Tag Archives: caucuses

Delegate Math 2020 — Iowa

We’re back with that quadrennial feature — delegate math.  As we were reminded by the 2016 election, the United States uses an indirect system for electing president.  Under this system, it’s not the total popular vote that counts.  It’s how that popular vote translates into electoral votes.  Likewise, for the nomination, the task is to turn popular votes into delegates.  Back in 2008, the difference between Secretary Clinton and President Obama was the Obama’s campaign success at figuring out where they could gain an extra delegate here and there.

In a short period of time, voting will start with the Iowa caucuses.  While the number of caucuses have dwindled to almost nothing (Iowa, Nevada, and Wyoming being the only real caucus states left), a caucus is different from a normal primary.  In a caucus, rather than showing up, casting a ballot, and then leaving, voters actually have to take part in a meeting in which voting takes place in the middle of the meeting.  The other key feature of a caucus is that voting is public, not secret.  The participants literally go to different parts of the meeting facility depending upon which candidate they are supporting.  Your friends and neighbors get to see who is heading to the Biden corner/room and who is heading to the Gabbard corner/room.    In addition, for the purpose of any later “recount,” participants sign a pledge of support form for their candidate.

For all the states and territories, the first key number is 15%.  Whether in the precinct caucus itself or at the congressional district level or at the state level, a candidate needs to get 15% of the vote to win delegates.  (Some smaller precincts have higher thresholds because they are only selecting two or three delegates, but 15% is still a good general rule of thumb in looking at polling numbers.)  What makes a caucus different than most primaries is that there will be a chance after the initial division of the precinct into the separate candidate areas for voters to realign. Continue Reading...

Posted in Delegates, Iowa Caucuses | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Delegate Math 2020 — Iowa

2020 Delegate Selection Plans

While it has taken some time to get plans from all of the states and territories, it appears that all of the delegate selection plans for 2020 have now been sent to the Rules and By-laws Committee (you may remember them from 2008) for review.  One of the key issues for this current set of plans has been how many caucus states there will be for 2020.

Caucuses have been a catch 22 for both sides of the establishment vs. activist debate.  On the one hand, the caucus system rewards organization which — at least in the past — gave an edge to the establishment.  On the other hand, in recent cycles, caucuses reward the candidates with the most enthusiastic supporters — which has tended to be the candidates supported by grass roots progressive activists.  On the third hand, the advantage for the activists come from a system that puts obstacles in the place of broad participation — so, while that system, benefits progressive activists, the basic structure is contrary to some basic principles that progressives hold.   As a result, the rules changes after the 2016 cycle were definitely designed to promote movement away from caucuses and to encourage those that remained to take steps to increase participation, and those changes have had an effect.

In 2016, thirty-seven states and two territories (D.C. and Puerto Rico) had government-run primaries.  Democrats Abroad had a party-run primary.  Finally, thirteen states and four territories held a variation on a caucus — some more open than others. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, 2020DNC, Delegates | Also tagged , , Comments Off on 2020 Delegate Selection Plans

Delegate Selection Plans — Wyoming and Update

As more delegate selection plans are posted on-line, we have two states that have confirmed that they are switching from a caucus to a state-run primary.  The first is Minnesota.  Previously, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party had informed the Minnesota Secretary of State that it would be participating in the state-run primary, but we now have the draft plan which bases delegate allocation on the results of the primary.  The other state is Washington.  When we looked at the draft plan for Washington last month, the Washington Democrats had submitted two plans — one based on the caucus and one based on the primary.    Since then, the state of Washington finalized the scheduling of the primary for March (moving it up from May) and, at last weekend’s state committee meeting, the Washington Democrats opted for the primary-based plan.

With these two changes, we were down to a handful of states.  Yesterday, Wyoming released their draft plan for 2020.  Wyoming is keeping with a caucus system using, as in the past, a county caucus as the first step.  While there is not a specific set date in the plan, it does indicate an intent to hold the county caucuses on a weekend in March which would be earlier than the mid-April date from 2016.  To meet the goals of making access to the caucuses easier for voters, Wyoming is tentatively calling for allowing those who are unable to attend the county caucuses to participate by submitting a “surrogate affidavit.”  The exact details of how this will work is still being discussed and is not clear from the current draft.  (The name suggests a proxy vote, but my hunch is that — either at the final plan approved by the state or the final plan as amended in response to the national Rules and By-laws committee requests — it will be more like a typical absentee ballot.) 

