There are a couple of numbers floating around today concerning turnout in tonight's Iowa caucuses and the expectations for who will come out victorious there. The thinking from within the campaigns and among outside observers is that high turnout is good for Obama and Huckabee. The Fix over at The Washington Post has cited the 200,000 caucus-goers as the line of demarcation for Obama. If the number tops that figure the advantage goes to the senator from Illinois according to his campaign (see here and here for more). As The Fix points out though, that is based on the idea that the growth in caucus participation is weighted toward Obama when in fact the distribution between the top three Democrats could be more even. The second choice voters are still important in Iowa as well. If their candidates don't reach fifteen percent, who do they back? Some polls seem to indicate Edwards and others Obama (The Edwards link is a little dated, but NBC reported as recently as Sunday night (Dec. 30) that Edwards led for the second choice folks.). Now, if the new caucus participants go for Obama and the supporters of the "non-viable" candidates align behind Edwards, will Hillary sink to third?
On the Republican side, 80,000 is the mark for Romney and Huckabee. The Romney camp has stated that anything over that number of caucus-goers could spell trouble for the former Massachusetts governor. Under that scenario, Huckabee's grassroots rise would likely bring enough new voters to the caucus to provide him with a victory.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
2008 Iowa Caucuses Online
Let's get the 2008 primary season underway with complete access: You can watch C-SPAN's coverage of the Iowa caucuses online tonight here. As of 10:15am (Jan. 3) both links (C-SPAN for the Dems and C-SPAN2 for the GOP) were working.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Happy New Year! It's a Presidential Election Year!
Here we are a day away from the official kickoff of the presidential primary season (Sorry caucuses, but research shows that you take a backseat to primaries--see Gurian. Ah, shameful namedropping.) and things are still up in the air in both parties. It's the beginning for the American electorate (or at least for those that care to show up for the primaries) and the beginning of the end for all but the most viable candidates with the exception of perhaps Dennis Kucinich and Alan Keyes. So what's been happening on the trail since the last update?
1) Paul sent this over today (via the latest Pew Research Poll):
McCain Rebounds In National Poll; Clinton Holds Big Lead
January 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Pew Research Poll
Rudy Giuliani's once solid lead among Republicans nationwide has vanished,
and John McCain -- whose campaign was regarded as dead in the water this
summer -- is back on top with the GOP leaders. McCain has 22 percent support
among Republicans, followed by Giuliani at 20 percent and Mike Huckabee at 17
percent. Mitt Romney follows at 12 percent with Fred Thompson at 9 percent.
The survey was conducted Dec. 19-30 and has a 5 percent margin of error.
Giuliani was counting on the 21 states that vote Feb. 5, but the poll indicates he
is in a virtual tie with McCain in those states.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton maintains her large national lead over
Barack Obama, 46 percent to 26 percent, with John Edwards at 14 percent.
So the national polls indicate McCain is a factor again in the race for the GOP nomination and Hillary is running away with things on the Democratic side. And while the US has the closest thing it has ever had to a national primary day with this year's February 5 Super Tuesday, these nominations still play out on the state level with Iowa and New Hampshire still going first.
2) Let's deal with the Republicans first:
Mitt Romney at one time or another had fairly comfortable leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Mike Huckabee and John McCain have challenged those leads in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively. With McCain basically writing Iowa off to focus on New Hampshire, the two-pronged attack on Romney in both early states is causing the former Massachusetts governor to split time between both states instead of going it one at a time. Here's the deal though. Romney and Huckabee are in essentially the same position as the top three Democrats in Iowa: neck and neck. That one could go either way. In New Hampshire though, McCain is going to rely on independents to once again deliver a victory in the Granite state. However, the LA Times is reporting that Obama could be siphoning off some of that independent support from McCain in the state (I apologize for the link to an Obama supporter blog, but the LA Times has already password protected that article For those that want to read the article from the source, a link is included and registration for the paper's site is just a click away.).
