The Delegate Fight: 2016

[Ebsy]

TRUMP Tetris is grand. I'm going to guess that if he is going to get a majority of delegates, it will be California that puts him over the top.

[Ebsy]

So TRUMP has another state where he has over 50% of delegates?

[Ebsy]

Actually, there seems to be some controversy regarding the Polk County Convention (which Sanders did unexpectedly well at).

The initial counts for Clinton were even worse, showing Sanders beating her there despite Clinton's pretty decisive win there on caucus night.  As a result, the Clinton folks asked for a credentials check of the delegates (numbering 1200 in total!), which dragged on the process for many, many hours.  Some Sanders supporters simply left (due to other commitments) as time passed, and the final count showed Clinton ahead, though still short of what would have been expected from caucus night results.

More details can be found here.

If this is disputed going forward (which it very well could be, considering accusations directly from Sanders' Twitter that "Effort under way right now by @hillaryclinton and party allies to steal Polk County Iowa conv. election Bernie won earlier today."), the outcome of that final delegate may once again be in dispute.

For all the outcry here, I have to say Clinton was in the right to ask for credentials checking considering the surprising nature of the result.  Even if all the credentials were in order, the difference in the result means---even for the results the Sanders camp is saying is crying foul about!---at least 35 Clinton supporters switched to Sanders (or 70 Clinton supporters didn't show up).  That's not all that many out of a total of 1200 delegates, I suppose, but it's still a lot!

That's a lot of people who were committed enough to Clinton on February 1 to go to a convention on a random Saturday the next month to support them, who then decided to change their minds and vote for the other guy.  Everywhere else in the state the swings were way smaller (though of course those counties were smaller); the only county to see more than a 1-delegate swing was Pottawattamie, and that in the other direction.

Was there a concerted effort by the Sanders camp on February 1 in Des Moines to elect stealth Sanders supporters as Clinton delegates to the Polk convention?  (In the manner of Paul's myriad efforts to this effect in 2012 on the GOP side)?  I don't know, but this doesn't smell right to me either way.

Just to clarify a few things, only about 1000 credentialed delegates showed up (not unusual at all), and some of the controversy was that alternates were tallied when they were not supposed to on the first count, leading to the number of Sanders supporters being over-represented.

[Ebsy]

So, pending whatever craziness happens in the wake of Polk County, Clinton leads by just as many state/district delegates as she did before the conventions. Both will probably bleed some support going into the statewide convention, so we really don't know who will get the final delegate.

[Ebsy]

Sanders just conceded Missouri, so the rest of the outstanding delegates can be awarded if you were holding off.

[Ebsy]

Erc, I have been seeing reports that Sanders may be underperforming at County delegate conventions in Colorado. Have you heard anything about this?

https://np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4b4qri/colorado_douglas_county_democrat_assembly_and/

[Ebsy]

I thought the maximum suggested requirement for residency was 30 days in every state, but maybe the Virgin Islands set it longer?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[Ebsy]

In the event that Trump is ruled ineligible in SC, his delegates would go to Cruz instead (assuming Rubio is not placed into nomination).  Of course, it's not incredibly clear Cruz is eligible, either, in which case the delegates would be unbound.

As I said earlier, the easiest way for Republicans to deny Trump a majority is through somehow taking out South Carolina.

[Ebsy]

So, if the votes are not tallied, do they still impact the number of delegates needed for a majority?

[Ebsy]

So, if the votes are not tallied, do they still impact the number of delegates needed for a majority?

Regardless of abstentions, no-shows, votes for Carly Fiorina, you still need "a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention," i.e. 1237 delegates, in order to win the nomination.

Sorry for another question Erc, but does Rule 40 extend beyond the first ballot?

[Ebsy]

Follow @meganmesserly to watch the chaos that is the Clark County Democratic convention.

[Ebsy]

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a survey of the delegate candidates in Pennsylvania and their presidential leanings.

There are an awful lot who are saying that they will vote for whoever wins their district; if such delegates win and stick to their commitment, the primary in Pennsylvania may matter more than we thought.

