The Delegate Fight: 2016

[Lief 🗽]

This article is behind a paywall, but it looks like Ted Cruz won the uncommitted delegates in Louisiana?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruz-gains-in-louisiana-after-loss-there-to-donald-trump-1458861959

[Erc]

This article is behind a paywall, but it looks like Ted Cruz won the uncommitted delegates in Louisiana?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruz-gains-in-louisiana-after-loss-there-to-donald-trump-1458861959

I'd heard Twitter rumors to that effect, and had already moved the two I could verify over to the Cruz column.

The article doesn't really confirm whether the remaining 8 were really handpicked by Cruz folks to vote for Cruz at Cleveland, just leaving it at "expectations" and speculation.

Also remember that 1 of the 8 is the LA GOP chairman, who was not chosen at the Cruz-dominated convention.

[Ebsy]

Erc, is there any reason that Cruz supporters elected as Trump delegates, like in Louisiana, while still bound on the first ballot, might run into all sorts of "unforeseeable problems" ahead of the convention and just not vote on the first ballot? I know there will be alternates, but if enough of them did it, could it work?

[Erc]

Erc, is there any reason that Cruz supporters elected as Trump delegates, like in Louisiana, while still bound on the first ballot, might run into all sorts of "unforeseeable problems" ahead of the convention and just not vote on the first ballot? I know there will be alternates, but if enough of them did it, could it work?

Hmm...I don't think so.  The RNC rules say that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Paul Ryan decides to explicitly break the rules, the binding seems pretty explicit.

If delegates (and alternates) just refuse to show up, as you suggest, their slots can be filled by the remaining delegates who do.  I don't know what would happen if the entire delegation refused to show up, but that seems unlikely; this isn't 1860.

The same is not the case for Rule 40 support, as discussed above, though Trump getting a majority in eight states based on loyal delegates seems highly likely.

[Erc]

The final deadline for filing as a delegate candidate in Colorado tomorrow.

A majority of the delegates are filing as Uncommitted, so a large unpledged delegation out of Colorado is a distict possibility.

On the other hand, Cruz and Trump have more than enough delegate candidates to fill the whole slate.  Kasich, however, is not even close, with only 5 delegate candidates.

[Ebsy]

Erc, is there any reason that Cruz supporters elected as Trump delegates, like in Louisiana, while still bound on the first ballot, might run into all sorts of "unforeseeable problems" ahead of the convention and just not vote on the first ballot? I know there will be alternates, but if enough of them did it, could it work?

Hmm...I don't think so.  The RNC rules say that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Paul Ryan decides to explicitly break the rules, the binding seems pretty explicit.

If delegates (and alternates) just refuse to show up, as you suggest, their slots can be filled by the remaining delegates who do.  I don't know what would happen if the entire delegation refused to show up, but that seems unlikely; this isn't 1860.

The same is not the case for Rule 40 support, as discussed above, though Trump getting a majority in eight states based on loyal delegates seems highly likely.

This is the idea that intrigues me. If Cruz manages to hijack enough of the delegates and alternates in Louisiana, half the delegates could just not show up. Would their spots then be filled with delegates from other states, or are we approaching uncharted waters here?

[Erc]

Erc, is there any reason that Cruz supporters elected as Trump delegates, like in Louisiana, while still bound on the first ballot, might run into all sorts of "unforeseeable problems" ahead of the convention and just not vote on the first ballot? I know there will be alternates, but if enough of them did it, could it work?

Hmm...I don't think so.  The RNC rules say that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Paul Ryan decides to explicitly break the rules, the binding seems pretty explicit.

If delegates (and alternates) just refuse to show up, as you suggest, their slots can be filled by the remaining delegates who do.  I don't know what would happen if the entire delegation refused to show up, but that seems unlikely; this isn't 1860.

The same is not the case for Rule 40 support, as discussed above, though Trump getting a majority in eight states based on loyal delegates seems highly likely.

This is the idea that intrigues me. If Cruz manages to hijack enough of the delegates and alternates in Louisiana, half the delegates could just not show up. Would their spots then be filled with delegates from other states, or are we approaching uncharted waters here?

The remaining Louisiana delegates would, by vote, select people to fill the remaining slots.  (In all likelihood, their spouses.)

I think the only way this works is if an entire delegation (including the 3 RNC members!) boycott the convention entirely, which to be honest doesn't seem likely.

