Back in January, Connecticut Republicans had visions of a potentially more open primary process and an earlier presidential primary. And while Democrats in control of the state legislature and Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill (D) closed the door on an earlier primary (eliminating the possibility of a more open primary in the process), the end of the Connecticut General Assembly session on Wednesday, June 3, served as the final official death knell for such a change through legislative channels.
Still undecided is how hard the Connecticut Republican Party is going to push to hold caucuses at an earlier date than the late April presidential primary. The state law does not seemingly provide the party with the latitude to make the switch, but whether they want to go through the time and expense of a court challenge has yet to be fully determined.
Connecticut Democrats are locked into that April 26 primary date, but Republicans in the Nutmeg state are hoping they will not be.
Again, the two parties are differently motivated. Republicans, with a wide open presidential primary field of candidates are motivated to hold earlier contests. Democrats, on the other hand, have a far less competitive nomination battle ahead of them. Absent that perceived need to influence the nomination process, Democratic-controlled states have incentive to hold later contests, and where possible, to do so with neighboring states (see mid-Atlantic primary in 2012). That means more delegates from the state will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Connecticut already has the later primary date and one regional partner in Rhode Island. The clustering bonus will depend on what compromise is hammered out in New York in the coming weeks.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Utah Republicans Are Preparing for March 22 Presidential Caucuses
The Utah Republican Party this past weekend completed a meeting in which the framework for the 2016 election cycle was set. One tweet of note that caught FHQ's eye coming out of the meeting was from Utah state Senator Todd Weiler (R-23rd, Davis, Salt Lake):
Both the start point for the online voting on March 15 and the final, in-person voting opportunity during the March 22 caucuses will fall outside of the Republican National Committee proportionality window. That allows Utah Republicans to continue with a truly winner-take-all allocation of delegates to the winner of the combined preference vote. Asked whether there were any plans to change course on that allocation method, Babbitt referred to section 7.0B of the state party bylaws -- the description of the winner-take-all method -- and offered that there was no effort underway to alter anything with the allocation of national convention delegates.
Utah Republicans can now be slotted into the March 22 slot on the 2016 presidential primary calendar but with a caveat. We also know that Utah will be another truly winner-take-all primary in mid-March to join Florida.
— Todd Weiler (@gopTODD) May 30, 2015
Utah Republican Party Executive Director, Julian Babbitt confirmed that the party will in fact caucus during March 22 neighborhood meetings across Utah (like Beehive state Democrats), but that the online voting portion of that process will begin a week earlier on March 15, giving voters ample opportunity to cast presidential preference ballots.Both the start point for the online voting on March 15 and the final, in-person voting opportunity during the March 22 caucuses will fall outside of the Republican National Committee proportionality window. That allows Utah Republicans to continue with a truly winner-take-all allocation of delegates to the winner of the combined preference vote. Asked whether there were any plans to change course on that allocation method, Babbitt referred to section 7.0B of the state party bylaws -- the description of the winner-take-all method -- and offered that there was no effort underway to alter anything with the allocation of national convention delegates.
Utah Republicans can now be slotted into the March 22 slot on the 2016 presidential primary calendar but with a caveat. We also know that Utah will be another truly winner-take-all primary in mid-March to join Florida.
End of Legislative Session Kills January Presidential Primary Bill in Texas
This one was unlikely to go anywhere from the start, but HB 1214 -- the bill to move the Texas presidential primary to the last Tuesday in January -- died in committee when the state legislature in the Lone Star state adjourned for 2015 on Monday, June 1.
With the Texas primary already scheduled for the first Tuesday in March -- tied for the fifth position on the calendar and the biggest delegate prize on that date -- a move to January never really made sense. In the committee hearing on the legislation, supporters made the case for moving Texas into a position of maximum importance on the primary calendar -- first -- without considering that the carve-out states would do exactly what they have done over the last two presidential election cycles: move their contests ahead of any states interloping on their turf. In the end Texas would have have moved up on the calendar but remained in the fifth position.
Again, it made no sense to move the primary, keep the same calendar position and lose 90% of the Texas Republican delegation in the process. That is why this was never a serious bill. Well, that and the fact that similar bills have been filed, heard and have gone nowhere during most legislative sessions over the last decade.
With the Texas primary already scheduled for the first Tuesday in March -- tied for the fifth position on the calendar and the biggest delegate prize on that date -- a move to January never really made sense. In the committee hearing on the legislation, supporters made the case for moving Texas into a position of maximum importance on the primary calendar -- first -- without considering that the carve-out states would do exactly what they have done over the last two presidential election cycles: move their contests ahead of any states interloping on their turf. In the end Texas would have have moved up on the calendar but remained in the fifth position.
