Sunday, June 11, 2023

Sunday Series: About that Unique Michigan Republican Primary-Caucus Plan (Part One)



--
News broke Friday that Michigan Republicans had come to a consensus and were prepared to vote on whether the party would go the primary or caucus route in the presidential nomination process for 2024. 

Rather than automatically utilize the state-run primary as the state party had done every competitive Republican presidential nomination cycle following 1988, the Michigan GOP was backed into a corner on its 2024 plans based on four main factors:
  1. Democrats in the state took unified control of state government in the Great Lakes state after the November 2022 midterm elections. 
  2. At least partially (if not completely) because of that flip in control of the state legislature and Democrats retaining the governor's office, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to add the Michigan presidential primary to early window lineup of states on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Michigan Democrats seized on the opportunity to have an earlier, if not greater, voice in the nomination process and moved to comply with the new DNC calendar rules for 2024.
  3. However, the new February 27 date for the state-run Michigan presidential primary would violate Republican National Committee (RNC) rules prohibiting states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding primaries or caucuses before March 1. Opting into the primary, would open Michigan Republicans up to the super penalty associated with a violation of those timing rules, which would strip the state party of all but 12 delegates (nine delegates plus the three automatic/party delegates) to the national convention. 
  4. Regardless of the potential for penalties from a rogue primary, Michigan Republicans, under new leadership as of early 2023, were already leery of a state-run presidential primary process that would be open not only to Republicans and independents (who want to affiliate with the party in the primary) but Democrats as well. 
Given those factors, the Michigan GOP in consultation with the RNC did not look on the primary or caucus question for 2024 as either/or but rather as one and the other. In a revised resolution of intent adopted on Saturday, June 10, Michigan Republicans chose to split 2024 delegate allocation across both the February 27 primary and congressional district caucuses to be held on Saturday, March 2. In a statement following the vote the Michigan Republican Party said the following1:
In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  
This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 
The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 
They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed. 


Cutting through the spin
Okay, revisit those four factors FHQ laid out above because they are important in pushing past the spin in all of this and getting to the crux of the matter. 

First, it is highly unlikely that either Michigan Democrats or Democrats in the national party were ever rubbing their hands together, saying "We've got Michigan Republicans now!" The timeline on the Democratic primary calendar decision suggests otherwise. The national party waited until after the midterms -- after it was clear which party was going to be in control of a variety of state governments -- before it settled on a lineup for the 2024 early window. Michigan, already an attractive option to the members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, became even more attractive once it was clear after the November elections that the state would be under Democratic control. 

The national party decision on the calendar and any subsequent moves made in Lansing were made to affect the Democratic primary. There was little regard for the Republican process. And perhaps that is problematic. However, national Democrats have been rebuffed by the RNC over the last two cycles in their efforts to even informally coordinate the calendar. And on the state level in Michigan, it was Republicans in the state legislature who were driving a legislative push to an even earlier February primary date just a few months ago in late 2022. 

But shunt all of that to side for a moment. Democrats in Lansing and elsewhere were never really in control of anything other than moving the state-run primary anyway. Michigan Republicans always had paths out of trouble. But they were going to need a waiver from the RNC no matter what they chose to do. The point is that Michigan Republicans potentially had a national party waiver at their disposal if they successfully made that case before the RNC. Ultimately, it was state Democrats who had made the change and shifted the primary to a point on the calendar that violated RNC rules. And those rules have outs for just these types of possibilities.

Yet, choosing to go the caucus route would have potentially required a waiver from the RNC too. Michigan Republicans could not just choose to conduct caucuses. Those caucuses would have had to follow the February 27 primary to remain compliant with the RNC rules on timing. But merely opting to hold caucuses would not have ended the primary. Under state law that primary would have gone on as a beauty contest. And under RNC Rule 16 (a)(1), any statewide vote "must be used to allocate and bind the state's delegation to the national convention..." [Put a pin in section of the RNC rules. It is important for Part Two.] To hold caucuses after a statewide vote like that is counter to the intent of the rule, the language of which was added to prevent a double vote and/or non-binding scenario like those that proliferated in the 2012 cycle.

An RNC waiver would have provided a way to circumvent that conflict. But so, too, would have legal action on first amendment, freedom of association grounds (if the national party was for some reason not receptive to issuing a waiver). Political parties have a right to determine how they associate and who associates with the organization. Nominations fall under that banner, or precedent holds that they do anyway. 

The bottom line is this: If Michigan Republicans want to say that Democrats made the primary change without consulting them, then that is fine. That is a fair criticism. If the state party additionally wants to argue it prefers a caucus/convention system closed to all but registered Republicans to an open primary that allows non-Republicans to participate, then that is fine too. That is also legitimate. But exaggerating the control state Democrats have over the process is just that: an exaggeration. That is even more true in light of the fact that Michigan Republicans had recourse. They had ways around Democratic "control." One need not pretend otherwise.




