Showing posts with label primary calendar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label primary calendar. Show all posts

Monday, February 5, 2024

Trump and Titanic Tuesday 2008

Leading the day at FHQ...

Last night as FHQ was preparing for the week ahead, I looked up and saw that today was going to be February 5. Big deal, right? 

Actually, for those who follow the presidential primary calendar and its many iterations, it is a date with some significance in the post-reform era. February 5, 2008 was Super Tuesday. It was so super -- so chock full of delegates, in fact -- that some took to calling it Titanic Tuesday. Indeed, both parties allocated more than 45 percent of all of their delegates that cycle on that one day! For comparison, neither party will have allocated any more than 41 percent of the their delegates in all the contests through Super Tuesday in 2024 combined. 

In other words, when folks look up frontloading in the dictionary -- if they are lucky enough to find it -- then they will see a picture of the 2008 map. 

What is more, the allocation rules were different than they are today. Okay, they were different on the Republican side. Democrats had and continue to have the same standard proportional rules with 15 percent qualifying threshold that they have had in place going back into the 20th century. 
In 2008, the GOP rules were different.

But in a lot of ways the Republican calendar was not only frontloaded but the rules were sort of inverted. There was no prohibition on winner-take-all rules early in the calendar as there is in 2024 (and has been in some form or another since 2012). And it showed. The map was peppered with plurality winner-take-all states in the 2008 Republican process and all of them save one -- Vermont -- were in contests held in or before February that year. And many of the other states on Titanic Tuesday and throughout February 2008 that were not truly winner-take-all had winner-take-all elements. Most of those, including California, were winner-take-all by congressional district.

John McCain rode success in those early states to a gigantic delegate lead that crested above the majority mark, clinching the nomination for him, during the first week in March. 

The interesting thing to me is that for all the talk of the Trump campaign working the state-level delegate rules for 2024 -- and, ahem, Team Trump did the bulk of that work in 2019 -- they would have killed to have had that 2008 calendar with its particular patchwork of delegate rules for 2024. With that combination, we would be talking about Trump clinching today rather sometime during the first three weeks in March. 

Team Trump definitely would have traded for that if they could have. But the RNC carried over the same basic set of guidelines for 2024 that the national party had in place in 2016. Which is to say that there remained a super penalty in place to prevent most states from going earlier than March and another penalty to nix plurality winner-take-all rules in states with contests before March 15. 

Anyway, it is a fun thought experiment. Changing to 2008 rules would probably not change the outcome in 2024, but it certainly would have changed the pace of how nomination season resolved itself. Happy Titanic Tuesday Remembrance Day. 


--
Last week a bow was finally tied on the delegate allocation from the New Hampshire Republican primary during the prior week on January 23. Only it was not exactly a nice and neat bow. Instead, as the AP reported it, the New Hampshire secretary of state allocated the one remaining delegate in limbo to Donald Trump, raising his total in the Granite state to 13 delegates. 

How Secretary Scanlan arrived at that was a little, well, weird. And the method used was not consistent with how the secretary's office under previous longtime Secretary Bill Gardner handled the delegate count during the last competitive Republican presidential nomination race in 2016. 



--
FHQ has started rolling out the state-by-state series on Democratic delegate allocation rules over at FHQ Plus. So far there have been looks at rules in...
What's the difference between Democratic and Republican delegate selection rules? FHQ Plus has it covered.



--
See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Friday, January 19, 2024

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

Leading the day at FHQ...

By now the story is old hat. At least around these parts it is. The Democratic National Committee altered its presidential primary calendar rules for the 2024 cycle. New Hampshire Democrats did not take kindly to the change that saw South Carolina's primary nudged into the first slot and spent 2023 openly defying the national party rules changes. 

Now, under the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party, such a move on the part of New Hampshire Democrats carries a penalty, a 50 percent reduction in the size of the base delegation. That reduction has taken place, and New Hampshire Democrats now have 10 delegates to the national convention in Chicago later this summer. But the reporting, if one reads it closely, still seems to toggle between saying that New Hampshire Democrats will lose/have lost half of their delegates and that Granite state Democrats will lose/have lost all of their delegates.

