Back in January, FHQ, discussing prospective primary movement during the 2019 state legislative sessions convening across the country, highlighted the group of mid-Atlantic/northeastern states that have seeming settled in late April since the 2012 cycle. Under Democratic control, states like Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New York and Rhode Island not only moved away from February presidential primary dates leftover from the 2008 cycle, but moved deeper into the calendar for the 2012 cycle and have stayed there.
That made more sense in 2012 when Barack Obama was seeking renomination on the Democratic side -- the stakes were lower and the costs of a later primary less -- but that group of Acela corridor states maintained their April positions despite an open nomination in 2016. Now, it could be argued that during the time that primary date changes were being considered by state legislatures in 2015, Hillary Clinton was a prohibitive favorite to win the 2016 nomination. States with Democrats in control of state government, in turn, may have been less likely to make any changes to the presidential primary date.
But the outlook for the 2020 nomination is and has been a wide open race. Yet, in none of those states, save New York (which operates under a unique set of circumstances), have made any moves toward a presidential primary change. All has been quiet. And that silence typically will signal no primary movement.
However, there has been an additional signal out of Delaware. No, there is no proposed presidential primary date change, but for the second consecutive state legislative session in the First state, there is an effort underway to attempt to align the September primaries for state and local offices with the presidential primary in April. HB 89 passed the state House in Delaware in 2017, but died in the state Senate. And now in 2019, HB 41, a nearly identical proposal, has so far followed a similar trajectory. The plan to consolidate state primaries with the April presidential primary flew through the state House in January, but has again hit the wall in the state Senate.
The legislative session adjourns in June and the bill still has time to work its way through the state Senate, but the proposed move is less important for the move than it is for the anchor point on the calendar.1 Linking those primaries for state and local offices to the presidential primary in Delaware is the clearest active effort among those April Acela primary state signaling a non-movement. The others have been more passive at this point.
As of now, Delaware is scheduled to have an April 28 presidential primary on the latter half of the 2020 presidential primary calendar.
--
1 Delaware was a late mover in 2011, the last time the state shifted its presidential primary date. That legislation was passed toward the end of the legislative session that cycle.
Showing posts with label Delaware. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Delaware. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Monday, October 3, 2016
The Electoral College Map (10/3/16)
New State Polls (10/3/16)1
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
9/27-9/29
|
+/- 4.0%
|
602 likely voters
|
44
|
33
|
6
|
+11
|
--
| |
Colorado
|
9/29-10/2
|
+/- 4.9%
|
400 likely voters
|
49
|
38
|
3
|
+11
|
+4.24
| |
Delaware
|
9/16-9/28
|
+/- 4.1%
|
762 likely voters
|
51
|
30
|
9
|
+11
|
+13.60
| |
Florida
|
9/27-10/2
|
+/- 4.2%
|
545 likely voters
|
46
|
41
|
5
|
+5
|
+2.13
| |
North Carolina
|
9/27-10/2
|
+/- 4.4%
|
507 likely voters
|
46
|
43
|
3
|
+3
|
--
| |
North Carolina
|
9/29-10/2
|
+/- 3.5%
|
805 likely voters
|
46
|
45
|
5
|
+1
|
+1.14
| |
Ohio
|
9/27-10/2
|
+/- 4.4%
|
497 likely voters
|
42
|
47
|
4
|
+5
|
+0.46
| |
Pennsylvania
|
9/27-10/2
|
+/- 4.2%
|
535 likely voters
|
45
|
41
|
6
|
+4
|
+4.86
| |
Virginia
|
9/27-9/30
|
+/- 3.7%
|
892 likely voters
|
42
|
35
|
3
|
+7
|
+5.73
| |
1Includes latest wave (9/9-9/29) of Ipsos/Reuters polls from the majority of states.
| |||||||||
Polling Quick Hits:
The new work week began with nine new surveys from seven states and another wave of the Ipsos/Reuters States of the Nation polls.
Colorado:
| Changes (October 3) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | Lean Clinton | Strong Clinton | |
Delaware:
Delaware has been lightly polled this cycle -- it always is -- and while Clinton leads, she is overall well behind Obama's 2012 mark in the First state. To be clear, Trump lags Romney from four years ago as well, but by about half as much a Clinton relative to Obama. However, this latest poll from the University of Delaware finds a margin similar to that of the final result in the state in 2012. In other words, Delaware is still a blue state.