Again, it made no sense to move the primary, keep the same calendar position and lose 90% of the Texas Republican delegation in the process. That is why this was never a serious bill. Well, that and the fact that similar bills have been filed, heard and have gone nowhere during most legislative sessions over the last decade.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Nevada Adjourns Legislative Session Without Passing Presidential Primary Bill
The effort in Nevada to trade in caucuses for a presidential primary in 2016 died in the sine die day chaos on Monday, June 1 as legislative activity ceased in the Silver state until the 2017 biennium.
What began in March as a Senate bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Nevada and consolidate that election with all other primary elections in January ended as time ran out with the bill still on the board, basically being ignored in the last minute rush. SB 421 took many twists and turns along the way; such is the legislative process. A timeline:
Governor Sandoval (R) has already signaled that there would be no special session. That means both parties in Nevada will hold caucuses in 2016 (unless some money magically appears for Republicans to hold a party-funded primary, perhaps online?).
--
Nevada's Future: What Harry Reid bringeth, Harry Reid taketh away.
There is a lot more to it, but it is fitting that Harry Reid twisted arms to get Nevada into the early Democratic primary line up in 2006 and likely will have played a role in costing the Silver state that protected status in the future.
FHQ says that because it really is not that much of a secret that both parties want to dump Nevada. Republicans were kind of forced to add the Silver state to the carve-out states once the Democrats did so for 2008 and the results so far -- in both 2008 and 2012 -- left much to be desired. Nevada Republicans very simply were not ready for primetime. Under the glare of the presidential primary spotlight, the Republican Party in Nevada has now had two flawed attempts at early caucuses.
On the Democratic side, FHQ has heard more than once -- directly and indirectly -- that they were waiting on Harry Reid to retire before making a change.
None of these changes will happen for 2016. Both national parties have written protections into their rules for Nevada and are unlikely to make any changes midstream. Democrats will caucus as usual next February and the RNC is likely to continue its involvement, collectively slapping enough of a band-aid on the Nevada Republican caucus proceedings to get through without too much damage.
But 2020? FHQ would advise selling any Nevada early state stock that you have.
And last night factors into that to some degree. It is odd to FHQ that Reid would be in opposition to legislation that basically gave both parties in Nevada what their national parties wanted: a primary for Republicans and a caucus for Democrats. The secret to New Hampshire and Iowa staying early has always been that both of the state parties are unified -- in solidarity -- as a means of protecting early state status. Those parties -- or the secretary of state in New Hampshire's case -- do whatever it takes to stay first. If you want a bipartisan issue, in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is that first in the nation status.
Nevada has kind of had that over the last two presidential election cycles. But now they don't or won't. After the defeat of the primary bill at the close of the Nevada state legislative session last night, Nevada now has a situation where the RNC is not happy with the caucuses in the state and the DNC is only marginally so (because Harry Reid still wields some influence).
That is not a unified front. By twisting arms last night, Harry Reid likely jeopardized Nevada Republican's early state status. But by breaking up the best case scenario for both parties in 2016, he likely hurt the chances of Nevada Democrats retaining their position on the calendar in the future.1
None of this is anywhere close to happening. No, this issue will not be dealt with until after the 2016 election, between early 2017 and the summer of 2018 when the national parties finalize their delegate selection rules for the 2020 cycle.
--
1 Now, granted there are short term versus long term implications here. Short term, it may have been in Nevada Democrats' interest to prevent the Republican Party in the Silver state from having a higher turnout primary election that potentially energizes more Republicans in the state. Voters who turnout to vote in a primary are much more likely to participate in a general election (in one of the likely handful of battleground states in 2016).
What began in March as a Senate bill to reestablish a presidential primary in Nevada and consolidate that election with all other primary elections in January ended as time ran out with the bill still on the board, basically being ignored in the last minute rush. SB 421 took many twists and turns along the way; such is the legislative process. A timeline:
- March 29: SB 421 introduced.
- April 9: Bill amended and passed in Senate committee. The amended version would create a consolidated primary on the third Tuesday in February.
- April 13: Bill amended and passed again in Senate committee. The amended version would create a consolidated primary on the last Tuesday in February.
- April 27: RNC signals support of Nevada move to a primary.
- May 12: Nevada Senate passes consolidated primary bill. The Senate-passed version kept the date intact, but provided an out that allowed Democrats in the state to continue holding caucuses.
- May 23: Nevada Assembly committee crafts amendment to Senate-passed bill, breaking up the consolidated primary. Under the amended version, Nevada would have a separate presidential primary on the last Tuesday in February and the other primary elections would remain in June.
