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 180º 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".

Recent Posts:

Virginia House Passes Bill to Allow Write-Ins on Primary Ballot

Race to 1144: Nevada Caucuses

Pennsylvania Presidential Primary on the Move?

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

Virginia House Passes Bill to Allow Write-Ins on Primary Ballot

No, don't get your hopes up, Gingrich supporters. It won't take effect if passed by the state Senate and signed into law in time for the March 6 presidential primary in the Old Dominion. But silver linings folks: The groundwork is potentially being laid for future candidates who have difficulty making the Virginia primary ballot.

On Friday, February 3, the Virginia House of Delegates by the narrowest of margins (50-49) passed HB 1132, bill that would allow a write-in line on primary ballots. The majority Republicans made up the bulk of those voting aye, but it was far from the unanimous position within the caucus. The bill has subsequently moved on to and been read in the state Senate.

Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing along the news.

--
NOTE: Great point from Frank Leone on HB 1132 in the comments:

"Note that the fun part is the parties get to decide if write-ins are available as well as getting to decide if voters have to sign a pledge. So if both parties have a primary the same day (say in 2016), write ins and pledges could be allowed in both, neither or one or the other primary. Let's see if we can make this any more confusing. "

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: Nevada Caucuses

Pennsylvania Presidential Primary on the Move?

Race to 1144: Florida Primary

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

Race to 1144: Nevada Caucuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

And what about the delegate count post-Nevada?

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts:

Pennsylvania Presidential Primary on the Move?

Race to 1144: Florida Primary

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nevada

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

Pennsylvania Presidential Primary on the Move?

The redistricting process may claim another victim on the presidential primary calendar.

The ongoing battle to set congressional district boundaries in Pennsylvania -- now in the courts -- may push the April 24 presidential primary in the Keystone state back on the calendar. From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Saturday:

Also, without knowing how long it would take a new plan to become final, Mr. Pileggi said lawmakers will need to consider whether they should delay the primary contest. 

"Without control over that length of time, it's hard to come to a final conclusion," [Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader] Mr. Pileggi said in a teleconference with reporters. "But certainly the April 24th date is in jeopardy." 

Democrats said that moving the primary is unnecessary because the Supreme Court has said the decade-old map remains in effect until a new one is approved. 

"A new plan should not be rammed through the process without due consideration for what the court has said about redistricting," said Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills.

There is a hearing today on the Republican-led request to delay the primary from happening. 

--

What does that mean for Pennsylvania within the context of the presidential primary calendar? 

First of all, any time a primary is shifted or is forced to shift back the date on which its primary is held, it runs the risk of losing influence over the process. The discussion around this Republican nomination race has refocused lately on the delegate count, but even before the contests started, that April 24 regional primary date -- where Pennsylvania is currently scheduled -- was seen as a possibility for where (presumably) Mitt Romney might push past the 1144 delegates necessary to lock up the nomination. At the very least, that cluster of contests would conceivably push the former Massachusetts  governor to a delegate lead that may be too steep for his opponents to overcome. To move back beyond that date, then, would mean Pennsylvania would potentially be pushed out of the window of decisiveness in this race. 

But there is a caveat to that. Texas may also -- for similar reasons -- be forced to hold a later presidential primary. And Texas, along with potentially Pennsylvania moving back, shifts a lot of delegates -- 227 total delegates -- further back in the process. That may affect the delegate counting calculus at that point. Of course, the March contests will go a long way toward determining how detrimental a move back for Pennsylvania would be.

...or if it is consequential to the the process determining a presumptive nominee by that point.

A tip of the cap to Tim McNulty at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for passing this news along.

Recent Posts:

Race to 1144: Florida Primary

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nevada

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

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

Race to 1144: Florida Primary

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

Now, about those delegate counts...

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

--
Changes to the delegate count since South Carolina:

• Romney added 50 delegates from Florida.
• Romney gained the support of Puerto Rico automatic delegate, Luis Fortuno.
• Gingrich added the support of Puerto Rico automatic delegate, Carlos Mendez.

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

Recent Posts:

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nevada

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

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

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Nevada

This is the sixth 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 180º 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.


NEVADA

FHQ has been fond of saying that the rules in the January and February primary and caucus states are no different in 2012 than they were in 2008. But we always say that in the context of the winner-take-all/proportional discussion. On that front, the statement is true, but in terms of the overall delegate selection rules, there is one state with one significant rules change: Nevada. No, the Nevada caucuses are still proportional as they were in 2008. For 2012, however, the Nevada Republican Party altered the binding mechanism within the Silver state caucuses. Instead of the Nevada Republicans being allocated based on what transpires at the state convention, delegates coming out of the state will now be bound to candidates based on the results of the precinct caucuses on Saturday night (February 4). [The ultimate delegate allocation will be proportional based on the precinct caucus vote.]

