Forget You Saw That...

If you saw the post on the situation in New Hampshire, disregard the information. According to the New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair, Ray Buckley, the news was not true about the gay marriage vote and the Granite state's primary.

EDIT: I should probably add -- in the interest of not totally confusing everyone who didn't catch the original post -- that the issue in question was the DNC strong-arming hesitant Democratic state legislators into voting to pass the gay marriage bill wending its way through the General Court by threatening New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary status.


Recent Posts:
Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Democracy for the People

More Party Switchers?

Are Clinton and Obama Still Fighting? The Texas Primary-Caucus is Back

Are big changes coming to the Democratic presidential nomination structure in the state that defines big?

Well, it depends on who you ask. On the one hand:

"There won't be anything dramatic," Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas (head of the Texas Democratic Party's committee looking into the issue), predicted.

On the other:

"I'm a taxpayer; I am paying for that primary," (committee member and Clinton-supporter, Linda) Burgess said. "I don't care if it's the Republican Party, Democratic Party or Polka-Dotted Party. I don't want any party to change the outcome of any election I'm paying for."

The argument here is over the controversial Texas Democratic primary-caucus system, or at least the caucus end of the structure. Advocates (and they seem to be Obama supporters) contend that the party building exercise that is the caucus is a worthwhile endeavor, but those with a negative view of the system (and they appear to be Clinton supporters) point toward the (un)representativeness of the caucus and the disproportionate impact in the delegate allocation.

Now, as I pointed out after last November's elections, the Texas Democratic Party was holding public hearings on the issue and the committee dealing with those is due to issue a report to the party's Executive Committee this summer. At that point a change may be made.

If I'm guessing, though, I'm going to have to side with Sen. West on this one. I just don't expect any fundamental changes. The longer caucus proponents -- and according to the Austin American-Statesman article there are plenty within the state party's power structure -- drag this thing out, the less salient an issue it becomes. Does anyone remember the tumult after Jesse Jackson beat 1988 Texas primary winner, Michael Dukakis, in the caucuses? The answer is no. Sure, that's because Jackson's win in the caucuses didn't overturn Dukakis' primary victory, but that actually strengthens the caucus proponents' argument here. That means that a close, almost tied nomination race is a requirement for this discrepancy to even be consequential. And we just don't see that happen that often.

The Texas Democratic Party is listening, but I don't think they'll do anything about the caucus. Let's be honest: Despite the talk about grassroots party building, the caucus was put in place -- much like the superdelegates at the national level -- to give the party a larger say in who got how many of the state's delegates. In the event, then, that there is a division between who the party wants as nominee and who the rank and file primary voters want, the party has a bit of an insurance policy. The party won't always win out, but if it is close enough the party will get its way.

All this draws on and expands upon a study I've cited in this space before. Scott Meinke, Jeffrey Staton and Steven Wuhs (gated) examined the effect the ideological convergence between state parties and potential primary/caucus voters has on how open a state's delegate selection event is. The idea, then is that the less those two groups converge ideologically, the less open the process will be (read: caucuses) and the more ideological overlap there is between citizens and state parties, the more open the process will be. Now, they were talking ideological convergence and what I'm discussing here is more candidate preference convergence. Yeah, those are pretty much the same thing, but in the case of Obama-Clinton, the underlying issue wasn't necessarily ideologically-based. That was a candidate-based division -- two candidates very similar ideologically.

So, will Texas Democrats make a change? I don't think so. If the party wants a caucus, the party will have a caucus. And it won't be a big deal in 2012 because Obama is likely going to be the only candidate on the ballot. In (uh, 1988, 2008), oh say, 2028 it might be a problem, but this Obama-Clinton thing will be ancient history by then.


Recent Posts:
Democracy for the People

More Party Switchers?

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Democracy for the People

...or FHQ readers at least.

Recently I changed up the "Links" section here by replacing the default setting (Well, default when I started this endeavor a couple of years ago.) with a widget that cues up the most recent entry at the sites I read the most. I also moved that section from the right sidebar to the left one under the frontloading trend maps. Here's a screenshot:

[Click to Enlarge]

Anyway, it strikes me as somewhat unfair that I get to pick what's in that section. So I thought I'd open the comments section up to suggestions for additions to that area. I mean, we do have a community of readers here and it is my preference that everyone have a stake in FHQ -- a minority stake, but a stake nonetheless. I put it to you, then, FHQ readers both vocal and silent: Are there sites you'd like to see included in that space and, if so, what are they?

