The Delegate Fight: 2012

[Mr. Morden]

Erc, what is your source for the number of delegates each state has?

You can find it in a number of places, including here:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Alloc.phtml

[Mr. Morden]

The RNC has apparently just released this document (posted online by The Weekly Standard):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/docs/2012%20RNC%20Delegate%20Summary.pdf

which summarizes the delegate selection rules for every state and territory.

[Mr. Morden]

FHQ has a table that summarizes the RNC document and compares to 2008 rules posted here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/12/republican-delegate-allocation-rules.html

Note that the largest change from 2008 is that a number of the states that used to be straight WTA are now using some kind of "conditional WTA" rule, which means that the delegate allocation is proportional, unless one candidate gets over 50% of the vote, in which case it reverts to WTA.  So if the race can narrow to a 2-person contest quickly, then you'll have a lot of WTA states, but if there are 3 or more candidates, then it'll be more a long slog for one candidate to reach a majority of delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's an intriguing bit that might just matter. Florida's rules call for it to be statewide WTA only if they get sanctioned, so they'd revert to the statewide + CD rule if they are not.  If the winner gets 14 or fewer of the 27 CD's and the second place finisher gets the other 13 or more, then a reversion to being unsanctioned results in a net improvement in the delegate totals for the second place finisher.  Now unless the statewide winner has his vote concentrated in only a few CDs this likely won't matter much, but if every delegate counts, it could.

If Santorum drops out after a Newt win tonight, it looks like Florida will be a close battle.

Aren't they supposed to be proportional because they're an early state?

I think the case is that if they had gone when they were supposed to, they would be sanctioned if they didn't apportion some of the delegates by CD, but since they are already being sanctioned for going early, they don't face a second sanction for assigning them by statewide WTA.

Yes, the RNC has no provision for sanctioning the states more than 50%.  So because they're already being sanctioned for going too early, they can't be sanctioned anymore for being WTA.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's an intriguing bit that might just matter. Florida's rules call for it to be statewide WTA only if they get sanctioned, so they'd revert to the statewide + CD rule if they are not.  If the winner gets 14 or fewer of the 27 CD's and the second place finisher gets the other 13 or more, then a reversion to being unsanctioned results in a net improvement in the delegate totals for the second place finisher.  Now unless the statewide winner has his vote concentrated in only a few CDs this likely won't matter much, but if every delegate counts, it could.

If Santorum drops out after a Newt win tonight, it looks like Florida will be a close battle.

Aren't they supposed to be proportional because they're an early state?

I think the case is that if they had gone when they were supposed to, they would be sanctioned if they didn't apportion some of the delegates by CD, but since they are already being sanctioned for going early, they don't face a second sanction for assigning them by statewide WTA.

Tinfoil hat speculation now...what if the RNC decides in the upcoming week to strip FL of all delegates?  I don't think such a thing is logistically possible, but as a last-ditch alternative to a Gingrich knockout punch there?   Of course, it would probably play worse than an embarassing loss anyway.

There's no mechanism for that to happen.  I don't think the relevant committee meets again until the national convention, so they can't revisit the penalties until then.  And, in any case, the RNC itself approved Florida's WTA delegate allocation rule, figuring that they were already being punished for going early anyway:

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/12005724241767/florida-primary-will-be-a-winner-take-all-contest/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Even though the RNC seemed to sign off on Florida's WTA rule, there could still be a legal challenge:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/if-gop-fight-drags-on-so-could-argument-over-floridas-delegates/1212342

This would presumably apply to Arizona as well, which is in exactly the same situation.

[Mr. Morden]

Erc, can you explain the situation in Tennessee?  Santorum's on the ballot, but doesn't actually have a delegate slate?  Yet they can still award him delegates depending on how he does in the primary?

