Revisiting Candidacy Announcements: What's Different About 2012?

Sometimes we get grumpy here at FHQ. Sometimes we hate apples to oranges comparisons but fail to see an ounce of goodness in them for the, uh, fruit trees. I don't like the 2012 to 2008 candidacy announcement timing comparison because I think it is a flawed one mainly based on the structural differences between the two elections (in this case, the presence or lack of an incumbent). My preference is to use a similar election to which to compare 2012. However, that can draw the ire (and that's perhaps putting it a little strongly) of others. [If you haven't had a chance to read the comments to yesterday's post -- linked above -- please go do it now. Each makes its own fabulous point.]

Yes, 2012 and 2004 have some similarities, but there are also some significant differences between the dynamics of candidate entry. I don't know that my intention was to put all that much stock into the formation of presidential exploratory committees. Rather, I came across the information and felt that it would be disingenuous for me not to include. What I think I failed to adequately discuss -- and was rightfully called on it -- was the fact that the significance of the exploratory committee is on the decline. This is the simultaneously exhilarating and frustrating thing about the study of the presidential nomination process: the metrics are always changing. They are especially onerous when it comes to campaign finance rules. And that, of course, is where the exploratory committee piece of the puzzle lies. It is a campaign finance creation.

In the aftermath of Obama shunning the federal financing system in the general election in 2008 and in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the mile markers of campaign financing within and among campaigns have changed. To be sure the federal campaign finance system has been eroded, but the raising and distribution of funds from the political action committees of prospective presidential candidates has also changed the game.

What's been lost is that step, that mile marker that was present before, the formation of the exploratory committee. Without that step, what's lost is a concrete metric for demonstrating proximity to jumping in to the presidential nomination race. PACs still do that, but candidates can run for 2012 without actually running in 2012. Candidates can roll any and all PAC efforts into a future senate or gubernatorial or another, but actual presidential bid. [And yes, it should also be noted that candidate visits to early primary or caucus states or the hiring of staff/renting of office space there are also good indicators of this as well.]

At the end of the day, we have a pretty good idea who is running for the Republican nomination. All we're lacking are the official announcements. That said, those candidates are moving more slowly in doing that than other recent candidates. Okay, fine, but why? That's the important question. Part of it is structural. I made the argument for that yesterday. But part of it also has to do, I'd argue (and so too would our trio of commenters from yesterday), with the changing landscape of campaign finance. More specific to 2012, some of these prospective candidates probably want to see how the relationship between the president and the Republican-controlled House plays out -- for a little bit at least -- first.

Regardless, this has been a different progression to the invisible primary than anything witnessed in quite a while. It is an interesting game of "who can hold out the longest" brinksmanship.

[Thanks to MysteryPolitico, Matt and Anonymous for their comments that led to this post.]

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

2012 is not 2008. Not Even Candidacy Announcements

Is it just FHQ or are all these comparisons that are popping up comparing the relative lack of presidential candidacy announcements for 2012 to those at this time in 2008 flawed (Dave Weigel, Wall Street Journal)? Structurally speaking, there is a fundamental difference in the motivation to throw one's hat in the ring in a year with an incumbent president running for reelection and one in which both parties have contested nominations (Yes, incumbents can be challenged, but you know what I mean.). 2012 falls into the former category while 2008 does not. 2008 is also different because for the first time since 1952, no representative from the then-current administration was going to seek the, in this case Republican, nomination in 2008. In other words, there was some urgency to jumping into the race in both parties ahead of 2008 simply because both were so wide open.

The result is a false comparison or worse yet, a comparison that is only drawn to have something about which to talk. Look, FHQ wants to talk about the 2012 presidential election process as much as any site or media outlet. Outside of, say, GOP12, we are as guilty as anyone when it comes to talking about 2012. [And there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Christian Heinze has been doing over there since late 2008. That site serves as a solid chronology of actions taken toward what FHQ has called candidate emergence.] But if we're going to talk about 2012, let's at least talk about it in terms that actually advance the conversation in a meaningful way.

If one wants to compare candidacy announcements for 2012, then, one would be better served comparing it to another similar election, like, say, the pace with which Democrats announced their candidacies for the 2004 Democratic nomination. The truth is that at this point in 2003 very few Democrats had done much of anything toward a presidential run either as the table below indicates.

