The SEC Primary Has Nothing to Do with Georgia Being More Prominent in 2016

FHQ has found Adam Wollner's reporting at the National Journal this cycle enlightening. He and I have had a handful of conversations about the primary calendar and specific maneuverings by states, and I have cited him a time or two. But Wollner lost me yesterday right in the lede of his story on Georgia's newfound position of prominence in the race for the 2016 Republican nomination.

Basically, this is a story about candidates coming to Georgia. That is fine, but the hypotheses advanced as to why the early visits are occurring fell short in FHQ's estimation. Let's explore.

Hypothesis #1: Georgia has received more visits during the 2016 cycle because of its new position on the calendar. 

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp may or may not in 2015 formally declare the date of the Georgia presidential primary as he did by law in a press conference in late September 2011. He has not yet in any event. But as Secretary Kemp is spearheading the effort to form an SEC primary coalition on March 1 and has repeatedly discussed that date, we can assume that a very strong signal has been sent as to when the Georgia presidential primary will fall in 2016.¹

Even if we assume that Georgia conducts a primary on March 1, that is not a new position for the state on the primary calendar. It would be the same first Tuesday in March date on which the Georgia primary occurred in 2012. I'm having flashbacks to grad school here, but if you have a variable (calendar position) that does not vary, then you do not have anything that can explain the changes in the dependent variable (candidate visits).

Calendar positioning is not driving any increase in candidate visits then. What else?

Hypothesis #2: The SEC primary that Georgia political actors have pushed has led to more candidate visits during the 2016 presidential nomination cycle. 

This SEC primary concept is a tough one to measure. The task is even tougher in view of the fact none of the states named in the original proposal have yet moved to March 1. Tennessee was already there by state law (changed in 2011). All signs point toward Georgia being there when the calendar dust settles. Louisiana declined to participate. In Alabama, there is bipartisan support for moving their primary up a week, but it is still in the legislative process. Arkansas and Mississippi failed to pass legislation that would have moved their primaries to March 1, but Arkansas may have a second go at it.

Perhaps the strong signal that Georgia is giving about holding a March 1 primary is what is driving this (at least relative to the other states). Perhaps, but that does not really have all that much to do with the SEC primary.

FHQ is not convinced that that is the reason why more candidates are visiting Georgia though. There are at least two other better alternate explanations.

1. Other than Texas, Georgia is the most delegate-rich state likely to hold a primary or caucuses on March 1. The perception is that this is going to be a long, drawn-out Republican nomination race (FHQ is skeptical that that will be the case.). That, in turn, means the delegate count will again take on added importance. In that situation, candidates go where the delegates are or will be. Georgia is a place where there will be delegates at stake. 
2. Speaking of Texas, something the Lone Star state has or will have in 2016 is something that Georgia had in 2012: a favorite son running for the presidential nomination. FHQ could not believe that Newt Gingrich was only mentioned in passing in Wollner's piece. If one wants to explain why Georgia might be getting more candidate attention in 2016 than it did in 2012, then a favorite son being involved in the previous cycle might be something at which to look. It tends to have a reducing effect on the number of visits from other candidates. That is especially true in the event that said state shares a primary date with a number of other contests. This was true for Illinois in 2008. Arkansas also lost in 2008 because it shared its February 5 primary date with twenty plus other states and Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee were on the ballot. 

But there's no Newt on the ballot in 2016 and no other Georgians either. There are or will be a number of Texans running though. And that may force candidates to keep their options open, looking at other delegate-rich states instead.

--

Before I close let's look for a moment at the lefthand side of this equation, the dependent variable. FHQ would urge a high level of caution in reading much into the number of candidate visits a state -- any state -- receives. Particularly, I would hesitate in comparing those raw numbers across cycles. It is dangerous and potentially misleading. Let's look at Georgia and the visits that have been paid to the Peach state in the time since the 2000 primaries.

Georgia primary visits:
2000: 2
2004: 32
2008: 38
2012: 47 

This makes it look like Georgia has seen a rise in candidate visits over time, and that even accounts for the fact that only one party had an active nomination in both 2004 and 2012. The key questions to ask are 1) was the nomination race still competitive when Georgia held its presidential primary and 2) how many states shared that date with the Peach state? The answer to #1 is yes across the board in all of those cycles. Georgia was still worth visiting, then. As for #2, that is likely what is driving this relationship; a greater number of visits. Georgia has had to share its primary date with a varying number of states over time.