--
1 The full statement from the Michigan Republican Party after the vote on the resolution:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Michigan Republican Party Protects the Voice of Michigan Republican Voters 
Grand Rapids, MI – June 10th, 2023 – In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  
This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 
The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 
They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed.  
The Michigan Republican Party would have been derelict in duty, and grossly irresponsible to leave the decision of full delegate representation of Michigan Republicans in the hands of the Democrats.  
Republican voters are tired of the party seeking to cut deals with Democrats instead of protecting the voice and interest of Republican voters.  
This drastic reduction in representation at the Republican National Convention would have marginalized millions of voters and stifled our ability to have a meaningful say in the selection of the 2024 Republican presidential nominee. The Resolution of Intent passed by the Michigan Republican Party State Committee protects the voice of millions of Republican voters across Michigan by ensuring the will of those voting in the primary will be heard.  
This resolution simultaneously prevents the RNC penalty.  
Recognizing the urgency and gravity of this situation, the Michigan Republican Party State Committee took decisive action today. The Michigan Republican Party has taken a crucial step towards ensuring fair representation for their constituents. 
"The Michigan Republican Party stands firmly against any attempts to diminish representation of Michigan Republicans," said Kristina Karamo, Chair of the Michigan Republican Party.  
"We are committed to preserving the integrity of the electoral process and guaranteeing that all Michigan voters, regardless of their political affiliation, have an equal opportunity to participate in the primary process." 
For those in the party who do not trust the election system run by the Secretary of State due to election integrity concerns, they now have a representative voice for some of the delegates from Michigan.  
By asserting their commitment to protecting the rights of Republican voters in the state, the Michigan Republican Party has demonstrated their dedication to preserving a fair and inclusive electoral system. 
The Michigan Republican Party encourages all Michigan voters to stay informed and engaged in the political process. By participating in the upcoming primary elections, voters can make their voices heard and contribute to shaping the future of our great state. 
###


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

Saturday, June 10, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] Folks, the new caucus law in Iowa does not affect state Democrats' plans for 2024

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


There is a lot going on with the new caucus law in Iowa. Governor Kim Reynolds signed HF 716 on Thursday, June 1 and the measure requires in-person participation at precinct caucuses that select delegates as part of a presidential nominating process. That one fairly simple change has created a great deal of confusion as to the true nature of its effects for the two major parties in the state in 2024. But just because the new requirement fits into a complicated web of component parts does not mean that one cannot suss out what is going on here. 

Here is what is going on in the Hawkeye state now that the law has been changed.

1) This new law does not affect the delegate selection plans for 2024 that Iowa Democrats have previewed. It does not. Read the language of the change:

If the state central committee of a political party chooses to select its delegates as a part of the presidential nominating process at political party precinct caucuses on the date provided in subsection 1, the precinct caucuses shall take place in person among the participants physically present at the location of each precinct caucus.

Everything one needs to know about that entire section and how it interacts with the Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan is right there in that one highlighted word, select. The proposed vote-by-mail component of the Democrats’ defined “caucus” procedure has nothing to do with the process of selecting delegates. It has everything to do with the allocation of delegates. That all-mail presidential preference vote affects the allocation and not the selection process. As such, it is unaffected by what Governor Reynolds signed into law on Thursday. 

The selection process for delegates to the national convention will commence at the precinct caucuses, presumably on the same night for Democrats in Iowa as Republicans. According to the draft plan from Iowa Democrats, that part will be conducted in person. It would comply with the new law. 


2) Just because the provisions of the Iowa Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan for 2024 comply with the newly signed law does not mean the law is constitutional. Private political parties have the first amendment right to freely associate, to freely and independently determine the rules of how their members associate. The new law abridges that freedom to some degree by requiring in-person participation. 

Look, Democrats in Iowa may sue in an attempt to have this restriction rescinded, but that action would be taken because it infringes on the party’s broad first amendment rights and not because it affects the party’s plans for the 2024 presidential nominating process. It does not.

The big issue here is that actors in Iowa have blurred the lines on this for more than 50 years to protect the first-in-the-nation status of the caucuses. State government decision makers have legislated their way into political party business. And that works when everyone is on the same page, regardless of party. But when there is a split along partisan lines like there is in 2023, and one side attempts to further legislate to further insulate first-in-the-nation status, it raises red flags with respect to how much state law has crept into party business. That is what provoked this response from Iowa Democrats to the bill’s signing on Thursday:

"No political party can tell another political party how to conduct its party caucuses. Iowa Democrats will do what's best for Iowa, plain and simple," Hart said. "For many years, Iowa Democrats have worked in good faith with the Republicans to preserve our caucuses. This legislation ends decades of bipartisanship, and now Kim Reynolds has signed off on this attempt to meddle in Democratic party business."

Yet, that has nothing to do with Iowa Democratic Party plans for 2024.


3) One additional layer to all of this that FHQ should reiterate is that Iowa Democrats do everyone a disservice by continuing to call this new and newly bifurcated delegate selection process a “caucus.” It is not. There is a caucus component to it, the selection process. But overall, the whole thing is not a caucus. A traditional caucus process basically merges the beginning of the delegate selection process with the delegate allocation process. But under the plan, the precinct caucuses only affect the initial stages of the selection process. Again, the allocation process is separate and dictated by the results of the proposed vote-by-mail presidential preference vote. 

That is a long name. Let’s give it another one: party-run primary. The proposed preference vote is a party-run primary. It is that simple. Iowa Democrats’ plan for 2024 brings the party in line with the bifurcated process in nearly all state-run and party-run primary states. It is, in other words, completely normal. 

But Iowa Democrats continue to call this entire process a caucus. It is understandable why. There is a certain branding behind the caucuses as they have existed at the front of the presidential primary queue for half a century. Obviously that would be difficult to give up. And that is why Iowa Democrats have bent themselves into pretzels to satisfy both the national party and folks at home to whom being first matters. Thus, the caucus component of the process — the selection part, recall — will remain first in the nation and the party-run primary part will happen at a time that likely complies with DNC rules. All of this, of course, assumes the plan is approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in the end. If it does not comply, then the plan will not be granted approval.

