Out of Arkansas, An Apparent Challenge to the New Hampshire Primary

This morning new legislation was introduced in the Arkansas state legislature to move the May consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- into February.

SB 276, filed by state Senator Trent Garner (R-27th, El Dorado), would push the general primary from the third Tuesday in June to the first Tuesday in March. But here is the catch: the language of the nomination process in the Natural state is unconventional. The general primary refers to a runoff election, but that is the election described/scheduled in the current elections statute. The scheduling of the preferential primary -- the first round of the nomination process -- follows from that general primary date. Currently, that occurs four weeks prior to the general primary on the third Tuesday in May.

But while Garner's bill would move the general primary to a date compliant with the national party rules, again, it is a runoff. Under the legislation, the preferential primary -- the one that matters here -- would occur three weeks prior to the first Tuesday in March.

That falls on the second Tuesday in February.

...the same day as the date on which the New Hampshire presidential primary currently and tentatively scheduled.

Is this a true challenge to the New Hampshire primary?

Not really. First, Arkansas had a difficult enough time moving into March for the 2016 cycle to join the SEC primary. That entailed a last minute deal being cut in the state Senate during a 2015 special session to get a temporary primary date change approved. And that was after a similar measure failed during the regular session that same year. Then, efforts two years ago to move the primary back to March for 2020 again fell flat.

These bills have always found resistance in the state Senate and over moving the primary into winter which elongates the general election campaign. It is not a financial cost, then, that state senators have balked at in the past, but rather a change in the regular rhythms of Arkansas elections for offices up and down the ballot. And it has not helped that the past moves -- 1988, 2008 and 2016 -- have not delivered the sort of attention decision makers in the state have promised and/or desired.

Now, add to that an additional layer: encroaching on New Hampshire's turf if this bill becomes law and violating the national party rules on scheduling in the process. The penalties -- losing half of the Democratic delegation and around two-thirds of the Republican delegation -- do not make the move attractive.

To add insult to injury, Garner's bill is not aggressive enough. It would shift the Arkansas primary into the tentative position reserved for the presidential primary in Granite state, but it certainly would not keep the New Hampshire secretary of state moving the primary there to an earlier date after the Arkansas legislature has adjourned and is powerless to respond. It is that ability that has helped keep New Hampshire at the front of the presidential primary queue.

This may be another "flamethrower" but it is likely to meet the same fate as those in the past.

--
Related:
2/11/19: Arkansas Lawmaker Signals a Scaling Back of Presidential Primary Legislation

2/16/19: Amendment to Arkansas Bill Eyes March for Presidential Primary Move

3/1/19: New March Presidential Primary Bill Flies Through Arkansas Senate Committee

3/9/19: Arkansas Senate Makes Quick Work of March Presidential Primary Bill

3/13/19: Arkansas House Committee Advances March Presidential Primary Bill

3/19/19: On to the Governor: Super Tuesday Bill Passes Arkansas House

3/25/19: Arkansas Presidential Primary to Super Tuesday

--
The Arkansas bill has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.


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

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Ranked Choice Voting in the New Hampshire Primary?

Thoughts on some aspect of the invisible primary and links to the movements during the days that recently were...

Last week's AP story on the bill that would bring ranked choice voting to the presidential primary in New Hampshire had made its way around enough that by the weekend several folks reached out to ask FHQ how well the plan, if adopted, would jibe with the longstanding proportionality mandate layered into the DNC delegate selection rules.

And my answer at the time was that it depends.

It depends on how the system is set up in the legislation. The classic conception of ranked choice voting is of the system determining one winner. It does this by reallocating votes from the least preferred candidates until one most preferred candidate emerges. This is how the system under its maiden voyage in Maine worked during the 2018 midterm elections.

But the goal is different under the Democratic presidential nomination rules. Reallocating votes until one winner is determined would be a system set up to allocate all of the delegates to the winner in a hypothetical New Hampshire primary run like Maine's elections were last fall. Clearly that would not fly under the provisions of the Democratic proportionality mandate.

And the New Hampshire bill is crafted with this in mind. Instead of reallocating votes until one winner is determined, the proposed New Hampshire system would cut the reallocation off at 15 percent. The votes of candidates with less than 15 percent of the vote -- statewide and in the congressional districts -- would be shifted to candidates above that threshold based on the ranked preferences of voters.

That would not only seemingly be consistent with the DNC rules requiring a proportional allocation of delegates but would allow all voters to weigh in on the ultimate delegate allocation. Under the current system of delegate allocation at the state level, only votes for the candidates above the 15 percent qualifying threshold count toward the allocation of delegates.

