State of the Race: Iowa -- Is the race for the Hawkeye state's 6 electoral votes really that close?

State of the Race offers quick hit reactions to state or national poll releases in the 2024 race for the White House. For a broader overview of the battle for electoral college votes, check out FHQ Plus. It is home to the 2024 FHQ electoral college projection. Much more there. Subscribe below.

--

Let's talk about this Iowa Poll from the Des Moines Register that was released this morning. It is one of those surveys that has the potential to grab attention heading into the week ahead. And sure, some folks are bound to take it and run with it. First thing's first... 

Yes, the Selzer and Co. poll of the Hawkeye state finds former President Donald Trump up only four points on Vice President Harris, 47-43. And yes, that is a marked departure from where things ended up four years ago in the Hawkeye state when the then-president took the state's six electoral votes with a 53-45 percent victory. Both 2024 candidates, then, are running behind the 2020 nominees in the state with Trump lagging further behind his own pace than Harris is Biden's. 

But the newly released poll also differs from the previous Iowa Poll released in June before the Atlanta debate between Biden and Trump. Before even factoring in that debate -- the event that ultimately led to Biden's exit -- the president was trailing Trump 50-32 in the Hawkeye state. Harris, then, has cut more than three-quarters into that deficit in the environment immediately following her own debate this last week with Trump. 

Comparing this poll to both the 2020 results in Iowa and the most recent poll -- a bit of an apples to oranges comparison -- would by extension give one the impression that the race for the six electoral votes in 2024 is quite close. It is certainly closer than those two benchmarks!

But here is the thing: 2024 has not exactly offered a bumper crop of polling data out of the Hawkeye state. In fact, this Selzer poll is the first such survey from Iowa since Biden stepped aside and Harris was formally nominated by the Democratic National Convention. Let me repeat that: this is the only public data on the Harris-Trump race in Iowa right now. Counting the September Selzer poll of Iowa in 2020, there had been 18 surveys of the state by this point in the initial Biden-Trump race. By election day there had been 46 surveys of the state. 

The data, then, is woefully lacking in 2024 at least by comparison. And couple that also with the fact that the 2020 polling missed pretty badly in Iowa. It was close with respect to Biden's share of support, overstating it by around two points. However, the Iowa polling in 2020 understated Trump support by nearly six points. 

Look, the 2024 race is not destined to have a polling miss or even have one that looks like (or about like) the error in 2020. It is much too early to come to that conclusion. So I don't want to go too far down that road. However, I do want to raise that in the context of this latest survey. But at this point, the more important factor is that there just is not that much to go in Iowa right now. 

Does this poll present a race that may be closer than expected? Sure, but what is the expectation? That is where the lack of polling data comes into play. Based on the regression-based prediction for under-polled states that FHQ has been running this cycle, regressing the 2020 presidential results on the available state-level survey data, this Iowa Poll from the Register is a couple of points closer than the projected margin between Harris and Trump in the state. 

That is to say that the poll is closer, but not as much as some of the other comparisons above might suggest. It would be more in line with the normal sort of variability one would see from poll to poll. And following last week's debate performance, one might expect a race that maybe contracted by a couple of points, drawing the vice president closer.

More on the rest of the day's polling here.

--

Recent Posts:

State of the Race: New Mexico -- Still leaning but trending which way?

State of the Race: Texas -- A repeat of 2020?

State of the Race: Virginia -- Is the presidential contest close in the commonwealth?

--

Follow FHQ on Bluesky, Threads and Twitter/X. Or subscribe to receive posts in your Inbox. 

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

State of the Race: New Mexico -- Still leaning but trending which way?

State of the Race offers quick hit reactions to state or national poll releases in the 2024 race for the White House. For a broader overview of the battle for electoral college votes, check out FHQ Plus in the coming days. It will be where the 2024 FHQ electoral college projection resides.

--

Note that in the first few iterations of this State of the Race series that FHQ has not exactly run to where the action is: the seven battlegrounds on which the Harris and Trump campaigns are focusing the majority of their efforts. As in the national polls, the most competitive states have seen a shift in the Democrats' direction since President Biden stepped back from the race in late July. 

However, our sights have initially been set on states that had formerly looked newly competitive after the June 27 debate or the ones that might become more competitive in the event that the pendulum swung back further in the other direction since Vice President Harris was elevated to Democratic nominee. Early evidence out of Virginia -- one of New Mexico's peer states in 2020 -- is that the newly constituted Harris-Trump race may be closer than was the case four years ago. In other words, the Old Dominion has not exactly snapped back into a position in the polling that one might expect given a post-exit uniform swing across the country. On the other hand, Texas did, coming in more in line with where the Lone Star state ended up on election day in 2020. 

Of the two, New Mexico -- at least in this latest look at the Harris-Trump race -- more closely resembles Texas. The Emerson survey of the Land of Enchantment for The Hill -- 51-40, Harris -- finds the vice president behind where Biden wound up four years ago: just above 50 percent (in the results to the multi-candidate question). Meanwhile, Trump also lags the pace he set in 2020 (44 percent) by about the same margin. [Neither are big enough departures from the 2020 results to be considered outside of the margin of error really.]

But there are a couple of broader points to make in the context of this New Mexico survey. First, sure, this is more evidence of a regression to the mean since Harris entered the race. And the thing is that the polling was actually pretty good in New Mexico four years ago. It undershot both candidates by about the same amount and more or less projected the final margin on election day. Additionally, it is noteworthy that Harris and Trump are already in range of where Biden and Trump were in the state at the end in 2020. But second, one should exercise some caution in drawing too many strong parallels in any state to the 2020 race -- at least at this point in 2024. At this juncture, the connection is something that could be considered more coincidental or the mark of a race in a state that has not just not changed that much. 

