The story from the Times-Picayune.
--
A couple of notes:
1. Louisiana, as the story notes, has already moved its presidential primary for the 2016 cycle. Moving again would be fairly atypical. States, if they move at all, usually only move once per cycle. Double moves happen, but they are rare and recent occurrences. Both California and New Jersey moved twice ahead of 2008.1
2. This would likely be a wise move on Louisiana's part. A Saturday, March 5 primary would be proximate enough -- regionally and on the calendar -- to the proposed SEC primary on March 1 to benefit from the regional attention. However, being on a separate date means that Louisiana would be less likely to be lost in the shuffle among larger neighboring states (with more delegates) on March 1. During the following week, March 8 is also a point on the calendar that is sparsely populated with contests. That is particularly true if Alabama and Mississippi move up a week; leaving only Ohio and the Hawaii Republican caucuses. Such a line up is unlikely to pull the campaign immediately out of the South following March 1.
--
1 California moved from March to June before moving into February. New Jersey first moved up to late February before bumping the Garden state primary up a few more weeks to early February.
Recent Posts:
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
A Couple of Reasons the 2016 Texas Presidential Primary Isn't Going Anywhere
There's been a nice call and response between James Hohmann at Politico and Patrick Svitek at the Houston Chronicle over the 2016 presidential primary in Texas the last few days.
Hohmann's deep dive on the proposed SEC primary sharing a date with primaries in Texas and Florida included this side note:
FHQ tends to agree with Texas Republicans for a few reasons. I don't know who the GOP (RNC?) insiders Hohmann spoke to, but the proportionality rule has not played out at all as an enticement to larger states moving back to later dates on the primary calendar. [The statement seems more like wishful thinking than theory of presidential primary movement.] State-level actors have not reacted by both moving back and adopting winner-take-all allocation rules. States may shift the dates of their primaries and caucuses around. However, most state parties tend to choose the path of least resistance when it comes to their method of delegate allocation. Most of the time that translates to states not changing the rules they used the last time unless they are forced to.
States that move back are not forced to adopt a winner-take-all allocation method. Those states do, however, have that option. They just tend to stick with what they had allocation-wise the previous cycle, though.
Look no further than Texas in 2012. Had the redistricting process not gotten bogged down in the courts, the Texas presidential primary would have been the first Tuesday in March (as called for by Texas law). Since the redistricting battle dragged into 2012, the Texas primary got forced back into May. The shift did not come with a switch to winner-take-all rules. In fact, Texas Republicans kept the true proportional method of allocation the party passed in late 2011. Once that change was made, Texas Republicans were resistant to changing it, mainly because the state party rules prevented them from making a change outside of a state convention setting.1
Of course, Texas delegate allocation methods are not the only area of the delegate selection rules where Texans have been slow to react over the years. This also extends to the state government moving the primary date around. This is something that Texas Republican National Committeeman, Robin Armstrong in Stivek's piece seems to be projecting onto states that are part of the SEC primary proposal: state legislatures derailing a potential move. Texas moved its primary to the second Tuesday in March for the 1988 cycle -- the Southern Super Tuesday. That was the date used for the presidential primary in the Lone Star state through the 2004 cycle. Then, when other states were moving up into February -- when it was still allowed by both parties -- for 2004 and 2008, the Texas legislature managed to bump the primary up to the only the first Tuesday in March; just a week earlier.2
So, FHQ is not of the opinion that the Texas presidential primary is going anywhere in 2016. No one has been eager to jump back on the calendar in order to get winner-take-all rules and Texas has had a history of resisting these sorts of changes (calendar and delegate allocation).
There is also an additional reason, but I'll save a discussion of that for a separate post in the next week or so.
--
Let me also weigh in on Armstrong's theory that only a couple of states will move into this SEC primary slot on March 1. That has always been likely. Georgia has the flexibility to move there because the secretary of state in the Peach state sets the date. Additionally, Alabama and Mississippi seem likely to move as well. Arkansas has conflicts as FHQ has discussed previously and Louisiana has already shifted its primary up to an earlier Saturday in March than it used in 2012. The Pelican state is unlikely to move again.
--
1 There is an exception for emergencies, but a switch to winner-take-all rules is not necessarily an emergency.
2 The move to that date had been made before and for the 2004 cycle, but redistricting kept that from coming to fruition for 2004. 2008 was the first cycle that law was implemented. Redistricting then pushed the primary date back to May during 2012.
Recent Posts:
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Hohmann's deep dive on the proposed SEC primary sharing a date with primaries in Texas and Florida included this side note:
Some GOP insiders believe that Florida and Texas will opt to push back their primaries until later in March. Under the new RNC rules, states that wait until March 15 can have “winner take all” primaries, with the candidate receiving the most votes collecting all of a state’s delegates. The potential presidential candidates from Florida and Texas are likely to prefer that.The response from Texas Republicans was a mix of "meh" and "we're not moving' (from March 1)".
FHQ tends to agree with Texas Republicans for a few reasons. I don't know who the GOP (RNC?) insiders Hohmann spoke to, but the proportionality rule has not played out at all as an enticement to larger states moving back to later dates on the primary calendar. [The statement seems more like wishful thinking than theory of presidential primary movement.] State-level actors have not reacted by both moving back and adopting winner-take-all allocation rules. States may shift the dates of their primaries and caucuses around. However, most state parties tend to choose the path of least resistance when it comes to their method of delegate allocation. Most of the time that translates to states not changing the rules they used the last time unless they are forced to.
States that move back are not forced to adopt a winner-take-all allocation method. Those states do, however, have that option. They just tend to stick with what they had allocation-wise the previous cycle, though.