3) Which brings us to the Democrats:
Still locked in a three-way tie in Iowa, Clinton, Obama and Edwards continue to make last minute pitches to potential caucus goers. The thing that is going unnoticed again (as it did in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus) is the second choice voters. Now, the rules of the caucuses stipulate that supporters of candidates receiving less than fifteen percent can move to those other candidates in the upper tier. NBC Nightly News on Sunday (December 31) reported that Edwards was becoming the favorite second choice of those not already aligned with any of the top three candidates. The Edwards camp is also playing up the results of a poll that reallocates based on second choice votes (Edwards enjoys a 41-34-25 edge over Clinton and Obama respectively.). These second choice folks were the same ones that catapulted Edwards to his surprising second place finish in the state in 2004 and that bloc is still one to keep our eyes on tomorrow night.
UPDATE: Kucinich has urged his Iowa supporters to back Obama in the event that he does not reach the necessary fifteen percent.
4) If you haven't already and like to reminisce about campaigns past, be sure to check out CQ's review of presidential nomination campaigns since 1912. It's a nice eight part read.
5) Paul mentioned it before in an earlier email, but let me mention it also: C-SPAN is offering live coverage of the Iowa caucuses again this year. Here's the link. If I find that it will be simulcast online I'll send around that link as well. If they aren't covering it online (and I'm sure Paul will tape it), I'm going to try and DVR it through my media player and briefly post a "pirated" version on either this blog or my website tomorrow night at the conclusion of the coverage. I'll need to check on the space capacity of both first. But I'll find a way to get it up there for the group. Also, I'll be online tomorrow night to post and discuss the results, so come on by at your leisure to talk about all things Campaign '08.
1) Paul sent this over today (via the latest Pew Research Poll):
McCain Rebounds In National Poll; Clinton Holds Big Lead
January 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Pew Research Poll
Rudy Giuliani's once solid lead among Republicans nationwide has vanished,
and John McCain -- whose campaign was regarded as dead in the water this
summer -- is back on top with the GOP leaders. McCain has 22 percent support
among Republicans, followed by Giuliani at 20 percent and Mike Huckabee at 17
percent. Mitt Romney follows at 12 percent with Fred Thompson at 9 percent.
The survey was conducted Dec. 19-30 and has a 5 percent margin of error.
Giuliani was counting on the 21 states that vote Feb. 5, but the poll indicates he
is in a virtual tie with McCain in those states.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton maintains her large national lead over
Barack Obama, 46 percent to 26 percent, with John Edwards at 14 percent.
So the national polls indicate McCain is a factor again in the race for the GOP nomination and Hillary is running away with things on the Democratic side. And while the US has the closest thing it has ever had to a national primary day with this year's February 5 Super Tuesday, these nominations still play out on the state level with Iowa and New Hampshire still going first.
2) Let's deal with the Republicans first:
Mitt Romney at one time or another had fairly comfortable leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Mike Huckabee and John McCain have challenged those leads in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively. With McCain basically writing Iowa off to focus on New Hampshire, the two-pronged attack on Romney in both early states is causing the former Massachusetts governor to split time between both states instead of going it one at a time. Here's the deal though. Romney and Huckabee are in essentially the same position as the top three Democrats in Iowa: neck and neck. That one could go either way. In New Hampshire though, McCain is going to rely on independents to once again deliver a victory in the Granite state. However, the LA Times is reporting that Obama could be siphoning off some of that independent support from McCain in the state (I apologize for the link to an Obama supporter blog, but the LA Times has already password protected that article For those that want to read the article from the source, a link is included and registration for the paper's site is just a click away.).
3) Which brings us to the Democrats:
Still locked in a three-way tie in Iowa, Clinton, Obama and Edwards continue to make last minute pitches to potential caucus goers. The thing that is going unnoticed again (as it did in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus) is the second choice voters. Now, the rules of the caucuses stipulate that supporters of candidates receiving less than fifteen percent can move to those other candidates in the upper tier. NBC Nightly News on Sunday (December 31) reported that Edwards was becoming the favorite second choice of those not already aligned with any of the top three candidates. The Edwards camp is also playing up the results of a poll that reallocates based on second choice votes (Edwards enjoys a 41-34-25 edge over Clinton and Obama respectively.). These second choice folks were the same ones that catapulted Edwards to his surprising second place finish in the state in 2004 and that bloc is still one to keep our eyes on tomorrow night.
UPDATE: Kucinich has urged his Iowa supporters to back Obama in the event that he does not reach the necessary fifteen percent.
