The Delegate Fight: 2012

[Torie]

I question whether Romney failed to come first in AL-06 (my eyeballing suggested Romney won by a bit), but accepting the numbers above that he didn't, after all the sound an fury, Mittens was 6 delegates short of my projection (mostly due to his subpar performance in Alabama where the CD delegate allocation is 2-1-0).  I didn't allocate any of the supers, although the press thinks Mittens got all 3 supers in Samoa, and Green Papers gives one Alabama super to Rick. Anyway, Mittens should be over 500 delegates now. As one can see, with these proportional rules, closing the gap with Mittens is very difficult, and is moving at a glacial pace. Before, Mittens needed about 47.5% of the remaining delegates, and now he needs 48.5% of them.   All in all, not too bad after returns dominated by an area where he was projected to be very weak until recently.

That 48.5% figure should drop back down after next week. Mittens should get a huge margin of the delegates in Illinois, since it is winner take all by CD and effectively that way with the at large delegates, and Rick isn't on the ballot in four CD's.  On the other hand, Missouri sort of has the same system of allocation, and Rick should get a huge margin there. However, the state has 17 fewer delegates than Illinois.

Illinois is shaping up as a state probably next in importance to only Florida thus far. It should be a barn burner.  However, even if Rick wins many of the CD's, with his delegates not on the ballot in four CD's (it would be nice to know which ones, because if some or all of them are downstate, then Rick is really screwed), the odds are that Mittens will get all of the 12 at large delegates.

[Torie]

There is some possibility that Newt, as he runs out of money and relevance, if, will cease to secure double digit percentages even if he stays in. And while he would still be a factor, he would be sliding towards something with considerably more marginal impact. We shall see how many votes Newt siphons from Rick in Illinois, understanding that maybe a quarter to a third of Newt's defectors (defectors who migrate to one or the other rather than Paul or not voting, which would be as if they were not voting in most cases) will migrate to Romney rather than Rick, but yes, Newt getting out will up Rick's percentages more than Romney's, by a factor of from 2-1 to 3-1 as things stand now.

[Torie]

Just out of curiosity (I make no claim to know otherwise, since my predictions about the 2012 primary season have proven so dismally poor), this is my question.

After all the acrimony of the primary season, after all the time he has spent propping up Santorum and excoriating Romney, why would Gingrich want to go to bat for Romney with his delegates in August in trade for a post in a Romney administration?  Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing Gingrich of having principles or anything, so I concede that after all the hew and cry, he might just do it.  But hasn't all of Gingrich's invective made it very unlikely that Romney would want to give him anything even if Gingrich dangled his delegates in August?  Wouldn't the delegates Gingrich may have picked up by then just split on their own on the convention floor and go over to Santorum if Gingrich did something that cynical?  I'm not claiming to know better, please understand; I'm just not seeing how that kind of move on Gingrich's part could possibly work.  

I don't think that is really Newt's goal, or that he is delusional enough to think the odds are anything but remote that his delegates will be needed by anyone, and yes, delegates after the first ballot are not the personal property of the candidate to which they were bound on the first ballot anyway. Newt is in it for the attention. If Romney really needs someone else's delegates (very doubtful), the go to man will be Ron Paul. Ron has far more potential to be a king maker in the remote chance that one is required, than either Rick or Newt.

For even the bulk of the Paul delegates to still not be enough for Romney in this implausible scenario, the Rick/Newt candidate will have to get a lot more non-Evangelical votes outside the south and non-industrial midwest than he is getting now. We shall see just how well the Rick/Newt candidate does in the Chicago suburbs next week. The demographics there for Mittens are not quite as good as CA, but they are still his kind of place - higher income and more secular. The irony is that Rick has been a bust with Catholics so far, at least urban/suburban Catholics, where most of them live.

By the way, Dick Morris said last night that he expects Mittens to end up with 1298 delegates.   Granted, some of his assumptions are questionable, like Mittens winning West Virginia, and taking all 172 CA delegates (I would subtract six CD's from that, or 18 delegates to take a middle of the road position), and no doubt there are some other errors, but they don't add up to a lot of delegates. 1200 seems more reasonable perhaps, absent some substantial change.

[Torie]

If Dick Morris says that Romney will end up with 1298 delegates, then either Romney isn't getting a majority or we're in for a "broken clock" scenario.

Have no fear, Dick Morris is still an idiot.

• He counts unpledged RNC delegates in states delegate totals
• Some of the "Winner take all" states he counts for Romney are actually proportional (Oregon, Puerto Rico, etc)
• Other "WTA" states are actually caucus states or directly elected delegate states (WV, for example) where you can't really tell what's going on ahead of time anyway
• A lot of the states are really WTA by CD, like California, Wisconsin, Indiana, etc
• He's quite obviously just pulling numbers out of his ass for the "proportional representation" states he lists
• He also thinks Pennsylvania and North Carolina are WTA for some reason; PA elects delegates directly and NC is proportional
• He seems to think Romney will win in WV, NE, and ND

So, yeah, he really has no idea what he's talking about.

