MISSISSIPPI
Election type: primary
Date: March 10
Number of delegates: 41 [8 at-large, 5 PLEOs, 23 congressional district, 5 automatic/superdelegates]
Allocation method: proportional statewide and at the congressional district level
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15%
2016: proportional primary
Delegate selection plan
--
Changes since 2016
If one followed the 2016 series on the Republican process here at FHQ, then you may end up somewhat disappointed. The two national parties manage the presidential nomination process differently. The Republican National Committee is much less hands-on in regulating state and state party activity in the delegate selection process than the Democratic National Committee is. That leads to a lot of variation from state to state and from cycle to cycle on the Republican side. Meanwhile, the DNC is much more top down in its approach. Thresholds stay the same. It is a 15 percent barrier that candidates must cross in order to qualify for delegates. That is standard across all states. The allocation of delegates is roughly proportional. Again, that is applied to every state.
That does not mean there are no changes. The calendar has changed as have other facets of the process such as whether a state has a primary or a caucus.
The Mississippi primary for the ninth consecutive cycle will fall on the second Tuesday in March. For the second straight cycle that will fall the week after Super Tuesday. But in 2020, the Magnolia state will be joined by more than just Michigan in the Democratic process. Unlike Michigan, however, Mississippi Democrats will have fewer delegates at stake, and be less likely to draw much attention given the way Biden has performed in the South so far, and among African Americans in particular.
The Mississippi Democratic delegation remained stable from 2016 to 2020. All four categories of delegates stayed at their 2016 levels.
Thresholds
The standard 15 percent qualifying threshold applies both statewide and on the congressional district level.
Delegate allocation (at-large and PLEO delegates)
To win any at-large or PLEO (pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials) delegates a candidate must win 15 percent of the statewide vote. Only the votes of those candidates above the threshold will count for the purposes of the separate allocation of these two pools of delegates.
See New Hampshire synopsis for an example of how the delegate allocation math works for all categories of delegates.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Mississippi's 23 congressional district delegates are split across 4 congressional districts and have a variation of five delegates across districts from the measure of Democratic strength Mississippi Democrats are using based on the results of the 2016 presidential election and 2019 gubernatorial election in the state. That method apportions delegates as follows...
CD1 - 5 delegates*
CD2 - 9 delegates*
CD3 - 5 delegates*
CD4 - 4 delegates
*Bear in mind that districts with odd numbers of national convention delegates are potentially important to winners (and those above the qualifying threshold) within those districts. Rounding up for an extra delegate initially requires less in those districts than in districts with even numbers of delegates. This matters more in the context of a two person race than in a multi-candidate scenario.
Delegate allocation (automatic delegates/superdelegates)
Superdelegates are free to align with a candidate of their choice at a time of their choosing. While their support may be a signal to voters in their state (if an endorsement is made before voting in that state), superdelegates will only vote on the first ballot at the national convention if half of the total number of delegates -- pledged plus superdelegates -- have been pledged to one candidate. Otherwise, superdelegates are locked out of the voting unless 1) the convention adopts rules that allow them to vote or 2) the voting process extends to a second ballot. But then all delegates, not just superdelegates will be free to vote for any candidate.
[NOTE: All Democratic delegates are pledged and not bound to their candidates. They are to vote in good conscience for the candidate to whom they have been pledged, but technically do not have to. But they tend to because the candidates and their campaigns are involved in vetting and selecting their delegates through the various selection processes on the state level. Well, the good campaigns are anyway.]
Selection
The 23 district delegates in Mississippi are chosen at congressional district conventions held on successive Saturdays in April based on the results in the respective congressional districts. [The first district will hold its convention on the first Saturday in April, the second district on the second Saturday and so on.] PLEO delegates and then at-large delegates will be selected at the May 23 state convention.
Importantly, if a candidate drops out of the race before the selection of statewide delegates, then any statewide delegates allocated to that candidate will be reallocated to the remaining candidates. If Candidate X is in the race in late May when the Mississippi statewide delegate selection takes place but Candidate Y is not, then any statewide delegates allocated to Candidate Y in the March primary would be reallocated to Candidate X. [This same feature is not something that applies to district delegates.] This reallocation only applies if a candidate has fully dropped out. Candidates with suspended campaigns are still candidates and can fill those slots allocated them. This is unlikely to be a factor with just two viable candidates in the race.