But let’s call a spade a spade. Iowa Democrats will have a party-run primary in 2024 if this plan is approved. They can call it what they want, but calling it a caucus only confuses things in the near term as all of this dust settles. 


4) Another point of confusion in the coverage of this new law is the how it affects the delicate relationship — one forged over half a century — between Iowa and New Hampshire. To repeat, this new law does not affect the plans Iowa Democrats have for their delegate selection process in 2024. By extension, then, it does not affect anything between Iowa and New Hampshire. 

The bottom line for New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scalan in all of this is simple. He is looking at one thing. One thing: the date on which the vote-by-mail preference vote concludes. Now, if that process were to wrap up on caucus night in early to mid-January, then yes, Secretary Scanlan would likely take issue with that move and act accordingly with respect to the scheduling of the presidential primary in the Granite state. He would, because of the law there, schedule the primary for before the end of the preference vote. 

But what if that preference vote ended not only after the precinct caucuses, but well after them? What if both that process concluded and the result were released some time in February (if a waiver was granted by the DNC to Iowa instead of Georgia and/or New Hampshire) or in March or later? Well, Secretary Scanlan would have little to worry about in that scenario. He could nudge the New Hampshire primary up beyond the South Carolina Democratic primary scheduled for February 3 and any other similar election that might slot into the calendar before that point. 

Iowa Democrats are angling for an early window slot on the Democratic primary calendar. That is the hold up right now. Once that date is known, the New Hampshire conflict will materialize and intensify or it will not. Iowa Democrats appear to be trying their darnedest to get back into the good graces of the national party after 2020, so the odds are very good that all of this supposed friction between Iowa and New Hampshire will melt away once the timing question is answered. 

But to reiterate, that supposed friction has nothing to do with this law. It has everything to do with the date of the preference vote being unknown. The two things are separate despite what the Republicans driving this change to the law in the Iowa legislature may suggest. That became clear when the bill was amended and passed the state House on May 1. Those changes to the initial bill gave Iowa Democrats the flexibility they needed to move forward with the delegate selection plan they unveiled two days later. The in-person requirement was window dressing for New Hampshire, but the real change was in the registration requirements the new law allows the parties to set. It is not specified but Iowa Republicans can institute the 70 day registration buffer that was stripped from the initial bill because of the broad discretion the new law affords the state party.

Is all of this complicated? 

Sure, there are a lot of component parts to it all. But those parts can be parsed out and that is what is missing in nearly all of the coverage of this new law in Iowa. There seems to be a lot of throw all of the information out there, let everyone figure it all out on their own and assume chaos. Hey, it gets clicks. But one does not have do dig too deeply or work too hard to put the puzzle pieces together. And that way chaos does not necessarily lie.


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

Friday, June 9, 2023

Legislative Inaction Struck a Blow Against a Primary Move in Connecticut, but the effort may not be dead

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • The effort to move the Connecticut presidential primary to early April may have failed earlier this week, but bills to move a couple of other states' primaries advanced on Thursday. All the details at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
The Associate Press account of how it came to pass that a Connecticut presidential primary bill was left to die in the state Senate Wednesday night before the legislature adjourned left a lot to be desired: 
Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff said in a statement that “unfortunately the bill had some opposition in the chamber and we didn’t have time to debate the bill and pass it.” 
Legislative records show the House of Representatives voted unanimously for the bill at 11:07 p.m., sending it to the Senate. Both the House and Senate adjourned at the midnight deadline.
First of all, the House passed HB 6908, the bill that would have shifted the presidential primary in the Nutmeg state up to April 2, at 11:07pm on Friday, June 2. That the state Senate was made to consider the bill at the last minute was not due to the lower chamber. It was all on the state Senate. And that body did not take up the presidential primary measure because a filibuster on an unrelated bill ate up much of the day on Wednesday before the legislature was constitutionally mandated to adjourn at midnight. 

Second, it is not at all clear whether the primary move was what helped keep the legislation on the back burner in the Senate. The primary date change was not the only provision in the bill. And it certainly was not controversial. Both parties in the state backed the change. What was problematic in the bill was a tweak to how minor parties file for ballot access. That got pushback in committee and drew an amendment before passing the House. That change may have driven some of the opposition on the Senate side.

That likely closes the door on the prospect of a presidential primary move in Connecticut in time for 2024. But the leaders of both major parties in the state stuck their foot in the door to leave open the possibility:
"Moving the Presidential Primary Election from the last Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday would have allowed Connecticut to join several other New England states, including New York, bringing more candidates, visibility and business to our state, and giving Connecticut voters a greater voice in their party’s Presidential nominee," the statement read. 
Both leaders added that they would continue discussions with lawmakers and the governor's office to "find a way to pass this legislation.”
Maybe a special session? Connecticut would not be the only state where legislative inaction  this year killed a primary (move) only to trigger calls for a special session. 

But here is the thing. When Connecticut moved to April from February for the 2012 cycle, the legislature in the Nutmeg state did not do what others joining the northeast/mid-Atlantic subregional primary that has been around in some form since that time. While others moved their primaries to the fourth Tuesday in April, Connecticut landed on the last Tuesday in April. Typically, that will not matter in most cycles. But most cycles are not like 2024, when April will have five Tuesdays. That difference already had the Connecticut presidential primary on a different date from the rest for next year. 