2004 Democratic Presidential Candidacy Announcements
Candidate	Exploratory Committee Formation	Candidacy Announcement
Wesley Clark	--	September 17, 2003
Howard Dean	--	--
John Edwards	January 2, 2003	September 16, 2003
Richard Gephardt	January 4, 2003	February 19, 2003
Bob Graham	--	May 6, 2003
John Kerry	December 1, 2002	September 2, 2003
Dennis Kucinich	February 18, 2003	--
Joe Lieberman	--	January 13, 2003
Carol Moseley-Braun	February 19, 2003	September 22, 2003
Al Sharpton	January 21, 2003	--
Source: P2004 Notes: *News on Dean's exploratory committee and candidacy announcement is not clear on the actual dates, but several articles on the formation of the Kerry campaign's exploratory committee describe Dean as being the "only declared candidate" in December 2002.

How does the 2012 Republican field compare to the Democrats in the 2004 cycle in terms of either the formation of exploratory committees or announcing their candidacies? No Republican has officially announced that they intend to run for the Republican nomination and only Herman Cain has formed an exploratory committee. In other words, there has not been all that much activity. But how active were prospective Democrats at this time in 2003? They had been far more active on the exploratory committee front than actually officially entering the 2004 Democratic nomination race. Heading in 2003, Dean was officially in and Kerry had announced an exploratory committee. Early in January 2003, John Edwards and Richard Gephardt had filed the necessary paperwork establishing their presidential exploratory committees with the Federal Elections Commission and Joe Lieberman had announced his candidacy.

At this time in 2003, then, there were two candidates in the race and another three who had formed exploratory committees. That's more activity than we've seen from the prospective 2012 Republican candidates, but not by much.

...and that serves as a much better baseline for comparison than 2008.

[H/t to Jonathan Bernstein and John Pitney for the Weigel and WSJ links.]

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

2012 Presidential Primary Movement: The Week in Review (Jan. 10-16)

Depending upon how much action there is on this front from week to week, FHQ will gather all the state-level efforts to position themselves for influence on the 2012 presidential nominations. At this point in time, it is and has been all about state legislatures attempting to change the dates on which their presidential primaries will be held according to the election laws on the books in those states. The state parties -- the groups responsible for the decision -- in traditional caucus states have been quiet so far. That should change as this continues to play out through the winter and into the spring.

So, after this week, what is known?

• As has been mentioned in this space several times, there are currently 18 states with presidential primaries scheduled for February 2012. That would put those 18 states in violation of both parties' delegate selection rules for 2012.
• Of those 18 primary states, 13 of them (California, Connecticut, Missouri, New York, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey and Virginia) have convened their 2011 state legislative sessions.
• Of those 13 states, 3 (California, New Jersey and Virginia) have bills that have been introduced and are active within the state legislature to move their contests' dates. Both California and New Jersey have bills that would eliminate an early and separate presidential primaries and position those events with the other primaries for state and local offices. That would mean June presidential primaries for both states if those bills pass and are signed into law.
• One additional early state from the 2008 cycle, Washington, has proposed temporarily (for the 2012 cycle) canceling the state's presidential primary. That primary is currently scheduled for the fourth Tuesday in May according to the law. However, that same law allows the secretary of state to propose a different date and the state parties can propose their own alternative. If either or both propose(s) a different date a bipartisan committee (made up of party members and state government officials), by a two-thirds vote, has to approve the change.
• No additional state legislatures (among those 18 early states) convenes during the upcoming week. Utah will be the next to enter its legislative session the week after next. Oklahoma (February), Alabama (March), Florida (March) and Louisiana (April) get down to work later in the year.
• For this next week, the 13 early states in conflict with the national parties' rules will be the ones to watch.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

On Gingrich's Presidential Nomination System Comments

FHQ would be remiss if we did not at least make some effort to counter several points that Newt Gingrich raised in praising the current presidential nomination system on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren Thursday night. Gingrich is typically very sharp, but several of his comments suggest a fundamental misreading of the nomination system.

First of all, I agree with Gingrich's assessment that the system is not broken.

"I'm a fan of [the saying] 'if things aren't broke, don't fix em', and I believe the system that we have right now.... I think the system works reasonably well."

