The Delegate Fight: 2016

[Erc]

More news on the Yob front:

John Yob's father, Chuck Yob, was elected as an At-Large Kasich delegate today in his home state of Michigan.  He'll be bound to Kasich on the first ballot unless Kasich should drop out of the race.

[Erc]

In Virginia's 9th Congressional District Delegate Elections, today Cruz recieved 2 delegates and Trump recieved 1.
https://mobile.twitter.com/GregHabeeb/status/718894222523412482

Also chosen today so far (links in the spreadsheet):

SC-7
OK-2
KS-4
KY-1
KY-6 (3 delegates each)
Michigan At-Large (14)

Coming Up Later Today (or I haven't found results yet):

Iowa's CD Conventions (12)
Colorado At-Large (13)
Indiana CD Conventions (27)
SC-3
FL-8
FL-16
FL-20
FL-21
FL-22
NC-2
NC-4
NC-8
NC-9 (3 each)

I have no names out of NC, but Trump Twitter is already sure Cruz got the delegates there.

EDIT: PSA: Don't go on Trump Twitter if you value your faith in humanity.

[Erc]

The Sanders campaign has released their own delegate count
pledged: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-State-by-State-1.pdf
unpledged: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-Publicly-Committed.pdf

Their pledged count is actually lower than the one at the beginning of this thread, discrepancies in NV, KS, IL, and NC.  And of course, not sure if the Clinton campaign agrees with their count.

I saw the superdelegate list; I'll have to have a pass through the pledged.

[Erc]

Erc, Clinton gained a delegate from Sanders in KS-04. When the vote was broken down, it ended up going 3-2 instead of 4-1. Sanders count of delegates and AP confirm this. The number should be 23 Sanders, 10 Clinton.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/KS-D

There had apparently been some earlier confusion on this front, but it all seems to add up now for the 23-10 figure.

In Illinois, the CD breakdown was always uncertain; if Sanders is going to go with a more Clinton-favorable number, I'm not going to argue.

In North Carolina, on the other hand, that number seems too favorable to Clinton, so I'm going to hold off on changing that for the time being.

In Nevada, it would seem that the Sanders camp and I disagree on the rules (i.e. whether the CD delegates are bound at the state convention or by the February caucus vote).  Sanders probably wins this fight, as he will control the state convention, but I'm keeping my figures for now.

[Erc]

Cruz wins 11/12 delegates in Iowa today.  The 12th is staying Uncommitted, but seems anti-Trump.

Of course, this doesn't change the first ballot but is obviously a good sign for Cruz on the 2nd.

[Erc]

Jeez, how many pro-Trump delegates are going to show up at the convention?  5?

He can definitely count on the delegates that he chose himself or vetted before their appearance on the ballot.  Namely: New Hampshire, Alabama, (most of) Tennessee, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, (most of) Illinois, (most of) Idaho, Hawaii, California, Connecticut, his one delegate in Wyoming, plus the three unpledged that have endorsed him so far.

Also, many states are playing fair with him.  Trump's delegates in Michigan (also selected today) were signed off by the Trump campaign, as apparently were his delegates (though not the Uncommitteds) in Louisiana.

That said, we've also been hearing reports of of Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Virginia, etc., where Cruz is dominating (or at least making a serious play at) the delegates.

Cruz wins this on the second, or at worst, third, ballot, unless Trump can scrape over the finish line on the first ballot.  And I sincerely doubt Cruz would let him do that, even if the resulting tactics would lead to riots.

[Erc]

Actually, it seems Cruz had a rare loss in Michigan.

In terms of committee assignments, it seems Trump and Kasich prevented an attempt by Cruz to just take everything over, and themselves locked Cruz supporters out.  It doesn't seem like this extended to delegates, where at least on the At-Large level I believe each candidate got what they wanted.

In particular, and hilariously, this means Chuck Yob is now on the Credentials Committee that will be deciding the fate of his son's contested delegation from the Virgin Islands.