All the state legislative inaction does now is keep the primary there, alone as it would have been whether the other states moved or not. And it could all work out in the end. If the competitive phase of the Republican race stretches beyond April 2 when Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and maybe Pennsylvania hold their primaries, then Connecticut would be poised to gain a lot of attention from the candidates as the next contest in the sequence with a nice four week long lead in. That is not a bad place to be. Think Pennsylvania, 2008. Sure, it is a gamble that things will last that long -- a lot of delegates will have been allocated by that point -- but it would be better under that scenario than in one where Connecticut shares the limelight with up to five other states. 


...
FHQ commented on Pat Robertson's impact on the way in which some candidates have subsequently approached the delegate game in the Republican presidential nomination process. Chris Baylor pursued a similar line, adding to that picture in a fantastic deep dive on Robertson's grassroots political efforts in 1988 and beyond. It is a good one. 


...
Jonathan Bernstein looks at why candidates are still getting into the Republican presidential nomination race despite the fact that Trump and DeSantis are collectively pulling in around three-quarters of the polling support at the moment. Not to channel James Carville too much, but it is the uncertainty, stupid. Trump has some baggage and DeSantis has not closed the door. But Bernstein's note on winnowing bears repeating: the field may be growing now, but the process will exhaust the field in due time as winnowing kicks into full force.


...
In the endorsement primary, President Biden got the nod from the Laborers' International Union of North America, a construction workers union.


...
On this date...
...in 1987, Delaware Senator Joe Biden entered the race for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 1992, President George H.W. Bush won the North Dakota Republican primary. The beauty contest Democratic presidential primary was won by Ross Perot, a victory that was disputed by Lyndon LaRouche. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, won had won the March caucuses on which delegate allocation was based, came in a distant fifth in the primary, all on write-in votes. 

...in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden won the pandemic-delayed primaries in Georgia and West Virginia.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, June 8, 2023

Pat Robertson, 1988 and the Modern Caucus Strategy in Republican Presidential Politics

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • Another big daily digest update on primary calendar maneuvering in the mid-Atlantic and northeast and possible delegate allocation rules changes by Republican state parties in a pair of big states. All the details at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
Many obituaries will talk about Pat Robertson's impact on how Republican presidential candidates strategize around the Iowa caucuses on the day of the televangelist's passing. And while his 1988 run for the Republican presidential nomination expressly targeted Christian conservatives, it was about more than just Iowa and evangelicals. 

The Robertson campaign's savvy on the grassroots level not only delivered caucus victories that cycle in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington, but in many ways, it laid the predicate for the modern caucus strategy that recent campaigns like those of Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 or Ted Cruz in 2016 mimicked. It has not always been all about evangelicals. Rather, it is about emphasizing the delegate selection process through the caucuses (in most states) to push as many delegates through to the convention to influence the ultimate nominee and the platform (if not the rules for subsequent cycles).

George H.W. Bush, for example, won the preference vote in the Nevada precinct caucuses in 1988 only to have Robertson's team run an end-around on them in later rounds of the caucus/convention process when delegates were actually selected. It is the same thing Ron Paul pulled off in a number of states in 2012, including Iowa and Nevada. 

And the stories from Michigan that cycle are priceless, from electing delegates in 1986 all the way through a rump state convention with Robertson at the center. But again, Robertson's team was able to exploit the delegate selection game to their advantage. It did not lead to the nomination, but it did lead to influence. And the 1988 Iowa Republican caucuses are only part of that story.

It should also be noted that RNC rules have progressively made this caucus strategy more and more difficult.


...
In the endorsement primary, former President Donald Trump rolled out 50 endorsements from West Virginia state legislators on Wednesday. FHQ did some endorsement math with a similar DeSantis endorsement wave, so it is only fair to do the same here. Trump's 50 endorsements come from 120 possible Republican legislators in the Mountain state.

Not to be outdone, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis gained the support of 20 state legislators (out of 121 Republicans across the state House and Senate) in Oklahoma. The list included three representatives who are part of the House leadership team.

And the campaign of Vivek Ramaswamy signed on former Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz as one of its co-chairs in the Hawkeye state. Schultz previously served in similar roles for the Santorum and Cruz campaigns in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Both went on to win the caucuses. Ramaswamy also reeled in the endorsement of Iowa state Senator Scott Webster (a defection from DeSantis).


...
In the travel primary, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, fresh off his campaign launch, is swinging through eastern Iowa on Thursday and Des Moines, Ankeny and elsewhere on Friday.

And President Biden and Ron DeSantis will overlap in northern California later this month. 


...
On this date...
...in 1976, President Gerald Ford fended off former California Governor Ronald Reagan in the New Jersey and Ohio primaries, but Reagan continued his dominance out west, winning the primary in the Golden state and keeping the delegate count close. On the Democratic side, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter outlasted the competition in the Ohio primary, but lost to California Governor Jerry Brown in the latter's home state. Carter also won the beauty contest primary in New Jersey while losing the delegate battle to Brown and former Vice President Hubert Humphrey. 

...in 1979, Illinois Congressman John Anderson formally entered the race for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry won the Montana and New Jersey primaries to close out primary season.



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

Wednesday, June 7, 2023

Is the RNC Using the Debate Criteria to Winnow the Field?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • The Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the upper chamber's version of a bill to move the presidential primary in the Ocean state. All that and more at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
As FHQ noted earlier in the week in this space, the RNC released the qualification criteria for its first presidential primary debate in August late last week. Of course, our's was not the only reaction out there. Walt Hickey at Business Insider astutely pointed out the likely small pool of polls the national party will be able to lean on by requiring qualifying polls to have at least "800 registered likely Republican voters" in the sample. And FiveThirtyEight's Geoffrey Skelley noted that the DNC allowed qualification in the first 2019 debate by polling or donors whereas the RNC is requiring candidates hit both metrics to qualify in 2023. 

