Is confusion inevitable in the Nevada Republican Party primary/caucus situation?

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 belated look at the recent DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire stole the headlines -- and for good reason -- but there was some other interesting stuff that transpired in St. Louis. Some thoughts on Iowa, New Hampshire and all the rest: 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...

In the wake of the filing deadlines passing for both the Nevada presidential primary and the Republican caucuses in the Silver state over the previous two days, Natasha Korecki of NBC News had a piece up about the confusion the two contests may create for Nevada Republican voters next year. 

It is not the first time the notion of voter confusion has arisen in the context of the double dip elections taking place in Nevada in 2024. But it does raise some questions. Why are Nevada voters different from other voters who have encountered similar two-pronged processes like this in past cycles? Why (or maybe how) is the Nevada primary and caucus situation different from states that have had both previously? Is any of this primary/caucus conundrum in the Silver state unique at all? 

First of all, FHQ is of a mind that Nevada voters are not substantively different from voters in, say, Nebraska or Washington. Both had Democratic caucuses for allocating delegates and a state-run beauty contest primary as recently as 2016. Voters did not appear to be anymore confused than usual at the process in either case. Sure, more folks showed up to participate in the primaries than the caucuses, but that is not a new feature of the caucus/convention process. They are low turnout affairs by nature (if not design). 

Yet, one difference between those two sets of contests from 2016 and the Nevada situation in 2024 is their timing, or rather the time between the two events. Nebraska and Washington Democrats had March caucuses before May beauty contest primaries. That two months buffer (and the sequencing!) was different than what will take place in Nevada next February. Only two days will separate the state-run beauty contest primary on February 6 from the Republican party-run caucuses on February 8. And the binding contest will follow the beauty contest. So maybe that is a little different. 

But still, confusion? Texas Democrats did not seem to be muddling through the Texas two-step all those years. For much of the post-reform era Democrats in the Lone Star state held a primary and caucuses on the same day. The primary allocated about two-thirds of the delegates while the post-primary caucuses allocated the remainder later in the evening. [Incidentally, while the Texas two-step died on the Democratic side starting with the 2016 cycle, Republicans in the state have revived it and will use it again in 2024.] Voters seemed to make it through that process. Delegates were allocated. And all of it happened with no buffer between the two contests. 

But the real difference between Nevada in 2024 and some other earlier similar examples is that there will be interesting cross-pressures in the Silver state next year. Some debate-qualifying candidates will be urging Nevadans (at least to some extent) to participate in the primary for which they already have a ballot in the mail. Others, and it is most of the big-name candidates, will be trying to get out the vote in the caucuses two days later. 

That is different than previous examples. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were on the primary and caucus ballots in Nebraska and Washington. Barack Obama and Clinton were both participants in both phases of the Texas two-step in March 2008. None of those candidates were working against another group of candidates who were only vying for delegates or attention in one or the other of the two contests in a given double dip state. 

What this Nevada Republican situation is akin to is like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary in 2008. Under rules new to the DNC that cycle, candidates were not supposed to campaign in states like Michigan (or Florida for that matter) that held unsanctioned primaries earlier than allowed by the national parties. But some Democratic candidates -- Obama and John Edwards among others -- went a step further and removed their names from the January 15 ballot in the Great Lakes state. Clinton did not. The former group asked their supporters to vote for "uncommitted" in the primary in the hopes of swinging some delegates in any subsequent fight, but that Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot had some impact on turnout. 

And it is likely that the split filings across contests will have some impact on turnout in the Nevada beauty contest primary. But that dampening effect and any felt by the primary being a beauty contest may be masked to some extent by the convenience of voting by mail on a ballot provided to all registrants. Even without that masking effect, the turnout is very likely to be higher, if not much higher, in the primary than in the caucus. And participation in the primary may even be a drag on later caucus participation. 

