I know this would normally go in the current campaign thread, but that seems so overstuffed right now that this would just get lost amidst the current arguments and discussions about Bush and the budget and gender.

The Democrats and Republicans have similar methods of choosing the state delegates to go to the national convention, but there are some pretty big differences between the parties' methods that could influence when each race is effectively over.

The Democrats have more delegates in total, almost twice the Republicans do, though this is mostly a cosmetic difference, unless one is trying to find a convention hall to hold them all! The crucial difference is in how the delegates are allocated as a result of each state primary and caucus. The Democrats have a uniform policy from state to state: delegates are awarded based on proportion of the vote each candidate receives. In contrast the Republican Party appears to let each state party organization do whatever it wants! Some states are winner-take-all, in which a plurality of votes is all that is needed to secure every last delegate in the state, while others award delegates proportionally, and still others use winner-take-all at the level of congressional districts.

I guess this makes the Republican nomination process a little bit unfair. Suppose McCain beat Romney in New York by one percent, and Romney beat McCain in California by 10 percent of the vote, though McCain ran stronger than Romney in LA and the bay area. Overall between those states Romney did better, and yet McCain would get far more delegates out of it than Romney, because New York is winner-takes-all and California isn't, instead awarding most of its delegates based on who wins each congressional district.

There is something to be said for the winner-takes-all method, at least from a strategic perspective: it reduces the likelihood of a long drawn out nomination campaign, or even of a brokered convention, which neither national party really wants ( though the press would love it ). Right now Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in most of the Super Tuesday ( how about Typhoon Tuesday? ) states. If those states were using the corresponding Republican rules for delegate selection, then she might take in 3 times the delegates that Obama takes in, or more, and effectively end any resistance Obama could put up. But instead delegates are awarded proportional to the vote, some based on the vote in each congressional district and some at large based on the total vote in the state. So if Clinton won by an average of 55 to 45 percent over Obama, she would only pick up about 55 percent of delegates. Maybe a little more, if she carried a majority of congressional districts. But her lead over Obama would still be fairly small, though, to be sure, perhaps still insurmountable given her momentum after winning most of the Super Tuesday states.

On the other hand McCain would end up with about 60% of the delegates awarded on Tuesday if state polls of the last week hold up and at least half of Giuliani voters in those polls go to McCain. Remember that McCain is running against two candidates, not just one, and that he wouldn't get anything like 60% of the vote overall, most likely. McCain really benefits from states such as New York, New Jersey, Arizona and Connecticut, which are winner-takes-all states where he is running strong and is very unlikely to fall behind Romney. He also benefits from Huckabee being in the race, because Huckabee not only takes votes away from Romney but he also may take delegates away from him in southern states where Romney might otherwise have finished strongly.

The delegate math will start coming into clearer focus when some of the post-Florida polls start coming out. How many Giuliani voters are going to McCain? Did the debate last night shift any voters to Romney? Does Obama get a Kennedy bounce? Does Clinton get a Florida bounce?

Thanks for that cogent description of the confusing world of delegate counting. I agree that it makes sense to have it in a separate thread. It might get a little confusing, but if everyone takes some care in keeping discussion of the merits of the candidates and the results of the contests in the other thread, and discusses the nuts and bolts of the process here, we should be okay.

The thing that I think is most unfair about the Republican system is that it varies from state to state. Either have a winner-take-all-system in all the states, or a proportional system in all the states. This hodge-podge just doesn't make sense (I have the same objection to the proposed change in California's Electoral College determination: if all the states went to a proportional system that would make sense, but it really doesn't seem fair to have California go to that system when almost all of the rest of the country maintains a winner-take-all system).

The other interesting issue regarding delegate counting is the question of the Democratic party stripping Florida and Michigan of their delegates for moving their primaries earlier than the February 5 date that the national party set. I have little sympathy for those claiming to be "disenfranchised" by this. While I have decidedly mixed feelings about the primacy of the Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina set up, the fact of the matter is that is the rules that the parties put into place. The states knew what the results what be if they went against those rules, they were repeatedly warned that the party would enforce those rules, and yet they went ahead and called the bluff. Now they have to suffer the consequences.

