2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Washington State

This is the thirteenth 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.


WASHINGTON

A few times in describing the delegate selection process in Republican caucus states FHQ has bemoaned the fact that often such an effort becomes an exercise in stating, "Just look back at Iowa." There is certainly some truth to that: a non-binding precinct-level caucus straw poll vote is taken with little or no discernible direct impact on the actual delegate selection process.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

So, yes, Washington Republicans on March 3 will hold precinct caucuses. And yes, the party will hold a non-binding presidential preference straw poll vote -- taken immediately when caucusgoers sign in at their caucus site -- that will have no direct bearing on the ultimate delegate selection process.² In fact, having signed in and cast their straw poll vote immediately, caucusgoers will have the option of just turning right back around and heading home. They will also have the alternative option -- an option the party is urging caucusgoers toward -- of sticking around for the delegate selection vote that "actually counts".

This is where it is important what the party and its caucus volunteers do at caucus sites across the state on March 3. Will voters be urged by the party/volunteers to stick around for the delegate selection vote or will that be left unsaid and left up to the candidates organizations to ensure? That's a potentially important question. The difference is mainly in the fact that a prompt is more likely to lessen the sort of ballot roll-off witnessed in previous caucuses where people will vote in the "up-ballot" straw poll but drop out on the "down-ballot" delegate selection vote. With a prompt, Santorum and Gingrich supporters may be more likely to linger. Prompt-less, the advantage would have to go to Ron Paul and his supporters and the Romney folks to the extent they have and are organizing in Washington.

A few notes on the Washington caucuses:
1) This is an open caucus. There is no party registration in Washington, so independents and Democrats are free to participate.
2) Though FHQ has said it a number of times, there are few if any delegate allocation rules changes in the states prior to Super Tuesday relative to their rules in 2008. Nevada bound their delegates based on the precinct caucuses -- a change from 2008. Washington state has similarly had a slight change in its delegate allocation in 2012. In 2008, the party split the allocation across both a primary and a caucus. But because the Washington state legislature canceled the 2012 presidential primary in its session last year, the delegate allocation will be handled solely through the caucus in 2012. The impact is that overall participation will likely be down, though with the absence of the primary, caucus attendance may be up relative to four years ago.
3) It is unclear to FHQ -- but perhaps our Washington Republican readers can weigh in -- as to whether there is other party business to be conducted at the precinct caucuses other than the selection of delegates after the straw poll vote. The time commitment required of caucusgoers matters. Supporter attrition following straw poll votes is probably the most underreported rules-based aspect of this race currently.

Washington Republican delegate snapshot:

• 43 total delegates
• 10 at-large delegates selected by the state convention delegates based on their stated presidential preference at the state convention.
• 30 congressional district delegates selected by the district convention delegates based on their stated presidential preference at the district conventions.
• 3 automatic delegates who remain unbound regardless of the outcome of the precinct-level straw poll vote or the state/district convention votes. 

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

² Incidentally, I have never been a fan of the Washington State Republican Party website. It is awful from my perspective because there is nothing on there about rules or the party constitution. But credit where credit is due: The WSRP has a fabulous Tumblr site for the 2012 caucuses. I am particularly pleased with the this answer in their Q&A in the FAQ:

Is my vote going to be made public?There are two parts to the caucus. When you sign in, you will be asked to state your presidential preference - this will be considered your vote for the presidential straw poll. This vote will be a public vote in your caucus but it will not be made available to the general public. Then at the caucus you will undertake the important business of electing delegates. This is your vote that actually counts. The Straw poll is just a snapshot of who caucus attendees support, but the ultimate determiner of which candidates wins Washington’s delegates will be the delegates elected at the precincts caucuses. [emphasis FHQ's]

Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Arizona

Missouri Republicans Will Caucus Both Before and After March 17

A Very Rough Estimate of the Republican Delegate Math Ahead, Part Two

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

Race to 1144: Maine Republican Caucuses (Updated Count)

The Maine Republican Party on Friday released an updated vote count to account for clerical errors made during the initial vote tabulation in the lead up to and on February 11. It was a then that the final set of caucuses to be included the count were to be held and numbers submitted to the state party. The Friday additions to the count increased Mitt Romney's lead from 194 votes over runner up, Ron Paul, to 239.