Florida:
As strange as it is to see it, Quinnipiac, at this point in the race, finds Clinton up five points in Florida and Trump five points ahead in Ohio. Now, there are certainly some unique (to 2016) demographic reasons why that it is, but it is something to see Florida on the Democratic side of Ohio on the Electoral College Spectrum below. That order has tended to be in reverse -- Ohio to the Democratic side of Florida -- during the Obama era and even stretching back to 2004. But both quadrennial battleground states have consistently fallen in this order since before the conventions.
What is noteworthy about the Florida polling during the back half of September is that both candidates have risen into the 40s, but Clinton has more consistently pushed into the mid-40s with Trump just behind in the low to mid-40s. The Q-poll fits that trend.
North Carolina:
Two polls in North Carolina and two narrow Clinton leads. Like Florida, both candidates have clearly established footholds in the 40s; the mark, perhaps, of the most highly contested states (where third party support is flagging to some extent). The race in the Tar Heel state is close, but the trading of narrow leads there has been displaced with a run of Clinton leads in polls in the field after the first debate a week ago. She already held a very small lead there, but this has solidified it.
Ohio:
This is the one spot of red in an otherwise blue day of poll releases. Whereas Florida saw a tied last Quinnipiac survey give way to a five point Clinton advantage now, the Ohio trendline across Q-polls has moved in the opposite direction. A modest Trump edge in the Buckeye state earlier in the month has become a slightly wider lead now. But that shift occurred in the midst of a continued volatile series of surveys in the state. Ohio remains on the Clinton side of the partisan line here at FHQ, but by less than half a point. Only Nevada is closer.
Pennsylvania:
FHQ could dig into the Q-poll from Pennsylvania, but the story is really the same as it has been there: Clinton is ahead and by a margin that continues to hover around the Lean/Toss Up line.
...which is where the last Quinnipiac poll was (and a great many others have been of late).
Virginia:
Finally, in the Old Dominion, yet another survey -- this one from Christopher Newport -- sees Clinton ahead by six to eight points. That has been the established range there both before and after the first debate. Both candidates gained over their positions in the school's poll from last week, but the story is still the same there.
--
The addition of these nine polls plus the Ipsos data did little to fundamentally alter the outlook here at FHQ. The electoral count remains unchanged and only Oregon change categories, pushing to the strong side of the Strong/Lean line. There were some subtle moves on the Electoral College Spectrum, but outside of Delaware and New Jersey, nothing was more than a cell or two in one direction or the other. The Watch List was more active. Notably, Iowa came back on while Maine dropped off. Both shifted in Clinton's direction.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
NJ-14
(172)
|
PA-20
(263)
|
SC-9
(154)
|
MT-3
(53)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
OR-7
(179)
|
CO-94
(272 | 275)
|
TX-38
(145)
|
AR-6
(50)
|
VT-3
(20)
|
RI-4
(183)
|
FL-29
(301 | 266) |
MS-6
(107)
|
ND-3
(44)
|
CA-55
(75)
|
MN-10
(193)
|
NC-15
(316 | 237) |
AK-3
(101)
|
NE-53
(41)
|
MA-11
(86)
|
ME-23
(195)
|
OH-18
(334 | 222)
|
KS-6
(98)
|
KY-8
(36)
|
NY-29+13
(116)
|
NM-5
(200)
|
NV-6
(340 | 204)
|
IN-11
(92)
|
AL-9
(28)
|
IL-20
(136)
|
WI-10
(210)
|
IA-6
(198)
|
UT-6
(81)
|
WV-5
(19)
|
DE-3
(139)
|
MI-16
(226)
|
AZ-11
(192)
|
LA-8
(75)
|
OK-7
(14)
|
CT-7
(146)
|
VA-13
(239)
|
GA-16
(181)
|
SD-3
(67)
|
ID-4
(7)
|
WA-12
(158)
|
NH-4
(243)
|
MO-10+13
(165)
|
TN-11
(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 275 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 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above. 4 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
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Colorado
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Iowa
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Michigan
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Mississippi
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Nevada
|
from Toss Up Clinton
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
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 Toss Up Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Rhode Island
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Strong Clinton
| |
Virginia
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (10/2/16)
The Electoral College Map (10/1/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/30/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
The Electoral College Map (7/28/16)
If Wednesday brought red state polls, (late Wednesday and early) Thursday brought a series of surveys from traditionally blue states.