So which is it? Half or all?

Actually, it is both. The actions of the New Hampshire Democratic Party -- opting into the noncompliant state-run presidential primary on January 23 -- cost the party half of its delegates. That is done. However, due to a tweak in the national party delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle, state parties cannot allocate any delegates to any candidate who campaigns in a state like New Hampshire which has a primary scheduled in violation of the guidelines. Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson cannot even win any actual delegates by being on the ballot in the upcoming primary in the Granite state (even if they manage to qualify). 

So, New Hampshire Democrats have 10 delegates but cannot allocate them. Half and all, all rolled into one. 

The question is, what happens with those 10 delegates? Obviously the back and forth continues between the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the national party to resolve their impasse. But in the meantime, here are some thoughts at FHQ Plus on where things may go as primary season progresses. 


--
In the continuing state-by-state series on delegate allocation rules, FHQ examines changes for 2024 in...
  • Utah: Republicans in the Beehive state have once again shifted to caucuses for selecting and allocating delegates. Otherwise, the same eccentricities remain under the surface in the allocation process.
  • Vermont: FHQ often says that there are only so many ways to proportionally allocate three congressional district delegates under RNC rules. Well, that is true in terms of the 17 delegates Vermont Republicans have to offer as well. Nevertheless, Republicans in the Green Mountain state have built some unique features into their delegate selection plan.


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, November 15, 2023

There is a central tension point in the New Hampshire presidential primary situation, but this still isn't it.

Updated (2:15pm, Wednesday, November 15):


--
Original post:
It is primary date announcement day in New Hampshire.

Later today, Secretary of State David Scanlan will follow his statutorily-defined role and officially schedule next year's presidential presidential primary in the Granite state. It will answer the question of when the contest will occur on the 2024 presidential primary calendar, but that action will do little to change what has been clear for some time: New Hampshire will have an early contest and it will conflict with Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules for this cycle. 

But again, that has been clear for a while now. Republicans control the levers of power in the state and balked at making any changes to business as usual in terms of how the primary date gets decided every four years. That left in place a law that requires Secretary Scanlan to schedule the primary at least seven days before any other similar election. And Scanlan has maintained for nearly a year now that he intended to follow state law. Unless he takes issue with something in the Iowa Republican Party plans for 2024, then the primary will most likely land on January 23. [In none of Scanlan's comments since Iowa's Republican Party scheduled the caucuses there has he indicated that there is anything problematic.]

None of what will happen today, much less much of what has happened (or not happened) in New Hampshire state government this year has much of anything to do with the DNC calendar changes for the 2024 cycle. Well, they have not had much to do with it for months anyway. 

That is not where the tension is. That is not where the tension has been. But that did not stop NPR from pointing the finger in the wrong direction in a story about the announcement today. No, instead Josh Rogers gives us New Hampshire is expected to set a primary date that will buck Biden's preference.

Just to reiterate: All of that -- New Hampshire Secretary of State Scanlan not going along with Biden and the DNC's calendar design for 2024 -- has been a known known for most of 2023. And that has not been where the tension has been in this first-in-the-nation ordeal. Instead, that tension lies where it has been: in an intra-party dispute on the Democratic side between the national party and the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 

Look, FHQ realizes that New Hampshire Democrats are not going to budge on this. They just aren't. But the decision makers in the state party have and have had the power to defuse this situation all along. All they had to do -- all they have to do -- is plan for a party-run process that complies with national party rules and not go along with a rogue primary and primary date. Yes, that far easier said than done. There are political pressures that those same decision makers face from the rank-and-file members of the state party. And that is all well and good.

However, that is where the tension is in all of this. It is not and has not been between the DNC and Scanlan or Biden and Scanlan. And stories that are inevitably going to pursue that angle in the wake of the secretary's decision today are barking up the wrong tree. They just are. Today's announcement is meaningful in that it will answer the question of when the primary will be. It is an early contest in the process and that is important. 

