Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2016 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: Erc on January 18, 2016, 12:07:21 AM



Title: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 18, 2016, 12:07:21 AM
Welcome once again to my quadrennial delegate-tracking thread (2012 R (http://bit.ly/1X59Ig5), 2008 D (http://bit.ly/1X59LZu)).

In this thread, I'll also give state-by-state summaries of the delegate allocation process, along with the derivation of the results for each state once they've voted.

I will be tracking both the Republican side (in this post) and the Democratic one (in the next post).

Delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention

StateTrumpCruzKasichOtherUnpledgedTotal
Iowa (http://bit.ly/1W80wYb)78114-30
New Hampshire (http://bit.ly/1TKgzxT)    1130+4-523
South Carolina (http://bit.ly/1RzlFGR)    50----50
Nevada (http://bit.ly/1U35DuN)    14619-30
Alabama (http://bit.ly/1Wa3k7k)    3613--150
Alaska (http://bit.ly/1P0qpn2)    1112-5-28
Arkansas (http://bit.ly/220FIsD)    1615-9-40
Georgia (http://bit.ly/1LRZuiu)    4218-16-76
Massachusetts (http://bit.ly/1R8cVxi)   22488-42
Minnesota (http://bit.ly/24RBPoJ)   813+5--1238
Oklahoma (http://bit.ly/1R8cW4k)   13+115+3--1243
Tennessee (http://bit.ly/1RRSBx1)   3316-9-58
Texas (http://bit.ly/1TMz7Oe)   48104-3-155
Vermont (http://bit.ly/1YyFinR)   8---816
Virginia (http://bit.ly/1P0qwPB)   178519-49
Kansas (http://bit.ly/1Lj6Vzi)   92416-40
Kentucky (http://bit.ly/1QUgSQx)   171577-46
Louisiana (http://bit.ly/1nFwwHh)   1818+2--846
Maine (http://bit.ly/1RGf6lV)   9122--23
Puerto Rico (http://bit.ly/1QP7wsT)   ---23-23
Hawaii (http://bit.ly/1WhnH2u)   117-1-19
Idaho (http://bit.ly/1U8DORX)   1220---32
Michigan (http://bit.ly/1QUh1n7)   251717--59
Mississippi (http://bit.ly/1pfy1Nt)   2515---40
Virgin Islands (http://bit.ly/1pfy23T)*   ----99
D.C. (http://bit.ly/1TMVBhx)   --910-19
Guam (http://bit.ly/22j2ADK)   -0+1--89
Wyoming (http://bit.ly/1UxT75x)   123+2--329
Florida (http://bit.ly/1RNccvO)   99----99
Illinois (http://bit.ly/1LpHFYd)   5496--69
Missouri (http://bit.ly/1pKrP0r)   3715---52
North Carolina (http://bit.ly/1WppouG)   292797-72
Northern Marianas (http://bit.ly/253s9HW)   9----9
Ohio (http://bit.ly/1S3eoSu)   --66--66
American Samoa (http://bit.ly/1pQq9m8)   0+20+1--69
Arizona (http://bit.ly/1PgdRba)   58----58
Utah (http://bit.ly/1psGZH9)   -40---40
Colorado (http://bit.ly/258MiMI)  -30+4--337
North Dakota (http://bit.ly/1nUkc66)  0+10+17--1128
Wisconsin (http://bit.ly/258Mf3u)  636---42
New York (http://bit.ly/1UaDOkT)  90-5--95
Connecticut (http://bit.ly/21z8WcK)  28----28
Delaware (http://bit.ly/1R4hZ2B)  16----16
Maryland (http://bit.ly/1RoUjsT)  38----38
Pennsylvania (http://bit.ly/1RqPlpo)  17+400+30+1-1071
Rhode Island (http://bit.ly/1S88Ki5)  1225--19
Indiana (http://bit.ly/1TTQxYP)  57----57
Hard Total10135451421461812027
Unpledged44385-93181
Soft Total1057583147146942027
Future States445

Notes

The Republicans have a small number of unpledged delegates who are free to change their vote on the first ballot; these are indicated in the above counts by the + figures.  The Hard Totals only include pledged delegates; the Soft Totals include both pledged and unpledged delegates.  These unpledged delegates are tracked in detail here (Unbound Delegates tab). (http://bit.ly/1Si4vh3)

Other. The vast majority of these are Rubio delegates (tracked here (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/141395588419/rubios-delegates)), excepting:
  • Ben Carson: Has 3 delegates in both Iowa and Virginia, and 1 delegate in North Carolina, that are still bound to him.  He has 2 delegates in Nevada, which he can choose to keep, release, or reallocate to Trump and Rubio.
  • Other Dropouts: Paul, Bush, Fiorina, and Huckabee have a delegate each bound to them in Iowa.  Bush's 3 NH delegates are still bound.

Uncertainties
:
  • Georgia: Interpretation of the delegate rules is unclear; potentially, Trump could gain 1 delegate each from Rubio and Cruz. CNN agrees with my count.
  • *Virgin Islands: There's a credentials fight here, with the original slate 6 Uncommitted competing with a slate of 2 Uncommitted, 2 Rubio, 1 Trump, and 1 Cruz.  Separately, 3 delegates of the original slate are subject to a residency challenge in the courts, and could be replaced with 2 Uncommitted and 1 Rubio delegate.

Kasich will not qualify under Rule 40 (http://bit.ly/1L9w9QC) as it currently stands; this releases his delegates in Vermont.  He has also now (5/4) suspended his campaign, releasing his MI delegates.

Cruz has suspended his campaign; see discussion here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5052970#msg5052970) for the effect on pledged delegate counts.  It also obviously has an effect his unpledged count, as well.

Recent Updates

5/3: Indiana results added. [Final update of the season; see the spreadsheet (http://bit.ly/1Si4vh3) for further updates.]
4/29: Rhode Island results updated.
4/27: CT/DE/MD/PA/RI results added.
4/19: New York results added.

Unpledged delegates last updated 4/29.

The Upcoming Calendar:
May 7: Minnesota District Conventions (from April 22).
May 10: Nebraska (http://bit.ly/1WvN809), West Virginia (http://bit.ly/1MefWde) Primaries.
May 14: Oklahoma State Convention (from May 13).
May 15: Nevada State Convention (from May 14).
May 17: Oregon Primary (http://bit.ly/22rHkZp)
May 21: Minnesota State Convention (from May 20).  Vermont State Convention.
May 24: Washington Primary (http://bit.ly/1psHkd6)
June 7: California (http://bit.ly/1XAcWsb), Montana (http://bit.ly/1pyqbPS), New Jersey (http://bit.ly/1Umj4pQ), New Mexico (http://bit.ly/1Z9g7IL), South Dakota (http://bit.ly/1PgeFgd) Primaries.
July 18: Republican National Convention begins.

Delegate Selection Calendar (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/142876066839/gop-delegate-selection-calendar)

Useful Links:
The Delegate Fight on tumblr (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com)
The Delegate Fight Spreadsheet (http://bit.ly/1Si4vh3)
Rules of the RNC (http://bit.ly/1p9jSBY) (there may be a newer version)
Call of the 2016 Republican Convention (http://bit.ly/21fEOD1)
Frontloading HQ Executive Summary (http://bit.ly/1OMRie0)
Mr. Morden's Calendar and Delegate Allocation Megathread (http://bit.ly/1U5cHWG)
GOP Presidential Nominating Process Book (http://bit.ly/1UL4iIH)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 18, 2016, 12:08:11 AM
Delegates to the 2016 Democratic National Convention

StateClinton  Sanders  S-ClintonS-SandersUncommittedTotal
Iowa* (http://bit.ly/23LPhZU)23217-252
New Hampshire (http://bit.ly/1p54pBX)    9156-232
Nevada* (http://bit.ly/22AooG3)    181741343
South Carolina (http://bit.ly/1W4Fuvu)    39145-143
Alabama (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)    4494-360
American Samoa (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)    4241-11
Arkansas (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)    22105--37
Colorado (http://bit.ly/1V7wtTs)    254110-278
Georgia (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)    732912-3117
Massachusetts (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)    46451816116
Minnesota (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)    3146123193
Oklahoma (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)    172111242
Tennessee (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)    44236-275
Texas (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)    1477521-8251
Vermont (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)    -1646-26
Virginia (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)    623313-1109
Kansas (http://bit.ly/1WwyeZH)    10231-337
Louisiana (http://bit.ly/1WwyeZH)    37147-159
Nebraska (http://bit.ly/1WwyeZH)    10153-230
Maine (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4941241#msg4941241)*    91631130
Michigan (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4941264#msg4941264)    636711-6147
Mississippi (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4941264#msg4941264)    31532-41
Northern Marianas (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949887#msg4949887)    425--11
Florida (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)    141732327246
Illinois (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)    79772312182
Missouri (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)    363513--84
North Carolina (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)    60471013121
Ohio (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)    81621412160
Democrats Abroad (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4941264#msg4941264)    4921117
Arizona (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4960664#msg4960664)    423352385
Idaho (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4960664#msg4960664)*    51812127
Utah (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4960664#msg4960664)    62722-37
Alaska* (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4969347#msg4969347)    31311220
Hawaii (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4969347#msg4969347)    81761335
Washington (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4969347#msg4969347)    277410-7118
Wisconsin (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4986079#msg4986079)    384871296
Wyoming* (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4995054#msg4995054)    774--18
New York (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5011031#msg5011031)    13910840-4291
Connecticut (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)    282715-171
Delaware (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)    1297-331
Maryland (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)    61341616118
Pennsylvania (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)    1068321--210
Rhode Island (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)    11139--33
Indiana (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024205#msg5024205)   39447-292
Hard Subtotal1701141740233953648
Soft Subtotal21031450953648
Future States12589851118
Hard Total170114175274110804766
Soft Total2228145810804766

Notes:

The S-Clinton and S-Sanders columns denote superdelegates who have publicly agreed to support Clinton and Sanders, respectively.

* These are caucus/convention states that have not yet finished their processes (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5026043#msg5026043), so the final delegate totals could still be subject to change.  Of special note:
  • Iowa: The race for statewide leader here is exceptionally close, with Clinton currently at 704 out of 1406.  If one state delegate flips (or two fail to show), or there's a credentials challenge for the Polk County delegation, one national delegate could flip from Clinton to Sanders.

Some results by CD in MD, PA, and IN are still preliminary.

Recent Updates

5/3: Indiana results added.  [Final update of the season; see the spreadsheet (http://bit.ly/1Si4vh3) for further updates.]
4/27: CT/DE/MD/PA/RI results added.
4/19: New York results added.

Superdelegates last updated 4/29 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4870009#msg4870009).

The Upcoming Calendar:
May 7: Guam Caucus (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024212#msg5024212).  Maine State Convention ends.
May 10: West Virginia Primary (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024227#msg5024227)
May 15: Alaska, Nevada State Conventions end.
May 17: Kentucky, Oregon Primaries. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024243#msg5024243)
May 28: Wyoming State Convention.
June 4: Virgin Islands Caucus (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024253#msg5024253)
June 5: Puerto Rico Primary (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024262#msg5024262)
June 7: California, Montana*, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota* Primaries. North Dakota* Caucus. (http://bit.ly/1Scn0EE)
June 14: District of Columbia Primary (http://bit.ly/1NtC6n2)
June 18: Idaho, Iowa State Conventions.
July 25: Democratic National Convention begins.

* These states are part of a "regional cluster," and receive a 15% delegate bonus.

Useful Links
The Delegate Fight Spreadsheet (http://bit.ly/1Si4vh3)
Charter of the Democratic Party (http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf)
Call to the 2016 Convention (outdated) (http://demrulz.org/?dl_id=366)
The Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D)
Frontloading HQ (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-democratic-delegate-allocation.html)
DNC Table of Delegates (https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/images/c/ce/Appendix_B_-_Allocation_Chart_1.29.16.pdf.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 18, 2016, 12:33:11 AM
Iowa (R): February 1

Overview
30 Delegates (1.21% of Total)
Closed Caucus (Binding)
30 At-Large, Proportional (no threshold)

Voter Eligibility
Only registered Republicans may caucus, though one may register as a Republican at the caucus.  

Delegate Allocation


At each caucus, delegates are chosen to the County Convention.  A presidential preference vote is also held.  In previous years, the former was the key first stage for the selection of Iowa’s delegates to the National Convention, while the latter was what the media reported: the candidate who won the most votes in the presidential preference vote is who “won” the caucus.

In 2016, only the presidential preference vote matters (assuming the convention does not go beyond the first ballot).  The Iowa delegation will be bound by the results of the presidential preference vote taken at the caucus, with each candidate receiving a number of delegates proportional to their vote share.  There is no threshold at all; rounding is done to the nearest whole delegate, while rounding errors are compensated for by giving (or taking) a delegate from the candidates who were closest to (or furthest from) receiving an additional delegate.

It seems that Iowa’s 3 Party Leader delegates will also be bound by the results of the caucus, though The Green Papers disagrees on this point.

Example: 2012 Results

Santorum(24.61%)7 delegates
Romney (24.58%)7
Paul (21.47%)   7
Gingrich (13.33%)4
Perry (10.36%)   3
Bachmann (4.99%)2

Bachmann and Paul both gained a delegate from rounding errors.  Compare this to my initial projection in 2012 under the old system, which (out of a total of 25 delegates) gave 10 each to Santorum and Romney, 5 to Paul, and none to anyone else.  For a starker comparison (and the reason the system was changed), note that the floor vote at the convention gave 22 to Ron Paul and 6 to Mitt Romney due to Paulista shenanigans.

Delegate Selection

The delegates are chosen by the State Convention (May 21) and by Congressional District Caucuses (April 9); delegates to each of those are chosen at County Conventions on March 12, while delegates to County Conventions are chosen at the March 1 caucuses.

Deadlocked Convention / Withdrawn Candidates

Delegates whose candidates withdraw or are not placed in nomination are explicitly not reallocated among other candidates.  Neither are they released, it seems, so they would presumably have to abstain.

Quote from: Republican Party of Iowa Bylaws
The Iowa delegation to the Republican National Convention shall be bound on the first ballot...Delegates shall be bound to the candidates in direct proportion to the candidates’ respective vote shares in the Iowa Caucuses regardless of whether any such candidate has withdrawn from the race or otherwise does not have his or her name placed in nomination at the Republican National Convention.

There might be some wiggle room here (reading the provision as an anti-reallocation rather than an anti-releasing measure), but it doesn't seem like it.

All of Iowa’s delegates are bound only for the first ballot.  In the unlikely event of multiple ballots, they will be free to vote their conscience.  

Results

Candidate   Percent   Delegates
Cruz27.65%8
Trump24.31%7
Rubio23.09%7
Carson9.31%3
Paul4.54%1
Bush2.80%1
Fiorina1.86%1
Kasich1.86%1
Huckabee1.79%1
Christie1.75%0
Santorum0.95%0
Others0.07%0

Christie is denied a delegate due to rounding errors.  Huckabee, Paul, and Fiorina keep their delegates through the first ballot despite suspending their campaigns.

Useful Links

Iowa GOP Constitution (https://www.iowagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RPI-Constitution-Revised-2010.pdf)
Frontloading HQ: Iowa (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/10/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-iowa.html)
The Green Papers: Iowa (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-R#0201)
Republican Party of Iowa Bylaws (http://www.scribd.com/doc/277241899/Republican-Party-of-Iowa-Bylaws-Updated-6-27-2015)
Rules of the RNC (https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Angel of Death on January 20, 2016, 06:01:40 PM
The following seems like a good article to mention in this thread, because it takes a stab at what several candidates should aim for in terms of delegate numbers:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/beware-a-gop-calendar-front-loaded-with-states-friendly-to-trump-and-cruz/


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: This account no longer in use. on January 20, 2016, 06:11:39 PM
For superdelegates:

3 Iowa superdelegates (Jan Bauer, Linda Langston, Dave Loebsack) are supporting Clinton.
6 New Hampshire superdelegates (Joanne Dowdell, Maggie Hassan, Ann Kuster, Billy Shaheen, Jeanne Shaheen, Kathy Sullivan) are supporting Clinton.
3 Nevada superdelegates (Ruben Kihuen, Andres Ramirez, Dina Titus) are supporting Clinton. One (Erin Bilbray) is supporting Sanders.
2 South Carolina superdelegates (Donald Fowler, Kaye Koonce) are supporting Clinton. One (Boyd Brown) is supporting O'Malley.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 20, 2016, 11:35:38 PM
For superdelegates:

3 Iowa superdelegates (Jan Bauer, Linda Langston, Dave Loebsack) are supporting Clinton.
6 New Hampshire superdelegates (Joanne Dowdell, Maggie Hassan, Ann Kuster, Billy Shaheen, Jeanne Shaheen, Kathy Sullivan) are supporting Clinton.
3 Nevada superdelegates (Ruben Kihuen, Andres Ramirez, Dina Titus) are supporting Clinton. One (Erin Bilbray) is supporting Sanders.
2 South Carolina superdelegates (Donald Fowler, Kaye Koonce) are supporting Clinton. One (Boyd Brown) is supporting O'Malley.

Thanks for the heads up!

Organizationally, I'm not sure what to do with the Democratic superdelegates.  In 2008 I kept track of them state-by-state as they voted.  This was a bone of some contention, as it tended to understate Clinton's support due to her (initial) advantage in superdelegates.

Any thoughts this time around?  In the main post, should I keep track of the superdelegates by state, have a separate superdelegates row, or some sort of hybrid scheme (e.g. adding a row for superdelegates in states yet to vote)?

Right now, if Wikipedia is to be believed, Clinton has an unsurprisingly overwhelming lead in the superdelegates, 338 for her to 11 for Sanders (and 3 for O'Malley), with 363 uncommitted.  An AP survey of all the superdelegates in November found an even larger advantage, with 359 (of the 579 they were able to contact) supporting Clinton.

For comparison, Clinton in 2008 never had the support of more than 292.5 superdelegates (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=70003.msg1579474#msg1579474), and that was after most of the states had voted.  Unlike in 2008, Clinton truly does have a safe (and huge!) buffer with superdelegates that Sanders is incredibly unlikely to make up in pledged delegates barring some catastrophe.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 21, 2016, 01:22:42 AM
Iowa (D): February 1

Overview
52 Delegates (1.09% of Total)
Closed Caucus
15 At-Large (including 6 PLEO)
29 by CD
8 Superdelegates

At the Caucus


The Democratic Iowa caucus is a complicated beast.  Unlike on the Republican side, there's no straw poll, per se.  Each precinct caucus elects delegates to their local County Convention.  These delegates will be pledged to a particular candidate (or they can be officially Uncommitted, though this hasn't played a major role since the 70's).

Delegates to the county convention are allocated proportionally among the presidential candidates that meet a 15% threshold at the precinct (potentially higher for precincts entitled to fewer delegates).  Those attendees favoring candidates falling below the threshold may recaucus with another candidate instead; given the state of the race this is unlikely to have much of an effect beyond reallocating the few O'Malley voters.

What is reported to the media at the end of the night is the number of "state delegate equivalents" each candidate received.  Basically, this takes the number of County delegates each candidates receives and weights it by each county's representation at the State Convention.  It's unclear whether this takes into account the 15% viability threshold at the County Conventions, but this is unlikely to matter as O'Malley is unlikely to meet viability in many precincts in the first place.

County Conventions - March 12

The delegates elected at the caucuses now meet in each county.  Each county convention elects delegates to Congressional District and State Conventions, allocated proportionally among presidential candidates. The process is similar to the one at the caucus, including a 15% threshold.  Delegates are not bound to support who they supported at the precinct caucuses, so there may be room for some shenanigans here.  

District Conventions - April 30

Another round of conventions, same rules as before, in each Congressional District.  The more Democratic districts have more delegates, as follows:

CD 1 - 8 delegates
CD 2 - 8
CD 3 - 7
CD 4 - 6

State Convention - June 18

The State Convention chooses 9 At-Large and 6 Pledged PLEO delegates, in much the same fashion as the other conventions.

Superdelegates

Clinton (7):  Rep. David Loebsack (http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/loebsack-to-endorse-clinton/article_84aaa9cc-c529-50dc-b9fe-24bbda06a8a6.html),  Jan Bauer, Linda Langston (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2015/08/iowa-women-for-hillary-clinton-launches-in-all-99-counties.html), Mike Gronstal (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/31/1477827/-Iowa-Senate-Majority-Leader-Mike-Gronstal-Endorses-Hillary-Clinton-For-President), Vice Chair Danny Homan (http://iowastartingline.com/2016/01/22/labor-deploys-ground-forces-to-iowa-for-hillary/), Sandy Opstvedt (https://www.facebook.com/sandy.opstvedt/posts/10207235290376831), Scott Brennan (https://twitter.com/ScottBrennanIDP/status/692487752579944452)

Uncommitted (1): Chair Andy McGuire (Clinton 2008)

Results

Clinton 23 - Sanders 21

The closeness of the race means that Clinton and Sanders basically split the delegates.  The only two still up for grabs are 1 At-Large delegate and 1 delegate in CD 3.  CD 3 was Clinton's best district, so she wins the delegate there.  The remaining At-Large delegate I am also assigning for Clinton, though Sanders might be able to eke it out if he gets the support of 90% or more of the remaining O'Malley delegates.  A detailed discussion can be found here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4889384#msg48893844).

Useful Links
2016 Iowa Delegate Selection Plan (http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2016-Delegate-Selection-Plan.pdf)
The Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 22, 2016, 04:03:45 AM
Democratic Superdelegates

NOTE: This list is no longer being updated.


Clinton499 69.8%
Sanders415.7%
Uncommitted   17524.5%

Recent Updates

4/20: Valerie McCall (OH) for Clinton.
4/19: Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL) for Sanders.
4/17: David Paterson (NY), supported Clinton, no longer a superdelegate.
4/15: Debra Haaland (NM) from Clinton to Uncommitted; Joni Gutierrez, Fred Harris (NM) to Clinton.
4/14: Heather Mizeur (MD) from Clinton to Sanders.
4/13: Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR) for Sanders.
4/9: Johnnie Patton (MS), Doug Pyle (HI) for Sanders; Bel Leong-Hong (MD) for Clinton.  Rep. Rick Nolan (MN) from Clinton to Sanders.
4/8: Rep. Ron Kind (WI) for Clinton.  David Bowen (WI) for Sanders.

Notes

About 15% of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention are the so-called "superdelegates" or "unpledged PLEOs": Democratic National Committee members, Democratic Congressmen, Senators, and Representatives, and a few former high-ranking Democrats.  There are 715 votes of these in total, and they are completely free to support whoever they want to, though more than half have also endorsed a candidate.  Some have alternates, but most do not; if they fail to show at the convention, there are just fewer delegates at Philadelphia.

I will also provide the sources for these endorsements, whether primary or secondary.

My accounting will not be free of errors nor completely up to date, so if you catch anything I'm missing, please let me know!

For the purposes of this accounting, an "endorsement" can be one of many things.  These include an official, press release style endorsement, an explicit endorsement on Twitter (retweets don't count), results of the AP superdelegate surveys, inclusion on a Clinton Leadership Team, appearance at a fundraiser for Hillary (or Ready for Hillary), or donating money to Hillary (or Ready for Hillary). Endorsements made on behalf of an organization they are the chair of also count. Endorsements (implicit or explicit) may be retracted, and this has happened on two occasions so far.  Supporting Clinton in 2008 is of course indicative, but does not count for these purposes.

A list of the elected officials who have not endorsed can be found here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=215428.msg4879672#msg4879672), and may be of some use.

There's also a Pelosi Club (see 2008) that will back the pledged delegate leader, currently consisting of Pat Leahy, Christine Pelosi, and Becca Doten; I've kept the first two in the Clinton camp, for now, as does the AP.

Democratic Superdelegates by State

StateClinton    Sanders   Uncommitted
Iowa (http://bit.ly/23LPhZU)7-1
New Hampshire     (http://bit.ly/1p54pBX)6-2
Nevada (http://bit.ly/22AooG3)413
South Carolina (http://bit.ly/1W4Fuvu)4-2
Alabama (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)4-3
American Samoa (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)41-
Arkansas (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)5--
Colorado (http://bit.ly/1V7wtTs)10-2
Georgia (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)11-4
Massachusetts (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)1717
Minnesota (http://bit.ly/1XA8Gt8)1231
Oklahoma (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)112
Tennessee (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)6-2
Texas (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)18-11
Vermont (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)46-
Virginia (http://bit.ly/1qvz7p4)13-1
Kansas (http://bit.ly/1WwyeZH)1-3
Louisiana (http://bit.ly/1WwyeZH)7-1
Nebraska (http://bit.ly/1WwyeZH)3-2
Maine (http://bit.ly/1SnOnRn)311
Democrats Abroad   (http://bit.ly/1WztCSC)211
Michigan (http://bit.ly/1WztCSC)10-7
Mississippi (http://bit.ly/1WztCSC)32-
Northern Marianas (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949887#msg4949887)5--
Florida (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)2327
Illinois (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)2213
Missouri (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)12-1
North Carolina (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)8-5
Ohio (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4949931#msg4949931)1412
Arizona (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4960664#msg4960664)523
Idaho (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4960664#msg4960664)121
Utah (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4960664#msg4960664)22-
Alaska (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4969347#msg4969347)112
Hawaii (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4969347#msg4969347)622
Washington (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4969347#msg4969347)10-7
Wisconsin (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4986079#msg4986079)613
Wyoming (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4995054#msg4995054)4--
New York (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5011031#msg5011031)39-5
Connecticut (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)15-1
Delaware (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)7-3
Maryland (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)1616
Pennsylvania (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)18-3
Rhode Island (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5021157#msg5021157)9--
Indiana (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024205#msg5024205)7-2
Guam (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024212#msg5024212)3-2
West Virginia (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024227#msg5024227)512
Kentucky (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024243#msg5024243)2-3
Oregon (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024243#msg5024243)616
Virgin Islands (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024253#msg5024253)212
Puerto Rico (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg5024262#msg5024262)3-4
California (http://bit.ly/1Scn0EE)51-22
Montana (http://bit.ly/1Scn0EE)1-5
New Jersey (http://bit.ly/1Scn0EE)925
New Mexico (http://bit.ly/1Scn0EE)7-2
North Dakota (http://bit.ly/1Scn0EE)113
South Dakota (http://bit.ly/1Scn0EE)1-4
D.C. (http://bit.ly/1NtC6n2)2024
Unassigned (http://bit.ly/1NtC6n2)--2

Useful Links:
DNC List of Unpledged Delegates (https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6070545/Unpledged_as_of_1.21.16.0.pdf) (as of 1/21: note also that it is not error-free)
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016)
AP Delegate Tracker (https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/)
Bloomberg Delegate Tracker (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/)
DNC Table of Delegates (https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/images/c/ce/Appendix_B_-_Allocation_Chart_1.29.16.pdf.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 27, 2016, 03:18:19 PM
New Hampshire (R): February 9

Overview
23 Delegates (0.93% of total)
Half-Open Primary
23 At-Large, Proportional (10% threshold)

Voter Eligibility
Registered Republican and Independents may vote in the primary.

Delegate Allocation
20 delegates are allocated between among all candidates who receive at least 10% of the vote in the primary.  Each candidate receives a proportion of the delegates equal to the proportion of the statewide vote they received, with fractional delegates rounded to the nearest whole number.  Any remaining unallocated delegates are given to the winner of the primary.  Thus, if there are a large number of votes going to candidates who receive under 10% of the vote (as may happen early in the season with such a divided field), the winning candidate may receive a nice bonus to their delegate count.

Delegate Selection
By December 11, all candidates had to provide a list of delegates to the Secretary of State.  After the primary, the candidates choose which of these delegates they want to Cleveland, based on the results of the primary.


Deadlocked Convention / Withdrawn Candidates


Quote from: New Hampshire Title LXIII Section 659:93
If a presidential candidate...withdraws as a presidential candidate at any time prior to the convention, his pledged delegates shall be released by the candidate...

What "withdraws" means is not very clear, but the delegate candidates also sign a pledge form:

Quote from: New Hampshire Title LXIII Section 655:51
I pledge myself, if selected as delegate or alternate delegate to said convention, whenever I shall vote, to vote for the nomination of (inserting the name of any person) as the candidate for said party for president so long as he shall be a candidate before said convention.

As a result, I'm viewing this as another possible release trigger, and am releasing Bush's and Rubio's delegates accordingly.

Results

Candidate  Percent  Delegates  
Trump35.34%11
Kasich15.81%4
Cruz11.68%3
Bush11.02%3
Rubio10.57%2

All other candidates fell well below the threshold.  The Secretary of State apparently believes that the allocation should be 10 Trump - 3 Rubio, claiming there should be an intermediate rounding step of the percentages.  The state GOP uses the (in my view) correct procedure, getting the above answer.  It is possible Rubio may challenge this, though his suspension makes this much less likely.

Delegates

Bush (3)
Judd Gregg - Kasich (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/02/governor-judd-gregg-endorses-john-kasich-for-president-.html)
Jennifer Horn (RNC)
James H. Adams

Cruz (3)
William O'Brien
Robert Clinton Smith
Juliana Bergeron (RNC)

Kasich (4)
Gordon J. Humphrey
Thomas D. Rath
John E. Sununu
Stephen Duprey (RNC)

Rubio (2)
James F. Merrill
Gordon J. MacDonald

Trump (11)
Alfred Baldasaro
Judy Baldasaro
Robert Burns
Frederick Doucette
Louis Gargiulo
Paula Johnson
Corey R. Lewandowski
Stephen Stepanek
Ellen Suprunowicz
Daniel Tamburello
Joshua Whitehouse

Useful Links
New Hampshire Title LXIII Section 659:93  (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/659/659-93.htm)
The Green Papers: NH (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NH-R#0209)
Frontloading HQ: NH (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/10/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-new.html)
Results and Delegates (http://sos.nh.gov/2016PresPrimElectResults.aspx)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 27, 2016, 04:09:25 PM
It should be noted that the process of nominating the Republican candidate for President has already started, apparently unnoticed by everyone.

On January 19, Republicans from eight Legislative Districts in Fargo (out of a total of 47 statewide) met and elected delegates to the State Convention (also to be held in Fargo, April 1-3).  We have no idea how they turned out.  The remaining 38 conventions will be held over the course of the next month, with the last no later than March 1.

North Dakota is having no straw poll this year, so the elections at the Legislative District Conventions are critical in the ultimate choice of North Dakota's delegation.  All 28 delegates from North Dakota will be officially unbound at Cleveland, though presumably presidential preference will be a major factor if the nomination is still contested as of early April.

As has been noted elsewhere, early voting has also begun for several of the early primary states, most notably South Carolina.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: geekknight on January 27, 2016, 05:08:17 PM
Awesome thread, should this not be stickied?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 27, 2016, 05:09:50 PM
New Hampshire (D): February 9

Overview
32 Delegates (0.67% of total)
Half-Open Primary
5 At-Large
3 PLEO At-Large
16 by CD
8 Superdelegates

Voter Eligibility
Both registered Democrats and Independents may vote in the primary.

Summary
Delegates are allocated proportionally in each congressional district (8 in each) and At-Large (5 At-Large and 3 PLEO) among all candidates meeting a 15% threshold in that jurisdiction. Rounding is not specified, but democrats usually follow the largest remainder method among all candidates meeting the threshold.

Results

Sanders broke 56.25% of the two-way vote in both districts, thus winning the largest feasible number of delegates.

JurisdictionClintonSanders
CD 135
CD 235
At Large23
PLEO12
Total915

Superdelegates

Clinton (6): Gov. Maggie Hassan, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Rep. Ann Kuster, Joanne Dowdell, Kathy Sullivan, William Shaheen (https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/07/21/tracking-endorsements-democratic-primary/wdsDi1gtSEXiTlVs7fQAFM/story.html)

Uncommitted (2): Chair Raymond Buckley, Vice Chair Martha Fuller Clark (Clinton 2008)

Useful Links
NH Delegate Selection Plan (http://nhdp.org/wp-content/uploads/NHDP-2016-Delegate-Selection-Plan.pdf)
The Green Papers: NH-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NH-D)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: defe07 on January 27, 2016, 06:03:09 PM
It should be noted that the process of nominating the Republican candidate for President has already started, apparently unnoticed by everyone.

On January 19, Republicans from eight Legislative Districts in Fargo (out of a total of 47 statewide) met and elected delegates to the State Convention (also to be held in Fargo, April 1-3).  We have no idea how they turned out.  The remaining 38 conventions will be held over the course of the next month, with the last no later than March 1.

North Dakota is having no straw poll this year, so the elections at the Legislative District Conventions are critical in the ultimate choice of North Dakota's delegation.  All 28 delegates from North Dakota will be officially unbound at Cleveland, though presumably presidential preference will be a major factor if the nomination is still contested as of early April.

As has been noted elsewhere, early voting has also begun for several of the early primary states, most notably South Carolina.

Do you think you could please provide a link to this info? :)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 27, 2016, 07:39:54 PM
It should be noted that the process of nominating the Republican candidate for President has already started, apparently unnoticed by everyone.

On January 19, Republicans from eight Legislative Districts in Fargo (out of a total of 47 statewide) met and elected delegates to the State Convention (also to be held in Fargo, April 1-3).  We have no idea how they turned out.  The remaining 38 conventions will be held over the course of the next month, with the last no later than March 1.

-snip-

Do you think you could please provide a link to this info? :)

I found a calendar (http://www.ndgop.org/2016convention/2016convention-calendar/), which had been eluding me earlier.

Since then there have been conventions in Wahpeton (January 23) and Mandan (January 26).  There are four conventions today in Bismarck; two of them are in progress as we speak, with two more starting within the hour.

18 of the conventions are going to be held before the Iowa caucuses.

2 are held between Iowa and New Hampshire.

22 are held between New Hampshire and South Carolina.

2 are held between South Carolina and Nevada.

5 are held between Nevada and Super Tuesday, with the final convention at 3PM on February 28 in Bottineau, ND.

A picture of the first convention can be found on NDGOP's Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/northdakotagop/photos/a.192379711527.157211.90160626527/10153912468761528/?type=3&theater).


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 27, 2016, 09:15:03 PM
(GOP Delegate Selection Calendar now tracked on the tumblr. (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/142876066839/gop-delegate-selection-calendar))


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 29, 2016, 04:35:01 PM
Post reserved.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on January 29, 2016, 05:51:23 PM
Post reserved.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 01, 2016, 11:52:46 AM
South Carolina (R): February 20

Overview

50 Delegates (2.02% of total)
Open Primary
29 At-Large (WTA)
21 District (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

All 29 At-Large delegates (including the three RNC members) will be bound to the winner of the statewide primary.

In each of South Carolina’s 7 Congressional Districts, 3 delegates will be bound to the winner of the primary in that district.

Delegate Selection


The delegates themselves are chosen by District Conventions in April and a State Convention in May.  Delegates to these are chosen at County Conventions in March.  Delegates to those County Conventions are generally chosen at Precinct meetings earlier in March.

Deadlocked Convention / Withdrawn Candidates

All delegates are bound only for the first ballot.  In the event the candidate to which any delegate is bound is not placed in nomination at the convention, they are instead bound to the second place (or, failing that, third place) candidate in their jurisdiction.  If none of the top three candidates in the jurisdiction are placed in nomination, the delegate is unbound.  These provisions are found in SC State GOP Rules; it is unclear whether the provision to award delegates to the second-place finisher, etc., conflict with national GOP rules, and, if so, whether the national GOP would enforce its supremacy.

Useful Links
SC GOP Rules (https://www.scgop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SCGOP-Rules-2015.pdf)
Frontloading HQ: SC (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/10/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_14.html)
The Green Papers: SC (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/SC-R#0220)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 01, 2016, 12:48:10 PM
Nevada (D): February 20

Overview
43 Delegates (0.90% of total)
Closed Caucus
7 At-Large
6 PLEO At-Large
23 by CD
8 Superdelegates

Voter Eligibility
Only registered Democrats may vote in the caucus, though voters may reaffiliate as Democrats on the day.

At the Caucus

Nevada is a caucus state, just like Iowa, and it works in much the same fashion (though one distinction is that those who voted for viable candidates are not allowed to recaucus; this diminishes the possibility of weird tactical voting for Uncommitted).  Each precinct elects some number of delegates to a County Convention.  These are allocated among the candidates receiving 15% support in each precinct (or higher in precincts with a small number of delegates).  As in Iowa, voters supporting a candidate which does not meet the threshold may recaucus to support a different candidate.

The numbers reported to the media at the end of the day will be quite literally the number of delegates to County Conventions won by each candidate.  The apportionment favors the smaller, rural counties over the larger ones--i.e. Clark, Washoe, Carson City, Douglas, Lyon, Nye, and Elko will be slightly underrepresented, though they will obviously still dominate proceedings.  Extremely small precincts are also favored.

UPDATE: The district level delegates are awarded based on the vote at the caucus (5 in CD 1, 6 each in CDs 2-4)

County Conventions - April 2

Each county holds its own Convention.  This operates quite similarly to the caucuses, with a 15% viability threshold.  Delegates are free to re-caucus with a candidate different from the one they were elected to support in February, so there is some potential for shenanigans here.  Each county elects delegates to the State Convention.

State Convention - May 14

Another round of re-caucusing may occur here. 7 At-Large and 5 PLEO At-Large delegates are allocated proportionally among all candidates meeting a 15% threshold from State Convention delegates in that jurisdiction.

Results (2/21):

Clinton won the state and CD 1, as well as breaking 58.33% in CD 4 to win 4 of the 6 delegates there.  The last one is the closest, but her lead seems secure barring shenanigans, even after two additional rounds of conventions.  This means the pledged delegate count out of Nevada is:

Clinton: 20
Sanders: 15

Update (4/3): Shenanigans did indeed occur, and Sanders picks up two delegates from Clinton in the At-Large pools.  New result:

Clinton: 18
Sanders: 17

Superdelegates

Clinton (4): Rep. Dina Titus, Ruben Kihuen, Andres Ramirez (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=757&sid=37344472&title=nevada-dem-insiders-either-support-clinton-or-arent-saying), Sen. Harry Reid (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/politics/hillary-clinton-harry-reid-endorsement/index.html)

Sanders (1): Erin Bilbray-Kohn (https://twitter.com/rindelsap/status/681535694595092480)

Uncommitted (3): Chair Roberta Lange, Vice Chair Chris Wicker, Artie Blanco

Useful Links
NV Delegate Selection Plan (http://nvdems.3cdn.net/efafb4788ed845d0d3_08m6i2zsp.pdf)
NV Delegates by County (http://nvdems.3cdn.net/e3b45d0e6364295a6f_pqm6bnx3g.pdf)
The Green Papers: NV-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NV-D)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 01, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
Nevada (R): February 23

Overview
30 Delegates (1.21% of total)
Closed Caucus (Binding)
30 At-Large (Proportional, 3.33% threshold)

Delegate Allocation
Unlike at previous caucuses, all 30 delegates (including the RNC members) will be bound by the result of the Presidential Preference Poll taken at the Nevada caucuses.  Delegates are assigned proportionally, with rounding done to the nearest whole number, among those candidates who meet a 3.33% threshold.  Note that neither write-in nor “None of the Above” votes are considered valid, and thus will not affect the delegate allocation math.  Residual rounding errors are resolved by giving a delegate to (taking one from) the candidate closest to (furthest from) getting an additional delegate.


Delegate Selection

The delegates are chosen at a State Convention (probably in early May?); delegates at the State convention are chosen at County Conventions, whose delegates are chosen at the caucuses.  There are extensive rules for ensuring that the delegates elected at the state convention are allocated to their preferred candidate, as far as is possible.

Deadlocked Convention / Withdrawn Candidates
All delegates are bound only for the first ballot.  30 days prior to the state convention, the Secretary of the Nevada Republican Party contacts each candidate, asking them whether they want to keep their allotted delegates, release them, or reallocate them proportionally among the other candidates.  The candidates have until 10 days prior to the state convention to respond; if they fail to respond, they are considered to have released their delegates.  Any candidate who suspends or otherwise discontinues their campaign after the state convention will automatically release their delegates.

Quote from: NV GOP Standing Rules
5.3.a) The NRP Secretary shall contact each Presidential Candidate or the
candidate’s designated campaign representative in writing thirty (30) days prior to
the date of the Nevada Republican Convention to determine the candidate’s
desired disposition of their National Delegates following the State Convention.

b) Each candidate may elect to either affirm the binding obligation of the
delegates to be elected on their behalf at the Nevada Republican Convention,
fully release the binding obligation of their delegates, or proportionally reallocate
the binding obligation of their delegates to the remaining candidates based on
the results of the Presidential Preference Poll.

c) The NRP Secretary shall also inform each candidate or designated campaign
representative that a response must be received in writing no less than ten (10)
days prior to the date of the Nevada Republican Convention; otherwise the
binding obligation of their delegates shall be fully released.

5.4.a) National Delegates and Alternates bound to any candidate who withdraws,
suspends, or otherwise discontinues their campaign at any time following the
Nevada Republican Convention but prior to the Republican National Convention
shall be released from their commitment to that candidate and may vote as they
choose on the first and any subsequent candidate votes at the Republican
National Convention.

b) For the purposes of these rules, a candidate shall be considered to have
discontinued his or her campaign should they file with the Federal Election
Commission to terminate their campaign, publicly endorse another candidate in
the race, publicly release their delegates, or make a public statement indicating
that they have “suspended” their campaign such that they will otherwise no
longer be actively seeking the Office of President.

There may be some wiggle room for Rubio and Carson to keep their delegates, as they discontinued their campaigns before the State Convention, but I will be treating them as Uncommitted for the time being.

Results

CandidatePercent*Delegates
Trump46.12%14
Rubio23.96%7
Cruz21.47%6
Carson4.83%2
Kasich3.62%1

*among threshold-meeting candidates.

Carson edges out Cruz for the final delegate by only 20 votes.

Now that Carson has dropped out, he can choose to release his delegates, or have them bound to other candidates proportionally.  This latter option means that Trump and Cruz would each gain a delegate.  The same applies to Rubio; 5 of his would go to Trump and 2 to Cruz.  The default option is releasing them.

Useful Links

NV GOP Standing Rules (http://nevadagop.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Standing-Rules-Complete-Final-August-29-2015.pdf)
The Green Papers: NV-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NV-R#0223)
Frontloading HQ: NV (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_24.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 01, 2016, 03:37:02 PM
South Carolina (D): February 27

Overview
59 Delegates (1.24% of total)
Open Primary
11 At-Large
7 PLEO At-Large
35 by CD
6 Superdelegates

Voter Eligibility
Any registered voter may participate, provided they did not participate in the previous week's Republican Presidential Primary.

Summary
Delegates are allocated proportionally in each congressional district (3 in CD 3; 4 in CD 4; 5 in CDs 1,2,5,7; 8 in CD 6) and At-Large (11 At-Large and 7 PLEO) among all candidates meeting a 15% threshold in that jurisdiction.

Results (2/27)

Clinton 39 - Sanders 14

Clinton's 73.8% victory in the two-way race means she wins the At-Large and PLEO delegates 13-5.  

Sanders' anemic vote totals were good for only 1 delegate in each of the CDs, except in CDs 1 and 2, where he got 34.5% and 30.6% of the vote, respectively, breaking the 30% level necessary for 2 delegates in each.  In CD 6, he pulled in 16.4%, above the 15% threshold.

Superdelegates

Clinton (5): Donald Fowler (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/opinions/fowler-democratic-debates/), Vice-Chair Kaye Koonce (https://medium.com/@HillaryforSC/south-carolina-women-and-girls-for-hillary-a-few-of-the-south-carolina-women-and-girls-for-hillary-8055e3ab1747), Boyd Brown (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2016/02/04/sc-democratic-superdelegate-former-omalley-chair-endorses-clinton/79828812/), Rep. Jim Clyburn (http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article61174112.html), Chair Jaime Harrison (https://twitter.com/jonallendc/status/703740506891620354)

Uncommitted (1): Gilda Cobb-Hunter

Useful Links
SC Delegate Selection Plan (http://scdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SCDP-2016-Delegation-Selection-Plan-8.27.15.pdf)
The Green Papers: SC-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/SC-D)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 01, 2016, 05:26:26 PM
North Dakota (R): January 19 - April 3

Overview
28 Delegates (1.13% of total)
Closed Conventions (non-binding)
25 At-Large
3 RNC Members

Legislative District Conventions: January 19 - February 28

In each of North Dakota's 47 Legislative Districts, conventions are held to elect delegates to the State Convention.  These are being held over a span of several weeks, ranging from January 19 to February 28 (http://www.ndgop.org/2016convention/2016convention-calendar/).  No form of straw poll is being held, and there has been little reporting on these conventions, so we have no idea which candidate is doing well at these conventions, or even if candidate preference has been a major factor in the selection of delegates.

State Convention: April 1 - 3

At some point before the State Convention in Fargo, the Committee on Permanent Organization (http://www.ndgop.org/2016convention/2016convention-committees/) will accept applicants for delegates to the National Convention.  They will consider these applicants, and from them draw up a slate of 25 delegates, including automatically Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Sen. John Hoeven, and Rep. Kevin Cramer.  There's a vague formula that the Committee is instructed to use to select its slate; it can be found here. (https://www.ndgop.org/2016convention/2016convention-nationalconvention/)

At the convention itself, additional delegate candidates may have their name placed in nomination from the floor, though they must have originally applied to the Committee on Permanent Organization in order to be eligible.  A vote is then held on the convention floor, with each State delegate present entitled to vote for 25 National delegate candidates.  The top 25 finishers will go on to Cleveland.  For a good example as to how this actually works, see The Green Papers' report on the 2012 convention (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ND-R).  Note the huge gap between #25 and #26, suggesting that the slate suggested by the Committee on Permanent organization was elected with little difficulty.

The preliminary agenda suggests the delegates to Cleveland will be chosen on April 2.

RNC Members (unbound)
Kelly Armstrong
Sandy Boehler
Curly Haugland

Delegates (elected April 3)

Rick Becker - Cruz
Jack Dalrymple (Governor)
Wayne Stenehjem (Attorney General) - staying neutral
Shane Goettle - Cruz
Jim Poolman   Cruz
Bette Grande   Cruz
Dick Dever    - on Cruz slate (unwillingly), prefers Kasich but undecided.
Wesley Belter   Cruz
David Hogue   Cruz
Jessica Unruh   Cruz
Betsy Dalrymple (First Lady)
Ben Koppelman   Cruz
Mark Owens   Cruz
Gary Emineth - leans Trump   
Janna Myrdal   Cruz
Roscoe Streyle   Cruz
John Trandem   Cruz
Clare Carlson   Cruz
Scott Louser   Cruz
John Olson   
Daniel Traynor   Cruz
James Kerian   Cruz
Judy Estenson   Cruz
Kelly Schmidt (State Treasurer) - leans Cruz
Bob Wefald   

Deadlocked Convention / Withdrawn Candidates

All delegates are entirely unbound, though they may well express a preference at the State Convention.

Useful Links
ND GOP Rules (http://www.ndgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NDGOP-State-Party-and-Convention-Rules-June-2015.pdf)
Frontloading HQ: ND (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/01/2016-republican-delegate-allocation.html)
The Green Papers: ND-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ND-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 02, 2016, 12:49:45 AM
Republicans

Candidate   Percent   Delegates
Cruz27.64%8
Trump24.30%7
Rubio23.12%7
Carson9.30%3
Paul4.54%1
Bush2.80%1
Fiorina1.86%1
Kasich1.86%1
Huckabee1.79%1
Christie1.76%0
Santorum0.95%0
Other0.07%0

Bush, Fiorina, Kasich, and Huckabee all round up to 1 delegate.  Christie would as well, but his would be the 31st total delegate, so he is bumped.  Huckabee's leaving the race does not affect these results; his delegate officially remains bound to him through to Cleveland.

Results now certified by the Iowa GOP.
 (https://www.iowagop.org/2016/02/03/release-iowa-gop-certified-caucus-results/)
Democrats

Clinton 21 - Sanders 21 - Too Close to Call 2

This is an incredibly close race, and will require me digging through precinct-by-precinct results to make projections.  However, due to the closeness of the race, we expect Sanders and Clinton to split the delegates in any jurisdiction with an even number of delegates.  We can thus easily project 21 delegates for Clinton and 21 for Sanders, with the remaining 2 (1 statewide and 1 in CD 3) still up for grabs.  This will depend not only on the individual precinct results, but also on the dynamics of the County Conventions and the state conventions.  If some delegates don't show up to the next stage, that will make a difference.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Senator Cris on February 02, 2016, 08:53:03 AM
Shouldn't 3 of 30 GOP IA delegates be party leaders?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 02, 2016, 11:47:01 AM
Shouldn't 3 of 30 GOP IA delegates be party leaders?

It's unclear from both IA and National GOP rules whether those party leaders are also bound by the results of the caucuses.  This is a change from 2012 or other previous years, when they would clearly be unbound.

If only 27 delegates were bound by the caucus, then Cruz, Rubio, and Huckabee would each lose a delegate.

Frontloading HQ (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/10/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-iowa.html?platform=hootsuite) contacted the Iowa GOP, and they said they were allocating all 30.  (He gives another explanation on his Twitter (https://twitter.com/FHQ?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)).

The appropriate section in the Iowa bylaws (http://www.scribd.com/doc/277241899/Republican-Party-of-Iowa-Bylaws-Updated-6-27-2015) is "The Iowa delegation to the Republican National Convention shall be bound on the first ballot to vote proportionally in accordance with the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses.... The Chairman of the Iowa delegation, or his or her designee, shall announce the vote of the delegation in accordance with this Article."  That does seem to imply that the whole delegation, including the 3 RNC members, are bound by the caucuses, though it's not ironclad.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Bacon King on February 02, 2016, 12:23:08 PM
Speaking of the GOP party leader delegates, will you be keeping track of their public endorsements (in states that don't bind them to the public vote) like you are for DNC superdelegates?

Per Wikipedia's endorsement page, Christie and Rubio have one each; Huckabee had one before dropping out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 02, 2016, 12:32:32 PM
More detailed Iowa results:

Going through and analyzing the results on a county-by-county level, you get the following (approximate) results:

Clinton 703 - Sanders 696 - O'Malley 7

These numbers may strike some as odd.  O'Malley got essentially wiped out due to the 15% threshold; how is there any way he could get any delegates in the next round?

The answer is tactical voting.  In small counties that send only 3 or 5 delegates to the state convention, it may be worth it for one candidate to send supporters over to the O'Malley camp, raising him to viability and giving him a delegate at the expense of the other candidate.  (Note that I'm assuming that O'Malley needs to have at least one delegate at the county level for this to be relevant).  Do we really expect this to happen now that O'Malley is out of the race? Possibly.  Not all of Edwards' support flaked away after he dropped out in Iowa, though all of Biden's/Richardson's did.  O'Malley does seem more similar to the latter case...

If we don't expect this sort of tactical voting to happen, what then?  Let's say all the O'Malley delegates just stay home.  Sanders gets 2 of O'Malley's delegates to Clinton's 5, and Clinton wins the state:

Clinton 708 - Sanders 698

Let's think about another scenario.  In the best case scenario for Sanders, all of O'Malley's delegates vote for Sanders.  This not only makes a difference for a few counties where tactical voting may have been important, but also in some larger counties (like Polk) where O'Malley, who never had any hope of making viability, still has enough supporters to throw a delegate or two to Sanders.

The best case scenario here for Sanders is

Sanders 706 - Clinton 700

Note, however, that 6 of those delegates are the result of coin flips, which I'm assuming here for the sake of argument that Sanders sweeps.  However, if Clinton continues her luck and wins a majority of them, she wins the state.  These numbers also assume that all the O'Malley supporters actually show up and that they actually caucus entirely for Sanders, not really a reasonable assumption.  Clinton could do slightly worse than this number suggests if there's also some tactical voting, but this is pretty much Sanders' ceiling.

A more realistic, but still Sanders-favorable scenario, has him winning 85% of O'Malley supporters and splitting the coin tosses evenly.  In this case, the count is

Clinton 704 - O'Malley 702

There are only two counties requiring coin flips in this scenario, I've split them evenly.  Sanders would need to win both coin flips and another one at the convention itself in order to win the 23rd delegate.  12.5% chance of this, and if he loses any of the 4 delegates he's counting on to win with O'Malley support (in Crawford, Linn, Polk, and Jasper) Clinton still wins.  The highest bar to clear here is in Polk County (Des Moines), where he'd need to get around 82% of O'Malley's support to win.

Note that there are also still some clearly incomplete results: in Kossuth, Hancock, and Fremont counties at the very least.  Only Fremont could actually have a bearing on the results, as this is one of the counties where tactical voting is possible given the current results.  I'm also assuming a 3-2 split for Clinton among the tele-/satellite-caucus delegates, which seems likely but is not guaranteed.

TL;DR:  Clinton seems quite likely to have a slim plurality at the State Convention.  However, tactical voting, O'Malley supporters, differential turnout (i.e. people forgetting to show up to County Conventions), and even coin flips, could make a difference.

Sanders seems highly unlikely to win unless he gets the overwhelming majority (5/6ths or more) of O'Malley supporters and wins at least three coin flips.  As a result, I'm calling the 44th delegate for Clinton, though we may return to this after March 12.




Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 02, 2016, 12:39:01 PM
Speaking of the GOP party leader delegates, will you be keeping track of their public endorsements (in states that don't bind them to the public vote) like you are for DNC superdelegates?

Per Wikipedia's endorsement page, Christie and Rubio have one each; Huckabee had one before dropping out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016)

This is a trickier beast.  Many states don't explicitly bind the RNC members, while others do.  There's also the open question of whether national GOP rules require them to be bound in states that have any sort of primary/straw poll.  Frontloading HQ suggests (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_16.html), from his conversations with the national GOP, that they should be, but how this is going to be enforced is another question.

As a result, I'm going to take a purely state-by-state approach, and not incorporate endorsements of these RNC members until after their states vote (if at all).

The only RNC members guaranteed to have freedom of conscience at Cleveland are those from states that are not holding any sort of public vote (CO, WY, ND, Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa).


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 02, 2016, 09:01:01 PM
More Iowa Analysis

This afternoon, the Iowa Democratic Party released the complete (well, almost) precinct-level data, letting us do a proper county-by-county analysis.

The State Convention will have 1406 delegates present, so 704 is necessary for majority and control of the 44th delegate.

At present, we can project with near-certitude that Clinton and Sanders will get at least the following vote totals:

Clinton 699 - Sanders 690

There are a couple of caveats here; this assumes that attendance at the County Conventions is perfect (even if it isn't, there is a system of alternates in place), that none of the Sanders or Clinton delegates will switch sides before March 12, and that there's no "surprise" tactical voting (i.e. half of the Sanders delegation switching to "Uncommitted" and stealing a delegate from Clinton, when Clinton could prevent this by switching a greater number to "Uncommitted").

This leaves 17 delegates remaining, of which Clinton would only need 5 to secure a majority.  Let's break down these delegates by county.

Black Hawk County

County: Sanders 222 - Clinton 196 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1
State: Sanders 36 - Clinton 32 - Unallocated 1

Clinton could pick up that last delegate if both the O'Malley and Uncommitted delegates agree to support her.

Bremer County

County: Sanders 34 - Clinton 40 - O'Malley 1
State: Sanders 5 - Clinton 6 - Unallocated 1

Clinton could pick up that last delegate if the O'Malley delegate supports her.

Butler County

County: Sanders 35 - Clinton 25
State: Sanders 3 - Clinton 2 - Unallocated 1

This one's a coin flip.  Whoever wins gets the last delegate.

Crawford County

County: Sanders 25 - Clinton 27 - O'Malley 8
State: Clinton 2 - Sanders 2 - Unallocated 1

O'Malley's best county in the state, but he still falls one short of viability.  He could pick up the last delegate if any one delegate (presumably from the Sanders camp) switches.  Alternatively, the O'Malley supporters could recaucus and give the last delegate to either Clinton or Sanders.

Decatur County

County: Sanders 33 - Clinton 35 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1
State: Sanders 1 - Clinton 1 - Unallocated 1

If the O'Malley and Uncommitted delegates switch to Sanders, he can force a coin flip for the last delegate, which would otherwise go to Clinton.

Delaware County

County: 43 Sanders - 55 Clinton - 2 O'Malley
State: 3 Sanders - 4 Clinton - 1 Unallocated

Clinton picks up the last delegate if both O'Malley delegates support her.

Fremont County

County: Sanders 9 - Clinton 8 - O'Malley 1 - Unknown 2
State: Sanders 1 - Clinton 1 - Unallocated 1

No one showed up to the caucus in Riverton precinct, so its two delegates are treated as if they don't exist (http://www.nonpareilonline.com/news/local/caucus-sites-with-no-turnout-lose-county-delegates/article_18401a13-6aa6-569a-adfe-d713e3167ee4.html).  This means that the O'Malley supporter could force a coin flip by siding with Clinton; otherwise the delegate goes to Sanders.

Henry County

County: Sanders 55 - Clinton 55
State: Sanders 3 - Clinton 3 - Unallocated 1

This one's a coin flip.

Jackson County

County: Sanders 23 - Clinton 25 - O'Malley 2
State: Sanders 4 - Clinton 4 - Unallocated 1

If both O'Malley supporters side with Sanders, they could force a coin flip; otherwise Clinton wins the delegate.

Jasper County

County: Sanders 90 - Clinton 103 - O'Malley 7
State: Sanders 8 - Clinton 9 - Unallocated

If the O'Malley camp breaks strongly for Sanders (5-2 or more) he can pick up that last delegate; otherwise Clinton does.

Keokuk County

County: Sanders 14 - Clinton 25 - O'Malley 1
State: Sanders 1 - Clinton 2 - Unallocated 1

If the O'Malley delegate sides with Sanders, it would force a coin toss for the last delegate; otherwise Clinton wins it.

Linn County

County: Sanders 180 - Clinton 163 - O'Malley 1
State: Sanders 63 - Clinton 57 - Unallocated 1

If the O'Malley delegate sides with Sanders, they pick up the last delegate; otherwise Clinton does.

Marion County

County: Sanders 48 - Clinton 50 - O'Malley 2
State: Sanders 6 - Clinton 6 - Unallocated 1

If both O'Malley delegates side with Sanders, they could force a coin flip for the last delegate; otherwise Clinton wins it.

Monroe County

County: Sanders 29 - Clinton 28 - O'Malley 8
State: Sanders 1 - Clinton 1 - Unallocated 1

Any of the three candidates could pick up the last delegate, depending on tactical voting or lack thereof.

Polk County

County: Sanders 554 - Clinton 638 - O'Malley 8
State: Sanders 105 - Clinton 121 - Unallocated 2

The O'Malley supporters will decide where the last two delegates go.

Scott County

County: Sanders 139 - Clinton 135 - O'Malley 1
State: Sanders 41 - Clinton 40 - Unallocated 1

If the O'Malley delegate sides with Clinton, she wins the last delegate; otherwise Sanders does.


Precinct CR 1 in Kossuth County, Precinct 5 in Hancock County, and Competine Township in Wapello County also did not report, but cannot make a difference in the final outcome.

Analysis to follow.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: cinyc on February 02, 2016, 10:40:42 PM
Precinct CR 1 in Kossuth County, Precinct 5 in Hancock County, and Competine Township in Wapello County also did not report, but cannot make a difference in the final outcome.

It's possible that there were no Democratic caucus goers in those precincts.  They are rural, and there were barely any Republican votes tallied in all but Precinct 5 in Hancock County.  Only 5 Republican votes were tallied in CR 1, for example. 

In the Republican caucus, Indian Settlement in Tama County recorded no Republican votes according to the Microsoft map, which is also possible given how Native Americans tend to vote Democratic if they vote at all.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 02, 2016, 11:02:35 PM
Iowa Analysis: What are Sanders' Chances?

As examined to death with exhaustive detail in the previous post, there are 17 state delegates still potentially up for grabs, if the few O'Malley and Uncommitted supporters at the County Conventions pick a side.  (If they don't pick a side, Clinton wins 708 - 698 ± 1).

Sanders needs to win 14 or more out of the 17 in order to win outright, or 13 to have it go to a coin flip.  So clearly, he needs to win a clear majority of the O'Malley / Uncommitted support.  How much, though?

I ran a few simulations to see what Sanders' probability of winning the 44th delegate are given varying probabilities of a given O'Malley/Uncommitted delegate defecting to Sanders--a value which we'll call p.  

I made a few assumptions here.  First, all O'Malley/Uncommitted delegates pick a side, rather than just refusing to re-caucus.  Second, the probability of each picking a side is independent of the others.  These are almost certainly not true, given that Sanders may try harder in some places than others, but it should give us a subjective feel for the problem.

pChance of Sanders Victory
50%<0.1%
60%0.4%
70%3.2%
75%8.0%
80%16.8%
85%30.0%
90%46.3%
95%64.1%
100%77.3%

These are the most diehard O'Malley people we are talking about here.  I just don't think they break so overwhelmingly (90%+) to Sanders to give him the win.

As a result, I'm sticking with my initial call here, unless events on March 12 prove otherwise.  Keep an eye out for those 16 counties on March 12!


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 03, 2016, 05:52:23 PM
Alaska (R): March 1

Overview
28 Delegates (1.13% of total)
Closed Caucus (Binding)
28 At-Large (Proportional, 13% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

Delegates are bound according to the results of the Presidential Preference Poll held on March 1.  Like for the Democrats in Iowa and Nevada, the delegate results are based on State Delegate Equivalents (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/710984307276382209), even though, in this case, the media reports the raw vote totals.  Essentially, the vote in each district is weighted by the Republican vote in 2014.  Delegates are allocated among all candidates receiving at least 13% of the state delegate equivalents in the poll, proportional to their share of the vote among candidates meeting the threshold.  Rounding is done to the nearest whole number of delegates.  Any rounding errors are given to the state winner, or taken away from the qualified candidate with the least number of votes, as appropriate.

Delegate Selection
Delegates are selected by the State Convention on April 28 - 30, the end of a caucus/convention process beginning on March 1.

Results (3/2)

CandidatePercentDelegates
Cruz35.3%12
Trump33.3%11
Rubio15.7%5

Rubio is considered to have "drop[ped] out" of the race, the above calculation is done with just Cruz and Trump, yielding

Cruz 14 - Trump 14

Note that the use of State Delegate Equivalents is crucial here; if it had been based off the raw vote, Cruz would have an additional delegate.

Withdrawal of Candidates / Brokered Convention

If a candidate drops out before the National Convention, their delegates are reallocated as if they had received no votes in the Presidential Preference Poll.  All delegates are bound on the first two ballots, as long as their candidate “maintains an active campaign.” After the second ballot, delegates bound to the candidate receiving the fewest votes on the previous ballot become unbound.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: AK (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AK-R#0301)
Frontloading HQ: AK (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/11/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_12.html)
AK GOP Rules (http://www.alaskagop.org/party_rules)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 04, 2016, 03:03:19 PM
Alabama (R): March 1

Overview
50 Delegates (2.02% of total)
Primary
29 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold; WTA if majority)
21 District (“Winner-Take-Most”)

Delegate Allocation
If any candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote in the primary, or is the only candidate to receive at least 20% of the vote, they receive all 29 At-Large delegates.  Otherwise, delegates are allocated among all candidates receiving at least 20% of the vote in the poll, proportional to their share of the vote among candidates meeting the threshold.  In the unlikely event no candidate receives 20% of the vote, delegates are allocated proportionally among all candidates.

If any candidate receives a majority of the vote in a Congressional District, or is the only candidate to receive more than 20% of the vote, they receive all 3 delegates from that CD.  Otherwise, the winner receives two delegates and the runner-up receives one.  If no candidate receives 20% of the vote, the three delegates are allocated proportionally among all candidates.

Rounding is always to the nearest whole number.  Any rounding errors are given to (or taken away from) the candidate with the most (or fewest) votes.  This “Alabama Method” of allocation and rounding is commonly used in many other states, as well.

Voters may also vote for “Uncommitted,” who is treated as a candidate for all allocation purposes.

Delegate Selection
The primary ballot also allows voters to vote on the actual delegates who will be sent to the National Convention.  Voters are only allowed to vote for delegates who correspond to the candidate (including “Uncommitted”) who they voted for in the Presidential Preference Poll.  Some candidates have incomplete slates of delegates; in the event a candidate is entitled to more delegates than he has on his slate, that slot will presumably be filled by an alternate delegate.  Such alternates are chosen by the Alabama Republican Executive Committee and must similarly pledge themselves to the candidate they are bound to support; they must also pay a $150 filing fee.

Withdrawal of Candidates / Brokered Convention
Delegates remain bound until the candidate releases them, unless two-thirds of a candidate’s Alabama delegates vote to release themselves.

Results (as of 3/2)

Rubio failed to meet the statewide threshold, so the At-Large delegates are apportioned 20 for Trump and 9 for Cruz.  Cruz fell about 325 votes short of an additional At-Large delegate.

Trump won all the Congressional Districts, as was the only candidate above threshold in CD 1 and CD 4, picking up 14 delegates.  Rubio was above threshold (and Cruz) in CD 5, picking up 1 delegate.  Cruz took second place and was above threshold in the remaining CDs, winning 4 delegates.

Trump   36
Cruz13
Rubio1

This count is in agreement with The Green Papers and FHQ.

In the case of Rubio, his 1 delegate is effectively released, as he can vote to release himself at any time.

Delegates

Trump (36)
[1] Jim Bonner
[2] Jim Carns
[3] Judy Carns
[4] Ed Henry
[5] Shaun McCutcheon (donated to Rubio in Jan. 2015)
[6] James Matthews
[7] Bob Baccus
[8] Perry O. Hooper
[9] Will Matthews
[10] Barry Moore
[11] Catherine Crosby Long
[12] James Henderson
[13] Chess Bedsole
[14] Dennis H. Beavers
[15] Chad Tucker
[16] Laura E. Payne
[17] W. Brent Woodall
[18] Frank H. Long, Jr.
[19] J. Holland (a presumably different Justin Holland donated to Cruz in Dec. 2015)
[20] Carmen Moore-Ziegler
[1-1] Frank Burt, Jr.
[1-2] Unfilled
[1-3] Trey Oliver
[2-1] Jeana Boggs
[2-2] Jeremy Adams
[3-1] Charles Whatley
[3-2] Kathleen Moore
[4-1] Bradley L. "Brad" Williams
[4-2] William R. Ingram
[4-3] Jesse David Ochocki
[5-1] Jim Peters
[5-2] Shannon Matthew Moore
[6-1] Joe Freeman
[6-2] Jef Freeman
[7-1] Teresa I. Beeker
[7-2] Chris Beeker III

Cruz (13)
[1] Tom Parker
[2] Chip Brown
[3] David Wilson
[4] Mo Brooks
[5] Chad Mathis
[6] Arnold Mooney
[7] Carla S. King
[8] David Pinkleton
[9] Sue Alexander
[2-1] Mike Holmes
[3-1] Tim Sprayberry
[6-1] Collin Luke
[7-1] Rich Wingo

Rubio (1)
[5-1] Dean Brandon

Note that this does not include the RNC members here; I would guess that Trump 19 & 20 and Cruz 9 are actually not delegates, but the AL GOP may have some leeway here.

Useful Links
AL GOP 2016 Presidential Preference Primary Resolution (http://algop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2016-Presidential-Preference-Primary-Resolution.pdf)
The Green Papers: AL (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AL-R#0301)
Frontloading HQ: AL (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/11/2016-republican-delegate-allocation.html)
Delegate Ballot Results (http://www.alabamavotes.gov/electionnight/statewideResultsByContest.aspx?ecode=3000100)
Delegate Candidates (http://algop.org/elections/2016-qualified-alabama-republican-candidates/2016-republican-national-convention-delegate/)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 07, 2016, 07:19:45 PM
The recent revisions to the Iowa caucus results gives a slight boost to Sanders, as a victory in Marion County is now more plausible.

This updates the table in the post above to...

pChance of Sanders Victory
50%<0.1%
60%0.6%
65%2.0%
70%5.1%
75%11.9%
80%22.8%
85%38.7%
90%58.2%
95%76.2%
100%89.2%

This increases Sanders' chances if he's already getting a vast majority of the O'Malley delegates.  I honestly think Clinton will win this delegate, but rethinking my priors here, I'm not more than 90% certain that she will, especially given the possibility for differential turnout at the County Conventions, etc.

I'm reversing my call on the 44th Iowa pledged delegate; it will stay in the Uncommitted column until March 12 at least.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: defe07 on February 07, 2016, 11:40:04 PM
Erc, do you have any news from the North Dakota GOP district caucuses? :)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 08, 2016, 01:52:25 AM
Erc, do you have any news from the North Dakota GOP district caucuses? :)

Not really; this is the only article I've been able to find (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bosch-heinert-nominated-to-open-gop-legislative-seats/article_0c167f66-b6be-565d-8e92-1db1bcf704f3.html), and it doesn't mention the Presidential race at all.  Seems like more of the attention is on local politics, presidential preference may not be playing a huge role.

Some fun pictures on the ND GOP's twitter feed (https://twitter.com/ndgop), though.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: jimrtex on February 08, 2016, 02:20:02 AM
More Iowa Analysis

Black County

County: Sanders 222 - Clinton 196 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1
State: Sanders 36 - Clinton 32 - Unallocated 1

Clinton could pick up that last delegate if both the O'Malley and Uncommitted delegates agree to support her.
Presumably this is Black Hawk County


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 08, 2016, 04:42:32 AM
More Iowa Analysis

Black County

County: Sanders 222 - Clinton 196 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1
State: Sanders 36 - Clinton 32 - Unallocated 1

Clinton could pick up that last delegate if both the O'Malley and Uncommitted delegates agree to support her.
Presumably this is Black Hawk County

Indeed.  For text parsing reasons, I cut all two-word counties down to one word in my spreadsheet, and forgot to restore some of them.  At least I didn't report results from "Des County" :)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 08, 2016, 05:12:52 PM
New Hampshire Delegate Outlook

Democrats (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4877660#msg4877660)

24 delegates are up for grabs: groups of 5 and 3 At Large, and 8 in each CD.

Assuming Sanders wins, he gets 5 out of the 8 At-Large delegates.

In each CD, it depends on the margin of victory.  If he wins 56.25% of the two-way vote in a CD, he wins 5 out of 8 delegates; otherwise he and Clinton split them evenly.

Republicans (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4877505#msg4877505)

20 delegates to allocate, with the threshold at 10%.

% Vote   Delegates
0-10%0
10-12.5%2
12.5-17.5%3
17.5%-22.5%4
22.5%-27.5%   5

Anyone winning more than 27.5% is likely to win the state, given the state of the field.  The winner not only gets his own share of the delegates given his vote share, but also wins any delegates left unallocated.  Essentially, he's treated as if he won the votes that went to the sub-10% candidates.

The delegate result will depend a lot on whether the massive field of candidates all breaks 10% or whether many of them are just under 10%.  In the former case, the winner (presumably Trump) does not get any appreciable bonus, whereas in the latter he may win half the delegates from the state.  This happened in 2012, where Romney won 60% of the delegation on a 39% vote share since both Santorum and Gingrich barely missed the threshold.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Vosem on February 09, 2016, 12:36:03 PM
Are 20 or 23 delegates being allocated by the NH primary? If it is just 20, then what happens to the 3 RNC members? Are they simply free to support whomever they wish?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 09, 2016, 01:11:57 PM
Are 20 or 23 delegates being allocated by the NH primary? If it is just 20, then what happens to the 3 RNC members? Are they simply free to support whomever they wish?

So, here's the situation as I see it.

New Hampshire state law (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/659/659-93.htm) provides the rules for the allocation of delegates (10% threshold, the rounding procedure, etc.).  They also provide for the explicit choosing of delegates after the primary (candidates choose which delegates they want from the list they filed earlier (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/655/655-50.htm)).

On the Democratic side, this law is in conflict with the national Democratic party rules for delegate allocation, and is overridden by them.

On the Republican side, they are not, so the rules are enjoining.  What does this mean in practice for the 3 automatic delegates?

The New Hampshire GOP Bylaws (http://nh.gop/by-laws/) mention them, but really say nothing except that they are supposed to stay neutral during the Primary.