- May 27: Nevada Assembly committee rejects amended version of Senate-passed bill.
- May 28: Nevada Assembly committee passes amended version of Senate-passed bill.
- May 31: Lieutenant Governor Hutchison lobbies Assembly members to pass the presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Ryan Ervin (on the Jeb Bush payroll) lobbies Assembly members to pass presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Nevada Republican Party chair tweets out support of presidential primary legislation.
- June 1: Democratic votes become key to passage.
- June 1: Harry Reid calls at least one Assembly Democrat lobbying against the presidential primary bill.
- June 1: Republican Assemblyman Hansen links his vote in favor of presidential primary bill to floor consideration of a parental consent abortion bill.
- June 1: Last minute chaos.
- June 1: Adjournment.
Governor Sandoval (R) has already signaled that there would be no special session. That means both parties in Nevada will hold caucuses in 2016 (unless some money magically appears for Republicans to hold a party-funded primary, perhaps online?).
--
Nevada's Future: What Harry Reid bringeth, Harry Reid taketh away.
There is a lot more to it, but it is fitting that Harry Reid twisted arms to get Nevada into the early Democratic primary line up in 2006 and likely will have played a role in costing the Silver state that protected status in the future.
FHQ says that because it really is not that much of a secret that both parties want to dump Nevada. Republicans were kind of forced to add the Silver state to the carve-out states once the Democrats did so for 2008 and the results so far -- in both 2008 and 2012 -- left much to be desired. Nevada Republicans very simply were not ready for primetime. Under the glare of the presidential primary spotlight, the Republican Party in Nevada has now had two flawed attempts at early caucuses.
On the Democratic side, FHQ has heard more than once -- directly and indirectly -- that they were waiting on Harry Reid to retire before making a change.
None of these changes will happen for 2016. Both national parties have written protections into their rules for Nevada and are unlikely to make any changes midstream. Democrats will caucus as usual next February and the RNC is likely to continue its involvement, collectively slapping enough of a band-aid on the Nevada Republican caucus proceedings to get through without too much damage.
But 2020? FHQ would advise selling any Nevada early state stock that you have.
And last night factors into that to some degree. It is odd to FHQ that Reid would be in opposition to legislation that basically gave both parties in Nevada what their national parties wanted: a primary for Republicans and a caucus for Democrats. The secret to New Hampshire and Iowa staying early has always been that both of the state parties are unified -- in solidarity -- as a means of protecting early state status. Those parties -- or the secretary of state in New Hampshire's case -- do whatever it takes to stay first. If you want a bipartisan issue, in Iowa and New Hampshire, it is that first in the nation status.
Nevada has kind of had that over the last two presidential election cycles. But now they don't or won't. After the defeat of the primary bill at the close of the Nevada state legislative session last night, Nevada now has a situation where the RNC is not happy with the caucuses in the state and the DNC is only marginally so (because Harry Reid still wields some influence).
That is not a unified front. By twisting arms last night, Harry Reid likely jeopardized Nevada Republican's early state status. But by breaking up the best case scenario for both parties in 2016, he likely hurt the chances of Nevada Democrats retaining their position on the calendar in the future.1
None of this is anywhere close to happening. No, this issue will not be dealt with until after the 2016 election, between early 2017 and the summer of 2018 when the national parties finalize their delegate selection rules for the 2020 cycle.
--
1 Now, granted there are short term versus long term implications here. Short term, it may have been in Nevada Democrats' interest to prevent the Republican Party in the Silver state from having a higher turnout primary election that potentially energizes more Republicans in the state. Voters who turnout to vote in a primary are much more likely to participate in a general election (in one of the likely handful of battleground states in 2016).
Monday, June 1, 2015
Update on the 2016 New York Presidential Primary
Jimmy Vielkind at Capital New York has a really cool piece up today digging into the delegate selection rules arcana in the Empire state.
Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
On the potential date of the New York presidential primary:
On delegate allocation rules:
New York now has just 27 congressional districts and under the delegate selection proposal the Republican Party will vote on on Tuesday (June 2), each district will be apportioned three delegates. Unless a candidate receives a majority of the vote in a district, the delegates will be allocated in a manner similar to how Georgia Republicans allocated their district delegates in 2012. It is not specified, but one could assume that the at-large delegates will be similarly allocated as compared to 2012: if there is a majority winner statewide would be awarded all of those at-large delegates (if not trigger a truly winner-take-all allocation of all of the delegates, both at-large and congressional district). Such a plan would be compliant with RNC rules in March or April and within or outside of the proportionality window.