_________________
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

This would be a disaster for Democrats, as the nearly guaranteed 55-0 margin of electoral votes they would normally get from CA would become something like 30-25 or similar. It's possible that a Republican could carry CA, but probably only as part of a landslide when CA's electoral votes wouldn't make the difference anyway. I don't think the state Dem party would ever let this proposal happen. The process should be uniform from state to state. That means change has to happen at the federal level, probably through amendment, and I don't see that happening.

Yes, the Republicans should probably nip states' rights in the bud here and impose some sort of uniformity on delegate allocation. I'd like to see something like one third of the delegates be winner takes all in each state, with the rest being awarded proportionally with a 10% floor. That way strong finishers who don't win aren't shut out, but a candidate who wins most of the states will soon have a big lead in delegates.

*****************

I had read an article back before Edwards dropped out that suggested the Democrats might be heading for a brokered convention if Edwards stayed in to the end and Clinton and Obama remained very close. If Edwards picked up enough of the proportionally awarded delegates to deny either Clinton or Obama a majority, then he could be kingmaker in a brokered convention, or even be the surprise compromise candidate.

Such a scenario is why I think it makes strategic sense for the parties not to use a strictly proportional system.

Faramond, I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense. Which is probably why it will never happen.

I've seen a lot of speculation that Edwards withdrawal was related to his wife's health situation. He really did have the opportunity to be a player. But perhaps he got tired of being the third wheel.

_________________
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

I have much sympathy for the voters, who had no say in the decisions to move their primaries. I'm sure I would feel extremely frustrated as a Democratic voter in either Florida or Michigan!


Regarding Edwards, I read that he didn't want to be a spoiler, which I suppose means arbitrarily influence the outcome of the process by siphoning off votes that would go to either of the two candidates who have a straight shot at the nomination. We will have much more meaningful information with him out, as to the appeal of Obama to white voters, for example. However, I wish he had stayed in. I now feel I have no candidate, and no one speaking for me. I felt so sad yesterday, when it became a reality that the nomination was between the two candidates I feel the least enthusiasm for.

_________________
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.

Yes, I should have been clearer. I do have sympathy for those voters, but I blame the stubbornness of the state politicians who refused to budge despite knowing what the consequences were.

_________________
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

I hope this will lead to some revamping of the Primary process, some kind of rotational thing that would give other states more influence and a chance in the spotlight from time to time. People seem to be fed up with Iowa and New Hampshire having such a large role in deciding things, and I feel that way, too.

_________________
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.

I hope so too, although I am not optimistic that it will. See my comments above about the likelihood of Faramond's sensical suggestion being implemented.

_________________
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

However, Faramond, you left out the enormous role on the Democratic side of 'Superdelegates.' One-fifth of Democratic delegates are appointed by party leaders as they see fit, ignoring primary or caucus results. In the current race that's nearly 800 delegates in Hillary's pocket, since pretty much all the party establishment is in her camp.

Yeah, you're right. I fumbled that part of it. But superdelegates confuse me!

Okay, so Dems have about 800 out of 4000, which is 20%, as you said.

The Republicans have about 120 unpledged delegates out of about 2300, about 5%.

Right now realclearpolitics.com has 208 superdelegates for Clinton, 118 for Obama, and 38 for Edwards. I assume these are just superdelegates who have stated whom they would support, and I also assume any of them are free to change their minds at any time, in particular those Edwards delegates. So there are still more than 400 uncommitted superdelegates.

edit: changed the Rep numbers slightly

I wonder what kind of reaction there is going to be if Obama gets more delegates through the primary/caucus process, but Clinton gets put over the top by the superdelegates. I don't think that folks are going to be terribly happy about that.

_________________
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

And if it's really close the Michigan and Florida delegates become a major concern as well. I don't doubt that if Clinton has a comfortable delegate margin that those delegations will be allowed at the convention. But if it really matters, if Obama and Clinton are virtually tied up, what I read is that it could come down to a floor vote on procedure.

What is it going to take for them to be tied up? Clinton is going to take New York, and Obama is going to take Illinois. Clinton leads in the polls in most of the other states voting Super Tuesday. Even if Obama wins some states Hillary is almost certain to take the most delegates because she has a pretty big advantage in New York, and remember delegates are awarded proportionally, so size of victory matters. However --- there is also California, the biggest prize. The biggest prize in delegates, and the biggest prize in terms of who "wins" Super Tuesday according to observers.