That may or may not also be by design. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the money primary, Nikki Haley scored a coup in winning the support of Florida-based investor, Keith Rabois, who shifted from backing DeSantis to the former UN ambassador.
• Big donors in Tennessee remain on the sidelines, but Donald Trump tops the field in money raised in the Volunteer state followed by South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
• There are only so many statewide endorsements to go around in Iowa and one of the big ones, Attorney General Brenna Bird. has thrown her support behind former President Trump.
• TIM PAC, the super PAC supporting the White House bid by Senator Scott nixed its $40 million ad buy in three early states.
• Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) may still be entertaining a challenge to President Biden for the Democratic nomination, but he appears to be focused on the same unsanctioned contest that Robert Kennedy Jr. was eyeing, New Hampshire. Yeah, the one where the president will not be on the ballot. He has already missed the filing deadline in Nevada.

--

Recent posts:

In Nevada, a choice between a symbolic win and delegates

The incentives of chasing delegates in California's Republican primary

The 14th amendment and presidential primary ballot eligibility

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

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

In Nevada, a choice between a symbolic win and delegates

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...

• Over the weekend, The New York Times had yet another "Trump is working his connections in state parties to affect the delegate rules" stories. The article and others of its ilk keep falling into the same trap in considering the depth of Team Trump's efforts without contextualizing either it or the lacking outreach from other campaigns. It was not all bad, but we go over the good, the bad and the ugly from the piece. 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...

...

Today is the filing deadline in Nevada for the state's newly established presidential primary. It comes a day after filing closed for the Republican caucuses in the Silver state. 

Since the Nevada Republican Party is prohibiting candidates who file in the primary to also file in the caucuses, the nearly overlapping filing deadlines offered a split screen comparison of sorts. Some candidates -- Mike Pence and Tim Scott -- opted for the primary while others -- Donald Trump, Doug Burgum, Chris Christie, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis -- have filed in the caucuses. 

[It is not clear that Nikki Haley filed or not in the caucuses, but if the former UN ambassador has not yet filed in the caucuses, then the primary will be the only remaining option.]

The choice confronting the campaigns is one between a symbolic win in the primary two days before the Nevada Republican caucuses or of claiming some share of a small pool of delegates on the line in the February 8 caucuses. That the campaigns standing behind known quantities like the former vice president and a current US senator from South Carolina (one with significant financial backing) opted to forgo even a small share of delegates suggests something about the state of their campaigns and their thinking about how Nevada fits into the broader 2024 Republican presidential nomination process. 

For starters, the qualifying threshold for delegates in the Nevada caucuses is relatively low. "All candidates who receive the percentage of vote required for one or more delegates" qualify under the standing rules of the Nevada Republican Party. The state party suggests that is roughly 4.5 percent.¹ And all things considered, that is a pretty low bar. 

Yet, Pence and Scott have taken a pass on any of those delegates by filing in the beauty contest state-run primary. That strongly suggests that both campaigns view the odds of succeeding in the caucuses as long and/or that, even set so low, the qualifying threshold is too high. There are also alternative ways of looking at either of those. The odds can be seen as long because the rules put in place for the caucuses by the state party appear to advantage Donald Trump. As for the delegate threshold, it may be less that the bar is too high and more that the payoff is so low in the Silver state. After all, there are just 26 delegates at stake that will be divided among the qualifying candidates. 

Through that lens, the gamble may be worth it to Pence and Scott. A win in a statewide primary -- even a beauty contest -- with likely more participants than the caucuses later in the week may grab some attention. That may be worth something. But what exactly that something equates to is harder to pin down and likely destined to quickly dissipate. The effects may not wear off before the caucuses two days later, but will certainly trail off well in advance of the next contest, the South Carolina Republican primary on February 24. 

Is that worth more than taking some small share of 26 total delegates in Nevada? 

In the very short term (next February), maybe. But long term, probably not. At some point candidates are going to have to start treating the race for the Republican presidential nomination as a process to keep delegates away from Trump. Delegates, after all, are the currency of the process in the end. And whether a campaign views Nevada as a lock for Trump or not, it is probably a mistake to cede any delegates. 

