The Electoral College Map (7/26/16)

Latest Update

Polling Quick Hits:

There were a couple of late day polls released on the opening day of the Democratic convention. Neither of them did much to shake up the map or the spectrum below.

Georgia:
The first was a Landmark/WSB survey from the Peach state where a handful of 2016 polls have shown a race that is more competitive between Clinton and Trump than was the case in the general election four years ago. This poll only confirmed that trend. In fact, Trump's two point advantage was just a fraction under the previous FHQ average in Georgia. Georgia may be closer than is years past, but the direction of the polling thus far in 2016 has with only one exception been point toward the New York businessman. While that has been consistent, there has nonetheless been volatility in terms of each candidates' share of polling support in the state as is typical of an election cycle with no incumbent running.


Nevada:
In the polls Georgia has moved toward the Democrats since 2012, but Nevada has shifted in the direction of the Republican Party in the presidential election polling conducted in the Silver state. Now, there has not been a lot of survey work done in Nevada, but what little has been done has shown a race between Clinton and Trump that is about eight points more Republican than the state was in November 2012. That trend line was buttressed by the inter-convention survey of the state from KTNV/Rasmussen. Trump's five point advantage keeps Nevada on the Republican side of the spectrum below but still squarely in toss up territory for the moment.

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42 (7)	WA-12 (164)	NH-4 (253)	KS-6 (158)	LA-8 (55)
VT-3 (10)	NJ-14 (178)	PA-203 (273/285)	UT-6 (152)	SD-3 (47)
MD-10 (20)	WI-10 (188)	IA-6 (279/265)	AK-3 (146)	ND-3 (44)
RI-4 (24)	OR-7 (195)	FL-29 (308/259)	MO-10 (143)	ID-4 (41)
MA-11 (35)	NM-5 (200)	NC-15 (323/230)	IN-11 (133)	NE-5 (37)
CA-55 (90)	CT-7 (207)	OH-18 (341/215)	TX-38 (122)	AL-9 (32)
DE-3 (93)	ME-4 (211)	AZ-11 (197)	SC-9 (84)	KY-8 (23)
NY-29 (122)	CO-9 (220)	NV-6 (186)	TN-11 (75)	WV-5 (15)
IL-20 (142)	MI-16 (236)	GA-16 (180)	AR-6 (64)	OK-7 (10)
MN-10 (152)	VA-13 (249)	MS-6 (164)	MT-3 (58)	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 Pennsylvania (all Clinton's toss up states plus Pennsylvania), he would have 285 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 Pennsylvania 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.

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
Alaska	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Arizona	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Arkansas	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
New Jersey	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Tennessee	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Utah	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Virginia	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/25/16)

The Democrats' Unity Reform Commission

The Electoral College Map (7/23/16)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

The Electoral College Map (7/25/16)

Latest Update

Polling Quick Hits:
Ohio:
As tempting as it might be to suggest that Donald Trump received a bump coming out of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, the story is more complicated than that. At the state level, the first post-convention survey comes out of convention host Ohio from Public Policy Polling. Compared to the firm's survey of the Buckeye state a month ago, Trump is seemingly up (and Clinton down).

That is "seemingly" because it is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. A month ago Clinton led Trump in the Ohio PPP poll 44-40. The new poll -- at least the version of it that is getting the most attention -- has Trump ahead 42-39. But the June poll only surveyed a two-way race. The Trump +3 poll from July is a multi-candidate result including both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. PPP did also ask the head-to-head question and found a 45-45 tie.

In other words, Clinton barely budged in the last month through the PPP lens and Trump exceeded what has often been viewed as his ceiling (40%) in polling both nationally and at the state level. That is a bump to be sure, but represents a drawing even rather than Trump surpassing Clinton. It remains to be seen whether this pattern will hold in other post-RNC polling.

The addition of the new Ohio poll does nothing to lodge the Buckeye state from its current position on the Electoral College Spectrum below as the closest state on the Democratic side of the partisan line.

