Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Illinois in 2012

Yesterday we took a glance at the prospects for presidential primary change in 2012 in Oklahoma. Today FHQ shifts the focus northward to the newly inaugurated president's home state of Illinois. While the Sooner state has a new bill before its legislature to place more of the financial burden of the conducting the state's presidential primary to the parties, Illinois is taking the Arkansas approach (potentially moving to a later date) but for different reasons. The experiment in Arkansas was one in which the presidential primary was not only moved but split off from the Natural state's primaries for state and local offices. Illinois opted instead to move its all-everything primary from mid-March to the first week in February in 2008. That made for an extremely early congressional primary (and lengthy general election campaign).

But State Senator Dale Rissinger has introduced legislation to move everything the primaries for state and local offices back in 2012 (SB46). No, not back into March as in 2004, but all the way back to June at the end of the process. In Arkansas the frontloading move was a failure both financially and from an influence standpoint, but in Illinois, the delegate boost the state legislature foresaw the state's primary potentially handing its native son actually came to pass. Obama needed those delegates on Super Tuesday to stay even with the delegate advantages Hillary Clinton was getting in places like New York and California during the onslaught of delegate selection events on February 5.

[Editor's note: The following was a hypothetical scenario analysis included when it looked as if this bill included the presidential primary in the move to June as well. This bill however, simply moves the primaries for state and local offices while leaving the presidential primary in February.]

And it is interesting that Republicans on the state legislative level are pushing these plans forward. In Arkansas there doesn't appear to be any ulterior motive, but in Illinois [It is Illinois after all.] a scenario can be envisioned where a vulnerable President Obama gets a primary challenge and doesn't have a home state to lean on with it falling at the tail end of primary season. [Consider, for example, President Carter's administration in the lead up to 1980 persuading Georgia and Alabama to move up to where Florida was in 1976 to counteract the likely boost Ted Kennedy would have gotten in the northeastern primaries in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. It has happened.] Is that likely? Probably not, especially if the Democrats want to have any hope of winning a general election under such circumstances. But that's something to keep tabs on as this bill navigates the Illinois senate.

Tomorrow: New Jersey.


Recent Posts:
Inauguration Day

Oklahoma in 2012

End of Unannounced/Unintended Hiatus

Inauguration Day

I would be remiss if I didn't say at least something of the day the United States just encountered. FHQ often focuses on the means, but today was about ends. Today was one of those days where the means come to their ends; a day where campaigns and elections come to fruition.

Everyone can hope on day one, but the real work begins tomorrow.

...and no, I don't necessarily mean on initial re-election efforts. Well, 2012 is in the back of my mind, I suppose.


Recent Posts:
Oklahoma in 2012

End of Unannounced/Unintended Hiatus

A One State Presidential Election in 2012?

Monday, January 19, 2009

Oklahoma in 2012

The bills regarding the presidential primaries of 2012 are already starting to be filed in several state legislatures across the country. Arkansas has been talking for almost a year about moving its newly established presidential primary from February back to May to coincide with its primaries for state and local offices. But now several states are starting to look at not only the timing of these contests but other issues as well. This week we'll look at three such states: Oklahoma, Illinois and New Jersey.

One thing we can say about states that attempt to move so early in the process is that they often aren't successful. Between 2000 and 2002, for instance, there were 26 bills before state legislatures that would have changed the timing of those states' delegate selection events, but only one was successful according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 2003, though, there were 23 bills, of which, eight passed. One out of every three bill proposed passing in the year before the primaries are to be conducted is far better than the one in twenty-six chance the bills prior to 2003 had. The period between 2004 and 2008 was much the same. There was an unusual amount of successful early action, but it paled in comparison to all the movement that was witnessed in 2007. In other words, this is a long way of saying that you have to take much of this legislative action with a grain of salt (...and New Jersey hasn't even had any legislative action. In fact, much of the story on New Jersey is simply speculative at this point. There's a bit of a quirk in the law the legislature passed last year refining the timing of the presidential primary there. I'll get to that later, however.). What we do have are three interesting situations in three different states that are worth talking about.

