The Delegate Fight: 2016

[Erc]

With 98.78% reporting:

1st District
[3] Dave Hackett - District Winner
[1] Christopher M Vogler - Uncommitted but will consider District Winner
[2] Seth Kauffer - Uncommitted, strongly considering District Winner / Trump

2nd District
[3] Elizabeth Havey - District Winner
[1] Calvin Tucker - Uncommitted, considering electability & "last man standing"
[2] Aaron Cohen - Uncommitted

3rd District
[8] Fmr. US Rep. Phil English - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate
[3] Lynne Ryan - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate
[1] Robert J Yates - Uncommitted, "strongly impressed by Kasich", on Kasich PAC and Cruz slates

4th District
[15] Joe Sacco - Trump, on Trump slate
[10] Matthew Jansen - Trump, on Trump slate
[14] Marc A Scaringi - Trump, on Trump slate

5th District
[6] James Klein - Trump, on Trump slate
[9] C Arnold McClure - Trump, on Trump slate
[7] Ash Khare - District Winner, on Trump slate

6th District
[4] US Rep. Ryan Costello - District Winner (24.73%)
[1] Mary Elizabeth Wert - Cruz, on Cruz slate (12.49%)
[5] Wayne Buckwalter - Trump, on Trump slate (12.44%)
[8] Vicki Lightcap - Trump, on Trump slate (12.10%)
[7] Michele Harris Kichline - District Winner (12.02%)

7th District
[1] Michael Puppio - District Winner
[3] Robert J Willert - District Winner
[4] Joan Miller - District Winner

8th District
[3] Jim Worthington - Trump, on Trump slate (17.94%)
[7] Robert G Loughery - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate (16.78%)
[1] Barry Casper - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate (15.69%)
[4] State Rep. Gene DiGirolamo - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate (15.36%)

9th District
[2] US Rep. Bill Shuster - Uncommitted
[3] Debbie Taylor - leaning Trump, on Trump slate
[4] State Rep. Judy Ward - District Winner

10th District
[10] State Rep. Tina Pickett - District Winner, on Trump slate
[6] Carol D Sides - Trump, on Trump slate
[12] State Sen. Mario Scavello - District Winner, on Trump slate

11th District
[4] Rick Morelli - Trump, on Trump slate
[8] David McElwee - Trump, on Trump slate
[14] Andrew Shecktor - Trump, on Trump slate

12th District
[14] Monica Morrill - Trump, on Trump slate
[5] Jeff Steigerwalt - Cruz, on Cruz slate
[9] James Vasilko - Trump, on Trump slate

13th District
[6] Tom Ellis - District Winner, on Trump slate (17.64%)
[3] Gilbert Cox - District Winner, on Trump slate (15.39%)
[5] Lauren E Casper - District Winner, on Trump slate (14.49%)
[4] Pam Levy - Uncommitted (14.28%)
[2] Shannon Oscar - District Winner, on Kasich PAC slate (14.07%)
[7] Michael J McMonagle - Cruz (13.98%)

14th District
[1] Mary Ann Meloy - Uncommitted
[3] Mike Devanney - Uncommitted
[2] Cameron S Linton - Kasich


15th District
[1] Scott Uehlinger - District Winner, on Trump slate
[3] John K Reber Sr - Trump, on Trump slate
[5] Patrick Kerwin - Trump, on Trump slate

16th District

[3] Douglas W Brubaker - Cruz, on Cruz slate
[2] Gordon Denlinger - Uncommitted
[1] David M Dumeyer - District Winner


17th District
[2] T Lynnette Villano - Trump, on Trump slate
[9] Carolyn L Bonkowski - Trump, on Trump slate
[7] Gloria Lee Snover - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate

18th District
[6] John Petrarca - Trump, on Trump slate
[1] Justin DePlato - Trump, on Trump slate
[11] Thomas J Uram - Trump, on Trump slate

Totals:
Trump: 21
District Winner: 18
Uncommitted: 11
Cruz: 3
Kasich: 1[/quote]

[Erc]

For the first time since February, Trump ends the day with a majority of the delegates from the states that have voted so far.

For the purposes of the main page, I'm awarding all the "District Winner" delegates to Trump.  If it turns out that he loses any districts when we have complete results by CD, this may change.

[Erc]

PA TL;DR:

Trump: 20
District Winner: 18
Uncommitted: 12
Cruz: 3
Kasich: 1

Of those "District Winners," Trump will obviously win most of them; PA-7 seems the one he's most likely to lose at the moment.