The 3 automatic delegates are indeed automatic, so the procedure of candidates selecting them from their list after the primary clearly doesn't apply here, though the binding might.

The national GOP rules (https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-static-ngop-pbl/docs/Rules_of_the_Republican+Party_FINAL_S14090314.pdf) seem to imply that the entire delegation should be bound.  This has been confirmed by an FHQ enquiry to the national GOP, but may still be open for interpretation.

Is there any good precedent here?  In 2008 and 2012, New Hampshire, with a January primary, was penalized and forfeited its automatic party delegates.  In 2000 and previous contests, these delegates didn't exist, so the only precedent we really have is the uncontested 2004 contest.  In that contest, it seems they were not allocated automatically to Bush, but nobody cared about the minutiae then of course.  Of course, the language for binding the entire delegation did not exist in 2004, so this isn't great precedent either.

TL;DR: My reading of New Hampshire State Law and the national GOP rules would seem to imply that all 23 delegates will be bound as a result of the primary.  

In the end, I'm likely to go with whatever the Secretary of State reports, unless the NH or national GOP says otherwise.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 09, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
Update from FHQ:  They apparently had a chat with the NH GOP (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/697184345057030144), who clarified that all 23 delegates are at stake tonight.  They will be allocated proportionally as one entire pool of delegates. (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/697186587180986371)  (How it's decided who gets which RNC member, I don't know).


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 09, 2016, 11:20:50 PM
New Hampshire Results

Democrats

I'd need to check the breakdown by CD to make absolutely sure, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that Sanders broke the 56.25% two-way vote barrier in both CDs.  The result therefore among pledged delegates is:

Sanders 15 - Clinton 9

Republicans

The percentages seem to have stabilized, so the delegate count seems pretty clear here.

Trump 11 - Kasich 4 - Cruz 3 - Bush 3 - Rubio 2

The decision to allocate the automatic delegates based on the results of the primary helped out Kasich, Cruz, and Bush.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Gass3268 on February 10, 2016, 12:15:11 PM
Good work here! Thanks for taking on this daunting task.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: The Other Castro on February 10, 2016, 12:17:25 PM
This should definitely be stickied btw.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: The Free North on February 10, 2016, 12:21:34 PM
This should definitely be stickied btw.

Seconded.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Gass3268 on February 10, 2016, 12:25:10 PM

Thirded.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: PresidentTRUMP on February 10, 2016, 12:27:02 PM

Didn't Cruz win Iowa? How did he end up with one less delegate than Trump?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Vosem on February 10, 2016, 02:51:52 PM
So, is the breakdown of delegates Trump:Rubio 11:2 or 10:3? The race is very close for the last delegate. The way I've calculated it, and what you have in this thread, is 11:2. But most of the media is 10:3...


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: LLR on February 10, 2016, 03:51:40 PM
You should remove the Fiorina column...


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 10, 2016, 05:29:24 PM
Thanks for the sticky!


I transposed the Cruz and Trump columns after Trump's decisive NH victory, and forgot to also transpose the results in Iowa.  Fixed now.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 10, 2016, 05:37:38 PM
So, is the breakdown of delegates Trump:Rubio 11:2 or 10:3? The race is very close for the last delegate. The way I've calculated it, and what you have in this thread, is 11:2. But most of the media is 10:3...

No matter how you slice it, Trump gets 11 and Rubio gets 2.  The media is just wrong on this one.  I'm guessing they rounded prematurely; an 11.0% result would give you 3 delegates, but a 10.6% result gives you 2.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Obama-Biden Democrat on February 10, 2016, 06:18:41 PM
Does the Republican party have super delegates like the Democrats do? I was looking at CNN's result's page for the Democratic caucus in NH, and it said Hillary and Bernie both won 15 delegates, even though she lost big time. I am assuming all the super delegates from NH are backing Hillary.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: danny on February 10, 2016, 07:19:39 PM
So, is the breakdown of delegates Trump:Rubio 11:2 or 10:3? The race is very close for the last delegate. The way I've calculated it, and what you have in this thread, is 11:2. But most of the media is 10:3...

No matter how you slice it, Trump gets 11 and Rubio gets 2.  The media is just wrong on this one.  I'm guessing they rounded prematurely; an 11.0% result would give you 3 delegates, but a 10.6% result gives you 2.

They rounded on purpose, apparently this is the rule (despite making no sense): https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/697519581884239873 (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/697519581884239873)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 10, 2016, 07:42:59 PM
So, is the breakdown of delegates Trump:Rubio 11:2 or 10:3? The race is very close for the last delegate. The way I've calculated it, and what you have in this thread, is 11:2. But most of the media is 10:3...

No matter how you slice it, Trump gets 11 and Rubio gets 2.  The media is just wrong on this one.  I'm guessing they rounded prematurely; an 11.0% result would give you 3 delegates, but a 10.6% result gives you 2.

They rounded on purpose, apparently this is the rule (despite making no sense): https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/697519581884239873 (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/697519581884239873)

Here's the state law in question:

Quote from: Section 659:93
659:93 Apportionment of Delegates; Notice. –
    I. The secretary of state shall apportion delegates to the national party conventions among the candidates voted for at the presidential primary by determining the proportion of the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate to the total votes cast for all presidential candidates of the same political party, rounded to the nearest whole number.
    II. A presidential candidate must receive at least 10 percent, before any rounding to the nearest whole number, of the total vote cast for all presidential candidates of his political party to be eligible for a share of the apportioned delegates.
    III. In the event the apportionment of delegates according to paragraphs I and II leaves one or more delegates unassigned by the process of mathematical distribution, said delegates shall be apportioned to the presidential candidate of that party with the highest number of votes.

Note that it says proportion, not percentage in Paragraph I.

There's a reference to rounding percentages in Paragraph II, though, which struck me as odd.  But it's unclear whether Paragraph I refers to rounding a number of delegates or a percentage.

I'm sticking to my allocation, unless there's something from the Secretary of State that says otherwise.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 10, 2016, 08:00:56 PM
Important going forward for the Automatic Delegates.  For states that don't specify a process for binding them, they are to be treated as At-Large delegates, according to a recent RNC memo. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/298879643/Counsel-s-Office-Memo-re-RNC-Member-Binding)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: jimrtex on February 10, 2016, 10:43:49 PM
Important going forward for the Automatic Delegates.  For states that don't specify a process for binding them, they are to be treated as At-Large delegates, according to a recent RNC memo. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/298879643/Counsel-s-Office-Memo-re-RNC-Member-Binding)
The memo is nonsensical.

Rule 16(a)(1) does not clarify. Rather it makes the matter more ambiguous, opaque, and obscure.

Rule 16(b) specifically applies only to at-large and district delegates. Now it appears to be that the RNC counsel is arguing that if, state party rules and state laws do not specify how how the party delegates are to be elected, selected, allocated or bound (because traditionally they have been selected independently of the presidential process, because they are ex officio delegates to the convention), then they are covered by national party rules. And since the national party rules specify that all delegates be bound, they must be "at-large" delegates.

If 20 delegates are allocated on the basis of the popular vote it is:

Trump 7, Kasich 3, Cruz 2, Bush 2, Rubio 2, Christie 1, and Fiorina 1 (2 delegates not allocated due to truncation).

Trump gets the 2 unallocated delegates plus the Christie and Fiorina delegates, since they were below the 10% threshold.

Trump 11, Kasich 3, Cruz 2, Bush 2, Rubio 2, and 3 party delegates.

I think rounding applies to delegates, rather than percentages, in subsection II. Whole number of percentage does not make sense.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: jimrtex on February 10, 2016, 10:51:07 PM
So, is the breakdown of delegates Trump:Rubio 11:2 or 10:3? The race is very close for the last delegate. The way I've calculated it, and what you have in this thread, is 11:2. But most of the media is 10:3...
Rubio is just short of 2.5, even if 23 delegates are allocated. There were 30 candidates on the ballot plus write-ins, and the allocation is to be based on the total for all candidates. They might have either not considered those votes, or decided to round the percentage to 11%.

The press was wrong in Iowa as well.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 11, 2016, 12:30:38 AM
Let's took at that Paragraph I again:

Quote from: Section 659:93:I
   I. The secretary of state shall apportion delegates to the national party conventions among the candidates voted for at the presidential primary by determining the proportion of the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate to the total votes cast for all presidential candidates of the same political party, rounded to the nearest whole number.

So, reading this literally, it is saying that I am rounding "the proportion" to the nearest whole number.  What does that even mean?

I would say, and I think the common sense interpretation here is, that each candidate receives the same proportion of the delegation as his proportion of the total votes cast, with the number of delegates received rounded to the nearest whole number.

FHQ's and the media's interpretation appears to be that I round the "proportion of...the total votes cast" to the nearest whole percentage point.  That's a huge leap.  And since there aren't exactly 100 delegates, I would then have to round yet again, not something that is anywhere explicitly stated.

Of course, this is looking at Paragraph I in isolation.  Their interpretation seems to rest on the weird language in Paragraph II.

Quote from: Section 659:93:II
   II. A presidential candidate must receive at least 10 percent, before any rounding to the nearest whole number, of the total vote cast for all presidential candidates of his political party to be eligible for a share of the apportioned delegates.

Why the mention of "any rounding to the nearest whole number"?  I would say that it's a bit odd, but is basically just a clarification that you need to get at least 10.00000% of the vote to receive delegates.  They would say, perhaps, that it implies that the percent of votes a candidate receives is rounded to the nearest whole number by Paragraph I.  I'd still say it's a leap, though.

I'm sticking with my count (which The Green Papers agrees with) unless the Secretary of State says otherwise.  We should know one way or the other within a couple weeks, as the SoS should be notifying the candidates how many delegates they are entitled to soon; 10 days after that the candidates respond with which particular individuals they want to represent them at Cleveland (from a list submitted to the SoS before the primary).


What's crazy is that if you went with the media rounding scheme here, Trump actually receives fewer delegates when there are 23 delegates at play as opposed to 20.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 11, 2016, 12:39:55 AM
I agree, jimrtex, that that memo leaves something to be desired.  But I'm glad they provided clarification, because it was an open question, and the memo resolves the matter to my general satisfaction.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 11, 2016, 04:37:16 AM
Republican Superdelegates

EDIT: This post is outdated; I now track these delegates here. (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/141443015159/unbound-gop-delegates)

Given the recent memo from the RNC clarifying that the 3 automatic delegates from each state must be bound based on the statewide results, the potential for Republican "superdelegates" to make a difference on the first ballot is much diminished.

In fact, this ruling means that there are only Eighteen (18) delegates who attend by virtue of their position and are entirely free to vote their conscience on the first ballot: three from each state/territory that is holding no sort of public vote this year.  None of them have yet endorsed a candidate.

American Samoa
Utu Abe Malae
Amata Radewagen
Su'a Schuster

Colorado
Steve House
Lily Nuñez
George Leing

Guam
Mike Benito
Margaret Metcalfe
David Sablan

North Dakota
Kelly Armstrong
Sandy Boehler
Curly Haugland

Virgin Islands
John Canegata
Lilliana Belardo de O'Neal
Holland Redfield III

Wyoming
Matt Micheli
Marti Halverson
Greg Schaefer

There will also be other unbound delegates at the Republican National Convention, though they will need to be elected.  These include:

  • American Samoa (6)
  • Guam (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4931980#msg4931980) (6)
  • Louisiana (5): votes for Rubio and Kasich were effectively allocated to an Uncommitted slate.
  • Nevada (0-2): Ben Carson's delegates could be unbound at his option.
  • New Hampshire (3): Jeb Bush's delegates here are now unbound.
  • North Dakota (25)
  • Oklahoma (3): votes for Kasich were effectively allocated to an Uncommitted slate.
  • Pennsylvania (54): delegates elected on the primary ballot are unbound; no preference is listed on the delegate ballot.
  • Virgin Islands (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4931928#msg4931928) (5-6): some Uncommitted delegates were directly elected here, though some are subject to a credentials fight.
  • West Virginia (31): delegates elected on the primary ballot may be officially unbound; they list a commitment on the primary ballot.  FHQ believes (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/708022842496065536) they are bound by that commitment.

Uncommitted is also a valid option on many ballots, and could in principle receive delegates.  This is only really a likely possibility where delegates are directly elected, as in IL, CO, and WY.  So far, this has only happened in the Virgin Islands.

In total, that's 153 officially unbound delegates, or around 6.2% of the total.  Of course, the WV delegates will have expressed a clear preference.  There's also the 10 delegates still bound to minor candidates that don't seem to get released until after the first ballot.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: PresidentTRUMP on February 11, 2016, 12:45:57 PM
SC primary is winner takes all, correct? So when trump wins SC he gets all 50 of the delegates?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: The Free North on February 11, 2016, 12:59:21 PM
SC primary is winner takes all, correct? So when trump wins SC he gets all 50 of the delegates?

I think its winner take all by Congressional district so if Trump were to have his support dispersed fairly evenly amongst the state he should do just fine delegate wise.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 11, 2016, 01:30:08 PM
SC primary is winner takes all, correct? So when trump wins SC he gets all 50 of the delegates?

I think its winner take all by Congressional district so if Trump were to have his support dispersed fairly evenly amongst the state he should do just fine delegate wise.

There's a pot of 29 At-Large that's Winner Take All, and 3 WTA per congressional distrrict (total of 21).  Barring a really close three-way race, one expects the winner to take at least 41 out of the 50; more if the result isn't at all close.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on February 11, 2016, 01:51:54 PM
SC primary is winner takes all, correct? So when trump wins SC he gets all 50 of the delegates?

I think its winner take all by Congressional district so if Trump were to have his support dispersed fairly evenly amongst the state he should do just fine delegate wise.

There's a pot of 29 At-Large that's Winner Take All, and 3 WTA per congressional distrrict (total of 21).  Barring a really close three-way race, one expects the winner to take at least 41 out of the 50; more if the result isn't at all close.

So, we should start getting some separation then, especially if Trump wins?  What about Nevada?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: danny on February 11, 2016, 03:43:48 PM
So, we should start getting some separation then, especially if Trump wins?  What about Nevada?

This whole thread thread is dedicated to answering these kinds of questions, you don't have to ask, you can just look for an existing post. In the case of the Nevada Republican caucus, that means this post.  (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4886684#msg4886684)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 11, 2016, 05:01:17 PM
Even The Green Papers has folded and gone with the weird rounding rules.  With literally everyone saying the weird rounding rules are correct, I'm reluctantly forced to change my call and move a delegate from Trump to Rubio.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: PresidentTRUMP on February 12, 2016, 10:21:27 AM
Even The Green Papers has folded and gone with the weird rounding rules.  With literally everyone saying the weird rounding rules are correct, I'm reluctantly forced to change my call and move a delegate from Trump to Rubio.

Looking at the delegate count on both sides right now really shows how in the grand scheme of things how meaningless NH and Iowa really are.

In Iowa Cruz wins the state and ends up with ONE more delegate than Trump and Rubio.

Trump wins NH in a COMPLETE and utter blow out and ends up with a measly 6 more delegates than Kasich and 7 more than Cruz, Rubio and Bush.

Talk about meaningless.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Coolface Sock #42069 on February 13, 2016, 12:46:04 PM
Even The Green Papers has folded and gone with the weird rounding rules.  With literally everyone saying the weird rounding rules are correct, I'm reluctantly forced to change my call and move a delegate from Trump to Rubio.

Looking at the delegate count on both sides right now really shows how in the grand scheme of things how meaningless NH and Iowa really are.

In Iowa Cruz wins the state and ends up with ONE more delegate than Trump and Rubio.

Trump wins NH in a COMPLETE and utter blow out and ends up with a measly 6 more delegates than Kasich and 7 more than Cruz, Rubio and Bush.

Talk about meaningless.
The only meaning they really have is to signal candidates' viability in similar future states.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 04:16:10 AM
Arkansas (R) - March 1

Overview
40 Delegates (1.62% of total)
Open Primary
28 At-Large (Proportional, top 3; almost WTA if majority)
12 District (“Winner-Take-Most”)

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate wins a majority of the votes in a congressional district, they are awarded 3 delegates.  Otherwise, the winner is awarded 2 and the runner-up is awarded 1.  

Every candidate who earns at least 15% of the statewide vote is awarded 1 At-Large delegate.  If a candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote, they are awarded all the remaining At-Large delegates.  Otherwise, the remaining delegates are allocated proportionally among the top three finishers, rounding fractional delegates to the nearest whole number. All rounding error resolution is done in favor of those with the highest vote totals first, as in Alabama.

In the event a presidential candidate does not have enough filed delegate candidates (see next section), they are reallocated to the highest vote-getter in that jurisdiction who does.

Delegate Selection

Candidates for delegate must file at the State GOP headquarters between February 15 and February 29 and pay a $250 filing fee, and must pledge themselves to a candidate when they do so.  Each candidate for President is encouraged to provide the AR GOP with a list of their preferred delegate candidates; if such a list is provided by April 18, it will show up on the later ballots.  The District delegates are selected at Special District Conventions on April 30, while the At-Large Delegates are selected by the State Committee Meeting on May 14.  The delegates to the Special District Conventions are chosen at Special County Conventions in March; one can be a delegate to those conventions by filing in early November 2015.

Results (3/2)

Statewide, Trump and Cruz win 10 delegates each and Rubio wins 8.

In the Congressional Districts, Trump won CDs 1,3, and 4, picking up another 6 delegates.  Cruz placed 2nd in those districts and 1st in CD 2, picking up 5 delegates.  Rubio placed 2nd in CD 2, picking up 1 more delegate.  Results are not complete, but these margins seem secure.

Total: Trump 16, Cruz 15, Rubio 9.

FHQ disagrees with this count, giving Trump another delegate and taking 2 away from Cruz (and apparently not calling a last delegate).

Withdrawal of Candidates / Brokered Convention

All delegates are bound only for the first ballot, unless released by their candidate before that ballot.

Useful Links
AR GOP Delegate Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/289395731/2016-Arkansas-Gop-delegate-Rules)
The Green Papers: AR (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AR-R#0301)
Frontloading HQ: AR (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/11/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_14.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 02:46:24 PM
Colorado (R): March 1 - April 9

Overview
37 Delegates (1.50% of total)
Closed Caucus (non-binding)
13 At-Large
21 District
3 RNC Members

Delegate Selection and Allocation

The Colorado GOP has elected not to hold a Presidential Preference Poll at its caucuses this year.  If it had, delegates would have to be allocated and bound proportionally according to its results; this was avoided by eliminating the poll.  As a result, we will likely know next to nothing about the final delegate allocation from Colorado on the night of March 1.

Caucus-goers in 2917 precincts statewide will elect delegates to the County Assemblies and District Conventions.  By March 24/25, people wishing to run for delegate to the National Convention must file with the State GOP Chair.  On the filing form, delegates may choose to pledge themselves to a particular presidential candidate; this pledge is binding. They may also choose to remain unbound.  There are also strict eligibility rules for National Convention delegates.  In particular, they must have been a delegate at a County Assembly and at either a District Convention (for CD delegates) or the State Convention (for At-Large delegates).

The District Conventions are held (presumably) on April 8.  Each convention chooses its 3 delegates to the National Convention, as well as delegates to the State Convention.  The State Convention on April 9 chooses the 21 At-Large delegates.

At each stage of the process (caucuses, District Conventions and State Convention) voters may cast a number of votes equal to the number of delegates to be chosen by that caucus/convention.  The top delegate candidates are elected by plurality vote, so extensive winnowing is to be expected between stages.  Tactical voting and makeshift alliances may also prove very important at the later stages.

RNC Members

Steve House
Mike Kopp
Lilly Nuñez

Withdrawn Candidates / Brokered Convention

Any bound delegates are only bound for the first ballot; if a candidate releases his delegates or is not placed in nomination, his delegates are unbound.  

Useful Links
Colorado GOP Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/293159746/2016-CO-GOP-delegate-allocation-rules-9-26-15) (older version (http://ogreexposed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9.24.11-CRC-Bylaws-and-Appendices-amended-Sept-24-2011-Copy.pdf))
Frontloading HQ: CO (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation.html)
The Green Papers: CO (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CO-R#0301)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 02:56:44 PM
Georgia (R): March 1

Overview
76 Delegates (3.07% of total)
Half-Open Primary
42 District (Winner-Take-Most; WTA if majority)
34 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

If a presidential candidate receives the majority of votes in a Congressional District, they are allocated 3 delegates; otherwise, the winner is allocated 2 delegates and the runner-up allocated 1.

Statewide, if a candidate receives a majority of the votes, they are awarded all 34 delegates.  Otherwise, delegates are allocated proportionally among all candidates receiving at least 20% of the vote.  The exact nature of how this is done is unclear, but it seems that they are allocated based on each candidate’s percentage of the total statewide vote, with all fractions rounded down.  The procedure is then followed again for the remaining unallocated delegates.  If after this there are still any left over, they are given to the winner.

The three RNC members are treated as At-Large delegates for all purposes; they are allocated to the statewide winner.  From my reading of the GA GOP rules, these are part of the above allocation (i.e. 34 delegates are awarded proportionally, and three of the winner’s allocated delegates happen to be RNC members).  Frontloading HQ and The Green Papers disagree with me, claiming that 31 delegates are awarded proportionally, and the 3 RNC members are separately given to the winner.  The appropriate section of the GA GOP rules is as follows:

Quote from: GA GOP Rules
At large Delegates and Alternates shall be allocated to the candidate(s) receiving more than the requisite percentage of the vote [20%] set forth in paragraph 1 of this subsection B, based on his or her percentage of the Statewide Presidential Preference Primary vote. Any remaining Delegates and Alternates not allocated initially shall be apportioned proportionally, based on the candidate’s share of the statewide vote, until no such further apportionment can be done. Any remaining at large Delegates and Alternates shall be awarded to the candidate receiving the largest percentage of the vote. For the purpose of this allocation, RNC Delegates (State Chairman, National Committee Woman and National Committee Man) shall be considered at large delegates and be allocated to the candidate receiving the largest percentage of the vote.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are selected at District Conventions on April 16 and the State Convention on June 3/4.  Delegates to these conventions are chosen at County Conventions on March 19, while delegates to those conventions are chosen at Precinct Mass Meetings held March 10-19.

Results (3/2)

The CD delegates break down as Trump 26 - Cruz 9 - Rubio 7.  Rubio's strength was much more concentrated; he won a couple CDs but placed third in a lot more, which hurt him in the delegate count.

The At-Large delegates depend on your interpretation of the rules (i.e. whether RNC members are allocated along with the At-Large delegates or not, and if not, whether fractional delegates are truncated or rounded to the nearest whole delegate).  My interpretation gives Trump 16 - Rubio 9 - Cruz 9.  The Green Papers gives (with a weird interpretation and outdated results) Trump 17 - Rubio 9 - Cruz 8.  Another plausible interpretation (apparently favored by FHQ) would give Trump 18 - Rubio 8 - Cruz 8.

Withdrawals / Brokered Convention

All delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless their candidate withdraws before the convention.

Useful Links
GA GOP Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/292968122/gagop-rules-9-26-15)
Frontloading HQ: GA (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_10.html)
The Green Papers: GA (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/GA-R#0301)
Georgia State Code (http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-21/chapter-2/article-5/21-2-197)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 03:00:49 PM
Massachusetts (R): March 1

Overview
42 Delegates (1.70% of total)
Half-Open Primary
42 At-Large (Proportional, 5% threshold)

Delegate Allocation
42 Delegates are allocated proportionally among all candidates who receive at least 5% of the vote in the primary.  Each candidate receives the same proportion of delegates as their proportion of the vote among all candidates meeting the the threshold, with rounding done to the nearest whole number.  Any rounding errors are resolved by giving delegates to the winner or removing delegates from the last-place finisher, as necessary.

Delegate Selection
27 Delegates are selected at District Conventions on April 23, and 12 delegates are selected by the State Committee in early June.

Results (3/2)

CandidatePercentDelegates
Trump49.3%22
Kasich18.0%8
Rubio17.8%8
Cruz9.6%4

This is in agreement with FHQ and The Green Papers.


Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot unless released by their candidate.

Quote from: MA General Laws
If there is a roll call vote for president at the national convention of a political party, all delegates and alternate delegates whose selection is subject by party rule to the approval of a presidential candidate shall vote on the first such roll call for that presidential candidate unless released by such candidate.

It's not clear that this law actually applies to MA's delegates, the selection of which are not subject to the approval of a presidential candidate.  That said, it was considered binding in 2012, when the delegates were Ron Paul supporters despite a Romney landslide in the state; they were forced to vote for Romney at the convention.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MA-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MA-R)
Frontloading HQ: MA (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/02/2016-republican-delegate-allocation.html)
MA G.L. c.53, §70I (https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVIII/Chapter53/Section70I)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 03:07:14 PM
Minnesota (R): March 1

Overview
38 Delegates (1.70% of total)
Open Caucus (Binding)
24 District (Proportional, 10% threshold)
14 At-Large (Proportional, 10% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

The 14 At-Large delegates are allocated proportionally to all candidates meeting a 10% threshold.  Each candidate receives the same proportion of delegates as their proportion of the vote among all candidates meeting the the threshold, with rounding done to the nearest whole number.  This starts with the winner and then proceeds down; if delegates are yet to be assigned at the end, round up the candidate closest to receiving an additional delegate.

The same allocation procedure occurs for the 3 delegates in each Congressional District, based on the vote in that district; this is quite likely just to give a delegate to each of the top three finishers in each district, unless any candidate has a majority of the threshold-clearing vote.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at District Conventions in late April / early May, and at the State Convention on May 20.  Delegates to these conventions are chosen at BPOU Conventions in March/April, while delegates to those conventions are chosen at the caucuses.

Results (3/2)

Based on their results of the statewide vote, Rubio wins 6 delegates, Cruz 5, and Trump 3.  In CDs 3, 4, and 5, Rubio won a majority of the threshold-clearing vote, winning 2 delegates to Cruz's 1.  In the other 5 CDs, Rubio, Cruz, and Trump each won 1 delegate.

Totals:  Rubio 17, Cruz 13, Trump 8.


Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

At-Large Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless released by their candidate, or their candidate withdraws.  This is confirmed by the pledge signed by all delegate candidates (http://www.scribd.com/doc/306645850/Republican-Party-of-Minnesota-Delegate-Pledge-Form-and-Affidavit).  The MN GOP (http://republicanpartyofminnesota.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/d/1BD4ABB3E4E5169E/285204E9D78891EA6A4D01E12DB8921D) says that Rubio's delegates are released if he "is not on the first ballot"; so it seems that this is what is meant by "withdrawal."

As a result, I am releasing Rubio's delegates, as he will not be on the first ballot barring changes in Rule 40.

Jeff Kolb raises an interesting point (https://medium.com/@jpkolb/what-really-happens-to-rubio-s-mn-delegates-24b8265f5b2b#.1giw9e6lc) that the Delegate Selection Rules may be illegitimate; I sincerely doubt this is the case, but we'll see how this plays out down the line.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MN-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MN-R#0301)
MN GOP Constitution (http://mngop.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/MNGOP-Constitution.pdf)
Frontloading HQ: MN (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_12.html)
MN Delegate Allocation Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/293102201/2016-Minnesota-Republican-Delegate-Allocation-Rules)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 03:34:38 PM
Milestone on the superdelegates front:

Today's additions (Alma Gonzalez from FL and some previously-missed Puerto Rico endorsements) have pushed Clinton to over 60% support from superdelegates.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 07:21:46 PM
Oklahoma (R): March 1

Overview
43 Delegates (1.74% of total)
Closed Primary
15 District (Proportional, 15% threshold; WTA if majority)
28 At-Large (Proportional, 15% threshold; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

Three delegates are awarded from each of Oklahoma's five Congressional Districts.  If a candidate gets a majority of the vote in a CD (or is the only candidate to clear 15%), they receive all 3 delegates.  Otherwise, if three (or more) candidates place above 15% in a CD, the top three finishers each get one delegate.  If only two do, the winner gets two and the runner-up gets one.

If a candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote, they receive all 28 At-Large delegates.  Otherwise, the delegates are awarded proportionally among all candidates receiving at least 15% of the statewide vote.  The exact manner in which this is done is not clear.  The GOP rules imply that each candidate receives delegates proportional to the share of the overall vote, rounded to the nearest delegate, à la New Hampshire; however, this would generically leave a number of delegates unassigned due to candidates not meeting the threshold. The appropriate section from the GOP rules:

Quote from: OK GOP Rule 18(h)1.
...the award shall be as follows: based on the relationship that the number of votes received by each presidential candidate bears to the total number of votes cast in the Republican presidential primary election in the entire State; provided that a presidential candidate must receive at least 15 percent of the total vote cast in the State in the Republican presidential preference primary election in order to be entitled to any of the State at Large delegates. The Chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party shall apportion pro rata the number of delegates from the State at large each of the presidential candidates is entitled to receive rounded to the nearest whole number.

FHQ has clarified that the delegates left over after this procedure are left Uncommitted.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at District Conventions on April 16 and the State Convention on May 13-14.  This includes, crucially, the three Uncommitted delegates from the results below.

Results (3/2)

The candidates split the CD delegates 5-5-5.

At-Large, Cruz won 10 delegates, Trump 8, Rubio 7, and Uncommitted 3.  

Totals: Cruz 15, Trump 13, Rubio 12.

The Green Papers does not believe that the below-threshold votes are allocated to Uncommitted, and parcels them out among the three candidates appropriately.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound for all ballots until their candidate is "for any reason no longer a candidate."

Useful Links
The Green Papers: OK-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/OK-R)
Frontloading HQ: OK (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_13.html)
OK GOP Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/293159748/2016-OK-GOP-delegate-allocation-rules)
Oklahoma Statutes §26-20-104 G. (http://www.oklegislature.gov/osstatuestitle.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 08:40:24 PM
Tennessee (R): March 1

Overview
58 Delegates (2.35% of total)
Open Primary
27 District (Winner-Take-Most, 20% threshold)
31 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

Three delegates are awarded from each of Tennessee's nine Congressional Districts.  If a candidate gets two-thirds of the vote in a CD (or is the only candidate to clear 20%), they receive all 3 delegates.  Otherwise, the first place finisher receives two delegates while the runner-up receives one.

If a candidate receives two-thirds of the statewide vote (or is the only candidate to clear 20%), they receive all 31 At-Large delegates.  Otherwise, they are allocated among all candidates clearing 20%, proportional to their vote share among the threshold-clearing candidates.  Delegates are given out starting with the statewide winner, with all fractional delegates rounded up.

Results (as of 3/7)

Trump 33 - Cruz 16 - Rubio 9 (http://tngop.org/tngop-releases-preliminary-presidential-at-large-delegate-allocations/?platform=hootsuite)

Delegate Selection

The Congressional District delegates and half of the At-Large delegates are directly elected on the ballot; they needed to obtain the consent of the candidate they are pledged to in order to appear on the ballot under their name. The other half of the At-Large delegates selected by the State GOP Executive Committee on April 2, with advice from the Presidential campaigns.  If a campaign should not have enough delegates on the ballot, the Executive Committee will choose the remaining delegates.

Delegates

Trump:
[1] Mae Beavers
[2] Doris B. Arnold
[3] Robert Duvall
[4] Chad Blackburn
[5] William H. Beavers
[6] Karen Bennett
[7] Julie Brockman
[8...15] Chosen April 2
[1-1] David "Kent" Harris
[1-2] Betty Jo Kern
[2-1] Tim Hutchison
[2-2] Sam Maynard
[3-1] M. David Riden
[3-2] Richard L. Snead
[4-1] Larry Sims
[4-2] Jeff Peach
[5-1] Connie Hunter
[5-2] Ron McDow
[6-1] Chris Hughes
[6-2] Jerry Wayne Beavers
[7-1] Larry W. Cooper
[7-2] James Kenneth Eaton
[8-1] Joseph S. Coury
[8-2] Nichole Bufalino
[9-1] Terry Allen Roland
[9-2] Charlotte Bergmann

Cruz
[1] Joe Carr
[2] Steve Gill
[3] Lee Douglas
[4] Deborah Deaver
[5] Sheila Butt
[6...10] Chosen April 2
[1-1] B. Claire Crouch
[4-1] Edward M. Phillips Jr.
[6-1] Laura M. Baigert
[7-1] Sharon P. Strange
[8-1] Mick Wright
[9-1] Lynn Moss

Rubio
[1] Victor Ashe
[2] Beth Campbell
[3] Randy Ellis
[4...6] Chosen April 2
[2-1] Michael Hensley
[3-1] Randy Fairbanks
[5-1] Luke Elliott

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound for at least two ballots.  Delegates for withdrawn candidates still get to attend the convention; it's not entirely clear that they are released in that eventuality, though I will assume they are.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: TN-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/TN-R)
Frontloading HQ: TN (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_15.html)
TN GOP Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/293339168/2016-TN-GOP-delegate-allocation-rules)
Unofficial Delegate Ballot Results (http://elections.tn.gov/Delegates.pdf)
TN Code §§2-13-307(b) (https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 08:50:08 PM
Texas (R): March 1

Overview
155 Delegates (6.27% of total)
Open Primary
108 District (Winner-Take-Most, 20% threshold; WTA if majority)
47 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

Three delegates are awarded from each of Texas' 36 Congressional Districts.  If a candidate gets a majority of the vote in a CD they receive all 3 delegates.  Otherwise, the first place finisher receives two delegates while the runner-up receives one.

If a candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote, they receive all 47 At-Large delegates.  Otherwise, they are allocated among all candidates clearing 20%, proportional to their vote share among the threshold-clearing candidates.  All fractions are rounded down.  Any delegates left over after rounding are given one at a time to the highest placing candidates, in order, until all delegates are allocated.  If only one candidate places above 20% but no one has a majority, delegates are allocated proportionally between the winner and the runner-up in the same fashion.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are selected by the State Convention on May 14.

Results (3/2)

At-Large, Rubio failed to meet the threshold, and Cruz wins 30 to Trump's 17 delegates.

Cruz won all the CDs, including majorities in CDs 1 and 29, picking up another 74 delegates.

Rubio placed 2nd and above threshold in CDs 7, 16, and 32, picking up 3 delegates.

Trump placed 2nd in the remaining CDs, picking up 31 additional delegates.

Totals: Cruz 104, Trump 48, Rubio 3.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate withdraws, dies, or releases them.  Delegates are also bound on the second ballot if their candidate receives 20% of the total vote on the first ballot.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: TX-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/TX-R)
Frontloading HQ: TX (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_16.html)
TX GOP Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/293443176/2016-TXGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 08:57:41 PM
Vermont (R): March 1

Overview
16 Delegates (0.65% of total)
Open Primary
16 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate receives a majority of the vote, they receive all 16 delegates.  Otherwise, the delegates are allocated among all candidates meeting a 20% threshold, proportional to the share of the vote among all threshold-meeting candidates.  Delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number; rounding errors are resolved by giving delegates to the winner or subtracting delegates from the lowest-placed finisher, as appropriate.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are selected by the State Convention on May 21.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot unless their candidate withdraws, suspends his campaign, or is not placed in nomination.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: VT-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VT-R)
Frontloading HQ: VT (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_17.html)
VT GOP Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/293486453/2016-VTGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 09:10:54 PM
Virginia (R): March 1

Overview
49 Delegates (1.98% of total)
Open Primary
49 At-Large (Proportional, no threshold)

Delegate Allocation

Delegates are allocated among all candidates, proportional to their share of the vote.  Delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number; rounding errors are resolved by giving delegates to (or taking them from) the candidates closest to (or furthest from) receiving an additional delegate.

Note that this mean any candidate receiving at least 1.02% of the vote (up to rounding errors) will be entitled to a delegate.  This raises the remote possibility that one of the dropouts could get a delegate (compare Paul's 0.7% result in New Hampshire). GILMENTUM?

Delegate Selection

Delegates are selected by the Congressional District Conventions from March through May, and by the State Convention on April 30.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot.  It seems that delegates bound to withdrawn candidates are still bound.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: VA-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VA-R)
Frontloading HQ: VA (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_22.html)
VA Delegate Allocation: GOP (http://www.scribd.com/doc/293870784/2016-VAGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 09:36:42 PM
Wyoming (R): February 16-April 16

Overview
29 Delegates (1.17% of total)
Closed Caucus (non-binding)
12 County
14 At-Large
3 RNC Members

Details

Wyoming, like Colorado and North Dakota, elected not to hold a Presidential Preference Poll at this year's caucus.  As a result, we will know next to nothing about the results on the night of the caucus itself.

Precinct caucuses are held across the state on a number of different days, currently ranging from February 16 (in Niobrara County) to March 1.  These elect delegates to the County Conventions; note that there is often only one precinct per county in Wyoming.

The 23 various County Conventions are held on March 12 (http://wyoming.gop/county-conventions/).  Twelve of these counties will select a delegate to Cleveland (Albany, Sweetwater, Uinta, Teton, Fremont, Hotsprings, Sheridan Platte, Campbell, Crook, Converse, Goshen, and Laramie) and twelve will select an alternate (the other eleven counties and Laramie again).  The county conventions also elect delegates to the State Convention (numbers shown here (http://wyoming.gop/2016-state-convention/)).  

The remaining 14 delegates are selected at the State Convention on April 14.   A slate of delegates is drawn up by the Nominating/Elections committee, though more names may be added from the floor.  All delegate candidates at the State Convention must inform the Convention of their Presidential Preference.

Candidates for National Convention Delegate may pledge themselves to a candidate prior to their nomination; according to their process submission to the RNC, this pledge is binding, though completely optional.  It is unclear how many ballots such a pledge is binding for.  If a candidate "isn't in the race in July," they are freed from their pledge, according to WY GOP chairman Matt Micheli (http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-republicans-will-meet-saturday-to-decide-on-presidential-nominee/article_76649e5a-5539-5e4b-be36-8aba7e2f2ceb.html).

RNC Members (unbound)

Matt Micheli
Marti Halverson
Greg Schaefer

County Convention Results (March 12)

Cruz 9 - Rubio 1 - Trump 1 - Uncommitted 1

Based on these results, I'm projecting a Cruz sweep of all 14 delegates at the State Convention.

Delegates:

Rubio (1):
Tammy Hooper - Cruz (http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/local_news/rubio-by-an-edge-in-albany-county/article_4cb97368-e8d5-11e5-93e2-478f7b569257.html)

Uncommitted (1):
Ogden Driskill (https://www.facebook.com/CrookCountyGOP/posts/967707829982019).

Useful Links
The Green Papers: WY-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WY-R)
Frontloading HQ: WY (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2015/12/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_27.html)
WY GOP Bylaws (http://wyoming.gop/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014.bylaws.pdf)
WY GOP Convention Details (http://wyoming.gop/2016-state-convention/)
Wyoming Precinct Caucus Schedule (http://wyoming.gop/precinct-caucuses/#)
RNC Process Book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/294928557/2016-Presidential-Nominating-Process-Book-version-2-0-Dec-2015-pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 10:03:05 PM
March 1 Democratic Primaries: Part I

Delegate Allocation Overview

Unlike for the Republicans, where the specific math varies from state to state, the system for the Democrats is largely uniform.  In each jurisdiction (each CD, At-Large, and PLEO At-Large), the delegates are allocated among candidates meeting a 15% threshold, proportional to their share of the vote among candidates meeting that threshold.  Fractional delegates are rounded up, starting with the largest remainder, until all delegates are assigned.

Alabama (D)


Overview
60 Delegates (1.26% of total)
Open Primary
11 At-Large
7 PLEO At-Large
35 by CD
7 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 11 and 7 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 9 for CD 1; 5 for CDs 1, 2, 3; 4 for CDs 4, 5; 3 for CD 6.

Superdelegates

Clinton (4): Rep. Terri Sewell, Randy Kelley, Unzell Kelley, Janet May (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2015/11/hillary-clinton-for-america-announces-alabama-leadership-council.html)

Uncommitted (3): Chair Nancy Worley, Darryl Sinkfield, Vice Chair (Vacant)

The Green Papers: AL-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AL-D)

American Samoa (D)


Overview
10 Delegates (0.21% of total)
Open Caucus
6 At-Large
4 Superdelegates

Details

The caucus takes place at the Tradewinds Hotel in Ottoville Village near Pago Pago.  6 delegates are allocated proportionally on the basis of the caucus vote.

Superdelegates

Clinton (4): Chair Fagafaga Daniel Langkilde, Vice Chair Galea'i Tuufuli, Clara Reid, Gov. Lolo Moliga (http://www.samoanews.com/content/en/campaign-2016-report)

Sanders (1): Therese Hunkin (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/)

The Green Papers: AS-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AS-D)

Arkansas (D)


Overview
37 Delegates (0.78% of total)
Open Primary
7 At-Large
4 PLEO At-Large
21 by CD
4 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 7 and 4 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 6 for CDs 2, 4; 5 for CD 1; 4 for CD 3.

Superdelegates

Clinton (5): Chair Vice Insalaco, Vice Chair Joyce Elliott, Dustin McDaniel, Krystal Thraikill, Lottie Shackelford (https://web.archive.org/web/20151117014537/www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article44772444.html)

The Green Papers: AR-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AR-D)

Georgia (D)


Overview
117 Delegates (2.46% of total)
Open Primary
22 At-Large
13 PLEO At-Large
67 by CD
15 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 22 and 13 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 7 for CD 5; 6 for CDs 4,13; 5 for CDs 1,2,6,12; 4 for CDs 3,7,8,9,10,11,14.

Superdelegates

Confirmed Clinton (11): Rep. Hank Johnson, Rep. John Lewis, Rep. David Scott, David Worley, Dan Halpern, Vice Chair Nikema Williams, Sally Rosser, Chair Dubose Porter, Wendy Davis, Kasim Reed (http://www.peachpundit.com/2015/10/07/hillary-clinton-announces-georgia-team/), Pam Stephenson (http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/02/18/hillary-clinton-ratchets-up-the-battle-for-black-endorsements-in-georgia/)

Uncommitted (4): President Jimmy Carter, Rep. Sanford Bishop, Richard Ray, Louis Elrod

The Green Papers: GA-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/GA-D)

Massachusetts (D)

Overview
116 Delegates (2.44% of total)
Half-Open Primary
20 At-Large
12 PLEO At-Large
59 by CD
25 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 20 and 12 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 7 for CD 5,6,7,8,9; 6 for CDs 1,2,3,4.

Superdelegates


Clinton 17 - Sanders 1 - Uncommitted 7

according to Bloomberg. (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/)

Confirmed Clinton (16): Sen. Ed Markey, Rep. Michael Capuano, Rep. Katherine Clark, Rep. William Keatin, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, Rep. Stephen Lynch, Rep. Jim McGovern, Rep. Seth Moulton, Rep. Richard Neal, Rep. Niki Tsongas, Ex-DNC Chair Steve Grossman, Gus Bickford, Kate Donaghue, Ray Jordan, Elaine Kamarck, David O'Brien (https://medium.com/@MAforHillary/hillary-for-america-announces-massachusetts-leadership-council-7068a9333612#.xcniovxuf)

Sanders (1): Ex-DNC Chair Paul G. Kirk, Jr. (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/14/paul-kirk-ex-d-n-c-chairman-and-ted-kennedy-confidante-endorses-bernie-sanders/)

Other DNC [8]: Ex-DNC Chair Debra DeLee, Chair Thomas McGee, Vice Chair Debra Kozikowski, Susan Thomson, Virginia Barnes, James Roosevelt, Alejandra Salinas

The Green Papers: MA-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MA-D)


Minnesota (D)

Overview
93 Delegates (1.95% of total)
Open Caucus
17 At-Large
10 PLEO At-Large
50 by CD
16 Superdelegates

Details

Despite being a caucus state, delegates are allocated and bound based on the raw vote at the precinct caucuses; functionally, this is a primary with lower turnout.  Groups of 17 and 10 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 9 for CD 5; 7 for CDs 3,4; 6 for CDs 2,8; 5 for CDs 1,6,7.

Superdelegates

Clinton (13): Vice President Walter Mondale (http://legacy.kare11.com/story/news/local/2015/04/17/walter-mondale-american-academy-of-neurology/25958027/), Gov. Mark Dayton, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Al Franken, Rep. Tim Walz, Ken Martin, Nancy Schumacher (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2015/10/hillary-clinton-campaign-announces-hillary-for-colorado-minnesota-and-virginia-leadership-councils.html), Rep. Betty McCollum, Rep. Rick Nolan (https://www.minnpost.com/dc-dispatches/2015/09/it-s-who-you-know-minnesota-delegation-s-ties-democratic-presidential-field), Marge Hoffa, Javier Morillo-Alicea, Rick Stafford, Lori Sellner (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/02/more-than-100-progressive-leaders-in-minnesota-including-vice-president-walter-mondale-stand-with-hi.html)

Sanders (2): Rep. Keith Ellison (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Rep. Collin Peterson (http://www.wday.com/news/3995486-rep-collin-peterson-would-vote-bernie-sanders-delegate)

Uncommitted (1): DNC Vice Chair RT Rybak

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MN-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MN-D)
MN Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.dfl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Minnesota-Delegate-Selection-Plan.pdf)
DFL State Convention Rules (http://www.dfl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Temporary-and-Proposed-Permanent-Rules.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 10:55:40 PM
March 1 Democratic Primaries: Part II

Oklahoma (D)

Overview
42 Delegates (0.88% of total)
Closed Primary
8 At-Large
5 PLEO At-Large
25 by CD
4 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 8 and 5 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 6 for CD 5; 5 for CDs 1,3,4; 4 for CD 3.

Superdelegates

Clinton (1): Betty McElderry (http://www.news9.com/story/31256968/oklahoma-superdelegate-says-shes-feeling-the-bern)

Sanders (1): Vice Chair Connie Johnson (http://www.news9.com/story/31256968/oklahoma-superdelegate-says-shes-feeling-the-bern)

Uncommitted (2): Chair Mark Hammons, Jim Frasier

The Green Papers: OK-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/OK-D)


Tennessee (D)

Overview
75 Delegates (1.57% of total)
Open Primary
14 At-Large
9 PLEO At-Large
44 by CD
8 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 14 and 9 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 7 for CD 9; 6 for CD 5; 5 for CDs 3,7,8; 4 for CDs 1,2,4,6.

Superdelegates

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/): 6 Clinton - 2 Uncommitted

Confirmed Clinton (5): Rep. Jim Cooper, Rep. Steve Cohen, Gale Jones Carson, Vice Chair John Litz, Bill Owen (http://wate.com/2015/11/13/6-of-9-superdelegates-in-tenn-support-clinton-but-not-gore/)

Other (3): Vice President Al Gore, Chair Mary Mancini, Will Cheek

Myron Lowery (Clinton) is apparently no longer a superdelegate.

The Green Papers: TN-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/TN-D)

Texas (D)

Overview
251 Delegates (5.27% of total)
Closed Primary*
48 At-Large
29 PLEO At-Large
145 by State Senatorial District.
29 Superdelegates

Details

*See jimrtex's post below for a clarification of how voter affliation works in Texas.

Groups of 48 and 29 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  Unlike most states, the District-level delegates are apportioned by State Senate Districts, not Congressional Districts.  The district delegates are distributed among the SDs as follows: 10 for SD 14; 8 for SDs 13,23; 6 for SDs 10,15,25,26; 5 for SDs 5,8,16,17,19,20,21; 4 for SDs 2,4,6,7,9,11,12,18,22,27,29; 3 for SDs 1,3,24,30; 2 for SDs 28,31.

Superdelegates

Clinton (20): Reps. Rubén Hinojosa, Sheila Jackson Lee, Joaquin Castro, Henry Cuellar, Gene Green, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marc Veasey, Filemon Vela Jr., and Al Green (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Katie Naranjo, Royce West, Jose Rodriguez, Montserrat Garibay (http://valleycentral.com/news/local/the-list-90-texas-democrats-endorse-hillary-clinton), Dennis Speight, Lenora Sorola-Pohlman, Betty Ritchie (http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/12/clinton-bolsters-texas-campaign/), Rafael Anchia (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/texas-state-rep-rafael-anchia-to-endorse-hillary-clinton.html/), Rep. Lloyd Doggett (http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/28/lloyd-doggett-to-be-hillary-clinton-superdelegate/), Chair Gilberto Hinojosa (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/hot-trump-cruz-race-propels-record-gop-turnout-in-/nqcNz/), Garnet Coleman (http://www.kfdi.com/news/national/democracy-2016/superdelegates-put-clinton-on-path-to-clinch-before-california)

Uncommitted (9): Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Carol Guthrie, Lorraine Miller, Henry Munoz (Clinton 2008), Senfronia Thompson, John Patrick, Glen Maxey, Yvonne Davis, Vice Chair Fredericka Phillips

The Green Papers: TX-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/TX-D)

Vermont (D)

Overview
26 Delegates (0.55% of total)
Open Primary
3 At-Large
2 PLEO At-Large
11 CD
10 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 3, 2, and 11 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.

Superdelegates

Clinton (4): Ex-DNC Chair Howard Dean, Billi Gosh (http://theweek.com/speedreads/440674/howard-dean-endorses-hillary-clinton-president-need-mature-seasoned-leader), Gov. Peter Shumlin, Sen. Pat Leahy (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/)

Sanders (6): Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rich Cassidy (http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20151114/THISJUSTIN/151119750), Rep. Peter Welch (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/19/rep-peter-welch-supports-bernie-sanders/80614844/), Chair Dottie Deans, Vice Chair Tim Jerman, Jim Condos (http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/03/08/three-vermont-superdelegates-pledge-bernie-sanders/81484706/)

Pat Leahy says he will vote for the pledged delegate winner (http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/4863/); as that's overwhelmingly likely to be Clinton, I'm keeping him in the Clinton camp for now.

The Green Papers: VT-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VT-D)

Virginia (D)

Overview
109 Delegates (2.29% of total)
Open Primary
21 At-Large
12 PLEO At-Large
62 by CD
14 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 21 and 12 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 8 for CDs 3,8; 7 for CD 11; 6 for CDs 4,10; 5 for CDs 1,2,5,7; 4 for CD 6; 3 for CD 9.

Superdelegates

Clinton (13): Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Tim Kaine, Rep. Gerry Connolly, Rep. Don Beyer, Rep. Bobby Scott, Chair Susan Swecker, Sandra Brandt, Frank Leone, Jennifer McClellan, George Wallace, Alice Germond (http://augustafreepress.com/top-virginia-democrats-line-up-behind-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign/), Vice Chair Fred Hudson (http://www.fredericksburg.com/news/politics/of-virginia-democratic-superdelegates-back-clinton/article_f20b2dc0-8a1b-11e5-8268-83b2b3dd36b4.html)

Uncommitted (1): Doris Crouse-Mays

The Green Papers: VA-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VA-D)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 14, 2016, 11:29:51 PM
Colorado (D): March 1

Overview
78 Delegates (1.64% of total)
Closed Caucus
14 At-Large
9 PLEO At-Large
43 by CD
12 Superdelegates

At the Caucus

Colorado has a caucus system; like many such systems, it has its own idiosyncrasies.  Unlike in Iowa, a Preference Poll is taken and the raw vote totals are reported to the media.  There is no form of re-caucusing, not that it matters much in a two-person race.  After the Preference Poll, each preference group elects delegates to County Conventions, their number proportional to their result in the Preference Poll.  Some smaller counties elect delegates directly to the CD/State Conventions on March 1.

County Conventions (through March 26)

These conventions elect delegates to the CD and State Conventions, again on a proportional basis.  Strangely, the threshold here is 30%, not 15%; this may be in conflict with national DNC rules.  

CD Conventions: April 1-15

The CD conventions, in early April, allocate these delegates proportionally based on a vote in each CD convention.  The number of delegates per district is: 8 for CD 1; 7 for CD 2; 6 for CDs 3,6,7; 6 for CDs 4,5.

Some language in the Delegate Selection Plan seems to imply that the CD delegates are bound based on the March 1 result, but this is contradicted strongly by other sections of the Plan.

State Convention: April 16

The State Convention chooses the 14 At-Large and 9 Pledged PLEO delegates, allocated proportionally based on a vote of State Convention delegates.  These results may differ somewhat from an allocation based on the March 1 vote, due to the multi-tiered caucus/convention structure.

Superdelegates

Clinton 10 - Uncommitted 2

This count comes from the Bloomberg tracker. (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/)

Confirmed Clinton (9): Gov. John Hickenlooper, Sen. Michael Bennet, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Rep. Jared Polis, Ex-DNC Chair Roy Romer, Bianca O'Leary, Mannie Rodriguez (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2015/10/hillary-clinton-campaign-announces-hillary-for-colorado-minnesota-and-virginia-leadership-councils.html), Anthony Graves (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/denvers-black-clergy-to-rally-support-for-bernie-sanders-ahead-of-colorado-caucuses/)

Other DNC (3): Chair Rick Palacio, Vice Chair Beverly Ryken, Lisa Padilla

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock (associated with the National Conference of Democratic Mayors) was a superdelegate pledged to Clinton, but is apparently no longer a superdelegate.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: CO-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CO-D)
CO Delegate Selection Plan (http://coloradodems.ngpvanhost.com/sites/coloradodems/files/CDP%20DSP%202016%20Final_0.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: jimrtex on February 15, 2016, 04:58:48 PM
March 1 Democratic Primaries: Part II

Texas (D)

Overview
252 Delegates (5.29% of total)
Closed Primary

I wouldn't characterize Texas as being a closed primary state. Texas does not have partisan registration. Voters are restricted to participating in the nominating activities of one party, including the primary, runoff primary, and conventions. When one votes, a voter does not pledge fealty to a party, but only that they have not voted in the primary of another party. This affiliation only lasts through the remainder of the election year, and for most practical purposes through the runoff primary. Any special elections do not have partisan primaries.

Texas primaries are conducted by the political parties. On election day, the primary of each party may be held in different locations. If they are at the same location, they will be held in different rooms. A voter is quite free to go to the Republican polling place or the Democratic polling place, but not both.

Early voting, which starts tomorrow, is conducted by the county election officials. When you go to an early polling location, you will be asked which primary you wish to vote in. If you have your voter registration card (which are newly printed every two years), it will be stamped with your new affiliation.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 15, 2016, 07:12:59 PM
Thanks for the clarification!


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 18, 2016, 04:27:52 PM
The AP has conducted a new survey of superdelegates, and their new count shows:

449 Clinton - 19 Sanders

This is a pretty large change from their November survey, which found a 359-8 lead for Clinton.

Versus our current count (434-14), not a huge difference, only a few Clinton supporters slipping through the cracks.  Interesting is the uptick in Sanders support...who are these 5 secret Sanders supporters?  You'd think the Bernie supporters would have posted them all over the internet by now.

EDIT: math fail.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 20, 2016, 06:02:17 PM
The projected Clinton victory in Nevada means that Clinton should win 19 delegates to Sanders' 16.

This only changes if Clinton should break 58.3% in CDs 2,3, or 4, or Sanders wins CD 1 (or the state).


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: JerryArkansas on February 20, 2016, 06:06:54 PM
Doing rough estimates it looks as if Bernie will win the Second district. 


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 20, 2016, 06:18:09 PM
Doing rough estimates it looks as if Bernie will win the Second district. 

It's a 6-delegate district, so it doesn't matter who wins unless anyone breaks 58.3%.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: JerryArkansas on February 20, 2016, 06:24:36 PM
Doing rough estimates it looks as if Bernie will win the Second district. 

It's a 6-delegate district, so it doesn't matter who wins unless anyone breaks 58.3%.
I didn't know the 2nd was only 6 delegates.  So yeah it will be a 3-3 split.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 20, 2016, 10:39:56 PM
Calling all 50 delegates in SC for Trump.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Classic Conservative on February 20, 2016, 10:53:55 PM
So far these are the Republican Vote Totals:
Trump: 384,808
Cruz: 249,126
Rubio: 238,656
Kasich: 104,484
Carson: 77,057


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 20, 2016, 11:15:38 PM
Jeb's Delegates

With Jeb out of the race, what happens to his four (4) delegates?  His sole delegate in Iowa remains bound to him, but his three in New Hampshire are effectively released.  This increases the number of effective "superdelegates" in the Republican race from 15 to 18.  We should hopefully know who the three of them are within a few weeks.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: ElectionsGuy on February 20, 2016, 11:30:50 PM
So far, out of the 103 delegates:

Trump: 67 (65.0%)
Cruz: 11 (10.7%)
Rubio: 10 (9.7%)
Kasich: 5 (4.9%)
Carson: 3 (2.9%)
Uncommitted (dropped out candidates): 7 (6.8%)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Minnesota Mike on February 21, 2016, 11:18:21 AM
The projected Clinton victory in Nevada means that Clinton should win 19 delegates to Sanders' 16.

This only changes if Clinton should break 58.3% in CDs 2,3, or 4, or Sanders wins CD 1 (or the state).

According to the Green Papers Hillary is currently at 58.6% in CD 4.

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

Not sure where they are getting their numbers but if it holds the final total would be Hillary 20, Bernie 15.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 21, 2016, 12:34:11 PM
The projected Clinton victory in Nevada means that Clinton should win 19 delegates to Sanders' 16.

This only changes if Clinton should break 58.3% in CDs 2,3, or 4, or Sanders wins CD 1 (or the state).

According to the Green Papers Hillary is currently at 58.6% in CD 4.

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

Not sure where they are getting their numbers but if it holds the final total would be Hillary 20, Bernie 15.

Thanks!  Moved a delegate from Bernie to Uncommitted until I can verify this.  It may also be close enough that it's the sort of thing that could be undone at later stages of the caucuses due to the multi-stage process, so I'll try to check that out once I have access to precinct-level results.

If Clinton does win the delegate here, it means that according to my count she's negated Sanders' huge win in New Hampshire---or retakes the lead, if she wins that last pledged delegate in Iowa as well.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 21, 2016, 11:42:33 PM
After digging through the precinct numbers and running through the later stages of the delegate math, Clinton winning the 4th delegate in CD 2 seems assured.  Exactly how the delegates sent from the Clark County Convention to the State Convention are divided up among the Congressional Districts is not perfectly clear, but it doesn't really matter.  Clark County so dominates CD 4, and the number of delegates at the state convention is so large (1 per every 150 registered Democrats) that Hillary cannot lose her slim margin there based on rounding errors or the like.

Sanders' real hope here is differential turnout.  Because the number of delegates at the State Convention is so large, if the Sanders people are just more motivated to show up, they might be able to flip the delegate.  But it's a relatively tall order; effectively, they need 10 Clinton delegates (out of around 600) not to show up, relative to the number of Sanders absences.  But the Convention is on a weekend (May 14-15), presumably is in Las Vegas, and there are alternates.  Barring Paulista-style shenanigans, Clinton is winning that delegate, and I'm allocating it to her on the main page.


Title: Certified NH results give Rubio delegate to Trump
Post by: RI on February 22, 2016, 02:29:03 PM
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/701850670610194436
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican.html?platform=hootsuite

Final tally is Trump 11, Kasich 4, Cruz 3, (Bush 3), Rubio 2


Title: Re: Certified NH results give Rubio delegate to Trump
Post by: Holmes on February 22, 2016, 02:29:38 PM
Rubio stays losing.


Title: Re: Certified NH results give Rubio delegate to Trump
Post by: Erc on February 22, 2016, 03:09:08 PM
https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/701850670610194436
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican.html?platform=hootsuite

Final tally is Trump 11, Kasich 4, Cruz 3, (Bush 3), Rubio 2

This was my initial call and, in my mind, the only correct interpretation of NH statutes; only changed my call when literally every single source contradicted it. Apparently I should have stuck to my guns here.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: TomC on February 23, 2016, 01:46:12 AM
Vermont (R): March 1

Overview
16 Delegates (6.27% of total)

I don't think that's right- likely carried from the previous (Texas) post.

Awesome thread though- very helpful!


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 02:57:39 AM
Vermont (R): March 1

Overview
16 Delegates (6.27% of total)

I don't think that's right- likely carried from the previous (Texas) post.

Awesome thread though- very helpful!

Thanks for the catch!

On the superdelegate front: the folks at Vox (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/22/11070364/list-all-superdelegates) got their hands on a list of all the superdelegates. (https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6070545/Unpledged_as_of_1.21.16.0.pdf)

There's still clearly a couple errors/out-of-date information, but it's a vast improvement over the scrabbled-together list I had before.  There's only around two truly unknown delegates now: who (if anyone) has replaced Sheldon Silver in his DNC slot, and who's replaced ex-Houston Mayor Annise Parker at the National Conference of Democratic Mayors?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 07:20:44 PM
Kansas (R): March 5

Overview
40 Delegates (1.62% of total)
Closed Caucus
25 At-Large (Proportional, 10% threshold)
12 District (Proportional, 10% threshold)
3 RNC Members (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

Statewide, 25 delegates are bound as a result of the caucus vote.  All candidates receiving at least 10% of the statewide vote receive a share of the delegates proportional to their share of the vote among all candidates meeting the threshold.  Delegates are allocated starting with the winner and proceeding down the candidates in order of number of votes received, with all fractional delegates rounded up, until all 25 delegates are allocated.

The same procedure takes place for the three delegates in each of Kansas's four Congressional Districts.  Here is where the rounding rules really come into play.  If the winner receives more than one-third (33.33%) of the vote among candidates meeting the threshold, he would receive 2 delegates, with the second place finisher receiving one.  Otherwise, the top three candidates meeting the threshold would each receive one delegate.  Here's where Kasich could play an interesting role; a strong (>10%) fourth place finish in a number of Congressional Districts wouldn't net him any delegates, but might swing delegates from first place to third place.

The three automatic RNC member delegates are, in the KS GOP rules, slated to be bound to the winner of the caucus.  It's not clear whether this is in violation of rules requiring proportionality before March 15; possibly, the three delegates will be pooled together and allocated with the other At-Large delegates, though I doubt it.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are selected by the Congressional District Conventions and the State Committee Convention in April and May.

Results (3/5)

Cruz 24 - Trump 9 - Rubio 6 - Kasich 1

In the unlikely event the RNC members are allocated with the rest of the At-Large delegation, Trump and Kasich each gain one at Cruz's expense.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound until released by their candidate.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: KS-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/KS-R#0305)
Frontloading HQ: KS (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/01/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_7.html)
KS Delegate Allocation: GOP (http://www.scribd.com/doc/294701752/2016-KSGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 07:32:29 PM
Kentucky (R): March 5

Overview
46 Delegates (1.86% of total)
Closed Caucus
46 At-Large (Proportional, 5% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

All 46 delegates are bound as a result of the caucus vote.  All candidates receiving at least 5% of the statewide vote receive a share of the delegates proportional to their share of the vote among all candidates meeting the threshold, rounded to the nearest whole number.  In the event this results in too many or too few delegates being allocated due to rounding, a delegate is given to (or taken away from) the candidate closest to (or furthest from) receiving another delegate.

Results (3/5)

Trump 17 - Cruz 15 - Rubio 7 - Kasich 7

Delegate Selection

Delegates are selected by the Congressional District Conventions and the State Convention in April and May.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate dies or withdraws, where withdraws in this case means "notice in writing by the candidate to the chairman of the Kentucky delegation prior to the first ballot."

After a candidate withdraws, the delegation as a whole meets and casts a secret ballot for presidential preference.  This ballot binds any delegates which became Uncommitted, in a proportional manner.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: KY-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/KY-R)
Frontloading HQ: KY (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/01/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_9.html)
KY Delegate Allocation: GOP (http://www.scribd.com/doc/294928081/2016-KYGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)
Kentucky Revised Statutes (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=27674)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 07:58:38 PM
Louisiana (R): March 5

Overview
46 Delegates (1.86% of total)
Closed Primary
28 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold)
18 District, (Proportional)

Delegate Allocation

The 28 At-Large delegates (including the 3 RNC members) are bound as a result of the primary vote.  All candidates receiving at least 20% of the statewide vote receive a share of these delegates proportional to their share of their total vote.  These will be rounded by the Executive Committee; they may have some leeway to do so, but I will assume they are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Note that this means that, assuming some candidates don't meet the threshold, there will be delegates left over that are not allocated to any candidate.  The Louisiana rules explicitly provide for this, and say that these delegates will be uncommitted.  Louisiana has thus found a sneaky way to give their State Convention real influence over the results from their state without doing away with their Primary entirely.  It's possible this provision is in violation of national GOP rules, but I think they technically got away with it.

In each of Louisiana's six Congressional Districts, three delegates are allocated proportionally.  There is no threshold at the CD level, and rounding rules are unspecified.  Unless Louisiana adopts a Kansas-type system (where all fractions are rounded up), this is likely to result in the top three candidates in each CD each getting a delegate, unless the winner receives a majority, in which case the delegates would break 2-1.

Results (3/6)

The At-Large delegates break down

Trump 12 - Cruz 11 - Uncommitted 5.

The CD delegate results have been confirmed to be

Trump 6 - Cruz 7 - Rubio 5.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention on March 12.  Candidates provided a list of approved delegate candidates, which the State Convention chooses from.  They also choose any Uncommitted At-Large delegates left over after the allocation above.

The delegates attending the State Convention are chosen entirely by the Republican State Central Committee.

Delegates

Trump (18)
[1] Jay Batt
[2] Andrew Bautsch
[3] Adrian Bruneau
[4] Collin Buisson
[5] Michael Chittom
[6] Jeff Crouere
[7] Mike Fesi
[8] Fenn French
[9] Jeff Giles
[10] Gena Gore
[11] Duke Lowrie
[12] Eric Skrmetta - Trump (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/03/28/donald-trumps-louisiana-team-attended-secret-meeting-state-party-official-says/)
[1-1] Lynn Skidmore
[2-1] Jennifer Madsen
[3-1] Patti Carter
[4-1] Diane Long
[5-1] Kay Kellogg Katz
[6-1] Penny Vidrine

Cruz (18)
[1] Michael Bayham
[2] Charlie Buckels
[3] Zach Dasher
[4] Joy Duhon
[5] Kim Fralick
[6] Louis Gurvis Jr.
[7] Tony Perkins
[8] Bob Reid
[9] Franz Robinson
[10] Michael Sims
[11] Ed Tarpley
[1-1] Tina Payton
[2-1] Gregory Neff
[3-1] Gwen Bowen
[4-1] Sandra McDade
[4-2] Michael Vergis
[5-1] Frank Black
[6-1] Jonathan Davis

Rubio (5) (now Uncommitted)
[1-1] Stephanie Berault
[2-1] Robert Williamson
[3-1] Jennifer LeBlanc
[5-1] Luke Letlow
[6-1] Leslie Tassin Sr.

Uncommitted (5)
[1] Rhett Davis (likely Jonathan's father?)
[2] Jason Doré [Executive Director]
[3] Ross Little Jr. [National Committeeman] - Cruz (https://www.facebook.com/events/1086903031349338/?active_tab=highlights)
[4] Roger Villere, Jr. [State Chairman]
[5] Lenar Whitney [National Committeewoman - Cruz (https://twitter.com/kevinboyd1984/status/710169992847892481)

Reportedly, many (if not all) of the others are for Cruz as well, (https://twitter.com/CajunCampbell/status/710172040674672640) as Cruz had a supermajority at the State Convention.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

The non-Uncommitted delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate ends or suspends their candidacy.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: LA-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/LA-R)
Frontloading HQ: LA (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/01/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_19.html)
LA Delegate Allocation: GOP (http://www.scribd.com/doc/295998010/2016-LAGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)
Louisiana Caucus Results (http://www.lagop.com/caucus)
Elected Delegates (http://www.lagop.com/blog/2016/3/15/dg5eqgxw8gbikyg6co9ncc6j6cbqlp)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Lief 🗽 on February 23, 2016, 08:04:18 PM
Quote
In each of Louisiana's six Congressional Districts, three delegates are allocated proportionally.  There is no threshold at the CD level, and rounding rules are unspecified.  Unless Louisiana adopts a Kansas-type system (where all fractions are rounded up), this is likely to result in the top three candidates in each CD each getting a delegate.

But if a candidate gets more than 50% in a CD, won't they round up to two delegates, with second place getting 1 delegate?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 08:07:41 PM
Quote
In each of Louisiana's six Congressional Districts, three delegates are allocated proportionally.  There is no threshold at the CD level, and rounding rules are unspecified.  Unless Louisiana adopts a Kansas-type system (where all fractions are rounded up), this is likely to result in the top three candidates in each CD each getting a delegate.

But if a candidate gets more than 50% in a CD, won't they round up to two delegates, with second place getting 1 delegate?

Certainly.  My "likely" was (far too short) shorthand for "assuming no one gets a majority."  I'll edit the post to clarify.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 08:27:17 PM
Maine (R): March 5

Overview
23 Delegates (0.93% of total)
Closed Caucus
23 At-Large (Proportional, 10% threshold; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

If any candidate receives a majority of the vote, they receive all 23 delegates.  Otherwise, candidates receive delegates proportional to their share of the caucus vote among all candidates meeting a 10% threshold.  The rounding rules are a bit contradictory here.  One section says fractional delegates are rounded up, starting with the winner and proceeding down; the next section says they are rounded to the nearest whole number, with any rounding errors compensated for by adding (removing) a delegate to the candidate closest to (furthest from) an additional delegate.  I will be choosing to go with the first section unless I hear otherwise; FHQ agrees.

Results

Cruz 12 - Trump 9 - Kasich 2

These results confirm that the fractional delegates are rounded up.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention on April 21-23.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot unless their candidate withdraws.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: ME-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ME-R)
Bangor Daily News (http://bangordailynews.com/2016/02/07/the-point/how-maines-republican-and-democratic-caucuses-will-work/)
ME GOP Delegate Allocation Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/300075908/2016-MEGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)
Frontloading HQ: ME (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/02/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_28.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 09:06:55 PM
Puerto Rico (R): March 6

Overview
23 Delegates (0.93% of total)
Open Primary
23 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

If any candidate receives a majority of the vote, they receive all 23 delegates.  Otherwise, candidates receive delegates proportional to their share of the caucus vote among all candidates meeting a 20% threshold.  Rounding rules are unknown.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are elected directly on the ballot.  All candidates still in the race have a full slate of delegates.

Results

Rubio won a majority of the vote and all 23 delegates.  The list of his delegates can be found on the Sample Ballot (http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/puerto-rico-primary-ballot.pdf).

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are apparently bound on the first ballot only.  A PR GOP source (https://twitter.com/LbrtyNews/status/713394337069928448) says candidates may release their delegates.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: PR-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/PR-R)
Sample Ballot (http://ballot-access.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/puerto-rico-primary-ballot.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 09:24:35 PM
Hawaii (R): March 8

Overview
19 Delegates (0.77% of total)
Closed Caucus
10 At-Large (Proportional, no threshold)
6 District (Proportional, no threshold)
3 RNC (Proportional, no threshold)

Delegate Allocation

The 10 At-Large delegates are allocated proportionally based on the results of the caucus.  Starting with the winner, each candidate receives a share of delegates equal to his share of the total vote among FEC-registered candidates, rounding up both fractional percentages and fractional delegates, until all delegates are allocated.

The same procedure applies for the three delegates in each CD, and for the 3 RNC members.  In practice, this means that if the winner breaks 33% of the vote, he gets 2 delegates to the runner-up's one; otherwise the top three candidates each receive a delegate.

Results (3/9)

Trump 11 - Cruz 7 - Rubio 1

This gives Trump another Rule 40 state; this is his 7th out of the needed 8.

Delegate Selection

The candidates choose their own delegates, essentially.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless their candidate withdraws.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: HI-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/HI-R)
HI GOP Delegate Allocation Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/296096085/2016-HIGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)
Frontloading HQ: HI (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/01/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_21.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 09:57:13 PM
Idaho (R): March 8

Overview
32 Delegates (1.29% of total)
Closed Primary
32 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate wins a majority of the primary vote, they receive all 32 delegates.  Otherwise, each candidate breaking a 20% threshold receives a share of the delegates proportional to their share of the total vote; The Green Papers says fractional delegates are rounded to the nearest delegates.  Delegates that would go to under-threshold candidates are instead allocated proportionally among the threshold-meeting candidates; whether this means they are repooled or not is unclear.  The Green Papers says the Nominating Committee will have final say over any residual rounding error issues.