4) If you haven't already and like to reminisce about campaigns past, be sure to check out CQ's review of presidential nomination campaigns since 1912. It's a nice eight part read.
5) Paul mentioned it before in an earlier email, but let me mention it also: C-SPAN is offering live coverage of the Iowa caucuses again this year. Here's the link. If I find that it will be simulcast online I'll send around that link as well. If they aren't covering it online (and I'm sure Paul will tape it), I'm going to try and DVR it through my media player and briefly post a "pirated" version on either this blog or my website tomorrow night at the conclusion of the coverage. I'll need to check on the space capacity of both first. But I'll find a way to get it up there for the group. Also, I'll be online tomorrow night to post and discuss the results, so come on by at your leisure to talk about all things Campaign '08.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Just because it's Christmas doesn't mean that the Campaign is on hold
Actually, since I've been traveling (or preparing to) for the last couple days, the little bits of news from the trail have been piling up. It was a bit of a bummer to wake up this morning and find the map of campaign stops blank. I guess the candidates have to take a break sometime, but their recent blitz has taken its toll on voters in New Hampshire. Here are some things that have happened in the last few days:
1) The Campaign Discussion Group Committee of Seven has picked a Clinton-Romney match up for the general election.* The Clinton political machine wrapped up a 5-2 victory over Obama on the Democratic side while Romney was only able to secure a plurality for the GOP nomination. Guiliani was a close second with two votes and Huckabee and McCain got one vote apiece. Depending on when the group reconvenes for pre-/post-Iowa discussions, I thought it would be interesting to hold another "primary" online to allow those who were unable to participate last Friday to weigh in and to see if those who did, changed their minds (Fine, let's put it in the vernacular of the season: flip-flopped). I'll make a stand-alone post later in the week, so stop by and give us your choice for each party (given up-to-the-minute information) and a reason(s) for that choice in the comments section.
2) In the post below, Rob points out that Guiliani can get by on name-recognition alone (probably the only candidate on the GOP side that can make that claim). Adam Nagourney at the New York Times puts together a nice piece here concerning Guiliani's recent issues. The prevailing sentiment from that article is that Guiliani perhaps peaked too early; a charge that could be levied against any of the top four Republican candidates. But as Chris Cillizza put it in putting together his rankings of the candidates, someone has to win the GOP nomination.
3) Paul (via Audrey Haynes) just sent over the results of a Pew Research poll looking at the dynamics of the races on both sides. And given the gap in candidate satisfaction among each party's voters, it should come as no surprise that Democratic voters, are more prone to shifts based on personal or tactical errors while those on the GOP side are focused almost completely on the ideological differences among their candidates. Republicans just don't know their candidates as well as they have in the past (That and there's no "heir apparent" for them this time around.).
4) This from today's AJC isn't news so much but it does reflect the prevailing thinking among the members of the group: that the GOP nomination is the one more likely to go to and be decided at the convention (or past Super Tuesday).
5) Finally, I think we'll all find it interesting that the FEC is stuck in limbo this holiday season as a standoff between the White House and Senate continues over nominees to the commission. The effect that having only two of six members in position will have on the commission and the role it plays in the primary campaign is unknown, but it is a piece of information to file away for a later time.
As always the comments section is open to any and all comers. So have at it.
* The Committee of Seven reserves the right to change its mind at any time and for any reason. And with less than two weeks until Iowa, those changes may come more often than not.
1) The Campaign Discussion Group Committee of Seven has picked a Clinton-Romney match up for the general election.* The Clinton political machine wrapped up a 5-2 victory over Obama on the Democratic side while Romney was only able to secure a plurality for the GOP nomination. Guiliani was a close second with two votes and Huckabee and McCain got one vote apiece. Depending on when the group reconvenes for pre-/post-Iowa discussions, I thought it would be interesting to hold another "primary" online to allow those who were unable to participate last Friday to weigh in and to see if those who did, changed their minds (Fine, let's put it in the vernacular of the season: flip-flopped). I'll make a stand-alone post later in the week, so stop by and give us your choice for each party (given up-to-the-minute information) and a reason(s) for that choice in the comments section.