In total it sums to a high bar exerting some pressure on the low end of the field. The Burgums and Hutchinsons and Elders and Johnsons, in other words, will potentially have some to a great deal of difficulty making the stage. And that is a departure from the past two contests that have seen large fields, the 2020 Democrats and 2016 Republicans. Four years ago, the DNC had to have two consecutive nights of debates (with randomly chosen participants) to accommodate everyone who qualified. And four years before that, the RNC split the field into a main stage debate and kiddie table debate; a set up that had its own potential winnowing effects. 

But the criteria are not the only facet of this overall process exerting winnowing pressures on the candidates struggling to gain attention. There is pressure from the top end of the field in 2023 that was not present in either 2020 (Democrats) or 2016 (Republicans) or not present to the same extent. Here is what I mean.

Look at how the fields of candidates are positioned on this date in 2015 and 2019. How much support were the top candidates pulling in?

Jeb Bush -- 11.3 percent (please clap) 
Scott Walker -- 10.8 percent 
Marco Rubio -- 10.3 percent 
[Combined: 32.4 percent]

Joe Biden -- 33.5 percent 
Bernie Sanders -- 16.7 percent 
[Combined: 50.2 percent]

Quibble if one will about using the Real Clear Politics averages or the specific date chosen or how many candidates were included or whatever, but the two examples above are far different from what one sees now in the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race. 

Donald Trump -- 53.2 percent 
Ron DeSantis -- 22.3 percent 
[Combined: 75.5 percent]

There just is not a lot of oxygen there for other candidates. Some might have difficulty qualifying for the first debate regardless of the criteria. The first debate was going to apply winnowing pressure regardless. What the RNC criteria may decide is just how much. And this top end pressure is not new. Trump and DeSantis have routinely gobbled up about three-quarters of the support out there. As DeSantis has faded Trump gained. Stretching into last year, as Trump's fortunes waned, DeSantis rose. 

FHQ is not saying the debate rules do not matter. They do and they will likely help winnow the field to some degree. But that is not the only thing exerting some winnowing pressure on the other candidates. They are, however, one of the few things in the control of the national party.


...
Former Vice President Mike Pence has launched his bid for the Republican nomination with a splashy new video, but starts in a bad spot. And as Julia Azari and Seth Masket argue, Pence is stuck trying to resurrect the party of Reagan while simultaneously tethered to a Trump anchor. Candidates have seen some success trying to tread between past and present in years gone by, but it is not a path for Pence that is without resistance in the current context, they point out.


...
In the travel primary, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis continues to branch out and hit states that are not home to one of the first four contests. There is a trip to Oklahoma this weekend and another to keynote a big Tennessee Republican Party fundraiser next month. Both are Super Tuesday states.

Also, CNBC's semiannual survey of millionaires still shows DeSantis as the choice, but the gap between him and the former president has noticeably shrunk since the last survey was conducted in fall 2022.


...
On this date...
...in 1988, President George H.W. Bush and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis both swept primaries in California, Montana, New Jersey and New Mexico. The wins by Dukakis pushed him over the number of delegates necessary to clinch the Democratic nomination. 

...in 2008, New York Senator Hillary Clinton conceded the Democratic presidential nomination to Senator Barack Obama a few days after the last round of primaries.

...in 2016, Donald Trump ran off a string of victories in primaries in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota to close out primary season on the Republican primary calendar. On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won primaries in California, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders continued his success in caucus states, winning in North Dakota and besting Clinton in the Montana primary.

...in 2020, President Donald Trump won an electronic vote of party leaders in Puerto Rico to take all of the island territory's delegates in the Republican presidential nomination race.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, June 6, 2023

Launch Week Continues & Biden and the Iowa "Caucuses"

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • With state legislative sessions winding down, things have gotten kind of quiet in terms of the primary calendar and rules for 2024. But that does not mean that nothing has been going on. In fact, it is picking up once more with some big-ish changes to delegate allocation for New York Republicans. All the details at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
President Biden appearing on any state's primary or caucus ballot next year will depend entirely on whether the state party in question is conducting or involved in a noncompliant contest. That is clear and has been clear for some time. The president has stood behind a primary calendar change for 2024 that disrupts the standard positions that both Iowa and New Hampshire have occupied on the calendar for half of a century. But when those changes are combined with rules that also create penalties on candidates who campaign in states that break those rules, it makes things look rather ominous with respect to president's participation. After all, it is unlikely that a president is going break the rules of the party he leads to campaign in some rogue contest. 

But that did not deter Biden challenger, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from saying this to radio host Michael Smerconish in an interview on Monday, June 5:
“I think that President Biden is not going to even put his name in Iowa and New Hampshire. So I think he’s not even going to compete,” Kennedy added.
However, Kennedy is like others who have fallen into the trap of expecting Iowa and New Hampshire to behave the same in the face of changes that strip them both of their customary positions. New Hampshire Democrats have clearly been defiant. But Iowa Democrats have not been. Not yet anyway. And signs pretty clearly point toward an Iowa Democratic Party that is trying to thread a needle with their 2024 process. Those signs indicate a likely compliant preference vote. 

And if that all-mail preference vote occurs at a compliant point on the calendar, then Biden will be on the ballot. If not, well, he will not be. But no one -- not even RFK Jr. -- has an answer to that yet. And as for competing beyond merely being on the ballot, Biden will likely do what most incumbent presidents do in terms of campaigning in compliant contest states.