The reason for the change is twofold:
1) First of all, the first step of the caucus process in Nevada is binding and not non-binding like the vast majority of other caucus states. What will happen Saturday night, then, is not simply a straw poll vote on top of electing delegates to move on to the next step of the process. That is unique among this group of January and February caucus states (and the other caucus states too). The Nevada GOP made the decision last year as a means of drawing candidates into the state; something that did not happen in 2008 when the Nevada caucuses shared the same date as the South Carolina primary.² Of course, when that change was made Nevada was supposed to have been the third contest on the calendar. Florida's move into January and the subsequent Nevada spat with New Hampshire for calendar positions pushed Nevada back to the fifth slot just four days after Florida. That's a small window of time, but the candidates are out there this week, though they are splitting time there with time in the February 7 caucus states (Colorado and Minnesota).

2) The second reason for the move is not being talked about, but is fairly obvious. The early stage binding of the delegates is a means to an end. It heads off the problems that beset the Nevada caucus process in 2008: that Ron Paul delegates essentially derailed the convention and forced the State Executive Committee to select the delegates. By binding delegates based on the results of the precinct caucuses, the party heads off at least some of that problem (...though Ron Paul delegates will still make it through to the next stage).

But of course, there are some worries about whether the Nevada GOP can improve on their 2008 performance.

What does all of this mean for Saturday night? Well, the Nevada caucuses will be more than the straw polls we have witnessed in Iowa and will witness in most other caucus states. The results are binding -- more like a primary -- and unlike, again, most other caucus states, where the delegates will go to the convention unbound, the Nevada Republican delegates will be bound. This includes not only the at-large and congressional district delegates, but the automatic delegates as well (all 28 total Nevada delegates).

[NOTE: Nevada's Republican caucuses are closed to only registered Republicans. The final day to register prior to the caucuses was January 20.]

--
¹ FHQ would say 50 part, but that doesn't count the territories and Washington, DC.

² Incidentally, that Las Vegas Review-Journal article was the link the Nevada Republican Party provided on its own website to explain the shift. That was true until just last month when all caucus-related links on the party's page got automatically sent to the new 2012 caucus site. Anyway, if it was good enough for the party before...

Recent Posts:

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

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

Florida May End Up "Proportional" But It Won't Be Proportional

Well, that was fast.

No, FHQ is not talking about the news that the Gingrich campaign is going to formally challenge the winner-take-all allocation of the Florida Republican delegates. Instead, I'm talking about the need to try -- try very hard, mind you -- to get out in front of those picking up and running with this story carrying the banner of false proportionality.

Look, I have no problem with the Republican National Committee delegate selection rules. It is up to the party to decide the formula it wants to use -- how much leeway it want to allow the states in determining their own rules under those guidelines. I don't even really have a problem with them calling it proportional, though it would have been a lot easier for all parties concerned if they had used different language to describe the nature of the rules change from 2008 to 2012. What I have a problem with and what FHQ has absolutely fought against is the notion that the changes to the rules mean that any primary or caucus before April 1 will be proportional like they are in the Democratic Party delegate selection rules (ie: If a candidate receives 40% of the vote in a contest, they take approximately 40% of the delegates in that state.).

The truth is, some are. New Hampshire had proportional allocation of all 12 of its delegates. The problem lies in the fact that very few have taken the time to actually acquaint themselves with the RNC's definition of proportional. Proportional can mean New Hampshire proportional, but it can also mean Michigan "proportional" or Oklahoma "proportional" or Virginia "proportional".

Let me explain. There are a number of ways that a state can get at the RNC's definition of proportional. The Michigan primary is winner-take-all by congressional district -- completely fine within the Republican Party rules before April 1 -- but the statewide at-large delegates are allocated in proportion to the statewide vote. South Carolina, which was exempt from the proportionality requirement, under the Michigan plan would have allocated the 2 delegates per congressional district (14 total) on a winner-take-all basis as it did on January 21, but the 11 at-large delegates would have been divvied up proportionally among the candidates based on the statewide vote.

...instead of all having gone to Gingrich.

The Oklahoma primary on March 6 will be a proportional contest, but only if no candidate receives 50% of the vote or more. If a candidate gains a majority in the primary, that candidate would receive all 43 of the Sooner state Republican delegates. That, too, is completely within the letter of the law in the Republican delegate selection rules.

The Virginia primary on March 6 will be like Michigan and South Carolina in that the congressional district votes will be winner-take-all, but the allocation of the at-large delegates will be proportional IF no candidate receives over 50% of the vote in a two-person (Romney and Paul) race. Otherwise, the allocation will be winner-take-all.

