DeSantis and Trump battle to influence state-level delegate rules for 2024

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...

• There may be some missing pieces at this point in the invisible primary, but there is a general idea about where the 2024 presidential primary calendar will end up. However, what about filing deadlines? When do candidates and their campaigns have to clear hurdles to get on the ballot in the various primaries and caucuses next year? All the details 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...

...

It is not exactly news that Donald Trump and his campaign have been working state parties in order to assemble as advantageous a set of state-level delegate selection rules for the former president as possible for 2024. The Washington Post ran a story in February that covered similar ground and also brought up Idaho and Michigan as battlegrounds on that front. 

But that is not to say that there is nothing (or nothing new) in the story about Team Trump pushing for rules changes on the state level up at Reuters today. One just has to dig and parse a bit to get at it. 

Yes, Nevada is in the mix, but questions about whether the early contest in the Silver state would be a primary or a caucus are not new. In fact, the primary calendar filling out still hinges on that decision to some degree. A lesser degree than before South Carolina Republicans weighed in recently, but the decision Nevada Republicans will make still matters. 

And Missouri is a bit of a wildcard as well. The legislature's inability to restore the presidential primary for 2024 in the Show-Me means that there is some mystery in -- if not jockeying by the candidates to influence -- what rules Missouri Republicans settle on in the coming weeks and months. 

Those states make some sense. Each was, has been or will be up for grabs in terms of what the delegate selection rules will look like. 

But Alabama? 

That is an interesting one. It is one that the DeSantis campaign is eyeing and over the threshold to win delegates. Importantly, Alabama Republicans have used a system that requires candidates to win 20 percent in order to qualify for delegates in recent cycles. [The Yellowhammer State was a truly winner-take-all state before 2012.] Yet, 20 percent is the maximum at which a state party can set the qualifying threshold. If there is any change there, then it will be to a lower level than 20 percent. 

That is noteworthy and hints at some underlying strategic direction from Team DeSantis that has not really been adequately explored out there. Part of that lies in the qualifying thresholds that the Florida governor is flirting with in some cases. But another is the assumption that caucuses are good for Trump. That could turn out to be the case. The former president did not necessarily excel in the format in 2016, but the complexion of state parties have changed some in the time since, moving toward Trump in some respects. And that suggests that there may be a real battle in caucus states like the above once the calendar flips to 2024. Until then -- or October 1 anyway -- the lobbying continues.

...

The headlines today all seemed to read that Trump had expanded his lead in first-in-the-nation New Hampshire. And indeed the former president pulled in just south of 50 percent in a pair of new polls released from the Granite state. But FHQ scrolled down a little further to see where everyone else was. 

Why?

Delegates are on the line. No, the New Hampshire primary has never been about delegates. There will only be 22 at stake there some time in January next year. But here is the thing: Trump has a sizable lead, and it is just the former president and DeSantis who qualify for delegates. Even with a fairly low 10 percent qualifying threshold, no one else would be in the running for delegates out of the Granite state. Trump would take somewhere in the range of 16-17 delegates and DeSantis would take the rest. No, it is not about the delegates in New Hampshire, but even Jeb Bush got three in 2016. 

And this is yet another illustration of just how much oxygen the pair are taking up in the race for the Republican nomination. It is crowding others out even though it is somewhat lopsided at this moment in the invisible primary. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the endorsement primary, DeSantis received the support of the Florida Police Benevolent Association, a group that was aligned with President Trump in 2020. 
• Team Pence has a campaign manager, Steve DeMaura, a former New Hampshire Republican Party executive director. 
• Both Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley have accepted invitations from Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson to appear at the Republican congresswoman's barbecue in the first-in-the-nation caucus state in August. 

...

On this date...

...in 2011, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann officially launched her bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. 

...in 2019, Democratic presidential candidates gathered for the second of two consecutive nights of debates in Miami, the initial primary debates of the 2020 cycle. 

--

Recent posts:

DeSantis Deemphasizing New Hampshire?

[From FHQ Plus] The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo"

The difference in how the national parties approve delegate selection plans

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

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

DeSantis Deemphasizing New Hampshire?

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...

• Are Iowa Democrats creating a calendar headache for the national party? A closer look at the delegate selection plan from Democrats in the Hawkeye state being found noncompliant. Plus a glance at the decisions Idaho Republicans made over the weekend. All the details 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...

...

There are still six plus months until the likely New Hampshire primary, so FHQ will not make a mountain out of this molehill. But it is interesting that Team DeSantis has pulled back a bit in New Hampshire in recent weeks. It is not a withdrawal. This is no skipping story. But at the same time, it is not necessarily a strategic blunder for DeSantis to potentially deemphasize the Granite state in his pursuit of the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. 

The early calendar is not about delegates, but New Hampshire offers the fewest delegates of the four early states and allocates them proportionally with a 10 percent qualifying threshold. That is a low bar for a handful of candidates to possibly clear and divvy up a few more than 20 delegates. DeSantis will likely need a win early, but it could be that libertarian-leaning New Hampshire is not the best fit for the culture warrior role DeSantis appears to be filling. It would not necessarily be a bad move not to go all in in such a state. There may be wins and the delegates to be had elsewhere. 