California
One could look at the new PPIC survey of California and at first glance see Clinton up 16 points before moving on. That isn't the wrong conclusion. However, there are a couple of factors to point out about this one. First, both Clinton and Trump dropped relative to their positions in the last poll from PPIC in May. And it should come as no surprise that the reason is due to the addition of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Second, the addition of the third party candidates is noteworthy because they hit Trump more than Clinton from May to July.
This is a phenomenon worth keeping tabs on. Some have found the third party candidates drawing more from Clinton in national polls and there have been hints of a similar trend in battleground state polling as well. Still, there are not a lot of surveys out of reliably red and blue states at this point. That raises some potentially interesting questions. Notably, if the California trend holds elsewhere, does that mean minority partisans are more likely to consider their options while majority partisans stick with the presumptive statewide winner? Yes, yes. It the in-house transition from one poll to another, but it poses an interesting question.
Delaware:
Further east, Fairleigh Dickinson has the first look at the state of the race in the First state. Like polling in other states, the picture is one of the two major party nominees underperforming their counterparts from 2012. The undecided number is high (12 percent) as is the support in the survey going to Johnson and other (14 percent). Together, that represents a big chunk of the respondents in the poll. Nonetheless, the earliest glance at Delaware is one that has it within the Strong Clinton category at FHQ.
Oregon:
Back west in the Beaver state, Clout Research weighs in with another poll. Clout is the only survey shop to show Trump close in Oregon. And as was the case with the California poll above, the addition of third party candidates from May to July has weighed on Trump support more than Clinton's. It is still close through Clout's lens, but Trump's narrow May lead is now a small deficit (3 points) in July with Johnson and Stein included. Comparatively, the other polls in the state are more generous to Clinton, showing a wider margin more in line with where Oregon has ended up in November's past.
Pennsylvania:
The only true battleground state survey of the day comes from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Suffolk's first trip into the field there shows a Clinton lead (+9) consistent with the recent results from NBC/Marist. But while it is a bit rosier in the wider context of polling in the Keystone state, that may be a function of the data being gathered during the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. What is certain is that the poll further solidified Pennsylvania's position just inside the Toss Up Clinton category here at FHQ. It is locked in a cluster with New Hampshire and Virginia -- two states that displaced Pennsylvania as the tipping points in the electoral college spectrum -- just a fraction of a point from the Lean Clinton category (see Watch List below).
Vermont:
It is hard to know where to start with the initial poll of the Green Mountain state from VPR/Castleton. It is hard not to notice that Clinton is running about 30 points behind Obama 2012 in Vermont. But, but the same token, it is just as difficult not to see that Trump is in third in the state behind both Clinton and "someone else". Then again, it is also not a stretch of the imagination to determine who might be the stand-in for "someone else" for most respondents in this poll. Although he is not named, favorite son, Bernie Sanders is very likely depressing that Clinton number as the nomination process comes to an official close this week.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
NJ-14
(175)
|
VA-133
(269 | 282)
|
UT-6
(158)
|
LA-8
(55)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
DE-3
(178)
|
NH-43
(273 | 269)
|
AK-3
(152)
|
SD-3
(47)
|
RI-4
(21)
|
WI-10
(188)
|
IA-6
(279 | 265) |
IN-11
(149)
|
ND-3
(44)
|
MA-11
(32)
|
NM-5
(193)
|
FL-29
(308 | 259) |
MO-10
(138)
|
ID-4
(41)
|
VT-3
(35)
|
OR-7
(200)
|
NC-15
(323 | 230)
|
TX-38
(128)
|
NE-5
(37)
|
CA-55
(90)
|
CT-7
(207)
|
OH-18
(341 | 215)
|
KS-6
(90)
|
AL-9
(32)
|
NY-29
(119)
|
ME-4
(211)
|
AZ-11
(197)
|
TN-11
(84)
|
KY-8
(23)
|
IL-20
(139)
|
CO-9
(220)
|
NV-6
(186)
|
SC-9
(73)
|
WV-5
(15)
|
MN-10
(149)
|
MI-16
(236)
|
GA-16
(180)
|
AR-6
(64)
|
OK-7
(10)
|
WA-12
(161)
|
PA-20
(256)
|
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 Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 282 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 New Hampshire and Virginia are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Virginia and Trump, New Hampshire, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College. | ||||
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.
