ELECTION 2016 BY THE NUMBERS - AFTER THE INITIAL SKIRMISHES, STRATEGY DOMINATES

Bernie Sanders "creamed" Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, yet each candidate received the same number of delegates (once "super delegates" were added. This outcry from Bernie Sanders supporters was heard everywhere, and it underscores the fact that many voters don't understand how the selection of a party nominee works in our election process. During the initial stages coming in 2nd or 3rd may produce intangible advantages and reflect a candidate's potential for the benefit of sponsors. However, going forward, what determines advance on the road to their party's nomination is delegate count. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz flaunted their virtual tie for 2nd place in South Carolina, but Donald Trump collected all 50 pledged delegates from that state. It is perhaps worthwhile to attempt to untangle some of the elements candidates consider when strategizing how to compete for that prized nomination.

Every state in the union participates in the nomination process. They employ two different methods to arrive at their choices, a primary election or a caucus. A primary is a statewide voting process in which voters cast secret ballots for their preferred candidates, a method most of us have become accustomed to. However, there are still ten states using a caucus system, which was once the most common way of choosing presidential nominees. A caucus is a system of local gatherings where voters decide which candidate to support and select delegates for nominating conventions. Today Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Wyoming and Iowa still use this system. The selection taking place in each state is for delegates to each party's nominating convention, both of which this year are held late July. And here comes the rub, parties, Democrats more than Republicans, distinguish between "pledged delegates" and "super delegates."

Pledged delegates are chosen with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. Super delegates are delegates seated at the convention who choose who they want to vote for. For Democrats these are party insiders who aren't bound by the popular vote and can support any candidate they choose. They include all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Democrats count 712 super delegates nation-wide, making up about 30% of the total delegates needed to win the nomination. This obviously reflects a concerted effort by party principals to have a measure of control over the process. In a close election super delegates can snatch a victory away from a candidate with numerically more "voted" delegates. Republicans generally have three unpledged or unbound delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. They are supposed to vote according to the results  of primary elections in their state.

A Democratic candidate needs to amass 2,383 delegates to secure the nomination. Thru the Nevada caucus Bernie Sanders collected 51 pledged delegates and 19 super delegates. Hillarfy Clinton could count 52 pledged delegates, but her organization has been able to "secure" support of 451 super delegates, bringing her thus far 18% closer to the needed delegate count than Senator Sanders. On the Republican side Donald Trump is well ahead in the delegate count, tallying 100% better than his combined opposition. For him the numbers that matter are not just delegates, but the number of his so-called establishment opponents in the race, which tend to divide "inside" votes among themselves.

Under Republican rules, until March 15 each state's slate of delegates is selected proportionate to each candidate's performance. Their magic number to win the nomination is 1,237. After March 15 states can use a "winner-take-all" process. There are few of those. Only Florida, Ohio and Arizona use this method. However, many of the next states in the Republican contest have rules that require candidates to win a minimum percentage of the vote to claim delegates. That increases the pressure on Donald Trump's opponents. For instance, among the Super Tuesday states on  March 1, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Vermont and Tennessee all impose a 20% vote threshold, while Oklahoma and Arkansas have dropped this minimum to an imposed 15% before a candidate can receive any delegates. All of this could benefit the party's frontrunner who has thus far clocked between 35% and 45% of the vote in states he won. Recent cycles have demonstrated that the Republican candidate leading the delegate count at the point of the calendar where 50% of the delegates have been allocated goes to the nomination. That point will be reached by the middle of March.

All of this may still be as clear as mud. What is clear, is that going forward the tactics used to enhance delegate collection will become more important than the size of the candidate's support in each state. On Saturday February 27 the Democrats will vote in their South Carolina primary with 57 delegates at stake. Tuesday March 1 features "Super Tuesday" a contest involving 13 states (9 primaries and 4 caucuses) where Democrats will compete for 990 delegates, and Republicans will divide 660. At the end of that day Democrats will have "divided" 49% of the number of delegates needed for the nomination, while Republicans will already be at 64%. To the candidates and their followers the mantra should be "keep your eye on the prize," the conventions are only 5 months away.