No, New Hampshire will not be a state to skip. If the battle turns into one over delegates in the long run, then it may be a state where someone like DeSantis takes what he can get and moves on to better opportunities in other states. That is not a skip, folks. DeSantis and company will be in the Granite state. The coming weeks and months will tell us whether he will be all in there or not. 

...

Amy Walter had a good one late last week at Cook Political Report about 2024 not being 2016 on the Republican side. FHQ weighed in on the subject when DeSantis jumped into the race. But Walter adds some solid detail on Trump's positioning now versus then.

...

Yes, super PACs are raising and spending a lot of money in the 2024 presidential race. Sure, they are, in some cases, pushing the legal limits on what they can do. But the super PAC era is very much an evolutionary one. And it remains an open question whether those entities can be as efficient and effective as traditional campaigns in some of those duties. That stands out as the primary hypothesis that will be tested this cycle on the presidential level where super PACs are concerned. Can they be as effective? Will they be as effective?

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the travel primary, it is one of those weeks in New Hampshire. DeSantis, Haley, Hurd, Ramaswamy and Trump will all descend on the Granite state in the coming week. 
• On the endorsement primary side of things, Trump made a splash heading into the weekend. He secured the backing of North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson and was endorsed by five of the eight Republicans in the Pennsylvania delegation to the US House. 
• The story was not the same in Michigan ahead of the former president's trip there this last weekend. In fact, it has become noticeable how paltry Trump's endorsement total is in the Great Lakes state (just three in the past week) thus far. There is some chatter about the Michigan Republican rules helping Trump in 2024 -- and that may or may not be the case -- but the institutional backing is not there yet and that may make a difference in the insider game that caucuses can be. DeSantis unveiled a list of 19 state legislative endorsements in Michigan back in late April. That number is up to 25 now. 

...

On this date...

...in 2019, Democratic presidential candidates gathered for the first of two consecutive nights of debates in Miami, the initial primary debates of the 2020 cycle. 

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo"

The difference in how the national parties approve delegate selection plans

Nevada responds to State Republican Party suit against the new presidential primary

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

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

[From FHQ Plus] The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo"

The following is a cross-posted excerpt 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. 

--

From The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo":

FHQ always follows along with rules meetings when I have the time. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) meeting late last week from Minneapolis was no exception. It was a productive if not eventful meeting. Among other things, the panel extended the early calendar waiver for New Hampshire and took up 19 state delegate selection plans, clearing 15 of them as conditionally compliant. 

Much of it seemed straightforward enough. But then I read some of the recaps and kept asking myself if folks had watched the same meeting I had. Sure, rules can have their various interpretations, but these sorts of sessions — those where delegate selection plans are being reviewed — can be pretty technical, pretty black and white. Yet, that did not stop some folks from reading shades of gray into matters where there really is none. Or in the case of the New Hampshire waiver, seeing what they wanted to see.

The consideration of the Georgia presidential primary (and any waiver extension for it) at the DNCRBC meeting last week was one of those situations. Like New Hampshire, the presidential primary in the Peach state had a spot in the early window of the Democratic calendar reserved for it for 2024, but ran into resistance with Republican state officials back home. However, unlike the situation in New Hampshire, the date of the Georgia primary has been set by the secretary of state. That deal is done. 

And DNCRBC co-Chair Minyan Moore seemed to acknowledge that in her comments about what she and fellow co-Chair Jim Roosevelt would recommend to the committee. She conceded that, despite the efforts of Democrats in Georgia and nationally, Peach state Republicans would not budge. They would not cooperate with the proposed change. And though Moore did not acknowledge it, it was an entirely understandable position. Any Georgia primary in mid-February would have cost Peach state Republicans a sizable chunk of their delegation to the national convention in Milwaukee next summer. Their hands were tied. They always were with respect to a February 13 position under Republican National Committee rules. [There were, however, other early window options that may have worked.]

But after that explanation, Moore said…

“…it does not seem to make sense to extend the Georgia waiver at this point. Regardless, I think the foundation has been laid for 2028, and it is a discussion that we need to continue.”

The key phrase in that statement is the highlighted one, at this point. Its addition was enough for the Associated Press to say that the Georgia primary was in limbo, that the committee had “opted not to immediately offer such an extension to another battleground state, Georgia.”

Look, the at this point was in reference to 2024 in its entirety, not this particular point in the 2024 cycle. And the reference to 2028 should have driven that point home. There is no number of waivers that the DNCRBC could offer Georgia Democrats that could get the state-run primary out of that March 12 slot. None. It is not in limbo. It is set for 2024. And this discussion can continue. 

…for 2028.

But it should be noted that there is a loose thread in all of this. There still is no draft delegate selection plan from the Georgia Democratic Party. Its absence at this time could create enough uncertainty that one may be inclined to suggest that maybe a party-run primary of some sort is in the works. 

Maybe. 

But if that was the case, then the DNCRBC would have granted an extension on the Georgia waiver last week. They did not. And they held back on that waiver extension because Georgia is done. The primary is set. 