Look no further than Texas in 2012. Had the redistricting process not gotten bogged down in the courts, the Texas presidential primary would have been the first Tuesday in March (as called for by Texas law). Since the redistricting battle dragged into 2012, the Texas primary got forced back into May. The shift did not come with a switch to winner-take-all rules. In fact, Texas Republicans kept the true proportional method of allocation the party passed in late 2011. Once that change was made, Texas Republicans were resistant to changing it, mainly because the state party rules prevented them from making a change outside of a state convention setting.1
Of course, Texas delegate allocation methods are not the only area of the delegate selection rules where Texans have been slow to react over the years. This also extends to the state government moving the primary date around. This is something that Texas Republican National Committeeman, Robin Armstrong in Stivek's piece seems to be projecting onto states that are part of the SEC primary proposal: state legislatures derailing a potential move. Texas moved its primary to the second Tuesday in March for the 1988 cycle -- the Southern Super Tuesday. That was the date used for the presidential primary in the Lone Star state through the 2004 cycle. Then, when other states were moving up into February -- when it was still allowed by both parties -- for 2004 and 2008, the Texas legislature managed to bump the primary up to the only the first Tuesday in March; just a week earlier.2
So, FHQ is not of the opinion that the Texas presidential primary is going anywhere in 2016. No one has been eager to jump back on the calendar in order to get winner-take-all rules and Texas has had a history of resisting these sorts of changes (calendar and delegate allocation).
There is also an additional reason, but I'll save a discussion of that for a separate post in the next week or so.
--
Let me also weigh in on Armstrong's theory that only a couple of states will move into this SEC primary slot on March 1. That has always been likely. Georgia has the flexibility to move there because the secretary of state in the Peach state sets the date. Additionally, Alabama and Mississippi seem likely to move as well. Arkansas has conflicts as FHQ has discussed previously and Louisiana has already shifted its primary up to an earlier Saturday in March than it used in 2012. The Pelican state is unlikely to move again.
--
1 There is an exception for emergencies, but a switch to winner-take-all rules is not necessarily an emergency.
2 The move to that date had been made before and for the 2004 cycle, but redistricting kept that from coming to fruition for 2004. 2008 was the first cycle that law was implemented. Redistricting then pushed the primary date back to May during 2012.
Recent Posts:
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Nebraska Democrats Commit to Caucuses for 2016
During the weekend of December 13-14 the Nebraska Democratic Party voted to conduct their delegate selection/allocation process through a caucuses/convention system. From NDP chair, Vince Powers:
In the wake of changes to the Republican National Committee rules changes -- particularly those attempting to facilitate an earlier convention -- there was talk of amending a bill in the spring of 2014 to shift the date of the primary to an earlier spot on the 2016 primary calendar. That legislation was never amended but did provide more state government guidance on the delegate selection process (primarily on the binding of those delegates to candidates).
The delegate selection plan Nebraska Democrats used in 2012, if carried over in 2016, would pass muster under the new law.
Left unclear by the NDP is when the precinct caucuses will take place in 2016. That decision will be made in 2015.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The NDP after a robust discussion voted today to hold caucuses for the 2016 Presidential nomination. @NebraskaDems @LJSdon @RobynnTysver
— Vince Powers (@vince_powers) December 14, 2014
The party switched from utilizing the mid- to late May primary in the Cornhusker state to caucuses for the 2008 cycle and retained the process in 2012. Such a move gives the NDP the flexibility to set the date of the precinct caucuses that the Nebraska Unicam did not or does not provide under the primary law.In the wake of changes to the Republican National Committee rules changes -- particularly those attempting to facilitate an earlier convention -- there was talk of amending a bill in the spring of 2014 to shift the date of the primary to an earlier spot on the 2016 primary calendar. That legislation was never amended but did provide more state government guidance on the delegate selection process (primarily on the binding of those delegates to candidates).
The delegate selection plan Nebraska Democrats used in 2012, if carried over in 2016, would pass muster under the new law.
Left unclear by the NDP is when the precinct caucuses will take place in 2016. That decision will be made in 2015.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Michigan Presidential Primary Move Bottled Up in State House Until After Christmas
The Michigan legislature stretched what was to be its last day of the 2014 session working well into Friday morning on an 11 bill package with a sales tax increase to fund road repairs.
What the state House did not get to was the Senate-passed legislation that would move the presidential primary in the Wolverine state to March. What that means for SB 1159 is somewhat unclear. Both the Michigan House and Senate have adjourned (for the time being), but the 2014 session may not have been gaveled closed yet. As of this writing, the Michigan Legislature web site is showing that the state House is adjourned until Tuesday, December 30 at 11:30am.1 That may provide a window in which the presidential primary could be passed. Otherwise, it may simply be a casualty of a countdown clock that reached all zeroes.
Regardless, the presidential primary move to March is an idea endorsed by the state Republican Party and got broad bi-partisan support in the state Senate. SB 1159 may die somewhere in the committee-to-floor transition for 2014, but the presidential primary shift is something that will very likely be revived in 2015.
For now, though, the 2016 Michigan presidential primary remains in February, non-compliant with national party delegate selection rules.
--
1 The Senate has already acted on this, so as long as the House passes the bill in its Senate-passed form, it will be enrolled by/in the Senate. That would, of course, require the Senate to be in session in late December as well. Michigan Senate offices are closed December 22-January 4.
What the state House did not get to was the Senate-passed legislation that would move the presidential primary in the Wolverine state to March. What that means for SB 1159 is somewhat unclear. Both the Michigan House and Senate have adjourned (for the time being), but the 2014 session may not have been gaveled closed yet. As of this writing, the Michigan Legislature web site is showing that the state House is adjourned until Tuesday, December 30 at 11:30am.1 That may provide a window in which the presidential primary could be passed. Otherwise, it may simply be a casualty of a countdown clock that reached all zeroes.
Regardless, the presidential primary move to March is an idea endorsed by the state Republican Party and got broad bi-partisan support in the state Senate. SB 1159 may die somewhere in the committee-to-floor transition for 2014, but the presidential primary shift is something that will very likely be revived in 2015.
For now, though, the 2016 Michigan presidential primary remains in February, non-compliant with national party delegate selection rules.
--
1 The Senate has already acted on this, so as long as the House passes the bill in its Senate-passed form, it will be enrolled by/in the Senate. That would, of course, require the Senate to be in session in late December as well. Michigan Senate offices are closed December 22-January 4.
Recent Posts:
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
DC on Cusp of a June 2016 Presidential Primary
In late November the Council of the District of Columbia -- the lawmaking body for the nation's capital -- resurrected a bill from 2013 that would shift the presidential primary in the district from the first Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in June.
Throughout December the legislation -- B20-0265 -- received more scrutiny from the Council and was opened to the amendment process. However, that yielded little in the way of substantive change for the presidential primary.1 The original legislation introduced in May 2013 would have shifted the presidential primary back to the second Tuesday in June. But that date has been bumped up a week to the first Tuesday in June in the version that got a final unanimous thumbs up from the Council on December 17.
