As one Nevada operative put it, the Silver State has emerged as an “ugly stepchild” of sorts in the presidential primary so far, with the traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina hogging all spotlight. Nevada is scheduled to hold the third primary contest next year after Iowa and New Hampshire.
Compared with Democrats’ caucuses four years ago, Republicans are far behind in fundraising, voter outreach, campaign visits, staffing and party organization — a signal that the GOP caucuses could be a bust.
Working against Nevada Republicans is the absence of a Harry Reid-like figure drawing national attention and donations to the state, a major factor in Democrats’ success four years ago. They also don’t have a built-in organizing force such as labor unions, which also drove caucus attendance for Democrats four years ago.
And although the party is looking to contract with a firm that has experience organizing the Iowa caucuses, it has yet to hire a caucus director or raise enough money to hire such a firm.
“No one wants to go through another 2008 — where we have no idea what we’re doing and hoping the guy we brought in does, but turns out not to really have the bravado to pull it off,” said one Republican operative who worked the caucuses four years ago.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Nevada GOP hasn’t kicked into caucus mode — yet
Via Anjeanette Damon of The Las Vegas Sun.
--
FHQ will let Damon's piece speak for itself, but I would like to add to it an observation and question about the Nevada caucuses in 2012 in general. Things have been awfully quiet from the Silver state as the other early states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- have objected to threats to their positions from Florida and Arizona. This has given me pause. Is the Nevada Republican Party willing to follow the other three early states into early January or into 2011 if forced?
Damon doesn't necessarily paint a positive picture on that front:
Given even less time, it isn't clear that the Nevada GOP could get its act together in time for caucuses any earlier than February 18, much less if the state was forced to consider January or 2011. In fact, on its face, Nevada would potentially be forced to just stick with its February 18 date; potentially yielding its first-in-the-west position to Arizona.
Recent Posts:
The Myth of Republican Presidential Primary Proportionality
The one thing that gets FHQ all hot and bothered these days -- to the point that we really want to go all Joe Wilson on people -- is to hear or read pundits talking about what a game changer the Republican National Committee's new rules on delegate allocation will have on the 2012 nomination race. Look, the RNC and the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee made big steps toward not only allowing delegate selection rules changes outside of the Republican convention but in actually altering the rules in a way that curbs to some extent the latitude states have had in the past in determining their own method of allocation.
However, the most underreported aspect of the 2012 Republican nomination race -- something FHQ has said before but since there are so many people hanging around here post-Ames bears repeating -- is that the rules change will not fundamentally alter the accrual of delegates by candidates next year. The pre-April winner-take-all restrictions are being given way more weight than they deserve. And nothing epitomizes that more than Dana Houle's hypothetical run through a Romney-Perry nomination race where complete winner-take-all restrictions prior to April are imposed by the RNC.1
The only problem is that it is a myth.
Many are looking on the 2012 Republican nomination race as a repeat of the 2008 Democratic race. The 2012 Republican race may yet be a dragged out affair that stretches into May or June, and that may be because of the rules changes. But it will be more about the changes to the scheduling of primaries -- a more even dispersion of contests -- than it is about the shift in delegate allocation rules. Again, the impact is being exaggerated.
Part of the problem here is that the Republican National Committee has done a poor job at educating the public -- much less members of its own party or the media -- about the changes. People hear, "States can't have winner-take-all delegate allocation prior to April 1," and automatically flashback to the Democrats in 2008. That is the wrong mindset and highlights the poor job that both the national party and the media have done on this issue. It demonstrates the misunderstanding of the basic rules differences between the two parties. Seemingly the differences in delegate allocation are often portrayed as black and white -- proportional and winner-take-all -- when in reality the difference is between black and gray. The Republicans have allowed the states to set their own mode of allocation and many in the past -- without "restrictions" -- have opted for straight winner-take-all, hybrid systems or proportional allocation.
FHQ won't rehash the arguments we have made in the past. This time we will offer up an example of what the rules changes might entail. Let's look at Michigan. The Michigan Republican Party's State Policy Committee recently recommended that the Great Lakes state presidential primary be held sometime during a February 28-March 6 window next year. Those recommendations were passed this past weekend by the full State Committee and included a consensus (on the State Policy Committee) to repeat the delegate allocation rules from 2008. Those rules in 2008 yielded an allocation of 23 delegates for Mitt Romney, 6 for John McCain and 1 for Mike Huckabee. Romney captured just under 39% of the vote in the January 15 Michigan primary, but ended up with 77% of the delegates from the state. No, that isn't directly winner-take-all, but it does provide one candidate with a healthy margin in the delegate count coming out of the state.