A couple of notes:
1) The sites have to be blog-like in that the widget requires an RSS feed. Some standard sites won't work. For example, CQ is frustratingly out of the loop for whatever reason. UPDATE: Well, maybe that wasn't a good example. Maybe, just maybe I wasn't trying hard enough to add CQ. Ha! [Hat tip to Matt from DemConWatch for the proper link.] CQ's now up.
2) There are only so many sites we can include before it gets overwhelmingly cluttered. That doesn't prevent you from suggesting something, but I feel the need to offer that disclaimer.

Anyway, have at it. The suggestion box is now open.


Recent Posts:
More Party Switchers?

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

More Party Switchers?

Jack asks:

"How does this (Specter) impact the chances of more switches? I've seen speculation about Snowe. Your take?

"I don't really think the idea of Snowe switching parties makes much sense. Specter switched because of electoral pressure to do so. Jeffords switched at a time when control of the Senate was in the balance. Neither of these incentives are available to Snowe, Collins, Inhofe or whoever would consider switching."

There are two lines of thought on either of the Maine senators switching:

1) You're right that there is definitely an electoral connection (sorry David Mayhew) here. Michael Steele can talk about targeting Collins or Snowe because of their votes, but how is he going to strengthen the bench in Maine and cultivate candidates to the right of either one of them that could win? That pressure existed with Specter, but not with Collins and Snowe. But...

2) It could be that one or both of them just simply gets sick being a part of a party that is philosophically different from themselves. Specter spoke along those lines, but I don't know that anyone took him too terribly seriously there. His was a move of electoral survival. As I said above, that doesn't really exist in Snowe's or Collins' case.

However, the Democrats are pushing the agenda now and the matters that they bring up for a vote could continually put Snowe and Collins in the uncomfortable position of having to decide between their convictions and their party. The more that happens, the more likely, I'd say, they are to reconsider their positions within the Republican Caucus.

The flip side is the extent to which they are on board with what the Obama administration is pushing. If either was totally in line with Obama, one or both of them would likely already have switched. But again, we're talking about the extent to which they are with Obama. It isn't one hundred percent and it isn't zero either. [I may have to look at some of their votes for a better idea, but that's a job for another day -- or another blogger. Ha!]

Ultimately, I think they'll stick it out (famous last words), but there's no doubt in my mind that they are being asked. The Democrats in the Senate would be foolish not to.

It never hurts to ask. The worst they can say is, "no," or maybe, "NO!" after the one hundredth time or so.


Recent Posts:
Open Thread: Specter Switch

Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

Open Thread: Specter Switch

Well, Pennsylvania got slightly bluer today with Arlen Specter's surprising, yet not-so-surprising shift into the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. The way things were going, this was likely the only choice Specter had.

...if he was/is still interested in working in the Senate. Twenty-one points down is twenty-one points down. That's a tough row to hoe when you are talking about an incumbent and a primary polling deficit. Not that Chris Dodd is in an ideal position, but at least his polling deficit is against a potential general election opponent in 2010; not quite as threatening. Specter, I'm sure, saw the writing on the wall.


Thoughts?
Here's one: Seth Masket over at Enik Rising sums the move up nicely.

Here's another from Josh Marshall (via Seth): I completely forgot that Pennsylvania is a closed primary state. That certainly would have made Specter's prospects of re-election that much dimmer if he would have continued on that route.

Yet another: Michael Steele on Specter's departure. (h/t GOP12 for the link)

While we're on Specter, let me add a funny anecdote to this discussion:
A couple of summers ago I took a grading gig within the department to help out one of our faculty members. It was an intro to American government class made up completely of incoming freshmen. So this was their first college experience. Following a week of lectures on the branches of government and their attendant checks and balances we had an exam. One of the questions asked was about the checks between Congress and the Supreme Court. We had that week discussed Senate confirmation of judicial appointments and nestled in that discussion was a side note about Specter's role in the Clarence Thomas hearings -- specifically his questioning of Anita Hill and the backlash that created. Now, you have the proper context, but it took me a while in the midst of reading all these exams to figure out who one the students was referring to when mentioning Karl Inspector.

Karl Inspector?

Then the light bulb came on: Oh, Arl-en Spector.


Recent Posts:
Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

Indiana Sec. of State on 2012 Presidential Primary

Recently, Indiana Secretary of State, Todd Rokita, sat down with Howey Politics Indiana to discuss a wide range of things. Given that the secretary of state's office handles election administration in the Hoosier state, the talk ultimately turned to the 2012 presidential primary calendar.

Here are the relevant points from the discussion (commentary appended):

HPI: Have you had conversations with party chairs Dan Parker (D) and Murray Clark (R) about when Indiana will have its 2012 presidential primary?

Rokita: I have and we hope to be able to study it this summer. Again, I am disappointed that the Senate resolution that crossed over to the House to do just that did not get heard, as far as I’ve seen yet. That’s OK, the Senate can do its own. I hope the Democrats come to the table. It was their party that benefited so much from having a contested primary this last year. Indiana mattered. That’s a great thing. I want it to be that way every presidential election.