However, it is worth pointing out that the Nevada Republican caucuses of 2024 are not some Harkin-in-Iowa-1992 scenario. Pence and Scott may have opted out of the Silver state contest where candidates are vying for delegates, but others have filed for the caucuses. And that may be enough to trim some delegates from Trump's total in the state. There is no winner-take-all trigger, so there is only so much that the former president can run up the score on the rest of the field. 

Still, proportional states are where the field has to collectively dent Trump's haul.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the filing primary, Tim Scott filed in South Carolina today ahead of the deadline there at the end of the month. And DeSantis opted for the Nevada caucuses on the last day of filing.
• The AP has a go at a Trump-bolsters-his-campaign-in-Iowa story. Folks are making the obvious comparisons to Trump's 2015-16 efforts in Iowa, but here is another: this slow build feels a bit like the pace of the Romney operation the Hawkeye state in 2011. There are differences, of course. Iowa was never really a good fit for Romney in the 2012 cycle. That is not exactly the case for Trump in the state in 2023. But polling suggests a weaker Trump advantage there than nationally. And while Trump 2023 may be emphasizing Iowa differently, he has not exactly pushed all of his chips into the Iowa-or-bust pot. ...because he does not have to. 
• Over in the money primary, Q3 reports continue to be released. President Biden and the DNC jointed posted a $71 million figure for the period ending on September 30. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum raised $3 million in July-September. Former Vice President Pence raked in $3.3 million for the quarter but debt accrued to this point is starting to be a drag.

--

¹ There is some wiggle room on that figure based on the full language of the rule, but that is a story for a separate post. Plus, how NVGOP interprets its own rules matters in this context regardless of any variation in interpretation of the qualifying threshold.

--

Recent posts:

The incentives of chasing delegates in California's Republican primary

The 14th amendment and presidential primary ballot eligibility

About that debate last night...

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

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

Nevada GOP Primary/Caucus Lawsuit Shot Down in Carson City

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...

• Iowa Republicans signaled back in May that they were eyeing a January landing spot for their 2024 caucuses and that the decision was likely to be made at their July state central committee meeting. All of that came to pass this past weekend, but what do the decision and the timing say about the rest of the 2024 presidential primary calendar? 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 Nevada Independent has the latest on the Nevada Republican Party effort to end the newly established presidential primary in the Silver state:

"A Carson City judge has denied a motion by the Nevada Republican Party to block the state from holding a presidential primary election next year in favor of a caucus.

"Judge James Russell issued the ruling from the bench Monday, denying the state party’s lawsuit filed in May challenging a 2021 law moving the state away from a presidential caucus to a primary election."

And NVGOP Chair Michael McDonald indicated late Monday that the party is "prepared for a long fight." But the question continues to be why? The lawsuit and any prolonged legal battle over the primary are entirely unnecessary. 

Don't want the primary? Don't use it. [Nevada Republicans retain the right to opt out of the state-run presidential primary.]

Don't want a Republican primary at all? Don't have the candidates file for it. [The quickest and easiest route out of the primary and to the caucuses that the state party apparently wants is to encourage candidates who actually want delegates from the state to file for the party-run caucuses and not the primary. There will only be a Nevada Republican presidential primary if more than one candidate files with the state.]

The bigger news than the inevitable flop of the lawsuit in the Silver state is confirmation that the Nevada Republican Party intends to hold caucuses in 2024. The lawsuit suggested that that was the case, but the party never really came out and said that. They did over the weekend via their spokesperson in a CNN piece about the Iowa caucuses date. And Chair McDonald further confirmed that intention in his comments on Monday to The Nevada Independent:

McDonald added that the party still intends to hold a caucus in February to allocate the state’s presidential delegates, and is now seeking to avert a state-run primary election to avoid confusing voters and prevent a “huge waste of taxpayer money.”

The question is where on the calendar do these proposed Nevada Republican caucuses end up? Saturday, February 10 -- after the state-run primary -- is a likely destination. That would carve out a spot for the caucuses a little more than two weeks after the (still unsettled but increasingly likely) January 23 New Hampshire primary and two weeks before the South Carolina Republican primary. 

...

Yes, it was inevitable that Republicans would try to use the Democratic National Committee calendar changes against Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidates have been quick to do that in the Granite state. And New Hampshire Democrats are fretting about what that portends for the general election. 