In the Sooner state, the bill that has been filed does not deal with the timing of the state's presidential primary in 2012. The primary will still be held on the first Tuesday in February (February 7, 2012). Instead, HB 1340, sponsored by Republican Rep. Charles Key, would shift the financial burden for carrying out the primary from the state to the political parties that desire to be included on the ballot. This would put Oklahoma in a situation that is the opposite of the system that emerged in South Carolina for the 2008 cycle. South Carolina, for years has held either a party-run caucus or primary for allocating national party delegates for the purposes of presidential nominations. The parties were charged with footing the bill(s) for the contest(s). Prior to 2008, though, the South Carolina legislature passed and then overrode a gubernatorial veto to grant the state power to conduct presidential primary elections, but to also have them foot the bill. The parties maintained the ability to set the date of the election, though, to ensure that South Carolina remained the earliest primary in the South.

If, however, this bill is to pass the Oklahoma legislature and be signed into law (Republicans control both the House and the Senate in the legislature, but Democratic Governor Brad Henry may have something to say about whether the bill becomes a law.), Oklahoma could establish a model for other states to follow in these increasingly difficult economic times. The state in essence is saying, "We'll run the show, but only if you put up the money." [Alternately, South Carolina said, "We'll run the show and take the bill, but you [the parties] set the date."] And that certainly makes sense in a state where the presidential primaries and the primaries for state and local offices are separate. The presidential primary is a matter of party business and not necessarily in the domain of the states. State legislatures having control of presidential primaries in most states is simply a function of the fallout from the McGovern-Fraser reforms that were put in place in 1972. States had to come into compliance with the new rules and in most cases, the easiest way to accomplish that was to combine it with the primary elections for state and local offices -- a decision controlled by the state legislatures.

If, then, Oklahoma pulls the trigger on this bill, the example would certainly be set for other states to follow suit. Again, though, there would potentially be some variation in terms of how able states are in following the Sooner state's lead. States like Oklahoma, where the presidential primary is a separate election, would likely find it easier to pull this off than in states like North Carolina or Indiana or Texas where every elective office at stake has a primary on the same day. I suppose the latter states could simple call for parties to assist in paying the costs of the primary. And in the end, that is all HB 1340 in Oklahoma is asking, not for the parties to take on all the costs, but to take on most of them. The level would just potentially be lower in the states with concurrent primaries for president and state and local offices.

This bill, though, is certainly worth tracking.

I'll be back tomorrow with a look at the situation in Illinois for 2012. And I suppose that is fitting on the day the Land of Lincoln sees its favorite son inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States.


Recent Posts:
End of Unannounced/Unintended Hiatus

A One State Presidential Election in 2012?

A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 2.0)

Saturday, January 17, 2009

End of Unannounced/Unintended Hiatus

Well, 2009 has been a whirlwind thus far for me. I spent the first week of the year putting the final touches on my classes for this semester and preparing for the Southern Political Science Association's meeting in New Orleans. And this past week I've had some things start moving for me on the job front. [Always a good sign in a horrible year on the political science job market.]

Anyway, there has been some chatter in a few states regarding their 2012 presidential primaries of late and I'd like to take them all one-by-one in the coming days to discuss the particulars and the potential for an overall trend between 2008 and 2012. Plus, I'd like to make a few comments about the paper I put together for the aforementioned SPSA meeting. Believe it or not it is frontloading-related. And finally, the race for the chair of the GOP is heating up. If I get a chance to get around to it, I'd like to put some stuff together on this as well.

In the meantime, let me point you all in the direction of a couple of interesting links:
1) The Monkey Cage this past week has had a dialog going between their regular contributors and the authors of several pieces on the 2008 election that have appeared in the latest edition of The Forum. The original post is linked above and you can follow the rest of the discussion in their archives. Some good stuff.

2) Princeton political scientist, Nolan McCarty, has started a blog and has had some interesting material so far. He and Rose Razaghian had a paper in the American Journal of Political Science about a decade ago concerning advice and consent within the Senate during the confirmations of presidential nominees (cabinet-level and lower positions). So I keep waiting for him to weigh in on some of the confirmation battles. Whether he does or doesn't is immaterial. The posts are worth a look and the blog is worth tracking.

Recent Posts:
A One State Presidential Election in 2012?

A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 2.0)

The Race for RNC Chair

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

A One State Presidential Election in 2012?