JUSTICE SCALIA'S DEATH CHANGES EVERYTHING!

On October 5, 2015 journalist Kimberly Atkins published an article in the Boston Herald headlined: Next President will name as many as four Supreme Court justices." While this fact has hung over the 2016 election from the beginning, its consequences have not developed much traction until Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on February 13 at a resort in West Texas. The political world instantly exploded as activists on opposite sides of the political spectrum began arguing about who should nominate Scalia's replacement, and when that nomination should be submitted.

Justice Antonin Scalia, nominated by President Reagan in 1986, was the champion of "originalims," a theory of constitutional interpretation that seeks to apply the understanding of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. Scalia was the unquestioned dominant leader of the conservative majority on the court. Given current political realities, and what political leaders believe is at stake, the 5-4 conservative majority could quickly turn around if President Obama manages to replace Scalia with a Justice more to his liking.

The Republican opposition argues that a lame-duck President should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. They submit that this should be left to the next President. Every Republican candidate for President subscribes to this position, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the nomination process should be delayed until the next President is inaugurated. Presidential candidate Ted Cruz, a sitting member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would need to send the nomination to the floor of the Senate for discussion and an up or down vote, vowed to filibuster any Supreme Court nomination President Obama would submit. Whether the obstructionist strategy will ultimately succeed may depend on what candidate Obama submits, and to what extend Senators facing tough re-election battles judge that supporting this strategy could backfire with independents and moderate  Republicans in their states.

Not surprisingly, Democratic candidates for their party's nomination have called Republican calls to block any nomination by President Obama "outrageous." Hillary Clinton asserts that 'the Senate has a constitutional responsibility that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons." She continued: "The longest successful confirmation process in the last four decades was Clarence Thomas and that took roughly 100 days. There are 340 days until the next President trakes office, so that is plenty of time." Her rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, agrees. He believes that GOP threats are beyond his comprehension, and that Democrats need to rally people for leverage. Having said all this, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's presumed successor, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, in a speech before the American Constitution Society mid 2007, opined that the Senate did not only have the right but the duty to block Supreme Court nominees from  a lame-duck President. The only difference between then and now is the party controlling the White House and the Senate.....

Florida Senator Marco Rubio contends that it has been 80 years since a lame-duck President made a Supreme Court nomination. Actually, the last "lame-duck nomination" came from President Reagan when he presented Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1987, who was confirmed unanimously in 1988 - an election year. Prior to that nomination at least 13 justices have been confirmed during election years. All of the others were submitted prior to World War Two, when the politics of the Supreme Court were not as ideologically polarized as they are today. This polarization is at the crux of the current debate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among others, has expressed a concern that the court was losing its independence and is being considered a political branch of the government. Several years ago she pointed at  the growing divisiveness of the judicial nomination process as evidence that political leanings were working their way into the system.

This entire discussion begs the question how the ramifications of Justice Scalia's death will impact the election process currently under way. Assuming that President Obama won't be able to muster confirmation of a nominee, the White House, the Senate and the Supreme Court are now up for grabs. Whoever controls the first two could be in a position to change the ideological make-up of the court for a long time to come. Besides, three other justices are in their late seventies and early eighties - all of whom might be replaced during the coming eight years. Electability of each party's nominee, if it was not an issue already with party regulars, now becomes more crucial. On the Republican side Ted Cruz, given his background as Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Texas Law School, and his clerking for Chief Justice William Renquist in 1996, may start getting an edge. After all, Donald Trump is not really looked at knowing much about constitutional law. On the Democratic side Bernie Sanders may become an electoral liability as salient issues begin to shift.