Number of states to share primary date with Georgia:
2000: 16
2004: 9
2008: 23
2012: 10

Those numbers do not really make that point clear. There seem to be more concurrent contests when both parties have active nominations. That means a couple of things. First, Georgia is not always the top dog, uh, dawg, in terms of delegate-richness when it shares its presidential primary date with a large number of states (typically, though not always, on the earliest date allowed by the national party delegate selection rules). Often among those states are the likes of California, New York and Ohio; all more attractive, delegate-rich states. Georgia was the most delegate-rich state on March 6 four years ago.

But second, and perhaps more important, when both parties have active nominations that tends to mean more candidates who can provide more visits. And that is definitely true for 2016. There may only be a handful of Democrats seeking the party's nomination, but there are truckload of Republicans who are running. More candidates equals more potential visits to an early, delegate-rich state. This is a super important footnote for anyone who decides to look into candidate visits in the coming months and attempts to draw anything from the aggregated numbers.

Look at Georgia. It received about a 25% increase in visits in 2012 (versus 2008) despite only the Republicans having a competitive nomination race, a favorite son on the ballot and an uncertain calendar (that did not become certain until November 2011²). Why? Georgia's primary was early-ish and was the most delegate-rich contest on its date.

--
¹ No, FHQ does not have that date listed for Georgia on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and will not until there is a formal announcement. That said, I will leave what I said above stand. It is pretty clear that Georgia will end up on March 1 next year and that an announcement will, I would guess, probably happen sooner than the end of September this year. There just is not as much chaos to the formation of the 2016 calendar as there was four years ago.

² That uncertainty matters less in the comparison of 2012 to 2008. 2008 had just as much calendar uncertainty. However, with the calendar far clearer for 2016, that allows the candidates to better map out visits to states they know will be early, but after the carve-out states.

Recent Posts:
Nevada Democrats and a Presidential Primary in the Silver State

Kansas Senate Passes Bill to Permanently Cancel Presidential Primary

The Unintended Consequences of Fighting the Last Battle

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Nevada Democrats and a Presidential Primary in the Silver State

Democrats in Nevada have expressed some concern over the potential switch from a caucuses/convention system to a presidential primary in the Silver state. During hearings on both the Assembly and Senate versions of bills to shift to a primary, Democrats have voiced variations of the same fear: Switching from a caucus system after the DNC specifically added Nevada as a carve-out caucus state in 2006 would jeopardize the state's protected status.

Fair enough.

FHQ has played along with that line of reasoning thus far. However, it ignores the history of the 2006 landscape when Nevada and South Carolina were added by the DNC as protected early states alongside Iowa and New Hampshire. The reason Nevada was added as a caucus state -- that the DNC wanted a western caucus state -- was that the original plan was to wedge that contest in between Iowa and New Hampshire. Actually, the recommendation from the Herman-Price Commission was to add up to two caucus states in between the first in the nation caucuses in Iowa and the first in the nation primary in New Hampshire.

Any contest wedged into that calendar space between Iowa and New Hampshire had to be a caucus so as not to cross the state law in New Hampshire.

Since the 2008 cycle, however, the Democratic National Committee has slotted Nevada third in the queue, behind Iowa and New Hampshire. What that means is that Nevada Democrats really do not have much to fear from a switch to a presidential primary. It (mostly) would not conflict with New Hampshire law.

This idea, then, that such a trade -- caucuses for a primary -- would cost Nevada Democrats their place at the carve-out table rings somewhat hollow. What it really indicates is that status may already be on thin ice¹, and the state party does not want to do anything (or support anything) that might give the DNC an opportunity -- an excuse -- to dump Nevada from the early state lineup in future cycles.

But here's the thing: Nevada Democrats control the caucuses. They do not currently control the primary process because Republicans control the state government. If that continues -- something Nevada Democrats are working to prevent, I'm sure -- then Nevada Democrats would have some insulation against a national party that wants to dump the Silver state from the list of non-exempt states at the beginning of the presidential primary calendar.