Showing posts with label Mississippi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mississippi. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
The Electoral College Map (8/17/16)
New State Polls (8/17/16)
| |||||||||
State
|
Poll
|
Date
|
Margin of Error
|
Sample
|
Clinton
|
Trump
|
Undecided
|
Poll Margin
|
FHQ Margin
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colorado
|
8/9-8/16
|
+/- 3.4%
|
830 likely voters
|
41
|
33
|
3
|
+8
|
+7.32
| |
Indiana
|
8/13-8/16
|
+/- 4.9%
|
403 likely voters
|
36
|
47
|
5
|
+11
|
+9.24
| |
Iowa
|
8/9-8/16
|
+/- 3.4%
|
846 likely voters
|
41
|
39
|
4
|
+2
|
+2.01
| |
Michigan
|
8/9-8/10
|
+/- 2.7%
|
1303 likely voters
|
43.6
|
33.8
|
8.8
|
+9.8
|
+7.91
| |
Mississippi
|
8/11
|
+/- 2.9%
|
1084 likely voters
|
39
|
52
|
6
|
+13
|
+10.19
| |
Missouri
|
8/8-8/9
|
+/- _._%
|
947 likely voters
|
42
|
45
|
13
|
+3
|
+4.22
| |
Virginia
|
8/9-8/16
|
+/- 3.5%
|
808 likely voters
|
45
|
34
|
5
|
+11
|
+6.01
| |
Polling Quick Hits:
Things are starting to settle into a rhythm of sorts. Labor Day is approaching and we're now starting to see a pattern of state poll releases; a pattern that tends to have a flood of mid-week polls. Today is one of those days.
Colorado:
There have only been two post-convention polls conducted in the Centennial state and both of them have indicated essentially the same thing: Clinton in the low 40s, Trump in the low 30s and the other candidates in the multi-candidates surveys siphoning off just more than 20 percent support. That bears some resemblance to the 2010 gubernatorial race in Colorado, but mainly because the Republican support was split among two candidates. It is more complicated than that because of the idiosyncrasies in both races, but the same type of pattern exists now as then.
Indiana:
For a state that was close just eight years ago, there really have not been that many polls in 2016 in Indiana. Granted, Indiana was less competitive in 2012 than it was in 2008, but that is not a good excuse for a dearth of survey work in the Hoosier state since April. The time since then represents a window in which the state's governor was chosen as Donald Trump's running mate. In other words, there has been no (publicly available) polling-based way to get a sense of the impact of Mike Pence's selection. However, the answer appears to be not much. The couple of polls that had come out of Indiana had shown the Clinton-Trump race to be in the upper single digits in favor of Trump. This is just one poll -- and one from Monmouth with a small sample size at that -- but it shows a low double digits lead for Trump; a slight increase. However slight, that is a widening of the gap over a period of time in which Clinton's lead has expanded nationally and in the balance at the state level has shifted in her direction as well.
For this time being, this poll was enough to push Indiana in range of jumping over into the Strong Trump category (and thus onto the Watch List below).
Iowa:
Iowa, like Nevada, continues to defy its position in the order of state established during the Obama era elections. While most states have exhibited something approximating a uniform shift -- a small gain for Clinton in the aggregate as compared to Obama in 2012 -- Iowa and Nevada have moved in the other direction. Nevada is essentially tied in the FHQ methodology, and Iowa has spent most of the summer hovering within Toss Up Clinton territory on the Electoral College Spectrum below. The latest poll of the Hawkeye state from Quinnipiac is in line with that. Iowa's margin in the averages had already crept down to about Clinton +2 and this poll only reaffirms that positioning: close, but tipped in Clinton's direction.
Michigan:
Every post-convention survey out of the Great Lakes state has been at or around Clinton +10. As was the case with the Iowa poll, this new survey from Mitchell reinforces the post-convention dynamics in Michigan. It is a state well within the Lean Clinton category, but like a number of other states -- Colorado and Virginia, for example -- Michigan continues to see the average margin inch upward and away from Trump. Often talked about as a Republican target in presidential election years, Michigan is following its pattern, resisting those attempts and sticking stubbornly just out of reach for Republican nominees.
Mississippi:
| Changes (August 17) | |||
| State | Before | After | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mississippi | Toss Up Trump | Strong Trump | |
That is enough to bring Mississippi onto the Watch List and push it to the other side of Texas on the Spectrum, but on the more Republican side where Mississippi has not been (relative to Texas in recent cycles).