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42 (7)	WA-12 (164)	NH-4 (253)	KS-6 (158)	LA-8 (55)
VT-3 (10)	NJ-14 (178)	PA-203 (273/285)	UT-6 (152)	SD-3 (47)
MD-10 (20)	WI-10 (188)	IA-6 (279/265)	AK-3 (146)	ND-3 (44)
RI-4 (24)	OR-7 (195)	FL-29 (308/259)	MO-10 (143)	ID-4 (41)
MA-11 (35)	NM-5 (200)	NC-15 (323/230)	IN-11 (133)	NE-5 (37)
CA-55 (90)	CT-7 (207)	OH-18 (341/215)	TX-38 (122)	AL-9 (32)
DE-3 (93)	ME-4 (211)	AZ-11 (197)	SC-9 (84)	KY-8 (23)
NY-29 (122)	CO-9 (220)	NV-6 (186)	TN-11 (75)	WV-5 (15)
IL-20 (142)	MI-16 (236)	GA-16 (180)	AR-6 (64)	OK-7 (10)
MN-10 (152)	VA-13 (249)	MS-6 (164)	MT-3 (58)	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 Pennsylvania (all Clinton's toss up states plus Pennsylvania), he would have 285 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 Pennsylvania 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.

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
Alaska	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Arizona	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Arkansas	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
New Jersey	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Tennessee	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Utah	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Virginia	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Democrats' Unity Reform Commission

The Electoral College Map (7/23/16)

The Electoral College Map (7/21/16)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

The Democrats' Unity Reform Commission

The members of the Democratic National Convention Rules Committee convened on Saturday, July 23 to consider the report the committee will present to the convention on its opening day in Philadelphia. After a lengthy primary season that highlighted procedural issues surrounding superdelegates, caucuses and the openness of participation in the Democratic nomination process, it was expected that those matters would dominate the proceedings.

Not surprisingly, they did.

Following a series of uncontentious votes -- on convention officers and convention procedure -- and a short recess, the committee began to consider amendments to the charter of the party and the rules of the nomination process. This began with a series of amendments with respect to the influence of superdelegates on the process. But in each instance, the same basic pattern emerged: any change to the current superdelegate system was voted down by a ratio of around 3:2. That happened first on an amendment to abolish superdelegates. It happened again on measures to reduce their influence (or number) on the nominating process.

It was at that point that committee members from both the Clinton and Sanders teams rose to call for a recess. What followed was an over three hour break that produced a unity amendment chartering a post-convention commission to examine not only the superdelegate process that had triggered a slew of amendment proposals, but the other perceived shortcomings of the process (chiefly, caucuses and participation).

The Unity Reform Commission, successor to the Democratic Change Commission of eight years ago, will have a specific mandate if the convention votes in favor of the Rules Committee report on the first day of the convention on Monday. What passed the Rules Committee on Saturday was this:

1. No more than 60 days after the election of the next chair of the Democratic National Committee early next year, the chair will establish the Unity Reform Commission (URC).
2. Its membership will include Clinton surrogate, Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, as commission chairwoman and Sanders proxy, Larry Cohen, as vice chair. Clinton will fill nine (9) additional slots and Sanders, seven (7). The DNC chair (see #1) will select three (3) additional members. 
3. Consistent with the timeline of the Democratic Change Commission, the 21 member Unity Reform Commission will meet during 2017 with the goal of producing a set of rules recommendations to the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee by January 1, 2018.
4. The normal procedure is for the Rules and Bylaws Committee to consider those commission recommendations before sending them -- potentially in an amended form -- to the full Democratic National Committee for a final vote. That procedure remains intact. However, the URC retains the ability to place their recommendations before the full DNC if the Rules and Bylaws Committee "fails to substantially adopt" any of them. [NOTE: How the commission arrives at a conclusion that the RBC has not met that requirement greatly depends on who the members of the commission are.]
5. Substantively, the unity amendment calls for another reconsideration of the caucus process. This was a Clinton campaign complaint after 2008 and is again in 2016. The question confronting the URC will be whether they come to a different conclusion than the Democratic Change Commission. The 2009 commission called for the development of a set of "best practices" for caucuses, but ultimately left the primary versus caucus matter up to the states (in order to best tailor a process at the state level). 
6. The amendment is less forceful on the parameters of discussion on participation in the nomination process. The commission's charter only calls for the development of recommendations that "encourage" increased involvement in the process. In the end, the directive on what essentially boils down to an open versus closed primary discussion is more passive. The Sanders proxies on the commission will likely push for something promoting more open primaries, but historically the DNC (and the RNC for that matter) have remained mostly hands-off on this matter, deferring to the states. [NOTE: This question is certainly more difficult to deal with considering both major national parties are being pulled in opposite directions on the matter. Sanders supporters are advocating for more open primaries, while the liberty faction within the Republican Party are aiming for a more closed process. That potentially mixed message will be more likely produce mixed results if and when either party moves more forcefully on any recommendations on this front.] 
7. While the open primaries mandate was passive, the part of the amendment devoted to superdelegates had more teeth to it. In any event, there was more clarity as to the specifics of the superdelegates mandate of the commission. While the group will broadly consider the superdelegates' role in the process, it will specifically recommend that elected officials -- Democratic members of Congress, governors and distinguished party leaders (presidents, vice presidents, etc.) -- remain as unpledged delegates. However, the second part of the recommendation shifts the remaining superdelegates (approximately two-thirds of them) out of the unpledged category and into a pledged territory (to be proportionally pledged/bound based on the results of primaries and caucuses). [NOTE A: Again, these are recommendations. The URC can go over the heads of the Rules and Bylaws Committee if it does not adopt any part of the commission's recommendations, but it cannot necessarily force the full DNC to adopt these rules. If the commission is near unanimous in its recommendations, that may make any inaction on the part of the RBC or DNC more difficult. And ultimately, that issue circles back around to the membership of the committee. If they are divided from the start, they will likely be somewhat divided at the end, issuing recommendations that are less clear and less likely to be ratified by the DNC.] [NOTE B: The specificity of this superdelegate section of the unity amendment presented to the Rules Committee moves in the direction of what the Sanders campaign wants: curbing the influence of the unpledged delegates. But while it hypothetically reduces their number, it does not address the core problem Sanders and his supporters had with superdelegates. The root complaint was that a significant number of superdelegates endorsed Clinton in 2015 before any primary and caucus votes had been cast. There are potentially fewer superdelegates after this, but the pre-primary endorsement problem is and will still be an issue. The commission is not confined to just this action on superdelegates though. It has to make that recommendation, but can go beyond that on the matter.]
8. There is an additional section to the amendment dealing with expanding the party nationally that echoes not only what Sanders has said over the last year, but also is reminiscent of the Dean DNC's 50 state strategy. 
9. The main perceived problems of 2016 are addressed in the amendment, but the scope of the commission's actions can expand beyond those areas at the discretion of the chair and vice chair of the commission. The group can look at other parts of the rules behind the presidential nomination process. 

One thing that is an interesting side note to all of this is something hinted at above. This Unity Reform Commission will be active simultaneous to the newly created study panel that came out of the Republican National Convention Rules Committee in Cleveland. Each group will most certainly have an eye on the actions of the other and that will undoubtedly affect the recommendations that come out of either. A similar separated, bipartisan consideration of rules occurred after 2008. That resulted in the Democratic Change Commission and (Republican) Temporary Delegate Selection Committee finding common ground on problems like the frontloading of primaries and caucuses and the January start to primary season. That sort of unofficial semi-coordination could repeat itself in 2017, but that outcome is dependent on the two groups seeing common ground. That was clear with the calendar after 2008, but may not be with open versus closed primaries and other issues following 2016. 

