Friday, March 17, 2023

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Karl Rove's Faux Certainty on 2024 Unknowns

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

FHQ will have to hand it to Karl Rove. His latest attempt to wade into and use the rules to frame an upcoming battle for the Republican presidential nomination is much better than his last in 2015.

But that does not mean that it was tethered to the reality of the evolving rules for the 2024 cycle. Let's dig in.

On the calendar, Rove creates an imaginary tiff between Iowa and New Hampshire:
We don’t yet know exactly when these contests—Iowa is a caucus, the others are primaries—will be held. Iowa Democrats want to allow mail-in ballots in addition to in-person voting. New Hampshire believes this would make Iowa a primary, which would mean New Hampshire’s contest would have to move ahead of Iowa’s because it holds the nation’s first primary by law. Hawkeye State Republicans want to stop mail-in ballots so Iowa remains first as a caucus.
First of all, Iowa Democrats, in pitching the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee last year to stay among the earliest states in 2024, tried to sell them on an all-mail caucus process. Secondly, what Iowa Democrats do has next to nothing to do with what Republicans in the Hawkeye state may or may not do. The parties there, despite the state law, do not have to conduct delegate selection events on the same date. If Iowa Republicans truly take issue with the Democrats' process, then the party can schedule earlier caucuses. 

And there is no indication that New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan (R) has any problem with what Iowa Democrats plan to do. That is because there is no Iowa Democratic plan yet. So, there may or may not be any issue here at all. Let's cross that bridge when and if we get to it. 

Then Rove moves on to South Carolina:
Even if that’s worked out, South Carolina may force the schedule earlier. Democrats are trying to shift the primary there from Feb. 24 to Feb. 3. The state GOP likes the later date, which is far enough into the calendar that South Carolina often settles the presidential nomination—as it did in 2000 for Republicans and 2020 for Democrats. Still, if South Carolina Democrats vote Feb. 3, New Hampshire could move its primary for both parties earlier. Then Iowa Republicans, and maybe Iowa Democrats, will move their caucuses ahead of New Hampshire’s primaries.
Trying? February 24?

None of that makes any sense. The DNC has adopted rules for 2024. Those rules include a waiver for South Carolina Democrats to hold a primary on February 3. The national party required South Carolina Democrats to pledge to request of the state a February 3 primary date, otherwise a waiver would not have been granted. And remember, in South Carolina, the state parties -- not the state government -- choose the primary date. This is a done deal. There is no trying. South Carolina Democrats will hold a February 3 primary. As in Iowa, Republicans in the Palmetto state are not really affected by what Democrats in the state do. They can opt for a separate date (and more often than not have, as has become the custom in South Carolina).

And where does February 24 come from? Seriously. That is not set in state law. The primary date is not set in law at all in South Carolina. It was not set in DNC rules either. There were no rules on the early calendar until this past February and they have only ever called for a February 3 primary for Democrats in South Carolina.

Look, the beginning of the calendar is unsettled. Little of what Rove mentions is of any consequence right now. What the early calendar hinges on now is what Nevada Republicans do. If they opt for the new February 6 primary, then Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will have January contests. If Republicans in the Silver state opt out of that primary, then later (than February 6) caucuses might keep South Carolina Republicans out of January but not Iowa and New Hampshire.

Next, Michigan does not get a pass in Rove's inventory of early calendar snags either:
In Michigan, Democrats moved their primary from March 12 to Feb. 27 by law. To avoid having their delegates slashed, the GOP will instead select them at a convention after March 1.
For once, Rove got something right. Michigan did shift its primary up for 2024 to align with the new carve out created in the 2024 DNC rules. But switching to a convention to avoid RNC sanction is just one of several messy options for Michigan Republicans (and the RNC).

Rove then moves on to what he calls the second phase of the calendar:
On March 9, there are four small contests and then on March 12 as many as five more states—Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington and perhaps Hawaii—select 188 more delegates. 
FHQ challenges Rove to name those March 9 contests. There are no contests currently scheduled for March 9. There may be at some point, but as of this time there are none. And of the March 12 contests listed, Missouri has no primary or other contest scheduled for March 12. If current legislation is eventually passed, then the Show-Me state would fall on March 12, but we're not there yet. Idaho? Well, the Gem state primary may be on the move too. Hawaii Republicans are the rare party to actually spell out a specific date for their caucuses in state party rules. Most caucus states do not. Yet, it is Hawaii that gets the "perhaps" and not Idaho or Missouri. Yes, there is legislation in the Aloha state to create a Super Tuesday presidential primary, but it has not become law nor have Hawaii Republicans publicly shown any desire to opt into such a contest in lieu of their traditional caucuses.

