West Virginia Republican Chair Calls for Presidential Primary to be Moved Up

In a press item released on the heels of West Virginia Republican Party chairman, Mike Stuart, detailing the plans for a caucus/convention system of allocating 2012 presidential delegates, he also called on the acting governor and legislature to act quickly and move the Mountain state's presidential primary to an earlier date. Said Stuart in the news release:

“It is time to move up the WV Presidential Primary to ensure that West Virginians have more say in picking the presidential nominees," said Mike Stuart, Chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party. “We owe it to our coal miners and West Virginia families to ensure that the issues that are critical and unique to the future of West Virginia are reflected in the selection of a President of the United States.”

...and...

“Today, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada lead the process of picking the next President. Those states have little in common with the drivers of West Virginia’s economy,” said Stuart. “By the time West Virginia picks its nominee for president, the selection is generally irrelevant and West Virginia families and coal miners get left behind in the process.”

...and...

“[Acting Goveror Earl Ray] Tomblin and the Legislature can very easily change the WV Presidential Primary and make a bold statement to the nation that a candidate for President has to go through and to West Virginia before getting to the White House. West Virginia is too important to the nation for it to continue to be irrelevant in the selection of a President.”

Stuart invoking the ease with which the acting governor and legislature could act piqued my interest. It would have been helpful to have had the mechanism by which this change could be made included in the release. Beggars, however, cannot be choosers.

The bottom line is that there at least a couple of complicating factors. First off, the West Virginia legislature adjourned for the year on March 18. That fact does not preclude the legislature from acting on such a change in the state's elections law. The legislature does hold regular joint, interim meetings throughout the time the legislature is technically out of session, and the legislature can act on legislation in those settings. From the West Virginia legislature's web site:

Interim Committees
Approximately once a month during the period between regular sessions - the interim - the Legislature gathers in Charleston (or another location in the state) for three days of committee meetings.

The Interim Committees usually are joint committees, with members of both the Senate and House of Delegates working together as single groups. For example, the Joint Standing Committee on Government Organization is made up of members of both the Senate Government Organization Committee and the House of Delegates Goverment Organization Committee.

The interim committees’ primary purpose is to provide a forum for the continuing study of issues relevant to the future of the state. During each interim gathering, members discuss and hear public comment on issues which may be addressed during an upcoming regular session. The joint nature of these interim committees allows members of the Senate and House of Delegates to consider issues and legislation which may affect both bodies in a similar manner.

Many times, bills to be introduced during the next regular session are drafted, studied and rewritten long before the session begins. Also, bills that did not pass during the previous session may be revisited during the interim period for reworking.

Some bills previously rejected by the Legislature still need some fine-tuning before the Legislature passes them into law. Hence, the interims allow for reconsideration, reworking and possible reintroduction at the next formal gathering of the Legislature.

The interim meetings also allow the Legislature to monitor the effects of current and recently-passed legislation. For example, if a bill has passed which alters the state’s environmental policies, an interim committee may be assigned to study its continuing effects on the state’s economy, our citizens’ health, and other related issues.

If the governor and legislature are so inclined, then, they could introduce, consider, pass and sign into law a change in the primary date during one of the monthly interim sessions. But that leads to the second issue that may stand in the way of the move (presumably to March 6 or earlier): money. The Democratic-controlled legislature would obviously have to help out Republicans during a political season that will find Democrats on the sideline with Obama the likely Democratic nominee. That said, there are partisan concerns here, but legislators would have to decide on either creating an all-new and entirely separate presidential primary election or move up the federal, statewide and local primaries from May -- and the state has held a May or June primary throughout the post-reform era -- to an earlier date. The former is going to cost a significant amount during a time in which the economy is not in the best shape. This is something that has been confronted in other states with varying results, but is no less pertinent here. The alternative would be to move everything up which would have an effect on not only the traditional date West Virginia voters are used to, but could also impact the filing deadlines and cause problems with the federal mandates of the MOVE act.

In reality, Stuart is likely fine with the caucus/convention system from 2008 being used again in 2012. The true aim is very likely to get the legislature to consider a move in the future. ...for 2016 or beyond. FHQ may be off base here, but because of the partisan implications in West Virginia, I don't think I am.

Time will tell. And at least we now know the mechanism by which the elections law could be altered while the legislature is adjourned.