And Michigan is going to use the same method in 2012: allocating its three delegates per each congressional district on a winner-take-all basis and the remaining at-large delegates proportionally. Candidates would have to win 15% of the vote to win any delegates; something that could be set as high as 20% according to the rules. So, for the record, 42 of the 59 delegates (79% of the state's delegate total) are still allocated on a winner-take-all basis. And seven three of the remaining delegates are the Republicans' version of superdelegates: They are free to endorse who they please. That leaves just the ten at-large delegates -- each state has ten -- plus the four bonus delegates to be allocated proportionally.2
Instead of proving to be a drag on Perry's chances, this may, in fact, help him out if other states follow Michigan's lead. Perry would not have jumped into the race if he didn't see a path and that path -- best case scenario -- sees victory in Iowa, a least second in New Hampshire, a win in South Carolina, being in the top two in Florida. That omits Nevada, Arizona and Michigan. Throw them to Romney if you will, but after those potential contests comes a southern swing on Super Tuesday and the following week (March 6-13). There is a reason the Romney campaign was pushing for an earlier Utah primary for Super Tuesday. It wasn't to ward off of Huntsman, it was to provide some delegates for the former Massachusetts governor in an otherwise tough couple of weeks for the Romney campaign from a delegates perspective. Does that bring out the death knell for the Romney campaign. Perhaps. He will have plenty of money, but often the writing can be on the wall with as few as 30% of the total national delegates allocated -- depending on the scenario. Regardless, that southern swing would at the worst -- assuming the Perry candidacy takes off -- give Perry the upper hand and the momentum when the contests turn elsewhere.
Look, Perry may fall flat in the next few weeks and he may not. But he will not fail if he makes it to 2012 because of the incorrect perception of the RNC rules regarding delegate allocation. The perception that the GOP has adopted Democratic-style, straight proportional allocation for any contest occurring before April 1 is a figment of everyone's imagination.
UPDATE: Regular FHQ reader, Matt Seyfang (@mseyfang), points out that Michigan is only one state and may not represent the true tenor of the rules changes. Too true. In order to avoid any cherrypicking charges, let's look at this from a slightly different angle. Compared to the 2008 rules, which states will have to make changes to their Republican delegate allocation? As of now, given the information we have, there are 16 pre-April primary states.3 Of those 16 states, seven will have to make some changes to their delegate allocation rules. Four -- South Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma -- already have rules accounting for allocating both congressional district delegates and statewide, at-large delegates. In other words, these states weren't and aren't straight winner-take-all states. Those four states have to change the mode in which the statewide, at-large delegates are allocated. Recall, that the at-large delegates are only a sliver of any state's overall delegate total. When and if these states alter their rules to comply with the RNC mandates, it won't represent all that fundamental a change to the accumulation of delegates relative to 2008. The remaining three states -- Vermont, Virginia and Arizona -- all have straight winner-take-all allocation rules and have a slightly greater chance of seeing a difference in 2012 allocation versus 2008. But again, the requirement does not call for a huge change. Those states, as the ones above, will only have to alter the way in which those at-large, statewide delegates are allocated.
FHQ should also note that, we won't have a firm grasp on the plans in each state until after the October 1 RNC deadline for informing the RNC of state-level plans for delegate allocation. That said, the expectation here is that state Republican Parties will take the easiest route toward compliance on these delegate allocation rules. State parties won't, then, fundamentally rewrite their past rules, but only tweak them to meet the new guidelines.
And that will yield a change from 2008 potentially, but not nearly the type of change in delegate allocation that is being implied by pundits and others.
NOTE: Delegate allocation rules come via The Green Papers.
--
1 Or David Chalian citing the impact of the new winner-take-all restrictions in a segment on the GOP race on The PBS NewsHour this evening. He repeats the mistake here.
2 The "bonus" delegates, according to Rule 13.5 of the 2008 Rules of the Republican Party, are those added to a state's total for a state having voted for the Republican presidential candidate in the previous cycle, having Republican governors, having Republican majorities in the state legislature, etc. Those additional delegates are added to a state's at-large total and are allocated proportionally prior to April 1 and at the state's discretion thereafter.
3 Caucus states are harder to deal with. Most don't typically allocate any delegates at the precinct caucus stage. The Nevada GOP has decided to do so in 2012 and to allocated those delegates proportionally.
Recent Posts:
Monday, August 15, 2011
Has the New Jersey Primary Already Moved to June 5 or Is It Now Locked in on February 7?
...or is it none of the above?
Well, let FHQ be the first to dispel that specific rumor. New Jersey's primary will only remain in February if Governor Chris Christie decides to veto A 3777, the bill that eliminated the separate presidential primary created in 2005. That legislation passed the New Jersey legislature on June 29, but has languished, seemingly in limbo in the time since.
What does that mean? It doesn't mean all that much on its face. First of all, Governor Christie has yet to act on the bill -- whether to sign it or veto it. But that raises the second more interesting/important point: Governor Christie has yet to act on the bill. Notice FHQ said that the only way the primary will stay in February is if Christie vetoes the primary bill. But the bill can still become law without the governor's signature. It can also be vetoed without gubernatorial action.
Let's look at the first scenario: A bill that has passed the New Jersey legislature can become law without the governor's signature if the period for consideration -- 45 days -- has passed.1 Forty-five days have passed since A 3777 successfully cleared both chambers of the legislature on June 29. In fact, 46 days have now passed (not counting today). Well, that's pretty cut and dry, right? Forty-five days have passed and the bill is law.