The bill will now be transmitted to Mayor Vincent Grey for his consideration. A signature would move the presidential primary in DC to a date in June on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that coincides with California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota; a departure from the subregional primaries the District has been a part of the last two cycles.
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing the bill's revival to FHQ's attention.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review
--
1 The introduced legislation consolidated the presidential primary and those for other offices in the District on that June date, but that was altered in the final amended version. The primaries will remain concurrent in 2016, but the non-presidential primaries will be moved to September starting in 2018. Read more about the move here.
Throughout December the legislation -- B20-0265 -- received more scrutiny from the Council and was opened to the amendment process. However, that yielded little in the way of substantive change for the presidential primary.1 The original legislation introduced in May 2013 would have shifted the presidential primary back to the second Tuesday in June. But that date has been bumped up a week to the first Tuesday in June in the version that got a final unanimous thumbs up from the Council on December 17.
The bill will now be transmitted to Mayor Vincent Grey for his consideration. A signature would move the presidential primary in DC to a date in June on the 2016 presidential primary calendar that coincides with California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota; a departure from the subregional primaries the District has been a part of the last two cycles.
Hat tip to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for bringing the bill's revival to FHQ's attention.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15): Bill signed, cleared for congressional review
--
1 The introduced legislation consolidated the presidential primary and those for other offices in the District on that June date, but that was altered in the final amended version. The primaries will remain concurrent in 2016, but the non-presidential primaries will be moved to September starting in 2018. Read more about the move here.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Michigan Presidential Primary on the Move?
Back in September the Michigan Republican Party formally endorsed a change of presidential primary dates. That was a non-binding move however, as it requires action on the part of the state legislature to shift the date of the presidential primary. But as the lame duck session of the Michigan state legislature winds down, it appears as if the state government is slowly catching up and aligning with that September endorsement of a March 15 primary.
During the first week after the legislature reconvened for the bulk of its post-election lame duck session, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-17th, Monroe) introduced legislation concerning the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state. SB 1159 would move the Michigan presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March.1 Importantly, the bill, if passed and ultimately signed into law, would move Michigan back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules barring non-care-out state primaries and caucuses from being held prior to the first Tuesday in March. However, in its introduced form, the legislation was not in sync with the prior Michigan Republican Party-endorsed primary move.
On December 11, SB 1159 was amended, providing for alignment with the state Republican Party. The amended version -- calling for the primary to move to the third Tuesday in March -- passed the state Senate with just two dissenting votes. The bill moved immediately to the state House where it has been stuck in committee all week as the clock runs out on the 2014 legislative session.
That last day is today -- December 18 -- and all signs point toward a sine die day discharge of the bill from committee and a potential floor vote. Final days are always busy, so this bill may or may not pass today, but it looks as if Michigan will move off the list of potential problems for the 2016 presidential primary calendar, whether now or in 2015.
--
NOTE: Other legislation currently still in committee in the state House includes the bill to alter the method of allocating electoral votes in Michigan. Again, final days can be crazy, but there has been no discharge effort made on this bill.
--
1 Its companion bill, SB 1160, would also move February school elections to the same date in March during presidential election years. Those two sets of primaries were concurrent in 2012. That consolidation and its costs savings were used by Michigan Republicans as an argument against moving the presidential primary to a compliant primary date in 2012.
Recent Posts:
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
During the first week after the legislature reconvened for the bulk of its post-election lame duck session, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-17th, Monroe) introduced legislation concerning the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state. SB 1159 would move the Michigan presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in March.1 Importantly, the bill, if passed and ultimately signed into law, would move Michigan back into compliance with the national party delegate selection rules barring non-care-out state primaries and caucuses from being held prior to the first Tuesday in March. However, in its introduced form, the legislation was not in sync with the prior Michigan Republican Party-endorsed primary move.
On December 11, SB 1159 was amended, providing for alignment with the state Republican Party. The amended version -- calling for the primary to move to the third Tuesday in March -- passed the state Senate with just two dissenting votes. The bill moved immediately to the state House where it has been stuck in committee all week as the clock runs out on the 2014 legislative session.
That last day is today -- December 18 -- and all signs point toward a sine die day discharge of the bill from committee and a potential floor vote. Final days are always busy, so this bill may or may not pass today, but it looks as if Michigan will move off the list of potential problems for the 2016 presidential primary calendar, whether now or in 2015.
--
NOTE: Other legislation currently still in committee in the state House includes the bill to alter the method of allocating electoral votes in Michigan. Again, final days can be crazy, but there has been no discharge effort made on this bill.
--
1 Its companion bill, SB 1160, would also move February school elections to the same date in March during presidential election years. Those two sets of primaries were concurrent in 2012. That consolidation and its costs savings were used by Michigan Republicans as an argument against moving the presidential primary to a compliant primary date in 2012.
Recent Posts:
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, November 17, 2014
About That Michigan Electoral College Allocation Proposal
Reexamining electoral vote allocation is back in the news again.
The story is the same as it was two years ago when red-blue states, that is to say, Republican-controlled state governments in states that have voted reliably Democratic at the presidential level, considered altering the way in which they were allocating electoral votes. FHQ touched on this two years ago, and I thought Jonathan Bernstein nicely updated his comments from the same period at Bloomberg View.
It still strikes me as interesting that states would consider this. First of all, it creates on the state level the potential for there to be a popular loser: someone who could win fewer votes yet still win a majority of the electoral votes from a state. That argument at the national level is one of the most frequent criticisms of the electoral college system itself. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, a districted plan -- where states allocate electoral votes by congressional district -- tends to dilute the power of the states. Had a districted plan been in place in Michigan in 2012 both of those issues would have been at play. Mitt Romney would have won a 9-7 majority of the Great Lakes state's 16 electoral votes despite Barack Obama winning more votes statewide. That would have, in turn, greatly reduced the power of Michigan in the electoral college. A two electoral vote margin that is largely baked into those districts would attract the candidates to the state a lot less than the promise of a 16 electoral vote cushion/win.
To FHQ, the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes is a lot like the filibuster: You don't want to give up on it now because you might need it/benefit from it in the future.