On other delegate selection rules:
--
Overall, we now have a bit more information on the 2016 Republican delegate selection process in New York. Sure, the primary is scheduled for February now, but that has never really been a threat to the stability of the national parties' calendar plans. However, June is upon us and the negotiations between New York Democrats and Republicans does not appear to have started. We also now have a some clarity on how delegates will be allocated in New York and how much direct control over the selection process the candidates/campaigns will have.
--
1 Even if the Pennsylvania presidential primary were to move to mid-March, New York would still be eligible for those bonuses in a partnership with Connecticut or Rhode Island. The clustering bonus requires a coalition of at least three contiguous states.
Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
On the potential date of the New York presidential primary:
It's too early to say whether the G.O.P. field will have coalesced by the time of the primary, which [adviser to the New York Republican Party state committee, Tony] Casale said would be in either March or April of next year. Democrats and Republicans must agree on a date, and pass a bill through the Legislature. In 2012, New York's presidential primary was held on April 24.Currently scheduled for the first Tuesday in February, the New York primary will have to be moved back to comply with the national party rules on delegate selection. Republicans in the state expressed a preference for a March 1 primary earlier this year, but as FHQ mentioned then, such a decision would require some buy-in from Democrats in the state legislature. Another late April primary would make New York a bridge between mid-Atlantic primaries in Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania and New England primaries in Connecticut and Rhode Island. As was the case during the 2012 presidential election cycle, New York Democrats would be eligible for bonus delegates for both holding a later primary and clustering primaries with regional partners.1 Republicans may want an earlier primary, but Democrats in the state are differently motivated.
On delegate allocation rules:
The state's delegates will not be awarded on a winner-take-all basis, but rather according to whichever candidate does best in each of New York's 27 congressional districts. A candidate could capture three delegates if they win an outright majority; otherwise, the leading candidate will win two delegates and the runner-up one.To be quite clear, New York Republicans abandoned their truly winner-take-all delegate allocation plan in 2011. In 2012, the party moved to and utilized an interesting hybrid allocation. Since the redistricting process had yet to be completed, New York Republicans apportioned two delegates to each of the 29 districts drawn for the 2002-2012 census cycle. Those delegates were awarded in a winner-take-all fashion to the winner of each congressional district. The remaining 34 delegates were at-large and were proportionally allocated to candidates based on the statewide results in the April primary.
New York now has just 27 congressional districts and under the delegate selection proposal the Republican Party will vote on on Tuesday (June 2), each district will be apportioned three delegates. Unless a candidate receives a majority of the vote in a district, the delegates will be allocated in a manner similar to how Georgia Republicans allocated their district delegates in 2012. It is not specified, but one could assume that the at-large delegates will be similarly allocated as compared to 2012: if there is a majority winner statewide would be awarded all of those at-large delegates (if not trigger a truly winner-take-all allocation of all of the delegates, both at-large and congressional district). Such a plan would be compliant with RNC rules in March or April and within or outside of the proportionality window.
On other delegate selection rules:
Casale said that candidates' names—not delegates—will appear on the ballot, and in a break from 2012, the various campaigns will not have to file lists of people backing their effort with the state Board of Elections. Instead, “local Republican leaders and party faithful will pick the delegates—not the candidates themselves.”Read Vielkind's story for the background on this change stretching back to 2012. This "Rob Cole rule" is an interesting one though. The change it brings about speaks pretty directly to a post FHQ wrote a few weeks ago about how much control candidates -- particularly Republican candidates -- have over the delegate selection process. New York has in the past been a state that has candidates file slates of delegates to be elected directly on the primary ballot. However, the Republican Party in New York will break with that tradition in 2016 (if the rules change is passed on Tuesday). The planned change would relieve campaigns the added task of filing delegates, but in exchange the candidates would give up control over the selection to state and local party officials. That eliminates some of the types of issues that both New York and Massachusetts delegate selection processes had in 2012. Again, Republican candidates do not technically have the right to review delegates bound to them before the national convention.
The delegates will be pledged to the winning candidate on the first ballot, but will be free to select whomever they choose in the unlikely event of a second convention ballot.
--
Overall, we now have a bit more information on the 2016 Republican delegate selection process in New York. Sure, the primary is scheduled for February now, but that has never really been a threat to the stability of the national parties' calendar plans. However, June is upon us and the negotiations between New York Democrats and Republicans does not appear to have started. We also now have a some clarity on how delegates will be allocated in New York and how much direct control over the selection process the candidates/campaigns will have.