And then there is that 188 delegates. Well, that has not been set yet. And Rove notes that at the top, saying, "final allocations will be set after this November’s off-year elections." It is true that the only states that are unknowns at this point in terms of the number of delegates they will have in 2024 are those with off-year gubernatorial and state legislative elections later this year. But Mississippi is one of those states. It is wrong to bring exact numbers to the table if they are exactly wrong. 

Why Rove? Why?

Finally, Rove moves on to the final leg of his three-part calendar:
The situation changes dramatically on March 15, when the third period kicks off. If the field isn’t down to two by then, a clear front-runner will be all but impossible to beat. Primaries can then be winner-take-all. If there’s still a fractured, multicandidate field, Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio could decide the nomination on March 19. If one candidate leads in all four states, no matter how narrowly, he walks away with 325 delegates, more than a quarter of what’s needed for the nomination.
Credit where credit is due: Rove gets the winner-take-all description correct. States can be winner-take-all on or after March 15. In the past, some have been truly winner-take-all after that point on the calendar while others have not. That will likely continue to be the case in 2024. Among the states that are truly winner-take-all? Florida and Ohio. For now. But that could change in the coming months. State parties have not finalized their delegate allocation plans for 2024. Presumably, Arizona Republicans will be truly winner-take-all again if the party opts back into the presidential primary this cycle. But again, none of that is settled yet. Illinois? Well, the at-large and automatic delegates (a little less than a quarter of the total) are allocated winner-take-all based on the statewide results in the Illinois primary. But the remaining three-quarters of the delegates -- the congressional district delegates -- are directly elected on the primary ballot. That allocation may tilt toward the statewide winner of the primary, but will not necessarily end up sending all of the congressional district delegates the winner's way. 

The thing that is most bothersome about Rove's op-ed is the faux certainty with which he approaches a vast number of things that are not settled yet in the areas of the primary calendar or delegate allocation rules. It is unnecessary, and it is misleading. Write to include some of the many gray areas in all of this.

Here: 
FHQ agrees that there will likely be three distinct phases to the Republican primary season in 2024. But it is unlikely to be broken down into early/proportional/winner-take-all as Rove does it in an effort to shoehorn it into his 2016 repeat narrative. Instead, the calendar is very likely to break into January and February contests as the first part. And again, if Nevada Republicans opt into the February 6 primary, then that will mark the end of the first phase. It would give way to a big gap in the action from February 6 until Super Tuesday on March 5. That is a long time without any new results. That is also a LONG time for candidates who have yet to win anything to make a case to donors, much less voters, that they can and should continue in the race. The winnowing pressure -- should that one month gap actually come into being -- will be great. And that counters the 2016 repeat narrative. 

If that is not enough -- that winnowing pressure created by such a lengthy break in the action -- then the Passover-triggered abandonment of April will neatly cordon off the second and third phases of the campaign. The second phase -- Super Tuesday, the rest of March and the first Tuesday in April -- will be the most delegate-rich phase. If winnowing has occurred from the first phase, then the second will be about either one candidate creating a net delegate advantage over the rest of the remaining field or yield to a Clinton-Obama type (or Ford-Reagan) battle to evenly split delegates. The former may or may not resolve things. If not, then the third phase -- overtime, consisting of May contests (remember, there will be no June contests in the Republican process in 2024) -- will likely resolve the battle. 

But if it is the latter, evenly-match race, then overtime may be about getting to the primary season finish line with the most (allocated) delegates to take into the convention. Regardless, that second likely gap in April presents another extended period of winnowing pressure. And it will likely be greater than the first gap. The initial gap will be more likely to weed out the low-hanging fruit, lesser candidates who really had no chance at the nomination to begin with. The second gap will be more likely to exert pressure on candidates who feel they are viable (and may have a case), but will face calls to bow out so the party can consolidate behind one candidate.