It is, however, important to kind of get our bearings here in 2024; to establish that in the case of New Mexico, things look like a steady state. 

...pending more data.

For now, news that New Mexico is flirting with pushing into the Strong Harris category is all one really needs to know about whether the state may be drawn into a more competitive position.

--

Recent Posts:

State of the Race: Texas -- A repeat of 2020?

State of the Race: Virginia -- Is the presidential contest close in the commonwealth?

--

Follow FHQ on Bluesky, Threads and Twitter/X. Or subscribe to receive posts in your Inbox. 

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

State of the Race: Texas -- A repeat of 2020?

State of the Race offers quick hit reactions to state or national poll releases in the 2024 race for the White House. For a broader overview of the battle for electoral college votes, check out FHQ Plus in the coming days. It will be where the 2024 FHQ electoral college projection resides.

--

Texas was one of those states that looked closer in the averages than it ended up being on election day in 2020. Sure, the Lone Star state still tilted in Donald Trump's direction, but as in a number of other states, Biden ultimately settled into a position in the averages that was close to where he landed in the voting while Trump's share was underestimated to some degree.

In Texas, that discrepancy was a little more than four points. And when that was added into the mix in November 2020, it meant a state that looked like it may be a toss up (less than five points) in the projections as election day approached wound up more firmly planted in leaning (five to ten points) territory when the final tally came in. 

So, it was in that context in which FHQ first observed the latest data on the 2024 presidential race in the Lone Star state from the University of Houston/YouGov: Trump -- 49.5, Harris -- 44.6 (multi-candidate question). First, it is worth noting that the outlet previously had a survey in the field in Texas during a late June/early July window that straddled the Biden-Trump debate. While Trump basically held steady between the two, Harris improved upon Biden's position, roughly cutting the Republican's advantage in half. 

That lens is helpful, but at this point in a race that is still settling in following Biden's exit, the context from 2020 is just as important. No, past is not necessarily prelude, but note that 1) the margin in the UH survey is similar to where the 2020 Biden-Trump race ended up in Texas and that 2) both 2024 candidates are in the range of but behind where Biden and Trump found themselves in the state on election day four years ago. 

However, the most important thing, and something FHQ will increasingly discuss as November 5 approaches, is that Donald Trump is more consistently at or above 50 percent in Texas polls now. [Yes, it is still early days in this race and one should use some caution in generalizing from the scant Texas data available at this time.] But that was not a given in 2020. 

Things can change. After all, presidential races have the capacity to be dynamic. Yet, there is a reason the focus is on seven battleground states (not including Texas) and that map expansion from the Democratic perspective is solely focused on North Carolina and not, say, Florida and/or Texas as well. 

--

Recent Posts:

State of the Race: Virginia -- Is the presidential contest close in the commonwealth?

--

Follow FHQ on Bluesky, Threads and Twitter/X. Or subscribe to receive posts in your Inbox. 

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

State of the Race: Virginia -- Is the presidential contest close in the commonwealth?

State of the Race offers quick hit reactions to state or national poll releases in the 2024 race for the White House. For a broader overview of the battle for electoral college votes, check out FHQ Plus in the coming days. It will be where the 2024 FHQ electoral college projection resides.

--

Back in the spring the polls of the presidential race in the Old Dominion showed President Biden ahead of Donald Trump. In and of itself, that was not surprising. After all, the president did win the commonwealth by a hair more than ten points in 2020. But noticeably, Biden's advantage there was smaller than four years ago. 

The June 27 debate had the effect of contracting the margin further. Suddenly, a state that had ceased being purple and was just plan old blue in cycles featuring Trump at the top of the Republican ticket looked more competitive. And in some cases, the polling in Virginia in the aftermath of the Atlanta debate found the former president ahead. 

Virginia, then, looked a lot like a number of other states that have been out of reach for Republicans on the other side of the toss ups in the leans category (a 5-10 point advantage) of late. Only, post-debate, states of that ilk -- Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia among them -- seemed to be within the margin of error. In other words, the balance had shifted in the order of states. Trump was at that time in position to claim all of the battlegrounds and push into more reliably Democratic states, nudging his projected electoral vote total well north of 300.

Yet, now that Kamala Harris is the Democratic nominee, Virginia is one of states where one might expect at least some regression to the mean. That is, with Biden out of the equation, the drag he presented should be expected to abate some. 

However, the first survey of the state after the debate did not follow that expectation. If anything, the latest poll in the series from Roanoke College continues to make Virginia look more competitive. The vice president leads 45-42 based on the results of the multi-candidate question, closer than 2020 and even closer than Clinton-Trump in 2016. 

So, what gives? Is Virginia not snapping back into line like the race seems to be in some similar states or in national polls? A few thoughts:

First, the usual caveat: This is just one poll. It is a snapshot of Harris-Trump in mid-August. 

However, compounding matters is the fact that this is not just one poll. It is the only poll conducted in Virginia since Biden withdrew from the race on July 21. As such, there is not a whole lot out there to compare the numbers to other than a handful of surveys that were in the field in the Old Dominion during the snow globe-shaking period in the presidential race between the first presidential debate and Biden's exit. 