The committee is set to address delegate selection plans from the southern region at its July meeting, so this all should clear up to some degree by then. 

--

Recent posts:

The difference in how the national parties approve delegate selection plans

Nevada responds to State Republican Party suit against the new presidential primary

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

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

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

The difference in how the national parties approve delegate selection plans

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...

• Unless Georgia Democrats are planning a party-run primary, then the presidential primary in the Peach state is not in limbo. It is set for March 12. That reality was missed on folks who misinterpreted the Georgia-related comments at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting last week. All the details 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...

...

It has been unusual since news broke over the weekend that the South Carolina Republican Party had set the date of the presidential primary for 2024 that stories keep adding something to the effect of "the primary will be on that date if the [delegate selection] plan gets approved by the RNC." First, the decision by Palmetto state Republicans is rules-compliant, so there is not really any mystery here. The primary will be on February 24 unless the state party changes its mind, something that seems unlikely. 

Second, there is, I suppose, a process of review on the Republican side, but Rule 16(f) filings come in so late -- the deadline is October 1 for state parties to submit plans -- that a review and approval process like what the Democratic Party does publicly over the course of months every four years is just not possible after the deadline. That is not a judgment of the Republican process. Rather, it is a description. Republican state parties submit plans and they are either compliant or they are not. 

Clearly, state parties can consult with the national party ahead on time on these matters. After all, it recently came out that the Michigan Republican Party had been in consultation with the RNC on its 2024 plans. But the state parties do not have to do that. Virgin Islands Republicans did not strategically select a Thursday for their caucuses in 2016, for example. No, they missed the deadline for plan submission in 2015 and were forced to use the same rules that governed their process from the previous cycle. That included the date, March 10. Obviously, there was no consultation there. The 2012 rules were just made to carry over to 2016 under the RNC rules. 

None of this means much in the grand scheme of things. It is just that the repeated mentions of "if approved" coming out with the South Carolina news is, well, new in the context of Republican state parties creating plans. It simply has not been a regular part of reporting on these things in the past. 

...

Sure, Nevada Republicans could theoretically hold a primary and a caucus next year. But there are questions about whether that would conflict with RNC rules. The answering of those questions seems moot anyway. There will only be a Republican primary in Nevada next year if more than one candidate files to be on the state-run primary ballot. And if Republicans in the Silver state allocate delegates through a caucus process, then candidates will be drawn to that and not the primary anyway. If Nevada Republicans want a caucus, then they will have caucuses and caucuses alone. 

...

Folks in Florida should just go ahead and move the primary in the Sunshine state up to November or December sometime. If Florida Senator Rick Scott jumps into the race, then there is going to need to be some mechanism to winnow the field of candidates from the Sunshine state alone to see who among them can run in the remaining primaries. 

FHQ is kidding, of course, but four is a lot of Floridians potentially running for 2024. Yes, Scott has again denied that he is seeking the presidential nomination. But even if the consideration is real and a run ultimately is not, it all speaks to a certain level of continued tension in the informal Republican nomination process. It is not a breakdown, per se, but folks continue to enter the race (or consider entering it). And that is despite signals that the path would be narrow at best. Trump is formidable, but not that formidable and DeSantis is well-positioned. Together, the two capture around three-quarters of support out there in public opinion surveys. 

Still, there is enough uncertainty -- around Trump's legal issues and DeSantis's supposed stumbles in the early days of the campaign -- to fuel consideration of a run if not an official bid from others. And a big part of that is that there has not been a rush of elite level support for either main candidate. Elected officials and big donors not massing behind either Trump or DeSantis is one way to look at that. Another is that those same folks are quietly in search of alternatives behind the scenes, urging prospective candidates to run. This seems to have been the case with Chris Sununu. He was going to run. Until he was not. And part of the story that made it look like Sununu was going to join the field was that he was receiving positive feedback on the possibility of a bid. However, the New Hampshire governor overrode those signals and remained on the sidelines. 

It could be that Rick Scott sees a path. But it could also be that he is also hearing from folks who are encouraging a run. Normally, a party might collectively try to tamp down on that. The signals, for example, may discourage bids when two main candidates are seemingly sucking up most of the oxygen in a race. But the 2024 Republican invisible primary is not normal. There is a certain cacophony to it all that makes reading the signals tougher for prospective candidates. 

Or it makes it easy to choose the signals that those prospective candidates want to hear. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Will Hurd just launched his presidential bid. The former Texas congressman may not be the longest of long shots currently in the race, but his odds of making the debate stage, much less succeeding beyond that, are slim. So it was maybe a surprise that right out of the gate on day one Hurd essentially sealed his fate on participating in any upcoming debate. He has refused to the sign the RNC pledge to support the eventual nominee. 
• The Tampa Bay Times has a retrospective look at the first month of the DeSantis campaign.
• Who does not love a good diner campaign story? Steven Porter at The Boston Globe sizes up the vocal Trump critics in New Hampshire from the Red Arrow Diner. 

...

On this date...