Silver state Democrats could -- could -- opt into the primary in 2016 and argue in 2018-20 if Republicans still control the levers of power in Carson City that they had no choice but to go along with the decision. They could petition for a waiver from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) arguing that Nevada has to stay early because they have no control over the primary process. But the likely response would be, "Hold caucuses instead. You have a history with caucuses." This is what RBC members have said about Florida, post-2012. Florida Democrats argued in 2008 with the threat of losing all their delegates hanging over them that they could not hold caucuses as an alternative to an early, non-compliant primary. Then the party turned around and without prompting held caucuses in 2012 (demonstrating that the party could, in fact, conduct caucuses).

The simple truth of the matter is that if the DNC wants to replace Nevada at the front of the calendar it can. Nevada Democrats could argue that they cannot move the presidential primary, but the Rules and Bylaws Committee would throw that back in their faces rather quickly and penalize the party if they do not comply (by switching back to compliant, later caucuses). Ultimately, this is a good example of the competing interests in presidential primary calendar politics. State parties that do not have control of the state government and perhaps do not have the backing of the national party (in terms of future early state status) are the odd players out in that game. They have very little leverage.

This is less a question for 2016 than it is for 2018 and the beginning stages of the 2020 cycle. Still, if Nevada makes the switch from caucuses to a primary, then that has implications for that process.


--
¹ FHQ is sure Nevada Democrats have heard the same whispers we have: With Harry Reid out of the way, the national parties are free to make a carve-out trade. The Senate minority leader was instrumental in gaining early state status for Nevada in 2006. I've heard that from folks in the DNC and the folks in the RNC were seemingly more than happy to go along with that after having Nevada kind of forced on them in the 2008 cycle (and then seeing things not go all that well with the Republican caucuses in Nevada in either 2008 or 2012).

Recent Posts:
Kansas Senate Passes Bill to Permanently Cancel Presidential Primary

The Unintended Consequences of Fighting the Last Battle

Nevada Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill With a Twist

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Kansas Senate Passes Bill to Permanently Cancel Presidential Primary

Earlier in the 2015 legislative session the Kansas state Senate unanimously passed legislation to eliminate the presidential primary in the Sunflower state. On Wednesday, May 13, it did so again.

At the end of March, the Kansas state Senate passed SB 239 which originally would have cancelled the presidential primary for the 2016 cycle, but was amended first to end the quadrennial exercise that has happened every cycle since 1996 to cancel the presidential primary. The state House considered similar legislation of its own as well as the Senate bill in the same timeframe. However, around that same time, an effort was initiated to merge a number of elections-related bills including the measure to eliminate the presidential primary.

That omnibus elections bill -- the conference committee report for HB 2104 -- passed the state Senate 22-13 with Democrats and conservative Republicans in opposition. The presidential primary cancelation is commonplace in Topeka after two decades, but some of the other provisions -- moving local elections to August and shifting city and school board elections to odd-numbered years -- have proven more controversial. The vote in the Senate was much tighter than the unanimous vote on the stand-alone presidential primary cancelation bill. The vote in the state House is expected to be even narrower.

Kansas Democrats have already committed to caucuses for the 2016 cycle.

Recent Posts:
The Unintended Consequences of Fighting the Last Battle

Nevada Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill With a Twist

Arkansas Special Session May Include Measure to Move Presidential Primary to March

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

The Unintended Consequences of Fighting the Last Battle

FHQ often talks about the unintended consequences of presidential primary rules changes at the national party level. We also frequently invoke the notion of those same national parties fighting the last battle in setting those rules. It is not often that we tie the two together. But this week, as the Republican National Committee gathers for its spring meeting in Scottsdale, there is a great example playing out of how fighting the last battle is yielding unintended consequences for the RNC as 2016 approaches.

The RNC rules on delegate selection have been set for nine months now, but the particulars of one rules change -- a new addition for the 2016 cycle -- remain somewhat unsettled. The new rule in question is the measure put in place to regulate the presidential primary debates process in the context of the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Those rules are an example of a classic reaction to a perceived problem from the previous cycle. Though the number of debates were down slightly in 2012 relative to 2008, they were not counter-programed by Democratic debates, leaving the Republican candidates in the spotlight attempting to in some ways out-conservative one another.

This was viewed by the RNC and some pundits as injurious to the party and its nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in the general election phase of the campaign.¹ Perceived problems and a loss in November often lead to a perceived need for nominations rules changes and then actual rules changes in the years immediately following the loss. That was the case in 2013 when the RNC began moving toward rules that would limit the number of debates in the 2016 presidential nomination cycle.