Despite all the issues that people have with certain states perpetually going first or with the perceived problems with frontloading (...etc.), the system does work. It still produces nominees for the parties who in turn give said parties a good, if not the best, shot at winning the White House given certain other structural factors (nature of the times, fatigue with the incumbent party, etc.). One may be tempted to argue that the Democrats, for instance, nominated Walter Mondale in 1984 and he was subsequently crushed in a Reagan landslide in November of that year. Democrats must have done something wrong, right? Not really. Aside from Ronald Reagan switching parties, the Democrats had no chance in that election no matter who the candidate was.

The system, then, isn't perfect, but it does the job the parties want it to do (see Cohen et al., 2008). Gingrich and FHQ are on the same page there, but that's where the agreements cease. The remaining points the former Speaker makes are either rooted in myth, outdated/obsolete or just aren't all that factual.

Gingrich on equal opportunity (quotations from GOP12):

".... In the opening weeks, you've been in the Midwest, you've been in the Northeast, and you've been in the South, and now -- with adding Nevada -- you've been in the West in the very first weeks, at an affordable pace for unknown candidates.

For somebody like Governor Pawlenty or Senator Thune, who are just starting out, or Senator Santorum.

If you don't have the scale of money that some candidates have, this is an enormously open and equal opportunity model to allow talent to emerge."

This is where my qualms are largest. To the extent that Pawlenty or Thune or Santorum has a shot at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, it has less to do with gradually building momentum and fund-raising through wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada than it does with what's happening right now in the invisible primary. The only reason the line is at all blurred at this point in the process is that there is no clear frontrunner in this particular nomination race. That opens the door ever so slightly to saying that there is more opportunity for longer shot candidates, but not that there is equal opportunity.

And to go on and use the examples of Reagan's nomination in 1980 and Carter's in 1976 to highlight this conclusion is misguided at best. It assumes that virtually nothing has changed in nomination politics in the post-reform era. I can think of several political scientists who have made careers (or part of their careers) out of demonstrating how rules matter and how changes over the last four decades have changed the process in their research.

Do Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada matter? Yes, but first one should look toward whether the invisible primary produces a frontrunner first. What would determine a frontrunner? Above I mentioned fundraising, but along with that poll position and endorsements are also good indicators of where the nomination race may go (again, see Cohen et al., 2008). The premise there is that the party plays a large role in determining who its nominee will be. Of course, in the case of the 2012 Republican nomination race there is one mitigating circumstance that should also be considered. The party may always have its hand in the decision, but in this case the grassroots/Tea Party movement may wield more power relative to the establishment/party elites than in past Republican nomination contests.

With that said, there's a reason Gingrich is heading off to those early primary/caucus states. Yes the former Speaker knows wins there are important, but he and all the other candidates heading to those areas also know money, poll position and endorsements will matter first.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Two Oldies But Goodies

FHQ has spent a fair amount of time this week talking about the introduction of several state legislative bills that would shift the dates on which those states' presidential primaries would be held (California, Virginia and one to eliminate the presidential primary in Washington for 2012). In a look back over active legislation with similar goals, we ran across a couple of bills in New Jersey that were introduced this time a year ago that should be included in our left sidebar "Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures" section (under the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar).

A757 is the exact same bill as A2413, which was introduced during the 2008 session but got stuck in committee and died following the 2009 elections that ushered in a new legislature. S71 is the New Jersey Senate equivalent of the Assembly bill. Both are the exact same and would eliminate the separate presidential primary that was created for 2008 and shift it back to June with the primaries for state and local offices. These bills are not unlike AB 80 in California -- all three bills eliminate a newly-created, separate presidential primary. However, both New Jersey bills have been in committee since being introduced and referred to committee early last year. Who knows how much legislative momentum either will have during the current session (convened on this past Wednesday, January 12).

A757 and S71 will be added to the Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures section.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Accompanying Senate Bill to Move Virginia Presidential Primary Back Introduced

Virginia Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel (R) has introduced a bill on the Senate side (SB 1246) of the Virginia General Assembly to shift the date of the 2012 Virginia presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. This bill most closely mirrors the House bill (HB 1843) introduced by Delegate Mark Cole (R). Unlike the other House bill, SB 1246 would not reduce the petition signature requirement for presidential candidates.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Bill Introduced to Cancel 2012 Presidential Primary in Washington

Last week, prior to when the Washington state legislature was to convene, FHQ discussed the proposal by Governor Gregiore -- which subsequently gained support from Secretary of State Sam Reed -- to cancel the Evergreen state's presidential primary for 2012. That proposal is now an introduced bill (SB 5119) before the Washington Senate. Senator Craig Pridemore (D), chair of the Government Operations, Tribal Relations and Elections Committee, introduced the bill that is seen as a temporary cost-saving measure. The action (the cancelation of the presidential primary) has a sunset provision built in that would expire January 1, 2013.