...in 2003, and with nary a scream, Vermont Governor Howard Dean officially launched his bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 2019, former Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak joined an already huge field of Democrats seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 2020, Kentucky and New York held pandemic delayed presidential primaries.

--

Recent posts:

Nevada responds to State Republican Party suit against the new presidential primary

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

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

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

Nevada responds to State Republican Party suit against the new presidential primary

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...

• There are two operative questions that have yet to be answered in the New Hampshire Democratic Party's calendar standoff with the Democratic National Committee. No decisions made by the Rules and Bylaws Committee in Minneapolis last week changed those questions. But of course it was not reported that way. All the details 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...

...

The always great Nevada Independent has the scoop on the state of Nevada's response to the recent lawsuit filed by the Republican Party in the Silver state to stop the presidential primary. Here is the most important factor in all of this (and something FHQ has pointed out already):

"Under the 2021 law, the state will hold a presidential primary election for both major political parties on Feb. 6, 2024, as long as more than one candidate has filed to run."

The lawsuit is unnecessary. If Nevada Republicans want to opt out of the primary, then they can. If candidates want to chase actual delegates, then they will file, under whatever conditions the Nevada Republican Party sets, to run in the caucuses. There will not be a primary unless more than one presidential campaign wastes its time, money and energy in filing to run in what would be a meaningless beauty contest primary. Without the Republican primary, there will be no potential conflict for Nevada Republicans with Republican National Committee rules. 

The short version of this is that as long as one or fewer candidates file for the Republican presidential primary in Nevada, there will not be one. There have already been some innovative filing proposals in party-run processes this cycle. Perhaps Nevada Republicans could make it a part of the caucus filing for candidates to not file for the state-run primary?

Again, the lawsuit is unnecessary.

...

Henry Gomez at NBC News was nice enough to chat to FHQ about the recent South Carolina Republican presidential primary decision. He and Matt Dixon have a thoroughly reported piece up about it. To some degree, the pair play up the gap in the calendar that South Carolina Republicans are seeking to take advantage of. 

There was always going to be a February gap in the primary calendar after the changes on the Democratic side for 2024. But up until this past weekend, the question seemed to be whether Republicans in the Palmetto state (and those in Nevada, for that matter) would jump into January or settle in early February. In other words, if South Carolina and/or Nevada Republicans filled that February gap, then the expectation was that it would be on the front end. However, South Carolina Republicans surprised in gravitating toward the end of the gap instead. And there is a sizable space between a New Hampshire primary hypothetically on January 22 and the South Carolina Republican primary on February 24. That, again, gives Nevada Republicans quite a bit of runway for scheduling their caucuses and noticeably decompresses the beginning of the calendar.

Good piece from Gomez and Dixon. 

...

From the endorsement primary...

• Former Vice President Mike Pence picked up the support of Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb. It is Pence's biggest endorsement to date, and although it comes from a later primary state, it is a nice bit of homegrown support.
• It is funny. Just last week FHQ noted that Senator Tim Scott's efforts at home were potentially crowding out non-Trumps in the Palmetto state. Well, Ron DeSantis is heading back to South Carolina for another visit and town hall, and the Florida governor has rolled out an endorsement list that includes 15 South Carolina state legislators -- 11 from the House of Representative and four state senators. It is not what Scott has, but the support is not nothing either (a little more than 10 percent of the Republicans in the state legislature). In a state where the big names are either running for the Republican presidential nomination or have endorsed Trump, these state legislative endorsements are important signals. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Former Texas Representative Will Hurd (R) launched his oft-teased presidential bid.
• Doug Burgum has not been shy about tapping into his personal wealth to fund his campaign. The North Dakota governor has been the biggest spender in the Republican presidential field since he officially kicked off his run earlier in June. 
• Big donors in Illinois Republican circles are pushing former Prairie state Governor Bruce Rauner (R) to back former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. But other forces within the broader party network in the Land of Lincoln are backing DeSantis. It is an interesting proxy battle in a state deeper into the primary calendar, and it notably does not seem to include Trump.

--

Recent posts:

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

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

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

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

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...

• Republicans in the Virgin Islands have set forth an ambitious plan for 2024 delegate allocation and selection in the island territory. All the details 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...

...

One more thing on South Carolina Republicans setting the date of their 2024 presidential primary...

In revamping FHQ's 2024 presidential primary calendar after the decision out of the Palmetto state over the weekend, it dawned on me that the South Carolina Republican primary has really not "moved" all that far. In truth, it has not moved at all. The date was never set. But now, the primary is set for February 24, 2024. 

Where did FHQ have it tentatively placed way back in the initial iteration of the calendar that was released the day after Inauguration Day in 2021? 

February 24, 2024. 

This is not a boast. It is more a coincidence than anything else. In that time, in early 2021, before the Nevada legislature established the new presidential primary in the Silver state and scheduled it for the first Tuesday in February, the outlook on the 2024 calendar was fairly straightforward. It was going to look like 2016 and 2020: Iowa during the first week of February, New Hampshire's primary the following week and the South Carolina Republican primary the next weekend more than seven days after that. 