Now, there are several other combinations, but I think you get the point. The Gingrich campaign can challenge the Florida allocation all it wants, but there is nothing in the rules that allows the RNC to make the Florida allocation totally proportional. Nothing. However, if, on the very small chance that this challenge is either necessary later on in the year or successful, Florida won't be proportional. It will likely be "proportional".

I have no idea what that would look like, but I sure would like to see the Florida vote by congressional district last night.

--
As an aside, I played around with this a little bit the other day. FHQ has argued in the past that if a challenge was successful Florida would end up looking more like South Carolina (minus the winner-take-all allocated at-large delegates) and less like New Hampshire. After all the Republican Party of Florida rules call for the allocation to be that way if not penalized. But the math doesn't work as well for Florida as it did in South Carolina. Both lost half their delegates for holding January primaries, and instead of having 3 delegates per congressional district like all the other non-penalized states, the South Carolina Republican Party apportioned 2 delegates per district and let the remaining 11 be at-large delegates. Florida, with so many congressional districts, can't mimic that plan. Two delegates per district would mean 54 delegates and Florida only has 50 to give. One alternative that we might see, in the event of a successful challenge, is each Florida district being apportioned one delegate to be allocated winner-take-all based on the votes in each of the 27 districts. The remaining 23 delegates would be allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote. Romney would get approximately half of the at-large delegates. For the congressional district allocation, again, we would need the vote by congressional district.

The resulting plan is not quite proportional and not quite winner-take-all, but is somewhere in between while still giving most to Romney. It would reduce the delegate margin, but Romney would still leave Florida with a pretty wide margin.

--
UPDATE: The RNC has punted on the Florida question in a memo released tonight. The issue won't be dealt with until a formal challenge is filed with the Committee on Contests. Rule 23(b) of the RNC rules states that a challenge must be filed no later than 22 days preceding the Republican National Convention. The rest of the rule lays out the contest procedure: a prompt hearing of the issues by the Committee, a submission of the issues and recommendations for resolution to the RNC, provide a chance for the parties involved to object to the Committee submission and then a final decision by the whole RNC.

Recent Posts:

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

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

Visual Representation of the Argument from Non-Romneys, Post-Florida

1144 delegates needed to win.

Recent Posts:

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

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

Newt's Challenge & Problem: Becoming Huckabee+

On the heels of the South Carolina primary, FHQ speculated that one of the main questions that emerged from the Gingrich win/Romney loss was the Southern question. Romney did not win the South Carolina primary and even if could win in Florida -- It is something of a foregone conclusion at this point that the former Massachusetts governor will win tonight in the Sunshine state. -- and use that as a springboard to wins in contests in hospitable areas in February, that Southern question remains. Romney will not have another opportunity to win in the South until March 6.

[Sidenote follow up to that Southern question:
The way that post seemed to be interpreted by those that built off it was that FHQ was saying Romney couldn't wrap things up until that point at the earliest. I suppose that is part of it, but it is deeper than that. What I meant was that Gingrich and Santorum could use that as a rallying point for voters and more importantly donors. But that has a shelf life. If Romney wins in the South -- and he's guaranteed at least one win in Virginia where only Paul is on the ballot opposite him ¹ -- then that argument disappears. Support and contributions to the campaign also likely disappear or at the very least begin to drop off at that point. And keep in mind, FHQ is discussing this without accounting for any intra-party pressure on the candidates to drop out. In the past, those three things -- waning support, lower fundraising totals and pressure from the party -- often happen nearly simultaneously. That may happen this time as well. But it isn't about Romney wrapping things up so much as the way in which the others start to drop out, or arguments to stay in begin to disappear.]

The Gingrich campaign is mindful of this Southern question. In fact, the memo the campaign circulated on Monday about how a protracted primary battle might look was very heavy on the former Speaker doing well in the upcoming March contests in the region. And therein lies the trouble for the Gingrich campaign. Their hope is that a series of wins across the South evens the delegate total heading out of the contests. That may happen, but if that is the case, the Gingrich folks are going to run full on in a stiff wind. How is that any different than the strategy Mike Huckabee had in 2008? The former Arkansas governor came close to sweeping the region in 2008 and that got him nowhere. It had him out of the race in early March when McCain won on Huckabee's turf in Texas and in the process crossed the 50% plus one delegate threshold to become the presumptive nominee.

Now sure, the Gingrich folks would counter that the calendar is vastly different in 2012 than it was in 2008. There is no mammoth Super Tuesday a week from today's Florida primary like there was four years ago. However, Gingrich is going to have to find a way to win in a Romney state to effectively brush off the Huckabee comparison. February's line up of contests does not seem to offer too many opportunities for Gingrich and if Romney sweeps them all, the pressure is going to increase on the non-Romneys in that scenario to consider bowing out (...in the face of the Southern question for Romney).