[Ebsy]

Erc, is there any reason that Cruz supporters elected as Trump delegates, like in Louisiana, while still bound on the first ballot, might run into all sorts of "unforeseeable problems" ahead of the convention and just not vote on the first ballot? I know there will be alternates, but if enough of them did it, could it work?

Hmm...I don't think so.  The RNC rules say that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Paul Ryan decides to explicitly break the rules, the binding seems pretty explicit.

If delegates (and alternates) just refuse to show up, as you suggest, their slots can be filled by the remaining delegates who do.  I don't know what would happen if the entire delegation refused to show up, but that seems unlikely; this isn't 1860.

The same is not the case for Rule 40 support, as discussed above, though Trump getting a majority in eight states based on loyal delegates seems highly likely.

This is the idea that intrigues me. If Cruz manages to hijack enough of the delegates and alternates in Louisiana, half the delegates could just not show up. Would their spots then be filled with delegates from other states, or are we approaching uncharted waters here?

The remaining Louisiana delegates would, by vote, select people to fill the remaining slots.  (In all likelihood, their spouses.)

I think the only way this works is if an entire delegation (including the 3 RNC members!) boycott the convention entirely, which to be honest doesn't seem likely.

I would be incredibly amused if Cruz managed to pull something like that off in, say, South Carolina. When balloting starts, the entire state's delegation, along with the 3 RNC members, are just inexplicable missing.

[Lief 🗽]

Can't the pledged to Trump but secretly supporting Cruz delegates just refuse to vote when their state is called on the first ballot? No need to boycott or not attend.

[Erc]

Can't the pledged to Trump but secretly supporting Cruz delegates just refuse to vote when their state is called on the first ballot? No need to boycott or not attend.

If I am reading the rules right, their vote will still be counted according to their binding even if they don't vote.

Mind you, it's the chairman(?) of each state delegation who reports the vote of the state, so unless that person is trying shenanigans himself, he'll just report the bound totals.

[Ljube]

Sabato has 755 for Trump. What could be the difference?

[DemPGH]

Different places seem to have different delegate counts, but they're all ballpark. CNN or someone is still holding out on Missouri, for one thing. The rest IDK.

Anyway, interesting article here on how Cruz will need a large-scale shift in what remains to catch/stop Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/politics/trump-cruz-kasich-1237-delegates/index.html

[Erc]

Sabato has 755 for Trump. What could be the difference?

Likely culprits are Georgia (rules interpretation is unclear) and various unpledged delegates (perhaps he knows of someone in American Samoa or Guam who has endorsed Trump that I don't have).

I do a rundown of differences between myself and other reliable counts on the tumblr, in addition to the caveats on the main page.  "Other reliable counts" are, to wit: CNN, AP, The Green Papers, FHQ, Taniel. CBS and NBC are garbage; I'd be willing to look at other delegate trackers by request if they do state-by-state breakdowns.

[Erc]

Minnesota's RNC members have clarified that Rubio's delegates will be released if he is "not on the first ballot," as will be the case unless both Rule 40 is replaced AND Rubio makes an effort to appear on the first ballot.

As a result, I am releasing Rubio's 17 delegates in Minnesota.  This means, essentially, that Cruz is going to pick up those delegates as well and another Rule 40 state for himself.

I'm attending my local Senate District convention tomorrow morning, and may have more updates on Rubio's delegates after that.  Maybe I'm wrong and there will be a bunch of like-minded Rubio->Kasich delegates like myself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Erc, is there any reason that Cruz supporters elected as Trump delegates, like in Louisiana, while still bound on the first ballot, might run into all sorts of "unforeseeable problems" ahead of the convention and just not vote on the first ballot? I know there will be alternates, but if enough of them did it, could it work?

Hmm...I don't think so.  The RNC rules say that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless Paul Ryan decides to explicitly break the rules, the binding seems pretty explicit.

If delegates (and alternates) just refuse to show up, as you suggest, their slots can be filled by the remaining delegates who do.  I don't know what would happen if the entire delegation refused to show up, but that seems unlikely; this isn't 1860.

The same is not the case for Rule 40 support, as discussed above, though Trump getting a majority in eight states based on loyal delegates seems highly likely.

Don't give them any ideas.

[Erc]

Just got back from my Senate District 59 Convention here in Minneapolis, one of the BPOU conventions that Minnesota has between the precinct caucuses and the conventions that actually choose delegates to Cleveland.

We are not exactly the most Republican district, so we only get to send 9 delegates to our State and CD conventions.

