Tim Scott Enters the 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...

• There is something of a time crunch for the two parties in Iowa to schedule the 2024 caucuses, but much of it seems self-imposed. There is a time they want to have that completed by and a point they have to have that set. Plus an additional note on Trump and 2024 delegate allocation rules. 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...

...

After filing with the Federal Election Commission on Friday, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott is set to officially announce his candidacy for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination on Monday, May 22. The move comes a little more than a month since the junior senator from the Palmetto state launched an exploratory committee. 

Scott is the first to strike in a week that seemingly promises at least one more similar announcement, but Scott's entry also comes at an interesting time. Donald Trump still enjoys a comfortable lead in the endorsement primary among Senate Republicans. However, the upper chamber in the US Congress is increasingly looking as if it may be a flashpoint of sorts in this Republican nomination race. And that may or may not be because of Tim Scott. Scott will enter the race with two Senate endorsements, both from South Dakota colleagues. Mike Rounds, FHQ has talked about, but Scott also scored the important endorsement of Senate Minority Whip John Thune over the weekend. And there is said to be a reservoir of support for Scott among those he works with most closely. 

Moreover, Republican senators not aligned with Trump have been increasingly outspoken in recent weeks. First, Indiana Senator Todd Young unendorsed Trump. Then another member of the Senate Republican leadership, Senator John Cornyn last week noted that Trump cannot win a general election. And Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy followed suit over the weekend. Neither Cornyn nor Cassidy went quite as far as Young did in their comments, but they come at a time that gives Scott some cover as he announces his bid. No, none of it is explicitly pro-Scott, but it is anti-Trump enough, via an electability argument. 

And together it all offers an interesting set of signals from among a group of the most high-profile possible gets in the endorsement primary.

...

South Carolina Republicans convened over the weekend and narrowly re-elected Chair Drew McKissick. With both Tim Scott and Nikki Haley on hand and Donald Trump addressing the delegates in a video, McKissick turned back a challenge from Jeff Davis, head of a Trump-loyalist group in the Upstate of South Carolina. This was not a convention where 2024 delegate rules were on the table -- the winner-take-all by congressional district system is not one South Carolina Republicans are going to mess with -- but it was a demonstration of another state Republican Party battling on pragmatism versus purism grounds, something that has flared up in other states as 2024 approaches. That may not have implications for delegate allocation rules in South Carolina, but it bears watching elsewhere as the rules increasingly get nailed down. 

...

Harry Enten has another good one up about the comeback path DeSantis may take to the Republican nomination. He draws a parallel between where DeSantis is in the polls now to where both Barack Obama and John McCain were in 2007. Both obviously went on to win their respective nominations in 2008, but both needed early wins to help propel them in that direction. Of course, DeSantis' main competition, Donald Trump, is probably closer to where Hillary Clinton was in 2015 than to where she was when she was the poll leader -- ahead of Obama -- in 2007. And that matters as well. 

...

In a further fleshing out of an ongoing story, Tom Beaumont describes the tough work ahead for DeSantis-aligned super PAC, Never Back Down, in attempting to flex organizational muscle. Again, that effort is a kind of Frankenstein's monster, combining the grassroots strength and knowhow of the 2016 Cruz campaign with the similar try at organizing through a super PAC that the Jeb Bush campaign pushed in the same cycle. 

...

On this date...

...in 2012,  former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney swept primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky.

...in 2020, the voting in the all-mail Hawaii Democratic party-run primary concluded.

--

Recent posts:

Sunday Series: Biden, Incumbent Presidents and Setting the Rules of Renomination

[From FHQ Plus] The Quirks of Scheduling a South Carolina Presidential Primary

The Disconnect on Iowa and New Hampshire 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. 

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Running for 2024

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

Ron DeSantis staked out a position yesterday on the Ukraine war, calling it "not a key US interest." That places him closer to Donald Trump's position on the issue than other Republicans officially in the race or seemingly running for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. This is not an insignificant part of the invisible primary. In a battle among participants with the same letter (R) next to their names, carving out a differentiated, if not unique, position can be important as candidates jockey for support among the primary electorate. 

But something Maggie Haberman of the New York Times tweeted in the context of this story highlighted a continued misunderstanding about the progression of the invisible primary:

And after avoiding talking about foreign policy for weeks, including at the Reagan Library in any expansive way, DeSantis weighing in is tantamount to acknowledging his presidential campaign is in the offing

A presidential candidacy is very much about the rollout and the announcement. Those things matter. But DeSantis weighing in on Ukraine is not "tantamount to acknowledging his presidential campaign is in the offing." It is not. Not in and of itself anyway. Now, that is not to say that the Florida governor's candidacy is not in this gray area between a lot of people, elite Republicans, media folks and otherwise, saying he is running (or will run) and a formal announcement. It is. And this Ukraine position is another datapoint in that gray area. But it is one datapoint among many -- travel, a warchest busting at the seams, meaningful donors lining up behind him, etc. -- that all point in basically the same direction: DeSantis is running. He is running and has been running for the 2024 Republican nomination. And he is very well positioned because of polling (to this point) and all the other relevant metrics mentioned above to be running in 2024 as well. 

There is no need to dance around that reality. That is how it works.

...

The Trump campaign suggested that it is actively hiring a campaign team "especially in these early states," but has not shown the staff primary goods outside of a previously announced Iowa leadership team. It is a foregone conclusion that Trump will not be in the dominant position he was in four years ago as an incumbent president seeking nomination, but the question remains -- and it is an important one -- where he and his campaign are on the spectrum that runs from 2019-20 on the very prepared/organized/disciplined scale on the high end to 2015-16 on the low end. He was able to pull out the 2016 nomination despite being on the low side of that scale, but 2023-24 is not 2015-16.

...