The February 18 caucuses in Washington County -- originally scheduled for February 11, but postponed because of inclement weather last weekend -- did little to change the order of or overall result.  Paul won the caucuses in the county with 163 votes (to 80 for Romney, 57 for Santorum, 4 for Gingrich and another 2 for other candidates) and potentially cut the Romney lead -- established Friday -- by a third. That vote may or may not be added to the Friday count. Washington County's inclusion in the overall, statewide tabulation is dependent upon a vote to take place at a March 10 meeting of Maine Republican Party Executive Committee. The outcome yesterday -- with little impact to the original count -- made the case for inclusion much easier for the party and may also increase pressure on the state party to add the numbers from the other post-February 11 caucus meetings. That is especially true considering those areas accounted for just 35 votes in the 2008 caucuses.

If goes without saying at this point -- if you have been a regular FHQ reader -- that this is all non-binding. While the precinct caucuses choose delegates from among their attendees to the district/state conventions there is no party rule that dictates the percentage of those delegates -- under proportional or winner-take-all rules -- who are bound to any candidate. Even then Maine's 24 delegates will go to the national convention unbound though they may carry personal preference for a candidate with them. The overall delegate count remains unchanged.


Recent Posts:
Guam Republicans to Select Delegates at March 10 Convention

A Very Rough Estimate of the Republican Delegate Math Ahead, Part One

A Follow Up on the Maine Republican Caucuses

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

A Follow Up on the Maine Republican Caucuses

A great many folks have happened upon FHQ's "No Conspiracy in Maine" post from last Sunday throughout the week, and apparently have felt obligated to either push back against that notion and/or fill me in on all the news that has subsequently come out on the matter. Grant me a few follow up comments:

1. First of all, that post was written on Sunday morning; the morning following the release of the caucus results by Pine Tree state Republicans. The main premise of the piece was to point out that looking back at 2008 caucus turnout, there simply weren't enough votes in either Washington County -- the one county with a grievance in all of this vote counting because of its scheduled-on-time-but-postponed meeting -- or the remaining caucus areas that will either caucus this weekend or on March 3. Even if the vote totals from 2008 were adjusted to reflect the rise in turnout statewide in 2012 relative to 2008 (152 votes), it still would not have provided enough votes -- if split among candidates -- to put any candidate ahead of Mitt Romney. Even if Ron Paul was able to win all those votes, he still would have come up short.

Now, it should be noted that by taking the stand that it did -- that only caucuses on or before February 11 would be counted -- MEGOP raised the stakes in Washington County in particular, increasing the likelihood that more caucusgoers in that area could be mobilized in a way that overperformed the increase in turnout witnessed elsewhere in the state relative to 2008.

2. To that end, the Maine Republican Party has attempted to defuse the situation:

AUGUSTA, ME -Today the Executive Committee of the Maine State Republican Party met to discuss the Presidential Preference Poll results and have approved the following statement from Chairman Charlie Webster. 

“We have worked diligently to contact town chairmen throughout Maine to reconfirm the results of their individual caucuses. These totals once confirmed will be posted on the Maine Republican Party Web site 

All Republicans are keenly aware of the intense interest in the results of the Maine Republican Party Presidential Preference Poll. In fact, I have had numerous conversations with Senate President Kevin Raye and Washington County Commissioner Chris Gardner regarding their concerns that the Washington County poll results be included in our final tally. As a result of these conversations I called a meeting of the Executive Committee to discuss this matter. 

The results of the Washington County caucus will be reviewed at the March 10 Republican State Committee Meeting. The Executive Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the State Committee that they include the results in the final tally for the Presidential Preference Poll as their caucus had been scheduled to occur by the February 11 deadline, however it was postponed due to inclement weather.” -- MEGOP press release "Chairman Webster Meets with Maine Republican Party Executive Committee", 2/16/12

Regardless, a new vote total showing the Romney lead increasing by a "not significant number" is expected from the party today that should remedy the "spam folder" votes that were never counted. Now, whether that lessens or increases the turnout in Washington County and other areas tomorrow or on March 3 won't be known until later. But there is some ray of light in the above release that the Washington County votes may be added to the total when the Executive Committee meets again on March 10. [At that point why not just count the other areas as well?]