The Wyoming plan uses the preference vote at the county caucuses to elect state convention delegates.  It uses a separate preference vote at the state convention to allocate the national convention delegates.  This part of the plan is clearly contrary to the national party rules.  In relevant part, Rule 2.K.5 requires that the delegate allocation be locked in based on the final preference vote at the first determining step.  In Wyoming’s plan, the first determining step is the county caucuses.   As such, assuming that Wyoming does not correct this part of the plan in the final draft, it is likely that the Rules and By-laws Committee will require a change prior to approving Wyoming’s plan.  Given what the other states are doing, Wyoming will probably be given the option of using either the raw vote totals (which they have used in the past) or the state convention delegates won.  As noted in previous posts, using state convention delegates won eliminate the effect of high turnout in some parts of the state but can also penalize candidates who are get just over 15% of the raw vote state-wide (as those candidates are likely to miss the threshold in some of the counties converting 13% of the vote in those counties into 0% of the delegates potentially causing the candidate to slip beneath 15% if the delegates won state-wide).  Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Delegate Selection Plans — Wyoming and Update

Delegate Selection Rules — Nevada

The tour of the draft plans from 2020 caucus states continues this week with Nevada’s draft plan.  For 2020, as it has been for the last several cycles, Nevada — along with Iowa — is one of the two caucus states in the “carve-out period” prior to Super Tuesday.  Most of the caucus states — other than potentially Washington — are small states which means that, after Super Tuesday, their influence is at the margin with most of the attention going to the large primary states.  However, the four carve-out states each have about a week of national attention giving them a significant role in narrowing the field. 

In looking at the draft plans for the caucus states, there have been two major issues that the states have had to address in light of changes to Rule 2.K of the DNC Delegate Selection Rules.  First, what procedures does the state intend to take to increase participation in the caucuses?  Second, how are the votes at the caucuses translated into the allocation of delegates? 

As to the first issue, the 2016 plan in Nevada — recognizing that casino and hotel employees in Las Vegas form a significant bloc of potential caucus participants and that the 24-7 nature of that business would mean that some would-be participants would be working during the time set for the precinct caucuses — also scheduled at-large caucuses at a different time from the regular caucuses to allow shift workers to attend a caucus at a time that did not conflict with their job along with tele-caucuses for those in the military.  The plan assigned each of the at-large caucuses a number of delegates based on expected participation at that location and two delegates to the tele-caucus.  Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegates, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules — Nevada

Delegate Selection Rules for 2020

This weekend, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) held its “Summer” Meeting.  One of the items on the agenda was the RBC’s draft of the various documents that together comprise the rules for the 2020 nomination process.  For first time readers of this site, the Democrats have a multi-step process for drawing up the rules for delegate selection.   Typically, step one is a Festivus-type Commission in which the party head appoints a Commission drawing from all parts of the party for an airing of the grievances from the last cycle.  (Sometimes, this step is skipped when a Democrat wins the White House, particularly when a Democratic incumbent is re-elected.)  That Commission then drafts suggestions.  Step Two is the Rules and By-laws Committee (RBC) of the DNC actually takes those suggestions (and other suggestions by RBC members) and amends the rules from the last cycle to incorporate those suggestions that have the support of the RBC.  Step Three is that the full DNC then reviews and approves the new set of rules and issues them to the state parties.  Step Four is that the state parties then (taking into account both legislative changes in their state and the new national rules) draft the state rules.  Typically, the state rules need to be completed by the late spring/early summer of the year after the mid-term.  Step Five is that the state rules are then submitted to the RBC for review for compliance with the national rules and approval (or directions to make changes to comply with the national rules).

The reports out of the Summer Meeting suggests that the RBC drafts were adopted essentially intact; so what follows is based on the draft plans that were approved by the RBC:  the Call for the 2020 Convention and the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2020 Convention.   (Both linked documents show the changes to the old rules.)   There are several important details/changes in the draft documents from the RBC.  (If you want to skip the technicalities of the rules, what these may mean in practical terms is at the end of this post.)

First, the 2020 Convention will take place in mid-July.  (Call, Preamble).  The DNC will select the site later this year or early next year.  The delegate selection process will end by June 20, 2020.  (Call, Part III).