Recent Posts:

Sigh: Cite Your Sources, CNN

Michigan Republicans Eye Late February/Early March Primary

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (7/19/11)

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

West Virginia Republicans Eye Super Tuesday (March 6) State Convention for Delegate Allocation

West Virginia Republican Party chairman, Mark Stuart, has indicated that the state party is likely to vote later this month on a proposal to repeat their 2008 method of delegate allocation: a Super Tuesday state convention. The process will begin on January 24 with county conventions to select slates of delegates to represent the counties at the state convention in March.¹ Chairman Stuart via Joselyn King at The Intelligencer/Wheeling News-Register:

"The first date eligible for state convention is March 6, 'Super Tuesday,' and I would propose that date," Stuart said. "We would be the fifth state in the country to select a nominee. I don't think it will be possible to run for president without coming to West Virginia to discuss the issues."

FHQ doesn't know how much the Republican candidates will pop in to visit West Virginia on such a crowded date with a slew of mostly southern states holding primaries, but that March 6 date may be a better option than gambling on the May 8 state-funded primary and finding it outside of the period in which the Republican nominee is chosen.

The matter of the timing of the state convention will be taken up at the West Virginia Republican State Central Committee meeting on July 22-23.

--

¹ To be clear, those county convention slates will be unpledged, keeping West Virginia Republicans, as was the case with their Super Tuesday convention in 2008, in compliance with national party rules.

Recent Posts:

Follow Up on Missouri Presidential Primary Situation

Governor Malloy's Signature Moves Connecticut Presidential Primary to April 24

Nixon Vetoes Missouri Presidential Primary Bill, Primary Now Seemingly Non-Compliant

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

Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates

The Gem state wrapped up its Democratic delegate selection this past weekend at its state convention, and despite the discrepancy in the total (in the post heading), this was a given for the most part. [Obama won the Super Tuesday caucuses in Idaho by as big a margin as he won in any other state.] Obama's vote totals provided the Illinois senator with enough to round up his totals in both congressional districts while ever so slightly rounding down in the statewide calculations for pledged elected officials (PLEOs). In other words, the gains that we see from the precinct level caucuses in February to now (post-state convention) are not a function of Obama gaining support, but are simply statistical artifacts. Again, if this were a purely proportional system, Obama would have won 14 delegates to Clinton's 4 (among the pledged delegates). By breaking the calculation down to the district level, as it is done in the other states, the ultimate delegate distribution is altered.

Obama ended up with 15 of the state's 18 pledged delegates. Overall, the Illinois senator will have (at least) 19 Idahoans representing him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Clinton will have 3 delegates out of the remaining four with the final one representing the add-on delegate, Richard Stallings, who was elected over the weekend. Unlike add-ons selected at other state conventions, Stallings, remains uncommitted at this time. That may change between now and the convention, but according to the Idaho Democratic Party's web site, he has not made an endorsement.

And how does Idaho fit into the categories as defined by the caucus question? Well, the categories as the stand now aren't really defined by the question itself so much as what has emerged as the caucus processes have completed with state conventions. There have been states that moved toward Obama, states that moved toward Clinton and states that have not moved much at all.

Obama Moves:
Alaska
Nevada

Clinton Moves:
Colorado
Kansas

No Moves:
Hawaii*
Maine
North Dakota
Wyoming
...
Texas**

*The delegate decisions in the Hawaii process were determined by the first step. The decisions made at the Hawaii state convention were bound by the precinct caucus decisions. The Aloha state was prevented from exhibiting any movement.
**Texas defies any of these characterizations. Initially the movement from the first to second step was toward Obama. From that point to the state convention, though, some support drifted back toward Clinton.

Of those categories, Idaho best fits the final one. The estimates following the caucuses in February mirrored the final tally in the Gem state. One interesting note to make is a distinction made when FHQ was initially sounding out the finer points of the caucus question: How many steps are in the process? Of the states that had a two step caucus, only Alaska showed any movement one way or the other from the first step to the second. All the other two step states maintain steady distributions of support through the process. Of the states that had more than two steps, only Kansas had anything more than a move based on anything other than the statistical calculation of the process.

The only states undecided now are Nebraska and Iowa. Iowa was to have been decided this past weekend as well, but due to flooding across the state, the state convention was postponed for two weeks. Iowa will now have begun and ended the delegate selection on the Democratic side of the ledger.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/15/08)

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five

The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean

Texas Caucus Final Tally: ?% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates

Fine, if you want to go with the 41% of precincts reporting total from the first step (Obviously, I don't want to given the title.), then it should read "Texas Caucus Final Tally: 56% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates." But don't say I didn't warn you.