3. That question above gets us back to the rules to which the Maine Republican Party has stuck. A portion of the flak I have gotten over the Maine aftermath post was from Ron Paul folks arguing that FHQ was missing the point by focusing on past turnout and not the efforts that could be made to further mobilize in Washington County. Point well taken, but the idea of Washington County making the difference in the outcome was entirely dependent upon the Maine Republican Party backing off on its stubborn February 11 or before stance that excluded Washington County from the count. Now, that the party has seemingly backed off that stance -- or at least appeared open to considering the inclusion of those votes -- this is a non-issue unless and until the Washington County vote overperforms turnout elsewhere in the state and provides Paul with a margin that helps the Texas congressman surpass the 194+ vote margin Mitt Romney now has in the eyes of the Maine Republican Party.

4. As for the rest of the conspiracy theories that are and have been floating around out there, FHQ never really commented on those -- just the mathematically insignificant previous vote totals in the outlying areas yet to caucus. We'll (thankfully) defer to the Maine Republican Party on that matter.

But as I tweeted yesterday, we aren't likely to see any of those results rom Washington County or even the other areas until Super Tuesday -- or now later, given the March 10 Executive Committee meeting. By then the focus will have shifted to the state of the race for the Republican nomination after Super Tuesday and the other upcoming contests.


Recent Posts:
2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New York

April Primary Given the Heave Ho in Texas

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: Michigan

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

No Conspiracy in Maine

UPDATE (2/17/12): Please see our follow up post on Maine.

There was quite a bit of ex post facto finger pointing going on in the Twitterverse -- FHQ's tiny circle of it anyway -- last night after the Maine Republican caucuses results were released by the state party. There was a lot of handwringing over the -- according to Google Elections -- nearly 17% of precincts that were not reporting results last night. Now, the Maine Republican Party advised those localities holding caucus meetings to hold them between February 4-11. But as FHQ has pointed out, several areas caucused early and others will caucus on either February 18 or March 3. However, only those caucuses that were conducted on or before February 11 were -- and will be -- counted in the final straw poll count. Well, in a close election -- one decided by just 194 votes¹ -- having votes not counted in the straw poll from anywhere is a problem.

...on its face anyway.

But that leaves two unanswered questions:
1) Is not counting those caucuses in the final non-binding straw poll really a problem?
2) If so, how big of a problem is it?

Now, as is our custom, FHQ will avoid the normative question of whether caucus votes totals being excluded from the total straw poll vote should be viewed as a problem. That is a question that the Maine Republican Party is best positioned to answer. But the answer is pretty obvious as to why the totals are not being counted. [The problem is that it has not been explained all that adequately by the Maine Republican Party.]

How obvious? For that, let's glance back at the vote totals from the 2008 Maine Republican caucuses. [Here are the relevant localities isolated from the full dataset.] First of all, there is an equivalence issue here as the Maine Republican Party in 2008 reported total towns reporting and not the precincts reporting that Google, the AP and others are using in 2012. From the party's perspective, 95.95% (332 of 346) of all towns reported results in 2008. That denominator -- 346 towns -- is based on the number of towns that had announced caucuses.² FHQ does not know how much of an issue that is in the grand scheme of things in this case, but it is worth noting.

The towns yet to hold caucuses are in three counties -- Hancock, Kennebec and Washington. With the exception of Washington County -- where snowstorms postponed until February 18 caucuses that were originally scheduled for February 11 -- the sites within Hancock and Kennebec were previously scheduled outside of and after the window designated by the state party for holding caucuses. In other words, if there is a gripe about the certification of these results without certain areas, then the complaint about Washington County should be the loudest.

