Sunday Series: Checking in on Biden and the 2024 Democratic Invisible Primary

There was a Morning Consult poll out early last week that took the pulse of the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination race, and a few things stood out. First, all of the usual caveats apply. It is early. Among the candidates, the incumbent president has the highest name recognition and a commanding lead to go along with that. However, commanding though President Biden's lead may be over candidates who are not exactly household names, it still commands support from a little less than three-quarters of the Democratic primary electorate. This poll is not the first and likely will not be the last to indicate Biden's relatively poor standing. After all, past incumbents seeking (or likely to seek) reelection have almost always been in better positions at this stage of the cycle. 

What gives? 

Before answering that, let us have a look at a parallel universe. Believe it or not, upon seeing the Morning Consult poll, FHQ had a different reaction than the above, and it was not unlike Helen Lovejoy pleading for somebody to think of the children. Yes, Biden is at 70 percent, but where is everyone else? [Scans the results] No one else is above 15 percent. Even if one combines the topline numbers of Biden's announced challengers, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Marianne Williamson, they still do not sum to 15 percent. And that number is important because, to qualify for delegates in primaries and caucuses next year, candidates will have to hit 15 percent support statewide and/or within each of the several congressional districts in the 50 states. And even if Kennedy's or Williamson's support crested above that mark in a rogue state or two like, say, Iowa and/or New Hampshire, it is not at all clear that either or both could sustain that and truly threaten the president's odds of being renominated. 

But there does not have to be a parallel universe to consider both of those things. Biden, right here in this world, is in a strong position to claim most, if not all, of the delegates at stake in the Democratic presidential nomination process in 2024 and still be weak among his fellow partisans relative to past incumbent presidents up for reelection. But again, why? What gives?

There are a number of interrelated reasons. President Biden's approval numbers are low-ish for someone who is not term-limited and who is likely to mount a bid for a second term.¹ The questions about the president's age are, have been and will continue to be a drag on Biden. And it is a question he can never really answer other than to acknowledge that reality (which he has done). It will be a nagging question regardless, a lens through which opponents on both sides of the aisle, the media and the electorate will inevitably view nearly every action. And yet, one thing Biden and his reelection campaign can do to counter that is to, well, run. But, in order to do that, the president has to announce, something Biden has yet to officially do (despite having strongly signaled that he plans to run at least twice in the past week). 

Yet, those signals are not necessarily breaking through. And that is interesting because, as signals go, these are pretty clear. It is not just Biden and his administration that are indicating his likely run. Other elites within the broader Democratic Party network are also signaling it in a variety of ways. Some are offering support. Others are signaling their intent to not challenge the president. The national party is in lockstep behind Biden as well. However, collectively, those signals are not being read on the mass level among rank and file Democrats, not at as high a rate in any event. Or perhaps, the low simmering discontent at the mass level is not being picked up by those same elites. Regardless, there is something of a disconnect there -- between the political elites and the mass public -- that is worth noting at this juncture of the invisible primary on the Democratic side. 

Ultimately the invisible primary, and primary season for that matter, are simultaneously about two things for candidates: 1) winning over supporters and 2) exhausting the (viable) competition. There is a lot that goes into both of those, but Biden has seemingly done the latter. No one of significance is lining up to challenge the president. No one who has held statewide elective office, for example, or who can command the requisite resources and/or support is seemingly laying the groundwork in a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. And the president has, in the eyes of some anyway, left the door open for those sorts of candidates. Still, nothing. 

The longer this plays out -- with or without a Biden announcement -- the harder it gets for anyone to jump into the race. Very simply, a challenger needs to leave him- or herself with enough runway to actually be able to take off, to build a campaign and to actually weather a bit of the storm -- the usual scrutiny -- before voters begin to weigh in during primary season. On that latter issue, think about Tim Scott this week upon the launch of his exploratory committee and how some were trying to see him faltering on abortion. That is typical of the scrutiny candidates receive. Or, on the former, think about Democrats in 2016. Hillary Clinton announced in April 2015 and there were enough doubts about her candidacy and/or enough support for Bernie Sanders into the summer that Joe Biden's name kept coming up in conversations about possible candidates that cycle. Biden did little to deter that but dithered and did so long enough that it became too late for him to get into the race and mount a serious challenge. 

That is all instructive for 2024. It means there is a tipping point after which it is very unlikely that a candidate will be able to get in and be a serious threat to the president for the nomination. And this race may have effectively reached that point already. Yes, Kennedy and Williamson have announced bids. And yes, some folks will try to make the case about the seriousness of their respective threats, but that is a part of the regular rhythm of an invisible primary where an incumbent president is seeking renomination. The motivation to tell a story other than "the incumbent is winning" is strong and typical. But both will face challenges in the coming months that will make it hard to build the sort of campaign that can translate into delegates.

Yet, the complexion of the story of 2024 for Democrats will likely begin to change once Biden actually begins campaigning, focusing on the other half of that simultaneous, two-pronged invisible primary process. And that -- the process of winning over supporters or winning some of them back -- will start in earnest once the president officially announces a run. That will kill the "will he or won't he run" chatter, which is not nothing on the checklist, but it is not a cure-all. It will not quiet the questions about his age. It will not quell the motivation for some to pen stories that counter the conventional wisdom about (if not likely trajectory of) the race. It will, however, start the president on a track toward outwardly and actively wooing support, shifting the emphasis from governing mode exclusively to the balancing act of concurrently governing and campaigning.

And there really is no rush for Biden to make that shift with governing issues like the debt ceiling before him and no serious challenge to the nomination. 

--

¹ It is interesting how the early 2018 notion of a Biden presidential run in 2020 premised as a one-term bridge to a younger generation never really left the public (or press) consciousness. It has morphed and lingered in combination with the age questions throughout the president's term. 