But disputes with the DNC? That is all about the New Hampshire Democratic Party opting into a contest that the secretary of state sets, not the secretary himself or the action he is on the verge of taking. And the NPR piece is another in a long line of them that fails to note that. 

This is a fact that will become more and more prominent in the context of the Democratic calendar standoff as it will now move into the consideration of penalties phase. And the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has already given strong indications about where that is headed. 


--
Over at FHQ Plus...






--
See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, October 26, 2023

Which couple of states?

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...
  • The Biden campaign officially informing Democrats in New Hampshire that he would not file to appear on the presidential primary ballot brought out all usual points in the stories about the national party's standoff with decision makers in the Granite state. ...and all the usual omissions. 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...
Leave it to FHQ to locate and respond to something buried deep in a piece on Biden and New Hampshire. Well, in truth, that is where the primary calendar stuff usually gets tucked away. And Steven Porter's recent article at The Boston Globe saved the intrigue for the final line of a story about New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan's reaction to Biden skipping out on the primary there: 
"Scanlan said he’s not quite ready to announce the date of the 2024 primary. He’s still keeping an eye on a couple of states to make sure they don’t try to jump ahead."
But which "couple of states?"

There are not a lot of states with legislatures currently in session. And fewer are actually looking at moving presidential primaries around. None of those efforts are particularly active at this late date. So it is unlikely that Scanlan is eyeing any state with a state-run process, a primary that would definitively conflict with the oft-discussed first-in-the-nation presidential primary law in New Hampshire. 

All that leaves are some question marks in states that project to have party-run processes in 2024, party-run processes that will not necessarily trigger any action from Scanlan in Concord. What is missing on that front are answers to where contests in Alaska, Wyoming and four of the five territories will end up in the order. [Ahem.] Let's go ahead and scratch the territories from the list. Call them what one will. Primary or caucus. It really does not matter. Those contests will be party-run and in locales far away from both New Hampshire and where the candidates are likely to be next January. And there just are not a lot of delegates at stake.1 

It would appear, then, that Scanlan is referring to the uncertainty surrounding the dates of the Republican delegate selection events in Alaska and Wyoming. But a caucus, which is how Republicans in those states have typically chosen to select and allocate delegates, is not a primary. 

Now, it used to be that the distinction from the New Hampshire perspective as to defining a "similar election" was not primary or caucus -- even if that became the shorthand -- but rather, whether the threatening contest allocated delegates or not. That was the line that former New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner drew. Iowa's caucuses were always in the clear because neither Democratic nor Republican caucuses in the Hawkeye state allocated (bound) delegates to the national convention. 

Even that line got blurred in recent years. Wyoming Republicans jumped the New Hampshire primary in 2008 and stayed there on January 5, three days before the primary in the Granite state. And those caucuses allocated some but not all of Wyoming's Republican delegates that cycle. Actions in Iowa in recent cycles also helped to further muddle things. In 2016, Republicans in Iowa bound delegates to candidates for the first time in response to changes in Republican National Committee rules, and a cycle later Hawkeye state Democrats reported more than just state delegate equivalents on caucus night which more clearly bound delegates to particular candidates. In neither case did Bill Gardner opt to leapfrog Iowa. 

So what Scanlan is waiting on is probably not that. The hold up with Alaska and Wyoming Republicans is twofold. Yes, it is the when. When will the contest occur. But it is also the how. How will those parties conduct their processes. That may have something to do with what the parties in Alaska and Wyoming call their delegate selection events -- primary or caucus -- but it may have more to do with whether they include a mail-in option or something else that makes the processes more "primary-like" in Scanlan's eye.

But if past cycles are any indication, then Alaska Republicans will likely land on Super Tuesday and Wyoming Republicans will claim a spot some time in March. And it would not be a total surprise if both end up on March 2, the weekend before Super Tuesday. 