[Mr. Morden]

Erc, I'm wondering if you've read this latest blog post by Nate Silver:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/the-g-o-p-s-fuzzy-delegate-math/

in which he talks about the large number of delegates to the RNC who are not exactly technically bound to any particular candidate.  In 2008, there was a media narrative that the Democrats faced a huge problem in that unelected Super Delegates might end up deciding the nomination, but that this problem couldn't have existed on the GOP side, since they have so few such "Super Delegates".

But reading this post, I'm wondering if this narrative should actually be turned on its head.  Does the GOP, in fact, have a significant share of delegates who are not exactly "bound" to any particular candidate, and thus there's a good chance that the primary season ends with Romney and Santorum furiously lobbying delegates to publicly back them, and give them a majority, so as to spare the party a convention fight?

[Mr. Morden]

Thanks Erc.  I think I basically agree with you.  However, I'm thinking that if, say, Romney wins a plurality of both the "popular vote" and the "pledged delegates", yet even after the bulk of the truly uncommitted delegates have swung his direction in the interests of party unity, he's still about two dozen delegates short of a majority.........then I'd guess that various figures in the party leadership would do whatever they could to strongarm some of those Santorum delegates whose voting intentions were clearly for Santorum at the time they were chosen, yet are not officially bound to him.

Basically, I'm thinking that enough of the party seems to regard a contested convention as a disaster, that these rules that provide for so many delegates who are not officially bound to any candidate and who were not "strictly chosen by democratic means", provide a possible escape hatch for the party to avoid a contested convention.

Of course, that only works in a scenario where Romney has a decent lead on Santorum, but still falls a bit short of a majority.  If the two of them are much closer, and each have 45% or less of the total delegates in hand, then it gets much messier.  But I think the odds of that happening are slim.  A Mondale 1984 scenario seems more likely.

[Mr. Morden]

I'll post a more detailed set of projections after Super Tuesday, but it is going to take some doing for Romney not to effectively clinch this by June 3.

Romney's going to clinch this two days *before* California votes? 

[Mr. Morden]

Gingrich's Prospects: TL;DR

While there are many states where Gingrich staying in the race just straight up helps Romney, there are others where it's not so clear-cut, or he has a chance of hurting him.  Remember, not all Gingrich voters would immediately flock to Santorum if he dropped out.

If he can target his campaign to certain states and try to make himself as much of a non-factor as possible in the others, there may be a role for him yet.

This is a useful benchmark, but I don't think it captures the point of how Gingrich dropping out is the only hope for ABR.  If the status quo continues, with both Gingrich and Santorum in the race, then Romney wins the nomination relatively easily, even though he doesn't mathematically clinch it until June 5.

OTOH, if Gingrich drops out within the next few days, then it's at least possible that Santorum surges into a national polling lead over Romney, the media narrative becomes "This gives Santorum a big boost because he's no longer splitting the 'conservative vote'", Santorum wins the popular vote in Illinois even if he doesn't win the most delegates, and the collective wins from KS/AL/MS/IL/LA (new meme: Romney can now only win on islands) gives Santorum real momentum, potentially drawing in some votes in later states that might have otherwise gone to Romney.

I'm not saying that this would happen, but it's at least a possibility.  It's the only real hope for ABR, to change the narrative and shake up the race in a way that can't be captured in these static "who does Gingrich help or hit in such-and-such-a-state" analyses.

So if Gingrich really wants to stop Romney, I think he should suspend his campaign.  But maybe wait until Sunday night, after Puerto Rico votes, if he thinks there's any chance that being in the race prevents Romney from reaching 50%.  (But really, Romney probably reaches 50% there regardless, so I guess it doesn't matter.)

[Mr. Morden]

The Santorum campaign is trying to get Texas to change to WTA, but it's unlikely that the Texas GOP would agree to that, and less likely that the RC would grant Texas the necessary waiver to change their delegate allocation rules this late in the game:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11041257-is-texas-looking-to-change-its-delegate-rules-to-help-santorum

[Mr. Morden]

Erc, if you like I can unsticky the thread.