Still, combined, caucuses in those same areas -- if they had announced caucuses in 2008 -- only accounted for 148 total votes (out of 5431 votes statewide) four years ago.³ That's 2.7% of the total vote in 2008. More importantly, 113 of those 148 votes were in Washington County. Both totals are less than the margin by which Romney edge Paul last night in the straw poll.

Of course, as the Paul campaign pointed out last night, the straw poll is less important to them than the delegate count. Whether Paul is/was able to cobble together enough votes in the remaining precinct caucuses to pull ahead of Romney is not as important -- to the Paul campaign -- as is gobbling up delegate slots to the district/state conventions from not only those straw poll-excluded areas but statewide.

But back to the, uh, main questions: Were the Maine caucuses rigged as some are claiming? No. First of all, the Maine Republican Party did not go out of its way to single out these areas that will hold caucuses over the next two weeks to go later than everywhere else. The localities voluntarily opted for a time outside of that window, knowing that the state party planned to release straw poll numbers on February 11. Secondly, even if it was rigged, the state party could not have picked a collection of areas  less equipped to swing the election. Is it a problem that those areas will go later than the rest of the state? FHQ will leave that question to someone else. The bottom line is that Ron Paul could have won all the votes in those areas and still come up short in the straw poll. Now, having said that, the Paul campaign could certainly focus on dominating those caucuses over the next two weeks and gathering all the available district/state convention delegate slots.

--
¹ Eyeballing it, that looks like a small number, but the reality is that that 194 vote margin was enough to provide Mitt Romney with a fairly comfortable 3.5% victory in an election with 5585 votes cast. That is a level that would not trigger an automatic recount in a general election.

² One additional point of clarification needed here from the Maine Republican Party is whether towns with "announced" caucuses were states that held them on or before the February 1-3 window in which caucuses were held in 2008. If they were announced but perhaps after February 3, were they "announced" in the eyes of the party in the linked tabulation above? FHQ doesn't know. Whether there were any localities with caucuses after February 3 is also unknown.

³ Adjusting that 148 vote total from 2008 for the modest increase in turnout from 2008 to 2012 would only increase the total number of votes in these areas to 152 in 2012. Admittedly, that's a crude estimate, but it provides a decent baseline for comparison.


Recent Posts:
Race to 1144: Maine Caucuses

Idaho Bill Eliminating Presidential Primary Passes House

Don't Hold Your Breath: Caucus States Aren't Going Anywhere

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

Washington Republicans to Caucus on March 3

[Click to Enlarge]

The Washington State Republican Party has chosen to begin its delegate selection process on March 3 with precinct caucuses. A straw poll of presidential preference will be conducted at those meetings as well but the true delegate allocation -- as has been the case in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota and Wyoming -- will take place in subsequent steps in the process. In Washington, that will happen at the state convention in Tacoma during the first weekend in June. But like the rest of the caucus states above, Washington, too, will have a pre-window start to its delegate selection process, but avoid penalty due to the fact that no delegates are allocated at the precinct level.

Former Washington State Republican Party Chair Chris Vance had this to say about the Republican delegate selection in the Evergreen state:  

And where does Washington state fit in all of this?  With the cancellation of the primary election, 40 of our 43 national delegates will be allocated by the caucus/convention process.  Unlike the Democrats’ super delegate system, the only Republicans guaranteed a seat at the convention are members of the RNC. State Chairman Kirby Wilbur and our two National Committee members, therefore, are automatic delegates.  Everyone else has to get elected.

The process will start with precinct caucuses on Saturday, March 3.  Most county and legislative district party organizations are now choosing to pool multiple caucuses in public locations, such as high schools, rather than in people’s homes.  Any registered voter can attend a caucus as long as they are willing to sign a form pledging not to participate in any other party’s nomination process.  At each caucus two or three attendees will be elected as delegates to the next step in the process, which is the legislative district caucus in King County, the county convention in the rest of the state.

A presidential straw poll will be taken at the precinct caucuses and the state party will release the results.  Those results will be meaningless.  The straw poll will have nothing to do with who ultimately wins Washington’s delegates, but the media will announce a “winner” on March 3, just as they erroneously announced Pat Robertson as the winner in Washington state in 1988.

