Update on the 2016 New York Presidential Primary

Jimmy Vielkind at Capital New York has a really cool piece up today digging into the delegate selection rules arcana in the Empire state.

Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
On the potential date of the New York presidential primary:

It's too early to say whether the G.O.P. field will have coalesced by the time of the primary, which [adviser to the New York Republican Party state committee, Tony] Casale said would be in either March or April of next year. Democrats and Republicans must agree on a date, and pass a bill through the Legislature. In 2012, New York's presidential primary was held on April 24.

Currently scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, the New York primary will have to be moved back to comply with the national party rules on delegate selection. Republicans in the state expressed a preference for a March 1 primary earlier this year, but as FHQ mentioned then, such a decision would require some buy-in from Democrats in the state legislature. Another late April primary would make New York a bridge between mid-Atlantic primaries in Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania and New England primaries in Connecticut and Rhode Island. As was the case during the 2012 presidential election cycle, New York Democrats would be eligible for bonus delegates for both holding a later primary and clustering primaries with regional partners.¹ Republicans may want an earlier primary, but Democrats in the state are differently motivated.

On delegate allocation rules:

The state's delegates will not be awarded on a winner-take-all basis, but rather according to whichever candidate does best in each of New York's 27 congressional districts. A candidate could capture three delegates if they win an outright majority; otherwise, the leading candidate will win two delegates and the runner-up one.

To be quite clear, New York Republicans abandoned their truly winner-take-all delegate allocation plan in 2011. In 2012, the party moved to and utilized an interesting hybrid allocation. Since the redistricting process had yet to be completed, New York Republicans apportioned two delegates to each of the 29 districts drawn for the 2002-2012 census cycle. Those delegates were awarded in a winner-take-all fashion to the winner of each congressional district. The remaining 34 delegates were at-large and were proportionally allocated to candidates based on the statewide results in the April primary.

New York now has just 27 congressional districts and under the delegate selection proposal the Republican Party will vote on on Tuesday (June 2), each district will be apportioned three delegates. Unless a candidate receives a majority of the vote in a district, the delegates will be allocated in a manner similar to how Georgia Republicans allocated their district delegates in 2012. It is not specified, but one could assume that the at-large delegates will be similarly allocated as compared to 2012: if there is a majority winner statewide would be awarded all of those at-large delegates (if not trigger a truly winner-take-all allocation of all of the delegates, both at-large and congressional district). Such a plan would be compliant with RNC rules in March or April and within or outside of the proportionality window.

On other delegate selection rules:

Casale said that candidates' names—not delegates—will appear on the ballot, and in a break from 2012, the various campaigns will not have to file lists of people backing their effort with the state Board of Elections. Instead, “local Republican leaders and party faithful will pick the delegates—not the candidates themselves.”

The delegates will be pledged to the winning candidate on the first ballot, but will be free to select whomever they choose in the unlikely event of a second convention ballot.

Read Vielkind's story for the background on this change stretching back to 2012. This "Rob Cole rule" is an interesting one though. The change it brings about speaks pretty directly to a post FHQ wrote a few weeks ago about how much control candidates -- particularly Republican candidates -- have over the delegate selection process. New York has in the past been a state that has candidates file slates of delegates to be elected directly on the primary ballot. However, the Republican Party in New York will break with that tradition in 2016 (if the rules change is passed on Tuesday). The planned change would relieve campaigns the added task of filing delegates, but in exchange the candidates would give up control over the selection to state and local party officials. That eliminates some of the types of issues that both New York and Massachusetts delegate selection processes had in 2012. Again, Republican candidates do not technically have the right to review delegates bound to them before the national convention.

--
Overall, we now have a bit more information on the 2016 Republican delegate selection process in New York. Sure, the primary is scheduled for February now, but that has never really been a threat to the stability of the national parties' calendar plans. However, June is upon us and the negotiations between New York Democrats and Republicans does not appear to have started. We also now have a some clarity on how delegates will be allocated in New York and how much direct control over the selection process the candidates/campaigns will have.

