obama, though, is now 10 electoral votes down in his strong category. The total of Obama strong state electoral votes remains larger than the sum of electoral votes in both McCain's strong states and the states leaning in his direction. That cushion is not as big anymore, though. And while that isn't readily apparent on the map above, we can begin to see it in the Electoral College Spectrum (ECS).

The Electoral College Spectrum*
HI-4
(7)**
WA-11
(165)
PA-21
(264/295)
FL-27
(369/196)
LA-9
(67)
VT-3
(10)
MN-10
(175)
CO-9***
(273/274)
NC-15
(384/169)
ID-4
(58)
RI-4
(14)
DE-3
(178)
OH-20
(293/265)
SC-8
(154)
NE-5
(54)
MD-10
(24)
OR-7
(185)
NV-5
(298/245)
SD-3
(146)
WY-3
(49)
IL-21
(45)
NJ-15
(200)
VA-13
(311/240)
TX-34
(143)
AR-6
(46)
CT-7
(52)
IA-7
(207)
ND-3
(314/227)
GA-15
(109)
TN-11
(40)
NY-31
(83)
WI-10
(217)
IN-11
(325/224)
MS-6
(94)
KY-8
(29)
ME-4
(87)
NM-5
(222)
MT-3
(328/213)
WV-5
(88)
AL-9
(21)
CA-55
(142)
MI-17
(239/316)
MO-11
(339/210)
AZ-10
(83)
UT-5
(12)
MA-12
(154)
NH-4
(243/299)
AK-3
(342/199)
KS-6
(73)
OK-7
(7)
*Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
**The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including New Hampshire (all Obama's toss up states, but Michigan), he would have 299 electoral votes. Both candidates numbers are only totaled through their rival's toss up states. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics.
***Colorado is the state where Obama crosses (or McCain would cross) the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That state is referred to as the victory line
.

Minnesota's shift doesn't look like all that big a deal now. In fact, it hasn't moved at all. The North Star state changed colors but maintained the same position in the ECS. What is different is that, for the first time, a state other than Pennsylvania is in the Victory Line slot. That more accurately reflects what is (and has been) happening in the race. Pennsylvania has been trending toward Obama while Colorado has not. While not necessarily favoring McCain, the margins in the Centennial state have drawn closer to zero. With Colorado and Pennsylvania basically switching places, the result is that Obama's path to 270 is not as clear. If Colorado and Nevada are trending toward McCain (They are both still in blue above the Partisan Line.) that makes Ohio that much more important. If both western states turn pink, Ohio is the state that would put Obama over the top. Without those two western states and Ohio, McCain becomes president. In fact let's look at it this way: if Colorado and Nevada move into McCain's column and Ohio holds its position, the Victory and Partisan line would converge on the Buckeye state's spot in the ECS. In other words, if the election played out that way, we would basically have a replay of the 2004 election. And this election was supposed to be so much different than those before it. It may yet be, but with the way things are shaping up at the moment, we're looking at another close election with the map changing very little.

The Watch List*
StateSwitch
Alaska
from Toss Up McCain
to McCain lean
Floridafrom Toss Up McCain
to McCain lean
Georgiafrom McCain leanto Strong McCain
Minnesotafrom Obama lean
to Strong Obama
Mississippifrom Strong McCainto McCain lean
Nevadafrom Toss Up Obamato Toss Up McCain
New Mexicofrom Obama leanto Toss Up Obama
North Carolinafrom Toss Up McCain
to McCain lean
Ohiofrom Toss Up Obamato Toss Up McCain
Virginiafrom Toss Up McCainto Toss Up Obama
Washingtonfrom Strong Obamato Obama lean
Wisconsinfrom Obama leanto Toss Up Obama
*Weighted Average within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

So what should we be watching for in the next week? New polling in any of the twelve states above could potentially bring about the changes charted in the Watch List. Minnesota is the only change on the list since Thursday. But that tighter Rasmussen poll didn't shift the state enough to pull it firmly into the lean category. The North Star state continues to oscillate relatively tightly around the line between the lean and strong categories. Finally, even though Colorado jumped both New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in the ECS, the average still isn't close enough to warrant its inclusion on the Watch List. If the Centennial state keeps trending toward McCain, though, it will work its way to that point.


Recent Posts:
Which States are Underpolled in the Presidential Race?

The Electoral College Map (8/14/08)

2008 vs. 2004, Part II: What Happened in the Final 100 Days in 2004 and What That May Mean for the Rest of This Campaign

Monday, January 4, 2016

2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: NORTH DAKOTA

This is part seventeen of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable. 

NORTH DAKOTA

Election type: caucus/convention
Date: by March 11

Number of delegates: 28 [22 at-large, 3 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: determined by state convention
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: non-binding caucuses

--
Changes since 2012
Like Colorado and Wyoming, Republicans in North Dakota will skip the caucus-level preference vote that had in the past been part and parcel of the standard delegate selection procedure in those states. But in 2016, such straw polls, under RNC rules, would bind those states' national convention delegates. That was not the case in 2012 or before. So whereas in 2012, Colorado, North Dakota and Wyoming all held a preference vote at some juncture in their respective delegate selection processes, the delegates were not bound to any particular candidate (at least not in a way that corresponded with outcome of the straw poll).