This bill, if passed and signed into law, would place the burden of delegate selection event timing -- presumably caucuses -- on the shoulders of the state parties. Each state party is free to choose any date and faces the same dilemma some state legislature face, namely following the party rules and going slightly later than in previous cycles or breaking those rules and going at the same time or earlier in the past. The Washington caucuses in 2008 were both on February 9.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

A Few Additional Notes on the Proposed Virginia Primary Move

Yesterday, a couple of bills were introduced in the Virginia House to move the state's presidential primary from the second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March for the 2012 cycle. I wanted to take a few moments to step back and look at them a bit more closely. Now, neither one is all that substantively different from the other -- other than the fact that Rep. McClellan's version proposes lowering the petition signature requirement for candidates by 50% and Rep. Cole's does not -- but their are a handful of implications that are attendant to the introduction and/or passage of either of these bills.

1. Goodbye Potomac Primary? The week following Super Tuesday in 2008, there were three Tuesday contests: Maryland, Virginia and Washington DC. This regional or subregional primary was not all that consequential in the scope of the overall race -- Obama and McCain swept all three -- but they did start a string of consecutive victories in February for Senator Obama and inched McCain closer to the Republican nomination. Collectively, however, the three, regionally clustered contests commanded all of the campaign media's attention after Super Tuesday and the idea of the candidates devoting their energies to the issues and people of a region or subregion was looked upon favorably by some within the national parties. The Democratic Change Commission actually built the notion in their rules recommendation. Yet, the legislative action in Virginia -- temporarily at least -- breaks up that grouping of contests if it passes the legislature and is signed into law by Governor McDonnell. The question isn't whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, rather is one concerning whether Maryland and Washington DC follow suit. Maryland's legislature convened on January 12 as well, but as of yet there is no bill that has been introduced to shift the date on which the Old Line state's presidential primary will be held.

2. Rules Compliance. These bills, if passed and signed into law, would bring the state into compliance with both sets of national party rules on delegate selection event timing. Any contest scheduled on or after the first Tuesday in March complies. Virginia is one of eighteen states that currently had an election law on the books that calls for a February (or earlier) primary in violation of national party rules.

3. Democrats and Republicans. FHQ discussed this previously, but significance of divided government on frontloading (and it should be noted that this bill proposes moving the bill backward not forward) should be mentioned. Not only are we more likely to see movement in states with unified control of the state government, but election years with no incumbent running for reelection are more likely to see movement as well. Virginia has neither working in its favor. The legislature is divided -- Democrats control the Senate and Republicans have a majority in the House -- and President Obama is running for reelection. That said, the fact that one of these bills was sponsored by a Democrat and the other by a Republican speaks to at least some potential for consensus on this issue. Again, it is a bill to move the primary back, not forward, so the dynamics are not necessarily the same. As we said in the earlier post, the expectation is that Democratic-controlled state governments would be more likely to move back and into compliance with the DNC delegate selection rules, while Republican-controlled state governments face the dilemma of moving back in accordance with the RNC rules but losing potential influence over the nomination in the process. With at least one Virginia Republican, following the rules trumps influence. That may not be the case in other states.

4. Democrats and Republicans, Part II. Two different bills, two different sponsors, two different parties. Which one will move forward (or will one move forward)? If one of these versions is to move forward and if partisanship plays a role, Rep. Cole's (R) version is likely to find more support among the Republican majority in the Virginia House.

As the legislative session in Virginia progresses, these are some things to keep an eye on when either of these bills are being considered.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Two Bills Introduced to Move Virginia Presidential Primary from February to March

There have been two bills introduced in the Virginia House to shift the date on which the state's presidential primary is held from the first second Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March. Both bills (HB 1667 and HB 1843) are exactly the same except for the fact that the former bill lowers the petition signature requirement from 10,000 to 5,000 for presidential candidates. That bill was introduced by Democrat Jennifer McClellan while HB 1843 was introduced by Republican Mark Cole. Each bill was prefiled on Monday, January 10 and was introduced today.