Let me clarify a few things about this exchange and augment them to some degree. First, SCR 28, the Senate resolution setting up a committee to study the wisdom behind moving Indiana's presidential primary in future cycles, passed the Senate and moved over to the House where it has stalled. Rokita says as much, but adds that it is the Democratic Party that is holding the measure up. And that is certainly in line with FHQ's thinking concerning 2012. Republicans are going to be more active in presidential primary frontloading than are Democrats simply because theirs is the party with the competitive nomination race. It is completely understandable, then, that the Republican-controlled Senate was able to move the resolution while the Democratic-controlled House basically refused to bring it out of commitee. Also, the clock is running out in the Indiana General Assembly. The legislature is slated to adjourn tomorrow (April 29), which means that it is all but assured that the Senate will be the only body in Indiana's state government studying a frontloading move for the Hoosier state's presidential primary.

[I've already weighed in on Indiana potentially moving. See here, here and here. And I still need to model that 2000 primary season. That sounds like a summer project.]

HPI: Do you think this is going to be a state-by-state thing or is there a chance of regional presidential primaries?

Rokita: Since I am president of the national association (of Secretary of States) we’ve studied the regional primary and that’s the one you’ll see me continue to advocate as we rotate around the country. I think that has some very good implications to it. However, what I realized after going through a presidential election cycle with it, the parties really are the backstop. If the parties make some reform, like rotating regional primaries, they will make it happen. The Republicans are moving in that direction. They used to have very strict rules at a party convention. Well, the Democratic Party was able to have a Rules Committee on the fly so they can adjust in between their national conventions. You saw the Republicans move in that direction after Minnesota this past year. I’m hopeful, but it’s quite clear the parties will have to both agree on a plan if we’re going to have any reform in the nation.

Ah, reform. Given his position as secretary of state, it is no surprise that Sec. Rokita is pushing the NASS Rotating Regional Primary Plan. That certainly isn't as interesting as his last statement. Let's look at that again: "I’m hopeful, but it’s quite clear the parties will have to both agree on a plan if we’re going to have any reform in the nation." As I've tried to make quite clear in this space, if reform is going to happen, it will have to be something that both parties coordinate. If only one party moves, the door will be fully opened to an exponential increase in the incidence of Florida and Michigan-type moves of defiance in the future. So, it is good to see that at least one person in a position of power has come to this realization. The extent to which that thinking spreads will dicatate whether we actually see primary reform or not.


Recent Posts:
There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

There Are Deciders and Then There Are...

Not Deciders.

[Decider]

[Not Decider]

Is it me or is the inevitability of Charlie Crist's "I'm running for Senate" announcement not similar to the drawn out process that was Fred Thompson's presidential announcement in 2008? For the record, I think Crist will fare much better than the former Tennessee senator turned actor turned presidential aspirant turned actor.

NOTE: It is also about time we put to rest the idea that the pictured hand gesture above is a prerequisite of being a decider.


Recent Posts:
"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

More Texas-less Fun

"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

Yesterday Politico's Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin penned a piece on the growing divide between the Inside-the-Beltway Republicans and all the other Main Street Republicans out there. I don't want to read too much into that. After all, there was a similar divide in the Democratic Party in terms of a winning position on the Iraq War after losing the 2004 presidential election.* And 2008 isn't yet a distant memory. Though the divide wasn't necessarily issue-based, the intra-party division over the question of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was very real. My point here is that these apparent divisions can quickly take a backseat to the greater goal of winning elections. A schism in 2009 isn't the same as a divided Republican base in 2012.

But this isn't really about a divided base. This is about party elites versus its rank and file membership. Again, electoral goals can make strange bedfellows, but they can also get all or most of a party on the same page with a startling quickness. I'm not, then, as concerned with the notion of an irreconcilable division within the Republican Party in the context of the 2012 presidential nomination race so much as I'm enthralled as a political scientist who studies these nominations by the rarity the political occurrence. There has not been this kind of battle for the party since the Ford-Reagan nomination race in 1976.

That race, though, occurred while the post-reform nomination process was solidifying; it wasn't forty years after the fact as will be the case in 2012. And that's largely why I shot down the idea of a "Sarah Palin against the party" run to the GOP nomination. Reagan didn't succeed in 1976 and no Republican nominee has risen to the nomination in any way other than going through the elite level of the party first in the time since. But...

As I've said, and as Nate Silver said just yesterday, Palin possesses the type of grassroots-level enthusiasm to make it interesting in the same way that Reagan did. And that just isn't something we get to witness all that often within the Republican Party: an elite versus rank and file battle.