California Republicans held their spring state convention over the weekend. The delegates in attendance were still very Trump-favorable. That matters. It matters because those delegates are potentially in a pool of possible national convention delegates in 2024. It matters because these conventions will decide on the rules of the delegate allocation/selection process for the 2024 cycle at the state level. And while much of the attention at these gatherings this winter/spring has been on the chair elections -- whether they are skeptical of the 2020 election results or not -- some attention should be paid to the rules for 2024. This is when those decisions are being made. And for the record, California Republicans made no changes to their national convention delegate allocation/selection process at this most recent state convention.

...

On this date...

...in 1972, George Wallace won a lopsided plurality in the Florida presidential primary, his first of six primary wins that cycle.

...in 1984, George McGovern pulled out of the race for the Democratic nomination, the day after Super Tuesday. 

...in 1996, Steve Forbes withdrew from the Republican presidential nomination race, the last major challenger to Bob Dole to drop out during primary season. Pat Buchanan held out until the national convention. Both Forbes and Buchanan saw early success, winning a combined six contests, but nothing after March 9.

...in 2000, a cluster of six southern states, the remnants of the 1988 Southern Super Tuesday, held primaries, but were of little consequence in deciding the races. A frontloaded calendar meant that Super Tuesday a week earlier had already forced Bill Bradley and John McCain from their respective races, sealing the nominations for Al Gore and George W. Bush. Both Gore and Bush captured enough delegates on March 14, 2000 to become presumptive nominees.

...in 2008, the tapes of Jeremiah Wright's controversial comments on race resurfaced at the beginning of a long gap in the primary calendar before the Pennsylvania primary in late April. 

...in 2019, Beto O'Rourke formally entered the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Blue States Matter in the Republican Nomination Process, but so do Blue Districts

Ranked Choice Voting in 2024 Presidential Primaries, Updated (March 2023)

Indications Rhode Island Will Re-explore Presidential Primary Date

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

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

Alaska Republicans Will Convene April State Convention Electronically

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Alaska Republican Party has called an audible on its state convention set to gavel in on April 3 and continue through April 4.

State party chair, Glenn Clary, announced that both the April 2 state central committee meeting and the state convention would meet electronically, canceling the in-person gathering planned to take place in Juneau. The state central committee in its meeting will select a slate of 29 delegates to the national convention that the state convention participants will vote on electronically on April 3.

Those 29 delegates will likely all be bound to President Trump. Alaska Republicans earlier became part of the group of Republican states that canceled delegate selection events for the 2020 cycle.


--
Alaska Republican Party chair's press release archived here.


--
Related Posts:
Alaska Democrats Extend Mail-In Voting Window, Cancel In-Person Voting

North Dakota Republicans to Hold State Convention and Select Delegates in Late March

It looks like business as usual for North Dakota Republicans in 2020.

The delegate allocation formula that Peace Garden state Republicans will use mirrors what the party did in 2016. District conventions will be held between January 1 and March 1 to select delegates to the state convention. Those delegates to the March 27-29 state convention in Bismarck will then select delegates to represent the state at the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte.

The elected national convention delegation then has the option of binding itself on the first ballot at the national convention in whole in or part to a particular candidate or candidates. Binding to an incumbent president would have a higher likelihood than not in 2020. But even if the delegation opts to bind itself to a candidate or candidates, the binding is completely voluntary and delegates remain able to vote their conscience if another candidate is more appealing (and has made the convention roll call nomination ballot via Rule 40).

So while it is likely that the 2020 delegation from North Dakota will be just as unbound as it was at the Cleveland convention in 2016, there is at least some chance that a group of Trump-aligned delegates are chosen and will vote for the president at the convention in Charlotte.


--
The dates of the North Dakota Republican state convention have been added to the 2020 FHQ presidential primary calendar.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Earlier Primary in Place, California Republicans Make Delegate Allocation Changes

Earlier this month when the California Republican Party converged on Indian Wells for the party's 2019 state convention it was a rules-based change in reaction to a new Golden state law prohibiting ballot access to presidential candidates for not disclosing their tax returns that grabbed the headlines.

And that change is not without import. If a nationally recognized candidate is denied access to the ballot, then under the new rule, the CAGOP state central committee or executive committee would meet after March 15, 2020 -- more than a week after the Super Tuesday primary in California -- to determine which candidate would select a slate of delegates to represent them at the national convention in Charlotte.¹

There is an important assumption in that rule. Only one candidate would receive delegates from California. More than anything, that is a nod to the other allocation-based changes the party adopted at the convention. In recent cycles, the California Republican Party has used a winner-take-most/winner-take-all by congressional district delegate allocation scheme. A candidate who wins statewide is awarded all of the at-large delegates and winners within each of the Golden state's 53 districts would receive three delegates from a won district.

However, given the 2017 presidential primary date change in California, that method of allocation was no longer compliant under Republican National Committee rules. The primary, set for Super Tuesday, is early enough on the primary calendar to fit within the proportionality window the party established for the 2012 cycle, requiring early states to have a proportional allocation plan in place. California Republicans had to make a change.

And that is something the California Republicans at the state convention addressed. Proposal 10 highlights the changes in language within the rule from 2016 to 2020. Gone are the winner-take-all elements, at least as the default. In their place is a proportional scheme consistent with RNC rules. Candidates who receive more than 20 percent of the vote either statewide or in congressional districts will qualify for a proportional share of the delegates within those units. And that is where the aforementioned assumption comes into the picture. Again, the ballot access workaround notes that the committee will determine which candidate -- not candidates -- who would name and slate delegates from the state. CAGOP seemingly is of the opinion that that 20 percent bar -- the highest allowed by the RNC -- is sufficient enough to keep other candidates from qualifying (and thus allow President Trump and his campaign the ability to name a slate of delegates from California).

That is one change instituted, but was not the only one. In addition to the new high qualification threshold, the party also adopted a winner-take-all threshold. That, too, factors into the assumptions the party is making in the newly adopted ballot access rule. Should a candidate win a majority of the vote statewide, then that candidate would win all of the delegates from the state. That is another threshold that President Trump could likely easily hit in the primary should his name appear on the ballot.