Results (3/9)

Cruz 20 - Trump 12

There's little room for leeway in the rounding rules here; this count seems relatively guaranteed.  Cruz picks up his 4th Rule 40 state, out of the necessary 8.

Delegate Selection

The candidates choose 80% of their own delegates by early May; the remaining 20% are chosen by a State Nominating Committee.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless their candidate withdraws, dies, or releases his delegates.  If a candidate withdraws or releases his delegates before the Idaho State Convention (June 2-4), or fails to provide a list of delegates, the State Convention chooses them instead and they will be officially Uncommitted.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: ID-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ID-R)
ID GOP Delegate Allocation Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/296409914/2016-IDGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)
Frontloading HQ: ID (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/01/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_25.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 10:13:12 PM
Michigan (R): March 8

Overview
59 Delegates (2.39% of total)
Closed Primary [though affiliation may be switched at the polls]
59 At-Large (Proportional, 15% threshold; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate wins a majority of the primary vote, they receive all 59 delegates.  Otherwise, each candidate receives a share of the delegates equal to their share of the vote among all candidates reaching a 15% threshold.  Rounding errors are compensated for by giving a candidate to the winner or taking it from the lowest-place finisher, as necessary.

Results (3/9)

Trump 25 - Cruz 17 - Kasich 17

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention April 8-9.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless their candidate withdraws, dies, suspends his campaign, or releases his delegates.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MI-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MI-R)
RNC Process Book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/294928557/2016-Presidential-Nominating-Process-Book-version-2-0-Dec-2015-pdf)
FHQ: MI (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 10:19:34 PM
Mississippi (R): March 8

Overview
40 Delegates (1.62% of total)
Open Primary
28 At-Large (Proportional, 15% threshold)
12 District (Winner-Take-Most; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

In each of the four Congressional Districts, the winner receives two delegates and the runner-up receives one.  If the winner gets a majority of the vote in the CD, he receives all three delegates, instead.

Statewide, each candidate receives the same share of the 28 At-Large delegates as their share of the vote among all candidates meeting a 15% threshold, rounded to the nearest whole number. FHQ claims that in case of an overallocation of delegates, a delegate is removed from the lowest-placed qualifying candidate; in case of an underallocation of delegates, that one delegate is Uncommitted.

Results (3/9)

Cruz seems to have kept Trump under the 50% WTA threshold all of the CDs, resulting in a count of

Trump 24 - Cruz 16

It's especially close in CDs 2,3, and 4, where Trump seems to be on track for 49% of the vote in each.  Trump certainly does not have a majority in CD 4, and CD 3 likewise seems out of reach.  CD 2 is still a definite possibility, and will depend on the breakdowns in Hinds and Madison counties.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention May 13-14.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound until their candidate releases them.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MS-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MS-R)
FHQ: MS (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_8.html)
MS GOP Delegate Allocation Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/303169521/2016-MSGOP-Delegate-Allocation-Rules)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 10:44:02 PM
Virgin Islands (R): March 10

Overview
9 Delegates (0.36% of total)
Closed Caucus
6 Directly Elected Delegates
3 RNC Members (unbound)

Delegate Allocation and Selection

Caucus attendees vote directly for delegate candidates on their ballots.  Each attendee gets six votes, and the top six vote-winners are duly elected.

Note that the ballot (http://usvigop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Official-Ballot-Republican-Party-of-the-USVI-2016V3.pdf) has 10 Carson delegates, 6 Cruz delegates, 3 Rubio delegates, 3 Trump delegates, and 20 Uncommitted delegates.  Trump, Rubio, and Kasich do not have full delegate slates.

RNC Members

John Canegata
Lilliana Belardo de O'Neal
Holland Redfield III

As the Virgin Islands never directly holds a presidential preference vote, its RNC members are not bound.

Results (3/11)

The following six delegates were elected, all Uncommitted:
[1] John Yob*
[2] Gwendolyn Brady
[3] Warren Cole
[4] Erica Yob*
[5] George Logan
[6] Lindsey Eilon*

* These three people moved to the Virgin Islands quite recently specifically to become delegates.  Due to their short period of residency here, their eligibility to be delegates is contested and is the subject of an ongoing court case.  The Yobs appear to have won the court case so far, but further appeals may be possible.

After losing the court case, John Canegata decided to try to throw out all 6 elected delegates based on a patently incorrect reading of a technicality.  More discussion can be found here. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4986620#msg4986620).  If this does hold (I expect it will not), these six alternates will be seated instead:

[A-1] David Johnson - Uncommitted
[A-2] Valerie Stile - Rubio
[A-3] Andrea Moeckel - Uncommitted
[A-4] Huberto O'Neal - Rubio
[A-5] Steven K. Hardy - Trump
[A-6] Robert Max Schanfarber - Cruz

The rules support the Yobs here; this is a pretty blatant attempt by John Canegata to steal the election.  Regardless, this is probably going to go to a credentials fight at the convention.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates who listed a preference are bound to that candidate on the first ballot, unless they withdraw prior to the caucus (on March 10).  This means, in particular, that any delegates Rubio wins remain bound to him.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: VI-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R)
FHQ: VI (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_10.html)
Caucus Ballot (http://usvigop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Official-Ballot-Republican-Party-of-the-USVI-2016V3.pdf)
VI GOP Caucus Rules (http://usvigop.org/1135-2/)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 10:56:45 PM
District of Columbia (R): March 12

Overview
19 Delegates (0.77% of total)
Closed Caucus
19 At-Large (Proportional, 15% threshold; WTA if majority)

At the Caucus

The "caucus" takes place in the Loews Madison Hotel; registered Republicans may vote at any point between 10 AM and 4 PM.

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate wins a majority of the vote, they receive all 19 delegates.  Otherwise, each candidate receives a share of the delegates proportional to their share of the vote among all candidates meeting a 15% threshold.  There are two sections in the DC GOP rules that contradict each other, regarding the rounding.  The first says that all fractional delegates are rounded up; delegates are given out starting with the winner and going down until all delegates are allocated.  The second says that delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number, with rounding errors resolved by giving (or taking) a delegate closest to (furthest from) receiving an additional delegate.  FHQ goes with the latter interpretation; I'm going with the former.

Results

Rubio 10 - Kasich 9

Rubio won a narrow victory over Kasich, with Trump and Cruz falling below threshold.  This is Rubio's 2nd Rule 40 state, after Puerto Rico.

Delegate Selection

The caucus also elects the delegates.  In practice, each candidate has a slate of delegates they want elected, and hand them out to voters in line; there are other delegate candidates not on any of these slates.  The following delegates were elected, with associated slates are listed in parentheses:

1.       Rich Counts (Rubio)
2.       Rina Shah Bharara (Rubio)
3.       Chip Nottingham (Kasich)
4.       Kris Hammond (Kasich)
5.       William Behrens (Rubio)
6.       Holly Greaves (Rubio)
7.       Robert Chamberlin (Rubio)
8.       Betsy Wright Hawkings (Kasich)
9.       Rachel Hoff (Rubio)
10.   Maureen Blum (Rubio)
11.   Brian Walsh (Rubio)
12.   Teri Galvez (Rubio)
13.   Robert Sinners (Kasich)
14.   Christian Berle (Kasich)
15.   Kevin Cain (Rubio)
16.   Tim Costa (Rubio)

No one not on the Rubio or Kasich slates were elected.  Note that this means some Rubio-slate delegates will be bound to Kasich on the first ballot.  The alternates also break down 11-5 Rubio-Kasich.

Candidate Withdrawal / Brokered Convention

Delegates are bound through the first ballot, unless their candidate withdraws.  DC GOP has clarified (https://twitter.com/patmara/status/713050229222678529) that withdraw really does mean officially withdraw; Rubio's suspension does not cut it.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: DC-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/DC-R)
DC Delegate Selection Plan (http://dcgop.com/dc-state-convention/dc-gop-delegate-selection-plan/)
FHQ: DC (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_12.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 23, 2016, 11:02:33 PM
Guam (R): March 12

Overview
9 Delegates (0.36% of total)
Closed Caucus
6 At-Large (directly elected)
3 RNC Members (unbound)

Delegate Allocation and Selection

The caucus, operating as a convention, chooses the six delegates.  They are not officially bound to any candidate.

Elected Delegates

Gov. Eddie Calvo - Cruz
Sen. Frank Blas Jr.
Sen. Tony Ada
Juan Carlos Benitez
Benny Pinaula
Telo Taitague

RNC Members (unbound)

Mike Benito
Margaret Metcalfe
David Sablan

Useful Links
The Green Papers: GU-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/GU-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 02:38:09 AM
(Very) Preliminary Nevada Results

With 30% reporting...

CandidatePercentDelegates
Trump43.7%13
Rubio24.5%7
Cruz22.5%7
Carson5.7%2
Kasich3.6%1

Trump would gain a delegate if he breaks 45%, lose one if he falls below 41.67%; Rubio or Cruz would gain a delegate if they break 25%, lose one if they fall below 21.67%.  Carson loses a delegate if he falls below 5%; Kasich falls below threshold if he falls below 3.33%.

Update (78.4% reporting): Trump seems to have gained a delegate from Carson, though the margin is only around 40 votes.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 03:06:44 AM
Florida (R): March 15

Overview
99 Delegates (4.00% of total)
Closed Primary
99 At-Large (Winner-Take-All)

Delegate Allocation

The winner of the primary receives all 99 delegates.

Delegate Selection

Within a week after the primary, all candidates (not just the winner) provide lists of delegates they would like to send to Cleveland.  These lists are advisory lists only.

81 CD delegates are chosen by CD caucuses and the 15 At-Large delegates are chosen by the FL GOP Executive board from these lists, at some point before June 3.  Note that they are not obliged to choose delegates from the list provided by the winner of the state's primary; they could nominate another candidate's delegates, or (it seems) choose different people entirely.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

The delegates are bound on the first three ballots, unless the candidate withdraws or releases his delegates.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: FL-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/FL-R)
FHQ: FL (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_13.html)
Republican Party of Florida Rules (http://www.scribd.com/doc/303908167/RPOF-Rules-of-Procedures-Sep-2015)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 03:39:17 AM
Illinois (R): March 15

Overview
69 Delegates (2.79% of total)
Open Primary
15 At-Large (Winner Take All)
54 District (directly elected)

Delegate Allocation and Selection

A presidential preference poll is on the ballot; the winner of this poll wins all 15 At-Large delegates.  12 of these are chosen at the State Convention on May 22.

Additionally, voters directly vote for 3 delegates running for a slot within their CD; the delegate candidates have their Presidential preference listed on the ballot.  All current candidates have a complete slate of delegates.  The top three delegate vote-getters in each CD get their ticket punched to Cleveland.  Voters are not obliged to vote for delegates who match the candidate they voted for in the preference poll.  Often, there are some personally popular delegate candidates who can get elected on the strength of their name alone (e.g. in 2008, Dennis Hastert, a Romney delegate, was elected in his CD despite a McCain win there in the preference poll).

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Despite what it says in the IL GOP rules, their filing with the RNC indicates that both At-Large and CD delegates are bound at the convention.

FHQ says the At-Large delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate withdraws, and that the CD delegates are bound until released.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: IL-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IL-R)
IL Delegate Selection Guide (http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52419a36e4b09577ccb6e7a9/t/560d78cae4b02ef1130418b7/1443723562917/ILGOP+Delegate+Selection+Guide.pdf)
RNC Process Book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/294928557/2016-Presidential-Nominating-Process-Book-version-2-0-Dec-2015-pdf)
FHQ: IL (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_38.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 04:24:02 AM
Missouri (R): March 15

Overview
52 Delegates (2.10% of total)
Half-Open Primary
12 At-Large (WTA; WTA for entire delegation if majority)
40 District (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate receives a majority of the vote, they receive all 52 delegates.  Otherwise, the statewide winner receives 12 delegates, and the winner of each of the 8 CDs receives 5 (not 3!) delegates.

Delegate Selection

24 Delegates are chosen at CD conventions (April 30) and 25 at the State Convention (May 21).  Delegates to these are chosen at April 9 caucuses.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot unless their candidate withdraws, releases them, dies, or "becomes inactive."

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MO-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MO-R)
FHQ: MO (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation14.html)
MO Delegate Selection Guide (https://www.missouri.gop/election-2016/)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: PresidentTRUMP on February 24, 2016, 10:39:12 AM
I believe the official delegate count right now is:

Trump: 81
Rubio: 17
Cruz: 17
Kasich: 6
Carson: 4

I believe you have Rubios totals incorrect for NH and Nevada where you have him with 2 and 7, respectively. While he received 3 and 8 delegates in each state.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Bacon King on February 24, 2016, 01:56:34 PM
I believe the official delegate count right now is:

Trump: 81
Rubio: 17
Cruz: 17
Kasich: 6
Carson: 4

I believe you have Rubios totals incorrect for NH and Nevada where you have him with 2 and 7, respectively. While he received 3 and 8 delegates in each state.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html

Your link has not been updated to reflect this in NH:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/270310-trump-wins-additional-nh-delegate

Your link does correctly show Rubio with 7 delegates in NV, though


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 02:07:00 PM
In the final few percent of precincts in Nevada, Carson managed to pull ahead of Cruz in the race for the final delegate by about 20 votes.

Final count: Trump 14 - Rubio 7 - Cruz 6 - Carson 2 - Kasich 1.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 02:41:19 PM
North Carolina (R): March 15

Overview
72 Delegates (2.91% of total)
Half-Open Primary
72 At-Large (Proportional, no threshold)

Delegate Allocation

Delegates are allocated proportionally to a candidate's share of the vote.  FHQ says rounding is to the nearest delegate.  If this results in too many (or too few) delegates being awarded, remove one from the person furthest from (or closest to) receiving an additional delegate.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at District Conventions in April and the State Convention in May.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot.  There is no provision for releasing delegates before then.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: NC-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NC-R)
NC Plan of Organization (http://www.ncgop.org/plan-of-organization/) (not helpful)
FHQ: NC (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_15.html)
NC Delegate Selection FAQ (http://www.ncgop.org/how-grassroots-republicans-control-ncgops-delegate-selection/)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 02:48:42 PM
Northern Marianas (R): March 15

Overview
9 Delegates (0.36% of total)
Closed Caucus
9 At-Large (WTA)

Delegate Allocation and Selection

The caucus first has a presidential preference poll; the winner of the poll receives all 9 delegates.  The caucus then elects 6 of the 9 delegates (the other 3 being the automatic RNC member delegates).

Results (3/15):

Trump won all 9 delegates.  This gives him his 8th Rule 40 state, and he is now eligible to have his name placed in for nomination at the National Convention.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot.  If the candidate withdraws before the convention, the delegation meets as a group to decide whom to support on the first ballot.  It is unclear whether such a provision is in conflict with any anti-unit-rule provisions of the RNC rules.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MP-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MP-R)
FHQ: MP (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_48.html)
CMNI Caucus Rules (https://www.facebook.com/gopcnmi/posts/1695760827307960)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 02:51:14 PM
Ohio (R): March 15

Overview
66 Delegates (2.67% of total)
Half-Open Primary
66 At-Large (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The winner of the primary receives all 66 delegates.

Delegate Selection

Candidates pre-approve a slate of delegates; the winner has his slate sent to the National Convention.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

In the absence of any contrary information, we must assume Ohio's delegates are bound indefinitely.  FHQ claims this is still being determined by the OH GOP and the OH SoS.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: OH-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/OH-R)
FHQ: OH (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-ohio.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: emailking on February 24, 2016, 02:55:04 PM
The first post says the total number of Nevada delegates is 50 but I think it's 30?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 02:58:27 PM
American Samoa (R): March 22

Overview
9 Delegates (0.36% of total)
Open Caucus
6 At-Large (directly elected, unbound)
3 RNC members (unbound)

Delegate Allocation and Selection

"The delegates from American Samoa are chosen in such a way so that they best reflect the presidential preference of the Caucus/Convention participants."  This doesn't really mean anything in practice; note that there is no presidential preference poll, to my knowledge, so the delegates are not required to be bound by RNC rules.

The delegates "may be instructed by resolution of the body which elected them as to the disposition of their vote on any business before the National Convention." This presumably includes their vote for a nominee; whether such instruction is binding is unclear.

The American Samoa GOP has clarified on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/Republican-Party-of-American-Samoa-1449239515382401/?fref=nf) that the delegation will be unpledged (thanks to cinyc for the tip).

RNC Members (unbound)

Utu Abe Malae
Amata Radewagen
Su'a Schuster

Delegates

All are officially unbound, though some have endorsed.

John Raynar - Trump (http://www.talanei.com/news/Trump-appoints-Raynar-as-honorary-campaign-manager/22544212)
Taulapapa William Sword
Charles Warren - Cruz (https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-for-president-announces-chairmen-in-all-five-u-s-territories/)
Tina Ioane
Ann Longnecker
Joan Galea'i Holland

Useful Links
The Green Papers: AS-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AS-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 03:01:30 PM
Arizona (R): March 22

Overview
58 Delegates (2.35% of total)
Closed Primary
58 At-Large (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The winner of the primary receives all 58 delegates.

Results

Trump won the primary and all 58 delegates.

Delegate Selection

The State Convention on April 30 chooses the delegates.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Candidates are bound for the first ballot, unless the candidate withdraws or releases them.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: AZ-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AZ-R)
Arizona Revised Statutes (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00243.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS)
FHQ: AZ (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_19.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 03:08:56 PM
Utah (R): March 22

Overview
40 Delegates (1.62% of total)
Half-Open Caucus
40 At-Large (Proportional, 15% threshold; 0% threshold if 2 or fewer clear it; WTA if majority)

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate receives a majority of the vote, they receive all 40 delegates.  Otherwise, if 3 or more candidates clear a 15% threshold, candidates receive a share of delegates proportional to their vote share among all candidates meeting a 15% threshold.  Otherwise, candidates receive a share of delegates proportional to their vote share.  In both cases, delegates are given out, starting with the winner, with all fractional delegates rounded up, until all delegates are allocated.

Results

Cruz won a majority and all 40 delegates.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention on April 23.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot.  If a candidate is not a candidate before the National Convention, their delegates will be re-allocated proportionally.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: UT-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/UT-R)
FHQ: UT (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-utah.html)
UT GOP Bylaws (http://www.scribd.com/doc/305328054/2016-UTGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 03:16:02 PM
Wisconsin (R): April 5

Overview
42 Delegates (1.70% of total)
Open Primary
18 At-Large (WTA)
24 District (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The statewide winner receives 24 delegates.  The winner in each of Wisconsin's 8 CDs receives 3 delegates.

Delegate Selection

Before the primary, the District Executive Committee draws up a list of 20 delegate candidates.  After the primary presents this list to the winner of the district after the primary; that candidate recommends three from that list.  The District Executive Committed then chooses three delegates from that list, "giving due consideration" to the candidate's preference.

The winning candidate (Cruz), along with the State Executive Committee, chooses his At-Large delegates.  Cruz has final approval over the list of their delegates.

Results

Trump won CDs 3 and 7, picking up 6 delegates.  Cruz won the remaining 36 delegates.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound until released or until their candidate receives less than one-third of the votes on a ballot at the National Convention.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: WI-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WI-R)
WI GOP Constitution (https://www.scribd.com/doc/305328153/2016-WIGOP-delegate-allocation-rules)
FHQ: WI (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_26.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 03:18:08 PM
The first post says the total number of Nevada delegates is 50 but I think it's 30?

Fixed.  Thanks!

The state-by-state summaries are now complete until mid-April (next up would be New York's April 19 primary).  Considering the state of the race will presumably be quite different by then, I'm going to hold off on the remainder for a while, unless there's a high demand for them.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 24, 2016, 04:04:24 PM
A Really Terrible Super Tuesday Forecast

Let's say, that in every CD voting on Super Tuesday, the result is

Trump34.3%
Rubio26.8%
Cruz24.1%
Kasich10.1%
Carson4.7%

And let's say that in Texas we flip Trump and Cruz.  You may, of course, take issue with these numbers.  More importantly, the issue is uniformity; Cruz being in third *everywhere* costs him a lot of CD delegates (and similarly for Trump in Texas).

The corresponding delegate results would be (up to some uncertainty about OK's rules):

StateTrump   Rubio   Cruz   
Alabama   26168
Alaska   1198
Arkansas   19138
Georgia   45238
Massachusetts   151211
Minnesota   131212
Oklahoma   161413
Tennessee   31198
Texas   135191
Vermont   655
Virginia   171312
Total   212187184

In addition, Kasich picks up 10 delegates (5 VA, 4 MA, 1 MN), and Carson picks up 2 in VA.

We see the importance here of Texas, which could be a huge haul for Cruz.  The fight for second in Texas' CDs is also quite important.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Gass3268 on February 24, 2016, 05:04:34 PM
Based on polling in Texas, I think it would make sense to go 1. Cruz 2. Trump 3. Rubio there. This means Super Tuesday results would be:

Trump 250
Cruz 184
Rubio 149

Super Tuesday could be a very embarrassing delegate night for Rubio if he doesn't win a state like Alabama, Georgia, or Tennessee.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 25, 2016, 03:52:39 PM
As another example, running the numbers with 538's polls-plus forecast (in the states where it's available) and splitting 2nd place in TX CDs evenly gives:

Trump 241
Rubio 173
Cruz 166
Kasich 11
Carson 4

Cruz misses viability (20%) in a number of southern states.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: socaldem on February 26, 2016, 11:56:07 PM
I'm currently working on a Green Papers-based prediction for Super Tuesday.

In reviewing the delegate allocation rules for Minnesota, it seems highly likely that the state will have a nearly 3-way split of delegates...

Green Papers:

"24 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to presidential contenders based on the caucus results in each congressional district. A mandatory 10% threshold (if no candidate receives 10%, the threshold is 0%) is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at the congressional district level."

"For each candidate who has reached the threshold, starting with the candidate who received the highest number of votes, multiply 3 (delegates per CD) or 14 (delegates statewide) by the number of votes received by that candidate and divide by the total number of votes cast for all presidential candidates who also reached the threshold and round to the nearest whole number."

So if I'm reading this correctly, each candidate will likely start with an 8-8-8 split in congressional district delegates, unless some of the congressional districts are complete blow-outs. I would think that Cruz might be shut out of the Minneapolis district but that otherwise the candidates would have relatively even strength. So, we're likely looking at 8-8-8 or 8-9-7 (T-R-C).

Statewide, with only 14 delegates to allocate, my prediction is 5-4-5 (T-R-C), with Trump edging out Cruz for a win but all three major candidates clustered in high 20s to low 30s.

So that would result in a final delegate allocation of 13-13-12 (T-R-C).


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Mr. Morden on February 27, 2016, 07:16:26 AM
Erc, what is the %age of all Republican delegates who will go into the convention unbound?  According to Upshot here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/upshot/republican-delegate-calculator-how-trump-can-win.html

it's 7%.  Does that sound right to you?  I assume that that consists of the delegates from states that don't hold preference votes like CO/ND/WY, plus the 3 party leaders from each state?  What about the delegates in states that directly elect their delegates, like Illinois?  Are they bound by the presidential preference they list on the ballot?


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Swedge on February 27, 2016, 12:08:51 PM
Fair play to Trump


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: RI on February 27, 2016, 01:55:55 PM
So, I'm confused about the Wyoming GOP caucus. Green Papers indicates that there is in fact a straw poll associated with the caucus, and this page has results (http://wyoming.gop/straw-poll-results/) for a straw poll of some sort. Seven counties are meeting today, so if they are holding a straw poll, it should be updated today.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 02:32:43 PM
Erc, what is the %age of all Republican delegates who will go into the convention unbound?  According to Upshot here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/upshot/republican-delegate-calculator-how-trump-can-win.html

it's 7%.  Does that sound right to you?  I assume that that consists of the delegates from states that don't hold preference votes like CO/ND/WY, plus the 3 party leaders from each state?  What about the delegates in states that directly elect their delegates, like Illinois?  Are they bound by the presidential preference they list on the ballot?


Going through this state by state:

  • Colorado:  Potentially all 37 delegates could be unbound, though delegate candidates may announce a pledge to a particular candidate, in which case they are bound for the first ballot.  Presumably the 3 RNC members will be unbound.
  • North Dakota: All 28 delegates will be unbound.
  • Wyoming: Presumably, all 29 delegates will be unbound, though FHQ thinks otherwise, and if they are holding a straw poll as realisticidealist suggests, that will change.
  • Louisiana: There's going to be a substantial number (on the order of 6) delegates that are unbound here, due to Louisiana's sneaky rules.
  • Virgin Islands: the 3 RNC members are unbound; due to incomplete delegate slates, it's also likely that 3 or more Uncommitted delegates may be elected, as well.
  • Guam: All 9 delegates will be unbound.
  • American Samoa: Presumably, all 9 delegates will be unbound.
  • Illinois: All 54 CD delegates are officially unbound; a preference is listed on the ballot but is not binding.
  • Pennsylvania: All 54 CD delegates, being directly elected, are officially unbound; no preference is listed on the ballot.
  • West Virginia: Also directly elects its delegates, but their commitments are apparently binding.

That's around 8-10%, depending on what happens in Colorado.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 02:36:34 PM
So, I'm confused about the Wyoming GOP caucus. Green Papers indicates that there is in fact a straw poll associated with the caucus, and this page has results (http://wyoming.gop/straw-poll-results/) for a straw poll of some sort. Seven counties are meeting today, so if they are holding a straw poll, it should be updated today.

Note how Christie has a substantial result in that straw poll, despite dropping out before the first County Caucus (Niobrara, on 2/16).

I believe this was a straw poll more in the manner of the late Ames' straw poll; see a link from December promoting it here on WY GOP's Facebook feed (https://www.facebook.com/WYGOP/posts/10153786523471810).

If Wyoming does end up reporting some (different) straw poll results from its caucuses, they will have to bind their delegation accordingly.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 03:52:35 PM
Major update on the Democratic superdelegates front, taking into account information from the Bloomberg delegate tracker (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/) (which presumably gets its information from the AP).

This means Hillary now has the support of over two-thirds of the superdelegates.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 04:35:13 PM
SC-D Delegate Targets

Assuming Clinton places between 50 and 75% of the two-way vote in all CDs:

2-1 split is guaranteed in CD 3.
If Clinton breaks 62.5% in CD 4, she wins 3/4 delegates there.
Clinton would have to break 70% in CDs 1,2,5,7 in order to win 4/5 delegates there.
In CD 6, 56.25% gives her 5/8 delegates, 68.75% gives her 6/8 delegates.

At-Large PLEO: 64.3% would give her 5/7 delegates.
At-Large: 59.1% would give her 7/11, 68.2% would give her 8/11.

Regardless, tonight is the night Clinton takes the pledged delegate lead, permanently.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 04:58:08 PM
March 5 Democratic Primaries

Kansas (D)

Overview
37 Delegates (0.78% of total)
Closed Caucus (though registration may be changed at the caucus)
7 At-Large
4 PLEO At-Large
22 by CD
4 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 7 and 4 delegates are allocated based on the statewide caucus vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 7 for CD 2; 6 for CD 3; 5 for CD 4; 4 for CD 1.

Superdelegates

Clinton (1): Teresa Garcia Krusor (http://cjonline.com/news/2016-03-01/news-guide-kansas-holding-democratic-gop-caucuses-saturday)

Uncommitted (3): Chair Lee Kinch, Vice Chair Melody McCray-Miller, Bill Roy Jr.

The Green Papers: KS-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/KS-D)

Louisiana (D)

Overview
59 Delegates (1.24% of total)
Closed Primary
11 At-Large
7 PLEO At-Large
33 by CD
8 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 11 and 7 delegates are allocated based on the statewide caucus vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 8 for CD 2; 6 for CD 5; 5 for CDs 3,4,6; 4 for CD 1.

Superdelegates

Clinton (7): Rep. Cedric Richmond, Chair Karen Carter Peterson, Vice Chair Shane Riddle, Deborah Langhoff, Arthur Morrell, Arlanda Williams (http://uptownmessenger.com/2016/03/majority-of-louisianas-democratic-superdelegates-are-committed-to-clinton-campaign/), Gov. Jon Bel Edwards (https://twitter.com/elizabethcrisp/status/705813437071265792)

Other (1): Ben Jeffers

The Green Papers: LA-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/LA-D)

Nebraska (D)

Overview
30 Delegates (0.63% of total)
Closed Caucus (you may change registration at the Caucus)
5 At-Large
3 PLEO At-Large
17 by CD
5 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 5 and 3 delegates are allocated based on the statewide caucus vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 6 for CDs 1,2; 5 for CD 3.

The caucus vote is binding, although there is the possibility that rounding errors may affect results in the County (May 19-29) and State (June 18) Conventions.

Superdelegates

Clinton (3): Rep. Brad Ashford, Patricia Zieg, Ronald Kaminski (http://nebraskaradionetwork.com/2015/12/31/democrat-hillary-clinton-announces-nebraska-team/)

Uncommitted (2): Chair Vincent Powers, Vice Chair Maureen Monahan

Useful Links
The Green Papers: NE-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NE-D)
NE Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.nebraskademocrats.org/sites/default/files/2016%20Delegate%20Selection%20Plan%20v.5.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: dax00 on February 27, 2016, 05:09:43 PM
SC-D Delegate Targets
Regardless, tonight is the night Clinton takes the pledged delegate lead, permanently.

I wouldn't be so hasty to say "permanently". She's obviously expected to do better in the more conservative Southern states, many of which are at stake on Super Tuesday. After that, however, the clear edge goes to Sanders. They're basically tied in the national polls. It's a guessing game as to how discouraged Sanders supporters will be after Tuesday. Hopefully not much.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 06:01:58 PM
SC-D Delegate Targets
Regardless, tonight is the night Clinton takes the pledged delegate lead, permanently.

I wouldn't be so hasty to say "permanently". She's obviously expected to do better in the more conservative Southern states, many of which are at stake on Super Tuesday. After that, however, the clear edge goes to Sanders. They're basically tied in the national polls. It's a guessing game as to how discouraged Sanders supporters will be after Tuesday. Hopefully not much.

Sorry, I should refrain from the editorializing in this thread. :)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 06:43:21 PM
New York (R): April 19

Overview
95 Delegates (3.84% of total)
Closed Primary
14 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold; WTA if majority)
81 District (Winner-Takes-Most; WTA if Majority)

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate receives a majority of the statewide vote, they receive all 14 at-large delegates.  Otherwise, the delegates are allocated proportional to each candidate's share of the vote among all candidates meeting a threshold of 20%.  Round all fractions to the nearest number; any rounding errors are resolved by giving delegates to the winner or taking them away from the lowest-placed candidate.

In each of New York's 27 congressional districts, if a candidate receives a majority or is the only candidate to clear 20%, they receive all three delegates.  Otherwise, the winner receives 2 and the runner-up receives 1.

Delegate Selection

11 At-Large delegates are chosen by the state committee on May 18; CD delegates are chosen by each CD's subset of the state committee.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless released.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: NY-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NY-R)
FHQ: NY (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-new.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 06:49:36 PM
Connecticut (R): April 26

Overview
28 Delegates (1.13% of total)
Closed Primary
13 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold; WTA if majority)
15 District (WTA; WTA statewide if majority)

Delegate Allocation

If a candidate receives a majority of the vote, they receive all 28 delegates.  Otherwise, the 13 At-Large delegates are allocated among the candidates proportional to their share of the vote among all candidates meeting a 20% threshold.  Fractions are rounded to the nearest whole number; I believe rounding errors are resolved by awarding delegates to the winner or taking them away from the loser, as appropriate.

If no candidate receives a majority statewide, the winner of each of Connecticut's 5 CDs will receive 3 delegates each.

Delegate Selection

Presidential candidates submit slates of delegates, which are approved by the State Committee.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless released.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: CT-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CT-R)
CT GOP Bylaws (http://ct.gop/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2016/01/ByLaws15.pdf)
FHQ: CT (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/04/2016-republican-delegate-allocation.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fhq+%28Frontloading+HQ%29)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 06:52:24 PM
Delaware (R): April 26

Overview
16 Delegates (0.65% of total)
Closed Primary
16 At-Large (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The winner of the primary receives all 16 delegates.

Delegate Selection

The State Convention (April 29-30) chooses the delegates.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate dies, withdraws, or releases them.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: DE-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/DE-R)
DE GOP Rules (http://www.wncdelawaregop.com/State%20Party%20By-Laws/State%20Party%20Rules%202015.pdf)
FHQ: DE (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/04/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_19.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 06:59:48 PM
Maryland (R): April 26

Overview
38 Delegates (1.54% of total)
Closed Primary
14 At-Large (WTA)
24 District (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The winner of the primary receives all 14 At-Large delegates.  The winner in each of Maryland's 8 CDs receives 3 delegates per CD.

Delegate Selection

The district delegates are directly elected on the ballot; each voter may vote for up to three delegates and the top three are elected.  Each delegate's presidential preference is not listed on the ballot.  11 At-Large delegates are chosen by the GOP State Central Committee on May 14.

Note that Kasich only has 16 delegate candidates, short of a full slate of 24.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first two ballots, unless their candidate releases them or receives less than 35% of the vote on the first ballot.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MD-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MD-R)
MD Delegate Selection Process (http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2016/Md%20Instructive%20Materials%20Delegate%20Selection.pdf)
FHQ: MD (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/04/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_20.html)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 07:07:10 PM
Pennsylvania (R): April 26

Overview
71 Delegates (1.54% of total)
Closed Primary
17 At-Large (WTA)
54 District (directly elected; unbound)

Delegate Allocation and Selection

The winner of the primary receives all 17 At-Large delegates.  14 of them are chosen by the Republican State Committee meeting on May 21.

The three delegates in each CD are directly elected on the ballot.  No presidential preference is listed on the ballot, and they will be completely unbound delegates going into Cleveland.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

The At-Large delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate withdraws, suspends his campaign, or releases them.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: PA-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/PA-R)
List of Delegate Candidates (https://www.pavoterservices.state.pa.us/ElectionInfo/electioninfo.aspx)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 07:27:13 PM
Rhode Island (R): April 26

Overview
19 Delegates (0.77% of total)
Half-Open Primary
13 At-Large (Proportional, 10% threshold)
6 District (Proportional, 10% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

In each of Rhode Island's 2 Congressional Districts, delegates are allocated proportionally among all candidates receiving at least 10% of the vote.  Should a candidate receive 67% of the vote, they will receive at least 2 delegates.  Otherwise, if at least three candidates receive at least 10% of the vote, the top three candidates receive 1 delegate each.

The 13 At-Large delegates are allocated proportionally among all candidates meeting a 10% threshold, with fractional delegates rounded to the nearest whole number. Both in districts and statewide, exact rounding questions will be clarified by the Nominating Committee of the State Central Committee.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are elected directly on the ballot; presidential preference is listed on the ballot. The presidential campaign had to approve the delegate for them to appear under the presidential candidate's name on the ballot.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

The At-Large delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate releases them.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: RI-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/RI-R)
RI Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.ri.gop/rhode_island_delegate_selection_plan_for_2016_rnc_convention)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 08:20:18 PM
South Carolina Results

Clinton on track to win with at least a 40-13 result in delegates here.  One main uncertainty here is CD 6, where Sanders is flirting with the viability threshold, allowing Clinton to pick up up to two more delegates.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: The Other Castro on February 27, 2016, 08:24:19 PM
South Carolina Results

Clinton on track to win with at least a 40-13 result in delegates here.  One main uncertainty here is CD 6, where Sanders is flirting with the viability threshold, allowing Clinton to pick up up to two more delegates.

Sanders' future memoir title: "Flirting with Viability"


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 08:38:01 PM
The Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/SC-D) has CD breakdowns.

At present, Clinton is at 63.7% and 68.8% in CDs 1 and 2, winning 3/5 delegates in each.  If she breaks 70% in CD 2, she wins another delegate.

In Jim Clyburn's CD 6, Sanders is at 15.06% of the vote, winning 1 out of the 8 delegates.  If he drops below 15%, he loses viability and that last delegate.

Current breakdown is 39-14 for Clinton.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 10:19:04 PM
Indiana (R): May 3

Overview
57 Delegates (2.31% of total)
Open Primary
30 At-Large (WTA)
27 District (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The winner of the primary wins all 30 At-Large delegates.

The winner in each of Indiana's 9 CDs wins the 3 delegates in each.

Delegate Selection

The delegates are chosen at CD caucuses and by the State Committee in April (before the primary).

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

The delegates are bound on the first ballot unless their candidate is not placed into nomination at the National Convention.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: IN-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IN-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 10:23:25 PM
Nebraska (R): May 10

Overview
36 Delegates (1.46% of total)
Closed Primary
36 At-Large (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The winner of the primary wins all 36 delegates.

Delegate Selection

The delegates are chosen at the State Convention on May 14.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

The delegates are bound on the first two ballots, unless their candidate receives less than 35% on the first ballot.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: NE-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NE-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 10:54:41 PM
West Virginia (R): May 10

Overview
34 Delegates (1.38% of total)
Half-Open Primary
22 At-Large (directly elected)
9 District (directly elected)
3 RNC Members (WTA)

Delegate Allocation and Selection

The winner of the primary wins the 3 RNC members' bound votes. 

All other delegates are directly elected on the ballot.  In each Congressional District, the top three vote-winners become delegates.  Statewide, the top vote-winner becomes a delegate, and the top seven vote-winners in each CD (no more than two from each county) are elected.

Presidential preference is listed on the ballot alongside each delegate's name, though it does not seem that the Presidential candidates have the ability to vet these delegates.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

It is unclear whether the directly elected delegates are bound; The Green Papers suggests that they are, and the ballot will say that the delegate candidate is "Committed" to a particular Presidential candidate (or Uncommitted).  The national GOP process book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/294928557/2016-Presidential-Nominating-Process-Book-version-2-0-Dec-2015-pdf) uses the language that delegate candidates "may specify intention to be committed to a candidate"; this suggests that they might not be bound. If delegates are bound, it is unclear what circumstances would cause them to become unbound.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: WV-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WV-R)
Running for Office in WV: 2016 (http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/current/Documents/2016%20RFO%20Final.pdf)
Filed Delegate Candidates (https://apps.sos.wv.gov/elections/candidate-search/) (I haven't checked to see if every candidate has a full delegate slate)
Delegate Candidate Filing Form (http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/forms/Documents/Forms%20-%20Candidate/C-2%20Republican%20Delegate%20to%20National%20Convention.pdf)
WV State Code (http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/Code.cfm?chap=03&art=5#05)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 27, 2016, 11:56:50 PM
Oregon (R): May 17

Overview
28 Delegates (1.13% of total)
Closed Primary
28 At-Large (Proportional, 3.57% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

Delegates are allocated proportionally, with a threshold of one-twenty-eighth (3.57%) of the vote.  It is unclear whether delegates are awarded proportionally to the total vote, or just to the threshold-meeting vote.  Delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number, with rounding errors compensated by giving (taking) a delegate to the candidate closest to (furthest from) receiving an additional delegate.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention on June 4.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first two ballots, unless the candidate releases them or falls below 35% of the vote on the first ballot.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: OR-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/OR-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 12:03:59 AM
Washington (R): May 24

Overview
44 Delegates (1.78% of total)
Closed Primary
14 At-Large (Proportional, 20% threshold)
30 District (Proportional, 20% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

In each of the 10 CDs, if a candidate receives a majority or is the only candidate to receive 20% of the vote, they receive all 3 delegates.  Otherwise, if only two candidates receive 20% of the vote, the winner gets 2 and the runner-up gets one.  Otherwise, the top three candidates each get 1 delegate.

Statewide, the delegates are awarded proportional to each candidates' share of the vote in the primary, with a 20% threshold.  Rounding details are unknown.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention on May 21 (before the primary).

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound only on the first ballot.  There does not appear to be any provision for a candidate to release his delegates.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: WA-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WA-R)
Washington GOP Delegate Rules (http://seattlegop.org/2016_WSRP_rules.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 12:11:52 AM
California (R): June 7

Overview
172 Delegates (6.96% of total)
Closed Primary
13 At-Large (WTA)
159 District (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The statewide winner receives all 13 At-Large delegates.

The winner in each of the 53 CDs wins 3 delegates each.

Delegate Selection

The candidates choose their delegates.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first two ballots, unless the candidate releases them or receives less than 10% of the votes on the first ballot.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: CA-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CA-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 12:20:59 AM
Montana (R): June 7

Overview
27 Delegates (1.09% of total)
Closed Primary
27 At-Large (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The statewide winner receives all 27 delegates.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention on May 14 (before the primary).

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate is not placed into nomination.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MT-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MT-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 12:24:53 AM
New Jersey (R): June 7

Overview
51 Delegates (2.06% of total)
Half-Open Primary
51 At-Large (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

The statewide winner receives all 51 delegates.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are elected as a slate on the ballot; the slate was chosen by the candidate.

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate "declines to participate ... or makes known publicly that he/she no longer seeks the nomination."

Useful Links
The Green Papers: NJ-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NJ-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 12:31:11 AM
New Mexico (R): June 7

Overview
24 Delegates (0.97% of total)
Closed Primary
24 At-Large (Proportional, 15% threshold)

Delegate Allocation

All 24 delegates are allocated proportionally based on the results of the primary, with a 15% threshold.  Rounding rules are unclear. The relevant New Mexico statute is:

Quote from: New Mexico Statutes §1-15A-9(c)(1)
each candidate and the uncommitted category shall be entitled to a share of the total vote allotted to the delegation that is equal to the proportion that the vote he received in the presidential primary bears to the total combined vote received by all qualified candidates; provided that no candidate shall be excluded who has received at least fifteen percent of the total vote cast for candidates for president of that party, and no candidate shall be excluded in violation of any political party rule.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention on May 21 (before the primary).

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate dies or pens a "written unconditional release" of his delegates.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: NM-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NM-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 12:34:35 AM
South Dakota (R): June 7

Overview
29 Delegates (1.17% of total)
Closed Primary
29 At-Large (WTA)

Delegate Allocation

All 29 delegates are awarded to the winner of the primary.

Delegate Selection

Delegates are chosen at the State Convention on March 19 (before the primary).

Candidate Withdrawal / Contested Convention

Delegates are bound on the first ballot, unless the candidate withdraws, suspends his campaign, or does not have his name placed in nomination.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: SD-R (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/SD-R)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 12:44:35 AM
Maine (D): March 6

Overview
30 Delegates (0.63% of total)
Closed Caucus
5 At-Large
3 PLEO At-Large
17 District
5 Superdelegates

Details

Maine runs a caucus, similar to Iowa's.  Caucuses in each municipality elect delegates to the State Convention (May 6-7).  It is this State Convention which elects Maine's 5 At-Large, 3 PLEO At-Large, and 17 District (10 in CD 1; 7 in CD2) delegates.  Allocation is done via the usual Democratic formulae based on the number of delegates at the State Convention supporting each candidate.

Superdelegates

Clinton (3): Rep. Chellie Pingree, Vice Chair Peggy Schaffer, Maggie Allen (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2015/10/clinton-campaign-announces-hillary-for-maine-oklahoma-and-tennessee-leadership-councils.html)

Sanders (1): Troy Jackson (http://www.pressherald.com/2015/07/04/thousands-expected-to-greet-sanders-in-portland/)

Uncommitted (1): Chair Phil Bartlett

Useful Links
The Green Papers: ME-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ME-D)
Maine Delegate Selection Plan (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2dIJK7e7-jhOWgxXzlBakp1NUU/view)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 01:02:41 AM
March 8 Democratic Primaries

Democrats Abroad (D): March 1 - 8

Overview
17 Delegates (0.36% of total)
Open Primary
9 Regional
3 At-Large
1 PLEO At-Large
4 Superdelegates (8 half-votes)

The Global Primary

Any US Nationals who consider themselves Democrats, reside outside the United States and do not intend to participate in any other primary/caucus may participate in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary.  One can vote in person in many locations around the world from March 1 - March 8; the last physical polling station closes at 8PM EST on March 8 in Pelham, Ontario.  Alternatively, members of Democrats Abroad can vote by mail, fax, or email, starting on January 11.  Emailed or faxed ballots must be received by 6PM EST on March 8; mailed ballots must be received, at the absolute latest, at 7PM EST on March 13.

Details

3 At-Large and 1 PLEO At-Large delegates are awarded based on the global vote.  9 Regional delegates are also awarded based on the vote in each region, with the number of delegates each region receives proportional to the number of votes cast in each region.  The three regions are: Americas, Asia-Pacific, and Europe-Middle East-Africa.

Results

Sanders 9 - Clinton 4

The math on the Democrats Abroad website (http://www.democratsabroad.org/global_presidential_primary_results) is a bit wonky, but the totals are correct (their totals give Clinton gets one fewer At-Large but one more in Asia-Pacific),

Superdelegates

Clinton (2): Stanley Grossman, Caitlin Kraft-Buchman (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml), Bob Bragar, Sandra Loridans (http://www.democratsabroad.org/press)

Sanders (1): Gary Suwannarat, Vice Chair Ken Sherman (http://www.democratsabroad.org/press)

Uncommitted (1): Chair Katie Solon, John Eastwood

The eight superdelegates from Democrats Abroad have a half-vote each; they are the only fractional delegates at the convention.

Useful Links
The Green Papers: DA (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/DA-D)
Global Presidential Primary (http://www.democratsabroad.org/global_presidential_primary)
Delegate Selection Plan (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/democratsabroad/pages/4724/attachments/original/1449845874/DPCA-Delegate_selection_plan-2016.pdf?1449845874)

Michigan (D)

Overview
147 Delegates (3.08% of total)
Open Primary
28 At-Large
17 PLEO At-Large
85 by CD
17 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 28 and 17 delegates are allocated based on the statewide caucus vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 9 for CDs 13,14; 7 for CDs 5,12; 6 for CDs 1,9,11; 5 for CDs 2,3,4,6,7,8,10.

Superdelegates

Clinton (10): Sen. Debbie Stabenow (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/opinion/stabenow-hillary-clinton/), Sen. Gary Peters (http://twitter.com/Peters4Michigan/status/609826765830234112), Rep. John Conyers (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/23/clinton-hauls-first-mich-fundraiser/30555907/), Rep. Sander Levin, Rep. Debbie Dingell, Rep. Dan Kildee (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/238912-2016-hillary-endorsement-list), Rep. Brenda Lawrence, Jill Alper (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/06/26/michigan-women-meet-tout-clinton-candidacy/29322273/), Dennis Archer (http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/11/13/ap-survey-most-michigan-superdelegates-back-clinton/), Barry Goodman (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml)

Uncommitted (7): Steven Cook, Mary Fleming, Norwood Jewel, Daryl Newman, Virgie Rollins (ex-Biden), Chair Brandon Dillon, Vice Chair Nancy Quarles

The Green Papers: MI-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MI-D)

Mississippi (D)

Overview
41 Delegates (0.86% of total)
Open Primary
8 At-Large
5 PLEO At-Large
23 by CD
5 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 8 and 5 delegates are allocated based on the statewide caucus vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 9 for CD 2; 5 for CDs 1,3; 4 for CD 4.

Superdelegates

Clinton (3): Rep. Bennie Thompson, Chair Rickey Cole, Vice Chair Vallena Greer (http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/19/mississippi-democratic-super-delegate-supporting-sanders/79000892/)

Sanders (2): Keelan Sanders (http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/19/mississippi-democratic-super-delegate-supporting-sanders/79000892/), Johnnie Patton (https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-Publicly-Committed.pdf)

The Green Papers: MS-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MS-D)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 01:17:37 AM
The latest batch of states finishes up all the Republican states.  I'll continue releasing Democratic states (roughly 10 days ahead of time) as long as Sanders is in the race and Clinton does not have a majority of the delegates.  (I would bet this happens no later than May 17, and quite possibly earlier).

Today is the last of North Dakota's Legislative District Conventions.  It takes place from 3-5:30 PM CST in Bottineau, ND.  As always, there's been no concrete reports out of these conventions, so we'll have no idea who is doing well in North Dakota until the State Convention on April 2.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on February 28, 2016, 01:57:04 PM
On the unbound delegates front....

FHQ clarified via Twitter that the RNC will consider the directly elected IL delegates as bound to the candidate they are listed as supporting on the ballot.  The same, he assumes, will hold true for WV.

This knocks out a substantial fraction of the officially unbound delegates we were considering...not that we would truly expect shenanigans on that front.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 01, 2016, 03:15:06 PM
Oklahoma Rules

FHQ has clarified one of the open questions for tonight's delegate allocation: the exact method used to allocate delegates in Oklahoma.

The delegates are allocated based on the share of the total vote, not on the share of the threshold-meeting vote.  What was unclear was what would happen with any delegates left over after this procedure (and generically there would be some, given Kasich and Carson's presence in the race).  FHQ has verified that they will be left Uncommitted.  Essentially, any vote for a candidate failing to meet the 15% threshold is a vote for Uncommitted; those delegates will be chosen at the State Convention on May 13/14 and are free to vote their conscience in Cleveland.

New Hampshire, cont.

In other news, the New Hampshire delegate math has attracted some media attention, with this piece in The New York Times talking about it (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/upshot/how-new-hampshire-used-the-wrong-math-and-gave-one-of-rubios-delegates-to-trump.html?_r=0).  The New York Times takes a surprisingly hard stance on this one, saying explicitly that the GOP screwed up the math on this one, and that Trump should have 10 delegates to Rubio's 3.

As we've discussed in this thread multiple times, the situation is not that clear cut.  The "double-rounding" procedure discussed is nowhere explicitly spelled out in New Hampshire State Law (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/659/659-93.htm) and is, in my view, a reach.  That said, the New York Times does interestingly say that the Secretary of State (who normally would have the final say on these things) does favor the double-rounding interpretation, as confirmed by the AP and other sources before the primary.  Now, in this case, the Secretary of State may not have the final say due to the automatic delegates, which he doesn't get to certify.  In any event, this is something to keep an eye on.  As you know, I'm strongly in Trump's camp on this question, and my count will remain Trump 11 - Rubio 2 unless the NH GOP and the NH SoS both say otherwise.  If it comes down to it, Rubio may want to challenge this in the courts or before the Credentials Committee, but I think he'll lose.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 01, 2016, 11:39:32 PM
Really really preliminary delegate count (including a complete guess in AK and many CDs nationwide);

Trump 267
Cruz 209
Rubio 92
Kasich 21
Carson 3
Uncommitted 3

Trump does slightly better (25-odd delegates) than projected.  Cruz did a lot better than projected, and Rubio simply had an abysmal night.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 02:35:41 AM
Updated Republican count:

Trump 258
Cruz 215
Rubio 95
Kasich 21
Carson 3
Uncommitted 3

Open questions include: exact nature of the allocation rules in GA, the rest of the AK results, and various incomplete/missing CD results throughout the South.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 02:56:02 AM
On the Democratic side:

Clinton 523
Sanders 342

A very good night for Clinton, despite the loss in Oklahoma.  This gives her a lead of 206 in pledged delegates, roughly twice what Obama ever had over her in 2008.

These numbers are shamelessly cribbed from The Green Papers; I'll take a look in greater detail tomorrow, especially at Super Tuesday's only real caucus state, Colorado.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Mr. Morden on March 02, 2016, 09:04:49 AM
So are you basically in agreement with this guy on Twitter in terms of how you allocate the Republican delegates from each state?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cch5Rr6WEAEoxh7.jpg:large


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 02:35:17 PM
So are you basically in agreement with this guy on Twitter in terms of how you allocate the Republican delegates from each state?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cch5Rr6WEAEoxh7.jpg:large


I disagree in Georgia (rules issue), Oklahoma (rules issue), Tennessee (for completeness I made an early call in CD 9 despite no data), Texas (different CD results).


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 02:43:06 PM
Remaining uncertainties from the night:

  • Arkansas is still at 96% reporting.  It's possible some of the CD results might change, but I doubt it.
  • Georgia.  This one is a mess.  Rounding rules are very unclear, and there's still uncertainty in my mind as to how to allocate the RNC members.
  • Oklahoma.  I follow FHQ here in saying that At-Large delegates are doled out proportionally to the candidate's share of the total vote, and that any delegates left over remain Uncommitted.  The Green Papers disagrees.
  • Tennessee.  CD results are still incomplete, especially in CD 9 (Memphis).  I've provisionally divided the delegates 2 for Trump and 1 for Cruz, but it's a tight 3-way race in Shelby County overall, so who knows.
  • Texas.  CD results are potentially still incomplete, but I doubt the final result will change here.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 04:24:28 PM
Carson's Delegates

Carson has earned 8 delegates so far.  His three in Iowa and three in Virginia appear to be bound to him on the first ballot still, though whether that would be enforced is unclear.

In Nevada, Carson has some options.  He may can choose to keep his delegates bound to him, release them, or reallocate his delegates among the other candidates.  If the latter, Trump and Cruz would each gain one delegate.  If he suspends "or otherwise discontinues" his campaign at any point, he loses the option to keep his delegates bound to him.

Even though Carson has not formally suspended his campaign, I'm going to remove his column.

There's still the possibility that Carson does pick up another delegate going forward if he keeps a zombie campaign going...most notably in North Carolina (0.7% could be enough to win him a delegate there).


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 09:16:36 PM
Northern Marianas (D): March 12

Overview
11 Delegates (0.23% of total)
Closed Caucus (open to all who wish to participate as Democrats; one can register at the caucus)
6 At-Large
5 Superdelegates

Details

6 At-Large delegates are apportioned based on the caucus vote.

Superdelegates

Clinton (5): Del. Kilili Camacho Sablan, Chair Rosicky F. Camacho, Vice Chair Thersita B. Pertduo, John Tunela, Emelia S. Chargualaf (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-wins-northern-mariana-islands-caucus/)

The Green Papers: ME-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ME-D)

On the same day as the Northern Marianas Caucus are Iowa's County Conventions, whose results may determine who wins the last delegate out of Iowa.  Clinton is still heavily favored.


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 09:42:14 PM
March 15 Democratic Primaries

Florida (D)

Overview
246 Delegates (5.16% of total)
Closed Primary
140 District
46 At-Large
28 PLEO At-Large
32 Superdelegates

Details

46 At-Large and 28 PLEO At-Large delegates are awarded based on the global vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 8 for CD 24; 7 for CDs 20,21; 6 for CDs 2,5,13,14,16,18,22,23; 5 for CDs 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,15; 4 for CDs 3,4,17,19,26,27; 3 for CDs 1,25.

Superdelegates

Clinton (23): Sen. Bill Nelson, Rep. Patrick Murphy, Rep. Ted Deutch, Rep. Corrine Brown, Rep. Alcee Hastings, Rep. Frederica Wilson, Rep. Kathy Castor, Rep. Lois Frankel, Chair Allison Tant, Vice Chair Alan Clendenin, Jon Ausman, Mitchell Ceasar, Bret Berlin, Joe Falk, Annette Taddeo, Tony Hill, Angel Gomez, Alan Williams, Joyce Cusack, Cindy Lerner (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2015/11/hillary-for-america-announces-florida-and-maryland-leadership-councils.html), Stephen Bittel (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml), Alma Gonzalez (http://twitter.com/FDPMoneygirl/status/697596515162984450), Rep. Gwen Graham (http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2016/03/07/graham-votes-endorses-clinton/81442342/)

Sanders (2): Rep. Alan Grayson (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271135-grayson-endorses-sanders), Nancy C. Jacobson (http://orlando-politics.com/2016/03/04/bernie-sanders-campaign-office-opens-in-orlando/)

Uncommitted (7): Ex-DNC Chair Kenneth Curtis (Clinton 2008), DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Clinton 2008, officially neutral), Katherine Fernandez Rundle, Carlos Odio, Rick Boylan, Alma Gonzales, DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias (officially uncommitted despite donations to Ready for Hillary), Marian Williams

Useful Links
The Green Papers: FL (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/FL-D)
FL Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.scribd.com/doc/299194566/FloridaDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan-v8-2)

Illinois (D)

Overview
182 Delegates (3.82% of total)
Open Primary
34 At-Large
20 PLEO At-Large
102 by CD
26 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 34 and 20 delegates are allocated based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 9 for CDs 1,7; 8 for CD 2; 7 for CD 9; 6 for CDs 5,12,17; 5 for CDs 3,4,6,10,11,13,16; 4 for CDs 8,14,15,18.

Superdelegates

Clinton (22): Sen. Dick Durbin, Reps. Cheri Bustos, Robin Kelly, Jan Schakowsky, Bill Foster, Luis Gutiérrez, Michael Quigley, Danny Davis, Tammy Duckworth (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/) and Bobby Rush (http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1099647/sweet-bobby-rush-2), Laura Ricketts, Jayne Mazzotti, Vice Chair Karen Yarbrough, Carol Ronen, Rajiv Fernando, Steve Powell, John Cullerton, John Keller, Carrie Austin, Jerry Costello (http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1285947/hillary-clinton-unveils-key-illinois-democratic-national-committee-backers), James Claybonre (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-hillary-clinton-illinois-superdelegate-20160303-story.html), Iris Martinez (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-cook-county-anita-alvarez-kim-foxx-victor-reyes-20160219-story.html)

Sanders (1): Rep. Dan Lipinski (http://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/superdelegate-rep-lipinski-for-sanders-if-contested-convention/)

Uncommitted (3): President Barack Obama, Chair Michael Madigan, Dan Hynes (O'Malley)

Useful Links
The Green Papers: IL-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IL-D)
IL Delegate Selection Plan (http://ildems.com/uploads/files/2016-Illinois-Delegate-Selection-Plan-Master-with-Appendix-1.pdf)

Missouri (D)

Overview
84 Delegates (1.76% of total)
Open Primary
15 At-Large
9 PLEO At-Large
47 by CD
13 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 15 and 9 delegates are allocated based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 10 for CD 1; 7 for CD 5; 6 for CD 2; 5 for CDs 3,4,6,8; 4 for CD 7.

Superdelegates

Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/): Clinton 12 - Uncommitted 1

Confirmed Clinton (11): Dick Gephardt, Gov. Jay Nixon, Sen. Claire McCaskill, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Rep. Lacy Clay, Brian Wahby, Doug Brooks, Sandy Querry, Melba Curls, Vice Chair Darlene Green (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2015/11/hillary-for-america-announces-missouri-and-vermont-leadership-councils.html), Sly James (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article40438806.html)

Other (2): Chair Roy Temple, Matt Robinson

Useful Links
The Green Papers: MO-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MO-D)
MO Delegate Selection Plan (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw8qd8A8ZSVLY0RGWFNtMlJkdXc/view)

North Carolina (D)

Overview
121 Delegates (2.54% of total)
Half-Open Primary
23 At-Large
14 PLEO At-Large
70 by CD
14 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 23 and 14 delegates are allocated based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 8 for CDs 1,4,12; 6 for CD 13; 5 for CDs 5,6,9,10; 4 for CDs 2,3,7,8,11

Superdelegates

Clinton [8]: Rep. G.K. Butterfield, Rep. David Price, Rep. Alma Adams (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Akilah Ensley (http://www.mooresvilletribune.com/news/clinton-the-early-favorite-among-key-n-carolina-democrats/article_f9fffc96-8a15-11e5-977b-fb9591fb9e5d.html), Jeannette Council (http://www.fayobserver.com/blogs/news/peoples_business/cumberland-county-commissioner-and-superdelegate-endorses-hillary-clinton/article_dbe4c9a8-cabb-11e5-b79f-1381ffb834b3.html), J. David Cox (http://twitter.com/JDavidCoxSr/status/674937744276213760), Olma Echeverri (http://twitter.com/colmapa/status/679321252331438080), Janet Cowell (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article60243386.html)

Sanders (1): Jake Quinn (http://www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/01/29/guest-columnist-breaking-toward-bernie/79511050/)

Uncommitted (5): Chair Patsy Keever, Vice Chair Zack Hawkins, Pat Cotham, Joyce Brayboy, Everett Ward

Useful Links
The Green Papers: NC-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NC-D)
NC Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.scribd.com/doc/299194614/NorthCarolinaDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan)

Ohio (D)

Overview
160 Delegates (3.36% of total)
Half-Open Primary
31 At-Large
19 PLEO At-Large
93 by CD
17 Superdelegates

Details

Groups of 31 and 19 delegates are allocated based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 17 for CD 11; 12 for CD 3; 8 for CDs 9, 13; 4 for CDs 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,14,15,16.

The 17 delegates for CD 11 (Cleveland-Akron) may be the largest delegate haul for a single CD in the country.

Superdelegates

Clinton (14): Ex-DNC Chair David Wilhelm (http://wdtn.com/2015/11/13/ap-exclusive-democratic-superdelegates-in-ohio-line-up-for-hillary-clintons-presidential-bid/), Sen. Sherrod Brown, Reps. Tim Ryan, Joyce Beatty and Marcia Fudge, Isabel Framer, Jocelyn Bucaro, Mark Mallory, Kathleen Clyde, Pat Frost Brooks, Ronald Malone, Joe Rugola (http://www.ohio.com/blogs/ohio-politics/ohio-politics-1.297397/clinton-s-ohio-team-lined-with-local-leadership-1.662411#.VsNSJ9iQGv0.twitter), Nan Whaley (http://wyso.org/post/ohio-superdelegates-support-clinton-few-holdouts#stream/0), Valerie McCall (http://elections.ap.org/content/superdelegates-put-clinton-path-clinch-calif)

Sanders (1): Rep. Marcy Kaptur (http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2016/03/11/Supporters-line-the-block-to-see-Bernie-Sanders-in-Toledo.html)

Uncommitted (2): Chair David Pepper, Vice Chair Rhine McLin

Useful Links
The Green Papers: OH-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/OH-D)
OH Delegate Selection Plan (https://ohiodems.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2016-DELEGATE-PLAN-7-15-15-updates.pdf)


Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on March 02, 2016, 09:48:44 PM
    • Tennessee.  CD results are still incomplete, especially in CD 9 (Memphis).  I've provisionally divided the delegates 2 for Trump and 1 for Cruz, but it's a tight 3-way race in Shelby County overall, so who knows.

    This is correct - looking at the unofficial precinct results, its:
    Trump: 32.2%
    Cruz: 27.6%
    Rubio: 23.8%
    Kasich: 7.3%
    Carson: 6.5%


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 09:54:37 PM
    • Tennessee.  CD results are still incomplete, especially in CD 9 (Memphis).  I've provisionally divided the delegates 2 for Trump and 1 for Cruz, but it's a tight 3-way race in Shelby County overall, so who knows.

    This is correct - looking at the unofficial precinct results, its:
    Trump: 32.2%
    Cruz: 27.6%
    Rubio: 23.8%
    Kasich: 7.3%
    Carson: 6.5%

    Thanks!  I was unable to track those down myself.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 02, 2016, 10:45:47 PM
    A couple new, more visual features, are linked in my signature.  I'd post the images directly here, but am having trouble getting them to work with the forum.

    The first is a map of the GOP delegates (http://i.imgur.com/ISzGj5Q.png), with one small square = one delegate.

    The second is a visual display of how close Trump is to a majority of delegates; what I like to call Trump Tetris (http://i.imgur.com/poYgKhW.png).  If Trump hits that red line, he wins the nomination on the first ballot barring shenanigans.  The dashed red line below (which Trump has not crossed) represents 50% of delegates in the states that have already voted.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: PresidentTRUMP on March 03, 2016, 10:46:42 AM
    Why was Carson removed? He hasn't dropped out yet.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 03, 2016, 11:30:26 AM
    Why was Carson removed? He hasn't dropped out yet.

    The man acknowledges he has no path forward, and he only had 8 delegates to begin with--which is less than the number of delegates for Uncommitted/Other, at this point.  All the information about his 8 delegates is still listed on the main page (albeit in the notes).  I've clarified the Nevada note to say that he has the option to keep his delegates.

    Should Carson not actually suspend his campaign on Friday and actively tries to continue campaigning, I may restore his column.

    (Perhaps closer to the truth here: I was skirting the 11,000 character limit and jumped on the opportunity to eliminate the column).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 03, 2016, 03:40:18 PM
    Delegate Selection

    I'm going to be fleshing out the "Delegate Selection" parts of these summaries more, as this part of the process becomes more important.

    As a preview, here's a map of the various ways the states (and DC) choose their delegates:

    (
    )

    Red = State Conventions
    Blue = Chosen by Candidates
    Green = Directly Elected
    Gray = Chosen by State Central Committee

    Some of the distinctions are trivial.  In some states where the delegates are directly elected, the delegates are well vetted by the campaigns, so it's essentially the same as a blue state.  This is the case in West Virginia, for example.  In others, like PA, it's a free for all.   DC acts more like a convention, but it's a one-stage process so I've colored it green.

    Some states where the candidates choose delegates, there is some veto power by a party body (in CT, the State Central Committee gets to approve the slates).

    Some states have a hybrid method (one method for one type of delegates, another for another type); the map above shows the method used for the majority of delegates in the state.

    All territories directly elect their delegates.

    Of course, some states also bind their delegates for an infinite number of ballots, in which case the method of selection isn't critical.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: / on March 03, 2016, 04:14:42 PM
    A couple new, more visual features, are linked in my signature.  I'd post the images directly here, but am having trouble getting them to work with the forum.

    The first is a map of the GOP delegates (http://i.imgur.com/ISzGj5Q.png), with one small square = one delegate.

    The second is a visual display of how close Trump is to a majority of delegates; what I like to call Trump Tetris (http://i.imgur.com/poYgKhW.png).  If Trump hits that red line, he wins the nomination on the first ballot barring shenanigans.  The dashed red line below (which Trump has not crossed) represents 50% of delegates in the states that have already voted.

    Very nice!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 03, 2016, 04:22:08 PM
    Delegate Binding

    In similar fashion, a map of what ballot delegates become unbound after.

    (
    )

    Green = 0 ballots
    Red = 1 ballot
    Blue = 2 ballots
    Yellow = 3 ballots
    Gray = Never, unless other conditions met.

    Note that some states have different unbinding provisions for different types of delegates; again, this is for the majority of each delegation.

    Many delegates have provisions for early unbinding of delegates: i.e. if a candidate releases them, or they fall below some place or percentage threshold in the balloting, or (in the case of AL) a 2/3rds majority of the delegation votes to release themselves.  Only Ohio seems to have no procedure for unbinding.

    In states where the binding is a result of an RNC fiat (WY, CO, WV, IL), I'm assuming that fiat ends after the first ballot.

    In the territories, PR/VI/MP unbind after the first ballot, whereas GU & AS never bind.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 03, 2016, 05:04:04 PM
    Erc, if I'm reading the rules in LA right, if Rubio falls below 16.67% in a CD (which is possible based on the polls released in the past 24 hours), he should get 0 delegates, right? And in that case, would the third delegate be unbound in the same way state delegates are?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 03, 2016, 05:33:53 PM
    Erc, if I'm reading the rules in LA right, if Rubio falls below 16.67% in a CD (which is possible based on the polls released in the past 24 hours), he should get 0 delegates, right? And in that case, would the third delegate be unbound in the same way state delegates are?

    It's unclear.  The rules just say that those delegates are "apportioned...proportionally."

    Who actually does the apportioning is unclear, and would probably be resolved at the State Convention.  All the references to the left-over delegates being given to Uncommitted just refer to At-Large delegates, not to the District Delegates.

    I think it's entirely possible that, in the event of Trump 45% Cruz 34% Rubio 15%, Rubio could still get a delegate...but it could easily go to Trump.  There's certainly some discretion here.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 03, 2016, 06:27:54 PM
    I'm also going to start keeping track of the actual delegates (i.e. their names) as soon as we know them.

    One of the first states we know the identities of the delegates is in Alabama (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4893517#msg4893517).  No one filed for one particular Trump delegate slot, so it is currently vacant.  That slot will presumably be filled by an Alternate, chosen by the Alabama Republican Executive Committee.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 03, 2016, 09:17:22 PM
    So are you basically in agreement with this guy on Twitter in terms of how you allocate the Republican delegates from each state?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cch5Rr6WEAEoxh7.jpg:large


    Checking versus Taniel's updated numbers (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/167RlmxSvrotSiVHmaQuIio3BbGlCmrUgObX2kHM80yQ/edit#gid=0), my only difference right now is in Georgia, where we disagree on the rules interpretation.

    I've been staring at the Georgia Rules for far too long, and I think I need some fresh eyes on the issue.  Here's the relevant part of the GA GOP rules:

    Quote from: GA GOP rules
    At large Delegates and Alternates shall be allocated to the candidate(s) receiving more than the requisite percentage of the vote [20%] set forth in paragraph 1 of this subsection B, based on his or her percentage of the Statewide Presidential Preference Primary vote. Any remaining Delegates and Alternates not allocated initially shall be apportioned proportionally, based on the candidate’s share of the statewide vote, until no such further apportionment can be done. Any remaining at large Delegates and Alternates shall be awarded to the candidate receiving the largest percentage of the vote. For the purpose of this allocation, RNC Delegates (State Chairman, National Committee Woman and National Committee Man) shall be considered at large delegates and be allocated to the candidate receiving the largest percentage of the vote.

    Looking particularly at that last line, it's unclear to me how to deal with the RNC delegates.  I see two possible interpretations.

    (1) "For the purpose of this allocation, RNC Delegates...shall be considered at large delegates" is the phrase that matters.  The RNC Delegates are considered at large delegates, and are thus allocated in the same pool with them (a pool of 34 delegates total).  The last phrase, "and be allocated to the candidate receiving the largest percentage of the vote," is just telling us that the Trump's share of the pool of 34 delegates happens to include the 3 RNC members.

    (2) "and be allocated to the candidate receiving the largest percentage of the vote" is the phrase that matters.  Trump is allocated the 3 RNC member delegates, and separately the 31 other At-Large delegates are divided between the candidates.  The phrase "shall be considered at large delegates" is just saying that they are allocated on the basis of the statewide vote, i.e., to the At-Large winner, though they are allocated in a different fashion than the other At-Large delegates.

    My personal interpretation has always been (1); FHQ and Taniel go with (2), and I don't think (1) occurs to them.

    What do you think?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on March 04, 2016, 12:24:16 PM
    Erc your interpretation had not occurred to me, but after reading the GA GOP rules it does seem more correct than the other interpretation. The important part for me is that the subsection of the rules your above quote is in starts with:

    Quote from: GAGOP Rule 7.3(B)
    B) Delegates and Alternates shall be allocated proportionally as follows:

    i.e. the RNC delegates are included as part of the proportional allocation (and therefore not just awarded to the winner)

    However what really matters is how the state party itself interprets that rule, so the only way to really find out what's going to happen would be to contact them


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 04, 2016, 01:15:13 PM
    Erc your interpretation had not occurred to me, but after reading the GA GOP rules it does seem more correct than the other interpretation. The important part for me is that the subsection of the rules your above quote is in starts with:

    Quote from: GAGOP Rule 7.3(B)
    B) Delegates and Alternates shall be allocated proportionally as follows:

    i.e. the RNC delegates are included as part of the proportional allocation (and therefore not just awarded to the winner)

    However what really matters is how the state party itself interprets that rule, so the only way to really find out what's going to happen would be to contact them

    Hmm...hadn't thought of that point.  Not sure if I'd want to build my case on it, but it's more evidence certainly.

    Note also that both the AP and CNN, while their delegate totals in Georgia are incomplete, both have Cruz at 18 delegates in the state.  There's no way to get Cruz to 18 delegates without giving him some share of the RNC delegates.  It could be that they're working with old CD results, or are just plain wrong (as they were with NH), but it's another piece of evidence.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 05, 2016, 12:12:59 PM
    Erc, I think Green Papers is wrong about Michigan delegate allocation. Check out the MI GOP rules for delegate allocation: http://www.migop.org/assets/files/Rules_for_the_Selection_of_Delegates_and_Alternates.pdf

    It looks like, at least according to the party rules, MI is WTA if anyone gets >50%; otherwise, each CD is WTA (for three delegates each) and the remaining delegates are proportional based on a 15% threshold. (see page 17)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 05, 2016, 02:26:06 PM
    Erc, I think Green Papers is wrong about Michigan delegate allocation. Check out the MI GOP rules for delegate allocation: http://www.migop.org/assets/files/Rules_for_the_Selection_of_Delegates_and_Alternates.pdf

    It looks like, at least according to the party rules, MI is WTA if anyone gets >50%; otherwise, each CD is WTA (for three delegates each) and the remaining delegates are proportional based on a 15% threshold. (see page 17)

    Hmmm...so, the thing to note here is that those Rules are in violation of RNC rules requiring proportionality before March 15.  The RNC has clarified, generally, that WTA-by-CD is not proportional, and is not allowed before March 15.  (Hence all the changes for the Super Tuesday primaries from WTA by CD to Winner-Take-Most). 