2) In the post below, Rob points out that Guiliani can get by on name-recognition alone (probably the only candidate on the GOP side that can make that claim). Adam Nagourney at the New York Times puts together a nice piece here concerning Guiliani's recent issues. The prevailing sentiment from that article is that Guiliani perhaps peaked too early; a charge that could be levied against any of the top four Republican candidates. But as Chris Cillizza put it in putting together his rankings of the candidates, someone has to win the GOP nomination.
3) Paul (via Audrey Haynes) just sent over the results of a Pew Research poll looking at the dynamics of the races on both sides. And given the gap in candidate satisfaction among each party's voters, it should come as no surprise that Democratic voters, are more prone to shifts based on personal or tactical errors while those on the GOP side are focused almost completely on the ideological differences among their candidates. Republicans just don't know their candidates as well as they have in the past (That and there's no "heir apparent" for them this time around.).
4) This from today's AJC isn't news so much but it does reflect the prevailing thinking among the members of the group: that the GOP nomination is the one more likely to go to and be decided at the convention (or past Super Tuesday).
5) Finally, I think we'll all find it interesting that the FEC is stuck in limbo this holiday season as a standoff between the White House and Senate continues over nominees to the commission. The effect that having only two of six members in position will have on the commission and the role it plays in the primary campaign is unknown, but it is a piece of information to file away for a later time.
As always the comments section is open to any and all comers. So have at it.
* The Committee of Seven reserves the right to change its mind at any time and for any reason. And with less than two weeks until Iowa, those changes may come more often than not.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Day That Was (12-20-07)
Tom Tancredo is out of the race for the Republican nomination. And he's decided to back Romney. Now why couldn't Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback have held on long enough to make powerful, last minute endorsements prior to Iowa? And who are they endorsing again (I had to look it up: Thompson backs Guiliani and Brownback's for McCain.)?
So the question(s) of the night: 1) What impact does this have and 2) Does it matter anyway?
With Iowa now only two weeks away (Yes, only two weeks left. It's a mad rush and I'm already trying to fend off the primary season withdrawals I expect to have on February 6.), this is a well-timed exit/endorsement. And it looks even better that Tancredo, despite being the longest of long shots, was the one real issue candidate in the race. His position as the "immigration guy" now gives Romney a little something to hang his hat on concerning the issue. And he needs any extra push he can get now in Iowa to keep the Huckabee momentum at bay. How does that play in the general election though should Romney get the nod on the GOP side? Immigration is clearly an important issue for Republicans, but the position(s) posited thus far by the candidates seems to put any of them on the wrong side of the issue among the entire electorate.
Obama is facing yet another sticky issue. The latest question has arisen over the number of "present" votes he made while in the Illinois State Senate. There's yes. There's no. And then there's present. Were they votes made on principle as a sign of protest? "I'm here but I'm not going to vote for/against this piece of legislation until it is in its final form." Or were they votes intended to avoid taking a stance on some important issue. "I'm here, but I'm not touching that bill with a ten foot poll." The former is one thing, but the latter is obviously potentially more damaging. Ah, the pitfalls of being a legislator: actually having to vote on issues that may come back to haunt you later.
One other thing that I have wanted to bring up the last couple of weeks in the "live" discussion that may be better dealt with in this forum is the issue that IHOP is raising over so many states holding primaries and caucuses on February 5. That day happens to be National Pancake Day and the company has gone as far as writing the governors of fifteen states asking them to move their states primaries to different dates. Sadly, someone over in the research department didn't do their homework on this: North Carolina got a letter and the primary there is not until May 6, a day far removed from National Pancake Day.
So the question(s) of the night: 1) What impact does this have and 2) Does it matter anyway?
With Iowa now only two weeks away (Yes, only two weeks left. It's a mad rush and I'm already trying to fend off the primary season withdrawals I expect to have on February 6.), this is a well-timed exit/endorsement. And it looks even better that Tancredo, despite being the longest of long shots, was the one real issue candidate in the race. His position as the "immigration guy" now gives Romney a little something to hang his hat on concerning the issue. And he needs any extra push he can get now in Iowa to keep the Huckabee momentum at bay. How does that play in the general election though should Romney get the nod on the GOP side? Immigration is clearly an important issue for Republicans, but the position(s) posited thus far by the candidates seems to put any of them on the wrong side of the issue among the entire electorate.
