Yes, I think this warrants another discussion. Primary season is right around the corner. While the nomination is rarely decided at this point, it seems obvious that this nomination is different from almost any before. Of course, the number of candidates should start dropping after Iowa, but I think it's time to look at the actual process and make some predictions.

Iowa and NH are perceived as big because they are early, but are not necessarily indicators of a winner. Sometimes, it's a surprise second or third who ends up winning. Super Tuesday is looked at as the big day. Usually one or two candidates are left standing. So what happens?

This isn't about who you think the best candidate is. It's about who will win: why and how.

Here's the schedule, notated with information on the specific primary/caucus and whether it's a WTA system.

*Edit: Correcting dates, delegates, etc. Note: Some state primaries have been penalized delegates at the convention. A Full list is available here
Monday, January 3rd; 28 Delegates Up
Iowa 28 Caucus- Closed

Tuesday, January 10th; 12 Delegates Up
New Hampshire 23 Primary/Proportional -Modified

Sat., January 21 Sat., 25 delegates
South Carolina 25 delegates Open Primary

Tuesday, January 31st; 50 delegates Up
Florida 50 -Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed

Saturday, Febriary 4th: 52 Delegates Up
Nevada 28 Caucus Closed
Maine 24 nonbinding caucus

Tuesday, February 7th; 75 Delegates Up
Colorado 35 nonbinding caucus
Minnesota 40 caucus

Tues, February 28: 59 Delegates Up
Arizona 29 semi closed primary
Michigan 30 open primary

Sat., March 3, 43 Delegates Up
Washington 43 binding caucus

Tue., March 6, 2012 (Super Tuesday) 437 Delegates
Alaska 27 binding caucus
Georgia 76 open primary
Idaho 32 binding caucus
Mass. 41 semi-closed primary
North D 28 nonbinding caucus
Ohio 66 open primary
Okla 43 closed primary
Tenn 58 open primary
Vermont 17 open primary
Virginia 49 open primary



Alabama 50 Primary/Winner-Take-All Open
California 172 Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed
Connecticut 28 Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed
Delaware 17 Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed
Georgia 75 Primary/Winner-Take-All Modified
Missouri -53 Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed
New Jersey 50 – Primary/Winner-Take-All – Modified
New York - 95 Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed
Oklahoma - 43 Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed
Tennessee - 58 Primary/Winner-Take-All (by district) Open
Utah - 39 Primary/Winner-Take-All Modified

Saturday, February 11th; 44 Delegates Up
Louisiana - 44 Primary/Proportional Closed

Tuesday, February 14th; 56 Delegates Up
Maryland 37 Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed
Virginia - 49 Primary/Winner-Take-All Open

Tuesday, February 21st; 62 Delegates Up
Hawaii 20 Caucus Closed
Wisconsin - 42 -Primary/Winner-Take-All Open

Tuesday, February 28th; 66 Delegates Up
Arizona - 57 Primary/Winner-Take-All Closed
Michigan - 59 – Primary/Winner-Take-All Open

Tuesday, March 6th; -335Delegates Up
Minnesota 40 Caucus Open
Massachusetts - 41 Primary/Proportional Modified
Ohio - 66 Primary/Winner-Take-All Modified
Rhode Island - 19 – Primary/Proportional – Modified
Texas - 152 Primary/ Winner-Take-All (by district) – Open
Vermont - 17 Primary/Winner-Take-All Open

Tuesday, March 13th; 37 delegates Up
Mississippi 37 Primary/Winner-Take-All (by district) Open

Tuesday, March 20th; 105 Delegates Up
Colorado - 36 Caucus Closed
Illinois - 69 Loophole Primary Open

Tuesday, April 24th; 72 Delegates Up
Pennsylvania 72 Loophole Primary Closed

Tuesday, May 8th; 132 Delegates Up
Indiana 46 Primary/Winner-Take-all Open
North Carolina 55 Primary/Proportional – Modified
West Virginia 31 Primary/Winner-Take-All Modified

Tuesday, May 15th; 64 Delegates Up
Nebraska - 35 Advisory Modified
Oregon 29 Primary/Proportional – Closed

Tuesday, May 27th; 113 Delegates Up
Arkansas 36 Primary/Proportional Open
Idaho - 32 Primary/Proportional Open
Kentucky - 45 Primary/ Proportional Closed

Tuesday, June 7th; - 57 Delegates Up
Montana - 26 Primary/ Winner-Take-All Open
New Mexico -23 Primary/Proportional Closed
South Dakota 28 Primary/Proportional Closed

Monday, August 27th Thursday, August 30th, 2012;
40th National Republican Convention in Florida

Need to Nominate 1,211
(available) 2,421
Total 2,421

It really is very strange that the process is spread out over such a long timeframe. That's almost 6 months between Utah and South Dakota, albeit the candidate could well be decided by February.