Notes:
Washington Republicans will caucus the Saturday before Super Tuesday in 2012. The party held precinct caucuses the Saturday after Super Tuesday in 2008.

There still is no official word of this from the WSRP, but this does follow a mention of the March 3 date in a Washington Times article last week and in the September message from the Kitsap County Republican Party chair. Of course, the official word is not entirely necessary other than to get some handle on when the decision was made. FHQ is still trying to determine that. We will share that information when and if it becomes available.

A tip of the cap to FHQ reader, MysteryPolitico for sharing the Washington Times article and Kitsap County links with us.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Secretary of State's office.

Recent Posts:

“Friday will be another significant day in this process.”

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (9/26/11)

Window Closing Sooner Rather Than Later on Moving Missouri Presidential Primary to March

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

Colorado Republican Precinct Caucuses Shifted Up to February 7

[Click to Enlarge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts:

Missouri Republican Party Takes a Proactive Approach to March Presidential Primary Bill

Ga. weighs when to set presidential primary

Calendar Correction Corner: Florida -- Not Surprisingly -- Will Wait as Long as It Can Before Deciding on a Presidential Primary Date

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

On Non-Binding Caucuses and Straw Polls

FHQ got a very astute email over the last weekend about the caucus procedure in Wyoming, and how FHQ categorizes some of the events on our calendar. Basically: Which ones make the cut and which ones don't? This is particularly problematic when it comes to the non-binding caucuses that are starting to pop up all over the early part of the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

Our policy here is that those contests matter. As I alluded to in the Colorado post in the wee hours of this morning, non-binding can be a misleading description. No, the results of the presidential preference straw polls that are held at the precinct level  are not binding on the ultimate allocation of delegates. If Romney were to get 60% of the vote in a precinct it would not necessarily mean that 60% of the delegates chosen in that precinct would move on to the county level. At the same time, it doesn't mean that those delegates are not aligned with or sympathetic to a particular candidate or campaign. It does not mean, then, that 60% of a precinct straw poll vote for Romney could not end up translating into no delegates to the county level or all the delegates from that precinct moving on to the county level. The two are not directly linked, but that doesn't mean that Romney and Perry and Paul and/or their surrogates are not working very hard to insure that their delegates are the ones to move to the next round.

In the end, yes, the delegates are not formally allocated until the state convention, but that doesn't mean that the fingerprints of the campaigns are not/have not been on the process from the precinct level on. It is a loophole in the Republican National Committee rules on delegate selection. Iowa and Nevada brought attention to that in 2008 and now a handful of state parties are using the rules -- not the toothless penalties in this case -- against the national party.

Having established that, one additional question remains from that aforementioned email: Why are Maine and Minnesota (and potentially Colorado) and their non-binding caucuses on the calendar and the precinct level straw polls planned for 10-25 days prior to the county caucuses in Wyoming not?¹ The answer is that it has to do with several reasons. First of all, with such a wide range of dates on which these straw polls can take place the potential campaign effects are not as clear -- at least from the candidates'/campaigns' perspectives -- as if the precinct straw polls were on one uniform date. Yes, that appears to be a nitpicky point, but there is a reason that caucus states tend to hold precinct-level events on one day, more often than not. It is more efficient for them and as it turns out for the campaigns as well.

Secondly, and this is the bigger point, the straw polls in Wyoming are in isolation of the delegate selection process in a way that they are not in, say, Minnesota. As I mentioned above, concurrent with the straw poll in Minnesota, there is a process of selecting delegates to represent the precinct at the county level going on. That is not the case in Wyoming. An unknown number of precinct committeepersons -- those who can take part in the straw poll -- were elected during the August 2010 primary in Wyoming. Now, there is a process whereby others can become committee members outside of the primary process, but it is unknown how many vacancies exist and whether there is a cap on the number of committee members in the first place. Additionally, there is no filtering from the precinct level to the county level in Wyoming. In other words, all of the precinct committeepersons move on to participate in the county caucuses where part of the Wyoming Republican delegation will be determined directly. So, there may be Romney, Bachmann, Perry and Paul supporters who are precinct committeepersons, but there is no jockeying among them for a reduced number of county-level delegates.