But that was a set of changes tailor-made for 2012. 2016 is a different animal. Rules changes in 2013-14 have led to a need for more rules in 2015. Limiting the number of debates is one thing, but determining who can participate from among a crowded field of candidates and potential candidates is another altogether. FHQ mentioned in reaction to the debates proposal nearly two years ago that the RNC risked moving from managing a process (the debates) to trying to control it. Attempting to control a process with competing interests -- the national party's, the state parties', the candidates', the media outlets' -- is attempting to control an uncontrollable process. That is even more true when an initial wave of regulations on debates requires a second wave of rules to govern who can participate.

That is something the RNC is struggling with now. Where does the party draw the line on who can participate? What determines that line? Poll position (in a period of the process where name recognition is driving things)? Fundraising (with or without super PAC data)? Staffing and organization in early states?

Perhaps all the RNC has done is open Pandora's box. But keep in mind that just because this is unique to the Republican Party now does not mean that this is not something that  can affect Democrats too. That may not come in 2016, but could in the future. The problems (potentially) are the same across both parties. It may be useful to coordinate, evenly if only loosely, a set of best practices for primary debates regulation like the national parties did on the calendar rules these last two cycles.


--
¹ Of course, despite all of that, the 2012 election still ended up about where one would expect given that an incumbent president was seeking reelection with both decent but not great approval ratings and a growing but not greatly economy.

Recent Posts:
Nevada Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill With a Twist

Arkansas Special Session May Include Measure to Move Presidential Primary to March

Hogan Signature Sends Maryland Presidential Primary to April 26

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Nevada Senate Passes Presidential Primary Bill With a Twist

After again amending its bill to create a consolidated primary -- presidential and other offices -- on Monday, May 11, the Nevada state Senate passed SB 421 on Tuesday afternoon on an 11-9 party line vote.

Majority party Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of the measure that would create a presidential primary and couple it with the primaries for other offices in the state. The latter, typically in June, would be moved up to the last Tuesday in February. That not only tamps down on the costs associated with the new presidential primary, but is also in line with what the Republican National Committee has been quietly pushing for while keeping the Nevada delegate selection process early on the presidential primary calendar.

And while that potential move from caucuses to a primary is of note for Republicans, perhaps more interesting is the Democratic reaction to the bill in the state Senate. Nevada Republicans have reason to want to go along with the national party on this one. They control the levers of state government in the Silver state, but the national party has sway over which states are among the privileged few at the beginning of the presidential primary line. Nevada is now among that group of four. For Nevada Democrats, however, there is some concern that trading out the caucuses/convention process for a primary will hurt the party and its protected position on the calendar with the Democratic National Committee. The DNC added the Nevada caucuses to the list of carve-out states for the 2008 cycle and has for three cycles now specified the dates of the "caucuses" in Nevada in the national party delegate selection rules. SB 421 has Nevada Democrats in a bind in switching the process to a state-run primary election.

The national parties, then, are pulling the state parties in different directions on this issue. The RNC wants a Nevada primary to reduce the amount of chaos, if not mismanagement, of the caucuses process by the Nevada Republican Party. However, DNC rules call on Nevada to hold caucuses and not a primary.

This sounds like Nevada Democrats might lose their early status (in the future) only there are a couple of outs for them in all of this. One is in the legislation that just passed the state Senate and the other is in the DNC delegate selection rules.

First, layered into the newly amended SB 421 is a provision that instructs the Nevada secretary of state to conduct a presidential primary election (on the last Tuesday in February) if 1) he or she does NOT receive written word from a national party chairperson that the national party does not want to participate in the primary election and 2) if two or more (presidential) candidates file declarations of candidacy with the secretary of state. That provides Democrats in Nevada with an out to continue with the caucuses/convention system. They only need the chair of the DNC to notify the secretary of state that it does not want Nevada Democrats participating in the primary.

Now, this is a bit of an odd maneuver. The legislation cedes the power over the opt-out to the national party. [Keep in mind that because the RNC wants a Nevada primary, it can do nothing and get its preferred position.] Ultimately, the presidential nomination process is a national party process, but on matters like these the national parties have tended to defer to the state parties (unless it is something in direct violation of the national party delegate selection rules). There is some brinkmanship to this, intentional or not. This is daring the DNC to weigh in on a heretofore state party matter and basically say that it supports a lower turnout election in an early state that just so happens to be a swing state in the general election. That is pretty speculative though.