All of this is to say that it still looks very much like New Hampshire will be scheduled for January 23. Scanlan may not officially make that decision, but it is pretty safe to continue to assume that that is the date. The secretary has some time anyway before settling on a date. And it is always better safe than sorry in the Granite state. 



...
From around the invisible primary...


--
1 Now, Puerto Rico does offer more delegates than New Hampshire, but Republicans there would cede all but nine of them to penalties in order to challenge the Granite state on the calendar. There are also some quirks that do make the Puerto Rico Republican process a bit of a wild card, but it is not that wild. There is uncertainty as to what the date of the contest there may be, but it very likely will not fall on any date before March.



--
See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

It is tough to move the Pennsylvania 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...
  • The DNC has quietly had a pretty interesting conversation about ranked choice voting in the presidential nomination process this cycle. Not much is going to change on the surface for 2024 -- RCV will have the same basic footprint as in 2020 -- but there have been some important changes under the hood that bring the practice more in line with DNC rules. All the details at FHQ Plus.
  • I included the wrong link to the DNCRBC meeting recap yesterday. You can find that deep dive here if you missed it.
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...
Despite a flurry of legislative activity over the last month and a half, an inter-chamber impasse played a role in derailing the effort to shift the presidential primary in the Keystone state up to an earlier and potentially more influential date. 

It is not a new story. It is not even really a partisan story. Yes, Republicans control the Pennsylvania state Senate and Democrats have the narrowest of majorities in the lower chamber. However, Democrats in the Senate largely supported the effort to move the primary from the fourth Tuesday in April to the third Tuesday in March (March 19). House Democrats countered with a bill that would have shifted the primary to April 2, in line with primaries in several other regional/neighboring states.

But part of the impetus behind the change in the first place was to fix the conflict the presidential primary had with the observance of Passover. The Senate version did that and the House version did too. However, the latter legislation would have had the primary butting up against Easter weekend. And as consideration of the primary move stretched into the fall, election administrators across Pennsylvania got antsy about their preparations for the next election cycle after the current one ends. And that does not even mention some of the other elections-related riders that made it into the House-amended version of the Senate bill when it originally came before the body earlier in October. 

Basically, the effort got mired in the legislative process. And even though the House struck the entirety of the previous version of the Senate-passed bill, replacing it with only one provision calling for the primary to shift up a week to April 16 to clear the Passover conflict (and passing it), the Senate does not seem inclined to take up the measure. 


Look, there was a lot involved in this Pennsylvania process this year. There is not just one explanation for why the primary in the commonwealth will once again be scheduled for the fourth Tuesday in April. But it is worth noting that Pennsylvania has nearly always held down that position on the presidential primary calendar. Only twice has the primary strayed from that spot. And both the 1984 and 2000 primaries were only marginally earlier in April. 

Why? 

Unlike other states in the immediate aftermath of the Democratic Party rules changes that ushered in reforms to the nomination system, the reaction in Pennsylvania was more muted. Ahead of 1972, the state already had a primary well-enough in advance of a summer national convention. In other words, a presidential primary to allocate and select delegates could easily be consolidated with that spring primary. And it was. 

But in other states, especially those with late summer and early fall primaries for other offices, that was not an option. Decision makers in those states had to either uproot that primary and schedule it alongside a new presidential primary or create and fund a separate presidential primary election. Many took the latter route and normalized the expenditure in the state budget. 

Back in Pennsylvania, the consolidated primary left decision makers there in much the same dilemma as those early post-reform actors in other states anytime a push to reschedule the presidential primary in the Keystone state arose. Only, more often than not, the thinking in Pennsylvania was not to create and fund a separate election but to move everything up to an earlier date, dates that would place the filing process in the previous year and conflict with the conclusion of the previous off-year elections. 

That is why Pennsylvania barely moved the two times since 1972 that the primary date has been changed. That, in turn, has meant that a separate primary never got normalized nor did the practice of revisiting the date on a regular basis. Very simply, the concept was foreign to legislators in the state. It still is: 
[Rep. Arvind] Venkat also said moving the presidential primary on a year-by-year basis could be subject to the whim of the party in control of the legislature depending on whether it would be beneficial.