However, something was going to have to give in the long run in that scenario because FHQ also had the Nevada caucuses -- again, before the primary was established -- on the same February 24 date. Ultimately, two things gave. First, Nevada established the early February primary. But second South Carolina Republicans relented by apparently yielding their implied third position in the Republican order to Nevada Republicans (whether the party there opts into the state-run primary or not).

But it is funny how it has all worked out to this point. Nevada Republicans still have to settle their plans for 2024. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the money primary, Ron DeSantis has been fundraising in California this week. Next week the Florida governor will do the same thing in Rockland County outside of New York. The $6600 per person dinner with DeSantis and major business leaders will be his second fundraiser of the day in the Empire state, following another event in Manhattan.
• Axios Detroit does their version of the hybrid Michigan primary-caucus system helps Trump story. To be clear, it is not so much the format that helps Trump as the make up of the Michigan Republican Party that may benefit the former president. This can be a kind of chicken or the egg argument, but if the party were tilted toward another candidate and/or if the grassroots were energized and aligned with another candidate, then the format would help them. The big thing about the change is that it erects institutional hurdles that will make it hard for candidates not named Trump or DeSantis to effectively compete in the Great Lakes state. They are the two with the best combination of name recognition, financial resources and organization to make it work in Michigan under the proposed hybrid rules. ...at this time. That picture could change.
• A local, North Dakota-centered look at how folks nationally are reacting to Governor Doug Burgum's bid for the Republican presidential nomination. 
• In the travel primary, both Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis will be in New Hampshire next Tuesday, June 27. Trump to keynote a New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women luncheon in Concord and DeSantis for a town hall meeting in Hollis. 
• Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's anti-Trump run at the Republican nomination is not without some heavy hitters in the political donor game. There was some early reporting that Mets owner and hedge fund founder Steve Cohen was also financially backing Christie's bid through a super PAC. Cohen remains on the periphery of the Republican race for now. 

...

On this date...

...in 2011, former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman joined the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. 

--

Recent posts:

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

Sunday Series: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

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

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

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

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...

• South Carolina Republicans made a move over the weekend that is pretty atypical for early states. The party in a way disarmed and retreated on the calendar. Yes, the primary in the Palmetto state is still among the earliest, but it is unusual for one state to yield an earlier position to another. More on that 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...

...

As an aside in the discussion of the South Carolina Republican primary being set at FHQ Plus, I closed by taking a big picture view of the likely early primary calendar on the Republican side:

Would the Republican National Committee prefer that primary season kick off in February as intended? Yes, but given that the Democratic rules pushed the Michigan primary into late February and nudged South Carolina on the Democratic side up to the beginning of the month, the start point creeping two weeks into January is not that bad on the whole. 

The four early Republican carve-out states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — have, under RNC rules, a window of a month in front of the next earliest contest in which to schedule their own primaries and caucuses. If the Iowa Republican caucuses do, in fact, end up on Monday, January 15, then those contests will have fit within a 43 day window before the Michigan primary, (maybe) the next earliest contest. And given the complications the Democratic calendar changes introduced for Republicans, again, it is not that bad. And it hardly counts as “chaos.”

That scenario -- that Iowa's Republican caucuses and the New Hampshire presidential primary would be outside of that one month granted by RNC rules to the early states -- brought a question into my inbox. Basically, does that set Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire up for the super penalty? After all, both would seemingly be too early by the RNC definition that far into January.

FHQ would contend that the answer is no.

There was a time -- back in 2008 -- that both New Hampshire and South Carolina were docked half of their delegates for violating the timing rules.¹ But the language in the relevant rule, Rule 16(c)(1) now, was different then when it was Rule 15(b)(1)(i). Instead of a month before the next earliest contest, both New Hampshire and South Carolina were treated just like any other state for 2008, and could not conduct their primaries before the first Tuesday in February. 

However, there was no out for them in the rule. The 2008 Republican National Convention added a carve out for the pair of early primary states (for future cycles) but without specific reference to the actions of other, would-be rogue states, the non-carve-outs. Yet, that was after the fact. When Florida and Michigan crashed into January for 2008, it had the effect of pushing both New Hampshire and South Carolina up. Michigan triggered the first-in-the-nation law in New Hampshire, and Florida's move violated the first-in-the-South position that Republicans in the Palmetto state had carved out for themselves in the calendar over time. Republicans in all four states plus Wyoming ended up taking a 50 percent hit to their national convention delegations. 

As for the states' treatment under the current rule? 

FHQ would argue that they are fine. Yes, the excerpt above from over at Plus noted that Michigan is the next earliest contest, but there is an argument that can be made about the South Carolina Democratic primary being the next earliest state. It was the Democratic National Committee moving the South Carolina primary to the first position for 2024 that ultimately will push New Hampshire and Iowa into January. But the rule is silent on whether it is events on just the Republican primary or the overall calendar of contests for both parties that might serve as the backend of that window of time in which the early states can schedule contests. 

And it will be much easier politically to blame Democrats for contests that are too early than state-level Republicans. Yet, none of this is not official. And until Iowa and New Hampshire are in place on the calendar on the Republican side and the national party has responded, it is an open question. But it is pretty easy to chart out where that would likely go. 