It is not clear that this bill will either gain traction in New Hampshire or pass muster with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. The idea of ranked choice voting never really came up in any meaningful way during the Unity Reform Commission deliberations on the 2020 rules during 2017 or when the baton was passed to the Rules and Bylaws Committee in 2018. It was, however, raised at the DNC meeting in Chicago in August 2018 that ultimately adopted the 2020 delegate selection rules. The motion to include ranked choice voting at the primary stage and at convention voting was dismissed, but not necessarily because there was no appetite for it. Rather, it late in the game to add something to the rules without the sort of consideration the rules that were changed received over a two year process.

This bill passing and being signed into law would force the RBC to weigh in on the matter, but that remains a ways and many steps in the legislative process in the Granite state away.


--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. Big donors may still largely be on the sidelines, but Harris is finding some fundraising success in her own backyard. Brown is going to have to play catch up in the #MoneyPrimary. And Hickenlooper is going to have to expand his fundraising base beyond Colorado.

2. The #StaffPrimary has picked up steam over the last week. Gillibrand has made some Iowa hires. Harris tapped a couple of big names in Iowa to be a part of her campaign in the Hawkeye state. Inslee's PAC is advertising positions that sound like they may ultimately be a part of a presidential campaign. Brown has a campaign manager-in-waiting. Delaney has added staff in New Hampshire. And Booker has lined up an experienced crew across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

3. Booker is officially in.

4. Harris' rollout has coincided with a couple of Californians bowing out of the 2020 race. LA mayor, Eric Garcetti, has done more of the typical things that prospective presidential candidates do. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has not other than going to New Hampshire and not quelling the discussions of him running. Both have now ended the discussion, and Harris is the only Golden state candidate still officially running. Swalwell may change that in the near future. #CaliforniaWinnowing

5. The #StaffPrimary is not the only component of the #InvisiblePrimary that is heating up. The first trickle of endorsements in the #EndorsementPrimary are starting to emerge. Harris has claimed a trio of House endorsements from members of the California delegation, most recently from Rep. Katie Hill and Rep. Nanette Barragan. Fresh off of his announcement, Cory Booker picked up a couple of Garden state endorsements from Senator Menendez and Governor Murphy. Meanwhile in Iowa, John Delaney has the support of a handful of rural county party chairs in the Hawkeye state. The early trend is inaction on the part of superdelegates, but the ones who are endorsing early are from the home states of the candidates who have announced. One exception is Harry Reid. His support of Warren is an endorsement without an endorsement. The only way to really test that is if Reid ends up helping some other candidate or candidates. Otherwise, he has endorsed Warren.

6. Is it Iowa or bust for Sherrod Brown?

7. Schultz passed on the Democratic nomination, but is heading to where the 2020 attention is.

8. Moulton remains mum on 2020 in New Hampshire.

9. Draft Beto hits New Hampshire as it awaits an announcement by the end of the month.

10. If the 2020 Democrats are strategically looking beyond the first few states on the primary calendar, it is not showing it in their travel itineraries. Warren is trekking to a series of states that have March 3 or earlier primary dates after her planned February 9 announcement. Gillibrand spent the last weekend in New Hampshire, and Brown was in Iowa. Harris, too, is hitting all four February states. And Booker is initially going to get to three of those four. And overall, candidates, announced or not, are visiting the Hawkeye state, and there is more to come in February.

11. Is Bill Weld going to challenge President Trump in the Republican primaries?

12. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is looking to clamp down on the Republican nomination process in 2020 to ward off challengers.

13. Amy Klobuchar is going to Iowa and is maybe up to something else this coming weekend.

14. Finally, Biden is seemingly in campaign-in-waiting mode.


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.


Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Maine Decision to Re-Establish a Presidential Primary Option for 2020 Hinges on Money

The on again, off again Maine presidential primary may be on again if legislation to revive it can make it through the state legislature.

But the progress of the bill will depend on the willingness of legislators to appropriate the funding necessary to conduct the election. That estimated $979,000 price tag -- more than 85 percent of which would fall to cities and towns -- has emerged according to the bill sponsor, as the "main sticking point" in the early discussions.

The Bangor Daily News reports:

"Spokespeople for Senate President Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, and House Speaker Sara Gideon, D-Freeport, support the primary. But a Gideon spokeswoman said she would monitor the bill to ensure it has no “adverse fiscal or participatory impact.” Spokespeople for Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, didn’t respond to a request for comment."

And although Republicans are outnumbered three to two in both chambers of the Maine state legislature, legislative Republicans have raised the cost issue as well.

"Rep. Scott Strom, R-Pittsfield, a lead Republican on the election committee, said while he likes the idea of a primary, he’d back the caucuses if the new primary can’t be run concurrently with Maine’s regular June primaries because of cost."

