The Delegate Fight: 2016

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

CNN just said Trump has now passed 1,000 delegates

[Erc]

CNN just said Trump has now passed 1,000 delegates

He just hit 1000 on my count after a clarification from the RI GOP as to how they're handling the rounding rules.

Discrepancies between my count and others' count re: Trump's total will generally have to do with general GA/VI issues (as noted on the front page), and unbound delegates.  I'm usually ahead of other outlets outside of PA, but may be a couple-few delegates behind in PA.

[Erc]

Alaska officially clarifies that Rubio keeps his delegates on the first ballot.

Basically, the clarification was that his "suspension" doesn't count as him "dropping out," so his delegates are not reallocated.

A separate question that they don't even talk about is whether he is "maintaining an active campaign," in which case his delegates would be released (not reallocated) on the first ballot.  Bit of an academic distinction anyway, since it sounds like they'd be voting for Rubio regardless, but something that even the AK GOP seems to have forgotten about.

[Erc]

CNN just said Trump has now passed 1,000 delegates

He just hit 1000 on my count after a clarification from the RI GOP as to how they're handling the rounding rules.

Discrepancies between my count and others' count re: Trump's total will generally have to do with general GA/VI issues (as noted on the front page), and unbound delegates.  I'm usually ahead of other outlets outside of PA, but may be a couple-few delegates behind in PA.

So Trump just got a 12th delegate out of RI at the expense of Cruz, but that only brings him to 997 in e.g. 538's count, even with the support of 40 of the PA unpledged, which is surely equal to or more than you have assigned him from PA.  Have you assigned him 2 delegates from the USVI slate?  That seems unwise as the Cruz or Cruz/Kasich majority Rules Committee will surely decide the credentials fight in favor of the all unbound Yob slate if it matters.  Do you have the Emineth guy in ND as a verified Trump backer?  

I have Trump presently at 39 in PA (down 1 from my earlier count), so he's back at 999.

I side with the Yobs in the USVI, so Trump has 0 out of there.

Other Trump unbound included in my count are 2 in American Samoa, Gary Emineth (who has dropped the pretense of being undecided) in ND, and one guy in Oklahoma.

My only difference among pledged delegates with the 538 tracker appears to be that 538 sides with Canegata in the USVI, thus giving Trump an extra delegate.

[dax00]

I side with the Yobs in the USVI, so Trump has 0 out of there.

Surely the only incentive for the Yobs to make it as delegates to the RNC is to pick up favors from Trump in exchange for their votes...? I've got a hard time believing they wouldn't go to Trump.

[Erc]

I side with the Yobs in the USVI, so Trump has 0 out of there.

Surely the only incentive for the Yobs to make it as delegates to the RNC is to pick up favors from Trump in exchange for their votes...? I've got a hard time believing they wouldn't go to Trump.

The USVI business is a proxy battle for the MI GOP and has little to do with Trump vs. NeverTrump (it's honestly closer to Cruz vs. NeverCruz).  While the Yobs could very well side with Trump, we have no explicit evidence at all at present that they would do so.  The Canegata slate, however, does have a delegate explicitly bound to Trump.

[jimrtex]

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/

New York's Republican turnout is 12th among states so far, behind, PA, OH, MI, IL, WI, MO, VA, NC, GA, FL, and TX.

It barely topped AL, TN, and SC.

It will probably be topped by Indiana, Washington, and California.

[Simfan34]

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.

So his threshold for a 1st ballot win has fallen to around 1200 pledged delegates after PA, assuming most of the 10 who have yet to respond oppose Trump.  Wow.  I really didn't think his campaign was capable of this when it was just a list of random names on the ballot.  Looks like he decided to pull out of CO and WY in order to quietly organize PA.

Manafortization continues apace!

[Classic Conservative]

Trump will basically sweep every single delegate today in Massachusetts, I'm here right now and you can basically call it a Trump rally they even have an outdoor pavilion.

[BCSWowbagger]

Yeah, I just saw on Twitter one Jean Kangas got elected as a Cruz delegate in MA-3, but supports Trump on a second ballot.  That's the very first reliable Cruz --> Trump delegate on my spreadsheet.

By comparison, I've got 74 Trump --> Cruz delegates, 4 Trump --> Kasich dels, and 32 Trump --> Anybody-But-Trump people.

[Lief 🗽]

How many delegates would Trump have to win to ensure that the majority would actually be pro-Trump delegates? 1400? 1500?

[IceSpear]

Alaska officially clarifies that Rubio keeps his delegates on the first ballot.

Lavenous news!

[PaperKooper]

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/30/trump-locks-down-state-gop-convention/83712702/

Delaware's Republican Party selected its delegates today.  15/16 said they would support Trump beyond the first ballot.  I'm not sure who the odd man out is, but I'd guess State Treasurer Ken Simpler.  

[Ebsy]

The Iowa State Democratic Party congressional district conventions are occurring today. Delegates splits that I could find on twitter:

IA-1: 4-4
IA-2: 4-4 (Tentative, delegates still being selected)
IA-3: 4-3 Clinton
IA-4: 3-3

Someone else said that the final count was 15 for Clinton and 14 for Sanders out of the Congressional District delegates, so a split in IA-2 makes sense. The statewide convention is next month I believe.

[Classic Conservative]

Cruz actually won four delegates in Massachusetts
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/trump-crushes-mass-caucuses-cruz-cruises-in-missouri

[Ebsy]

Okay, I've got confirmation on the delegate splits from all 4 conventions. Things went as expected with Clinton getting 15 to Sanders 14, the same split we had on caucus night. In terms of the state convention, the 6 PLEOs should split 3-3, but the real contest will be who get the 9th at-large national delegate awarded to the campaign with the most state delegates. Clinton should be narrowly favored, since she is going to have permanent organizers in the state from now on as well as a narrow advantage coming out of the county conventions.