But in the end, it is clear that these rules were adopted with the idea of the president winning and naming all of the delegates to the national convention from the state in mind. And the sunset provision is a pretty clear indication the changes were made to ease Trump's path to the nomination. Add California to the list of states, then, that have upped their thresholds for this cycle.


--
¹ This provision, while adopted by the state convention, is only in effect for the 2020 cycle. It expires on January 1, 2021.



--
Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Virginia Republicans Will Hold 2020 Presidential Preference Vote at State Convention

Much ink has been spilled of late about the number of Republican state parties considering or deciding to forgo primaries or caucuses during the 2020 presidential nomination cycle. There was a rash of these decisions during the first weekend of September when Republican parties in Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina opted out of their respective delegate selection events for next year.

But those states are not alone, nor were they the first to opt for a more closed system of selecting and allocating delegates to the 2020 Republican National Convention in Charlotte.

In fact, during their late June state central committee meeting, Virginia Republicans entertained a motion to hold a presidential preference vote at the party's state convention and the Republican Senate nomination vote in a (June) primary. That motion was split into two questions and dealt with separately. While the state central committee voted in a narrow 40-35 roll call vote to conduct a Senate primary in June 2020, the party opted via an uncontroversial voice vote to skip the presidential primary in favor of a presidential preference vote at the party's state convention next year.

Like many of the states above, Virginia Republicans also have a history of selecting and allocating delegates through means other than a primary. Actually Virginia's use of a primary is more of a 21st century phenomenon. Other than 1988, both parties conducted delegate selection through caucus/convention systems or held firehouse primaries (Democratic state party-run contests) through the early years of the post-reform era. That included 1992, the only time in that late 20th century window when a Republican incumbent (George H.W. Bush) was up for renomination.

This was also the case in 2004 when George W. Bush was again seeking the Republican nomination. Virginia Republicans skipped the primary then as well.

Now, history will repeat itself in 2020 as Virginia Republicans will handle the preference vote, national convention delegate selection and delegate allocation at the state convention. Like in the other states, this is likely to benefit President Trump in his effort win, if not all of the delegates from Virginia, then certainly the lion share of them.

While this often gets described as maneuvering to insulate the president from a challenge, it has a history in a number of states -- particularly on the Republican side -- over time. Virginia is yet another data point for that in the 2020 cycle.


--
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

DC GOP Laying Groundwork for March Convention in 2016

The details will be ironed out during September meetings, but the Washington, DC Republican Party is preparing to hold a convention during the second half of March to allocate and bind its delegates to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland next year.

That March Republican convention will replace the June 14 primary scheduled in the district.  The change from a primary to convention was actually necessary. June 14 falls outside of the window in which the Republican National Committee (and the Rules of the Republican Party) allows states and territories to conduct delegate selection events. With the window due to close on the second Saturday in June, Republicans in the district had to begin a search for a back up plan.

By positioning the convention during the second half of March, Republicans in the District of Columbia will be able to continue allocating their delegates in a winner-take-all if the party chooses to follow its past practice. But again, those details along with matters of ballot access will be determined at the September meeting.

DC Democrats will still hold a primary on June 14.

Recent Posts:
North Carolina Still Doesn't Have a Presidential Primary Date

Colorado Republicans Opt to Forgo Presidential Preference Vote at 2016 Caucuses

Is the SEC Primary Working?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

2016 Virginia Presidential Primary Survives Tight Republican State Central Committee Vote

By a vote of 42-39 (with one abstention), the Republican Party of Virginia State Central Committee supported a compromise measure to hold a presidential primary in 2016 and a nominating convention in 2017.

The vote ends the push for a state convention to bind and select delegates to attend the Republican National Convention in Cleveland from Virginia. The convention proposal called for March 5 district conventions to select delegates to move on to the state convention. It would have been at that proposed March 19 state convention that the first presidential preference vote in the process would have taken place, thus binding the delegates for the national convention.

But that proposal never came up for a vote. The primary compromise came up first and was passed. That clears the way for a March 1 Virginia presidential primary, placing the commonwealth alongside other southern states with primaries on the SEC primary date. With Virginia locked in as a primary state and one scheduled for March 1, the focus turns toward compliance with the Republican National Committee rules on proportionality. The Republican Party of Virginia allocated at-large delegates proportionally four years ago, but the congressional district delegates were awarded in a winner-take-all fashion. That latter allocation method will have to be altered to bring Virginia into compliance with the national party rules.

That decision will likely be officially made at the State Central Committee's September meeting.

Recent Posts:
Iowa Republicans Trying to Find the Right Balance in 2016 Delegate Allocation

Local Officials Object to Prospect of New York Losing Bonus Delegates Due to April 19 Presidential Primary

April 19 Presidential Primary Bill Passes New York Assembly

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

March 19 a Possibility for Virginia Republican Presidential Nominating Convention

FHQ dealt with the primary or convention question in Virginia a week ago, but Adam Wollner at the National Journal has incrementally advanced Travis Fain's Daily Press story with some interesting additions. Namely this:

But [conservative activist Russ] Moulton said his allies on the state central committee are eyeing March 19 as a possible date for the convention, which he argued could actually give the state even more influence because it could award all of the delegates to the winner, instead of dividing them up among several of the top finishers.

Most of the primary states are pretty much locked into position on the presidential primary calendar at this point because the bulk of state legislatures have adjourned for the year.¹ This possible primary to convention switch in Virginia makes the Old Dominion something of a wildcard in all of that. And if Virginia Republicans 1) settle on a presidential nominating convention and 2) schedule it for March 19, then the party would have the option of reestablishing the winner-take-all allocation rules the party utilized before the 2012 cycle.

--
It has been hypothesized that caucus/convention states would benefit the Rand Paul campaign in 2016 like they did his father in 2012 (and to a lesser degree 2008). That may be true. But this is dependent upon two factors. First, when is the caucuses or convention scheduled? But also, what allocation rules does the state party adopt?