As expected, Cruz folks dominated the room and elected the bulk of the delegates.  (State: 5 Cruz, 1 each for Carson, Rubio, Kasich, and Uncommitted.  CD 5: 6 Cruz, 1 each for Uncommitted, Carson, and Kasich.  Yours truly got elected as the sole Kasich-supporting delegate to the CD 5 convention.)

If Cruz is getting delegate majorities here in Minneapolis (one of his worst districts in the state, if only because Rubio trounced everyone else), he's almost certainly going to dominate the CD and State Conventions in April and May.  Cruz will then be able to count on a majority of the Minnesota delegation at Cleveland, even on the first ballot.

You gotta love how Trump is placing behind Ben Carson now in Minnesota, though.

[Erc]

March 26 Results

Alaska: 13 Sanders - 3 Clinton.  This is a caucus/convention state, so it in principle could change at the State Convention in May.

Hawaii: I don't have access to CD breakdowns, so I'll go with the AP's call of 17 Sanders - 8 Clinton.

Washington: I don't have access to CD breakdowns; The Green Papers is guessing 74 Sanders - 27 Clinton, which I'm going with for now.

Obviously, a very good night for Sanders, who closes the pledged delegate gap by 66.  However, this still leaves Clinton ahead by 228 pledged delegates (let alone supers), and all but two of the caucus states are gone.  Later today, I'll run some numbers to see how well Sanders would have to do to win the pledged delegates.

We now move officially into Stage II of the Democratic primary process; all states from here on out receive a 10% delegate bonus.

[Erc]

Wyoming (D): April 9

Overview
18 Delegates (0.38% of total)
Closed Caucus
8 "District"
4 At-Large
2 PLEO At-Large
4 Superdelegates

Details

The 8 "District" delegates are apportioned based on the statewide caucus vote.  The caucuses also elect delegates to the State Convention (May 28), which elects the 4 At-Large and the 2 Pledged PLEO delegates.

Superdelegates

Clinton (4): Chair Ana Cuprill, Vice Chair Bruce Palmer, Mike Gierau, Mary Hales

Useful Links
The Green Papers: WY
WY Caucus FAQ

[Erc]

How well would Sanders need to do to tie Clinton in pledged delegates?

Sanders obviously had a very good night last night.  However, all but three of his victories so far (NH/OK/MI) have come in caucus states, and there are only two of those left on the calendar: the delegate-poor states of WY & ND.

Just how well would Sanders have to do in the remaining primary states in order to catch Clinton in pledged delegates?  Pretty darn well.

Let's assume, for simplicity, that each jurisdiction in the country votes the same way.  This is a terrible assumption; Puerto Rico and Montana are obviously going to have different voting patterns in their primaries.  However, it will give us some good baseline targets...and if we see Sanders falling short of them even in states where we expect him to do better based on demographics, etc., we can have a good idea that he's going to fall well short.

The answer here is that Sanders needs to win 57.7% of the two-way vote in order to eke out a narrow lead in pledged delegates.  Note that this is short of the critical 58.3% margin needed to win 6-delegate districts 4-2, so probably Sanders can do a bit worse than 57.7% overall and rely on the occasional upward fluctuation to give him some delegates in 6-delegate districts.

This is a really high target for Sanders, corresponding to winning 56.7% of the delegates in the remaining states.  Compare that to Clinton, who has been dominating so far, who has won 54.9% of the pledged delegates so far.

And of course, all of this excludes superdelegates.  Even if Sanders wins the pledged delegate count by a squeaker, he'd still need to win a majority of superdelegates.  As Clinton currently has a majority, he'd need to flake off at least 100 Clinton supers, who probably wouldn't for a variety of reasons.  Chief among these is the fact that Sanders, due to his overperformance in caucus states, will likely still lose the overall popular vote if he wins the pledged delegates narrowly.  This would presumably be enough of an excuse for the supers to stick with Clinton.

As a target going forward, the next state is Wisconsin.  Sanders will need to win the delegates by at least 48-38 in order to stay on the path to a pledged delegate win.  This is a tough target, even for one of his better states.

[yankeesfan]

http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/ted_cruz_seen_as_having_leg_up_in_virginia_delegate_battle543

Why do political insiders think the Cruz campaign has an advantage [in Virginia]?