...

In the travel primary...

The other day, FHQ referred to Nevada as "the redheaded stepchild of the early primary calendar." That has meant a number of things over the years since the Silver state was added to the early window of the presidential nomination process. Poorly implemented caucuses. Talk of replacement in the early calendar lineup. But by far the most consistent aspect of this phenomenon is how Nevada measures up to its early state peers. The Nevada Independent tells a familiar tale: Nevada in 2023 lags far behind Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in candidate visits so far in the cycle. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Team DeSantis is attempting to make inroads in Super Tuesday Massachusetts. 
• "There’s no chance 'on God’s green earth' he’s [California Governor Gavin Newsom's] running for president in 2024." But maybe campaigning alongside the president is prep for invisible primary 2028.
• The candidates, campaigns and affiliated groups will have to raise it in the money primary, but it looks like Republicans are on pace to spend $1 billion in the 2024 presidential primary cycle. 
• Americans for Prosperity are already knocking on doors in first-in-the-nation New Hampshire.

--

¹ Iowa and Nevada were both exempt without mention in the rule because neither selected nor allocated national convention delegates at their precinct caucuses.

--

Recent posts:

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

Sunday Series: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

[From FHQ Plus] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

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

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

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

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...

• A thorough contextualization of the decision by South Carolina Republicans to schedule the party's presidential primary for late February next year, plus another envelope-pushing Republican delegate selection plan that quietly slipped under the radar over the weekend. All the details 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...

...

The big news out of the Palmetto state over the weekend was that the Executive Committee of the South Carolina Republican Party voted to schedule the 2024 presidential primary for February 24.

That significantly lowers the temperature on 2024 calendar “chaos” moving forward. With the South Carolina Republican primary in place toward the end of February, that gives Nevada Republicans a substantial runway to land somewhere in the first three weeks of the month. That also means one less contest to potentially compete for calendar space with Iowa and New Hampshire in January. 

There have been those outside of this site who have built up the notion of looming uncertainty with respect to the 2024 calendar, but breathless stories of rogue calendar maneuvering just has not made chaos materialize. It has not. That is not to say that there will not be drama down the stretch as the last calendar pieces fall into place, but it will be muted and all hinges on basically one question: 

On what date does the Iowa Democratic vote-by-mail presidential preference vote end? 

It could be in violation of DNC rules in February and still not affect the beginning of the Republican calendar. That preference vote could end on or after Super Tuesday and it would not change what seems likely. It is only in the event that the Iowa Democratic preference vote ends in January (and probably specifically either on in-person caucus night or merely ahead of the spot New Hampshire is eyeing) that things would turn problematic. 

In any event, there is so much more over at FHQ Plus about the South Carolina move and the early calendar options ahead.

And that triggered a giant update to FHQ's 2024 presidential primary calendar. Both are well worth checking out.

...

Seth Masket does a great job in laying out the balance national parties attempt to maintain in cycles when their incumbent president is seeking reelection. It is a nice departure into the the Democratic race over at Tusk.

...

From around the invisible primary...

Speaking of the nomination race on the incumbent president's side, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s scheduled attendance at PorcFest, a festival of the libertarian-minded New Hampshire Free State Project has drawn a response from New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. 

Kennedy and Williamson have one play in the contest with Joe Biden: win a rogue New Hampshire presidential primary and hope for the best. But one of those two winning in the Granite state next year either outright or relative to expectations against each other (with Biden not on the ballot) is still less likely to hurt Biden than it is to affect the future of the New Hampshire primary in the Democratic Party's early calendar lineup.

It is an outcome that the New Hampshire Democratic Party does not want. So when friction pops up between Kennedy and the state Democratic Party, it is noteworthy. 

--

Recent posts:

Sunday Series: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

[From FHQ Plus] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

DeSantis is flirting with the qualifying thresholds in the delegate game

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: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

Nevada is, to a great degree, the redheaded stepchild of the early primary calendar. 

It almost always has been since the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2006 added the Nevada caucuses to the lineup for the 2008 cycle. Those caucuses in the Silver state were to have been between Iowa and New Hampshire under the rules adopted by national Democrats, but then Florida and Michigan crashed the party, pushing into January and setting off a domino effect on the rest of the early calendar. 

The Michigan move to January 15 forced the primary in New Hampshire, under state law, up two weeks, earlier than prescribed in the DNC rules. But Nevada Democrats hung back, keeping the party's caucuses at the point on the calendar consistent with the national party guidelines, 17 days before Super Tuesday. 

Thereafter, the Democratic rules institutionalized Nevada in the third position in the calendar order rather than in the second slot. 

Things were different on the Republican side of the ledger. Never intended to be a part of the early Republican calendar for 2008, Nevada Republicans, nonetheless, aligned their caucuses with the precinct meetings of Silver state Democrats in the middle of January. That had the benefits of moving the Republican caucuses into the mix and not ceding the early organization in the state to Democrats. But it also ultimately meant the Republican caucuses would be scheduled on the same date as the Republican primary in South Carolina.