    So I think those rules are outdated; I don't know where to find a new copy, but the RNC Nominating Process Book (http://www.scribd.com/doc/294928557/2016-Presidential-Nominating-Process-Book-version-2-0-Dec-2015-pdf) agrees with The Green Papers here.  The book is highly terse, but was drawn up by the RNC based on the most recent submissions by the states (as of December 2015).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 05, 2016, 06:19:14 PM
    Kansas Results

    At the last second, Kasich breaks the threshold and Rubio breaks into 2nd in CD 3, resulting in:

    Cruz 24 - Trump 9 - Rubio 6 - Kasich 1

    The last batch of results saw Cruz and Trump each lose 2 delegates, Rubio gaining 3, and Kasich gaining 1.

    In the unlikely event the RNC members are thrown into the statewide pool, Cruz loses two and Trump and Kasich each gain one.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on March 05, 2016, 07:57:49 PM
    Kansas Results

    At the last second, Kasich breaks the threshold and Rubio breaks into 2nd in CD 3, resulting in:

    Cruz 24 - Trump 9 - Rubio 6 - Kasich 1

    The last batch of results saw Cruz and Trump each lose 2 delegates, Rubio gaining 3, and Kasich gaining 1.

    In the unlikely event the RNC members are thrown into the statewide pool, Cruz loses two and Trump and Kasich each gain one.

    Why does Kasich only get 1? Shouldn't he get 0.107 of 25 delegates = 2.68 is rounded up to 3? I have the statewide ones breaking 12C-6T-4R-3K, with Cruz getting a bonus of 3 RNC members. What am I doing wrong?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 05, 2016, 08:43:01 PM
    Kansas Results

    At the last second, Kasich breaks the threshold and Rubio breaks into 2nd in CD 3, resulting in:

    Cruz 24 - Trump 9 - Rubio 6 - Kasich 1

    The last batch of results saw Cruz and Trump each lose 2 delegates, Rubio gaining 3, and Kasich gaining 1.

    In the unlikely event the RNC members are thrown into the statewide pool, Cruz loses two and Trump and Kasich each gain one.

    Why does Kasich only get 1? Shouldn't he get 0.107 of 25 delegates = 2.68 is rounded up to 3? I have the statewide ones breaking 12C-6T-4R-3K, with Cruz getting a bonus of 3 RNC members. What am I doing wrong?

    Here's where the rounding rules come into play.  Delegates are given out starting with the winner, with all fractional delegates rounded up.

    Cruz has 12.18, rounding up to 13.  Trump has 5.90, rounding up to 6.  Rubio has 4.21, rounding up to 5.  Kasich has 3.02, but as Cruz and Rubio rounded (way) up, Kasich is stuck with only 1 delegate, rather than 3.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 05, 2016, 08:55:38 PM
    Maine GOP just announced its results:

    Cruz 12 - Trump 9 - Kasich 2

    Maine again has weird Kansas-style rounding rules, moving a delegate from Kasich to Trump.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 05, 2016, 11:22:52 PM
    Kentucky Results

    Trump 17 - Cruz 15 - Rubio 7 - Kasich 7

    Trump had a rally in the final 10% of precincts or so, taking a delegate from Rubio.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 05, 2016, 11:26:34 PM
    Louisiana Results

    At-Large:

    Trump 12 - Cruz 11 - Uncommitted 5

    The delegates are chosen next Saturday at the State Convention.

    CD:

    These are a mess.  Results are still preliminary and we don't know how to handle the rounding rules here.  State convention has some leeway (it just has to be "proportional").

    I'm going to assume they follow the fairest method of rounding: to the nearest delegate and if the totals don't add up, give a delegate to the candidate closest to getting an additional delegate.  The breakdowns are then (Trump-Cruz-Rubio):

    CD 1: 1-1-1
    CD 2: 1-1-1
    CD 3: 1-1-1
    CD 4: 1-2-0
    CD 5: 1-1-1
    CD 6: 1-1-1

    CDs 1,2, and 6 are still slow on reporting (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_cd/LA_GOP_0305_VD.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS); the above counts are from digging through precinct results.  Note that this misses a lot of early votes in CDs 1, 2, and 6; I don't expect these to affect the totals, even given Trump's strength in the early voting (Rubio also did disproportionately well in early voting).

    Update: Miles appears to have found complete CD results (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=228104.msg4955980#msg4955980) that verify these numbers.

    Cruz won where Rubio did abysmally, so Cruz is looking like he ties Trump here in total.  


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 05, 2016, 11:51:38 PM
    March 5 Results

    Cruz 69 - Trump 53 - Rubio 18 - Kasich 10 - Uncommitted 5

    Overall, a good day for Cruz, a mediocre day for Trump, and a bad day for Rubio.

    Cruz won delegate majorities in KS & ME, tied (and may eventually win) in Louisiana, and lost KY by two delegates.

    Clinton 59 - Sanders 50

    Clinton again continues to get larger margins in the states she wins than Sanders, meaning she comes out ahead again on pledged delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 06, 2016, 04:38:36 PM
    Puerto Rico results

    Rubio seems to be on course for a majority of the vote and all 23 delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ElectionsGuy on March 06, 2016, 04:44:57 PM
    According to my count Rubio has 155. Nonetheless, the total delegate percentages so far stand at...

    Trump: 42.8%
    Cruz: 33.4%
    Rubio: 17.1%
    Kasich: 4.1%
    Other: 2.5%


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 06, 2016, 05:03:14 PM
    According to my count Rubio has 155. Nonetheless, the total delegate percentages so far stand at...

    Trump: 42.8%
    Cruz: 33.4%
    Rubio: 17.1%
    Kasich: 4.1%
    Other: 2.5%

    Late returns in KY switched a delegate from Rubio to Trump; forgot to update the Kentucky entry but did update the totals.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ElectionsGuy on March 06, 2016, 05:07:42 PM
    Okay, but now Trump has 389 by my count :P


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 06, 2016, 05:12:17 PM
    Okay, but now Trump has 389 by my count :P
    That's my mistake.  Fixed!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ElectionsGuy on March 06, 2016, 05:16:08 PM
    Okay, but now Trump has 389 by my count :P
    That's my mistake.  Fixed!

    No problem. Thanks.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 06, 2016, 06:33:04 PM
    Updated Delegate Map:

    ()

    and Trump Tetris.

    ()

    Red dotted line is what a majority of the delegates from the states that have already voted would be.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 07, 2016, 12:12:22 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 07, 2016, 01:42:22 AM
    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.

    Yeah, Trump clinching before June 7 seems difficult, barring highly consistent Trump landslides or a Cruz dropout.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 07, 2016, 04:20:03 PM
    The Louisiana GOP has clarified the delegate count there (http://www.lagop.com/blog/2016/3/6/lagop-congratulates-donald-trump-on-louisiana-victory); as we had been assuming, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio split the CD delegates except in CD 4, where a particularly poor showing by Rubio in a strong Cruz district meant Cruz won 2 to Trump's 1.

    Final delegate counts out of Louisiana are then:

    Trump 18 - Cruz 18 - Rubio 5 - Uncommitted 5

    With Cruz likely to pick up the (non-binding) support of those Uncommitted delegates this Saturday, seems like Cruz may end up being the delegate winner out of Louisiana after all, despite his loss in the popular vote.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 07, 2016, 04:49:22 PM
    FHQ today did a piece on all the various delegate discrepancies (http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-delegate-count-reconciliation-quickie.html) among various media sources and each other.  I'm going to present my take here, state-by-state.  I'm ignoring states where CBS is the only dissenter, as they're just generally terrible.

    Arkansas: Only issue here is 2nd place in CD 3. CNN, The Green Papers, and I have called it for Cruz; FHQ and the AP have yet to make a call.

    Georgia: A couple of issues here.  First, there's a question of who took second place in CDs 4 and 13; CNN, the Green Papers, and I have called them for Cruz, whereas the AP and FHQ still seem to have them too close to call.  Second, there's the question of how the RNC members are allocated.  This is honestly ambiguous in the rules; CNN and I appear to put them as part of the At-Large pool, whereas FHQ disagrees and gives them to Trump separately.  The Green Papers has its own weird system for the At-Large pool which seems to be just wrong.

    Tennessee: Again, a CD results issue for CD 9.  The Green Papers, and I give Trump 2 and Cruz 1; FHQ and the AP leave it uncalled entirely.  CNN apparently gives Trump 2 and Rubio 1 here.  Until earlier today I agreed with CNN's count, due to a mistake in my reading of the rules for the At-Large delegates.

    Texas: The issue here is CD 33.  The AP count has Rubio winning a majority here (and thus all 3 delegates), while the TX SoS results would indicate Cruz winning 2 to Trump's 1.  CNN, FHQ, The Green Papers and I all side with the SoS here; the AP apparently realizes something is up with their count and hasn't called those three delegates yet.  Honestly, this looks like an AP data entry error: compare AP (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_cd/TX_GOP_0301_VD.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS) and SoS (https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_273_state.htm) returns.

    So, the discrepancies are really the GA rules issue and CD breakdowns in AR CD 3, GA CD 4 & 13, TN CD 9, and TX CD 33.

    Our resident CD vote tracker, Miles, has counts for AR and GA CDs (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=228104.0); my delegate counts agree with his results.  TX 33 is likely an error on the part of the AP; TN 9 is in principle still open, though our resident Memphis experts may know the answer already.  A Cruz second place finish seems highly likely based on the overall result and the geographical distribution of Rubio's vote (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=231253.0).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 07, 2016, 09:17:33 PM
    If Rubio were to suspend his campaign...

    What happens to his delegates?

    Remain Bound Regardless

    In Iowa, they would apparently remain bound to him on the first ballot, regardless.

    Released Automatically

    In New Hampshire, they would be released.

    In Nevada, they would be released.  Alternatively, Rubio could choose to reallocate them, in which case 5 would go to Trump and 2 to Cruz.  Rubio's dropout would also mean that if Carson chose to reallocate his delegates, the one that would have gone to Rubio would go to Cruz instead.

    In Oklahoma, they are released if he is "for any reason no longer a candidate."  I'm assuming this includes if he doesn't get placed into nomination at Cleveland, which would almost certainly be the case unless he decides to resurrect his campaign and Rule 40 is changed.

    In Louisiana, his delegates are released automatically.

    In Wyoming, it's unclear, but the Wyoming GOP Chair has said his 1 delegate would be released if he "isn't in the race by July."

    Reallocated Automatically

    In Alaska, if he is considered to have "dropped out," his delegates are reapportioned, 3 for Cruz to 2 for Trump.  What "dropped out" means is unclear, but the standard is probably "maintaining an active campaign," which he would not be doing if he suspended it.  Note that this would give Cruz a majority in Alaska, and thus another Rule 40 state.

    Released If He "Withdraws"

    In Georgia, his delegates become unpledged if he withdraws; suspending his campaign is presumably not enough to trigger that.

    In Tennessee, they are released if he "withdraws."

    In Hawaii, his 1 delegate is released if he candidate has "withdrawn."

    In D.C., they are released if he "withdraws."

    May Release Them

    In Alabama, he has the option to release his 1 delegate.

    In Arkansas, he may release his 9 delegates.

    In Massachusetts, he may release his 8 delegates.

    In Minnesota, he may release his At-Large delegates; it's unclear about his district delegates.

    In Texas, he may release his 3 delegates.

    In Kansas, he may release his 6 delegates.

    In Kentucky, he may release his 7 delegates.

    Unclear

    In Virginia, they appear to be still bound to him, regardless.  FHQ thinks (from similar discussions re: Carson's delegates there) that they likely would be released.

    In Puerto Rico, it's unclear.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 07, 2016, 09:59:03 PM
    Thank you for that delegate re-allocation.  I had been wondering what would or will happen when Rubio suspends.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Beet on March 07, 2016, 10:12:29 PM
    Louisiana Dem should be 37-14 Clinton, not 38-13.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 07, 2016, 10:31:02 PM
    Louisiana Dem should be 37-14 Clinton, not 38-13.

    Thanks for the catch!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on March 08, 2016, 01:00:42 AM
    Texas: The issue here is CD 33.  The AP count has Rubio winning a majority here (and thus all 3 delegates), while the TX SoS results would indicate Cruz winning 2 to Trump's 1.  CNN, FHQ, The Green Papers and I all side with the SoS here; the AP apparently realizes something is up with their count and hasn't called those three delegates yet.  Honestly, this looks like an AP data entry error: compare AP (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_cd/TX_GOP_0301_VD.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS) and SoS (https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_273_state.htm) returns.
    On election night, Rubio had been credited with 12,085 votes from the Tarrant County portion of TX-33, which pushed Rubio over 50% in the district. I looked at the results, and saw that the early voting and election day counts were way out of whack, and that there were lots more votes cast in the presidential preference primary compared to the congressional nomination race (you aren't going to have a 50%+ undervote in a contested race).

    Fortunately, Tarrant County had precinct results, and I was able to figure out the precincts in the congressional district, and calculate the presidential results, which showed that Rubio had received 1285 votes. I pointed this out to the Republican Party of Tarrant County, who forwarded it to the elections administrator for Tarrant County, who acknowledged the mistake, and also corrected the results reported to the SOS.

    The AP may have got their number from the SOS and not checked for updates, or got them from Tarrant County on election night. I got confirmation of the correction early on Thursday morning.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 08, 2016, 02:05:14 AM
    Texas: The issue here is CD 33.  The AP count has Rubio winning a majority here (and thus all 3 delegates), while the TX SoS results would indicate Cruz winning 2 to Trump's 1.  CNN, FHQ, The Green Papers and I all side with the SoS here; the AP apparently realizes something is up with their count and hasn't called those three delegates yet.  Honestly, this looks like an AP data entry error: compare AP (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_cd/TX_GOP_0301_VD.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS) and SoS (https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_273_state.htm) returns.
    On election night, Rubio had been credited with 12,085 votes from the Tarrant County portion of TX-33, which pushed Rubio over 50% in the district. I looked at the results, and saw that the early voting and election day counts were way out of whack, and that there were lots more votes cast in the presidential preference primary compared to the congressional nomination race (you aren't going to have a 50%+ undervote in a contested race).

    Fortunately, Tarrant County had precinct results, and I was able to figure out the precincts in the congressional district, and calculate the presidential results, which showed that Rubio had received 1285 votes. I pointed this out to the Republican Party of Tarrant County, who forwarded it to the elections administrator for Tarrant County, who acknowledged the mistake, and also corrected the results reported to the SOS.

    The AP may have got their number from the SOS and not checked for updates, or got them from Tarrant County on election night. I got confirmation of the correction early on Thursday morning.

    Yeah, the congressional race vote was what tipped me off this was likely a typo.  Thanks for making sure of it, and for making sure democracy works!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 08, 2016, 05:16:39 PM
    March 22 Democratic Primaries

    On the fourth Tuesday in March (March 22), the DNC "regional cluster" rules come into effect.  These give sets of three or more neighboring states a 15% delegate bonus, to encourage such regional primaries without frontloading the calendar.  Arizona, Utah, and Idaho qualify as such a cluster, and get the delegate bonus.

    Arizona (D)

    Overview
    85 Delegates (1.78% of total)
    Closed Primary
    50 District
    16 At-Large
    9 PLEO At-Large
    10 Superdelegates

    Details

    16 At-Large and 9 PLEO At-Large delegates are awarded based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are distributed among the CDs as follows: 8 for CD 2; 6 for CDs 1,6,9; 5 for CDs 3,5,7,8; 4 for CD 4.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (5): Rep. Ruben Gallego (http://medium.com/@Ruben_Gallego/hillary-clinton-is-the-right-choice-for-today-s-progressive-movement-c46ea1ca514f), Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, Kate Gallego, Carolyn Warner, Luis Heredia (http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/clinton-backed-by-4-of-9-arizona-democratic-superdelegates)

    Sanders (2): Rep. Raúl Grijalva (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Danica Oparnica (https://mobile.twitter.com/WPJohnWagner/status/712159232783552512)

    Uncommitted (3): Rep. Krysten Sinema, Chair Alexis Tameron, Vice Chair Bill Roe

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: AZ (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AZ-D)
    AZ Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.azdem.org/sites/azdems/files/PDFs/DNC%20Delegate%20Selection%20Plan.pdf)

    Idaho (D)

    Overview
    27 Delegates (0.57% of total)
    Open Caucus
    5 At-Large
    3 PLEO At-Large
    15 by CD
    4 Superdelegates

    Details

    Caucuses are held in each county, with the usual 15% threshold and re-caucusing procedure.  The county caucuses elect delegates to the State Convention based on Presidential Preference.  The State Convention (June 18) elects the 5 At-Large and the 3 PLEO At-Large delegates based on the preferences of convention attendees.

    The CD delegates, however, are bound based on the results at the county caucuses themselves: 8 in CD 1 and 7 in CD 2.  Ada County, which is split between CDs, will either have two caucuses or will appropriately split themselves at their own caucus.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (1): Carolyn Boyce (http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2015/nov/13/idahos-dem-super-delegates-one-has-committed-hillary-clinton-other-three-uncommitted/)

    Sanders (2): Pete Gertonson, Chair Bert Marley (http://magicvalley.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/idaho-superdelegates-say-they-will-back-sanders/article_c15b14b4-0680-5d6c-a0fa-3136a58c917b.html)

    Uncommitted (1): Vice Chair Van Beechler

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: ID-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ID-D)
    ID Delegate Selection Plan (http://idahodems.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2016-Idaho-Delegate-Selection-Plan-Finalized-02216.pdf)

    Utah (D)

    Overview
    37 Delegates (0.78% of total)
    Open Caucus
    7 At-Large
    4 PLEO At-Large
    22 by CD
    4 Superdelegates

    Details

    7 At-Large and 4 PLEO At-Large delegates are allocated on the basis of the statewide caucus vote.  The CD delegates are allocated based on the caucus vote in each CD: 5 in CDs 1,3; 6 in CDs 2,4.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (2): Vice Chair Breanne Miller, Patrice Arent (http://kutv.com/news/local/half-of-utahs-democratic-superdelegates-backing-clinton)

    Sanders (2): Chair Peter Corroon (http://www.sltrib.com/home/3697299-155/bernie-sanders-takes-bulk-of-utahs), Wayne Holland (http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2016/03/30/final-tally---sanders-gets-29-utah-delegates-clinton-8/82428352/)

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: UT-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/UT-D)
    UT Delegate Selection Plan (DRAFT) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/264374904/2016-Utah-Democratic-Delegate-Selection-Plan-DRAFT)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 08, 2016, 11:25:32 PM
    March 8 Preliminary Results

    Michigan: Trump 25 - Kasich 17 - Cruz 17
    Mississippi: Trump 25 - Cruz 15

    Trump just barely below the 50% WTA threshold in MS CDs 3 and 4.

    In other news, TN GOP (http://tngop.org/tngop-releases-preliminary-presidential-at-large-delegate-allocations/?platform=hootsuite) has certified Trump won CD 9, with Cruz in 2nd, confirming the count we had.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 08, 2016, 11:36:29 PM
    So TRUMP has another state where he has over 50% of delegates?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 12:55:08 AM
    So TRUMP has another state where he has over 50% of delegates?

    Yep, this is his 6th Rule 40 state out of the 8 he would need to have his name placed into nomination.

    In Idaho, Cruz wins a majority of delegates and gets his 4th Rule 40 state.

    Idaho: Cruz 20 - Trump 12

    Nominating Committee has some leeway in the rounding rules here, it could be Cruz 19 - Trump 13.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 03:25:10 AM
    Hawaii results appear to be:

    Trump 10 - Cruz 7 - Rubio 2

    Kasich is denied delegates due to Hawaii's rounding rules.  This Trump's 7th Rule 40 state; he will presumably win the last needed state on the 15th.

    Rubio wins a grand total of 2 delegates on the night.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on March 09, 2016, 09:03:58 AM
    MSNBC had on Ben Ginsberg (famous Republican consultant lawyer) and he said that the Rule 40 is based off the 2012 convention rules. He said that the number of states that you woul need a majority of the delegates in order to be on the first ballot will be determined by this years rules committee. He said it could be any number they wanted.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on March 09, 2016, 12:04:08 PM
    Your grand total for Cruz's delegates is correct, but in the state totals you have him earning just 10 in Mississippi, instead of 15 :)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 01:02:45 PM
    MSNBC had on Ben Ginsberg (famous Republican consultant lawyer) and he said that the Rule 40 is based off the 2012 convention rules. He said that the number of states that you woul need a majority of the delegates in order to be on the first ballot will be determined by this years rules committee. He said it could be any number they wanted.

    The impression I've gotten is that any rules change that would effect the balloting at this years convention would need to be approved by the convention as a whole.  In any other year, that might be a formality, but if it were to make a difference such a vote would be contested.

    Your grand total for Cruz's delegates is correct, but in the state totals you have him earning just 10 in Mississippi, instead of 15 :)

    Thanks for the catch!

    In other news, I had the rules in Hawaii wrong; the 3 RNC members are indeed allocated separately from the other At-Large delegates.  This switches a delegate from Rubio to Trump; Rubio now only won 1 delegate in last night's contests.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 01:54:43 PM
    Next contest up is the Virgin Islands GOP caucus, tomorrow (March 10); polls close at 5PM EST.

    Apparently, some ex-Rand Paul guys are trying to use the Virgin Islands as their personal rotten borough, according to this Washington Examiner article (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2585350).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on March 09, 2016, 02:13:49 PM
    Do you know how the 3 different components split for the Democrats in MI?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 02:19:59 PM
    Do you know how the 3 different components split for the Democrats in MI?

    At-Large: Sanders 15 - Clinton 13
    PLEO At-Large: Sanders 9 - Clinton 8

    Michigan has a large number of CDs with an odd number of delegates, which Sanders won the vast majority of, giving him a nice delegate haul despite the close result.  In particular, Sanders got a +1 delegate advantage from all odd-delegate CDs and split all even delegate CDs, except:

    CD 1 (UP/northern LP): Sanders won big here, resulting in a 4-2 split.
    CD 5 (Bay City/Saginaw/Flint): Clinton won here, giving her a 4-3 split.
    CD 13 (Detroit area): Clinton won here, giving her a 5-4 split.
    CD 14 (Detroit area): Clinton won big here, giving her a 6-3 split.

    Total in the CDs: Sanders 45 - Clinton 40.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 09, 2016, 02:23:53 PM
    Atlas' numbers suggest that the at-large tally should split 14-14, and CD13 6-3. Do you have different ones, or is the formula different than what I assumed?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 02:31:07 PM
    Atlas' numbers suggest that the at-large tally should split 14-14, and CD13 6-3. Do you have different ones, or is the formula different than what I assumed?

    You're absolutely right with the At-Large tally, and I've changed the main page numbers accordingly.

    I don't have good numbers for CD 13; I'm relying off of the Green Papers' count, which is quite incomplete.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 09, 2016, 02:40:34 PM
    Dave's Atlas (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?datatype=cd&year=2016&fips=26&off=0&elect=1&evt=P&def=1) has it as 64.76% Hillary vs. 33.90% Bernie. That rounds to 5.91 delegates for her.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 03:17:18 PM
    Dave's Atlas (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?datatype=cd&year=2016&fips=26&off=0&elect=1&evt=P&def=1) has it as 64.76% Hillary vs. 33.90% Bernie. That rounds to 5.91 delegates for her.

    I'll go with that, then.  I assume the vote total is higher than 46k?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 09, 2016, 03:57:22 PM
    Dave's Atlas (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?datatype=cd&year=2016&fips=26&off=0&elect=1&evt=P&def=1) has it as 64.76% Hillary vs. 33.90% Bernie. That rounds to 5.91 delegates for her.

    I'll go with that, then.  I assume the vote total is higher than 46k?

    Yup, 108K.

    Too bad. :(


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 09, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
    Do we know for sure how MS delegates break down, BTW?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 05:05:23 PM
    Do we know for sure how MS delegates break down, BTW?

    CD breakdowns are still tentative.  On the Republican side, it seems that Trump only hit the 50% WTA threshold in 1 CD.  On the Democratic side, Sanders only fell below the 15% viability threshold in 2 CDs.

    This could potentially change as better CD breakdowns come in.  The main uncertainties are in CDs 2 and 3, which split Hinds and Madison counties between them.

    On the GOP side in CD 3, where Trump is at 49.1% of the vote with 84% of precincts reporting.  Trump underperformed in Hinds and Madison relative to his statewide average, so I'm pretty confident in my call there.  In CD 2, Trump is at 54% of the vote with 76% reporting.  Here, it's going to come down to the precincts, but I am going to switch my call here and project that Trump comes down to below a majority here and loses a delegate to Cruz.

    On the Dem side, Sanders is below threshold in both CDs (11.4% and 13.9%, respectively).  Sanders is pulling above 15% in both Hinds and Madison, but only just (15.3% and 16.1%); it doesn't seem like it's going to be enough to pull him above threshold.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 09, 2016, 05:33:26 PM
    Well, crap. :(

    How many delegates are awarded in each CD?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 05:47:08 PM
    Well, crap. :(

    How many delegates are awarded in each CD?

    3 per CD on the GOP side.  On the Democratic side, it varies based on Democratic strength in the district (9 in CD 2, 5 in CD 3).  If Sanders reaches viability in a district, he'd only pick up 1 delegate.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 09, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
    If anyone can find results by Precinct in Mississippi (Hinds and Madison counties, specifically), I would be much obliged.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: cinyc on March 10, 2016, 12:08:40 AM
    Next contest up is the Virgin Islands GOP caucus, tomorrow (March 10); polls close at 5PM EST.

    Apparently, some ex-Rand Paul guys are trying to use the Virgin Islands as their personal rotten borough, according to this Washington Examiner article (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2585350).

    More on the not-yet-validly registered voters (according to the voter registration authorities) potential USVI delegates here:
    http://stthomassource.com/content/news/local-news/2016/03/09/new-gop-arrivals-removed-voter-lists-over-residency


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on March 11, 2016, 01:06:37 AM
    What happens with Carson's delegates when he endorses TRUMP? Do they go to TRUMP?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 11, 2016, 01:32:56 AM
    What happens with Carson's delegates when he endorses TRUMP? Do they go to TRUMP?

    Nope. Candidates do not have control over their delegates in that fashion.

    At the moment, it seems that his 6 delegates in Iowa and Virginia will be bound to him on the first ballot (Virginia is far less certain than Iowa).

    In Nevada, he has two delegates, which he can choose to release entirely, or reallocate them 1 to Trump and 1 to Rubio.

    None of these delegates are actually chosen by the Carson camp, so Carson will presumably have very little influence over any delegates he releases.



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 11, 2016, 01:49:02 AM
    Virgin Islands Results

    ()

    via Phil Kerpen and Decision Desk.

    John Yob, Erica Yob and Lindsey Eilon are part of the Yobs' rotten borough slate, and their eligibility to delegates may be contested.

    Gwendolyn Brady, Warren Cole, and George Logan are well established in the Virgin Islands, and will certainly not have their credentials contested.  Cole and Brady were Uncommitted delegates to the RNC in 2012, as well; they eventually both supported Romney.  Cole donated to Fred Thompson in 2008.

    If the Yobs are thrown out, the top three Alternates would be seated instead; Rubio would gain a delegate here.

    Regardless, a disappointment for the Cruz camp here; the Cruz effort was led by the same folks who spearheaded the Paul effort here in 2012.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on March 11, 2016, 08:15:48 AM
    I have a two part question about states where a candidate has the option to release his delegates to be reallocated among the other candidates.

    a) If the candidate decides not to release his delegates, do they remain bound to him on the first ballot (understanding of course that rules may vary on this from state to state)?

    b) If the candidate does release his delegates and they are reallocated, are the delegates then bound to their reallocated candidate on the first ballot?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 11, 2016, 12:35:01 PM
    I have a two part question about states where a candidate has the option to release his delegates to be reallocated among the other candidates.

    a) If the candidate decides not to release his delegates, do they remain bound to him on the first ballot (understanding of course that rules may vary on this from state to state)?

    b) If the candidate does release his delegates and they are reallocated, are the delegates then bound to their reallocated candidate on the first ballot?

    There are only three states that allow for automatic reallocation as far as I recall, so let's go through them on a case-by-case basis:

    South Carolina: If the candidate (in this case Donald Trump) is not placed in nomination at the convention, his delegates are instead bound to the 2nd place winner (Marco Rubio statewide, and Rubio or Cruz depending on the CD), or 3rd place if the 2nd place winner has also dropped out.  Regardless, the binding is only valid on the first ballot.

    Nevada: Candidates may, before the State Convention in May, choose to keep, release, or reallocate their delegates based on the results of the caucus vote.  (The default is release).  If they are released, they are free to vote their conscience.  If they are reallocated, they are bound to their new candidates on the first ballot.

    Alaska: If a candidate "drops out" (I think this includes suspending their campaign), all of Alaska's delegates are reallocated as if that candidate had received 0 votes in the caucus.  This binding  holds for the first ballot, and also for the second if the new candidate does not place last on the first ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 12, 2016, 09:27:13 AM
    March 12 Contests

    Clinton team reports a Clinton win (https://twitter.com/KeepHuynhing/status/708596002089865216) in the Northern Marianas, with a 61% vote share, good enough for a 4-2 delegate split.

    Also today are the Iowa County Conventions, where Sanders will be trying to court the support of the few O'Malley delegates to pull off a statewide win.  Counties to keep an eye on are listed here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4890373#msg4890373).

    On the GOP side, Cruz picks up one officially unpledged delegate in Guam.  Some were reporting 4 Cruz - 2 Trump, but that may just be a rumor.

    Also today is the DC Caucus, as well as the Louisiana State Convention, which will pick Louisiana's delegates (including the 5 Uncommitted ones).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on March 12, 2016, 01:17:48 PM
    At long last, the mystery of the final Iowa delegate will be settled.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 12, 2016, 03:03:44 PM
    At long last, the mystery of the final Iowa delegate will be settled.

    Hopefully! Tracking down some of these results may be problematic.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 12, 2016, 06:20:39 PM
    March 26 Democratic Primaries

    Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington qualify as a "regional cluster," and receive a 15% delegate bonus.

    Alaska (D)

    Overview
    20 Delegates (0.42% of total)
    Closed Caucus
    10 "District"
    4 At-Large
    2 PLEO At-Large
    4 Superdelegates

    Details

    The 10 "District" delegates are apportioned based on the statewide caucus vote.  The caucuses also elect delegates to the State Convention (May 14-15), which elect the 4 At-Large and the 2 Pledged PLEO delegates.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (1): Kim Metcalfe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/27/dozens-wait-for-sanders-wife-but-schedule-changes/)

    Sanders (1): Vice Chair Larry Murakami (http://cosmo-politics.com/2016/03/28/bernie-collects-another-superdelegate-after-alaska-blowout/)

    Uncommitted (2): Chair Casey Steinau, Ian Olson

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: AK (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AK-D)
    AK Delegate Selection Plan (http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54bee0c9e4b0441ce96c4681/t/5632a7cce4b04afbbe934cd9/1446160332323/2016+Alaska+Delegate+Selection+Plan+Final+rev.+10.29.15.pdf)

    Hawaii (D)

    Overview
    35 Delegates (0.73% of total)
    Closed Caucus
    6 At-Large
    3 PLEO At-Large
    16 by CD
    10 Superdelegates

    Details

    6 At-Large and 3 PLEO delegates will be apportioned based on the statewide caucus result.  8 delegates per CD will be apportioned based on the result in each CD.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (6): Sen. Brian Schatz (http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/03/mazie-brian-mark-colleen-and-kirk-raising-money-for-hillary/), Sen. Mazie Hirono, Rep. Mark Takai, Jadine Nielsen, Lt. Gov. Shan Tsutsui (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/01/13/aapi-leadership-council/), Russell Okata (http://www.staradvertiser.com/breaking-news/clinton-endorsements-include-hirono-ariyoshi-kouchi/)

    Sanders (2): Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-gabbard-idUSMTZSAPEC2S9JDNKG), Doug Pyle (https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-Publicly-Committed.pdf)

    Uncommitted (2): Gov. David Ige, Stephanie Ohigashi (Clinton 2008)

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: HI-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/HI-D)
    HI Delegate Selection Plan (https://hidems.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/hi-dsp3.pdf)

    Washington (D)

    Overview
    118 Delegates (2.47% of total)
    Half-Open Caucus
    22 At-Large
    12 PLEO At-Large
    67 by CD
    17 Superdelegates

    Details

    The CD delegates are allocated based on the caucus vote in each CD: 12 in CD 7; 7 in CDs 1,2,6,9; 6 in CDs 3,8,10; 5 in CD 5; 4 in CD 4. The 22 At-Large and 12 PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally based on the number of CD delegates each candidate won.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (10): Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Maria Cantwell, Sen. Patty Murray, Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Derek Kilmer, Rep. Rick Larsen, Rep. Dennis Heck, Rep. Susan DelBene, Rep. Adam Smith (http://komonews.com/news/local/poll-most-of-states-democratic-superdelegates-support-clinton-11-16-2015), Rion Ramirez (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml)

    Uncommitted (7): Ed Cote, Juanita Luiz, Sharon Mast, David McDonald, Chair Jaxon Ravens, Valerie Brady Rongey, Lona Wilbur

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: WA-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WA-D)
    WA Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.wa-democrats.org/sites/wadems/files/documents/2016%20DSAAP%20-%20Washington%20State%20-%20APPROVED_0.pdf)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 12, 2016, 10:38:06 PM
    March 12 Results

    In addition to the Guam and Marianas Islands results noted earlier...

    Wyoming elected 9 Cruz, 1 Trump, 1 Rubio, and 1 Uncommitted delegate at its County Conventions, as well as delegates to the state convention.  We may be able to forecast the results of the state convention based on these results in the next day or so.

    D.C. narrowly voted for Rubio over Kasich, with Cruz and Trump falling below threshold.  Rubio wins 10 delegates (and his 2nd Rule 40 state), Kasich wins 9.  

    D.C. is the last contest of this cycle that is required to be proportional.  States have the option to use Winner-Take-All starting on Tuesday, and 4 of the 5 states voting that day use it at least on some level.

    In Iowa, the results are in (http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-County-Convention-Results-PDF.pdf):

    Clinton 704 - Sanders 700 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1

    Sanders and company did well, it seems, but Clinton now has clinched a majority in Iowa (by 1 delegate) and I am awarding her the final delegate in Iowa.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: cinyc on March 12, 2016, 10:55:50 PM
    D.C. is the last contest of this cycle that is required to be proportional.  States have the option to use Winner-Take-All starting on Tuesday, and 4 of the 5 states voting that day use it at least on some level.

    The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is also voting on Tuesday - and the winner of the Republican presidential preference poll takes all 9 delegates there.  So it's 5 out of the 6 jurisdictions that use WTA on some level.  And the CNMI will be the first to do so, given the time difference.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: An American Tail: Fubart Goes West on March 12, 2016, 11:02:49 PM
    March 26 Democratic Primaries

    Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington qualify as a "regional cluster," and receive a 15% delegate bonus.


    So, just for being in the "same region," these three states all get 15% more delegates than they would otherwise?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ElectionsGuy on March 12, 2016, 11:08:46 PM
    March 26 Democratic Primaries

    Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington qualify as a "regional cluster," and receive a 15% delegate bonus.


    So, just for being in the "same region," these three states all get 15% more delegates than they would otherwise?

    Pretty stupid, but it should help Bernie.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Shadows on March 12, 2016, 11:31:23 PM
    March 26 Democratic Primaries

    Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington qualify as a "regional cluster," and receive a 15% delegate bonus.


    So, just for being in the "same region," these three states all get 15% more delegates than they would otherwise?

    Pretty stupid, but it should help Bernie.

    The appropriations of delegates often breaks with population, many states Clinton won big, shdn't have had so many delegates. This is what the system is.

    You lose some, you win some.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 12, 2016, 11:44:01 PM
    Iowa County Conventions

    Mostly, the results lined up with expectations based on the caucus results, but there were some exceptions:

    Projected: Clinton 699 - Sanders 690 - Unallocated 17
    Actual: Clinton 704 - Sanders 700 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1
    Change: Clinton +5, Sanders +10, O'Malley +1, Uncommitted +1

    Black Hawk County

    Projected: Sanders 36 - Clinton 32 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 35 - Clinton 34
    Change: Clinton +2, Sanders -1

    Clinton did much better than expectations; not only did O'Malley & Uncommitted swing to her, so did some of Sanders' support.

    Bremer County

    Projected: Sanders 5 - Clinton 6 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 6 - Clinton 6
    Change: Sanders +1

    O'Malley chose Sanders here.

    Butler County

    Projected: Sanders 3 - Clinton 2 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 4 - Clinton 2
    Change: Sanders +1

    Sanders won the coin flip.

    Cerro Gordo County

    Projected: Clinton 11 - Sanders 11
    Actual: Clinton 12 - Sanders 10
    Change: Clinton +1, Sanders -1

    Clinton gained support from Sanders here.

    Chickasaw County

    Projected: Clinton 4 - Sanders 2
    Actual: Clinton 3 - Sanders 3
    Change: Clinton -1, Sanders +1

    Sanders gained support from Clinton here.

    Crawford County

    Projected: Clinton 2 - Sanders 2 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Clinton 3 - Sanders 2
    Change: Clinton +1

    O'Malley chose Clinton here.

    Decatur County

    Projected: Sanders 1 - Clinton 1 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 2 - Clinton 1
    Change: Sanders +1

    O'Malley and Uncommitted sided with Sanders and won the coin toss.

    Delaware County

    Projected: 3 Sanders - 4 Clinton - 1 Unallocated
    Actual: 4 Sanders - 4 Clinton
    Change: Sanders +1

    O'Malley sided with Sanders.

    Dickinson County

    Projected: 3 Clinton - 4 Sanders
    Actual: 4 Clinton - 3 Sanders
    Change: Clinton +1, Sanders -1

    Sanders support bled to Clinton.

    Fremont County

    Projected: Sanders 1 - Clinton 1 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 2 - Clinton 1
    Change: Sanders +1

    O'Malley sided with Sanders.

    Henry County

    Projected: Sanders 3 - Clinton 3 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Clinton 4 - Sanders 3
    Change: Clinton +1

    Clinton wins the coin flip.

    Jackson County

    Projected: Sanders 4 - Clinton 4 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Clinton 5 - Sanders 4
    Change: Clinton +1

    O'Malley sided with Clinton (or Clinton won a coin flip).

    Jasper County

    Projected: Sanders 8 - Clinton 9 - Unallocated
    Actual: Clinton 10 - Sanders 8
    Change: Clinton +1

    O'Malley did not break hard enough for Sanders for him to pick up the last delegate.

    Jefferson County

    Projected: Clinton 2 - Sanders 7
    Actual: Clinton 3 - Sanders 6
    Change: Clinton +1, Sanders -1

    Sanders support bled to Clinton.

    Johnson County

    Projected: Clinton 37 - Sanders 55
    Actual: Clinton 38 - Sanders 54
    Change: Clinton +1, Sanders -1

    Sanders support bled to Clinton.

    Keokuk County

    Projected: Sanders 1 - Clinton 2 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 1 - Clinton 3
    Change: Clinton +1

    O'Malley sided with Clinton or she won the coin flip.

    Linn County

    Projected: Sanders 63 - Clinton 57 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 63 - Clinton 58
    Change: Clinton +1

    O'Malley did not side with Sanders.

    Marion County

    Projected: Sanders 6 - Clinton 6 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 6 - Clinton 7
    Change: Clinton +1

    O'Malley did not break hard enough for Sanders.

    Mills County

    Projected: Clinton 3 - Sanders 2
    Actual: Clinton 2 - Sanders 1 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1
    Change: Clinton -1, Sanders -1, O'Malley +1, Uncommitted +1

    Clearly, the Sanders camp tried something here, and it may have worked.  The delegation going into the convention was Clinton 23 - Sanders 22.  I'm guessing the Sanders camp split into groups of 7, 7, and 8, each of them making viability and getting a delegate.  Don't know whether the Clinton camp attempted to fight them for control of one of the delegations, or whether they were taken off guard.

    Monroe County

    Projected: Sanders 1 - Clinton 1 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 2 - Clinton 1
    Change: Sanders +1

    O'Malley sided with Sanders.

    Plymouth County

    Projected: Clinton 3 - Sanders 4
    Actual: Clinton 3 - Sanders 6
    Change: Clinton +1, Sanders -1

    Sanders support bled to Clinton.

    Polk County

    Projected: Sanders 105 - Clinton 121 - Unallocated 2
    Actual: Sanders 113 - Clinton 115
    Change: Sanders +8, Clinton -6

    O'Malley sided with Sanders, who also bled a significant amount of support off from Clinton.

    Pottawattamie County

    Projected: Sanders 16 - Clinton 15
    Actual: Sanders 14 - Clinton 17
    Change: Sanders -2, Clinton +2

    Sanders bled significant support to Clinton.

    Scott County

    Projected: Sanders 41 - Clinton 40 - Unallocated 1
    Actual: Sanders 42 - Clinton 40
    Change: Sanders +1

    O'Malley did not side with Clinton.

    Warren County

    Projected: Sanders 10 - Clinton 12
    Actual: Sanders 9 - Clinton 13
    Change: Sanders -1, Clinton +1

    Sanders support bled to Clinton.

    Webster County

    Projected: Sanders 7 - Clinton 9
    Actual: Sanders 8 - Clinton 8
    Change: Sanders +1, Clinton -1

    Clinton support bled to Sanders.

    Wright County

    Projected: Sanders 2 - Clinton 3
    Actual: Sanders 3 - Clinton 2
    Change: Sanders +1, Clinton -1

    Clinton support bled to Sanders.

    Analysis to follow.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 13, 2016, 12:31:35 AM
    Iowa County Conventions: Summary

    Three main sources of differences between my initial projections and the final count:

    Assigning of "Unallocated" Delegates

    17 delegates had unsure outcomes due to the presence of O'Malley or Uncommitted delegates (15), or due to effective ties requiring coin flips (2).

    Clinton won 8 of these, while Sanders won 9 (they split the coin flips).  Not a great result for Sanders.

    Enthusiasm Gap / Delegates Switching Sides

    In 18 cases, there were enough no-shows or people changing their minds to flip delegates that had been projected from one side to the other.

    On net, Sanders gained 2 delegates from Clinton this way.  He did really well in Polk County (Des Moines), where he picked up at least 6 delegates from Clinton, but on net bled to Clinton in the rest of the state.

    Tactical Voting

    As discussed above, a clever play by the Sanders camp in Mills County moved a delegate from Clinton and Sanders to Uncommitted and O'Malley (who had no initial representation).  Who actually chose the Uncommitted and O'Malley delegates is a different question, of course.

    Final Results

    Clinton 704 - Sanders 700 - O'Malley 1 - Uncommitted 1.

    Note that if Clinton loses even 1 delegate, she is no longer guaranteed the win at the State Convention.  This flip could only come from someone switching sides or Clinton folks failing to show up.  It's entirely possible, but these should be really committed folks at this point.  As a result, on the main page I'm calling the final delegate for Clinton, though I will be marking it with an asterisk (as with the other caucus/convention states).

    COIN FLIP CONSPIRACY

    If Clinton had lost the coin flip in Henry County, she'd be at 703 delegates and would not have a majority.  Of course, she also lost two other coin flips today, but who's counting.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 13, 2016, 12:49:43 AM
    As discussed above, a clever play by the Sanders camp in Mills County moved a delegate from Clinton and Sanders to Uncommitted and O'Malley (who had no initial representation).  Who actually chose the Uncommitted and O'Malley delegates is a different question, of course.

    Holy crap that's so sneaky. So it's probably 704-702.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 13, 2016, 12:55:41 AM
    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. (http://www.kcci.com/news/supporters-leave-county-democratic-convention-in-frustration/38484946)

    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.

    EDIT: More discussion in this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=232023.0).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 13, 2016, 12:59:38 AM
    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. (http://www.kcci.com/news/supporters-leave-county-democratic-convention-in-frustration/38484946)

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 13, 2016, 01:01:43 AM
    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.

    That makes a lot of sense, thanks for bringing me back from the deep end there.  We'll see how this plays out.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 13, 2016, 01:08:20 AM
    As discussed above, a clever play by the Sanders camp in Mills County moved a delegate from Clinton and Sanders to Uncommitted and O'Malley (who had no initial representation).  Who actually chose the Uncommitted and O'Malley delegates is a different question, of course.

    Holy crap that's so sneaky. So it's probably 704-702.

    It's something I'd thought about, but I never thought anyone would have the balls to pull off.  If the Clinton camp saw this coming (they probably didn't), they could have countered it though.

    Assuming everyone showed up to the convention and no one switched sides, initial count was:

    Clinton 23 - Sanders 22

    Viability (15%) is 7.  The Sanders camp splits into three groups:

    Clinton 23 - Sanders 8 - O'Malley 7 - Uncommitted 7

    If Clinton sees this coming, she can counter it by moving her own supporters to O'Malley or Uncommitted (but not both):

    Clinton 15 - Sanders 8 - O'Malley 15 - Uncommitted 7

    This gets complicated quickly, but the Clinton delegates, if they played it right, might have been able to still pick 3 delegates, even though they weren't technically Clinton delegates.

    Most likely they just simply got played, though.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 13, 2016, 01:17:55 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 13, 2016, 01:20:53 AM
    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.

    The technical reason I held off calling it on the front page is we didn't know how O'Malley supporters were going to break.  Now we do, and it seems they split pretty evenly (actually in favor of Clinton in Polk, if you believe it).

    Sanders could very well flip the state at the state convention, and I'll note that on the main page; but for the purposes of the count I'm going to come in line with literally every other source and give Clinton a 23rd delegate.



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on March 13, 2016, 01:32:47 AM
    What happens with Carson's delegates when he endorses TRUMP? Do they go to TRUMP?

    Nope. Candidates do not have control over their delegates in that fashion.

    At the moment, it seems that his 6 delegates in Iowa and Virginia will be bound to him on the first ballot (Virginia is far less certain than Iowa).

    In Nevada, he has two delegates, which he can choose to release entirely, or reallocate them 1 to Trump and 1 to Rubio.

    None of these delegates are actually chosen by the Carson camp, so Carson will presumably have very little influence over any delegates he releases.



    Are there any states where Rubio has delegates, where he'd lose them on the first ballot if he drops out of the race this week?  I'm thinking that he may want to "sort of drop out but not really", by ceasing to campaign but keeping his delegates in hand in order have leverage over forcing a contested convention down the road, should that opportunity arise.  If "suspending his campaign" would result in his delegates in certain states becoming free agents, then maybe he'll figure out a way to suspend his campaign without legally calling it that.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on March 13, 2016, 01:35:02 AM
    Honestly, to me this whole caucus process seems to serve only as a confrontation arena to increase negative rhetoric and turn people with very similar political ideologies against one another. In the words of the immortal John Oliver, "How is this still a thing?"


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on March 13, 2016, 01:38:41 AM
    In the words of the immortal John Oliver, "How is this still a thing?"

    How did he manage to become immortal?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on March 13, 2016, 01:42:53 AM
    In the words of the immortal John Oliver, "How is this still a thing?"

    How did he manage to become immortal?


    My bad, I meant the immortal words of John Oliver. It's been a long day.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on March 13, 2016, 06:59:14 AM
    Another delegate question:

    Illinois (R): March 15

    Overview
    69 Delegates (2.79% of total)
    Open Primary
    15 At-Large (Winner Take All)
    54 District (directly elected)

    Delegate Allocation and Selection

    A presidential preference poll is on the ballot; the winner of this poll wins all 15 At-Large delegates.  12 of these are chosen at the State Convention on May 22.

    Additionally, voters directly vote for 3 delegates running for a slot within their CD; the delegate candidates have their Presidential preference listed on the ballot.  All current candidates have a complete slate of delegates.  The top three delegate vote-getters in each CD get their ticket punched to Cleveland.  Voters are not obliged to vote for delegates who match the candidate they voted for in the preference poll.  Often, there are some personally popular delegate candidates who can get elected on the strength of their name alone (e.g. in 2008, Dennis Hastert, a Romney delegate, was elected in his CD despite a McCain win there in the preference poll).

    In the 2012 results here on Atlas:

    https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=17&f=1&off=0&elect=2

    it says that in the 2012 GOP primary results in Illinois, there were 15 delegates "unallocated".  Is that a mistake?  Or does the delegate allocation process allow such a large number of unallocated delegates in Illinois?  (Were these district level delegates that expressed no presidential preference on the ballot?)  Would we be likely to see a repeat of that this time, or are the rules now different?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Smash255 on March 13, 2016, 10:39:05 AM
    Another delegate question:

    Illinois (R): March 15

    Overview
    69 Delegates (2.79% of total)
    Open Primary
    15 At-Large (Winner Take All)
    54 District (directly elected)

    Delegate Allocation and Selection

    A presidential preference poll is on the ballot; the winner of this poll wins all 15 At-Large delegates.  12 of these are chosen at the State Convention on May 22.

    Additionally, voters directly vote for 3 delegates running for a slot within their CD; the delegate candidates have their Presidential preference listed on the ballot.  All current candidates have a complete slate of delegates.  The top three delegate vote-getters in each CD get their ticket punched to Cleveland.  Voters are not obliged to vote for delegates who match the candidate they voted for in the preference poll.  Often, there are some personally popular delegate candidates who can get elected on the strength of their name alone (e.g. in 2008, Dennis Hastert, a Romney delegate, was elected in his CD despite a McCain win there in the preference poll).

    In the 2012 results here on Atlas:

    https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=17&f=1&off=0&elect=2

    it says that in the 2012 GOP primary results in Illinois, there were 15 delegates "unallocated".  Is that a mistake?  Or does the delegate allocation process allow such a large number of unallocated delegates in Illinois?  (Were these district level delegates that expressed no presidential preference on the ballot?)  Would we be likely to see a repeat of that this time, or are the rules now different?



    Illinois had 15 unpledged or Superdelegates in 2012. 

    As per Green Papers

    Quote

    Illinois' 12 (10 at-large + 2 bonus) delegates are chosen by the State's Republican Party Convention will go to the Republican National Convention officially unbound.
    In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, will attend the convention as unbound delegates by virtue of their position


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 13, 2016, 11:58:54 AM
    What happens with Carson's delegates when he endorses TRUMP? Do they go to TRUMP?

    Nope. Candidates do not have control over their delegates in that fashion.

    At the moment, it seems that his 6 delegates in Iowa and Virginia will be bound to him on the first ballot (Virginia is far less certain than Iowa).

    In Nevada, he has two delegates, which he can choose to release entirely, or reallocate them 1 to Trump and 1 to Rubio.

    None of these delegates are actually chosen by the Carson camp, so Carson will presumably have very little influence over any delegates he releases.



    Are there any states where Rubio has delegates, where he'd lose them on the first ballot if he drops out of the race this week?  I'm thinking that he may want to "sort of drop out but not really", by ceasing to campaign but keeping his delegates in hand in order have leverage over forcing a contested convention down the road, should that opportunity arise.  If "suspending his campaign" would result in his delegates in certain states becoming free agents, then maybe he'll figure out a way to suspend his campaign without legally calling it that.


    Yep, though the language is often unclear.  Here's my earlier post on Rubio's delegates (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4959464#msg4959464), which I will update with his more recent results soon.

    They are technically only released upon Rubio suspending his campaign in Louisiana, Nevada, and Alaska, although we can only really be certain about Louisiana.  There may be a loophole in Nevada (technically they're only released if you suspend after the State Convention), but there's also a loophole to prevent a zombie campaign (they are released if you "otherwise discontinue [the] campaign").  In Alaska, the language for automatic reallocation is not very clear, but "maintaining an active campaign" appears to be the requirement.

    Not sure whether that sort of weird limbo would be worth it to keep his 5 delegates in Louisiana.  In all other states, delegates are released only if he withdraws, officially releases them, or is "not a candidate" before the National Convention (which we wouldn't know technically until the first ballot).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 13, 2016, 01:19:08 PM
    Some more details on the continuing Yob legal battle. (http://viconsortium.com/politics/in-upset-john-yob-other-newcomers-unseat-local-mainstays-in-republican-caucus/)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on March 13, 2016, 06:27:14 PM
    Another delegate question:

    Illinois (R): March 15

    Overview
    69 Delegates (2.79% of total)
    Open Primary
    15 At-Large (Winner Take All)
    54 District (directly elected)

    Delegate Allocation and Selection

    A presidential preference poll is on the ballot; the winner of this poll wins all 15 At-Large delegates.  12 of these are chosen at the State Convention on May 22.

    Additionally, voters directly vote for 3 delegates running for a slot within their CD; the delegate candidates have their Presidential preference listed on the ballot.  All current candidates have a complete slate of delegates.  The top three delegate vote-getters in each CD get their ticket punched to Cleveland.  Voters are not obliged to vote for delegates who match the candidate they voted for in the preference poll.  Often, there are some personally popular delegate candidates who can get elected on the strength of their name alone (e.g. in 2008, Dennis Hastert, a Romney delegate, was elected in his CD despite a McCain win there in the preference poll).

    In the 2012 results here on Atlas:

    https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2012&fips=17&f=1&off=0&elect=2

    it says that in the 2012 GOP primary results in Illinois, there were 15 delegates "unallocated".  Is that a mistake?  Or does the delegate allocation process allow such a large number of unallocated delegates in Illinois?  (Were these district level delegates that expressed no presidential preference on the ballot?)  Would we be likely to see a repeat of that this time, or are the rules now different?
    The rules are different. I think that this is due to a tightening of RNC rules - if you have a preference poll, you have to use it. Illinois is a bit odd in that delegate candidates appear on the ballot (along with their presidential preference), and voters vote for the delegates from their CD. They could conceivably split their vote (since three delegates are elected, each voter may cast three votes). Some voters will likely only vote for one delegate.

    In 2012, two Santorum delegates won a seat because of a split vote among Romney delegate candidates. It appears that there may be some advantage to having a recognizable name. In 2012, Ethan Hastert (Dennis Hastert's son) finished quite a bit ahead of the other Romney delegate candidates. A Darrin LaHood had strong support as a Gingrich delegate. This may have cost Romney a delegate, since a Santorum candidate took the delegate slot.

    In some cases, the last delegate candidate for a presidential candidate had a big drop off, in other cases the first candidate had more votes, and the other two about the same. Voters also chose the alternate delegates.

    In 2012, there was a beauty contest, but it was ignored. In 2016, it will be used to pledge the statewide delegates. It appears that the delegate ballot will be down-ballot following senatorial and congressional nominations. Some voters will likely skip the delegate ballot.

    If stereotypes are valid, this may hurt Trump. The Cruz campaign has probably done a better job of targeting supporters, and will make sure they understand the ballot. If Trump relies more on a mass appeal, it may be difficult to communicate the nuances.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 13, 2016, 11:39:44 PM
    For those really interested in what happened in Polk County, here are two really long articles about them:

    The Polk County Democratic Convention Fiasco (http://www.bleedingheartland.com/2016/03/13/the-polk-county-democratic-convention-fiasco/)
    Polk County Democrats Convention Turns Into A Total Disaster (http://iowastartingline.com/2016/03/13/polk-county-democrats-convention-turns-into-a-total-disaster/)

    Interestingly, it seems like the last round of recounts hurt Clinton, as many of her delegates were older people who had to leave for medical reasons.  It didn't seem to help that the Sanders folks happened to get the more comfortable of the two rooms.

    Overall, a huge, embarrassing mess.  Credentials challenges seem possible at the State Convention, which could prove ugly.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on March 14, 2016, 01:17:19 AM
    In 2012, there was a beauty contest, but it was ignored. In 2016, it will be used to pledge the statewide delegates. It appears that the delegate ballot will be down-ballot following senatorial and congressional nominations. Some voters will likely skip the delegate ballot.

    If stereotypes are valid, this may hurt Trump. The Cruz campaign has probably done a better job of targeting supporters, and will make sure they understand the ballot. If Trump relies more on a mass appeal, it may be difficult to communicate the nuances.

    Do we have any numbers from either 2008 or 2012 as to how many voters voted in the beauty contest but didn't vote in the delegate election (or didn't vote for a full slate of delegates)?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 14, 2016, 08:52:19 AM
    I know this was probably mentioned earlier in the thread, but I don't want to dig.  Are all the GOP contests tomorrow WTA?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on March 14, 2016, 08:57:22 AM
    I know this was probably mentioned earlier in the thread, but I don't want to dig.  Are all the GOP contests tomorrow WTA?

    Florida and Ohio: WTA
    Illinois: 15 statewide delegates are WTA, 3 delegates are directly elected by each congressional district (total of 54)
    Missouri: WTA if over 50%, 12 statewide delegates are WTA, 5 WTA delegates by congressional district (total of 40)
    North Carolina: Proportional, no threshold


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 14, 2016, 08:58:27 AM
    I know this was probably mentioned earlier in the thread, but I don't want to dig.  Are all the GOP contests tomorrow WTA?

    Florida and Ohio: WTA
    Illinois: 15 statewide delegates are WTA, 3 delegates are directly elected by each congressional district (total of 54)
    Missouri: WTA if over 50%, 12 statewide delegates are WTA, 5 WTA delegates by congressional district (total of 40)
    North Carolina: Proportional, no threshold

    Ahh, okay, thanks.  I knew FL and OH were.  I wasn't sure about the other three.  What about Arizona and Utah on March 22?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on March 14, 2016, 01:08:51 PM
    I know this was probably mentioned earlier in the thread, but I don't want to dig.  Are all the GOP contests tomorrow WTA?

    Florida and Ohio: WTA
    Illinois: 15 statewide delegates are WTA, 3 delegates are directly elected by each congressional district (total of 54)
    Missouri: WTA if over 50%, 12 statewide delegates are WTA, 5 WTA delegates by congressional district (total of 40)
    North Carolina: Proportional, no threshold

    Ahh, okay, thanks.  I knew FL and OH were.  I wasn't sure about the other three.  What about Arizona and Utah on March 22?

    Arizona: WTA
    Utah: Proportional, 15% threshold, WTA if majority (Cruz will probably get a majority)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 14, 2016, 05:32:25 PM
    Per discussions here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=231876.msg4973305#msg4973305), I'm calling the remaining 14 delegates up for grabs in Wyoming for Cruz.

    This could change at the state convention, but a Cruz sweep here seems overwhelmingly likely given the results of the county conventions.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on March 14, 2016, 07:48:46 PM
    In 2012, there was a beauty contest, but it was ignored. In 2016, it will be used to pledge the statewide delegates. It appears that the delegate ballot will be down-ballot following senatorial and congressional nominations. Some voters will likely skip the delegate ballot.

    If stereotypes are valid, this may hurt Trump. The Cruz campaign has probably done a better job of targeting supporters, and will make sure they understand the ballot. If Trump relies more on a mass appeal, it may be difficult to communicate the nuances.

    Do we have any numbers from either 2008 or 2012 as to how many voters voted in the beauty contest but didn't vote in the delegate election (or didn't vote for a full slate of delegates)?
    The Illinois State Board of Elections has the results, but doesn't include information about undervotes, to make a definitive answer.

    933,454 votes were cast in the presidential beauty contest. Since it was top of the ballot, voters would be likely to vote in that race even if they understood that it didn't matter. Presumably, there would be emphasis placed on being sure to vote in the delegate selection area, and to vote for the proper number of delegates candidates. That is a fairly complicated message, without also telling  voters that their first vote doesn't matter.

    Compare - Top of the ballot:

    **********************************
    OR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
    (Vote for one)

    ( ) TED CRUZ
    **********************************

    Vs. Down ballot (below US Senator, Comptroller, and US Representative)

    **********************************
    FOR DELEGATE TO THE
    NATIONAL NOMINATING CONVENTION
    SIXTEENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
    (PLEASE NOTE:  Next to the name of each candidate for delegate appears
    in parentheses the candidate's preference for President of the United States
    or the word "uncommitted".)
    (Vote for not more than three)

    ( ) TIM BIVINS (CRUZ)
    ***********************************************

    In 2012, the number of delegates per district varied from 2 to 4 (two districts had two delegates, two districts had four, and all the rest had three). So I calculated the number of votes for Republican delegate candidates in each district, divided by the number of delegate positions for the district. This provides an estimate of the number of voters who voted in the district, assuming they had voted for the maximum number of candidates.

    Statewide, this gives an estimate of 810, 986 voters, or 86.9% of those who voted in the beauty contest.

    We can do the same comparison for the individual candidates:

    Romney: 88.5%
    Paul: 102.1%
    Gingrich: 116.4%
    Santorum: 75.9%
    Perry: 4.4% (one delegate candidate)
    Roemer: 8.9% (delegate candidate slate in only one district)

    Romney, Paul, and Gingrich had complete slates. Santorum did not have slates in 4 of 18 districts, but they were relatively small, with perhaps 10% of the vote. It is reasonable to assume that many of his supporters voted for Gingrich delegates, since by that point it was mainly a Romney-Santorum contest. It would be reasonable for Santorum campaigner to suggest voting for Gingrich delegates in those districts.

    The beauty contest was Romney 46.7%, Santorum 35.0%, Paul 9.3%, Gingrich 8.0%, Perry 0.6%, and Roemer 0.4%.

    In IL-13 the delegate vote share was Romney 52.3%, Paul 20.5%, Gingrich 27.2%
    In IL-7 Romney 66.4%, Paul 18.3%, Gingrich 15.4%
    In IL-5 Romney 64.6%, Paul 19.6%, Gingrich 15.7%
    In IL-4 Romney 56.0%, Paul 24.3%, Gingrich 19.7%

    So all candidates overperformed in these areas. Note that IL-13 had about half the total Republican votes. It is a competitive district (part of the Illinois Democratic dummymander) including parts of Springfield, and thus likely to have an appreciable Republican presence in the primary. In the other 3 districts, there may have been little effort to reach Republican voters, and Romney delegates may have picked up more of the Santorum support.

    If we compare the total vote for Santorum-Paul-Gingrich delegate candidates vs the three candidates in the beauty contest we get 85.1%, slightly lower than Romney, and likely reflecting leakage from Santorum supporters in the four districts.

    I also looked at the sum of the votes for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th candidates for each district. They vary, but in no consistent pattern. If voters were voting for one delegate, it was not necessarily for the first one. There is some personal voting for individual candidates:

    Dan Rutherford (Illinois Treasurer) received 20% more than the other Romney delegates.
    Ethan Hastert (former speaker Dennis Hastert's son) received 11% more than the other Romney delegates.
    Darrin LaHood (former Ray LaHood's son) received 60% more than the other Gingrich delegates. Darrin LaHood, since a 2015 special election is now the representative for the district.
    Richard Grabowski who was also seeking a congressional nomination received 20% more than the other Santorum delegates.

    We can also compare the delegate vote to the congressional nomination vote. It appears that there is a fairly consistent relationship in votes cast:

    (1) Presidential beauty contest;

    (2) Contested congressional nomination where Republican nominee was competitive (IL-12, IL-13, IL-16). All three districts are now Republican held.

    (3T) Contested congressional nomination where Republican nominee has little hope (IL-1, IL-2, IL-3).
    (3T) Delegate.

    (5) Uncontested congressional nomination. An incumbent will do a little better.

    So let's take the typical district with 3 delegates. We'll assume that every voter voted in the beauty contest. Most. but not all would vote for either three delegates, or one delegate, but not two (assumption by me).

    If none voted for one delegate then it would be about:

    100% beauty contest.
    88% 3 delegates.
    0% 1 delegate.

    To make up for a 1% drop in those voting for three delegates we have to add 3% to the one delegate districts. For example:

    100% beauty contest.
    87% 3 delegates.
    3% 1 delegate.

    The latter two categories can not exceed 100% combined so the upper limit is:

    100% beauty contest.
    82% 3 delegates
    18% 1 delegate.

    If we assume that a voter who votes for delegates votes for three delegates 90% of the time, then the best solution is:

    ********************
    100% beauty contest.

    85% 3 delegates
    9% 1 delegate
    6% 0 delegates.
    ********************

    Factors to consider tomorrow. There is a wide variation in Republican voters per district (roughly 10:1, 84K v 8K). All districts choose 3 delegates in 2016.

    A typical Republican voter in a heavily Democratic district in Chicago is not a typical voter.  If it is a black district, they might be among the few black Republicans. If they are white, they might be living in a safe highrise (this might be an advantage for Kasich or Rubio). But Kasich doesn't have a full set of delegates. In IL-4 (the Hispanic, earmuffs district) there might be some residual white working class Republicans, who might vote for Trump. Since all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, this might be an advantage for Rubio or Cruz, except most voters are Democrats.

    It might be easier to get voters to vote in both the presidential preference poll and the delegate selection, since it easier to say "be sure to vote for both, both determine delegates" and say it with conviction. In 2012 you might have to say "it is important to vote for both", but if you started explaining why it gets confusing.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 14, 2016, 10:05:11 PM
    In D.C., all the elected delegates were on the Rubio or Kasich slates; don't expect any surprises here at the convention.  Of course, what their second choices would be is another matter.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on March 14, 2016, 11:34:01 PM
    A typical Republican voter in a heavily Democratic district in Chicago is not a typical voter.  If it is a black district, they might be among the few black Republicans. If they are white, they might be living in a safe highrise (this might be an advantage for Kasich or Rubio). But Kasich doesn't have a full set of delegates. In IL-4 (the Hispanic, earmuffs district) there might be some residual white working class Republicans, who might vote for Trump. Since all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, this might be an advantage for Rubio or Cruz, except most voters are Democrats.

    Where is Kasich missing delegates?  Looking at this list (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_state/IL_Delegates_0315.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS), I see 3 Kasich delegate candidates per district in every district.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on March 15, 2016, 12:38:54 AM
    A typical Republican voter in a heavily Democratic district in Chicago is not a typical voter.  If it is a black district, they might be among the few black Republicans. If they are white, they might be living in a safe highrise (this might be an advantage for Kasich or Rubio). But Kasich doesn't have a full set of delegates. In IL-4 (the Hispanic, earmuffs district) there might be some residual white working class Republicans, who might vote for Trump. Since all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, this might be an advantage for Rubio or Cruz, except most voters are Democrats.

    Where is Kasich missing delegates?  Looking at this list (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_state/IL_Delegates_0315.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS), I see 3 Kasich delegate candidates per district in every district.

    I misread an article that said he didn't have enough signatures. In Illinois, a petition is presumed valid unless someone challenges it. He allegedly did not have enough signatures in six districts.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on March 15, 2016, 12:57:48 AM
    A typical Republican voter in a heavily Democratic district in Chicago is not a typical voter.  If it is a black district, they might be among the few black Republicans. If they are white, they might be living in a safe highrise (this might be an advantage for Kasich or Rubio). But Kasich doesn't have a full set of delegates. In IL-4 (the Hispanic, earmuffs district) there might be some residual white working class Republicans, who might vote for Trump. Since all Puerto Ricans are US citizens, this might be an advantage for Rubio or Cruz, except most voters are Democrats.

    Where is Kasich missing delegates?  Looking at this list (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_state/IL_Delegates_0315.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS), I see 3 Kasich delegate candidates per district in every district.
    I realized that you could get a better estimate by looking at counties that are contained  within a single congressional district, since the beauty contest and the delegate contests cover the same areas. Unfortunately, Illinois CD's chop counties a lot.

    LaSalle County (just outside the Chicago Metro) is entirely in IL-16. The delegate vote (divided by three) was 81.5% of the beauty contest vote. The alternate delegate vote count was 79.0%.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 15, 2016, 08:07:05 AM
    Trump wins the first truly WTA contest of the cycle, giving him all 9 delegates out of the Northern Marianas.  This is also his 8th state in which he has won a majority of the delegates, so Trump now qualifies to have his name placed into nomination at the convention under Rule 40.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 15, 2016, 07:36:15 PM
    March 15 Results

    Trump wins Florida and its 99 delegates.

    Kasich wins Ohio and its 66 delegates.  This is his first Rule 40 win, though with a Rubio dropout a D.C. Rule 40 win seems plausible as well.

    Rubio suspends his campaign.  This releases some of his delegates automatically.  I'm not going to change anything on the main page for a while (apart from AK, possibly).  I'll refer you to this post (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4959464#msg4959464) for discussion of what happens to his delegates.

    What should I do with Rubio's column on the main post?  Keep it around (there are a lot of delegates there); fold it into the Uncommitted/Other column?  Move Carson/Bush/etc into an "Other" column along with Rubio?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on March 15, 2016, 10:57:26 PM
    After the poor results tonight, TRUMP absolutely needs all 95 delegates from New York. He must win more than 50% of the vote there.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 15, 2016, 11:18:05 PM
    After the poor results tonight, TRUMP absolutely needs all 95 delegates from New York. He must win more than 50% of the vote there.

    Honestly, this night was about par for Trump.  That said, par for Trump is still, by my really dumb projections, still gonna end up around 40 delegates short at this pace.

    That said, it wouldn't take much for him to do so (or come so close he certainly wins on the first ballot).  Winning in Indiana or Maryland would do it, or even Nebraska or South Dakota.

    That said, there are also many states that might cripple him if he loses: California is the big one, obviously, but a loss in Wisconsin would be devastating, and being shut out of Pennsylvania would hurt big-time.

    There's then the open question of, if he's short by 40-60 delegates, is that really enough to stop him?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: pppolitics on March 16, 2016, 12:08:56 AM
    After the poor results tonight, TRUMP absolutely needs all 95 delegates from New York. He must win more than 50% of the vote there.
    New York is his 2nd best state after West Virginia.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 16, 2016, 09:03:02 AM
    Ides of March Democratic Results

    Clinton 393 - Sanders 298

    These are very preliminary results, based on shoddy or non-existent CD breakdowns.  In particular, I imagine Sanders' current delegate lead in IL will disappear once Chicago results come in.

    Clinton now has a 318-delegate lead in pledged delegates.  Sanders would need to win 57% of all remaining pledged delegates to tie in pledged delegates (let alone the supers).

    Especially given the results last night, I don't see Sanders cracking 57% of pledged delegates outside of the remaining few caucus states.

    If Sanders is going for a minority platform at the convention, he'll almost certainly have it by April 26.  I will continue tracking the Democratic side until at least then.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 16, 2016, 10:38:43 AM
    Rubio's Delegates (Redux)

    Considering just the first ballot here...

    Iowa (7) - remain bound "regardless."  This also applies to Carson's 3 delegates and 1 delegate each for Bush, Paul, Fiorina, and Huckabee.

    New Hampshire (2) - bound until Rubio "withdraws."  This also applies to Bush's 3 delegates.

    Nevada (7) - as he has "suspended," they are released or reallocated (Rubio's option). This also applies to Carson's 2 delegates.

    Alabama (1) - released automatically.

    Alaska (5) - if Rubio has "dropped out," (viz. does not "maintain an active campaign"), his delegates are reallocated, 3 to Cruz and 2 to Trump.

    Arkansas (9) - bound until released.

    Georgia (16) - bound until Rubio "withdraws."

    Massachusetts [8] - bound until released.

    Minnesota (17) - bound until released or Rubio "withdraws."  If Rubio un-withdraws, he'd get them back.

    Oklahoma (12) - bound until Rubio "is for any reason no longer a candidate."

    Tennessee (9) - presumably bound regardless, though perhaps released if Rubio "withdraws."

    Texas (3) - bound until Rubio "withdraws" or releases them.

    Virginia (16) - apparently still bound, but unclear.  This also includes Carson's 3 delegates here.

    Kansas (6) - bound until released.  

    Kentucky (7) - bound until released.  If they are released, they are reallocated on the basis of a secret vote of the whole delegation.

    Louisiana (5) - automatically released.

    Puerto Rico (23) - unknown.

    Hawaii (1) - bound unless Rubio has "withdrawn."

    DC (10) - bound unless Rubio "withdraws."

