Showing posts with label Glenn Youngkin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glenn Youngkin. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 23, 2023

Youngkin 2024 is a Byproduct of Uncertainty

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...
  • Given the 2024 primary calendar uncertainty, there has been chatter about Delaware being added to the early window when Georgia and New Hampshire are unable or unwilling to comply with the DNC rules. Is Delaware on the move? 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...
...
FHQ quipped last week that Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin's on-again/off-again consideration of presidential bid was just the sort of decisiveness that Republican primary voters seem to be after in the 2024 cycle. And no, that probably still is not fair. It is best to observe this back and forth as a measure of the uncertainty in the overall race. There are doubts about Trump, electability concerns due to the baggage, however one defines it, that the former president carries. And there have been growing doubts in recent weeks about the type of candidate Ron DeSantis will be and the kind of campaign he will run. 

That uncertainty opens doors for other possibilities, or perhaps, feeds a desire among a certain class for alternatives. And that is true of what is happening on the Youngkin front. The governor has not exactly gotten glowing reviews from everyone. He has been described as not "all in" by some donors. Yet, it is those donors, in a collective sense, that seem to be driving the latest round of "will Youngkin run?" speculation. They seem to be the ones not only pining most for a Trump alternative, but goading Youngkin into reconsidering launching a bid. It would be easy to consider Youngkin a kind of Rick Perry 2012 sort of figure in all of this, but it is likely better viewed in the broader sense of discovery, scrutiny, decline that dominated the 2012 Republican process as described by Sides and Vavreck. Like 2012, 2024 has an uneasy frontrunner with (currently) somewhere in the range of plurality to majority support during the invisible primary. But said frontrunner is happily willing to assist in the act of scrutiny if threatened. 


...
Julia Azari and Seth Masket are really good in this piece over at MSNBC discussing the informal rules of the presidential nomination process. Is the system undergoing a breakdown, a rewriting, an evolution or some combination of all three? This section on the impacts of the changes on winnowing in the 2024 Republican nomination race is particularly worthy of flagging:
"Another source of mystery has to do with timing. Some of the most important unwritten rules of the nominating process come into play after the voting has begun. It’s assumed that the losers will drop out and endorse the winners after a few lackluster primaries, or when it becomes mathematically impossible to win the nomination. But given Trump’s legal troubles and the uncertainty they create — what if Trump has won enough delegates in the primaries to clinch the nomination by next April but is then convicted of a felony before the convention? — we might be more likely to see otherwise unpromising candidates ride it out to the convention. This might be significant for DeSantis, especially if he believes he could emerge victorious in a floor fight."
Highly recommend this one. FHQ certainly does more than its fair share of talking about formal rules, but the informal ones matter too!


...
It is probably premature to suggest that it is Iowa-or-bust for challengers to Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. There are, after all, seven plus months of the invisible primary yet to play out. However, if things stay on this same course, then the caucuses in the Hawkeye state may present a clear (final?) opportunity to "ding" Trump. These are not separate things, of course. What happens in Iowa will, to some degree, be a function of what has happened thus far in the invisible primary and the continued campaign organization building that will take place between now and January. 


...
On this date...
...in 1972, Senator George McGovern swept the Oregon and Rhode Island primaries on his path to the 1972 Democratic nomination.

...in 2000, Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore won their parties' respective primaries in Arkansas. Additionally, Bush took the Idaho primary and Gore prevailed in the Kentucky primary.

...in 2020, Hawaii Democratic released results showing former Vice President Joe Biden won the party-run primary in the Aloha state.



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

Tuesday, May 2, 2023

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Did Glenn Youngkin Run for 2024?

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

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • That caucus bill in Iowa got tweaked, but it probably does not offer the fixes Democrats in the Hawkeye state want. The Missouri presidential primary drama could go to overtime. FHQ was wrong about the territories. Is there finally momentum for a primary move in Pennsylvania? 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.