[Erc]

Cruz wins this on the second, or at worst, third, ballot, unless Trump can scrape over the finish line on the first ballot.  And I sincerely doubt Cruz would let him do that, even if the resulting tactics would lead to riots.

Sorry, can you explain what you mean by the sentence I bolded above?  You sincerely doubt Cruz would let Trump do what?  Win narrowly on the first ballot?  How does Cruz stop him from doing so if he has the numbers?  Use the "nuclear option" of changing the rules so that all the delegates are unbound on the first ballot, or something like that?

Yeah, I honestly think Cruz uses the nuclear option if necessary, and he knows he has the support of 1400 delegates or so.

That latter half is a tall order, but is it impossible?  I'll take another look next month after the bulk of this delegate selection has gone through.

[Erc]

I just heard that during the convention, the delegates are unbound when voting for a VP candidate.  Meaning that if Trump wins the nomination on the first ballot, his #NeverTrump delegates could defect and nominate a VP candidate that Trump is forced to accept. 

That's an interesting scenario.

Yep!  Anyone know the last time the candidate didn't just get to choose their VP?  Stevenson/Kefauver in '56?

Could be quite important as the effective candidate for the 46th President (after a Trump impeachment and removal) or for some sort of "John Ewards"-style trick in the Electoral Collage.

[Erc]

In continued Yob news: a final ruling on the Yobs' residency is expected on Monday.  Tea leaves seem to suggest a ruling in the Yobs' favor.

In the event the ruling is against the Yobs, anyone want to bet Canegata instantly drops his objections to the other three initially-elected delegates?

Even if he has the support of that many delegates in terms of who their preferred candidate is, is he really going to have the support of that many delegates in favor of engaging in highly controversial procedural shenanigans like the "nuclear option"?  I am skeptical.  Even among the delegates who support him, won't there be plenty of people who are not really diehard Cruz-istas, but are instead just people who like Cruz the best among the remaining field?  People who will do their own thing on procedural votes?

You're probably right here.  I don't think Cruz would do it unless he knew it would work, and work on the first ballot.  He'd need to have the unwavering loyalty of a clear majority of delegates in order to pull it off, and considering he's only starting at 800-odd, that's a tall, tall order.

[Erc]

http://progressivearmy.com/2016/04/10/bernie-sanders-wins-missouri-after-all/

Erc, claims like this have been flying around the internet for the past couple of days, and I figured I should bring it up here. I'm pretty sure that these "mass meetings" held for delegate selection have exactly 0 impact on which candidate gets national delegates, and that they are awarded based on the actual primary vote, but I figured I should check in with you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw8qd8A8ZSVLY0RGWFNtMlJkdXc/view

Stupidity on this scale is really just staggering sometimes.

Yes, the delegates are bound based on the primary.  It's only in a minority of caucus states where delegate binding isn't based on the votes [or occasionally reweighted votes] of the people on caucus day.  All primaries bind their delegates directly.

That said, this could matter if Bernie is trying to pull off a Ted Kennedy-style coup, and have the delegates vote to unbind themselves.  However, the Democrats are pretty good at having mechanisms to ensure this doesn't happen on a grand scale (as their delegate selection mechanisms are proportional, as well)...so I doubt they could even get a majority of the pledged delegates to back them (especially since some of them are PLEOs), let alone the supers.

[Erc]

Holland Redfield, VI RNC committeeman (and a delegate regardless of the credentials fight), seems to have come out strongly in favor of the Yob slate.

[Erc]

Trump got swept in the 4th District Convention in South Carolina yesterday, with the 3 delegate slots going to 2 long-time Cruz backers (Stephen Brown, Robert Ryggs) and 1 committed anti-Trump evangelical (Nate Leupp).

[Erc]

Apparently the Colorado Democrats did their reporting by voice recognition on caucus night, leading to some predictable errors.

A recent re-check of the results finds that Sanders wins the 1st CD 5-3, rather than splitting it 4-4, leading to a new pledged delegate count of 39-27 in the state.