But the new proposal in Michigan -- HB 5974, sponsored by Representative Pete Lund (R-36th, Macomb) -- is not the districted plan as it was two years ago. It is different in that it has built-in incentives addressing the above criticisms of that plan. Regardless of whether the new legislation passes in the current lame duck session of the Michigan legislature, it is an interesting tweak to some of the plans that have been deemed electoral college "rigging". This plan has some interesting implications that are worth exploring.
...or if not worth exploring, then fun to look at.
Here are the particulars:
1) The statewide winner in the vote count received half of the electors plus one. When Michigan has an even number of electoral votes as it does now (16), that means 9 electoral votes (8+1). If Michigan has an odd number of electoral votes -- as it did during the 2000s (17) -- that half (8.5) is rounded down to the nearest whole number and then the one additional electoral vote is added. That rounding is a small bonus to the second place vote-getter. But...
2) The top finisher in the statewide count receives an additional electoral vote for each increment of 1.5% the statewide winner gets above 50%. There is a nice breakdown of this over at the Bridge. Basically, if the winning candidate receives 61.5% of the statewide vote, that candidate receives all 16 electoral votes.
The first point always avoids the popular loser complaint, unlike the districted plan. The statewide winner would receive a majority of the electoral votes, but only narrowly if the vote is close. In other words, the electoral vote allocation is more proportional than districted.
The incentives the candidates and their campaigns face in dealing with this particular plan is distinct from the districted plan as well. The redistricting process, as hinted at above, bakes in the results of the electoral vote in a way that would dissuade candidates from coming to the state to fight for electoral votes. Campaigns would only expend resources to get an electoral vote or two if a near-tie in the electoral college was a near-certainty.
The newly proposed plan in Michigan circumvents that issue to some degree. Candidates would be motivated under a plan that awards "bonus" electoral votes to either try and run up the score (statewide vote percentage) in Michigan, or barring that, try to at least maintain resource expenditure parity with the other candidate. FHQ does not want to overstate this effect though. If anything, the added electoral vote for each 1.5% increment of the statewide vote over 50% adds another strategic element to the puzzle. But even if Michigan was off the board and not as competitive heading down the stretch, then that does give incentive to the favored candidate to spend some time/money there in an effort to get as close to a winner-take-all allocation as possible (if the overall national electoral college vote distribution is somewhat close). Think about a state like North Carolina in 2008. The Obama campaign put resources into the state late and the McCain campaign was unable to match it. Those 15 electoral votes were superfluous to what Obama needed to get over the 270 electoral vote barrier.
There may be conditions under which this 1.5% bonus motivates increased activity, but it is likely to only do so when a race is close either nationally or in the state. [The candidates would already be there if the state is close.]
--
There is another dimension to this that has been neglected to this point, lost in all the rigging talk. It is important to look at how this plan would work historically to get a real sense as to how it would play out in reality. Let's give it a glance:
2012 (Michigan -- 16 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Obama: 54.04%
Romney: 44.58%
Electoral votes:
Obama: 11
Romney: 5
2008 (Michigan -- 17 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Obama: 57.33%
McCain: 40.89%
Electoral votes:
Obama: 13
McCain: 4
2004 (Michigan -- 17 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Kerry: 51.23%
Bush: 47.81%
Electoral votes:
Kerry: 9
Bush: 8
2000 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Gore: 51.28%
Bush: 46.14%
Electoral votes:
Gore: 10
Bush: 8
1996 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Clinton: 51.69%
Dole: 38.48%
Electoral votes:
Clinton: 11
Dole: 7
1992 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Clinton: 43.77%
Bush: 36.38%
Electoral votes:
Clinton: 10
Bush: 8
1988 (Michigan -- 20 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Bush: 53.57%
Dukakis: 45.67%
Electoral votes:
Bush: 13
Dukakis: 7
1984 (Michigan -- 20 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Reagan: 59.23%
Mondale: 40.24%
Electoral votes:
Reagan: 17
Mondale: 3
1980 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Reagan: 48.99%
Carter: 42.50%
Electoral votes:
Reagan: 11
Carter: 10
1976 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Ford: 51.83%
Carter: 46.44%
Electoral votes:
Ford: 12
Carter: 9
1972 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Nixon: 56.20%
McGovern: 41.81%
Electoral votes:
Nixon: 15
McGovern: 6
1968 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Humphrey: 48.18%
Nixon: 41.46%
Electoral votes:
Humphrey: 11
Nixon: 10
NOTES:
1) It probably goes without saying that if this newly proposed plan had been instituted in Michigan in the past, it would not have changed the overall outcome of the electoral college. The closest instances would have been in 2000 and 2004. In both cases, George W. Bush would have gained a handful of electoral votes to add to an already winning total. And to repeat, this plan eliminates the potential for popular losers within the state of Michigan. That also obviously didn't happen in any of these elections.
2) There are just three cases where the winning candidate cleared the 55% threshold and was able to take advantage of the bonuses in any meaningful way. That is a quarter of these 12 total elections. In the other 75% of the cases, Michigan's electoral vote power would have been reduced to something between Iowa (6 electoral votes now) and something less than Delaware/Wyoming. That really offers no guaranteed pull to candidates despite the claims of those sponsoring the legislation in Michigan.
3) Even semi-successful third party candidates really mess this up for the top vote-getter. That increases the likelihood that no candidate clears the 50% barrier and thus a near-even distribution of the electoral votes. [The 1.5% bonus is never triggered.] Humphrey won Michigan by 7.5%, gets within a stone's throw of 50% and splits the electoral votes 11-10 with Nixon (see also 1980). 1996 offers another interesting tale. Clinton barely clears 50%, gets one bonus electoral vote, but splits the total 11-7 with Dole, who received less than 40% of the vote.
Aside from eliminating the potential for a popular loser outcome -- relative to the districted plan -- this new electoral vote allocation proposal does not clearly do what its proponents argue it would: make Michigan relevant during the general election. That does not seem to be the case here. It would only have reduced Michigan's electoral vote power.
What it does do is provide us with a fun counterfactual exercise with some interesting outcomes. And that's about it.
Recent Posts:
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
2014 Senate Forecast
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The story is the same as it was two years ago when red-blue states, that is to say, Republican-controlled state governments in states that have voted reliably Democratic at the presidential level, considered altering the way in which they were allocating electoral votes. FHQ touched on this two years ago, and I thought Jonathan Bernstein nicely updated his comments from the same period at Bloomberg View.