No group has shown a better mastery of intra-party maneuvering than Cruz's tea party followers in Virginia. Ahead of the 2013 gubernatorial election, Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's supporters took control of the state party and outmuscled potential challengers for the gubernatorial nomination. Cuccinelli, a major Cruz surrogate, still has strong allies within the state party apparatus, including party chairman Whitbeck.

"It's a Cuccinelli crowd that runs this state," said Tom Davis, a former congressman who is the Virginia campaign chairman for Kasich.

State Sen. Bill Stanley, the Cruz campaign chairman in Virginia, said the campaign has long put an emphasis on being well organized and prepared for delegate elections and has been actively reminding its supporters of the importance of attending GOP district meetings and the state convention.

[Erc]

http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/ted_cruz_seen_as_having_leg_up_in_virginia_delegate_battle543

Why do political insiders think the Cruz campaign has an advantage [in Virginia]?

No group has shown a better mastery of intra-party maneuvering than Cruz's tea party followers in Virginia. Ahead of the 2013 gubernatorial election, Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's supporters took control of the state party and outmuscled potential challengers for the gubernatorial nomination. Cuccinelli, a major Cruz surrogate, still has strong allies within the state party apparatus, including party chairman Whitbeck.

"It's a Cuccinelli crowd that runs this state," said Tom Davis, a former congressman who is the Virginia campaign chairman for Kasich.

State Sen. Bill Stanley, the Cruz campaign chairman in Virginia, said the campaign has long put an emphasis on being well organized and prepared for delegate elections and has been actively reminding its supporters of the importance of attending GOP district meetings and the state convention.

At the moment, it's unclear whether Rubio and Carson will keep their delegates in Virginia; but with no language saying otherwise or providing for a release mechanism, I have to assume they will.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana, Trump is threatening to sue because he didn't bother to play the delegate game.  LA GOP Executive Director Jason Doré responds that the allocation was fixed by the LA GOP rules ahead of time, and if he ends up getting fewer delegates than Cruz, he should take that up with Marco Rubio and his delegates.

Of special note there: Doré himself is one of the Uncommitted delegates, and plans to stay uncommitted until Cleveland.  Also, the Trump delegates chosen were chosen off a list provided by the Trump campaign, so possibility of an even larger defection in LA away from Trump on the first ballot seems relatively unlikely.

[yankeesfan]

@ryanstruyk: Whoops: Rules expert tells me Trump needs 1237 to win even if LA decertified. Trump suit would actually nix 18 of own delegates & hurt bid.

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/714573707398656000

Trump is so incompetent.

[Erc]

Trump is apparently trying to some extent in North Dakota, where he's dispatching Ben Carson in an attempt to woo delegates there.

EDIT: Now Ted Cruz is going there directly himself.

[Erc]

Rubio is actively fighting to keep his delegates, sending letters to many state GOPs informing them that he does not wish to release his delegates.

Chief among these are Alaska, which had already reallocated his delegates.  However, upon receipt of the letter, they have apparently decided that their call that Rubio had "dropped out" was premature, and have given him his delegates back.

However, the message discipline isn't really there from the Rubio camp, with a spokesman saying that he is "no longer a candidate."

As a result, the only delegate change I am making at this time is in Alaska, unless I hear otherwise from any of the other state parties.  The other states in question:

Louisiana (5): Already released due to suspension, too late to get them back.
Alabama (1): Already effectively released, even before Rubio dropped out.
Wyoming (1): Unclear; Wyoming GOP chair said delegates are bound if candidate is "still in the race" come July.
New Hampshire (2): Only bound if Rubio "shall be a candidate before [the] convention."
Minnesota (17): Released if Rubio is not a candidate "on the first ballot."
Oklahoma (12): Released if Rubio "is for any reason no longer a candidate."

Rubio has definitely sent a letter to Oklahoma, but if Rubio is really "no longer a candidate," he doesn't get to keep any of these delegates.

There's a separate question in Alaska of whether Rubio's delegates are bound to him.  Delegates are only reallocated if Rubio "drops out," which he apparently has not.  They are only bound to him, however, if he "maintains an active campaign," which he is certainly not.  As a result, I am releasing his 5 delegates in Alaska.

This question of whether Rubio "is a candidate" has some importance on any Rule 40 changes.  If it's changed so that you only need 1-2 state delegate majorities, Rubio could get on the first ballot, and then would be able to keep his delegates pretty much everywhere except LA/AL.

[Ronnie]

Would Trump and Cruz be able to tap into Kasich's delegates on the first ballot if he doesn't qualify to be on it?