That is why the comparison to other similar states is of importance. Actually, that is the only thing left to tether this to. This Roanoke poll of Virginia seems "off" not because there is no preceding poll in the series -- there is, but it was conducted in May and of the Biden-Trump race -- or other recent polls of the state from other firms. Rather, it seems "off" because it shows Virginia diverging from the polling shift/reversion in those other states -- Minnesota, New Hampshire and New Mexico. The data there all point to races that are roughly in line -- the margins, anyway -- with the results from November 2020. 

The bottom line? 

Wait for more polling from Virginia. This survey may be right on the nose, but it will take some more data to confirm that. 

--

Follow FHQ on Bluesky, Threads and Twitter/X. Or subscribe to receive posts in your Inbox. 

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

A mid-week Invisible Primary Roundup

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...

• Idaho Republicans voted over the weekend to hold caucuses next year contingent on there not being a March presidential primary in the Gem state. And there appears to be no momentum to bring the state legislature back for a special session to fix that. 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 cited the recent Saint Anselm's poll of New Hampshire in yesterday's Invisible Primary: Visible, using the results for another exercise in early state delegate allocation. But a couple of other observations:

• General election match ups were polled -- the first in the series (so there is no direct comparison) -- and President Biden was comfortably ahead of both Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis by the same 49-40 margin. Trump and DeSantis both ran further behind Trump's 2020 vote share in the Granite state (45 percent) than Biden did his (53 percent). Yes, it is one poll in one state 16 months before the next general election, the participants in which have not been identified yet. But that difference does not exactly suggest that Biden will be penalized in New Hampshire for the 2024 calendar shake up on the Democratic side. That is something to continue to eye (but probably in 2024).
• Speaking of delegate allocation, neither Kennedy nor Williamson are close to qualifying for delegates in New Hampshire mired in the single digits in this survey. It does not speak to a groundswell of support for a Biden alternative (in a state where the president may not be on the primary ballot).

...

There are by no means no perils in Democrats changing the early state lineup on the 2024 presidential primary calendar, but this piece overstates just how "messy" things are. Folks, let the process play out. There is no date for the Iowa Democratic mail-in preference vote. If it comes in noncompliant, then one can cross the "mess" bridge. And seriously, Iowa Democrats are playing the game differently than their counterparts in New Hampshire. 

And New Hampshire? Well, that may end up being a mess and it may not. Perhaps Democrats in the Granite state will go the way of a (compliant) party-run process in the end. No, that is maybe not likely, but that possibility does exist and goes unmentioned in that piece. It is not just the DNC who can budge in this process. New Hampshire Democrats could defuse the situation as well.

...

Over at Tusk, Seth Market has a peek inside the news coverage of the Republican nomination race. And it is kind of revealing.

...

Ad spending has topped $70 million in the Republican presidential race. Who is spending where? Trump is on cable, DeSantis is focused on Iowa and South Carolina -- Never Back Down has this ad running during the nightly news on the regular in the Palmetto state in recent days -- and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum is throwing a lot at New Hampshire. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the endorsement primary, another raft of state legislative endorsements came the way of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. 19 legislators, including the House Majority Leader Josh Bell threw their support behind DeSantis. So did Supreme Court Justice Phil Berger, Jr. 
• South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem does not appear inclined to join the growing field of contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, noting that "right now" there is no path for someone other than Trump. [This really cannot be considered winnowing. Although Noem's name was mentioned in those assessing possible candidate for 2024, she never really did the sorts of things that prospective candidates do.]

--

Recent posts:

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

DeSantis Deemphasizing New Hampshire?

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

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

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

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Trump's Inevitability?

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

The invisible primary buzzword of the last 24 hours or so (if not longer) has been inevitability. As in, the impression is forming that Trump is looking like the inevitable Republican presidential nominee in 2024. It pops up in The Washington Post. And there it is in Politico as well. If one is in Trump World's orbit, then that is likely the impression they want. 

The slow yet methodical drip, drip, drip of endorsements over the course of the last few weeks may have been engineered to serve as a symbol of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's flagging support, but during the same span of time, his poll numbers began to dip and the former president's rise. It has been a well-played move by the 45th president's team before DeSantis even formally enters the race. And with no one else even threatening to break into double digit support as the invisible primary marches on, that certainly buoys the notion of Trump as inevitable. 

But is he? 

The first thing to note here is that there just is not a long and deep history of losing presidents coming back to run again. Not in the post-reform era anyway. And honestly, that trend stretches back much further into the 20th century than that. But FHQ raises that fact to suggest that as far as inevitability goes, a former president, in the abstract, would be well-positioned (if not best-positioned) to be granted inevitability status. And that has been the case for Trump. That has not changed. 

What has changed is that the attacks on DeSantis have put the governor on the defensive and he has not exactly answered the call (yet). Those attacks have worked. Additionally, Trump has been indicted. And those charges against the former president in court in Manhattan have done what threats to Trump did during his presidency (and post-presidency): they have rallied Republican support (in the near term).  

So, as long as endorsements keep coming in for Trump and his poll numbers continue to rise, there will be fuel to stoke the fires of inevitability chatter. And that may be enough. That perception may be enough stunt the growth of and effectively end any challenge to Trump for the nomination even before one vote is cast. That is definitely what Team Trump wants. But it is still relatively early -- even if it can get late early in the invisible primary -- and best-positioned though Trump may be at this time, the one thing the former president continues to invite is uncertainty. 

