The Delegate Fight: 2016

[Ebsy]

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

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

[Erc]

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.

[Erc]

As expected, Sanders dominated in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary [voting ended March 8], winning 9 delegates to Clinton's 4.

[Erc]

Updated my tracking of the unpledged delegates.  A full account can be found on the tumblr.  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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Updated my tracking of the unpledged delegates.  A full account can be found on the tumblr.  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.

[Erc]

Updated my tracking of the unpledged delegates.  A full account can be found on the tumblr.  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.

[Erc]

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.

[yankeesfan]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruzs-stealth-delegate-hunt-1458604788

Interesting article about Cruz's delegate poaching strategy.

[jimrtex]

This suggests that 40(b) only applied to the 2012 convention.

GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states

Maybe there is some rule where the the rules from the previous convention, unless they are changed?

[Erc]

This suggests that 40(b) only applied to the 2012 convention.

GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states

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.

[Erc]

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, Christine Bremer Muggli, Martha Love, Rep. Ron Kind, Michael Childers

Sanders (1): Vice Chair David Bowen

Uncommitted (3): Rep. Mark Pocan, Chair Martha Laning, Jason Rae

Useful Links
The Green Papers: WI
WI Delegate Selection Plan

[Erc]

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.

[muon2]

Erc, Do you foresee any time to update the Trump Tetris? It's a novel view, and it provides a surprising amount of insight.

[Erc]

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):

[Vosem]

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).

[Erc]

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 and TPM.

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 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

USVI GOP Caucus Rules

[Erc]

Here's the relevant section of the rules:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John Yob responds that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[cinyc]

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 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

[Ebsy]

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

[cinyc]

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.  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.

[muon2]

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!

[Erc]

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.

[The Other Castro]

Uncommentum!

[jimrtex]

This suggests that 40(b) only applied to the 2012 convention.

GOP insiders: Nominee won't be limited to winner of 8 states

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.

[/]

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?