--
1 Even if the Pennsylvania presidential primary were to move to mid-March, New York would still be eligible for those bonuses in a partnership with Connecticut or Rhode Island. The clustering bonus requires a coalition of at least three contiguous states.
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination
Let's take those indicators one at a time:
1. David Bernstein posed a question this morning about studies examining crowd size and the correlation that holds with success in early primaries. It is an interesting question, but no one on an ad hoc panel of three political scientists could come up with any research that had dug into the question. Anecdotally, it is reminiscent of the similar connection that was drawn from the level of Romney crowd enthusiasm during the home stretch of the 2012 presidential (general) election. It just does not seem to be a good indicator of success in (presidential) elections.
2. But why were there 3000 or more people there to greet Bernie Sanders on a Sunday afternoon in late May 2015 in Minneapolis of all places? That has to say something, right? Yes, it does. But let's look at what it means from a slightly different angle.
Political scientists will often tell you to "ignore those polls". And that is absolutely correct in the instance of presidential primary polls this far out from when the Iowa caucuses kick off the presidential primary season. However, there has been a consistency to the polling of the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination race. Clinton has been at or around the 60% mark since 2013. That is a few data points. One could obviously counter that that is just name recognition driving that. A large part of it probably is. Survey respondents know Clinton better than they know Sanders or O'Malley or Chaffee or Webb or whomever. Let's focus not on that 60% but instead zero in on the remaining 40%.
That is a pretty significant chunk of Democratic primary voters. A chunk that would prefer someone else to Hillary Clinton. A chunk that can be enthusiastic about that preference. But that could also be a faction of Democratic primary voters who still only comprise 40% of the total primary electorate. That may yield some primary or caucus victories -- if there is a clear alternative to Clinton behind whom that faction nearly unanimously backs -- but it still is not likely to win the Democratic nomination.
As FHQ and others have often pointed out, polling is but one indicator at which to look in the context of a presidential nomination battle. There are also fundraising and endorsements. FHQ has often drawn a parallel between Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Al Gore in 2000. It may be splitting hairs, but perhaps the better 2000 comparison is George W. Bush. Like Clinton in 2015, Bush had huge polling, fundraising and endorsement leads in 1999. Even with those advantages, Bush still lost a handful of early contests (New Hampshire, Michigan, Arizona in February and a handful of northeastern states on Super Tuesday in early March) to John McCain. An insurmountable lead does not necessarily prevent primary or caucus losses for the frontrunner, but it does present a very steep climb for any challenger for the nomination.
Clinton can and perhaps will lose a primary or caucus here and there during 2016. And if one wants to look at where enthusiastic crowds can or will matter look to the same group of contests that bedeviled the 2008 Clinton campaign: caucuses. In those lower turnout elections in states like Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado or Nevada (or Kansas, Maine and Nebraska), a small enthusiastic group might be able to overwhelm the process in a manner similar to the way the Obama campaign did in 2008 or the Paul campaigns have done in 2008, 2012 and hope to replicate in 2016.
There are a couple of things that run against that hypothesis for Clinton in 2016. First, the institutional memory within the Clinton campaign is not that short. They will, no doubt, work to prevent a similar caucuses collapse in 2016. Secondly (and perhaps because of the memories of 2008), those seven caucuses states listed above are the only caucuses states scheduled (or likely scheduled) before March 22. The remaining seven caucuses states begin the caucus/convention process on or after March 22. That is a point on the calendar where the field will have been significantly winnowed if not winnowed to just Clinton.
Look, ask anyone -- Democrat, Republican, independent or political junkie -- and they will tell you that they would rather see a real race for the Democratic nomination than something like 2012 when President Obama was seeking renomination or like 2000 when Vice President Gore easily handled a challenge from former New Jersey senator, Bill Bradley. But wanting the Democratic nomination to be competitive or as competitive as the Republican nomination race probably is is not realistic. There will likely be an attempt made to read a McCain in 2000 scenario into the 2016 Democratic nomination race, but what we may get is that scenario similar to the Romney/not-Romney dynamic in 2012.
...but with those, in this case, not-Clintons rising and falling during 2015 and peaking in the polls far below where Clinton is established. FHQ would urge folks not to jump to conclusions on all of this.
--
1 It seems that there is some effort to manufacture a contest on the Democratic side without really scrutinizing it in the same way that the Republican race is being covered. Is there any reason to suspect that Sanders would not enjoy the polling (and enthusiasm?) bumps, post-announcement, that some of the Republican candidates have seen after they threw their hats in the ring?