Republicans do not have the numbers to force a consolidated June primary as a cost saving alternative, but that proposal may be enough to peel some Democrats away and sink the primary option for another cycle in the Pine Tree state.

--
Historically, primary election funding has not been an uncommon point of contention in these types of deliberations. Those states that during the early part of the post-reform era responded to the Democratic Party rules changes by creating a separate presidential primary incurred the start up costs earlier and tended to normalize the expenditure. That had the side effect of making those contests in those state more mobile than other states.

Later adopters in the post-reform era were typically states that already had consolidated presidential and state primaries. Those states faced a different calculus. They faced either moving everything up -- presidential and state primaries (which affects in many cases the primaries for state legislators) -- or creating and funding a separate presidential primary election.

The transition from caucus to primary can follow that latter route because it raises many of the same state government funding tensions in the transition from a party-run caucus to a state-run primary. The allure is there to couple a presidential primary option to a preexisting primary for other offices. But timing matters. If it is too late in the presidential primary calendar, the draw (and the appropriation) is much less appetizing to legislators.

But this is what faces decision makers in the Maine legislature. To fund or not to fund. That may be the question, but majority Democrats in Maine may here from national actors pushing a primary option as well.

--
Related:
1/18/19: Maine Lost its Presidential Primary


2/9/19: Maine Committee Hearing Highlights Familiar Divisions in Caucus to Primary Shifts

3/16/19: Alternative Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in Maine but with Ranked Choice Voting

3/22/19: Maine Committee Hearing Finds Support for and Roadblocks to a Ranked Choice Presidential Primary

3/30/19: Maine Democrats Signal Caucuses in Draft Delegate Selection Plan, but...

4/23/19: New Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Introduced in Maine

5/10/19: Maine Committee Working Session Offers Little Clarity on 2020 Presidential Primary

6/3/19: Maine Senate Advances Super Tuesday Primary Bill

6/4/19: On to the Governor: Maine House Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

6/19/19: Fate of a Reestablished Presidential Primary in Maine Not Clear Entering Final Legislative Day

6/20/19: Governor Mills' Signature Sets Maine Presidential Primary for Super Tuesday

Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill

In a 29-18 vote that largely fell along party lines, the Washington state Senate passed SB 5273 on Wednesday. Two Republicans joined all but one of the Democrats in the upper chamber in forming a majority in support of the measure to shift up the date of the presidential primary in the Evergreen state but also define other aspects of the process like who can participate.

As the vote on final passage approached, the floor debate resembled the battle lines drawn earlier in committee hearings on this bill and a rival option state Senate Republicans and Secretary of State Kim Wyman (R) backed. The date change was consistent across both bills -- the second Tuesday in March -- but the dispute centered on whether unaffiliated voters would be able to participate in the process (without having to swear an oath to one party or the other in order to participate).¹

An amendment was offered to the bill by Senator Hans Zeigler (R-25th, Puyallup) to insert the provision allowing unaffiliated participation from the Republican-backed bill, but it was defeated in a near party-line vote. Despite the chamber's rejection of the amendment, Zeigler joined Democrats in passing the Democratic version creating a partisan presidential primary.

Proponents of the Democratic version of the bill, including Senator Sam Hunt (D-22nd, Olympia), the chair of the referring State Government Committee, argued that their alternative without the unaffiliated option conformed best to national party delegate selection rules. Furthermore, the argument went, given national party rule compliance, the Democratic alternative would best insure that the two parties could both utilize the presidential primary option rather than caucuses.

The lone Democrat to oppose final passage was Senator Tim Sheldon (D-35th, Mason) who balked at the use of taxpayer money to fund a partisan election that would exclude unaffiliated voters.

Wyman celebrated the passage of the legislation but lamented that it did not include any provision to allow unaffiliated voters to participate unfettered in the process. The measure now moves on to the state House for consideration there. Similar, House-originated legislation is already active in the lower chamber.

--
¹ Under the provisions of the Democratic alternative -- the one ultimately passed -- the decisions made by voters as to which party they swear an oath to, and thus which party's primary in which they are participating, would be made public. Essentially the ballot choice but not the vote choice is made public; information the political parties value for general election campaigns. Importantly, this is an action commonly taken in other states lacking formal party voter registration.


Related:
Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March

An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee

Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote

Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill

--

Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

An Update on March Presidential Primary Bills in Washington: One Bill Through Committee

Two weeks ago legislation was introduced in the Washington state Senate to shift up the date of the presidential primary in the state from May to the second Tuesday in March.¹

This is not a new idea, and, in fact, was hashed out in the legislature in both 2015 and 2017-18. But in neither session did the legislation move past an affirmative vote in the originating chamber. That may or may not be the case in 2019.