    Wyoming (1) - unclear, but presumably unbound as Rubio is no longer "still in the race."

    North Carolina (6) - apparently bound indefinitely.  This also includes Carson's 1 delegate here.

    Louisiana (and, trivially, Alabama) is the only truly clear-cut case where he loses the binding of his delegates now.  Nevada seems very likely, and Alaska seems likely as well.  New Hampshire and Oklahoma are less clear.

    The rest largely depend on whether Rubio is considered to have "withdrawn."  Presumably not, but let's keep an eye out on this.  Any election law experts able to weigh in on this?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on March 16, 2016, 11:25:08 AM
    Let us now try to estimate TRUMP's delegates in the remaining states.
    Or is it too early for such an exercise?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Beefalow and the Consumer on March 16, 2016, 12:19:41 PM
    Let us now try to estimate TRUMP's delegates in the remaining states.
    Or is it too early for such an exercise?


    I can attempt, using polls, some of them really stale.  Here are states with solid Trump leads and winner take all/most allocations:

    March 22:
      Arizona: Winner take all, 58
    April 19:
      New York: Winner take most, 95
    April 26:
      Maryland: Winner take most, 38
      Pennsylvania: Winner take most, 71 (54 unbound)
    May 3:
      Indiana: Winner take most, 57
    June 7:
      New Jersey: Winner take all, 51

    This is 370 just from six states that will be very, very hard for Trump to lose.

    Other states that Trump should have in the bag:

    April 26:
      Connecticut: 28
      Rhode Island: 19
      West Virginia: 34
     
    Total: 451, which Trump should win almost all of.

    States where Trump may be vulnerable to an upset:

    March 22:
      Utah: 40
    April 5:
      Wisconsin: Winner take most, 42
    April 26:
      Delaware: Winner take all, 16
    May 10:
      Nebraska: Winner take all, 36
    May 17:
      Oregon: 28
    May 24:
      Washington: 44
    June 7:
      California: Winner take all, 172
      Montana: Winner take all, 27
      New Mexico: 24
      South Dakota: Winner take all, 29

    Vulnerable delegates: 458


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 16, 2016, 01:24:26 PM
    Let us now try to estimate TRUMP's delegates in the remaining states.
    Or is it too early for such an exercise?


    I can attempt, using polls, some of them really stale.  Here are states with solid Trump leads and winner take all/most allocations:

    March 22:
      Arizona: Winner take all, 58
    April 19:
      New York: Winner take most, 95
    April 26:
      Maryland: Winner take most, 38
      Pennsylvania: Winner take most, 71 (54 unbound)
    May 3:
      Indiana: Winner take most, 57
    June 7:
      New Jersey: Winner take all, 51

    This is 370 just from six states that will be very, very hard for Trump to lose.

    Other states that Trump should have in the bag:

    April 26:
      Connecticut: 28
      Rhode Island: 19
      West Virginia: 34
      
    Total: 451, which Trump should win almost all of.

    States where Trump may be vulnerable to an upset:

    March 22:
      Utah: 40
    April 5:
      Wisconsin: Winner take most, 42
    April 26:
      Delaware: Winner take all, 16
    May 10:
      Nebraska: Winner take all, 36
    May 17:
      Oregon: 28
    May 24:
      Washington: 44
    June 7:
      California: Winner take all, 172
      Montana: Winner take all, 27
      New Mexico: 24
      South Dakota: Winner take all, 29

    Vulnerable delegates: 458

    My personal take here.  Trump needs 548 delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot, though falling a few short will probably be close enough.

    Definite Trump Majorities (285, of which 240 seem assured)

    Arizona (58) and New Jersey (51) seem absolutely secure in Trump delegate sweeps.

    West Virginia (34) likewise seems secure, although a small handful may slip through due to loophole primary issues.  Also note that it's unclear whether West Virginia's delegates are actually bound.  Presumably, those who filed under Trump are actually Trump supporters, but there does not seem to be a vetting process in WV.

    New York (95) has 50% WTA thresholds on the CD and the At-Large level.  Can't be entirely certain that he will hit that figure statewide, but 70 at least seems assured.  If he does hit it statewide, there's always the possibility he falls below it in some NYC-area CDs.

    Connecticut (28) a win seems assured (along with presumably a win in at least 4 CDs).  CDs are WTA, statewide is proportional with a 50% WTA threshold.  He'll pick up at least 17 delegates here, with all 28 possible if he does very well.  Keep an eye out for CD 4, though, which may be prime Kasich territory.

    Rhode Island (19) is proportional At-Large and by CD; this is likely to limit him to 9-10 delegates barring someone falling below the 10% threshold.

    Unclear (405)

    Pennsylvania (71) is a complete mess due to its loophole primary.  Kasich is obviously making a play for the state.  Trump win seems more likely than not, but whether that turns into any more than 17 delegates is another question.

    Delaware (16) is WTA.  It's an odd state (see McDonnell, Christine); voted for McCain on Super Tuesday 2008 and Bush right after NH in 2000.  Trump seems favored, though maybe Kasich would have an outside shot if he campaigns here.  The more wacko elements of the DE GOP would seem to favor Trump over Cruz.

    Maryland (38) is WTA by CD and At-Large.  MD seems like it would be a prime target for Kasich.  Trump isn't polling exceptionally well here, DC suburbs would be Kasich territory.  Whether they'd be enough to carry the state in a three-man race is unclear, though.

    Indiana (57) is WTA At-Large and by CD.  Odds favor Trump in a divided field (see Michigan and Illinois) but perhaps Kasich could make a play here with Rubio gone.

    Wisconsin (42) is WTA.  Odds seem to heavily favor Trump, unless Kasich steers well clear of the state.  Even then, it would be an uphill battle for Cruz.

    American Samoa (9) has an unbound delegation.  Could go for Trump, but I have no idea.

    California (172): the big kahuna, WTA At-Large and by CD.  I honestly have no clue, but I'd give the edge to Trump in a divided field.

    Likely Not Trump Majority (293, of which Trump wins maybe 38)

    Washington (44): Trump may be slightly disfavored, but the state is proportional so it doesn't much matter.

    New Mexico (24): I don't know, but it's proportional.

    Oregon (28): proportional.  Cruz seems favored, but Trump will still win some delegates.

    Utah (40).  Only question is whether Cruz hits the 50% WTA threshold.

    North Dakota (28).  Unbound, chosen by convention.  Trump has no chance.

    Colorado (37): chosen by convention.  I would be highly surprised if Trump wins more than 3 delegates.

    Nebraska (36): WTA.  Seems like Cruz country.

    Montana (27): WTA for Cruz.

    South Dakota (29): WTA for Cruz.

    TL;DR:  Giving Trump wins in all the states I'd favor him in puts him around 15 delegates past a majority.  That said, a lot of that is contingent on WTA or almost-WTA wins.  Basically, everything would have to go right for him to win an outright majority.  Obviously, results are going to be correlated, but Trump will probably have a shock loss in at least one or two of those states, which would push the outcome out past June 7 (even if it's decided before Cleveland).

    If he loses two or three of them, though, or one of them is California, then it's anyone's game and this thing is going to multiple ballots.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on March 16, 2016, 01:34:17 PM
    Good analysis. Are we sure Montana is Cruz country?

    EDIT: TRUMP is going to have to make a play for NE, SD and MT. He needs every delegate he can get. SD and MT are late enough that he may win them solely on his message of party unity.

    EDIT2: Unpledged delegates, as well as released delegates should be considered as possible TRUMP supporters.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 16, 2016, 01:51:05 PM
    Good analysis. Are we sure Montana is Cruz country?

    EDIT: TRUMP is going to have to make a play for NE, SD and MT. He needs every delegate he can get. SD and MT are late enough that he may win them solely on his message of party unity.

    EDIT2: Unpledged delegates, as well as released delegates should be considered as possible TRUMP supporters.

    All good points, though the unpledged/other delegates won't be resolved presumably before June 7, except perhaps in a very small number of cases.

    As a historical comparison, Kasich's win in Ohio marks the first time four different candidates have won GOP contests in the same year in the modern primary era.  (Recall that Ron Paul did not win the Virgin Islands in 2012 by any reasonable definition, or limit yourself to the 50 states if you wish).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: muon2 on March 16, 2016, 02:55:34 PM
    From what I see the AP has called the IL CDs where Cruz has delegates in the top three (IL-13, 15, 16, 17, 18) and he has 9 delegates out of those. The Kasich CDs are not completely called yet, but Kasich has four delegates that are called (2 each in IL-7 and 9). Kasich has two other delegates in third place but not called yet (IL-6 and 7). His two opportunities in IL-10 slipped away as the last precincts came in, though AP hasn't called the second and third places yet.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on March 16, 2016, 03:30:24 PM
    I can't speak for all members of Fairfield County (CT-4), but we're definitely the type that are receptive to Kasich.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on March 16, 2016, 04:04:06 PM
    I can't speak for all members of Fairfield County (CT-4), but we're definitely the type that are receptive to Kasich.

    Battleground Connecticut? You betcha!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: °Leprechaun on March 16, 2016, 07:44:11 PM
    Maybe nobody cares but one of the super delegates is endorsing O'Malley.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 16, 2016, 08:46:51 PM
    Maybe nobody cares but one of the super delegates is endorsing O'Malley.

    Dan Hynes? That's an old endorsement from when he was still in the race.  I doubt he's planning to vote for him at Philadelphia.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on March 16, 2016, 11:28:23 PM
    Erc can you start a blog and put all your posts in this topic on it? I keep wanting to link people to your stuff but I keep forgetting it's all just forum posts


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Oakvale on March 16, 2016, 11:28:57 PM
    ^^^


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 16, 2016, 11:29:15 PM
    Erc can you start a blog and put all your posts in this topic on it? I keep wanting to link people to your stuff but I keep forgetting it's all just forum posts

    Yes, Erc, please do this, because I want to link people to this all the time but I don't really want to link people to the Atlas Forum because then they'll see my nearly 40,000 posts.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 16, 2016, 11:30:59 PM
    I had been thinking of doing that this cycle, but never quite got around to it.

    I'll see if I can cook something up tomorrow.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: joshautry on March 17, 2016, 06:55:07 AM
    I'm new to this forum, and there's a lot of great stuff here. What I'm wondering is whether there's any way to keep track of how many unbound R delegates, if any, have came out saying who they'll vote for at the convention. I heard, for example, that the Virgin Island delegates were going to meet with the respective campaigns and then declare support for a candidate.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 17, 2016, 08:06:56 AM
    I'm new to this forum, and there's a lot of great stuff here. What I'm wondering is whether there's any way to keep track of how many unbound R delegates, if any, have came out saying who they'll vote for at the convention. I heard, for example, that the Virgin Island delegates were going to meet with the respective campaigns and then declare support for a candidate.

    Right now, the only unpledged delegate to declare is the governor of Guam, who supports Cruz.  Keep an eye out here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4906100#msg4906100), where I'll be trying to keep better track of them going forward.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: joshautry on March 17, 2016, 08:07:56 AM
    Thanks!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 17, 2016, 09:28:11 AM
    The new blog is up and running at the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com).  Just the main GOP post at the moment, but I'll be transferring more in the coming days.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Free North on March 17, 2016, 09:33:30 AM
    I can't speak for all members of Fairfield County (CT-4), but we're definitely the type that are receptive to Kasich.

    Agreed, I think Trump edges out a win in CT, but he wont win CT-4 although I could see him winning most other CDs.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 17, 2016, 03:47:09 PM
    The new blog is up and running at the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com).  Just the main GOP post at the moment, but I'll be transferring more in the coming days.

    The tumblr has now been updated to include all the GOP states that have already voted (plus Colorado and North Dakota).  Future GOP states, all the Democrats, and other support/explanatory posts will be migrated later.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 17, 2016, 07:49:37 PM
    Sanders just conceded Missouri, so the rest of the outstanding delegates can be awarded if you were holding off.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 18, 2016, 08:24:53 AM
    Consensus seems to be (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/710548640935366656) that Rubio is considered to have "dropped out" for Alaska purposes, so his delegates are reallocated there.  Cruz picks up 3 and Trump picks up 2.

    This gives Cruz a 6th Rule 40 state.

    Louisiana, where he apparently dominated the Convention, is also another likely Rule 40 target for Cruz.  We've confirmed that at least 2 of the Uncommitted (and potentially all 5) are for Cruz; he'd only need to pick up one of the Rubio delegates (which the convention also chose) to get a majority of the delegation.

    This would leave just one state for him to pick up.  Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, and even American Samoa are great targets, as is Guam.  And there are plenty of WTA Plains and Mountain West States coming in May and June that should be favorable to him, as well.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 18, 2016, 08:31:18 AM
    Erc, Alaska GOP actually gave 2 to Cruz and 3 to Trump, so it's a tie now: http://www.alaskagop.org/delegate_count_recalculated_after_rubio_suspends_flpfzejqkhsu9ueskitjoa


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 18, 2016, 09:06:44 AM
    Erc, Alaska GOP actually gave 2 to Cruz and 3 to Trump, so it's a tie now: http://www.alaskagop.org/delegate_count_recalculated_after_rubio_suspends_flpfzejqkhsu9ueskitjoa

    There is literally no math by which that is the correct way to do it.  Cruz will almost certainly challenge this and win.

    There is a complicated three-stage rounding formula, but pretty much no matter how you slice it, Cruz should get 52% of the delegates and Trump 48%, which gives you a 15-13 split after rounding.

    I am keeping my count as it is, though I will make a note of this on the main page.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 18, 2016, 11:27:34 AM
    I know you probably haven't thought this far ahead, yet, but is New York WTA or how are they divided up?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on March 18, 2016, 11:28:59 AM
    I know you probably haven't thought this far ahead, yet, but is New York WTA or how are they divided up?

    https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4940246#msg4940246


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 18, 2016, 11:31:38 AM
    I know you probably haven't thought this far ahead, yet, but is New York WTA or how are they divided up?

    https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4940246#msg4940246

    Thanks!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 18, 2016, 12:28:30 PM
    Erc, Alaska GOP actually gave 2 to Cruz and 3 to Trump, so it's a tie now: http://www.alaskagop.org/delegate_count_recalculated_after_rubio_suspends_flpfzejqkhsu9ueskitjoa

    There is literally no math by which that is the correct way to do it.  Cruz will almost certainly challenge this and win.

    There is a complicated three-stage rounding formula, but pretty much no matter how you slice it, Cruz should get 52% of the delegates and Trump 48%, which gives you a 15-13 split after rounding.

    I am keeping my count as it is, though I will make a note of this on the main page.

    Found a possible interpretation in the AK GOP Rules (http://www.alaskagop.org/party_rules) that gives a 14-14 split:

    Quote
    V.15.(f)(6) Delegates to the National Convention shall be apportioned to the Qualified Presidential Candidates by first determining the percentage of the support each Qualified Presidential Candidate received at each District Presidential Preference Poll pursuant to Article II, Section 13 of these rules, then multiplying that number by the delegates entitled to attend the State Convention from that district.  Alternate Delegates to the National Convention shall be similarly apportioned.

    Using this formula (rather than the raw votes) would give a 14-14 split based on the Trump-Cruz vote, assuming there's no intermediate rounding of the Rubio vote.

    This does seem to contradict (4) though, and does require a particular reading of (9).

    I'll update the count later.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on March 18, 2016, 03:31:20 PM
    The way things look now, every delegate could be crucial.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 18, 2016, 04:44:18 PM
    The way things look now, every delegate could be crucial.

    This is especially crucial as it makes the difference between AK being a Rule 40 state for Cruz or not.  I'll imagine he'll reach 8 states without AK, but it would have been quite nice for the Cruz campaign.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on March 18, 2016, 07:27:44 PM
    I know you probably haven't thought this far ahead, yet, but is New York WTA or how are they divided up?

    Bushie, Erc has already explained the delegate allocation rules for every state on the GOP side, yet you keep asking these questions.  Just go to the print version of this thread (so you can see everything on one page):

    https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=printpage;topic=226605.0

    and then search for whichever state you're interested in, and you'll find your answer for whichever state you care about.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 18, 2016, 08:19:25 PM
    I know you probably haven't thought this far ahead, yet, but is New York WTA or how are they divided up?

    Bushie, Erc has already explained the delegate allocation rules for every state on the GOP side, yet you keep asking these questions.  Just go to the print version of this thread (so you can see everything on one page):

    https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=printpage;topic=226605.0

    and then search for whichever state you're interested in, and you'll find your answer for whichever state you care about.


    I do apologize.  Thank you for this page.  I bookmarked it into my favorites.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 20, 2016, 09:17:30 PM
    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/


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 20, 2016, 09:41:08 PM
    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/

    I had not, actually, thanks for the tip!  The same thing happened in Iowa (to a small extent) outside of Polk County.

    Sanders' most vulnerable delegate in Colorado is in CD 3, where he got 61.5% of the vote; if he were to fall below 58.3%, he'd lose a delegate to Clinton.

    It's possible we'll have a better idea once the County Conventions finish on the 26th, if statewide results are reported; otherwise we'll have to wait until next month.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 21, 2016, 09:52:28 AM
    As expected, Sanders dominated in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary [voting ended March 8], winning 9 delegates to Clinton's 4.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 21, 2016, 02:09:22 PM
    Updated my tracking of the unpledged delegates.  A full account can be found on the tumblr (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/141443015159/unbound-gop-delegates).  If there's demand, I can also track them in a forum post, as well.

    The story at present is that there are 148 unbound delegates at the moment (6% of the total).  29 of these are former Rubio or Bush delegates who have been released due to their candidates' suspensions of their campaigns.

    Of those 148 (some of whom have not been chosen yet), 5 have endorsed a candidate: 4 for Cruz and 1 for Kasich.  Keep an eye out for further endorsements for Cruz in Guam and Louisiana, which may net him two additional Rule 40 states.

    There can be more unbound delegates if Rubio "withdraws" or releases his delegates, if explicitly Uncommitted delegates are elected at the Colorado or Wyoming conventions, if the West Virginia directly-elected delegates are considered unbound, or if Kasich is not placed in nomination due to Rule 40.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on March 21, 2016, 02:15:49 PM
    Updated my tracking of the unpledged delegates.  A full account can be found on the tumblr (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/141443015159/unbound-gop-delegates).  If there's demand, I can also track them in a forum post, as well.

    The story at present is that there are 148 unbound delegates at the moment (6% of the total).  29 of these are former Rubio or Bush delegates who have been released due to their candidates' suspensions of their campaigns.

    Of those 148 (some of whom have not been chosen yet), 5 have endorsed a candidate: 4 for Cruz and 1 for Kasich.  Keep an eye out for further endorsements for Cruz in Guam and Louisiana, which may net him two additional Rule 40 states.

    There can be more unbound delegates if Rubio "withdraws" or releases his delegates, if explicitly Uncommitted delegates are elected at the Colorado or Wyoming conventions, if the West Virginia directly-elected delegates are considered unbound, or if Kasich is not placed in nomination due to Rule 40.

    So for purposes of Rule 40, an unbound delegate making a personal endorsement counts toward the required majority? That seems crazy.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 21, 2016, 02:53:52 PM
    Updated my tracking of the unpledged delegates.  A full account can be found on the tumblr (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/141443015159/unbound-gop-delegates).  If there's demand, I can also track them in a forum post, as well.

    The story at present is that there are 148 unbound delegates at the moment (6% of the total).  29 of these are former Rubio or Bush delegates who have been released due to their candidates' suspensions of their campaigns.

    Of those 148 (some of whom have not been chosen yet), 5 have endorsed a candidate: 4 for Cruz and 1 for Kasich.  Keep an eye out for further endorsements for Cruz in Guam and Louisiana, which may net him two additional Rule 40 states.

    There can be more unbound delegates if Rubio "withdraws" or releases his delegates, if explicitly Uncommitted delegates are elected at the Colorado or Wyoming conventions, if the West Virginia directly-elected delegates are considered unbound, or if Kasich is not placed in nomination due to Rule 40.

    So for purposes of Rule 40, an unbound delegate making a personal endorsement counts toward the required majority? That seems crazy.

    The rule is that they need to demonstrate support from a majority of the delegation.  The only restriction is that if you are bound to a particular candidate, you may not support any other candidate for Rule 40 purposes.

    So, this does indeed open up the possibility of some states being Rule 40 states that did not show a clear preference for a candidate on the day of their primary itself.

    Most notable for our purposes at the moment are Louisiana, Guam, and Oklahoma.  Other possibilities, should Rubio release his delegates, include Arkansas, Minnesota, Virginia, Puerto Rico, and DC.

    Any Kasich path to Rule 40 would have to involve these; it's only really possible for him in DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

    I assume a state cannot count for two different candidates under Rule 40 (e.g. American Samoa's 9 delegates submit two separate letters saying they support Cruz and Kasich).

    There is another fun possibility, though:

    There is nothing saying that a delegate bound to a particular candidate has to sign the Rule 40 letter; they could simply choose not to.  Trump has seemingly won delegate majorities in enough states to qualify for Rule 40, but if many of the delegates pledged to Trump don't actually support him, they could just refuse to sign.  This raises the hilarious/grotesque possibility that Trump might not even have his name placed into nomination.  This is admittedly pretty remote, but it's worth considering.

    The only states that Trump can truly rely on for Rule 40 purposes are:

    Alabama, Tennessee, Hawaii, Illinois, and the Northern Marianas.

    That is only 5 of the needed 8; 2 more (WV & NJ) seem almost guaranteed.  This would leave 1 more, requiring a win of the majority of the delegates in any of CT, RI, MD, or CA.  This seems pretty likely (especially CT), so I wouldn't be too concerned about this possibility going into Cleveland.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 21, 2016, 04:28:49 PM
    Gary Suwannarat's (D-Chiang Mai) endorsement of Sanders means that totals for Sanders and Uncommitted will now be fractional.

    The Democrats Abroad superdelegates are the only delegates with a half-vote at the convention, a departure from earlier years, where all the territorial delegates had half votes.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on March 21, 2016, 07:43:08 PM
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruzs-stealth-delegate-hunt-1458604788

    Interesting article about Cruz's delegate poaching strategy.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on March 22, 2016, 04:11:51 AM
    This suggests that 40(b) only applied to the 2012 convention.

    GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-insiders-nominee-wont-be-limited-to-winner-of-8-states/article/2586357)

    Maybe there is some rule where the the rules from the previous convention, unless they are changed?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 22, 2016, 06:05:41 AM
    This suggests that 40(b) only applied to the 2012 convention.

    GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-insiders-nominee-wont-be-limited-to-winner-of-8-states/article/2586357)

    Maybe there is some rule where the the rules from the previous convention, unless they are changed?


    Any rules changes still need to be approved by the convention as a whole.  The Rules Committee can propose any changes it wants, but it would still need to be approved by a vote (albeit probably a voice vote) of all the delegates at the convention.  The fact that it's a voice vote gives Paul Ryan some power here, but a roll call vote may be requested if majorities of 15 state delegations do so.

    Assuming Cruz wins 8 states, both he and Trump may well have an interest in keeping Rule 40 as it is (plus they have the media-friendly argument that you shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game), so I do not believe we can dismiss Rule 40 entirely.

    The rules in the Call to the 2016 Republican National Convention still apply unless changed by a (voice) vote of the delegates at the convention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 22, 2016, 06:27:50 AM
    Wisconsin (D): April 5

    Wisconsin is the first state in Stage II of the Democratic primary process.  All states in Stage II (i.e. every primary & caucus in April) receive a 10% delegate bonus.

    Overview
    96 Delegates (2.01% of total)
    Open Primary
    57 District
    19 At-Large
    10 PLEO At-Large
    10 Superdelegates

    Details

    Groups of 19 and 10 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned based on the results in each CD: 11 in CD 2; 10 in CD 4; 7 in CD 3; 6 in CDs 1,6,7,8; 5 in CD 5.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (6): Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Gwen Moore (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Christine Bremer Muggli (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/03/26/14485/ready-hillary-courts-super-pac-skeptics), Martha Love (http://themadisontimes.themadent.com/article/clinton-talks-walker-and-women-during-thursday-rally/), Rep. Ron Kind, Michael Childers (http://elections.wispolitics.com/2016/03/kind-sixth-wisconsin-superdelegate-to.html)

    Sanders (1): Vice Chair David Bowen (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/First-Wisconsin-super-delegate-sides-with-Bernie-Sanders-374938061.html)

    Uncommitted (3): Rep. Mark Pocan, Chair Martha Laning, Jason Rae

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: WI (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WI-D)
    WI Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.wisdems.org/news/delegate-selection-plan)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 22, 2016, 06:34:10 AM
    March 22 Outlook

    Arizona is Winner-Take-All.  Trump should win all 58 delegates; if he somehow loses the state, it is a disastrous day for him.

    Utah is WTA if Cruz breaks 50%.  Otherwise, in a three-man race, it's essentially proportional with no threshold.  If Cruz doesn't break 50%, it's a bad day for him (and the anti-Trump forces in general).  Kasich has made a misguided play here based on a poor (or simply deliberate) understanding of the delegate rules.

    American Samoa is an unbound territorial caucus, in the same vein as Guam.  We may not know who "wins" here at all today.  Only 9 delegates at stake, but Cruz would still very much like them (and another Rule 40 state).

    Oh, and the Democrats are having some contests as well.  Sanders could actually have a shot at winning the most delegates today, for the first time since New Hampshire.  But it would require 2008-Obama-style wins in Idaho and Utah while keeping Clinton's margin down in Arizona.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: muon2 on March 22, 2016, 06:48:51 AM
    Erc, Do you foresee any time to update the Trump Tetris? It's a novel view, and it provides a surprising amount of insight.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 22, 2016, 12:04:23 PM
    Erc, Do you foresee any time to update the Trump Tetris? It's a novel view, and it provides a surprising amount of insight.

    Wasn't able to do it for the last week while travelling, but just got back and updated it, along with the map.

    Here's the latest versions (for posterity):

    ()

    ()


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on March 22, 2016, 02:08:16 PM
    Six of the nine uncommitted delegates from USVI were declared ineligible yesterday, so they've been replaced by the top six alternates; 2 more uncommitted, 2 Rubio delegates, 1 Cruz, and 1 Trump. So the new USVI total is 5U-2R-1C-1T (not sure about what happens to Rubio delegates from USVI -- perhaps they go to the uncommitted pile also? either way, Trump and Cruz have each gained a delegate).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 22, 2016, 02:20:39 PM
    Six of the nine uncommitted delegates from USVI were declared ineligible yesterday, so they've been replaced by the top six alternates; 2 more uncommitted, 2 Rubio delegates, 1 Cruz, and 1 Trump. So the new USVI total is 5U-2R-1C-1T (not sure about what happens to Rubio delegates from USVI -- perhaps they go to the uncommitted pile also? either way, Trump and Cruz have each gained a delegate).

    This does not mesh with my expectations.  The USVI has 9 delegates.  3 of these are delegates by virtue of being RNC members, so they are in no matter what.

    The other 6 were elected at the caucus on March 10.  3 of these (John & Erica Yob, and Lindsey Eilon) were the carpetbaggers whose residency was in dispute.  The other 3 (Gwendolyn Brady, Warren Cole, and George Logan) are long-standing residents of the USVI, and they had nearly twice the number of votes as the alternates who you're saying would replace them.

    What seems to have happened is that that USVI GOP Chair John Canegata (who is also a delegate by virtue of his position) has used some provision of the USVI GOP Rules which requires an elected delegate to accept their position in writing within 5 days of the caucus to throw out all 6 delegates.

    More details can be found at Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-ted-cruz-virgin-islands-221102) and TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/virgin-island-gop-chaos).

    This is a huge mess that is certainly going to result in a credentials fight at the convention.  As a result, I'm keeping the entire delegation Uncommitted for now for the purposes of the main page.

    John Yob responds (https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/712337779812900864/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfwl) that Canegata is not following the rules, and that they had never been officially notified that they had been elected delegates in the first place.

    The court case regarding the Yobs' and Eilons' residency is continuing, I believe, separately from all this, and there was a ruling expected yesterday.  My guess is that it was in the Yobs' favor, which meant Canegata responded today with this desperate maneuver.

    The full ruling from the USVI GOP (https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/712331426725830657)

    USVI GOP Caucus Rules (http://usvigop.org/1135-2/)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 22, 2016, 02:31:48 PM
    Here's the relevant section of the rules:

    Quote from: VI GOP Caucus Rules
    11.Certification of Results and Notification of Delegates and Alternates:

    Prior to the Caucus Date the Territorial Chairman shall designate a Subcommittee of no fewer than three persons who are members of the Territorial Committee and not themselves Delegate Candidates (the "Certification Subcommittee"). The Certification Subcommittee may consist of the same persons as the Dispute Subcommittee. Such Subcommittee shall meet as soon as practicable after the receipt of the tallies by the Territorial Committee in accordance with Section 8, above. Final certification of the results shall be made once it is determined that no practical differences in results can be obtained by any reasonable resolution of the status of Provisional Ballots and pending disputes or challenges. Those Delegate Candidates receiving the six highest vote totals shall be certified as Delegates. Those Delegate Candidates receiving the next six highest vote totals shall be certified as Alternates. Ties shall be resolved by a draw of cards. As soon as practicable after the certification of results the Delegates and Alternates shall be notified in writing of their selection. If applicable, notification shall include the identity of the presidential candidate to whom such Delegate is pledged. Each Delegate and Alternate shall have five days to confirm, in writing, that he or she accepts election as a Delegate or Alternate and is presently willing and able to attend the Republican National Convention. If any Delegate or Alternate fails to so confirm, his or her name shall be struck and the list of selected Delegates and Alternates adjusted accordingly. The Territorial Chairman shall then notify the Republican National Committee of the names of the Delegates and Alternates to the Republican National Convention.

    John Yob responds that:

    Quote from: John Yob
    The Chairman is not a dictator and can not unilaterally break the USVI GOP rules to hand select his preferred delegates.  He has unfortunately decided once again to either not read the rules or not follow the rules.  Either way, it is clear that the 5-day period is after notification that follows the certification of the election by the certification committee.  The dispute committee has not yet resolved the disputes, the certification committee had not yet certified the results of the election, we have not yet been notified following the certification, and therefore we will all still be delegates pending the official certification of the certification committee.  We are confident we will be properly certified by the certification committee.

    As much as John Yob is a weird, terrible carpetbagger, he's right here.  The disputes have not been resolved (and could not have possibly been before yesterday, which is not five days ago).

    The USVI GOP caucus was a shambles in the first place, but it's clear that John Canegata is straight up trying to steal it.

    In the event any Rubio delegates are seated, they seem to remain bound to him on the first ballot.

    Honestly, for 2020, the USVI GOP should be stripped of its seats at the convention until it is clear it has its act together.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: cinyc on March 22, 2016, 04:02:51 PM
    The court case regarding the Yobs' and Eilons' residency is continuing, I believe, separately from all this, and there was a ruling expected yesterday.  My guess is that it was in the Yobs' favor, which meant Canegata responded today with this desperate maneuver.

    John Yob confirmed on his Twitter (https://twitter.com/strategic/status/712360167384465408) that he won the court case, though the ruling might have been made today instead of yesterday:

    John Yob ‏@strategic  2h2 hours ago
    Thank you to the judge who granted our injunction today and acknowledged there is no 90-day residency requirement.  #USVIGOP


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 22, 2016, 05:08:22 PM
    I thought the maximum suggested requirement for residency was 30 days in every state, but maybe the Virgin Islands set it longer?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: cinyc on March 22, 2016, 06:16:49 PM
    I thought the maximum suggested requirement for residency was 30 days in every state, but maybe the Virgin Islands set it longer?

    Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court in Dunn v. Blumstein has held that lengthy residency requirements are unconstitutional, suggesting 30 days is perhaps the maximum limit.  And all states have residency requirements of 30 days or less (https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/vce/features/0502_01/slide1.html).  However, under the Insular Cases, the U.S. Constitution doesn't necessarily apply to the territories, so the U.S. Virgin Islands are arguably allowed to have a longer residency requirement as long as Congress doesn't proscribe them from doing so.  

    The actual Virgin Islands law was vague on whether the 90-day residency requirement was measured from the general election date only, and irrelevant in determining whether someone was resident enough to vote in a party caucus.  The Virgin Islands court apparently found the latter, though we need more than a tweet from John Yob to be sure of the actual rationale of the court's ruling.  It could have been that, or it could have been that a 90-day residency requirement is unconstitutional, particularly for a presidential election, or it could have been that Yob was a resident for 90 days, anyway.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: muon2 on March 22, 2016, 06:39:01 PM
    Erc, Do you foresee any time to update the Trump Tetris? It's a novel view, and it provides a surprising amount of insight.

    Wasn't able to do it for the last week while travelling, but just got back and updated it, along with the map.

    Here's the latest versions (for posterity):

    ()

    ()

    Thanks!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 12:43:21 AM
    March 22 Results

    In a surprise to no one, Trump sweeps Arizona, Cruz Utah, and Uncommitted American Samoa.

    Sanders had a good night; this is likely to be the first night where he wins a majority of pledged delegates since New Hampshire.

    We now get some time off on the GOP side; the next binding contest is Wisconsin in two weeks.  The North Dakota state convention will occur the previous weekend, but will elect a slate of officially Uncommitted delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on March 23, 2016, 12:50:04 AM
    Uncommentum!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on March 23, 2016, 03:40:06 AM
    This suggests that 40(b) only applied to the 2012 convention.

    GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-insiders-nominee-wont-be-limited-to-winner-of-8-states/article/2586357)

    Maybe there is some rule where the the rules from the previous convention, unless they are changed?


    Any rules changes still need to be approved by the convention as a whole.  The Rules Committee can propose any changes it wants, but it would still need to be approved by a vote (albeit probably a voice vote) of all the delegates at the convention.  The fact that it's a voice vote gives Paul Ryan some power here, but a roll call vote may be requested if majorities of 15 state delegations do so.

    Assuming Cruz wins 8 states, both he and Trump may well have an interest in keeping Rule 40 as it is (plus they have the media-friendly argument that you shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game), so I do not believe we can dismiss Rule 40 entirely.

    The rules in the Call to the 2016 Republican National Convention still apply unless changed by a (voice) vote of the delegates at the convention.
    40b was enacted at the 2012 convention to keep Paul from being nominated.

    If it is changed, it will be because it is advantageous to those supporting the change.

    If it is changed, it will be argued by the proponents that the convention should not be tied to a previous convention. The losers will whine that the rules shouldn't be changed in midstream. That will persuade about 0.7% of delegates to switch to no.

    If it is changed, it will be argued by the proponents that rules shouldn't be changed at this late date. The losers will whine that the convention should not be tied to a previous convention. That will persuade about 0.3% of delegates to switch to yes.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: / on March 23, 2016, 06:42:56 AM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 09:29:29 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gustaf on March 23, 2016, 10:43:06 AM
    Right now, NYT is reporting a Clinton lead of 1214-911 while CNN has it at 1229-912. Anyone know what the discrepancy is?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 10:51:42 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gustaf on March 23, 2016, 11:00:00 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 11:02:29 AM
    Yeah, CNN is occasionally a bit too aggressive; it should be 5-18 in Idaho, not 6-17, for example.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on March 23, 2016, 11:22:44 AM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 12:35:35 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Likely Voter on March 23, 2016, 12:47:53 PM
    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


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 01:20:27 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Likely Voter on March 23, 2016, 02:05:27 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 02:45:46 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on March 23, 2016, 03:38:21 PM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on March 23, 2016, 04:12:43 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on March 23, 2016, 05:56:48 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: cinyc on March 23, 2016, 06:02:53 PM
    According to Samoa News (http://samoanews.com/content/en/local-republicans-keeping-their-options-open), 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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 08:52:53 PM
    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 (http://w-cap.org/volunteer-highlight-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 (http://www.amsamoa.edu/departments/nursing.html).

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on March 23, 2016, 09:23:02 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 10:05:14 PM
    Update on that photo: the woman on the left in the homemade Trump shirt is Lucia Bartley (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204560424205721&set=a.1295831091006.36377.1687200757&type=3&theater), 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 (https://plus.google.com/101617659295375435071/posts) or Salote Schuster (http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/94894897-sua-carl-schuster-left-and-her-husband-salote-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=9QMziWNtBI6whP66vhs4od71bboPdJlUwdc4BWhwtvMALEObeKPpN5M1TI0SSsJleYd5FoA06vls9YJkJTUqJQ%3D%3D), so I'm thinking she's Tina Ioane.  Her husband was in the Army in 2004 (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Oct/06/ln/ln10p.html), which helps explain the hat.

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


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on March 23, 2016, 11:01:42 PM
    This picture creeping is going to get really fun in places like Pennsylvania.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 23, 2016, 11:13:02 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 24, 2016, 12:21:12 AM
    The war of words continues in the Virgin Islands, with Valerie Stiles writing:

    Quote from: Valerie Stiles
    There are serious misrepresentations in reports that political saboteur John Yob and his mercenaries won Tuesday’s proceedings in Superior Court. The case is not over. The court has not issued a permanent ruling — let alone heard any evidence on factual issues — on whether political saboteur John Yob and his mercenaries were real domiciled Virgin Islanders.

    John Yob’s real motives are clear. He looks at the Virgin Islands and sees a banana republic that he can overthrow with a coup to grow his political power and line his pockets with the cash of a presidential candidate seeking to win what is looking like a contested Republican convention.

    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 (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156785588170220&set=a.276127340219.321335.659020219&type=3&theater) that the five-day period in question has not even begun yet.

    The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/03/22/world/americas/ap-cb-us-virgin-islands-republican-bickering.html?_r=0) and VI Consortuium (http://viconsortium.com/politics/john-canegata-moves-ahead-of-himself-and-causes-more-confusion-in-local-gop-caucus/) also have some more details.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on March 24, 2016, 04:28:05 PM
    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 (http://w-cap.org/volunteer-highlight-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 (http://www.amsamoa.edu/departments/nursing.html).

    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. :P


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: cinyc on March 24, 2016, 04:31:41 PM
    There's another article about the American Samoa Convention in today's Samoa News (http://samoanews.com/content/en/update-republican-caucus-confirms-local-delegates-will-go-%E2%80%9Cunbound%E2%80%9D).  All delegates are officially unbound, even the Trump and Cruz territorial chairs.  They say so in the article.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 24, 2016, 05:07:29 PM
    There's another article about the American Samoa Convention in today's Samoa News (http://samoanews.com/content/en/update-republican-caucus-confirms-local-delegates-will-go-%E2%80%9Cunbound%E2%80%9D).  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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 24, 2016, 05:08:25 PM
    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. :P

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


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 24, 2016, 07:25:16 PM
    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


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 24, 2016, 08:28:15 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 24, 2016, 11:56:47 PM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 25, 2016, 12:04:14 AM
    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:

    Quote from: RNC Rules
    The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule.

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 25, 2016, 12:07:42 AM
    The final deadline for filing as a delegate candidate in Colorado tomorrow.

    A majority of the delegates are filing as Uncommitted (http://www.cpr.org/news/story/eye-brokered-convention-race-select-colorados-rnc-delegates?platform=hootsuite), 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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 25, 2016, 12:20:39 AM
    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:

    Quote from: RNC Rules
    The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule.

    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 25, 2016, 12:36:30 AM
    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:

    Quote from: RNC Rules
    The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule.

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 25, 2016, 12:50:00 AM
    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:

    Quote from: RNC Rules
    The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule.

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 25, 2016, 08:22:48 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 25, 2016, 09:25:50 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on March 25, 2016, 02:58:09 PM
    Sabato has 755 for Trump. What could be the difference?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: DemPGH on March 25, 2016, 03:33:37 PM
    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


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 25, 2016, 04:20:36 PM
    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 (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/141520150009/delegate-discrepancies), 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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 25, 2016, 04:52:28 PM
    Minnesota's RNC members have clarified (http://republicanpartyofminnesota.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/d/1BD4ABB3E4E5169E/285204E9D78891EA6A4D01E12DB8921D) 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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Fuzzy Bear on March 26, 2016, 09:26:39 AM
    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:

    Quote from: RNC Rules
    The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule.

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 26, 2016, 04:14:49 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 27, 2016, 10:14:33 AM
    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.



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 27, 2016, 10:44:20 AM
    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 (http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-dnc-members-announce-support-for-clinton-campaign/article_9ecdf303-27b8-561b-91d2-b3a570cb7731.html)

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: WY (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WY-D)
    WY Caucus FAQ (http://www.wyodems.org/frequently-asked-questions)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 27, 2016, 11:47:09 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on March 28, 2016, 11:31:51 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 28, 2016, 03:08:57 PM
    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 (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/head_of_louisiana_gop_addresse.html) 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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on March 28, 2016, 07:09:26 PM
    @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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 29, 2016, 10:20:09 AM
    Trump is apparently trying to some extent in North Dakota, where he's dispatching Ben Carson (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-delegates-republican-convention-221274) in an attempt to woo delegates there.

    EDIT: Now Ted Cruz is going there directly himself. (http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/politics/3997355-presidential-hopeful-ted-cruz-address-north-dakota-gop-convention-saturday)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 29, 2016, 05:53:15 PM
    Rubio is actively fighting to keep his delegates, sending letters (https://twitter.com/InesdLC/status/714919542133231618/photo/1) 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." (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/274593-report-rubio-trying-to-keep-his-delegates-from-trump)

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ronnie on March 29, 2016, 11:17:05 PM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 29, 2016, 11:41:54 PM
    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?

    Potentially!  Honestly, Kasich is about as likely as Rubio to make it onto the first ballot.  Rules vary from state to state, of course.

    If Kasich were not placed into nomination on the first ballot, he would keep all but 12 of his delegates on the first ballot (the 4 in New Hampshire and the 8 in Vermont).  Presumably the remaining 133 would be forced to abstain, though this is a weird corner of the rules that may need to be clarified at the convention itself.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Likely Voter on March 30, 2016, 09:54:57 PM
    article on how Rubio is trying to keep delegates pledged to him, to keep them from being available to Trump
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rubio-makes-unprecedented-bid-keep-delegates-contested-convention-n547646


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on March 30, 2016, 11:31:14 PM
    article on how Rubio is trying to keep delegates pledged to him, to keep them from being available to Trump
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rubio-makes-unprecedented-bid-keep-delegates-contested-convention-n547646
    That just made Trump's fight for 1237 a whole 3 delegates harder :/


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 01:56:54 AM
    article on how Rubio is trying to keep delegates pledged to him, to keep them from being available to Trump
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rubio-makes-unprecedented-bid-keep-delegates-contested-convention-n547646

    Yep!  Discussed this somewhat on the last page.  Real uncertainty here is Oklahoma--is Rubio "no longer a candidate" if he doesn't make it onto the first ballot?  I would think so, and his spokesman apparently agrees, saying literally that he is "no longer a candidate," while simultaneously trying to keep his Oklahoma delegates......


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 10:58:16 AM
    The VI shambles continue, but it seems like the full weight of the VI GOP (not just John Canegata) is against the Yobs.

    One lone member of the Certification Committee, James Oliver, has sent a letter to the RNC (http://stcroixsource.com/files/userfiles/file/00%20Bills%2016/Certification%20of%20Elections.jpg) certifying the original slate (including the Yobs).

    John Canegata has responded with a long letter (http://stcroixsource.com/files/userfiles/file/00%20Bills%2016/USVI%20GOP%20Memo%203-30-16.pdf) (that's worth reading, as it provides a lot of insight to all the VI GOP's troubles this cycle).  His basic point was that the certification was deemed complete on the night of the caucus itself (where James Oliver was not even present) and that the 6 elected delegates were notified of their election, but did not respond within 5 days.

    More details can be found in the St. Croix Source (http://stcroixsource.com/content/news/local-news/2016/03/31/vi-republicans-announce-two-competing-slates-delegates-national-c).

    Rules-wise, there seem to be two basic points here.

    1) Were the delegates "notified in writing of their selection"?  Canegata says he did, but despite an otherwise very-well-documented chain of events, does not provide any copies of this notification.

    2) Was the certification of delegates on caucus night by the Certification Committee legitimate?  The language in the rules is:

    Quote
    Final certification of the results shall be made once it is determined that no practical differences in results can be obtained by any reasonable resolution of the status of Provisional Ballots and pending disputes or challenges.

    One would think there would be pending disputes that would affect the results (i.e. the ongoing court challenge to the Yobs' residency).  However, the Dispute Subcommittee says it had no business to conduct at all, and apparently finished its business on the night of the caucus.  There's justification for this; i.e. the residency dispute is a matter for the courts, not the Dispute Subcommittee.

    The only evidence for this, is a document dated March 23rd (after Canegata's coup) and not signed by some members until today.

    However, it should be noted that the Dispute Subcommittee has to accept submitted disputes in the two days after the caucus, as well!  Valerie Stiles (who's suing the Yobs over the residency) in fact did so on March 12.  I fail to see how the Certification Committee could legitimately certify the results before the close of the filing period for disputes.

    Quote
    Section 9. Any disputes or challenges to the caucus procedure or to the inclusion or exclusion of any elector or ballot shall be made in writing to the Caucus Subcommittee at or before the close of business hours on March 12, 2016.

    10.Subcommittee to Resolve Disputes: Prior to the Caucus Date the Territorial Chairman shall designate a Subcommittee of no fewer than three persons who are members of the Territorial Committee and not themselves Delegate Candidates (the "Dispute Subcommittee") to resolve all disputes and challenges received pursuant to Section 9, above. Members of the Caucus Subcommittee may be members of the Dispute Subcommittee. The Dispute Subcommittee shall resolve the challenge or dispute by majority vote. The decisions of the Dispute Subcommittee may be summary in nature, shall be reported in writing, and shall be final.

    All and all, this still stinks.  Canegata is trying to create the appropriate paper trail well after the fact, when his entire case rests on that non-existent paper trail.  The timing of all of this makes it very clear that, despite his claims of neutrality, Canegata hates the Yobs personally (see page 9 of his letter) and cooked up this Rule 11 business after the fact, only after the court challenge to their residency failed.

    This entire business is clearly going to the Credentials Committee.  I'm keeping the delegation Uncommitted until July as a result of the uncertainty.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 12:40:50 PM
    FHQ has talked to the RNC about their interpretation of one element of Rule 40: the question of whether people can qualify for Rule 40 and be placed into nomination on later ballots.

    According to the RNC's interpretation, they can (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/715585364166053889).  Note that of course this may change if the rules change, or if the convention itself rules otherwise.

    In particular, this means that after the first ballot, when delegates start becoming unbound, Kasich (or Romney, or Ryan, or...) could qualify under Rule 40 and have their name placed into nomination under the current rules.

    Also in that conversation: those bound to candidates not placed into nomination must still vote for that candidate, though their votes will not be tallied by Paul Ryan.  Note that a candidate must still reach 1237 delegates in order to be nominated, even with such "spoiled ballots."


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on March 31, 2016, 02:09:27 PM
    Erc how likely is this to lead to a Contests/Credentials dispute

    http://time.com/4278295/donald-trump-loyalty-pledge-south-carolina-delegates/

    Quote
    The Palmetto State was one of several that required candidates to pledge their loyalty to the party’s eventual nominee in order to secure a slot on the primary ballot. Though Trump won all of the state’s delegates in the Feb. 20 primary, anti-Trump forces are plotting to contest their binding to Trump because of his reversal on the pledge Tuesday.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 02:09:29 PM
    Other news on the Rule 40 front:

    It sounds as if Ted Cruz does not favor a change in Rule 40 (https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/715370514387243008), though he stops short of saying he'd instruct his delegates to fight such a rule change.  Seeing as Donald Trump has even less interest in changing Rule 40, it sounds as if, as I predicted earlier this month, we need to take Rule 40 seriously.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 02:32:33 PM
    Erc how likely is this to lead to a Contests/Credentials dispute

    http://time.com/4278295/donald-trump-loyalty-pledge-south-carolina-delegates/

    Quote
    The Palmetto State was one of several that required candidates to pledge their loyalty to the party’s eventual nominee in order to secure a slot on the primary ballot. Though Trump won all of the state’s delegates in the Feb. 20 primary, anti-Trump forces are plotting to contest their binding to Trump because of his reversal on the pledge Tuesday.

    I can't find any provision for this in SC GOP rules or in state law, so I feel it's unlikely to be enforceable.

    However, this is a different sort of question than the usual Virgin Islands-style credentials contest.  Unless there are disputes at the SC District and State conventions that lead to different slates of delegates being submitted to the RNC, it's the binding, not the identity, of the SC delegates that would be in question.  That's not really a matter for the Contests/Credentials committee, as far as I can tell.

    As the rules currently stand, the question of binding is entirely up to the Secretary of the Convention, Paul Ryan.  "The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate’s vote in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule." 

    Of course, these rules could be changed by a vote at the convention as a whole, but right now Paul Ryan seems to have all the power in this scenario.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on March 31, 2016, 02:33:12 PM
    I don't know where else to post this

    the GOP is preparing for an open convention with this educational site: https://gop.com/convention-facts/?mid=68749&rid=13491920&convention_type=how


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 02:48:27 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on March 31, 2016, 02:57:02 PM
    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.

    in the event they do become unbound, they would still be allowed to cast votes for Trump and Cruz if they wanted to right?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 03:01:43 PM
    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.

    in the event they do become unbound, they would still be allowed to cast votes for Trump and Cruz if they wanted to right?

    Yes.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 03:04:05 PM
    Louisiana confirms Rubio has lost his delegates there (http://www.myarklamiss.com/news/local-news/rubio-wants-delegates-back-but-cant-have-them-in-louisiana), and it is too late for him to get them back.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 31, 2016, 03:06:35 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on March 31, 2016, 03:07:35 PM
    Louisiana confirms Rubio has lost his delegates there (http://www.myarklamiss.com/news/local-news/rubio-wants-delegates-back-but-cant-have-them-in-louisiana), and it is too late for him to get them back.

    Why doesn't every state keep delegates bound to a candidate, even after dropping out.  Re-allocating them can help someone to get to 1237 who doesn't deserve it.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on March 31, 2016, 03:10:45 PM
    Louisiana confirms Rubio has lost his delegates there (http://www.myarklamiss.com/news/local-news/rubio-wants-delegates-back-but-cant-have-them-in-louisiana), and it is too late for him to get them back.

    Why doesn't every state keep delegates bound to a candidate, even after dropping out.  Re-allocating them can help someone to get to 1237 who doesn't deserve it.

    Consequences of voting so early, I suppose.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on March 31, 2016, 03:15:37 PM
    Louisiana confirms Rubio has lost his delegates there (http://www.myarklamiss.com/news/local-news/rubio-wants-delegates-back-but-cant-have-them-in-louisiana), and it is too late for him to get them back.

    Why doesn't every state keep delegates bound to a candidate, even after dropping out.  Re-allocating them can help someone to get to 1237 who doesn't deserve it.

    Rubio's Louisiana delegates weren't re-allocated, they are free to vote for whoever they want


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on March 31, 2016, 03:39:53 PM
    The first four appointees to the Rules Committee all want to slash Rule 40

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/republican-convention-rules-trump-cruz-221355


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Likely Voter on March 31, 2016, 08:21:00 PM
    Karl Rove spoke about Rule 40

    Quote
    HH: So Karl Rove, I want to start with very inside baseball, which is Rule 40. On this show yesterday, Ted Cruz said it’s a rule, it would be wrong to parachute in people to change it from Washington, D.C. insiders. It’s only Trump and me. And I thought to myself, oh, they’re going to actually run this convention. What do you think of that strategy of trying to hang onto Rule 40?

    KR: Well, Rule 40B…

    HH: To be specific, yeah.

    KR: What it is, yeah, look, and he misinterprets it. Rule 40B says that in order to have your name officially placed in nomination with a speech and seconding speeches, you have to have the majority of delegates in a certain number of states. I believe it’s eight states. But it does not say that those are the only candidates that you can vote for. This was an attempt to, in 2012, and the rules committee just before the convention proposed this rule, because Ron Paul said I want to have, I don’t have a chance at winning. I’ve got 5% of the vote. I’ve got delegates from a couple of states where I dominate, but I want to be able to have a full blown nomination speech and speak to the country, and chew up valuable prime time TV. So what they said is okay, you can vote for anybody you want, and those votes will be tallied and counted. But we’re not going to have everybody that wants to be nominated be able to be nominated. You’ve got to show a certain level of support. So Senator Cruz is wrong. There is no rule on the Republican Party side that says that you have to be formally nominated in order to have people receive votes. I mean, people can get, Carly Fiorina has a delegate. She’ll be, and whoever that delegate is, is going to be able to vote for Carly Fiorina on the first ballot, because they’re bound to them. Ben Carson has delegates. Marco Rubio has delegates. John Kasich has delegates. Jeb Bush has delegates. They can all have those delegate bound to them, and remain bound to them, and vote for them, on them, even though their name is not placed in nomination.
    http://www.hughhewitt.com/karl-rove-state-play-re-contested-convention/

    So according to Rove the rule is more about a nominating speeches, not votes. This actually makes more sense. Otherwise delegates from other candidates are in some kind of Twilight Zone where they can't vote for the person they are bound to but they cant vote for anyone else either.   


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on March 31, 2016, 10:04:14 PM
    In my opinion, Rove's interpretation of Rule 40 is completely wrong.  Presented below is Rule 40 in its entirety. Clause (b) is completely separate from clause (c).  They're not related at all.  Clause (b), the pertinent clause, doesn't have anything to do with speeches.  Indeed, that's why the establishment wants to change the Rule.  What does everyone else think?

    * * *

    RULE NO. 40
    Nominations
    (a) In making the nominations for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States and voting thereon, the roll of the states shall be called separately in each case; provided, however, that if there is only one candidate for nomination for Vice President of the United States who has demonstrated the support required by paragraph (b) of this rule, a motion to nominate for such office by acclamation shall be in order and no calling of the roll with respect to such office shall be required.

    (b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.

    (c) The total time of the nominating speech and seconding speeches for any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes.

    (d) When at the close of a roll call any candidate for nomination for President of the United States or Vice President of the United States has received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention, the chairman of the convention shall announce the votes for each candidate whose name was presented in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this rule. Before the convention adjourns sine die, the chairman of the convention shall declare the candidate nominated by the Republican Party for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States.

    (e) If no candidate shall have received such majority, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of the states be called again and shall repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the convention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 11:34:02 PM
    Rove's sort of onto something, but not really.  The key here, apparently, is (d).  FHQ talked with the RNC (https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/715580825299980288) about this, and their current interpretation is:

    Under Rule 40 the state delegation chair calls out the votes, but the convention secretary does not tally for non-qualifiers.

    So if you are bound to Carly Fiorina, you vote for Carly Fiorina, the chair of the Iowa delegation announces your vote for Carly Fiorina, but it is not tallied by the Secretary.  This is in accord with Rule 40(d), which says that the convention chairman only announces the votes cast for candidates who qualified under Rule 40(b).

    Thus, I think, Rubio (& Kasich) will keep their delegates on the first ballot, except in the few states where failing to be placed into nomination with Rule 40(b) releases them.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 31, 2016, 11:36:45 PM
    So, if the votes are not tallied, do they still impact the number of delegates needed for a majority?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on March 31, 2016, 11:45:05 PM
    So, if the votes are not tallied, do they still impact the number of delegates needed for a majority?

    Erc's link seems to confirm that the number will remain 1237


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on March 31, 2016, 11:46:03 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on March 31, 2016, 11:50:25 PM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 01, 2016, 12:01:39 AM
    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?

    Yes, but the current understanding seems to be that after the first ballot, new nominations can be made.  Since a lot of delegates become unbound after the first ballot (and the binding does restrict who they can support for Rule 40), it's entirely possible that Kasich (or some compromise candidate) could have their name placed into nomination on a subsequent ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 01, 2016, 01:11:30 AM
    Yob responds to the recent Canegata justification attempt:

    "Mr Canegata continues to attempt to break party rules to hand select the delegates after his preferred candidates lost at the caucus overwhelmingly. It didn't work when he falsified the documents to the RNC in September and it won't work this time either. The proper results were certified and I look forward to serving as a delegate in Cleveland."


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 01, 2016, 01:40:53 AM
    FHQ kindly provides us a refresher as to how Rule 40 works in practice, with a clip from the 2012 convention (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz2k9sbmwTE&feature=youtu.be&t=38m30s).

    The MN chair announced the delegation's votes (an overwhelming Paul victory due to Paulista action, plus 1 for Santorum and 6 for Romney), while the person on the main stage counted only the 6 for Romney.

    Nevada (at around 42-43 min) is also interesting for historical reasons; it also features 5 abstentions.  It's followed up by New Hampshire, where the Secretary announces "9 Romney" followed by shouts from the crowd of "3 Ron Paul."

    (Kasich also announces the Ohio delegation at around 51 minutes.)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 01, 2016, 09:34:23 AM
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trumps-uphill-delegate-scramble-221443

    "If Trump heads into the convention without the magic number of 1,237, already more than a hundred delegates are poised to break with him on a second ballot, according to interviews with dozens of delegates, delegate candidates, operatives and party leaders.

    In one of starkest examples of Trump’s lack of support, out of the 168 Republican National Committee members — each of whom doubles as a convention delegate — only one publicly supports Trump, and she knows of only a handful of others who support him privately."

    ------


    It's pretty clear to me that Trump has one shot at this: first ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 01, 2016, 10:29:54 AM
    It should be stressed that only a small number of delegates have actually been selected so far (NH, AL, most of TN, LA, DC, most of IL, some of WY, all the territories, and all the RNC members).  That said, that's a pretty terrible sign for Trump.

    Of course, it should be stressed that not supporting Trump doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for him if it came down to it.  If Trump should end up with more than 1200 or so bound delegates, it's possible enough unbound delegates could support him on the first ballot to avoid chaos.  Most of the RNC members are bound on the first ballot, of course.

    That said, it does seem as if Trump is DOA after the first ballot, unless anyone thinks Trump is a reasonable compromise choice after ten ballots.

    And I'm not so convinced personally that the "chaos" argument is going to be a major factor, especially if Cruz seems like he'd have the second ballot locked down (not at all guaranteed, of course, and very hard to determine for sure).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 01, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
    Looking forward to May 10:

    West Virginia is the only state that directly elects its At-Large delegates and doesn't bind them based on the statewide vote.

    This means that each voter will have to vote for 25(!) delegate candidates (22 At-Large and 3 in each CD).  Unlike in Pennsylvania, the delegates do have the candidate they are supporting next to them on the ballot, but it's still an arduous process for any voter, as the WV SoS warns (http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/primary-voters-to-be-faced-with-long-ballots/article_1e8fc7a3-fb6d-5207-8471-3752ba64f010.html).

    Additionally, of the 22 At-Large delegates, there are some geographic restrictions (7 much be from each CD, and no more than 2 can be from each county).

    All in all, this opens up the fun possibility that motivation gaps and weird geographic restrictions could deprive Trump of some delegates here despite a presumed win in the state.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 01, 2016, 11:42:02 AM
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/167RlmxSvrotSiVHmaQuIio3BbGlCmrUgObX2kHM80yQ/edit#gid=0

    Here's a pretty cool delegate tracker in case you guys haven't seen it.  It's tracked by @Taniel, the founder of the site http://campaigndiaries.com/.

    He's one of the people in that Nate Silver twitter chain that Erc posted.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 01, 2016, 11:50:36 AM
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/167RlmxSvrotSiVHmaQuIio3BbGlCmrUgObX2kHM80yQ/edit#gid=0

    Here's a pretty cool delegate tracker in case you guys haven't seen it.  It's tracked by @Taniel, the founder of the site http://campaigndiaries.com/.

    He's one of the people in that Nate Silver twitter chain that Erc posted.

    Astute readers may note that our Facebook stalking of the American Samoa delegation has made it into his tracking of that delegation (third sheet).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 01, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/01/donald-trump-clears-the-air-with-republican-leaders/?_r=0

    Mr. Trump was joined by his son, Donald J. Trump Jr.; his lawyer, Donald F. McGahn; his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski; the national political director Michael Glassner; and Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks.

    When the discussion turned to the wrangling of delegates to the party’s nominating convention in Cleveland this July — an issue that has dogged Mr. Trump and his skeletal campaign organization for months — Mr. Priebus explained that states all had different rules governing how they were selected.

    Mr. Trump has found himself at a disadvantage in some states, as his aides have allowed rival campaigns to peel some delegates away. Mr. Trump mentioned Louisiana, where he won the primary, but where Senator Ted Cruz is likely to come away with more delegates after exploiting peculiarities in the state’s system, according to those briefed on the meeting.

    The situation in Louisiana infuriated Mr. Trump, who threatened this week to sue the Republican National Committee over it.

    But when Mr. Priebus explained that each campaign needed to be prepared to fight for delegates at each state’s convention, Mr. Trump turned to his aides and suggested that they had not been doing what they needed to do, the people briefed on the meeting said.

    ----

    This is pretty funny.  Does Trump have people in his own campaign that are this incompetent, or are they actually double agents, working for the Establishment and Cruz?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 01, 2016, 01:28:29 PM
    http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2016/04/01/ted-cruz-colorado-gop-delegates/125400/

    Ted Cruz is the favored candidate among the 587 party activists vying for one of the 13 national delegate slots on the state level — but the majority want to remain unpledged to the Cleveland convention, according to a final list released Friday by the Colorado Republican Party.

    Cruz won the support of 30 percent of the potential statewide delegate candidates, compared to just 7 percent for Donald Trump. John Kasich finished with 2 percent, while Marco Rubio and Ben Carson registered 1 percent or less, the figures show.

    But 60 percent want to keep their options open and remain unbound if they advance to the national GOP convention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 01, 2016, 02:08:58 PM
    Update here in Minnesota:

    The pledge form signed by delegate candidates (http://www.scribd.com/doc/306645850/Republican-Party-of-Minnesota-Delegate-Pledge-Form-and-Affidavit) (after some consideration, I've decided not to be one myself) pledges you to vote for the candidate you are bound to on the first ballot unless they withdraw (and stay withdrawn).  This is more in line with the initial rules from the MN GOP, and not the "clarification" issued by the MN RNC members.

    As a result, I'm giving Rubio back his delegates here in MN; doesn't look like Ted Cruz can use it as a Rule 40 state, after all (not like he'd need it).

    This basically leaves Oklahoma as the last big pile of Rubio delegates still under contention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 01, 2016, 04:41:27 PM
    http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Outsiders-Contested-Republican-Convention/dp/0692630163?ie=UTF8&keywords=contested%20chaos&qid=1459546792&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

    I just bought John Yob's book Chaos: The Outsider's Guide to a Contested Republican National Convention.  Will let you guys know how it is.

    Anyone else buy it yet?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on April 01, 2016, 05:04:06 PM
    http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Outsiders-Contested-Republican-Convention/dp/0692630163?ie=UTF8&keywords=contested%20chaos&qid=1459546792&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

    I just bought John Yob's book Chaos: The Outsider's Guide to a Contested Republican National Convention.  Will let you guys know how it is.

    Anyone else buy it yet?

    Yes! It's next on my reading list


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 01, 2016, 05:12:45 PM
    As much as I am clearly anti-Canegata, I don't think I'm quite willing to support the Yobs by buying his book. :)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 02, 2016, 12:14:23 PM
    The MN GOP (not just the RNC members) have clarified that Rubio will lose his delegates if he is not on the first ballot:

    http://mngop.com/update-just-the-facts/

    As a result, I'm releasing Rubio's delegates in Minnesota again.  (Thanks to Liberty News for the tip!)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 02, 2016, 03:58:57 PM
    BREAKING: @tedcruz sweeps all 3 delegates, 3 alternates #RNC2016 at CO CD1 convention #copolitics
    4:02 PM - 2 Apr 2016 · Columbine, CO, United States

    3/3 for Cruz so far


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 02, 2016, 04:23:20 PM
    Looking forward to May 10:

    West Virginia is the only state that directly elects its At-Large delegates and doesn't bind them based on the statewide vote.

    This means that each voter will have to vote for 25(!) delegate candidates (22 At-Large and 3 in each CD).  Unlike in Pennsylvania, the delegates do have the candidate they are supporting next to them on the ballot, but it's still an arduous process for any voter, as the WV SoS warns (http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/primary-voters-to-be-faced-with-long-ballots/article_1e8fc7a3-fb6d-5207-8471-3752ba64f010.html).

    Additionally, of the 22 At-Large delegates, there are some geographic restrictions (7 much be from each CD, and no more than 2 can be from each county).

    All in all, this opens up the fun possibility that motivation gaps and weird geographic restrictions could deprive Trump of some delegates here despite a presumed win in the state.
    I have a hard time imagining any stalwart supporter of any candidate wouldn't find a way to get all their 25 votes in for delegates only supporting their preferred candidate.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 02, 2016, 04:40:40 PM
    Follow @meganmesserly to watch the chaos that is the Clark County Democratic convention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Fargobison on April 02, 2016, 04:42:36 PM
    Quote
    Taniel
    ‏@Taniel
    .@ByJohnFrank reports: Colorado's District 6 convention elects 3 delegates pledged to Cruz—just like the District 1 convention did earlier.

    https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/716378868261765120


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 02, 2016, 05:10:47 PM
    Looking forward to May 10:

    West Virginia is the only state that directly elects its At-Large delegates and doesn't bind them based on the statewide vote.

    This means that each voter will have to vote for 25(!) delegate candidates (22 At-Large and 3 in each CD).  Unlike in Pennsylvania, the delegates do have the candidate they are supporting next to them on the ballot, but it's still an arduous process for any voter, as the WV SoS warns (http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/primary-voters-to-be-faced-with-long-ballots/article_1e8fc7a3-fb6d-5207-8471-3752ba64f010.html).

    Additionally, of the 22 At-Large delegates, there are some geographic restrictions (7 much be from each CD, and no more than 2 can be from each county).

    All in all, this opens up the fun possibility that motivation gaps and weird geographic restrictions could deprive Trump of some delegates here despite a presumed win in the state.
    I have a hard time imagining any stalwart supporter of any candidate wouldn't find a way to get all their 25 votes in for delegates only supporting their preferred candidate.

    Oh, of course they will, but -- will they make sure never to cast more than 2 votes for candidates from a single county? If not, the person from that county with the least votes will get thrown out.  And will they make sure not to vote for more than 7 people from the same congressional district? And what if they behave like in Illinois, and refuse to vote for people who support their candidate but have names they don't like? What if they mistakenly vote for 26 people instead of 25? Their entire vote gets disqualified. Lots of people will probably simply may undervote if they can't find some final names who support their candidate (this will depend on how delegates are organized on the ballot; by candidate they support or by last name?), or they may vote for a few names they recognize who don't support their candidate. It'll be chaos.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: OkThen on April 02, 2016, 07:19:58 PM
    Maybe a glimpse of good news for Trump on the delegate front? Most expected him to get shutout in ND.

    https://twitter.com/ajjaffe/status/716404293117616129


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 02, 2016, 09:00:38 PM
    Maybe a glimpse of good news for Trump on the delegate front? Most expected him to get shutout in ND.

    https://twitter.com/ajjaffe/status/716404293117616129
    My projection, which had Trump at 1233, only anticipated 1 Trump delegate from North Dakota. Perhaps, I should increase that number.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on April 02, 2016, 09:07:37 PM
    I am not so sure that Rule 40 prevents a white knight candidate.  All it says is that a candidate needs to get majority support of eight state delegations.  If a white knight comes and gets the votes to win, he will get a majority from at least states (almost certainly).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 02, 2016, 10:51:55 PM
    Sanders won the Carson City County Convention in state delegates by 29-28.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 02, 2016, 11:59:14 PM
    It looks like the results out of Nevada change the results there from 20-15 Clinton to 19-16 Sanders.

    Another victory for glorious people's democracy.

    If you thought the Polk County convention was bad...


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 03, 2016, 12:11:08 AM
    A closer reading of the delegate selection plan reveals that the district delegates are still bound based on the caucus vote, so this result only flips two delegates (one At-Large and one At-Large PLEO), for a result of:

    18 Clinton - 17 Sanders.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 03, 2016, 12:22:52 AM
    The Virgin Islands hilarity continues... (http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/gop-delegate-battle-could-require-national-party-intervention/article_9a8a93af-e234-5e6b-b8d7-4535a9265d46.html)

    Apparently a majority of the Dispute Subcommittee has ruled in the Yobs' favor on Friday (despite the appearance of the contrary in Canegata's recent letter (http://stcroixsource.com/files/userfiles/file/00%20Bills%2016/USVI%20GOP%20Memo%203-30-16.pdf)).  It's the Certification Subcommittee that actually matters, of course, and a majority there may still be siding with Canegata (though there is a very vocal minority).

    RNC member (and unpledged delegate ex officio) Holland Redfield predicts it won't be resolved until the convention:

    Quote from: Holland Redfield
    The national party will decide who sits. That is my own prediction.

    I hope it doesn’t come to that but you know, with two immovable objects, then what happens is somebody else is going to kind of end up being the referee.

    The Yobs and Canegata have taken to the airwaves over the dispute, with the Yobs taking out radio ads attacking Canegata, and Valerie Stiles (who initiated the court case regarding the Yobs' residency) buying ads against the Yobs.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 03, 2016, 12:57:24 AM
    Erc, which faction are you personally siding with fairness-wise? It feels like Yob is more correct, but as usual the Yobs of the world are being yobbed.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 03, 2016, 01:15:09 AM
    Erc, which faction are you personally siding with fairness-wise? It feels like Yob is more correct, but as usual the Yobs of the world are being yobbed.

    Canegata's case for throwing the Yobs out based on whether they accepted their delegate slots is completely and egregiously fabricated, so I'm on the Yobs' side for that dispute.

    As to the residency dispute, in a just world the Yobs would be thrown out.  But I'm not sure as to the merits of the case.



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 03, 2016, 05:14:37 PM
    Results in ND are 19 from the slate recommended by Ted Cruz are elected, and the other 6 positions go uncommitted (so 9 uncommitted total when including the 3 RNC members). While none of the delegates are bound and there have been some reports of secret Kasich supporters in the Cruz slate (a fellow named Dick Dever, who was on the Cruz slate and was elected, apparently has very pro-Kasich social media), I think it's fair to count the state as 19C-9U, and to simply make a note that delegates from North Dakota are free to vote their conscience from the first ballot and so there could be some surprises.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 03, 2016, 08:19:07 PM
    North Dakota Results

    A motion to have the delegate candidates announce their presidential preference was defeated (thanks to Curly Haugland et al.), so interpreting the results is not going to be incredibly simple.

    Unlike in 2012, the slate of 25 delegates presented by the Committee on Permanent Organization was not elected in its entirely.  Cruz presented a slate of 23 candidates (with some overlap with the CPO slate), many of whom were elected instead.

    Ultimately, 18 of those on the Cruz slate were elected.  Of the remaining six, we have Governor and First Lady Jack & Betsy Dalrymple and Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, who are all apparently staying neutral for now. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/ted-cruz-north-dakota-delegates-221508#ixzz44mBxmVIc)  The other three are Gary Emineth (lean Trump), ND Treasurer Kelly Schmidt (lean Cruz), and Bob Wefald (unknown).

    Of the 18 elected on the Cruz slate, it appears not all of them are 100% committed to Cruz.  There are some details in the Politico article linked above, but the only one I'm going to take out of the Cruz column at the moment is Dick Dever, who prefers Kasich (but has not fully made up his mind yet), and was apparently added to the Cruz slate without his permission.

    The resulting 17 Cruz delegates are enough to give him a Rule 40 majority (assuming no major switches of allegiance), giving him his 7th Rule 40 state by my reckoning.  He should presumably get his 8th on Tuesday in Wisconsin, and if not, almost certainly by the end of the week.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ronnie on April 03, 2016, 09:25:56 PM
    For anyone interested, here's a pretty comprehensive article about Rule 40, and how it would affect Kasich at the convention:

    https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/amp/trump-cruz-work-block-kasich-ballot-open-convention-n549996?client=safari#


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 03, 2016, 09:52:05 PM
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ted-cruzs-2016-iowa-new-hampshire-118799

    This is an interesting article to read in retrospect.  It's from June 2015 and the Cruz camp was already predicting a contested convention and building their whole organization on that premise.

