The Delegate Fight: 2016

[Erc]

Erc,

Is it right for the media/Atlas to color Wyoming for Cruz already? I know he won the county conventions but there are still 17 delegates left to award. Is the state convention based off of the county convention results (like in Iowa for the Dems) or are they just assuming Cruz will win?

The county conventions, in addition to electing their 12 delegates (and 12 alternates) to Cleveland, also elected delegates to the State Convention. 

Cruz absolutely dominated the vote for national delegates and alternates; we don't technically know how he did in the vote for State Convention delegates, but all indications are that he is very well organized, passed out flyers for preferred Cruz delegates, etc.

As for what the media is reporting, I think they really just wanted a map of some sort, so they went with the County Convention results.  None of them are calling the remaining 17 delegates.

I take it a step further, and feel very confident based on the County Convention results that Cruz will have a large majority of delegates at the State Convention and be able to elect a complete Cruz slate of 14 delegates there (the remaining 3 are uncommitted RNC members).  It could be that a delegate or two will not be Cruz (if, say, Matt Mead or Cynthia Lummis is elected as a delegate), but Cruz is almost certainly winning the vast majority of delegates elected at the State Convention.

Wyoming is the only place on the Republican side where I'm making this sort of projection; on the Democratic side, of course I'm doing it for Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado as well.  It's generally easier to do for the Democrats due to their proportionality rules; however, in this case, where Cruz completely dominated, it's also pretty easy.

[Gustaf]

Right now, NYT is reporting a Clinton lead of 1214-911 while CNN has it at 1229-912. Anyone know what the discrepancy is?

[Erc]

Right now, NYT is reporting a Clinton lead of 1214-911 while CNN has it at 1229-912. Anyone know what the discrepancy is?

Presumably this is due to a lack of calls on some delegates, usually due to incomplete breakdowns by CD.  CNN tends to be more aggressive at calling these things than the AP, which still has some Super Tuesday delegates uncalled.

Sanders' lopsided wins in Utah and Idaho last night meant he came out of the night +19 in pledged delegates.  This is his first nightly win since New Hampshire...and if supers are taken into account, his first nightly win ever.

[Gustaf]

Right now, NYT is reporting a Clinton lead of 1214-911 while CNN has it at 1229-912. Anyone know what the discrepancy is?

Presumably this is due to a lack of calls on some delegates, usually due to incomplete breakdowns by CD.  CNN tends to be more aggressive at calling these things than the AP, which still has some Super Tuesday delegates uncalled.

Sanders' lopsided wins in Utah and Idaho last night meant he came out of the night +19 in pledged delegates.  This is his first nightly win since New Hampshire...and if supers are taken into account, his first nightly win ever.

Ah, I see.

NYT:

Utah: 5-24
Idaho: 5-17
Arizona: 41-26

Total: 51-67

CNN:

Utah: 6-18
Idaho: 6-17
Arizona: 43-27

Total: 55-62

So I guess there is more than just tonight's results differing, yeah.

[Erc]

Yeah, CNN is occasionally a bit too aggressive; it should be 5-18 in Idaho, not 6-17, for example.

[The Other Castro]

Erc, I was wondering about when Clinton might claim a total delegate majority if she included her Superdelegates, and I think your current numbers imply that that would be very difficult to achieve before California. Is that correct?

[Erc]

Erc, I was wondering about when Clinton might claim a total delegate majority if she included her Superdelegates, and I think your current numbers imply that that would be very difficult to achieve before California. Is that correct?

Yeah, she needs to win 660 delegates to clinch.  The states between now and June 7 have only 1033 pledged delegates, so that's a tall order unless she rolls out a lot of superdelegate endorsements...and even then, probably couldn't happen before June 5, at which point she may as well wait until California.

[Likely Voter]

arent there 1175 pledged between now and CA?

3/26/2016   Alaska, Hawaii, Washington   142
4/5/2016   Wisconsin   86
4/9/2016   Wyoming   14
4/19/2016   New York   247
4/26/2016   Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island   384
5/3/2016   Indiana   83
5/7/2016   Guam   7
5/10/2016   West Virginia   29
5/17/2016   Kentucky, Oregon   116
6/4/2016   Virgin Islands   7
6/5/2016   Puerto Rico   60

via
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

[Erc]

arent there 1175 pledged between now and CA?