So if this holds up....of the ~180 delegates who will be unbound on the first ballot, do you have a revised estimate as to how many would likely vote for Trump on the first ballot?

Whatever he gets in PA, plus 4.  (So, around 39 total.)

Of the remainder, some could be convinced (some of the 12 remaining PA uncommitted, probably a couple in ND and LA and some insular folks); any more than around 20 gets difficult unless he's already winning the nomination.

Last week you said:

Absolute maximum is probably around 75, most of them from PA.

So that's what you'd still be guessing today?  If the unbound delegates hold the balance of power, then probably only ~40-50 will vote for Trump, with the possibility of it going up to ~75 in the best case for Trump?

I'd expect around 55, with a maximum of 80 or so.  Vermont's a real wildcard here.

[Erc]

On the Democratic side, the situation is even more bleak for Sanders.

He now needs to win around 64.5% of the remaining pledged delegates, corresponding to roughly a 64.3% vote share...he needs to reliably win 5 delegates in 7 delegate CDs.

Obviously, this isn't happening.

I'm going to be winding down coverage on the Democratic side; in particular, I'm not updating the individual superdelegate-by-state pages in this thread anymore.  I'll continue to do the overall count and update after each primary, though coverage here may lag results on my spreadsheet.

Oh, and Clinton now has over 500 superdelegate endorsements.

[Erc]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

Possibly? It's certainly an interesting question of what the Republicans will do to prevent Trump-like candidates in the future (without reopening the door to Paul-like candidates).

The convention itself is a relatively short span of time, I doubt much will be done on this front then...unless Cruz has realized he is going to lose the nomination and uses the convention to lay the  groundwork for his 2020 run.

More likely is him leaning on Texas to move that primary back into the WTA window.

[Gass3268]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

A lot of those decisions are determined by the state parties and state legislatures/governments, not the national party. He could probably convince Texas to go to WTA, but the stuff in the Northeast won't happen. Also I can't imagine them going away from delegating delegates to each state based on the # of Republican voters.

[Erc]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

A lot of those decisions are determined by the state parties and state legislatures/governments, not the national party. He could probably convince Texas to go to WTA, but the stuff in the Northeast won't happen. Also I can't imagine them going away from delegating delegates to each state based on the # of Republican voters.

Except that's not quite how it's done on the Republican side; states are awarded bonuses based on whether they voted for Romney in 2012 (plus a smattering of extras for electing Republican governors, state legislatures, Senators, etc.).  Wisconsin, with a very active GOP base (albeit one that loses Presidential elections narrowly) gets around as many bonus delegates as New York, Massachusetts, or Maryland, where it's not even close.  Wisconsin (1.4 million Romney voters) had 42 delegates, while Maryland (970k Romney voters) had 38 delegates.

Conversely, states that vote narrowly for a candidate get huge bonuses; Oklahoma (890k Romney voters) had 43 delegates.

There's definitely some room to mess around with the formulas, but I don't know how much of an effect it will have; the most overrepresented states are the small Mountain West states where Cruz does well, anyway.  At some point after the primaries are over I may crunch the numbers.

It'll be get even weirder in 2020 when it's based off of the few states that Trump wins this time around--i.e. the deep South and the Mountain West, which (with Trump out of the picture) has a good shot of being Cruz country.

One of the larger, and honestly overlooked, problems with Trump winning the nomination is that we will have to deal with Cruz in 2020.  If Trump lost the nomination and Cruz lost the general, we wouldn't have to deal with either of them next cycle.

[Erc]

Trump didn't seem to anticipate doing as well as he did in Rhode Island, knocking Cruz below 10% there.  He only had one delegate candidate on the ballot there, out of the two he is entitled to from the primary result.  It seems that Trump's "Screening Committee" gets to pick the new delegate, so he doesn't actually miss out on any delegates here, first ballot or otherwise.

[Ronnie]

According to MSNBC, 35 unbound delegates from PA will vote for Trump:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-wins-big-among-pennsylvania-s-unbound-delegates-n563681

That said, they still need to reach ten more, so it may still go up.

[Slander and/or Libel]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

A lot of those decisions are determined by the state parties and state legislatures/governments, not the national party. He could probably convince Texas to go to WTA, but the stuff in the Northeast won't happen. Also I can't imagine them going away from delegating delegates to each state based on the # of Republican voters.