Even though FHQ doesn't have access to the true nature of those initial numbers, all is not lost in pursuit of an answer to the caucus question in Texas. Texas Democrats may have stopped publicly counting the March 4 caucus numbers at the 41% mark, but we do know from reports of the senate district convention results that Obama gained support over Clinton compared to the March 4 results. What we know is that Obama improved upon his initial level of support in the senate district conventions to 58%. That total would have netted the Illinois senator 39 delegates in the caucus portion of the Texas delegate selection plan. The state convention seems to have knocked that number down a tad though. In the presidential preference vote held among the 7300 delegates at the Texas Democratic state convention, this weekend, Obama received 57% of the vote which equated to 38 delegates in the caucus process.

Well, la-di-da. What does that matter now anyway? Obama's already the nominee, right? A valid point, to be sure. But this also happens to help test the caucus question hypothesis (that throughout the caucus process momentum will build behind the front-runner/winner/presumptive nominee). Texas held the first state convention to close a caucus process after Obama clinched the nomination. As such, Texas offered the first opportunity to see any wholesale defections toward Obama. We didn't see any. Next weekend offers three further opportunities to discover evidence in support of the caucus question. Idaho, Iowa and Washington all close down their delegate selection shops for the 2008 season with state conventions next weekend. The following weekend, Nebraska will officially bring an end to the delegate selection phase of the 2008 campaign (source: The Greenpapers).

Of those, Iowa will be the most interesting because, well, it's Iowa. Also, Iowa was an early, three way, competitive caucus. The result is that there is a lot of room for a shake up from the original results to the final results. Many of the Edwards delegates from Iowa have already committed to Obama and that certainly factors into this. The big question is whether Clinton delegates, now that the New York senator has dropped her bid for the nomination and endorsed Obama, will move over to support the Illinois senator in Iowa or any of the remaining three caucus states. In Texas the answer was a resounding no.

Elsewhere, it may be a different story. Idaho, Nebraska and Washington all handed Obama decisive victories over Clinton in official caucuses, but also held later beauty contest primaries that served advisory roles. In all three cases the primaries were closer contests.

Idaho caucus: Obama - 79.5, Clinton - 17.2
Idaho primary (scroll down): Obama - 56, Clinton - 38

Nebraska caucus: Obama - 67.6, Clinton - 32.2
Nebraska primary: Obama - 49, Clinton - 47

Washington caucus: Obama - 67.5, Clinton - 31.2
Washington primary (scroll down): Obama - 51.2, Clinton - 45.7

Those differences are noteworthy heading into the next two weekends in terms of the caucus question.

Recent Posts:
VP, VP, VP. Who Will They Choose?

Now It Was the Calendar that Brought Clinton Down?

Change is Gonna Come: How Did Obama's/Clinton's Fortunes Fare During Primary Season?

Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

With the close of the Maine Democrats' state convention on Sunday, there's now a clearer picture of the delegate selection throughout Pine Tree state's caucus process. All 24 of the state's pledged delegates were at stake over this past weekend since Maine goes from precinct voting to county convention voting held in correspondence with the state convention. The initial estimate following the February 10 precinct meetings was that Obama and Clinton would split the Maine delegates 15-9. That distribution favored Obama more, though. The Illinois senator received 59% of the statewide vote and that 15-9 split would have given him nearly 63% of the delegates.

And that was the way the distribution emerged from the convention on Saturday night. [Obama also picked up the convention's add-on delegate, as well.] Obama maintained that edge in the state convention and took a round up to the nearest delegate in both of Maine's congressional districts. It was that statistical artifact that provided the discrepancy in the vote and delegate totals.

That there were only two steps in the process and no shift in the delegate totals from one step to the next both run contrary to the caucus question hypothesis. In breaking down the action in Alaska and Wyoming last weekend, I discussed the states which have held state conventions (and thus completed their delegate selection) into groups: 1) those moving toward Clinton (Colorado and Kansas) throughout the caucus process, 2) those moving toward Obama (Alaska and Nevada) and 3) those showing little or no movement (North Dakota and Wyoming). Of those three categories, Maine fits best into the final category. Like most of the caucus states, Maine provided Obama with a solid win, but unlike some of the caucus cases, the original level of support didn't translate into increased support as the process continued (something of an intra-process bandwagon effect). And again, that speaks toward the power of the Clinton candidacy (and the competitiveness of the race). When in most years there would have been at least some trickle of support toward a front-running candidate/presumptive nominee throughout the caucus process, this year just hasn't seen that. Being the VANP (very almost nearly presumptive) nominee apparently hasn't been enough for Obama.