Will that happen? I don't know, but it will be fun to see whether it materializes. We don't often get the chance.


*Of course the difference between what is happening with the GOP right now and what happened with the Democrats during the earlier part of this decade is that the war issue kept moving closer and closer to the anti-war protesters position. For the GOP, the immigration issue is a bit more muddled: respondents would rather the level of immigration stay where it is or drop, but generally like the idea of immigration. The situation is similar for taxes. On gay marriage, though, things are moving away from the (at least vocal rank and file) members of the party.



Recent Posts:
One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

More Texas-less Fun

Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

Matt Mackowiak, doing a guest spot over at CQ, has an early look at the GOP's field of candidates for 2012. The former Senate press secretary doesn't affix numbers to the candidates' names, but it is hard for me to read it any other way. Thirty months out from the start of primary season 2012, this reads like a rough ranking. Here's his list:

1. Mitt Romney

2. Newt Gingrich

3. Tim Pawlenty

4. Mark Sanford

5. Bobby Jindal

6. Sarah Palin

7. Eric Cantor

8. Mike Huckabee

9. Jon Huntsman

10. John Thune

11. John Ensign

12. Mike Pence


Thoughts?

• I can buy Palin and Huckabee that low simply from an organizational standpoint. And when I say organization I mean the ability to win over party elites within the Republican Party. Despite both having at least some modicum of support at the grassroots level (Palin being Palin and Huckabee in polling), there's still the thought that neither has much of a link to the elite level of the party. You can get away with that in a Democratic nomination race (see Carter, Jimmy or Dean, Howard P. -- where the P stands for pre-scream), but that really doesn't happen on the Republican side. That's why those top two look so good.

• Bobby Jindal. I still see the Louisiana governor as the Mark Warner of this cycle -- dropping out before the race starts and eying another cycle. In fact, let's pencil those two in for the 2016 general election and be done with it. Nah.

• Eric Cantor. Look, I haven't said much about the Virginia congressman, but boy has his name been dropped a lot lately in the context of a presidential run. I don't know. I could be proven wrong, but I really see him as aspiring to the Speaker's position. The guy wouldn't turn down a chance at the GOP nomination, I'm sure, but I doubt he makes that jump unless he really feels like he can win it. His last name isn't Bush, so I don't see him queue-jumping around the "next guy in line" method of presidential nomination for the GOP.

As always, time will tell.


Recent Posts:
More Texas-less Fun

Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

Obama vs. Four Prospective 2012 GOP Candidates: Huckabee Does Best

More Texas-less Fun

As long as we're messing with Texas...

Actually, since I put up a Texas-less version of the electoral college map in my post on the Texas frontloading bill last week, S.D. has been after me to do more with the map than just simply remove Texas. So, let's take those reapportionment numbers from FiveThirtyEight and put them into a map. And while we're at it, let's give Utah its fifth electoral vote back and bump the Beehive state up to 6 after the sans Texas reapportionment. [And no, I have absolutely no room to talk. Just take a gander at the comments to the electoral college by congressional districts post.]

[Click Map to Enlarge]

As Nate, said, the GOP is likely to lose ground on the presidential level, but gain at the congressional level without Texas on the map. But, I've got to admit that I can't just swipe those numbers and put them on my own map without making some original contribution of my own.

To wit...

What would happen in two years' time with the post-census reapportionment if Texas had in fact seceded from the United States? I'm glad you asked. It might look a little something like this (dark gray means seat gains, dark red equals losses):

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Based on the Election Data Services data I used to put together these post-2010 census maps, I reallocated each state's congressional seats without the Lone Star state. This reflects the projection based on the population changes witnessed between 2000 and 2008. Arizona, Florida and North Carolina are the beneficiaries of Texas' departure, gaining two seats apiece and the funny thing among the states that lose seats -- the usual Rust Belt suspects -- is that most of them, after gaining from the hypothetical Texas secession, revert to their pre-secession, pre-2010 census numbers. Ohio's back to 20 electoral votes. Pennsylvania's back to 21. New Jersey's back to 15. Michigan's back at 17. New York and Illinois luck out and actually gain a seat over where they are in reality now. The basic trend we are likely to see in 2010 is upheld here with or without Texas. The Sun Belt would gain electoral college clout at the expense of the states in the Rust Belt and stretching into the northeast.

For the sake of comparison...
Instead of the 389-147 win without Texas (pre-census), Obama would have managed a 381-155 victory over John McCain under the electoral college vote distribution of this map.

So no, I didn't resize the states to match their new electoral vote totals, but I think we'll have something to talk about regardless.


Recent Posts:
Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

Obama vs. Four Prospective 2012 GOP Candidates: Huckabee Does Best

Texas Frontloading Bill Goes Public