--
¹ Even if the Pennsylvania presidential primary were to move to mid-March, New York would still be eligible for those bonuses in a partnership with Connecticut or Rhode Island. The clustering bonus requires a coalition of at least three contiguous states.

Recent Posts:
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination

Some Musings on the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

Hutchinson's Signature Moves 2016 Arkansas Presidential Primary to March

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

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination

FHQ has neglected the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination process to this point. With such a logjam on the Republican side, it is hard not to. But in following along with the close of the Nevada legislative session in my Twitter feed last night (no action on the presidential primary bill, but fantastic work by Jon Ralston and Ray Hagar), there were a number of tweets interspersed about Bernie Sanders' crowds and poll position.¹ To FHQ's eye, many seem to be overstating what exactly Sanders' emergence means.

Let's take those indicators one at a time:

1. David Bernstein posed a question this morning about studies examining crowd size and the correlation that holds with success in early primaries. It is an interesting question, but no one on an ad hoc panel of three political scientists could come up with any research that had dug into the question. Anecdotally, it is reminiscent of the similar connection that was drawn from the level of Romney crowd enthusiasm during the home stretch of the 2012 presidential (general) election. It just does not seem to be a good indicator of success in (presidential) elections.

2. But why were there 3000 or more people there to greet Bernie Sanders on a Sunday afternoon in late May 2015 in Minneapolis of all places? That has to say something, right? Yes, it does. But let's look at what it means from a slightly different angle.



Political scientists will often tell you to "ignore those polls". And that is absolutely correct in the instance of presidential primary polls this far out from when the Iowa caucuses kick off the presidential primary season. However, there has been a consistency to the polling of the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination race. Clinton has been at or around the 60% mark since 2013. That is a few data points. One could obviously counter that that is just name recognition driving that. A large part of it probably is. Survey respondents know Clinton better than they know Sanders or O'Malley or Chaffee or Webb or whomever. Let's focus not on that 60% but instead zero in on the remaining 40%.

That is a pretty significant chunk of Democratic primary voters. A chunk that would prefer someone else to Hillary Clinton. A chunk that can be enthusiastic about that preference. But that could also be a faction of Democratic primary voters who still only comprise 40% of the total primary electorate. That may yield some primary or caucus victories -- if there is a clear alternative to Clinton behind whom that faction nearly unanimously backs -- but it still is not likely to win the Democratic nomination.

As FHQ and others have often pointed out, polling is but one indicator at which to look in the context of a presidential nomination battle. There are also fundraising and endorsements. FHQ has often drawn a parallel between Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Al Gore in 2000. It may be splitting hairs, but perhaps the better 2000 comparison is George W. Bush. Like Clinton in 2015, Bush had huge polling, fundraising and endorsement leads in 1999. Even with those advantages, Bush still lost a handful of early contests (New Hampshire, Michigan, Arizona in February and a handful of northeastern states on Super Tuesday in early March) to John McCain. An insurmountable lead does not necessarily prevent primary or caucus losses for the frontrunner, but it does present a very steep climb for any challenger for the nomination.

Clinton can and perhaps will lose a primary or caucus here and there during 2016. And if one wants to look at where enthusiastic crowds can or will matter look to the same group of contests that bedeviled the 2008 Clinton campaign: caucuses. In those lower turnout elections in states like Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado or Nevada (or Kansas, Maine and Nebraska), a small enthusiastic group might be able to overwhelm the process in a manner similar to the way the Obama campaign did in 2008 or the Paul campaigns have done in 2008, 2012 and hope to replicate in 2016.

There are a couple of things that run against that hypothesis for Clinton in 2016. First, the institutional memory within the Clinton campaign is not that short. They will, no doubt, work to prevent a similar caucuses collapse in 2016. Secondly (and perhaps because of the memories of 2008), those seven caucuses states listed above are the only caucuses states scheduled (or likely scheduled) before March 22. The remaining seven caucuses states begin the caucus/convention process on or after March 22. That is a point on the calendar where the field will have been significantly winnowed if not winnowed to just Clinton.