If a state party opts for precinct caucuses (with a presidential preference vote) before March 15, then the resulting allocation of delegates to the national convention will have to be proportionate to the vote shares received by the candidates in that original vote. Again, the RNC has eliminated non-binding caucuses for the 2016 cycle. Delegates, then, will be bound to candidates based on the results of those early votes. In 2012, the majority of Republican caucus states held caucuses before March 15. Only Missouri held first round caucuses after that point, and only Montana and Nebraska held consequential state conventions after mid-March.

But if there is a break from that pattern in 2016 and caucus states opt for slightly later dates on the calendar, then there could be a number of winner-take-all caucus states. On the surface, that seemingly creates an alternate caucus strategy for the Paul campaign. Virginia is one of those wildcard states. Senator Paul's home state of Kentucky is another. But how many other states could fit into that post-March 14 space on the calendar is an open question. The answer to that question, though depends on state level rules and how much control Paul-aligned forces have within state Republican parties in those caucus states.

Iowa and Nevada are locked into early calendar spots, but are exempt from the proportionality requirement. Nevada Republicans have already voted to proportionally allocated their national convention delegates. Iowa is still a question mark. Next in line are Colorado and Minnesota; caucus states where state law controls the date. Both are locked into positions before March 15 at this point. That means proportional allocation.

Outside of Kentucky and Virginia, that leaves Alaska, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, Washington, Wyoming and the territories. How well the Paul campaign can affect decision-making in those states depends on the extent to which Paul-aligned folks are involved in those state parties. Given the events of 2012, Maine is probably tops on that list.

But digging too deeply into this does ignore one rather large point: Even if all of those states are scheduled after March 14 and all are winner-take-all, they still only cumulatively comprise 228 delegates. Add Kentucky and Virginia and that's 322 delegates. Add those late conventions in Montana and Nebraska and that total rises to 376. That is still only about a quarter of the delegates necessary to clinch the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Sure, one can also add to that any delegates proportionally won in other states, but all of that is a plan built on a lot of ifs.

Still, it is fun trip into the rules weeds.


--
¹ This list includes Virginia. Wollner mentions in his National Journal piece that the Virginia presidential primary would "likely" be on March 1. If Virginia holds a presidential primary during the 2016 cycle, it will be on March 1. For the primary to fall on a date other than March 1, the law would have to be changed, and the legislature adjourned for 2015 at the end of February. There currently are no plans to convene a special session.

Recent Posts:
Never a Dull Moment in Nevada

How is the DNC Involved in the New York Presidential Primary Situation?

2012 Republican Delegate Allocation Rules by State

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Presidential Primary or Convention Question Still Looms Over Virginia Republicans for 2016

Back in March the question was raised as to whether the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) would hold a state-funded presidential primary in 2016 or opt instead for a party-funded convention. Other states have moved around on the calendar -- some have even switched from primaries to caucuses or from caucuses to primaries -- in the time since while the Virginia question has lain fallow for three months.

That appears likely to change when the RPV State Central Committee (SCC) meets on Saturday, June 27 to decide on the process for selecting and allocating delegates to the Republican National Convention next year in Cleveland. Based on past positions of current voting members of the SCC on the primary or convention question, the early whip count looks like it favors the convention format. The one thing that might change that in the actual vote in late June is that the SCC members are up for reelection themselves next year.

Travis Fain's article at the (Hampton) Daily Press mentions that RPV Chair John C. Whitbeck has not taken a position on the matter. Maybe not, but he certainly seems to lean toward the convention option.

--
There are some interesting side notes to explore assuming Virginia Republicans opt for a convention.

• First, is the scheduling. As of now, Virginia is an adopted member of the SEC primary with a primary election scheduled for March 1. Virginia Republicans last selected and allocated delegates to the national convention at a state convention in 1996. During that cycle Virginia Republicans held caucuses leading up to the convention throughout March.  Old Dominion Republicans have utilized a primary in the time since then. However, the party has still maintained a caucus/convention system for selecting delegates to the national convention. The primary has been used to allocate/bind delegates to particular candidates based on the results in that statewide election. The 2012 convention was in mid-June.
• How does the Minnesota decision affect Virginia in a convention (not primary) scenario? Recall that recently the RNC denied the request of Minnesota Republicans to continue to not binding delegates to the convention based on precinct caucuses results. If Virginia Republicans switch to a convention, caucuses naturally precede that end point. Would that mean that delegates would have to be bound based on the results of the earlier steps in the Virginia caucuses? No. Republican National Committee rules -- see Rule 16(a)(1) -- allow the selection and allocation of national convention delegates in a state convention vote. If Virginia Republicans only choose delegates at the earliest stages of the caucus/convention process -- without a presidential preference vote -- then the ultimate selection and allocation can take place at the convention. The difference as compared to Minnesota is that Republicans in the Gopher state were asking to send delegates to the convention unbound to any candidate.
• Depending on the timing of the convention, Virginia Republicans could allocate all of their delegates to one candidate. Virginia is one of the few states that has a history with truly winner-take-all rules (see 2008).
• FHQ will try not to overanalyze this, but again, depending on the timing of a supposed state convention, the early steps of the process could be much harder to determine/report on with no presidential preference vote. The advantage of a preference vote at the precinct caucus level is that it provides some indication of who won -- who the delegates moving on to subsequent steps are bound to/aligned with. Without a preference vote, there is no similar signal. And finding out requires a party willing to share who those delegates are and delegates willing to share to whom they are aligned. Absent that (or perhaps even with it), there is jockeying by the various campaigns to organize and get their folks through to the next step(s) of the process. This is a loophole case that may look a lot like those non-binding caucuses from the early 2012 calendar. 

This all puts a spotlight on the exact nature of the rules that Virginia Republicans adopt. This is one to monitor.

--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for passing along this news to FHQ.

Recent Posts:
"...allows the party to..."