That is true except for a couple of matters. First of all, the 45 day countdown begins once the bill is presented to the governor. There is no formal process for -- at least no formal way of cataloging -- the transmission of legislation to the New Jersey governor like there is in other states (see the New York presidential primary bill). Take, for example, the FY2012 budget bill in New Jersey: S 4000. It passed on the same day as the presidential primary bill and was signed the next day without mention of transmission to the governor. In other words, we don't know when the 45 day clock began on A 3777. There is also the fact that the legislature is currently in recess. As such, Governor Christie has until the day the legislature reconvenes to consider the legislation and sign it if he is going to. The state Senate is scheduled to be back for one day on August 25, but FHQ is not clear on whether that will technically be enough -- with nothing simultaneously on the Assembly agenda -- to trigger an end to the period of gubernatorial consideration.
While 45 days have come and gone since the primary legislation passed, Governor Christie will technically have until the day the legislature reconvenes to sign it or not. That point will not occur until August 25 at the earliest.
And the veto? I've partially shot this scenario down already. A gubernatorial pocket veto of a bill is contingent upon a bill having passed the legislature within the final ten days of a two year legislative session. 2011 marks the end of a two year legislative session and while it may look as if the legislature -- currently in recess -- is adjourned, it is not.
With or without Governor Christie's signature, the expectation at FHQ is that the bill will become law -- especially considering there is no money allocated for a separate presidential primary election in the budget -- and the primary will move to June 5.
--
1 The pertinent sections of Article V, Section 1.14 from the New Jersey Constitution:
Recent Posts:
Michigan Republicans Formally Support a Late February or Early March Primary
The Saturday morning meeting of the Michigan Republican Party State Committee and the resolution on the timing and nature of the presidential nominating contest there were more formalities than anything else. Even before the votes were cast, there were Michigan Republicans talking of assurances that the measure to call for a "closed" presidential primary some time on or between February 28 and March 6 would pass.1 It did pass (...by a 92-17 margin).
What 2012 primary calendar watchers are left with, however, is not all that different from what we had prior to the meeting in Lansing on Saturday. Michigan Republicans have formally endorsed holding a presidential primary as the means of allocating their delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa next year. The state party has furthermore deemed the window of time on or between February 28 and March 6 as acceptable. Again, heading into Saturday, this information was pretty clear.
It is a baby step toward setting the date in Michigan, but the date is still just as uncertain now as it was last week. Sure, the Michigan Republican Party can pass all the resolutions in the world, but that does not necessarily translate into a confirmation or near confirmation of the Wolverine state primary date. That is the case because the resolution, while binding within the Michigan Republican Party, does not bind the other decision-maker in the matter: the state government.
Michigan is currently at a point in this process where most states were months ago. In light the rules from the national parties in 2010, the states -- whether state governments for primary states or state parties for caucus states -- were/are faced in 2011 with setting delegate selection plans that comply. In many cases that has meant former February primary and caucus states moving back to later dates. States get the rules from the national parties and then act either as state parties or state governments (state legislatures passing legislation then signed by a governor) to comply.
This Michigan case highlights something that should be clarified in the figure above and made clearer here: there is a certain back and forth between state governments and state parties in primary states. Even though state governments technically move a primary date, the state party ultimately must sign off on the decision. Look at Idaho. The state government moved the primary date during its winter/spring 2011 session, but the Idaho Republican Party later decided over the summer to abandon the mid-May primary for a Super Tuesday caucus.
The Michigan case flips that on its head. In the instance of Michigan, the state Republican Party has adopted a timeframe into which it would like its 2012 presidential primary scheduled. But those plans may require action from the Michigan legislature. Now, the Michigan legislature is Republican-controlled, but that legislature is not bound by Saturday's decision.
There are several courses of action now, but the major question that emerges from all of this is what the Michigan Republican Party would do if the legislature -- and then the governor -- chose to take up, consider and pass the legislation currently before it to move the Michigan presidential primary to January 31? FHQ is inclined to say that the Michigan Republican Party would go along with it. The party may not come out and say, "We passed a resolution. We can't do this. Therefore we need to hold a compliant caucus." But they may say [to the RNC], "Look, we passed a resolution. The legislature and governor acted on their own. What choice did we have but to hold the primary on January 31?" That scenario likely won't transpire, but the Michigan Republican Party would have some built in defense if it did.
No, as I mentioned above, there are several courses of action that the powers that be in and around Lansing could end up taking. The above scenario is one. The legislature taking that same bill and using it as a vehicle to move the primary back into compliance on March 6 another.2 The most likely outcome, however, is that nothing happens in the state legislature at all. The Michigan primary is already scheduled for February 28; the date at the opening of the state party's timeframe. And as was the case in our discussion of Missouri the other day, the path of least resistance is the most likely path at this late date.