    "Our strategy is taking it to the convention, which is why you’ve seen us announcing chairmen in California and New Jersey, as well as Iowa and New Hampshire,” said Mark Campbell, Cruz’s political director. “There are 2,470 [delegates] total, and you need 1,236 of them to win. None of these can be accumulated at any one time, which is why it’s a marathon more than a sprint. So we are methodically going state by state, focusing on grass roots and party activists.”


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: RogueBeaver on April 04, 2016, 06:58:18 AM
    Cruz snaring Trump's AZ delegates. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-snaring-trumps-arizona-delegates/article/2587556)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on April 04, 2016, 10:00:42 AM
    Does Wisconsin have a 50% WTA trigger?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 04, 2016, 10:10:04 AM

    No.  It's 18 to the state-wide winner and 3 for the winner of each of the 8 congressional districts.  

    But if someone gets 50% statewide, it's likely they've won all districts.  


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Beefalow and the Consumer on April 04, 2016, 11:55:36 AM
    Cruz snaring Trump's AZ delegates. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-snaring-trumps-arizona-delegates/article/2587556)

    I've been trying to predict how many delegates will easily flock to Cruz after the first ballot.  Right now Cruz has 463ish.  Say he gets a sweep of Wisconsin, and wins Indiana's and California's WTA.  That gets him to 734.  (He'll also have more from other remaining contests, but we won't count them yet).

    Here are states without a Trump majority and a strong Cruz contingent, in the South.  I see these flipping to Cruz:

    (Delegates not already in Cruz column)
    AR: 25
    LA: 25
    KY: 31
    NC: 45

    That brings Cruz to 860.

    Now add in the non-Cruz delegates in Cruz states if they unify behind him:
    TX: 51
    OK: 26
    KS: 16
    WY: 2
    ID: 12
    ME: 11
    IA: 22
    AK: 14

    Now his total is 1014.

    Add missing delegates from Trump-plurality states outside the deep south, if they fall in line:

    NV: 24
    MI: 42
    VA: 41
    NH: 20

    1141.

    Add Arizona, if this story has any merit:

    1199.

    I have get to consider OR (28), MT (27), SD (29), WA (44), or NM (24), all great chances for Cruz to pick up more delegates before the convention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 04, 2016, 12:53:36 PM
    Cruz snaring Trump's AZ delegates. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-snaring-trumps-arizona-delegates/article/2587556)

    I've been trying to predict how many delegates will easily flock to Cruz after the first ballot.  Right now Cruz has 463ish.  Say he gets a sweep of Wisconsin, and wins Indiana's and California's WTA.  That gets him to 734.  (He'll also have more from other remaining contests, but we won't count them yet).

    Here are states without a Trump majority and a strong Cruz contingent, in the South.  I see these flipping to Cruz:

    (Delegates not already in Cruz column)
    AR: 25
    LA: 25
    KY: 31
    NC: 45

    That brings Cruz to 860.

    Now add in the non-Cruz delegates in Cruz states if they unify behind him:
    TX: 51
    OK: 26
    KS: 16
    WY: 2
    ID: 12
    ME: 11
    IA: 22
    AK: 14

    Now his total is 1014.

    Add missing delegates from Trump-plurality states outside the deep south, if they fall in line:

    NV: 24
    MI: 42
    VA: 41
    NH: 20

    1141.

    Add Arizona, if this story has any merit:

    1199.

    I have get to consider OR (28), MT (27), SD (29), WA (44), or NM (24), all great chances for Cruz to pick up more delegates before the convention.


    A few nitpicks:

    I believe reports indicate that Trump actually got his preferred delegates in Louisiana, though of course none of the Uncommitted/Rubio slates.  I'd expect going forward that in states where Trump can formally express a preference for his delegates (such as Arkansas), he at least gets some of them (see e.g. TN where roughly half of the state-selected Trump delegates were still Trump supporters).

    North Carolina held its first CD conventions this weekend, though I've heard no reports out of them so far.

    Trump's one delegate in Wyoming (directly elected in Teton County) is probably securely pro-Trump.

    9-10 of Trump's 12 Idaho delegates are chosen by the Trump campaign, and are thus likely secure.

    There's a strong Trump presence in the NV GOP (e.g. Trump's only RNC member endorsement is from there), so it's possible he hangs on there.  Though if 2012 is any indication, I'd honestly expect Cruz to sweep.

    All but 1 or 2 of Trump's New Hampshire delegates were chosen by the campaign, and are thus secure.

    And of course, there's also the possibility that "establishment-chosen" delegates flock to someone who isn't Trump or Cruz.  I'll admit this seems unlikely in the South and West, but it's something to keep an eye on.  There seem to be a fair amount of uncommitted ex-Rubio supporters out there among folks being elected as delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 04, 2016, 10:07:32 PM
    Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/10253036-74/district-whoever-wins) 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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 04, 2016, 10:10:36 PM
    Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/10253036-74/district-whoever-wins) 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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 04, 2016, 10:47:49 PM
    In two Pennsylvania districts, there are only three candidates running, so we already know the delegates that will be elected:

    CD 1:
    CHRISTOPHER M VOGLER: Strongly leaning toward voting for whoever wins his district.   
    SETH KAUFER: Uncommitted   
    DAVE HACKETT: Formerly Christie

    CD 14:
    MARY ANN MELOY      
    CAMERON S LINTON: Uncommitted: “I want to see the results of the district and the statewide results before I begin to think about how I would vote in Cleveland.”   
    MIKE DEVANNEY: Uncommitted   (formerly Rubio and/or Christie)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 04, 2016, 11:43:59 PM
    Looking at just the top three candidates on the ballot in each district (ballot order was determined randomly), and including leaners, the counts are:

    Winner of District: 22
    Winner of State: 1
    Uncommitted/Undecided: 8
    Unknown: 12
    Cruz: 7
    Trump: 3
    Kasich: 1

    If people are lazy and just vote the top options, this could closely resemble the results on the night.

    If Trump has a big win in Pennsylvania, and these people are telling the truth, Trump's path to 1237 could get a lot easier.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 05, 2016, 02:47:02 AM
    The Bismarck Tribune surveyed (http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/majority-of-ndgop-delegates-support-cruz/article_41823421-65ec-54c0-b617-7db48b87e679.html) 22 of the 25 delegates elected in Fargo this weekend, and found 17 supporting Cruz (of which 3 were only leaning), and 1 lean Trump.

    Notably, Dick Dever is saying he's in the "Cruz camp" (albeit with a lot of qualifiers), while Clare Carlson is saying that he is "firmly uncommitted."

    I'm going to go with their count including leaners for the moment, which is thus 17 Cruz - 1 Trump.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on April 05, 2016, 09:09:51 AM
    Assuming Trump gets only 6 delegates out of Wisconsin, what percentage of the remaining delegates does he need to win from here on out to reach a majority?  Around 60%?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 05, 2016, 10:30:26 AM
    Assuming Trump gets only 6 delegates out of Wisconsin, what percentage of the remaining delegates does he need to win from here on out to reach a majority?  Around 60%?
    If he were to get 6 in Wisconsin, that'll put him at 758 with 851 pledged delegates remaining. I project 151 unpledged delegates. 1237 - 758 = 479; 851 + 151 = 1002; 479 / 1002 = 47.8%

    He's not going to win 50% of unpledged delegates.

    Assuming 17 from PA, 5 from ND, 2 from GU, 3 from VI, 3 from AS, 3 from OK, 2 from NV and 1 from NH, his unpledged total would be 36. Assuming that, Trump would have to secure 52.06% of remaining pledged delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 05, 2016, 10:55:58 AM
    Assuming Trump gets only 6 delegates out of Wisconsin, what percentage of the remaining delegates does he need to win from here on out to reach a majority?  Around 60%?

    Assuming he wins 6 in WI and gets swept in the rest of CO and WY, he'd need to win 63% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to clinch on pledged delegates alone.

    Tough, but doable; would require blowout wins in IN, CA, and NY, or a shock win in MT.

    Of course, Trump is going to win some unpledged delegates.  Based on our most recent information, I'm going to project he wins at least 20 unpledged delegates out of Pennsylvania.  Combined with the rest of my projections, that puts him at 1205.  If he can convince a fair chunk of the remainder of the PA delegation, as well as a few insular delegates, he may just be able to eke out a win on the first ballot.

    Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California are the keys.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Beefalow and the Consumer on April 05, 2016, 02:06:16 PM
    Assuming Trump gets only 6 delegates out of Wisconsin, what percentage of the remaining delegates does he need to win from here on out to reach a majority?  Around 60%?

    Assuming he wins 6 in WI and gets swept in the rest of CO and WY, he'd need to win 63% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to clinch on pledged delegates alone.

    Tough, but doable; would require blowout wins in IN, CA, and NY, or a shock win in MT.

    Of course, Trump is going to win some unpledged delegates.  Based on our most recent information, I'm going to project he wins at least 20 unpledged delegates out of Pennsylvania.  Combined with the rest of my projections, that puts him at 1205.  If he can convince a fair chunk of the remainder of the PA delegation, as well as a few insular delegates, he may just be able to eke out a win on the first ballot.

    Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California are the keys.

    Trump will not win Indiana.  He may have a shot in IN-2, IN-3, or IN-4, if delegates are apportioned by CD.  IN-07 is Kasich Kountry if he's still in the race, and the rest belongs to Cruz.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on April 05, 2016, 03:38:55 PM
    Assuming Trump gets only 6 delegates out of Wisconsin, what percentage of the remaining delegates does he need to win from here on out to reach a majority?  Around 60%?

    Assuming he wins 6 in WI and gets swept in the rest of CO and WY, he'd need to win 63% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to clinch on pledged delegates alone.

    Tough, but doable; would require blowout wins in IN, CA, and NY, or a shock win in MT.

    Of course, Trump is going to win some unpledged delegates.  Based on our most recent information, I'm going to project he wins at least 20 unpledged delegates out of Pennsylvania.  Combined with the rest of my projections, that puts him at 1205.  If he can convince a fair chunk of the remainder of the PA delegation, as well as a few insular delegates, he may just be able to eke out a win on the first ballot.

    Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California are the keys.

    Thanks to you and dax00 for crunching the numbers for me. Hopefully Trump won't get as close as your projection. That's too close!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on April 05, 2016, 03:53:33 PM
    Assuming Trump gets only 6 delegates out of Wisconsin, what percentage of the remaining delegates does he need to win from here on out to reach a majority?  Around 60%?

    Assuming he wins 6 in WI and gets swept in the rest of CO and WY, he'd need to win 63% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to clinch on pledged delegates alone.

    Tough, but doable; would require blowout wins in IN, CA, and NY, or a shock win in MT.

    Of course, Trump is going to win some unpledged delegates.  Based on our most recent information, I'm going to project he wins at least 20 unpledged delegates out of Pennsylvania.  Combined with the rest of my projections, that puts him at 1205.  If he can convince a fair chunk of the remainder of the PA delegation, as well as a few insular delegates, he may just be able to eke out a win on the first ballot.

    Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California are the keys.

    Trump will not win Indiana.  He may have a shot in IN-2, IN-3, or IN-4, if delegates are apportioned by CD.  IN-07 is Kasich Kountry if he's still in the race, and the rest belongs to Cruz.

    IN-3 is Stutzman territory thus almost safe Cruz. I'm in IN-4 and it's almost as evangelical as 3 thus also Cruz (Cruz's dad is coming to Kokomo Thursday). Kasich will be shut out and Trump will at best get IN-1.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Beefalow and the Consumer on April 05, 2016, 09:56:33 PM
    Assuming Trump gets only 6 delegates out of Wisconsin, what percentage of the remaining delegates does he need to win from here on out to reach a majority?  Around 60%?

    Assuming he wins 6 in WI and gets swept in the rest of CO and WY, he'd need to win 63% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to clinch on pledged delegates alone.

    Tough, but doable; would require blowout wins in IN, CA, and NY, or a shock win in MT.

    Of course, Trump is going to win some unpledged delegates.  Based on our most recent information, I'm going to project he wins at least 20 unpledged delegates out of Pennsylvania.  Combined with the rest of my projections, that puts him at 1205.  If he can convince a fair chunk of the remainder of the PA delegation, as well as a few insular delegates, he may just be able to eke out a win on the first ballot.

    Pennsylvania, Indiana, and California are the keys.

    Trump will not win Indiana.  He may have a shot in IN-2, IN-3, or IN-4, if delegates are apportioned by CD.  IN-07 is Kasich Kountry if he's still in the race, and the rest belongs to Cruz.

    IN-3 is Stutzman territory thus almost safe Cruz. I'm in IN-4 and it's almost as evangelical as 3 thus also Cruz (Cruz's dad is coming to Kokomo Thursday). Kasich will be shut out and Trump will at best get IN-1.

    Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and the crumbling RV industry seem like reasonable places for Trump to get support.  I just moved to Indy from Lafayette, and it seems like a Trump-friendly place.

    I also spend a lot of time in Valparaiso, but the Region is difficult to read.

    In any event, Indiana is not going to be kind to The Donald.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 05, 2016, 10:07:30 PM
    Preliminary Wisconsin results suggest a 36-6 Cruz victory here.

    Cruz does what he needed to do and then a bit more, especially given his wins around Madison and Green Bay.  The north and west of the state still elude him however, and prevent the complete shutout.

    Trump loses an opportunity for an upset here, but honestly his delegate math isn't much worse off than it was previously, since we all expected a Cruz victory here.

    This gives Cruz his 8th Rule 40 state (including my projection in WY), so now both Trump and Cruz will appear and have their delegates tallied on the first ballot at Cleveland.

    It seems highly, highly unlikely that any other candidate is going to qualify under Rule 40; I'll discuss the resulting consequences for Kasich (not as many as you'd think) again in a future post.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 06, 2016, 01:41:27 AM
    Sanders got super unlucky with delegate splits. He's splitting 3-3 in WI-1, WI-6, WI-7, and WI-8.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on April 06, 2016, 01:55:55 AM
    Sanders got super unlucky with delegate splits. He's splitting 3-3 in WI-1, WI-6, WI-7, and WI-8.

    I would be in favor in the next cycle that every CD is attached an odd number of delegates. Winning a CD should matter.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: IceSpear on April 06, 2016, 01:57:41 AM
    Allocating delegates by CD is an idiotic idea to begin with considering how badly we get screwed by GOP gerrymanders. No need to validate them through our primary process.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on April 06, 2016, 02:05:34 AM
    Allocating delegates by CD is an idiotic idea to begin with considering how badly we get screwed by GOP gerrymanders. No need to validate them through our primary process.

    Delegate by county or maybe districts drawn by the DNC that are appropriated by Democratic vote strength? I still think you need to have some sort of representation by area in a state.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 06, 2016, 02:14:12 AM
    Sanders got super unlucky with delegate splits. He's splitting 3-3 in WI-1, WI-6, WI-7, and WI-8.

    Expect this to be a common refrain from here on out in any states Sanders wins by a healthy margin.  There are a good 100+ CDs with 6 delegates in the remaining states.

    The Democratic party could just allocate all delegates proportionally by the statewide vote, but select them on a jurisdictional level; many Republican states use such a system.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 06, 2016, 10:09:39 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 06, 2016, 10:30:06 AM
    New York (D): April 19

    Overview
    291 Delegates (6.10% of total)
    Closed Primary
    163 District
    54 At-Large
    30 PLEO At-Large
    44 Superdelegates

    Details

    Groups of 54 and 30 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned based on the results in each CD: 5 in CDs 11,19,22,23; 6 in CDs 1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,13,15,16,17,18,21,24,25,27; 7 in CDs 3,7,14,20,26.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (39): Bill Clinton (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bill-clinton-says-he-ll-be-backstage-as-hillary-campaigns-1.3028361), Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Reps. Steve Israel, Kathleen Rice, Gregory Meeks, Grace Meng, Nydia Velázquez, Hakeem Jeffries, Yvette Clarke, Jerrold Nadler, Carolyn Maloney, Charlie Rangel, Joseph Crowley, José Serrano, Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey, Sean Maloney, Paul Tonko, Louise Slaughter, and Brian Higgins (http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/10/8580229/new-yorks-congressional-democrats-unite-behind-clinton), Jay Jacobs, Sarah Kovner, Barbarlee Diamonstein Spielvogel, Herman Farrell, Stephanie Miner, Maria Cuomo Cole, Vice Chair Sheila Comar, Jennifer Cunningham, Emily Giske, Dennis Riera, Gerry Sweeney, Robert Zimmerman (http://observer.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-has-a-lot-of-big-names-on-her-new-york-leadership-team/), Randi Weingarten (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/11/hillary-clinton-picks-up-teachers-union-endorsement/), Ralph Dawson, Stuart Appelbaum, Hector Figueroa (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/02/03/hillary-for-america-files-for-ny-primary-support-from-ny-dnc-members-growing/), Laphonza Butler (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/clinton-gains-support-170-african-american-women-leaders-n510846)

    Uncommitted (5): Ex-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, Vivian Cook, Democratic National Convention CEO Leah Daughtry, Vacant (was Sheldon Silver), Vacant Chair (was David Paterson)

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: NY (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NY-D)
    NY Delegate Selection Plan (http://nydems.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/120215-NY-DSPv3.pdf)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 06, 2016, 10:58:09 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 06, 2016, 02:14:44 PM
    Per request, posted my current projections for the remaining states on the tumblr (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/142362384699/delegate-projections).

    Reposting them here.  Comments and critiques are very welcome.

    Colorado: 28 Cruz - 3 Uncommitted
    Results out of Colorado so far suggest a Cruz sweep, though a couple extra Uncommitted (beyond the 3 RNC members) is possible.

    Wyoming: 14 Cruz - 3 Uncommitted
    A Cruz sweep seems all but certain here, given the results in the County Conventions.  In fact, I’m so sure that I’ve already incorporated this projection into my current totals, though an extra uncommitted or two is always possible.

    New York: Trump 84  - Cruz 4 - Kasich 7
    Trump should break 50% statewide and in most CDs.  A fair amount of uncertainty here, as so much depends on the few registered Republicans in New York City.

    Connecticut: Trump 18 - Cruz 3 - Kasich 7
    Trump has a solid win, but not a sweep.  One of Kasich’s better targets of the remaining states.

    Delaware: Trump 16
    Unclear, but Trump seems favored to win this WTA state.

    Maryland: Trump 29 - Cruz 3 - Kasich 6
    Another unclear one, but Trump should benefit from a divided field. Cruz maybe picks up the panhandle CD, while Kasich takes a couple of DC metro CDs.

    Pennsylvania: Trump 37 - Cruz 7 - Kasich 7 - Uncommitted 20
    Only 17 pledged delegates technically at stake here, but a lot of the unpledged delegates have agreed to support the vote winner in their CD.  Trump seems likely to prevail at the moment over a divided field.

    Rhode Island: Trump 10 - Cruz 3 - Kasich 6
    Trump dominates, but proportionality keeps his delegate margins down.

    Indiana: Trump 9 - Cruz 48
    Cruz victory, though not a sweep.  If Trump can pull off the upset here, he likely clinches the nomination.

    Nebraska: Cruz 36
    Cruz wins.

    West Virginia: Trump 34
    There’s a possibility Trump doesn’t sweep here due to loophole primary issues, but it shouldn’t make a difference of more than one or two delegates.

    Oregon
    : Trump 11 - Cruz 12 - Kasich 5
    Proportional, with Cruz favored.

    Washington: Trump 20 - Cruz 17 - Kasich 7
    Proportional; unclear, but giving the slight edge to Trump.

    California: Trump 121 - Cruz 45 - Kasich 6
    The big Kahuna.  This can make or break the nomination.  This figure is for a sizeable (but not landslide) Trump victory, with Trump dominance in heavily Democratic districts.

    Montana: Cruz 27
    A Trump upset here would make a huge difference.

    New Jersey: Trump 51
    (Insert YUGE pun of choice)

    New Mexico: Trump 10 - Cruz 10 - Kasich 4
    Proportional.

    South Dakota: Cruz 29
    Seems like Cruz country.

    Totals (including all other states):
    Trump 1208
    Cruz 813
    Kasich 200
    Other 141
    Uncommitted 110

    If those are the actual results, it gets hard to stop Trump on the first ballot.  He’d only need 29 more delegates, and the remaining Pennsylvania and insular unbound delegates should be enough to almost get him there.  Should be a really interesting convention!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 06, 2016, 02:35:56 PM
    Kasich's Prospects

    Obviously, reaching 1237 on the first ballot is impossible for him, as, at this point, is even qualifying under Rule 40.

    Continuing his campaign actively does net him more delegates (perhaps helping to deprive Trump of some), lets him continue any delegate selection efforts in the states that have already voted (though there is no indication that such efforts exist), and keeps him around as a potentially viable candidate after the first ballot.

    In the meantime, though, what are his prospects?  Does his staying in the race help or hurt Trump?  Let's go through this state by state.

    Colorado & Wyoming

    He's a non-factor here.  He had zero delegate candidates in Wyoming on the County level, and does not have a full slate of delegates in Colorado.

    New York

    The game here is to keep Trump under 50% statewide and in as many CDs as possible.  Given that, Kasich staying in can only help, especially since he's a better fit for much of the state than Cruz.  It's possible a divided field could help Trump win a CD or two in odd places, but it's worth the risk.

    Connecticut

    At-Large is proportional, but CDs are winner take all.  Kasich is a much better fit than Cruz here (and actually has some small shot at winning the state); if anything, it's Cruz who should back down here.

    Delaware

    Hard to tell if either of the not Trumps have a chance here, to be honest.  Kasich not competing here likely wouldn't make a difference.

    Maryland

    Divided field helps Trump here, but I don't think Trump would lose the 1v1 fight here vs Cruz.  This is one of the friendlier states for Kasich in the remaining schedule, and he may be able to pick up a CD or two.

    Pennsylvania

    This one's a mess.  Polling is divided as to who the leading non-Trump candidate would be here, which means Trump likely wins the state.  I think Kasich has to make the play here, though, especially as I don't think Trump would lose to Cruz here.

    Rhode Island

    Proportional; no reason to stay out.

    --May--

    Indiana

    Very naively a target for Kasich, but he should stay out and make sure Cruz beats Trump to a pulp.

    West Virginia

    No hope anyway.

    Oregon & Washington

    Proportional, so might as well make a play.

    --June--

    California

    He could target a few selected CDs in the Bay Area, but should otherwise steer clear.

    Montana & South Dakota

    Stay away and let Cruz win these.  Seriously.

    New Mexico

    Proportional, so no harm in making a play here.

    New Jersey

    Abandon all hope.

    TL;DR: Kasich should seriously campaign in all of the remaining April primaries.  After that, camp out in Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and maybe the Bay Area and make no serious effort anywhere else, barring a major shift in the race.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on April 06, 2016, 02:38:23 PM
    I feel like a lot of the PA delegates might say right now that they will vote for the state's winner to get elected, but they wouldn't really do that.  Also, I think you're WAY too optimistic for Trump in California.  I think Kasich is falling more than you account for as well.  I just projected it on 538 and got 1122 for Trump.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 06, 2016, 02:54:09 PM
    I feel like a lot of the PA delegates might say right now that they will vote for the state's winner to get elected, but they wouldn't really do that.  Also, I think you're WAY too optimistic for Trump in California.  I think Kasich is falling more than you account for as well.  I just projected it on 538 and got 1122 for Trump.

    Entirely possible on all counts.  PA and CA are the two major sources of uncertainty here.

    We'll see what happens later this month!

    In Pennsylvania, I see no real reason not to take them at their word; it would be quite something if Cruz were to essentially "steal" a state Trump won.  Not that that will necessarily stop anyone (Cruz will win Louisiana on delegates, after all), but going back on their word rather than just rigging the selection process a bit is a big step.

    As for California, Trump's prospects might diminish if Kasich does indeed tank.  It should also be noted that Trump might still win the majority of delegates in CA even if he loses the state, if he dominates among the disproportionately-represented Democratic districts.  The figure now is a complete estimate; I may do a more detailed CA analysis later and come up with a more reasonable figure.

    Also, when I have to make judgment calls, I'm going to make them in favor of Trump; it's best in my mind to have a clear view of the worst case scenario.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 06, 2016, 10:06:44 PM
    I've added a Delegate Selection Calendar (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=226605.msg4878052#msg4878052) post to the first page.

    Over 600 delegates have been chosen so far; we're just getting into the delegate selection season as we speak.

    Pretty much every Saturday from now until May 21 should feature a State Convention, and there are CD conventions liberally sprinkled through the rest of the calendar.

    Note that, due to RNC deadlines, the last delegate selection process is also on June 7 (the CA & NJ primaries); many later states actually have their delegate selection before their delegate allocation!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on April 06, 2016, 10:42:24 PM
    When I have some time, I can do a little write up on the Tennessee delegates that I know.

    I also have three good friends who very narrowly lost their races to be delegates, including one who was significantly ahead with 99% of the precincts in and went over a month thinking she had made it before finding out that she had been knocked out by the last few precincts.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 06, 2016, 11:18:54 PM
    Thinking ahead to multiple convention ballots, the governors of states and state party chairmen could have decent amounts of sway in their states' delegate slates. Here's who Governors have endorsed that may go against Trump:

    Cruz:
    Walker (WI)
    Herbert (UT)
    Haley (SC)
    Bryant (MS)
    Abbott (TX)

    Rubio:
    Martinez (NM)
    Haslam (TN)
    Hutchinson (AR)
    Brownback (KS)

    Kasich:
    Otter (ID)
    Bentley (AL)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 07, 2016, 12:57:37 AM
    Per request, posted my current projections for the remaining states on the tumblr (http://the-delegate-fight.tumblr.com/post/142362384699/delegate-projections).

    Reposting them here.  Comments and critiques are very welcome.

    So, based on how you worded some of your post, e.g.:

    Quote
    Pennsylvania: Trump 37 - Cruz 7 - Kasich 7 - Uncommitted 20
    Only 17 pledged delegates technically at stake here, but a lot of the unpledged delegates have agreed to support the vote winner in their CD.  Trump seems likely to prevail at the moment over a divided field.

    it looks like what you’re calculating here is not just a prediction for the number of delegates that would be pledged to each candidate, but their pledged delegates *plus* the unpledged delegates who are likely to vote for them on the first ballot.  I'd actually be more interested in seeing those kept as separate categories (pledged delegates in one category, and unpledged but likely to vote for X, or maybe even already endorsed, in another category).

    This might be too large a project for us, but can we put together a categorization of all of the unpledged delegates: In a scenario where the outcome on the first ballot would be in doubt, how many have already endorsed someone, how many are strong leaners towards one candidate or the other, how many do we have no clue about, etc.?  Many delegates haven't even been chosen yet, but enough have that we could potentially keep track of this in the different categories, and get some sort of feeling for how many pledged delegates Trump would need before he's within "striking distance" with the unpledged delegates.  Even if exact numbers are a big mystery, any sort of rough idea on the number for each category would be interesting.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 01:03:49 AM
    Thinking ahead to multiple convention ballots, the governors of states and state party chairmen could have decent amounts of sway in their states' delegate slates. Here's who Governors have endorsed that may go against Trump:

    Cruz:
    Walker (WI)
    Herbert (UT)
    Haley (SC)
    Bryant (MS)
    Abbott (TX)

    Rubio:
    Martinez (NM)
    Haslam (TN)
    Hutchinson (AR)
    Brownback (KS)

    Kasich:
    Otter (ID)
    Bentley (AL)


    Note that, unlike on the Democratic side, Republican governors aren't guaranteed to be in the delegation (although it is relatively frequent; I know Kasich and Phil Bryant were there in 2012, for just two examples).

    So far, the governors that have been chosen as delegates are Haslam (TN), Dalrymple (ND), Daugaard (SD), Calvo (GU), and Torres (MP).  That said, relatively few states have finished their selection processes yet; the only states that have finished and do not have their Republican governor in their delegation are Alabama (good thing too, because that would have been embarrassing) and Ohio (for obvious reasons).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Matty on April 07, 2016, 01:12:03 AM
    What state can trump absolutely not afford to underperform in?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 07, 2016, 01:30:47 AM
    What state can trump absolutely not afford to underperform in?
    New York.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 07, 2016, 01:31:13 AM
    What state can trump absolutely not afford to underperform in?
    Besides the obvious (California nd New York), Delaware could be a very important battleground.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 01:53:59 AM
    There are way fewer delegates really at stake in New York than people think.  I can't see Trump falling below 70 there, though of course the difference between 70 and 90 is nothing to be sneezed at.

    California, obviously, is the main one.  Breaking even is not good enough, while a McCain-style landslide would most likely clinch him the nomination.

    Pennsylvania is bigger than most people think, due to the promises many delegates have made to bind themselves to the winner of the district.  And the 17 At-Large delegates are nothing to sneeze at, either.  Even so, barring a win in Indiana or a knockout blow in California, Trump is going to need a fair share of those unpledged delegates in Pennsylvania; if he were to actually lose there, I don't see a real viable path forward for him.

    Obviously, New Jersey is also a must-win, but if he's losing New Jersey he's obviously already lost the nomination.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on April 07, 2016, 05:49:09 AM
    You say that Trump will do well in heavily Dem CD's in CA, but the latest poll, has LA County as Cruz's strongest area by far, with a pretty substantial lead.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: windjammer on April 07, 2016, 05:56:38 AM
    Erc I think you're wrong:
    Quote from: http://www.bustle.com/articles/148892-which-states-dont-have-winner-take-all-primaries-proportional-delegate-distribution-reigns-supreme-this-election-season
    Instead, states are divided by proportional, winner-take-all and winner-take-most designations, with the occasional unique set of rules popping up in states like New York, Michigan, and Texas, where winner-take-all rules apply only if a candidate scores at least 50 percent of the vote.
    If he gets 50%, he wins all the delegates. NY is a winner take most state.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: emailking on April 07, 2016, 07:28:39 AM
    Maryland: Trump 29 - Cruz 3 - Kasich 6
    Another unclear one, but Trump should benefit from a divided field. Cruz maybe picks up the panhandle CD, while Kasich takes a couple of DC metro CDs.

    Chuck Todd's team seemed to think Trump will do badly in MD because of how badly he did in DC. He did win VA though so I'm not sure what to make of it.

    Erc I think you're wrong:
    Quote from: http://www.bustle.com/articles/148892-which-states-dont-have-winner-take-all-primaries-proportional-delegate-distribution-reigns-supreme-this-election-season
    Instead, states are divided by proportional, winner-take-all and winner-take-most designations, with the occasional unique set of rules popping up in states like New York, Michigan, and Texas, where winner-take-all rules apply only if a candidate scores at least 50 percent of the vote.
    If he gets 50%, he wins all the delegates. NY is a winner take most state.

    The Green Papers says it's by CD as well as a small slate that's statewide.

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NY-R


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bacon King on April 07, 2016, 07:34:26 AM
    Erc I think you're wrong:
    Quote from: http://www.bustle.com/articles/148892-which-states-dont-have-winner-take-all-primaries-proportional-delegate-distribution-reigns-supreme-this-election-season
    Instead, states are divided by proportional, winner-take-all and winner-take-most designations, with the occasional unique set of rules popping up in states like New York, Michigan, and Texas, where winner-take-all rules apply only if a candidate scores at least 50 percent of the vote.
    If he gets 50%, he wins all the delegates. NY is a winner take most state.

    A lot of NY delegation is awarded by CD

    In disagreements between Erc and random non-official websites, I will side with Erc every time


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 10:39:19 AM
    You say that Trump will do well in heavily Dem CD's in CA, but the latest poll, has LA County as Cruz's strongest area by far, with a pretty substantial lead.

    Really?  Well, that's a bad sign for Trump.  Hope they are polling actual registered Republicans.

    Maryland: Trump 29 - Cruz 3 - Kasich 6
    Another unclear one, but Trump should benefit from a divided field. Cruz maybe picks up the panhandle CD, while Kasich takes a couple of DC metro CDs.

    Chuck Todd's team seemed to think Trump will do badly in MD because of how badly he did in DC. He did win VA though so I'm not sure what to make of it.

    Trump did get destroyed in DC, as well as in Arlington (albeit VA was an open primary, which actually hurt Trump there, in a reversal of the usual pattern) and to a lesser extent Fairfax.  Hard to extrapolate though...good sign for Kasich in Montgomery County, but hard to tell beyond that.

    Baltimore and environs seem like they'd be good for Trump, given the BLM activity in the last year.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 10:53:21 AM
    So, let's talk about California a little bit.

    Field Poll subamples suggests Cruz doing well in LA County and the Central Valley, running close in the Bay Area (small subsample), but getting demolished in "Other Southern California."

    So, "Other Southern California."  This seems to be San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial.

    Normally, I'd imagine San Diego and Orange to be prime Cruz country.  Does this mean Trump is demolishing everywhere else, or do I have the wrong read on these counties?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on April 07, 2016, 10:58:11 AM
    So, let's talk about California a little bit.

    Field Poll subamples suggests Cruz doing well in LA County and the Central Valley, running close in the Bay Area (small subsample), but getting demolished in "Other Southern California."

    So, "Other Southern California."  This seems to be San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial.

    Normally, I'd imagine San Diego and Orange to be prime Cruz country.  Does this mean Trump is demolishing everywhere else, or do I have the wrong read on these counties?

    You have the counties right (other than maybe Kern and San Luis Obispo). The everywhere else in Socal number for Trump does seem high. Sure he is probably demolishing in Riverside and San Bernadino, and Kern of course if it is within the zone, but San Diego and Orange have more people. I would think Cruz would be particularly strong in Orange. Trump would do well in Ventura, and not well in Santa Barbara, but Ventura again has more people than Santa Barbara.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 11:06:07 AM
    (No sane person would include Kern in "other Southern California," but it says it's 9 counties, so it has to be.  Kern could easily be either strong Trump or strong Cruz, I'm honestly not sure.  My folks are ancestrally from Tulare County; I'm curious to see how that neck of the woods turns out.)

    Bay Area:

    CDs 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19.

    LA County:

    CDs 33, 30, 29, 28, 27, 32, 34, 37, 43, 40, 44, 38, 47, 25.

    Other Southern California:

    24, 23, 8, 26, 31, 35, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 36, 50, 51, 52, 53

    Central Valley/Sierras:

    1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 21, 22

    Even if Cruz just wins the 24 CDs in LA and "Central Valley/Sierras", it's probably good enough to deny Trump the nomination.  Obviously, there's going to be regional variation, but that number is a good benchmark.  100-72 is not a big enough win for Trump, though of course he'll try to spin it as such.

    And, all in all, this does stress that Kasich shouldn't be making a play here beyond the City of San Francisco itself.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 05:44:46 PM
    Kasich and Rule 40

    It seems abundantly clear that Kasich, barring a complete shakeup of the race and insular shenanigans, isn't going to qualify under Rule 40.

    Both the Trump and Cruz campaigns have expressed an unwillingness to change Rule 40, so it seems unlikely that it will.  If this is indeed the case, what happens to Kasich's delegates?

    Actually, not much.  The ones that are bound to him are still, for the most part, bound to him even if he isn't placed into nomination.  They will be obliged to vote for him on the first ballot, but the Secretary of the Convention will not tally their votes.  If they try to vote for someone else, that support will also not be recognized by the Secretary of the Convention.

    There are a few exceptions to this.

    New Hampshire (4 delegates): They are released if he is not a candidate before the convention; that said, Kasich picked these delegates and they may still vote for him anyway.

    Vermont (8 delegates): These are released if he doesn't have his name placed into nomination.  These delegates are chosen by the State Convention on May 21, so Kasich doesn't necessarily have their loyalty.

    Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota: In the event Kasich wins any delegates in these states (would require winning the state outright in the latter two cases, or any CDs in the former), they will also be released before the first ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Matty on April 07, 2016, 05:49:30 PM
    ERC, I am running the numbers and I don't see trump getting below 1237 if he gets all 95 NY delegates, which is huge possibility. In fact, he could lose California and MD and still get 1237 if all 95 NY dels go to him.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on April 07, 2016, 06:34:06 PM
    ERC, I am running the numbers and I don't see trump getting below 1237 if he gets all 95 NY delegates, which is huge possibility. In fact, he could lose California and MD and still get 1237 if all 95 NY dels go to him.

    I don't think he'll quite get all 95, but I would be shocked if he's under 85.  The couple thousand Republican voters in NY-15/NY-13/NY-07/NY-08 are likely to be devoutly religious Hispanic Catholics, black Evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews.  That's an opening for Cruz.

    I feel like he will only get 65-75.  He should dominate upstate, but he will struggle in NYC and suburbs, I would think.  It will also be very close whether or not he gets all 14 statewide or just 7.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 08:18:58 PM
    ERC, I am running the numbers and I don't see trump getting below 1237 if he gets all 95 NY delegates, which is huge possibility. In fact, he could lose California and MD and still get 1237 if all 95 NY dels go to him.

    My current projections have him winning both California and MD (though neither in landslide fashion) and 84/95 delegates in New York, and still falling short by over 50 delegates.

    Are you giving Trump Indiana or Montana or something?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 08:57:16 PM
    Reposting this from another thread:

    Master thread someone is keeping for the Pennsylvania delegates:

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NfzyoWfwqjrYbc5Xqb9lyerxztNxLuZDzwPBarYZJFA/edit#gid=0


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Classic Conservative on April 07, 2016, 09:06:26 PM
    I know in Massachusetts we have Congressional District Caucuses for the Republicans on April 30th for delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 09:57:38 PM
    The Master PA sheet tells us, for the top 3 delegates on the ballot in each district:

    Winner of District: 24
    Uncommitted: 10
    Cruz: 9
    Trump: 5
    Unknown: 4
    Kasich: 1
    Winner of State: 1

    Note that the 1 Kasich delegate is uncontested, so Kasich will probably get at least 1 delegate out of Pennsylvania regardless.



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 07, 2016, 10:37:40 PM
    I guessed at the 3 delegate winners from each district on that Google Spreadsheet, and got these results for Pennsylvania (I made some assumptions about some delegates as well):

    1 - Trump, Uncommitted, District Winner (Trump)
    2 - Cruz, Uncommitted, District Winner (Trump)
    3 - Trump, Uncommitted, District Winner (Trump)
    4 - Cruz, District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich)
    5 - District Winner (Trump), District Winner (Trump), District Winner (Trump)
    6 - Cruz, District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich)
    7 - District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich), Trump
    8 - Uncommitted, Uncommitted, District Winner (Kasich)
    9 - Cruz, Trump, District Winner (Kasich)
    10 - Cruz, Trump, District Winner (Trump)
    11 - Cruz, Cruz, Trump
    12 - Trump, District Winner (Trump), District Winner (Trump)
    13 - District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich)
    14 - Cruz, Kasich, Cruz
    15 - Cruz, Trump, Uncommitted
    16 - Trump, District Winner (Kasich), District Winner (Kasich)
    17 - Trump, Trump, Uncommitted
    18 - District Winner (Trump), District Winner (Trump), Cruz

    Trump: 11, Cruz: 11, Kasich: 1, Uncommitted: 7, District Winner: 24
    With Predicted District Winners: Trump: 22, Kasich: 14, Cruz: 11, Uncommitted: 7
    Total PA delegates: Trump: 39, Kasich: 14, Cruz: 11, Uncommitted: 7

    I'm roughly predicting the CDs to break down like this:
    Trump CDs: 10, 11, 17, 3, 5, 2, 1, 12, 18, 9
    Kasich CDs: 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 07, 2016, 11:50:10 PM
    ERC, I am running the numbers and I don't see trump getting below 1237 if he gets all 95 NY delegates, which is huge possibility. In fact, he could lose California and MD and still get 1237 if all 95 NY dels go to him.

    If we go by Sabato projections, trump is failing to hit his post-Ides of March goals even if he wins every delegate from NY. (Assuming 0 from Colorado, he got an extra delegate in ND, 14 extra in NY (his goal there was 81), lost 24 in Wisconsin, and lost 2 from Rubio's action in AK.) He would then be 11 short of his goal...1226 would probably still be a trump victory, of course, but it would still be "contested", and of course I've said many times that I expect Cruz to win California, and Sabato's projection includes a decisive trump wins in California and Indiana, though it also assumes no uncommitteds from Pennsylvania go trump, which is obviously naive but is outweighed by places they seem to've underestimated him.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 07, 2016, 11:50:35 PM
    Master Delegate Spreadsheet

    I've started a viewable delegate spreadsheet, which features live updates of:

    1) Summary delegate chart on the front page.

    2) A list of all 2472 delegates

    3) Trump Tetris

    4) RNC Delegate Map

    It can be found here. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing)  Hope this helps!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 08, 2016, 12:37:06 AM
    There are a few exceptions to this.

    New Hampshire (4 delegates): They are released if he is not a candidate before the convention; that said, Kasich picked these delegates and they may still vote for him anyway.

    Vermont (8 delegates): These are released if he doesn't have his name placed into nomination.  These delegates are chosen by the State Convention on May 21, so Kasich doesn't necessarily have their loyalty.

    Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota: In the event Kasich wins any delegates in these states (would require winning the state outright in the latter two cases, or any CDs in the former), they will also be released before the first ballot.

    Isn’t Rule 40 actually kind of a problem for Cruz then?  Here’s my logic:

    I’m assuming that Cruz’s strategy is to win on the second ballot.  Winning on the first ballot seems like it’ll most likely be impossible for him, since there are enough Kasich and Rubio delegates who are pledged to vote for them on the first ballot regardless of whether their names are placed into nomination or not.  As you said, those delegates will vote for Kasich or Rubio, and the Secretary of the Convention just won’t tally their votes.  But that’s OK for Cruz.  His goal on the first ballot is just to make sure that Trump doesn’t get a majority.  A delegate voting for Kasich or Rubio is just as good as one voting for Cruz in terms of denying Trump a majority.

    So then, Cruz should be happy to see delegates pledged to Kasich and Rubio on the first ballot.  If any of them become free agents, then some could defect to Trump, and it could be enough to get him to 1237.  Therefore, if Rule 40 means that Kasich delegates in IN or VT (or Rubio delegates in other states) get released and can vote for anyone, then Cruz has some additional delegates who he needs to worry about—who he needs to make sure don’t vote for Trump.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 08, 2016, 12:51:53 AM
    There are a few exceptions to this.

    New Hampshire (4 delegates): They are released if he is not a candidate before the convention; that said, Kasich picked these delegates and they may still vote for him anyway.

    Vermont (8 delegates): These are released if he doesn't have his name placed into nomination.  These delegates are chosen by the State Convention on May 21, so Kasich doesn't necessarily have their loyalty.

    Indiana, Montana, and South Dakota: In the event Kasich wins any delegates in these states (would require winning the state outright in the latter two cases, or any CDs in the former), they will also be released before the first ballot.

    Isn’t Rule 40 actually kind of a problem for Cruz then?  Here’s my logic:

    I’m assuming that Cruz’s strategy is to win on the second ballot.  Winning on the first ballot seems like it’ll most likely be impossible for him, since there are enough Kasich and Rubio delegates who are pledged to vote for them on the first ballot regardless of whether their names are placed into nomination or not.  As you said, those delegates will vote for Kasich or Rubio, and the Secretary of the Convention just won’t tally their votes.  But that’s OK for Cruz.  His goal on the first ballot is just to make sure that Trump doesn’t get a majority.  A delegate voting for Kasich or Rubio is just as good as one voting for Cruz in terms of denying Trump a majority.

    So then, Cruz should be happy to see delegates pledged to Kasich and Rubio on the first ballot.  If any of them become free agents, then some could defect to Trump, and it could be enough to get him to 1237.  Therefore, if Rule 40 means that Kasich delegates in IN or VT (or Rubio delegates in other states) get released and can vote for anyone, then Cruz has some additional delegates who he needs to worry about—who he needs to make sure don’t vote for Trump.


    I'd agree with that, personally.  He's got two worries to balance here.

    1) Trump winning on the first ballot.  Allowing Rubio and Kasich to be placed on the ballot ties up around 43 delegates (depending on interpretation of certain state rules), that you don't have to worry about defecting to Trump (assuming neither Rubio nor Kasich withdraw or release their delegates).

    2) Kasich (or Rubio) winning on some later ballot.  If Kasich doesn't technically appear on the first ballot, his delegates may be demoralized on the first ballot (or, perhaps, confused about the rules) and not vote for him on later ballots, instead defecting to Cruz on later ballots.  If Cruz intends to campaign to change (or more properly, reinterpret) the rules to prohibit further names from being placed in nomination after the first ballot, then this is a larger factor.

    Of course, Cruz has a lot of time here to figure out his convention strategy.  If Trump is above 1200, 1) becomes a larger concern.  Otherwise, it's not and he can feel free to shut Kasich out if he likes.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 08, 2016, 01:11:38 AM
    That said, the bulk of the delegates in question (32/43) are from Oklahoma and Minnesota, where he will presumably control the convention process and can handpick delegates.  (Already, he has one of the Rubio delegates from Oklahoma locked down).  Vermont is another question, of course, and if it comes down to those 8 delegates he may want to ensure Kasich is on the first ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Why on April 08, 2016, 01:59:37 AM
    If the rules of the convention are that only Trump or Cruz could be nominated could the convention become deadlocked with neither Trump or Cruz able to reach 1237?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 08, 2016, 02:03:56 AM
    If the rules of the convention are that only Trump or Cruz could be nominated could the convention become deadlocked with neither Trump or Cruz able to reach 1237?

    In principle, sure.  Of course, a majority of the convention could always vote to change the rules if a majority of delegates actually favor a compromise candidate.

    Outright Cruz victory on the 2nd or 3rd ballot seems more likely to me, though.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 08, 2016, 05:19:29 AM
    Green Papers still has Nevada 20-15 Hillary. But you still have one more delegate for Bernie somewhere else than them, do you know where?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gustaf on April 08, 2016, 06:01:34 AM
    Master Delegate Spreadsheet

    I've started a viewable delegate spreadsheet, which features live updates of:

    1) Summary delegate chart on the front page.

    2) A list of all 2472 delegates

    3) Trump Tetris

    4) RNC Delegate Map

    It can be found here. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing)  Hope this helps!

    Excellent! I think that in your summary sheet, cell L60 is wrong. Shouldn't it be the sum from L42 to L57?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 08, 2016, 06:28:57 AM
    Master Delegate Spreadsheet

    I've started a viewable delegate spreadsheet, which features live updates of:

    1) Summary delegate chart on the front page.

    2) A list of all 2472 delegates

    3) Trump Tetris

    4) RNC Delegate Map

    It can be found here. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing)  Hope this helps!

    Very cool Erc.  Just one extra thing that I was thinking of that would be useful: In another post you just made, about how Cruz loyalists controlled the delegate selection in states like MN and OK, that kind of thing would give us a clue as to who some of the "uncommitted" might actually support, right?

    That is, as I understand it, you count 155 delegates (so far) not pledged to any candidate, but 33 of them have endorsed one of the candidates, so that leaves 122 for whom we're nominally uncertain about their loyalties.  But can you break down which of them were chosen in states where the delegate selection was controlled by Cruz loyalists (or loyalists of some other candidate)?  Do we have that kind of info, to help us decode the likely loyalty of those 122 delegates?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 08, 2016, 10:28:49 AM
    Excellent! I think that in your summary sheet, cell L60 is wrong. Shouldn't it be the sum from L42 to L57?
    Old, duplicate cell; deleted now.  Thanks for the catch!

    Very cool Erc.  Just one extra thing that I was thinking of that would be useful: In another post you just made, about how Cruz loyalists controlled the delegate selection in states like MN and OK, that kind of thing would give us a clue as to who some of the "uncommitted" might actually support, right?

    That is, as I understand it, you count 155 delegates (so far) not pledged to any candidate, but 33 of them have endorsed one of the candidates, so that leaves 122 for whom we're nominally uncertain about their loyalties.  But can you break down which of them were chosen in states where the delegate selection was controlled by Cruz loyalists (or loyalists of some other candidate)?  Do we have that kind of info, to help us decode the likely loyalty of those 122 delegates?


    The hard information I have is buried in the huge list of all the delegates.  Could be useful to break the unpledged delegates out into their own spreadsheet.

    My guesses as to how Oklahoma and Minnesota will play out are based on (1) the results so far in OK [which are admittedly limited] and (2) my anecdotal evidence from the conventions I've been to here in MN.  Not all that much to go on, but I'll make a note of it.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 08, 2016, 10:48:17 AM
    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/07/gop-delegate-fight-coming-iowa/82746800/

    Trump senior adviser Tana Goertz said the front-runner’s campaign is executing a “caucus-to-convention strategy” aimed at getting as many Trump backers to Cleveland as possible, although she declined to share details on how that effort was playing out in Iowa.

    “We’re doing everything that every other campaign would do and more — I mean, we do work for Donald Trump,” Goertz said. “... We’re doing everything that any other campaign would be doing that’s ethically acceptable.”

    As Patrick Svitek pointed out on twitter, that's a pretty sketchy quote.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 08, 2016, 02:37:03 PM
    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/07/gop-delegate-fight-coming-iowa/82746800/

    Trump senior adviser Tana Goertz said the front-runner’s campaign is executing a “caucus-to-convention strategy” aimed at getting as many Trump backers to Cleveland as possible, although she declined to share details on how that effort was playing out in Iowa.

    “We’re doing everything that every other campaign would do and more — I mean, we do work for Donald Trump,” Goertz said. “... We’re doing everything that any other campaign would be doing that’s ethically acceptable.”

    As Patrick Svitek pointed out on twitter, that's a pretty sketchy quote.


    Maybe it's trying to be a slam at Cruz and general ratery?  If so, didn't really come off that well.

    In other news, Cruz picks up 3 more delegates in the CO-5 convention.  If he sweeps another CD, I'm calling the At-Large delegates for him as well (though we'll find out for sure tomorrow).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 08, 2016, 04:20:49 PM
    Cruz picks up 6 more delegates in Colorado.  With only one CD outstanding, I'm calling the At-Large delegation (another 13 delegates) for him as well.

    One interesting thing to keep an eye on going forward...

    Many states that can bind delegates on multiple ballots provide an automatic release mechanism if the candidate falls below X% of the votes on some ballot. In states where they exist, these range from 10% (California) to 35% (multiple states).

    35% of the delegates is 866 delegates.  Trump will reach that number, though it's not certain that Cruz will; he will likely need a win in California or a significant number of unpledged delegates to get there.  Both are eminently possible, but neither are guaranteed.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 08, 2016, 08:35:07 PM
    Michigan chooses its delegates today and tomorrow at their State Convention.

    Unlike many other states, they are taking a hard line against "ninja delegates" (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trumps-delegate-lock-box-221582#ixzz450inrHao); it seems they are letting the campaigns vet their prospective delegates.

    This is apparently due to a brouhaha during the 1988 campaign; these people have long memories.

    That said, at least one Kasich delegate has said they will vote Cruz on the second ballot.

    Generally, the Cruz folks seem to be better organized but are not officially trying to poach anyone else's delegates.  His slate of 14 CD delegates can be found on Twitter (https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/718555845911527424).  Everyone on his slate has won so far (I've found results for 5/14 CDs so far).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: JerryArkansas on April 08, 2016, 09:45:37 PM
    Erc, I'm wanting to make a map, and I was wondering if you could help me do it. 

    I want to have a map showing who has won the delegates in a given congressional district so far.  By that, who they really support, not who they are bound to on the first ballot.

    All of this would be for republicans of course.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 08, 2016, 10:32:59 PM
    Erc, I'm wanting to make a map, and I was wondering if you could help me do it. 

    I want to have a map showing who has won the delegates in a given congressional district so far.  By that, who they really support, not who they are bound to on the first ballot.

    All of this would be for republicans of course.

    My spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing) would probably be the place to go for that, though it's still very incomplete (delegate selection process is still early, and I haven't done much effort to look for people's true commitments).

    Also, note that some states don't do the delegate selection process on a CD basis at all (New Hampshire, certainly, and perhaps some others).  And of course there's the whole set of At-Large and RNC delegates.  There are only around 1321 CD delegates, only a bit over half of the total.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 08, 2016, 11:54:59 PM
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-washington-state-delegates-late-221725

    Trump is getting his act together. But too late for Washington.  His campaign sent an email to supporters trying to get them to sign up to be delegates, but it was past the deadline already....

    * * *

    Donald Trump’s team is encouraging its supporters in Washington state to sign up to be a potential Trump delegate. The only problem: The campaign's local crew sent its email on Friday — two days after the filing deadline to appear on the printed ballot in Saturday's conventions and caucuses.

    The email, headlined "invitation," encouraged supporters to submit their Declaration of Candidacy for Delegate form. But the very next sentence says the filing deadline was Wednesday.

    “You can still be elected as a Trump Delegate at your GOP County Convention this Saturday!” the April 8 email, which was obtained by POLITICO, says. “If you have submitted a Declaration of Candidacy for Delegate form to your GOP County Chairman by the assigned deadline of 10:00am on April 6th."




    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 09, 2016, 12:26:42 AM
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-washington-state-delegates-late-221725

    Trump is getting his act together. But too late for Washington.  His campaign sent an email to supporters trying to get them to sign up to be delegates, but it was past the deadline already....

    * * *

    Donald Trump’s team is encouraging its supporters in Washington state to sign up to be a potential Trump delegate. The only problem: The campaign's local crew sent its email on Friday — two days after the filing deadline to appear on the printed ballot in Saturday's conventions and caucuses.

    The email, headlined "invitation," encouraged supporters to submit their Declaration of Candidacy for Delegate form. But the very next sentence says the filing deadline was Wednesday.

    “You can still be elected as a Trump Delegate at your GOP County Convention this Saturday!” the April 8 email, which was obtained by POLITICO, says. “If you have submitted a Declaration of Candidacy for Delegate form to your GOP County Chairman by the assigned deadline of 10:00am on April 6th."




    It's like watching a T-Rex trying to do pull-ups.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: republicanbayer on April 09, 2016, 05:37:28 AM
    Why are Kasich's VT, NH delegates released?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 07:49:15 AM
    Why are Kasich's VT, NH delegates released?

    Rule 40 of the RNC requires a candidate to command the support of eight state delegations before having his name placed into nomination.  So far, he's at one, Ohio.  While it is technically possible that he will qualify (as there are well over seven states remaining, as well as some insular territories/North Dakota that he could in principle win), it seems highly unlikely at this point.

    It also seems unlikely at this time that the rule will be changed; both Trump and Cruz have effectively spoken out against a rules change.

    As a result, I feel it's safe to project that Kasich will not be placed into nomination on the first ballot.  This doesn't affect all that much; the vast majority of his delegates are still bound to him and will have to vote for him on the first ballot (though those votes will not be tallied by the Secretary of the Convention).  There are two exceptions.  In New Hampshire, delegates are pledged as long as their candidate is a "candidate before [the] convention"; while this isn't 100% clear, I'm interpreting this as meaning they are released in the event they are not placed into nomination.  It's a bit academic anyway, as Kasich got to pick his delegates in New Hampshire, so they will likely vote for him on the first ballot anyway.  In Vermont, delegates are released if they are not "placed into nomination," which is precisely the case in question.  Vermont's delegates are chosen at their state convention on May 21, and will not necessarily be loyal to Kasich.  As a result, they really will be free agents on the first ballot.

    Of course, this is all assuming that there aren't any major rules changes before the first ballot; if Cruz realizes that he may desperately need Vermont's delegates to be bound to prevent a first-ballot Trump win, we may see Rule 40 relaxed.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 02:32:46 PM
    More news on the Yob front:

    John Yob's father, Chuck Yob, was elected as an At-Large Kasich delegate today (https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/718792640263823360) in his home state of Michigan.  He'll be bound to Kasich on the first ballot unless Kasich should drop out of the race.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 09, 2016, 03:27:25 PM
    Can't keep a good Yob down.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Classic Conservative on April 09, 2016, 03:31:39 PM
    In Virginia's 9th Congressional District Delegate Elections, today Cruz recieved 2 delegates and Trump recieved 1.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GregHabeeb/status/718894222523412482


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 04:37:56 PM
    In Virginia's 9th Congressional District Delegate Elections, today Cruz recieved 2 delegates and Trump recieved 1.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/GregHabeeb/status/718894222523412482

    Also chosen today so far (links in the spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing)):

    SC-7
    OK-2
    KS-4
    KY-1
    KY-6 (3 delegates each)
    Michigan At-Large (14)

    Coming Up Later Today (or I haven't found results yet):

    Iowa's CD Conventions (12)
    Colorado At-Large (13)
    Indiana CD Conventions (27)
    SC-3
    FL-8
    FL-16
    FL-20
    FL-21
    FL-22
    NC-2
    NC-4
    NC-8
    NC-9 (3 each)

    I have no names out of NC, but Trump Twitter is already sure Cruz got the delegates there.

    EDIT: PSA: Don't go on Trump Twitter if you value your faith in humanity.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Likely Voter on April 09, 2016, 05:03:44 PM
    The Sanders campaign has released their own delegate count
    pledged: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-State-by-State-1.pdf
    unpledged: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-Publicly-Committed.pdf

    Their pledged count is actually lower than the one at the beginning of this thread, discrepancies in NV, KS, IL, and NC.  And of course, not sure if the Clinton campaign agrees with their count.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Classic Conservative on April 09, 2016, 05:32:20 PM
    Cruz sweeps all three delegates in Iowa's 4th District


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 05:40:13 PM
    The Sanders campaign has released their own delegate count
    pledged: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-State-by-State-1.pdf
    unpledged: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-Publicly-Committed.pdf

    Their pledged count is actually lower than the one at the beginning of this thread, discrepancies in NV, KS, IL, and NC.  And of course, not sure if the Clinton campaign agrees with their count.

    I saw the superdelegate list; I'll have to have a pass through the pledged.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: emailking on April 09, 2016, 06:05:04 PM
    EDIT: PSA: Don't go on Trump Twitter if you value your faith in humanity.

    And it's actually gotten much tamer in the last few weeks.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 09, 2016, 06:16:14 PM
    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


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 06:52:56 PM
    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

    There had apparently been some earlier confusion on this front, but it all seems to add up now for the 23-10 figure.

    In Illinois, the CD breakdown was always uncertain; if Sanders is going to go with a more Clinton-favorable number, I'm not going to argue.

    In North Carolina, on the other hand, that number seems too favorable to Clinton, so I'm going to hold off on changing that for the time being.

    In Nevada, it would seem that the Sanders camp and I disagree on the rules (i.e. whether the CD delegates are bound at the state convention or by the February caucus vote).  Sanders probably wins this fight, as he will control the state convention, but I'm keeping my figures for now.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 07:48:48 PM
    Cruz wins 11/12 delegates in Iowa today.  The 12th is staying Uncommitted, but seems anti-Trump.

    Of course, this doesn't change the first ballot but is obviously a good sign for Cruz on the 2nd.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ronnie on April 09, 2016, 09:20:28 PM
    Jeez, how many pro-Trump delegates are going to show up at the convention?  5?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 10:15:31 PM
    Jeez, how many pro-Trump delegates are going to show up at the convention?  5?

    He can definitely count on the delegates that he chose himself or vetted before their appearance on the ballot.  Namely: New Hampshire, Alabama, (most of) Tennessee, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, (most of) Illinois, (most of) Idaho, Hawaii, California, Connecticut, his one delegate in Wyoming, plus the three unpledged that have endorsed him so far.

    Also, many states are playing fair with him.  Trump's delegates in Michigan (also selected today) were signed off by the Trump campaign, as apparently were his delegates (though not the Uncommitteds) in Louisiana.

    That said, we've also been hearing reports of of Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Virginia, etc., where Cruz is dominating (or at least making a serious play at) the delegates.

    Cruz wins this on the second, or at worst, third, ballot, unless Trump can scrape over the finish line on the first ballot.  And I sincerely doubt Cruz would let him do that, even if the resulting tactics would lead to riots.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 09, 2016, 10:26:09 PM
    Cruz wins this on the second, or at worst, third, ballot, unless Trump can scrape over the finish line on the first ballot.  And I sincerely doubt Cruz would let him do that, even if the resulting tactics would lead to riots.

    Sorry, can you explain what you mean by the sentence I bolded above?  You sincerely doubt Cruz would let Trump do what?  Win narrowly on the first ballot?  How does Cruz stop him from doing so if he has the numbers?  Use the "nuclear option" of changing the rules so that all the delegates are unbound on the first ballot, or something like that?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 10:27:57 PM
    Actually, it seems Cruz had a rare loss in Michigan.

    In terms of committee assignments, it seems Trump and Kasich prevented an attempt by Cruz to just take everything over, and themselves locked Cruz supporters out.  It doesn't seem like this extended to delegates, where at least on the At-Large level I believe each candidate got what they wanted.

    In particular, and hilariously, this means Chuck Yob is now on the Credentials Committee that will be deciding the fate of his son's contested delegation from the Virgin Islands.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 10:28:42 PM
    Cruz wins this on the second, or at worst, third, ballot, unless Trump can scrape over the finish line on the first ballot.  And I sincerely doubt Cruz would let him do that, even if the resulting tactics would lead to riots.

    Sorry, can you explain what you mean by the sentence I bolded above?  You sincerely doubt Cruz would let Trump do what?  Win narrowly on the first ballot?  How does Cruz stop him from doing so if he has the numbers?  Use the "nuclear option" of changing the rules so that all the delegates are unbound on the first ballot, or something like that?


    Yeah, I honestly think Cruz uses the nuclear option if necessary, and he knows he has the support of 1400 delegates or so.

    That latter half is a tall order, but is it impossible?  I'll take another look next month after the bulk of this delegate selection has gone through.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 09, 2016, 10:36:43 PM
    Honestly, this whole Yob story makes for a great subplot in case "Game Change 3: All In" is a very long book.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 09, 2016, 11:00:10 PM
    I just heard that during the convention, the delegates are unbound when voting for a VP candidate.  Meaning that if Trump wins the nomination on the first ballot, his #NeverTrump delegates could defect and nominate a VP candidate that Trump is forced to accept. 

    That's an interesting scenario.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 09, 2016, 11:31:28 PM
    I just heard that during the convention, the delegates are unbound when voting for a VP candidate.  Meaning that if Trump wins the nomination on the first ballot, his #NeverTrump delegates could defect and nominate a VP candidate that Trump is forced to accept. 

    That's an interesting scenario.

    Yep!  Anyone know the last time the candidate didn't just get to choose their VP?  Stevenson/Kefauver in '56?

    Could be quite important as the effective candidate for the 46th President (after a Trump impeachment and removal) or for some sort of "John Ewards"-style trick in the Electoral Collage.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 09, 2016, 11:54:45 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 10, 2016, 12:36:37 AM
    Cruz wins this on the second, or at worst, third, ballot, unless Trump can scrape over the finish line on the first ballot.  And I sincerely doubt Cruz would let him do that, even if the resulting tactics would lead to riots.

    Sorry, can you explain what you mean by the sentence I bolded above?  You sincerely doubt Cruz would let Trump do what?  Win narrowly on the first ballot?  How does Cruz stop him from doing so if he has the numbers?  Use the "nuclear option" of changing the rules so that all the delegates are unbound on the first ballot, or something like that?


    Yeah, I honestly think Cruz uses the nuclear option if necessary, and he knows he has the support of 1400 delegates or so.

    Even if he has the support of that many delegates in terms of who their preferred candidate is, is he really going to have the support of that many delegates in favor of engaging in highly controversial procedural shenanigans like the "nuclear option"?  I am skeptical.  Even among the delegates who support him, won't there be plenty of people who are not really diehard Cruz-istas, but are instead just people who like Cruz the best among the remaining field?  People who will do their own thing on procedural votes?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 10, 2016, 12:45:39 AM
    I just heard that during the convention, the delegates are unbound when voting for a VP candidate.  Meaning that if Trump wins the nomination on the first ballot, his #NeverTrump delegates could defect and nominate a VP candidate that Trump is forced to accept. 

    That's an interesting scenario.
    They could nominate Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin.

    Actually, it seems Cruz had a rare loss in Michigan.

    In terms of committee assignments, it seems Trump and Kasich prevented an attempt by Cruz to just take everything over, and themselves locked Cruz supporters out.  It doesn't seem like this extended to delegates, where at least on the At-Large level I believe each candidate got what they wanted.

    In particular, and hilariously, this means Chuck Yob is now on the Credentials Committee that will be deciding the fate of his son's contested delegation from the Virgin Islands.
    This all but affirms my prediction that the 3 from the Yob coalition, if they hold their delegate spots, will side with Trump.


    Title: Re: The Yob Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 10, 2016, 12:55:01 AM
    In continued Yob news (http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/court-order-in-yob-gop-delegate-case-expected-monday/article_a2e6e5ba-124c-5805-88c4-6ed97217ae9b.html): a final ruling on the Yobs' residency is expected on Monday.  Tea leaves seem to suggest a ruling in the Yobs' favor.

    In the event the ruling is against the Yobs, anyone want to bet Canegata instantly drops his objections to the other three initially-elected delegates?

    Even if he has the support of that many delegates in terms of who their preferred candidate is, is he really going to have the support of that many delegates in favor of engaging in highly controversial procedural shenanigans like the "nuclear option"?  I am skeptical.  Even among the delegates who support him, won't there be plenty of people who are not really diehard Cruz-istas, but are instead just people who like Cruz the best among the remaining field?  People who will do their own thing on procedural votes?

    You're probably right here.  I don't think Cruz would do it unless he knew it would work, and work on the first ballot.  He'd need to have the unwavering loyalty of a clear majority of delegates in order to pull it off, and considering he's only starting at 800-odd, that's a tall, tall order.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: MT Treasurer on April 10, 2016, 02:09:36 AM
    Indiana’s delegates are already lined up against Trump (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-indiana-primary-221747)



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 11, 2016, 02:09:22 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: emailking on April 11, 2016, 07:22:22 AM
    I just heard that during the convention, the delegates are unbound when voting for a VP candidate.  Meaning that if Trump wins the nomination on the first ballot, his #NeverTrump delegates could defect and nominate a VP candidate that Trump is forced to accept. 

    That's an interesting scenario.
    They could nominate Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin.

    She never said that. She said you can see Russia from Alaska which is true.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 11, 2016, 11:21:29 AM
    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.

    Yes, the delegates are bound based on the primary.  It's only in a minority of caucus states where delegate binding isn't based on the votes [or occasionally reweighted votes] of the people on caucus day.  All primaries bind their delegates directly.

    That said, this could matter if Bernie is trying to pull off a Ted Kennedy-style coup, and have the delegates vote to unbind themselves.  However, the Democrats are pretty good at having mechanisms to ensure this doesn't happen on a grand scale (as their delegate selection mechanisms are proportional, as well)...so I doubt they could even get a majority of the pledged delegates to back them (especially since some of them are PLEOs), let alone the supers.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Wiz in Wis on April 11, 2016, 04:34:28 PM
    I just heard that during the convention, the delegates are unbound when voting for a VP candidate.  Meaning that if Trump wins the nomination on the first ballot, his #NeverTrump delegates could defect and nominate a VP candidate that Trump is forced to accept. 

    That's an interesting scenario.
    They could nominate Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin.

    She never said that. She said you can see Russia from Alaska which is true.

    ()


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 11, 2016, 08:07:44 PM
    Actually, it seems Cruz had a rare loss in Michigan.

    In terms of committee assignments, it seems Trump and Kasich prevented an attempt by Cruz to just take everything over, and themselves locked Cruz supporters out.  It doesn't seem like this extended to delegates, where at least on the At-Large level I believe each candidate got what they wanted.

    In particular, and hilariously, this means Chuck Yob is now on the Credentials Committee that will be deciding the fate of his son's contested delegation from the Virgin Islands.
    This all but affirms my prediction that the 3 from the Yob coalition, if they hold their delegate spots, will side with Trump.

    You do know that Chuck Yob is a Kasich delegate and his son worked for the Rand Paul campaign, right? (Other candidates John Yob has worked for -- including McCain's presidential campaign, Santorum's presidential campaign, and Mark Neumann's 2012 Senate campaign -- have pretty much uniformly backed the #Nevertrump camp). There's also the fact that the man who wrote the book on contested conventions (literally) might be disinclined to back someone who pooh-poohs the very idea and suggests the person who wins the most primary votes should automatically become candidate.

    I think, considering his father and Mark Neumann are both Kasich supporters, John Yob is likeliest to be a quiet Kasich supporter than anything else. But it's very difficult to imagine him supporting trump.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 11, 2016, 09:14:13 PM
    I'm starting to suspect that the Yob family are going to be the protagonists of Game Change: 2016.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 11, 2016, 10:35:32 PM
    Actually, it seems Cruz had a rare loss in Michigan.

    In terms of committee assignments, it seems Trump and Kasich prevented an attempt by Cruz to just take everything over, and themselves locked Cruz supporters out.  It doesn't seem like this extended to delegates, where at least on the At-Large level I believe each candidate got what they wanted.

    In particular, and hilariously, this means Chuck Yob is now on the Credentials Committee that will be deciding the fate of his son's contested delegation from the Virgin Islands.
    This all but affirms my prediction that the 3 from the Yob coalition, if they hold their delegate spots, will side with Trump.

    You do know that Chuck Yob is a Kasich delegate and his son worked for the Rand Paul campaign, right? (Other candidates John Yob has worked for -- including McCain's presidential campaign, Santorum's presidential campaign, and Mark Neumann's 2012 Senate campaign -- have pretty much uniformly backed the #Nevertrump camp). There's also the fact that the man who wrote the book on contested conventions (literally) might be disinclined to back someone who pooh-poohs the very idea and suggests the person who wins the most primary votes should automatically become candidate.

    I think, considering his father and Mark Neumann are both Kasich supporters, John Yob is likeliest to be a quiet Kasich supporter than anything else. But it's very difficult to imagine him supporting trump.

    Yeah but this is all before TRUMP bribes him.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 12, 2016, 12:45:11 AM
    Actually, it seems Cruz had a rare loss in Michigan.

    In terms of committee assignments, it seems Trump and Kasich prevented an attempt by Cruz to just take everything over, and themselves locked Cruz supporters out.  It doesn't seem like this extended to delegates, where at least on the At-Large level I believe each candidate got what they wanted.

    In particular, and hilariously, this means Chuck Yob is now on the Credentials Committee that will be deciding the fate of his son's contested delegation from the Virgin Islands.
    This all but affirms my prediction that the 3 from the Yob coalition, if they hold their delegate spots, will side with Trump.

    You do know that Chuck Yob is a Kasich delegate and his son worked for the Rand Paul campaign, right? (Other candidates John Yob has worked for -- including McCain's presidential campaign, Santorum's presidential campaign, and Mark Neumann's 2012 Senate campaign -- have pretty much uniformly backed the #Nevertrump camp). There's also the fact that the man who wrote the book on contested conventions (literally) might be disinclined to back someone who pooh-poohs the very idea and suggests the person who wins the most primary votes should automatically become candidate.

    I think, considering his father and Mark Neumann are both Kasich supporters, John Yob is likeliest to be a quiet Kasich supporter than anything else. But it's very difficult to imagine him supporting trump.

    Yeah but this is all before TRUMP bribes him.

    Nah, the reason trump isn't releasing his tax returns is he hasn't got money left. All the money, authority, and WINNING at the convention will be had and done by Ted Cruz, and it'll be glorious.


    Title: Re: The Yob Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 12, 2016, 06:37:23 AM
    Holland Redfield, VI RNC committeeman (and a delegate regardless of the credentials fight), seems to have come out strongly in favor of the Yob slate. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/in-virgin-islands-a-tale-of-two-delegate-slates)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 12, 2016, 02:06:40 PM
    Trump got swept in the 4th District Convention in South Carolina yesterday, with the 3 delegate slots going to 2 long-time Cruz backers (Stephen Brown, Robert Ryggs) and 1 committed anti-Trump evangelical (Nate Leupp).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 12, 2016, 02:10:55 PM
    Apparently the Colorado Democrats did their reporting by voice recognition on caucus night (http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29755029/colorado-democrats-admit-mistake-that-cost-bernie-sanders), leading to some predictable errors.

    A recent re-check of the results finds that Sanders wins the 1st CD 5-3, rather than splitting it 4-4, leading to a new pledged delegate count of 39-27 in the state.