Bill to Move Pennsylvania Presidential Primary to March 15 Introduced

Ohio Presidential Primary Moves to March 15

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Hawaii Republicans Confirm March 8 Presidential Caucuses for 2016

The Hawaii Republican Party convened its 2015 state convention during the weekend of May 2. On the agenda for the delegates in attendance was a routine reexamination of the rules that govern the party and its procedures.

One item that was not seriously debated or at least altered in the rules was the date of the caucuses that will initiate the 2016 national delegate selection/allocation process for Republicans in the Aloha state. Set for the second Tuesday in March under the 2013 rules -- the 2011 rules as well -- that provision was carried over to 2015 rules.

That position will place the Hawaii Republican caucuses on the same date as the Idaho primary, Michigan primary and Mississippi primary on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. Alabama and Ohio are both looking to move away from that date. North Carolina has active legislation to shift into that date.

Recent Posts:
Kansas Democrats Set for March 5 Caucuses in 2016

Let's Talk About the Primary Calendar and the Republican Nomination Race

Utah Democrats Will Caucus on March 22

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Republican Party of Virginia Chair Favors Conventions Over Primaries

FHQ touched on this convention or primary debate within the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) last week. The complaint then was that there was nothing in the reporting from the side of those in support of the convention format for determining presidential preference (and selecting/allocating delegates to the national convention). That has not really changed all that much in a week.

But there is some internal nuance that can be added to the picture now. Newly elected RPV chairman, John C. Whitbeck, hovered above the convention or primary fray in Saturday's Richmond Times-Dispatch story from Markus Schmidt, but offered his own personal preferences:

The state party has not yet landed on a format — the deadline for making a decision is October — and Whitbeck said he won’t rule out either process but made clear that he leans toward a convention. 

“I generally don’t favor state-run primaries,” he said. 

He added: “I don’t think the party of fiscal responsibility should be costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands or potentially millions of dollars. And until we have party registration, we can’t prevent Democrats from causing trouble in our primaries.”

--
Now, that last bit is not an uncommon refrain from state Republican Party organizations across the country over the last few years (or the national party for that matter). Part of it rightly or wrongly gets lumped into the establishment versus tea party narrative. Yet, with Democratic voters perceived to be on the sidelines without a competitive presidential nomination race for a second consecutive cycle in 2016, there is concern -- real or imagined -- that Democrats are out to affect the Republican nomination race. That, in turn impacts tactical decisions like the mode of delegate selection on the state level. And that is something that can transcend the establishment versus tea party divide.

One way we can look at this is to see whether there is a growth or potential increase in Republican caucuses states for the 2016 cycle. At this point -- and it is early yet -- the changes from primaries to caucuses or caucuses to primaries relative to the mode used in 2012 is a wash.

Utah Republicans have already opted to switch from a primary in 2012 to a caucuses/convention system in 2016.

Kentucky Republicans look to be headed in the same direction.

The change is apparently still an open question among Republicans in Virginia.

But for every Utah, Kentucky and Virginia there is an Idaho or Missouri or Washington.

Idaho Republicans, after a cycle with a caucuses system, seem to be on their way toward switching back to a primary; a hard-fought, court-won closed primary. [The party's 2012 switch to caucuses was more about having an earlier date for a delegate selection event.]

Missouri Republicans will also have access to a state-funded primary in 2016 whereas all the party had in 2012 was a non-compliant primary, forcing them into caucuses.

And in Washington state, legislative Republicans are pushing a bill to move the primary up in order to allocate at least a portion of their national convention delegates based on the results. The state canceled the primary in 2012. Interestingly, it is Washington Democrats who prefer the caucuses format in the Evergreen state.

The more one looks at it, the more it becomes clear that it is idiosyncrasies and not necessarily ideological purism that is driving these moves whether to or from a caucuses/convention system. That may play a role, but it has not been the deciding factor.

...at least not in the way that it is being discussed in this Virginia case.

--
Hat tip to the New York Times' Jonathan Martin for the link to the Times-Dispatch story.

Recent Posts:
New Mexico March Presidential Primary Bill Derailed on Second Failed Committee Vote

Utah Republicans Vote to Abandon Presidential Primary for Caucuses in 2016

Kentucky Republicans Support Move to 2016 Presidential Caucuses

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Virginia Republicans Considering Switching from Presidential Primary to Convention?

Are Virginia Republicans contemplating replacing the presidential primary the state has funded since the 2000 presidential election cycle with a state convention that would select and allocate national convention delegates?

Paul Schwartzman at the Washington Post has the story.

--
FHQ is with Michael McDonald on this one. Schwartzman's piece is more about recent Virginia Republican Party infighting than about an actual change from a primary to a state convention.

The closest the story gets to the supposed switch is this:

The divide within Virginia’s GOP burst into the open in 2012, when then-Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a conservative favored by business, fought for control of the party’s governing board with then-Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, whose social views were a magnet for tea party loyalists. 

Cuccinelli’s allies won and changed the process for choosing nominees from a state-sponsored primary open to all registered voters including Democrats, to a convention, which invites only Republicans and typically attracts activists with more hard-line views.  

That debate probably will occur again as the state party considers whether to host a state-run Republican presidential primary or choose the candidate at a convention. A primary, strategists say, would favor an establishment candidate such as former Florida governor Jeb Bush. A convention would be advantageous to a candidate such as Paul, who has a strong following among conservative activists. [Emphasis FHQ's.]

Is this a possibility? Sure, anything is possible, but no one that supports such a move within the Virginia Republican Party was consulted for this story. That is a pretty big missing piece from the puzzle.

Recent Posts:
Minnesota Legislation Would Create Presidential Primary

Florida Bill to Clarify Presidential Primary Date Filed

Maryland Senate Committee Green Lights Minor Presidential Primary Move

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Delegate Selection is Never Easy in Nevada

Why is it that it often appears as if the political parties in Nevada are on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory concerning the matter of national convention delegate selection?