In terms of gaming that scenario out, the Michigan legislature is back in session on Tuesdays-Thursdays from September 7-28 (see FHQ's Primer on When the Remaining States will Decide on Dates for more). If the legislature decides to sit on the legislation, we won't have confirmation of the primary date in Michigan until after September 28. That is the last day the legislature is in session before the RNC-mandated deadline for making decisions, October 1. Of course, if there is any attempt to move the primary, the legislature will have had to act before then in order to pass the bill and transmit it to the governor for signature.
The bottom line? The situation in Michigan is clearer after Saturday, but only slightly, and there won't be confirmation of the final date until late September perhaps.
--
1 In this instance the quotation marks around closed refers to the fact that Michigan law allows for open primaries, but the Michigan Republican Party is going to require that voters request a Republican ballot. That is not the same deterrent as those dictated by law and constraining a primary election to only partisans of a particular party.
2 The Michigan Republican Party would presumably go along with this as it meets the guidelines of the resolution passed Saturday.
Recent Posts:
The 2011 Ames Straw Poll and the Future of the Iowa Caucuses
This is one instance where having two bites at the apple might actually pay off for Iowa. But it will take a break from historical precedent in the Hawkeye state for that to happen.
Look, FHQ does not purport to tell Iowa Republicans who attended and voted in yesterday's Ames Straw Poll that their decision was the wrong one.1 That said, there are limits to how embattled Presidential Obama will be in 2012 due to the economy if the Republican Party nominates a candidate well off the right flank of the general electorate. Rightly or wrongly, Michele Bachmann is one of those candidates. So, too, is Ron Paul. Tim Pawlenty -- now out of the race following Ames -- was not. That's presidential nomination politics. Pawlenty becomes an example of a candidate running for 2012 who won't actually be running in 2012. Bachmann and Paul move on taking the win and show spots respectively.
And as Nate Silver pointed out Saturday:
Since the event [Ames Straw Poll] began in 1979, the [Republican] candidate winning the Iowa caucus has placed first or second in the straw poll every time.That leaves Bachmann, Paul or a break from history given the final tally from Ames. And as Silver rightly highlights, with such a small sample size -- only five observations -- we are not dealing with a robust dataset. Still the straw poll is an event that has had some predictive power in terms of the subsequent Iowa caucuses. Does that make either Congresswoman Bachmann or Congressman Paul a shoo-in for an Iowa caucus win? Does that increase the likelihood of the sixth time producing a different result than previous observations?
FHQ doesn't know. What I do know is that Iowa politicians, activists and likely Iowa caucus-goers are going to have to have a good look at the process over the next few months and years. And they are lucky to have that second crack at things when the caucuses roll around next year (???). The caucuses' position on the calendar in future cycles may depend on it.
I wouldn't call it buyer's remorse because Iowa Republicans haven't bought anything yet, but they may select their way out of their prime position if Hawkeye caucus-goers prove inefficient at performing the one thing Iowa has the privilege of: winnowing the field down. As I said last week, Iowa's job has never been to predict the winner. The Hawkeye state begins to separate the wheat from the chaff. If, however, Iowa Republicans continually push the ultimate nominee into the chaff pile -- slotting Perry and Romney into sixth and seventh place, for instance -- the RNC will be more likely explore its options at the front of the calendar. And again, that is not so much for not picking the winner so much as winnowing the field inefficiently: tilting the race and the remaining viable field of candidates in a more rightward direction ideologically.
The old rule of thumb -- all things being held equal -- has always been that the top three out of Iowa move on to New Hampshire and the top two from New Hampshire move on to South Carolina, Florida, Super Tuesday and perhaps beyond. But if Iowa's top three are not ideologically representative of Republicans nationally or if Iowa's result is essentially ignored in subsequent contests, then what's Iowa doing at the front of the queue?
Why indeed? The RNC may ask itself that in the next few months. FHQ is not one to jump on this quadrennial "Iowa doesn't deserve to always be first" bandwagon, but when you begin matching up the outcome of the straw poll with the historical significance of the straw poll, it doesn't necessarily bode well -- small sample size statistics aside.
There are a couple of interesting notes to add into all of this.
1. This may all be moot if the Perry candidacy takes flight and he emerges as the main counter to Mitt Romney in the race. All of the "Iowa as first in the nation is doomed" people will disappear for another few years or at least until another moderate frontrunner decides to "skip" Iowa.2
2. The strange twist of fate is that Iowa Democrats may be the one group to help their Hawkeye Republican brethren. Iowa Democrats don't have the same perception problems as Iowa Republicans. They aren't viewed as tilting the race to the left in the same way that the Republican contest does to the right. If the Democratic National Committee decides to leave the Iowa and New Hampshire question off the table in its 2016 delegate selection rules discussion, then Iowa Republicans may have some leverage with the RNC. However...
First of all, there is no indication that the DNC would not consider a challenge to Iowa's and New Hampshire's positions. It was discussed but tabled for 2014 by the Rules and Bylaws Committee during its consideration of the 2012 delegate selection rules in 2010. Even then, it didn't appear that the committee was really willing to open that can of worms in 2010 or in the future. What was clear was that another round of opening the pre-window to additional states would be the likely compromise. In other words, Iowa and New Hampshire keep their positions, but additional states beyond just South Carolina and Nevada would be added to the pre-Super Tuesday period.3
Secondly, it isn't clear yet whether the RNC will even have a competitive nomination battle in 2016 in which case Iowa probably lives to see another day at the beginning of the Republican calendar.