However, because the 2008 delegate allocation in Nevada was not bound to the results of those caucuses, Republicans in the state skirted national party penalties on the timing of primaries and caucuses. After all, it was the DNC that had added Nevada to the early calendar for 2008. National Republicans had not. In fact, the Republican National Committee (RNC) did not exempt Nevada in their rules until the 2010 series of amendments were added to the rules adopted at the 2008 national convention in St. Paul. And even then, the Nevada Republican precinct caucuses did not elect, select, allocate or bind delegates to the national convention in 2012. Ron Paul ultimately controlled that delegation in Tampa.

Regardless, the Nevada caucuses had been added to the list (in the rules) of carve-out states the RNC allowed to hold contests before Super Tuesday. But the implementation of the caucuses in both 2008 and 2012 was problematic enough that it never seemed as if Nevada Republicans and the caucuses were on solid ground on the early calendar. Although no overt threats to Nevada's position ever really materialized, the legacy of the reluctant Republican adoption of Nevada as a part of the early presidential primary calendar has persisted. It has been ingrained in the fabric of how presidential campaigns have approached the state in the intervening years. 

Unlike Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the caucuses in Nevada were not and have not long been a featured part of the early Republican calendar. And it shows. Nevada often goes unmentioned in stories of candidate trips to the early states and when candidates do show up in the Silver state, the state is often talked about as a forgotten (or not focused upon) aspect of the beginnings of the nomination process. 

But is that about to change or is it in the process of changing? 

Winner-take-all?

No, FHQ does not mean the DeSantis visit to the Silver state this weekend is a change. Rather, it is something else oddly buried in the next to last paragraph in an NBC story about it. 

But, [former Nevada Republican Party executive director, Zachary] Moyle noted, Nevada does present a “massive opportunity” to candidates because of its “winner-take-all” system, in which all of its delegates are awarded to the candidate who carries the state.

This is actually news that either is big or deserves a fact check. Nevada conducting a primary or (likely) caucuses with winner-take-all rules in the early window of the Republican process is or would be a big deal. Sure, there are only roughly 25 delegates at stake, but if they were all to be allocated to the winner statewide, then that could prove to be a bigger net delegate margin than in a much larger state with far more delegates on the line under a more proportional system. Nevada could punch about its weight and deliver a fairly major victory early in the process. 

But is Nevada winner-take-all? 

Maybe?

According to Zachary Moyle, yes. But the standing rules that are posted on the Nevada Republican Party web page as of this writing suggest no:

In accordance with the Rules of the Republican National Committee, in Presidential election years, the Nevada Republican Party chooses that its National Delegates and Alternates shall be allocated proportionally based on the final results of the Nevada Presidential Preference Poll, the Alternative Presidential Preference Poll or the Presidential Primary Election, as appropriate, rounded to the nearest whole number.

Granted, those rules date to June 2020 after the Alternative Presidential Preference Poll (APPP) of the last cycle, a contest where President Trump won all of the delegates from the Silver state. But the APPP is not necessarily designed to be a winner-take-all contest. It is a contest that is triggered by an incumbent Republican president seeking reelection. But other candidates are eligible under the rules and can gain access to the ballot with the signatures of 20 members of the Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee. None did in time for the 2020 vote among the members of the NRPSCC, so Trump was the only name on the ballot. And by extension, he won all of the available Nevada delegates. 

But in a competitive cycle in a Nevada Presidential Preference Poll (caucuses) or a Presidential Primary Election, the allocation would be proportional. 

However, maybe those rules are obsolete. They could be. It may just be that the Nevada Republican Party has adopted new rules for 2024 in the time since June 2020 and the web page has simply not been updated. This is entirely possible.

But winner-take-all? In February?

Assume for a moment that the currently posted rules are wrong. They are outdated and a new version detailing the winner-take-all allocation rules for 2024 have not replaced them. Well, that does raise an interesting question. 

Are states with contests before March 15 not prohibited from using truly winner-take-all rules, where a plurality winner statewide wins all of the delegates? Yeah, actually that is true. But here is the thing: under Rule 16(c)(1) Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are exempt from both the winner-take-all restrictions and (for the most part) the timing restrictions barring states from holding contests before March 1. 

So...

If the Nevada rules have been changed and are now winner-take-all, then technically, that is compliant under RNC rules. And that is a reality that is flying under the radar for A LOT of people, including the campaigns. A winner-take-all Nevada is a Nevada that more candidates would be flocking to. They are not. ...at least not yet. 

What about that Nevada Republican Party lawsuit against the new presidential primary?

That may be the funny thing here. The lawsuit may actually point toward the posted rules being outdated. 

Why? 

A cursory dig through those rules turns up this section:

§ 7.0 Primary Election Contingency.
Should state law be amended to provide for a Presidential Primary Election, the provisions of this chapter regulating a Presidential Preference Poll shall be null and void, but all other provisions not related to the Poll otherwise regulating Precinct Meetings shall remain in force.