But, of course, the above refers to the most allocated delegates. It could be that some candidate is able to corner the market in the selection process and settle the score that way. The bottom line is that there are a lot of unknowns at this point. One established known is that Karl Rove should stop writing in the Wall Street Journal about the delegate selection process. 


...
Endorsement Primary No, Ron DeSantis is not yet formally in the Republican presidential nomination race, but that has not stopped folks from endorsing his nascent campaign. Chip Roy (R-TX) became the first member of Congress to throw his support behind the Florida governor's (not yet) bid. Nikki Haley has one congressional endorsement and Donald Trump has a handful. But most Republican members of Congress have yet to align with any candidate. [More on that below.]


...
On the travel primary front, former Vice President Mike Pence was in New Hampshire on Thursday, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is on his way to the Granite state and former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson will trek to South Carolina as will Haley and Tim Scott. [Speaking of Christie, he has noted that a decision on a White House bid will come in the next 45-60 days. That is a window that roughly covers the end of April and the first half of May.]


...
Yes, it is early. No, elected officials do not have to weigh in now (or at all). Yes, FHQ discussed non-endorsements in the Republican nomination process earlier this week. Politico has more evidence of that from among a group that will continue to be particularly conflicted as things evolve and 2024 approaches: the Florida Republican congressional delegation.


...
On this date...
...in 2012, Missouri Republicans took their second bite at the apple. Following a non-binding primary -- after majority Republican legislators could not agree to eliminate a presidential primary that was not going to be used -- Republicans began gathering in caucuses across the Show-Me state to actually kick off the delegate allocation/selection process. Non-binding events were an issue for Republicans in 2012, one the national party has spent several cycles attempting to resolve.

...in 2019, Kirstin Gillibrand formally entered the Democratic nomination race after previously forming an exploratory committee in January.

...in 2020, Covid began to affect the presidential primary calendar. Three of four scheduled primaries carried on, but Ohio became the earliest scheduled state to make alternative plans, ultimately pushing back into April. Other states had already delayed delegate selection events or had begun the process of delaying them, but Ohio's original primary date was the first/earliest to come up on the calendar and be affected.

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

Thursday, March 16, 2023

Invisible Primary: Visible -- 2024 Presidential Primary Movement So Far

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

It has been a quiet 2023 for presidential primary movement. 

And there are a couple of reasons for that. First, counter to some of the thinking with respect to the early calendar maneuvering on the Democratic side, the change in rules has not resulted in states clamoring to join the fray against national party rules. [It has led to a different kind of rogue state, perhaps, but it has yet to invite chaos.] Second, there are no heavy hitters involved. There may be bills in delegate-rich states like California and New York, but they have shown no signs, at least not to this point, of going anywhere. 

But that does not mean that there has not been a typical pre-election year uptick in state-level legislation to reposition primaries for the 2024 cycle. Barely two months into the 2023 legislative sessions in most states, there have been a lot of bills introduced. But the success rate is not there. ...yet. Only Michigan has moved to this point. 




In fact, the number of bills introduced in 2023 thus far is on par with the number proposed in all of 2007, the year of chaos leading up to a calendar of contests that saw Florida and Michigan (in)famously go rogue. However, while the bills are there in 2023, none of it really points toward states pushing the boundaries (going before March 1) or crowding around the first Tuesday in March. That was the story of 2007 (although then the operative date was the first Tuesday in February). 

Instead, 2023 has offered a mixed bag. States like Hawaii, Kansas and Missouri are attempting to establish state-run primary contests. Legislation in other states, like Idaho and Ohio, has proposed moving back. Oregon, like Hawaii, is eyeing Super Tuesday and only West Virginia has proposed breaking the rules to conduct a February primary.

But what is most likely to affect the success rate of bills proposing presidential primary moves for the 2024 cycle is what will happen in the group of mid-Atlantic and northeastern states with primaries currently scheduled for late April, the contests that conflict with the observance of Passover in 2024. The break up of that regional(-ish) primary that has existed in one form or another since 2012 is a true break up. The three late April states with active legislation to vacate their current positions -- Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania -- are targeting three different landing spots, none before March 19. 