3/26/2016   Alaska, Hawaii, Washington   142
4/5/2016   Wisconsin   86
4/9/2016   Wyoming   14
4/19/2016   New York   247
4/26/2016   Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island   384
5/3/2016   Indiana   83
5/7/2016   Guam   7
5/10/2016   West Virginia   29
5/17/2016   Kentucky, Oregon   116
6/4/2016   Virgin Islands   7
6/5/2016   Puerto Rico   60

via
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

You're absolutely right.  I forgot this weekend's contests where, no matter how badly she'll do, she won't get swept completely.  That reduces the target to 56% which is tough but possibly doable given some additional endorsements.

Even so, it probably requires Puerto Rico, which votes June 5.

[Likely Voter]

I did some very conservative estimates....

Date   States   Clinton%   Total (w/current supers)
3/26/2016   Alaska, Hawaii, Washington   35%   1775
4/5/2016   Wisconsin   40%   1809
4/9/2016   Wyoming   30%   1813
4/19/2016   New York   55%   1949
4/26/2016   Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island   50%   2141
5/3/2016   Indiana   50%   2183
5/7/2016   Guam   60%   2187
5/10/2016   West Virginia   40%   2198
5/17/2016   Kentucky, Oregon   35%   2239
6/4/2016   Virgin Islands   65%   2244
6/5/2016   Puerto Rico   65%   2283
6/7/2016   California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, N Dakota, S Dakota   50%   2630
6/14/2016   Washington, D.C.   75%   2645



If Clinton gets no more supers, then she goes over the top on June 7th (California). But if she performs better and gets most of the remaining supers on her side she could go over the top as early as April 26. Going over the top by PR seems very doable, but then again what is the point of declaring victory 2 days before California, it would look like she is trying to rig the big game right before it started.

[Erc]

Also note that my superdelegate count is ahead of the AP's by 28 supers, which makes a difference here as to what the media would report on June 5.  Presumably it's still short of Clinton's private count, but as stated she has little reason to roll them out obnoxiously on June 5.

The real question is whether the media (and Clinton) will declare victory on June 7, or wait a week until DC.

There's always the possibility Sanders suspends his campaign after he gets his requisite 25% of delegates (which I believe should happen on April 26), but it seems unlikely.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Also note that my superdelegate count is ahead of the AP's by 28 supers, which makes a difference here as to what the media would report on June 5.  Presumably it's still short of Clinton's private count, but as stated she has little reason to roll them out obnoxiously on June 5.

The real question is whether the media (and Clinton) will declare victory on June 7, or wait a week until DC.

There's always the possibility Sanders suspends his campaign after he gets his requisite 25% of delegates (which I believe should happen on April 26), but it seems unlikely.

What is significant about 25%, again?

[Gass3268]

Also note that my superdelegate count is ahead of the AP's by 28 supers, which makes a difference here as to what the media would report on June 5.  Presumably it's still short of Clinton's private count, but as stated she has little reason to roll them out obnoxiously on June 5.

The real question is whether the media (and Clinton) will declare victory on June 7, or wait a week until DC.

There's always the possibility Sanders suspends his campaign after he gets his requisite 25% of delegates (which I believe should happen on April 26), but it seems unlikely.

What is significant about 25%, again?

He gets influence over the convention and the platform.

[jimrtex]

Is it right for the media/Atlas to color Wyoming for Cruz already? I know he won the county conventions but there are still 17 delegates left to award. Is the state convention based off of the county convention results (like in Iowa for the Dems) or are they just assuming Cruz will win?

The delegates to the state convention were elected at the county conventions.

[cinyc]

According to Samoa News, the American Samoa Republican delegates are:
-Three at large: Chairman Utu Abe Malae, National Committeeman Su’a Carl Schuster and National Committeewoman Congresswoman Aumua Amata.
-The 6 delegates, Vice Chairman John Raynar, Taulapapa William Sword, Charles Warren, Treasurer Tina Ioane, Ann Longnecker and Joan Galea'i Holland.
-The six alternates - Jim Longnecker, Salote Schuster, Atonio Ioane, Lucia Bartley, John Laumatia and Roy Hall.

Raynar was in charge of the American Samoa pro-Trump group; Warren was in charge of the pro-Cruz forces in the territory.  That's probably why Erc has 1 delegate each for Cruz and Trump despite the delegation officially being uncommitted.

A picture of the delegates from the AS Republican Facebook page and reproduced in the Samoa News article shows 2 people wearing pro-Trump garb.  I think someone on RRH identified them as Congresswoman Amata and Treasurer Ioane.  Raynar would make 3 seemingly pro-Trump delegates selected at the caucus.

[Erc]

Thanks for the tip cinyc!

Here's one of the photos in question (sorry for the large size):



The picture in the Samoa News article is the same group, from a different angle.  The Samoa News article leaves out the woman on the left, who appears to be Joan Holland.