It still strikes me as interesting that states would consider this. First of all, it creates on the state level the potential for there to be a popular loser: someone who could win fewer votes yet still win a majority of the electoral votes from a state. That argument at the national level is one of the most frequent criticisms of the electoral college system itself. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, a districted plan -- where states allocate electoral votes by congressional district -- tends to dilute the power of the states. Had a districted plan been in place in Michigan in 2012 both of those issues would have been at play. Mitt Romney would have won a 9-7 majority of the Great Lakes state's 16 electoral votes despite Barack Obama winning more votes statewide. That would have, in turn, greatly reduced the power of Michigan in the electoral college. A two electoral vote margin that is largely baked into those districts would attract the candidates to the state a lot less than the promise of a 16 electoral vote cushion/win.
To FHQ, the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes is a lot like the filibuster: You don't want to give up on it now because you might need it/benefit from it in the future.
But the new proposal in Michigan -- HB 5974, sponsored by Representative Pete Lund (R-36th, Macomb) -- is not the districted plan as it was two years ago. It is different in that it has built-in incentives addressing the above criticisms of that plan. Regardless of whether the new legislation passes in the current lame duck session of the Michigan legislature, it is an interesting tweak to some of the plans that have been deemed electoral college "rigging". This plan has some interesting implications that are worth exploring.
...or if not worth exploring, then fun to look at.
Here are the particulars:
1) The statewide winner in the vote count received half of the electors plus one. When Michigan has an even number of electoral votes as it does now (16), that means 9 electoral votes (8+1). If Michigan has an odd number of electoral votes -- as it did during the 2000s (17) -- that half (8.5) is rounded down to the nearest whole number and then the one additional electoral vote is added. That rounding is a small bonus to the second place vote-getter. But...
2) The top finisher in the statewide count receives an additional electoral vote for each increment of 1.5% the statewide winner gets above 50%. There is a nice breakdown of this over at the Bridge. Basically, if the winning candidate receives 61.5% of the statewide vote, that candidate receives all 16 electoral votes.
The first point always avoids the popular loser complaint, unlike the districted plan. The statewide winner would receive a majority of the electoral votes, but only narrowly if the vote is close. In other words, the electoral vote allocation is more proportional than districted.
The incentives the candidates and their campaigns face in dealing with this particular plan is distinct from the districted plan as well. The redistricting process, as hinted at above, bakes in the results of the electoral vote in a way that would dissuade candidates from coming to the state to fight for electoral votes. Campaigns would only expend resources to get an electoral vote or two if a near-tie in the electoral college was a near-certainty.
The newly proposed plan in Michigan circumvents that issue to some degree. Candidates would be motivated under a plan that awards "bonus" electoral votes to either try and run up the score (statewide vote percentage) in Michigan, or barring that, try to at least maintain resource expenditure parity with the other candidate. FHQ does not want to overstate this effect though. If anything, the added electoral vote for each 1.5% increment of the statewide vote over 50% adds another strategic element to the puzzle. But even if Michigan was off the board and not as competitive heading down the stretch, then that does give incentive to the favored candidate to spend some time/money there in an effort to get as close to a winner-take-all allocation as possible (if the overall national electoral college vote distribution is somewhat close). Think about a state like North Carolina in 2008. The Obama campaign put resources into the state late and the McCain campaign was unable to match it. Those 15 electoral votes were superfluous to what Obama needed to get over the 270 electoral vote barrier.
There may be conditions under which this 1.5% bonus motivates increased activity, but it is likely to only do so when a race is close either nationally or in the state. [The candidates would already be there if the state is close.]
--
There is another dimension to this that has been neglected to this point, lost in all the rigging talk. It is important to look at how this plan would work historically to get a real sense as to how it would play out in reality. Let's give it a glance:
2012 (Michigan -- 16 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Obama: 54.04%
Romney: 44.58%
Electoral votes:
Obama: 11
Romney: 5
2008 (Michigan -- 17 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Obama: 57.33%
McCain: 40.89%
Electoral votes:
Obama: 13
McCain: 4
2004 (Michigan -- 17 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Kerry: 51.23%
Bush: 47.81%
Electoral votes:
Kerry: 9
Bush: 8
2000 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Gore: 51.28%
Bush: 46.14%
Electoral votes:
Gore: 10
Bush: 8
1996 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Clinton: 51.69%
Dole: 38.48%
Electoral votes:
Clinton: 11
Dole: 7
1992 (Michigan -- 18 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Clinton: 43.77%
Bush: 36.38%
Electoral votes:
Clinton: 10
Bush: 8
1988 (Michigan -- 20 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Bush: 53.57%
Dukakis: 45.67%
Electoral votes:
Bush: 13
Dukakis: 7
1984 (Michigan -- 20 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Reagan: 59.23%
Mondale: 40.24%
Electoral votes:
Reagan: 17
Mondale: 3
1980 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Reagan: 48.99%
Carter: 42.50%
Electoral votes:
Reagan: 11
Carter: 10
1976 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Ford: 51.83%
Carter: 46.44%
Electoral votes:
Ford: 12
Carter: 9
1972 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Nixon: 56.20%
McGovern: 41.81%
Electoral votes:
Nixon: 15
McGovern: 6
1968 (Michigan -- 21 electoral votes):
Vote percentage:
Humphrey: 48.18%
Nixon: 41.46%
Electoral votes:
Humphrey: 11
Nixon: 10
NOTES:
1) It probably goes without saying that if this newly proposed plan had been instituted in Michigan in the past, it would not have changed the overall outcome of the electoral college. The closest instances would have been in 2000 and 2004. In both cases, George W. Bush would have gained a handful of electoral votes to add to an already winning total. And to repeat, this plan eliminates the potential for popular losers within the state of Michigan. That also obviously didn't happen in any of these elections.
2) There are just three cases where the winning candidate cleared the 55% threshold and was able to take advantage of the bonuses in any meaningful way. That is a quarter of these 12 total elections. In the other 75% of the cases, Michigan's electoral vote power would have been reduced to something between Iowa (6 electoral votes now) and something less than Delaware/Wyoming. That really offers no guaranteed pull to candidates despite the claims of those sponsoring the legislation in Michigan.