Nice research job there BK. I was too lazy to do it. That's why I cut it down to around 1200 as a rough cut. Somebody using the demographic benchmarks that seem to be holding pretty well, could do a more refined analysis. But that would probably be silly, until we see how the Chicago suburbs vote. That is a big test for Mittens, and whether or not he continues to hold his demographic at the level he needs to, to secure his absolute majority, after adding in all the "softies."

[Torie]

That 48.5% figure should drop back down after next week. Mittens should get a huge margin of the delegates in Illinois, since it is winner take all by CD and effectively that way with the at large delegates, and Rick isn't on the ballot in four CD's.  On the other hand, Missouri sort of has the same system of allocation, and Rick should get a huge margin there. However, the state has 17 fewer delegates than Illinois.

Illinois is shaping up as a state probably next in importance to only Florida thus far. It should be a barn burner.  However, even if Rick wins many of the CD's, with his delegates not on the ballot in four CD's (it would be nice to know which ones, because if some or all of them are downstate, then Rick is really screwed), the odds are that Mittens will get all of the 12 at large delegates.

According to Erc's post on the 13th, it is the 4th, 5th, 7th and 13th that Rick doesn't have delegates. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=145763.msg3215823#msg3215823

Three of them are in Chicago. I was concerned that the 7th might end up like MI-13. ILL-01 and 02 have significant suburban portions that should dominate a Republican contest enough to give them to Mittens.

The 13th is a downstate seat. How Romney does in the cities downstate, will likely determine the vote in the 13th, as well as the 17th and 18th. Rick probably has 12 and 15 secured.

Guys, for reasons in some controversy, and whether the Romney guy on the scene went rogue, or Romney decided to do a beau geste, Mittens withdrew his objections, and Rick no longer has a failure to file delegates issue, and the issue is moot. I could spend some time to document this, but just trust the old man this time. Mittens had a notarization in Mass rather than Illinois notarization problem (as a lawyer that one sounds like real BS, since foreign state notarizations are accepted across state lines, but I digress), and that went away too.

I read somewhere back when that the CD's were in Mittens country (well the Chicago burbs), and so maybe that is the real explanation;  if Mittens lost these 4 CD's, or most of them, the least of his worries would be the delegates involved - his demographic base would have eroded to the point where he would be on life support.  So why not do a "costless" beau geste? It may give him a card later.

CC:  Keystone Phil
       Bacon King

[Torie]

Aren't the ballots already drawn up?  I've got a sample ballot linked in the main Illinois post, and the Cook County Clerk still shows no Santorum delegates as candidates for the addresses I've checked in CD 5.

This is a real loophole primary; the vote for delegates, not the topline Presidential vote, is what matters.  (Occasionally it does make a difference; Dennis Hastert got elected as a Romney delegate in 2008 on the basis of his personal vote despite an overall McCain sweep)

I don't know what Romney offered, but if those delegates aren't on the ballot, Santorum's outta luck.

Right you are Erc. The Mittens concession was for a shortage of petitions for 30 other delegates. Rick is still out of the hunt for 12 delegates in the four CD's - all of which will probably go to Mittens anyway I guess. The story was updated to so clarify since I read it, in my defense.

By the way, will the remaining 6 delegates for the 2 Alabama CD's still up in the air ever be allocated in my lifetime? 

[Torie]

Aren't the ballots already drawn up?  I've got a sample ballot linked in the main Illinois post, and the Cook County Clerk still shows no Santorum delegates as candidates for the addresses I've checked in CD 5.

This is a real loophole primary; the vote for delegates, not the topline Presidential vote, is what matters.  (Occasionally it does make a difference; Dennis Hastert got elected as a Romney delegate in 2008 on the basis of his personal vote despite an overall McCain sweep)

I don't know what Romney offered, but if those delegates aren't on the ballot, Santorum's outta luck.

This is a popular vote exercise, not a delegate exercise. Most of these little counties just don't mean a damn really. Rick will win a couple of CD's where he has delegates, and that is about it. That is my guess.

[Torie]

[Torie]

Nobody thinks somebody not named Mittens has a shot to get to a majority of delegates on their own.

Here is the chart after projecting Illinois, giving Rick all 5 CD's that he has a shot of winning where he has filed for delegates. I know Mittens has one super delegate, the party chairman, Brady, who has endorsed him, but I don't count supers unless CNN counts them (and he may have already been counted - in fact he probably has).  

[Torie]

Nobody thinks somebody not named Mittens has a shot to get to a majority of delegates on their own.

Obviously that is true. But I think it is interesting to countdown to the 100% threshold as we know that Romney will make a big point about that. I expect it will happen on 4/24.

Also it is interesting to keep track of the % won for each candidate and not just Romney.

Just a suggestion, it is your chart. I was thinking of doing one myself but since you are that close I was hoping you could save me the trouble. Maybe others will find it useful too.

Is this what you are looking for?

[Torie]

great thanks!

You're welcome. After Tuesday, Rick will just need to win about 70% of the delegates left, and he will have this wrapped up by June.

[Torie]

I think a lot of Torie's [CNN's] numbers are premature until we get more concrete information from the caucus state conventions. Romney is likely to lose a fair number of delegates from the current estimates.