If that provision is in there, then why did Nevada state Senate Democrats vote against the measure? That can get a bit complicated. If the DNC does not take the bait in the trap described above, then Nevada Democrats are forced into a primary election that "violates" national party rules.¹ But Nevada Democrats could apply for a waiver from any penalty under Rule 20 of the DNC rules. All a state party has to do is prove that Democratic legislators acted to prevent the legislation from moving forward. As Democrats are in the legislative minority in Nevada, those state Senate Democrats did everything they could to prevent the change in unanimously opposing the move.

That possibility is a long way off in all of this. But there is never a dull moment in Nevada presidential nomination politics.

--
¹ FHQ uses the quotation marks here because technically Nevada and the other carve-out states have violated the timing rules in each of the last two cycles. The dates on which Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were to hold their contests were clearly laid out in the DNC delegate selection rules. Yet, there was no penalty levied against the early four states.

Recent Posts:
Arkansas Special Session May Include Measure to Move Presidential Primary to March

Hogan Signature Sends Maryland Presidential Primary to April 26

Hawaii Republicans Confirm March 8 Presidential Caucuses for 2016

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Arkansas Special Session May Include Measure to Move Presidential Primary to March

Though the official call has yet to go out, it appears as if the Arkansas state legislature will convene a special session starting on May 26.

As is the case in some other states (see Missouri), it is the governor's responsibility in Arkansas to not only call the special session of the legislature but also to define the issues/bills with which the session will deal. Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) on Monday, May 11 said that constitutional amendments and bonds issues dealing with the so-called "super project" industrial area would be on the agenda. But the timing of the 2016 presidential primary in the Natural state has also been discussed as a possible agenda item after failing to pass during the regular session.

It looks as if legislators may have the same options they had during the regular session also: Create and schedule a separate presidential primary (as Arkansas has done twice before -- 1988 and 2008) or move all of the primaries from May to March. Bills covering both possibilities were filed in the Arkansas state Senate by Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-6th, Branch) earlier this year. However, only the bill to create a separate presidential primary in March passed the Senate before getting bottled up in the state House.

Part of the reason that bill died was because of the $1.6 million price tag for the separate election. That issue may be resolved by moving a consolidated election from May to March, but that move would affect the renominations of state legislators themselves; a factor that has made legislators in Arkansas (and elsewhere) hesitant to support such measures.

The official call for the special session is due later this month according to the governor's office.

Recent Posts:
Hogan Signature Sends Maryland Presidential Primary to April 26

Hawaii Republicans Confirm March 8 Presidential Caucuses for 2016

Kansas Democrats Set for March 5 Caucuses in 2016

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Hogan Signature Sends Maryland Presidential Primary to April 26

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R) is set to sign SB 204 among a host of other bills in a signing session today, May 12.

SB 204 shifts the presidential primary in Maryland from the first Tuesday in April to the fourth Tuesday in April. It was one of two identical bills that passed the legislature in the Old Line state during the 2015 legislative session. Originally, both bills sought to move the primary back just one week to the second week in April to accommodate an early vote period that would not conflict with spring religious holidays. The additional two weeks the primary will be moved back will align the Maryland presidential primary with presidential primary votes in neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania as well. Connecticut and Rhode Island also have presidential primaries scheduled for that date on the presidential primary calendar.

--

The national party rules on delegate selection have changed for 2016 -- shrinking the Republican proportionality window to the first two weeks of March -- but Maryland Republicans, regardless of the change, will be able to maintain their traditional winner-take-most method of delegate allocation during this cycle.

Recent Posts:
Hawaii Republicans Confirm March 8 Presidential Caucuses for 2016

Kansas Democrats Set for March 5 Caucuses in 2016

Let's Talk About the Primary Calendar and the Republican Nomination Race

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Hawaii Republicans Confirm March 8 Presidential Caucuses for 2016

The Hawaii Republican Party convened its 2015 state convention during the weekend of May 2. On the agenda for the delegates in attendance was a routine reexamination of the rules that govern the party and its procedures.