Up next? The remaining big one. Texas completes the caucus half of its delegate selection with its state convention next weekend. Unlike Maine, Texas has already shown some movement toward Obama throughout the steps of the caucus process.


Recent Posts:
Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

Kansas Final Tally: 73.9% of the Vote, 71.8% of the Delegates*

The good folks at the Kansas Democratic Party **contacted me this afternoon and shared with me the finalized slate of delegates headed to the national convention from the Sunflower state. The results in Kansas are similar to what we saw in Colorado; namely Hillary Clinton improved slightly upon her Super Tuesday showing in Kansas. If the delegates had been awarded on a purely proportional basis following the precinct/county level meetings, Clinton would have secured just 8 delegates. In the end, she walked away from the May 17 state convention with 9 delegates.

What isn't as clear in the Kansas case as it was in the Colorado case, is how big and vocal the Clinton presence in Topeka was. There is at least some evidence to suggest that Clinton's support in Colorado Springs was great compared with the campaign's efforts leading up to and during the precinct caucuses. Is that enough to say that it was the Clinton support that managed one more delegate than expected from the Colorado state convention and not simply statistical artifact? No, but it is more of an indication of that than what came out of Kansas. Clinton was able to round up higher delegate totals in 2 the 4 Kansas congressional district meetings in April. She also rounded up in the at-large delegate allocation at the state convention. In the end then, Clinton's gains appear to be a function of rounding up to the nearest delegate and not of her campaign pressing for support in Kansas two weekends ago.

With Kansas complete, six of the 14 caucus states have completed their delegate selection to the Democratic National Convention in August. And there is some symmetry to how things have come out. Two have moved toward Obama throughout the process (Alaska and Nevada), two have stayed put (North Dakota and Wyoming) and two have moved toward Clinton (Colorado and Kansas). Reviews then are mixed as to whether the caucus question hypothesis holds any water. Obama won all six caucuses, but has only managed to increase his totals in one-third of those states once the process ran its course. What does that mean? Well, it could mean that the is an unprecedented campaign. Yeah, but you knew that already. It could also mean that no one has ever done as good a job at coming in second as Hillary Clinton has. That seems like an insultingly back-handed compliment, but it is true. No one that has ever competed and has come in second in a nomination battle has ever been this close. This has just been a close campaign and that has stretched deep into the caucus process as well (deeper than the first step). I'm anxious to attempt to get my hands on some of the past caucus data to see if the movement I've been speculated about in this space actually came to pass (in something other than in anecdotal accounts). That way, we'd at least have that baseline of comparison to be able to put this year into context.


*I should have noted this in past posts about the final results from caucus states. The results in the title line reflect the percentage won in the original step of the caucus by Obama. I've opted to use him as the baseline of comparison for a couple of reasons: 1) He has had much more success in the caucus states and 2) In keeping with the caucus question hypothesis, it is the front-runner/presumptive nominee who stands to gain from the results from the precinct level.

**A big thanks to Jenny Davidson from the KDP for the information. She also writes for the party's Buffalo Blog. Below are the results from the KDP (note that all the alternates are for Obama):

Kansas Democratic Party National Convention Delegates Elected at Congressional District Conventions

Topeka – On Saturday, April 12, Kansas Democratic Party Congressional District Conventions elected 21 delegates and four alternates to attend the Democratic National Convention to be held August 25-28 in Denver.