Except that's not quite how it's done on the Republican side; states are awarded bonuses based on whether they voted for Romney in 2012 (plus a smattering of extras for electing Republican governors, state legislatures, Senators, etc.).  Wisconsin, with a very active GOP base (albeit one that loses Presidential elections narrowly) gets around as many bonus delegates as New York, Massachusetts, or Maryland, where it's not even close.  Wisconsin (1.4 million Romney voters) had 42 delegates, while Maryland (970k Romney voters) had 38 delegates.

Conversely, states that vote narrowly for a candidate get huge bonuses; Oklahoma (890k Romney voters) had 43 delegates.

There's definitely some room to mess around with the formulas, but I don't know how much of an effect it will have; the most overrepresented states are the small Mountain West states where Cruz does well, anyway.  At some point after the primaries are over I may crunch the numbers.

It'll be get even weirder in 2020 when it's based off of the few states that Trump wins this time around--i.e. the deep South and the Mountain West, which (with Trump out of the picture) has a good shot of being Cruz country.

One of the larger, and honestly overlooked, problems with Trump winning the nomination is that we will have to deal with Cruz in 2020.  If Trump lost the nomination and Cruz lost the general, we wouldn't have to deal with either of them next cycle.

From the perspective of trying to win the general, would they be better off adopting a system of giving bonus delegates to states whose presidential margin was within, say, 5 points either way? It seems like folly to tilt the nominating decision so heavily toward the states that are already solidly in the bag.

[jimrtex]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

In the primary yesterday, Democrats received 66.4% of the vote in  Rhode Island; 66.0% in Maryland; 60.7% in Connecticut; 57.7% in Delaware; and 51.5% in Pennsylvania.

Why should any of the states other than Pennsylvania have any delegates?

[Slander and/or Libel]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

In the primary yesterday, Democrats received 66.4% of the vote in  Rhode Island; 66.0% in Maryland; 60.7% in Connecticut; 57.7% in Delaware; and 51.5% in Pennsylvania.

Why should any of the states other than Pennsylvania have any delegates?

Because presumably having GOP operations helps in those states even though they're not winning the presidency. Republicans have won statewide office in all of those other states, but if you cut them out of the process of nominating the president, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't feel at least somewhat demoralized and cast adrift. I don't disagree that solid Democratic states (in a presidential sense) shouldn't have as much of a say, but by that token, neither should solid Republican ones, if their goal is to win. They should be pitching their nominee to who performs best in swing states.

[emailking]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

In the primary yesterday, Democrats received 66.4% of the vote in  Rhode Island; 66.0% in Maryland; 60.7% in Connecticut; 57.7% in Delaware; and 51.5% in Pennsylvania.

Why should any of the states other than Pennsylvania have any delegates?

Because there are Republicans in those states and they get to have a say in who their nominee is. This isn't obviated by an overdominance of democrats in those states.

[Erc]

Historically, of course, the system was even weirder.  There didn't used to be any bonus delegates at all, it was purely based on population...so the almost-nonexistent Republican parties of the Deep South had a disproportionate influence for many decades.

Of course, the only reason the Republican vote was so small was because the Republicans were disenfranchised, so it made moral sense to not further penalize them.

[Mr. Morden]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

In the primary yesterday, Democrats received 66.4% of the vote in  Rhode Island; 66.0% in Maryland; 60.7% in Connecticut; 57.7% in Delaware; and 51.5% in Pennsylvania.

Why should any of the states other than Pennsylvania have any delegates?

Because presumably having GOP operations helps in those states even though they're not winning the presidency. Republicans have won statewide office in all of those other states, but if you cut them out of the process of nominating the president, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't feel at least somewhat demoralized and cast adrift. I don't disagree that solid Democratic states (in a presidential sense) shouldn't have as much of a say, but by that token, neither should solid Republican ones, if their goal is to win. They should be pitching their nominee to who performs best in swing states.

But a primary electorate is different from a general election electorate.  The winner of a primary election in Ohio isn't inherently more electable nationally than a primary winner in Illinois, for example.

Also, electability isn't the only thing that matters.  In the exit polls, we're seeing voters favor many other qualities over electability.  Shouldn't a Democrat or Republican living anywhere in the country have a reasonably equal say, if possible, in expressing their preference for their party's nominee, based on whatever criteria they like?