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Some Musings on the 2016 Presidential Primary Calendar
A few thoughts on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and its impact at the end of May 2015:
1. For all the talk of frontloading around here, there have been but two states that have (actively) moved earlier on the 2016 presidential primary calendar: neighbors, Arkansas and Louisiana. The Natural state presidential primary shifted up 12 weeks from late May to the first Tuesday in March this past week. Just south in the Pelican state, the presidential primary was bumped up two weeks in 2014. There are two additional states -- New York and Texas -- that had later primary dates in 2012 than each currently does on the 2016 calendar. The New York move from February to April in 2011 expired at the end of 2012, returning the presidential primary in the Empire state to February. In Texas, the 2012 redistricting court battle forced the primary back to the end of May. But the Lone Star state primary reverted to the first Tuesday in March date called for in state law for 2016 (with redistricting settled).
2. Alabama is very likely to join that group and a handful of other southern states on March 1; the date of the proposed SEC primary.
3. Most states that have moved or are in the process of potentially moving are shifting back to later dates on the calendar. The vast majority of that movement has been cleaning up the the February remainders that were left during and after 2012. That group includes the 2012 rogue states, Arizona, Florida and Michigan, as well as a handful of non-binding caucus/primary states, Minnesota and Missouri.1 All of those states now have positions on the 2016 calendar in March.
4. The month of March has gotten it from the other end as well. The Texas reversion, the Arkansas move, and likely the North Carolina move together mean that three states will hold primaries and around 250 [Republican] delegates will be allocated in March rather than May. Similarly, those February-then-March-now states mentioned above translate to approximately 300 delegates being allocated in March 2016 rather than February 2012. If you want to quantify the calendar compression that the Republican National Committee wanted/wants for the 2016 cycle, then the shift of those 550 delegates from earlier and later points on the 2012 calendar captures it well.
5. FHQ spoke with Alex Jaffe at CNN earlier this week and she asked a question about candidate/campaign behavior; specifically their visits to states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Why are candidates appearing at Georgia Republican state conventions? Why are they in Tennessee? What's the allure of Michigan? There are three reasons FHQ would highlight:
6. FHQ will propose a hypothesis: As calendar year 2016 (or perhaps the Iowa caucus) approaches, visits to non-carve-out states will decrease. Certainty -- with both the calendar and candidate positioning -- will increase and the campaigns will focus more and more on those earliest states. That is not to suggest the focus will exclusively be on those first four states, but it will shift toward them.
7. Interestingly, there seems to be a cut-off on the calendar: March 15. That seems to be a line of demarcation. Yes, that is the point on the calendar where the proportionality window closes, but candidates and their campaigns are not spending much time if any in states with contests after March 15. That is telling. First, it means that there is a limit to just how forward thinking the campaigns are willing to be. Secondly, however, that is a bit of an indirect indication that that is a point on the calendar where the candidates and their campaign braintrusts are hedging their bets and assuming the race will be concluded (or that the presumptive winner of the nomination will have emerged).
The process is not there yet, but the 2016 presidential primary calendar is a lot further along in 2015 than it was in 2011.
--
1 Though Missouri held a February presidential primary in 2012, the Missouri Republican Party chose to tether its delegate selection/allocation to a rules-compliant caucus/convention system that began in mid-March.
2 The Florida primary actually preceded the Nevada Republican caucuses in 2012.
1. For all the talk of frontloading around here, there have been but two states that have (actively) moved earlier on the 2016 presidential primary calendar: neighbors, Arkansas and Louisiana. The Natural state presidential primary shifted up 12 weeks from late May to the first Tuesday in March this past week. Just south in the Pelican state, the presidential primary was bumped up two weeks in 2014. There are two additional states -- New York and Texas -- that had later primary dates in 2012 than each currently does on the 2016 calendar. The New York move from February to April in 2011 expired at the end of 2012, returning the presidential primary in the Empire state to February. In Texas, the 2012 redistricting court battle forced the primary back to the end of May. But the Lone Star state primary reverted to the first Tuesday in March date called for in state law for 2016 (with redistricting settled).
2. Alabama is very likely to join that group and a handful of other southern states on March 1; the date of the proposed SEC primary.
3. Most states that have moved or are in the process of potentially moving are shifting back to later dates on the calendar. The vast majority of that movement has been cleaning up the the February remainders that were left during and after 2012. That group includes the 2012 rogue states, Arizona, Florida and Michigan, as well as a handful of non-binding caucus/primary states, Minnesota and Missouri.1 All of those states now have positions on the 2016 calendar in March.