“The only pathway forward if we are going to move our primary is to change the election code on a permanent basis,” Venkat said.
So yes, many of the above stories about partisan squabbles or inter-chamber impasses or poison pill riders or election administrator pushback will get woven into the narrative on this non-move. But there is an institutional story too. The consolidated primary -- one that has nearly always been where it is -- is almost set in stone and there has not been much appetite to change that over the years. There has been some. It almost always comes up in the years before a presidential election year, but it also almost always goes nowhere. 

...and fast. The hurdles are too steep.


...
From around the invisible primary...


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, July 22, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] A second state-run primary option in New Hampshire?

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. 

--

Talk about burying the lede. This came in over the wires from NBC News this morning...
New Hampshire Republicans would prefer to keep their primary in late January, after Iowa, rather than see [New Hampshire Secretary of State David] Scanlan have to leapfrog Iowa because of Democrats’ maneuvering. Republican state Rep. Ross Berry, who chairs the House Election Law Committee, said he is considering “contingencies” that might prevent that.

Berry said he is considering introducing legislation that would allow Scanlan to set two different primary dates, one for each party. He called it a “last resort option” that would give Scanlan a new tool if he makes the determination that Iowa’s Democratic caucus is functionally the same as a primary.

“We don’t want to get caught flat-footed on it,” Berry said. “If the secretary of state says, ‘You know what, I’m cool with Iowa mailing in their stuff,’ we have no problem, I see no reason to change things,” he continued.
The rest of the piece is standard fare for stories covering the back and forth over the calendar between Iowa Democrats and the New Hampshire secretary of state. It builds up the tension that seemingly exists without getting too far down into the weeds to explain that there probably is not much tension there at all. As the piece notes, it is not unusual for New Hampshire to string this decision out. Long-time and former Secretary Gardner pulled the trigger on a choice for 2008 the day before Thanksgiving in 2007 and waited into November again in 2011. In both cases, a decision was made roughly two months before January primaries in both cycles. Regardless of the timing of a decision from Scanlan, the choice boils down to answering one simple question. And Iowa Democrats are not showing their cards at the moment (even if the state party's actions seem to tip their hand).

But still, even if the early state calendar tension is on a low simmer (at most), the notion that there is a proposal for an emergency legislative fix in the Granite state is newsworthy. Well, it is newsworthy on the surface anyway.

Digging in a bit, creating an option for the secretary of state to schedule a second presidential primary would bail out Democrats currently at odds with the national party over the DNC’s new calendar rules for the 2024 cycle. That New Hampshire Republicans would even consider that is enough to raise eyebrows. And that is without considering the costs associated with a second state-run presidential primary election. The state footing the bill for that is one thing that is almost unbelievable, but creating a carve-out for (what some perceive as) Democrats’ collective own-goal in a battleground state would seem to be a bridge to far for Republicans in control of the levers of power in the state.

But it also goes to show just how far at least one Republican is willing to go to preserve the first-in-the-nation tradition in the Granite state.

Of course, none of this appears necessary at the moment. There are questions surrounding the scheduling of the all-mail Iowa Democratic presidential preference vote. [The Democratic caucuses will be on January 15.] But why would Iowa Democrats go to the trouble of devising this bifurcated caucus/preference vote process in an incumbent cycle if they were just going to break the rules. The system is one that allows Iowa Democrats to have their cake and hopefully (from their perspective) eat it too. The caucuses will remain first (the same night as Iowa Republicans), but the delegate allocation (through the preference vote) can conclude later than that at a time that is either in the Democrats’ early window (with a waiver from the DNC) or on or after March 5. It is a system designed to preserve tradition and comply with DNC rules. It is also a system that allows Iowa Democrats to stay out of the way of business as usual in the New Hampshire secretary of state’s office.