...
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) seemed to pass on a 2024 presidential bid in response to a question on Monday, May 1. 
Wall Street Journal editor-at-large Gerard Baker asked Youngkin on Monday at a “Governing America” conversation with the Milken Institute: “Are you going to be dusting off that fleece jacket and getting out on the presidential campaign trail later this year? 
“No ... I’m going to be working in Virginia this year,” Youngkin said.
This is not exactly news. Youngkin has stated numerous times that his focus is on Virginia and the state legislative elections in the Old Dominion later this year. The new element yesterday was the no. Yes, some are picking up on that "this year" that was appended to the no, but that makes this more of a Sherman-ish rather than Shermanesque statement. It may provide an out next year, but the cold, hard truth of the matter is that if Youngkin is not entering the race this year, then he is not going to get in next year (or is unlikely to do so successfully anyway). Things can certainly change between now and then. However, it is perhaps fantastical (at this time) that Trump would collapse and all the other challengers to him for the Republican nomination would fall flat, opening the door to a white knight to come to the rescue. Again, that is fantasy, but a fantasy that is entertained by some every four years when the US goes through the exercise that is the presidential nomination process. There may be something of a repeat of 2012's discover-scrutiny-decline phenomenon in the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race, as Seth Masket notes, but getting a discovery surge to take off in 2024 during the primaries is just a tall order. 

"This year" effectively means "I'm not running."

Yet, the fact that Youngkin is out(-ish) does raise a question. Did the Virginia governor run for 2024? That is a tough question to answer. Clearly, Youngkin traveled, but it was not to, shall we say, calendar-specific locales like DeSantis or Pompeo or Haley have done. Nor did he, as the governor noted in his response to Baker at Milken, put out a book as DeSantis and Pompeo have done. However, the travel that he did do -- to New York, to Texas etc. -- was often to meet with big donors. Clearly there was some testing of the waters -- on both sides -- in those meetings. It was enough that those same donors questioned whether or not Youngkin was even into the idea of running at all. 

Did Youngkin run? Again, that is tough to discern. He did some things that prospective presidential candidates do, but fell well short of what some of those who have entered or look to be entering the 2024 race have done. And that is a good example of the conceptual squishiness of the notion of running for 2024 but not running in 2024. Where does one draw the line? Are interactions between a possible candidate and donors enough? Because outside of that, all that is really out there is some constant chatter about a Republican who won an off-year gubernatorial election in a blue state making a reasonable presidential candidate and folks asking said Republican about whether he is running or not. 

Youngkin is simply not a clear case.

UPDATE: Apparently Team Youngkin is trying to push the door back open on 2024. But yeah, see above.


...
Okay. Here is another line from that Richmond Times-Dispatch story on Youngkin:
As for wiggle room, Youngkin said he would not embark on a presidential campaign “this year.” But the Republican Iowa caucuses are Feb. 5, 2024.
Nope. The Republican Iowa caucuses are still not scheduled for February 5, 2024. They never have been. If anything, Youngkin has even less "wiggle room." The caucuses are likely to be in early to mid-January next year. 

...
Speaking of early primaries, there is no date for the Georgia presidential primary. It will not be on February 13 as the Democratic National Committee may want, but Greg Bluestein at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution looks at the options Secretary Brad Raffensperger (R) has before him in terms of where he may schedule the primary for next year. 

Georgia can hold a single primary for both parties as early as March 1 under RNC rules. Any earlier than that and Republicans in the Peach state would be vulnerable to the RNC super penalty for timing violations. That would knock the Georgia delegation to the Milwaukee convention down to just twelve delegates. 

Democrats' efforts to push the primary up to the February 13 position prescribed in the new DNC rules are likely to be futile given those penalties. And now that Michigan has passed legislation to move into its February 27 spot -- not to mention that the DNC has now also adopted its rules -- flipping Georgia and Michigan in the order seems out of the question. 

However, if the DNC is serious about nudging the Georgia primary into the pre-window and it does not mind a Michigan-and-then-Georgia pairing to close the pre-window, then perhaps the Georgia primary could fit into the space between the Michigan primary on February 27 and Super Tuesday on March 5.