4. The month of March has gotten it from the other end as well. The Texas reversion, the Arkansas move, and likely the North Carolina move together mean that three states will hold primaries and around 250 [Republican] delegates will be allocated in March rather than May. Similarly, those February-then-March-now states mentioned above translate to approximately 300 delegates being allocated in March 2016 rather than February 2012. If you want to quantify the calendar compression that the Republican National Committee wanted/wants for the 2016 cycle, then the shift of those 550 delegates from earlier and later points on the 2012 calendar captures it well.
5. FHQ spoke with Alex Jaffe at CNN earlier this week and she asked a question about candidate/campaign behavior; specifically their visits to states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Why are candidates appearing at Georgia Republican state conventions? Why are they in Tennessee? What's the allure of Michigan? There are three reasons FHQ would highlight:
- More candidates running or likely running for the Republican presidential nomination means a larger potential total population of visits. This is a minor point, but a part of the story nonetheless.
- Uncertainty/certainty 2012. The 2012 race for the Republican nomination was marked by calendar uncertainty and relative candidate certainty. It was pretty clear throughout 2011 that the Republican race would operate by a Romney/not Romney dynamic. But while that worked itself out in the polling on the race, the calendar formation dragged on into the fall of 2011. Candidates knew the carve-out states would go first and that Florida would likely be right on the heels of those contests2, but where they would end up on the calendar and how/where other states might slot in behind them added enough uncertainty to decision-making within campaigns. That lack of calendar clarity, it could be argued, forced the candidates to focus on the earliest states on the calendar. [Breaking that Romney/not-Romney dynamic early was also a contributing factor (for those potential not-Romneys).]
- Certainty/uncertainty 2016: Fast forward to 2015-16 and the positioning of the candidates is if not less clear, then it is more jumbled relative to 2012. But the calendar? The primary calendar is as clear as an unmuddied lake compared to the 2012 calendar at this same point in 2011. That has a significant impact on campaign decision-making. If a candidate or his/her campaign is aware of the likely shape of the primary calendar, they can more efficiently if not effectively allocate their resources (campaign spending and candidate visits). A crowded field and calendar certainty leads to candidates attempting to carve out some niche -- some state -- where they can claim victory and stay alive. But again, this is activity in 2015. Once the calendar (year) switches from 2015 to 2016 and especially once votes are cast in those carve-out states, the winnowing of the field will hit or already have hit overdrive. That does not make travel to later states unnecessary or wishful thinking on the part of candidates and their campaigns. Rather it is more properly viewed as insurance should a candidate claim one of the two or three viable slots heading into March (or deeper into March).
6. FHQ will propose a hypothesis: As calendar year 2016 (or perhaps the Iowa caucus) approaches, visits to non-carve-out states will decrease. Certainty -- with both the calendar and candidate positioning -- will increase and the campaigns will focus more and more on those earliest states. That is not to suggest the focus will exclusively be on those first four states, but it will shift toward them.
7. Interestingly, there seems to be a cut-off on the calendar: March 15. That seems to be a line of demarcation. Yes, that is the point on the calendar where the proportionality window closes, but candidates and their campaigns are not spending much time if any in states with contests after March 15. That is telling. First, it means that there is a limit to just how forward thinking the campaigns are willing to be. Secondly, however, that is a bit of an indirect indication that that is a point on the calendar where the candidates and their campaign braintrusts are hedging their bets and assuming the race will be concluded (or that the presumptive winner of the nomination will have emerged).
The process is not there yet, but the 2016 presidential primary calendar is a lot further along in 2015 than it was in 2011.
--
1 Though Missouri held a February presidential primary in 2012, the Missouri Republican Party chose to tether its delegate selection/allocation to a rules-compliant caucus/convention system that began in mid-March.
2 The Florida primary actually preceded the Nevada Republican caucuses in 2012.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Hutchinson's Signature Moves 2016 Arkansas Presidential Primary to March
Quickly on the heels of the Arkansas state legislature wrapping up the business of its special session on Thursday, Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) signed SB 8 into law on Friday, May 29. The newly changed statute would shift the consolidated May Arkansas primaries, including the presidential primary, to the first Tuesday in March.
Arkansas now joins Tennessee and Texas on the March 1 SEC primary date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. And despite all the legislative wrangling in both the regular and special sessions, Arkansas becomes the first state to officially move into that calendar position for 2016 during the 2015 state legislative season.1 SEC primary legislation failed in Mississippi and awaits the governor's consideration in Alabama. Georgia is also very likely to wind up on March 1.
Arkansas will share that March 1 date with those states plus neighboring Oklahoma as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Virginia. However, the primary in the Natural state will return to its May date at the end of 2016.