So maybe NBC News did not bury the lede here. Maybe they just got an interesting quote from a legislator in New Hampshire with a proposal for a novel rip cord the state could pull in case of emergency. The only thing is that there does not appear to be an emergency in the near term or on the horizon.

All there actually is is an inability in the press to dig in on this story and describe what is happening between Iowa and New Hampshire. Less than meets the eye.



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

Wednesday, July 19, 2023

A twist in the 2024 Republican endorsement 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...
  • At least one state representative has given voice to some contingency planning in New Hampshire to circumvent any issues that may arise in the calendar back-and-forth with Iowa. Is it at all necessary? 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 a unique cycle for Republicans and the endorsement primary. There is no real precedent for a former and defeated president returning to run for a third nomination and a second term, not in the post-reform era anyway. But not surprisingly, Donald Trump's presence has had an impact on how elected officials have endorsed in the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race. First, the former president has the most high profile endorsements of any of those vying for the nomination. However, the support is far from unified as it was when Trump ran for reelection as president four years ago. Still, Trump enjoys a frontrunner's support based on the endorsement metric. 

Although, again, that backing is not unified. And while other candidates have won endorsements of their own, Trump being in the race has frozen some elected officials, creating a melange of non-endorsements, unendorsements and pre-endorsements that have not been typical in past competitive nomination cycles in either party. 

And Trump has upped the ante in the endorsement primary among the non-endorsement crowd of late, carving out a small group of folks who have remained on the sidelines but whom the former president clearly views as should-be endorsements. The arm twisting first went public last week when Trump questioned Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds' loyalty for remaining neutral in a contest that will kick off in her state next January. Now the list has expanded to include Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the former press secretary under Trump turned governor of Arkansas. She, too, has withheld her endorsement to this point and has subsequently drawn the ire of the former president for not backing him.

This is a new development. There may be behind-the-scenes cajoling between a presidential candidate and a potential endorsement under normal circumstances, but this is a very different form of public arm-twisting in an attempt to extract an endorsement. It is not exactly breaking a norm, but it is not something that is common either. And it serves as an extension of Trump's atypical return from defeat to run a third time, another series of perceived political transactions for the former president.

[Perhaps Montana Representative Matt Rosendale is on this list as well, albeit in a more indirect way.]


...
The latest survey on the presidential primary in the Granite state has been released by the University of New Hampshire. On the Republican side, Trump (37 percent) and DeSantis (23 percent) are the only two candidates above 10 percent and thus, are the only two who would qualify for delegates if the poll represented the results of the primary. The former president's support flagged some from the last UNH survey in April but he maintains a relative high floor of support.

Among Democrats, Joe Biden (70 percent) is the only declared candidate north of the 15 percent qualifying threshold for delegates in the Granite state. But there are questions over whether the president will even be on the ballot for the primary if Democrats in the state opt to go rogue. Two-thirds of Biden supporters in the poll indicated that they would write the president's name in. 


...
I talked with Lou Jacobson for a piece at Politifact about the changes to the 2024 primary calendar and the dwindling number of unknowns related to it. 


...
From around the invisible primary...


...
On this date...
...in 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale put forth New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate and accepted the Democratic presidential nomination.



--
See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

New Hampshire blinders in the Democratic nomination race

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...
  • Michigan Republicans had everything in place with respect to their 2024 delegate selection plan. ...until they didn't. The plan adopted by the state party last month hit a snag with the RNC and will require a tweak. But the state party has options. 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...
...
Al Hunt had an eye roll-worthy opinion piece up at The Messenger over the weekend and it was the 315 billionth one since December to inform readers about how the Democrats' Biden-led calendar changes for 2024 have "backfired, spectacularly" in New Hampshire. And again, this was not revelatory. There has been a steady stream of stories and opinion pieces in this genre that have followed the same basic formula: accentuate the negative in the only story outside of the president's age to move the needle in a nomination race that looks like a yawner, only gather quotes from folks inside of and tied to the state of New Hampshire and assume the worst for the president. 