Over in the comments to the post with an updated projection of the 2012 electoral college map, we've been discussing the likelihood of a close election four years from now. More specifically, we've talked about, given the current trends, the structural advantages the Democrats appear to have heading into future elections. Despite potentially losing ground via the post-census reapportionment, Democrats still look to hold advantages in enough states to clear the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the White House.

But let's take a step back for a moment here and assume that we will see a close presidential election in 2012. And let's use a version of the election results Electoral College Spectrum adjusted for the seat shifts projected after the census.

The Electoral College Spectrum*
HI-4
(7)**
ME-4
(154)
NH-4
(256/286)
GA-16
(167)
NE-4
(58)
VT-3
(10)
WA-11
(165)
IA-6
(262/282)
SD-3
(151)
KY-8
(54)
RI-4
(14)
MI-16
(181)
CO-9***
(271/276)
ND-3
(148)
LA-8
(46)
MA-11
(25)
OR-7
(188)
VA-13
(284/267)
AZ-12
(145)
AR-6
(38)
NY-30
(55)
NJ-14
(202)
OH-18
(302/254)
SC-9
(133)
AL-9
(32)
DE-3
(58)
NM-5
(207)
FL-29
(331/236)
TX-38
(124)
AK-3
(23)
IL-20
(78)
WI-10
(217)
IN-11
(342/207)
WV-5
(86)
ID-4
(20)
MD-10
(88)
NV-6
(223)
NC-15+1****
(358/196)
MS-6
(81)
UT-6
(16)
CA-55
(143)
PA-20
(243)
MO-10
(368/180)
TN-11
(75)
OK-7
(10)
CT-7
(150)
MN-9
(252)
MT-3
(371/170)
KS-6
(64)
WY-3
(3)
*Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
**The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, McCain won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Obama's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 269 electoral votes. McCain's numbers are only totaled through the states he would have needed in order to get to 270. In those cases, Obama's number is on the left and McCain's is on the right in italics.

***
Colorado is the state where Obama crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line.
****Nebraska allocates electoral votes based on statewide results and the results within each of its congressional districts. Nebraska's 2nd district voted for Barack Obama on November 4.

If, in 2012, the momentum swings against the Democrats and Barack Obama, the GOP is likely to pull Nebraska's 2nd, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida and Ohio back into their column. And even with those 74 electoral votes, generic Republican (Let's call her Sarah Palin for the heck of it.) still comes up 16 electoral votes short of victory. Virginia is next in line, gets the "close but not quite" distinction with 13 electoral votes, and, as Jack points out, is trending away from the GOP.

Depending on the candidates and conditions, though, I think that Virginia and Colorado are the most likely candidates for the Florida (2000)/Ohio (2004) distinction in 2012 should the election be that close. And whoever the GOP candidate is will need both states if they all fall in line in the same order four years from now. [I'll have to look into how long or short the odds of this are. But that's another research idea to look at later.] Virginia would be closer to the GOP compared to Colorado based on the 2008 results and that would make the Centennial state the victory line state. But given what happened last month, it is somewhat difficult to see Colorado swinging back. However, ask me in a couple of years and see if I've changed my mind.


Recent Posts:
A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 2.0)

The Race for RNC Chair

Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

Friday, December 26, 2008

A Projected 2012 Electoral College Map (version 2.0)

For a look at the 2012-2020 electoral college map based on the 2010 Census click here. And for look at how those changes would have affected the 2008 presidential election click here.


On Monday, Election Data Services released the US population estimates for 2008 and a series of projections for 2010. So let's have a look at how the electoral college map would change given the new information we have.

The first set of numbers we have is the estimate of the population changes during 2008. This is more of an "if the Census was done today" scenario. It was this set (from 2007) that we used to project the the map for 2010 before. In other words, this gives us an idea of what the changes might be for 2010, but not the full picture. EDS even said in its report that they expected quite a bit of volatility over the next two years despite the economic downturn's impact on mobility.

[You'll notice that the map has taken on the red and black color scheme that denotes gains and losses in the financial world. Red states are states losing seats while black states are those likely to gain seats following the 2010 Census.]