    This is really an academic distinction, as Colorado chooses its delegates based on the votes at CD & State Conventions (as in Iowa), so even if this error had not been caught, it would not have made a difference in the final totals (as it did not affect the election of delegates from the precinct caucuses, barring issues with credentials).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 12, 2016, 04:40:05 PM
    Unknown Delegates

    In my continuing effort to find out the identities of all the delegates, some are beginning to slip through the cracks.  If anyone has any leads on the delegates chosen in the following jurisdictions, it'd be much appreciated:

    Oklahoma's 4th CD (3 delegates)
    Florida: CDs 5-10, 15-18, 20-22 (39 delegates)
    North Carolina: CDs 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,13 (24 delegates)
    Indiana: All CDs 1-9 (27 delegates).

    Potentially, some of Idaho's delegates have been selected by the campaigns as well, though I'm unsure about this.

    I'm keeping a running list of these going in the "Unknown Delegates" tab on my spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing); this list may grow or shrink as time goes on.


    Title: Colorado Democrats make a delegate count mistake, only tell Hillary
    Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 13, 2016, 12:16:43 AM
    Quote
    The new projection now shows the Vermont senator winning 39 delegates in Colorado, compared to 27 for Clinton.

    The state party's website reported March 1 that Sanders won 14,624 votes, or 54 percent, in Denver County and Clinton took 12,097 votes, or 45 percent.

    But the corrected numbers for Denver County give Sanders 15,194 votes, or 56.5 percent, and Clinton with 11,527, or 43 percent, according to official party results.


    Title: Re: Colorado Democrats make a delegate count mistake, only tell Hillary
    Post by: Joe Republic on April 13, 2016, 12:18:32 AM
    You left out the contrived outrage mentioned in your title from the article excerpt.


    Title: Re: Colorado Democrats make a delegate count mistake, only tell Hillary
    Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 13, 2016, 12:20:50 AM
    You left out the contrived outrage mentioned in your title from the article excerpt.

    Why'd this get merged? It's pretty ridiculous that the Colorado Democratic party covered it up until the congressional district caucus.

    From the article.

    Quote
    Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected after the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week that it misreported the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations.

    The party discovered the discrepancy a week after the caucus but did not correct the public record.

    Hillary Clinton's campaign discussed the error with state party officials last week, but the Sanders campaign apparently didn't realize the issue until being informed Monday evening by The Denver Post.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Republic on April 13, 2016, 12:22:33 AM
    Wait, so Bernie won 1 more delegate than expected, and you're still complaining.  Jesus.


    Title: Re: The Yob Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 12:26:41 AM
    Part of an larger anti-Canegata piece by Holland Redfield (http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/opinion/editorials/background-perspective-on-v-i-gop-delegate-dispute/article_cd9dd6b0-08ba-581b-81b0-1ec977da5156.html), but one that provides a longer perspective:

    Quote from: Holland Redfield
    The problems in the Virgin Islands Caucus process actually began in September of 2015. The Territorial Committee was supposed to pass rules for the caucus at a meeting that was scheduled on Sept. 29, 2015, and submit them to the Republican National Committee by Oct. 1, 2015. The Chairman of the USVI Republican Party cancelled the September meeting, and falsified a document to the RNC claiming that the meeting occurred and that his preferred rules were passed. It was dishonest, and the RNC held the USVI Republicans accountable by forcing the party to use the 2012 rules instead. Unfortunately, there is already a history of the Chairman lying to the RNC about our process and being held accountable.

    This helps explains why the Virgin Islands was the only party not to submit a delegate selection plan on time, why there was so much confusion as to the date of the caucus, and ultimately why the caucus was held on a Thursday.

    It also seems like Canegata is pulling the same postdating of documents trick again.

    If last year is any precedent, the odds seem to be in favor of the Yobs at the Credentials committee.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 13, 2016, 12:26:52 AM
    Wait, so Bernie won 1 more delegate than expected, and you're still complaining.  Jesus.

    The party shouldn't tell just Hillary and keep it a secret from the public and the Bernie campaign. That's corruption.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 12:39:13 AM
    Wait, so Bernie won 1 more delegate than expected, and you're still complaining.  Jesus.

    The party shouldn't tell just Hillary and keep it a secret from the public and the Bernie campaign. That's corruption.

    You realize that this doesn't even matter, right?  The delegates to Philadelphia are bound based on the results of the CD conventions, not on the original caucus vote.  The election of the actual physical delegates from the precinct caucuses to the county conventions was carried out correctly, just the wrong numbers were reported to the media.

    Even if the error had never been caught, it would have been "corrected" by the results of the CD 1 convention on April 9, anyway.

    The actual figure is only of interest to a subset of people on this forum, literally nobody else in the world.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 13, 2016, 12:48:10 AM
    Wait, so Bernie won 1 more delegate than expected, and you're still complaining.  Jesus.

    The party shouldn't tell just Hillary and keep it a secret from the public and the Bernie campaign. That's corruption.

    You realize that this doesn't even matter, right?  The delegates to Philadelphia are bound based on the results of the CD conventions, not on the original caucus vote.  The election of the actual physical delegates from the precinct caucuses to the county conventions was carried out correctly, just the wrong numbers were reported to the media.

    Even if the error had never been caught, it would have been "corrected" by the results of the CD 1 convention on April 9, anyway.

    The actual figure is only of interest to a subset of people on this forum, literally nobody else in the world.

    I know it would be corrected, but it made it look a bit harder for Bernie to get the nomination as long as it was uncorrected. And the Bernie campaign didn't find out until after the convention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 13, 2016, 03:03:10 AM
    It's literally one (1) delegate when Clinton is ahead by over 200.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Republic on April 13, 2016, 03:23:45 AM
    It's literally one (1) delegate when Clinton is ahead by over 200.

    BUT THERE WAS A CORRUPT CONSPIRACY


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 13, 2016, 03:55:22 AM
    It's literally one (1) delegate when Clinton is ahead by over 200.

    BUT THERE WAS A CORRUPT CONSPIRACY

    Jfern could discover a conspiracy behind the picnic of an orphanage.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 13, 2016, 08:32:33 AM
    Erc, do the #s in this WaPo article sound plausible to you?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-likely-to-block-trump-on-a-second-ballot-at-the-gop-convention/2016/04/13/6553e724-00bc-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html

    Quote
    Based on the delegate selections made by states and territories, Cruz is poised to pick up at least 130 more votes on a second ballot, according to a Washington Post analysis. That tally surpasses 170 delegates under less conservative assumptions — a number that could make it impossible for Trump to emerge victorious.
    .
    .
    .
    On Wednesday in Indiana, for example, Republican leaders are finalizing a delegate slate that will include party activists unlikely to vote for Trump in the state’s May primary. Cruz also is poised to sweep Wyoming’s 26 delegates this weekend in a state where Trump’s campaign did not seriously compete. In Arkansas, Cruz supporters are exploring ways to topple Trump when delegates are chosen next month. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has refused to release 171 delegates he won when he was in the race, signaling that he may contribute to the anti-Trump push in Cleveland.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 13, 2016, 08:39:34 AM
    This story talks about Cruz's organizational advantage in California, and wonders if Trump is actually going to have a full delegate slate there (or for that matter, Kasich):

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-no-1-the-gops-veep-problem-183429119.html

    Quote
    Also helping Cruz is the fact that the campaigns have to pick their own delegates — 169 of them, plus 169 alternates. The process of identifying six committed Cruz supporters in every single congressional district — including districts where Republicans haven’t really campaigned in decades — wasn’t easy. It took Schroeder five months. But now he’s finished — and the Trump campaign, which just hired a state political director today, is only getting started.

    “It’s been a huge project for me,” Schroeder said. “And they have to file all of those names with the secretary of state on May 7? That’s less than a month from now. If you don’t have those names by May 7, even if you win that district, you don’t get any delegates.”


    Title: Re: The Yob Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 09:29:07 AM
    Scathing letter from the three non-Yobs who have been collateral damage in the Canegata-Yob dispute:

    Quote from: Gwendolyn D. Hall Brady, George H. Logan, Esq. and Warren B. Cole
    We are three Republicans who won positions as delegates to the Republican National Convention in the 2016 V.I. Republican Caucus. We won our delegate positions by the overwhelming support of Republican Caucus voters. The state chairman is now attempting, by means of what we see as sophistry, trickery, and subterfuge, to deprive us of the positions for which we ran, for which we campaigned and which we won by a wide margin of votes. He has no authority to act unilaterally in such a manner.

    For a number of weeks we have quietly endured a spate of insulting and defamatory news stories, radio ads, and press releases that have attempted to frame this controversy as one between “Virgin Islanders” and “newcomers.” Lost in the narrative has been the fact that the St. Croix contingent of the winning delegation comprises longtime residents of the island with deep roots in the community: Gwen Hall Brady, George Logan and Bruce Cole. We have a history of community and Republican Party involvement that has been ignored by the coverage of this controversy.

    The narrative being spun by the state chairman and the six alternates, whom we handily beat at the polls, revolves around the transparent fiction that we disregarded a requirement to give written notice of our acceptance and willingness to serve as delegates. We can state categorically that the Certification Committee did not notify us of the certification of our election until March 26, 2016, (as required by our Rules). We can further categorically state that we promptly gave notice of our acceptances and willingness within the five days prescribed by Rule 11 of our Caucus. We have scrupulously observed the rules of the caucus. We wish the same could be said of our state chairman.

    It is unfortunate that we are at the present impasse. Such a state of affairs would have been avoided had the state chairman chosen to do his job honestly and fairly.

    However, we fully intend to take whatever actions are necessary to vindicate the will of the Republican voters who selected us to be their delegates to the Convention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 09:37:23 AM
    Erc, do the #s in this WaPo article sound plausible to you?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruz-likely-to-block-trump-on-a-second-ballot-at-the-gop-convention/2016/04/13/6553e724-00bc-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html

    Quote
    Based on the delegate selections made by states and territories, Cruz is poised to pick up at least 130 more votes on a second ballot, according to a Washington Post analysis. That tally surpasses 170 delegates under less conservative assumptions — a number that could make it impossible for Trump to emerge victorious.
    .
    .
    .
    On Wednesday in Indiana, for example, Republican leaders are finalizing a delegate slate that will include party activists unlikely to vote for Trump in the state’s May primary. Cruz also is poised to sweep Wyoming’s 26 delegates this weekend in a state where Trump’s campaign did not seriously compete. In Arkansas, Cruz supporters are exploring ways to topple Trump when delegates are chosen next month. And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has refused to release 171 delegates he won when he was in the race, signaling that he may contribute to the anti-Trump push in Cleveland.


    Within an order of magnitude, sure.

    Honestly, it's hard to say.  The numbers sound roughly plausible, but could be higher, potentially.  We'll have to see how the rest of the process plays out.

    And again, it should be stressed that the anti-Trump vote is not necessarily pro-Cruz; the Indiana delegation, for example, may end up being surprisingly pro-Kasich.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 11:51:59 AM
    April 26 Democratic Primaries

    Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland qualify as a "regional cluster," and receive a 15% delegate bonus.

    Connecticut (D)

    Overview
    71 Delegates (1.49% of total)
    Closed Primary
    36 District
    12 At-Large
    7 PLEO At-Large
    16 Superdelegates

    Details

    Groups of 12 and 7 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned among the CDs as follows: 8 in CD 1; 7 in CDs 2,3,4,5.

    Superdelegates


    Clinton (15): Gov. Dannel Malloy, Sen. Chris Murphy, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Rep. Jim Himes, Rep. John B. Larson, Rep. Joe Courtney, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Elizabeth Esty (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Chair Dominic Balleto Jr, Nancy Wyman (http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Gov-Malloy-Endorsing-Hillary-Clinton-for-President-306414981.html), Vice Chair Nancy Dinardo (http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Will-Connecticut-embrace-Hillary-s-candidacy-6195184.php), John Olsen, Dorothy Mrowka (http://www.nhregister.com/article/NH/20151113/NEWS/151119749), Michael Cacace (http://ctmirror.org/2016/01/28/ct-lawmakers-help-party-hone-strategy-message/), Chris Dodd (https://medium.com/@ChristopherJDodd/on-the-front-lines-for-families-77269de9cf74#.1ifyi9vue)

    Uncommitted (1): Joanne Sullivan

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: CT (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CT-D)
    CT Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299194559/ConnecticutDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan-FINAL01-29-2016)

    Delaware (D)

    Overview
    31 Delegates (0.65% of total)
    Closed Primary
    5 At-Large
    2 PLEO At-Large
    14 by District
    10 Superdelegates

    Details

    5 At-Large and 2 PLEO delegates will be apportioned based on the statewide primary result.  14 delegates will be apportioned based on the results in various regions of Delaware: 2 each for Kent County, Sussex County, and the City of Wilmington, and 8 for the remainder of New Castle County.

    Superdelegates

    Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/): Clinton 7 - Uncommitted 3

    Confirmed Clinton (5): Gov. Jack Markell, Sen. Tom Carper, Sen. Chris Coons, Rep. John Carney (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Bob Gilligan (http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/2-16notebook.asp)

    Other (5): Vice President Joe Biden, Chair John Daniello, Vice Chair Lisa Goodman, Karen Valentine (Clinton 2008), Valerie Longhurst

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: DE-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/DE-D)
    DE Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299194563/DelawareDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan)

    Maryland (D)

    Overview
    118 Delegates (2.47% of total)
    Closed Primary
    21 At-Large
    10 PLEO At-Large
    64 by CD
    23 Superdelegates

    Details

    The CD delegates are allocated based on the primary vote in each CD: 10 in CD 4; 9 in CDs 5,7; 8 in CDs 3,8; 7 in CDs 2,6; 6 in CD 1. The 21 At-Large and 10 PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally based on statewide primary vote.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (16): Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Sen. Ben Cardin, Reps. Steny Hoyer, Donna Edwards, Chris Van Hollen, John Delaney, John Sarbanes, Dutch Ruppersberger (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), and Elijah Cummings (http://www.wbaltv.com/politics/maryland-democrats-throw-support-behind-clinton/32344618), Bruce Morrison, Karen Pope-Onwukwe, Maria Cordone, Greg Pecoraro (http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clinton111715pr.html), Carol Pensky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hundreds-of-big-donors-including-obama-bundlers-are-ready-for-hillary/2014/07/31/e9dfbdf2-181e-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html), Yvette Lewis (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/03/01/md-superdelegate-who-backed-omalley-to-support-clinton/), Belkis "Bel" Leong-Hong (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/presidential-elections/bal-hillary-clinton-announces-endorsements-from-maryland-women-20160409-story.html)

    Sanders (1): Heather Mizeur (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRvDdQeZEHU)

    Uncommitted (6): Ex-DNC Chair Joe Andrew (Clinton 2008, until May), Chair D. Bruce Poole, Vice Chair Victoria Jackson-Stanley, Janice Griffin, DNC Secretary Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Glenard S. Middleton Sr

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: MD-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MD-D)
    MD Delegate Selection Plan (https://mddems.org/images/pdf/updated%203-29-16%20md%20approved%202016%20mdp%20delegate%20selection%20plan.pdf)

    Pennsylvania (D)

    Overview
    210 Delegates (4.40% of total)
    Closed Primary
    42 At-Large
    20 PLEO At-Large
    127 by CD
    21 Superdelegates

    Details

    The CD delegates are allocated based on the primary vote in each CD: 14 in CD 2; 10 in CD 1; 9 in CDs 13,14; 8 in CD 7; 7 in CDs 6,8,17; 6 in CDs 3,4,11,12,15,18; 6 in CDs 5,9,10,16. The 42 At-Large and 20 PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally based on statewide primary vote.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (18): Ex-DNC Chair Ed Rendell (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/01/video-rendell-on-msnbc-hillary-has-already-earned-the-nomination/), Gov. Tom Wolf, Sen. Bob Casey Jr., Rep. Matt Cartwright, Rep. Chaka Fattah (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Chair Marcel Groen, Nancy Patton Mills, Evelyn Rafalko-McNutty, Michael Nutter, Ronald Donatucci, Vice Chair Penny Gerber, Amanda Green Hawkins, Ian Murray, Marian Tasco, Richard Bloomingdale, Sylvia Wilson, Tony Coelho (http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/morning_roundup/2016/01/hillary-clinton-president-election-support-pa-dnc.html)

    Uncommitted (3): Reps. Brendan Boyle, Robert Brady, and Michael F. Doyle

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: PA-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/PA-D)
    PA Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299194622/PennsylvaniaDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan-FINAL-12-17-2015)

    Rhode Island (D)

    Overview
    33 Delegates (0.69% of total)
    Half-Open Primary
    6 At-Large
    3 PLEO At-Large
    15 by CD
    9 Superdelegates

    Details

    The CD delegates are allocated based on the primary vote in each CD: 8 in CD 1; 7 in CD 2. The 6 At-Large and 3 PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally based on statewide primary vote.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (9): Gov. Gina Raimondo, Sen. Jack Reed, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rep. David Cicilline, Rep. James Langevin, Chair Joseph McNamara, Vice Chair Grace Diaz, Edna Mattson, Frank Montanaro (http://wpri.com/2016/02/24/all-9-ri-superdelegates-back-clinton-as-presidential-primary-draws-closer/)

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: RI-D (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/RI-D)
    RI Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.ridemocrats.org/cms-assets/documents/240268-35698.3.24-ri-plan.pdf)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Sorenroy on April 13, 2016, 01:24:30 PM
    So I know that your overview post said that Illinois was updated fairly recently, but why do you have Illinois at 79-77 rather than the 78-78 that 538.com (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/) has it? What is the explanation behind that?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 13, 2016, 02:15:11 PM
    This story talks about Cruz's organizational advantage in California, and wonders if Trump is actually going to have a full delegate slate there (or for that matter, Kasich):

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/unconventional-no-1-the-gops-veep-problem-183429119.html

    Quote
    Also helping Cruz is the fact that the campaigns have to pick their own delegates — 169 of them, plus 169 alternates. The process of identifying six committed Cruz supporters in every single congressional district — including districts where Republicans haven’t really campaigned in decades — wasn’t easy. It took Schroeder five months. But now he’s finished — and the Trump campaign, which just hired a state political director today, is only getting started.

    “It’s been a huge project for me,” Schroeder said. “And they have to file all of those names with the secretary of state on May 7? That’s less than a month from now. If you don’t have those names by May 7, even if you win that district, you don’t get any delegates.”


    That's pretty big news if true. If Cruz's campaign, with its top notch delegate operation, needed 5 months to fill every slate, I don't see how Trump's campaign can possibly do the same in 2 months (or if they do, they won't possibly be able to extensively vet every single person for loyalty). What happens if Trump wins a district that he doesn't have delegates in?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Likely Voter on April 13, 2016, 02:18:30 PM
    If you are going to get your act together it is in CA. It is the biggest prize and you have the longest lead time and you have an ability to actually control your delegates. Anyone who gets that wrong doesn't deserve to be the nominee.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 03:12:03 PM
    I'll have to do a more careful reading of CA law here, but a cursory reading of the CA GOP bylaws seems to indicate this isn't a huge deal.

    Quote from: CA GOP Bylaws
    Each Presidential candidate whose name appears on the Presidential
    primary election ballot shall identify to the Chairman and the Secretary
    of the Committee the names and addresses of delegates and alternate
    delegates at large and by Congressional District selected by the
    Presidential candidate as his or her delegates and identified to the
    California Secretary of State in accordance with state law. This
    identification shall be made within 5 calendar days of the date such
    names are submitted to the California Secretary of State, or 5 calendar
    days prior to the June Presidential Primary election, whichever is sooner,
    and may be amended as necessary prior to the submission of authorized
    delegates by the Chairman and Secretary of the Committee to the
    Secretary of the Republican National Committee.

    According to the Call to Convention (https://www.scribd.com/doc/298879888/Call-of-the-2016-Republican-Convention), delegates must be elected or selected no later than 45 days before the start of the convention--i.e. June 3.

    Interestingly, that puts several states out of compliance (namely, California, New Jersey, Georgia, Idaho, and Oregon).  Note that the other June 7 states are fine, as they pre-select their delegates, and primaries to allocate and bind delegates are allowed through June 11 (second Saturday in June).  Waivers are possible, and they may have been granted to those states.

    Regardless, credentials only need to be submitted to the RNC by June 13, so I would say that is the final deadline.  There may be further amendments after that, but only relating to final certification of the results (e.g. one CD flips from Trump to Cruz based on provisional ballots).

    EDIT: California law (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=06001-07000&file=6460-6461) indeed gives that May 7 date.  However, note that the RNC generally gives priority to state party rules over state law (and they are free to do so), so this isn't a huge deal.  As long as Trump has a slate in the districts he wins by June 13, he should be fine.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 03:25:07 PM
    So I know that your overview post said that Illinois was updated fairly recently, but why do you have Illinois at 79-77 rather than the 78-78 that 538.com (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/) has it? What is the explanation behind that?

    Results by CD in IL are as of yet incomplete; note that neither the AP (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/illinois) nor CNN (http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/il/Dem) have called all the delegates.

    I initially had a 78-78 split, following The Green Papers (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IL-D).

    However, the Sanders campaign recently released their own delegate counts (https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-State-by-State-1.pdf), which showed the 79-77 count.  If the Sanders camp is giving a more favorable result to Clinton that I am, I'm going to go with Sanders' count.

    I still disagree with Sanders' count in North Carolina (where I believe he's being too favorable to Clinton) and Nevada (where we disagree on the interpretation of the rules).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 13, 2016, 04:59:13 PM
    Couldn't the Credentials Committee rule, based on California state law, that any delegates picked after May 7 are ineligible and therefore simply declare their positions vacant? I doubt they would do this unless it was totally necessary, but it seems like a very possible interpretation of the rules.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 07:07:17 PM
    Couldn't the Credentials Committee rule, based on California state law, that any delegates picked after May 7 are ineligible and therefore simply declare their positions vacant? I doubt they would do this unless it was totally necessary, but it seems like a very possible interpretation of the rules.

    Where state laws and state GOP rules differ, precedence is very clearly given to state GOP rules.

    The CA GOP rules allow for the filling of incomplete delegations (via the "amended as necessary", above) up until June 13.

    If for some reason Trump still misses that deadline, then RNC Rule 18 kicks in.  There is at that point no provision in CA GOP or CA state law to fill vacancies, so we follow Rule 18(c).  At that point, the state Republican party can decide to let Trump fill the rest of the delegation, or can have the State Executive Committee fill the rest of the delegation, or (after July 7) let the remainder of the delegation vote to fill the vacancies.

    There may be some room for shenanigans between June 7 and June 13 (if the CA GOP submits a slate with vacancies prior to the final deadline), but apart from that the rules involved are pretty clear.

    Honestly, though, it doesn't really matter.  Even there is a vacancy, it will be filled somehow before the convention via the Rule 18 mechanisms, and all of this only affects the delegate selection process, not the delegate allocation and binding process, which is still tied to the primary.  If Trump doesn't have delegates in a district ever, the delegates eventually selected via Rule 18 from that district are still bound to Trump on the first two ballots.  By the time they are unbound, it's the third ballot, by which point Trump has no shot at the nomination anyway.  It could matter for Kasich in the unlikely event he wins, say, San Francisco, but even then he'd get to fill those slots as described above.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 13, 2016, 09:45:29 PM
    Fivethirtyeight has a relatively decent state-by-state breakdown of the remaining states (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-state-by-state-roadmap-for-the-rest-of-the-republican-primary/), even if they get Washington's delegate rules wrong.

    They currently peg Trump roughly in the 1150s in pledged delegates.  They're a bit too bearish on Trump in a couple of states (Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Washington), but those don't make more than a 10-delegate difference.

    Of course, the ultimate conclusion is that this comes down to Indiana and California, but we knew that already.


    Title: Re: The Yob Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 14, 2016, 02:46:09 AM
    USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/13/fundraising-feud-republican-delegate-fight-virgin-islands/82895684/) (of all newspapers) has a detailed, well-researched article on the Virgin Islands delegate fight, how it ties into the long-standing shady fundraising operations out of the Virgin Islands, and Canegata's longstanding ties with Saul Anuzis.

    Honestly, the Virgin Islands fight is looking more and more like an expansion of the continuing Anuzis-Yob battle in the Michigan GOP.

    Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/john-yob-virgin-islands-delegates) also has a similar interesting piece for those who are somehow not yet Yobbed yout.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 14, 2016, 02:53:39 AM
    Indiana selected its remaining, At-Large delegates on Wednesday, but is not releasing the names of the delegates involved (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/politics/indiana-delegates-threats/index.html) due to the extreme levels of harassment (including death threats!) received by some of the delegates selected over the weekend.

    Names will be released in about two weeks, after the delegates have been certified by the RNC (and hopefully some of the furor has died down or been redirected at delegates in other states).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 14, 2016, 03:42:33 PM
    Our glorious leader (https://twitter.com/uselectionatlas/status/718258764663623681) confirms (to my surprise) that Sanders did indeed clear threshold in CD 3 in MS; he must have gotten lucky with the precinct breakdowns in Hinds and Madison counties.

    That makes the total in Mississippi Clinton 31 - Sanders 5.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 10:24:18 AM
    NBC has recently confirmed that Rubio's delegates in Oklahoma are indeed unbound on the first ballot. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/lapsed-rubio-delegates-are-grabs-convention-s-first-ballot-n555706)

    Now may be a good time to go over Rubio's delegates again.

    Rubio Certainly Loses Them: (36 delegates)

    The delegates he won in Minnesota, Louisiana, and Oklahoma have been released.  If the rules are changed and Rubio does appear on the first ballot, he would get those Oklahoma and Minnesota delegates back, but the Louisiana ones are gone regardless.

    In Alabama, Rubio's one delegate is de facto released; a candidate's delegation may vote to release themselves by a vote (two-thirds majority required), so his one delegate is always free to release himself at any time.

    In Wyoming, Rubio's one delegate has been released as he is no longer "in the race."

    Other States:

    New Hampshire is a bit confusing.  State law says that "If a presidential candidate…withdraws as a presidential candidate at any time prior to the convention, his pledged delegates shall be released by the candidate…"  Rubio hasn't officially withdrawn (and neither, to my knowledge, has Jeb Bush), so it would seem they keep their delegates.

    However, the pledge form signed by the delegates is a bit weaker. "I pledge myself, if selected as delegate or alternate delegate to said convention, whenever I shall vote, to vote for the nomination of (inserting the name of any person) as the candidate for said party for president so long as he shall be a candidate before said convention."  Whether this means the delegates are released if Rubio (or Bush, or Kasich) do not appear on the first ballot is not 100% clear.  

    In Alaska, candidates' delegates are reallocated if they "drop out"; this was initially done to Rubio's delegates after his suspension, but they were returned to him after he requested that he keep them.  The AK GOP rules (http://www.alaskagop.org/party_rules) suggest Rubio's delegates would still be released if he does not "maintain an active campaign," but the AK GOP press release suggests he will keep them regardless; the act of contacting the AK GOP is presumably a sign of an active campaign.


    Accordingly, I'm moving Rubio's delegates back to him in Alaska and New Hampshire (he still had his in Nevada).

    In Nevada, Rubio would have his delegates released if he discontinues his campaign after the State Convention in May.  As he discontinued his campaign before the State Convention he (and Carson) get to keep their delegates for now.  Rubio would lose them if he were to endorse someone after the State Convention, so keep an eye out for those.

    In all other states, Rubio seems to keep his delegates unless he actually withdraws or releases his delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 10:58:42 AM
    To clear up the confusion in New Hampshire, I contacted the New Hampshire GOP, and they clarified that delegates allocated to candidates that do not appear on the first ballot at the RNC are not still bound to vote for them on the first ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Frodo on April 15, 2016, 11:46:08 AM
    Republican leaders consider rewriting convention rules:
    The new rules would throw more power to the individual delegates and away from a powerful convention chair.


    By Alex Isenstadt and Shane Goldmacher
    04/15/16 05:20 AM EDT


    Quote
    The Republican National Committee is expected to debate a proposal next week that would dramatically shift the balance of power at this summer’s convention — and impose a new rulebook for selecting the party's nominee.

    The proposal, which will top the agenda during a meeting of the Rules panel at the RNC’s annual spring meeting in Hollywood Beach, Fla., would fundamentally alter how the convention is conducted, further empowering the delegates to determine the course of the proceedings.

    It amounts to not just a changing of the rules but of the rulebook itself, with far-reaching implications, potentially impacting whether party insiders will be able to draft a so-called “white knight” — someone currently not running who would play the role of savior at a deadlocked convention.

    The proposal is the brainchild of Solomon Yue, an RNC officer and Rules Committee member from Oregon. It would replace the system used at Republican national conventions for decades, which mimic those used by the U.S. House of Representatives, with Robert’s Rules of Order, a design that’s often used to oversee civic and organizational meetings.

    Some see the idea as a recipe for utter chaos, and one that could open the door to mischief-making. With thousands of delegates on hand, it’s easy to imagine a scenario where objections pile up, jamming up floor proceedings and turning the convention into a train wreck — all before the eyes of a national audience.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/republican-leaders-consider-rewriting-convention-rules-221972#ixzz45ulBoDMl


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 15, 2016, 11:59:35 AM
    At this point, is it possible that part of the RNC stretches into the next week and overlaps with the DNC?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 02:08:46 PM
    At this point, is it possible that part of the RNC stretches into the next week and overlaps with the DNC?

    Hotel reservations would get to be a problem, among many other things.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 03:07:33 PM
    Indiana (D): May 3

    Indiana is the first state in Stage III of the primary process; it and all future states receive a 20% delegate bonus.

    Overview
    92 Delegates (1.93% of total)
    Open Primary
    56 District
    18 At-Large
    9 PLEO At-Large
    9 Superdelegates

    Details

    Groups of 18 and 9 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned among the CDs as follows: 8 in CDs 1,7; 7 in CD 5; 6 in CDs 2,8,9; 5 in CDs 3,4,6.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (7): Sen. Joe Donnelly, Rep. André Carson (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Lacy Johnson, Dean Boerste (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml), Vice Chair Cordelia Burks (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-dnc-2016-115342), Shari Mellin (http://www.ibj.com/articles/55788-survey-5-of-9-indiana-superdelegates-support-clinton), David Frye (http://www.howeypolitics.com/Content/Default/Lead-Story/Article/Brian-Howey-Clinton-approaches-2016-differently-than-2008/-3/346/13686)

    Other (2): Rep. Pete Visclosky, Chair John Zody

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: IN (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IN-D)
    IN Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299194584/IndianaDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan-11-30-15)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 03:12:49 PM
    Guam (D): May 7

    Overview
    12 Delegates (0.25% of total)
    Closed Caucus
    7 At-Large
    5 Superdelegates

    Details

    The 7 delegates are apportioned based on the caucus vote.

    Superdelegates

    Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/): Clinton 3 - Uncommitted 2

    Confirmed Clinton (2): Del. Madeleine Bordallo (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.nzherald.co.nz%2Fworld%2Fnews%2Farticle.cfm%3Fc_id%3D2%26objectid%3D11545249&oq=cache%3Awww.nzherald.co.nz%2Fworld%2Fnews%2Farticle.cfm%3Fc_id%3D2%26objectid%3D11545249&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.991j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8), Chair Rory Respicio (http://www.kuam.com/story/28783975/2015/04/13/hillary-clintons-presidential-run-has-local-democrats-excited)

    Other (3): Vice Chair Nerissa Bretania-Underwood, David L.G. Shimizu (Clinton 2008), Taling M. Taitano

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: GU (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/GU-D)
    GU Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.dropbox.com/s/guz6xpqqrwwg625/Guam%20Delegate%20Selection%20Plan%207.14.15.pdf?dl=0)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 03:18:10 PM
    West Virginia (D): May 10

    Overview
    37 Delegates (0.78% of total)
    Half-Open Primary
    20 District
    6 At-Large
    3 PLEO At-Large
    8 Superdelegates

    Details

    Groups of 6 and 3 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned among the CDs as follows: 7 in CDs 1,2; 6 in CD 3.

    Superdelegates

    Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/): Clinton 5 - Sanders 1 - Uncommitted 2

    Confirmed Clinton (1): Sen. Joe Manchin (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/)

    Sanders (1): Vice Chair Christopher J Regan (http://www.homeyesterday.com/bernie-sanders-for-president/)

    Other (6): Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, Chair Belinda Biafore (Clinton 2008), Pat Maroney (Clinton 2008), Elaine Harris (Clinton 2008), John Perdue, Natalie Tennant

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: WV (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/WV-D)
    WV Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299194639/WestVirginiaDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 03:28:57 PM
    May 17 Democratic Primaries

    Kentucky (D)

    Overview
    60 Delegates (1.26% of total)
    Closed Primary
    37 District
    12 At-Large
    6 PLEO At-Large
    5 Superdelegates

    Details

    Groups of 12 and 6 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned among the CDs as follows: 9 in CD 3; 7 in CD 6; 6 in CDs 2,4; 5 in CD 1; 4 in CD 5.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (2): Rep. John Yarmouth (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Charlotte Lundergan (http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201509039001599995)

    Uncommitted (3): Chair Patrick Hughes, Vice Chair Brandi Harless, Charles E. Moore

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: KY (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/KY-D)
    KY Delegate Selection Plan (http://kydemocrat.com/docs/reorg_manual.pdf)

    Oregon (D)

    Overview
    74 Delegates (1.55% of total)
    Closed Primary
    41 District
    13 At-Large
    7 PLEO At-Large
    13 Superdelegates

    Details

    Groups of 13 and 7 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned among the CDs as follows: 11 in CD 3; 9 in CD 1; 8 in CD 4; 7 in CD 4.  The 2nd Congressional District, due to its large size, is split into two halves, each with 3 delegates each.  One half contains the counties of Harney, Jackson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, and that portion of Josephine within the district; the remainder is in the other half.  Since this divides an even-delegate district into two odd-delegate districts, it favors the winner in the event of a narrow (50-58.3%) win.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (6): Sen. Ron Wyden, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, Rep. Kurt Schrader (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Ellen Rosenblum (http://koin.com/2015/11/13/10-of-oregons-13-superdelegates-uncommitted/), Gov. Kate Brown (http://katu.com/news/local/gov-kate-brown-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president)

    Sanders (1): Sen. Jeff Merkley (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/opinion/why-im-supporting-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0)

    Uncommitted (6): Rep. Peter DeFazio, Chair Frank Dixon, Vice Chair Karen Packer, Laura Calvo, Lupita Maurer, Larry Taylor.

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: OR (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/OR-D)
    OR Delegate Selection Plan (http://s3.amazonaws.com/DPO/convention2016/2016dsp_plan.pdf)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 03:35:57 PM
    Virgin Islands (D): June 4

    Overview
    12 Delegates (0.25% of total)
    Closed Caucus
    7 by District
    5 Superdelegates

    Details

    4 delegates are apportioned based on the total results in St. Thomas and St. John; 3 delegates are apportioned based on the results in St. Croix.

    Superdelegates

    Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/): Clinton 2 - Sanders 1 - Uncommitted 2

    Confirmed Clinton (1): Del. Stacey Plaskett (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/clinton-gains-support-170-african-american-women-leaders-n510846?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=99436f168652581e13d074316afcc095)

    Sanders (1): Emmett Hansen II (https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-Publicly-Committed.pdf)

    Other (3): Chair Cecil Benjamin, Vice Chair Riise Richards, Carol Burke

    VI Democratic leadership is also in disarray, but this seems to be the correct set of superdelegates.

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: VI (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-D)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 03:43:45 PM
    Puerto Rico (D): June 5

    Overview
    67 Delegates (1.41% of total)
    Open Primary
    40 District
    13 At-Large
    7 Pledged PLEO
    7 Superdelegates

    Details

    The district delegates are allocated based on the vote in each Senatorial District: 8 in SD 1 (San Juan); 6 in SDs 2 (Bayamón) and 8 (Carolina); 4 in SDs 3 (Arecibo), 4 (Mayagüez), 5 (Ponce), 6 (Guayama), 7 (Humacao).  The 13 At-Large and 7 Pledged PLEO delegates are allocated based on the preferences of the elected district delegates.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (3): Del. Pedro Pierluisi (http://politicalpartytime.org/party/40563/), Chair Robeto Prats (https://rfh.ngpvanhost.com/), Kenneth McClintock (https://twitter.com/PRKDMc/status/638223605596205057)

    Uncommitted (4): Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, Vice Chair Luisette Cabañas-Colón, Andres Lopez, Liza Ortiz Camacho

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: PR (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/PR-D)
    PR Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/303981230/Puerto-Rico-s-Amended-Delegate-Selection-Plan)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 03:59:45 PM
    June 7 Democratic Contests

    Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota are considered part of a "regional cluster," and receive an additional 15% delegate bonus.

    California (D)

    Overview
    548 Delegates (11.49% of total)
    Half-Open Primary
    317 District
    105 At-Large
    53 PLEO At-Large
    73 Superdelegates

    Details

    Groups of 105 and 73 delegates are apportioned based on the statewide primary vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned among the CDs as follows: 9 in CD 12; 8 in CDs 2,13,18; 7 in CDs 5,11,14,15,28,30,33,37,53; 6 in CDs 1,3,4,6,7,9,17,19,20,24,26,27,32,38,39,43,44,45,47,48,49,52; 5 in CDs 8,10,16,22,23,25,29,31,34,35,36,40,41,42,46,50,51; 4 in CD 21.

    Superdelegates

    Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/): Clinton 51 - Uncommitted 22

    Confirmed Clinton (49): Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Reps. Jared Huffman, John Garamendi, Mike Thompson, Doris Matsui, Ami Bera, Jerry McNerney, Jackie Speier, Mike Honda, Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren, Lois Capps, Julia Brownley, Judy Chu, Adam Schiff, Tony Cardenas, Brad Sherman, Pete Aguilar, Grace Napolitano, Ted Lieu, Xavier Becerra, Karen Bass, Linda Sánchez, Lucille Roybal, Mark Takano, Maxine Waters, Janice Hahn, Loretta Sanchez, Scott Peters, Mark DeSaulnier, Susan Davis, Jim Costa, and Raul Ruiz (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/),Maria Echaveste, Laurence Zakson, John A. Pérez, Garry Shay (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml), Shawn Bagley (https://twitter.com/bsgpolitics/status/642846906335387648), Bob Mulholland (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-dnc-2016-115342), Christine Pelosi (http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_27906964/hillary-clinton-feeds-off-bay-area-donors-tech), Hilda Solis (http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/hillary-clinton-rob-reiner-fundraiser-1201634455/), Jess Durfee (http://www.hillary1000.com/com/hillary1000/site/contact.html), Alice Huffman (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-democrats-meeting-20150829-story.html), Andrew Lachman (https://twitter.com/AndrewLachman/status/590966081172410368), Rosalind Wyman (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/politics/hillary-clintons-handling-of-email-issue-frustrates-democratic-leaders.html), Rep. Eric Swalwell (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-presidential-endorsements-congress-california-20151130-htmlstory.html), Eric Garcetti (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2015-11-05/los-angeles-mayor-garcetti-endorses-hillary-clinton), Evan Low (http://emanilamail.com/dnc-superdelegate-assemblymember-low-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president/)

    Other (24): Gov. Jerry Brown, Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Sam Farr, Norma Torres, Alan Lowenthal, and Juan Vargas, Pat Hobbs, Kerman Maddox, Matt Johnson, Tefere Gebre, Mattie McFadden Lawson, Chair John Burton, Vice Chair Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker, Steven K. Alari, Rachel Binah, Joe Buscaino, Becca Doten, Maria Elena Durazo, Mary Ellen Early, Aleita Huguenin (Clinton 2008), Christopher Stampolis, Keith Umemoto, Greg Pettis

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: CA (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CA-D)
    CA Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.cadem.org/our-party/body/2016-CA-Delegate-Selection-Plan-Final-02192016.pdf)

    Montana (D)

    Overview
    27 Delegates (0.57% of total)
    Closed Primary
    15 by District
    4 At-Large
    2 PLEO At-Large
    6 Superdelegates

    Details

    The state is divided into two "districts," roughly corresponding to the two congressional districts Montana had before the 1990 Census.  The Western District (8 delegates) has Beaverhead, Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Mineral, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, Ravalli, Sanders, and Silver Bow counties.  The Eastern District (7 delegates) has the remainder.  The 4 At-Large and 2 pledged PLEO delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.

    Superdelegates

    Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/): Clinton 1 - Uncommitted 5

    Superdelegates (6): Gov. Steve Bullock, Sen. Jon Tester, Chair Jim Larson, Vice Chair Jacquie Helt, Jorge Quintana, Jean Lemire Dahlman

    (The one counted by the AP may be Jacquie Helt (http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/blogs/politics/montana-superdelegate-denies-pledging-for-clinton/article_d46fb680-6c89-538d-a461-3f4d9f6591fa.html), who denies publicly endorsing Clinton).

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: MT (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MT-D)
    MT Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299194606/MontanaDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan)

    New Jersey (D)

    Overview
    142 Delegates (2.98% of total)
    Half-Open Primary
    84 by District
    28 At-Large
    14 PLEO At-Large
    16 Superdelegates

    Details

    The 28 At-Large and 14 pledged PLEO delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The District delegates are not allocated based on Congressional Districts, but instead on special "delegate districts," each of which is comprised of two state Legislative districts, as follows: 5 in LDs 5/6,7/8,14/15,20/22,28/29,34/35; 4 in LDs 1/2,3/4,9/10,11/13,16/17,18/19,21/27,25/26,31/33,32/36,37/38,39/40; 3 in LDs 12/30,23/24.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (9): Sen. Cory Booker, Reps. Frank Pallone, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Donald Payne Jr. and Bill Pascrell Jr (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Barbra Casbar Siperstein, Chair John Currie (http://www.northjersey.com/news/clinton-earning-superdelegate-support-in-new-jersey-1.1455223), Vice Chair Lizette Delgado Polanco (http://politickernj.com/2015/10/clinton-fundraises-in-morristown-with-sellinger-north-jersey-dems/), Tonio Burgos (http://observer.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-has-a-lot-of-big-names-on-her-new-york-leadership-team/)

    Sanders (2): John Wisniewski (http://politickernj.com/2016/01/wisniewski-endorses-sanders-for-president/), Reni Erdos (http://politickernj.com/2016/02/democratic-national-committee-member-erdos-joins-wiz-for-sanders/)

    Uncommitted (5): Sen. Bob Menendez (Clinton 2008), Rep. Albio Sires (Clinton 2008), Rep. Donald Norcross, Marcia Marley, George Norcross

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: NJ (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NJ-D)
    NJ Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/262996362/DRAFT-New-Jersey-2016-Delegate-Selection-Plan) (draft)

    New Mexico (D)

    Overview
    43 Delegates (0.90% of total)
    Closed Primary
    23 by District
    7 At-Large
    4 PLEO At-Large
    9 Superdelegates

    Details

    The 7 At-Large and 4 pledged PLEO delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.  The CD delegates are apportioned as follows: 8 for CDs 1,3; 7 for CD 2.

    Superdelegates


    Clinton (7): Sen. Tom Udall, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/), Raymond Sanchez (http://krqe.com/2015/11/14/clinton-has-support-of-key-new-mexico-democrats-2/), Rep. Ben Ray Luján (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/blogs/politics/ben-ray-endorses-hillary/article_c6298c56-dceb-11e5-94b2-cff0e6c885b5.html), Ex-DNC Chair Fred R. Harris (http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201507319000553126), Joni Marie Gutierrez (http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201507319000547019)

    Uncommitted (2): Chair Debra Haaland, Vice Chair Juan Sanchez

    Debra Haaland previously donated to Ready [for Hillary] PAC, but has since stressed that she is Uncommitted.

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: NM (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NM-D)
    NM Delegate Selection Plan (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299194611/NewMexicoDemocratic-2016DelegateSelectionPlan-11-21-2015)

    North Dakota (D)

    Overview
    23 Delegates (0.48% of total)
    Open Caucus
    12 "District"
    4 At-Large
    2 PLEO At-Large
    5 Superdelegates

    Details

    The 12 district delegates are allocated based on the statewide caucus vote (reweighted by their vote for Democrats in the 2012 Presidential and Gubernatorial races). The 4 At-Large and 2 pledged PLEO delegates are allocated based on the preferences of the district delegates.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (1): Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/)

    Sanders (1): Chad Noland (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/98c6fd82b5154d01ae2bc998f69d4f23/clinton-has-early-commanding-delegate-lead-nomination)

    Uncommitted (3): Chair Kylie Oversen, Vice Chair Warren Larson, Renee Pfenning

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: ND (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/ND-D)
    ND Delegate Selection Plan (http://demnpl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2016-ND-Delegate-Selection-Plan.pdf)

    South Dakota (D)

    Overview
    25 Delegates (0.52% of total)
    Closed Primary
    14 "District"
    4 At-Large
    2 PLEO At-Large
    5 Superdelegates

    Details

    Pools of 14, 4, and 2 delegates are allocated based on the statewide vote.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (1): Tom Daschle (http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2016/01/25/daschle-lott-2016-campaign)

    Uncommitted (4): Chair Ann Tornberg, Vice Chair Joe Lowe, Sharon Stroschein, Nick Nemec

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: SD (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/SD-D)
    SD Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.sddp.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Delegate-Selection-Plan-2016.pdf)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: PaperKooper on April 15, 2016, 04:02:24 PM
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434091/gop-conventions-rule-40-will-not-determine-nominee


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 15, 2016, 04:08:40 PM
    Unknown Delegates

    In my continuing effort to find out the identities of all the delegates, some are beginning to slip through the cracks.  If anyone has any leads on the delegates chosen in the following jurisdictions, it'd be much appreciated:

    Oklahoma's 4th CD (3 delegates)
    Florida: CDs 5-10, 15-18, 20-22 (39 delegates)
    North Carolina: CDs 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,13 (24 delegates)
    Indiana: All CDs 1-9 (27 delegates).

    Potentially, some of Idaho's delegates have been selected by the campaigns as well, though I'm unsure about this.

    I'm keeping a running list of these going in the "Unknown Delegates" tab on my spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing); this list may grow or shrink as time goes on.

    Merry Christmas Erc.
    Names of all 57 Indiana Delegates: http://fox59.com/2016/04/14/here-are-indianas-57-delegates-why-their-vote-for-president-matters-more-than-yours/


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 04:11:49 PM
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434091/gop-conventions-rule-40-will-not-determine-nominee

    Can't say I disagree with anything there.

    The specter of Trump not even getting on the first ballot due to Rule 40 shenanigans seems slim, especially if he does well on April 26.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 04:13:05 PM
    Unknown Delegates

    In my continuing effort to find out the identities of all the delegates, some are beginning to slip through the cracks.  If anyone has any leads on the delegates chosen in the following jurisdictions, it'd be much appreciated:

    Oklahoma's 4th CD (3 delegates)
    Florida: CDs 5-10, 15-18, 20-22 (39 delegates)
    North Carolina: CDs 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,13 (24 delegates)
    Indiana: All CDs 1-9 (27 delegates).

    Potentially, some of Idaho's delegates have been selected by the campaigns as well, though I'm unsure about this.

    I'm keeping a running list of these going in the "Unknown Delegates" tab on my spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing); this list may grow or shrink as time goes on.

    Merry Christmas Erc.
    Names of all 57 Indiana Delegates: http://fox59.com/2016/04/14/here-are-indianas-57-delegates-why-their-vote-for-president-matters-more-than-yours/

    Awesome!  Guess that supposed embargo didn't last long (or the list was leaked).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 15, 2016, 04:18:40 PM
    Unknown Delegates

    In my continuing effort to find out the identities of all the delegates, some are beginning to slip through the cracks.  If anyone has any leads on the delegates chosen in the following jurisdictions, it'd be much appreciated:

    Oklahoma's 4th CD (3 delegates)
    Florida: CDs 5-10, 15-18, 20-22 (39 delegates)
    North Carolina: CDs 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,13 (24 delegates)
    Indiana: All CDs 1-9 (27 delegates).

    Potentially, some of Idaho's delegates have been selected by the campaigns as well, though I'm unsure about this.

    I'm keeping a running list of these going in the "Unknown Delegates" tab on my spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing); this list may grow or shrink as time goes on.

    Merry Christmas Erc.
    Names of all 57 Indiana Delegates: http://fox59.com/2016/04/14/here-are-indianas-57-delegates-why-their-vote-for-president-matters-more-than-yours/

    Awesome!  Guess that supposed embargo didn't last long (or the list was leaked).

    It looks like the Indiana Republican Party changed its mind, but it didn't say why. Also, CNN says:
    Quote
    Many delegates appear to be supporters of John Kasich, and one delegate is co-chair of Donald Trump's campaign in Indiana -- but many more appear unaffiliated. Most of Indiana's Republican powerbrokers had been backing Jeb Bush until he dropped out in February.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 04:23:53 PM
    Taniel tracked down the OK-4 delegates last night, so the only unidentified delegates are in NC and FL.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 15, 2016, 04:58:54 PM
    What do you mean that the at large Puerto Rico delegates are decided by the district delegates?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 05:48:07 PM
    What do you mean that the at large Puerto Rico delegates are decided by the district delegates?

    The district delegates vote at some point, and the At-Large delegates are allocated proportionally on the basis of that vote.  Washington and North Dakota use the same system.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 05:59:40 PM
    Four out of five of Rubio's delegates say that they are firmly Uncommitted (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/276469-louisiana-delegates-media-is-falsely-reporting-were-with); the fifth, Stephanie Berault, seems to lean Cruz.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 15, 2016, 08:18:43 PM
    Four out of five of Rubio's delegates say that they are firmly Uncommitted (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/276469-louisiana-delegates-media-is-falsely-reporting-were-with); the fifth, Stephanie Berault, seems to lean Cruz.

    Looks like four out of five Rubio delegates just won themselves an all expenses paid trip to Trump International Beach Resort in sunny Miami!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 15, 2016, 08:52:15 PM
    So Erc, now that a new batch of Rubio delegates are being declared free agents on the first ballot, what's the latest estimate of the total number of delegates at the convention who are likely to be unpledged on the first ballot?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 08:57:33 PM
    So Erc, now that a new batch of Rubio delegates are being declared free agents on the first ballot, what's the latest estimate of the total number of delegates at the convention who are likely to be unpledged on the first ballot?


    I'd already declared most of these guys unpledged; in fact, my number's gone down lately on a more careful reading of the Alaska GOP press release that gave Rubio his delegates back in Alaska.

    My current number is 181; note that this includes Kasich's 12 delegates in New Hampshire and Vermont.

    Of those 181: Cruz 29 - Kasich 6 - Trump 3 - Uncommitted 143.

    The number should be pretty set in stone after Wyoming's convention tomorrow.  The only way this changes afterwards is if someone actively releases their delegates, or there's a surprise rules change or rule reinterpretation.  (Ohio suddenly deciding that delegates are released if Kasich doesn't make it onto the first ballot, for example...though this obviously seems quite unlikely).

    Note that this number is counting the Yobs as the delegation out of the Virgin Islands (or more appropriately, treating the slate as undetermined); if you go with the sham Canegata slate, the number goes down to 177 (I believe Rubio's delegates would still be bound to him).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 15, 2016, 09:17:40 PM
    OK, so sounds like we're looking at about 7% of all the delegates being free agents on the first ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 15, 2016, 09:38:23 PM
    District of Columbia (D): June 14

    Overview
    46 Delegates (0.97% of total)
    Closed Primary
    13 by District
    5 At-Large
    2 Pledged PLEO
    26 Superdelegates

    Details

    The district delegates are allocated based on the vote in each "Municipal District."  The first, consisting of Wards 1,2,6,8, has 7 delegates; the second, consisting of Wards 3,4,5,7, has 6 delegates.  The 5 At-Large and 2 Pledged PLEO delegates are allocated based on the vote in the entirety of the District of Columbia.

    Superdelegates

    Clinton (20): Mayor Muriel Bowser (https://twitter.com/MurielBowser/status/679432171308843008), Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Minyon Moore, Carrie Pugh, Jeff Berman, Harold Ickes, Lee Saunders, Maria Cardona, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, Steve Regenstreif, James Boland (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/13/majority-of-dc-superdelegates-backing-hillary-clin/), Sunita Leeds (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/01/13/aapi-leadership-council/), Anita Bonds (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/09/14/d-c-council-member-guarantees-hillary-clinton-at-least-four-votes/), MaryEva Candon, Arlington Dixon (http://dcreadyforhillary.com/), Earl Fowlkes (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/01/14/coming-out-for-hillary-clinton/), Karl Racine (http://wtop.com/dc/2016/02/dcs-superdelegates-contribute-to-clinton-dominance/), Mary Beth Cahill (http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201509039001599663), Marcus Mason (http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201509039001606168), Rick Wade (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/27/opinions/get-out-the-black-vote-jobs-opinion-wade/)

    Sanders (2): Larry Cohen (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/13/majority-of-dc-superdelegates-backing-hillary-clin/), James J Zogby (https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Sanders-Publicly-Committed.pdf)

    Other (4): Shad. Sen. Paul Strauss, Shad. Sen. Michael Brown, Ed Potillo, DNC Vice Chair Donna Brazile

    Note that Michael Brown is apparently still a superdelegate despite sources that list him as a registered independent.

    Useful Links
    The Green Papers: DC (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/DC-D)
    DC Delegate Selection Plan (http://www.dcdemocraticparty.org/delegateplan/planandforms.pdf)

    Unassigned (D)

    Overview
    2 Delegates (0.04% of total)
    No Vote Held
    2 Superdelegates

    Details

    The two delegates listed here are rather ex officio DNC seats, not tied to any particular state, that are currently vacant.  They correspond to the Vice Presidency of the College Democrats of America (vacant since the former VP, Marv McMoore, took the Presidency upon Nastasha McKenzie's resignation in September) and a DNC Vice Chair (vacant since Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's resignation from that post in February).

    Additionally, three delegate positions are reserved for three officers of the DNC who are not otherwise DNC members.  The Chairperson, the five Vice Chairpersons, the National Finance Chair, the Treasurer, and the Secretary of the DNC are already DNC members by virtue of their position, so these are some of the "other appropriate officers" created by Article III Section 1(e) of the Charter of the Democratic Party.  However, in each of the last four conventions (2000-2012), none of these slots were filled, and all DNC publications in the last year suggest that they will also not be filled this year, as well.  As a result, I'm not including these three delegates in my count.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 16, 2016, 11:39:58 AM
    Politico  (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-likely-to-win-west-virginia-but-lose-delegates-222036#ixzz45zXxCio4)has a good piece on the crazy rules in West Virginia.

    Due to the requirement that no more than two delegates per CD can come from the same county, it seems likely that around six of Trump's delegates that would otherwise be elected will be disqualified.

    Perhaps Trump winning 28 rather than 34 delegates out of West Virginia seems like the more likely outcome.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 16, 2016, 12:19:26 PM
    It seems that all the delegates chosen from Georgia's 7h CD are anti-TRUMP.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ElectionsGuy on April 16, 2016, 01:10:35 PM
    According to my math, with 1307 pledged delegates, she needs another 1076 pledged delegates to get to 2383 delegates overall not including superdelegates, which is 65.3% of the remaining pledged delegates. This is what she needs for Sanders to concede before the convention. I believe he's said that he would take it to the convention if neither candidate had a majority of all delegates with just pledged delegates.

    She would obviously win a contested convention when the super delegates will support her with North Korea margins, its just notable that Bernie Sanders will likely be a large force there.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on April 16, 2016, 01:36:24 PM
    According to my math, with 1307 pledged delegates, she needs another 1076 pledged delegates to get to 2383 delegates overall not including superdelegates, which is 65.3% of the remaining pledged delegates. This is what she needs for Sanders to concede before the convention. I believe he's said that he would take it to the convention if neither candidate had a majority of all delegates with just pledged delegates.

    She would obviously win a contested convention when the super delegates will support her with North Korea margins, its just notable that Bernie Sanders will likely be a large force there.

    Depending on how the next two weeks (NY, PA, MD, etc) plus the last week (CA & NJ) go, she might get that number.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ElectionsGuy on April 16, 2016, 02:15:17 PM
    According to my math, with 1307 pledged delegates, she needs another 1076 pledged delegates to get to 2383 delegates overall not including superdelegates, which is 65.3% of the remaining pledged delegates. This is what she needs for Sanders to concede before the convention. I believe he's said that he would take it to the convention if neither candidate had a majority of all delegates with just pledged delegates.

    She would obviously win a contested convention when the super delegates will support her with North Korea margins, its just notable that Bernie Sanders will likely be a large force there.

    Depending on how the next two weeks (NY, PA, MD, etc) plus the last week (CA & NJ) go, she might get that number.

    You think she get around 65% of the vote overall in those states?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on April 16, 2016, 02:19:37 PM
    According to my math, with 1307 pledged delegates, she needs another 1076 pledged delegates to get to 2383 delegates overall not including superdelegates, which is 65.3% of the remaining pledged delegates. This is what she needs for Sanders to concede before the convention. I believe he's said that he would take it to the convention if neither candidate had a majority of all delegates with just pledged delegates.

    She would obviously win a contested convention when the super delegates will support her with North Korea margins, its just notable that Bernie Sanders will likely be a large force there.

    Depending on how the next two weeks (NY, PA, MD, etc) plus the last week (CA & NJ) go, she might get that number.

    You think she get around 65% of the vote overall in those states?

    Whoops, I read that wrong. Yeah Sanders is going to make everyone vote at the convention.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 16, 2016, 03:15:14 PM
    VA-10, a district won by Rubio, elected 3 Cruz delegates.

    https://twitter.com/KateGaziano/status/721427860980940800  (https://twitter.com/KateGaziano/status/721427860980940800)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 16, 2016, 03:56:40 PM
    Clinton-Sanders enthusiasm gap continues in Colorado, where Sanders picks up 2 delegates at the State Convention today at Clinton's expense (1 extra At-Large and 1 extra pledged PLEO).  He had 63% at the state convention, compared to initial projections of 59%. (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721419359214645248)

    Final count: Sanders 41 - Clinton 25 (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721417035033382912).

    Sanders has picked up a total of 4 (perhaps 6, depending on rules interpretations) from being better mobilized at these conventions, so far.  


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Likely Voter on April 16, 2016, 04:34:33 PM
    Clinton-Sanders enthusiasm gap continues in Colorado, where Sanders picks up 2 delegates at the State Convention today at Clinton's expense (1 extra At-Large and 1 extra pledged PLEO).  He had 63% at the state convention, compared to initial projections of 59%. (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721419359214645248)

    Final count: Sanders 41 - Clinton 25 (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721417035033382912).

    Sanders has picked up a total of 4 (perhaps 6, depending on rules interpretations) from being better mobilized at these conventions, so far.  

    Jeff Weaver was on WADR  (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-08/jeff-weaver-bernie-sanders-won-t-cancel-vatican-trip)and when pressed on how they plan to get to a majority he said in part would be their efforts to squeeze more out of the caucus state conventions, "15-20" in total.   He also said they would do very well in NY, and win PA, CT, RI, CA, OR, MT, SD and ND.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 16, 2016, 07:50:53 PM
    Clinton-Sanders enthusiasm gap continues in Colorado, where Sanders picks up 2 delegates at the State Convention today at Clinton's expense (1 extra At-Large and 1 extra pledged PLEO).  He had 63% at the state convention, compared to initial projections of 59%. (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721419359214645248)

    Final count: Sanders 41 - Clinton 25 (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721417035033382912).

    Sanders has picked up a total of 4 (perhaps 6, depending on rules interpretations) from being better mobilized at these conventions, so far.

    Jeff Weaver was on WADR  (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-08/jeff-weaver-bernie-sanders-won-t-cancel-vatican-trip)and when pressed on how they plan to get to a majority he said in part would be their efforts to squeeze more out of the caucus state conventions, "15-20" in total.   He also said they would do very well in NY, and win PA, CT, RI, CA, OR, MT, SD and ND.

    They can very easily get one more out of Iowa, two more out of Nevada (though the latter might be subject to a credentials fight), but honestly that's about it.  15-20 isn't physically possible barring violence.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mehmentum on April 16, 2016, 07:52:40 PM
    I've been sifting through twitter about the results of today's conventions.

    GA-7: a Cruz-Rubio alliance elects 2 Cruz supporters as Trump's delegates, Rubio's delegate is the convention chairman. (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/16/trump-13/)

    GA-11: Cruz- 2 Uncommited- 1 GA-6: Cruz- 2 Trump- 1 (http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/04/16/donald-trump-gets-outmaneuvered-by-ted-cruz-forces-in-georgia/)

    GA-9: 3 Not Trump delegates. (https://twitter.com/CodyHall09/status/721439115040976898)

    SC-1: 3 Cruz supporters elected as Trump's delegates. (http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20160416/PC1603/160419445)

    OK-1: Cruz sweep of all 3 delegates, including a delegate for Rubio which will be unbound on the first vote. (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2016/04/cruz-supporters-sweep-oklahoma-1.html)

    KS-1 may have been a Cruz sweep. (https://twitter.com/ErikBCorcoran/status/721461383997423616)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Likely Voter on April 16, 2016, 08:33:46 PM
    Clinton-Sanders enthusiasm gap continues in Colorado, where Sanders picks up 2 delegates at the State Convention today at Clinton's expense (1 extra At-Large and 1 extra pledged PLEO).  He had 63% at the state convention, compared to initial projections of 59%. (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721419359214645248)

    Final count: Sanders 41 - Clinton 25 (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721417035033382912).

    Sanders has picked up a total of 4 (perhaps 6, depending on rules interpretations) from being better mobilized at these conventions, so far.

    Jeff Weaver was on WADR  (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-08/jeff-weaver-bernie-sanders-won-t-cancel-vatican-trip)and when pressed on how they plan to get to a majority he said in part would be their efforts to squeeze more out of the caucus state conventions, "15-20" in total.   He also said they would do very well in NY, and win PA, CT, RI, CA, OR, MT, SD and ND.

    They can very easily get one more out of Iowa, two more out of Nevada (though the latter might be subject to a credentials fight), but honestly that's about it.  15-20 isn't physically possible barring violence.

    What about upcoming conventions from the other caucus states like ME, KS, NE,  ID, etc?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 16, 2016, 09:01:36 PM
    Clinton-Sanders enthusiasm gap continues in Colorado, where Sanders picks up 2 delegates at the State Convention today at Clinton's expense (1 extra At-Large and 1 extra pledged PLEO).  He had 63% at the state convention, compared to initial projections of 59%. (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721419359214645248)

    Final count: Sanders 41 - Clinton 25 (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721417035033382912).

    Sanders has picked up a total of 4 (perhaps 6, depending on rules interpretations) from being better mobilized at these conventions, so far.

    Jeff Weaver was on WADR  (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-08/jeff-weaver-bernie-sanders-won-t-cancel-vatican-trip)and when pressed on how they plan to get to a majority he said in part would be their efforts to squeeze more out of the caucus state conventions, "15-20" in total.   He also said they would do very well in NY, and win PA, CT, RI, CA, OR, MT, SD and ND.

    They can very easily get one more out of Iowa, two more out of Nevada (though the latter might be subject to a credentials fight), but honestly that's about it.  15-20 isn't physically possible barring violence.

    What about upcoming conventions from the other caucus states like ME, KS, NE,  ID, etc?

    The majority of them bind their delegates based on the original caucus vote; the few remaining that don't would require larger swings than we've seen so far to move delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Shadows on April 16, 2016, 09:18:04 PM
    Clinton-Sanders enthusiasm gap continues in Colorado, where Sanders picks up 2 delegates at the State Convention today at Clinton's expense (1 extra At-Large and 1 extra pledged PLEO).  He had 63% at the state convention, compared to initial projections of 59%. (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721419359214645248)

    Final count: Sanders 41 - Clinton 25 (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721417035033382912).

    Sanders has picked up a total of 4 (perhaps 6, depending on rules interpretations) from being better mobilized at these conventions, so far.

    Jeff Weaver was on WADR  (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-08/jeff-weaver-bernie-sanders-won-t-cancel-vatican-trip)and when pressed on how they plan to get to a majority he said in part would be their efforts to squeeze more out of the caucus state conventions, "15-20" in total.   He also said they would do very well in NY, and win PA, CT, RI, CA, OR, MT, SD and ND.

    They can very easily get one more out of Iowa, two more out of Nevada (though the latter might be subject to a credentials fight), but honestly that's about it.  15-20 isn't physically possible barring violence.

    Iowa they will get 3-4 atleast, I mean o Malley's delegates aren't done, so that would automatically flip it 23-21, he can get more, Nevada too.

    Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Utah - Some of these states may have a blowout & Hillary may not even get 15%. I think 25-30 is possible with a push!



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 16, 2016, 09:39:52 PM
    Clinton-Sanders enthusiasm gap continues in Colorado, where Sanders picks up 2 delegates at the State Convention today at Clinton's expense (1 extra At-Large and 1 extra pledged PLEO).  He had 63% at the state convention, compared to initial projections of 59%. (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721419359214645248)

    Final count: Sanders 41 - Clinton 25 (https://twitter.com/ByJohnFrank/status/721417035033382912).

    Sanders has picked up a total of 4 (perhaps 6, depending on rules interpretations) from being better mobilized at these conventions, so far.

    Jeff Weaver was on WADR  (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-04-08/jeff-weaver-bernie-sanders-won-t-cancel-vatican-trip)and when pressed on how they plan to get to a majority he said in part would be their efforts to squeeze more out of the caucus state conventions, "15-20" in total.   He also said they would do very well in NY, and win PA, CT, RI, CA, OR, MT, SD and ND.

    They can very easily get one more out of Iowa, two more out of Nevada (though the latter might be subject to a credentials fight), but honestly that's about it.  15-20 isn't physically possible barring violence.

    Iowa they will get 3-4 atleast, I mean o Malley's delegates aren't done, so that would automatically flip it 23-21, he can get more, Nevada too.

    Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Utah - Some of these states may have a blowout & Hillary may not even get 15%. I think 25-30 is possible with a push!



    The "O'Malley" and "Uncommitted" delegates to the state convention are Sanders delegates in disguise.  Evidence so far suggests the Clinton folks are relatively well-organized in Iowa; the debacle in Polk County was a one-off that is unlikely to be repeated.

    The one At-Large delegate is obviously doable...though remember that the State Convention happens on June 18, four days after the final primary and eleven days after the media will have declared the race over.  Obviously, a fair number of Sanders supporters will go into that bunker, but it's not guaranteed that they all will.

    Their next target in Iowa would be CD 3; they made up some ground there thanks to Polk County, but still less than half of what they needed.  The enthusiasm gap is likely to matter less the further you get on in the process, as the folks agreeing to be delegates at the higher-tier conventions are more likely to show up and actually be committed.  I don't see Sanders pulling it off there.

    I'll address the other states later; I'm going to need to do a careful reading of their rules again.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 16, 2016, 10:46:40 PM
    Democratic Caucus States and Allocation of Delegates

    So, the Delegate Selection plans for all the states follow a pretty rote formula, down to exactly the same boilerplate in some cases.  For example, here's Iowa talking about how it allocates CD-level delegates.

    Quote from: IA Delegate Selection Plan
    Iowa is a caucus/convention state. Accordingly, delegate and alternate
    positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential
    preference or uncommitted status of the caucus participants in each district.
    Therefore, the national convention delegates elected at the district level shall be
    allocated in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in that district by
    each preference, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not
    be awarded any delegates or alternates. Such percentages shall be determined
    at the district convention level of the delegate selection process (Rule 13.B.)

    Now, here's Nevada's:

    Quote from: NV Delegate Selection Plan
    Nevada is a caucus/convention state. Accordingly, delegate and
    alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the
    expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the
    caucus participants in each district. Therefore, the national
    convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated
    in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in that
    district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a
    15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates.
    (Rule 13.B)

    Note that that's exactly the same, just subbing "Nevada" for "Iowa" and, critically, dropping the final sentence.  Iowa's CD delegates are allocated based on the results at the District Conventions (although, looking at it again, one could make an argument that they are not), whereas Nevada's are determined by the original caucus vote.

    Most of the other states have language very similar to this.  Going through them and summarizing; ones that could be changed by future multi-stage shenanigans are in bold.  (Everywhere, At-Large includes pledged PLEO delegates).

    Iowa: CD delegates chosen based on CD conventions; At-Large delegates chosen based on State Convention.
    Nevada: CD delegates chosen based on caucus; At-Large delegates chosen based on State Convention.
    Colorado: CD delegates chosen based on caucus (I was wrong here, that error would have mattered if it had not been caught, sorry jfern); At-Large delegates chosen based on State Convention.
    Minnesota: CD and At-Large delegates chosen based on caucus.
    Kansas: CD and At-Large delegates chosen based on caucus.
    Nebraska: CD and At-Large delegates chosen based on caucus.
    Maine: CD and At-Large delegates chosen based on State Convention.
    Idaho: CD delegates chosen based on caucus; At-Large delegates chosen based on State Convention.
    Utah: CD and At-Large delegates chosen based on caucus.
    Alaska: CD delegates chosen based on caucus; At-Large delegates chosen based on State Convention.
    Hawaii: CD and At-Large delegates chosen based on caucus.
    Washington: CD delegates chosen based on caucus; At-Large delegates chosen based on CD delegates.
    Wyoming: CD delegates chosen based on caucus; At-Large delegates chosen based on State Convention.
    North Dakota: CD delegates chosen based on caucus; At-Large delegates chosen based on CD delegates.

    Sanders delegate targets, ordered by swing (how much additional percent of the vote in the jurisdiction he would need to net an additional delegate):

    Iowa At-Large (0.1%)
    Maine CD 1 (1.0%)
    Iowa CD 3 (2.0%)
    Alaska At-Large (3.9%)
    Iowa CD 2 (4.4%)
    Idaho PLEO (4.7%)
    Maine At-Large (5.5%)
    Iowa CD 1 (6.0%)
    Idaho At-Large (6.4%)
    Wyoming At-Large (6.8%)

    For comparison, the gain so far in Nevada (likely to be the largest he is ever going to be able to pull off, due to how Nevada, and Clark County in particular, has WAY too many delegates attending these middle-tier conventions) is 7.9%.  I've not listed any swings larger than that figure.  For comparison, the swing in Colorado was around 4% (he only needed 1.7% to net both delegates).

    Iowa At-Large is the obvious target, followed by Maine CD 1, neither of which I would be surprised if they flip.  Alaska is likely the next target; I'd honestly be surprised if anything else (or IA CD 3) flipped.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 16, 2016, 11:04:51 PM
    http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2016/04/16/donald-trump-west-virginia-delegates-ceiling/

    Someone did the math on Trump's West Virginia delegate slate.  Apparently he has a ceiling of 19 out of 22 potential statewide delegates (probably less).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mehmentum on April 16, 2016, 11:07:09 PM
    What would we ever do without you erc?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 16, 2016, 11:37:20 PM
    I've been sifting through twitter about the results of today's conventions.

    GA-7: a Cruz-Rubio alliance elects 2 Cruz supporters as Trump's delegates, Rubio's delegate is the convention chairman. (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/16/trump-13/)

    GA-11: Cruz- 2 Uncommited- 1 GA-6: Cruz- 2 Trump- 1 (http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/04/16/donald-trump-gets-outmaneuvered-by-ted-cruz-forces-in-georgia/)

    GA-9: 3 Not Trump delegates. (https://twitter.com/CodyHall09/status/721439115040976898)

    SC-1: 3 Cruz supporters elected as Trump's delegates. (http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20160416/PC1603/160419445)

    OK-1: Cruz sweep of all 3 delegates, including a delegate for Rubio which will be unbound on the first vote. (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2016/04/cruz-supporters-sweep-oklahoma-1.html)

    KS-1 may have been a Cruz sweep. (https://twitter.com/ErikBCorcoran/status/721461383997423616)

    Thanks for these tips!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: An American Tail: Fubart Goes West on April 17, 2016, 12:26:08 AM
    What would we ever do without you erc?

    Woefully unelightened. Many thanks, Erc!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Republic on April 17, 2016, 01:00:05 AM
    I was bored, so here's a map of the superdelegate endorsements:

    (
    )

    Yellow = uncommitted

    Utah is a 2-2 split between Clinton and Sanders, and Oregon is a 6-6-1 tie between Clinton and uncommitted.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 17, 2016, 01:30:21 AM
    Well, you seem to be the only one who has it, but MS-03 did choose a Bernie delegate today.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 17, 2016, 01:44:07 PM
    With Cynthia Lummis failing to get elected as a delegate in Wyoming, that count of 181 unbound delegates on the first ballot seems pretty secure.