If we are trying to game this out moving forward look for Gingrich wins in Romney states (as a signal of a protracted battle) and Romney wins in the South (as a signal that the process is winding down). As it is, Romney is playing the McCain part from 2008 and if the South is the only thing standing in the way, it won't be enough to stop a Romney nomination. The goal for Gingrich is to become Huckabee, but Huckabee plus.

--
¹ This will be an interesting test case of the Romney/not-Romney theory that has been floated around about this Republican nomination race. If there is a significant protest/anti-Romney movement within the Republican primary electorate, and the field has not winnowed anymore by that point, then that two-person Virginia primary becomes the best possible test.

Recent Posts:

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Florida

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

A Winner-Take-All Primary for Texas Republicans?

In a run through the future stops on the presidential primary calendar late last week, Jake Tapper of ABC News wondered whether Texas Republicans -- having been forced by the courts to shift back the presidential primary past April 1 in the Lone Star state -- would entertain the idea of switching from proportional to winner-take-all allocation of their 155 delegates.

FHQ wrote about this in December when courts pushed Texas back to April and was told pretty much the same thing that Republican Party of Texas Communications Director Chris Elam told Aman Betheja of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Friday. Basically, RPT is not changing its delegate allocation rules. In the month since I spoke with RPT about the issue, though, the argument has evolved.   In December, FHQ was -- correctly, I might add -- told that the rules were final because the RNC rules require state parties to have set delegate selection rules by October 1. I countered that Ohio had changed -- or at least allowed a trigger mechanism in their rules that switched their delegate selection method dependent upon the date the primary was held -- and was informed that the Ohio condition was part of the rules package submitted by Ohio to the RNC prior to October 1. And of course, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all settled on their plans -- the dates in particular -- after October 1. All pointed to some wiggle room in the national party rules that may allow Texas Republicans -- under unusual circumstances -- to change back to the winner-take-all allocation method the party has traditionally used.

Again, the answer from RPT in December was that the rules were set.

But now, instead of leaning on the RNC deadline as in December, RPT has shifted to a Voting Rights Act/preclearance argument for fending off inquiries about switching back to winner-take-all rules. FHQ must confess that this one is new to me. DOJ has the final say on redistricting plans in certain states and districts under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but that authority stretching into delegate selection rules is something I haven't encountered outside of the past use of the unit rule (which has been outlawed in both national parties). This implies that Texas Republicans should have had to have received preclearance from the Justice Department for the change back in October from winner-take-all to proportional; something FHQ never heard about if it happened. [And that isn't to suggest that it did not.] But it seems odd that DOJ would have preclear a change back to a system that has been in place on the Republican side in Texas up until this cycle; October 2011 to be exact.

But that is a minor point in the grand scheme of things. Texas Republicans won't be changing back to winner-take-all rules. And it has very little to do with Section 5. It has more to do with the the seeming lack of desire to make the change within the state party. And even if independent of the state party, a Republican in Texas challenged the allocation method in a reverse of what we are witnessing in Florida with its adherence to winner-take-all allocation in a timeframe reserved for at least partially proportional allocation, that case would stand very little chance of going anywhere. The big issue in the Florida situation -- if the system there were to be challenged -- is that the state party is breaking a national party rule; that winner-take-all allocation instead of some "proportional" allocation is illegal.

But in a similar Texas situation there would be no similar rules-breaking. The RNC rules prohibit straight winner-take-all allocation of all of a states delegates before April 1, but that doesn't mean that it is against the rules if state parties after that point opt for a proportional plan, a winner-take-all plan or something in between. No, the RNC leaves it up to the states after March to decide on their own method of allocation in the way the RNC used to do for all states throughout the whole calendar. That would not be a winning argument. The state, acting in accordance with the RNC rules, should be made to change its method of delegate allocation because someone within the state (of Texas in this scenario) challenges it. The RNC has already seemingly indicated that challenges -- even in Florida's case -- were likely to go nowhere. And if a challenge to get a state to actually follow the rules is stuck in neutral, then a plan to force a state in full compliance with the rules to alter its delegate selection plan is going to go in reverse.

Texas Republicans will have proportional allocation whether the primary is on April 3 or some other later date.

UPDATE: Richard Winger of Ballot Access News sent along news that the courts (Larouche v. Fowler, 1999) have ruled in the past that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not applicable in cases of party rules changes for delegate allocation.

Recent Posts:

I'll see your white knight and raise you a filing deadline. Why It's Too Late for Entry in the Republican Nomination Race

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Florida

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Maine

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