We may be getting a clearer picture of how a former president may do if he or she were to run for renomination for the first time in quite some time, but Trump is unique because of all the baggage he brings. He is polarizing for starters, but he also has additional potential criminal charges looming over him. He may be or become inevitable, but that uncertainty will continue to animate support for alternatives in the Republican nomination process. Voters and donors will look around now and into the future, and possible candidates will in the near term entertain if not act on their ambitions to challenge the former president. 

And those two forces -- inevitability and uncertainty -- will continue to collide over the next month or two as the field of candidates solidifies. Both bear watching.

...

Number of the day: 62. FHQ is often quick to dismiss polls at this stage of the invisible primary. That does not mean I do not look at them. It means I do not put too much stock into them at this point. Still, sometimes those surveys catch my eye. Take the recent Emerson poll of the Republican primary race and the Fox News poll of the Democratic presidential field. In the former, Trump is at 62 percent. And in the latter, Biden sits at 62 percent. Those numbers from individual polls do not necessarily mean anything, but folks will talk about those two 62s very differently. Trump's 62 suggests, well, inevitability while Biden's 62, some would argue, shows weakness. 

...

Nevertheless, he persisted. Trump may be inevitable, but there has not been any reporting to suggest that DeSantis is second-guessing a bid for the Republican nomination. In fact, with the Florida legislature set to wrap up its work early next month, that sets up the governor in the Sunshine state to throw his hat in the ring in the not-too-distant future. NBC is reporting that DeSantis will waste little time and announce an exploratory committee soon after the legislature adjourns. 

Additionally, The Guardian discusses the staff assembling in Tallahassee for an actual (not super PAC-run shadow) DeSantis campaign.

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Those presidential primaries or primary moves in Hawaii, Missouri and Ohio? Well, the week has not been kind to any of the efforts across that trio of states. 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.

...

On this date...

...in 1976, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter (D) and President Gerald Ford (R) won their respective primaries in Pennsylvania. North Dakota Democrats caucused and Pennsylvania Governor Milton Schapp (D) withdrew from the Democratic presidential nomination race.

...in 1992, Republicans in Utah held caucuses.

...in 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry (D) took the Pennsylvania primary.

...in 2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), trailing Donald Trump in the delegate count for the Republican nomination, named former candidate Carly Fiorina his running mate on a short-lived ticket that did not fundamentally alter the race heading into the Indiana primary the following week.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Hutchinson's Turn to (Officially) Jump in

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Biden's In

Invisible Primary: Visible -- For 2024, a Frankenstein's monster of 2015 parts 

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

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

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Long-Haul Strategy of Team DeSantis

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

Henry Gomez and Matt Dixon over at NBC had a nice look at the emerging delegate strategy of the budding DeSantis campaign. A few reactions...

1. Before I even clicked on the link, my first thought was, "Yeah, Jeff Roe was brought onto the staff at the super PAC and Ken Cuccinelli is running the show over there. This will be a delegate strategy story." It was. Both were involved in the Cruz delegate operation in 2016. Put a pin in that.
2. Folks linking to this piece keep interpreting it as a "skipping" story. As in, this DeSantis strategy entails skipping Iowa, New Hampshire and the other early states. I did not read it that way. This strikes me as a strategy not unlike that of the former president's. It is a strategy built on the notion that the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race could go on for a while next year. Donald Trump is well-positioned to go the distance. And Ron DeSantis is demonstrating that he at least potentially has the resources, financial and otherwise, to do the same. This behavior is less about skipping those early states than thinking about the full primary calendar. Look, a lot of the 2016 Republican candidates traveled widely in 2015, and not just to the earliest states. There was this whole discussion about whether the SEC primary was working. Working, that is, in the sense that the collective movement of southern states to Super Tuesday would draw candidate attention to the region. Visits occurred to the South and elsewhere, but none of them skipped Iowa, New Hampshire or any of the other early states. Well, some of the candidates did. They skipped the later early states after withdrawing. DeSantis may pepper other states with visits, but keep an eye on him and others as Iowa and New Hampshire approach. They will not be skipping either. 
3. The most interesting part of the article was this peek into the thinking from inside Team DeSantis. “One thing that we have looked at is that Trump can be beat on the delegate portion of all this. He has never been good at that.” That is straight out of the Cruz playbook from 2016. And it made sense in 2016. In 2023-24? Eh, maybe. Maybe not. This can be filed into that category of "Where is Trump this cycle? Closer to 2015 or 2019?" Trump will have for 2024 some institutional advantages within the party at the state level that he did not have in 2015. He definitely had that in 2019 and worked that to his advantage in the 2020 delegate game. Those connections still exist. But are they as strong? That is the question. And that matters for who fills the delegate slots that are allocated to candidates based on the results of primaries and caucuses across the country. Will those folks selected to fill those allocated slots be as firmly in Trump's corner or can other campaigns potentially exploit the divorce between the allocation and selection processes in the Republican nomination in the way that Cruz did in 2016? RNC rules may make that more difficult for challengers to Trump in 2024. This is the story. Focus on that.

...

Anything you can do, I can do better. DeSantis scored a congressional endorsement this week and the Trump campaign then conveniently rolled out an endorsement from a member of Congress from right in DeSantis' backyard. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) threw his support behind Donald Trump.

...

Yeah, those head-to-head Republican primary poll results keep popping up. This time it was a one-on-one between Trump and DeSantis in Iowa (with parallel numbers for a wider race as well). On the one hand, these head-to-heads are make believe. They capture a race that does not exist and very likely will not exist when voting commences in 2024. There will be more candidates in the race, at least initially, than merely Trump and DeSantis. But the supposed value added is to demonstrate that Trump is more vulnerable in a one-on-one race. That is another hypothesis that finds its roots in 2016 and may or may not have been true then anymore than it is now. 