...
On Christie's launch day, Jonathan Bernstein has a good one up at Bloomberg chock full of advice on how the former New Jersey governor can run a productive campaign despite not having any real chance to win (based on the typical horserace standards).


...
FHQ was at least somewhat skeptical in Invisible Primary: Visible last week about an NBC News look at the potential failings of canvassing on the Republican side. Derek Willis has provided some good additional perspective on the matter in terms of expenditures on those GOTV efforts in the DDHQ newsletter this week. 
The grumbling in the NBC story about the GOP's canvassing operations - "That’s why we’re losing elections," one anonymous source is quoted as saying - doesn't sound like sour grapes from a competing consultant. But it's also not clear to an outsider how effective paid canvassing is, especially in the final weeks of the campaign. 
One thing is pretty certain: paid canvassing isn't going away, and one important reason why is primary elections, where a party apparatus usually isn't available to help pull in volunteers.

...
Invisible Primary quick hits:
  • Former Vice President Mike Pence filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission on Monday to run for president ahead of his Iowa launch on Wednesday, June 7.
  • Taking a different route than most recent prospective presidential candidates, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu opted not to run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, calling on candidates to "not get into this race to further a vanity campaign, to sell books or to audition to serve as Donald Trump’s vice president." Seth Masket has more on Sununu's decision at Tusk. But the University of New Hampshire's Dante Scala pushed back on any impact Sununu would have had one way or the other. All FHQ would add is that a Sununu entry was very unlikely to make New Hampshire irrelevant for 2024. He has basically been flirting with the delegate qualifying threshold (10 percent) in public opinion polling in the Granite state. Sununu is no Tom Harkin in Iowa, circa 1992. He was not deterring anyone.
  • On the other hand, North Dakota Republican Governor Doug Burgum has a new extended video out ahead of his announcement on Wednesday, June 7.

...
On this date...
...in 1972, South Dakota Senator George McGovern swept the Democratic primaries (or won more delegates) in California, New Jersey, New Mexico and his home state of South Dakota. The backstory on the New Jersey primary is a wild read more than 50 years on. 

...in 2000, Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore both won primaries in Alabama, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota to end primary season.

...in 2011, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum announced his candidacy for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden won caucuses in Guam and the Virgin Islands.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, June 5, 2023

The Rules Help Frontrunners in Both Parties, not just Trump

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

...
Elaine Kamarck had a really good piece up over at Brookings late last week. Breaking the nomination process timeline into three parts -- invisible primary, early contests and everything -- could perhaps use another layer, the opening of the winner-take-all window on March 15, but that is a small quibble. The hypothesis that someone will have to trip Trump up in one of the early states to take him down is a sound one as well. 

But FHQ breaks with Kamarck on an earlier section she penned...
"A few months ago, I helped create the now conventional wisdom which says that a large field of challengers will help Trump because the Republican winner-take-all or winner-take-most delegate selection rules are tailor made for a candidate who holds a solid base among primary voters and who can wrack up a series of plurality wins."
First of all, this is not exactly wrong. Winner-take-all rules certainly would not hurt a frontrunner with a built-in base of support like Trump seems to have. However, that is not the only layer of the rules that might help. There is another facet of the delegate selection process in both parties that could also help frontrunners in a similar position: the qualifying threshold. After all, candidates in both parties have to receive a minimum amount of support to gain any delegates in the first place. It is a standard 15 percent across all states, territories and jurisdictions in the Democratic process, and although it varies on the Republican side, the qualifying threshold can be no higher than 20 percent. In fact, more Republican state parties moved toward the 20 percent maximum qualifying threshold for the 2020 cycle. That remnant from the changes for the last cycle will potentially benefit the former president as well. 

But it is not just Trump who is helped by such rules. Frontrunners of all stripes can reap the benefits of a qualifying threshold. Here is an example. Say Trump wins 40 percent of the vote in the Minnesota primary on Super Tuesday next year. Ron DeSantis comes in a distant second at 20 percent, enough to qualify for delegates under the proportional rules Minnesota Republicans used in 2020. Trump in that scenario falls below 50 percent, so the winner-take-all trigger is not activated. Yet, only he and DeSantis qualify for delegates. Only their collective vote counts in calculating how many delegates each is allocated. Trump would not receive 40 percent of the delegates. The former president would claim two-thirds of them. DeSantis would take the remaining third. While that is not all of the delegates going to Trump, it would be a fairly healthy net delegate advantage coming out of the state. And if replicated across other states on a Super Tuesday with a number of primaries and caucuses, the delegate count could get lopsided quickly.

And this is not just a Republican phenomenon. This very thing happened to Joe Biden on Super Tuesday in 2020. Yes, some of his competition dropped out after South Carolina (and before Super Tuesday) and endorsed the former vice president, but they were still on the ballot, gobbling up votes and hovering well below the qualifying threshold. Who was above it? Biden, Bernie Sanders and a revolving cast of characters who nudged above 15 percent barrier across the slew of Super Tuesday states. The result was that Biden built a large enough lead in the delegate count to pressure others to cease campaign operations thereafter. 

Look, this is not all just delegate selection rules. As Seth Masket pointed out last week, winnowing matters a great deal in all of this. But the fact remains that it is not just winner-take-all rules that help just Trump. The delegate selection rules in both parties help frontrunners. Kamarck is not wrong, but her hypothesis is a bit too narrowly crafted. 