[Erc]

The Iowa State Democratic Party congressional district conventions are occurring today. Delegates splits that I could find on twitter:

IA-1: 4-4
IA-2: 4-4 (Tentative, delegates still being selected)
IA-3: 4-3 Clinton
IA-4: 3-3

Someone else said that the final count was 15 for Clinton and 14 for Sanders out of the Congressional District delegates, so a split in IA-2 makes sense. The statewide convention is next month I believe.

This is in line with expectations from the February caucuses (and last month's county conventions); no huge surprises here.

Cruz actually won four delegates in Massachusetts
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/trump-crushes-mass-caucuses-cruz-cruises-in-missouri

Will be really interesting to see what happens in Vermont next month, where Kasich's 8 delegates are at stake on the first ballot.  That said, the process is more multi-tiered, which may disfavor Trump.

[Mr. Morden]

It continues to amaze me that Trump pulled off 3/4ths of the PA unpledged delegates.  He's still getting creamed in that type of contest everywhere else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that type of contest".  The PA unpledged delegates were directly elected by the voters, whereas all of these other events involve selection by "party insiders".  Seems pretty clear why Trump did better in the former than the latter.

[Erc]

It continues to amaze me that Trump pulled off 3/4ths of the PA unpledged delegates.  He's still getting creamed in that type of contest everywhere else.

There's a huge difference between motivating people to turn out to multiple stages of caucuses (which in many states started before the primary, etc.) and getting people who are already turning out to a primary to vote for the correct names on the ballot.

Trump appears to have gotten his act together on the second, but the first may be unsalvageable in many states.

That shouldn't diminish the scale of the operation he pulled off; it's extremely impressive, and made his path to 1237 quite measurably easier.

[Mr. Morden]

It continues to amaze me that Trump pulled off 3/4ths of the PA unpledged delegates.  He's still getting creamed in that type of contest everywhere else.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that type of contest".  The PA unpledged delegates were directly elected by the voters, whereas all of these other events involve selection by "party insiders".  Seems pretty clear why Trump did better in the former than the latter.

Well, they weren't even identified on the ballot by whom they supported, which should favor well-organized insiders.

Only in the sense that you need to be well organized enough to get this information about who to support to your voters.  In the other delegate contests, it doesn't matter if you give people the information or not.  The people doing the voting at these state conventions are anti-Trump.  That's why they aren't voting for Trump delegates.  Not because they don't have the right info about who is and isn't a Trump delegate.

[Vosem]

How many delegates would Trump have to win to ensure that the majority would actually be pro-Trump delegates? 1400? 1500?

If he's at 1500 but a majority are pro-Trump, 82% of his delegates are loyal to him. Which the South isn't letting happen. Most of the indicators outside the Northeast are that Trump will be lucky to keep 1/3 of his support.

If we say he keeps 1/2 his support (generous, but not impossible), then he simply needs to win every delegate on offer since Iowa. Seems doable.

[BCSWowbagger]

How many delegates would Trump have to win to ensure that the majority would actually be pro-Trump delegates? 1400? 1500?

For a typical candidate? Probably about 1400 or 1500.  Delegate loyalties are much weaker than is generally assumed, even in typical cycles; it just doesn't usually matter.

But Trump doesn't just have disloyalty; he is hated by the longtime members of his own party, the conservatives even more than the establishment.  To actually have a loyal majority for Trump... yeah, I think vosem has it: 2500 or so bound delegates should do it.

He might be able to pull it off with 2000, because of the big states that allow candidates to pick their own delegates.  But we are well into the realm of the hypothetical here, because Trump won't have 2000 loyal delegates.

I think the world in general -- which is not doing the math on delegate loyalty -- is underestimating the possibility that Trump will win 1,237, but Cruz/Kasich will orchestrate a convention rules change to force a second ballot anyway.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How many delegates would Trump have to win to ensure that the majority would actually be pro-Trump delegates? 1400? 1500?

For a typical candidate? Probably about 1400 or 1500.  Delegate loyalties are much weaker than is generally assumed, even in typical cycles; it just doesn't usually matter.

But Trump doesn't just have disloyalty; he is hated by the longtime members of his own party, the conservatives even more than the establishment.  To actually have a loyal majority for Trump... yeah, I think vosem has it: 2500 or so bound delegates should do it.

He might be able to pull it off with 2000, because of the big states that allow candidates to pick their own delegates.  But we are well into the realm of the hypothetical here, because Trump won't have 2000 loyal delegates.

I think the world in general -- which is not doing the math on delegate loyalty -- is underestimating the possibility that Trump will win 1,237, but Cruz/Kasich will orchestrate a convention rules change to force a second ballot anyway.

Of course if they unbind the delegates to deny him the nomination, Trump would likely run 3rd party.

[The Other Castro]

Jon Ralston says that Carson has released his 2 delegates from Nevada, which are now unbound.

[Mr. Morden]

Trump won't have a majority of delegates who are actually loyal to him.  But that doesn't mean they're going to go nuclear and deny him the nomination.  The question is, do they still give him trouble on the VP nomination and/or the running of the convention?  Can the delegates actually seize control of the convention, and overrule Trump's choices as to who gets to speak, when, about what, etc.?

Also, if we suppose that a majority of delegates are anti-Trump (but will still nominate him for prez because of being bound by the primary results), are there other things they can do at the convention that will impact how the RNC operates during the fall campaign?  For example, can they force the party to direct money to help congressional candidates and avoid the presidential race, throw up roadblocks on data sharing between the RNC and the Trump campaign and so forth?  Or is that something that's really just decided by Priebus and a handful of people around him, which the delegates to the convention have no control over?