So --- BREAKING NEWS --- Obama pulls to within striking distance of Clinton in the latest Rasmussen Poll taken in CA:

Clinton 43
Obama 40
Edwards 9

The poll was taken on Jan 29, this past Tuesday, when FL voted. That explains why Edwards shows up there.

So, this is a very small margin for Clinton! Just 3 points. If Obama could narrow this gap and win CA, then while he would still likely win fewer delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday, he would win enough to stay within striking distance, plus have the all important momentum of having won the biggest, most diverse state in the union.

Now I have to say I am very leery of Rasmussen polls. At least on the Republican side! There seems to be something off in their methodology, because they always have McCain doing worse than all the other polls. That, by itself, doesn't mean they are wrong. But their last FL poll had Romney and McCain tied, while all the other major polling outfits had McCain up about 3 points, and the result was that McCain won by 5 points. The question is: do they have a similar methodological flaw in their Democrat polling?

Where will the Edwards voters go? What will the late deciders do? That's almost 20% of the voters right there. If Edwards endorses Obama, that may swing a small majority of his supporters to Obama --- otherwise I've read polls that seem to indicate that more of his supporters are likely to go to Clinton. The non-Edwards late deciders are likely to go for Obama, if past trends hold up. It really looks like we are headed for a very close Dem race in CA.

My honest opinion: in SC Edwards gave guys who were angry about being poor (or two paychecks from it) a way to vote against the status quo that didn't involve voting for a black guy or a woman. I don't know if that contingent is going to even vote at all in the rest of the primaries. They might flip and vote for McCain or even Paul. That's a question mark of maybe 10% of the vote on the Dem side, which is obviously huge this year. That's not ALL the Edwards vote, but it's a chunk. There is also a small anyone-but-Hilary vote there, since as I recall, Edwards was the first major candidate to declare who wasn't her. That indicates he thought of himself as an alternative to Clinton, and at least some of his supporters probably think the same. How many? Good question.

To play devil's advocate on the primary process: if anything but small rural states went first, the nomination would be decided just as fast and almost always go to the person with best name recognition. Forcing a retail politics model on the beginning of the race gives the Huckabees of the world a shot at breaking in...and the Giulianis a shot at breaking down. What they do when they have to go wholesale on Feb. 5 is another question of course, but a race which started with massive TV campaigns would look much different, and I suspect not in a good way. It would become even more about fundraising than it is now, if that's possible.

One last word about superdelegates: they can declare public support for a candidate and then change their minds. They have even less legal obligation than elected delegates to stay consistant. And only a quarter or so have openly come out one way or another--they're politicians, so they're used to twiddling their thumbs waiting for the right moment to announce..or switch...support. I think HRC can count on most of the DNC proper, but the superdelegates there because they're elected officials are not going to be anywhere near so monolithic.

_________________

Resentment is no excuse for baldface stupidity.
-- Garrison Keillor

My favourite primary fix was the GOP’s Delaware Plan (invented by Karl Rove of all people IIRC). Basically, the smallest states (by EVs or Representatives) go on the first week, then the next ones up, and so on, until the biggest state goes last. This gives practically every voter in the country a say, makes the race competitive until the end, and, just for fun, gives it a grand finale on the last contest CA and NY assign their delegates.

There’s a few problems with it, though. One is that the big states wouldn’t be too keen on it. Another is that it favours certain regions over others. The smallest states (worth 3 EVs) are VT, WY, MT, ND, SD, DE and AK, plus DC and the 4 small external territories. IOW, four Midwestern states going on the first week – it would be a huge boon to a candidate with a lot of appeal in the Midwest. The second week would then be dominated by New England (NH, RI, ME plus ID and HI). The race doesn’t get to the south until week 4 (AK and MS). Still, it’d be better than what we have today. He’s my idea for it (dividing the first week into two because there’s so many contests):

Tier 1 (1 Representative or equivalent population)

VT
WY
DC

Luckily, this turns out to give a bit of variety – the three least-populous ‘states’ are quite different.