...
The Republican National Committee late last week also released the qualifying criteria for the first presidential debate this August in Milwaukee. Some candidates are already complaining. Others are too:
“It seems that the RNC is going out of its way to purposely narrow the field at one of the earliest times in the party’s history,” said a Republican consultant working for one of the presidential candidates who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. “And rather than finding a way for as many conservative voices to be heard by Republicans throughout the country, they are attempting to make this a two-man race.”
The RNC was going to catch some flak on this decision regardless, but this is much more about one candidate -- a dominant former president as frontrunner -- than it is about squelching the others struggling to gain support. How much lower than topping one percent in the polls was the national party supposed to go? The donor threshold is lower at 40,000 than it was for Democrats in their first debate four years ago. And Democrats managed to have 20 qualifiers across two debates on consecutive nights. The difference is not those on the low end. This is about the someone at the top end of polling crowding others out of a debate in which he may not even participate. 


...
Invisible Primary quick hits:
  • In the endorsement primary, former Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam threw his support behind South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
  • Never Back Down, the super PAC aligned with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, started canvassing in New Hampshire, continuing to test the effectiveness of the practice outside of a traditional campaign.
  • Granite state Rep. James Spillane flipped his endorsement from Trump to DeSantis. [There has been some early churn in the endorsement primary between these two among state legislators. That may or may not be a story, but it signals that both sides are seemingly (and intensely) battling for the support of this subset of elected officials (especially in early states.]
  • And action (or inaction) over in Iowa may help explain why state legislators are so sought after: Republicans elected statewide are for the most part staying neutral for now. That is true in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. South Carolina is the exception. Trump has endorsements from the governor and senior senator.

...
On this date...
...in 1972, Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty withdrew from the Democratic presidential nomination race on the eve of the California primary.

...in 1984, in a series of five contests to end primary season, Colorado Senator Gary Hart won the delegate vote in California and primaries in New Mexico and South Dakota. Former Vice President Walter Mondale claimed victories in New Jersey and West Virginia.

...in 2012, both former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama swept primaries in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota. Obama also took the caucuses in North Dakota.

...in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in Puerto Rico.

...in 2020, President Donald Trump won an online vote among Republican party leaders in Puerto Rico to take all of the delegates from the territory.



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

Sunday, June 4, 2023

Sunday Series: Demystifying Delegate Allocation and Delegate Selection

Delegate allocation.

Delegate selection.

Delegates, delegates, delegates.

The 2024 invisible primary is deep in the heart of rules season. Each of the national parties have settled on the rules that will govern their respective presidential nomination processes next year. Well, both parties have mostly done that. The Democratic National Committee still has to finalize which states will receive (or not receive) waivers to conduct primaries or caucuses during the early part of the primary calendar next year. But other than that (not insignificant) detail, the guidelines within which states and state parties can operate for 2024 have been set for some time. And states and state parties have been, are and will continue to make decisions -- when to schedule primaries and caucuses, how to allocate and select delegates, etc. -- as 2023 progresses. 

And those are important decisions that can influence the path a presidential candidate takes in getting to the nomination. But together, all of those rules, the layers of national party guidelines, state laws and state party rules, form a complicated matrix that seems far removed from a voter walking into a polling place and pulling the lever for their preferred presidential candidate. 

For most, those who, like FHQ, grew up or currently reside in a state with a presidential primary, that can seem like the extent of the process. One expresses their presidential preference, some candidate wins the primary and the candidate who wins the most across the country becomes the nominee. More often than not, that is true. However, that description of the process is a vast oversimplification that smooths over many of the complexities that can render that way of understanding things false. 

In truth, what happens every four years is that those votes in primaries and caucuses throughout the United States translate into delegates and it is those delegates who decide at the national convention who a party's presidential nominee is going to be. But that process of votes producing delegates for the various candidates can be shrouded in mystery, or perhaps more appropriately, complexities. 

Many of those complexities owe to the fact that there are two parallel events taking place in that translation of votes to delegates. One of those, delegate allocation, most folks at least vaguely understand. If a candidate wins more votes, they more often than not win more delegates. There are exceptions to that rule, but in the vast majority of cases, the candidate with the most votes in a given state's contest is the candidate who is awarded the most delegates. This is true if the state party rules for delegate allocation are proportional (where if a candidate wins 53 percent of the vote, that candidate wins around 53 percent of the delegates), winner-take-all (where a plurality winner statewide can win all of a state's delegates) or something in between those two.

But as FHQ has often described it, that allocation process is only granting the various candidates delegate slots based on the results of the primaries or caucuses. There is a second process -- delegate selection -- that operates in the background to actually fill those slots. They end up filled with people that go the national conventions aligned with and/or bound to the candidates to whom the slots have been awarded. 


Taylor Swift and National Conventions

Confused yet? 

Yeah, it happens. And FHQ gets asked about this a lot. I can launch into that "Well, the nomination process is one of two parallel processes..." and folks' eyes start to glaze over. There are a lot of layers involved in this process and it quickly gets messy. So let's think about all of this delegate allocation and selection a bit differently. 

Think of a national convention like a Taylor Swift concert. Sure, one's mileage may vary in terms of the entertainment value of those two events, but the convoluted nature of the process to actually get into either event is similarly opaque and complicated. Just as Swifties in the fall of 2022 wanted to get tickets to see the singer/songwriter in concert, candidates want to get as many of their delegates into the national convention (in order to be nominated as the party's standard bearer). But just like those diehard Taylor Swift fans, the various candidates have to compete against other candidates, some with vastly more resources (like ticket resellers buying in bulk), to gain access. 