...
Speaking of Connecticut, legislation introduced there yesterday would push the presidential primary up to the first Tuesday in April. Now, of the late April states, only Delaware has not publicly introduced or discussed legislation shifting a presidential primary away from the Passover conflict. Of course, it is probably only a matter of time until the First state follows suit. Importantly, that would likely create a five week gap from the first Tuesday in April until the first Tuesday in May with no presidential primaries. The calendar is fluid, so there is still some chance that a caucus state or two will fill a weekend slot somewhere in there, but that will leave a lot of time for other things. As mentioned in this space earlier this week, it was during a similar gap in the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination race into which the Jeremiah Wright story was inserted, taking up a lot of oxygen and putting candidate Obama on the defensive. 

And this may not even be the only pronounced gap in the 2024 presidential primary calendar. The Democratic calendar maneuvering will likely push the beginning of the Republican process well into January and create a gap that will cover most of February. Together, those two factors -- Passover and the Democrats' changes -- may create a very disjointed Republican presidential primary calendar in 2024. Early state activity in January and very early February would yield to a gap followed by a flurry of events starting either at the end of February or on Super Tuesday in early March. If March does not resolve the Republican nomination, then the battle will progress into another gap in April and then a resumption of activities in early May. 

And FHQ is just spitballing here, but the scenario in which the Republican nomination is unresolved coming out of March, is likely a scenario where everyone will be subjected to incessant stories about a "brokered convention" during that second potential gap in the calendar. And who know what else? Stories of Trump winning the delegate selection game despite breaking even or losing the delegate allocation game? Some other negative story or series of stories? 

States that gamble on a later primary this cycle may reap many of the benefits that do come out of that gap. Candidates will be campaigning there. The bottom line is that the calendar and the sequencing of events on the calendar matters to how the nomination races evolve if not resolve.


...
FHQ is going to try to avoid any quick hits or hot takes about presidential primary polling. That is definitely true at this early juncture and I will keep my word on that regardless with regard to the horserace polling. Others can (and will) cover that territory. But results like the divide among the Republican primary electorate raised in the recent CNN poll are potentially important. After a midterm cycle in which candidate quality was of concern on the Republican side, a survey pointing toward a primary electorate that values candidates being more proximate to them on issues over electability signals a possible deja vu moment down the line.  Maybe that opinion changes in the aggregate as primary season approaches. Maybe it does not. Maybe it all works out and/or Biden's approval is low because of a faltering economy. In the near term, it just signals a defiant Republican primary electorate that is not interested in what "the establishment," however one defines that, has to offer.


...
Trump attacks on DeSantis were/are inevitable, but this is a unique attack in the half century of the post-reform era. Ethics complaint aside, DeSantis is doing nothing out of the ordinary for a prospective candidate during the invisible primary. It is just that Florida has a resign to run law in place. ...for now. 


...
On this date...
...in 1976, it was the day of the Illinois primary. March 16 was also the date on which Jerry Brown announced he was running for the Democratic nomination, eight weeks after the Iowa caucuses. Clearly, it was a different era. In just the second cycle post-reform, candidates were still entering the nomination race during primary season. And it was not just during primary season. It was after nearly 20 percent of the delegates had been allocated. Brown went on to win three contests in May and June and competed to the convention, ceding the nomination there to Jimmy Carter.

...in 1984, Senator John Glenn (D-OH) withdrew from the Democratic nomination race a few days after Super Tuesday. 

...in 2004, it was the day of the Illinois primary. There is some primary movement. Or non-movement. Only once during the post-reform era has the Land of Lincoln not held its presidential primary on the third Tuesday in March. That was in 2008 when an Illinois resident and senator was vying for the Democratic nomination.


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

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Connecticut Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary

A committee bill would move the Connecticut presidential primary up a few weeks on the 2024 calendar. 


Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Republican Non-Endorsements

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

It is early yet in the Republican presidential nomination process. There are, after all, only two major contenders -- Donald Trump and Nikki Haley -- who have entered the race and who have held elective office (at a level that has conventionally seen success in presidential contests). Each already has a handful of endorsements as well. And that is another of those invisible primary metrics -- endorsement primary -- to eye as one assesses the degree to which Trump's institutional support has declined relative to his standing four years ago (or how much better it is than it was eight years ago). FHQ has already discussed this in terms of where the former president's organizational efforts stand, but it matters for endorsements too. 