Fixed. How many of those delegates might be in play?  40 delegates max? What states might this happen in?  I ask, because no doubt you or someone else, following far more the Paulite antics, might know better than I. So I am merely asking, not hectoring - this time.

[Torie]

Plus it's very likely that Florida will be made proportional, which means Romney loses another 25 delegates from the current estimates. (Possibly Arizona as well)

No, that will never happen, unless the non-Mittens get a majority without having done that, in which event it will be moot.

[Torie]

[Torie]

Yes, that's right JJ, but BSB's point, is that if the 50 Florida Mittens delegates cannot vote, Mittens will need 1169 delegates in his corner, to get to 1119 without his 50 Florida delegates voting. Are you sure the Robert's Rules or Order apply here?

[Torie]

Yes, that's right JJ, but BSB's point, is that if the 50 Florida Mittens delegates cannot vote, Mittens will need 1169 delegates in his corner, to get to 1119 without his 50 Florida delegates voting. Are you sure the Robert's Rules or Order apply here?

It lowers the majority needed to adopt.  As long as Romney gets to 1119, without FL. he has it.  The majority, according to RCP, is 1,144, with FL.  If FL is challenged, the majority drops to 1,119, without FL.  He'd need 1,169 only if you do count FL.  Or, Romney needs 1,119 without FL.

I know that Robert's Rules Newly Revised, current edition is their parliamentary authority, but the convention is covered by US House Rules, .  I checked and it is in their own rules, (Rule 23).  Only one delegation may be challenged at one time.

Further, if FL would be challenged, it would be up to the state chair to appoint the delegates.

JJ, if Mittens does not have 1169 delegates with the Florida delegation, and it can't vote on its own challenge, then Mittens does not have 1119 votes to defeat the challenge on his own. The issue is if the Florida delegation can vote on its own challenge. When you say that if Florida were challenged, it is up to the state chair to appoint the delegates, do you mean that if the challenge is successful, the chairman can appoint anyone he wants? Or does he need to appoint delegates proportionally?

It might be helpful to put up the actual text. What language are you relying upon for your opinion?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

Those rules are not helpful if some additional penalty is decided upon for winner take all early states, as to who will be removed, and who added.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, notice that rule 15(b) covers both violations, the too early primary and the too early winner take all allocation method. Yet, the sole penalty for violating rule 15(b), and one violates it either by violating just one or both of its provisions, is losing half your delegates - and nothing more. On top of that, this intent reflected in the clear language, is reemphasized by the insertion of a critical "and/or" in Rule 16, along with the use of the term "election or selection process," with the word "selection" encompassing the allocation method.   There is no ambiguity. Therefore, I just don't see it happening.

My inserted text is in brackets, and I bolded and underlined the critical "and/or" words.  It is not a close case.

RULE NO. 16
Enforcement of Rules
(a) If any state or state Republican Party
violates The Rules of the Republican Party relating to [1]
the timing of the election or selection process with the
result that any delegate from that state to the national
convention is bound by statute or rule to vote for a
presidential nominee selected or determined before the
first day of the month in which that state is authorized
by Rule No. 15(b) to vote for a presidential candidate [to wit, too early a primary]
and/or [2] elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates or
alternate delegates to the national convention [that word allocate here covers an illicit winner take all primary], [then the penalty for either the one or both violations is that] the
number of delegates to the national convention from
that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), and
the corresponding alternate delegates also shall be
reduced by the same percentage. ... .

[Torie]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

Are you now suggesting that a motion to make Florida proportional, and unseat some Mittens delegates, and insert some Newt and Rick delegates, would be ruled out of order because it constitutes an "additional penalty?" If so, and that is in fact the rule that would be applied by the Convention chair, or parliamentarian or whatever, that does appear to be an interior line of defense for team Mittens.

[Torie]

Now 1131 pops up for some reason. So many numbers, so little time. Anyway, I revised my post above, while you were responding to my earlier text, deciding that I should read rule 15(b) as well just to make sure I was not putting my foot in it, which upon reading, just reinforced my opinion I think. So maybe you want to revise yours, or not.

No, the penalty is the number of delegates to the national convention from that state shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), not "75%."

Who implied that it was 75%?

[Torie]

That 1040 number for a plurality just seems so appropriate for tax time doesn't it?  

The plurality game is a different game from the majority game, and I suspect everybody is playing the majority game, to wit, Mittens versus non-Mittens. But given the chatter about pluralities, I thought I would add the plurality game to the chart. It gave me a headache to come up with the formula for the plurality game. Don't ask how I did it.

[Torie]

Assuming Mittens wins Wisconsin, I think I know the delegate count this time, so I might as well put it up 3 days early. I added in Utah since there is no suspense there, so the measurement is for the balance of the run ex-Utah. Ron Paul, as an example, ex-Utah, will have a rather uphill climb to win a majority of the delegates, a mere 97% of them.   Mittens needs about 37%.

[Torie]

Isn't the majority 1144 rather than 1044?

1040 assures a plurality.