*Due to the way in which states with no polling are treated in 2016 by FHQ -- uniform swing -- South Carolina has seen its "average" rise. In the last month, as more polling data has been accrued, that average uniform swing has shrunk from nearly three points to just a shade more than one point toward Clinton. That development has pushed South Carolina closer to the Strong Trump category and onto 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
| |
South Carolina
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
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 (7/27/16)
2016 Democratic National Convention Presidential Nomination Roll Call Tally
The Electoral College Map (7/26/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: DELAWARE
This is part forty 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.
Election type: primary
Date: April 26
Number of delegates: 16 [10 at-large, 3 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: winner-take-all
Threshold to qualify for delegates: n/a
2012: winner-take-all primary
--
Changes since 2012
The aim often in states with small delegations is to maximize the impact of a contest by using winner-take-all rules (rather than proportionally dividing up a small number of delegates). That had traditionally been the case during competitive Republican cycles with the primaries in Washington, DC as well as in Delaware. Republicans in the First state were able to continue that tradition in 2012 when Democrats in control of the state government moved the primary from early February to late April. The late April date fell outside of the proportionality window and allowed Delaware Republicans to allocate the full allotment of delegates to the winner.
That has been the way of things in Delaware stretching back to 1996 when the Delaware primary was created. It was winner-take-all in 2012 and will be again in 2016. That is a long way of saying that nothing has changed in Delaware for the 2016 cycle.
Well, one thing has changed. Rather than allocating 17 delegates as was the case four years ago, First state Republicans will only allocate 16 delegates to the winner of the April 26 primary.
Thresholds
As Delaware is a winner-take-all contest -- the fourth on the calendar and first since Arizona -- there are no thresholds to qualify for delegates.
Delegate allocation (at-large, congressional district and automatic delegates)
This, too, is easy enough to interpret. At a minimum, the plurality winner of the Delaware primary will be allocated all 16 of the national convention delegates apportioned to the state by the RNC.
Binding
According to Article XI, Section 3 of the the Delaware Republican Party bylaws:
"On the first ballot for the National Party's presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention, each delegate or alternate entitled to vote shall vote for the candidate who wins a plurality of the votes cast in the presidential primary..."The only exception to that is in the event that the winning candidate in Delaware withdraws from the race prior to the convention and/or releases his or her delegates. In that case, the rules unbind the delegates, allowing them to vote for a candidate of their preference. However, given that the Delaware primary is on the back half of the calendar and the field of candidates has winnowed, it is less likely that the winner will relinquish his delegates prior to the first ballot vote.
A slate of 16 delegates is selected by the Delaware Republican Party Executive Committee, presented to and voted on by the state convention. Importantly, Article XI, Section 4 of the state party bylaws states that, "Presidential candidates shall not nominate or propose any delegates or alternate delegates."
As such, Delaware is another example of a state where the candidates and their campaigns have no direct influence over the delegate selection process. In fact, in Delaware, the candidates are at the mercy of the state party with respect to the selection process.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Race to 1144: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Primary
Source:
Contest Delegates (via contest results and rules, and RNC)
Automatic Delegates (Democratic Convention Watch)
Delegate breakdown (post-CT, DE, NY, PA & RI primaries):
Changes since Minnesota and Missouri district conventions (4/21/12):
- Romney: +150 delegates (New York: +92, Connecticut: +25, Delaware: +17, Rhode Island: +12, Pennsylvania: +3, Virgin Islands: +1)
- Santorum: +/- 0 delegates
- Paul: +4 delegates (Rhode Island: +4)
- Gingrich: +/- 0 delegates
1) It should be noted that the delegates are difficult to classify in both Nevada and Vermont as both sets of automatic delegates are bound and proportionally allocated with either all of the delegates (Nevada) or with the at-large delegates (Vermont). Those six delegates are in the bound/pledged category in the spreadsheet above but are considered "contest delegates" in the bar chart at the top. It would not be surprising to see those six delegates among those who signed pledges to Romney at the RNC meeting in Scottsdale this past week when and if that list is made public.