Note that this picture has 10 people in it, so one of them is not a delegate (presumably one of the men).

Let's focus on the women here, as they are the ones in Trump gear.  There are four women in the delegation: Amata Radewagen, Tina Ioane, Ann Longnecker, and Joan Holland.

We've already established Joan Holland is the woman on the far left.  The woman on the far right appears to be Ann Longnecker.

That leaves Amata Radewagen and Tina Ioane, assuming they are in the picture at all.  The woman in the hat and the official-looking Trump shirt is plausibly Amata Radewagen, though it's hard to tell with the hat.  That leaves Tina Ioane as the woman with the homemade Trump shirt, though there are no pictures elsewhere on the internet to confirm.

[dax00]

Arizona appears to have ended 31 Sanders to 44 Clinton, per the Green Papers, with over 99% of the vote accounted for. The last few votes slightly edged out for Clinton in CD(s) 2/3, so the delegate split should be accurate.

[Erc]

Update on that photo: the woman on the left in the homemade Trump shirt is Lucia Bartley, an alternate.  So we're down to at most one additional Trump delegate.

Honestly, the woman on the right doesn't look like either Amata Radewagen or Salote Schuster, so I'm thinking she's Tina Ioane.  Her husband was in the Army in 2004, which helps explain the hat.

In any event, I'm confident enough to add one Trump delegate in American Samoa.

[The Other Castro]

This picture creeping is going to get really fun in places like Pennsylvania.

[Erc]

Madison County, MS has published its results by precinct.  The CD 2 parts of Madison County were much smaller (and much more pro-Trump) than expected.

This just leaves Hinds County (Jackson) outstanding; it seems unlikely (unless the CD 3 portion of Hinds is devoid of Republicans) that Trump is going to fall short of a majority in CD 2 in the end.  As a result, I'm moving a delegate back to Trump from Cruz in MS.

[Erc]

The war of words continues in the Virgin Islands, with Valerie Stiles writing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Valerie Stiles is one of the Rubio delegates on the slate installed by Canegata; she is spearheading the (continuing) lawsuit against John Yob and company challenging their residency.

According to John Yob, at least one member of the Certification Committee agrees with John Yob that the five-day period in question has not even begun yet.

The New York Times and VI Consortuium also have some more details.

[Torie]

Thanks for the tip cinyc!

Here's one of the photos in question (sorry for the large size):



The picture in the Samoa News article is the same group, from a different angle.  The Samoa News article leaves out the woman on the left, who appears to be Joan Holland.

Note that this picture has 10 people in it, so one of them is not a delegate (presumably one of the men).

Let's focus on the women here, as they are the ones in Trump gear.  There are four women in the delegation: Amata Radewagen, Tina Ioane, Ann Longnecker, and Joan Holland.

We've already established Joan Holland is the woman on the far left.  The woman on the far right appears to be Ann Longnecker.

That leaves Amata Radewagen and Tina Ioane, assuming they are in the picture at all.  The woman in the hat and the official-looking Trump shirt is plausibly Amata Radewagen, though it's hard to tell with the hat.  That leaves Tina Ioane as the woman with the homemade Trump shirt, though there are no pictures elsewhere on the internet to confirm.

My Samoan partner Dan's Dad went to a couple of Pub conventions as a delegate from Samoa, even when he was residing in San Pedro with the military, but I digress. Dan says he knows the Trump delegate, and likes her. Dan of course is well, not a Pub! But then neither am I - anymore.

[cinyc]

There's another article about the American Samoa Convention in today's Samoa News.  All delegates are officially unbound, even the Trump and Cruz territorial chairs.  They say so in the article.

[Erc]

There's another article about the American Samoa Convention in today's Samoa News.  All delegates are officially unbound, even the Trump and Cruz territorial chairs.  They say so in the article.

Yep!  They're all unbound, but the clear Trump and Cruz supporters I'm counting in their columns unless they explicitly walk it back (which I don't think the "I'm unbound" quotes in that article do).

At some point on the main page, I may explicitly separate the bound delegates from the unbound endorsements (in the same manner that I did in 2012), but with only 8 of them having endorsed so far, I'm not going to do so just yet.

[Erc]

My Samoan partner Dan's Dad went to a couple of Pub conventions as a delegate from Samoa, even when he was residing in San Pedro with the military, but I digress. Dan says he knows the Trump delegate, and likes her. Dan of course is well, not a Pub! But then neither am I - anymore.

Any confirmation that I've identified the two of them correctly?