Look, ask anyone -- Democrat, Republican, independent or political junkie -- and they will tell you that they would rather see a real race for the Democratic nomination than something like 2012 when President Obama was seeking renomination or like 2000 when Vice President Gore easily handled a challenge from former New Jersey senator, Bill Bradley. But wanting the Democratic nomination to be competitive or as competitive as the Republican nomination race probably is is not realistic. There will likely be an attempt made to read a McCain in 2000 scenario into the 2016 Democratic nomination race, but what we may get is that scenario similar to the Romney/not-Romney dynamic in 2012.

...but with those, in this case, not-Clintons rising and falling during 2015 and peaking in the polls far below where Clinton is established. FHQ would urge folks not to jump to conclusions on all of this.

--
¹ It seems that there is some effort to manufacture a contest on the Democratic side without really scrutinizing it in the same way that the Republican race is being covered. Is there any reason to suspect that Sanders would not enjoy the polling (and enthusiasm?) bumps, post-announcement, that some of the Republican candidates have seen after they threw their hats in the ring?

Recent Posts:
Some Musings on the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

Hutchinson's Signature Moves 2016 Arkansas Presidential Primary to March

Upon Further Review: Nevada Assembly Committee Passes Presidential Primary Bill

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

Some Musings on the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar

A few thoughts on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and its impact at the end of May 2015:

1. For all the talk of frontloading around here, there have been but two states that have (actively) moved earlier on the 2016 presidential primary calendar: neighbors, Arkansas and Louisiana. The Natural state presidential primary shifted up 12 weeks from late May to the first Tuesday in March this past week. Just south in the Pelican state, the presidential primary was bumped up two weeks in 2014. There are two additional states -- New York and Texas -- that had later primary dates in 2012 than each currently does on the 2016 calendar. The New York move from February to April in 2011 expired at the end of 2012, returning the presidential primary in the Empire state to February. In Texas, the 2012 redistricting court battle forced the primary back to the end of May. But the Lone Star state primary reverted to the first Tuesday in March date called for in state law for 2016 (with redistricting settled).

2. Alabama is very likely to join that group and a handful of other southern states on March 1; the date of the proposed SEC primary.

3. Most states that have moved or are in the process of potentially moving are shifting back to later dates on the calendar. The vast majority of that movement has been cleaning up the the February remainders that were left during and after 2012. That group includes the 2012 rogue states, Arizona, Florida and Michigan, as well as a handful of non-binding caucus/primary states, Minnesota and Missouri.¹ All of those states now have positions on the 2016 calendar in March.

4. The month of March has gotten it from the other end as well. The Texas reversion, the Arkansas move, and likely the North Carolina move together mean that three states will hold primaries and around 250 [Republican] delegates will be allocated in March rather than May. Similarly, those February-then-March-now states mentioned above translate to approximately 300 delegates being allocated in March 2016 rather than February 2012. If you want to quantify the calendar compression that the Republican National Committee wanted/wants for the 2016 cycle, then the shift of those 550 delegates from earlier and later points on the 2012 calendar captures it well.

5. FHQ spoke with Alex Jaffe at CNN earlier this week and she asked a question about candidate/campaign behavior; specifically their visits to states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Why are candidates appearing at Georgia Republican state conventions? Why are they in Tennessee? What's the allure of Michigan? There are three reasons FHQ would highlight:

• More candidates running or likely running for the Republican presidential nomination means a larger potential total population of visits. This is a minor point, but a part of the story nonetheless.