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Despite that, we can set a baseline of potential changes based on the changes from 2008 (Well, from 2000-2008). The picture here isn't that much different from what we witnessed a little more than a month ago. Basically, Texas would gain an additional seat, Missouri wouldn't lose the seat it was projected to have lost and Michigan and New Jersey would lose a seat apiece. That would have fueled an additional two electoral vote swing toward John McCain in November's electoral college. Taken with the information we had before, though, that still would have put the Arizona senator at a 360-178 electoral vote disadvantage. Still, we're talking about a population shift toward redder states. Of course the traditional question is, "Who are those people?" Are they more Democratic or Republican? Are these states becoming redder, like, say, Georgia, or purple like Virginia (though the latter is not a state projected to gain or lose any congressional seats)?

But let's move from an estimate of the map based on the population changes we have seen during 2008 and focus on the projected changes we could see in 2010 based on likely changes over the next two years. Now, EDS set up several different models: one that projected population shifts based on what has happened since 2000, and four additional models that took a midterm approach; focusing on population shifts from 2004 onward, 2005 onward, 2006 onward and 2007-2008. For our purposes, we'll take the model with the most information: the full model based on the changes since the last Census.

That version shows Arizona (2 seats total), Florida (2) and Texas (4) gaining additional seats on top of the gains shown in the map above. It also has South Carolina picking up a seat.

[Click Map to Enlarge]

On the opposite side of the ledger, Ohio is likely to lose a second seat, while Missouri once again loses the seat it lost on the initial version of this map. Illinois and Minnesota round out the remaining list of states either losing population or not growing at rates fast enough to stay apace of the states gaining seats. If this projected map had been used in the November election that would have netted McCain an additional two electoral votes from the first map above. In other words, playing on the map immediately above, the 2008 election would have come to a count of 358-180 in favor of Obama. Again, this isn't a big shift in an election like we just witnessed. In a more competitive election, however, such a shift could prove consequential. Recall that the generic ballot question favored the Democrats throughout the 2008 cycle. If that divide had been more even, a seven electoral vote swing could have been decisive.

So what does all this mean? Well, not much. Projections are nice, but they aren't the real thing. I really ought to look back at how well these EDS projections were prior to the last Census. That might be a factor to throw into a more inclusive model -- similar to the house effect that FiveThirtyEight factored into their electoral college projections late in the game in 2008. With EDS cautioning that there could be volatility in the forecasting over the next two years, you have to take these numbers with a grain of salt. However, it is interesting to note what the map might look like in four years' time.


Recent Posts:
The Race for RNC Chair

Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Thursday, December 18, 2008

The Race for RNC Chair

Allow me to take a brief respite from putting the finishing touches on grades for the semester to weigh in on something that I came across today.

Over at Red State, Erick Erickson and company have come up with and posed a list of ten issues important to the readers and contributors at the right-leaning blogging community to the candidates for chair of the Republican Party. [You can see that list here.] The first of the six candidates in the running, Saul Anuzis, responded today. Anuzis is the Michigan Republican Party chairman and was a proponent of the state's 2008 primary move to January 15 -- a date that defied both national parties' rules governing delegate selection.

Now why would I push this on the readers of FHQ, a group I think is fair to assess as left of center ideologically? Well, as I've mentioned, theoretically, it will be the Republican Party that will be the most apt to tinker with its rules between now and the 2012 presidential election. Thus, who they choose could have an impact on the direction of the party and who they ultimately settle on for their nominee. Anuzis doesn't reveal anything too exciting in that regard, but in the comments section he is asked about the possibility of closing the Republican primaries in 2012. I have no idea if Anuzis will respond, but that line of questioning will be something to track in the subsequent iterations of these chair candidate discussions, should they come to pass.


Recent Posts:
Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

Back in May, just before Arkansas was to hold its primaries for state and local offices, State Rep. Nathan George (D-Dardanelle) went public with a call for legislation to move the state's 2012 presidential primary back to May from February to again coincide with the other primaries. On Thursday that call got a bit closer to reality as George and State Rep. Jon Woods (R-Springdale) prefiled a bill (HB 1021) that would come up for consideration once the 87th General Assembly convenes in January. The proposed legislation very simply strikes the changes made to Arkansas election law in 2005 when the separate February Arkansas presidential primary was signed into law by Governor Mike Huckabee.