This is really an academic distinction, as Colorado chooses its delegates based on the votes at CD & State Conventions (as in Iowa), so even if this error had not been caught, it would not have made a difference in the final totals (as it did not affect the election of delegates from the precinct caucuses, barring issues with credentials).

[Erc]

Unknown Delegates

In my continuing effort to find out the identities of all the delegates, some are beginning to slip through the cracks.  If anyone has any leads on the delegates chosen in the following jurisdictions, it'd be much appreciated:

Oklahoma's 4th CD (3 delegates)
Florida: CDs 5-10, 15-18, 20-22 (39 delegates)
North Carolina: CDs 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,13 (24 delegates)
Indiana: All CDs 1-9 (27 delegates).

Potentially, some of Idaho's delegates have been selected by the campaigns as well, though I'm unsure about this.

I'm keeping a running list of these going in the "Unknown Delegates" tab on my spreadsheet; this list may grow or shrink as time goes on.

[Erc]

Part of an larger anti-Canegata piece by Holland Redfield, but one that provides a longer perspective:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This helps explains why the Virgin Islands was the only party not to submit a delegate selection plan on time, why there was so much confusion as to the date of the caucus, and ultimately why the caucus was held on a Thursday.

It also seems like Canegata is pulling the same postdating of documents trick again.

If last year is any precedent, the odds seem to be in favor of the Yobs at the Credentials committee.

[Erc]

Wait, so Bernie won 1 more delegate than expected, and you're still complaining.  Jesus.

The party shouldn't tell just Hillary and keep it a secret from the public and the Bernie campaign. That's corruption.

You realize that this doesn't even matter, right?  The delegates to Philadelphia are bound based on the results of the CD conventions, not on the original caucus vote.  The election of the actual physical delegates from the precinct caucuses to the county conventions was carried out correctly, just the wrong numbers were reported to the media.

Even if the error had never been caught, it would have been "corrected" by the results of the CD 1 convention on April 9, anyway.

The actual figure is only of interest to a subset of people on this forum, literally nobody else in the world.

[Erc]

Scathing letter from the three non-Yobs who have been collateral damage in the Canegata-Yob dispute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erc]

Erc, do the #s in this WaPo article sound plausible to you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-likely-to-block-trump-on-a-second-ballot-at-the-gop-convention/2016/04/13/6553e724-00bc-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Within an order of magnitude, sure.

Honestly, it's hard to say.  The numbers sound roughly plausible, but could be higher, potentially.  We'll have to see how the rest of the process plays out.

And again, it should be stressed that the anti-Trump vote is not necessarily pro-Cruz; the Indiana delegation, for example, may end up being surprisingly pro-Kasich.

[Erc]

April 26 Democratic Primaries

Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland qualify as a "regional cluster," and receive a 15% delegate bonus.

Connecticut (D)

Overview
71 Delegates (1.49% of total)
Closed Primary
36 District
12 At-Large
7 PLEO At-Large
16 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 12 and 7 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned among the CDs as follows: 8 in CD 1; 7 in CDs 2,3,4,5.

Superdelegates


Clinton (15): Gov. Dannel Malloy, Sen. Chris Murphy, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Rep. Jim Himes, Rep. John B. Larson, Rep. Joe Courtney, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Elizabeth Esty, Chair Dominic Balleto Jr, Nancy Wyman, Vice Chair Nancy Dinardo, John Olsen, Dorothy Mrowka, Michael Cacace, Chris Dodd

Uncommitted (1): Joanne Sullivan

Useful Links
The Green Papers: CT
CT Delegate Selection Plan

Delaware (D)

Overview
31 Delegates (0.65% of total)
Closed Primary
5 At-Large
2 PLEO At-Large
14 by District
10 Superdelegates

Details

5 At-Large and 2 PLEO delegates will be apportioned based on the statewide primary result.  14 delegates will be apportioned based on the results in various regions of Delaware: 2 each for Kent County, Sussex County, and the City of Wilmington, and 8 for the remainder of New Castle County.