[Slander and/or Libel]

So if Trump clinches on the 1st ballot but Cruz has a majority on the floor in Cleveland, Cruz effectively gets to set the 2020 delegate rules, right?  And he would obviously consider himself the next-in-line for the nomination.  So look for Texas to have 750 delegates awarded WTA to the statewide winner in 2020, while the all of the Northeast states combined get to elect 200 formally unpledged delegates at conventions, with convention meetings to be held from 1-7 am on a Monday morning in the least populous county in each state?

In the primary yesterday, Democrats received 66.4% of the vote in  Rhode Island; 66.0% in Maryland; 60.7% in Connecticut; 57.7% in Delaware; and 51.5% in Pennsylvania.

Why should any of the states other than Pennsylvania have any delegates?

Because presumably having GOP operations helps in those states even though they're not winning the presidency. Republicans have won statewide office in all of those other states, but if you cut them out of the process of nominating the president, it's hard to imagine they wouldn't feel at least somewhat demoralized and cast adrift. I don't disagree that solid Democratic states (in a presidential sense) shouldn't have as much of a say, but by that token, neither should solid Republican ones, if their goal is to win. They should be pitching their nominee to who performs best in swing states.

But a primary electorate is different from a general election electorate.  The winner of a primary election in Ohio isn't inherently more electable nationally than a primary winner in Illinois, for example.

Also, electability isn't the only thing that matters.  In the exit polls, we're seeing voters favor many other qualities over electability.  Shouldn't a Democrat or Republican living anywhere in the country have a reasonably equal say, if possible, in expressing their preference for their party's nominee, based on whatever criteria they like?

Sure! I'm not saying any one way is more right or more wrong. Just trying to throw out there another possible way of thinking about things, since a discussion seemed to have started about how to allocate delegates to the states in the first place. Right now it seems like allocation is roughly weighted more in favor of safe Republican states. Above, jimrtex seemed to recommend throwing that weighting into overdrive by taking delegates away from more Democratic states entirely. I know electability isn't the only thing, but if it were taken more into account, I'd think that perhaps giving extra delegates to swing states (and making their primaries semi-open) might at least help tilt things more toward candidates that have appeal in states that could help decide the election.

[Mr. Morden]

Right now it seems like allocation is roughly weighted more in favor of safe Republican states.

Well..."weighted more in favor of safe Republican states".  The existing allocation formula is rather screwy, sure, but I should note that if you allocated the delegates to make the electoral power per primary voter equal, you would in fact have more delegates in more Republican states, since there are more Republicans there.  Makes sense that Florida gets more delegates than New York, even though they have similar population.  There are more Republican voters in Florida.  And the reverse for the Dems.  More Dem. voters in New York, so more delegates there for the Dems makes sense.

And actually, the much bigger discrepancy comes with respect to how delegates are allocated within states.  At least the Dems allocate different numbers of delegates to different congressional districts, based on party strength in the CD.  Most of the states on the Republican side give three delegates to every CD, even if there are a tiny number of Republican voters there.  This means that Republicans living in heavily Democratic CDs have vastly more power than those living in Republican CDs.  Harry Enten talks about that here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-right-that-the-gop-primary-is-unfair-it-favors-him/

[Slander and/or Libel]

Right now it seems like allocation is roughly weighted more in favor of safe Republican states.

Well..."weighted more in favor of safe Republican states".  The existing allocation formula is rather screwy, sure, but I should note that if you allocated the delegates to make the electoral power per primary voter equal, you would in fact have more delegates in more Republican states, since there are more Republicans there.  Makes sense that Florida gets more delegates than New York, even though they have similar population.  There are more Republican voters in Florida.  And the reverse for the Dems.  More Dem. voters in New York, so more delegates there for the Dems makes sense.

And actually, the much bigger discrepancy comes with respect to how delegates are allocated within states.  At least the Dems allocate different numbers of delegates to different congressional districts, based on party strength in the CD.  Most of the states on the Republican side give three delegates to every CD, even if there are a tiny number of Republican voters there.  This means that Republicans living in heavily Democratic CDs have vastly more power than those living in Republican CDs.  Harry Enten talks about that here:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-right-that-the-gop-primary-is-unfair-it-favors-him/

Yes, this is certainly true. I completely agree. I don't know that it's necessarily contradicted by anything I said. When I talked about things being weighted in favor of safe Republican states, I meant things like the bonuses for having Republican elected officials, or having voted for the Republican candidate in the last presidential cycle, things like that. When I talked about considering weighting things toward swing states, I certainly didn't mean weighting things to make electoral power per primary voter equal. The system I was floating would absolutely distort things away from that ideal, if indeed you hold it as an ideal.