--

Recent posts:

From FHQ Plus: The Blurred Lines Between State and Party on the Caucuses in Iowa

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Friday Quick Hits

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Primary Creep in Iowa and "Similar Elections"

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

From FHQ Plus: The Blurred Lines Between State and Party on the Caucuses in Iowa

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From Evening Digest, 4/12/23:

I dealt with part of the new bill to change the parameters of the caucus process in the Hawkeye state over at FHQ earlier today. But that bill — HSB 245 — moved past its first obstacle today and out of the Study Bill Subcommittee of the Iowa House Ways and Means Committee on a 3-2 vote, and it looks like it will face a full committee vote on Thursday. [NOTE: HSB 245 passed Ways and Means on a party line vote on Thursday, April 13.]

As some have noted the effort to require in-person participation at a caucus — to ban a proposed plan by Iowa Democrats to shift to a vote-by-mail process — is a move that would immediately be on shaky legal ground. Parties have wide latitude in setting the rules of their internal processes under Supreme Court precedent. And the caucuses are a party affair. The parties pay for them. The parties set the rules. The parties run them.

But the Iowa caucus operations have often blurred the line between state and party on the matter. The parties and the state government, regardless of partisan affiliation across either, have tended to work together to protect that first-in-the-nation status the caucuses have enjoyed over the last half century. There is a state law in Iowa, as in New Hampshire, but both 2008 and 2012 demonstrated that it is fairly toothless. The caucuses in neither case were eight days ahead of the next contest, as called for in state law, and neither party was hit with sanctions for the move.

Moreover, the state/party line has been blurred by the encroachment of same-day party registration at caucus sites in recent years. The state’s tentacles stretch into the caucuses, but that still does not change the fact that the precinct caucuses are a party affair, a party-funded and run operation. And that is kind of the ironic thing about the proposed 70 day buffer required between registration with a party and the caucuses in this bill moving through the Iowa legislature. It retracts those state tentacles to some degree, drawing a sharper line again between state and party domain.

In the end, the fate of this bill beyond the committee is uncertain. But one thing this episode demonstrates is the deterioration of the relationship between Iowa Democrats and Republicans on the one thing that has united them in the past: protecting the status of the caucuses. Republicans unilaterally introducing this measure without consulting the Democratic Party at all on the matter says a lot. And in the long run that will likely hurt Iowa’s efforts to retain its status in the future. 

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Friday Quick Hits

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Primary Creep in Iowa and "Similar Elections"

Invisible Primary: Visible -- An Iowa Acknowledgement

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Friday Quick Hits

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

The Iowa bill that would restrict how parties could conduct presidential caucuses advanced out of a House committee a party line vote on Thursday, April 13. But Democrats are already hinting at defending their plans through legal challenges (while stressing that the state party is still working on a delegate selection plan for 2024). 

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member from Iowa Scott Brennan had this to say:

“It’s a solution in search of a problem. I don’t understand it. It makes no sense. We have decades of history where the two parties came together and talked about issues important to Iowans in our (Caucus) process. Nothing this time.”

[As an aside, Democrats are attempting to present some uncertainty here, calling the legislation premature. Honestly, the state party can attempt to delay/create uncertainty in this instance because the Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan, no matter what ultimately makes it into the draft, will go back and forth between the state party and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee before it is finalized (perhaps well into the summer if not beyond).]

...

Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon did not pull any punches in a recent local op-ed concerning the presidential nomination process in the Gem state for 2024. 

"This past legislative session, Secretary of State Phil McGrane brought forward House Bill 138 — a bill that would remove the Republican Party’s March presidential primary. The bill passed out of the Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Brad Little.

"McGrane and his backers say an error and omission in the legislative language unwittingly removed the presidential primary; their goal was to move the primary to May. But because of sloppy drafting, Idaho is now without a “legal mechanism for political parties to request a presidential primary election,” as McGrane recently put it.

"In essence, McGrane’s goof makes an Idaho GOP presidential nominating contest that much more difficult for the people. Where does that leave us? The Idaho GOP is evaluating all legal avenues and working to determine how to safeguard the early March nominating process that has already brought significant benefits to Idaho."

She is not wrong. The "goof" was clear from the start. Now Idaho has no presidential primary (without a legislative fix). In the meantime, state Republicans can go a different route. And the state party seems to be exploring its options. But Moon has apparently backed off her proposal to hold (noncompliant) February caucuses. The emphasis appears now to be on keeping the process, whether primary or caucus, in March.

...

Never Back Down, the super PAC affiliated with the nascent Ron DeSantis bid for the Republican presidential nomination has made its first ad buy, set to roll out nationally on Monday, April 17.

...

Wyoming Republicans convene in Jackson this weekend and will have an election for chair amid an internal party squabble that may have been the story of the 2023 legislative session in the Equality state. FHQ raises this not because of the fight, but rather because these are typically the settings where decisions are made on rules for the coming presidential nomination process. That may or may not be in the offing this weekend in Wyoming, but it is worth flagging nonetheless whether the party battle affects the rules or not. 

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Michigan Republicans still do not seem to realize what they are up against in opting into a non-compliant presidential primary or going the alternate caucus route. 

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, Democrats held caucuses in Arizona.

...in 1992, Republicans caucused in Missouri. 

...in 1999, former Vice President Dan Quayle (R) announced a run for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination. Quayle as a classic "running for 2000, but did not run in 2000" candidate. He later withdrew in September 1999.

...in 2012, President Barack Obama swept a series of western Democratic caucuses in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming. This cluster was the among the first to get the regional bonus delegates for clustering contests together on the same date.

...in 2019, Pete Buttigieg announced his intentions to seek the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination (after having formed an exploratory committee in January).