One thing that strikes me, looking at that list, is the number of southern states which are WTA. I know that there are some massive non-southern states that are also WTA like California and NY, but nevertheless there do seem to be an awful lot of votes to be had in the south during the first month of voting from states where you have to win to get anything at all. By Feb 14th you have:
Sth Carolina 50
Florida 99
Alabama 50
Georgia 75
Oklahoma 43
Tennessee 58
Louisiana 44
Virginia 49

That's 468 votes up for grabs just from southern states, and in all of these states all of the votes will go to a single candidate. Furthermore only 2 of these states will be holding an open primary, the remainder are closed primaries except for Georgia which is 'modified' (I don't know what that means). My understanding of the American political geography is that the southern states tend to be far more conservative than the norm, so surely this favours a more conservativce candidate ? If any of them can get their act together and establish a firm lead among the conservative voters then there's the potential to sweep all, or at least most, of these southern states and pick up a commanding lead in the delegate stakes by the end of Feb.

Here's an [url=
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html#Modi08]explanation[/url]of Georgia's modified primary. It's what I thought it was--not completely closed to non-party members, but not open. Arizona is like that, but it's listed as closed. You can vote in 1 primary as an independent voter.


Remember that this is a party primary, not an actual election. So the long spread is due to that. The point is to highlight the different regional/philosophical factions. The southern stretch early does usually help a more conservative candidate.

Sassenach wrote: If any of them can get their act together and establish a firm lead among the conservative voters then there's the potential to sweep all, or at least most, of these southern states and pick up a commanding lead in the delegate stakes by the end of Feb.

The problem with this Sass is that there are an equal number of WTA states in the non-south.

New Hampshire 23
Nevada 23
California 172
Connecticut 28
Delaware 17
Missouri -53
New Jersey 50 –
New York - 95
Utah - 39

This is a total of 500 delegates. These states tend toward the more moderate Republicanism so assuming the moderate Republican vote consolidates around one candidate as well, your hypothetical candidate is actually down by 32 in the delegate count.

With Ron Paul winning landslides throughout California, I don't think that helps your argument. The last Republican to win California in the general election was Ronald Reagan--not the most "moderate" of Republican presidents--economically speaking. Northeastern voters do tend towards a more moderate candidate (as does florida), but that's just not true in the west.

Well NH isn't WTA according to Jeff's schedule, and I kind of assumed that Utah and Missouri would probably tend to be similar to the southern states in terms of their preference for conservative candidates but I didn't list them because it didn't fit with the 'southern states' thing I was looking at. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

edit: Oh, and obviously I excluded Utah because this is certain to go to either Romney or Huntsman no matter what their policy positions.

Guapo wrote:With Ron Paul winning landslides throughout California.

Wake up Jeff! Wake up! You're dreaming

Ron Paul isn't going to get more then 1% of the vote

Guapo wrote: The last Republican to win California in the general election was Ronald Reagan--not the most "moderate" of Republican presidents--economically speaking.

Hence the reason they will go for the more moderate candidate. Do you really think California Republicans are going to vote for a hard core social conservative over a more moderate Republican?

Sassenach wrote:Well NH isn't WTA according to Jeff's schedule

It is but even then, the winner will lose at most 14 (assuming winner of NH wins by 40%) so that still puts the non-southern candidate up by 18.

Sassenach wrote:and I kind of assumed ... Missouri would probably tend to be similar to the southern states in terms of their preference for conservative candidates but I didn't list them because it didn't fit with the 'southern states' thing I was looking at. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

I guess first we have to define what you mean by more conservative. I assumed you are talking about social conservatives when talking about southern conservative. In that case you are probably correct about Missouri but then Florida is not a "southern" state. It's heavily northern transplants. In 2008, the top three vote getters were McCain, Romney and Guiliani. Three guys not known for their social conservatism. The most socially conservative candidate was Huckabee and he came in a distant 4th.