Senator Cruz commented that: "If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidate, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty, everyone of those things hang in the balance." Party operatives like South Carolina Senator  Lindsey Graham tends to agree with the message, not the messenger. He said: "I hope conservatives will understand this is a wake-up call. You better nominate somebody who can get 270 electoral votes - Donald Trump can't, Ted Cruz can't." Both parties are hoping that a dynamic nominee will also help them claim a plurality in the U.S. Senate where this year 34 Senators are up for re-election (24 Republicans and 10 Democrats.)

Needless to say that, although the stakes really have not changed, their intensity, focus and perceived importance certainly have. Justice Scalia's death injected a renewed sense of urgency into the process of electing a new leader of the free world. Watch for the fireworks, This year's election just became more interesting.

POLITICS - IS IT MORE THAN HOLLYWOOD FOR UGLY PEOPLE?

"Have you had enough yet?" During a recent trip across country this question, referring to the ubiquitous coverage of all aspects of a raucous election cycle, came up over and over again. I suppose it is worth recognizing that not everyone is a political junkie, and that many are becoming frustrated trying to weed through the incessant barrage of political analyses projected by the national media. While we understand that in our system of government elections are a necessary by-product, pundits have historically and traditionally commented on candidates, the offices they aspire to, and politics in general with varying degrees of criticism, cynicism, sarcasm, or reduced these to ridicule. In a sense the composition of the current electoral field of candidates underscores that tradition. Many platforms tend to express criticism of rather than support for how our government works. Our politicians, what they do and why, are not always revered, especially during an election. To be fair, the competitive nature of the process feeds into the degenerfation of the dialogue.

Otto Von Bismarck, arguably the premier European politician of his time, in an 1867 interview when he was still Prime Minister of Prussia before becoming Germany's first Chancellor, said "Politics is not an exact science. Politics is the art of the possible." Bismarck, who dominated European affairs from 1860 to 1890, knew what he was talking about. Dubbed the Iron Chancellor, he engineered a series of wars that unified German states into a powerful empire. Of course, Bismarck was not the first nor the last personality coining a memorable sound-bite that resonated historically. Some more or less profound observations and comments about politics and its practitioners have entered the literature. Some of these have been indicative of a prevalent mindset during the period they were uttered, and some still appear applicable today. Here is a sampling of these:

Well before anyone in this country thought about these things, we heard from  Plato, who said: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Much later, during the Italian Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli observed that "Politics have no relation to morals," something some of our current contestants apparently subscribe to as well. Our early history recorded pronouncements like: Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct," and "most bad government has grown out of too much government." Both of these attribuited to Thomas Jefferson. And who does not remember Abraham Lincoln' statement that "the ballot is stronger than the bullet."

Mark Twain's sharp tongue and quick wit featured prominently during the second half of the 19th Century. Most of his political commentary was very critical of politics and politicians. Some samples: Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself," or: "Politicians like diapers need to be changed frequently, and for the very same reason." Not to be outdone, humorist Will Rogers transitioned into the 20th Century with statements like: "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." "Pol;itics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated." "Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock."  And: "Everything is changing. People are taking their commedians seriously and the politicians as a joke."

Early 20th Century political and social commentary appeared to have had a more serious or outright dour content - although some of this might just be a reflection of my choices. Taking a cue from Machiavelli, Adolph Hitler pronounced: "What good fortune for those in power that people don't think," and: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." We all know what those observations led to. The journalist, satirist and cultural critic H.L. Mencken appears to have hooked into some of Hitler's expressions when he said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

A wealth of memorable quotes completed the century. There was Charles De Gaulle: "Politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians." Winston Churchill: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  Milton Friedman: "If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." Ronald Reagan: "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." He also said: " I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." Paul Begala: "Politics is Hollywood for ugly people." And finally a quote reminiscent of the personal attacks during this year's election: " In a recent fire Bob Dole's library burned down. Both books were lost, and he hadn't even finished coloring one of them." (Attributed to Jack Kemp.)

Food for thought? Let's be thankful that we live in a country where we can actually say these things with impunity.