The difference this time is that while Democrats in the Evergreen state enjoyed unified control of state government (in the last session at least), the urgency to move was lacking. That urgency is now present in two forms. First, the year before a presidential election is typically when most states make calendar moves. The date of a presidential primary is on more legislators' minds in 2019 than in 2017, in other words.

But another factor is that Washington Democrats have conducted, without exception, caucuses in lieu of a primary throughout the post-reform era. Democratic legislators, then, have never been particularly motivated to move a contest -- the presidential primary -- that the state Democratic Party was not going to use for the purposes of delegate allocation. However, following a 2016 cycle that saw enthusiastic caucusgoers in Washington and elsewhere overwhelm the party-run operations, some state parties and state legislatures have begun to reexamine the process. Externally, there has also been a push at the national party level on the Democratic side to encourage state government-run primaries over state party-run caucuses.

And the confluence of those factors has perhaps created a perfect storm in Washington. State legislative Democrats are motivated to establish a primary system that will entice the Democratic Party in the state to opt for the primary in 2020 over the caucuses the party has traditionally used.

So how have the bills been received in committee?

There is a partisan dimension to this, and that remains the best lens through which to examine the effort to move the Washington presidential primary to March. But then again, the date is not up for dispute. Both bills call for moving the primary to same date in March. Other sections of the bills are what is animating the partisan differences.

This was borne out in the initial committee hearing on SB 5229 and SB 5273. While a representative of the Washington secretary of state's office talked up the earlier date and adding a third unaffilated voter list of candidates to the ballots mailed out to Washington primary voters, DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) member and Washington Democratic Party parliamentarian, David McDonald chimed in that the measure had a handful of provisions that would make it less likely that the RBC would approve of a delegate selection plan using the primary. He cited the Republican bill's lack of a recount provision (especially in a crowded field) and an uncommitted option as reasons the RBC may reject a plan that included the primary, making it more likely that the state party would opt for a caucus again. In addition, McDonald cast doubt on how the RBC would approach a plan including a primary allowing unaffiliated voters to participate without having that information made public or automatically registering the voters with the party in the process.

[Those issues are all avoided in the Democratic bill.]

Holes, then, were poked in the Republican bill from the secretary of state. And that is where partisanship returns, or rather where partisan control more clearly enters the picture. Democrats have unified control of state government in the Evergreen state in 2019-20 and the State Government Committee if not the Democratic caucus in the state Senate seem motivated to move the Democratic bill, SB 5273. Originally that bill had as sponsors nearly all of the party leadership in the chamber. That sponsor list has expanded in the time since the bill was introduced to include over half of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

Additionally, the Democratic bill, after a minor technical change altering the canvassing and certification process for the primary, passed the Senate State Government Committee with a do pass recommendation by a 5-2 vote. The two dissenting votes were two of the three Republicans on the committee. One recommended no passage, while the other voted to refer the measure to the Rules Committee without any recommendation.

What the last two weeks have brought is some clarity in terms of which version of the bill to move the Washington presidential primary to March would win out. Clearly the Democratic bill is going to be moved by a Democratic-controlled chamber. SB 5229, the Republican version, looks as if it will remain in committee not to see the light of day.

Another test comes when the House begins its consideration of those versions.

Related:
Washington State Legislation Would Again Try to Move Presidential Primary to March

Washington Senate Passes Democratic March Presidential Primary Bill

Senate-Passed Washington Presidential Primary Bill Passes House Committee Stage on Party Line Vote

Washington State House Passes March Presidential Primary Bill


--
¹ Subsequent companion legislation, matching the two state Senate versions, has been introduced in the state House. HB 1262 mirrors the language of the bill that has the backing of Washington secretary of state, Kim Wyman (R) while HB 1310 is a replica of the bill Senate Democrats have put forth. Neither bill has had a hearing as of yet in the House committee to which they were referred.


Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Howard Schultz, 2020 and Democratic Party Rules Changes

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the days that recently were...

A significant amount of chatter coming into the week on the heels of his 60 Minutes interview Sunday night was devoted to Howard Schultz potentially running for president. Not as a Democrat but as a centrist independent. And yes, that triggered a number of takes on the success of third party presidential bids and the potential impact of a center-left candidate on the 2020 general election race.

But rather than look forward and think about what may be (when there remains a great deal of uncertainty about whether a Schultz bid actually takes off in some meaningful way), let us look back and ask why or how it came to this. That, in and of itself, is a significant invisible primary story.