And one sees this not only in endorsements, particularly in endorsement defections from Trump, but also in non-endorsements, as in elites and elected officials refusing to endorse Trump or anyone else at this early stage of the race. Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) is new to the job, having been appointed to the post following the departure of Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), so maybe the question is a natural inquiry for the Nebraska press. But the senator's response is noteworthy in that he passed on the opportunity to endorse. Then-Governor Ricketts, like many elected officials, was on Team Trump in 2020 as a campaign surrogate. But the two were at odds during the 2022 midterms both in and out of Nebraska. The president called Ricketts a RINO for supporting Governor Brian Kemp (R-GA) in his reelection bid in the Peach state, and Ricketts asked Trump not to intervene (and endorse) in the open Republican gubernatorial primary in Nebraska (advice the president refused to heed). 

And it matters for now that Ricketts also did not line up behind Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL), someone to whom members of his family have donated. Now, that may or may not hold as this race progresses (and DeSantis formally enters the contest). But the extent to which elected officials stay on the sidelines is important. Not endorsing Trump says something: that elite-level support has ebbed since 2020. But not endorsing anyone else might also suggest that those same elites cannot (or do not want to) coordinate against Trump in 2024. And that again says something about where Trump is on the 2015 or 2019 spectrum of strength in this evolving battle. These signals are important to assessing where the race stands.

This is also something that bears watching at the state party level as well. Ed Cox, the newly sworn in chair of the New York Republican Party reassumed his position atop the party and was quick to note that the NYGOP, like the national party, would remain neutral in the 2024 presidential nomination race. That is likely to be the case for state Republican parties across the country, but it is not a sure thing. That, too, tells one about the state of the Republican race and Trump's support in it. 


...
No, DeSantis is not in the race yet, but he continues to do the things that (prospective) presidential candidates do. This time it is a trip to New Hampshire for a big state party fundraising event.


...
Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) continues to do things outside of the commonwealth. And every time he does, it draws presidential chatter. So it was with the latest news that Youngkin will head to Texas in April to meet with big money Republican donors. Youngkin, like all the other candidates or potential candidates not named Trump or DeSantis, is in the difficult position of having to assess his chances in a field where there is seemingly little oxygen. Youngkin can lay claim to being a Republican governor in a blue state, which is unique among the other possible aspirants. But like everyone else he has to hope for a DeSantis flop, a Trump implosion or for the Trump and DeSantis to pummel each other into oblivion such that the door is opened for someone else. And maybe one or some combination of those things happen. But the more immediate concern for Youngkin may be that he has to show those donors in Texas that he has that "fire in the belly," a marker he did not necessarily surpass with potential donors in New York recently.


...
Vice President Kamala Harris going to Iowa causes a raise of the eyebrow until one remembers that the Hawkeye state will not be the first state in the Democratic presidential nomination process in 2024.


...
On this date...
...in 1980, Senator Bob Dole withdrew, winless, from the Republican presidential nomination race.

...in 1988, Vice President Bush (R) and Senator Paul Simon (D) won the Illinois presidential primary. Simon kept all three of the big winners from Super Tuesday the week before at bay in his home state. 

...in 2004, Rev. Al Sharpton dropped out of the Democratic presidential nomination race.

...in 2016, Senator Marco Rubio (R) suspended his campaign after a lackluster showing in primaries, including his home state of Florida, at the opening of the winner-take-all window on the Republican nomination calendar.


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

Tuesday, March 14, 2023

Maryland Presidential Primary Move Passes State Senate

During what Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-46th, Baltimore City) deemed on Tuesday, March 14 to be a "busy, busy work week" for the Maryland state Senate, the body took up SB 379 for final passage. 

Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Running for 2024

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, March 13, 2023

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

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

Alan Greenblatt has a good reminder up at Governing about the role blue states play in the Republican presidential nomination process. But while there are also delegates to chase in Democratic states, the underlying math offers some interesting twists. 

Take California. The Golden state, as Greenblatt notes, is a solidly blue state but remains the largest delegate prize in the Republican process. Yet, how California Republicans decide to divvy up all of those delegates matters. More often than not, California has been a winner-take-all by congressional district state, meaning that, not only do the results statewide matter, but so too do the results in each of the state's 50-plus congressional districts. A candidate would need either a big win statewide or a win fairly evenly dispersed across all of those districts to sweep all or most them.