Basically, I was looking a little more big picture than your responses seem to be geared. If they want the primary to reflect the preferences of the base, then something like the current system tilts things in that direction. If they wanted it to reflect the party as a whole, then allocating delegates to make electoral power per delegate as equal as possible would be the ideal. If they wanted to tilt things more toward electability in the general, then they might consider allocating (relatively to other states) more delegates to states that were close in the previous general election. As long as there is going to be a system of delegates in between the popular vote and the nomination, the way they're allocated is going to be a choice that can be fine-tuned to move toward various ideas of what the primaries should be and what outcome they should work toward.

[Erc]

Historically, of course, the system was even weirder.  There didn't used to be any bonus delegates at all, it was purely based on population...so the almost-nonexistent Republican parties of the Deep South had a disproportionate influence for many decades.

Of course, the only reason the Republican vote was so small was because the Republicans were disenfranchised, so it made moral sense to not further penalize them.

Were the Republican delegates from the South during ~1890-1940 generally black civil rights activists then?  Perhaps with a few Northerners who moved and federal employees under generally Republican administrations thrown in?

Not uniformly.  Many places saw a split into a "lily white" faction that agreed to Jim Crow in an attempt to achieve electoral success under Jim Crow, and a "black & tan" faction that maintained its opposition to Jim Crow and still had black members.  In 1912, apparently Louisiana sent three separate delegations to the convention: a lily white pro-Roosevelt, a lily white pro-Taft, and a black & tan pro-Taft delegation.

[Badger]

The reason why black voters are pretty much irrelevant to the Republican party - even with 0 percent black voters, all you need for a republican win is an increase in the turnout of whites without a degree, to 71 percent, and a slight increase in the percentage of whites with a degree voting Republican to 61 percent.

That... actually breaks the freiwall.

Blacks have made themselves demographically irrelevant in American elections.

and mindsets like that have made the Republican Party far worse than irrelevent among blacks, plus quickly moving us in that direction among other non-white voters. Not to mention among younger voters who are more likely than their parents to see multiculturalism as a good thing. Most will be repelled by a party that chooses to unapologetically cater to middle aged bigots in order to maximize white turnout.

I guarantee such a prescription will lock the GOP out of the White House for decades , followed by a solid Democratic congressional majority after we eventually lose the near monopoly 2010 gave us in redistricting and continued demographic shifts inevitably overcome dropped rates of minority off-year turnout.

[swf541]

ABC called every unbound delegate apparently

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/725797756644806656

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erc]

ABC called every unbound delegate apparently

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/725797756644806656

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately their pledged delegate count is a bit kooky last time I checked; I can try to disentangle it but no guarantees it would be worthwhile.

[swf541]

ABC called every unbound delegate apparently

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/725797756644806656

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately their pledged delegate count is a bit kooky last time I checked; I can try to disentangle it but no guarantees it would be worthwhile.

Interesting, what did they screw up previously?

[Erc]

ABC called every unbound delegate apparently

https://mobile.twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/725797756644806656

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately their pledged delegate count is a bit kooky last time I checked; I can try to disentangle it but no guarantees it would be worthwhile.

Interesting, what did they screw up previously?

They seem to have fixed most of their flagrant errors.

Pledged delegates:

Two months later, they still don't understand the rules in Oklahoma and have the wrong delegate count there.

They have yet to call 2 delegates (1 Trump, 1 Kasich) in New York.

They have yet to call 1 delegate for Trump in Rhode Island.

On the unbound side:

Cruz is at 33, not 34 in Colorado.
Cruz is at 19 (1 unbound only) in Louisiana.
They don't have any of Cruz's unbound pickups in Oklahoma or Minnesota, or Kasich's in New Hampshire.
Kasich has an unbound delegate in the Virgin Islands; they seem to be making the right choice and going with the Yob delegation here.
Rubio seems to still have his delegate in Wyoming, but Cruz has an extra unbound delegate beyond what I have.
No endorsements at all in American Samoa.
41 unbound in Pennsylvania for Trump (1 ahead of my count)
I can't find their results for North Dakota.

[The Other Castro]

Judd Gregg (Unbound Bush delegate supporting Kasich) is no longer attending the RNC, apparently in opposition to Cruz. The three alternates that former Bush campaign officers can replace him with are Melissa Stevens, Harry Crews, and Paul Speltz.