Second, the formula for allocating delegates to the states remains relatively the same.  A base of 3200 that allocates delegates based on the average of each state’s share of the popular vote (over the last three elections) and the state’s share of the electoral vote.  (Call, Part I.B).  A state can get additional delegates for going later in the process (a bonus for going in April with a larger bonus for going in May or June) and/or being part of a “regional cluster” (a minimum of three neighboring states occurring after the fourth Tuesday in March).  (Call, Part I.C).  Each state also gets 15% over its base delegation (for Pleged Party Leaders and Elected Official Delegates a/k/a PLEOs).   (Call, Part I.D).  For those territories (and Democrats Abroad) that do not have electoral votes, the rules assigns each territory a number of delegates.  (Call, Part I.E).  In terms of the composition within each state’s delegation — 75% of the base delegation is considered to be “district” delegates and 25% of the base delegation is considered to be the at-large delegation.  (Rule 8.C).  The sequence for choosing delegates remains district delegates then PLEO delegates then at-large delegates.  (Rule 8, Rule 10, Rule 11).

Third, “superdelegates” (members of the DNC, elected officials, and certain former party leaders) are now “automatic delegates.”   (Call, Part I.F&G&H).  An automatic delegate can opt to run for a “pledged” delegate slot giving up their automatic status if they win.  (Call, Part I.J).  Those attending the convention as automatic delegates will not be eligible to cast a vote on the first ballot for President, but will be able to vote on later ballots.  (Call, Part IX.C.7.b&c).

Fourth, the existing requirement that candidates for the Democratic nomination must be Democrats is beefed up by requiring candidates to sign an affirmation that they are Democrats.  (Call, Part VI).  In particular, the affirmation is that the candidate is a member of the Democratic Party, that the candidate will accept the nomination if the candidate wins, and the candidate will serve as a Democrat if elected.  (Call, Part VI).

Fifth, the rules for state delegations on the various standing committees of the Convention (Rules, Platform, Credentials) are changed to recognize non-binary genders.  (Call, Part VII.E).  Such individuals do not count toward the requirement that the delegation be balanced between men and women.  (Call, Part VII.E).  A similar change is made to the rules regarding the state delegation to the convent.  (Rule 6.C)

Sixth, there is a change to the rules regarding participation in the delegate selection process.  The current version of Rule 2.C (defining who state parties must allow to participate) refers back to Rule 2.A and its subparts.  The new version just refers back to Rule 2.A.  Whether this change is stylistic only or substantive is unclear.  This question could matter because Rule 2.A.1 requires that a voter’s party preference must be publicly recorded before a person is eligible to participate.  (Currently in states that do not publicly record in which primary a voter opts to vote, the state parties record participants in delegate selection meetings on a form signed by the participants in which the participants self-identify as democrats.)  However, Rule 13.H now requires that — if a state has party registration — any candidate for delegate must be a registered Democrat.

Seventh, in some sections, the rules replace “primary” with “process.”  (Rule 2.F&G).  The rules also now include a provision encouraging the use of a state-run primary, but still permit other “processes” (i.e. caucuses) with certain requirements, including efforts to allow participation by those who unable to attend their local caucus.  (Rule 2.K; Rule 2.K.1&8-9).  One of these new requirements is that caucus states must now record and count the initial first preference vote of attendees and the allocation of delegates to the national convention must be based on and fixed by that initial first preference vote.  (Rule 2.K.4-8).

Eighth, the timing rules remain the same from 2016 — Iowa followed by New Hamphshire followed by Nevada followed by South Carolina in February and everyone else beginning on the first Tuesday in March and all “first determining steps” — primaries and initial caucuses — occurring on or before the second Tuesday in June.

Ninth, in a minor change to the “threshold” for earning delegates, if no candidate reaches fifteen percent, the threshold will be half of the vote total of the candidate who finishes first.  (Rule 14.F).

What will be the practical effect of these changes?  If I understand the intent of these rules and the states are required to comply with them, some of the caucus states may see significant changes to how they announce results and allocate delegates.  For example, for the purpose of electing county or district level delegates, many caucus states have a period of time after the “first preference” vote to allow attendees who support a candidate beneath the fifteen percent threshold to either move to a viable candidate or persuade supporters of other candidates to join them and bump their candidate over fifteen percent.  These states then report how many delegates were won to the next level where the same process repeats with delegates only being allocated at the district and state conventions.  Under the new rules, while these same processes for choosing delegates to county conventions will continue, the initial vote will now be reported and that vote total will be what drives the allocation of delegates.  This change could lead to dramatically different outcomes from the early caucus states.

