Invisible Primary: Visible -- How the Republican Candidates Line Up in South Carolina

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

The 2024 primary calendar is not set yet. But if it goes according to plan on the Republican side, then Iowa Republicans will hold caucuses followed by the presidential primary in New Hampshire. South Carolina would come next, and it is the delegate prize of the early calendar. The Palmetto state not only offers the most delegates of any of the first four states, but also allocates them in a winner-take-most manner that promises the statewide victor a decent chance of sweeping the delegates with just a bit more than a 40 percent plurality. 

And that is important because a couple of recent polls of South Carolina Republicans show former President Donald Trump pulling in just north of 40 percent support. Now sure, the primary date is not even established in South Carolina, so it is definitely still early. Read into those numbers what one wants at this point, approximately nine months out from the Palmetto state primary. But Trump holds the pole position at the moment and how the candidates line up behind him matters. 

As in the majority of the current national polls of the Republican race, Ron DeSantis now is a clear second option to the 45th president in South Carolina. Behind the Florida governor are a pair of South Carolinians who are vying for the nomination as well. Depending on the poll, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott together account for anywhere from a quarter to a third of the support there. And where that support goes should either or both falter in Iowa or New Hampshire (if not the invisible primary) is consequential. As the National Public Affairs survey demonstrates, Haley and Scott are one and the same for all intents and purposes. Should Haley withdraw, then Scott would be the odds on favorite to take her support. The same is true if it was Scott dropping out. Haley would gain. 

But if both are forced out of the race, then DeSantis is the more likely beneficiary. Some of that homegrown support for Haley and/or Scott may filter out to other candidates or even stay with the favorite son/daughter if one or both remain(s) on the ballot. But if the bulk of that Haley/Scott support shifted to DeSantis, then it could be enough to vault the Florida governor over Trump statewide. 

At this juncture, it is obviously premature to speculate to that degree. But the jockeying in South Carolina matters because it is likely to give the winner of the primary a fairly significant net delegate advantage heading into the Nevada contest and beyond. That is no small thing.

The real take home from all of this is that Haley and Scott have some hard work ahead of them in potentially creating some daylight between each other back home. An early win before South Carolina, either outright or relative to expectations, may do that. But getting to that point is the real trick. That is where the hard work is.

...

Half of Democratic voters in key early primary state don’t want Biden to run for re-election: poll. 

The key state? New Hampshire. 

One has to read all the way into the seventh paragraph before it is mentioned that Biden may not even be on the ballot in the Granite state if New Hampshire Democrats choose to go rogue, opting into a primary that is likely to be set by the secretary of state for some time in January 2024. 

What this poll really indicates is that a relatively unpopular president is even more unpopular in a state where being first-in-the-nation in the presidential primary process is matter of state identity if not right (in the eyes of some New Hampshirites). Moving South Carolina up was no boon to Biden in New Hampshire. Where all of them might matter more is the general election rather than the primary phase.

...

Entry points. Larry Elder is in, and so is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as of Wednesday, April 19. Miami Mayor Francis Suarez is close to a decision on entering the Republican presidential nomination race as well. Oh, and President Biden appears to be nearing a decision himself. 

...

In the endorsement primary, Trump continues to amass Florida congressional delegation support, picking up three more endorsements from Reps. Bilirakis, Buchanan and Waltz. The former president's campaign is not just doing this in Florida. He also claims the two biggest endorsements in South Carolina from Senator Lindsay Graham and Governor Henry McMaster. It is becoming clearer that the Trump campaign values these opponent-homestate endorsements as effective counters to candidates and would-be candidates running against him for the Republican nomination. 

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Hawaii is still trying to create a presidential primary, Idaho is dealing with suddenly not having one and Missouri continues to attempt to bring theirs back. All at FHQ Plus.

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 1983, Senator John Glenn (D-OH) announced his campaign for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 1988, Tennessee Senator Al Gore (D) withdrew from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 1999, Gary Bauer entered the 2000 Republican presidential nomination race.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- DeSantis Wilts in the Glare of the National Spotlight

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Chris Christie's Decision

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Professionalization of Trump's Campaign

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 -- DeSantis Wilts in the Glare of the National Spotlight

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

It has been nearly a month since FHQ declared in Invisible Primary: Visible that national scrutiny had arrived for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. And even then, that declaration may have been behind the curve. Regardless, things have not really turned around for DeSantis in the short term and the spotlight has not gotten any less bright. Whispered discontent has only grown louder. From donors. From potential voters. From folks in his backyard who otherwise might be inclined to endorse the governor. Opponents, announced and not, have also taken notice and taken (repeated) shots.

It has not been a good month.

And that is especially true for a potential candidate who is not yet even in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. His travel schedule may betray that notion, but the governor is not an official candidate for president. It is still early, but as FHQ has said, borrowing from Yogi Berra, it gets late early out there. 

Still, even with Donald Trump scooping up Florida endorsements seemingly left and right in the last several days and weeks, there is one thought that has stuck in FHQ's mind. Yes, a quarter of the Florida Republican delegation to congress may already be in Trump's corner, but what about all those state legislators who are working hand-in-hand with DeSantis this 2023 session to deliver a conservative agenda to serve as a policy blueprint for the governor's likely presidential run? If that working relationship runs deep, then that is a potential wellspring of support, if not manpower, to fuel a campaign ahead of the primary in the Sunshine state next March. 

Only now, even those state legislators are voicing frustrations with the governor. And that is a potentially troubling sign for DeSantis. There may not be as high a premium on those endorsements in 2023 as there was in 2015 when the Republican presidential nomination race was more wide open and national figures mostly stayed on the sidelines, not endorsing. However, state legislators carry their own worth in this process. That is truer of home state legislators. These are the folks who work most closely with the governor to pass an agenda on which they are presumably in lockstep. But if those same state legislators cannot or will not vouch for or vociferously back the governor and what he has expended his political capital on, then that also says something. And it would not be the best of invisible primary signals.

No, that does not mean that folks in the Florida legislature will not ultimately endorse DeSantis. But that that is even a topic of conversation says a lot about the current state of affairs for Team DeSantis. There will be pressure to roll out a lot of endorsements from these very types of officials on day one when the governor does announce. He will need something of a counterweight to the damage Trump has already done in pulling in Florida endorsements so far.

...

FHQ spoke some earlier this week about the Trump campaign's professionalization through the lens of these congressional endorsements from the Florida delegation. Rolling Stone adds a bit of color to that:

By this past weekend, Trump’s inner circle was convinced they had a number of new Florida lawmakers ready to announce their support. Previously, the idea was to release the endorsements at once, likely Thursday or Friday of this week. However, by the weekend, plans had changed: It was decided that the Trump campaign would drip them out at different points in the coming days — including on Tuesday when DeSantis would be on the ground in Washington, D.C., trying to lock down his own endorsements from the Florida delegation. The ploy was part of a deliberate effort to, in the words of one of the sources familiar with the matter, “embarrass and mindf*ck DeSantis” as much as possible, via a steady drip.

...

Meanwhile, DeSantis did make his way into the first-in-the-South Palmetto state on Wednesday, a trip with events organized by And to the Republic, a DeSantis-aligned 501(c)(4) nonprofit group. Never Back Down, the super PAC affiliated with the Florida governor, bracketed the visit with ads placed on local news during the 6pm hour on both Tuesday and Wednesday, the latter of which was just before DeSantis was set to speak in Spartanburg in the Upstate. 

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Connecticut Democrats' delegate selection plan says something about presidential primary legislation in the Nutmeg state, Idaho is still in a pickle over its own presidential primary and the push to change the Ohio primary date won't die. All at FHQ Plus.

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 1976, Democrats in Missouri caucused and although Jimmy Carter got the most votes, caucus-goers followed state leaders' advice to send an uncommitted slate of delegates to the national convention.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Chris Christie's Decision

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Professionalization of Trump's Campaign

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Winnowing of the Republican Field

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 -- Chris Christie's Decision

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

No, not that decision.

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is doing the sorts of things that prospective presidential candidates do. First of all, he is openly talking about the prospect. He additionally says that a decision on a 2024 White House bid is coming in the next couple of weeks. And he has been to New Hampshire within the last month as well.

Christie has also shown a willingness to take on both former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the two candidates, or would-be candidates, who capture the biggest share of support of any two potential nominees in polling on the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race. So, many signs to this point in the invisible primary seem to be suggesting that Christie is working on the contours of what a run would look and sound like and whether there is sufficient support for such an endeavor. But "sufficient" may be in the eye of the beholder because Christie is not really registering in primary polling and the financial backing he may be able to muster for a candidacy may be less sincere about Christie being a viable alternative to Trump and/or DeSantis and more about his ability to take it to one or both of them. Of course, that is the path a lot of the candidates not named Trump or DeSantis envision right now. As FHQ said on Monday, the hope is...

That the indictments get Trump. That DeSantis implodes. That the two candidates currently atop the polls of the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race so drag each other through the mud that voters start to flock to another viable alternative on down the line.

However, what Christie says about Trump or DeSantis now, before throwing his hat in the ring, is one thing. What he does once in the race (if he enters) is another. And that is the decision FHQ is hinting at in the lede. Here is the thing: When one reads a headline like this one from Maggie Haberman's piece in the New York Times, it has the potential to conjure up certain memories about Christie. 

"Chris Christie, Eyeing ’24 Run, Takes Shots at DeSantis."

Honestly, FHQ's first thought was that "tak[ing] shots at DeSantis" is a lot like taking shots at another challenger to Trump but in the 2016 cycle, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). After all, aside from not winning the 2016 Republican nomination, Christie is best known for kneecapping Rubio in the lead up to the 2016 New Hampshire primary. He punched laterally rather than up and at Trump, who was coming off a runner-up finish in Iowa the week before. 

And that raises questions about Christie in 2024. Does he continue to go after Trump and DeSantis? Can he do so in high-profile settings like debates when the lights are on and more people are watching or merely on the hustings across the Granite state? Or perhaps more importantly, can Christie effectively go after both? Trump will be ready with a response. DeSantis may not (or may not have an effective one). 

And that strikes FHQ as the biggest strategic decision for Christie 2024: keep taking shots at whomever when they present themselves or train his sights on Trump, aiming to topple the frontrunner unlike in 2016.

...

Trump may, in fact, be in trouble in Iowa, but the social scientist in me still pushes back against the sort of "the people who are talking to the people I have spoken with in Iowa say..." account that Mike Murphy had up at The Bulwark yesterday. The jury still seems to be out on where the former president stands in the Hawkeye state. For every "evangelicals have turned against Trump" story there seems to be an attendant "evangelicals are sticking with Trump" piece. And although there is a clear "Trump protection" angle to the new bill in Iowa to set up a 70 day registration buffer before the caucuses (because the sponsor is an adviser to the Trump campaign in Iowa), there is genuine concern out there among Republicans -- in and out of Iowa -- about Democrats participating in Republican contests in 2024. FHQ has heard it expressed in at least Idaho and Michigan already in 2023. 

On both fronts -- coalition support and state-level rules -- it comes back to the question FHQ continues to ask in this space: Is Trump 2023 closer to Trump 2015 or Trump 2019? Trump can maybe survive without evangelicals in Iowa. He did in 2016. The bigger question may be if folks who identify as evangelical come over to him (or not) as primary season progresses. And on the rules, Trump is vastly ahead of where he was in 2015. Behind 2019's pace, sure, but ahead of 2015. That continues to be an area to watch as the invisible primary advances. 

...

In the endorsement primary, DeSantis went to Washington on Tuesday. Then Trump ended up with two more congressional endorsements and another one of those was from the Florida delegation. DeSantis did not leave empty-handed. Congresswoman Laurel Lee (R-FL) became the first member of the congressional delegation from the Sunshine state to throw her support behind the governor. FiveThirtyEight has more on why these endorsements matter for Trump.

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• There was a shake up to the bill that would reestablish a presidential primary bill in Missouri, some  calendar foreshadowing from New York Democrats and an overdue thought on South Carolina as the first Democratic contest in 2024 now that their draft delegate selection plan is out. All at FHQ Plus.

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, North Dakota Democrats caucused.

...in 1988, Jesse Jackson won the Vermont caucuses, edging out eventual nominee Michael Dukakis who had won the early March beauty contest primary in the Green Mountain state. But Dukakis took the big prize of the day, winning the New York primary. George H.W. Bush won the Republican primary in the Empire State unopposed.

...in 1995, Indiana Senator Richard Lugar (R) entered the race for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2016, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump won the New York primary in their respective parties, both padding leads in the delegate count on the way to the nominations.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Professionalization of Trump's Campaign

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Winnowing of the Republican Field

Sunday Series: Checking in on Biden and the 2024 Democratic Invisible 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 -- The Professionalization of Trump's Campaign

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

Let's look at the endorsement primary for a moment, shall we? 

Because Donald Trump keeps rolling out endorsements. They are not coming in altogether. But they are not necessarily being rolled out at random either. For example, Republicans -- 2024 candidates and donors -- gathered at a retreat in Nashville over the weekend. And then the Trump campaign announced its Tennessee leadership team, including both US Senators from the Volunteer state and an additional four members of the House. Also, Ron DeSantis tried to circle the wagons in the Sunshine state last week and freeze further Florida congressional delegation endorsements of the former president. And then Trump lined up another Florida endorsement from Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL).

Taken by themselves, these actions are part and parcel of the invisible primary. But the slow, methodical and even calculated way in which they are being made public are increasingly a sign of a more sophisticated campaign. No, it is not the massing of folks behind Trump that the 45th president enjoyed as an incumbent four years ago, but it is leaps and bounds ahead of the often haphazard campaign that Trump willed to the 2016 Republican nomination. And as such, this is yet another datapoint, at least at this time, to file in answer to that "Is Trump 2023 closer to Trump 2015 or Trump 2019?" question that FHQ continues to dredge up. It is not necessarily time to stop pretending that other candidates have a chance at the 2024 Republican nomination, but Trump and uncertainty make for a fairly formidable ticket at the moment. And a relatively professionalized campaign operation will not hurt either. 

[Note also that many of Trump's endorsements at the national level are clustered in Southern states and in states with contests in or before March.]

...

In the travel primary, Ron DeSantis descends on South Carolina tomorrow for the first time, attending two events in the Charleston area and another in the Upstate. Vivek Ramaswamy is planning a long weekend ahead in Iowa. And Trump will be back in New Hampshire next week.

Speaking of the Granite state, visits are up or down depending on who one asks. It can be both after all. Candidates are announcing later in 2023 than they did in either 2015 or 2019 and that has had an impact on visits (because it has had an impact on candidate activity, broadly speaking). However, every cycle is different and has its own nuances. 2024 is no different. The best way to assess this is not the raw number of visits at a given time, but rather, tracking the patterns in where candidates and prospective candidates are going. And through that lens, candidates and prospective candidates are still treating New Hampshire as if it is one of the early states. 

...and that is just what the folks in the Granite state want. 

...

FHQ discussed Mike Pompeo ending his quest for the 2024 Republican nomination some yesterday in this space. But Seth Masket has more on that over at Tusk:

But he’s [Pompeo's] also spent two years talking to the sorts of people whose support he’d need to take down former President Trump, or at least be a credible alternative. And it seems pretty clear that those folks weren’t prepared to join his effort. They saw no need to fund him or endorse him, and perhaps they saw a risk in doing so. When Pompeo says “This isn’t our moment,” he means that he needs a certain amount of backing to go forward this year, and it just isn’t there for him.

Subscribe to Tusk if you have not already.

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Hawaii and Kansas both have active efforts to bring state-run presidential primaries to a pair of states that do not usually have (or have never had) them. However, both are at different points in the process. 

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 1983, South Carolina Senator Fritz Hollings (D) entered the race for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 1984, Missouri Democrats caucused, handing former Vice President Walter Mondale another victory on his way to the nomination.

...in 1988, Democratic caucuses were conducted in Delaware, with eventual runner-up, Jesse Jackson, scoring one of his final wins of the cycle.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Winnowing of the Republican Field

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

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

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 Winnowing of the Republican Field

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

The Republican presidential nomination field winnowed a bit as the work week came to a close last Friday. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (R), in a solid Friday news dump with most folks focused on Republicans gathered at the NRA in Indianapolis and/or with big donors in Nashville, revealed that he would not present himself as a candidate to become President of the United States. 

Only, Pompeo did "present" himself. As FHQ noted after the news broke, Pompeo "kicked the tires, did some of the things presidential candidates do, but ultimately passed." And he did. Pompeo released a book earlier this year. He made several trips to Iowa. He visited New Hampshire. South Carolina, too. He even dropped in on Nevada. He bought digital ads targeted at Iowa and South Carolina. He also started a political action committee with the express purpose of helping to elect Republicans. All of this -- each and every activity -- is consistent with the actions of those who seek a presidential nomination. 

Pompeo ran for 2024, but he will not be running in 2024. He did all of that, but it never attracted donors or other support, at least not to the extent the other candidates, announced and supposedly in waiting, have at this point. And that is how winnowing works in the invisible primary. It is not about votes and delegates. It is about building the infrastructure to set one up to actually go and win votes and delegates. Pompeo reached the conclusion that his infrastructure building was not going to be enough. And that winnowed the Republican field for 2024.

[Matt Glassman also had a good thread on this subject on Saturday.]

...

The New York Times lede to this story about Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) pumping the brakes on a possible presidential bid was something: 

Virginia’s governor is putting the presidential hoopla on ice.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin, the Republican whose surprising election in a blue-trending state set off instant talk of a presidential run, has tapped the brakes on 2024, telling advisers and donors that his sole focus is on Virginia’s legislative elections in the fall.

Mr. Youngkin hopes to flip the state legislature to a Republican majority. That could earn him a closer look from rank-and-file Republicans across the country, who so far have been indifferent to the presidential chatter surrounding him in the news media, and among heavyweight donors he would need to keep pace alongside more prominent candidates. He has yet to crack 1 percent in polls about the potential Republican field.

[emphasis FHQ's]

As noted there, Youngkin's move is a nod to reality. But waiting until after November? Yeah, that dog won't hunt. Maybe in 1984. Not in 2024. Probably not in 2004. But there simply is no substitute for getting into a race and taking your lumps: making and recovering from early missteps, honing the fundraising and campaign operations, etc. Candidates can no longer wait until the fall of the year before a presidential election to officially launch a presidential campaign. Well, they can, but it leaves such a steep hill to climb, a nearly insurmountable learning curve to overcome right before voters start voting in presidential primaries, as to be nearly impossible. 

And in fairness to Youngkin. He would not necessarily be starting from scratch in every facet of a campaign. He has been on the donor circuit across the country so far this year. But like Pompeo above, he has not gotten the positive feedback he maybe otherwise would have wanted. And donors have not exactly gotten the best impression of Youngkin either.

But waiting is not the answer. Youngkin, like all of the other candidates not named Trump or DeSantis, is hoping that things fall in his lap. That the indictments get Trump. That DeSantis implodes. That the two candidates currently atop the polls of the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race so drag each other through the mud that voters start to flock to another viable alternative on down the line. Maybe that opens up a path. And maybe it does, but it takes a lot of steps to get there, steps that have yet to really materialize six months ahead of November. 

...

Some of the early FEC reports are in from the first quarter. The tap still seems to be running in the money primary. The indictments have not hurt Trump yet and Nikki Haley apparently had some creative accounting to get to her $11 million total.

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Iowa Democrats asked for an extension on submitting the party's draft delegate selection plan to the national party on Friday. It is hard not to see an ulterior motive in the request.

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, Idaho Democrats conducted caucuses and Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL) withdrew from the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2020, the vote-by-mail Wyoming Democratic caucuses came to a close with Joe Biden on top. 

--

Recent posts:

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

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

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Friday Quick Hits

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: 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.