3) Even semi-successful third party candidates really mess this up for the top vote-getter. That increases the likelihood that no candidate clears the 50% barrier and thus a near-even distribution of the electoral votes. [The 1.5% bonus is never triggered.] Humphrey won Michigan by 7.5%, gets within a stone's throw of 50% and splits the electoral votes 11-10 with Nixon (see also 1980). 1996 offers another interesting tale. Clinton barely clears 50%, gets one bonus electoral vote, but splits the total 11-7 with Dole, who received less than 40% of the vote.
Aside from eliminating the potential for a popular loser outcome -- relative to the districted plan -- this new electoral vote allocation proposal does not clearly do what its proponents argue it would: make Michigan relevant during the general election. That does not seem to be the case here. It would only have reduced Michigan's electoral vote power.
What it does do is provide us with a fun counterfactual exercise with some interesting outcomes. And that's about it.
Recent Posts:
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
2014 Senate Forecast
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Kentucky Republicans Eye 2016 Caucuses OR How Kentucky Republicans Already Have Caucuses
It has been over a week since Manu Raju reported that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has had preliminary discussions with the Republican Party of Kentucky (RPK) about the possibility of the state party switching from a primary to caucuses as a means of allocating delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Such a move would help a now-latent Paul presidential campaign circumvent state law barring him from appearing twice on the May 2016 Bluegrass state primary ballot (once for renomination to run for his US Senate seat and also for the presidential preference vote).
The basics of this story are simple enough:
First of all, this is something of a no-brainer reaction from Kentucky Republicans and Senator Paul. The barrier separating a law change -- a Democratic majority in the Kentucky State House -- survived the midterm elections. It is not as if states and state parties have not done things to benefit their favorite son presidential candidates during the nomination phase of the campaign in the past. Typically, that has resulted in calendar maneuvering at the state legislative level. In 2011, Utah Republicans considered moving the primary in the Beehive state to an earlier date to help Mitt Romney. In 2005, Governor Mike Huckabee signed into law a bill moving the Arkansas presidential primary from May to February for a 2008 cycle that saw Huckabee run for run for the Republican nomination. Similarly, Illinois legislators pushed through a bill in 2007 moving the Prairie state primary up a month to February to boost Senator Barack Obama's chances in the Democratic nomination race. In 1988, the entire South (a group that included Kentucky) shifted their nominating contests up in the hopes of building momentum behind a southern Democratic nominee (who could win the White House).1 There are plenty of other examples, but this type of supposed machinations from the states is not new or all that controversial.
It also is not the sort of move that would potentially draw legal challenge from Kentucky Democrats (as Raju mentioned in passing in his Politico piece). FHQ is still trying to figure that one out. Challenge what? The shift to caucuses? Paul's name being on a caucuses ballot (president) and a primary ballot (senate)? The former is not something that would last long in the courts. State parties have the freedom of association rights to select the mode of delegate allocation (primary or caucus) and who can participate (open, closed or some hybrid primary type). More often than not the courts side with the parties. Idaho Republicans, for instance, abandon the traditionally late presidential primary in the Gem state for early March caucuses for the 2012 cycle. Nebraska Democrats took a similar path four years earlier. Kentucky Democrats could challenge Paul appearing on two ballots, but would find that a likely uphill climb because 1) there is not typically a ballot at caucus sites and 2) the language of the Kentucky law is a bit quirky naming only voting machines and absentee ballots (Again, neither of those would be involved in caucus proceedings.).
Counter to what Jazz Shaw had to say at HotAir about the potential move in Kentucky, Kentucky Republicans would not have to reinvent the wheel in shifting from its business-as-usual primary to caucuses as a means of allocating delegates. Kentucky Republicans have used the primary as means of allocating delegate slots to presidential candidates. Yet, they -- the RPK -- also have had a caucuses system in place for the purposes of selecting delegates to fill those allocated slots. Rule 5.03 of the Rules of the Republican Party of Kentucky lay out the rules regarding the timing of those first determining events (precinct caucuses). They are to occur between March 1 and March 31 of a presidential election year. The only thing Kentucky Republicans would be likely to do is to clean up some of the language to have the precinct caucuses all coinciding on the same date, say, March 1. Making the switch would not be difficult for the party, but participation would certainly go down relative to a primary.
One final thing FHQ has not seen mentioned in association with this story is the fact that there have been concerted efforts on the part of (Ron) Paul supporters across the country over the last few years to take over control of state parties and/or to change the nomination processes in those states to caucuses. The elder Paul did quite well in 2012 caucuses/conventions. Hypothetically, such a move would potentially help Rand Paul too, though one would imagine him likely being quite successful no matter what type of contest his home state decided to adopt.
This one will be an interesting one to watch develop from an institutional standpoint. The question is, does the RPK opt to shift and move to an earlier date where there may be other regional partners on the same date or try for an earlier calendar position where they may not get lost in the shuffle because of contest crowding and other candidates avoiding a likely Paul win for other states on the same date? The benefits are not as clear on that front as they are for Senator Paul avoiding breaking current Kentucky state law.
--
1 Kentucky Democrats had actually moved up in 1984, abandoning the May primary for set of March caucuses. In 1988, the state government moved the primary up to an earlier March date (only to move it back for 1992).
Recent Posts:
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
2014 Senate Forecast
Michigan Bill Would Undermine February Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The basics of this story are simple enough:
- Democrats retain control of the Kentucky State House in the 2014 midterms.
- The majority Democrats also signal that they would block attempts to change the law, allowing Senator Paul to run simultaneously for both a senate and presidential nomination.
- Paul and Kentucky Republicans consider a shift to caucuses to accommodate the senator and to avoid Paul breaking the law.
First of all, this is something of a no-brainer reaction from Kentucky Republicans and Senator Paul. The barrier separating a law change -- a Democratic majority in the Kentucky State House -- survived the midterm elections. It is not as if states and state parties have not done things to benefit their favorite son presidential candidates during the nomination phase of the campaign in the past. Typically, that has resulted in calendar maneuvering at the state legislative level. In 2011, Utah Republicans considered moving the primary in the Beehive state to an earlier date to help Mitt Romney. In 2005, Governor Mike Huckabee signed into law a bill moving the Arkansas presidential primary from May to February for a 2008 cycle that saw Huckabee run for run for the Republican nomination. Similarly, Illinois legislators pushed through a bill in 2007 moving the Prairie state primary up a month to February to boost Senator Barack Obama's chances in the Democratic nomination race. In 1988, the entire South (a group that included Kentucky) shifted their nominating contests up in the hopes of building momentum behind a southern Democratic nominee (who could win the White House).1 There are plenty of other examples, but this type of supposed machinations from the states is not new or all that controversial.