Think of it like a game of musical chairs. If you, hypothetically, have 50 precinct participants who are up and walking around while the music is playing and then forty chairs are removed before the music stops, ten people will then have seats and can move on to the county level. That would be what would happen in Maine or Minnesota or Colorado from the precinct to county levels. In Wyoming, though, all fifty chairs are still there when the music stops and all the precinct committee members move on to the next round of music playing at the county convention level. Then the chairs begin to be removed.

As a result, the candidates are much more likely to pay attention to the placement of campaign loyalists in precinct committeeperson positions during the invisible primary -- to the extent they can add to that total or fill out vacancies -- but not really revisit the idea of delegates in Wyoming until the caucuses kick off in March.

But those two very important factors are why FHQ does not include the straw polls in Wyoming on our calendar.²

--
¹ One additional point raised in the email was that FHQ mentioned early on that that 10-25 day barrier set up a range of dates for the precinct level straw polls to take place: from February 10-25. That is a range 10-25 days prior to the March 6 date on which the Wyoming county caucuses are set to begin. Recall, however, that some caucuses in Wyoming may not be able to be held until March 10. The guidelines in the Wyoming Republican Party delegate selection plan are fairly ambiguous in terms of how this 10-25 day time period is to be applied, and FHQ's initial range -- February 10-25 -- proves to be but one interpretation of what that range is supposed to be. Those later caucuses would, in another interpretation of the rules, have until February 29 to hold a precinct-level straw poll. Additionally, it appears as if the Wyoming Republican Party includes February 9 in the range of dates for these straw polls to take place. It is the party's set of rules, so FHQ defers to them. The dates on which the Wyoming Republican straw polls will take place is from February 9-29.

² That said, now that I've brought these straw polls up, I may be forced to include them.

Recent Posts:

Colorado Republicans Set to Vote on Moving Precinct Caucuses to February

Funding Still an Issue for South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Ohio Presidential Primary Back to March 6

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

Colorado Republicans Set to Vote on Moving Precinct Caucuses to February

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts:

Funding Still an Issue for South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Ohio Presidential Primary Back to March 6

Utah Presidential Primary Move to February or March Unlikely

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

Maine GOP to Caucus Between February 4-11

[Click to Enlarge]

The Maine Republican Party last weekend (Saturday, September 10) voted at their State Central Committee meeting to hold caucuses as a means of beginning the presidential delegate allocation process between Saturday, February 4 and Saturday, February 11.¹ Since the Maine process does not directly allocate delegates during the initial step of the caucus process, the state party will not be vulnerable to the half delegation penalty for holding a non-compliant contest. Iowa and Nevada were the only pre-February states during the 2008 cycle to avoid sanction from the Republican National Committee for the same reason.

As Alexander Burns at Politico points out Maine is one of a handful of caucus states considering this option -- and recall the dates of caucuses in Alaska, North Dakota and Washington are still unknown -- and it remains unclear what the individual or collective impact of Minnesota or Maine or even Colorado or Louisiana holding such early caucus meetings. The RNC really has no recourse. These states would not be in violation of the 2012 Republican delegate selection rules and are thus free to hold the early meetings.  That said, the true impact of the moves can be answered only by the campaigns actions. If the candidates stay away, then none of these states will be of consequence in the grand scheme of the nomination race. But with the contest looking like a protracted delegate fight -- at this point in time -- between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, it will be difficult to keep the candidates away from states where delegates will not be on the line, but where the initial stages can influence subsequent steps in the process and thus the ultimate allocation of delegates.

FHQ has a few thoughts on this situation.
1. One really needs go no further back than the 2008 cycle to see how the non-binding, initial stages of a caucus/convention process can have an outsized impact on the final allocation of delegates. Many recall how Mitt Romney scored a large-margin victory in Nevada on the same Saturday as the 2008 South Carolina primary. The latter had drawn most of the attention from the Silver state and Romney coasted to victory with Ron Paul a distant second. The Texas congressman may have been well back of Romney in the tally, but the Paul delegates from the precinct level were able to organize their efforts enough to wreak havoc on the subsequent steps in the process. The Nevada Republican Party eventually canceled the state convention and the state central committee allocated the delegates via conference call. In other words, underestimate the potential impact of these early contests at your own risk, especially in the context of a competitive, two person race.