In any event, it will make for an eventful 2017 on the rules front.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/23/16)

The Electoral College Map (7/21/16)

2016 Republican National Convention Presidential Nomination Roll Call Tally

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

The Electoral College Map (7/23/16)

Latest Update

Polling Quick Hits:
Michigan:
Polls in the Great Lakes state have spent the last couple of weeks or more narrowing. However, all of the oscillating the polling there has forced in the FHQ graduated weighted average has been confined exclusively within the boundaries of the Lean Clinton category (5-10 points). The latest survey from Mitchell Research does little to change that trend line. The secretary's +6 in the poll is on the lower end of that range, but is still within that range. Often talked about as a Republican takeover opportunity, Michigan is one of those states that narrows in the summer and gets left by the wayside in the fall once the campaigns narrow their focus to the most competitive battlegrounds. Michigan is there again in 2016, but the question now is whether it breaks from the above pattern from the last two or three cycles. So far the answer is no. It remains a reach for Trump at this point (just off the Watch List below).

NOTE: A description of the methodology behind the graduated weighted average of 2016 state-level polling that FHQ uses for these projections can be found here.

The Electoral College Spectrum1
HI-42 (7)	WA-12 (164)	NH-4 (253)	KS-6 (158)	LA-8 (55)
VT-3 (10)	NJ-14 (178)	PA-203 (273/285)	UT-6 (152)	SD-3 (47)
MD-10 (20)	WI-10 (188)	IA-6 (279/265)	AK-3 (146)	ND-3 (44)
RI-4 (24)	OR-7 (195)	FL-29 (308/259)	MO-10 (143)	ID-4 (41)
MA-11 (35)	NM-5 (200)	NC-15 (323/230)	IN-11 (133)	NE-5 (37)
CA-55 (90)	CT-7 (207)	OH-18 (341/215)	TX-38 (122)	AL-9 (32)
DE-3 (93)	ME-4 (211)	AZ-11 (197)	SC-9 (84)	KY-8 (23)
NY-29 (122)	CO-9 (220)	NV-6 (186)	TN-11 (75)	WV-5 (15)
IL-20 (142)	MI-16 (236)	GA-16 (180)	AR-6 (64)	OK-7 (10)
MN-10 (152)	VA-13 (249)	MS-6 (164)	MT-3 (58)	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 Pennsylvania (all Clinton's toss up states plus Pennsylvania), he would have 285 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 Pennsylvania 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.

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
Alaska	from Lean Trump	to Toss Up Trump
Arizona	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
Arkansas	from Strong Trump	to Lean Trump
Nevada	from Toss Up Trump	to Toss Up Clinton
New Hampshire	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
New Jersey	from Strong Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Pennsylvania	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
Tennessee	from Lean Trump	to Strong Trump
Utah	from Toss Up Trump	to Lean Trump
Virginia	from Toss Up Clinton	to Lean Clinton
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.

Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/21/16)

2016 Republican National Convention Presidential Nomination Roll Call Tally

The Electoral College Map (7/19/16)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

2016 Republican National Convention Presidential Nomination Roll Call Tally

Roll Call Tally from Day Two of the 2016 Republican National Convention (7/19/16)



--
Announced totals at the conclusion of the Roll Call of States (via Speaker Ryan)
Trump 1725
Cruz 475
Kasich 120
Rubio  114
Carson 7
Bush 3
Paul 2

That represents only 2446 delegates in total; 26 short of the 2472 delegates. The final count shorted Cruz and Rubio nine delegates, Kasich five delegates and did not account for the three abstentions.  That squares the 26 delegate discrepancy.


--
State tallies that differed from tallies called out by the Secretary of the Convention
Alaska
Secretary call:
Trump 28

Delegation call:
Trump 11
Cruz 12
Rubio 5

Explanation: Though it has been traditional for the Alaska Republican Party to grant the request by candidates who have dropped out to hold on to their delegates, that practice is not rules-based. Granting the requests of Cruz and Rubio is inconsistent with the reallocation process described in the Alaska Republican Party rules. That was the procedure that the Alaska Republican Party filed with the Republican National Committee in fall 2015 under the provisions of Rule 16(f).