It also is not the sort of move that would potentially draw legal challenge from Kentucky Democrats (as Raju mentioned in passing in his Politico piece). FHQ is still trying to figure that one out. Challenge what? The shift to caucuses? Paul's name being on a caucuses ballot (president) and a primary ballot (senate)? The former is not something that would last long in the courts. State parties have the freedom of association rights to select the mode of delegate allocation (primary or caucus) and who can participate (open, closed or some hybrid primary type). More often than not the courts side with the parties. Idaho Republicans, for instance, abandon the traditionally late presidential primary in the Gem state for early March caucuses for the 2012 cycle. Nebraska Democrats took a similar path four years earlier. Kentucky Democrats could challenge Paul appearing on two ballots, but would find that a likely uphill climb because 1) there is not typically a ballot at caucus sites and 2) the language of the Kentucky law is a bit quirky naming only voting machines and absentee ballots (Again, neither of those would be involved in caucus proceedings.).
Counter to what Jazz Shaw had to say at HotAir about the potential move in Kentucky, Kentucky Republicans would not have to reinvent the wheel in shifting from its business-as-usual primary to caucuses as a means of allocating delegates. Kentucky Republicans have used the primary as means of allocating delegate slots to presidential candidates. Yet, they -- the RPK -- also have had a caucuses system in place for the purposes of selecting delegates to fill those allocated slots. Rule 5.03 of the Rules of the Republican Party of Kentucky lay out the rules regarding the timing of those first determining events (precinct caucuses). They are to occur between March 1 and March 31 of a presidential election year. The only thing Kentucky Republicans would be likely to do is to clean up some of the language to have the precinct caucuses all coinciding on the same date, say, March 1. Making the switch would not be difficult for the party, but participation would certainly go down relative to a primary.
One final thing FHQ has not seen mentioned in association with this story is the fact that there have been concerted efforts on the part of (Ron) Paul supporters across the country over the last few years to take over control of state parties and/or to change the nomination processes in those states to caucuses. The elder Paul did quite well in 2012 caucuses/conventions. Hypothetically, such a move would potentially help Rand Paul too, though one would imagine him likely being quite successful no matter what type of contest his home state decided to adopt.
This one will be an interesting one to watch develop from an institutional standpoint. The question is, does the RPK opt to shift and move to an earlier date where there may be other regional partners on the same date or try for an earlier calendar position where they may not get lost in the shuffle because of contest crowding and other candidates avoiding a likely Paul win for other states on the same date? The benefits are not as clear on that front as they are for Senator Paul avoiding breaking current Kentucky state law.
--
1 Kentucky Democrats had actually moved up in 1984, abandoning the May primary for set of March caucuses. In 1988, the state government moved the primary up to an earlier March date (only to move it back for 1992).
Recent Posts:
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
2014 Senate Forecast
Michigan Bill Would Undermine February Presidential Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Monday, November 10, 2014
"SEC Presidential Primary" Back on the Radar for 2016
Jim Galloway and Greg Bluestein at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution report that Georgia Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R) is still working on a southern regional primary for March 1, 2016:
A few things either mentioned or neglected:
1) Kemp seems focused on that March 1 date for the Georgia presidential primary in 2016. The secretary has signaled more than once now that this is a likely destination for the primary in the Peach state. That is a change from the 2012 cycle when the date of the Georgia primary was an unknown through much of 2011 after the state legislature ceded the date-setting authority to the secretary of state.
2) Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama are the low hanging fruit of potential presidential primary moves for 2016. Here's the calendar. Tennessee is already on March 1 (as Galloway and Bluestein mention) and Louisiana is now locked into a Saturday, March 5 primary date after legislation moving the primary up by two weeks was signed into law this summer. That will be as far as Louisiana moves up; the same week as the other southern states. Alabama and Mississippi are already slated for primary dates just a week later on March 8. Those states bumping their dates up by a week is not all that heavy a lift. Arkansas is a different matter. Having gotten lost in the early state shuffle during the Southern Super Tuesday in 1988 and the Titanic Tuesday of 2008, state legislators moved the presidential primary back to the traditional May date in the immediately subsequent cycles. However, Republicans now have unified control of the state government in the Natural state after the 2014 midterms and may be more receptive to such a move.
3) Perhaps more importantly, it should be noted that the two biggest SEC states -- Florida and Texas are already positioned on March 1. It leaves one to wonder if this version of a Southern Super Tuesday plays out the same way as it did in 1988, but in reverse. Spurred by the action of Southern Democratic action, most southern states moved up to the second Tuesday in March in 1988. There was a split decision on the Democratic side with Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson all laying some claim to having won the day. While Democrats had a split decision across the South, George HW Bush swept the region. Such a reversal may be less about the decisions throughout the South to cluster primaries on the same date than how the Republican and Democratic nomination races are shaping up at this point in late 2014. Still...
Recent Posts:
2014 Senate Forecast
Michigan Bill Would Undermine February Presidential Primary
Michigan Republicans Green Light March 15, but...
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
"Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s efforts to build what he calls an “SEC” presidential primary in 2016 appear to be proceeding apace.
"Kemp is working with his counterparts in Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama to arrange a coordinated, regional primary for the first Tuesday in March 2016.
"In a letter to six Southern secretaries of state, Kemp confirmed that he intends to set March 1 as the date for Georgia’s presidential primary:--
'It is my hope that our region will participate together that day and that the voters of the Southeast will have a major impact in the selection of the presidential nominees of both parties.'"
A few things either mentioned or neglected:
1) Kemp seems focused on that March 1 date for the Georgia presidential primary in 2016. The secretary has signaled more than once now that this is a likely destination for the primary in the Peach state. That is a change from the 2012 cycle when the date of the Georgia primary was an unknown through much of 2011 after the state legislature ceded the date-setting authority to the secretary of state.
2) Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama are the low hanging fruit of potential presidential primary moves for 2016. Here's the calendar. Tennessee is already on March 1 (as Galloway and Bluestein mention) and Louisiana is now locked into a Saturday, March 5 primary date after legislation moving the primary up by two weeks was signed into law this summer. That will be as far as Louisiana moves up; the same week as the other southern states. Alabama and Mississippi are already slated for primary dates just a week later on March 8. Those states bumping their dates up by a week is not all that heavy a lift. Arkansas is a different matter. Having gotten lost in the early state shuffle during the Southern Super Tuesday in 1988 and the Titanic Tuesday of 2008, state legislators moved the presidential primary back to the traditional May date in the immediately subsequent cycles. However, Republicans now have unified control of the state government in the Natural state after the 2014 midterms and may be more receptive to such a move.
3) Perhaps more importantly, it should be noted that the two biggest SEC states -- Florida and Texas are already positioned on March 1. It leaves one to wonder if this version of a Southern Super Tuesday plays out the same way as it did in 1988, but in reverse. Spurred by the action of Southern Democratic action, most southern states moved up to the second Tuesday in March in 1988. There was a split decision on the Democratic side with Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson all laying some claim to having won the day. While Democrats had a split decision across the South, George HW Bush swept the region. Such a reversal may be less about the decisions throughout the South to cluster primaries on the same date than how the Republican and Democratic nomination races are shaping up at this point in late 2014. Still...
Recent Posts:
2014 Senate Forecast
Michigan Bill Would Undermine February Presidential Primary
Michigan Republicans Green Light March 15, but...
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
2014 Senate Forecast
Over the weekend, FHQ could not resist the urge to pull the available polling data on the 36 senate races of 2014 and run them through the graduated weighted polling averages we use during presidential general elections to forecast the electoral college. No, there is no shortage of these predictions, but as is FHQ's wont, we like to see how well a simpler method of aggregation and analysis stacks up against the other models. Surprisingly or not, there is some convergence between these models on election day 2014.
FHQ is no different in showing that:
1) There is a band of around 10 states with competitive senate races (seen in lighter shades of blue and red on the map below).
2) Some are more competitive than others. Kentucky, for instance, is less competitive than, say, Colorado or North Carolina.
3) Most of the competitive states -- 7 out of 10 -- favor the Republicans.
4) There is a rough order to the states as far as their average margins are concerned (overall and the more competitive states in gray in the figure of final average margins below). With all the polling data in, that indicates that Colorado, Iowa, Alaska, Kansas and North Carolina are the states to watch this evening as the returns come in. There are still 8 states with races within 3%.
5) Republicans look poised to pick up seats in Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota with Kentucky looking likely to join that group.
6) If Republicans win the 15 states in which they are ahead in the averages by more than 10% then they will be sitting at 45 seats. Add Kentucky and that number increases to 46.
7) Even when the possible implications of runoff elections in Louisiana and Georgia are factored in, Republican candidates are ahead in Arkansas and more narrowly in Colorado, Iowa and Alaska. Those four, if they follow the FHQ projections, would put the Republicans at 50 seats.
8) A Republican Senate majority would then depend on either Roberts/Orman race in Kansas and/or the two runoff states.
9) That does not take into account the possibility of Republican candidates running ahead of their averages in other competitive states, North Carolina and New Hampshire. In both, polls will close early and give a quick indication of whether the Republican tide has pushed to include the more competitive but persistently blue states (given the polling) this cycle.
10) There is more uncertainty about the path Republicans could take to the Senate majority than whether they will take that majority. FHQ projects Republicans will pick up 8 seats (Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and Alaska) while losing Kansas. FHQ also projects Democrats to hold New Hampshire and North Carolina. If there are runoff elections in Louisiana and Georgia, Republicans would be sitting on 50 seats needing one those runoff states to claim the majority.
11) FHQ projects 52 seats for the Republicans and 45 seats for the Democrats with three independents when it is all said and done and the new congress is fully sworn in next January.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Bill Would Undermine February Presidential Primary
Michigan Republicans Green Light March15, but...
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
FHQ is no different in showing that:
1) There is a band of around 10 states with competitive senate races (seen in lighter shades of blue and red on the map below).
2) Some are more competitive than others. Kentucky, for instance, is less competitive than, say, Colorado or North Carolina.
3) Most of the competitive states -- 7 out of 10 -- favor the Republicans.
4) There is a rough order to the states as far as their average margins are concerned (overall and the more competitive states in gray in the figure of final average margins below). With all the polling data in, that indicates that Colorado, Iowa, Alaska, Kansas and North Carolina are the states to watch this evening as the returns come in. There are still 8 states with races within 3%.
5) Republicans look poised to pick up seats in Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota with Kentucky looking likely to join that group.
6) If Republicans win the 15 states in which they are ahead in the averages by more than 10% then they will be sitting at 45 seats. Add Kentucky and that number increases to 46.
7) Even when the possible implications of runoff elections in Louisiana and Georgia are factored in, Republican candidates are ahead in Arkansas and more narrowly in Colorado, Iowa and Alaska. Those four, if they follow the FHQ projections, would put the Republicans at 50 seats.
8) A Republican Senate majority would then depend on either Roberts/Orman race in Kansas and/or the two runoff states.
9) That does not take into account the possibility of Republican candidates running ahead of their averages in other competitive states, North Carolina and New Hampshire. In both, polls will close early and give a quick indication of whether the Republican tide has pushed to include the more competitive but persistently blue states (given the polling) this cycle.
10) There is more uncertainty about the path Republicans could take to the Senate majority than whether they will take that majority. FHQ projects Republicans will pick up 8 seats (Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and Alaska) while losing Kansas. FHQ also projects Democrats to hold New Hampshire and North Carolina. If there are runoff elections in Louisiana and Georgia, Republicans would be sitting on 50 seats needing one those runoff states to claim the majority.
11) FHQ projects 52 seats for the Republicans and 45 seats for the Democrats with three independents when it is all said and done and the new congress is fully sworn in next January.
Recent Posts:
Michigan Bill Would Undermine February Presidential Primary
Michigan Republicans Green Light March15, but...
Arizona Should Replace Iowa at the Front of the Presidential Primary Queue?
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)