The assumption nestled in all of this, of course, is that DeSantis has the best shot to take down Trump (but can only do so if the others get out of the way). But that is only a partial test. It only gets part of the way toward an answer because it only consistently tests one alternative against Trump. How do the other candidates do head-to-head with Trump? Better or worse than in a multi-candidate race? Clearly, the retort here is likely to be that other candidates are not tested against Trump because they are in single digits in the multi-candidate polls. Fair, but why trust the multi-candidate polls in that case and not for measuring how DeSantis is doing against Trump? 

The head-to-heads only offer spin opportunities for the campaigns. They certainly do not tell us much about how voters and the field will react once votes are actually cast in a multi-candidate race in the early states next year and voters in subsequent states begin to process that information. That picture will develop and change.

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Thursday was a busy day for presidential primary bill movement across the country. There were a variety of changes in Idaho, Maryland and Missouri.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale won the Wisconsin Democratic caucuses, days after Gary Hart claimed victory in the beauty contest primary. [The caucuses were used to allocate delegates.]

...in 1988, Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) withdrew from the Democratic nomination race, just a few weeks after his lone win in his home state primary. 

...in 1992, Bill Clinton took the Wisconsin primary, and President George H.W. Bush swept primaries in Kansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

[As a fun aside, a representative from the Kansas secretary of state's office recently testifying before a committee about the presidential primary bill in the Sunflower state noted that the state held a rare presidential primary in 1992. That was a function of a request, he said, from Bob Dole to ensure that delegates went to the president and not potentially Pat Buchanan in a caucus.]

...in 2015, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) entered the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. 

...in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden won the delayed and then not delayed Wisconsin primary.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Biden Gets Another Challenger

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Doug Burgum Ducks Presidential Questions Back Home

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Tim Scott Staffs Up

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

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

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Tim Scott Staffs Up

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

The essential Caitlyn Byrd at the Charleston Post and Courier has the latest on the moves a Tim Scott-aligned super PAC has made in the staff primary. Opportunity Matters Fund Action has brought on both Matt Moore and Mark Knoop, a pair with deep ties in the Palmetto state. Moore, the one-time South Carolina Republican Party chair is a big get for Scott in a cycle in which South Carolina operatives have some tough choices to make with two home-state candidates in the running at the presidential level. Knoop was most recently a part of current Governor Henry McMaster's (R-SC) reelection effort in 2022.

Both hires say something about Scott's positioning in a Republican presidential nomination race. Yes, there is the Scott against (former governor) Nikki Haley angle, and these hires definitely say something about that battle within the state. However, that both operatives have South Carolina ties does raise some questions. First, is the field of Republican candidates so deep that Scott is left to choose from among those campaign hands closest at hand in South Carolina? Second, what do the hires suggest about the strategy of a Scott campaign? It is likely South Carolina or bust to start for Scott at the very least, so putting some to a lot of eggs in that basket is almost essential. And South Carolina is a big piece in the early calendar. Unlike the other three states, Palmetto state Republicans do not allocate their delegates in a proportional manner. They use a hybrid system that is likely to give the winner of the primary a pretty healthy net delegate advantage coming out of the most delegate-rich state on the early calendar. 

But these hires probably say more about strategy than they do about any "dregs" Scott has been left to sift through to staff a presidential campaign. Moore and Knoop are not dregs. 

...

Donald Trump has been able to raise more than $7 million since the Manhattan indictment came down late last week, but the former president is not the only candidate (or likely candidate) with ample resources in the money primary. Never Back Down, the super PAC backing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has raked in north of $30 million in a little less than a month. Money is not everything, but these are staggering sums that give both men a leg up on the competition for the Republican nomination. And that is what the press releases about these totals are intended to signal to every other candidate: Think twice about getting in. Resistance is futile. Despite the signals, those who are running or considering a run, do not seem to have been deterred. Not yet, at least. 

...

A few polling quick hits (maybe against my better judgment):

• A new St. Anselm's poll of the Republican primary race in New Hampshire had Trump leading DeSantis, 42 percent to 29 percent. Governor Chris Sununu (R-NH), who is also considering a bid, was the only other candidate in double digits at 14 percent. That would be enough to get Sununu in the delegate count -- New Hampshire Republicans use the 10 percent qualifying threshold called for in state law -- but is hardly the kind of support that a home-state candidate would like to tout. It certainly is not the kind of support that would keep other candidates away from New Hampshire over the next nine plus months. Sununu, at this point, is no Tom Harkin and Iowa 1992. 
• Gov. DeSantis Holds Slight Lead Over Donald Trump Among Florida Voters. Without even looking at the numbers, Florida is set to hold a presidential primary on March 19. Two weeks after Super Tuesday. Likely two months after New Hampshire. Those events, not to mention the remainder of the invisible primary, will have A LOT to say about the situation in the Sunshine state in 2024. But sure, one Florida candidate has a small advantage over another Florida candidate in one poll eleven and a half months before a contest that is on few voters' radars. 
• Trump has ‘commanding lead’ over DeSantis in Massachusetts Republican primary poll conducted after indictment. I mean, see above, but with one caveat: Trump can be two things at once. Yes, the former president more than doubles the support DeSantis received in that survey. But he also falls short of majority support. It is the latter that will have much more to say about "commanding" leads next year. Majority support triggers winner-take-all allocations in a lot of states in the Republican process. Massachusetts included (as of this writing). 