But both are competing for something similar. Swifties want tickets that reserve a spot for them at the concert. Presidential candidates are vying in primaries and caucuses for delegate slots that reserve spots for their delegates at the convention. That is the delegate allocation process. It is getting tickets to the show. 

Now, suppose you are the parent of two young Swift fans. Ideally, you want three tickets so you and your two kids can see Taylor. Only, because of the process -- ahem, allocation -- you manage to get just two tickets. Who gets those two tickets? You cannot possibly let your two underage kids go alone. Or can you? But how do you choose between the two kids in the scenario that a chaperone is necessary? Do you flip a coin? Do you let them literally battle it out in hand-to-hand combat to see who goes? Do you design some Taylor Swift trivia contest? And assuming your kids are not twins, you have to design a process that levels the playing field for them that does not advantage the older kid. In fact, you probably want to use some system that does not appear to play favorites at all. 

That is the delegate selection process; the rules of deciding (or that decide) who goes. 

And state parties operate within national party guidelines to set the rules for both allocation and selection. They set the rules for 1) how folks get tickets and that 2) decide who gets to go based on how many tickets were acquired. The getting the tickets part is allocation. Those are the proportional and winner-take-all rules mentioned above. All states are proportional in the Democratic process, but there is a mixture of those rules (and various hybrid forms in between) across the states and territories in the Republican system. Voters vote in the primaries and (the first round of) caucuses and that determines how many of the delegate slots -- those tickets to the national convention -- are allocated to the various candidates. Each state has a set number of tickets to allocate based on different formulas across the parties that weigh population (the bigger the state, the more tickets it gets) and partisan voting history (the more Republican a state is, for example, the more tickets it gets to the Republican convention).

But how do state parties decide the actual people that get to go to the concert; those who get the tickets?

Again, that is the delegate selection process. In some states, like Alabama, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Rhode Island, when voters vote in a presidential primary, those voters vote for their presidential preference and also vote for delegate candidates. Those states merge the ticket acquisition portion with the process of deciding who gets to go. To some degree, it is similar in caucus states. Caucus-goers attend their precinct caucuses and collectively their votes determine how many delegate slots are allocated to which candidates and start the process of deciding who gets to go, a process that plays out through county, district and/or state conventions. This is the way things have been for, say, Iowa Democrats in the past and will continue to be the case for Iowa Republicans in 2024. 

Yet, in most cases and in most states, there are two very separate processes: a primary for delegate allocation and a caucus/convention system for delegate selection. The latter is something that almost universally gets missed by casual observers in this whole process. In other words, even in primary states there are caucuses. But they are separate caucuses with separate (or if not completely separate, then a subset of) decision makers from the primaries. It is in those caucuses where that subset of typically very tuned-in partisans begins to decide who gets those tickets, who fills a candidate's allocated slots to the national convention.

Take New Hampshire, a traditional primary state. All one ever hears about is the primary there. It has been first, after all, for more than a century. But delegates are selected in the Granite state before the primary. Slates of delegate candidates are selected for each candidate in pre-primary caucuses and then folks are pulled from those slates to fill slots allocated to the candidate once the results of the primary are in. This is basically the model Iowa Democrats appear to be proposing for their 2024 process and from where some of the recent confusion comes. The state party is abandoning the merged allocation and (start of the) selection processes and is proposing to bifurcate them. The idea is that the traditional caucuses will be held on the same January night that Republicans hold theirs, but the decisions made that night only affect the selection process (who goes to the convention). A separate all-mail preference vote (one that presumably concludes after the initial caucuses) will be what determines the allocation (how many tickets each candidate gets).

In most primary states, however, the selection process in those caucuses follows the primary. But again, they are separate. 


Hijacking who gets tickets

There is one additional layer to all of this that separates the two major parties and how each handles the selection process overall. Think of it as a safeguard that Democrats at the national level have added to their selection process that does not exist in the Republican process. The rules that state parties operate under on the Democratic side give the candidates the right of review over who fills any delegate slots allocated to them. Candidates who have been allocated any delegates have the ability to weed out any delegate candidates who have made it through the selection process and into one of their allocated slots but who are not actually affiliated with or sympathetic to the candidate. To extend the concert analogy, Democratic candidates have some backend control over who gets their tickets.

By comparison, there is no such safeguard on the Republican side. There is no right of review. A candidate may lose a primary but if that candidate has a dedicated enough following at the grassroots level, those supporters may be able to overrun a caucus and/or convention and force through a disproportionate number of delegate candidates. That produces a delegation that may be bound through the allocation process to support a particular candidate but one that is made up of people filling those allocated slots who support someone else. Recall that during the 2016 Republican primaries there was some talk about the possibility that delegate slots allocated to Donald Trump may be filled with people aligned with another candidate. That talk has returned for 2024.

Now sure, that may sound as if it is undemocratic, the idea that one candidate may be able to make an end run around another candidate who has received more votes overall in the primaries and caucuses. But it is (or has been) much easier to speculate about that than it has been for a candidate to actually successfully implement such a strategy across enough states to change the course of the nomination at the convention. But still, the possibility exists that a well-organized campaign can come in and hijack the decision on who gets a ticket to the national convention. 


Conclusion

Obviously there is more to it all than this. There are maybe more layers that make the Taylor Swift concert ticket analogy work better in some facets of the delegate allocation/selection process than others. But complicated though all of this may be, it helps to think of allocation like getting tickets to the national convention and selection as deciding who gets to use those tickets and actually go to Chicago or Milwaukee in 2024. The rules governing each process may be stretched beyond this simple example, but for the most part this is basically how it works. 



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)