The concern? According to The Messenger, independent voters venturing over to the Republican primary and staying with the party in the fall.

The concern from some New Hampshire Democrats is that independent voters will participate in a more crowded and important GOP primary over the Democratic contest, then stick with the GOP in the general election.

“My biggest fear is that if they become invested in participating in the Republican primary, it's going to be much more difficult to pull them back over for the general election,” said Jim Demers, the state’s former House Democratic Whip. “That’s something we’ve never had to deal with before.”

But the thing is that most of the independents lean toward one party or the other and will behave that way in the general election regardless of the primary in which they opt to participate. However, might that matter if the pure independents opt for the competitive Republican primary in January next year and stick with the Republican nominee in November? It could if Biden dips below his seven point margin in New Hampshire from 2020 in 2024. 

Of course, New Hampshire Democrats have been making this argument since December. Here is what FHQ said then...

Furthermore, they argue that those same independents may stick with the GOP in a general election, potentially tipping the balance against Democrats in a narrowly divided state, and by extension, possibly costing the party Senate control and/or electoral votes.

All of that is true. Those things could happen. But it could also be that President Biden seeks reelection, ends up running largely unopposed, and New Hampshire independents flock to the competitive Republican presidential primary anyway. Is it a gamble for the president and the DNC to potentially irk a sliver to a lot of New Hampshire voters by coming down hard on the state Democratic Party for fighting to maintain its traditional position? It undoubtedly would be if it is not already. But are independents, Democratic-leaning or otherwise, going to vote for a Republican nominee in the Trump mold (or Trump himself) over Biden because of the primary? The answer is maybe (or if one is in New Hampshire, YES!). But that seems to be a gamble the president and those around him are willing to take in this fight. There are very few scenarios where New Hampshire's four electoral votes serve as the tipping point in the electoral college. It is possible although less probable than other, bigger states. And neither New Hampshire US Senate seat is up until 2026. Is that gamble worth it? Time will tell that tale.

The bottom line is that this New Hampshire thing is going to go on for a while with the DNC. And Republicans will try to use that against Democrats in the Granite state. But the battle is over a decreasingly small sliver of pure independents.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• More FEC data is going to become available this week, so it will be a good time to look at the money primary. Nikki Haley's numbers are in and her campaign (not counting affiliated groups) pulled in $7 million in the second quarter. [Trump had already reported a $35 million quarter and DeSantis $20 million.]
• Billionaire North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum will not have trouble raising money but he may have some issues getting on the debate stage next month. The donor threshold has the governor offering $20 gift cards in exchange for a one dollar donation. 
• In another campaign finance innovation (but one not necessarily aimed at debate entry), Vivek Ramaswamy is paying ten percent of donations that participants in Vivek's Kitchen Cabinet raise.
• Not surprisingly, it will be an eventful and event-filled summer in Iowa. 
• In the endorsement primary, Ron DeSantis picked up the first state senate endorsement in New Hampshire. Senator Regina Birdsell, who backed Marco Rubio in 2016, has lined up behind another Floridian for 2024.

...

On this date...

...in 2020, Louisiana held its twice-delayed presidential primary. Biden and Trump won in their respective contests.

--

Recent posts:

Outside groups working against Trump

A different kind of non-endorsement in the Republican presidential race

A mid-week Invisible Primary Roundup

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

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. 

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] Uncertainty and the 2024 Presidential 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. 

--

From Uncertainty and the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar:

The 2024 invisible primary has gotten to a point where more and more folks are starting to look at the calendar of nominating contests that the Republicans vying for the presidential nomination will face next year. And due to the proximity to the beginning of primary season seven-ish months away, the order of those contests is taking on increasing importance. 

But here things are, seven months or so from the kickoff of primary season 2024, and uncertainty remains. And it exists at the very beginning of the calendar. There is not one Republican primary or caucus in any state that has an official date on the calendar before Super Tuesday. Or stated differently, every state one might expect to fall before Super Tuesday in 2024 has at least one caveat that makes it impossible to know exactly where those states may end up when the calendar dust settles.