(Washington) District of Columbia
Secretary call:
Trump 19

Delegation call:
Rubio 10
Kasich 9

Explanation: Under the bylaws of the Republican Party in the District of Columbia, if only one name is placed in nomination at the convention, then all of the delegates from the district are bound to that candidate. Although Rubio and Kasich were the only candidates to qualify for delegates in March 12 convention in the nation's capital, neither had his name placed in nomination at the national convention. Under rule, then, that shifted all of 19 delegates to Trump.

Nevada
Secretary call:
Trump 14
Rubio 7
Cruz 6
Carson 2
Kasich 1

Delegation call:
Trump 16
Rubio 7
Cruz 6
Kasich 1

Explanation: The Nevada Republican Party rules allow several options to candidates who have dropped out. Candidates can have their delegates reallocated to candidates still in the race, release them to be unbound or hold on to them. Reporting from Nevada was that Carson opted to release those delegates and that they had subsequent to that aligned with Trump. The Secretary, nonetheless, called out the original allocation based on the February caucus results.

Utah
Secretary call:
Trump 40

Delegation call:
Cruz 40

Explanation: Like Alaska and Washington, DC, the rules of the Utah Republican Party include provisions for the reallocation of delegates following a candidate dropping out of the race for the nomination. Once Cruz discontinued campaigning after the Indiana primary in early May, his 40 Utah delegates, by rule, were reallocated to the only remaining candidate in the race, Trump.


--
State Tallies Different from the FHQ Bound Count (Changes compared to the data in the spreadsheet above)
Arkansas:
Trump +9
Rubio -9

Colorado:
Trump +4
Cruz +1
Abstain +2

American Samoa (all unbound to begin):
Trump +9

Guam (all unbound to begin):
Trump +9

Iowa:
Trump +23
Cruz -8
Rubio - 7
Carson -3
Bush -1
Fiorina -1
Huckabee -1
Kasich -1
Paul -1
* If only one name is placed in nomination, then all of the delegates from the Hawkeye state go to that candidate under Iowa GOP rules.

Louisiana:
Trump +13
Rubio -5
Cruz -3
Uncommitted -5

Michigan:
Trump +26
Cruz - 11
Kasich -15

Missouri:
Trump +4
Cruz -4

North Dakota (all unbound to begin):
Trump +21
Cruz +6
Carson +1

Oklahoma:
Trump +11
Cruz +4
Rubio -12
Uncommitted -3

Oregon:
Trump +5
Kasich -5

Pennsylvania (54 unbound to begin):
Trump +53
Cruz +1

Vermont:
Trump +5
Paul +2
Kasich -7

Washington:
Trump +3
Uncommitted -3

West Virginia:
Trump +4
Uncommitted -3
Kasich -1

Wyoming:
Trump +2
Kasich +2
Uncommitted -4

NOTE: FHQ would speculate that most of the movement above is a function of delegates becoming unbound under the release procedures called for in state party rules. Delegate selection is key thereafter. In most cases, those delegates moved toward the presumptive nominee, Trump. In other states, the movement was toward Trump and others. A third group that could be added to fill this picture out is states whose delegations opted to follow the original allocation results. All of this is speculative, however, and requires following up.


--
Roll Call of States Sequence
Rule 37 calls for an alphabetical sequence, but 1) allows states to pass and 2) the 2016 convention agreed without objection to allow New York (presumptive nominee Trump's home state) to go out of turn (in order to allow the Empire state tally to put Trump over the 50% mark in terms of delegates required to win the nomination).

The roll call went in that order with only a few exceptions:
Michigan passed and moved to the end of the roll as called for in Rule 37.
Pennsylvania deferred to New York (see above) and moved to the end of the roll.