Obama is facing yet another sticky issue. The latest question has arisen over the number of "present" votes he made while in the Illinois State Senate. There's yes. There's no. And then there's present. Were they votes made on principle as a sign of protest? "I'm here but I'm not going to vote for/against this piece of legislation until it is in its final form." Or were they votes intended to avoid taking a stance on some important issue. "I'm here, but I'm not touching that bill with a ten foot poll." The former is one thing, but the latter is obviously potentially more damaging. Ah, the pitfalls of being a legislator: actually having to vote on issues that may come back to haunt you later.
One other thing that I have wanted to bring up the last couple of weeks in the "live" discussion that may be better dealt with in this forum is the issue that IHOP is raising over so many states holding primaries and caucuses on February 5. That day happens to be National Pancake Day and the company has gone as far as writing the governors of fifteen states asking them to move their states primaries to different dates. Sadly, someone over in the research department didn't do their homework on this: North Carolina got a letter and the primary there is not until May 6, a day far removed from National Pancake Day.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
And the Campaign Discussion Group goes online
Here are a few things of note for the group in the lead up to our discussion on Friday:
1) Hillary Clinton and John McCain receive the endorsements of the Des Moines Register. Experience seems to be the name of the game for the editorial board at the paper. How else could you explain McCain getting the nod on the Republican side? Iowa hasn't been his strength in either 2000 or 2008. What impact will it have on the race? Well, Edwards got the paper's blessing in 2004 and that certainly didn't hurt him on his way to a surprising second place finish in the state. It is interesting that the write up of the endorsement made mention of this. And I will admit that I'm torn as to how to take the mention of the 2004 endorsement. Is the editorial board saying, "Well, this guy did well here four years ago and he's in this race as a top tier candidate too," or "This guy did well here four years ago and well, he's in third now." What does everyone else think?
2) And speaking of Hillary... Another of her surrogates, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, made the mistake of opening his mouth about Obama (then backed away from them). Fresh off the Bill Shaheen comments about possible drug use in Obama's past, the Clinton camp found another of its backers, Kerrey, highlighting the Illinois senator's middle name (Hussein) and Muslim background following an event with the former first lady. I thought it was the bloggers and members of the new media who were supposed to threaten the power candidates have over their own campaigns, not those within their camp.
3) Mitt Romney is making a rare stop in Georgia today. His swing through South Carolina closes across the border with meeting with the press in Savannah, GA. And who said Feb. 5 wasn't early enough for Georgia. [Blogger raising hand.]
4) Finally, if you don't already be sure and check out these other blogs:
The Fix (by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post): US elections in general are covered.
The Caucus (The New York Times politics blog): Campaign 2008
The Primary Source (by James Pindell of the Boston Globe): All about NH.
Feel free to drop a comment or any news you have by clicking on the link below. This should be fun.
1) Hillary Clinton and John McCain receive the endorsements of the Des Moines Register. Experience seems to be the name of the game for the editorial board at the paper. How else could you explain McCain getting the nod on the Republican side? Iowa hasn't been his strength in either 2000 or 2008. What impact will it have on the race? Well, Edwards got the paper's blessing in 2004 and that certainly didn't hurt him on his way to a surprising second place finish in the state. It is interesting that the write up of the endorsement made mention of this. And I will admit that I'm torn as to how to take the mention of the 2004 endorsement. Is the editorial board saying, "Well, this guy did well here four years ago and he's in this race as a top tier candidate too," or "This guy did well here four years ago and well, he's in third now." What does everyone else think?
2) And speaking of Hillary... Another of her surrogates, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, made the mistake of opening his mouth about Obama (then backed away from them). Fresh off the Bill Shaheen comments about possible drug use in Obama's past, the Clinton camp found another of its backers, Kerrey, highlighting the Illinois senator's middle name (Hussein) and Muslim background following an event with the former first lady. I thought it was the bloggers and members of the new media who were supposed to threaten the power candidates have over their own campaigns, not those within their camp.
3) Mitt Romney is making a rare stop in Georgia today. His swing through South Carolina closes across the border with meeting with the press in Savannah, GA. And who said Feb. 5 wasn't early enough for Georgia. [Blogger raising hand.]