It mostly has to do with the scrutiny attendant to having the state's caucuses thrust into the early, pre-window portion of the presidential primary for 2008. Hillary Clinton brought suit against casino caucuses, won the 2008 Nevada Democratic caucuses anyway, but due to the construction of the state party delegate selection rules lost out in the delegate count to then-Senator Barack Obama.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney won the 2008 Nevada Republican caucuses while almost every other campaign was focused on the South Carolina primary on the same day. The January caucuses were on the up and up, but that a candidate overwhelmingly won them and then withdrew from the race ultimately had the effect of throwing subsequent steps in the delegate selection process into chaos. The void created allowed Ron Paul supporters -- and leftover Romney supporters aligned with them -- to overtake the process, leading to the cancelation of the state convention and later selection of national convention delegates by the Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee.

In each case, the legitimacy of the overall processes was called into question by at least some faction within each party. And by all indications the Nevada Republican Party may be heading down that very same road -- but for slightly different reasons -- in 2012.

FHQ was less concerned than most in February with the molasses-slow count of just less than 35,000 precinct caucus votes on February 4,¹ but it looks like that may have been an omen of things to come. If that wasn't, then the Paul efforts to overrun the special -- and later-than-the-rest caucus -- set up for Jewish caucusgoers observing the Sabbath should have served as a signal. Of course, unlike the 2008 experience, the Nevada Republican Party had at least laid the groundwork for a more orderly process in 2012 by making the vote in the precinct caucuses binding on the ultimate allocation of delegates. The winner of the caucuses, also unlike 2008, stayed in the race. Undeterred by either of those changes, however, Paul supporters pressed on; striving to -- like 2008 -- win as many delegate slots to the county and state conventions as possible.

And that has the Nevada Republican delegate selection process at a crossroads heading into the state convention this coming weekend. On the one hand, Paul forces are well-positioned to affect a repeat of the 2008 state convention (...albeit, the campaign would hope without the cancelation and selection of delegates by the state central committee). But on the other hand, the Republican National Committee Legal Counsel's Office has intervened,²  threatening the state party with just that: ensure that the delegate selection rules laid out carry the day or run the risk of a challenge to the delegation at the national convention in Tampa.

In sum, this is a recipe -- a match and a canister of gasoline -- for an interesting state convention. The first test case of this will occur early on Saturday (10:30a-12:15p) at the state convention when there is a vote scheduled to adopt the proposed rules. If onlookers are attempted to game where the potential points of derailment are, this is the first. Recall that the RNC legal counsel pointed out that it would find any attempt to alter any of the rules "improper". But it is just that sort of thing that the faction of Paul delegates at the state conventions to be held thus far have attempted.

Overall, both sides, I would argue, have pretty good arguments no matter how this progresses, but arguments not without flaws.

The RNC is making the case that rules are in place and that the delegate selection and allocation should reflect those guidelines. The proportional allocation of the state's 28 delegates, in the RNC's view, should allot Romney 20 and Paul the remaining 8.³ Of course, the reallocation of delegate positions bound to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum is potentially premature. Both candidates have suspended their campaigns but the Nevada Republican Party rules call for a withdrawal from the race for delegates to be released. That is debatable, but the RNC seems to be assuming a withdrawal nonetheless. The key on this point is if there are any Santorum or Gingrich delegates at the state convention who are willing to fight for those spots. Additionally, it should be noted that the withdrawal scenario described in the rules fits in a different window of time: a withdrawal after the state convention but before the national convention. There is seemingly no pre-state convention withdrawal scenario accounted for in the NVGOP rules.

Expect to hear this from Paul-aligned delegates on Saturday. They will make the case that those Santorum and Gingrich bound-delegates are fair game and should not be redistributed based on a reallocation of the total number of delegates according to the collective Romney-Paul share and division of the precinct caucus vote. Instead, Romney should have his base 14 delegates allotted to him and Paul, his 5 with the nine other delegates still bound to Gingrich (6 delegates) and Santorum (3 delegates). If there are Gingrich and Santorum delegates there, then they can claim those slots. Otherwise, the remaining top vote-getting delegates -- be they Paul or Romney supporters -- claim those spots. If the Paul forces involved in Nevada are as strong as some are indicating, that would allow them to pick off all or most of those nine delegates. That would in turn equalize the delegate count between Paul and Romney in the state.

Granted, this all assumes that there is a relatively tame fight over the small segment of the rules discussing but not completely specifying the withdrawal of candidates. The Paul campaign could settle for a 14-14 delegate count out of Nevada, but it could also attempt to completely overwrite the proposed rules for the convention during that adoption vote, swinging even more -- or all -- of the delegation Paul's way.

Strategically, the split is probably a more reasonable route -- as opposed to completely rewriting the rules -- simply because attempting to bite off more than Paul state convention delegates can chew may force the Nevada GOP's hand. And by that, I mean, pulling the plug on the convention, as was the case in 2008. That would throw the delegate selection decision to the state central committee again. [The committee is slated to meet the Sunday after the convention is set to adjourn.]

--
One other note (or perhaps notes): The national committeeman and national committeewoman posts are up for election at the state convention as well. Those are obviously two of the three automatic delegates (who are also proportionally allocated -- but bound to the candidate of their preference) from Nevada. The catch is that their term of service does not begin until they are ratified by the Republican National Convention. It isn't clear what would happen if there is a snag in that ratification process -- whether the current members would cast votes during the roll call or what. But a roadblock seems more likely if committee-people-elect come from what is viewed as an illegitimate state convention. Much, it seems, would depend on when that ratification vote took place relative to the roll call vote (likely before it as it has some bearing on the credentialing process).

--
Buckle up, folks. This convention promises to be a fun one.

--
¹ As I've argued, following the 2008 experience and what had happened just a month earlier in Iowa, the Nevada GOP was probably right to take their time counting ballots (...even if the outcome was not nearly as uncertain as had been the case in the Iowa caucuses).