One item that was not seriously debated or at least altered in the rules was the date of the caucuses that will initiate the 2016 national delegate selection/allocation process for Republicans in the Aloha state. Set for the second Tuesday in March under the 2013 rules -- the 2011 rules as well -- that provision was carried over to 2015 rules.

That position will place the Hawaii Republican caucuses on the same date as the Idaho primary, Michigan primary and Mississippi primary on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Alabama and Ohio are both looking to move away from that date. North Carolina has active legislation to shift into that date.

Recent Posts:
Kansas Democrats Set for March 5 Caucuses in 2016

Let's Talk About the Primary Calendar and the Republican Nomination Race

Utah Democrats Will Caucus on March 22

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Kansas Democrats Set for March 5 Caucuses in 2016

According to the draft delegate selection plan made available earlier this month, Kansas Democrats will caucus on March 5, 2016.¹

The March 5 caucuses only initiates a delegate selection process that will continue with district conventions on April 2 (to select congressional district delegates) and a state party selection of pledged and at-large delegates on April 30, 2016. But the allocation of those delegate slots to particular candidate will be based on the "first determining step" on March 5.

This move brings Kansas Democrats' caucuses in line with the Democratic caucuses in neighboring Nebraska. The two states also had concurrent caucuses in 2012, but in April alongside Wyoming Democrats. That made those three states eligible for the 15% clustering bonus then. That requires at least three neighboring states holding delegate selection events together, but after a point on the calendar in late March. Though Nebraska and Kansas will hold caucuses on the same date, they are but two states and are both scheduled too early to qualify for the bonus in 2016.


¹ The above link is to the plan from the Kansas Democratic Party site. FHQ will also keep a version of the plan here.

Recent Posts:
Let's Talk About the Primary Calendar and the Republican Nomination Race

Utah Democrats Will Caucus on March 22

Colorado Presidential Primary Bill Dies in Committee

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Let's Talk About the Primary Calendar and the Republican Nomination Race

Maggie Haberman at First Draft this morning:

After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee changed the voting calendar to try and avoid repeats of the brutal and long-lasting fight between Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. 

The previous calendar – Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, followed by Florida — no longer exists. Instead, a slew of states moved up their votes to March 1, before Florida’s vote. Such compression, and so many candidates, could produce the opposite effect of what was intended, prolonging both the duration and the intensity of the process. 

That means that Florida, which is crucial to its former governor, Jeb Bush, and to a current senator, Marco Rubio, might not be the same firewall as in previous years. That raises the significance of South Carolina and the others states that vote before Florida’s contest on March 15.

FHQ wants to focus on that second paragraph. The set up is fine. The RNC, after what they perceived to be an injurious 2012 presidential nomination fight, tweaked the party's delegate selection rules, compressing the calendar and tightening the proportionality requirement. The goal: speed up the nomination.

But that's when the wheels fall off for Haberman.

First of all the previous calendar did not follow a sequence of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida. Florida's move into late January for the 2012 cycle triggered a turf war between New Hampshire and Nevada that ended with the Silver state caucusing after Florida in early February.

Sure, that is something of a minor point. But sequence matters and the sequence is wrong in Habermas's piece.

The bigger issue is looking forward to the 2016 calendar. This idea that a "slew of states" has moved up to March 1 is just not right. A slew of delegates maybe, but not a slew of states; not yet anyway. Texas is back where it should have been on the calendar in 2012: the first Tuesday in March. But a dispute over redistricting in the Lone Star state forced that contest back to May 29. That is a significant movement of delegates from the end of the calendar to up near the front of the queue. But that is not a slew of states. The only other state that is new to the first Tuesday in March for 2016 is Minnesota. The shift in the case of the North Star state was a shift back relative to 2012. Four years ago, Minnesota Republicans held one of those non-binding caucuses that Rick Santorum won on the heels of the Nevada caucuses.

Look, sequence matters. More importantly, the states that comprise that sequence affects the course of a nomination race (maybe not its outcome, but certainly the path the nominee takes to the nomination). This story right now is basically Texas and its 150+ delegates is much earlier in 2016 and Florida set a date that is not right after South Carolina. That is not without consequence.

Recent Posts:
Utah Democrats Will Caucus on March 22

Colorado Presidential Primary Bill Dies in Committee

DC Presidential Primary to June 14

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.