FHQ really is not compelled to think that Schultz started out here, thinking about an independent bid all along. Perhaps he did. However, it is more likely that he saw, felt or heard some hostility to a possible 2020 bid for the Democratic nomination. Sure, Schultz has added Bill Burton, formerly from the Obama orbit, to his team. But for every Burton addition that may signal some formal linkage to the party network, there are other signals -- potentially many other signals -- that that linkage was strained at best. There have not been any Schultz trips to typical early state haunts that mark the movements of the prospective candidates. There has not been any reporting of Schultz sending out feelers to the early states or actors within the broader Democratic Party network. And if there were it is entirely possible Schultz was rebuffed, signaling, if not hostility, then indifference to a run.

Those are all valuable signals, ones Schultz may have gotten.

But maybe the better signal came from the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee this past summer. The rules adopted for the 2020 process last August included a formal codification of the basic agreement Bernie Sanders had with the DNC for the 2016 cycle: an affirmation that he [Sanders] would behave as a Democrat. That is the truncated version of that rule (Rule 13.K.1). And while much of the initial reaction to the Rules and Bylaws Committee deliberations about the change was about the potentially injurious effect it would have on Sanders for 2020, the true intent was less about Sanders and more about President Trump, or a Trump-like candidate on the Democratic side. What the party sought to avoid was either a Trump-like nominee or a sore loser who, having not secured the nomination, would support someone other than the Democratic nominee. This change was aimed at possible Bloomberg or Schultz candidacies.

No, FHQ is not suggesting that this change was precisely what drove Schultz to possibly launching an independent bid for president, but rather that it demonstrated some tension toward a run for the Democratic nomination, tension that has only heighten in the backlash to Schultz floating the idea. That hostility was there before.


--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. There has been an uptick in Iowa hires. Booker, Gillibrand and Harris have all added folks in the Hawkeye state.

2. The Post and Courier has a nice list of influential South Carolinians whose endorsements may matter in the Democratic nomination race.

3. The endorsement primary is underway. Harris pulled in a superdelegate endorsement from Rep. Ted Lieu and Delaney has added the support of a cadre of rural Iowa Democratic county chairs.

4. Meanwhile, other superdelegates are sitting on the sidelines and may remain there. Sen. Shaheen and the former Democratic presidents are waiting it out.

5. And they are not the only ones playing the waiting game. Big donors are continuing to be less than active so far.

6. Clinton has not closed the door on a 2020 run. Yes, that may be true, but it is also true that several of her former staffers from 2016 have already begun to populate the staffs of other campaigns for 2020.

7. Hickenlooper nixes a joint ticket with Kasich in Iowa.

8. And finally, Jeff Flake formally passes on a challenge to Trump for the Republican nomination.


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.


Follow FHQ on Twitter and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Republicans Opting Out of Primaries and Caucuses for 2020

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the days that recently were...

FHQ will say that it has quite enjoyed David Drucker's periodic check ins with Republican state parties about their plans for 2020 delegate selection. Some are opting to drop presidential primaries in favor of caucuses, while others a contemplating dropping their caucuses.¹ And as he noted in his initial dispatch about South Carolina Republicans forgoing a presidential primary is standard protocol during a cycle where an incumbent Republican president is seeking renomination.

Incumbent renomination cycles are littered with examples of the scaling down of delegate selection operations. Florida and Michigan, famous rules breakers in the 2008 cycle for scheduling primaries in  calendar positions too early based on national party rules, were repeat offenders along with Arizona in 2012. Those too-early primaries forced Democratic parties in those states to opt for caucuses that could be scheduled later in the process. The same was true during a competitive cycle in 2000 when the Republican Party allowed February contests, but the Democratic Party did not. Several Republican-controlled states held early primaries that cycle that potentially put Democrats in their states in a bind. The way out for those Democratic state parties -- in Arizona and Michigan, oddly enough -- was to hold caucuses that could be scheduled in compliant calendar positions.

Of course, it is worth pointing out that the above scenarios all differ from what is happening among Republican state party actors ahead of the 2020 primaries and caucuses. None of these parties are opting out of primaries or caucuses because of something out of their control (eg: the date of a state-funded primary out of compliance with national party rules).

But even this is fairly typical. And the answer ultimately is based in reasoning that we see layered into election law in a number of states. It is not unusual to see states with laws that eliminate primaries, presidential or otherwise, when there is just one candidate on the ballot.

Yes, it is perhaps presumptuous for Republican actors to assume that President Trump will remain unopposed for the Republican nomination in 2020. The ballots, after all, have not been set as of yet. Of course, through another lens, the act of choosing a caucus over a primary can also be viewed as protective of the president.