The National Convention Delegates and Alternates are as follows:

National Convention Delegates pledged to Sen. Clinton:

First Congressional District:

Etta Walker, Sharon Springs

Second Congressional District:

John Settich, Atchison

Margie Wakefield, Lawrence

Third Congressional District:

Tess Banion, Lawrence

Bill Roy Jr., Lenexa

Fourth Congressional District:

John Carmichael, Wichita

National Convention Delegates/Alternates pledged to Sen. Obama:

First Congressional District

Shala Mills, Hays

Leonard Schamber, Damar

Bobby Whitten, Junction City

*Sean Buchanan (alternate), Hutchinson

Second Congressional District

Cori Allen, Lawrence

Terry Crowder, Topeka

Vernon Mills, Lansing

Teresa Sims, Lawrence

*Joyce Williams (alternate), Lansing

Third Congressional District

Stanley Adams, Overland Park

Rep. Paul Davis, Lawrence

Jan McConnell, Overland Park

Clarissa Unger, Lawrence

Rep. Valdenia Winn, Kansas City

*Eli Tate (alternate), Fairway

Fourth Congressional District:

Elizabeth Kinch, Derby

Pat Lehman, Wichita

Matthew Vines, Wichita

*Chelsea Loehr (alternate), Garden Plain

Kansas Democratic Party National Convention

Delegates Elected at State Convention

Topeka – On Saturday, May 17, the Kansas Democratic State Committee elected 11 pledged delegates, one pledged alternate, and one unpledged add-on delegate to attend the Democratic National Convention to be held August 25-28 in Denver.

The National Convention delegates and alternate are as follows:

National Convention Un-pledged Add-on Delegates:

Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson, Olathe

National Convention Delegates/Alternate pledged to Sen. Clinton:

KDP Treasurer Dan Lykins, Topeka

Steve Cadue, Lawrence

Elizabeth Bustamante, Garden City

Sidwell Jones, Atchison - alternate

National Convention Delegates pledged to Sen. Obama:

Mayor Joe Reardon, Kansas City

Sen. Anthony Hensley, Topeka

Shawnee County Treasurer Larry Wilson, Topeka

Barb Shirley, Salina

Dan Watkins, Lawrence

Denise Cassells, Mound City

Rep. Raj Goyle, Wichita

Kathy Greenlee, Lawrence

Recent Posts:
Reader Feedback Wanted: New Electoral College Maps?

Alaska + Wyoming = Obama + 1 Delegate

Alaska and Wyoming: State Convention Day (18 Delegates at Stake)

Alaska + Wyoming = Obama + 1 Delegate

A week after Clinton emerged from the Colorado state convention with one extra delegate (compared to her estimated share in the precinct level vote), Obama returned the favor by duplicating his Nevada gain at Alaska's state convention last night. During the February 5 caucuses in the Last Frontier, Obama just missed out on gaining 10 delegates to Clintons 3. The estimated spread then was 9-4. The Obama campaign got just enough more support in the state convention to push that edge to 10-3. Factoring in the superdelegates (plus former governor, Tony Knowles as an add-on superdelegate supporting Obama), Obama will carry a 14-4 advantage over Clinton within the Alaskan delegation to the national convention.

The original precinct vote numbers didn't allow either candidate much room to maneuver in Wyoming. The predicted 7-5 split favoring Obama was what came out of the Democrats' convention in the Equality state last night. According to The Green Papers, 4 of the 5 Wyoming superdelegates have endorsed Obama, while the fifth remains undecided. There was no word on who the add-on superdelegate, determined at the convention yesterday, was backing between Clinton and Obama. UPDATE: The AP says that the Wyoming add-on did back Obama and so too did the one chosen at the Georgia state convention. In all, Obama picked up 4 delegates yesterday: one extra pledged delegate out of Alaska, add-ons in Alaska, Georgia and Wyoming.

So, Obama gained one delegate this weekend. That isn't a resounding finding in favor of the caucus question. However, the winner from the original step gained through the process in Alaska (albeit slightly) and that falls in line with what we witnessed in Nevada. The lack of shift in Wyoming is similar to what came out of North Dakota's convention at the end of March. Finally, Colorado has been the only caucus state to break with expectations, handing Clinton more support in the final step than in the original one. And the Kansas Democratic Party has yet to confirm the final numbers that I've seen floating around.

Up next? Well, Puerto Rico has its primary next Sunday, but Maine holds its state convention and has 24 of the state's 32 delegates at stake. FHQ will be back with more on that one later in the week.


Recent Posts:
Alaska and Wyoming: State Convention Day (18 Delegates at Stake)

Colorado Final Tally: Clinton Gains 1 Delegate

Clinton in 2012: The Caucus Quandary

Alaska and Wyoming: State Convention Day (18 Delegates at Stake)

The weekend isn't just slow for political news. There isn't much going on by way of delegate selection either. Two of the least Democratic states have state conventions scheduled for today and offer both Clinton and Obama one last opportunity to shift the pledged delegate numbers in Alaska and Wyoming before the convention.