While that would be great, it is going to add so much uncertainty to the first ballot.

[Ebsy]

Sanders got super unlucky with delegate splits. He's splitting 3-3 in WI-1, WI-6, WI-7, and WI-8.

[Ebsy]

On the Democratic side in Wisconsin, the breakdown appears to be 48 - 38 in favor of Sanders.

This is precisely the margin Sanders needs in order to have a shot of catching up to Clinton in pledged delegates...the problem is that he now needs to replicate it in all the remaining states, including New York and Puerto Rico.

If Sanders is only hitting his average target in one of the best primary states left for him, it's not looking good for his hopes of winning the nomination without dirty tricks or a preposterous superdelegate super-miracle.

For comparison, his equivalent target in New York is a 140-116 victory.  Good luck with that.

Actually, considering where he has underperformed, Sanders needed 2 more delegates out of Wisconsin. Clinton's CD game in Wisconsin was as good as some of Obama's delegate minimizing strategies in 2008.

[Ebsy]

What state can trump absolutely not afford to underperform in?

New York.

[Ebsy]

Erc, Clinton gained a delegate from Sanders in KS-04. When the vote was broken down, it ended up going 3-2 instead of 4-1. Sanders count of delegates and AP confirm this. The number should be 23 Sanders, 10 Clinton.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/KS-D

[Ebsy]

If Trump wins on the first ballot, there will have to be some kind of reconciliation. We know Trump loves to make deals, so he will likely haggle with the RNC over someone both sides find acceptable as a running mate, and they'll all come together by the end of the convention to roast marshmallows while singing campfire songs.

Or of course, in the case Trump isn't nominated, riots.

[Ebsy]

http://progressivearmy.com/2016/04/10/bernie-sanders-wins-missouri-after-all/

Erc, claims like this have been flying around the internet for the past couple of days, and I figured I should bring it up here. I'm pretty sure that these "mass meetings" held for delegate selection have exactly 0 impact on which candidate gets national delegates, and that they are awarded based on the actual primary vote, but I figured I should check in with you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw8qd8A8ZSVLY0RGWFNtMlJkdXc/view

Stupidity on this scale is really just staggering sometimes.

[Ebsy]

I'm starting to suspect that the Yob family are going to be the protagonists of Game Change: 2016.

[Ebsy]

It's literally one (1) delegate when Clinton is ahead by over 200.

[Ebsy]

The Canegata-Yob dispute turned violent today, with one of the non-Yob delegates that Canegata threw out with the bathwater being apparently assaulted by Canegata himself.

According to the VI GOP Vice chair, Gwendolyn Brady was “slammed against the wall and thrown to the floor because she objected to the Gestapo-like tactics of the V.I. Chairman John Canegata.”  Canegata, of course, claims a different sequence of events, but doesn't deny that there was a "scuffle."

Oh, and this happened on a gun range, with Canegata reportedly walking around carrying a firearm and using an ammunition cartridge as a gavel.

Game Change: 2016 better have a section dedicated to the Yobs.

[Ebsy]

Not sure if you saw this Erc:

The proposal, which was sponsored by Solomon Yue, an RNC committeeman from Oregon, was intended to further empower the convention’s delegates — injecting the convention, Yue argued, with a degree of transparency at a time of unprecedented scrutiny of the party’s internal procedures.

The vote bitterly divided the party, pitting a small group eager to advance the proposal against RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and his allies, who warned that implementing the change would further inflame Donald Trump, who has accused the committee of overseeing a “rigged” process that’s stacked against him.

But after Priebus last week came out against it, Bruce Ash, an Arizona RNC member and the chairman of the Rules Committee tasked with overseeing the hearing on Yue’s measure, wrote a letter to fellow committee members in which he accused Priebus of a “breach of trust.” Ash accused Priebus of working to scuttle the bill and said Priebus was working behind the scenes to ensure it didn’t appear before the Rules Committee at this week’s annual spring meeting here. Yue, meanwhile, wrote a letter of his own in which he accused the RNC of “institutional tyranny.”