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• If Democrats in the Kansas House were unified like their co-partisans in the state Senate, then the Sunflower state would likely be headed for a state-run presidential primary for 2024. Instead, they split (with most in the Democratic House leadership against), and the bill to bring back the primary died.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below.

...

On this date...

...in 1972, George McGovern (D-SD) won the Wisconsin primary and former New York Mayor John Lindsay withdrew from the Democratic presidential race. 

...in 1988, George H.W. Bush won the Colorado Republican caucuses. 

...in 2000, both Al Gore and George W. Bush swept the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin primaries (in nomination races each had already clinched).

...in 2011, President Barack Obama announced he was seeking the Democratic nomination and running for reelection. [No, Biden still have not done likewise.]

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Texas as Trump's Firewall?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Donald Trump has been indicted

Introducing FHQ Plus

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

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

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Think, for just a sec, about those early presidential primary polls

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

FHQ has not weighed in on the polling that continues to be conducted on the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race. Honestly, it takes me three and a half years to get over crunching poll numbers for electoral college projections to want to dig into polling in any in-depth way anyway. But also, it is too early to divine much of anything from the polling that has been coming out in recent days. 

However, polling on that race is coming out frequently and regularly enough. Natalie Jackson offers some sage advice on those surveys over at National Journal:

I know better than to hope for widespread sanity in reporting on the horse race, but I’m still going to put out the plea. Please think critically about the numbers and arguments presented, whether you’re a reporter being fed numbers by a partisan pollster that is shopping them around or you’re a reader consuming what that reporter wrote up. There’s a reason some media outlets won’t report on private partisan polls: They’re usually being distributed for a specific purpose to drive a narrative that benefits their candidate. It’s manipulative, not informative.

It is not quite "ignore those polls!" in the Bernsteinian sense, but instead it is "wait a tick and think some about those polls before incorporating them in any way into one's thinking about the 2024 Republican race." Too true. If you have not already started, always read Natalie.

And as an aside, she is absolutely right about any two-way polls (something FHQ obliquely hinted at in the staff primary section of Monday's Invisible Primary: Visible). Those should not get anything other than a collective eyeroll from everyone. There is no two-way race!

...

Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is headed to the Super Tuesday state of Utah next month to keynote the Republican state convention in the Beehive state. And it appears that there is already evidence of some structural support for a DeSantis bid in the state. No, it is not necessarily coming from the state party -- although the keynote in front of the convention does not say nothing -- but instead, the interest is coming from the county party level. Taking a page out of Seth Masket's book, the Deseret News spoke with county Republican chairs in 22 of the 29 counties in Utah. Two-thirds of the chairs contacted indicated they were willing to support DeSantis while just fewer than half named Trump.

The former president struggled in Utah during the 2016 primaries when the state party conducted caucuses, losing bigly to Ted Cruz. But the state has subsequently switched to a primary and the signal of institutional support for DeSantis may or may not translate as easily -- even from the county level -- in that setting as opposed to caucuses. Utah is a sleeper contest to watch on Super Tuesday (...depending, of course, on how the early contests go, not to mention the remainder of the invisible primary).

...

The effort to establish a presidential primary in Kansas is a Republican-driven one, but it looks like the Democratic Party in the Sunflower state is supportive of the change (even if it is only for the 2024 cycle):

"The Kansas Democratic Party has expressed tentative support for a state-run primary. Newly-elected chair Jeanna Repass said it’s extremely expensive for the party to essentially conduct its own statewide election. She said if the party holds a caucus using a mail-in ballot, the printing and postage would cost upwards of $800,000. 

“'Initially, we view this favorably because of the undue financial burden this puts on the individual state parties to run a presidential primary,' Repass said."

And it is not just about the cost savings to the state party. The national party has had rules in place the last two cycles that have nudged state Democratic parties to use state-run primary options where available to increase participation in the nomination process. Already in 2023, state parties in Alaska and North Dakota -- traditional caucus states with no state-run primary option -- have signaled that they will once again opt for party-run primaries rather than lower turnout caucuses for 2024. Kansas Democrats did the same in 2020. So it was an open question when the presidential primary bill was introduced whether Sunflower state Democrats would jump at the state-run option. 

That question appears to have been answered. 

...

On this date...

...in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush ran away with the Connecticut primary, and on the Democratic side, Michael Dukakis took the primary in the Nutmeg state. Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) withdrew from the Democratic nomination race after having previously won three contests including the Iowa caucuses.

...in 2016, Governor Scott Walker (R) endorsed Ted Cruz for the Republican presidential nomination, part of a late establishment push against a possible Donald Trump nomination.

--

Recent posts:

Alaska Democrats Will Hold an April 6 Party-Run Presidential Primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- South Carolina's Position in the Republican Nomination Process

North Dakota Democrats Aim for April 6 Party-Run Primary 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. 

Washington Post Poll: 2012 GOP Primary Race

From The Washington Post:

Q: If the 2012 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, for whom would you vote?

[Click to Enlarge]

Yes, Sarah Palin is leading here, but the real news -- to FHQ anyway -- is that half of the survey respondents in this case either chose no one/other, wouldn't vote or had no opinion one way or the other about the 2012 Republican nomination. That is an awfully high number compared to other similar polls conducted during 2009. Granted, the question was slightly different than some of the other surveys we have seen on this subject as well. In other instances, names were provided, but respondents in the Washington Post were asked not to recognize names but to recall them. In that regard, it isn't terribly surprising that Palin -- someone with the most name recognition currently -- led the list. That neither Huckabee nor Romney fared any better than they did -- 10% and 9% respectively -- was also surprising. [And no, FHQ does not attribute Huckabee's pardon trouble for any of this since the story broke after the poll.]