Of course, one difference between the Republican and Democratic delegate apportionment -- how the national parties distribute delegates to the states -- is in how each treats congressional district delegates. The Republican National Committee (RNC) apportions three delegates to every congressional district while Democrats weight them. The more Democratic a district has been (in terms of past voting), the more delegates it receives. Democratic districts -- where the Democrats are -- mean more in the math for candidates. But that is not true on the Republican side. They are all the same. Overwhelmingly Republican districts are the same as supermajority Democratic districts. As such, the relatively small number of Republicans in those solidly Democratic districts carry a bit more weight than a larger number of them packed into a Republican-leaning district. 

And there is an efficiency to all of this as well. Many of those Democratic districts are clustered in urban areas that can be reached more easily in person and/or on the air. There was some evidence of this in metro Atlanta in the 2016 Republican race. Marco Rubio was able to peel off a few Democratic districts there to gain some delegates. As that example illustrates, however, focusing solely on Democratic districts is no substitute for doing well in Republican areas as well (not unless there are a number of evenly matched candidates). But, as always, the rules matter.

[Incidentally, California Republicans dropped the allocation method described above for the 2020 cycle. An earlier primary forced the state party to abandon the winner-take-all by congressional district method because it would not have been compliant under RNC rules. But the change made minimized the congressional district and at-large delegate distinction. All of the delegates were pooled and all allocated based on the statewide results. If no candidate received a majority of the vote statewide, then the delegates were proportionally allocated. With majority support a candidate would win all of the delegates. But again, the rules matter.]


...
Over at Bloomberg, Jonathan Bernstein has one on the current time of choosing for Republicans. The possible indictments former President Donald Trump faces means that Republicans are going to have to stake out positions on the matter one way or the other. And that has consequences for the 2024 invisible primary. On one end of the spectrum, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (R), who is considering a White House bid of his own, has already suggested that Trump should drop out if he is indicted. And while it is not necessarily indictment-related, Mike Pence continues to break with Trump and more forcefully now. Other candidates will have decisions to make as this story develops.


...
Speaking of Trump, the former president drops in on Iowa today for the first time since announcing his third presidential run.


...
The political science literature tells us that the impact of political advertising is small and short-lived. But that has stopped super PAC spending on ads promoting President Biden's economic accomplishments. Yes, this is more of an attempt to frame the matter than to sway votes still 20 months away. ...but still, it is early.


...
On this date...
...in 1984, it was Super Tuesday, a date that saw Walter Mondale and Gary Hart split contests in the Democratic presidential nomination race. Like 1992, the Super Tuesday of 1984 paled in comparison to the southern-dominated Super Tuesday of 1988. But the break in support in 1984 foreshadowed the pattern that would repeat itself to some degree in 1988. Mondale took contests in the Deep South while Hart took Florida and the two primaries in the northeast. But while Mondale rode those victories in Alabama and Georgia to the nomination, in 1988 Michael Dukakis filled the Hart role while, winning the peripheral South and the northeast as Jesse Jackson and Al Gore split the bulk of the former confederacy.

...in 2012, it was the day of the primaries in Alabama and Mississippi, two contests Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich needed in their longer term efforts to keep Mitt Romney from reaching the magic number of delegates to claim the Republican nomination. Romney was kept out of the winner's circle in each, but the delegate splits among the three candidates did not provide his challengers with the net delegate advantages they needed. This series of contests also garnered some attention because of Romney's "cheesy grits" comments.

...in 2019, Miramar mayor Wayne Messam (D) formed an exploratory committee for a presidential run. Messam formally joined the race later in the month, but withdrew before primary season and ultimately received no votes in the process. 

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

Sunday, March 12, 2023

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

One electoral reform that FHQ has touched on in the past and has increasingly popped up on the presidential primary radar is ranked choice voting (RCV). And let us be clear, while the idea has worked its way into state-level legislation and state party delegate selection plans, widespread adoption of the practice is not yet at hand. 

However, there has been some RCV experimentation on a modest scale in the delegate allocation process primarily in small states. And that has opened the door to its consideration in a broader swath of states across the country. States, whether state parties or state legislators, are seeing some value in allowing for a redistribution of votes based on a voter's preferences to insure, in the case of presidential primaries, that every voter has a more direct say in the resulting delegate allocation. 