--
1 Tennessee changed its law during 2011 for the 2012 cycle and Texas, not a part of the original SEC primary proposal, reverted to its first Tuesday in March primary date after a redistricting dispute in 2011-12 forced a temporary change. Though Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has coordinated the SEC primary effort (and holds the ultimate power to set the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state), he has not officially scheduled the 2016 Georgia presidential primary. However, it is pretty clear where Georgia will end up on the calendar.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News sending news of the signing on to FHQ.
Arkansas now joins Tennessee and Texas on the March 1 SEC primary date on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. And despite all the legislative wrangling in both the regular and special sessions, Arkansas becomes the first state to officially move into that calendar position for 2016 during the 2015 state legislative season.1 SEC primary legislation failed in Mississippi and awaits the governor's consideration in Alabama. Georgia is also very likely to wind up on March 1.
Arkansas will share that March 1 date with those states plus neighboring Oklahoma as well as Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Virginia. However, the primary in the Natural state will return to its May date at the end of 2016.
--
1 Tennessee changed its law during 2011 for the 2012 cycle and Texas, not a part of the original SEC primary proposal, reverted to its first Tuesday in March primary date after a redistricting dispute in 2011-12 forced a temporary change. Though Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has coordinated the SEC primary effort (and holds the ultimate power to set the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state), he has not officially scheduled the 2016 Georgia presidential primary. However, it is pretty clear where Georgia will end up on the calendar.
--
Thanks to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News sending news of the signing on to FHQ.
Upon Further Review: Nevada Assembly Committee Passes Presidential Primary Bill
A day after rejecting the measure to create a presidential primary in Nevada, the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee passed an amended SB 421 on a party line, 6-4 vote. Unlike Wednesday's less cohesive committee vote, majority Republicans on the panel voted as a bloc in favor of the change on Thursday, May 28.
The amended bill would establish a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February. That differs from the Senate-passed version that would not only have created a presidential primary in the Silver state, but would have, in a cost-savings move, shifted the June primaries for other offices up to February as well. It was that latter provision that received pushback from elections administrators across the state and Democrats on the panel among others.
With time winding down on a legislative session due to adjourn on June 1, SB 421 now heads to the Assembly floor with a "Do Pass" recommendation from the Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. If the bill passes there, it could proceed along one of two paths. First, the bill could be sent back to the state Senate for another round of consideration (in its amended form). However, it could also head to a conference committee to hammer out the differences between the chambers (before being sent back for final votes in the Assembly and Senate). Either way offers potential roadblocks.
But first thing's first: The full Assembly gets a crack at voting up or down on the measure to create a presidential primary in the Silver state.
--
A tip of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up on the committee vote.
The amended bill would establish a separate presidential primary scheduled for the last Tuesday in February. That differs from the Senate-passed version that would not only have created a presidential primary in the Silver state, but would have, in a cost-savings move, shifted the June primaries for other offices up to February as well. It was that latter provision that received pushback from elections administrators across the state and Democrats on the panel among others.
With time winding down on a legislative session due to adjourn on June 1, SB 421 now heads to the Assembly floor with a "Do Pass" recommendation from the Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. If the bill passes there, it could proceed along one of two paths. First, the bill could be sent back to the state Senate for another round of consideration (in its amended form). However, it could also head to a conference committee to hammer out the differences between the chambers (before being sent back for final votes in the Assembly and Senate). Either way offers potential roadblocks.
But first thing's first: The full Assembly gets a crack at voting up or down on the measure to create a presidential primary in the Silver state.
--
A tip of the cap to Richard Winger at Ballot Access News for the heads up on the committee vote.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Arkansas House Sends SEC Primary Bill Off to Governor Hutchinson
The Arkansas House on Thursday, May 28 passed SB 8 by a vote of 67-22. The amended version of the bill would shift the primaries for a number of offices -- including the presidential primary -- from the mid-May to the first Tuesday in March during the 2016 cycle. The compromise hammered out in the state Senate would expire at the end of 2016 returning the Arkansas primaries to May for subsequent cycles.
The House had already passed its version of the bill that would have permanently set the date of the consolidated primary for March. That same bill faced resistance in the state Senate though, forcing the compromise to only make the primaries date change for the 2016 cycle. The House passed the compromise version by a wider margin than the permanent change.
The bill now heads to Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) who supported the change in his call for a special session last week.
The House had already passed its version of the bill that would have permanently set the date of the consolidated primary for March. That same bill faced resistance in the state Senate though, forcing the compromise to only make the primaries date change for the 2016 cycle. The House passed the compromise version by a wider margin than the permanent change.
The bill now heads to Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R) who supported the change in his call for a special session last week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)