So by that metric, Missour adds 53 to your hypothetical southern conservative but Florida will most likely add 99 to my hypothetical moderate Republican. Which is a net gain of 46 for my guy. Which then gives him a 61 point lead.

Sassenach wrote:edit: Oh, and obviously I excluded Utah because this is certain to go to either Romney or Huntsman no matter what their policy positions.

I agree and I was considering either one of them to be my hypothetical moderate Republican.

Guapo wrote:Here's the schedule, notated with information on the specific primary/caucus and whether it's a WTA system.

Honest question: I heard on Meet the Press on Sunday that the the Republican primaries had been changed to proportional from winner take all, and during the roundtable they were saying that people like Ron Paul will be accruing delegates throughout so he'll have less of a reason to drop, making for a long campaign season. Is that wrong? Your table suggests that most are Winner Take All.

My understanding is the party said any primaries after March 6 but before April 1st must be proportional while anything after April 1st can be winner take all.

However, this also included no primaries between Feb 1 and March 5 except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. So what changes are happening with all the states "jumping the queue" so to speak I am not sure what changes this has caused.

White said their physical relationship ended about eight months ago, prior to Cain's announcement that he was running for president, WAGA said. It cited four months of White's cell phone bills containing 61 calls or text messages to a number White said was Cain's as evidence that the relationship existed. One such call occurred at 4:26 a.m., the station said.

When WAGA texted the number, Cain called back and acknowledged that he knew White but had simply been trying to help her financially, Russell, the reporter, said.

source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/politics/cain-accusation-affair/index.html

Have you seen the Ides of March with Ryan Gosling and George Clooney? There's a scene with a cell phone message that is just about as dramatic.
If Cain wasn't done before, and he probably was, he surely is now.

For republicans its better Cain pull out, and not contribute to fragmenting the vote in the first three primaries. If he hangs in he'll still hold single digit support no matter what the sexual escapades. The worst thing in the early going is that 4 or even 5 candidates have enough support to hang in poast the first 4 events. With delegate proportionality, the more alternatives to Mitt there are the less likely they are to coalesce around Mitt. Which could lead to Gingrich.
(When you say it like that it sounds like some kind of skin condition.)

rickyp wrote:If Cain wasn't done before, and he probably was, he surely is now.

For republicans its better Cain pull out, and not contribute to fragmenting the vote in the first three primaries. If he hangs in he'll still hold single digit support no matter what the sexual escapades. The worst thing in the early going is that 4 or even 5 candidates have enough support to hang in poast the first 4 events. With delegate proportionality, the more alternatives to Mitt there are the less likely they are to coalesce around Mitt. Which could lead to Gingrich.
(When you say it like that it sounds like some kind of skin condition.)

I wasn't voting for Cain anyway. He lost me somewhere between Uzbekibekistanstan and Libya.

However, I see no evidence that he has done anything wrong. When this sort of info pops up this fast, I think we ought to be a bit circumspect regarding the situation:

Before the interview, Fox learned that she had filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled. The station also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and several eviction notices in the Atlanta area over the past six years.

The station also reported that Ms. White had a former business partner who once sought a “stalking temporary protective order” against her for “repeated e-mails/texts threatening lawsuit and defamation of character.” The case was dismissed, but it was followed by a libel lawsuit against Ms. White. A judge entered an order against Ms. White because she failed to respond to the lawsuit, Fox reported.

I'm not saying she is lying. I am saying there is little reason to take her story as fact . . . yet.

I agree it's neither here nor there with Cain as far as I'm concerned. I'd just note that what you quoted does tend to fit with the kind of woman who carries on with married men for years and years. He's politically finished regardless. Hopefully he can get his personal life back together and uncover the Republican plotters that did this to him.

Now they have Newt...the most logical pivot ever after an affair scandal.

Neal Anderth wrote:I agree it's neither here nor there with Cain as far as I'm concerned. I'd just note that what you quoted does tend to fit with the kind of woman who carries on with married men for years and years.

I agree ... she's also the kind of person who rats out a friend. I don't think she has a handle on her own motivations.

Neal Anderth wrote:Now they have Newt...the most logical pivot ever after an affair scandal.

what could you mean? I hear that he's a proper Catholic gentleman.