And no one candidate cleared the 20% barrier either.

Poll: Washington Post
Margin of Error: +/- 4%, +/-5%
Sample: 485 Republicans and 319 Republican-leaning independents (nationwide)
Conducted: November 19-23, 2009


Recent Posts:
Rasmussen 2012 Trial Heats (Nov. '09): Another Tie for Romney Against Obama

Happy Thanksgiving from FHQ

Purity Tests? Not for the NC GOP

Palin's Poll Numbers Look a Lot Like Quayle's

From Brendan Nyhan posting at Pollster:

[Click to Enlarge]

Once perceptions are formed, they are difficult to break. And we all know how Quayle 2000 turned out. He didn't make it to Iowa. Will Palin?

Incidentally, Jonathan Bernstein over at A Plain Blog About Politics has an interesting take on how Palin fits into the 2012 field; like an issue candidate (a la Kucinich or Paul) but with a much bigger following. I aptly, in my opinion, draws a parallel between her and Jesse Jackson's run in 1984. It's an good read; check it out.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/28/09)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/28/09)

CNN 2012 GOP Primary Poll: Huckabee Pulls in Almost a Third of Support

The Week Ahead

First, FHQ should apologize. I got called out of town on Friday and that kept me away from the computer for most of the weekend. What that means is that we'll likely have a busy start to the week. What's on tap?

• A belated look at some of Rick Davis' comments on the McCain campaign's strategy down the stretch in 2008.
• A look (with graphics) at the Rasmussen 2012 GOP primary poll released on Friday and the odd(-ish) head-to-heads among the various prospective Republican candidates for president.
• I think the GOP primary poll was a signal that Rasmussen will also put out a series of 2012 presidential general election trial heats.
• And that comes at a good time because Public Policy Polling will likely have their monthly trial heats out some time this week. Remember, they have substituted Tim Pawlenty in for Jeb Bush this month (who replace Newt Gingrich a month ago).
• And finally, we'll continue to see a likely flood of polling from New Jersey and Virginia this week. With only two weeks to go, polling activity is going to be heavy. PPP will have their Virginia results out tomorrow some time.
  

Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/16/09)

State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/15/09)

Rick Davis on New Media

The Week Ahead

The big news this week, at least for regular readers, is that FHQ is hitching up its wagons and moving this week. I have no idea how big a damper this is going to put on the flow of posts around here, but I can speculate that it will probably be down at least somewhat until the new FHQ HQ is up and running. So bear with me.

That said, you can probably expect a few things:

• Some residual work from last week's Presidential Primary Reform Week series should surface at various point.
• PPP is polling the New Jersey governor's race this week. Those results should be out Tuesday, and that's great, but they also plan to ask about the "potential impact of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin coming to the state to campaign for their party's gubernatorial candidates" would have. Now, I'd be willing to bet that there is a New Jersey 2012 trial heat question somewhere in there too. Call it a hunch.
• Finally, we left off in a similar post last week talking about the Sotomayor confirmation vote. This is the week for that, though. The same rules apply: Who will vote for her? Who will vote against her? And will that have future electoral ramifications for members of the Senate? Some members are already out with their decisions (ruining the fun), but others are holding on to their choices (and also ruining the fun because the choice is known).
  

And I'm sure there will be some surprises along the way as well.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: Reading Room

Oops! A 2012 GOP Primary Poll FHQ Missed and Another Rant on the Over-Interpretation of These Polls

Presidential Primary Reform Week: The National Association of Secretaries of State's New President

Oops! A 2012 GOP Primary Poll FHQ Missed and Another Rant on the Over-Interpretation of These Polls

Home renovations like the ones FHQ did in mid-May can put a damper on your 2012 poll-watching in a heartbeat. And apparently my blogger-turned-handyman days caused me to miss one of the 2012 GOP primary poll conducted by FOX [pdf] during that period.

Excuses, excuses.

Anyway a hearty thank you to GOP12 via CQ PollTracker via GOP12 for the belated heads up. For the record, here are the particulars:

Huckabee: 20%
Romney: 18%
Gingrich: 14%
Palin: 13%
Giuliani: 12%
Sanford: 4%
Bush: 3%
Jindal: 3%

Margin of Error: +/- 3 points (+/- 6 points among Republicans)
Sample: 900 registered voters (274 Republicans)
Conducted: May 12-13, 2009

I'll skip the analysis and leave it at this: This is the only primary poll thus far that does not have Palin clustered at the top with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee; well above everyone else. [And yes, how quaint. Mark Sanford was included -- pre-Argentina.]

Sadly, with Giuliani and Sanford now tacked onto the list of candidates, the key took up too much room and the color scheme Google Docs provided was repetitive and confusing. In sum, that was not really a workable order. The key is now gone from the figure and the names are added nearby the lines or points they correspond to. Most of the color issues were moot once I withheld the "other" line. It matched nearly identically the color given to Jindal's data. The other change is that I've added in the element of time. Everyday is accounted for in the series now so that it doesn't appear as if each poll is equidistant from the next.

Here's the trend updated through today:

[Click to Enlarge]

[If you find anything about the above graph confusing still, please let me know in the comments section.]