For example, in Iowa in 2016, Governor O’Malley won 0.54% of the delegates to the county conventions.  That probably translated into getting around 5-10% of the initial vote.  Those voters then went to another candidate. (Did they uniformly go to Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or was their behavior based on precinct-by-precinct deals?)  Imagine how differently the subsequent process would have gone if instead of announcing essential a 50-50 tie, the results had been Senator Sanders of Secretary Clinton winning by 10%.   Or back in 2008, Joe Biden won about 1% of the county convention delegates and Bill Richardson won about 2%.  If you again assume that translates to around 10% of the vote, who did that vote go to on the second round.  If it mostly went to Barrack Obama, think about how a three-way tie between Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and John Edwards would have impacted the future primaries.

The other big change is the one that has gotten the most attention — the loss of the vote on the first ballot for automatic delegates.   The impact of this change may depend on how these delegates act (and how the losing candidates act).  The last two competitive cycles have seen the battle for pledged delegates continue through the last primary.  In 2016, there were no other candidates who won any delegates.  In 2008, however, John Edwards won 32.  In 2004, the early “dropouts” won over 200 delegates.  If we have another close battle that goes to the last primary and no candidate wins an absolute majority (the situation in 2008), then the dropout candidates and the automatic delegates could have an impact on whether the convention goes to a second ballot.  If the dropout candidates release their delegates and request them to vote for the “winner” of the primaries, then things should work as normal (particularly if the automatic delegates make clear what will happen on the second ballot).  On the other hand, if the dropout candidates obstruct the process, there will be a second ballot on which anything could happen.  (My preference would have been for a solution that would have reduced the impact of the automatic delegates, perhaps a half-vote or quarter-vote similar to how some of the territories increase the size of their delegations.   However, that was not an option under the resolution creating this cycle’s commission.)

The change that I, for one, will wait and see what guidance is coming from the RBC is the change to gender balance to reflect the possibility of non-binary genders.  Depending on the guidance, I can see practical issues related to implementation.  For example, in most states, the delegate election process has a separate ballot for men and women.  With non-binary genders in the mix, it seems like the logical process will now be a uniform ballot — at least if a candidate self-identifies as non-binary.  (And in states that elect delegates on the primary ballot, will the Secretaries of State modify the ballot in accordance with the party’s directives — probably since the Republicans do not have separate elections for male and female delegates.)  Given the number of different scenarios for potential finishes, how do those scenarios work in practice.  (Easy if the non-binary candidate finishes in the mix for delegates or clearly finishes outside the mix.  On a uniform ballot, however, it is possible that you will have to skip over male candidates because the male slots are filled to get to female candidates to fill the female slots or vice versa.  What if the non-binary gender candidate is somewhere between the last male slot and the last female slot.)  I also know that, in my state, we have traditionally pre-assigned the “odd” district delegate slot to assure state-wide gender balance after the election of district delegates.  With the potential for non-binary gender candidates competing, I do not know if we will be able to do that (as such candidates might take the “odd” slot in some districts but not others throwing the attempt at balance off when all districts are combined.)

In short, a lot is staying the same, but the changes could make things interesting in another 18 months.

Posted in Delegates, Democratic Party, DNC, Primary Elections, Superdelegates | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Delegate Selection Rules for 2020

2020 Democratic Convention — Unity and Reform Commission — Part 1

While, in one sense, it is very early to talk about who will be President of the United States on January 21, 2021, there are many people who think that process has a lot to do with results.  And the drafting of the rules for 2020 have already started.

On the Republican side, there is no public effort to re-write the rules.  Unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican party has the basic rules (which are less detailed than the Democratic Party rules) for allocating delegates to the national convention within the actual Rules of the Republican Party and require a supermajority of the Republican National Committee to change those Rules.

The Democrats, however, keep the rules for delegate selection separate from the party by-laws.  So every cycle, the rules and by-laws committee drafts those rules and submits them to the full Democratic National Committee for approval.  The starting point for these rules is the rules from the previous cycle.  However, because no rules are perfect, most contested campaigns lead to complaints about the rules.  These complaints in turn have, in most of these cycles, caused the party to appoint a commission to study whatever rules were seen as being a problem in the last cycle and make recommendations.