Of course, how Iowa Republicans decide in 2012 may have an impact on that.
--
Michele Bachmann: 4823 votes
Ron Paul: 4671
Tim Pawlenty: 2293
Rick Santorum: 1567
Herman Cain: 1456
Rick Perry (write in): 718
Mitt Romney: 567
Newt Gingrich: 385
Jon Huntsman: 69
Thad McCotter: 35
--
1 After all, a presidential nomination is a party decision with the aims of the members of the party being paramount. The problem is that those aims are not always clearly defined (or that the definition changes over time). Often it is a matter of the difference in valuing ideology over electoral success or vice versa. There is often a happy medium between the two -- again, that's nomination politics -- but it is rare for a party to drift toward pure ideology without it having an impact on the party's electoral success in the general election.
2 There is no skipping, only downplaying and contesting at a lower level.
3 I tweeted last night in a response to a question about which states might fill out those slots that I thought Florida and Michigan might be natural fits for additional slots. That may be true. The DNC would hear from all interested states first and make a decision. Part of the Rules and Bylaws Committee decision would be based on the likelihood of a primary move in accordance with the new rules being made. As things stand in 2011, both Florida and Michigan are Republican-controlled state governments. Should those Republicans remain in power, they may not be interested in aiding the Democratic Party in nominating their general election candidate. Much will depend on which party/parties actually have competitive nomination races in 2016.
Recent Posts:
Saturday, August 13, 2011
A Long Overdue Update on the Situation in Missouri
With all the talk of Arizona, Florida, Michigan and others threatening the 2012 presidential primary calendar, not to mention the approach of the Ames Straw Poll, there has been little room for any other states to enter the discussion. No, I won't get into nor do I mean the normative argument concerning what the "proper" ordering of states should be on the calendar. FHQ is referring to the remaining states that have to settle the scheduling of their 2012 presidential primaries and caucuses. With that said, there have been a few [slightly dated] things that have happened around that Missouri presidential primary situation that have been pushed further and further back in the queue here at FHQ for various reasons. Nothing is groundbreaking, but together several bits of information help to better define what is happening and might happen with the scheduling of the primary in the Show Me state.
First of all, there was a significant amount of state legislative dissension that emerged following Governor Jay Nixon's (D) veto of the elections bill that would have shifted the presidential primary from February and into compliance with the national parties' rules in March. That isn't new. FHQ covered that early on, and while the displeasure with the veto was mostly Republican -- theirs is the nomination race that matters in 2012 -- there was irritation within the Democratic caucus in the Missouri General Assembly as well.
But the Democrats and Republicans in the Missouri General Assembly are having an apples to oranges debate with the governor. Democrats are concerned over other, non-presidential primary-related provisions in the vetoed elections bill (via Virginia Young at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch):
Republicans, however, are upset over the veto of the presidential primary provision, but for the wrong reasons (via Tim Sampson at Missouri News-Horizon):Democratic Rep. Pat Conway, a former county clerk in St. Joseph, said small towns and villages in rural Missouri have been trying for years to pass a bill that treats them the same as other governmental entities when it comes to elections.
Under current law, school districts, fire districts and ambulance districts, for example, can cancel elections if the number of candidates who file for office is equal to the number of positions to be filled. The candidates are considered elected without an election.
Cities, towns and villages enjoy no such exception. So when the others opt out, municipalities must bear the entire cost of the election.
"Some of these communities in my district are spending 50 percent of their whole budget on elections," Conway said in an interview. He said an election might cost a village $2,000, and "some of them are only taking in $4,000 or $5,000 on their levies."
The bill passed by the Legislature would have put municipalities with a population of less than 35,000 under the same rules as the other local governmental units.
“Based on what happen to Michigan and Florida during the 2008 primary for the Democratic (nomination), it’s highly likely that national candidates for president would likely boycott the state,” [Missouri Republican Party spokesman, Jonathan] Prouty said.
This is beyond wrong. Missouri Republicans would lose half their delegates to the Tampa convention next year given a non-compliant presidential primary date, but it is extremely unlikely that candidates would boycott the state. The Democrats in 2008 -- and again in 2012 -- have rules in place that penalize candidates for campaigning in defiant states, but the RNC does not have similar rules. While the Democratic candidates steered clear of Florida and Michigan in 2008, the candidates for the Republican nomination did not. In other words, if you hold a primary, the candidates will come.
...unless the candidates are in some way directly dissuaded from paying attention to the state.
In the grand scheme of things, the discussions from both sides of the aisle in Missouri are likely immaterial. At this point the primary date is very likely to be changed from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in February to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. The only questions is how?