Both bills will be added to our left sidebar gadget, "Presidential Primary Bills Before State Legislatures".

NOTE: Please make note of the strikethrough above. Virginia state law places the state's presidential primary on the SECOND Tuesday in February, not the first as was initially stated. Thanks to reader, MysteryPolitico, for catching that.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

More on the California Bill to Move Presidential Primary Back to June

After the introduction of AB 80 last week -- the bill that would move California's presidential primary back to June -- FHQ contacted Assemblymember Fong's (the bill's sponsor) office to inquire about the motivation behind the effort. I had assumed that it was a cost-saving measure and that the national party rules proposing sanctions on all February states would be part of the equation. It turns out they were (see summary and background below the break), but I was surprised to see the "not enough bang for our buck" argument.

Let me explain. Arkansas moved its presidential primary early in 2005 to the first Tuesday in February for the 2008 cycle. Then Hillary Clinton decided to run for the Democratic nomination. Then Mike Huckabee decided to run for the Republican nomination. All the while a bevy of states -- California included -- opted to hold their delegate selection events on the same early February date. As February 5, 2008 approached the candidates on both sides ceded the Natural state to its favorite son and daughter and Arkansas was lost among candidate visits and news coverage of contests in other February 5 states. Now, Arkansas had a reasonable gripe. Why spend all that money on a separate presidential primary and get essentially nothing out of it?

Why indeed? That's why legislators in Arkansas moved the state's presidential primary back to its traditional May position during the 2009 legislative session.

But does that same argument work in California? No, California, like Arkansas, didn't have the stage all to itself on February 5, but as long as most states follow the national party rules and subsequently cluster around the earliest allowable date, no state is going to have that luxury. Unlike Arkansas, however, the Golden state did receive many more candidate visits than the other February 5 states. In fact, the total number of visits to California only trailed four other states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida).

The question remains, though. Were those 155 total candidate visits enough bang for the cost the state incurred for holding for the first time a separate presidential primary from its primaries for state and local offices? FHQ has asked the staff of the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee for an estimate of the savings they would expect if AB 80 passed and became law. Once they have heard back from the secretary of state's office later in the session, they will have that figure. My guess is that is still not going to look like it is worth it compared to the attention Iowa and New Hampshire get. That said, no state is going to get that kind of attention unless the government there decides to break the national party rules to a degree never witnessed in the post-reform era.

--

AB 80 (Fong): Presidential Primary

SUMMARY

This bill saves the state and local governments millions of dollars by eliminating California's stand-alone presidential primary election in February and instead consolidating it with primary elections for other offices in June.

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 113 (Calderon), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2007, to move the State's presidential primary from June to the first Tuesday in February. At the time, the intent behind moving up the primary was to encourage presidential candidates to campaign in California, and to debate and discuss issues and policies important to the people of this state, while also to encourage voter registration, voter interest, and voter participation in the 2008 election.

Consequently, in 2008 California held its presidential primary on February 5^th. However, by the time California voters cast their ballots 33 other states had also moved up their presidential primaries. Fifteen states held their presidential primary on the same day as California, limiting California's influence on the selection of presidential candidates.

In August of 2010, the Republican and Democratic National Committees adopted policies that prohibit any type of selection process for presidential candidates, via election or caucus from occurring prior to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, with the exception of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada who are permitted to begin their processes at any time on or after February 1.

These policies are intended to discourage the trend of early primary elections because the earlier the primary, the longer the period of time between the primary and general elections, which could result in lower voter turnouts and increased costs of campaigning by lengthening the campaign season.

While a state is free to schedule its presidential primary election or caucus whenever it wants, it may face sanctions at the national convention if its election or caucus is held at a time or in a manner that violates the national party rules.

In addition, current law requires the 2012 presidential primary to occur on the first Tuesday in February and prohibits it from being consolidated with the statewide direct primary to be held in that year - meaning, California would be required to hold 3 separate statewide elections in 2012, imposing a huge cost on the state and local governments at a time when our state's fiscal situation is in crisis.

AB 80 will eliminate the state's stand-alone presidential primary election and consolidate it with other primary elections, saving the state and local governments tens of millions of dollars on avoided election costs, as well as conform California law to national party rules.

AB 80

AB 80 does the following:

Requires the presidential primary to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June of each year evenly divisible by the number four.

Requires the presidential primary election to be consolidated with the statewide direct primary that is held in that year.

Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.