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Primary Creep in Iowa and "Similar Elections"

Invisible Primary: Visible -- An Iowa Acknowledgement

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Nikki Haley Tips Her Hand

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Primary Creep in Iowa and "Similar Elections"

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

So, New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan has weighed in on the proposed move toward an all-mail caucus on the part of Iowa Democrats, an idea that has been floating about for around a year now.

Many will continue to point the finger at and focus on what Iowa Democrats have said, are doing and will do for the 2024 cycle. But that misses something about the always-delicate Iowa/New Hampshire relationship surrounding the primary calendar: the role of the New Hampshire secretary of state, or more precisely, the secretary's ability to determine what does and does not constitute a "similar election" under New Hampshire law.

This is important because the secretary has wide latitude in making that determination. In fact, the simple binary -- primary or caucus -- that is being used in the current conversation around the calendar positioning of Iowa and New Hampshire in 2024 and this new caucus bill in Iowa has not always been so black and white. The goalposts have moved a bit over the years. 

It used to be that Iowa Republicans did not pose a threat to New Hampshire because the caucuses were not  binding. The voting that Hawkeye state Republicans did on caucus night did not actually allocate delegates directly to the candidates (for the national convention). There was a preference vote that was recorded and got reported, but it had no direct bearing on the process to select delegates to move on to the county conventions. That was a separate vote. 

But that changed in 2016 when new Republican National Committee (RNC) rules for that cycle required that any statewide vote -- like the preference vote at Republican precinct caucuses in Iowa -- had to be used to bind and allocate delegates to the national convention. 

The response from New Hampshire then? Not a similar election.  

Also, it used to be that Iowa Democrats got a pass from the New Hampshire secretary of state on their caucuses -- it was not a similar election -- because the party did not report percentages of the vote from caucus night. Instead, Hawkeye state Democrats reported state delegate equivalents. That changed in 2020 when Democratic National Committee rules mandated a clearer reflection of presidential preference in the allocation based on the first step in the process. In Iowa's case, that meant also reporting percentages that candidates got statewide and in congressional districts and "locking" allocation of national convention delegates from Iowa based on that.

The response from New Hampshire then? Also not a similar election. 

Now, it should be said that there is a new sheriff, uh, secretary in town. No longer is long-time Secretary of State Bill Gardner calling the shots. For the first time in the post-reform era (and in the life of the presidential primary law in the Granite state), there is someone new in charge. And David Scanalan has made a determination on Iowa Democrats' vote-by-mail caucus proposal. It would be considered a primary.  

All the changes above and now the Iowa Democrats' proposed process for 2024 all suggest a kind of slow creep ever-closer to a primary sort of process. Or a process that mirrors some aspects of New Hampshire's. But do those changes make Iowa's or Iowa Democrats' process a "similar election?" Now, that Scanlan has weighed in, probably yes. 

But are they similar? Again, in some respects, yes. But the Iowa proposal is all vote-by-mail. New Hampshire's process is not. In fact, the primary process in the Granite state is limited in its alternatives to in-person voting. Absentee voting is limited. There is no early voting. The reporting of the votes are similar across the two states, but that has not changed for 2024. Now, the Iowa proposal would likely increase participation in the "caucuses," but that is unlikely to increase the attention Iowa Democrats would gain. It is exceedingly unlikely that there is going to be much competition in the Democratic nomination race anyway. So that is not a threat to New Hampshire. 

If anything, switching to an all-mail process would arguably make the Iowa Democratic "caucuses" less like the process in New Hampshire, less a "similar election" than it was. 

But again, all the discussion around this Iowa bill and the Iowa/New Hampshire relationship really raises is the breakdown in communication between all parties concerned here. Iowans and New Hampshirites. Democrats and Republicans. State parties and secretaries of state. These are all folks who at one time had their eyes on the prize, the prize of protecting their positions atop the calendar. The DNC move to shunt Iowa Democrats to a later point on the calendar has made it an "everybody for themselves" proposition. And when unity among everyone in Iowa or New Hampshire is lacking, it only strengthens the hands the national parties can play in the long term. 

...

In the travel primary, Ron DeSantis is in Ohio today, and Vivek Ramaswamy is in New Hampshire to address the state Senate.

...

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been doing a lot of the things that one would expect a likely presidential candidate to do. There is the campaign warchest busting at the seams. There are the hires of seasoned campaign operatives at an affiliated super PAC. There is the travel (see above). But nothing may be as indicative of a presidential run as reaching out to the remaining congresspeople from the Florida Republican delegation to the US House to either try to freeze them (in order to keep them from endorsing Trump) or win their endorsements outright for himself. And now a trip to the Capitol in DC is in the offing. 

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• More on the implications of the caucus bill in Iowa and calendar/rules updates from Connecticut, Hawaii and Missouri.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work.

...

On this date...

...in 1995, Rep. Bob Dornan (R-OH) entered the race for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2004, John Kerry won the Colorado caucuses, taking around two-thirds of the vote on his way to the Democratic nomination. 

...in 2015, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) announced his intentions to seek the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. 

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- An Iowa Acknowledgement

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Nikki Haley Tips Her Hand

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Three Tales of Would-Be 2024 Republican Candidates

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- An Iowa Acknowledgement

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

There are a number of 2024 storylines nestled in just one bill introduced in the Iowa House this week. The measure introduced by Rep. Bobby Kaufmann (R-82nd, Cedar), House Study Bill 245, would end same-day registration before the caucuses, require registration 70 days before the nation's kick-off Republican presidential nomination event and mandate in-person participation. That is a small list of changes but together, they offer some big challenges.

FHQ hesitates to say the most important one, but the most important one with respect to the calendar anyway, is the likely impetus behind the change in registration requirements for caucus participation. The proposed 70 day buffer between registration and caucus day is aimed at preventing caucus-goers from participating in more than one party's caucus. Under the current law, an Iowan can walk into their caucus site, register with that party and participate in the caucus. With the caucuses starting at the same time and both parties holding caucuses on the same night, that means that it is impossible for someone to walk into one site participate as, say, a Democrat and then make their way over to a local Republican caucus site, register and participate there as well. 

But what if those Democratic and Republican caucuses in the Hawkeye state were not on the same evening? What if, and bear with me here, one national party stripped Iowa of its first-in-the-nation status while the other did not?

Well, it would open the door to the possibility that the two parties' events would occur at different points on the calendar. And that would subsequently make it more likely that an Iowan could, with the help of same-day registration, participate in both parties' caucuses. Now, there may be a reason for someone like Rep. Kaufmann, the son of the Republican Party of Iowa chair and adviser to the 2024 Trump campaign to put forth such legislation, but FHQ will leave that to others to discuss. 

However, the takeaway from this move is that there is a tacit acknowledgment that the Iowa Democratic and Republican caucuses may be on different dates in 2024. In their account, The Gazette in Iowa was maybe a bit forward in describing it thusly...

"That provision is designed to prevent Iowans from participating in both the Democrats’ and Republicans’ caucuses, now that starting in 2024 the two events will no longer be held on the same night."

Obviously, that reality is not yet set in stone. Iowa Democrats may still defy the new DNC calendar rules for 2024 and hold caucuses alongside Republicans (likely in January) next year. But they may not. And this bill would lay the groundwork for there to be no mischief, no Operation Chaos, in Iowa in 2024. And that mischief making could go both ways. After all, rank and file Iowa Republicans, having already completed their precinct caucuses, could venture over to hypothetically later Democratic caucuses and make things look bad for President Biden. 

But that is small consolation to an Iowa Democratic Party that appears not to have been consulted on these potential changes to the caucuses and puts the party in a short- to medium-term bind. The state party already has no public draft delegate selection plan available (ahead of a May 3 deadline to submit them to the national party), but it now may also have to scrap the one big innovation they pitched to the national party last year: an all-mail caucus process. 

...

In the travel primary, Tim Scott is on his way back to Iowa today, and oh yeah, it appears as if the South Carolina senator will launch an exploratory committee for a presidential run as well. Scott becomes the fourth candidate to have held elective (federal or statewide) office and the second from the Palmetto state to join the fray. 

Speaking of Iowa, Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) turned down an invitation from the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition to speak at their event in the Hawkeye state next weekend. Tim Scott will be there. Asa Hutchinson will be there. Abbott will not. Read into that what one may about the invisible primary. 

...

It was not that long ago that the notion of Trump's slipping support among evangelicals was raised around here. But FHQ wondered aloud then whether a similar dynamic would pop up in 2024 as did in 2016. Namely, that there may be an elite/mass public divide among evangelicals or a regular attendee/seldom attends church split among those who consider themselves evangelical. That may or may not be the case, but the AP provides a bit more nuance to the story by checking in with evangelicals in Iowa. And there are pastors there who still support Trump. This will continue to be a segment of the Republican primary electorate to track both in Iowa and nationally as the invisible primary continues. 

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• A thorough update on the primary calendar chock full of little goodies foreshadowing maneuvering to come in a number of states.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work.

...

On this date...

...in 1980, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy won the Arizona Democratic caucuses, just his fourth win to that point in the calendar. The wins would pick up down the stretch, but Kennedy conceded the nomination at the national convention in New York that summer.

...in 2007, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) joined the race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2015, former New York Senator and First Lady Hillary Clinton formally entered the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination race.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Nikki Haley Tips Her Hand

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Three Tales of Would-Be 2024 Republican Candidates

Sunday Series: Iowa and New Hampshire Are Super Unlikely to Hold February Contests. Here is why.

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Nikki Haley Tips Her Hand

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

Alexei McCammond at Axios reports that the Haley campaign is circulating a memo to donors that, among other things, is reminding them of the baggage Donald Trump brings to the table. "Still, it’s increasingly clear that Trump’s candidacy is more consumed by the grievances of the past and the promise of more drama in the future, rather than a forward-looking vision for the American people," campaign manager, Betsy Ankney wrote.

This is what campaigns do. They spin. They have to spin an angle that theoretically works to their advantage. One cannot fault Team Haley for that. 

However, if one's campaign is in the position of reminding donors and supporters of something that is ubiquitous -- and something the opposition candidate in question is using in the short term to his advantage -- then that says something about the where said campaign is. And that is not a mystery. Haley has been hovering in the low single digits in the polls even after her campaign announcement in February. 

But importantly, this is a point of differentiation that the Haley campaign is attempting to make. It is not as forceful as, say, Asa Hutchinson was in the wake of the Manhattan indictment against Trump, but it is a push toward finding a nuanced middle ground that, on the one hand, grants Trump the space to run despite the indictment, yet on the other, reminds supporters and donors of the baggage the former president totes around with him like an anvil. It has been a bit of a tightrope walk so far for most candidates, would-be or in the race.

This will not be the last one hears about these Trump negatives or the instant lame-duck status he would be saddled with should be become the 47th president. 

[In the travel primary, Haley is in Denison, Iowa today.]

...

Opposite ends of the invisible primary. On one end, Biden: "I plan on running." On the other, Youngkin: "I'm not in Iowa." As invisible primary signals go, those are both fairly clear.

...

The endorsement primary continues to lean heavily in Trump's direction. And as a former president and current frontrunner vying for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, that is to be expected. Trump picked up a pledge of support for another member of the Florida delegation to the US House, Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL), upping his congressional total to 39 (45 including members of the Senate). No one else has more than two congressional endorsements. All have room to grow, but Trump definitely has a head start in demonstrating this marker of institutional support from within the party. 

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• There are 31 states and territories on the Democratic side that have made draft delegate selection plans publicly available ahead of the May 3 deadline to submit the plans to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee for approval. That means there are still 26 states and territories that have not gone (as) public at this time. Still, there is a lot buried in all the available plans, a number of clues about the calendar included.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below.

...

On this date...

...in 1992, the Virginia Democratic caucuses kicked off and were scheduled to continue through April 13. Bill Clinton ultimately took the most delegates from the event.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Three Tales of Would-Be 2024 Republican Candidates

Sunday Series: Iowa and New Hampshire Are Super Unlikely to Hold February Contests. Here is why.

From FHQ Plus: Drama Introduced into Effort to Move Idaho Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Three Tales of Would-Be 2024 Republican Candidates

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

Paul Steinhauser writing at Fox News updates the situation with Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC):

"'This next week will provide clarity to how he’s thinking about 2024,' a Republican operative in Scott’s political orbit, who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely, told Fox News."

Scott's itinerary over the coming week? 

April 12 in Iowa, April 13 in New Hampshire and April 14-15 in South Carolina. There just are not that many lines to read between here. A four day swing through the first three contests of the Republican presidential nomination process during an Easter recess says a lot about Scott's intentions. But then again, the travel primary is not the only area where Scott has been doing the sorts of things that aspiring presidential candidates do. 

...

Speaking of trips to South Carolina, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has been coaxed into visiting the Palmetto state early next week by backer and state Sen. Josh Kimbrell. It will be the governor's first trek to the home of the first-in-the-South presidential primary. One visit will be unlikely to cool the DeSantis-is-skipping-the-early-states narrative much, but as the most delegate-rich state among the first four on the calendar and the only one that allocates delegates in a winner-take-most fashion before March, South Carolina is a valuable piece of the delegate puzzle, whether part of a "long-haul strategy" or not.

...

USA Today's Francesca Chambers profiled New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu (R), another potential candidate who has garnered some 2024 buzz. 

“'I don't believe in getting on stage to blow people up,' Sununu said. 'But if getting on the stage can help me direct the conversation back to those Republican fundamentals that we can all agree on, and I can get a lot of people excited, well, then there's value in doing that.' 

"Sununu said his mission after the midterm elections was, initially, to help the GOP become more likable and develop a better message. Election losses in 2022 demonstrated a need for the party to field strong candidates who appeal to independents and younger voters, he said."

There has been a considerable amount of the talk about 2024 resembling 2016, but much of it has applied to candidate strategy to winnow the field in order to take Trump down. A lot of that has missed the mark, failing to adequately account for the differences between 2015 and now. But here, Sununu sounds an awful lot like another candidate who ran in 2016, John Kasich. Affable guy focused on the issues is a strategy, but it is one that did not work in 2016 and does not, at least not at this time anyway, seem to have much of a home in the politics of the Republican Party. Again, that may change, but it does not seem to offer a viable path to the nomination. 

And unlike Kasich in 2016, Sununu may not have a path through his home state. New Hampshire certainly offers fewer delegates (and none that are allocated winner-take-all as in Ohio).

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Democratic draft delegate selection plans continue to be released and they continue to reveal elements of the 2024 process to come. Yes, that affects the Democratic process, but when it comes to hints about the timing of state-run primaries, that affects Republicans as well. 

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, Walter Mondale (D) took a sizable plurality win in the Pennsylvania primary, but he would only eclipse that total in two additional states (of five more wins) down the stretch. 

...in 2012, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination, effectively sealing an overall win for Mitt Romney.

...in 2020, Joe Biden (D) won in Alaska as Democrats in the Last Frontier completed their vote-by-mail party-run primary in the thick of a pandemic-affected primary season. 

--

Recent posts:

Sunday Series: Iowa and New Hampshire Are Super Unlikely to Hold February Contests. Here is why.

From FHQ Plus: Drama Introduced into Effort to Move Idaho Presidential Primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Long-Haul Strategy of Team DeSantis

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Sunday Series: Iowa and New Hampshire Are Super Unlikely to Hold February Contests. Here is why.

It has been a pretty bad stretch this last little bit. 

Mentions of the 2024 presidential primary calendar have increasingly peppered articles, op-eds and other news items in recent weeks. And why would they not? 2024 is approaching. The process is heading into the thick of candidate announcement season. Things are heating up as the invisible primary progresses and becomes more visible. 

But there is a problem. These calendar blurbs keep getting it wrong. 

It started with Karl Rove writing in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks back. He correctly noted that Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have no dates yet, but then he moved on to South Carolina. "Democrats are trying to shift the primary there from Feb. 24 to Feb. 3." The South Carolina primary is not scheduled for February 24. It was never scheduled for February 24. February 24 does happen to be on the last Saturday in February, the day on which South Carolina Democrats held their 2020 presidential primary. But the state parties in the Palmetto state set the dates of the primaries. It is not set in state law. In other words, there is no state law with a specific date that carries over from the previous cycle. It resets to nothing -- there is no date -- every cycle. 

Then it was Richard Winger at Ballot Access News who picked up on the South Carolina theme. But in his case, it was talk of the Republican process in the typically first-in-the-South primary state. And again, the date quoted for the South Carolina contest in a post that has subsequently been edited was February 24. As with the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary, the contest on the Republican side has and has had no date. The Republican Party will make that decision later this year sometime, likely at a point when the decision makers within the party can insure that the primary will be first-in-the-South and/or third in the calendar order as called for in Republican National Committee (RNC) rules. 

And now this last week, the indictment against Donald Trump in Manhattan led to another series of 2024 primary calendar mentions in the context of the potential overlap between any trial there and presidential primary season next year. Some said a January trial would happen a month before the Iowa caucuses. Others said Iowa and New Hampshire will conduct delegate selection events in early February. Another was more specific than that, suggesting that the Iowa caucuses are set for February 5 and the New Hampshire primary for February 13. 

Not a one of those descriptions is correct. None of them. There are no dates for any of those contests. Not Iowa. Not New Hampshire. Not South Carolina (Republicans). And just a cursory dig into any of those supposed dates -- February 5, February 13 and February 24 -- leads to one place: The Green Papers. 

Look, I love The Green Papers. The value of that storehouse of information built by Richard and Tony is immeasurable. I still cannot believe my dumb luck in stumbling on the page in 1999 working on an undergraduate paper in George Rabinowitz's US national elections class. I frequently cite The Green Papers here at FHQ. Heck, their site is perpetually linked in the right sidebar. I would not do that unless I trusted the information they provide. 

However, I take issue with how The Green Papers deals with the dynamism of the evolving presidential primary calendar every cycle. It is a philosophical difference. The Green Papers is willing to carry over dates from the previous cycle, whether there are actual dates for contests set by state law or not. And FHQ is very simply unwilling to suspend our disbelief and "presume" that the Iowa caucuses, for example, will fall on Monday, February 5, 2024. 

Well, actually, FHQ is unwilling to do that now. But in January 2021, when FHQ posted its first iteration of the 2024 presidential primary calendar, it made sense to slot Iowa into a February 5 slot. And if Iowa could be tentatively penciled in there on the calendar, then the remaining three early states could easily be shifted into similarly tentative spots all before Super Tuesday on March 5. That is what the initial FHQ calendar showed. 

But the information environment around those tentative early state dates did not hold for long. And it did not hold because six months into 2021, Democrats in unified control of state government in Nevada established a state-run presidential primary in the Silver state. Not only did decision makers in Nevada shift from caucuses to a primary, but in the process they staked a claim on a first Tuesday in February calendar position that broke with the previous conception of the early calendar order. Theirs was a move to make a case to be first in the order, or to set the stage to make a case to be first in the order. 

Yet, at that early stage of the invisible primary in mid-2021, not even the national parties had set their rules for the 2024 cycle. Although, at that point, a Nevada presidential primary set for Tuesday, February 6 meant that Iowa and New Hampshire (and South Carolina on the Republican side) would have to conduct contests before the first Tuesday in February to protect their traditional positions. That was known in June 2021 when that Nevada presidential primary bill was signed into law.

In other words, it was clear then that a February 6 Nevada presidential primary meant that Iowa, New Hampshire and possibly South Carolina Republicans would not fall on February 5, February 13 and February 24, respectively. That view was further buttressed a year ago this month when the RNC adopted its rules for the 2024 cycle, rules that once again protected the early positions of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Granted, there was still uncertainty at that point in April 2022. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had not yet set its calendar rules for 2024, but serious talk of an early calendar shuffle had already begun, talk in which Nevada's position prominently figured. And even if national Democrats signed off on an earlier Nevada primary, Silver state Republicans could still opt out and hold caucuses at a later date. 

But at that point, in the late spring of 2022, a Nevada Democratic primary on February 6 still would have meant that February 13 -- a week later -- would be off the table as an option for New Hampshire, given the state law in the Granite state and how decision makers in the office of the secretary of state have behaved, despite national party rules, in the past. And as New Hampshire goes, so too does Iowa often go. February 5, then, likely would not have been an option for Iowa Republicans. 

Of course, any real discussion of February 5 Iowa caucuses or a February 13 New Hampshire primary died, or started to officially die, on December 1, 2022 when President Biden sent a letter to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) on the eve of its meeting to decide on the states that would get waivers to hold early presidential nominating contests in 2024. The information environment around the 2024 presidential primary calendar again shifted. The votes at the December 2, 2022 DNCRBC meeting and the February 4, 2023 DNC meeting solidified the decision to schedule the South Carolina Democratic primary on February 3. Most uncertainty that had existed about the Democratic calendar was extinguished that day. The question then was not whether Iowa and New Hampshire would settle for February 5 and February 13 slots respectively. Instead, the question was how far ahead of the South Carolina Democratic primary the two traditionally first states would jump. 

At this point in the 2024 cycle, the Iowa caucuses are not set for February 5. They are not "presumably," to adopt the tag used by The Green Papers, set for February 5. The same is true for the New Hampshire primary and February 13. Those dates are wrong. They serve no purpose other than to obliquely suggest that those were the dates of the Iowa and New Hampshire contests in the last cycle. And when folks miss that oblique reference and run with the wrong dates, they are misinforming their readers. 

It is and has always been FHQ's mission to better inform people about this complicated process. We can do better than presuming dates from the last cycle carry over to the current one. They do in a great many cases, in instances where there is a state law or state party rule that clearly defines a date for any given delegate selection event. And there are laws in both Iowa and New Hampshire that dictate, and have dictated, where the contests in those states will end up. Those laws are specific as to the position, if not the date, of those contests, seven days prior to another primary in New Hampshire (as has been the interpretation) and eight days before another contest in Iowa. If actors in the Hawkeye and Granite states do what they usually do (or what they have signaled in 2023 that they will do in 2024), then both contests will fall some time in January 2024. How far into January depends on whether Nevada Republicans opt into or out of the February 6 presidential primary. 

Again, I am interested in better informing readers. This is not about trying to drag The Green Papers and drive traffic from there to here. There is room for both, and I stand by 99 percent of what Richard and Tony do over there. But we approach the calendar's evolution differently. And those differences matter. They matter when wrong information starts to filter into the broader conversations about the 2024 presidential nomination process. And February 5 (Iowa) and February 13 (New Hampshire) -- not to mention February 24 (Nevada and/or South Carolina) -- are wrong. Those are not the dates of those contests and will not be barring an unprecedented cave on the part of the president and the DNC on the Democratic calendar. The odds of that are long, perhaps not as long as Marianne Williamson or Robert Kennedy Jr. becoming the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024, but really, really long. 

Iowa and New Hampshire may not end up where FHQ has them placed now either. The information environment could change again! But it is a near certainty that those contests will not be in early February given what we know now. If push comes to shove and one does not know how to describe it, then just say that Iowa and New Hampshire will be early next year. No, that may not be as specific as some want, but it is accurate at this time. 

--

Recent posts:

From FHQ Plus: Drama Introduced into Effort to Move Idaho Presidential Primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Long-Haul Strategy of Team DeSantis

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Biden Gets Another Challenger

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

From FHQ Plus: Drama Introduced into Effort to Move Idaho Presidential Primary

The following is cross-posted from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From 3/31/23:

The 2023 state legislative session drags on in Idaho. Gem state lawmakers had targeted last Friday, March 24, as the date on which the body would adjourn. But last Friday came and went and the work has continued well into this week. 

One bill that was a part of that unfinished business was S 1186, the trailer bill to legislation that now sits on the desk of Governor Brad Little (R), having already passed both chambers of the legislature. Together, H 138 and S 1186 were intended to eliminate the separate presidential primary in March and consolidate the election with the primaries for other offices in May. Actually, the House bill was intended to do all of that on its own. But despite the stated intent, all H 138 ever did was strike the presidential primary language from state code. It never built back the statutory infrastructure to add the presidential line to the May primary ballot. S 1186 was the patch for those omissions.

Only, that patch ran into trouble in committee on the House side on Thursday, March 30. Again, H138 is on the governor’s desk. It overwhelmingly passed both chambers with bipartisan support, and S 1186 had cleared the state Senate as well. All that seemingly stood in the way of the intended elimination and consolidation was a quick committee hearing and another presumably lopsided vote in favor of the trailer bill. 

But then came Thursday’s House State Affairs Committee consideration of the measure. The hearing itself covered familiar ground. Sponsors (and the secretary of state) touted the more than $2 million savings consolidating the elections would have while those tightly associated with the state Republican Party cried foul for not being consulted about the potential change ahead of time (before its winter meeting earlier this year).

And it was during that Republican Party backlash to the legislation that the hearing got interesting. Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon spoke in opposition to the bill, saying that, if anything, the state party would prefer to move the primary up even further on the calendar than the second Tuesday in March rather than back to May. She went on to say that she and the party would like to have been given the chance to work with the Republican National Committee to move the primary to February; to make Idaho the “Iowa of the West.”

Put a pin in that for a second. That is a storyline in and of itself, but there was another twist. 

All the witnesses who lined up to testify spoke, and it then looked as if the committee was going to move quickly to vote on S 1186 and presumably push it to the floor. Again, the three floor votes that each of these two bills had faced ended with bipartisan passage. The assumption, then, was that State Affairs was going to move this to the House floor for final consideration. Instead, this happened:

State Affairs Committee Chair Brent Crane (R-13th, Nampa): “Senate bill 1186 is properly before the committee."

Silence. [Crane glances around with a slight, knowing grin on his face.]

Chair Crane: “Senate bill 1186 dies for lack of a motion.”

From the Democratic side of the dais: “Uh.”

Chair Crane: “Already made my decision.”

So, with that S 1186 died in committee. 

Now, that could mean a lot of things moving forward. But what it means in the near term is that Governor Little has a decision to make about H 138. If he signs the measure into law, then the March presidential primary is eliminated, but has no home alongside the May primary. If, however, he vetos the House bill, then everything with the presidential primary stays the same as it has been in Idaho for the last two cycles. 

Maintaining the status quo on the March primary may hinge on how much the governor values the cost savings of eliminating the stand-alone presidential primary. If he prioritizes that roughly $2 million savings, then Little may very well sign the bill or allow it to become law without his signature. 

But that means there would be no Idaho presidential primary in 2024, at least not without further action in a special legislative session. It could be that consideration in that setting may occur after enough time that the state Republican Party has had a chance to consult with the RNC about their February primary idea. Granted, that proposal would be dead on arrival with the national party. The RNC set the early calendar in the rules it adopted in April 2022, and Idaho was not among the states given a carve-out to hold February or earlier primaries or caucuses. Additionally, Idaho Republicans would face the national party’s stiff super penalty if it opted to thumb its nose at the rules and conduct a February contest.

That may or may not be enough to deter the Idaho state legislature from going along with an unsanctioned (by the RNC), state-funded presidential primary in February or even raising the presidential primary issue again in a special session. But the Idaho Republican Party may forge ahead without the primary, whether a state-funded option is available or not. 

Gem state Republicans may choose to hold caucuses instead. And, like West Virginia, Idaho fits into this sort of sweet spot with respect to the RNC super penalty. Yes, the penalty would eliminate all but 12 delegates if Idaho broke the timing rules. But there are only 30 Idaho delegates to begin with. Yes, that is a penalty and one that is greater than the old 50 percent reduction that the RNC employed in the 2012 cycle. Yet, it may not be enough to keep Idaho Republicans from forcing the issue and attempting to become the “Iowa of the West.”

And honestly, that may be a good thing for the overall Republican primary calendar for 2024. The Democratic calendar — with South Carolina at the top on February 3 — is likely to push the early Republican states into January, leaving a barren expanse with no contests for all or much of February until Super Tuesday on March 5. A February Idaho caucus and/or a Michigan primary (with waiver) may help fill in that gap.