4) Finally, if you don't already be sure and check out these other blogs:
The Fix (by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post): US elections in general are covered.
The Caucus (The New York Times politics blog): Campaign 2008
The Primary Source (by James Pindell of the Boston Globe): All about NH.
Feel free to drop a comment or any news you have by clicking on the link below. This should be fun.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Phase II
Now that the calendar for the 2008 presidential primary season has been officially (and completely?) set, I'm done with this thing for a while, right? Well, states probably won't shift their focus to 2012 until 2009 at the earliest (Arkansas, for example, moved to February 5, 2008 in 2005.), but the campaign presses on and the ramifications of the frontloading this cycle have yet to fully play out. So, this blog will continue to track those developments.
However, I'll also be adding a new feature. Over the holidays, I'll (we'll) take University of Georgia political science professor, Paul Gurian's quadrennial campaign discussion group online. With the Iowa caucuses coming on the heels of the holiday season this cycle and with school still being out, the group regulars will need an outlet. Hopefully regular posts and comments can help bridge that gap. Once the semester gets underway and the group resumes meeting regularly, I plan to use this forum as a means of satisfying the instant historians/political scientists out there. I want to augment our Wednesday discussions (not displace them) with posts and comments the night(s) that primary and caucus results are coming in. Sometimes you can't wait until the day after to weigh in on what's happened, right?
However, I'll also be adding a new feature. Over the holidays, I'll (we'll) take University of Georgia political science professor, Paul Gurian's quadrennial campaign discussion group online. With the Iowa caucuses coming on the heels of the holiday season this cycle and with school still being out, the group regulars will need an outlet. Hopefully regular posts and comments can help bridge that gap. Once the semester gets underway and the group resumes meeting regularly, I plan to use this forum as a means of satisfying the instant historians/political scientists out there. I want to augment our Wednesday discussions (not displace them) with posts and comments the night(s) that primary and caucus results are coming in. Sometimes you can't wait until the day after to weigh in on what's happened, right?
And to think, primary season might have kicked off today
Ah, what could have been. Today is the day New Hampshire's presidential primary could have been held. Sure, it turned out that December 11 was nothing more than a Bill Gardner scare tactic to show the rest of the states considering crowding New Hampshire at the front of the line that the state would not be crowded. But it is fun to think of how different the last two and half weeks would have been if Gardner had announced a move to Dec. 11 back on the day before Thanksgiving. The direction of the race would have taken on a completely different tilt. On the Republican side: Would Huckabee have risen the way he has or would he be peaking at the right time? Would Romney have made his religion speech or held that until the time between New Hampshire and the Iowa caucuses (if it was even necessary)? On the Democratic side: Would the coronation of Hillary Clinton have begun? She's comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and having that contest first would have been a potential boon to her chances. From her campaign's perspective, it sure beats the three-way dead heat that polls in Iowa are showing. Would we even be talking about Obama and Edwards? For this cycle though, we'll have to live with the ho-hum IA-NH-some other states-Super Tuesday progression toward the nominations in both parties.
Other News:
New Hampshire:
Fine, I missed the boat on New Hampshire's announcement to hold their primary on January 8. "And you call yourself Frontloading HQ?" Well yeah, I guess I still do. I will admit that the timing of the announcement was odd. It came across like one of those Friday afternoon leaks of information to the press that presidential administrations have always had an affinity for. It just got lost in the shuffle on a day when folks were preparing to give thanks. Of course those in the Granite State may be thankful that the powers that be (Secretary of State Bill Gardner) didn't rock the boat too much (Dec. 11 primary) triggering reform that could have bumped New Hampshire from its lofty position at the front of the primary line.
Michigan:
After having the January 15 primary struck down by a circuit court, the state appealed the decision only to have the state Court of Appeals affirm the lower court's ruling (that public voter lists should not go exclusively to two private entities, the state parties) on November 16.
Incidentally, that date was to have been the date on which the two parties were to have decided if they were even going to opt into the primary system set up in the initial law. The state then appealed to the state Supreme Court and won a 4-3 decision, putting the January 15 primary back in place. That triggered the New Hampshire announcement later in the afternoon.