Saturday, March 2 would work.


...
On this date...
...in 1972, Sen. Scoop Jackson (D-WA) withdrew from the race for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination on the same day as primaries in Alabama, Indiana, Ohio and Washington, DC. Jackson won just once, in his home state of Washington.

...in 2000, Bush and Gore swept through late season primaries in Indiana, North Carolina and Washington, DC.

...in 2012, Newt Gingrich suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2019, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D) announced his bid for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 2020, Kansas Democrats concluded their party-run presidential primary.



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

Monday, April 17, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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


...
The New York Times lede to this story about Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) pumping the brakes on a possible presidential bid was something: 
Virginia’s governor is putting the presidential hoopla on ice.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


...
On this date...
...in 1980, Idaho Democrats conducted caucuses and Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL) withdrew from the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

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



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

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Republican Non-Endorsements

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

It is early yet in the Republican presidential nomination process. There are, after all, only two major contenders -- Donald Trump and Nikki Haley -- who have entered the race and who have held elective office (at a level that has conventionally seen success in presidential contests). Each already has a handful of endorsements as well. And that is another of those invisible primary metrics -- endorsement primary -- to eye as one assesses the degree to which Trump's institutional support has declined relative to his standing four years ago (or how much better it is than it was eight years ago). FHQ has already discussed this in terms of where the former president's organizational efforts stand, but it matters for endorsements too. 

And one sees this not only in endorsements, particularly in endorsement defections from Trump, but also in non-endorsements, as in elites and elected officials refusing to endorse Trump or anyone else at this early stage of the race. Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) is new to the job, having been appointed to the post following the departure of Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), so maybe the question is a natural inquiry for the Nebraska press. But the senator's response is noteworthy in that he passed on the opportunity to endorse. Then-Governor Ricketts, like many elected officials, was on Team Trump in 2020 as a campaign surrogate. But the two were at odds during the 2022 midterms both in and out of Nebraska. The president called Ricketts a RINO for supporting Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) in his reelection bid in the Peach state, and Ricketts asked Trump not to intervene (and endorse) in the open Republican gubernatorial primary in Nebraska (advice the president refused to heed). 

And it matters for now that Ricketts also did not line up behind Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL), someone to whom members of his family have donated. Now, that may or may not hold as this race progresses (and DeSantis formally enters the contest). But the extent to which elected officials stay on the sidelines is important. Not endorsing Trump says something: that elite-level support has ebbed since 2020. But not endorsing anyone else might also suggest that those same elites cannot (or do not want to) coordinate against Trump in 2024. And that again says something about where Trump is on the 2015 or 2019 spectrum of strength in this evolving battle. These signals are important to assessing where the race stands.

This is also something that bears watching at the state party level as well. Ed Cox, the newly sworn in chair of the New York Republican Party reassumed his position atop the party and was quick to note that the NYGOP, like the national party, would remain neutral in the 2024 presidential nomination race. That is likely to be the case for state Republican parties across the country, but it is not a sure thing. That, too, tells one about the state of the Republican race and Trump's support in it. 


...
No, DeSantis is not in the race yet, but he continues to do the things that (prospective) presidential candidates do. This time it is a trip to New Hampshire for a big state party fundraising event.


...
Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) continues to do things outside of the commonwealth. And every time he does, it draws presidential chatter. So it was with the latest news that Youngkin will head to Texas in April to meet with big money Republican donors. Youngkin, like all the other candidates or potential candidates not named Trump or DeSantis, is in the difficult position of having to assess his chances in a field where there is seemingly little oxygen. Youngkin can lay claim to being a Republican governor in a blue state, which is unique among the other possible aspirants. But like everyone else he has to hope for a DeSantis flop, a Trump implosion or for the Trump and DeSantis to pummel each other into oblivion such that the door is opened for someone else. And maybe one or some combination of those things happen. But the more immediate concern for Youngkin may be that he has to show those donors in Texas that he has that "fire in the belly," a marker he did not necessarily surpass with potential donors in New York recently.