• Uncertainty/certainty 2012. The 2012 race for the Republican nomination was marked by calendar uncertainty and relative candidate certainty. It was pretty clear throughout 2011 that the Republican race would operate by a Romney/not Romney dynamic. But while that worked itself out in the polling on the race, the calendar formation dragged on into the fall of 2011. Candidates knew the carve-out states would go first and that Florida would likely be right on the heels of those contests², but where they would end up on the calendar and how/where other states might slot in behind them added enough uncertainty to decision-making within campaigns. That lack of calendar clarity, it could be argued, forced the candidates to focus on the earliest states on the calendar. [Breaking that Romney/not-Romney dynamic early was also a contributing factor (for those potential not-Romneys).] 


• Certainty/uncertainty 2016: Fast forward to 2015-16 and the positioning of the candidates is if not less clear, then it is more jumbled relative to 2012. But the calendar? The primary calendar is as clear as an unmuddied lake compared to the 2012 calendar at this same point in 2011. That has a significant impact on campaign decision-making. If a candidate or his/her campaign is aware of the likely shape of the primary calendar, they can more efficiently if not effectively allocate their resources (campaign spending and candidate visits). A crowded field and calendar certainty leads to candidates attempting to carve out some niche -- some state -- where they can claim victory and stay alive. But again, this is activity in 2015. Once the calendar (year) switches from 2015 to 2016 and especially once votes are cast in those carve-out states, the winnowing of the field will hit or already have hit overdrive. That does not make travel to later states unnecessary or wishful thinking on the part of candidates and their campaigns. Rather it is more properly viewed as insurance should a candidate claim one of the two or three viable slots heading into March (or deeper into March).

A couple of additional points:

6. FHQ will propose a hypothesis: As calendar year 2016 (or perhaps the Iowa caucus) approaches, visits to non-carve-out states will decrease. Certainty -- with both the calendar and candidate positioning -- will increase and the campaigns will focus more and more on those earliest states. That is not to suggest the focus will exclusively be on those first four states, but it will shift toward them.

7. Interestingly, there seems to be a cut-off on the calendar: March 15. That seems to be a line of demarcation. Yes, that is the point on the calendar where the proportionality window closes, but candidates and their campaigns are not spending much time if any in states with contests after March 15. That is telling. First, it means that there is a limit to just how forward thinking the campaigns are willing to be. Secondly, however, that is a bit of an indirect indication that that is a point on the calendar where the candidates and their campaign braintrusts are hedging their bets and assuming the race will be concluded (or that the presumptive winner of the nomination will have emerged).

The process is not there yet, but the 2016 presidential primary calendar is a lot further along in 2015 than it was in 2011.


--
¹ Though Missouri held a February presidential primary in 2012, the Missouri Republican Party chose to tether its delegate selection/allocation to a rules-compliant caucus/convention system that began in mid-March.

² The Florida primary actually preceded the Nevada Republican caucuses in 2012.

Recent Posts:
Hutchinson's Signature Moves 2016 Arkansas Presidential Primary to March

Upon Further Review: Nevada Assembly Committee Passes Presidential Primary Bill

Arkansas House Sends SEC Primary Bill Off to Governor Hutchinson

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

Hutchinson's Signature Moves 2016 Arkansas Presidential Primary to March

Quickly on the heels of the Arkansas state legislature wrapping up the business of its special session on Thursday, Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) signed SB 8 into law on Friday, May 29. The newly changed statute would shift the consolidated May Arkansas primaries, including the presidential primary, to the first Tuesday in March.

Arkansas now joins Tennessee and Texas on the March 1 SEC primary date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. And despite all the legislative wrangling in both the regular and special sessions, Arkansas becomes the first state to officially move into that calendar position for 2016 during the 2015 state legislative season.1 SEC primary legislation failed in Mississippi and awaits the governor's consideration in Alabama. Georgia is also very likely to wind up on March 1.

Arkansas will share that March 1 date with those states plus neighboring Oklahoma as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Virginia. However, the primary in the Natural state will return to its May date at the end of 2016.

--
¹ Tennessee changed its law during 2011 for the 2012 cycle and Texas, not a part of the original SEC primary proposal, reverted to its first Tuesday in March primary date after a redistricting dispute in 2011-12 forced a temporary change. Though Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has coordinated the SEC primary effort (and holds the ultimate power to set the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state), he has not officially scheduled the 2016 Georgia presidential primary. However, it is pretty clear where Georgia will end up on the calendar.