Look, if folks have caught even a whiff of one of these Biden/New Hampshire stories since late last year, then they will likely understand that upsetting folks in a battleground state may have implications for the president in the general election next year. That has been and remains clear. 

However, Hunt, like many before him, has chosen the New Hampshire-centric path that leads to hypothetical chaos (or some lesser form of uncertainty in the 2024 Democratic nomination race). And that path always seems to place some variety of blinders on those who spin these yarns of incumbent woe. 

Folks miss that New Hampshire Democrats are not without options in this saga. Like other state parties, New Hampshire's Democrats can opt out of a state-run presidential primary in favor of some party-run contest to allocate national convention delegates. The Democratic Party in the Granite state has the very same free association rights under the first amendment that all parties across the country do regardless of any state law on the subject. Perhaps, then, the state party could diffuse the situation by going along with the calendar rules supported by folks from 55 of 57 states and territories and adopted by the Democratic National Committee for the 2024 cycle. [It honestly is like that Politico piece from May was never reported. It certainly was not internalized by very many.]

But even if New Hampshire Democrats continue along the route of defiance, does that necessarily mean that the Biden campaign will topple like a house of cards on the evening of (probably) January 23? Is a non-loss by the president in an unsanctioned primary really the death knell for Biden in 2024? It could be. But it could also very well be that the South Carolina primary comes along eleven days later on February 3 and starts a string of (actual delegate-allocating) victories for the president, things become boring and attention goes where it most always does when an incumbent is seeking renomination: to the other party's active contest. But, of course, Hunt did not reckon with that possibility. 

Neither did he consider the long-term implications of New Hampshire Democrats' defiance in the short term. Again, what if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Marianne Williamson wins a New Hampshire primary, the ballot of which the president is not on? That is not embarrassing for Biden. That is embarrassing for New Hampshire Democrats. The state party would lose face and set itself back even further for future discussions of the calendar for 2028, a cycle that will actually matter on the Democratic side. It is shaping up to be competitive. 

Iowa Democrats still have a chance to mess this up, but this is what separates them from New Hampshire Democrats in this calendar kerfuffle. Iowa Democrats are seemingly playing the long game. If they go along with the 2024 calendar rules and manage to pull off a successful mail-in presidential preference vote, then the party will have a leg to stand on in pitching a return to the early calendar for the Hawkeye state in 2028. They may be rejected again, but that is still a firmer foundation from which to argue than "we defied the national party the whole way in 2024 and some conspiracy theorist won our meaningless primary." The membership of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may change substantially between now and 2026 when the calendar decisions are made for 2028, but unless the entire committee is made of DNC members from New Hampshire, then Granite state Democrats are very unlikely to find a receptive audience for their early calendar pitch. 

But Hunt does not consider that either. And it is understandable. It is not a flashy story at the moment (if it ever is for more than just FHQ and, like, seven other people). But at some point, Hunt and others will get beyond this initial set of questions about the Biden/New Hampshire situation and dig a little deeper. One can only hope.


...
This addendum from Seth Masket to the most recent wave in his survey of Republican county party chairs includes a graphic that is just fascinating to look at. It charts the percentage of county party chairs considering various candidates against the percentage who do not want a particular candidate nominated in 2024. As he notes, there are caveats, but it does give a sense of the direction of movement in the race. And Tim Scott noticeably moved in a positive direction. The junior senator from South Carolina saw his consideration numbers go up and his against nomination numbers trail off. Neat graphic. Seth continues to do solid work over at Tusk. 