But another reason this is more customary on the Republican side -- standard protocol as described above -- is that the rules of the Republican Party have always allowed state committees to choose delegates to the national convention. That institutional valve has traditionally allowed Republican state parties to cancel primaries as New York, for example, has in uncompetitive Republican nomination cycles (see 2004), or for state parties to go the caucus route rather than conduct a primary as South Carolina Republicans have done in the past (particularly in the era prior to 2008 when state parties were on the hook for primary costs).

So what is happening, or potentially is happening, in Kansas -- the state Republican party likely opting out of its caucuses next year -- is not unusual. What may be considered unusual in today's light is what Kansas Republicans did in 1996, a competitive Republican nomination cycle. Not only did the Republican-controlled state government decide not to fund the presidential primary in the state, but the state party opted not to hold caucuses and allocated delegates via its state committee.

The reason? The party thought native son, Bob Dole, would win anyway. Kansas Republicans in 2019 may feel the same way about President Trump, but at least he is an incumbent president. Times change, but these types of activities are not unusual.


--
¹ The latter is a cost-saving measure for the state party.

--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. Gillibrand's hired a press secretary with some connections to New Hampshire.

2. Speaking of the Granite state, no, Harris has not visited yet, but her campaign's first state-based field director hire is for New Hampshire.

3. Exploratory committee: √; planning a trip to Iowa: Buttigieg is working on it.

4. There are undoubtedly Biden allies in Michigan who would support a White House bid by the former vice president, but there may be fewer in the sixth congressional district if the district Democratic Party chair is any indication.

5. Paul Kane looks in on the House Democrats considering 2020 runs.

6. Early travel plans among those Democrats who have announced include Puerto Rico. [I don't know that I buy the headline that Iowa should move over. When the formation of the primary calendar is more orderly, there is more certainty that allows candidates and campaigns to look further down the calendar to other contests/constituencies. Iowa will be fine.]

7. Finally, longshot presidential contender and former West Virginia state senator, Richard Ojeda quietly bows out of the 2020 race.


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Anxious in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the day that was...

If it is the year before a presidential election, then it is time once again for folks to wonder aloud about the role of Iowa and New Hampshire in the presidential nomination process.

No, this is not the strain that asks, and often too late, why are Iowa and New Hampshire first on the presidential primary calendar. The national party rules are set there and there are no direct threats to any of the four carve-out states at this time. Sure there are those who have raised the early voting window in California (and others who have urged caution there), but no state as of early 2019 is plotting to schedule a primary or caucus right on top of one or both of the two earliest states in the queue.

No, this is not about that.

Instead, it is another variant of the quadrennial strain of the Iowa and New Hampshire discussion, the one where some will wonder aloud whether this is the cycle that some candidate or group of candidates strategically looks beyond those states to other potentially more fertile electoral opportunities.

The New York Times' Jonathan Martin set off such a thread yesterday with this tweet:

The other big q looming over ‘20, that @LeahDaughtry gets at: will some (or 1) of candidates have a lighter footprint in heavily-white Iowa/NH, go harder Nev/SC before Super Tues? @KamalaHarris coming first to SC to speak to her fellow @akasorority1908 is no scheduling quirk

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) January 22, 2019

That, in turn, prompted New York Magazine's Gabriel Debenedetti cite worries in the Granite state...

there's real sensitivity to this already in NH, at least. The grumbling class operatives there are already lifting eyebrows at even the idea that there *might* be a perception that NH is at all sail-thru-able. https://t.co/NPkyV0ALV2

— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) January 22, 2019

And The Guardian's Ben Jacobs to echo the same observation from the Hawkeye state.

Can confirm similar attitudes in Iowa https://t.co/9v5pkQilfo

— Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) January 22, 2019

And FHQ is not here to dispute any of those observations. But I would say that none of that anxiety is particularly abnormal in either Iowa and New Hampshire. In fact, one could even argue that it is somewhat natural reaction for Democrats and Democratic activists in those states on the heels of a contest in 2016 that had a limited field and to be followed by a cycle that is shaping up to have no lack of candidates (in 2019 anyway). In other words, it has been since 2008 there has been as wide open a field of candidates on the Democratic side.

Expectations, then, are fairly high for visits and lots of them.

And those visits are likely to come, but in combinations that may differ from the expectations. Look, candidates are not going to skip Iowa or New Hampshire. They may adopt a strategy similar to Mitt Romney's in 2012 and emphasize one over the other -- New Hampshire over Iowa in Romney's case -- but they are not going to skip either one entirely to focus on some state deeper into the calendar. That has very simply been too big a strategic risk in the post-reform era. Players just do not successfully skip steps in a sequential game. It runs the risk of empowering other opposing players; not all of them, but some of them.