Sure, Republicans in the state legislature could just sit on the clean presidential primary date change bill Governor Nixon will introduce in the special session next month, keeping the primary in February. But that just isn't likely. Instead we're looking at two paths here:
- The Republican-controlled legislature overrides the governor's veto of the elections bill.
- The legislature -- without much debate -- passes the governor's clean bill in its special session.
FHQ should note that there is at least some speculation that the special session and veto session will "roughly coincide" with one another. There is, then, at least theoretically, some reason to believe that there could be some discussion as to which path will be followed. To follow path #1 above, the Republican-controlled Missouri House will need -- as it did to pass the redistricted maps earlier this year -- at least four Democrats to go along with a veto override to push one through.1 There is, as was noted above, some Democratic dissatisfaction with the veto of the elections bill in the House. But it remains to be seen if that will amount to much in the veto session next month. Neither Democrats nor Republicans may be ready to open up that can of worms, opting instead to take up the clean bill changing the presidential primary date in the special session and leaving the other provisions for another day.
In fact, that is why the path of least resistance -- path #2 above -- is the most likely outcome next month in Missouri. The date gets changed like most in the Republican majorities in both the state House and Senate want, Missouri Democrats get to hold a compliant 2012 presidential primary, and the other elections provisions will be dealt with in the 2012 legislative session. Yes, the veto override is still on the table, but at this late point in the process of selecting a date for next year's presidential primary, it is likely too complicated to pass muster.
--
1 The state Senate is tilted enough toward the Republicans that Democratic votes are not necessary in the upper chamber to override the veto of SB 282.
Recent Posts:
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Primary or Caucus? Michigan Republicans Seem Close to Choosing a Primary
Paul Egan at Detroit News has the latest on the decisions facing the Michigan Republican Party this weekend at its State Committee meeting.
Primary or caucus (via Egan)?
A wave of Michigan recall efforts is expected to strengthen the case for a Feb. 28 primary when state Republicans meet Saturday to decide how and when to choose the delegates who will help select the GOP presidential nominee.
A "closed primary," as recommended by the party's policy committee, is seen as the most likely outcome when the 120-member Michigan Republican Party State Committee makes its decision at the Lansing Center.
Many Republicans from the party's conservative tea party wing, who support candidates such as Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota or Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, prefer a caucus — based on party meetings at the precinct level — to determine the presidential delegates and believe a primary favors frontrunner Mitt Romney, who appeals to a broader political spectrum.
But the prospect of holding a handful of recall elections for GOP and Democratic state lawmakers at the same time as a presidential primary expected to draw far more Republicans than Democrats is a recent development that's making the primary more attractive.
"That works against the Democrats by a four-to-one margin," said attorney Stu Sandler, a state party consultant who recently stepped down as interim executive director and is organizing recall efforts against more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers.
February 28 or some other date (again, Egan)?
Timing is another issue. National party rules say only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina can select delegates before Super Tuesday, March 6. Still, Michigan Republicans want to hold the primary early enough to be relevant. The policy panel recommended a date between Feb. 28 — already set for a Michigan election — and March 6. Many believe the national GOP will look the other way if the state only jumps ahead a week, or even if it goes earlier than that and Michigan's choice becomes the nominee.
FHQ will deal with the timing aspect first. As we have noted here several times, there is legislation before the Michigan state legislature to move the Wolverine state presidential primary to January 31. That said, the Michigan Republican Party has never really viewed that bill as a vehicle for changing the date. If anything, the state party has been wise to let Arizona and Florida threaten the calendar throughout 2011. All the while, maintaining the status quo -- a February 28 primary date -- has looked better and better. And while that date is still technically non-compliant with the national party rules, it would allow the first four states to fit their contests in within the rules in February. In other words, as Egan points out, the RNC would potentially be willing to "look the other way".
Egan also mentions the whispers among some in the Michigan Republican Party concerning going even earlier. That would be a gamble and one in which the state party -- as an organization -- has yet to show any public interest. FHQ just doesn't see the state party pulling the trigger on an earlier primary or caucus in 2012 and so boldly challenging the national party rules like it did in 2008. There will be a challenge, but it will be a more subtle one entered into under the premise that it is smart not to awaken the sleeping giant at a national party increasingly exploring the option of tightening the sanctions of rules-breakers.
--
As for the primary versus caucus question, Egan paints the debate in terms of developing camps: The Tea Party in favor of limited-access, [Tea Party] activist-heavy caucuses versus the state party establishment favoring a higher turnout primary that would also positively impact Republican recall efforts under way in the state.
Add to the mix a letter from Military Voters USA urging the party to nix the caucus idea altogether in favor of a primary.1 As we saw recently in West Virginia, activists can overturn the desires of the state party apparatus. In this case, however, it looks as if the primary will be the option on which the Michigan Republican Party State Committee will settle during its meeting this weekend.
...unless of course the Tea Party of Michigan cobbles together a sizable enough coalition on the committee to overturn the recommendation of the Michigan Republican State Policy Committee.