Tier 2 (1)

MT
ND
SD
DE
AK
+4 external territories

The external territories should really go first, but I’ve put them here

Tier 3 (2)

NH
HI
RI
ID
ME

Tier 4 (3)

NE
NV
UT
NM
WV

Tier 5 (4)

KS
AR
MS

Tier 6 (5)

OR
IA
CT
OK
+ Puerto Rico

Tier 7 (6)

KY
SC

Tier 8 (7)

CO
AL
LA
Puerto Rico

Tier 9 (8)

MN
WI
MD
AZ

Tier 10 (9)

TN
MO
IN
WA

Tier 11 (10-11)

MA
VA

Tier 12 (13)

NC
GA
NJ

Tier 13 (15-18)

MI
OH

Tier 14 (19)

PA
IL

Tier 15 (20+)

TX
FL
NY
CA

From our main primary thread



Had there been a national primary on January 3, then I doubt anyone could have stopped Clinton and Guiliani with their name recognition and support from the nation-wide political machine.

Also, the big states have a huge influence on the result regardless. Doing well in California and New York is critical to any campaign. Even if they went last they’d still be important, and a decisive win by any candidate in both states on Tuesday would make them the odds-on favourite to win their party’s nomination. Any small contests held after Super Tuesday are going to be pretty insignificant by contrast.

Forgive the possibly ignorant question as I really don't understand most of the posts on this thread but - why can't all the states just vote on the same day like the way we elect practically anything else in the world?

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists

I might later get into the discussion of the best way to organize the candidate selections of each party but right now I'm going to stay out of it, except to say that using an instant runoff system where voters list the candidates in their order of preference would be a very good idea, regardless of which states go when.


We're starting to get some Republican polls from after the Florida vote, without Giuliani included. The short summary is that they're all good for McCain.

McCain is now leading in most of the Super Tuesday southern states, where just last week Huckabee was the leader. McCain leads in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. There's no new Arkansas poll but I assume Huck still leads there. Giuliani being out may have helped McCain a little bit, but even more I think some Huckabee voters are coming to the conclusion that Huckabee just can't win this thing. And the unfortunate truth is that a lot of these voters may reject Romney because he's a Mormon, so if they leave Huckabee they have to go to McCain. Ron Paul is still around too, I know, but voters don't seem to enter or leave the Paul camp --- they're either with him or not from the start, period.

There's also a new post-Giuliani Rasmussen poll in New Jersey, which has McCain up on Romney 43-29. Looking at a previous New Jersey polls ( none of which are Rasmussen ) it would seem McCain and Romney have split the former Giuliani voters nearly equally. This is not as big a boost from the Giuliani voters to McCain as some had thought, but it's enough for McCain to still lead very comfortably in the northeastern states where Giuliani was strongest. And as I've said before Rasmussen polls seem to consistently have McCain to low, both in comparison to other polls and real life results.

This is all very bad news for Romney. He can effectively write off all of the northeast ( except Massachusetts ) at this point, since McCain appears to be picking up enough Giuliani voters. His hope might have been that Super Tuesday would produce only regional winners and no clear national winner, with Romney taking the western states, McCain taking the northeastern states, and Huckabee taking the southern states. But now McCain looks poised to take both the northeast and the south.

Romney's best chance for some momentum might be California. According to the latest Rasmussen poll he only trails McCain 32-28 there. But this poll includes Giuliani and again other polling companies have McCain up by much more than 4 points.

Did anyone read all that?

Yup. Thanks. You sum things up nicely.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

Two new "New" polls on the Democrat side!

But first, the national Gallup poll has Obama only trailing Clinton by 4 points now. Just a few weeks ago he trailed by nearly 20 points. Now that's very encouraging for Obama, but unless it translates to some victories in Super Tuesday states where Clinton is running a deluge of ads, then it doesn't mean much.

Now for the "New" polls in Hillary stronghold states, contrasted with previous polls:


New Jersey --- Rasmussen

Jan 15

Clinton 45
Obama 27

Jan 30

Clinton 49
Obama 37


New York --- SurveyUSA

Jan 10

Clinton 56
Obama 29

Jan 31

Clinton 54
Obama 38


Clinton is still going to win these states, but Obama is making up ground in both. That will equal more delegates for him, and if he loses by a small enough margin in either state the press might write about it as an "Obama victory" for coming closer than anyone thought.

It looks like Obama is really winning over the late deciders and maybe a lot of the Edwards voters. If this same trend holds up in California where Clinton leads by far less, then Obama may be able to win California, which at this point appears crucial to his hopes of staying in the race with a realistic shot at the nomination.

Faramond - read your Republican post on the commute to work this morning. It was very helpful. Please keep up the summary posts if you get a chance.

_________________
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh

When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise