Thursday, June 1, 2023

Republican Sound and Fury in Nevada Over 2024 Presidential Primary, Signifying Little

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • Folks are starting to look more at the 2024 primary calendar and while there is uncertainty as to its final state, it can be narrowed down to a limited number of questions in a handful of states. An update on the calendar 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 and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
FHQ had a number of interesting conversations on the periphery of the news about the lawsuit filed last week by Nevada Republicans to seek relief from (future) enforcement of the new presidential primary law in the Silver state. One can read the brief FHQ take on the matter at the link above, but we would also recommend the piece by Derek Muller at Election Law Blog and the Nevada Independent rundown of things from the Silver state perspective.

It is a strange lawsuit. 

It is strange because, according to the NV Indy report, the Nevada secretary of state's office interprets the code created by the 2021 bill to allow for a party to conduct caucuses in lieu of the newly created state-run presidential primary. Furthermore, legislation also considered and passed during the same legislative session in 2021 unentangled the state from the business of the state parties organizing themselves, something that conflicted with an amendment to that section of the code in the presidential primary bill. But the repeal of those sections overrode the one amendment included in that primary bill.

So why all of the fuss from Nevada Republicans?

Well, for starters, the party is fundraising off of the lawsuit. [That is a screengrab of the splash page when one navigates to the Nevada Republican Party web page as of this writing.] But that is perhaps an unconventional (but increasingly conventional) way to raise funds, via lawsuit.

But also there is a potential national party angle here as well. No, the Republican National Committee (RNC) is not pushing Nevada Republicans to sue, not directly anyway. However, national party rules may present something of a problem to Nevada Republicans should there be a beauty contest primary but also caucuses that would serve as the official method by which the state party would allocate and select delegates to the national convention.

The problem? Consider the situation in Michigan. 

Democrats in control of the state government in Lansing passed a bill earlier this year that was subsequently signed into law moving the presidential primary in the Great Lakes state to late February for 2024. But that is in violation of RNC rules on the timing of primaries and caucuses. That, in turn and in part, may prompt Michigan Republicans to conduct caucuses in order to avoid sanction from the national party. 

But that is a problem. Later and compliant caucuses would necessarily have to follow the noncompliant February presidential primary in Michigan. Yet, RNC rules also require that any statewide vote be used as the contest on which delegate allocation must be based. With the noncompliant statewide primary vote coming first, it would have to be used as the data from which delegate allocation is to be allocated. 

See the issue here? Nevada Republicans, even if they have the cover to conduct caucuses as the Nevada secretary of state's office suggests, would be forced to conduct those caucuses either alongside the state-run primary or before it -- constraining the party's choices -- to avoid running afoul of the RNC rules. 

Or so it would seem. 

The situations in Michigan and Nevada, however, are different. Candidate filing is different. Candidates actually file to appear on the primary ballot in Nevada. They do not in Michigan, where the secretary of state merely creates a list of recognized candidates to appear on the primary ballot. If Nevada Republicans plan to hold caucuses on, say, February 13 -- after the February 6 primary -- and allocate delegates based on that, then the candidates will file with the state party and not with the state to be on the primary ballot. If no candidates file -- or if just one files -- then there would be no Republican primary in Nevada under current law. There would be no earlier statewide vote to conflict with a later official caucus vote. There would be no RNC penalties. 

It would appear, then, that Nevada Republicans already have the answers they need and do not really need the lawsuit. Unless they are just looking to raise funds for the caucuses. But again, this is a strange lawsuit.


...
Allan Smith over at NBC News has a great deep dive on the alleged problems in Republican-aligned canvassing efforts. Look, it is likely that the "problem" is overstated in the piece -- close election losses rarely come down to just one factor -- but that does not mean canvassing on the Republican side does not fall short of what Democrats are doing. And the issue with paid volunteers is particularly important given all of the hiring that outside groups like the DeSantis-affiliated super PAC, Never Back Down, are doing in states on Super Tuesday and earlier on the calendar. 


...
Invisible Primary quick hits:
  • In the staff primary, Donald Trump hired Eric Hollander to oversee operations in Iowa and New Hampshire. Hollander's presidential campaign experience includes being a part of the Cruz operation in South Carolina in 2016 before moving on to lead the campaign in Illinois, a state with notoriously difficult delegate rules.
  • It was nice to see some actual analysis in press coverage of the steep odds a late-entry Glenn Youngkin bid for the Republican nomination would face.
  • Former Vice President Mike Pence will enter the presidential race on Wednesday, June 7 in Iowa. Pence will be a part of a busy week for candidate entry with Chris Christie set to announce Tuesday in New Hampshire and Doug Burgum launching his campaign on Wednesday as well.
  • The busy travel primary week in Iowa continues on Thursday. Donald Trump returns to the Hawkeye state in the wake of DeSantis stops there. Senator Joni Ernst's Roast and Ride is also this weekend in Iowa.

...
On this date...
...in 1976, another late-season series of contests saw split results in both parties' competitive nomination races. President Gerald Ford took the Rhode Island primary while former California Governor Ronald Reagan continued his dominance out west, winning primaries in Montana (beauty contest) and South Dakota. On the Democratic side, Jimmy Carter topped the field in South Dakota, but lost to Idaho Senator Frank Church in Montana and an uncommitted slate (aligned with California Governor Jerry Brown) in Rhode Island.

...in 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry won primaries in Alabama and South Dakota and President George W. Bush won primaries in the Yellowhammer state as well as in New Mexico.

...in 2008, New York Senator Hillary Clinton won the Puerto Rico Democratic primary, but still trailed Barack Obama in the delegate count late in a tight race for the Democratic nomination.

...in 2015, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) officially joined the growing field of candidates vying for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2019, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan declines to challenge President Donald Trump for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

Nevada Republicans Sue to Restore Presidential Caucuses

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

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 and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
KSNV this morning is reporting that the Nevada Republican Party intends to sue to have presidential caucuses reinstated in the Silver state for 2024. Things have been quiet in Nevada on the primary calendar front, but the primary or caucus question there is one of the key decisions in the finalization of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. And this is the clearest signal yet as to how Nevada Republicans plan to allocate and select delegates in 2024. 

The Nevada Republican Party was not exactly glowing in its description of the new primary: Due to the inability of Nevada Democrats to execute a smooth, efficient caucus, they want to use unaccountable dark money in an attempt to force Republicans to change the way we choose our Presidential nominee, and allow out-of-state interests to interfere in the Nevada GOP nominating process.

Bluster aside, the legal argument was not provided according to the KSNV report, but it is likely to include as its foundation a political party's first amendment right to freely of associate; that the party has the right to determine its process for choosing its candidates (or in this case, its presidential preference). There is no opt-out clause in the law that in 2021 established a presidential primary in the Silver state. However, that law does prohibit caucuses from occurring before the presidential primary. The provision was included more to insure that delegates would be allocated/selected based on the results of the presidential primary, but did not properly account for the fact that a state party may not want to participate in the state-funded presidential primary. 

And Nevada Republicans likely have a leg to stand on there. This may free the party to officially go the caucus route in 2024, but it probably will not end the presidential primary. The big question is whether the prohibition on scheduling the caucuses before the primary is struck down. Nevada Republicans do not need to hold caucuses before February 6, but this move does cast some doubt on where those caucuses may end up next year.



...
This is not exactly invisible primary-related, but Elaine Kamarck and Michael Hais at Brookings have a nice look at the gender gap in the youth vote. It is worth reading with both primary season and the general election in mind.


...
Invisible Primary quick hits:

...
On this date...
...in 2002, Vermont Governor Howard Dean filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission establishing an exploratory committee for what would be his run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 2008, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to partially reverse its full penalty on rogue primary states, Florida and Michigan as the party's contentious primary contest wound down. The vote restored the full delegations but granted each delegate just half a vote. In a pre-convention concession from the Obama campaign, all delegates were seated and with full voting rights in Denver. [NOTE: This reversal and subsequent concession is important for 2024. It is a precedent that is fueling New Hampshire Democrats' defiance of the DNC calendar changes for the 2024 cycle.]



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Iowa Democrats' Last Hail Mary and Calendar Chaos

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • Be on the lookout for a fun new post later today. If you have been on the fence about subscribing to FHQ Plus during our first couple of months, this one might be one to get you off of it. Come check out 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 and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
Iowa Public Radio's Clay Masters was on NPR's Morning Edition this morning updating the state of the Republican race in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. And he closed with a comment on how the DNC primary calendar change has thrown a kink into business as usual at this time in a presidential nomination cycle in the Hawkeye state:
"Now, the DNC voted to boot Iowa out of the early window, but their calendar is currently in chaos. Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican, has until the end of the week to sign a bill that could deny Iowa Democrats their kind of like last Hail Mary to try and stay in the early window."
Folks, this, very simply, is a fundamental misreading of the current situation in Iowa. And it is not a new development. The combination of amendments to the bill Masters cited and the draft Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan means that the bill no longer hampers Democrats in the Hawkeye state or nationally. Under the plan, Iowa Democrats will caucus in person on the same night as Republicans in the state. But those proceedings will not have a presidential preference vote component. That will occur in a separate vote-by-mail process that is completely unaffected by the bill currently under consideration in Des Moines. 

The only thing that might hold the Iowa Democratic Party back from implementing such a plan is the Democratic National Committee, and the national party will only step in if Iowa Democrats opt to conclude that all-mail preference vote before February 3 -- the date of South Carolina's Democratic primary -- of before March 5 without a waiver. 

A possible waiver is the key factor in the Iowa 2024 calendar story right now. It is the main reason Iowa Democrats did not include a specific date for the all-mail presidential preference vote in the draft plan. The state party is not angling for first. It is pushing for a spot in the early window when Georgia and New Hampshire are unable or unwilling to comply with the DNC's waiver requests when their deadline to act comes on Saturday, June 3. That is the Hail Mary and the bill has nothing to do with it. 

And as for calendar chaos? Please. There is some drama in the 2024 calendar coming together, but this is not chaos. Everyone outside of Iowa and New Hampshire is behaving as if Iowa and New Hampshire will be first and second in the Republican order. And most folks in those states are doing the same. Is there an issue between Iowa and New Hampshire set off by the DNC calendar change? Sure, but odds are that will get ironed out with minimal trouble. Most of the pressure on that front is self-imposed anyway. 


...
There are a number of things that one could tease out of this interview with New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. Some have already tried to stir the pot some in an effort to make stories where there just is no there there. The one thing that goes unsaid in that NH Journal piece is that Buckley is against the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the first-in-the-nation status of the presidential primary in the Granite state. If the amendment were to fall short of the two-thirds necessary for ratification in a public vote, then that failure could be used against New Hampshire in future cycles. 

That is not wrong. 



...
Seth Masket is good here on how the number of candidates may or may not affect Trump's chances at claiming the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. A couple of things...
  1. He notes that Trump 2023 is in a position not dissimilar to Hillary Clinton's in 2007-08 in her Democratic nomination fight. The former president is in a good spot, but not an unbeatable one. Still, he also is not far off from where Clinton was in 2016 either. Ultimately, there was a unified opposition to Clinton in 2015-16, but it was not a large enough bloc to prevent a Clinton nomination. There is not a unified Trump opposition at this point. At this point.
  2. This really should be repeated and repeated and repeated: "Yes, it matters if a lot of candidates each have 5 to 10 percent of the vote, but that doesn’t tend to be how these things play out. You tend to see three or four candidates with the bulk of the vote, and the rest hovering just above zero. (At the beginning of January 2016, only four of the 17-ish Republican presidential candidates had above 5 percent. At the beginning of January 2020, only four of the 20-ish Democratic presidential candidates had above 5 percent.)" Maybe 2023-24 will be different, but there has been a very distinct tendency in how this has worked in recent cycles.

...
Invisible Primary quick hits:

...
On this date...
...in 2015, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley announced his intentions to seek the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, May 29, 2023

What California Republicans Decide on Delegate Allocation May Matter a Lot. Here's how.

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • FHQ Plus has been on a holiday (publishing) hiatus, but be on the lookout for a fun new post today or tomorrow. If you have been on the fence about subscribing to FHQ Plus, this one might be one to get you off of it. Come check out 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 and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
Over the weekend, there was a new poll out of California taking the pulse of, among other things, the state of the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The Institute of Governmental Studies (UC Berkeley) poll showed former President Donald Trump up big over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the Golden state. 

But there are some important factors to make note of about where the candidates are relative to one another in a Super Tuesday state that has undefined delegate allocation rules for 2024 at this point. Despite the sunsetting of the rules used in the largely uncontested 2020 Republican primary, California Republicans will not use the current winner-take-all by congressional district method that serves as a baseline method. Well, the state party will not use those allocation rules if they want to avoid losing half of their delegates under Republican National Committee (RNC) rules. 

So what are the alternatives? And perhaps more importantly, what strategic differences could they make for the candidates?

First of all, if the California Republican Party later this year readopts rules similar to those it used in 2020, then Trump would be looking at a big net delegate advantage coming out of the California primary. Granted, that would be weighed against delegates won by other candidates (or not) in other Super Tuesday states. But despite being a blue state, California remains the biggest delegate prize in the Republican process. 

But not as big as it could be.

While Trump, with a nearly two to one advantage over DeSantis in this poll, would hypothetically take a sizable net delegate gain from California, that big plurality would fall short of a majority. And under the 2020 rules, a majority win would activate a winner-take-all trigger for all 169 delegates. Again, Trump would miss out on that with just 44 percent support statewide. However, that 44-26 advantage would allocate the former president 106 delegates to DeSantis's 63. [No other candidates would qualify for delegates by virtue of missing the 20 percent threshold.] By narrowly missing out on a majority, Trump's delegate advantage goes from all 169 delegates to just 43. 

That is a big difference. Yes, a 43 delegate chunk like that is nothing to dismiss. But that is more easily neutralized across other Super Tuesday states for Trump opponents than if the former president had won all of the delegates from California. 

But what if California Republicans opted to split up the delegates, to not pool the at-large, RNC and congressional district delegates? That may also cut further in to any Trump advantage. The statewide results would only affect the allocation of 13 delegates, the at-large (10) and RNC (3) delegates. With a 44-26 win in a California primary, Trump would only win eight of those 13 delegates. DeSantis would be awarded the remaining five and again, no one else would qualify. 

By not pooling all of the delegates, the district delegates -- three per district -- would be allocated based on the result in each of the 52 congressional districts in the Golden state. Trump may win a majority in some of those, something that would net him all three delegates from such a district. But DeSantis may peak above 50 percent in some districts as well. The bigger thing may be the districts where no one wins a majority. The plurality winner would get two delegates and the runner up would get one. And if a third candidate qualifies in a handful of districts, it could, depending on how the rules are crafted, bring the winner (and assume that is Trump for the purposes of this exercise) down to just one delegate. The top three candidates over 20 percent would all get one delegate. 

Understandably, this gets messy in a hurry. However, the point here is that, depending on 1) the allocation rules and 2) how the primary vote is distributed across California, it could shrink Trump's net delegate advantage, making it more possible to neutralize the Golden state in the process. But it could also grow Trump's delegate advantage over the pooled allocation. Now imagine being one of the campaigns trying to figure this out.

Yes, it is just one poll. Yes, it is late May of the year prior to a presidential election year. Yes, there is a great deal of uncertainty still. But depending on the decisions the California Republican Party makes in the very early fall, it could make a big difference come Super Tuesday 2024. Rules matter.


...
There are a lot of DeSantis analyses out there since the Florida governor officially joined the Republican presidential nomination race, but few are as thorough as Geoffrey Skelley's at FiveThirtyEight. It provides some nice perspective at the outset of DeSantis 2024. 


...
Invisible Primary quick hits:
  • NBC News has a good summary of the current state of the endorsement primary. [As an aside, FHQ does not know why RNC member is included as an endorsement category in their analysis. Those three RNC members from each state and territory are ultimately going to be bound delegates next year. Those folks are going to stay (publicly) neutral in the vast, vast majority of cases. There will not be many (if any) endorsements there.]
  • After stops in Iowa and New Hampshire after his own launch, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott came home to the Palmetto state over the Memorial Day weekend for a town hall in the Low Country. Scott also has a fundraising trip out west in San Diego planned for mid-June (money primary).
  • New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu joined the chorus of prospective Republican candidates suggesting that a presidential announcement is coming "in the next week or two." Chris Christie has sounded similar calls in recent days.
  • Vivek Ramaswamy swung back through Iowa over the weekend. 
  • Never mind what a crowded field might do to the 2024 Republican race, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley says it is good for the Hawkeye state and the Republican Party.
  • Not that it is a secret, but aides to North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum are (anonymously) confirming that the launch of presidential campaign is imminent. 


...
On this date...
...in 1975, former North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford entered the 1976 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. And New Hampshire Governor Mel Thomas signed HB 73 into law. This is the now famous (or infamous depending on one's perspective) law on the books in the Granite state that gives the secretary of state the discretion to set the date of the presidential primary, directing them to keep it seven or more days ahead of any similar election. 

...in 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won the Texas Republican primary and surpassed the number of delegates necessary to claim the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Sunday, May 28, 2023

Sunday Series: Ranked Choice Voting in 2024 Presidential Primaries, Updated (May 2023)

One electoral reform that FHQ has touched on in the past and has increasingly popped up on the presidential primary radar is ranked choice voting (RCV). And let us be clear, while the idea has worked its way into state-level legislation and state party delegate selection plans, widespread adoption of the practice is not yet at hand. 

However, there has been some RCV experimentation on a modest scale in the delegate allocation process primarily in small states. And that has opened the door to its consideration in a broader swath of states across the country. States, whether state parties or state legislators, are seeing some value in allowing for a redistribution of votes based on a voter's preferences to insure, in the case of presidential primaries, that every voter has a more direct say in the resulting delegate allocation. 

That is apparent in legislation that has been proposed in state legislatures across the country as they have begun convening their 2023 sessions. Again, RCV is not sweeping the nation, as the map below of current legislation to institute the method in the presidential nomination process will attest. There are a lot of unshaded states. But if RCV was adopted across those states where it has been passed (Maine), where it has been used in Democratic state party-run processes (Alaska, Kansas and North Dakota), and where it is being considered by legislators in 2023 then it would affect the allocation of nearly a third of Democratic delegates and a little more than a quarter of Republican delegates. That is not nothing. 



The thrust of activity on adding RCV to presidential primaries for 2024 in legislatures across the country has shifted since FHQ last updated the situation in April. While much of the first few months of the 2023 state legislative sessions were about introducing legislation, the time since has mostly been about moving that legislation, and in recent days, doing so before legislatures adjourn. 

Unlike much of April, however, there were a few new bills proposed since the last update. A pair of companion bills in both chambers of the New Jersey legislature were introduced to establish RCV in presidential primaries and for the election of electors to the Electoral College. In Colorado, a measure to set up RCV for the 2028 cycle quickly came and went. SB 301 was proposed in late April and went nowhere before the legislature in the Centennial state adjourned for the year earlier this month. And just this last week, a trio of New York Republican members of the US House introduced legislation to prohibit the use of RCV in elections to federal offices. It is not clear whether that extends to the nomination phase as well. But not much is clear about the bill without text. Currently, the details are missing.

There was, however, continued progress for some of those RCV-related bills that have previously been floating around out there this session. 

From 30,000 feet, the overview remains much the same. The existing pattern of legislation has been for Republican-controlled states (where legislation has been proposed) to move bans on RCV while Democratic-controlled legislatures and Democratic legislators in red states have largely been behind efforts to augment the presidential primary process with RCV. That outlook has not changed. But it has evolved to some degree. To the extent any of the RCV-related legislation has been successful, it has been more likely to move through legislatures and be signed into law in Republican-controlled states. The Montana measure to prohibit RCV that was before Governor Gianforte (R) during the last update was signed into law, for instance. It brings the Treasure state in line with other neighbors -- Idaho and South Dakota -- in banning RCV during the 2023 session. 

All of that maintains the status quo as it has existed in those states. And in many ways, that -- maintaining the status quo -- is the path of least resistance with regard to RCV. 

And resistance is the key word when the focus shifts to those states with active bills to institute RCV for 2024 (or beyond) in the state-run presidential nomination processes. It is not that those bills have not budged, it is that most of those bills have not easily made their way through the legislative process. Yet, most is not all. A handful of RCV measures have found some modicum of success. 

In Hawaii, the differences across passed versions of the bill raised last month were squared and that measure was sent off to Governor Josh Green (D) for his consideration. But while that may bring RCV to the Aloha state, any new law will not affect state-run presidential primaries. That is because while the Hawaii legislature was able to push HB 1294 through before adjournment in early May, the bill to create a state-run presidential primary failed. However, Aloha state Democrats do intend to use RCV in their party-run primary again in 2024. Beyond that, the only other measures that moved since late April were ones in Minnesota and Oregon. HB 2004 in Oregon passed the lower chamber there and awaits action in the state Senate. And in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, an appropriation bill with a RCV rider passed the legislature and was signed into law. However, the money will be used not for implementing RCV but for the Secretary of State of Minnesota to include consideration of the process in a broader voting study.

And that is it. 

The last month may have seen incremental developments, but those changes have occurred as legislatures have been adjourning. And that may be the biggest change this month. More RCV-related bills have been rendered inactive or dormant as legislatures have tagged out for the year (or for regular sessions anyway with no guarantee that RCV will be revisited). That claimed both bills that had been proposed in Vermont, for example. The Senate version passed the upper chamber, but stalled in the House and never moved before the legislature in the Green Mountain state ended its session. 

The picture, then, of RCV and the 2024 presidential nomination process remains one of incremental movement at best in the first half of 2023. A handful of Republican-controlled states in the mountain West have bolstered the status quo with bans of RCV, and momentum on the pro- side has been next to negligible. There may be incremental advances where RCV is being experimented with in the presidential nomination process for 2024. But note also that most of the experimenting is being done by state parties in party-run processes on the Democratic side. And further, regardless of whether the legislation has sought to establish RCV or ban it, most of the movement has been in relatively small states. Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, South Dakota and Vermont are not the big hitters of national politics. Laboratories for or against RCV are in small states for now. And that may or may not be the best proving ground for it in the presidential nomination process (or anywhere else).

The bottom line, however, is that while RCV may be considered a remedy to some of the maladies that plague American politics, its adoption is not yet widespread. And that does not look to change much more than incrementally in 2023. 





--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, May 27, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] The Trump Trial and the Primary Calendar

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

--

The former president's hush money payment trial in Manhattan is set to start in the sweet spot of the 2024 presidential primary calendar.

Former President Donald Trump beamed into a New York courtroom via video on Tuesday, May 23 for a hearing in which, among other things, the start date of the trial stemming from the 2016 hush money payments investigation was revealed. And the March 25, 2024 date falls right into the heart of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. It is not just that the trial will begin as March winds down following the opening of the (more) winner-take-all phase of the Republican presidential nomination process. 

Yes, the calendar of contests is still evolving, but the tentative start of the trial is a big deal for at least a couple of reasons based on where it looks as if the calendar will end up settling for 2024.

Sure, March 25 will be well after Iowa and New Hampshire have officially kicked off the voting phase of the Republican presidential nomination race. It will follow Super Tuesday. And it will hit right after the time on the calendar — March 15 — when states are allowed to allocate delegates to candidates in a winner-take-all fashion. But more importantly, March 25 falls in what is likely to be the decisive zone on the presidential primary calendar next year. 

In the last three competitive Republican presidential nomination cycles, the candidate who has held the delegate lead when 50 percent of the total number of delegates have been allocated has gone on to clinch the nomination around the point on the calendar when 75 percent of the delegates have been allocated. And in 2024, the 50 percent mark will likely fall somewhere between Super Tuesday on March 5 and the first round of winner-take-all-eligible primaries on March 19. Just two weeks later, on April 2, the 75 percent mark will likely be crossed with an anticipated subregional primary in the northeast and mid-Atlantic (with Wisconsin along for the ride).

March 25 is right in that window. 

But look at the 50-75 rule in the context of the last few competitive Republican cycles. 

  • In 2008, John McCain came out of Super Tuesday on February 5 with a sizable delegate lead that he did not relinquish down the stretch. Super Tuesday was the point on the calendar when the 50 percent mark was passed and McCain had wrapped up the nomination by early March when the 75 percent point came and went. 

  • Four years later, the calendar was different. Yes, Florida again pushed the earliest contests into January, but California was no longer in early February. The primary in Texas was no longer in early March. Instead, both delegate-rich states were toward the end of the calendar and that influenced where the 50-75 rule was activated in 2012. 50 percent of the Republican delegates had not been allocated that cycle until after 75 percent of them had been allocated in 2008. The 75 percent mark did not come in 2012 until the Texas primary at the end of May. That is a significant difference, but Mitt Romney was the delegate leader in late March and secured the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination in the Lone Star state in late May. 

  • In 2016, the calendar changed again, but the 50-75 rule remained fairly predictive. Donald Trump was the delegate leader when the 50 percent mark was crossed on March 15 and had a nearly insurmountable advantage after wins in the northeast and mid-Atlantic in late April, when the process pushed past the 75 percent point on the calendar. No, Trump did not clinch that day, but his last challengers withdrew a week later. 

The 2024 calendar is not shaping up to be like any of those examples exactly. 50 percent of the delegates will have been allocated around the same point on the calendar in 2024 as 2016, but the 75 percent mark will come in much quicker succession thereafter. Again, it comes just two weeks later. That is a rapid delegate distribution. It is not 2008 fast, but it is fast. And March 25 is right there, late enough in process, but right in that calendar sweet spot where nomination decisions tend to be made in the Republican process.

The Emerging April Gap

Fast forward to March 25, 2024. The 50 percent mark has been surpassed in terms of delegates allocated and a candidate has a clear advantage in the delegate count. That candidate is almost always the frontrunner heading into primary season. Not always, but often enough. At this point in time, seven months out from Iowa starting the voting phase, that frontrunner is Donald Trump. He may not be in seven or nine months time. 

Regardless, this big external event is plopped down right in the middle of primary season. And it will not be over and done with on March 25. That trial will last a little bit and draw a lot of attention in the process. It will additionally likely overlap with the April 2 round of primaries. 

Now, the calendar is not set yet. But April 2 is poised to grow its footprint on the 2024 process in the coming days and weeks. Officially, Wisconsin is the only contest on that date as of now. However, bills have been proposed to move the Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island primaries to that date. There are signals that legislation is forthcoming from New York to move the presidential primary in the Empire state to April 2 as well. And talk is ramping up that Pennsylvania’s primary may land there also. 

Yet, in moving, those states are pulling up tent posts in late April and shifting them to the beginning of the month. That is going to hollow out the rest of April on the Republican calendar after April 2. There will potentially be no contests scheduled for the rest of the month.

There will potentially be no primaries or caucuses again until the Indiana primary on May 7. 

That is a five week gap with no contests. That is a five week gap that will exert a tremendous amount of pressure on the candidates trailing in the delegate count to close up shop and call it a day. That is a five week gap into which a trial that starts on March 25 will potentially creep and suck up even more attention (potentially away from those trailing candidates who need it most). 

However, that trial, while possibly drawing attention away from the campaign trail, will also create uncertainty; uncertainty as to the viability of the potential frontrunner and delegate leader. And despite feeling pressure to drop out, that may have the effect of, as Julia Azari and Seth Masket recently pointed out, keeping candidates who may otherwise have dropped out in past cycles in this race longer. 

But the point here is that this emerging April gap in the calendar is at the very point in the process when this trial is set to be going on. And there will be no contests or results to divert attention after April 2. Trump could have the nomination close to wrapped up by that point, but other trailing candidates could still be hanging around even as there are no primaries and caucuses for weeks. 

Look, this is already a weird dynamic. But throwing a trial into this rapid succession of delegate allocation followed by a gap in the action right as someone potentially gets close to clinching would create a strange matrix of incentives for all players involved. And that has implications for how the Republican nomination process winds down and transitions into the convention phase typically set aside to bring the party together for a general election run. 




--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Friday, May 26, 2023

DeSantis is not without Organizational Strengths in the Republican Nomination Race, part two

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over 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 and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
Early last week FHQ discussed the organizational strengths the still-nascent DeSantis campaign had through the lens of endorsements. And that is not the only area where the now-announced candidate DeSantis is excelling relative to those who are vying to be the main alternative to former President Trump.  The Florida governor shrugged off the technically glitchy launch and reeled in $8.2 million in the first 24 hours after his formal announcement. This adds to the total DeSantis coffers (across the formal campaign and affiliated groups) that are already busting at the seams. 

This is an effort behind DeSantis that is well-funded in the money primary, staffed with folks who know how to organize for a delegate battle and that is building institutional support within the broader party network. It is a campaign that is built to run through Super Tuesday (at the very least). Now, building to get to that point and actually doing it are two separate matters. But the pieces are in place for DeSantis to stick around for a while.

And not that DeSantis was not already doing the sorts of things that presidential candidates do, but he has an upcoming swing next week through the states with the first three contests on the 2024 Republican presidential primary calendar.


...
Invisible Primary quick hits:

...
It is hard not to get the sense that the fixation on Glenn Youngkin 2024 is stuck in this weird feedback loop. 
  • Donors looking for a viable Trump alternative keep approaching Youngkin about running. 
  • Youngkin reaches out to other donors about securing the requisite funding for such a run. 
  • Media reports on the entreaties from both sides.
  • Repeat.
Forget mixed signals. All of this continues despite the fact that Youngkin would not officially jump into the race until after the November state legislative races in Virginia. You know, less than two months before voting likely starts in Iowa. Never mind that Youngkin 2024 would have to launch before November on ballot access grounds alone. Plus there appears to be a certain collective amnesia about the whole thing. It may or may not be on the tail end, but there is still an entertaining of the idea that Ron DeSantis may have waited too long to get into the 2024 race. If late May is too long, then November would be way too long. That may have been lost in the feedback loop. 

This talk is likely to continue as the uncertainty surrounding Donald Trump and the impact of his legal troubles has on the race ebbs and flows and whether or if DeSantis rebounds any. 


...
On this date...
...in 1980, George H.W. Bush withdraws as former California Governor Ronal Reagan crosses the delegate threshold to clinch the 1980 Republican presidential nomination. [Fun fact (and marker of just how much the world has changed): Bush informed Reagan of his decision to leave the race via telegram.]

...in 1992, President George H.W Bush and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton both swept primaries in Arkansas, Idaho and Kentucky. The Democratic primary in the Gem state was a beauty contest. Idaho Democrats gathered in March 3 caucuses, giving Iowa Senator Tom Harkin a narrow victory.

...in 2016, Donald Trump surpassed the 1237 delegates necessary to claim the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, May 25, 2023

An Exercise in Early State Delegate Allocation

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over 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 and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
FHQ is aware that most folks are focused on other things this morning, and we will comment on yesterday's events below. But let's start elsewhere with a fun diversion. Because who does not want to talk about delegate allocation seven months before any votes are cast, right?

Well, probably most normal people. However, as an exercise in just how delegate allocation may go in a pair of early Republican primary (or caucus) states, let's look at a couple of recent polls out of Iowa and South Carolina. 

Iowa
Just this morning, Emerson released a poll on the state of the race in (presumably) first-in-the-nation Iowa, and the survey depicts a race that is not especially close. Former President Trump enjoys a 42 point advantage over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the pair are the only two candidates to garner more than five percent support. Still, even though the full Iowa delegation will vote for one candidate at the national convention (if just one name is placed in nomination as usual), the Republican Party of Iowa uses a proportional allocation system with no official qualifying threshold. That just means that, depending on how the vote is distributed, a candidate can get below two percent support and still round up to a single delegate in the allocation.

So how would things look if, on caucus night, the Emerson survey was reflective of the results in Iowa?


Not surprisingly, Trump and DeSantis dominate the allocation. One should expect that in a straight up proportional allocation system with no qualifying threshold. However, the fun, if one can call it that, is in the rounding for those candidates at the bottom of the order. Like Bill Weld in 2020, Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Sununu all eke out a hypothetical delegate from the Hawkeye state. Note that Sununu in particular reels in just 1.6 percent of the vote and manages to round up to a delegate. 

Yet, if the 1.6% in the poll who named someone else other than the candidates listed -- those above plus Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum -- opted for, say, DeSantis instead, then the Florida governor would round up to a ninth delegate, depriving Sununu of his lone delegate. The math for both would leave DeSantis a larger remainder and he would round up.

Now, is that solitary delegate going to matter in the grand scheme of things? In this particular scenario, no. But if the votes are distributed differently -- in a less lopsided manner -- then it could matter. But that would likely mean that Trump's support has ebbed and/or some other candidate's fortunes have turned around. And that would probably be the bigger story to tell. 

[NOTE: This all assumes that 1) Iowa Republicans carry over allocation rules that the party most recently renewed in the 2022 adoption of amended party rules and 2) that the RNC apportions 40 delegates to Iowa for 2024 as it did in 2020.]


South Carolina 
There was also a recent survey from National Public Affairs of the Republican nomination race in the Palmetto state. Trump led by 15 over DeSantis -- 38-23 -- but the main takeaway from FHQ's perspective was that Trump's support shrank since the firm's last poll of South Carolina in April. Normally a five point drop while still retaining a 15 point advantage would not elicit much of a response. Trump would hypothetically win the primary and leave the most delegate-rich state in the early window of the calendar with a significant net delegate advantage from a winner-take-all by congressional district state. 

But in dropping below 40 percent support, Trump would be flirting with potentially losing out on taking all of the delegates out of South Carolina. Again, it would depend on how the votes are distributed across the state and districts, but it is rough rule of thumb that a candidate who clears 40 percent in the South Carolina Republican primary has a better than average shot at turning it into a winner-take-all (overall) state under the party's allocation rules. 

Perhaps that is splitting hairs, but as with the Iowa example above, it does help to identify where the cutlines are in the delegate allocation process. Anyway, as FHQ said, this is supposed to be a fun diversion.


...
Look, FHQ made a case for DeSantis being up against it in the race for the Republican nomination based on where Trump is positioned in the race at the moment. But folks, things can change. And as Jonathan Bernstein astutely pointed out at Bloomberg yesterday, they often have in presidential nomination battles. [It is a good piece. Go read it!] As he notes, DeSantis may have suffered some setbacks but he is in a position not unlike that of John McCain or Barack Obama in 2008. Both came back to win their respective nominations after invisible primary swoons the year prior. However, DeSantis could also ultimately find himself in the company of Kamala Harris or Scott Walker, who both, despite conventional qualifications and some promise, fell flat and never really amounted to much in their respective races. 

Yes, as I mentioned on Monday in response to something similar from Harry Enten, much of this depends on Trump. The former president is in a commanding position right now. That is commanding and not precarious. Commanding, not tenuous. But there is uncertainty because of the baggage Trump carries, including the various legal entanglements in which the former president finds himself mired. The uncertainty is great enough that anything from a Trump collapse to a DeSantis comeback to a surge from another candidate (or some combination of all three) are all seemingly possible. But the remainder of the invisible primary will say much about the viability of those last two options. 


...
Finally, Ron DeSantis officially filed his paperwork to run for president with the Federal Elections Commission on Wednesday, May 24. And things went downhill from there. There has already been a lot of ink spilled on the botched rollout of DeSantis for President on Twitter and the impact it will have. 

Meh. 

Here is where it matters. DeSantis is coming off a stretch where little seemed to be going right. Trump's position improved and some were asking whether DeSantis had waited too long to jump into the race or whether he should even officially run at all. All last night was was a missed opportunity. It was a missed opportunity to break from the downward spiral narrative. DeSantis will have future chances to right the ship but there may be fewer of them and/or less margin for error when they do come along. That is where yesterday matters. One rarely gets a second chance to make a first impression. However, in DeSantis's favor is the fact that most folks still are not engaged on 2024 yet. But an impression may be in the process of setting in. 


...
On this date...
...in 1976, on what was the busiest day of the calendar that cycle, five candidates claimed victory in primaries across six states and two competitive nominations races. On the Republican side, President Gerald Ford won contests in Kentucky, Oregon and Tennessee while former California Governor Ronald Reagan notched wins in Arkansas, Idaho and Nevada. In the Democratic race, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter swept the three southern primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee while Frank Church (Idaho and Oregon) and Jerry Brown (Nevada) split the three contests out west.

...in 2000, Texas Governor George W. Bush took all of the delegates from a win at the Kansas Republican state convention.

...in 2004, President George W. Bush received just under 90 percent of the vote in winning the Idaho presidential primary.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)