Massachusetts:
The state legislature in Massachusetts also made news by moving the state's 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. The bill, SB 2414 made it through the Senate on Nov. 15 (by a vote of 33-5), the House on Nov. 20 (by a vote of 135-17) and was signed by Gov. Deval Patrick on Nov. 26. So, now Massachusetts joins half the country on February 5 for the Super Tuesday extravaganza that will (if you follow the model established in the years since 1988) most likely determine the nominees from both parties.
Other News:
New Hampshire:
Fine, I missed the boat on New Hampshire's announcement to hold their primary on January 8. "And you call yourself Frontloading HQ?" Well yeah, I guess I still do. I will admit that the timing of the announcement was odd. It came across like one of those Friday afternoon leaks of information to the press that presidential administrations have always had an affinity for. It just got lost in the shuffle on a day when folks were preparing to give thanks. Of course those in the Granite State may be thankful that the powers that be (Secretary of State Bill Gardner) didn't rock the boat too much (Dec. 11 primary) triggering reform that could have bumped New Hampshire from its lofty position at the front of the primary line.
Michigan:
After having the January 15 primary struck down by a circuit court, the state appealed the decision only to have the state Court of Appeals affirm the lower court's ruling (that public voter lists should not go exclusively to two private entities, the state parties) on November 16.
Incidentally, that date was to have been the date on which the two parties were to have decided if they were even going to opt into the primary system set up in the initial law. The state then appealed to the state Supreme Court and won a 4-3 decision, putting the January 15 primary back in place. That triggered the New Hampshire announcement later in the afternoon.
Massachusetts:
The state legislature in Massachusetts also made news by moving the state's 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. The bill, SB 2414 made it through the Senate on Nov. 15 (by a vote of 33-5), the House on Nov. 20 (by a vote of 135-17) and was signed by Gov. Deval Patrick on Nov. 26. So, now Massachusetts joins half the country on February 5 for the Super Tuesday extravaganza that will (if you follow the model established in the years since 1988) most likely determine the nominees from both parties.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Still no word out of the Granite State, but there is other news
As New Hampshire continues to play the waiting game as far as when the state plans on scheduling its 2008 (2007?) presidential primary, some other things of note have surfaced.
The Rhode Island Flip-Flop
Who said flip-floppery was the sole domain of junior senators from Massachusetts? Late last week in a session to reexamine vetoed bills (and other bills not passed during the regular session), the Rhode Island General Assembly initially indicated that it would not take up the bill (S1152 - To see the actions taken on the bill search for "1152" here.) moving the state's 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Later on October 30, that decision was reversed and the Democratic-controlled Assembly, not only took up the measure, but passed it when the special session continued on Halloween. However, Republican governor, Donald Carcieri, decided four days later to veto the bill citing difficulties in administering an earlier election.
Michigan in Trouble
And if you thought Michigan going on January 15 was a done deal, hold tight. First, a group of journalists and political consultants filed a lawsuit in county circuit court claiming that the new Michigan primary law was unconstitutional. The new law requires voters to identify themselves and which party ballot they would prefer. The resulting list of voters, according to the law, would then belong exclusively to the two state parties. At dispute is that private entities (the two state parties) have exclusive access to public information (voter lists). The lower court judge then sided with the plaintiff (This link the Ballot Access News has a nice comment from New Hampshire state legislator and Bill Gardner confidante, Jim Splaine.), nullifying the law. Understandably this triggered a scramble within the Michigan legislature. A bill rectifying the problems cited in the lawsuit passed the Michigan Senate 26-9, but Democrats refused to support a motion granting the measure immediate effect. As a result the changes would not have gone through until March, well after the January 15 primary date set forth in the unconstitutional law and now the bill to fix it. So what does all of this mean? Well, not too much really. The initial law has a cut off point of November 16 for the two state parties to decide if they will even use the primary on January 15. The Michigan GOP seems to be firmly set on Jan. 15, but the Democrats (who traditionally use a caucus as their means of allocating delegates) are still undecided as to when they will go and the method they will use. All this unpredictability does it push back the time when New Hampshire will announce and ultimately go. The longer this goes on though, the less likely a Dec. 11 New Hampshire primary is.
Massachusetts to Move?