--
1 Here is that letter in full sent FHQ's way by Republican activist Soren Dayton:
MILITARY VOTING RIGHTS USA
For Those Who Sacrifice The Most
Leadership@MvrUSA.Org
Dear Michigan Republican Party Leader:
We write on behalf of the thousands of military voters serving overseas and in many cases, risking their lives for our nation.
In the next few days you will make a decision about whether to hold a primary or a caucus in Michigan to determine the presidential preference of delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.
We urge you not to disenfranchise military voters and wounded warriors as you make your decision.
Caucuses in their current form, without absentee balloting procedures, disenfranchise overseas military voters, as well as disabled military voters and veterans who cannot attend a caucus.
Shouldn't military voters deserve the same opportunity as other voters to vote for their party's nominee for Commander In Chief?
Your vote has consequences outside of Michigan. Other states may follow your lead. And ensuring that military voters are guaranteed the right to participate in the selection of their party's nominee should be a fundamental principle for the Party that led the fights for the 15th Amendment and the right of women to vote in America.
Please don't let the military voters of Michigan and America down!
Sincerely,
Jill Buck
Delegate to the 2008
GOP Convention Rules Committee
Lieutenant, U.S. Navy, 1991-1997
Pleasanton, CA
Tom Davis
Former Member of Congress
Veteran, U.S. Army
Vienna, VA
Jessie Jane Duff
U.S. Marine Corps, (Ret)
Washington, D.C.
Ed Fitzmaurice
Past Chair National Mediation Board
Veteran, U.S. Marine Corps
Washington D.C.
Stanley G. Gray
Disabled Veteran, U.S. Marine Corps.
1977-1988
Tampa, Florida
Robert A. Laurie
Delegate to the 2008
GOP Convention Rules Committee
Veteran, U.S. Army
Placerville, CA
Chuck McDougald
Captain, US Army Special Forces, 1964-69
South San Francisco, CA
Harry T. Prestanski,
Executive Director Ohio Veterans United
Cincinnati, Ohio
Veteran, U.S. Marine Corps 1966-1969
David N. Rogers
RADM US Navy, (Ret)
Alexandria, Va
Matt Salisbury
Iraq War Veteran, U.S. Army Rangers
Nampa, Idaho
A tip of the cap to Mr. Dayton for passing this along to FHQ.
Recent Posts:
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
More Reactions to the RNC Meeting from the Potentially Rogue Presidential Primary States
Yesterday's look at Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp's posturing on the Peach state presidential primary date indirectly started this examination. But of greater import are the reactions from the bigger threats to the 2012 presidential primary calendar in the wake of the RNC decision last week to defer on tougher sanctions for rogue presidential primary states. Thus far, the three main threats -- Arizona, Florida and Michigan -- have offered three different reactions ranging from silence to mixed signals to fairly clear intentions.
The silence is from Arizona. Well, silence may not be the best way of describing things in the Grand Canyon state. However, the fact that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's spokesman is singing the same "leaning toward moving the primary to January 31" song in virtually every article he is quoted in amounts to the same thing. If the song remains the same in Arizona, the story is overall unchanged. In other words, at the very least, Arizona is leveraging the ability to set such an early date to bargain for a more advantageous position on the calendar. At its most threatening, Arizona Republicans are simply ignoring the RNC and intend to hold a January 31 primary regardless. FHQ is still inclined to believe the former narrative, but the steady drumbeat of "leaning toward January 31" talk from Phoenix may eventually push the needle toward the latter.
In Florida, the signals are mixed. On the one hand, there is continued talk of a compromise predicated on the following notion (via William March at The Tampa Tribune):
A primary on Feb. 28 or later, [RNC committee member of Haines City, Florida, Paul] Senft said, technically would violate the rules but wouldn't interfere with plans by both national parties to have Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina hold the nation's first primaries and caucuses in February.But the fact that March later points out that Florida Governor Rick Scott -- among other Florida Republicans -- wants to go fifth, and thus ahead of a possible January 31 Arizona primary, jibes well with what Republican National Committeeman from Michigan, Saul Anuzis, had to say following the RNC meeting in Tampa regarding Arizona and Florida:
Arizona and Florida seem determined to go early…even earlier than February 28th.Florida, then, appears to be torn between holding an early primary and holding an early primary, but with the condition of going fifth. Florida's willingness or unwillingness to break from that "fifth and fifth only" condition may determine just how chaotic the primary calendar will end up. Arizona will be the first domino to fall, though.
We spent a lot of time discussing Michigan’s upcoming State Committee meeting and our pending decision about having a February 28th primary as currently statutorily set or the possibility of a caucus and moving the date back into March.
There is legislation currently before the Michigan House that would move the primary in the Wolverine state to January 31, but Michigan Republicans seem inclined to stick with the status quo -- February 28 -- or move back into March with a caucus. The latter seems to be a failsafe option if either the Republican-controlled legislature (and governor) act against the state party's wishes or the national party decides to hit non-compliant primary states -- even those on February 28 -- with much tougher penalties later.