² To follow up on the post from yesterday on Paul's leverage moving forward, take the RNC's letter as at least some evidence of the national party/the Romney campaign attempting to engage in this process to avert any chaos at the national convention.

³ Fabulous Las Vegas Sun reporter Jon Ralston cited the 20 Romney delegates in his write-up of the letter from the RNC last night and confirmed with FHQ that that is based on the reallocation of Gingrich and Santorum delegates from the first round.


Recent Posts:
Question Time: How Much Leverage Does Ron Paul Still Have?

Question Time: What Happens to Santorum's Delegates?

Massachusetts Republican Caucuses: Sigh and Questions that Need to Be Asked/Answered


Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Cart Before the Horse: Pennsylvania/Colorado Edition

FHQ realizes that the desire is to jump to the next seemingly consequential contest in the Republican presidential nomination race. And with 72 unbound delegates -- directly and blindly selected on the April 24 primary ballot¹ -- on the line in the home state of the current number two in the overall delegate count, that is not entirely unwarranted. [Mostly unwarranted, but not entirely.] But to the folks who said after last week's three contests in Maryland, Washington, DC and Wisconsin that there were no contests between now and April 24, well, there are.

...and contests with delegates on the line.

Sure, one could argue that Colorado has already had its turn in the spotlight, but with district and state assemblies later this week in the Centennial state -- contests that will actually select delegates to attend the Republican National Convention in Tampa -- it means more now than in the earlier non-binding straw poll.² Of the 36 Colorado delegates, 21 will be on the line in congressional district assemblies on April 12-13 and 12 more (at-large delegates) will be at stake at the state assembly on April 14. The remaining three delegates are automatic delegates who are free to endorse/pledge to whichever candidate they choose. However, both the national committeeman and national committeewoman -- two of the automatic delegates -- will be elected at the state convention as well.

Looking at the precinct caucuses straw poll results, the inclination is to assume -- as the AP has done -- that Rick Santorum will emerge with more delegates. Of course, this ignores the rules of delegate selection in Colorado.³ Now, while the RNC will likely continue to consider the Colorado delegates unbound even after this weekend, this overlooks the fact that, in a change from the 2008 rules, the Colorado Republican Party is allowing delegate candidates to officially pledge themselves to a candidate. Additionally, that pledge is binding through one ballot at the national convention (...or until said candidate is no longer in the race). [That sounds an awful lot like a bound delegate. As such, this will be an interesting test case in terms of the RNC delegate count. The RNC has already counted the Illinois delegates, though technically unbound, toward both Romney's and Santorum's totals. Those delegates were filed as supporters of the candidates and elected directly on the March 20 primary ballot.]

What this means is that the delegate candidates in Colorado are who we need to look at and not the straw poll results from February 7. By that measure, it looks as if Mitt Romney will emerge victorious in the Colorado delegate count. The former Massachusetts governor has more at-large delegate candidates pledged to him than any other candidate and more pledged congressional district delegates in five of the seven Colorado congressional districts.

The leader in the other two congressional districts, you might be surprised to find out, is Ron Paul and not Rick Santorum. [Perhaps that autopsy should live on.]

Now, before we get into possible Santorum-Paul alliances to prevent Mitt Romney from overperforming his straw poll numbers in another non-binding caucus state, there is another wildcard to discuss: unpledged delegates. The Colorado Republican Party may have changed the rules regarding the pledging/binding of delegates compared to the 2008 cycle, but that never meant that delegates had to run as pledged to a particular candidate. They don't. In fact, if "Unpledged" was a candidate, he or she would be the frontrunner to emerge with the most delegates from Colorado. With the exception of the first congressional district, there are more unpledged delegates than pledged delegates in the six other congressional districts and statewide (at-large). The race to determine/sway the preferences of those delegates will play an outsized role in the selection of delegates in the congressional district and state conventions later this week.

NOTES:

1. As Jon Bernstein pointed out yesterday, though this race is effectively over, the fact that none of the remaining three candidates other than Romney has dropped out -- and by all accounts have no plans to in the near term -- provides us with a nice glimpse into the mechanics of Republican caucus/convention systems in a somewhat competitive environment. It is a helpful exercise to observe what happens -- particularly in light of the projections made based on the February 7 straw poll. 
2. To get back to those latent Santorum-Paul delegate alliances, it is an open question as to whether such coalitions are to the candidates' benefit. On the one hand both could strategically align with each other to prevent Romney from winning the most delegates on either the congressional district level or at the state convention. But on the other hand, the margins are not that great between each candidate individually and Mitt Romney -- statewide or in any of the seven congressional districts -- that the persuasion of some of the unpledged delegates could not be overcome. In fact, FHQ would hypothesize that, at least initially, a Darwinian struggle for the votes of those unpledged delegates would be the optimal strategy for each of the campaigns. But this is a more dynamic process than "form a coalition" or "go-it-alone" for Paul and Santorum (or Romney for that matter). The struggle may be where this starts, but again, there is a difference between delegate selection and delegate binding. And there are no rules to guide this process in Colorado. Nothing has to be proportional to the straw poll vote or the vote at that district or state convention. Nor does the allocation have to be winner-take-all. It could be either, but neither is required by rule. Much, then, will depend on the method of voting. Is it an open Darwinian struggle -- of sorts -- like the Iowa Democratic caucuses or is/are a secret ballot vote(s) taken to determine overall preference and delegates chosen accordingly? We don't know. 
3. Of course, with more than one congressional district, Colorado will be different from North Dakota. The Colorado GOP may put forth a slate of at-large delegates at the state convention -- that doesn't appear to be the case -- but that is a much more difficult enterprise from above and outside of the congressional district conventions. 
4. That has not stopped at least some from crying shenanigans. Romney's delegates will be the first listed on the ballot (...based on national delegate count order).
5. This means a lot less with Santorum suspending his campaign. Consider the experiment in semi-competitive Republican caucus states over.