----

Before I close, I did want to mention one other issue with this FOX poll and the poll ABC and the Washington Post released this morning. In each case, we are talking about a 2012 primary question that is based on the responses of less than 300 Republicans (and/or Republican-leaning independents) nationally. When the goal is 1000, less than 300 respondents has the effect of REALLY ramping up the margin of error. In the process, the representativeness of the poll is made all the more questionable for something that is already well in advance of primary season (or even the competitive tail end of the invisible primary for that matter). As I've said recently, I like seeing these numbers and I enjoy seeing the trends, but these things absolutely have to be taken with a grain of salt. And occasionally I like to fold in some discussion of fundraising or organization, but I try to avoid claims like these at all costs. To assert that Huckabee leads this race or that it is beneficial for Romney to "draft" behind Huckabee is patently ridiculous. Given the margins in the polls conducted so far, Romney and Huckabee are tied (with Sarah Palin). Now, it could be that the perception that Huckabee is ahead is helpful to Romney in that "everyone else" is gunning for the former Arkansas governor and not Romney, but still. Let's just watch these numbers come in and not over-interpret them.

Please.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: The National Association of Secretaries of State's New President

ABC/WaPo Poll: 2012 GOP Primary--Huckabee Back on Top, but...

Presidential Primary Reform Week: The Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2009

ABC/WaPo Poll: 2012 GOP Primary--Huckabee Back on Top, but...

ABC News and Washington Post have a new poll out that the blogosphere is jumping on to trumpet the decline of Sarah Palin's favorability. Yeah, FHQ won't be jumping on that bandwagon, but we will discuss the 2012 Republican primary question that was nestled deep in the results. [For the record, the Palin numbers reflect opinion of her among folks of all partisan stripes. The Republican ones are the only ones that really matter at the moment.] Yes, the usual cast of characters are represented,* but I like the fact that the names of prospective GOP candidates whose names were volunteered (not on the list of candidates named) were included in the results as well. Among that group -- which included Charlie Crist, Bobby Jindal, John Thune and other -- Jindal did the best, pulling in about 2% among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Both Crist and Thune garnered less than a percentage point each.

Here are the results:

Huckabee: 26%
Romney: 21%
Palin: 19%
Gingrich: 10%
Pawlenty: 4%
Bush: 3%
Jindal: 2%
Barbour: 1%
Thune: less than 1%
Crist: less than 0.5%

Margin of error: +/- 3.5 points
Sample: 1001 adults
approx. 292 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents
Conducted: July 15-18, 2009

[Click to Enlarge]

First of all, this figure is getting a touch messy with the inclusion of Thune and Crist. Even still, the same pattern we've seen in these polls reemerges here: the Huckabee/Palin/Romney trio continue to be clustered relatively close together, outpacing all other possible candidates. [And it should be noted that that pattern surfaces with just 292 GOP/GOP-leaning respondents nationally. So take this poll with an extra grain of salt -- this question at least. The margin of error among that portion of the sample is likely pretty high.] It just so happens that the former Arkansas governor is getting another turn at the top.

I wouldn't read too much into Huckabee's showing (or anyone else for that matter), but I will take the opportunity to say that if last year's delegate runner-up for the GOP nomination is serious about a repeat bid in 2012, he is going to have to get a move on. From a polling perspective, he's fine, but financially he's quickly falling off the pace being set by his leading counterparts' political action committees. Both Romney's Free and Strong America PAC and Palin's SarahPAC are doing quite well in the first half of 2009. Huckabee, on the other hand, has yet to report any numbers for his Huck PAC, and that fact in conjunction with the news that the PAC is undergoing some restructuring, is a troubling start.

Again, this is all extremely early. As John McCain demonstrated during the 2008 cycle, campaign restructuring and dire financial straits aren't necessarily dealbreakers. However, 2012 won't be 2008 for the Republicans. They are facing an incumbent Democrat in the White House and will likely be looking for someone who has some gravitas among the elites within the party and an ability to raise funds and lots of them. Romney meets both those criteria the best at the moment. Palin lacks the internal party connections and Huckabee trails on both fronts.

The main question now is whether 2012 will be like 1996 or 2000 for the Republican Party. Will they have a fairly active primary campaign like in 1996 or will most of the party quickly coalesce around a candidate as in 2000? Part of the problem of assessing that question is that we have reached something of a crossroads on the divisive primaries/parties question. The pre-2008 thinking was that the quicker you line up behind someone (thus avoiding drawn-out divisiveness), the better your chances are in the general election. Post-2008, though, the thinking is slightly different. Can a drawn-out, yet not personally divisive nomination battle actually help a parties nominee from an organizational standpoint? Obama's narrow electoral college wins in Indiana and North Carolina are often cited as evidence that the primary campaign organization helped in the general election.

My (two and a half years in advance) guess is that the GOP may pay some lip service to the organizational idea, but will ultimately make a quick decision on the 2012 nomination. And I should note that I've been talking about this as if the party has complete control over this. They don't. Conditions have a large say in the matter. Democratic primary and caucus voters were evenly divided in 2008, but Republican voters may not follow suit in 2012. That potential is there (Palin grassroots vs. Romney establishment, for example), but, as I said, I think it is more likely that a consensus forms around one candidate. If the GOP elite signal in a way similar to 2000 with Bush, that they are solidly behind one candidate, then it will be difficult for anyone to disrupt the inevitability story.

All that from a poll of 292 Republicans and independents leaning Republican? Yeah, I know.

*The list of candidates included Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Primary Reform Week: The Fair and Representative Presidential Primaries Act of 2009

Presidential Primary Reform Week: Congressional Action

Louisiana 2012: Jindal/Palin Both Top Obama