However, all of that remains to play out. First thing’s first: Governor Little has a decision to make on H 138. And it is a bigger decision than one might expect for a seemingly simple presidential primary bill.

--

NOTE: It was reported this past week upon the Idaho legislature adjourning sine die that Governor Little signed H 138 into law. That eliminates the stand-alone March presidential primary in the Gem state, but bigger questions remain about where the Idaho delegate selection events for both parties end up on the 2024 presidential primary calendar.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Long-Haul Strategy of Team DeSantis

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Biden Gets Another Challenger

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Doug Burgum Ducks Presidential Questions Back Home

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Long-Haul Strategy of Team DeSantis

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

Henry Gomez and Matt Dixon over at NBC had a nice look at the emerging delegate strategy of the budding DeSantis campaign. A few reactions...

1. Before I even clicked on the link, my first thought was, "Yeah, Jeff Roe was brought onto the staff at the super PAC and Ken Cuccinelli is running the show over there. This will be a delegate strategy story." It was. Both were involved in the Cruz delegate operation in 2016. Put a pin in that.
2. Folks linking to this piece keep interpreting it as a "skipping" story. As in, this DeSantis strategy entails skipping Iowa, New Hampshire and the other early states. I did not read it that way. This strikes me as a strategy not unlike that of the former president's. It is a strategy built on the notion that the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race could go on for a while next year. Donald Trump is well-positioned to go the distance. And Ron DeSantis is demonstrating that he at least potentially has the resources, financial and otherwise, to do the same. This behavior is less about skipping those early states than thinking about the full primary calendar. Look, a lot of the 2016 Republican candidates traveled widely in 2015, and not just to the earliest states. There was this whole discussion about whether the SEC primary was working. Working, that is, in the sense that the collective movement of southern states to Super Tuesday would draw candidate attention to the region. Visits occurred to the South and elsewhere, but none of them skipped Iowa, New Hampshire or any of the other early states. Well, some of the candidates did. They skipped the later early states after withdrawing. DeSantis may pepper other states with visits, but keep an eye on him and others as Iowa and New Hampshire approach. They will not be skipping either. 
3. The most interesting part of the article was this peek into the thinking from inside Team DeSantis. “One thing that we have looked at is that Trump can be beat on the delegate portion of all this. He has never been good at that.” That is straight out of the Cruz playbook from 2016. And it made sense in 2016. In 2023-24? Eh, maybe. Maybe not. This can be filed into that category of "Where is Trump this cycle? Closer to 2015 or 2019?" Trump will have for 2024 some institutional advantages within the party at the state level that he did not have in 2015. He definitely had that in 2019 and worked that to his advantage in the 2020 delegate game. Those connections still exist. But are they as strong? That is the question. And that matters for who fills the delegate slots that are allocated to candidates based on the results of primaries and caucuses across the country. Will those folks selected to fill those allocated slots be as firmly in Trump's corner or can other campaigns potentially exploit the divorce between the allocation and selection processes in the Republican nomination in the way that Cruz did in 2016? RNC rules may make that more difficult for challengers to Trump in 2024. This is the story. Focus on that.

...

Anything you can do, I can do better. DeSantis scored a congressional endorsement this week and the Trump campaign then conveniently rolled out an endorsement from a member of Congress from right in DeSantis' backyard. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) threw his support behind Donald Trump.

...

Yeah, those head-to-head Republican primary poll results keep popping up. This time it was a one-on-one between Trump and DeSantis in Iowa (with parallel numbers for a wider race as well). On the one hand, these head-to-heads are make believe. They capture a race that does not exist and very likely will not exist when voting commences in 2024. There will be more candidates in the race, at least initially, than merely Trump and DeSantis. But the supposed value added is to demonstrate that Trump is more vulnerable in a one-on-one race. That is another hypothesis that finds its roots in 2016 and may or may not have been true then anymore than it is now. 

The assumption nestled in all of this, of course, is that DeSantis has the best shot to take down Trump (but can only do so if the others get out of the way). But that is only a partial test. It only gets part of the way toward an answer because it only consistently tests one alternative against Trump. How do the other candidates do head-to-head with Trump? Better or worse than in a multi-candidate race? Clearly, the retort here is likely to be that other candidates are not tested against Trump because they are in single digits in the multi-candidate polls. Fair, but why trust the multi-candidate polls in that case and not for measuring how DeSantis is doing against Trump? 

The head-to-heads only offer spin opportunities for the campaigns. They certainly do not tell us much about how voters and the field will react once votes are actually cast in a multi-candidate race in the early states next year and voters in subsequent states begin to process that information. That picture will develop and change.

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Thursday was a busy day for presidential primary bill movement across the country. There were a variety of changes in Idaho, Maryland and Missouri.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale won the Wisconsin Democratic caucuses, days after Gary Hart claimed victory in the beauty contest primary. [The caucuses were used to allocate delegates.]

...in 1988, Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) withdrew from the Democratic nomination race, just a few weeks after his lone win in his home state primary. 

...in 1992, Bill Clinton took the Wisconsin primary, and President George H.W. Bush swept primaries in Kansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

[As a fun aside, a representative from the Kansas secretary of state's office recently testifying before a committee about the presidential primary bill in the Sunflower state noted that the state held a rare presidential primary in 1992. That was a function of a request, he said, from Bob Dole to ensure that delegates went to the president and not potentially Pat Buchanan in a caucus.]

...in 2015, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) entered the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. 

...in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden won the delayed and then not delayed Wisconsin primary.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Biden Gets Another Challenger

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Doug Burgum Ducks Presidential Questions Back Home

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Tim Scott Staffs Up

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.