The bottom line is that it very much looks as if Michigan is at this point a lesser threat to the primary calendar than Arizona and Florida (or Georgia depending on the Peach state's willingness to follow the Sunshine state into January). The answer to the Michigan question will depend to a large degree on what transpires at the Michigan Republican State Committee meeting later this month.
--
1 The Tampa Tribune's William March backs this assertion up with an indirect quote from Anuzis to the same effect in his "compromise" article as well:
Michigan RNC member Saul Anuzis said Republicans in his state will set a date next week, probably for Feb. 28.
Recent Posts:
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Ugh. Not This Skipping Iowa Thing Again!?!
Look, FHQ has nothing to gain or lose from Iowa being the first caucus or the last caucus. But if you are going to try and take the caucuses down in a shallow dig into their history, you should probably, well, you should dig a little deeper. Nicole Russell writing in The Atlantic is the latest to offer the candidates some advice:1
...for candidates focused on winning votes, and for voters in other states concerned with results, the focus on Iowa seems puzzling, if not a waste of time.
Some criticize the caucuses over procedure: Only the Republicans cast secret ballots; absentee voting isn't allowed; the entire process takes an absurd amount of time. But Iowa is irrelevant for more important, big-picture reasons.
For both Republicans and Democrats, winning Iowa doesn't mean winning the nomination, or the presidency. Compare Iowa's predictive power to that of the South Carolina GOP primary, or to the role of Ohio in the general election. South Carolina has selected the eventual Republican nominee, and Ohio has selected the presidential winner, in every presidential election year since 1980.
Iowa may be first, but it's never been a perfect bellwether. The caucuses offer candidates a chance to prove they can organize well, but they are not even an accurate gauge of the public opinions of most party members, let alone most Iowa voters.
First of all, I like how those writing on this topic always gloss over the fact that because there have been so many incumbent Republican presidents, there have only been five instances since 1972 in which the Iowa caucuses have been meaningful on the Republican side. There's a minuscule sample size here: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1996, 2000 and 2008. For those scoring at home, Iowa correctly predicted the nominee half of the time (1976, 1996 and 2000). I'll let you decide whether that .500 batting average is good or not.
Actually, FHQ will make the case that it is a solid stat for Iowa for a couple of related reasons. First of all, it is not Iowa's job to pick the nominee. Iowa's position as the first contest in any and most nomination races is to winnow the field. Iowa, then, chooses the top two or three candidates among whom New Hampshire voters will choose, and so on down the line of contests. Russell brings up the notion that South Carolina has a better track record of choosing the nominee.
And that's the second point. Of course South Carolina has a better record of choosing a, in this case Republican, nominee. Would a state (Iowa) whose voters choose among the full field of candidates have a better chance of collectively deciding on the eventual nominee or would a state (South Carolina) whose voters choose among the top two remaining (viable) candidates at that point in the race have a better chance of identifying the nominee based on the information gleaned from earlier contests? It stands to reason, from a purely mathematical standpoint, that the later state in the sequence would have a higher percentage of correct predictions. Does that mean South Carolina should go first? No, it doesn't because I suspect we would be discussing the same things in South Carolina -- if it went first -- as we are in Iowa right now: The voters are potentially too conservative to speak for the nation (or the Republican voters across the nation) as a whole and that more moderate candidates would be better served skipping the contest altogether.
That isn't a strategy for winning a nomination for most candidates no matter which state goes first. The bottom line is that Iowa is a winnowing state not a deciding state. Those states -- like South Carolina -- come later.2
--
And while we're on the subject, who is skipping Iowa anyway? Romney is playing coy, but he isn't officially skipping Iowa (...yet). The former Massachusetts governor is wisely rationing out his resources there, keeping the door open. If, as the caucuses approach, Romney's fortunes look up -- in the event that the social conservative candidates split the social conservative vote in Iowa and improve Romney's chances there -- he will expend more resources. But if not, he will simply continue the minimalist approach in Iowa, banking on a longer, drawn out race instead. Romney has the resources to do that; other candidates don't.
--
1 And it is advice that the candidates, or few candidates really, will never take.
2 There's a reason Florida wants to be fifth. Sunshine state Republicans want to be decisive. They'll leave the winnowing to the first four states.
Recent Posts:
Georgia Continues to Eye Florida For Cue on Presidential Primary Scheduling
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp is sticking his line on setting the date of the Peach state presidential primary (via Sarah Fay Campbell at the Newnan Times-Register):
"We're still waiting to see what Florida is going to do," Kemp said Friday [August 5] during a visit to Newnan.
"[W]e're waiting to see what everybody else does so we can best align Georgia to be relevant" in the presidential nomination race, Kemp said.
The unanswered question at this point is whether Kemp is willing to follow Florida -- if the secretary and Georgia Republicans are intent on holding a primary concurrent with the one in the Sunshine state -- into, say, January or if it means following Florida in an early but not too early primary date in late February or very early March.1 Kemp has remained tight-lipped on that issue and can afford to be. He has until December 1 to officially schedule the primary election.
--
1 Talk of a non-Tuesday primary was actually ongoing in Georgia prior to the discussions of such an idea in Florida.
Recent Posts:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)