In Alaska, all 13 of the state's pledged delegates are on the line. If the convention voting follows the precinct/county level vote, then Obama will walk away with an estimated 9-4 advantage from The Last Frontier. That count is slightly more advantageous to Clinton since she was outpaced in the state's February 5 meetings by a 3:1 margin. Obama may be able to squeeze one more delegate out for a seven delegate advantage. That is Obama's best case scenario, whereas the 9-4 count is Clinton's best but Obama's worst case scenario. According to the party's agenda, that process should be completed by 10pm eastern. Also, as this is the state convention, one add-on superdelegate will be selected. As we saw with Kansas (another caucus state that leaned heavily toward Obama) last weekend, that person is likely to be (but not assured of being) an Obama supporter.

Further south and east of Alaska, Democrats in the Equality state are also meeting to put the finishing touches on their slate of pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer in Denver. Wyoming Democrats selected 7 of the state's delegates at the precinct meetings on March 8. Clinton was able to keep Obama from getting over 64% of the vote that would have given him a 5-2 edge among those 7 delegates. So, even though Obama received over 61% of the vote in the Wyoming caucuses, he only got just more than 57% of the delegates. For the Illinois senator to get anything more than a 3-2 split among the remaining 5 (state convention) delegates he'll need to get 70% of the vote. The most likely result, then, is that 3-2 split which will produce a final tally 7 Obama delegates and 5 Clinton delegates from the state. As with Alaska, Wyoming also has one add-on superdelegate to be allocated at the state's convention. And given the vote spread, that add-on is most likely to be an Obama backer. The delegate portion of the convention should be completed by around 8pm eastern tonight.

At the end of the day, Obama may be able to add one more delegate than has been estimated from these two state combined. That would fall in line with the results in Nevada (which was supportive of the caucus question hypothesis: A winner in the original step of the caucus or the presumptive nominee stands to gain as the process continues.

Hopefully the results are a bit quicker to emerge from these two states than they were from Kansas or Washington last weekend.


Recent Posts:
Colorado Final Tally: Clinton Gains 1 Delegate

Clinton in 2012: The Caucus Quandary

Rules Matter...but Luck Does Too

Nevada Final Tally: 45% of the Vote, 56% of the Delegates

What started out four months ago as a Clinton win (in terms of votes) ended up as a Nevada victory for Barack Obama in terms of caucus strategy. Obama parlayed a solid January showing in rural Nevada and lower than expected Clinton support at the district caucuses into a three delegate advantage (14-11) over Clinton in the Silver state. All this after losing 51%-45 to Clinton in the first round of the caucuses. Clinton's six point win was not only reversed as Nevada's caucus process progressed, but Obama's perceived advantage was improved upon and solidified coming out of the state convention yesterday.

This fits in with the discussions here concerning the caucus question. Under circumstances that can be considered commonplace in the frontloaded period of presidential primaries, a party's presumptive nominee, having wrapped the nomination up early, would gain support in caucuses through subsequent steps in the process. If a candidate effectively wrapped the nomination up during Super Tuesday, for example, and forced his opponents out of the race, they would stand to increase their support in caucus states where the process's first step was held during the competitive phase of primary season. A presumptive nominee gains as turnout among supporters of the withdrawn candidates at subsequent caucus meetings declines relative to their original turnout. We saw this in Nevada during this cycle as Clinton's support in the district caucuses lag behind her original level of support. The nomination race was still active in 2008 though; Clinton had not dropped out of the race. It can be considered a real victory for Obama then, in terms of strategizing about the caucuses and building up support and turning people out on the grassroots level.

There were also state conventions in Colorado and Kansas yesterday as well as congressional district conventions in Washington. News has been slow filtering out about the final numbers at all those proceedings (other than Udall becoing the senate nominee in Colorado and an add-on delegate going for Obama in Kansas). Unlike Nevada, though, all three of those states handed Obama decisive victories. In other words, there was not that much room for improvement on the original numbers. However, if Obama had such overwhelming victories in those states, it stands to reason that Clinton's support in those states may be depressed compared to what it was originally.

Once that information surfaces, we'll see which way (if any) that went. Tracking...


Recent Posts:
Obama in the Red States: What Mississippi's 1st District Means

Will Obama's Seeming Inevitability Help Him as the Caucus Process Draws to a Close?

Let the Backloading Begin: 2012 Arkansas Primary