--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News sending news of the signing on to FHQ.

Recent Posts:
Upon Further Review: Nevada Assembly Committee Passes Presidential Primary Bill

Arkansas House Sends SEC Primary Bill Off to Governor Hutchinson

Arkansas Senate Passes Compromise SEC Primary Bill

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

Upon Further Review: Nevada Assembly Committee Passes Presidential Primary Bill

A day after rejecting the measure to create a presidential primary in Nevada, the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee passed an amended SB 421 on a party line, 6-4 vote. Unlike Wednesday's less cohesive committee vote, majority Republicans on the panel voted as a bloc in favor of the change on Thursday, May 28.

The amended bill would establish a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February. That differs from the Senate-passed version that would not only have created a presidential primary in the Silver state, but would have, in a cost-savings move, shifted the June primaries for other offices up to February as well. It was that latter provision that received pushback from elections administrators across the state and Democrats on the panel among others.

With time winding down on a legislative session due to adjourn on June 1, SB 421 now heads to the Assembly floor with a "Do Pass" recommendation from the Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. If the bill passes there, it could proceed along one of two paths. First, the bill could be sent back to the state Senate for another round of consideration (in its amended form). However, it could also head to a conference committee to hammer out the differences between the chambers (before being sent back for final votes in the Assembly and Senate). Either way offers potential roadblocks.

But first thing's first: The full Assembly gets a crack at voting up or down on the measure to create a presidential primary in the Silver state.

--
A tip of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up on the committee vote.

Recent Posts:
Arkansas House Sends SEC Primary Bill Off to Governor Hutchinson

Arkansas Senate Passes Compromise SEC Primary Bill

Nevada Assembly Committee Rejects Senate-Passed Presidential Primary Bill

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

Arkansas House Sends SEC Primary Bill Off to Governor Hutchinson

The Arkansas House on Thursday, May 28 passed SB 8 by a vote of 67-22. The amended version of the bill would shift the primaries for a number of offices -- including the presidential primary -- from the mid-May to the first Tuesday in March during the 2016 cycle. The compromise hammered out in the state Senate would expire at the end of 2016 returning the Arkansas primaries to May for subsequent cycles.

The House had already passed its version of the bill that would have permanently set the date of the consolidated primary for March. That same bill faced resistance in the state Senate though, forcing the compromise to only make the primaries date change for the 2016 cycle. The House passed the compromise version by a wider margin than the permanent change.

The bill now heads to Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) who supported the change in his call for a special session last week.

Recent Posts:
Arkansas Senate Passes Compromise SEC Primary Bill

Nevada Assembly Committee Rejects Senate-Passed Presidential Primary Bill

Ohio Senate Passes March 15 Presidential Primary Bill

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

Arkansas Senate Passes Compromise SEC Primary Bill

Arkansas legislators worked into the evening on day two of the current special session yesterday. After failing to gather enough votes to suspend the rules and consider SB 8 on the floor of the state Senate¹, senators in support of the move to join the SEC primary on March 1 redoubled their efforts to push the measure through.

Those efforts by majority party Republicans included cutting a deal with state Senate Democrats to make the move of the consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- to March 1 temporary. Under the provisions of the amended bill, the Arkansas presidential primary will move into the SEC primary position on the calendar, but only for the 2016 cycle. The election would automatically revert to its current May position at the end of 2016 (for the 2020 cycle). This would either save future legislators from having to change the date back to May as they have in other instances when Arkansas has moved its presidential primary forward on the calendar (see 1988 and 2008) or force them to revisit whether to hold an early primary again in 2020 and beyond.

The amended SB 8 emerged from the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" recommendation and was subsequently passed by a 28-6 vote by the full Senate. The measure now heads to the House for consideration. The lower chamber passed the original (unamended/permanent) version of the SEC primary bill on Wednesday.