Now, some of us are of a mind that all of this will shake out with some drama over the coming months, but limited drama. It all depends on the moves the various players make. Here are a few of the moves about which there is uncertainty, but from which the calendar answers will come.

• Michigan Republicans: Do Republicans in the Great Lakes state opt into the late February presidential primary or choose to select and allocate national convention delegates in a party-run caucus/convention process? The party is in a bind either way (but this will not directly affect the earlier protected states in the Republican process).

• Nevada Republicans: Same question, different state Republican party: Do Nevada Republicans opt into the state-run presidential primary on February 6 or decide to use a slightly later (but before a Michigan Republican primary) caucus/convention process? The later caucus option may save Republicans from starting primary season in early instead of mid-January. [And just this week, there were signals from Silver state Republicans that they are aiming for caucuses.]

• South Carolina Republicans: Theoretically, the decision here will hinge to some degree on what Michigan and Nevada decide. But what Palmetto state Republicans decide is also colored by the political custom in the state for the parties have (state-run) primaries on 1) a Saturday and 2) on different days. Breaking from those traditions may provide some additional leeway, but they are traditions for a reason. If Nevada Republicans opt into the primary in the Silver state, then South Carolina Republicans would likely have a primary no later than February 3 alongside Democrats in the state. However, if they follow tradition, then Republicans in the first-in-the-South primary state would likely hold a primary a week earlier on January 27. And that would leave Iowa and New Hampshire with a very narrow sliver of calendar in which to operate (under the traditional rules of calendar engagement).

• New Hampshire: The secretary of state in the Granite state -- the person who makes the primary scheduling decision -- is cross-pressured on two sides, sandwiched between the decisions Iowa and South Carolina actors may make. But the South Carolina Democratic primary is scheduled for February 3. That means that the New Hampshire primary will be no later than January 23, on a Tuesday at least seven days before any other similar election. South Carolina Republicans may push that a little earlier if they schedule a January primary. On the other side, Iowa Democrats' decision to conduct a vote-by-mail presidential preference vote raises red flags in New Hampshire because it too closely resembles a primary. But there is no date for the conclusion of that preference vote. If that vote concludes on caucus night, whenever in January that ends up, then that could draw New Hampshire to an even earlier date ahead of Iowa.

• Iowa Republicans: Decision makers within the Republican Party of Iowa are also stuck to some extent; stuck between what Iowa Democrats are planning and what New Hampshire's secretary of state may do in response. But the party is mostly stuck because decision makers seem to want to make a decision on the caucus date for 2024 some time early this summer when there may not yet be enough information to make a decision that protects the traditional calendar order in the Republican process. Waiting for Iowa Democrats' preference vote (conclusion) date to settle is likely to resolve much of this drama at the very front end of the calendar. 

The takeaway is that there is some uncertainty that is sure to create some drama over the final calendar, but it is uncertainty that can be boiled down to a handful of decisions in a handful of states. Admittedly, it can go in a number of different directions -- choose your own adventure! -- but there is a pretty narrow range of possibilities. 

Follow the evolving calendar here.

--

[Side note: FHQ likes the Ballotpedia way of looking at the primary calendar. While FHQ attempts to explain all of the chaos away (or to put it into context), their model is simpler: what is confirmed. But if one is going to do that, then one has to actually confirm confirmed primary dates. Ballotpedia lists Colorado as confirmed for Super Tuesday. Now, FHQ fully expects that that is where the presidential primary in the Centennial state ends up in 2024. The secretary of state has it on the calendar. The Colorado Democratic Party has it in their delegate selection plan. But the date is not official yet. The secretary of state and the governor make that decision. And nothing has been said publicly about that yet. For comparison, Governor Polis announced the 2020 presidential primary date at the end of April 2019. By law, decision makers have until September 1 of this year to set the date.]

--

Recent posts:

Real Talk: FHQ has to roll its eyes at coverage of this new caucus law in Iowa. It's bad.

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

Nevada Republicans Sue to Restore Presidential Caucuses

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

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