    Possible changes to that:
    1) Credentials fight in Virgin Islands (-4)
    2) Dispute over Alaska binding (+5)
    3) Uncommitted delegates winning in West Virginia due to arcane rules (+a few, possibly)
    4) Kasich winning some surprise delegates in Indiana


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 17, 2016, 05:20:06 PM
    Cruz won 11/12 delegates and alternates at play in Oklahoma this weekend.

    Unfortunately for him, the one slot they lost was a Rubio delegate slot that went to a Trump supporter (http://fortysixnews.com/stories/2015/12/08/donald-trump-announces-statewide-leadership-team-in-oklahoma/), Daren Ward (https://twitter.com/PhilipAJackson/status/721694838400258049).  That's one of the two delegates at play this weekend in Oklahoma whose vote matters on the first ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: BCSWowbagger on April 18, 2016, 12:06:16 AM
    I just found this spreadsheet while trying to update my own.  Amazing work.  You found quite a few that I could not.  May I return the favor by trying to fill in a few of your blanks as well?

    I'm too new to this forum to be able to post links, but:

    In GA-1, I am told that Cruz had a clean sweep of the delegates.  I have not been able to find any names.  (twitter.com/EduKtorDude/status/721438998728716289)

    In GA-2, you have mostly the same sources I do, but I note that Alec Poitevant is an ex-Rubio endorser (politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/02/11/marco-rubio-picks-up-another-establishment-georgia-republican-endorsement/), and the vast majority of Rubio people end up in Camp Cruz... so, if the twitter account you cited is accurate, and GA-2 was 2 Trump 1 Cruz, it seems very likely to me that Mr. Poitevant is the Cruz guy.

    In GA-7, Mr. Van Gundy is a Cruz supporter: (facebook.com/bjvangundy/posts/10208803870594035?comment_id=10208804084199375)

    In GA-9, Ms. Mahoney was on the Cruz slate: (pbs.twimg.com/media/CgK0vaCWwAAWSjK.jpg)

    Mr. Azevedo and Ashley Bell are reportedly anti-Trump, but I have not been able to verify this more reputably than this tweet: (twitter.com/CodyHall09/status/721439115040976898)

    In GA-10, Mr. Coswert is for Kasich (politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/09/14/john-kasich-picks-up-bill-cowsert-other-georgia-endorsements/) and Mr. Shook is from the Cruz slate (twitter.com/Aaron_The_Hutt/status/721352578987114496)

    In KS-1, Mr. Arpke and Ms. Mast both came from the Cruz slate (twitter.com/JohnCelock/status/721372569174036480).  No information on Mr. Bohnenblust except that he's been chair of that district for a long, long time.  The tweet you found suggesting a "sweep" seems clearly wrong, since the Cruz slate did not win.

    In KS-2, Trump won his only delegate: taken as a whole, Cheryl Reynolds' Twitter makes that clear. (twitter.com/CherylReynolds).  Ms. Paulus, on the other hand, is both bound to Cruz and backs him personally (facebook.com/bepaulus/posts/10208587772439095?comment_id=10208589260756302).

    In KS-3 and 4, Grosserode and Kahrs are both True Cruz people, being on his state leadership team (blog.4president.org/2016/2016/02/ted-cruz-for-president-announces-kansas-leadership-team.html), and Wheatcroft was on the Cruz slate.  And Dalton Glasscock, aside from having the best name of the day, turned out (after ages searching) to have "Liked" Students for Cruz on Facebook (facebook.com/daltonglasscock1/likes).  The only other candidate he's shown Facebook support for his Carly, who has also endorsed Cruz, so I think it's safe to call him a Cruz guy.

    Again, you've done amazing work here.  Thank you so much.  I'll be tracking this spreadsheet closely from here on out.  

    My own spreadsheet -- which is much sloppier than yours, and which I'm still filling in with information I'm bumming off you -- is here: (docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EuyzjVHq2Ku_eU-4TLaNP5CyY_PXAykaSgZWZuEPfCg/edit#gid=261285562) .  Have a great day!

    EDIT: Wait, you live in MN-5?  I'm just over the river in 4 -- not too far from St. Kate's!  *vigorous waving*


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Shadows on April 18, 2016, 12:25:05 AM
    3M calls by Bernie's supporters in the last 48 hours - Mostly to NY - Amazing, unreal effort - Hope we can get a somewhat close result!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 18, 2016, 12:39:19 AM
    I just found this spreadsheet while trying to update my own.  Amazing work.  You found quite a few that I could not.  May I return the favor by trying to fill in a few of your blanks as well?

    --snip--

    Thanks for the tips! Added a bunch of them to the spreadsheet.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: / on April 18, 2016, 06:05:07 AM
    So is Trump actually losing delegates compared to how many we already have projected for him, or is Cruz just picking up more and more that were previously uncommitted?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 18, 2016, 09:32:09 AM
    So is Trump actually losing delegates compared to how many we already have projected for him, or is Cruz just picking up more and more that were previously uncommitted?

    What's mainly happening is that Cruz is winning the personal loyalty of delegates who are already legally bound (to him or someone else).  This doesn't matter for the first ballot, but does for the second, when most delegates are released from their binding commitments based on the primary.

    There are a few delegates at stake in this process that are actually unbound on the first ballot (Rubio's delegates in Oklahoma, for example); Cruz is winning most of these, but Trump actually did manage to pick one up on Saturday.

    Calendar for Unbound Delegate Selection:

    April 23: MN-3 [2 delegates], MN-4 [2], MN-6 [1] Conventions.
    April 26: Pennsylvania Primary [54].
    April 30: MN-5 [2], MN-7 [1], MN-8 [1] Conventions.
    May 7: MN-1 [1], MN-2 [1] Conventions.
    May 14: Oklahoma State Convention [10].
    May 21: Minnesota State Convention [6], Vermont State Convention [8].

    I will be a delegate at the MN-5 convention, so I'll have some first-hand reporting from there in a couple weeks.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Classic Conservative on April 18, 2016, 12:33:06 PM
    Also the Massachusetts Congressional District Caucuses are on April 30th for the GOP.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Wisconsin+17 on April 18, 2016, 12:37:27 PM
    Quote
    So is Trump actually losing delegates compared to how many we already have projected for him, or is Cruz just picking up more and more that were previously uncommitted?

    Cruz is picking up Trump delegates bound to him on the first ballot. I'm not sure how many total he has so far, but he's getting to the point where it's possible if Cruz fights it out to the convention and does well, that he could win on the second ballot.

    He's also picking up a few here and there on the first ballot, mostly Rubio's.

    Once Cruz picks up 200+ of Trump's second ballots then the game becomes much more interesting.


    Title: Re: The Yob Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 18, 2016, 08:04:32 PM
    The Canegata-Yob dispute turned violent today (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/04/18/virgin-islands-gop-meeting-at-gun-range-turns-violent.html), 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.


    Title: Re: The Yob Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 18, 2016, 08:51:19 PM
    The Canegata-Yob dispute turned violent today (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/04/18/virgin-islands-gop-meeting-at-gun-range-turns-violent.html), 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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Joe Republic on April 19, 2016, 04:37:35 AM
    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/18/and-indiana-winner-president-john-kasich/83188214/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

    The Kasich campaign is claiming victory in Indiana's delegate selection process, saying that a majority of the 57 delegates' personal preferences favor him.  Regardless of how Indiana votes in two weeks, if true this could mess things up even further in a second convention ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on April 19, 2016, 10:40:54 AM
    http://www.abqjournal.com/759486/news/gop-extends-delegates-deadline.html

    SANTA FE – The Republican Party of New Mexico is keeping the door open for national delegate applicants amid a push by the Donald Trump campaign to mobilize supporters.

    State party spokesman Tucker Keene announced Monday that consideration will be given for two additional weeks to applicants who missed the April 15 deadline to vie for a delegate seat at the GOP national convention this summer in Cleveland.

    ---

    “This is truly Trump,” said Rep. Rod Montoya, R-Farmington, who has applied to be a delegate to the national convention. “Rather than learning how the process works, he cries and complains to get the process changed because he doesn’t like it.”


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 20, 2016, 12:22:00 AM
    New York Results

    Trump wins the delegate count 90-5.  This is obviously a very good night for him, and ahead of my projections by 6 delegates.  If the result is indicative of what can happen next week, and Trump can win Connecticut with more than 50% of the vote, the path to a first ballot victory is looking a lot easier; a win in Indiana would essentially seal the deal.

    On the Democratic side, Hillary comes out with a +31 net gain in delegates.  Sanders' already small path to a victory in pledged delegates gets even slimmer.  He now needs to essentially sweep the remaining 6-delegate districts by large margins (58.3% of the two-way vote, to win them 4-2).  This, to put it mildly, seems impossible, barring the usual death/indictment caveats.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on April 20, 2016, 12:56:15 AM
    Quote
    So is Trump actually losing delegates compared to how many we already have projected for him, or is Cruz just picking up more and more that were previously uncommitted?

    Cruz is picking up Trump delegates bound to him on the first ballot. I'm not sure how many total he has so far, but he's getting to the point where it's possible if Cruz fights it out to the convention and does well, that he could win on the second ballot.

    He's also picking up a few here and there on the first ballot, mostly Rubio's.

    Once Cruz picks up 200+ of Trump's second ballots then the game becomes much more interesting.
    In Texas, nobody answers the phone at Trump HQ, and the state organizer hasn't been heard from.



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on April 20, 2016, 09:33:58 AM
    New York Results

    Trump wins the delegate count 90-5.  This is obviously a very good night for him, and ahead of my projections by 6 delegates.  If the result is indicative of what can happen next week, and Trump can win Connecticut with more than 50% of the vote, the path to a first ballot victory is looking a lot easier; a win in Indiana would essentially seal the deal.

    On the Democratic side, Hillary comes out with a +31 net gain in delegates.  Sanders' already small path to a victory in pledged delegates gets even slimmer.  He now needs to essentially sweep the remaining 6-delegate districts by large margins (58.3% of the two-way vote, to win them 4-2).  This, to put it mildly, seems impossible, barring the usual death/indictment caveats.

    You think the NY result, will push up Trump's numbers elsewhere? I tend to doubt that myself. NY is NY.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on April 20, 2016, 09:54:50 AM
    New York Results

    Trump wins the delegate count 90-5.  This is obviously a very good night for him, and ahead of my projections by 6 delegates.  If the result is indicative of what can happen next week, and Trump can win Connecticut with more than 50% of the vote, the path to a first ballot victory is looking a lot easier; a win in Indiana would essentially seal the deal.

    On the Democratic side, Hillary comes out with a +31 net gain in delegates.  Sanders' already small path to a victory in pledged delegates gets even slimmer.  He now needs to essentially sweep the remaining 6-delegate districts by large margins (58.3% of the two-way vote, to win them 4-2).  This, to put it mildly, seems impossible, barring the usual death/indictment caveats.

    You think the NY result, will push up Trump's numbers elsewhere? I tend to doubt that myself. NY is NY.

    Where did he say that? It looks like he's looking at other states through the lens of what happened in New York, not saying the result of New York will affect what happens somewhere else.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on April 20, 2016, 10:05:37 AM
    New York Results

    Trump wins the delegate count 90-5.  This is obviously a very good night for him, and ahead of my projections by 6 delegates.  If the result is indicative of what can happen next week, and Trump can win Connecticut with more than 50% of the vote, the path to a first ballot victory is looking a lot easier; a win in Indiana would essentially seal the deal.

    On the Democratic side, Hillary comes out with a +31 net gain in delegates.  Sanders' already small path to a victory in pledged delegates gets even slimmer.  He now needs to essentially sweep the remaining 6-delegate districts by large margins (58.3% of the two-way vote, to win them 4-2).  This, to put it mildly, seems impossible, barring the usual death/indictment caveats.

    You think the NY result, will push up Trump's numbers elsewhere? I tend to doubt that myself. NY is NY.

    Where did he say that? It looks like he's looking at other states through the lens of what happened in New York, not saying the result of New York will affect what happens somewhere else.

    He didn't. I was posing a question. Some are making the assertion out there on the Fruited Plain.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on April 20, 2016, 10:07:02 AM
    Ah, gotcha. That makes a little more sense. I don't think the results in NY will necessarily predispose voters anywhere else to do one thing or another, but I think they might point toward results being a little better for Trump than had been predicted in the foregoing weeks.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 20, 2016, 10:55:52 AM
    Basically: my earlier predictions had been bullish for Kasich in Fairfield.  The results out of Westchester suggest that may have been far too bullish, and we should take seriously the polls that show Trump at 50% in Connecticut.

    I would love to see a town-by-town breakdown of the results in Westchester, though.

    I was not trying to imply that the results last night meant anything for the race in Indiana; I was merely stating that if Trump has a good night next Tuesday (the largest factor in which is a sweep in Connecticut), he needs fewer delegates in the later contests to reach 1237.  If he were to win in Indiana (which I still view as unlikely), that would be enough, assuming he doesn't lose California.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 20, 2016, 11:01:31 AM
    Basically: my earlier predictions had been bullish for Kasich in Fairfield.  The results out of Westchester suggest that may have been far too bullish, and we should take seriously the polls that show Trump at 50% in Connecticut.

    I would love to see a town-by-town breakdown of the results in Westchester, though.

    I was not trying to imply that the results last night meant anything for the race in Indiana; I was merely stating that if Trump has a good night next Tuesday (the largest factor in which is a sweep in Connecticut), he needs fewer delegates in the later contests to reach 1237.  If he were to win in Indiana (which I still view as unlikely), that would be enough, assuming he doesn't lose California.

    I wouldn't lose hope for Kasich in Fairfield just yet. Based on all the Republicans I know in the county, they seem exactly like Kasich-type supporters. Then again, that's probably influenced more for me by places like Greenwich than Bridgeport.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 20, 2016, 11:08:14 AM
    Basically: my earlier predictions had been bullish for Kasich in Fairfield.  The results out of Westchester suggest that may have been far too bullish, and we should take seriously the polls that show Trump at 50% in Connecticut.

    I would love to see a town-by-town breakdown of the results in Westchester, though.

    I was not trying to imply that the results last night meant anything for the race in Indiana; I was merely stating that if Trump has a good night next Tuesday (the largest factor in which is a sweep in Connecticut), he needs fewer delegates in the later contests to reach 1237.  If he were to win in Indiana (which I still view as unlikely), that would be enough, assuming he doesn't lose California.

    I wouldn't lose hope for Kasich in Fairfield just yet. Based on all the Republicans I know in the county, they seem exactly like Kasich-type supporters. Then again, that's probably influenced more for me by places like Greenwich than Bridgeport.

    Trump still got a majority in Pelham Manor, which would seem like prime Kasich territory.  Fairfield is presumably somewhat richer and WASPier, but probably not enough to make a difference unless one attributes Trump's overperformance to a home state effect.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on April 20, 2016, 11:09:50 AM
    Basically: my earlier predictions had been bullish for Kasich in Fairfield.  The results out of Westchester suggest that may have been far too bullish, and we should take seriously the polls that show Trump at 50% in Connecticut.

    I would love to see a town-by-town breakdown of the results in Westchester, though.

    I was not trying to imply that the results last night meant anything for the race in Indiana; I was merely stating that if Trump has a good night next Tuesday (the largest factor in which is a sweep in Connecticut), he needs fewer delegates in the later contests to reach 1237.  If he were to win in Indiana (which I still view as unlikely), that would be enough, assuming he doesn't lose California.

    Here (http://www.westchestergov.com/boe99/linkcounty.aspx) is a breakdown by CD in Westchester. It's pretty uniform. Notice the Carson thing, which was what pushed up Trump from 50% in Westchester to 55%, since the Carson votes were voided. Also notice how pathetically low the Pub turnout was.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 20, 2016, 11:17:22 AM
    Basically: my earlier predictions had been bullish for Kasich in Fairfield.  The results out of Westchester suggest that may have been far too bullish, and we should take seriously the polls that show Trump at 50% in Connecticut.

    I would love to see a town-by-town breakdown of the results in Westchester, though.

    I was not trying to imply that the results last night meant anything for the race in Indiana; I was merely stating that if Trump has a good night next Tuesday (the largest factor in which is a sweep in Connecticut), he needs fewer delegates in the later contests to reach 1237.  If he were to win in Indiana (which I still view as unlikely), that would be enough, assuming he doesn't lose California.

    Here (http://www.westchestergov.com/boe99/linkcounty.aspx) is a breakdown by CD in Westchester. It's pretty uniform. Notice the Carson thing, which was what pushed up Trump from 50% in Westchester to 55%, since the Carson votes were voided. Also notice how pathetically low the Pub turnout was.

    Why on earth was the Carson vote so high?  Pure protest votes?  Real shame his votes got voided, would have cost Trump a few delegates.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: bandg on April 20, 2016, 11:17:55 AM
    I have to think the Carson results in Westchester are a reporting error. He only got 0.7% in neighboring Rockland, so getting 9% in Westchester just doesn't make any sense. Also, Westchester has been stuck at 84% reporting for a while now, so they seem to be having some sort of problem there.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ronnie on April 20, 2016, 11:49:26 AM
    Will Ben Carson's votes likewise be voided in CT?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 20, 2016, 12:06:05 PM
    Apparently not (though I was wrong about New York).  "Carson suspended his campaign but didn't formally notify [CT SoS] Merrill's office of his withdrawal," according to the AP.

    Bush, Rubio, etc. will not be on the ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Torie on April 20, 2016, 12:24:40 PM
    The Carson tally in Westchester is clearly a glitch. I called the BOE and just got babble. Folks called in the wrong numbers i was told. Really, all across the county? No, there is a machine glitch or something. I called the press (http://static.lohud.com/help/) in Westchester. They are on it. I told the BOE to be very worried. They are facing a huge cf. They moved me up the ladder when I said my next step was the press. But still the same babble, but they said they would look into it.

    And like magic, the Carson vote drops to the appropriate number. The website or somebody moved some of the Trump voters (too bad it was him that was cheated of votes) to Carson. That has been corrected. Maybe my phone call made a difference, of the call be the press after I talked to the press did. :)

    ()




    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ronnie on April 20, 2016, 08:20:36 PM
    Torie, Rachel Maddow just reported the incident on her show!  In a small way, you may have impacted today's prime time news cycle. :P


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 20, 2016, 09:07:33 PM
    Erc are you running to be a national delegate at your district's convention?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 20, 2016, 09:58:07 PM
    Erc are you running to be a national delegate at your district's convention?

    I thought about it, but decided against it.  Would be logistically tough for me, I don't have especially long standing in the GOP here, and, well, I wouldn't win.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 20, 2016, 10:29:49 PM
    Also, I was looking through your spreadsheet for the current preferences of bound delegates to predict how many delegates Trump will lose on the 2nd ballot. Right now it looks like Trump has 541 delegates so far that become unbound after the 1st ballot, of which 49 go to Cruz, 1 goes to Kasich, 18 stay with Trump, and 473 are unknown. That's about a 72% pickup rate for Cruz, which bodes well for his chances on the 2nd ballot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 21, 2016, 02:25:53 AM
    The Cruz campaign claims that their Pennsylvania delegate operation is so good that they're going to get more than half the delegates even if he comes in a distant third in the popular vote:

    link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/19/nbc_reporter_cruz_to_win_half_of_pennsylvanias_delegates_even_if_he_comes_in_distant_third.html)

    OTOH, this story paints a rather different picture:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-new-delegate-strategy-takes-root-pennsylvania-n558681


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on April 21, 2016, 08:10:32 AM
    The Carson tally in Westchester is clearly a glitch. I called the BOE and just got babble. Folks called in the wrong numbers i was told. Really, all across the county? No, there is a machine glitch or something. I called the press (http://static.lohud.com/help/) in Westchester. They are on it. I told the BOE to be very worried. They are facing a huge cf. They moved me up the ladder when I said my next step was the press. But still the same babble, but they said they would look into it.

    And like magic, the Carson vote drops to the appropriate number. The website or somebody moved some of the Trump voters (too bad it was him that was cheated of votes) to Carson. That has been corrected. Maybe my phone call made a difference, of the call be the press after I talked to the press did. :)


    Oh, yes, you're name brings people to their knees (no pun intended).   Congrats.  ::)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on April 21, 2016, 03:27:41 PM
    The Cruz campaign claims that their Pennsylvania delegate operation is so good that they're going to get more than half the delegates even if he comes in a distant third in the popular vote:

    link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/19/nbc_reporter_cruz_to_win_half_of_pennsylvanias_delegates_even_if_he_comes_in_distant_third.html)

    OTOH, this story paints a rather different picture:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-new-delegate-strategy-takes-root-pennsylvania-n558681


    Everything that I've heard is that a majority of the delegates in PA have said that they will follow the will of the voters in their CD.

    If Trump gets >150 in CA, does IN still matter for him?

    As long as he gets 6-9 delegates there, probably not.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 21, 2016, 05:18:36 PM
    If Trump gets >150 in CA, does IN still matter for him?

    Not really, though it would remove some residual uncertainty as it would put him over the top among pledged delegates alone most likely.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 21, 2016, 09:15:52 PM
    Not sure if you saw this (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/republican-committee-reject-convention-rules-delegates-222285) 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.”



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 22, 2016, 02:32:40 AM
    On the Pennsylvania delegate battle:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/277077-gop-reps-boosting-trumps-insider-game-in-pennsylvania

    Quote
    Cody Knotts, a Pennsylvania filmmaker who was recruited by the Trump campaign to run for a delegate slot back in January, said one local volunteer informed the Trump campaign last week that Cruz’s allies would be handing out slate cards of preferred delegates near polling outlets on Tuesday.

    Knotts said the Trump campaign responded this week by saying it would do the same.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 22, 2016, 10:08:34 AM
    Tomorrow is Saturday (aka Convention Day).  Listing GOP contests here only:

    We've got state conventions in Kentucky (25 delegates), Maine (20), and Utah (37).  I'd expect Cruz to do well in Maine and Utah, but Kentucky is less clear; Cruz has generally lost at the CD level to more generic Uncommitted slates.

    We also have a convention in SC-6 (3 delegates) and the caucus in FL-11 (3 delegates).

    Most importantly for the first ballot, we have the first of Minnesota's District Conventions, in CDs 3, 4, and 6, picking 3 delegates each.  Five of them (2 in 3 & 4, and 1 in 6) are Rubio delegates, who will be unbound on the first ballot barring rules changes.  I've been assuming that Cruz will sweep in Minnesota; we'll see this weekend whether such an assumption is justified.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: SkyeZee on April 22, 2016, 02:29:06 PM
    In GA-14, Leanne DeFoor said on a 2/18 post that she is a Cruz supporter and former Rand Paul supporter (facebook.com/UWG-College-Republicans-157889257652107)

    In OK-4 I believe Steve Byas is supporting Ted Cruz as shown throughout his Facebook (facebook.com/steve.byas)

    In NC-4 the delegates are Ted Hicks, Rod Chaney and Larry Beckler. Ted (Theodore) Hicks is part of Cruz's leadership team (facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1733386116920299&type=3&l=6fda94779b)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 22, 2016, 03:46:03 PM
    In GA-14, Leanne DeFoor said on a 2/18 post that she is a Cruz supporter and former Rand Paul supporter (facebook.com/UWG-College-Republicans-157889257652107)

    In OK-4 I believe Steve Byas is supporting Ted Cruz as shown throughout his Facebook (facebook.com/steve.byas)

    In NC-4 the delegates are Ted Hicks, Rod Chaney and Larry Beckler. Ted (Theodore) Hicks is part of Cruz's leadership team (facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1733386116920299&type=3&l=6fda94779b)

    Thanks for the tips!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 23, 2016, 05:11:00 AM
    So, regarding the loyalties of all those delegate candidates in Pennsylvania.  The Cruz campaign is apparently handing out lists of their preferred delegate candidates at Cruz rallies, and will have people across the state handing out the list at polling places on Tuesday.  Supposedly, this is the list:

    ()

    The Trump campaign is following suit.  Here’s a Trumpian list:

    http://www.kellerfordelegate.com/#!know-your-delegates/s4vv7

    There are other lists out there trying to establish delegate loyalties, but they don’t all agree with each other.  Examples:

    http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-pa-republican-delegates-presidential-picks-20160420-story.html
    http://www.hannity.com/articles/election-493995/pennsylvania-primary-delegate-guide-14631159/
    http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/10253036-74/district-whoever-wins

    I guess we’ll have to wait and see on Tuesday if either candidate manages to get their people elected, or if the voters just pick the first three names on the ballot or something.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: DemPGH on April 23, 2016, 09:21:48 AM

    The Trump campaign is following suit.  Here’s a Trumpian list:

    http://www.kellerfordelegate.com/#!know-your-delegates/s4vv7


    Outstanding. I spent about thirty minutes or so yesterday looking for something like that. I finally found something in a local newspaper somewhere that didn't sound very decisive. So that's good, I'll pass that along. This nonsense makes me wish we had an electoral college style system for the nomination process.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Classic Conservative on April 23, 2016, 06:23:32 PM
    Do we have any updates on the caucuses/conventions. Also Mike Lee has been urging delegates to choose the Offical Cruz Slate.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Fargobison on April 23, 2016, 06:27:33 PM
    Do we have any updates on the caucuses/conventions. Also Mike Lee has been urging delegates to choose the Offical Cruz Slate.

    Cruz cleaned up in ME(full Cruz slate elected) and he is doing well in MN.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 23, 2016, 07:54:18 PM
    Cruz won all 9 delegates from Minnesota CDs 3, 4, and 6. 5 of these were pickups from Rubio I believe.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on April 23, 2016, 11:06:46 PM
    The more delegates Cruz steals, the more votes he loses.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 23, 2016, 11:12:16 PM
    The more delegates Cruz steals, the more votes he loses.

    Conventions are held to decide delegates, and Cruz's delegates received the most votes. How is that stealing?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on April 23, 2016, 11:47:46 PM
    The more delegates Cruz steals, the more votes he loses.

    Conventions are held to decide delegates, and Cruz's delegates received the most votes. How is that stealing?

    The system is rigged. It should be votes that decide the delegates, not some conventions.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 23, 2016, 11:52:56 PM
    This seems to be the official Trump PA preferred delegate slate, as posted on Twitter ()


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 24, 2016, 12:16:41 AM
    Lynne Ryan, Ash Khare, C Arnold McClure, Vicki Lightcap, Sean Shute, Joseph Lamantia, Tina Pickett, Mario Scavello, Richard Morelli, James Vasilko, Gilbert Cox, Lauren Casper, Tom Ellis, Scott Uehlinger, and John Petrarca all said they would vote for the district winner yet are on Trump's slate. Interestingly enough, Trump actually picks district winners or uncommitted instead of his own supporters in CD 3 and twice in CD 10 and CD 12.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on April 24, 2016, 12:18:21 AM
    Lynne Ryan, Ash Khare, C Arnold McClure, Vicki Lightcap, Sean Shute, Joseph Lamantia, Tina Pickett, Mario Scavello, Richard Morelli, James Vasilko, Gilbert Cox, Lauren Casper, Tom Ellis, Scott Uehlinger, and John Petrarca all said they would vote for the district winner yet are on Trump's slate. Interestingly enough, Trump actually picks district winners or uncommitted instead of his own supporters in CD 3 and twice in CD 10 and CD 12.

    The will of the people trumps the selfish interests of any particular campaign. That's what Trump stands for. That's who he is endorsing.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 24, 2016, 12:27:51 AM
    Trump's slate makes a lot more sense to me than Cruz's actually. It looks like Trump is endorsing some district winner delegates in CDs where he doesn't have enough supporters, since a district winner is better than a certain Cruz supporter. Meanwhile, Cruz just left some CDs incomplete where he didn't have enough supporters. In addition, Trump filled up to 3 people per CD while Cruz put in over 3 people in two of the CDs, which could result in fewer votes between them. Am I missing something here or is Trump playing the delegate game better than Cruz in PA?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: BCSWowbagger on April 24, 2016, 03:04:14 AM
    Conventions are held to decide delegates, and Cruz's delegates received the most votes. How is that stealing?

    The system is rigged. It should be votes that decide the delegates, not some conventions.

    Convention members are elected by voters. 

    Binding primaries were an invention of the liberal-progressive movement, led by George McGovern in 1972, in order to erode the republican part of our republic and replace it with the kind of direct democracy our Founding Fathers feared and loathed.  The GOPe, which was very powerful in the 1970s, then adopted the liberal system, which was convenient for them, because it just so happens that grassroots candidates like Goldwater and Reagan (who was a major threat at the time) do much better in convention systems than big-money mass-marketed primaries.

    What we ought to do is abolish binding primaries entirely.  Every state should run the way Colorado did this year: you vote for state delegates who represent you and select national delegates.  No more of this direct-democracy rubbish.  That's how we chose our presidential candidates for nearly 150 years, and it's how we should choose them for the next 150 years, too.

    Sadly, the GOPe does not listen to me when I tweet this at them.

    ***

    Anyway, arguing about delegate selection is not why I'm here.  I'm here to share this with erc, in case he didn't see it yet:

    facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153428635421367&id=259920881366

    Every Wisconsin CD-level delegate and alternate.  Still working on loyalties.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: SkyeZee on April 24, 2016, 10:39:26 AM
    The 3 MN districts from 4/23 Cruz sweep (twitter.com/HarryNiska/status/724009203455635456)

    CD3 MN David Asp, Alex Plechash, Cindy Pugh (I was delegate here Asp & Pugh were on the Cruz slate, but Plechash is a Cruz supporter)
    (twitter.com/JenDeJournett/status/724004273911111680?lang=en)

    CD4 MN James Carson, Laura Dean, Ben Golnik (twitter.com/repmattdean/status/723938764083453952)

    CD6 Jennifer Niska, Andy Aplikowski, Bobby Benson (twitter.com/HarryNiska/status/723975223603765252)
    (twitter.com/talkette/status/723975291790589953)




    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 24, 2016, 02:30:43 PM
    Saturday's delegates:
    -Cruz loyalists won 36/37 available spots in Utah, with 1 delegate a wild card anti-Trump with unknown support. The other 3 spots are the RNC members we already knew about.
    -Apparently all campaigns were shut out of getting loyalists selected in Kentucky (among the KY delegates are Matt Bevin, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell. Bevin supports Cruz, Paul is anti-Trump).
    -The three delegates from SC-6 went 1 for Cruz, 1 for Kasich, and 1 Uncommitted.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 24, 2016, 09:14:25 PM
    Thanks again for the help guys.  Travelling this weekend, so haven't been able to follow the weekend's conventions as closely as I would have otherwise.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on April 25, 2016, 11:50:12 PM
    Is there going to be a good way to see how the uncommitted Pennsylvania delegates go tomorrow night?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 25, 2016, 11:57:10 PM
    Is there going to be a good way to see how the uncommitted Pennsylvania delegates go tomorrow night?
    I believe that PA won't release CD data until a good time after the primary - county results first - so we couldn't even infer for whom the delegate candidates who have stated they'd vote for their district winner would vote.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on April 26, 2016, 12:32:33 AM
    Is there going to be a good way to see how the uncommitted Pennsylvania delegates go tomorrow night?
    I believe that PA won't release CD data until a good time after the primary - county results first - so we couldn't even infer for whom the delegate candidates who have stated they'd vote for their district winner would vote.

    But, what about the publicly declared ones?  And, someone should do research to see if any #NeverTrump people are included in the will vote for district winner choices.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Classic Conservative on April 26, 2016, 05:36:43 AM
    I found this online about the PA Unbound Delegates
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NfzyoWfwqjrYbc5Xqb9lyerxztNxLuZDzwPBarYZJFA/htmlview?pli=1


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on April 26, 2016, 07:56:05 AM
    I found this online about the PA Unbound Delegates
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NfzyoWfwqjrYbc5Xqb9lyerxztNxLuZDzwPBarYZJFA/htmlview?pli=1

    Good work!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: SkyeZee on April 26, 2016, 10:48:51 AM
    The list of all of the Kentucky delegates. They don't separate which are At-Large vs CD delegates.

    (cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/25/kentucky-gop-releases-list-delegates/83505788/)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 26, 2016, 02:13:30 PM
    Pennsylvania's Loophole Delegates: A Viewer's Guide

    In Pennsylvania, 17 delegates will go to the statewide winner (presumably Trump), while the other 54 are directly elected on the ballot.  Delegate candidates' presidential preference is not listed on the ballot, and any delegates elected will be completely unbound on the first and any subsequent ballots.

    Of course, some have expressed their preference to the media, or are being pushed by a presidential campaign, or claim they are voting for the winner of their district.  In preparation for tonight's results, here's a quick and abridged rundown of the delegate candidates.  I'm not listing all 162 candidates, just the top three by their order on the ballot, plus any on Trump/Cruz/Kasich slates, plus any particularly notable other delegates.

    Note that any elected office these folks hold is not listed on the ballot, either.

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

    These three are running unopposed, the only question is who wins the district.

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

    These are the only candidates.

    3rd District
    [1] Robert J Yates - Uncommitted, "strongly impressed by Kasich", on Kasich PAC and Cruz slates
    [2] Michele Mustello - Uncommitted, on Kasich slate
    [3] Lynne Ryan - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate
    [4] State Rep. Brian Ellis - District Winner
    [7] State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe - Uncommitted, "I will support the candidate that I believe will be the most consistent with and represent the conservative values that I have a record of supporting and fighting for."
    [8] Fmr. US Rep. Phil English - on Kasich PAC slate
    [9] Jim Keffalas - Trump, on Trump slate
    [11] Dan Vete - Trump, on Trump slate

    4th District
    [1] State Rep. Greg Rothman - District Winner
    [2] Charlie Gerow - District Winner - "In a contested convention, will seek the candidate who can best defeat Hillary Clinton."
    [3] Marilyn S Gillispie - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [6] State Rep. Stan Saylor - Uncommitted, variously Rubio/District Winner/Leans Cruz/York County Winner
    [10] Matthew Jansen - Trump, on Trump slate
    [14] Marc A Scaringi - Trump, on Trump slate
    [15] Joe Sacco - Trump, on Trump slate

    5th District
    [1] Joyce C Haas - District Winner
    [2] Scott Schreffler - District Winner
    [3] Rick Chura - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [4] Lyle Stewart - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [6] James Klein - Trump, on Trump slate
    [7] Ash Khare - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [8] Barry Kroeker - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [9] C Arnold McClure - Trump, on Trump slate

    6th District
    [1] Mary Elizabeth Wert - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [2] Larry E Stohler - Statewide Winner
    [3] Doug Hager - District Winner
    [4] US Rep. Ryan Costello - District Winner
    [5] Wayne Buckwalter - Trump, on Trump slate
    [6] Robert Wert - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [8] Vicki Lightcap - Trump, on Trump slate

    7th District
    [1] Michael Puppio - District Winner
    [2] Ralph E Wike III - Trump, on Trump slate
    [3] Robert J Willert - District Winner
    [5] Jan C Ting - Trump, on Trump slate

    8th District
    [1] Barry Casper - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate
    [2] Deborah Evangelou - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [3] Jim Worthington - Trump, on Trump slate
    [4] State Rep. Gene DiGirolamo - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate
    [5] Sean Shute - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [6] State Rep. Marguerite Quinn - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate
    [7] Robert G Loughery - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate

    These are the only candidates.

    9th District
    [1] Lois Kaneshiki - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [2] US Rep. Bill Shuster - Uncommitted
    [3] Debbie Taylor - leaning Trump, on Trump slate
    [4] State Rep. Judy Ward - District Winner
    [5] Cody Raymond Knotts - Trump, on Trump slate
    [6] David Show - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [8] Joseph Lamantia - Trump, on Trump slate

    10th District
    [1] Ryan Belz - Trump
    [2] Nancy Schrader - District Winner, unless it's Trump; Lean Kasich.
    [3] Krystle Bristol - District Winner
    [6] Carol D Sides - Trump, on Trump slate
    [7] Charles Brewer - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [9] Mark F Holt - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [10] State Rep. Tina Pickett - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [12] State Sen. Mario Scavello - District Winner, on Trump slate

    Cruz is also encouraging a write-in campaign for Elizabeth Greenaway, a Cruz supporter in the 10th District.

    11th District
    [1] Dan Mosel - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [2] Philip G Bear - Cruz
    [3] Richard P Adams - Cruz
    [4] Rick Morelli - Trump, on Trump slate
    [5] Lowman Henry - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [6] State Rep. Susan C "Sue" Helm - District Winner
    [8] David McElwee - Trump, on Trump slate
    [10] Fmr. US Rep. Don Sherwood - Uncommitted, anti-Trump
    [11] Carol H Drewniak - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [14] Andrew Shecktor - Trump, on Trump slate

    12th District
    [1] Bruce Keeler - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [2] Dave Majernik - District Winner
    [3] Jill Cooper - District Winner
    [5] Jeff Steigerwalt - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [9] James Vasilko - Trump, on Trump slate
    [10] Mike McMullen - District Winner, supports Trump (is not Admiral Mike Mullen)
    [11] Joseph Matthew Sernell - Trump, on Trump slate
    [14] Monica Morrill - Trump, on Trump slate
    [15] Larry Borland - Cruz, on Cruz slate

    13th District
    [1] Alan Apt - District Winner
    [2] Shannon Oscar - District Winner, on Kasich PAC slate
    [3] Gilbert Cox - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [5] Lauren E Casper - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [6] Tom Ellis - District Winner, on Trump slate

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

    These three are running unopposed.

    15th District
    [1] Scott Uehlinger - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [2] Robert E Smith Jr - Cruz
    [3] John K Reber Sr - Trump, on Trump slate
    [4] Mark S Hoffman - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [5] Patrick Kerwin - Trump, on Trump slate
    [6] Rep. Ryan E Mackenzie - District Winner
    [8] Dean N Browning - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [10] Christian Y Leinbach - Cruz, on Cruz slate

    16th District
    [1] David M Dumeyer - District Winner
    [2] Gordon Denlinger - Uncommitted
    [3] Douglas W Brubaker - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [4] Mark Lemon - Trump, on Trump slate

    17th District
    [1] Robert E Ames - District Winner
    [2] T Lynnette Villano - Trump, on Trump slate
    [3] Ron Boltz - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [7] Gloria Lee Snover - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate
    [9] Carolyn L Bonkowski - Trump, on Trump slate

    Cruz is encouraging a write-in campaign for Cruz supporter Joel Underwood.

    18th District
    [1] Justin DePlato - Trump, on Trump slate
    [2] Scott E Avolio - District Winner
    [3] Al Quaye - Cruz
    [6] John Petrarca - Trump, on Trump slate
    [7] State Rep. Rick Saccone - District Winner
    [9] Sue Means - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [10] Jim Means - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [11] Thomas J Uram - Trump, on Trump slate


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 26, 2016, 05:44:45 PM
    Trump seems to have done a better job organizing these delegates than I expected given his campaign's history.

    Yeah, he's definitely looking better on this list than he did a month ago.

    It's aided by the fact that Trump expects to win the state and most CDs, so District Winner and Statewide Winner delegates are mostly Trump delegates as well.

    In fact, this has caused some consternation where long-committed but little-known Trump delegates have been passed over in favor of better-known folks.  Whether this causes some vote-splitting (or whether the latter category changes their minds) is yet to be determined.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 26, 2016, 09:07:22 PM
    Leaders so far (71.61% reporting, 11:15 PM EST)

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

    These three are running unopposed, the only question is who wins the district.

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

    [4] Aldridk Gessa - Cruz, on Cruz slate

    These are the only candidates.

    3rd District
    [1] Robert J Yates - Uncommitted, "strongly impressed by Kasich", on Kasich PAC and Cruz slates
    [2] Michele Mustello - Uncommitted, on Kasich slate
    [3] Lynne Ryan - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate
    [4] State Rep. Brian Ellis - District Winner
    [7] State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe - Uncommitted, "I will support the candidate that I believe will be the most consistent with and represent the conservative values that I have a record of supporting and fighting for."
    [8] Fmr. US Rep. Phil English - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate
    [9] Jim Keffalas - Trump, on Trump slate
    [11] Dan Vete - Trump, on Trump slate

    4th District
    [1] State Rep. Greg Rothman - District Winner
    [2] Charlie Gerow - District Winner - "In a contested convention, will seek the candidate who can best defeat Hillary Clinton."
    [3] Marilyn S Gillispie - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [6] State Rep. Stan Saylor - Uncommitted, variously Rubio/District Winner/Leans Cruz/York County Winner
    [10] Matthew Jansen - Trump, on Trump slate
    [14] Marc A Scaringi - Trump, on Trump slate
    [15] Joe Sacco - Trump, on Trump slate

    5th District
    [1] Joyce C Haas - District Winner
    [2] Scott Schreffler - District Winner
    [3] Rick Chura - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [4] Lyle Stewart - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [6] James Klein - Trump, on Trump slate
    [7] Ash Khare - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [8] Barry Kroeker - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [9] C Arnold McClure - Trump, on Trump slate

    6th District
    [1] Mary Elizabeth Wert - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [2] Larry E Stohler - Statewide Winner
    [3] Doug Hager - District Winner
    [4] US Rep. Ryan Costello - District Winner
    [5] Wayne Buckwalter - Trump, on Trump slate
    [6] Robert Wert - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [8] Vicki Lightcap - Trump, on Trump slate

    7th District
    [1] Michael Puppio - District Winner
    [2] Ralph E Wike III - Trump, on Trump slate
    [3] Robert J Willert - District Winner
    [4] Joan Miller - District Winner
    [5] Jan C Ting - Trump, on Trump slate

    8th District
    [1] Barry Casper - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate
    [2] Deborah Evangelou - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [3] Jim Worthington - Trump, on Trump slate
    [4] State Rep. Gene DiGirolamo - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate
    [5] Sean Shute - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [6] State Rep. Marguerite Quinn - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate
    [7] Robert G Loughery - Uncommitted, on Kasich PAC slate

    These are the only candidates.

    9th District
    [1] Lois Kaneshiki - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [2] US Rep. Bill Shuster - Uncommitted
    [3] Debbie Taylor - leaning Trump, on Trump slate
    [4] State Rep. Judy Ward - District Winner
    [5] Cody Raymond Knotts - Trump, on Trump slate
    [6] David Show - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [8] Joseph Lamantia - Trump, on Trump slate

    10th District
    [1] Ryan Belz - Trump
    [2] Nancy Schrader - District Winner, unless it's Trump; Lean Kasich.
    [3] Krystle Bristol - District Winner
    [6] Carol D Sides - Trump, on Trump slate
    [7] Charles Brewer - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [9] Mark F Holt - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [10] State Rep. Tina Pickett - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [12] State Sen. Mario Scavello - District Winner, on Trump slate

    Cruz is also encouraging a write-in campaign for Elizabeth Greenaway, a Cruz supporter in the 10th District.

    11th District
    [1] Dan Mosel - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [2] Philip G Bear - Cruz
    [3] Richard P Adams - Cruz
    [4] Rick Morelli - Trump, on Trump slate
    [5] Lowman Henry - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [6] State Rep. Susan C "Sue" Helm - District Winner
    [8] David McElwee - Trump, on Trump slate
    [10] Fmr. US Rep. Don Sherwood - Uncommitted, anti-Trump
    [11] Carol H Drewniak - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [14] Andrew Shecktor - Trump, on Trump slate

    12th District
    [1] Bruce Keeler - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [2] Dave Majernik - District Winner
    [3] Jill Cooper - District Winner
    [5] Jeff Steigerwalt - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [9] James Vasilko - Trump, on Trump slate
    [10] Mike McMullen - District Winner, supports Trump (is not Admiral Mike Mullen)
    [11] Joseph Matthew Sernell - Trump, on Trump slate
    [14] Monica Morrill - Trump, on Trump slate
    [15] Larry Borland - Cruz, on Cruz slate

    13th District
    [1] Alan Apt - District Winner
    [2] Shannon Oscar - District Winner, on Kasich PAC slate
    [3] Gilbert Cox - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [5] Lauren E Casper - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [6] Tom Ellis - District Winner, on Trump slate

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

    These three are running unopposed.

    15th District
    [1] Scott Uehlinger - District Winner, on Trump slate
    [2] Robert E Smith Jr - Cruz
    [3] John K Reber Sr - Trump, on Trump slate
    [4] Mark S Hoffman - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [5] Patrick Kerwin - Trump, on Trump slate
    [6] Rep. Ryan E Mackenzie - District Winner
    [8] Dean N Browning - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [9] William L Heydt - District Winner
    [10] Christian Y Leinbach - Cruz, on Cruz slate

    16th District
    [1] David M Dumeyer - District Winner
    [2] Gordon Denlinger - Uncommitted
    [3] Douglas W Brubaker - Cruz, on Cruz slate

    [4] Mark Lemon - Trump, on Trump slate

    17th District
    [1] Robert E Ames - District Winner
    [2] T Lynnette Villano - Trump, on Trump slate
    [3] Ron Boltz - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [7] Gloria Lee Snover - District Winner, supports Trump, on Trump slate
    [9] Carolyn L Bonkowski - Trump, on Trump slate

    Cruz is encouraging a write-in campaign for Cruz supporter Joel Underwood.

    18th District
    [1] Justin DePlato - Trump, on Trump slate
    [2] Scott E Avolio - District Winner
    [3] Al Quaye - Cruz
    [6] John Petrarca - Trump, on Trump slate
    [7] State Rep. Rick Saccone - District Winner
    [9] Sue Means - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [10] Jim Means - Cruz, on Cruz slate
    [11] Thomas J Uram - Trump, on Trump slate

    Totals:
    Trump: 21
    District Winner: 18
    Uncommitted: 11
    Cruz: 3
    Kasich: 1


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 26, 2016, 09:26:09 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: 100% pro-life no matter what on April 26, 2016, 09:28:12 PM
    The bottom line is that a loss in Indiana would be the end for anti-Trump forces


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 26, 2016, 09:53:03 PM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 26, 2016, 09:54:12 PM
    The bottom line is that a loss in Indiana would be the end for anti-Trump forces

    I said a while back that Trump needed to do 2 of 4 things in order to win the nomination.  With a northeast sweep in the bag, and a stellar performance in PA, it's now down to 1 of 3 things:

    1) Win Indiana
    2) Win Montana
    3) Win California by a large margin (115+ delegates)

    Even if he fails to do all of these, he can still win on the first ballot by convincing enough unpledged delegates to vote for him.  My current projections (in which Trump fails to do all of the above) have Trump at 1225; the additional 12 delegates won't be difficult.

    Honestly, Cruz now needs to win both Indiana and California (or lose the latter in a squeaker) in order to have a shot at stopping Trump.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 26, 2016, 10:11:05 PM
    The bottom line is that a loss in Indiana would be the end for anti-Trump forces

    I said a while back that Trump needed to do 2 of 4 things in order to win the nomination.  With a northeast sweep in the bag, and a stellar performance in PA, it's now down to 1 of 3 things:

    1) Win Indiana
    2) Win Montana
    3) Win California by a large margin (115+ delegates)

    Even if he fails to do all of these, he can still win on the first ballot by convincing enough unpledged delegates to vote for him.  My current projections (in which Trump fails to do all of the above) have Trump at 1225; the additional 12 delegates won't be difficult.

    Honestly, Cruz now needs to win both Indiana and California (or lose the latter in a squeaker) in order to have a shot at stopping Trump.

    Given how demographically-driven the race has been so far, I wouldn't assume that tonight means anything for Indiana or Montana (although I expect Trump has overlooked ancestral labor Dem strength there).  But given what we have seen in a bunch of big, diverse blue states with closed primaries, the odds of Trump cracking 50% in CA and basically sweeping the delegates there have gone way up.

    Are you including the publicly Trumpist PA district delegates in that 1225, or are you excluding them?

    Yes, the 1225 count includes unbound delegates who have committed to Trump (or the District Winner everywhere but PA-7).  Most of these are in PA, though a few are not.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 26, 2016, 10:12:18 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 26, 2016, 10:20:21 PM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 26, 2016, 11:13:22 PM
    Just had a very interesting thought: Is it within the power of the CA Republican Party to open up their primary and flood the zone with Hispanic Dems to stop Trump?
    On that note, is it within the power of the CA Democratic Party to make it a winner-take-all open caucus?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 26, 2016, 11:27:18 PM
    Just had a very interesting thought: Is it within the power of the CA Republican Party to open up their primary and flood the zone with Hispanic Dems to stop Trump?

    Too late for 2016. I'm assuming in 2020 we'll get to see lots more proportionality. Possibly lots more cauci, but perhaps they won't go for that -- in the long run the threat to the Republican establishment comes from socons and libertarians, not Trump types.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 27, 2016, 01:56:21 AM
    Just had a very interesting thought: Is it within the power of the CA Republican Party to open up their primary and flood the zone with Hispanic Dems to stop Trump?

    Too late for 2016. I'm assuming in 2020 we'll get to see lots more proportionality. Possibly lots more cauci, but perhaps they won't go for that -- in the long run the threat to the Republican establishment comes from socons and libertarians, not Trump types.

    And if there is one group that does absolutely terrible in caucuses versus primaries, it is the ones that dominate the activist base. ::)

    If the GOP is smart they will go for more primaries. Trying to suppress the inevitable shift driven by demographics within the GOP base will only lead to heads on pikes. They need to run realists who accept the modern reality, quit trying to pretend it is 1980 all over again and map a path that accrues both base support and competitiveness in the general. There is no other way this works.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Wisconsin+17 on April 27, 2016, 03:43:39 AM
    Quote
    If the GOP is smart they will go for more primaries. Trying to suppress the inevitable shift driven by demographics within the GOP base will only lead to heads on pikes. They need to run realists who accept the modern reality, quit trying to pretend it is 1980 all over again and map a path that accrues both base support and competitiveness in the general. There is no other way this works.

    And Trump's the Candidate that will get there? I don't see it. 11 percent support among Hispanics pretty much dooms Trump in the General.

    If he only polls 80 percent of the Romney whites, he's blown away in the election.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Wisconsin+17 on April 27, 2016, 03:49:31 AM
    Quote
    In the medium to long run, ~80% of Trump supporters + ~30% of the black vote is a winning coalition for the GOP.  Cruz simply has nowhere to get the last 2-4% from in a general, and that gap will widen each year going forward as more non-religious voters turn 18.  After a Trump nomination, Democrats should have a lock on >75% of Hispanics and the "libertarian" type of white moderate for the foreseeable future.  It's time for the GOP to drop free trade and get a lot more serious about public education reform.     

    Changing none of the sliders, even with 30 percent black support, the Firewall holds. Right now Republicans are getting 7 percent. Republicans pick up Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

    If he drops to 25 percent of Hispanics (from the 29 percent that Romney got), that doesn't change.

    If he gets 30 percent of blacks, 25 percent of Hispanics and 80 percent of Romney's whites (with 20 percent not showing), he loses Florida.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Wisconsin+17 on April 27, 2016, 03:53:18 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 27, 2016, 07:06:58 AM
    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]


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 27, 2016, 08:13:23 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 27, 2016, 08:30:33 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 27, 2016, 09:29:21 AM
    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 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16N_iwG0PP8ttcwVY6xlF1Qcf7bSTZJK_5bID0BEakII/edit?usp=sharing).

    Oh, and Clinton now has over 500 superdelegate endorsements.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 27, 2016, 02:27:04 PM
    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.



    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Gass3268 on April 27, 2016, 02:27:32 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 27, 2016, 02:43:01 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 27, 2016, 04:09:14 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ronnie on April 27, 2016, 04:43:05 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on April 28, 2016, 06:47:17 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on April 28, 2016, 07:04:58 AM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on April 28, 2016, 07:09:46 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: emailking on April 28, 2016, 07:33:39 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 28, 2016, 07:47:40 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 28, 2016, 08:36:35 AM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on April 28, 2016, 08:41:07 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 28, 2016, 09:03:01 AM
    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/


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Slander and/or Libel on April 28, 2016, 09:09:51 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 28, 2016, 06:00:11 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Badger on April 28, 2016, 07:29:27 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: swf541 on April 29, 2016, 09:03:30 AM
    ABC called every unbound delegate apparently

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

    Quote
    Brand new @ABC count updated after our team called every unbound delegate:

    Trump 996
    Cruz 568
    Rubio 167
    Kasich 154
    Uncommitted 58
    Other 16


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 29, 2016, 10:24:29 AM
    ABC called every unbound delegate apparently

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

    Quote
    Brand new @ABC count updated after our team called every unbound delegate:

    Trump 996
    Cruz 568
    Rubio 167
    Kasich 154
    Uncommitted 58
    Other 16

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: swf541 on April 29, 2016, 10:41:22 AM
    ABC called every unbound delegate apparently

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

    Quote
    Brand new @ABC count updated after our team called every unbound delegate:

    Trump 996
    Cruz 568
    Rubio 167
    Kasich 154
    Uncommitted 58
    Other 16

    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 29, 2016, 11:04:34 AM
    ABC called every unbound delegate apparently

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

    Quote
    Brand new @ABC count updated after our team called every unbound delegate:

    Trump 996
    Cruz 568
    Rubio 167
    Kasich 154
    Uncommitted 58
    Other 16

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on April 29, 2016, 02:14:21 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: #TheShadowyAbyss on April 29, 2016, 04:03:24 PM
    CNN just said Trump has now passed 1,000 delegates


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 29, 2016, 04:10:40 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 29, 2016, 04:14:15 PM
    Alaska officially clarifies that Rubio keeps his delegates on the first ballot. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/29/alaska-gop-votes-to-let-rubio-keep-delegates-through-convention.html)

    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 29, 2016, 07:43:16 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on April 29, 2016, 07:53:32 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 29, 2016, 08:11:41 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: jimrtex on April 30, 2016, 04:04:07 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Simfan34 on April 30, 2016, 10:04:30 AM
    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!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Classic Conservative on April 30, 2016, 11:27:17 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: BCSWowbagger on April 30, 2016, 01:13:38 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 30, 2016, 01:42:31 PM
    How many delegates would Trump have to win to ensure that the majority would actually be pro-Trump delegates? 1400? 1500?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: IceSpear on April 30, 2016, 02:59:56 PM
    Alaska officially clarifies that Rubio keeps his delegates on the first ballot. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/29/alaska-gop-votes-to-let-rubio-keep-delegates-through-convention.html)

    Lavenous news!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: PaperKooper on April 30, 2016, 04:06:07 PM
    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.  


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 30, 2016, 06:12:42 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Classic Conservative on April 30, 2016, 06:13:35 PM
    Cruz actually won four delegates in Massachusetts
    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/trump-crushes-mass-caucuses-cruz-cruises-in-missouri


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on April 30, 2016, 06:34:47 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 30, 2016, 06:35:57 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 30, 2016, 06:43:43 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on April 30, 2016, 06:48:06 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on April 30, 2016, 06:58:25 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Vosem on April 30, 2016, 11:40:17 PM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: BCSWowbagger on May 01, 2016, 12:38:04 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 01, 2016, 12:40:44 AM
    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.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on May 01, 2016, 12:47:14 AM
    Jon Ralston says that Carson has released his 2 delegates from Nevada, which are now unbound.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on May 01, 2016, 01:56:35 AM
    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?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 01, 2016, 02:15:44 AM
    Jon Ralston says that Carson has released his 2 delegates from Nevada, which are now unbound.

    Interesting.  Guess they are feeling confident in Trump winning at the State Convention; otherwise I might have gone for the safer bet of reallocation if I were them.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: #TheShadowyAbyss on May 01, 2016, 12:28:17 PM
    Ted Cruz won 10 of the 13 delegates up for grabs at the Virginia Republican Convention yesterday, with Donald Trump taking the other three after state delegates voted in favor of the slate recommended by the nominations committee.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: The Other Castro on May 01, 2016, 12:50:14 PM
    Looks like some of Cruz's unbound delegates are wavering in North Dakota:

    Quote
    In North Dakota, where the Cruz campaign declared victory after the state Republican convention on April 3 and declared that it had won “a vast majority” of the state’s 28 unbound delegates, Mr. Cruz’s support appears to be weakening. In interviews, delegates said he really had only about a dozen firm commitments to begin with, and some of them appear to be wavering as he falls farther behind Mr. Trump.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/us/politics/ted-cruz-delegate-count.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Bigby on May 01, 2016, 12:51:24 PM
    Looks like some of Cruz's unbound delegates are wavering in North Dakota:

    Quote
    In North Dakota, where the Cruz campaign declared victory after the state Republican convention on April 3 and declared that it had won “a vast majority” of the state’s 28 unbound delegates, Mr. Cruz’s support appears to be weakening. In interviews, delegates said he really had only about a dozen firm commitments to begin with, and some of them appear to be wavering as he falls farther behind Mr. Trump.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/us/politics/ted-cruz-delegate-count.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

    This is why unbound delegates are horrible. Of course, I'd get rid of delegates entirely.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: BCSWowbagger on May 01, 2016, 03:50:53 PM
    As I've said before, that's not going to happen because it would be the Alamo for Trump supporters and would guarantee that they come back in force and potentially become a full fledged political machine that takes over the party by the 2020's.  The GOP establishment would prefer even a 61/37 Trump loss with 2 years of 1960's level Dem majorities in congress to that.  And there is no consensus that Trump will do that badly anyway.

    Not saying it's a sure thing; just saying that I think the chances are widely underestimated.

    Cruz and Kasich are both wildly ambitious people who will stop at nothing to win if they see a path.  They are both recruiting hundreds and hundreds of delegates loyal either to them, or to #StopTrump in general -- not the Republican establishment itself -- and who are sufficiently fanatic about it to go against the popular will of Republican voters by putting anti-Trump loyalists in Trump delegate slots.  These are precisely the people most likely to assert the power of delegates over the majoritarian will, and the convention is filling up with them fast.

    Since it's very likely there will be an anti-Trump majority on the convention floor, the decisive questions are going to be: (1) how large is that majority? (2) how committed are they?  If they're more like the North Dakota delegation (which was always wishy-washy, if you recall the original story), then they'll by-and-large cave in to Trump.  If there are enough who are more like the Minnesota delegation -- Trump delenda est! -- then they could (without much trouble, actually) nuke the primary.  (There would, of course, be trouble afterward.)

    By my count, the convention is currently:

    458 Cruz
    141 Kasich
    143 Generic Anti-Trump
    (742 total anti-Trump)

    vs.

    399 Trump

    ...with 254 unknown/uncommitted (the majority of those are RNC members, who are notoriously hard to pin down) and 1077 left to be elected.

    (SOURCE: my spreadsheet, which largely overlaps with erc's and uses the same basic format - docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EuyzjVHq2Ku_eU-4TLaNP5CyY_PXAykaSgZWZuEPfCg/edit#gid=376632774)

    Nuking the primary remains unlikely, but, if you were ever going to see it, this is exactly the kind of convention makeup that would allow it to happen.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: SkyeZee on May 02, 2016, 10:02:35 AM
    Here is an article that has the Arkansas delegates that were selected
    (arkansasonline.com/news/2016/may/01/state-republicans-convene-select-12-to-/?news-arkansas)

    MN 8th district delegates
    (brainerddispatch.com/news/politics/4022579-cruz-campaign-sweeps-delegates-8th-cd-gop-convention)

    MN 7th district 1 delegate
    (twitter.com/seifertmn?lang=en)

    Virginia's At Large delegates support on second ballot
    (pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/behind-weight-of-cuccinelli-virginia-gop-convention-approves-cruz-heavy/article_06d21020-40e5-5f13-a606-5843299a22c6.html)

    Nate Leupp preference in SC CD-4 is a Cruz preference
    (youtube.com/watch?v=UwsWAVb9-Yk)

    SC CD-2 delegates
    (scgop.com/stateconvention/national-convention-delegatealternate-election-results/)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 03, 2016, 12:35:13 PM
    Here is an article that has the Arkansas delegates that were selected
    (arkansasonline.com/news/2016/may/01/state-republicans-convene-select-12-to-/?news-arkansas)

    MN 8th district delegates
    (brainerddispatch.com/news/politics/4022579-cruz-campaign-sweeps-delegates-8th-cd-gop-convention)

    MN 7th district 1 delegate
    (twitter.com/seifertmn?lang=en)

    Virginia's At Large delegates support on second ballot
    (pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/behind-weight-of-cuccinelli-virginia-gop-convention-approves-cruz-heavy/article_06d21020-40e5-5f13-a606-5843299a22c6.html)

    Nate Leupp preference in SC CD-4 is a Cruz preference
    (youtube.com/watch?v=UwsWAVb9-Yk)

    SC CD-2 delegates
    (scgop.com/stateconvention/national-convention-delegatealternate-election-results/)

    Thanks again for these finds!


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: SkyeZee on May 03, 2016, 02:13:11 PM
    Alaska delegates selected
    (alaskagop.org/gop_delegates_chosen_to_represent_alaska_in_cleveland)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on May 03, 2016, 08:45:56 PM
    What happens to Cruz's delegates now?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 03, 2016, 09:10:56 PM
    What happens to Cruz's delegates?

    Like Rubio, he keeps most of them.

    Where he loses them outright:

    Louisiana (18), just as Rubio lost his 5.
    Michigan (17).

    It's unclear in Missouri (15), where a candidate loses them when he "becomes inactive"; the same sort of standard applies in Alaska, where Rubio got to keep his.

    It's also unclear in Wyoming (23), where the GOP chair there says a candidate keeps their delegates as long as they are "still in the race."  Rubio lost his one delegate in the state, but he was never going to be placed into nomination; Cruz still could.

    Including Wyoming, Cruz still has eight states under Rule 40 and can be placed into nomination (of course Wyoming's delegates, even if unbound, could still support Cruz under Rule 40 as well).  If he's not, he loses more delegates (e.g. Oklahoma, Minnesota, etc.).

    If Cruz wants to have his name placed into nomination, he certainly can; if he doesn't and just wants to cede the floor to Trump, he can do so as well.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 03, 2016, 09:43:11 PM
    Updated projections (which could be too favorable to Kasich, we'll see) have Trump coming in at 1416 pledged delegates by the end of the night on June 7.

    I think now's a good time to discuss the future of this thread.  I'm planning to maintain the spreadsheet until July, but my motivation for updating the main page of this thread is rapidly diminishing.

    What would be most useful for you folks going forward?  Continuing to track the delegate counts for a race that's all but over, or freezing it as a snapshot before Cruz's suspension?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ljube on May 03, 2016, 11:46:26 PM
    Updated projections (which could be too favorable to Kasich, we'll see) have Trump coming in at 1416 pledged delegates by the end of the night on June 7.

    I think now's a good time to discuss the future of this thread.  I'm planning to maintain the spreadsheet until July, but my motivation for updating the main page of this thread is rapidly diminishing.

    What would be most useful for you folks going forward?  Continuing to track the delegate counts for a race that's all but over, or freezing it as a snapshot before Cruz's suspension?

    You want to freeze the moment in time? You want to live in the past? You really took Trump's victory hard.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 04, 2016, 01:05:19 AM
    For comparison, I ended my main page coverage of the 2012 race around April 15, 2012, a few days after Santorum suspended (on April 10), but before Gingrich announced he would be suspending (on April 25).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian. on May 04, 2016, 01:19:48 AM
    Updated projections (which could be too favorable to Kasich, we'll see) have Trump coming in at 1416 pledged delegates by the end of the night on June 7.

    I think now's a good time to discuss the future of this thread.  I'm planning to maintain the spreadsheet until July, but my motivation for updating the main page of this thread is rapidly diminishing.

    What would be most useful for you folks going forward?  Continuing to track the delegate counts for a race that's all but over, or freezing it as a snapshot before Cruz's suspension?

    I haven't been commenting on this thread but I have been reading it. Is there any way you could make a new thread to continue to track delegates and leave this one as a snapshot?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 04, 2016, 01:28:33 AM
    Updated projections (which could be too favorable to Kasich, we'll see) have Trump coming in at 1416 pledged delegates by the end of the night on June 7.

    I think now's a good time to discuss the future of this thread.  I'm planning to maintain the spreadsheet until July, but my motivation for updating the main page of this thread is rapidly diminishing.

    What would be most useful for you folks going forward?  Continuing to track the delegate counts for a race that's all but over, or freezing it as a snapshot before Cruz's suspension?

    I haven't been commenting on this thread but I have been reading it. Is there any way you could make a new thread to continue to track delegates and leave this one as a snapshot?

    I'm still tracking the current delegate count on the spreadsheet (see sig); alternatively I could quote the original post as a snapshot.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: yankeesfan on May 04, 2016, 08:25:28 AM
    John Yob @strategic
    Platform just replaced Rules as the committee for the cool kids in Cleveland.
    11h




    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on May 04, 2016, 08:28:57 AM
    Should I keep this thread stickied?

    Which threads do people want stickied at this point?  I was thinking of stickying the VP denials thread:

    https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=234526.0

    after repurposing it as a general purpose thread about VP news.  As with four years ago, I'd prefer to have a separate thread about VP idle speculation, so that the news thread doesn't get swamped by people's dumb speculations.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 04, 2016, 09:33:20 AM
    I'm fine with unstickying it.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on May 04, 2016, 09:37:55 AM

    OK.  Here we go...


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 04, 2016, 11:27:36 AM
    With Kasich suspending, he also loses the binding of his delegates in Michigan (in addition to Vermont and New Hampshire, which he already clearly didn't have).

    Anyway, the race is over.  Trump should sweep the remaining delegates outside of West Virginia (where the arcane rules mathematically prevent Trump from winning all of them) and Oregon (where the low threshold means that Cruz and Kasich should still win some delegates).

    I'll continue to track the Democratic side on the spreadsheet as Clinton continues her slow and inevitable march to victory.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: dax00 on May 04, 2016, 11:31:10 AM
    So the Donald's campaign was correct in asserting that he'd break 1400. :)


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Angel of Death on May 04, 2016, 02:00:41 PM
    Bumping this as a salute to the effort displayed in this thread.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: LLR on May 14, 2016, 08:13:47 AM
    I know this thread is done, but I'm seeing that Kasich won a West Virginia delegate (according to the New York Times). Anyone know why this is?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 14, 2016, 03:50:12 PM
    I know this thread is done, but I'm seeing that Kasich won a West Virginia delegate (according to the New York Times). Anyone know why this is?

    West Virginia has weird geographic requirements, so that no more than two delegates from each county can be elected delegates.

    Trump slate had too many folks in Kanawha County, so there was no way he was going to get a complete slate elected.  While the race was still competitive, he was attempting to get Uncommitted, friendly-to-Trump delegates elected; don't know if he kept this up after Cruz dropped out.

    Apparently, Trump won all but 4 delegates (http://blogs.wvgazettemail.com/data/2016/05/11/west-virginia-delegates-to-the-republican-national-convention/) (which is better than my initial projection); 3 were Uncommitted (2 of which say they're supporting Trump) and 1 explicitly Kasich delegate was elected.

    Note the clear gap in the vote totals between the Trump delegates and the 3 Uncommitted delegates, and the gap between the 3 Uncommitted and the 1 Kasich.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 14, 2016, 04:04:08 PM
    On the Democratic side, this may have been noted elsewhere, but Sanders had a minor success at last weekend's Maine State Convention.

    Sanders picked up a delegate in Maine CD 1, making the breakdown 7-3 in his favor rather than 6-4.

    This was Sanders' best target for picking up a delegate anywhere in the country, apart from the Iowa At-Large delegate, requiring only a 1% swing.

    He may also have wanted to target an At-Large delegate in Maine, which would have been his 5th-best remaining target in the country.  This would have required a 5.5% swing, however, which he did not achieve.

    Next target for Sanders is Alaska, where he could pick up a delegate at this weekend's convention; this would require a 3.9% swing on top of his already-large total.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 14, 2016, 04:14:44 PM
    Coming up on Tuesday is the Oregon primary, which may be the last time anyone who isn't Trump wins delegates.  The state is proportional with a very low threshold (3.57%), so Cruz and Kasich should still pick up some delegates.

    In their favor is the fact that Oregon does entirely postal voting, and some may have received and sent off their ballots before Cruz and Kasich dropped out last week.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on May 17, 2016, 02:25:50 PM
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-17/sanders-quest-for-superdelegates-loses-one-after-virgin-island-official-flips-to-clinton

    Sanders loses Virgin Islands superdelegate to Clinton.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: IceSpear on May 17, 2016, 04:36:12 PM
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-17/sanders-quest-for-superdelegates-loses-one-after-virgin-island-official-flips-to-clinton

    Sanders loses Virgin Islands superdelegate to Clinton.

    That effort to flip the superdelegates is sure going well.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on May 19, 2016, 11:49:33 PM
    Cruz wins 5 delegates and Kasich 4 in Oregon (roughly).  Incidentally, this is Cruz's largest haul since Wisconsin.

    If Washington goes similarly, neither candidate breaks the 20% threshold statewide, but Kasich may pick up a delegate or two in the Seattle area.

    If these die-hard never-Trump percentages hold, Trump may not sweep New Mexico, either.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on May 22, 2016, 08:15:52 AM
    Looks like Cruz loyalists did well in delegate selection in Washington state:

    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-state-gop-convention-backs-cruz-over-trump/


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Ebsy on May 28, 2016, 10:08:29 PM
    For those interested (probably no one) the result of the Wyoming Democratic Convention today was maintaining the 7-7 pledged delegate split. Some Sanders people were unsatisfied, so they are being allowed to file a challenge that will go to the credentials committee(?) over the matter of how district delegates are apportioned (currently they are apportioned by the caucus day vote, as they were in Nevada).


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Landslide Lyndon on May 28, 2016, 10:15:35 PM
    For those interested (probably no one) the result of the Wyoming Democratic Convention today was maintaining the 7-7 pledged delegate split. Some Sanders people were unsatisfied, so they are being allowed to file a challenge that will go to the credentials committee(?) over the matter of how district delegates are apportioned (currently they are apportioned by the caucus day vote, as they were in Nevada).

    No wonder many of these people are/were independents. Their inability to accept and follow rules is mind-boggling.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on June 19, 2016, 09:02:16 AM
    Yesterday had some of the final delegate binding events of the season, with a few caucus states finishing up their conventions.

    Most notably, in Iowa, Clinton won that final delegate, 714-571; some Sanders folks stayed home and clearly a few defected to Clinton.

    The final event should be the Idaho state convention, which finishes up today.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Mr. Morden on June 19, 2016, 09:36:07 AM
    Erc-

    Given all the recent talk about a convention coup against Trump, I don't suppose you can give us any insight into approx. what %age of the RNC delegates will be true blue Trump loyalists?


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on June 20, 2016, 08:53:39 AM
    Erc-

    Given all the recent talk about a convention coup against Trump, I don't suppose you can give us any insight into approx. what %age of the RNC delegates will be true blue Trump loyalists?


    I mostly stopped tracking this after Cruz dropped out, but I can take another look.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on July 12, 2016, 08:37:05 AM
    Erc-

    Given all the recent talk about a convention coup against Trump, I don't suppose you can give us any insight into approx. what %age of the RNC delegates will be true blue Trump loyalists?


    I mostly stopped tracking this after Cruz dropped out, but I can take another look.

    Obviously the media has since done a better job of tracking this particular figure, but the bare minimum (which he seems to have exceeded) is around 444: these are the delegates who supported Trump before Indiana, plus any which the Trump campaign has gotten to hand-pick.

    Obviously, a fair number of delegates chosen since Indiana support Trump as well; a very (very) rough estimate [just simply giving him any bound Trump delegates that were selected after Indiana, a formula which may be too generous in WTA states] would give him another 485 delegates, for a total of 929 loyal supporters, but this could easily be off by a hundred in either direction.


    Title: Re: The Delegate Fight: 2016
    Post by: Erc on July 20, 2016, 12:11:47 AM
    Final postscript for this campaign season (barring something truly odd in Philadelphia):

    Canegata's sham of a slate was recognized as the official delegation and seated at Cleveland; the Yobs were not.  The Republican National Committeeman from the Virgin Islands, Holland Redfield III, no friend to Canegata, refused to attend the convention, for presumably related reasons.  As RNC members have no alternates, the Virgin Islands only had 8 votes at the convention this year.