For more see coverage from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

--
¹ The chamber was able to gain enough support to extract the bill from committee, but not enough to meet the supermajority requirement to consider the bill immediately. Without that supermajority, the bill, by rule, had to wait two calendar days before the chamber could consider it. That would have pushed the special session, originally scheduled to adjourn on Thursday, May 28, into Saturday.

Recent Posts:
Nevada Assembly Committee Rejects Senate-Passed Presidential Primary Bill

Ohio Senate Passes March 15 Presidential Primary Bill

Arkansas House Passes SEC Primary Bill

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

Nevada Assembly Committee Rejects Senate-Passed Presidential Primary Bill

Supporters on the Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections could not muster enough votes to recommend SB 421 for passage on the floor of the full Assembly. The Senate-passed legislation would have created a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February in its amended form.

However, the majority party Republicans on the committee were not on the same page (and have not been for the last week while this bill has been considered and tweaked), dooming the bill for now. Though it differs from the Senate-passed version, the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections has voted favorably on the concept of a February presidential primary (AB 302) already. That bill, as passed by the committee, does not contain the protections Democrats in the Silver state would need to continue holding caucuses (as SB 421 does) though and is currently in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee (where it has been since late April).

With time running out -- the legislature adjourns June 1 -- this damages the chances of getting a caucuses to primary bill through the legislature to reflect what the RNC has been pushing for. But the end of legislative session can get crazy and this process in Nevada has been anything but dull on this issue during the 2015 session.

Recent Posts:
Ohio Senate Passes March 15 Presidential Primary Bill

Arkansas House Passes SEC Primary Bill

Identical SEC Primary Bills Introduced With Mixed Reviews in Arkansas

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

Ohio Senate Passes March 15 Presidential Primary Bill

The Ohio state Senate on Wednesday, May 27 passed HB 153 by a vote 23-10 along party lines. The bill would push back the date of the presidential primary in the Buckeye state by one week from March 8 to March 15.

By moving back one week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar, Ohio Republicans will gain the latitude to determine the party's method of delegate allocation without restriction from the national party. In his introduction of the bill on the Senate floor, Sen. Frank LaRose (R-27th, Wayne) made it pretty clear that the Ohio Republican Party will opt to "speak with one voice" as a delegation when discussing the reasoning behind the bill. That would potentially bring another winner-take-all primary to March 15 with 66 delegates at stake. Traditionally, Ohio Republicans have utilized a winner-take-most (winner-take-all by congressional district) allocation plan.

The bill passed the state House earlier in the session in the same form that it just passed the Senate. That will now move the bill on to Governor John Kasich's (R) desk for consideration.

Recent Posts:
Arkansas House Passes SEC Primary Bill

Identical SEC Primary Bills Introduced With Mixed Reviews in Arkansas

Ohio Presidential Primary Bill Advances from Senate Committee

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

Arkansas House Passes SEC Primary Bill

The Arkansas state House on Wednesday, May 27 passed HB 1006. By a vote of 56-32, the House passed the bill that would shift all primary elections in the Natural state up to the first Tuesday in March from May. Though the legislation faced resistance before getting to committee on the first day of the Arkansas special session and witnessed a number of legislators speaking against the bill on the floor today, HB 1006 passed and will now head to the Senate side of the capitol.¹

The Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee rejected an identical bill in on day one of the special session. The real test for this version of an SEC primary bill -- a movement of a consolidated primary -- will be in the upper chamber.

--
¹ Those speaking against the bill mostly cited problems associated with moving all of the primaries forward. That had less to do specifically with the presidential primary and dealt more with adjustments required for the primaries for the legislators themselves.

Recent Posts:
Identical SEC Primary Bills Introduced With Mixed Reviews in Arkansas

Ohio Presidential Primary Bill Advances from Senate Committee

Request Denied, Minnesota Republicans Will Bind Delegates Based on Precinct Caucuses

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