Once Wyoming finished the original alphabetical sequence, the roll call moved back to Michigan and then Pennsylvania in that order.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/19/16)

Thoughts on a Motion to Suspend the Rules on the Presidential Nomination Roll Call

The Electoral College Map (7/18/16)

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Thoughts on a Motion to Suspend the Rules on the Presidential Nomination Roll Call

In the wake of the defeated attempt to force a roll call vote on the rules package at the Republican National Convention -- summary from FHQ forthcoming -- there have been a number of questions and comments lobbed FHQ's way about the possibility of a suspension of the rules on the nomination roll call vote on the second night of the convention. Let's look at this from a few angles.

First, under the Rules of the US House of Representatives, a suspension of the rules is typically a maneuver to streamline the consideration of legislation. It is a tool used to move non-controversial legislation through the body quickly. This was the context in which Jonathan Bernstein and I were talking about it last night as things wrapped up in Cleveland. In other words, given how day one progressed -- the afternoon portion anyway -- Trump forces and the Republican National Committee may have some interest in skipping the roll call. Passing over that step would likely to voting on the nomination by acclamation as the convention will do for the vice presidential nomination and similar to what Democrats did in the midst of their 2008 nomination roll call vote.

Again, the streamlining function is the usual usage of a suspension of the rules. Yet, another way of looking at it is as a delay tactic; a move like the attempted roll call petition on day one. In both cases, the intention was or could be to slow down a Trump nomination and embarrass the presumptive nominee at his own convention. As described in Rule 32 of the Rules of the Republican Party a motion to suspend the rules is always in order and requires first the support of a majority of delegates in one state, but that it be seconded by the majority of delegates in seven additional states.

Now, if one followed the proceedings from Cleveland on day one, one might be tempted to say, "Here we go again." Indeed, that eight state barrier is awfully reminiscent of the seven state barrier mandated in Rule 39 to force a roll call vote. This means that the result is a battle of the wills to some extent.

Do delegates defeated last Thursday in the Rules Committee and again on their attempt at a symbolic roll call vote on the rules package on the floor want to go through another likely loss? How much is that worth to them?

Do Team Trump and the RNC want another situation where they have the numbers on their side, but once again risk appearing heavy-handed quashing yet another attempted rebellion on national television?

Those are tough questions to answer; known unknowns if one will. But there are a few other pieces to this puzzle to throw out there.

First, Free the Delegates' ringleader, Kendal Unruh (CO), was not terribly specific in her comments after the failed roll call attempt about next steps. The direction she did provide seemed to be focused more on delegate challenges to the (intra-delegation) roll call tallies allowed under Rule 37(b). That, however, is a dead end given Rule 16(a)(2) and the changes to Rule 37(b). Those challenges will go nowhere.

Second, Rule 32 only describes the procedure for making a motion to suspend the rules. Not wordy in the first place, the rule is silent on what comes next. That would imply that the US House rules fill the void.  In the House, the standard operating procedure following a motion to suspend the rules is limited debate and a vote on the motion. To pass, the motion would need to receive the support of  two-thirds of the body.

Again, this is exactly what happened in Denver in 2008 during the roll call vote for the Democratic nomination. Then-Senator Clinton made a motion to suspend the rules, stop the roll call (but still count the votes) and nominate then-Senator Barack Obama by acclamation. But that was an attempt at party unity. In the context of the 2016 Republican National Convention, such a motion -- particularly on the part of Trump and the RNC -- would produce the exact opposite effect; further deepening the divide within the convention if not the broader party.

Look, Trump and the RNC want their roll call, but at what cost. The question for day two may end up being how willing they are to put up with (what they will view as) further delay maneuvers that do not represent the majority of delegates. Given that the majority of delegates behind any attempted delays have been and are Cruz supporters and that their standard bearer has been no stranger to thumbing his nose at (parliamentary) business as usual, the Trump forces and RNC may have their hands forced one more time.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/18/16)

The Electoral College Map (7/17/16)

Five Takeaways from the 2016 Convention Rules Committee Meeting

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.