Arkansas, then, was one of the first states to move in anticipation of 2008 and may again be quick to react with 2012 on the distant horizon. Well, why would Arkansas want to do this; to go against the frontloading trend? Here are a couple of points I made back in May about the reasoning behind such a move when this story came up the first time:
1) Financial concerns: If the return on investment is viewed as sub-par, then the decision may be made to move back and save the money. Having an influence over who the nominee is before the decision is made, though, may outweigh that. Which brings up...

2) Will 2012 more closely resemble 2004 or 2008? If it is the former, Arkansas may value that influence even if it means scant attention from the candidates among a crowded field of contests. If 2012 looks like 2008, Arkansas could move back and get more attention.
Well, if the state is making their decision on 2012 now -- in this economic climate -- then that first point will likely play a major role in the legislature's thinking on this particular piece of legislation. "Return on investment? Who needs that? Let's just save some money!" And the second point could be rendered moot by the first. "We didn't have an impact in February and we never really had an impact when the presidential primary was in May. So what does it matter when we do this? Let's just save some money!"

Now, it could be viewed as rash for the Arkansas General Assembly to act now, but the Natural state isn't likely to prove decisive anyway. [Sorry Arkansans.] The thinking in the past has been "if you can't be decisive at least be a part of the decision." In other words, make sure to hold your primary before the nomination has been decided. That rationale has spurred an awful lot of frontloading in the past. However, that could change if states continue to pinch pennies.

The implication here isn't really the backloading but the potential for coincidental primaries as a budgetary measure. Could we see, for instance, some of the northeastern states (ie: Connecticut, New York, Vermont) with late summer/early fall primaries for state and local offices move those up to coincide with their presidential primaries as a cost-saving mechanism? Instead of backloading the presidential primary, then, we witness the frontloading of state and local primaries.

I don't suspect we'll have an answer to this in any substantial way until after the 2010 midterms, the point after which most state begin mulling their plans for the next presidential election year. Regardless, it will be worth keeping an eye on.

UPDATE: Kate Bodenhamer over at CapSearch adds that the separate presidential primary cost the state $1.7 million in 2008. Adjusted for inflation, that could be a pretty good chunk of change in 2012.


Recent Posts:
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

For the most up-to-date version of this calendar see the left sidebar under the 2012 electoral college projection or click here.

This verges on the ludicrous, but last week I thought I would glance back at the state laws in place regarding the timing of presidential primaries for 2012. My intent was to see if the changes made for the 2008 cycle were permanent shifts or merely one and done changes for this past cycle.

This is certainly a fluid process and will change over the course of the next few years, but I thought it might be instructive to start with a baseline from which we can compare changes. As I have stated, there will likely be less frontloading in 2012 for a couple of reasons:
1) Most of the 2008 moves were permanent. What that means is that fewer states will have the ability to move to earlier dates if the rules regarding the timing of primaries and caucuses remain the same for 2012. Most are already at the earliest allowable date -- the first Tuesday in February.

2) Barring a failed Obama presidency, the president-elect will not be challenged in the Democratic primaries. Only one party, then, will have an active contest for its nomination. And as the Maryland case demonstrated only yesterday, partisanship is a powerful potential factor in the frontloading equation. When both parties have a contested nomination, both parties within a state (or state legislature) can take an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" approach to frontloading. In other words, if both parties are motivated to move forward, then where's the harm? This is why I've said that GOP-controlled states will be the most likely movers for 2012 holding all other factors equal. They face only token Democratic opposition to a move that could potentially help a Republican nominee. In Democratic-controlled states or competitive (evenly divided) states, that opposition is greater.