And that brings this back to Leah Daughtry's point in that Martin tweet above, the part about a "lighter footprint" in Iowa and New Hampshire to focus elsewhere. While the perception may exist in each of those states that they may be missing out in some way, there is not a lot of evidence to back it up at this point. Yes, a lot of candidates are heading to South Carolina, but they are heading to Iowa and New Hampshire in droves as well.

Among the announced candidates alone, their early itineraries included the earliest two states. Warren spent her first weekend post-rollout in Iowa and then spent the next two in New Hampshire. Castro hit Iowa and Nevada before his announcement and New Hampshire after it. Gillibrand did Colbert, ventured back to New York and then headed to the Hawkeye state. And Harris may be going to South Carolina first and then California, but ends up in Iowa.

Perhaps a "lighter footprint" strategy will develop in some campaign or campaigns as 2019 progresses, but the early signs are not exactly pointing in that direction. Iowa and New Hampshire remain winnowing contests for the candidate who are further down the list and opportunities for those most viable candidates. The strategies of that latter group will reflect that, and that will become clearer the closer 2020 gets.


--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. South Bend mayor, Pete Buttigieg, is exploring a run.

2. Warren stops by Puerto Rico, which allocates delegates next year too.

3. New California governor, Gavin Newsom, has been testing digital messages outside of the Golden state in presidential general election battlegrounds.

4. The Harris campaign adding a number of former Clinton operatives is a noteworthy series of hires.

5. Klobuchar is reaching out to folks in New Hampshire to set up a potential visit.

6. Speaking of the Granite state, California congressman, Adam Schiff, has plans to head north.

7. Sherrod Brown is paying New Hampshire a visit as well, and his PAC has hired a former Sanders staffer.

8. One name to potentially strike -- perhaps in pencil -- from the list of those running for 2020 is Connecticut senator, Chris Murphy. He does not sound as if he is going to mount a bid.

9. Having stumped in Iowa already, Kirstin Gillibrand is taking the tour to South Carolina in the coming days.

10. Finally, Hickenlooper will rejoin the traveling party and trek back to Iowa.


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- The Devil's in the Details of Any Iowa Caucus Rules Changes

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the day that was...

Rules matter.

That is not anything that should come as revelatory from this site. The national parties have set their rules for the 2020 process and now the cycle has entered a phase where states are considering whether and how to adapt to those rules and their changes.

Iowa, in particular, is at a bit of a crossroads. On the one hand, the DNC instituted a bevy of new encouragements for caucus states in the 2020 cycle in an effort to broaden participation. But the state party in the Hawkeye state is also trying to remedy those problems that it diagnosed coming out of the 2016 cycle. And most of those had to do with the crush of participants that did or tried to caucus three years ago.

It is a bit of a double whammy, then, to have to show signs of broadening participation for the next cycle and simultaneously troubleshoot around even more potential participation the next time around.

One of the potential work-arounds proposed has been tele-caucusing, something Iowa Democrats tried on a more limited scale in 2016 among military personnel stationed abroad or outside of the state. But the party also planned for satellite caucuses as well as a means of accommodating those with conflicts with the exact timing of the caucuses.

But both of those efforts were targeted pretty narrowly and had only a small impact on the overall delegate allocation. The military tele-caucuses only affected the allocation of two state convention delegates while the satellite caucuses allocated three state convention delegates. Those were state convention delegates that had some say among the nearly 1300 state convention delegates in the ultimate allocation of the 15 statewide delegates (at-large and PLEO).

The questions that arise from that are fairly obvious:
1. Will the tele-caucuses be scaled up to affect the allocation of delegates at the county or state level in some way? If the expectation is that turnout will rise significantly over this ease of participation, then that has to be reflected in the impact it has on delegate allocation in some way.

2. Can the tele-caucuses be scaled up from the trial run in 2016? Yes, there was a trial run, but opening it up more would mean the logistics increase by an order of magnitude.

The first of those has a rules-based answer whose blank has not yet been filled by the Iowa Democratic Party. But the second is more of a leap of faith, or perhaps a trial by fire that can have rules crafted to address the front side, but reveal shortcomings under scrutiny on the back end.

First thing's first, however: let's see what Iowa Democrat specifically devise and then attempt to divine the potential impact.


--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. Harris got a lot of bucks for the bang out of her presidential rollout.

2. Inslee was allowed into New Hampshire after all, and his timetable for a decision has shrunk.

3. Draft Beto has stretched into the Granite state now.


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- How the 2020 Endorsement Primary Will Be Different

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the days that recently were...

It is not going too far out on a limb to say that any one aspect of a presidential nomination cycle is or will be different than it was in previous cycles. That is and has been the nature of the process in the post-reform era. Rules change. Candidates change. Conditions change.

2020, then, is not exactly like 2016 in the same way that 2016 was not a carbon copy, at least on the Democratic side, of 2008.