That the ultimate delegate selection and allocation did not line up with the original vote in the precinct/district/county caucuses led to some variation in how those states were treated in the 2012 delegate count. Too often those delegate slots were prematurely allocated to particular candidates before the delegates were actually selected at a congressional district or state convention. That discrepancy and the resultant chase for these fantasy delegates (in part) prompted the Republican National Committee to include in the rules package the 2012 national convention in Tampa voted through a provision that tethered the allocation of delegates to any statewide vote in a primary or caucus.

But there was no requirement in the RNC rules for states to actually hold a preference vote; only an assumption that states would have one.

The biggest change for North Dakota, then, is that Republicans in the Peace Garden state have opted to join Colorado, Wyoming, the American Samoa and Guam in not conducting a preference vote in 2016.


Delegate allocation/Binding 
North Dakota Republicans, though, are a bit different than their counterparts in Colorado and Wyoming. No, none of the three will have a presidential preference vote at any point in the caucus/convention process, but only North Dakota will have a truly unbound delegation. That is a function of how delegate candidates file to run as delegates. Part of the filing paperwork for potential delegates in Colorado and Wyoming is a section asking the delegate candidate the presidential candidate to whom they are or will be pledged. The Republican National Committee is binding those delegates selected in Colorado and Wyoming to the candidates to whom they are pledged. The only way to circumvent that stipulation is for a delegate to either refuse to pledge (or to run as uncommitted) or to have the candidate they were pledged to withdraw from the race (as is the case in other states).

Again, though, North Dakota Republicans operate under a different set of rules.2 There is no delegate filing process in North Dakota similar to the paperwork delegate candidates file in Colorado or Wyoming. Rather, the North Dakota Republican Party Committee on Permanent Organization (NDGOP CPO) will put forth a slate of delegates to be voted on at the April state convention. The governor and any members of Congress from North Dakota -- if Republican -- are automatically presented on the slate.

Otherwise, delegates can apply with the NDGOP CPO prior to the convention to be on the slate or be nominated from the floor. The catch to that latter route -- nomination from the floor of the state convention -- is that a delegate candidate nominated from the floor must have applied with the NDGOP CPO but not included in the slate presented by the committee.

That places a premium on having applied to the committee in the first place. However, that also highlights the fact that applying does not mean inclusion on the slate.

Let's try to lay this out a bit more clearly. There were more than 800 delegates and attendees at the 2014 North Dakota Republican state convention. We'll use that number. If we assume that all 800 state convention delegates apply with the NDGOP CPO to be national convention delegates, then there is a pool of 800 candidates (plus any Republican governor and members of Congress) to be included in that original slate of 25 presented to the convention. 3 Once that 25 delegate slate is presented to the state convention additions can be made from the floor from the remaining 775 potential delegate candidates who originally applied with the NDGOP CPO. If half of those -- or any number for that matter -- are nominated from the floor, those names will be added to the ballot the convention will vote on. Furthermore, those names will be added to the ballot in order of nomination and after the slate of 25 delegate candidates who were presented to the convention by the NDGOP CPO.

If a lot of names are added -- say the 400 mentioned above -- then those first 25 from the original slate and those delegate candidates with better name recognition among the state convention delegates will stand a better chance of making it through the vote. Only the top 25 in the vote count would be elected national convention delegates.

This would be slightly more complicated if there was an organized rival slate put forth to challenge the slate presented by the state party through the NDGOP CPO. That would theoretically limit the number of potential delegate candidates appearing on the ballot, making it easier for sides to marshal their supporters behind certain slates.

FHQ raises this issue -- the importance of the slate and the parameters behind its selection -- because the 2012 North Dakota Republican state convention was rather contentious. The slate that was presented to the state convention did not align with the vote in the precinct caucuses that had taken place a month prior. Instead of a slate that favored Santorum and Paul to Romney, the slate was weighted more toward elected officials, donors and volunteers, delegate candidates more likely to favor the eventual nominee and former Massachusetts governor.

This footnote from the 2012 Republican presidential nomination process is worth raising in 2016. First, though they are not bound, the delegates to ultimately be chosen at the North Dakota Republican state convention are most likely to be pledged to some candidate. That pledge means some measure of loyalty to a candidate, but also some freedom at a national convention.

Under normal circumstances that process tends to function in a similar fashion to how delegates accrued by candidates and subsequently released do: They vote for the presumptive nominee at the national convention. But in a more contested environment, both an unbound but pledged group of North Dakota delegates and an unbound group of released delegates from any number of other states will be free to vote for whichever candidate they choose on the first roll call ballot at the national convention.

In the meantime, district conventions will be occurring across North Dakota between now and March 1 to select delegates to attend the state convention in April. That group of state convention delegates will make the decision on who comprises the national convention delegation. Both the membership of the state convention and the state of the overall race for the Republican nomination in early April will have a bearing on who those delegates are and more importantly with whom they are aligned.



--
State allocation rules are archived here.


--
1 By state party rules, district conventions to select delegates to attend the state convention are to be held between January 1 and March 1 in the year of a presidential election. The North Dakota Republican (Endorsing) state convention that will choose the national delegate slate will fall on April 1-3, 2016.

2 Here are the relevant sections of Rule 11 of the North Dakota Republican Party Rules (as revised on June 6, 2015):

3 That is 28 total delegates minus the three automatic delegates.