In response to complaints about the 2016 cycle, the party appointed a “Unity Reform Commission.”   This  Commission has now issued its report.   In the normal course of business, this report goes to the rules and by-laws committee to consider the recommendations contained in the report.  However, the resolution creating the Commission allows the Commission to bring its recommendations directly to the full Democratic National Committee if it is not satisfied with the decisions of the rules and by-laws committee.

Before going into the key concepts in the recommendations, there is one key fact about the delegate selection plan that needs to be mentioned.  The delegate selection plan represents the preferences of the national party.  However, particularly in those states that use a primary, there are parts of the process that are governed by state law.  Typically, the rules require the state parties to take “provable” steps to change the state law to bring it into compliance with the delegate selection rules.  However, even when both parties want the state laws changed or Democrats control the legislature (i.e. both houses and the governor), those running the legislature may not put the same priority on changing state law that the state parties have.  In other words, even if the final delegate selection plan includes all of the recommendations contained in the rules, the state parties may be unable to comply.  Usually, the rules and by-laws committee has approved waiver requests by the state parties when they are unable to comply with the plan due to state law, but those waivers are not automatic.

In this first part,  I want to focus on the participation aspects of the report and its recommendations.  Over the last fifty years, the Democratic Party’s rules have generally pushed for two things on the participation front.  On the one hand, the Democratic Party has required the state parties to take steps to allow all Democrats to participate in the delegate selection process.  On the other hand, the Democratic Party has required the state parties to take steps to limit participation in the process to Democrats.

This second feature of the rules got some resistance this last cycle.  The traditional rule reflects the belief of many in the party that a party should have a core set of beliefs and that the candidates chosen should reflect those core positions.  In most countries with “strong” parties, this concept that a party should pick its own candidates is not controversial.  In the U.S., however, candidates are seen as somewhat separate from the party.  As the rules make it extraordinarily difficult for candidates to run as independents, many who do not strongly identify with a political party think that it is unfair that they are excluded from the process of narrowing down the field to the two main candidates.

The recommendations of the Commission to some degree address both of the participation issues.  On the issue of making it easier for Democrats to participate in the process, the recommendations represent a continuation of the efforts of the past.  On the issue of making it easier for non-Democrats to participate, the rules reflect something of a change.

The encouraging greater participation element of the recommendations are most relevant to the caucus states.  Because each state does things differently, the recommendations will not impact all of the caucuses in the same manner.  First, a caucus-based plan must include a provision for absentee voting.  Second, the first round of voting at each location must be in writing, and the results (raw vote total) of that ballot must be reported to the state party.  (In some caucus states, the local party currently only reports the delegates won in a given caucus.)  Third, the allocation of national convention delegates will be based on the results of that first round of voting.  (In some states, the current rules allocate delegates based on the results of later rounds of voting — either at the initial caucus or at later conventions.)  Finally, the rules encourage state parties to use a government-run presidential primary when state law establishes such a primary (i.e. state parties in states like Washington and Nebraska will have to explain why they are opting for a caucus rather than using the results of the primary).

The recommendations also encourage making it easier for people to vote in the Democratic primary.  The United States Supreme Court has upheld state laws setting registration deadlines and deadlines for changing party registration.  In some states, the deadline for changing party registration predates the deadline for registration by new voters and the deadline for candidates to file (basically requiring voters to choose which party they belong to before knowing who is running or which offices will have competitive primaries).  In many states, once a person has voted in one primary, they may not switch parties in the remainder of the cycle (significant if the state holds its presidential primary on a different date than the primaries for other offices).

Because these issues involve state laws, the recommendations only require the state parties to take steps — lobbying for changes and potentially filing legal challenges — to achieve those results (the recommendations would have the rules and by-laws committee insist on state parties filing legal challenges to demonstrate that they have taken adequate steps to change the laws).  First, state parties should try to change state law to permit same-day registration.  Second, even if there is a registration deadline, the state parties should try to change state law to permit same-day changes of party registration.  Third, even if there is a deadline for changing party registration, the state parties should try to change state law so that the deadline for changing party registration is no earlier than the deadline for registering.  Finally, state parties should take steps to make the public aware of these deadlines as they approach.