That is apparent in legislation that has been proposed in state legislatures across the country as they have begun convening their 2023 sessions. Again, RCV is not sweeping the nation, as the map below of current legislation to institute the method in the presidential nomination process will attest. There are a lot of unshaded states. But if RCV was adopted across those states where it has been passed (Maine), where it has been used in Democratic state party-run processes (Alaska, Kansas and North Dakota), and where it is being considered by legislators in 2023 then it would affect the allocation of nearly a third of Democratic delegates and a little more than a quarter of Republican delegates. That is not nothing. 



Since the last update in late January, an additional 11 bills have been introduced in seven states -- Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont -- to establish RCV in at least presidential primaries. Only one bill to create RCV among all of those introduced has even passed a chamber, and that was one of the handful of bills in Hawaii. It passed with an effective date in the year 3000. That is not a typo. It was purposefully set for well into the future to spur further conversation about the measure in the state Senate.

The 2023 session remains young, but there has not been a lot of legislative momentum behind the efforts establish RCV. 

However, there has been some negative momentum. Several pro-RCV bills ended up bottled up in committee and are either dead or effectively so. That includes the four bills in Virginia and the two considered in New Hampshire. In addition, legislation to ban RCV has found limited but greater success than the measures that have sought to create RCV systems. The South Dakota bill to prohibit RCV winded its way through the legislature and is on the governor's desk for consideration. Other ban bills have been passed by their chamber of origination in Idaho and Montana and another measure to stop RCV usage has been introduced in West Virginia. 

The legislative efforts nationwide continue to have a partisan tint to them. Legislation to create the infrastructure to implement RCV is more likely to be introduced in Democratic-controlled states and if not in blue states, then by Democratic legislators. Introduced measures to ban RCV have been exclusively introduced in Republican-controlled states and by Republican legislators. 




A few notes on bills included and excluded from consideration:

1. The intent was to highlight legislation that would affect presidential primaries. That includes bills that would exclusively cover presidential primaries and those that would impact all or most primaries, including presidential primaries. 

2. FHQ was probably a bit more inclusive than necessary. A handful of the bills listed above while currently active, would not take effect until after 2024. The New York and Oregon legislation is that way. The 2022 New Jersey RCV bill that carried over to the second session in 2023 would not take effect until the January 1 twelve months following the point at which the secretary of state in the Garden state had determined all voting machines were operable for RCV. New Jersey and New York together account for a significant chunk of delegates on the Democratic side and none of those would be impacted by this legislation in 2024. [The newly added Oregon bill falls into this category as well.]

3. Some bills were not included. There is an RCV ban bill in North Dakota as well. But there is no state-run presidential primary in the Peace Garden state. That is true of the efforts in Alaska to repeal RCV there. If the state-run RCV process were to end, the Democratic Party could still utilize the practice in a state-run presidential nominating contest. Similarly, ban legislation that sought to prohibit RCV only in local elections -- as in Minnesota -- were also excluded. Finally, if RCV was tethered to a broader push to move to a nonpartisan primary like in New Mexico, then that was also left out. It should also be noted that Nevada was left unshaded on the map above. The state Democratic Party used RCV in the early voting portion of the caucuses in 2020, but not across the entire process.

4. Hawaii technically fits two categories on the map. Democrats in the Aloha state used RCV in their party-run primary in 2020, but have legislation that combines a switch to RCV and the use of a state-run presidential primary as well as separate legislation to establish a presidential primary and move to RCV in all elections (including any presidential primary that may be created). 

Kansas and Maine also fall into two categories. Kansas Democrats used RCV in their party-run process in 2020, and there is also legislation to add RCV to all primaries in the Sunflower state. That would only matter in the presidential arena if separate legislation creating a presidential primary passes the legislature and is signed in to law. Moreover, there is legislation to return to plurality voting in Maine, but it faces an uphill climb in the Democratic-controlled Pine Tree state.



Related:


Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, March 11, 2023

Indications Rhode Island Will Re-explore Presidential Primary Date

The Providence Journal reports that Rhode Island, too, may shift the date on which the Ocean state's presidential primary falls in 2024 because of a conflict with the Passover holiday.
Rep. Rebecca Kislak, D-Providence, has quietly raised the issue behind the scenes with the secretary of state's office and Democratic Party Leadership. She said Thursday she is "confident that over the next days or weeks" she will be able to introduce legislation to move the date.  
...
"We are exploring the possibility of moving the primary," echoed state Rep. Joseph McNamara, the state Democratic chairman. House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi said Kislak had briefed him on the problem, and he was open to a legislative fix. 