Read that section. It seems receptive to a presidential primary. It defers to any newly amended law providing for a presidential primary in the Silver state. If the Nevada Republican Party has not changed the rule, then that conflicts with the stated intent of the lawsuit. If the rule has been changed or stricken, then the recent presence of such a rule undermines lawsuit to some degree. Look, parties have the freedom of association under the first amendment and a party can alter the rules that govern it. Nevada Republicans are on firm ground there. But it is not a good look if the current rules give (or recently gave) a thumbs up to the presidential primary and the state party is suing to get out of it. That would not suggest good management at the party. 

But again, the rules may be different. They could have been altered since June 2020 and the new version not posted. It happens. But the questions now are this:

1) Are there different rules in place for 2024 than the ones posted, dated June 2020?

2) What are those rules? Do they include a truly winner-take-all allocation method in the early window? Do those changes eliminate the presidential primary contingency? 

If Nevada is actually winner-take-all in the Republican process, then that is a big deal that deserves a lot more discussion than it has received to this point in the invisible primary. It certainly begs for a more prominent position than the next-to-last paragraph in a story. 

But if the rules are the same, then why did that winner-take-all reference from Moyle go unchecked?

A lot of questions. Not a lot of answers. Not yet anyway.

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

DeSantis is flirting with the qualifying thresholds in the delegate game

Who ends up embarrassed if Iowa and New Hampshire go rogue in 2024?

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] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

The following is a cross-posted excerpt 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. 

--

From Idaho Republicans Are Making Plans for a 2024 Without a Presidential Primary:

[NOTE: Earlier in 2023, the Idaho legislature eliminated the separate March presidential primary in the Gem state. And due to a drafting snafu did not reinsert the necessary language to consolidate the primary with the May nomination contests. That has put both parties in the state in a bind for 2024.]

Already, Idaho Democrats have called for a special session to restore the primary, scheduling it along with the primaries for other offices in May as was the intent of the bill that was initially brought before the state legislature earlier this year. But Gem state Democrats have also put forth a contingency plan for caucuses on Saturday, May 18 if the legislature does not act to fix the primary problem in time for 2024.

But what about Republicans in the Gem state? 

For Idaho Republicans both the demands and the contingency plans are different. In fact, there are two plans from which the Idaho Republican Party State Central Committee will choose at the summer meeting in Challis on June 23-24: a caucus plan and a convention plan.

Presidential Caucus Plan

Idaho Republicans do have some recent experience with the use of caucuses for allocating and selecting delegates. The party last used one in 2012. But the 2024 caucus plan proposed by Region 2 Chair Clinton Daniel strays from the vote-until-a-candidate-receives-a-majority, winner-take-all method the party used in the cycle when Mitt Romney won the caucuses. 

Instead, the Daniel’s proposal would provide for a more traditional caucus with a more conventional allocation scheme. First of all, the delegates would be pooled under the provisions of the plan. There would be just one allocation for the at-large, congressional district and automatic/party delegates combined. Additionally, there would be a winner-take-all trigger, where, if a candidate wins a majority of the caucus preference vote statewide, then that candidate would be awarded all of the Idaho delegates. Otherwise, delegates would be proportionally allocated with a 15 percent qualifying threshold. Any rounding would be to the nearest whole delegate with any unallocated delegate going to the winner. 

Again, all of that is fairly conventional. But there are a few unique provisions in the proposed caucus plan:

1. The date: The proposed date for the presidential caucuses in this plan? Saturday, March 2, the same day as the Michigan Republican district caucuses. Basically, both of those contests would fall into a position on the calendar similar to that of the South Carolina Democratic primary in 2020, the Saturday before Super Tuesday.1 That is not the February date that Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon talked about in the committee hearing that derailed the presidential primary fix, but it is close. 

2. A conditional caucus: But there is a catch in the caucus plan. If the state legislature restores the presidential primary before the October 1 RNC deadline for delegate selection plans to be submitted to the national party, then the Idaho Republican Party would use the state-run primary. However, Idaho Republicans would only use the primary if the election is scheduled for the second Tuesday in March as it was before H 138 unintentionally eliminated it this past legislative session. [This seems unlikely. What drove the elimination of the separate presidential primary in the first place last winter was the cost savings associated with consolidating the presidential preference vote with other primary elections in May.]

3. A two-tiered filing process: If the prime, March 2 date is not enough to draw candidates out to the Gem state to campaign and spend money, the system under which candidates will file to participate in the caucuses may. The baseline filing fee is set at $50,000 under the proposal. Candidates may choose not to campaign or spend money in the state, but the campaigns would have to fork over an exorbitant fee to the state party, a fee that may cushion that blow to Idaho Republicans of candidates skipping out on the state. But that is not the only filing option. The fee is cut in half if the candidate holds an event in the state sometime during January or February 2024. That is still a lofty fee and it has the benefit of bringing the candidates into the state. It is a clever twist that a state party can more easily pull off with a party-run process (than a state-run one, the parameters of which are defined by state law).

--

Recent posts:

DeSantis is flirting with the qualifying thresholds in the delegate game

Who ends up embarrassed if Iowa and New Hampshire go rogue in 2024?

Tim Scott is making it tough for others in South Carolina

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

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