...
Vice President Kamala Harris going to Iowa causes a raise of the eyebrow until one remembers that the Hawkeye state will not be the first state in the Democratic presidential nomination process in 2024.


...
On this date...
...in 1980, Senator Bob Dole withdrew, winless, from the Republican presidential nomination race.

...in 1988, Vice President Bush (R) and Senator Paul Simon (D) won the Illinois presidential primary. Simon kept all three of the big winners from Super Tuesday the week before at bay in his home state. 

...in 2004, Rev. Al Sharpton dropped out of the Democratic presidential nomination race.

...in 2016, Senator Marco Rubio (R) suspended his campaign after a lackluster showing in primaries, including his home state of Florida, at the opening of the winner-take-all window on the Republican nomination calendar.


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

Friday, March 10, 2023

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Presidential Primary Runoffs?

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

My former UGA colleagues, Charles Bullock and Loch Johnson, have an interesting take on the presidential nomination process up over at The Bulwark. Runoffs in Georgia are out of vogue these days after two consecutive electoral cycles with high profile Senate overtime elections, but that has not stopped Bullock and Johnson from suggesting that adding runoff elections to the presidential nomination process might help to provide some guardrails against novice and/or extremist candidates. Maybe. 

But the whole concept is premised on the idea that the Republican presidential nomination process is winner-take-all; that a candidate can win a mere plurality by just one vote and still win all of the delegates from a state. It is not. There were 19 truly winner-take-all contests in the 2020 Republican presidential nomination process, meaning that 37 other primaries, caucuses and conventions had some other form of delegate allocation rules. And sure, Bullock and Johnson discussed all of this in the context of Trump's 2016 victory, not 2020. But there were ten fewer truly winner-take-all contests then. 

Look, there may be something to requiring a candidate to win a majority in a primary or caucus in order to win delegates (not to mention broaden a candidate's appeal). But a separate runoff is not necessary in order to accomplish that. In fact, there are already rules on the Republican National Committee (RNC) books that do that and have been in place since the 2012 cycle. Under the rules, states can circumvent the ban on truly winner-take-all rules before March 15 by using a baseline proportional allocation method with a winner-take-all trigger. Candidates have to hit 50 percent of the vote statewide in order to activate that trigger. There were 17 such proportional states in 2020 before and after March 15.

What's more Bullock and Johnson suggest ranked choice voting (RCV) as a means of avoiding the administrative and financial strain a subsequent presidential primary runoff election may place on states. The irony, of course, is that the RCV alternative they propose is the same one that Republican state legislators across the country are considering banning during this current state legislative season. [FHQ really needs to update the 2023 RCV legislation post. But it is the ban legislation that is actually moving through legislatures rather than the bills to institute RCV.]


...
Republican county chairs prefer DeSantis over Trump. This piece was built on survey work that Seth Masket has been doing this cycle. Masket undertook a similar endeavor four years ago in the midst of the Democratic process. His work continues to be invaluable. 


...
Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) doing a CNN town hall will do little to quell the presidential chatter that has quietly operated on the fringes of the Republican invisible primary for some time. That said, some donors have not viewed him as an "all-in candidate" in recent days. That is not to say that the governor cannot rev things up in the money primary at some point, but he would likely have to make that transition to "all-in" first. ...at the very least in the eyes of the donors.


...
On this date...
...in 1992, it was Super Tuesday, but a less super Super Tuesday than the Southern Super Tuesday of the 1988 cycle. Much of the southern states held together again in 1992, but Georgia moved earlier (as allowed under DNC rules that cycle) and states like Alabama, Arkansas and North Carolina moved back to consolidated dates later in the process.

...in 2000, a western subregional primary of sorts was held. Rare Friday primaries in Colorado and Utah and Republican caucuses in Wyoming occurred on March 10. 


Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)