One area where 2020 will differ from 2016 is in how candidates running for 2020 accrue endorsements along the way. Much has been made of the rules changes the Democratic National Committee made with respect to superdelegates. That group of unplugged delegates was not eliminated, but their collective voting power at the national convention was curbed to some degree. However, left untouched by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee was the ability of individual superdelegates to endorse candidates vying for the 2020 nomination.

In that way, superdelegates could play much the same role in 2020 that they have in previous cycles.

But the conditions of 2020 may augur against that. For one thing, there are far more candidates who are seemingly running this time around than four years ago. And there is also no clear frontrunner at this point in 2020 as there was in 2016. The clarity of Clinton's status was buttressed by the endorsements she had. At a similar point in 2015, the former secretary of state had 62 high profile endorsements. And that was before she had announced her bid.

No one candidate for 2020, announced or not, has anything approaching that level of institutional support. Joe Biden's name has been invoked by California senior senator, Diane Feinstein, and New York governor, Andrew Cuomo. And while that may be significant given that folks from those two states -- Harris from the Golden state and Gillibrand from the Empire state -- are running, the total falls far short of Clinton's from four years ago (if one can even consider those full-throated endorsements for Biden at all).

Again, however, with a larger field of candidates and no clear frontrunner, some of that is to be expected. But there may also be other forces at work here that are worthy of further consideration.

One that has been mentioned in light of the 2016 controversy over superdelegates and resulting rules changes that stemmed from that is that some elected officials in the position to endorse may opt to wait as others have in the past until after their constituents have voted (or all of the voting is complete). In some way, superdelegate decision making on the endorsement question is like that of the calculus that big money donors are facing now: wait for the dust to settle a bit and then weigh in.

Yet, the extent to which superdelegates may be frozen out of making an endorsement goes beyond that which donors are encountering. Some may be waiting on a signal rather than more actively/forcefully giving one; a reverse of the causal relationship noted in Cohen, et al. in The Party Decides.

Another aspect of this that I have not seen picked up on to this point is the reduced potential for high profile endorsements this cycle as (unfairly?) compared to the far less wide open 2016 cycle. And what I mean by that is there are already a fair number of superdelegates who are vying for the Democratic nomination in 2020. On a basic level, then, there are just fewer superdelegates to provide endorsements. Elizabeth Warren is not going to endorse Cory Booker anymore than Kamala Harris is going to throw her support behind Jay Inslee.

...at this time.

This, too, to some hypothetical extent has a freezing effect on other high profile would-be endorsers. Why support someone now only to see them withdraw from the race in the coming months? Why endorse a colleague/ally now over another colleague/ally?

In other words, there is a timing element to layer into this decision-making framework. The confluence of everything above may -- may -- give less incentive to early endorsements, but really increase the likelihood (and impact?) of later endorsements once the field has winnowed some and some of these superdelegates are culled from the pack.

In the meantime, there may be other endorsements to fill the void: state legislators. They may not meaningful on an individual endorsement basis, but in the aggregate may give us an idea of which candidates have some institutional support on the state level. And that may, in turn, influence where some of the heavier endorsement hitters wind up in the end.

--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. Add Kamala Harris to the list. The California senator is officially in and not just exploratory committee in -- like Castro, Gillibrand or Warren -- but in in.

2. Brown's PAC continues to add staff in Iowa.

3. Recent speeches are giving the potential Larry Hogan challenge of the president for the Republican nomination some steam.

4. If his was a run *for* 2020, it was a very half-hearted run from Bob Casey that is now over. It never really got beyond the "I won't close the door on it"/"I'm thinking about it" stage.

5. Booker gets encouragement to run while in Louisiana and Georgia on his trips through the states on the way to South Carolina on the MLK holiday.

6. New Hampshire got a visit from Warren for the second consecutive weekend, and South Carolina will see her there this week.

7. Howard Schultz and his advisers floating the idea of an independent bid seemingly indicates an awful lot about how things are going for him in the Democratic invisible primary.

8. There were no endorsements, but one would rather have potentially influential Iowa Democrats at a  speech during a first trip to the Hawkeye state than not. Gillibrand had the state party chair and 2018 Democratic for secretary of state stop in.

9. Both Gillibrand and Harris are touting widely distributed fundraising successes following their presidential announcements.

10. Swalwell's Palmetto pitstop over the weekend gave a bit more of a glimpse into his thinking on a run.

11. Finally, Elaine Kamarck has a solid piece on the 2020 rules and the Democratic nomination. The only omission is some of the superdelegates/endorsements-related implications which were more controversial in 2016 and were not affected, at least not directly, by the changes for 2020.


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.