2. FHQ semi-jokingly tweeted the other day in response to the news that Mitt Romney was heading to Arizona to campaign that if the RNC was utilizing the same penalties the DNC has adopted and used over the last two cycles, Romney would not be out in Arizona. No, instead the former Massachusetts governor would stay well away from the Grand Canyon state in order not to lose any delegates he may win in the contest. The Democratic Party not only [planned to] stripped half the delegations of states violating the timing rules for primaries and caucuses, but candidates campaigning in any such rogue state ahead of the non-compliant contest there would lose any delegates won in the primary or caucus.

The Democratic Party muddled the effectiveness of that penalty to some degree by changing, rechanging and then changing again the penalties because of the Florida and Michigan situation. But the main reason the penalty did not appear to work was that Republican candidates, unfettered by those rules, were campaigning vigorously in both states. If the candidates can be kept out of a state, then the state has no attention and thus no motivation to be early in the process. [Just as a side note, think of how severe a Republican candidate-centered penalty like that would affect things in an early state with winner-take-all allocation by congressional district. That could end up being a large number of unpledged/should have been pledged delegates, and thus an effective deterrent to the leapfrogging problems of 2008 and 2012.]

3. Finally, there is some precedent for this sort of thing in a Republican nomination race: 1996.  In that year, Hawaii, Alaska and Louisiana all held caucuses -- and in Louisiana's case a binding caucus -- prior to the Iowa caucuses. Phil Gramm was knocked out of the race due to Louisiana, candidates visited Alaska and because Bob Dole, from neighboring Kansas, was running, Iowa was minimized. That put a huge amount of pressure on the Republican candidates in New Hampshire. Why the traditional first two states did not jump the other states in 1996 is still an unanswered question, and honestly I don't know that that provides any window into what the early states might do as a result of the presence of these early, non-binding caucuses early in the calendar in 2012. But it has happened before. However, it was in the frontloaded, not hyper-frontloaded (2000-2008), as FHQ likes to call it, era.

The key with this is not to look to the RNC for answers. They won't have any. The rules don't cover it. Follow the candidates and look to the reactions in the earliest of states; particularly Florida now.

--
¹ Below is the email response FHQ received from Maine Republican Party Chairman Charles Webster earlier this week regarding the Pine Tree state Republican caucuses. At this time FHQ cannot confirm the date of the 2012 state convention where the delegate allocation will actually take place.

Charles Webster via davidson.edu to Joshua

The Republican State Committee voted on Saturday to request that all towns in Maine caucus between Feb 4 and Feb 11- 2012.
We will ask that every town notify the State Party by Feb 11 as to their choice for President.
We will announce those results, at a gathering to be held on Saturday Feb 11 at a location to be decided later

________________________________
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:31:20 -0400
Subject: 2012 Maine Republican Caucuses

Recent Posts:

NH's Gardner Indicates Granite State Presidential Primary Will Stay a Week Ahead of Other States

Members of President Preference Primary Date Selection Committee Named in Florida

The Florida Presidential Primary is Not Currently Scheduled for January 31

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

GOP Caucuses and 2012 Scheduling: A Decision-Making Calculus

FHQ got a good question this afternoon in response to our Minnesota post about the impact delegate binding rules may have on the scheduling of Republican caucuses in 2012.

Reader MysteryPolitico asks:

How many other states hold caucuses that aren't binding? I remember in 2008, you had early February caucuses in ME, AK, MN, ND, KS, and WA. Is Minnesota the only one of those with caucuses that aren't binding towards delegate allocation? Because if not, then I guess some of those other states might end up sticking with early February as well, since they're not going to suffer any delegate penalties for it.


I would assume that if there are several non-binding caucuses in early Feb., that IA and NH would still consider that a threat, and move their contests into January, to maintain their first in the nation status...