Secretary of State Gregg Amore also told The Journal: "Yes. It needs legislative action."
Legislators in Maryland are already moving legislation to push the primary in the Old Line state back into May, and in a change prompted not by the Passover conflict, two bills in Pennsylvania (also in conflict with Passover) would shift the primary in the Keystone state up to mid-March. If all of those changes occur, that would leave Delaware alone on the fourth Tuesday in April in 2024, the lone remnant of a subregional mid-Atlantic/northeastern primary that has existed in one form or another since the 2012 cycle. 

Connecticut has also been a part of that group but because there are five Tuesdays in April in 2024, the differing language of the laws in these states matters. The states with primaries conflicting with Passover specify the fourth Tuesday in April whereas the Connecticut law sets the date of the presidential primary in the Nutmeg state for the last Tuesday of April, the 30th in 2024. That difference has not mattered until now.

In a mark of just how quiet things have been on the calendar front in 2023 (relative to previous cycles), it may be that the Passover conflict could be the impetus for most of the calendar changes in the 2024 cycle. 

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

Friday, March 10, 2023

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Presidential Primary Runoffs?

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

My former UGA colleagues, Charles Bullock and Loch Johnson, have an interesting take on the presidential nomination process up over at The Bulwark. Runoffs in Georgia are out of vogue these days after two consecutive electoral cycles with high profile Senate overtime elections, but that has not stopped Bullock and Johnson from suggesting that adding runoff elections to the presidential nomination process might help to provide some guardrails against novice and/or extremist candidates. Maybe. 

But the whole concept is premised on the idea that the Republican presidential nomination process is winner-take-all; that a candidate can win a mere plurality by just one vote and still win all of the delegates from a state. It is not. There were 19 truly winner-take-all contests in the 2020 Republican presidential nomination process, meaning that 37 other primaries, caucuses and conventions had some other form of delegate allocation rules. And sure, Bullock and Johnson discussed all of this in the context of Trump's 2016 victory, not 2020. But there were ten fewer truly winner-take-all contests then. 

Look, there may be something to requiring a candidate to win a majority in a primary or caucus in order to win delegates (not to mention broaden a candidate's appeal). But a separate runoff is not necessary in order to accomplish that. In fact, there are already rules on the Republican National Committee (RNC) books that do that and have been in place since the 2012 cycle. Under the rules, states can circumvent the ban on truly winner-take-all rules before March 15 by using a baseline proportional allocation method with a winner-take-all trigger. Candidates have to hit 50 percent of the vote statewide in order to activate that trigger. There were 17 such proportional states in 2020 before and after March 15.

What's more Bullock and Johnson suggest ranked choice voting (RCV) as a means of avoiding the administrative and financial strain a subsequent presidential primary runoff election may place on states. The irony, of course, is that the RCV alternative they propose is the same one that Republican state legislators across the country are considering banning during this current state legislative season. [FHQ really needs to update the 2023 RCV legislation post. But it is the ban legislation that is actually moving through legislatures rather than the bills to institute RCV.]


...
Republican county chairs prefer DeSantis over Trump. This piece was built on survey work that Seth Masket has been doing this cycle. Masket undertook a similar endeavor four years ago in the midst of the Democratic process. His work continues to be invaluable. 


...
Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) doing a CNN town hall will do little to quell the presidential chatter that has quietly operated on the fringes of the Republican invisible primary for some time. That said, some donors have not viewed him as an "all-in candidate" in recent days. That is not to say that the governor cannot rev things up in the money primary at some point, but he would likely have to make that transition to "all-in" first. ...at the very least in the eyes of the donors.


...
On this date...
...in 1992, it was Super Tuesday, but a less super Super Tuesday than the Southern Super Tuesday of the 1988 cycle. Much of the southern states held together again in 1992, but Georgia moved earlier (as allowed under DNC rules that cycle) and states like Alabama, Arkansas and North Carolina moved back to consolidated dates later in the process.

...in 2000, a western subregional primary of sorts was held. Rare Friday primaries in Colorado and Utah and Republican caucuses in Wyoming occurred on March 10. 


Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)