...
From around the invisible primary...
  • In the staff primary, the DeSantis campaign trimmed its payroll over the weekend, cutting loose a dozen staffers. That drew parallels to Jeb Bush and Scott Walker and others who have busted out of the gates with hype to spare only to find themselves in a similar position: not meeting expectations (that they did not set), scaling back only to scare skittish donors which leads to further scaling back. Wash, rinse, repeat: doom loop. [Look, it is another troubling sign in a series of them for DeSantis and company in recent days. It may or may not be premature to write the obituaries of the Florida governor's campaign. But the simple truth of the matter is that DeSantis remains well positioned to do well in the 2024 race. [Well may mean something other than winning the nomination.] The governor has raised a lot of money -- with some caveats -- has the (endorsement) backing of a fair number of elected officials and has experienced staff in the broader campaign orbit. On those measures, DeSantis is well ahead of every other nomination aspirant but one.]
  • In the money primary, Mike Pence and Chris Christie turned in FEC reports that fell below $2 million. For what it is worth, both entered the race for the Republican nomination just last month. 
  • Wall Street donors are opening up their checkbooks for Trump alternatives, but that money is going to multiple candidates. 
  • The chatter may be there, but Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is not running for president. ...again. 
  • DeSantis has been in the Palmetto state the last two days and Chris Christie will make his first stop in South Carolina on Thursday, July 21.


...
On this date...
...in 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale is formally nominated in a roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.

...in 1988, the Democratic National Convention kicked off in Atlanta.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, July 15, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] Yes, Iowa still matters

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. 

--

Iowa Republicans have set a caucus date for 2024. That got some folks thinking about the caucuses place in the presidential nomination process:

“What if Iowa doesn't matter?”

That was a question Chris Cillizza recently posed. And FHQ gets the point. Cillizza is suggesting that either Trump will win the lead-off caucuses next January or will lose and do what he did in 2016, cry foul at the process before moving on to a more hospitable format -- a primary -- back east in the Granite state. 

And that point is well taken. It is a narrower variation on the 2024 is a repeat of 2016 line that has become standard in the discourse of the Republican presidential nomination race this time around. However, that does not mean that it is off base. It may be!

But where FHQ parts ways with Cillizza is on a broader distinction perhaps.

Of course Iowa matters. 

Of course Iowa will matter. Win or lose, things may play out with Trump in the lead role just as Cillizza suggests, but it does not mean that the caucuses will not matter. They will matter in the way that they always do. The caucuses will winnow the field.

But how will Iowa (and New Hampshire) winnow the field? That may be the more operative question heading into primary season next year. Do the early contests literally winnow the field, forcing candidates from the race or do they effectively winnow the field, significantly diminishing the chances of candidates outside the top tier (however that is defined at the time) to near-zero levels?

We may never get a good answer because often, at least in recent cycles, it has been a little bit of both. Viable, office-seeking candidates, like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker on the Democratic side in 2020, who do not want to be winnowed by Iowa or New Hampshire -- those who see the writing on the wall during the invisible primary -- will drop out before the calendar even flips over to the presidential election year. Others, call them the all the eggs in the Iowa or New Hampshire basket candidates, such as Chris Christie in 2016, are among those left to "force" out at that point. 

Often, however, candidates do not neatly fit into one or the other of those categories. While Harris and Booker bowed out in 2020, other viable candidates soldiered on through Iowa, New Hampshire and into or through the other early window states in the Democratic order leading up to Super Tuesday. And that is a story as much about field size as it is about money available to keep those campaigns afloat. 

Yet, it is also a story of zombie candidates, effectively winnowed but still in the race and gobbling up not only vote shares in subsequent primaries and caucuses but potentially (depending on the rules) delegate shares. And that is where these early contests matter. They shape or do not shape the field left to fight over votes and delegates on down the line. No, some to a lot of those candidates-turned-zombies after Iowa or New Hampshire may not even qualify for delegates, but their presence affects how and how many delegates the candidates who do qualify end up being allocated. 

So, no, Iowa may not matter in identifying the eventual Republican nominee in 2024 (not Cillizza's point) and it may not matter where Trump (and/or the winner) is concerned. But it and any other early contests, not to mention the invisible primary, will shape the field that moves forward and how. It will affect the way subsequent rounds of the delegate game are played. That is important. That matters.


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

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

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...
...
  • 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.]


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, June 24, 2023

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

But after that explanation, Moore said…

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

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

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

…for 2028.

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

Maybe. 

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

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




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