From the looks of it, Massachusetts may be the latest to add its name to the February 5 juggernaut (see also Ballot Access News). The legislature has until the end of the session (Nov. 21) to get a bill passed moving the 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Democratic governor, Deval Patrick has signaled that he would support such a bill if it appeared on his desk for signature.
Where will New Hampshire end up?
No one really knows. Correction: one person knows. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner. And he'll only say that the decision will be made sometime during November.
The Rhode Island Flip-Flop
Who said flip-floppery was the sole domain of junior senators from Massachusetts? Late last week in a session to reexamine vetoed bills (and other bills not passed during the regular session), the Rhode Island General Assembly initially indicated that it would not take up the bill (S1152 - To see the actions taken on the bill search for "1152" here.) moving the state's 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Later on October 30, that decision was reversed and the Democratic-controlled Assembly, not only took up the measure, but passed it when the special session continued on Halloween. However, Republican governor, Donald Carcieri, decided four days later to veto the bill citing difficulties in administering an earlier election.
Michigan in Trouble
And if you thought Michigan going on January 15 was a done deal, hold tight. First, a group of journalists and political consultants filed a lawsuit in county circuit court claiming that the new Michigan primary law was unconstitutional. The new law requires voters to identify themselves and which party ballot they would prefer. The resulting list of voters, according to the law, would then belong exclusively to the two state parties. At dispute is that private entities (the two state parties) have exclusive access to public information (voter lists). The lower court judge then sided with the plaintiff (This link the Ballot Access News has a nice comment from New Hampshire state legislator and Bill Gardner confidante, Jim Splaine.), nullifying the law. Understandably this triggered a scramble within the Michigan legislature. A bill rectifying the problems cited in the lawsuit passed the Michigan Senate 26-9, but Democrats refused to support a motion granting the measure immediate effect. As a result the changes would not have gone through until March, well after the January 15 primary date set forth in the unconstitutional law and now the bill to fix it. So what does all of this mean? Well, not too much really. The initial law has a cut off point of November 16 for the two state parties to decide if they will even use the primary on January 15. The Michigan GOP seems to be firmly set on Jan. 15, but the Democrats (who traditionally use a caucus as their means of allocating delegates) are still undecided as to when they will go and the method they will use. All this unpredictability does it push back the time when New Hampshire will announce and ultimately go. The longer this goes on though, the less likely a Dec. 11 New Hampshire primary is.
Massachusetts to Move?
From the looks of it, Massachusetts may be the latest to add its name to the February 5 juggernaut (see also Ballot Access News). The legislature has until the end of the session (Nov. 21) to get a bill passed moving the 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Democratic governor, Deval Patrick has signaled that he would support such a bill if it appeared on his desk for signature.
Where will New Hampshire end up?
No one really knows. Correction: one person knows. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner. And he'll only say that the decision will be made sometime during November.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Jan. 3 for Iowa Democrats too
CQPolitics is reporting that yesterday the central committee of the Iowa Democratic Party chose January 3, 2008 as the date for the party's caucuses.
It is now up to New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to finalize the calendar for the 2008 presidential nomination cycle. That decision is supposed to come sometime during the month of November. The ace up the secretary's sleeve is the threat to move the state's primaries to December 11, 2007, tearing down the precedent that delegate selection events should take place in the same year as the general election. Michigan senator, Carl Levin, has issued a counter-threat to have Michigan go on the same date as New Hampshire if the Granite State opts for a date earlier than when Michigan is currently positioned on January 15. This seems like a move to almost dare New Hampshire to move to December 11; a move that would undoubtedly spur talks of reforming the system of determining which states go first or which states go when. New Hampshire and Iowa have the most to lose in that scenario.
It is now up to New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to finalize the calendar for the 2008 presidential nomination cycle. That decision is supposed to come sometime during the month of November. The ace up the secretary's sleeve is the threat to move the state's primaries to December 11, 2007, tearing down the precedent that delegate selection events should take place in the same year as the general election. Michigan senator, Carl Levin, has issued a counter-threat to have Michigan go on the same date as New Hampshire if the Granite State opts for a date earlier than when Michigan is currently positioned on January 15. This seems like a move to almost dare New Hampshire to move to December 11; a move that would undoubtedly spur talks of reforming the system of determining which states go first or which states go when. New Hampshire and Iowa have the most to lose in that scenario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)