--
¹ FHQ will have more on the Pennsylvania Republican delegate selection system some other time. Suffice it to say, it will not be the easiest contest in which to gauge some measure of victory for a candidate or candidates. ...as if Rick Santorum needed any more hills to climb in the quest to keep Mitt Romney from 1144.

² Yes, from a momentum standpoint, binding or not, the Colorado win along with Minnesota and Missouri wins helped make Rick Santorum relevant again for the contests -- particularly Michigan -- later in February. That didn't stop the Romney campaign from retorting that Santorum got no delegates out of his February 7 victories.

³ I suppose it helps that the AP (via the New York Times) adds the very fine print that Colorado is non-binding and the delegate allocation for the state is just a projection. It would be perhaps less misleading if they didn't project the delegates at all. See North Dakota.


Recent Posts:
Maine Legislature Exploring Presidential Primary Option for 2016

More on Santorum Delegate Math and Some Thoughts on Texas as Winner-Take-All

Race to 1144: MD, DC & WI Primaries

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Guam Republicans to Select Delegates at March 10 Convention

Guam Republicans will join Republicans in the other outlying Pacific territories, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands by holding a March nominating contest. On March 10 -- just like Republicans in the Northern Marianas -- Republicans in Guam will meet at a territorial convention to select their nine delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. That total includes the territory's three automatic delegates: the territorial party chair, the Guam Republican national committeeman and the Guam Republican national committeewoman (all three of which will be elected at the meeting). The remaining six delegates to the national convention will be chosen from among the registered Republicans in attendance at the March 10 meeting. All nine delegates will attend the national convention unbound.

Guam becomes the last state or territory to set a date. The Texas date is still uncertain, but the state had set a date of March 6 last year before it was changed to April 3 late in 2011 and pushed back even further this last week.

--
Thanks to Eric Tsai for forwarding the news and link to FHQ.


Recent Posts:
A Very Rough Estimate of the Republican Delegate Math Ahead, Part One


A Follow Up on the Maine Republican Caucuses


2012 Republican Delegate Allocation: New York

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Presidential Primary Off the Table in West Virginia Special Session

West Virginia Republican Party chairman, Mike Stuart, is now 0 for 2 in his efforts to keep Mountain state Republicans' voices from being "irrelevant" in the presidential nominating process. This past weekend, Stuart was spurned by his own party when the West Virginia Republican Party Executive Committee voted against the Stuart-backed plan to hold a nominating convention in 2012 as in 2008. On Tuesday, Stuart then saw his call for an earlier West Virginia presidential primary denied when the matter was left off the special state legislative session agenda in acting-Governor Earl Ray Tomblin's session call.

Stuart had little more to say in response than:

“I’m disappointed there is no call for an early presidential primary in 2012,” he said.

However, with unified Democratic control of the state government and an uncontested nomination for the party's nomination, the likelihood of a primary move, much less it being considered in a special session, were always going to be pretty low. As FHQ speculated earlier, Stuart's call for an earlier presidential primary West Virginia now at least gets it on the radar for when/if Democrats either lose control of the state governmental apparati in West Virginia or have a contested presidential nomination race in 2016.¹

With both the convention and earlier primary options now cut off, West Virginia Republicans are locked into delegate selection through the May 8 primary next year.

--

¹ It is unclear if the former will happen in the next four years, but nationally, Democrats are certain to have a contested presidential nomination race in 2016. There will either be an out-going, term-limited Democratic incumbent leaving the White House or a Republican, installed by the 2012 elections, there when that time rolls around.

Recent Posts:

Colorado GOP "Much More Inclined" to Leave Caucuses in March, but Keep February "Door Open"

A Primer on When the Remaining States Might Decide on Presidential Primary/Caucus Dates

Housekeeping: Minnesota Democratic Caucuses on March 6

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

May 8 Primary: Opposition Emerges & Quashes West Virginia Republicans' March 6 Presidential Convention Proposal

The West Virginia Republican Executive Committee today decided the party will, unlike 2008, shun a caucus/convention system to allocate the majority of its presidential delegates in a May primary. Reports of a resolution to once again hold a Super Tuesday convention surfaced nearly two weeks ago, and in the time since at least a couple of county Republican Party chairs have voiced opposition to the state party repeating the delegate selection in a manner mostly consistent with 2008. Joselyn King at the Wheeling News Register aggregates some quotes from some among the anti-convention ranks:

"I am totally against the convention, and so is the Marshall County Executive Committee," Morris said. "I really believe it is the people's choice to select a president - not a person who is a delegate to the convention.

"I'm sure an awful lot of people feel differently," he added. "I got an awful lot of comments after from people who didn't like it. I didn't like it."

"It [May primary] may be too late - but then again, it may not," Morris continued. "It depends on where things fall. It may be a close election that goes later, and our vote will count. But what's the difference in having a convention to have an early voice if the people don't have a say? What's the difference?"

...and...

"I was at the convention before, and I felt uncomfortable about making a decision for the rest of the voters," she [Tyler County chairwoman, Rebecca Wells] noted. "It's not my place.

"It's nice to have candidates come into state and to hear them speak personally. But I wish more people in the state could have seen them," she added. "A convention is not in the best interest of the voters of West Virginia or of Tyler County."

The opposition case proved to be too strong and the resolution passed. The group of executive committee members was apparently sizable enough to threaten and take down the proposal. As such, the two county chairs (quoted above) out of 111 in attendance (or by proxy) and voting today were among those in the majority on the Executive Committee. The final vote was 77-25.

West Virginia will stay on May 8 on the 2012 presidential primary calendar. FHQ will have a link to any press release from the West Virginia Republican Party when and if it is made available.

Recent Posts:

How Does Florida Respond to an Arizona Presidential Primary on January 31?

What a January 31 Arizona Primary Does to the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Arizona Governor Considering Moving Presidential Primary to at Least the Last Tuesday in December January

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.