New Hampshire Straw Poll To Be Held Saturday

I hope they invite a representative and proportional group of independents to this straw poll to mimic what next year's primary in the Granite state might actually be like.

From the National Journal:

WMUR-TV is partnering with ABC News to conduct a straw poll on Jan. 22 at the state GOP's convention when it elects its new chair. The attendees will be the state party's nearly 493 committee members, which include many of the most important endorsements for the 2012 presidential contenders.

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

Washington State Republican Party Opposes Bill to Eliminate 2012 Presidential Primary

Earlier today FHQ discussed the companion House bill that replicates the Senate bill introduced last week to cancel the 2012 presidential primary in Washington state. Both bills were initiated by Democrats in each chamber on the request of Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire and Republican secretary of state Sam Reed. The state House and Senate are both controlled by the Democratic Party (56D - 42R, House; 27D - 22R, Senate) and both bills were introduced and sponsored by members of the Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

Widespread, bipartisan support, then, may not be necessary.

And it doesn't necessarily look like it will happen. The Washington State Republican Party chair, Luke Esser, spoke against the measure yesterday at the public hearing for the Senate bill (SB 5119).

From the party's blog:

The Washington State Republican Party (WSRP) has always used the primary results to determine delegate allocations to the Republican National Convention which officially nominates the President. Eliminating the Presidential Primary disenfranchises thousands of individuals who cannot make their local precinct caucuses. Because of this the WSRP stands against eliminating the primary which was instituted via citizen initiative.

WSRP Chairman Luke Esser will be in Olympia testifying against the bill.

As was detailed in an earlier post, Washington Republicans have for several presidential nomination cycles now split the allocation of their convention delegates between both a caucus and a primary while the Democrats have typically used just a caucus with the state-funded primary serving as an advisory beauty contest. The argument from the state Republican Party reflects that difference and may ultimately fall on deaf (and Democratic) ears in committee and on the floor of each chamber should these bills make it that far. In the end, those majorities will make Republican opposition to the bill (if it exists -- The state party doesn't necessarily speak for individual Republican members of the state House or Senate.) moot.

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

Companion Bill to Cancel 2012 Washington Presidential Primary Introduced in the State House

The House companion of the state Senate bill introduced last week to cancel Washington state's 2012 presidential primary was introduced on Tuesday. Both the vice chair (Sherry Appleton - D) and another member (John McCoy - D) of the committee to which the bill has been referred -- State Government and Tribal Affairs -- are serving as co-sponsors of the legislation. Like SB 5119, HB 1324 would cancel the 2012 presidential primary in the Evergreen state and allow for a January 2013 expiration of the change to the law. That sunset means that the cancelation is only in effect for the 2012 cycle and that future cancelations would be up to future state legislatures.

Both bills -- House and Senate -- were introduced at the request of the governor and secretary of state and are projected to save the state $10 million if passed and signed into law. In both cases, the bills were introduced by either chairs or vice chairs of the relevant committees that will review the legislation and appear to be fast-tracked -- to some degree -- for passage. Washington's state legislature is controlled by the Democratic Party and there seems to be enough support for the bill's passage at the top (executive branch and committee leadership) to get the bill through both chambers quickly.

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

2012 Republican Delegate Selection Rules Regarding Timing

The following is the passage within the 2012 Republican delegate selection rules [partial] that applies to the timing of primaries and caucuses:

No primary, caucus, or convention to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national convention shall occur prior to the first Tuesday in March in the year in which a national convention is held. Except Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may begin their processes at any time on or after February 1 in the year in which a national convention is held and shall not be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this rule.

RNC Rule 15(b)(1)

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

2012 Democratic Delegate Selection Rules Regarding Timing

The following is the passage within the 2012 Democratic delegate selection rules that applies to the timing of primaries and caucuses:

No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in March or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 29 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 21 days before the first Tuesday in March; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in March; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in March. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in March and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.

-- DNC Delegate Selection Rule 11(a)

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

A Thursday Presidential Primary Option is Being Considered in Georgia

Correction: Clever though this would have seemed, the below move, if the Georgia General Assembly chooses to act on it, would actually be a violation of the both national parties' delegate selection rules. It is incorrect that a March 1 primary would violate Democratic Party rules but not the Republican rules. [There would be no difference between a March 1 primary and one on the first Tuesday in February where the primary is currently positioned. Both would be in violation of the rules.] If the parties' rules are to be followed, all non-exempt states will have to hold their contests on or after the first Tuesday in March. That's still a pretty big if at this point in time.

I will post the Democratic and Republican delegate selection rules in separate posts and give links to them a prominent position in the left sidebar under the 2012 presidential primary calendar. That way we'll all have a handy guide.

Original Post:

John Tures, an associate professor of political science at LaGrange College writing for the Southern Political Report today, indicates that there are several options that are being considered by state legislators for the Peach state's 2012 presidential primary. There are some gaps in the article,* but the nugget that is most interesting is that one of the options that is being considered is to move the state's primary to a Thursday. FHQ took this to mean that the Republican-controlled General Assembly would move the primary back into March, but schedule the election for the Thursday before the party-preferred Super Tuesday on March 6.

In other words, the proposal -- and there is no bill that has been introduced in either state legislative chamber to reflect this as of yet -- would position the Georgia primary on March 1. Here is an interesting quirk to that. When you combine that particular date with the aforementioned fact that Georgia's General Assembly (and the governor) are Republican-controlled, you end up with a violation of Democratic Party rules on delegate selection, but not on the Republican side. The Democratic Party rules set the opening date of the window in which delegate selection events (primaries and caucuses) can be held for the first Tuesday in March. That's March 6. The Republican Party rules are more ambiguous. Those rules don't specify a particular date. They simply say that no non-exempt state can go prior to March.

Clever.

Yes, this breaks with the traditional Tuesday election day, but it also gives Georgia a leg up on other, non-exempt states. That assumes that all the other non-exempt states currently in violation of the national parties' rules on event timing change their laws to come into compliance. FHQ still thinks that is a big IF at this point, but it would carve out a little piece of unique territory for Georgia should the state government actually proceed with this plan.

*The fact that going earlier than many other states is an option implies that the state legislature would be actively moving the primary to a point on the calendar in violation of the national parties' rules on presidential delegate selection. Current state law already has the state positioned early and in violation of those rules.

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

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.