2) Mitt Romney swept the delegates in New York (statewide and across all 29 congressional districts), Connecticut (statewide and across all 5 congressional districts) and Delaware.
3) In Rhode Island, Mitt Romney won 63% of the vote and 75% of the total, non-automatic delegates at stake. Ron Paul won 24% of the vote and qualified for delegates by surpassing the 15% threshold for receiving delegates. That netted the Texas congressman 4 delegates; 25% of the total, non-automatic delegates.
4) Pennsylvania is a bit tricky. Though delegates are unbound, some have expressed a presidential preference. The Romney site points to previous endorsements from three delegates directly elected in the primary on Tuesday (see Gerlach, Shuster and English). Additionally, the Ron Paul site has an official list of Pennsylvania delegates that identifies five of the 59 delegates elected on Tuesday are aligned with Paul. The Newt Gingrich site has no such endorsements. However, Gingrich-related sites do have lists of delegates aligned with those candidates. There is also another fabulous thread on another conservative site that breaks this down in even greater detail. The numbers there do jibe well with the Romney, Paul and Gingrich site endorsements. That count -- which FHQ will wait until it is independently verified -- would yield Romney 26 delegates (which counts the four in the spread sheet above), Paul 5, Gingrich 3 and Santorum 2 (or 3). Another 12 or 13 delegates are uncommitted while 10 more are county party-endorsed candidates, former national delegates or alternates or elected officials. That latter group is obviously made up of more establishment/elite figures within the Pennsylvania Republican Party.
5) Mitt Romney has also picked up the lone remaining uncommitted delegate (of two originally) in the Virgin Islands, giving the former Massachusetts governor 8 total delegates in the territory. Thanks to Matthew Wilder Tanner for the link.
6) Two of the unpledged delegates coming out of the Colorado conventions a week ago are Ron Paul supporters. Don't be surprised when and if more of the other 12 unpledged Colorado delegates reveal themselves to be aligned with Paul. If anyone has links to any of these delegates revealing their preferences, please feel free to forward them to me in the comments section.
7) The allocation of the delegates in Georgia is based on the most recent vote returns published online by the office of the Georgia Secretary of State. The allocation here differs from the RNC allocation in Georgia. The above grants Gingrich one additional delegate (which has been taken from Romney's total). Due to the way the Georgia Republican Party rounds fractional delegates, the FHQ count was off by one delegate (+Romney/-Gingrich). The congressional district count is unaffected (Gingrich 31, Romney, 8 and Santorum 3), but the way the at-large delegates are allocated to Gingrich and Romney -- the only candidates over 20% statewide -- is a bit quirky. Gingrich's portion of the vote would have entitled him to 14.6 delegates and Romney's 8.0. Under Georgia Republican rules, Gingrich is given 14 delegates and Romney 8. That leaves nine delegates unclaimed because the remaining candidates did not clear the 20% threshold. The candidate with the highest "remainder" is awarded the first delegate and the candidates over 20% trade turns until all of those delegates are allocated. Remember, Gingrich did not round up to 15 delegates (14.6), but that 0.6 gives him a larger "remainder" than Romney. The former speaker, then, is allocated the first of nine delegates. With an odd number of delegates leftover, Gingrich would have a fifth turn after Romney's fourth and that would end the allocation of those "extra" delegates. Gingrich would claim five to Romney's four. Of the 31 at-large delegates, Gingrich is allocated 19 and Romney 12. Please note that for winning the statewide vote, Gingrich is allocated the three automatic delegates. That makes the final allocation Gingrich 53, Romney 20 and Santorum 3. The RNC, though, has a different interpretation.
Recent Posts:
A Few Notes on the RNC Meeting and the 2016 Rules
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Pennsylvania
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Delaware
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)