Superdelegates

Bloomberg: Clinton 7 - Uncommitted 3

Confirmed Clinton (5): Gov. Jack Markell, Sen. Tom Carper, Sen. Chris Coons, Rep. John Carney, Bob Gilligan

Other (5): Vice President Joe Biden, Chair John Daniello, Vice Chair Lisa Goodman, Karen Valentine (Clinton 2008), Valerie Longhurst

Useful Links
The Green Papers: DE-D
DE Delegate Selection Plan

Maryland (D)

Overview
118 Delegates (2.47% of total)
Closed Primary
21 At-Large
10 PLEO At-Large
64 by CD
23 Superdelegates

Details

The CD delegates are allocated based on the primary vote in each CD: 10 in CD 4; 9 in CDs 5,7; 8 in CDs 3,8; 7 in CDs 2,6; 6 in CD 1. The 21 At-Large and 10 PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally based on statewide primary vote.

Superdelegates

Clinton (16): Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Sen. Ben Cardin, Reps. Steny Hoyer, Donna Edwards, Chris Van Hollen, John Delaney, John Sarbanes, Dutch Ruppersberger, and Elijah Cummings, Bruce Morrison, Karen Pope-Onwukwe, Maria Cordone, Greg Pecoraro, Carol Pensky, Yvette Lewis, Belkis "Bel" Leong-Hong

Sanders (1): Heather Mizeur

Uncommitted (6): Ex-DNC Chair Joe Andrew (Clinton 2008, until May), Chair D. Bruce Poole, Vice Chair Victoria Jackson-Stanley, Janice Griffin, DNC Secretary Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Glenard S. Middleton Sr

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MD-D
MD Delegate Selection Plan

Pennsylvania (D)

Overview
210 Delegates (4.40% of total)
Closed Primary
42 At-Large
20 PLEO At-Large
127 by CD
21 Superdelegates

Details

The CD delegates are allocated based on the primary vote in each CD: 14 in CD 2; 10 in CD 1; 9 in CDs 13,14; 8 in CD 7; 7 in CDs 6,8,17; 6 in CDs 3,4,11,12,15,18; 6 in CDs 5,9,10,16. The 42 At-Large and 20 PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally based on statewide primary vote.

Superdelegates

Clinton (18): Ex-DNC Chair Ed Rendell, Gov. Tom Wolf, Sen. Bob Casey Jr., Rep. Matt Cartwright, Rep. Chaka Fattah, Chair Marcel Groen, Nancy Patton Mills, Evelyn Rafalko-McNutty, Michael Nutter, Ronald Donatucci, Vice Chair Penny Gerber, Amanda Green Hawkins, Ian Murray, Marian Tasco, Richard Bloomingdale, Sylvia Wilson, Tony Coelho

Uncommitted (3): Reps. Brendan Boyle, Robert Brady, and Michael F. Doyle

Useful Links
The Green Papers: PA-D
PA Delegate Selection Plan

Rhode Island (D)

Overview
33 Delegates (0.69% of total)
Half-Open Primary
6 At-Large
3 PLEO At-Large
15 by CD
9 Superdelegates

Details

The CD delegates are allocated based on the primary vote in each CD: 8 in CD 1; 7 in CD 2. The 6 At-Large and 3 PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally based on statewide primary vote.

Superdelegates

Clinton (9): Gov. Gina Raimondo, Sen. Jack Reed, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rep. David Cicilline, Rep. James Langevin, Chair Joseph McNamara, Vice Chair Grace Diaz, Edna Mattson, Frank Montanaro

Useful Links
The Green Papers: RI-D
RI Delegate Selection Plan

[Erc]

I'll have to do a more careful reading of CA law here, but a cursory reading of the CA GOP bylaws seems to indicate this isn't a huge deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to the Call to Convention, delegates must be elected or selected no later than 45 days before the start of the convention--i.e. June 3.