In other words, if you are one of the traditional Republican caucus states, especially one that does not bind delegates at the precinct level, why not roll the dice and go earlier than other states? Well, it isn't really rolling the dice. As the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada demonstrated in 2008 -- on the Republican side -- if the state does not allocate delegates in the first step of the nomination process, then that state can circumvent the Republican National Committee rules on delegate selection. Iowa and Nevada were not doing anything to weasel out of the rules, but they were the only two states that held contests prior to the first Tuesday in February 2008 that were not penalized half their delegation to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The January primary states -- even New Hampshire -- obviously suffered that fate, but other caucus states like Wyoming were also penalized. Approximately half of the delegates to the Republican convention from the Equality state were allocated in the January 5, 2008 precinct caucuses and Wyoming Republicans were penalized as a result.

The question, then, is why don't the Iowas and Nevadas¹ on the Republican side move up into February -- like what Minnesota Republicans have fallen into based on the law in the Land of 10,000 Lakes -- and hold penalty-free precinct caucuses? Furthermore, why would the other caucus states not change their rules to bind delegates to the national convention based on the congressional district or state conventions?

Why indeed? Let's look at the decision-making environment confronting these states. But first, about which states are we talking? The caucus states break down into two categories: 1) states that allocate delegates in the first step of the caucus process (Alaska, North Dakota, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming in 2008) and 2) states where that mechanism is triggered at a later -- congressional district and/or state convention -- stage (Colorado, Maine and Minnesota in 2008). If that first group maintains its rules from 2008, going early is not an option. If any member of that group alters its delegate selection process and delays the binding of delegates, it could technically move up penalty free, joining the second group.

But does it really matter? Would states in this situation either change their rules or attempt maintain former February dates or move up into February or earlier in 2012? FHQ will take the first one on at the outset. Does it really matter? Not really. Candidates are not going to go out of their way to trek out to non-binding contest states with nothing on the line. Also, states have, by and large, heeded the rules change warnings from the national party and acted to comply. But Minnesota is outside of the window and Republicans there have shown no urgency to move. The Maine GOP has shown no signs of wanting to cross the national party either. So while, hypothetically, states could do this, there really isn't any real motivation to do so. Such a caucus essentially operates as a very small state straw poll.

But let's suspend our disbelief for a moment and consider a scenario where all the caucus states move up, delaying delegate allocation to a later date in the process. Presumably, the carrot here is some measure of influence over the overall nomination process. Under what circumstances would these states have influence when they have nothing to give the candidates? That's a tough one. The decision would be easier if more information was known; specifically when other (primary) states will hold their contests. The only scenario where small, non-binding caucus states have any sort of influence is if 1) they hold a collective caucus on one date and 2) that date does not coincide with the date of a primary state (penalized or not). One could add in the additional condition that this collective straw poll precedes all the other primaries as opposed to being sandwiched in between a couple of primaries.

That, however, is a difficult task to coordinate given the constraints that state parties have in changing their rules. In many cases, such rules changes within state parties can only take place at a state convention. And in several states 2011 Republican conventions have already been held and the window has closed. If they those states could pull it off, though, it would likely serve as sufficient enough a threat to Iowa and New Hampshire and force them to move.

But that's a pretty big if.

--
UPDATE: One other option that may be appealing to the remaining caucus states -- that may tempt them into February -- is if it looks as if the proposed caucus date guarantees a stand-alone date for the precinct caucuses. If a state has the only event going on in a given week, then the candidates will be there -- binding or not.

--

¹ Iowa and Nevada are not the best examples here because both are exempt from the Republican delegate selection rules governing the other states. Additionally, in an attempt to make the contest more influential, Nevada Republicans have made the precinct caucus stage binding on the delegate allocation process; a change from 2008.

Recent Posts:

Democratic-Sponsored Bills to Move Minnesota Presidential Precinct Caucuses Appear Dead

Companion Bill to Eliminate Separate Presidential Primary Introduced in New Jersey Senate

Time Running Out, House & Senate at Odds on Texas Primary Decision

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