Looking at the potential impact of these changes if adopted, the changes to the caucus rules are most significant.  While the report recognizes the usefulness of caucuses in building local parties, the turnout in most caucus states is significantly less than turnouts in party primaries.  (In 2016 in Nebraska, the participation in the binding caucuses was approximately 33,000; the turnout in the non-binding primary was approximately 80,000.)  The reality is that it is much harder for a voter to make (and stay for) a lengthy meeting at a specific time of the day as opposed to being able to vote at whichever time during the day is most convenient.  Rules making it simple for voters to cast an absentee ballot should significantly increase participation.

Additionally, by connecting the ultimate delegate allocation to the first round of voting, the rules changes will alter the delegate allocation in states like Iowa.  Currently, in states like Iowa, there are two big distortions in the results.  First, actual turnout in  a particular precinct is relatively insignificant.  If a precinct has thirty delegates to the county convention, it does not matter if sixty voters show up or six hundred voters are present.  The results are reported as candidate X won 15 delegates, candidate Y won 10 delegates, and candidate Z won 5 delegates.  Second, those delegates are allocated based on the second round of voting.  So in a seven candidate race (likely to occur in early states like Iowa and Nevada), voters who supported the trailing candidate in a given precinct have to switch to a different candidate.  Because a candidate who gets ten percent of the vote in a precinct gets no delegates and her supporters have to switch to one of the other candidates, the reported results overstate the support for the top candidates and understates the support for the other candidates.  Looking at the results in Iowa in 2008, the top three candidates got around 30% of the county convention delegates with the next candidate getting around 3% of the county convention delegates.  It is likely, however, that a candidate who got enough second round votes in some precincts to win county convention delegates probably had a large number of first round votes in precincts in which he fell short of 15%,  The second tier candidates may still fall short of the 15% state-wide or in the individual congressional district to win delegates, but a candidate who gets 12% while the winner is only getting 22% is more likely to last to Super Tuesday than a candidate who got 2% while the winner is getting 30%.

Because the rules on registration require state action, I am dubious on much progress taking place.  I think the caucus states can probably choose to allow same day registration/change of party affiliation at mass meetings.  A state party could probably win a case seeking an open (everybody) or a semi-closed (party members and independents)  or a closed (party members only) primary as the cases uphold the rights of parties to define who can participate in their processes.  On the other hand, state parties would probably lose a case on the registration process in light of cases finding that states have the right to protect election integrity.

Even if state parties can obtain changes to the registration rules, it is less easy to predict the impact of such a change.  It is pretty clear that the current caucus system brings in a more activist group of voters — tending more liberal on the Democratic side and more conservative on the Republican side — than a primary election would.  So the changes to the caucus system should benefit the better known establishment candidates.  Additionally, for the reasons noted above, some candidates may last longer under these rules and win more national convention delegates than they would have under the current rules.  The changes to the registration system, however, will be very election specific (as the example of New Hampshire, a state that does allow party switching demonstrates).   In some elections, moderate independents will opt to take a Republican ballot while in other cycles moderate independents will opt to take a Democratic ballot — depending on a variety of factors.

Participation is generally a good thing.  But as we saw this past year with the various special election, the level of turnout has an impact on the results.  And in the nomination process, there is always the question of whether voters loosely affiliated with the party share the ideals of the party.  As the Republicans saw in 2016, it is possible for outside candidates to use the primary process to engage in a hostile takeover.  In the Democratic Party, one check on such a hostile takeover has been the role of the unpledged delegate a/k/a superdelegates.  The suggested changes to those rules will be the focus of the next part.

 

 

 

Posted in Delegates, Democratic Party, DNC, Elections | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on 2020 Democratic Convention — Unity and Reform Commission — Part 1

Primary End Game — Democrats

Yesterday, I took a look at the role of uncommitted delegates and the selection of delegates (particularly those pledged to withdrawn candidates) could influence the end game of the Republican nomination process — particularly in how many pledged delegates Donald Trump will need to win to have a shot at getting nominated.    Today,  I take a look at similar issues for the end game of the Democratic nomination.  Because the Democratic party uniformly gives candidates a significant role in delegate selection, the issue for the Democratic party is uncommitted delegates (barring an upset in the remaining primaries, entirely automatic delegates) and the later stages of some caucus states.  Again, the starting point will be the Green Papers count of hard versus soft delegates.

Posted in Bernie Sanders, Delegate Count, Delegates, Hillary Clinton, Philadelphia, PHLDNC2016, Primary and Caucus Results, Superdelegates | Also tagged , , 1 Comment