Interestingly, that puts several states out of compliance (namely, California, New Jersey, Georgia, Idaho, and Oregon).  Note that the other June 7 states are fine, as they pre-select their delegates, and primaries to allocate and bind delegates are allowed through June 11 (second Saturday in June).  Waivers are possible, and they may have been granted to those states.

Regardless, credentials only need to be submitted to the RNC by June 13, so I would say that is the final deadline.  There may be further amendments after that, but only relating to final certification of the results (e.g. one CD flips from Trump to Cruz based on provisional ballots).

EDIT: California law indeed gives that May 7 date.  However, note that the RNC generally gives priority to state party rules over state law (and they are free to do so), so this isn't a huge deal.  As long as Trump has a slate in the districts he wins by June 13, he should be fine.

[Erc]

So I know that your overview post said that Illinois was updated fairly recently, but why do you have Illinois at 79-77 rather than the 78-78 that 538.com has it? What is the explanation behind that?

Results by CD in IL are as of yet incomplete; note that neither the AP nor CNN have called all the delegates.

I initially had a 78-78 split, following The Green Papers.

However, the Sanders campaign recently released their own delegate counts, which showed the 79-77 count.  If the Sanders camp is giving a more favorable result to Clinton that I am, I'm going to go with Sanders' count.

I still disagree with Sanders' count in North Carolina (where I believe he's being too favorable to Clinton) and Nevada (where we disagree on the interpretation of the rules).

[Erc]

Couldn't the Credentials Committee rule, based on California state law, that any delegates picked after May 7 are ineligible and therefore simply declare their positions vacant? I doubt they would do this unless it was totally necessary, but it seems like a very possible interpretation of the rules.

Where state laws and state GOP rules differ, precedence is very clearly given to state GOP rules.

The CA GOP rules allow for the filling of incomplete delegations (via the "amended as necessary", above) up until June 13.

If for some reason Trump still misses that deadline, then RNC Rule 18 kicks in.  There is at that point no provision in CA GOP or CA state law to fill vacancies, so we follow Rule 18(c).  At that point, the state Republican party can decide to let Trump fill the rest of the delegation, or can have the State Executive Committee fill the rest of the delegation, or (after July 7) let the remainder of the delegation vote to fill the vacancies.

There may be some room for shenanigans between June 7 and June 13 (if the CA GOP submits a slate with vacancies prior to the final deadline), but apart from that the rules involved are pretty clear.

Honestly, though, it doesn't really matter.  Even there is a vacancy, it will be filled somehow before the convention via the Rule 18 mechanisms, and all of this only affects the delegate selection process, not the delegate allocation and binding process, which is still tied to the primary.  If Trump doesn't have delegates in a district ever, the delegates eventually selected via Rule 18 from that district are still bound to Trump on the first two ballots.  By the time they are unbound, it's the third ballot, by which point Trump has no shot at the nomination anyway.  It could matter for Kasich in the unlikely event he wins, say, San Francisco, but even then he'd get to fill those slots as described above.

[Erc]

Fivethirtyeight has a relatively decent state-by-state breakdown of the remaining states, even if they get Washington's delegate rules wrong.

They currently peg Trump roughly in the 1150s in pledged delegates.  They're a bit too bearish on Trump in a couple of states (Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Washington), but those don't make more than a 10-delegate difference.

Of course, the ultimate conclusion is that this comes down to Indiana and California, but we knew that already.

[Erc]

USA Today (of all newspapers) has a detailed, well-researched article on the Virgin Islands delegate fight, how it ties into the long-standing shady fundraising operations out of the Virgin Islands, and Canegata's longstanding ties with Saul Anuzis.

Honestly, the Virgin Islands fight is looking more and more like an expansion of the continuing Anuzis-Yob battle in the Michigan GOP.

Mother Jones also has a similar interesting piece for those who are somehow not yet Yobbed yout.