Take the Maryland example: The Maryland GOP is discussing a split to the their delegate allocation structure. Some delegates would be at stake in the party's February 2012 primary, but they want to establish a caucus that would jump Iowa and New Hampshire. So the first salvo has already kinda sorta been fired. And the thing is, Maryland's GOP is considering this because there's no way the Democratic-controlled legislature is going to go along with a plan to move the state's primary to an earlier date [especially when that could help a potential nominee build grassroots in the state and challenge Obama in the state. Yes, yes, I'm fully aware that Obama's efforts in South Carolina during the primary campaign didn't prove fruitful in November. But my point is that there is no way the Maryland legislature is going to pass off on such a move, much less the Democratic governor, if there is even a slightly chance that it would slightly help the Republican candidate.].
Regardless, here is how things look for 2012 more than three years away from the opening contests of the nomination campaign (All of the following are primaries unless otherwise noted.).
Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses*

Tuesday, January 24
: New Hampshire*

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses*, South Carolina*

A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina

Tuesday, January 31
: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana primary

Tuesday, February 14: Maryland, Virginia

Tuesday, February 21: Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona**, Michigan***

Tuesday, March 6: Massachusetts***, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses****

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Idaho, Kentucky

Tuesday, June 5: Montana, New Mexico***** and South Dakota

*New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge Nevada and South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

**In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.

***Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.

****The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

*****The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.

I've obviously added some caveats already, but there is one big one that I should note as well. On the surface this looks like a far less frontloaded calendar. However, it only accounts for a handful of caucuses -- the most predictable early ones and those that are controlled by state law. Montana and West Virginia Republicans in 2008, for instance, opted for caucuses as opposed to primaries and shifted them to Super Tuesday. That could certainly happen again. The other caucus states will be determined at a later date, as the states' delegate selection plans emerge in probably 2011.

Now that we have a baseline for comparison let the frontloading begin. You're on the clock Maryland.


Recent Posts:
Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

Live Blog and Open Thread: Georgia Senate Runoff

Monday, December 8, 2008

Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

Let me save the Maryland Republican Party's newly minted pre-primary caucus study committee the trouble: save your money and lobby the state legislature to move the Old Line state's 2012 primary to an earlier date. Well, I suppose the party realizes it will be futile to attempt to sway a Democratic-controlled legislature to move the state's primary to help nominate a Republican that might do well in Maryland in November 2012.

[Wait! What are you talking about?]

As PolitickerMD reported this afternoon, the Republican Party in Maryland has formed a study committee to look into the wisdom in establishing a pre-primary caucus in the state for 2012. The plan would align the state with the system in Washington more so than the one in, say, Iowa. In other words, the Maryland Republicans are trying to circumvent the system on this one to some extent by holding more than just a beauty contest straw poll as Iowa does in the August before an election year. Their potential plan would establish a delegate-binding caucus that would be held prior to Iowa and New Hampshire. This is similar to what happened in Washington state this past cycle.

The Evergreen state's primary was held on February 19 and allocated just under half of the Republican Party delegates from the state. The caucus portion was held ten days prior -- just after Super Tuesday and well after Iowa and New Hampshire -- allocating a little more than half the state's GOP delegates.

Maryland Republicans are going a step beyond that though; splitting their delegate selection contest in two and pushing one portion of it forward far enough to challenge Iowa and New Hampshire's first in the nation status among the states.

Now, this is certainly a new twist, but I suspect that this will be greeted by the national party in much the same way that Wyoming's move did prior to the 2008 cycle. [What you don't remember Wyoming Republicans moving the first step of their caucus to January 5. And mind you this was before Iowa and New Hampshire settled in on January 3 and 5 as the dates for their respective caucus and primary.] Wyoming opted to, unlike Iowa, make the first step in its caucus delegate-binding. [Iowa doesn't officially allocate any delegates until the state convention toward the end of the nomination process.] That translated into the Equality state, like all the other states that violated the NRC's delegate selection rules by holding delegate-binding contests prior to February 5 -- a list that included Florida, Michigan and New Hampshire -- losing half its delegates to the convention. I suspect that any move similar to the one being discussed in Maryland would meet the same fate in 2012.

...unless the commission the NRC formed at their convention to deal with these frontloading issues comes up with anything fruitful to reform the nomination system first. There's a long way to go until 2012, but my money is on a system similar to what we witnessed in 2008 coming back and Maryland getting burned and not having much of an effect. It won't be Wyoming-ignored, but the Old Line state Republicans won't get the desired effect. Iowa and New Hampshire won't let them.

Maryland now joins Florida and Louisiana as the first potential rogue states of 2012. I'll have more on that shortly, though. It's too bad Kansas couldn't join the fun.


Recent Posts:
FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

Live Blog and Open Thread: Georgia Senate Runoff

The Georgia Senate Runoff: A Polling Projection