Missouri:
The summer polling in the Show-Me state started off in early July with a couple of releases showing Trump up around ten points. Once the calendar got into and through convention season, the tide turned. And on the other side of the conventions now, the bellwether of old is looking similar to how it did in 2008: competitive but favoring the Republican candidate. The new head-to-head survey from Public Policy Polling echoes last week's Remington poll (a multi-candidate poll) with Trump narrowly ahead. If 2016 is like 2012 but pushed slightly more toward the Democrats, then that would tend to bring states like Arizona, Georgia and Missouri into play. And that is exactly where things stand.
Virginia:
Virginia joins Colorado and Michigan (not to mention states like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania) as a state that continues to look like a more comfortable blue state than a competitive battleground. Other than the RABA poll that had Trump ahead in the Old Dominion in the midst of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia, the other polls from the state in the time since have found Clinton up anywhere from seven to twelve points. And that has only increased the FHQ average margin in the state; enough now that Virginia is off the Watch List and no longer threatening to jump back into the toss up area with more data. Suffice it to say, if these states are off the table, then Trump has many no realistic paths to 270 unless the established order in the Electoral College Spectrum is shaken up somehow. Given the data to this point in 2016, however, that seems increasingly unlikely.
But there are still 83 days to go until Election Day.
The Electoral College Spectrum1
| ||||
HI-42
(7)
|
NJ-14
(175)
|
VA-133
(269 | 282)
|
MO-10
(155)
|
TN-11
(58)
|
MD-10
(17)
|
DE-3
(178)
|
NH-43
(273 | 269)
|
AK-3
(145)
|
LA-8
(47)
|
RI-4
(21)
|
WI-10
(188)
|
FL-29
(302 | 265) |
UT-6
(142)
|
SD-3
(39)
|
MA-11
(32)
|
ME-4
(192)
|
NC-15
(317 | 236) |
KS-6
(136)
|
ND-3
(36)
|
VT-3
(35)
|
NM-5
(197)
|
OH-18
(335 | 221)
|
TX-38
(130)
|
ID-4
(33)
|
CA-55
(90)
|
MI-16
(213)
|
IA-6
(341 | 203)
|
IN-11
(92)
|
NE-5
(29)
|
NY-29
(119)
|
OR-7
(220)
|
NV-6
(197)
|
MS-6
(81)
|
AL-9
(24)
|
IL-20
(139)
|
CT-7
(227)
|
AZ-11
(191)
|
AR-6
(75)
|
OK-7
(15)
|
WA-12
(151)
|
CO-9
(236)
|
GA-16
(180)
|
MT-3
(69)
|
WV-5
(8)
|
MN-10
(161)
|
PA-20
(256)
|
SC-9
(164)
|
KY-8
(66)
|
WY-3
(3)
|
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Virginia (all Clinton's toss up states plus Virginia), he would have 282 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics. To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College. 3 New Hampshire and Virginia are collectively the states where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. If those two states are separated with Clinton winning Virginia and Trump, New Hampshire, then there would be a tie in the Electoral College. | ||||
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1
| |||
State
|
Switch
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
Alaska
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Toss Up Trump
| |
Arizona
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Arkansas
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Delaware
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Georgia
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
Indiana
|
from Lean Trump
|
to Strong Trump
| |
Mississippi
|
from Strong Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Missouri
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Lean Trump
| |
Nevada
|
from Toss Up Trump
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Hampshire
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Toss Up Clinton
| |
New Jersey
|
from Strong Clinton
|
to Lean Clinton
| |
Wisconsin
|
from Lean Clinton
|
to Strong Clinton
| |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories.
| |||
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (8/16/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/15/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/14/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
The Electoral College Map (8/16/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/15/16)
The Electoral College Map (8/14/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
2016 Republican Delegate Allocation: MISSISSIPPI
This is part twenty-six of a series of posts that will examine the Republican delegate allocation rules by state. The main goal of this exercise is to assess the rules for 2016 -- especially relative to 2012 -- in order to gauge the potential impact the changes to the rules along the winner-take-all/proportionality spectrum may have on the race for the Republican nomination. For this cycle the RNC recalibrated its rules, cutting the proportionality window in half (March 1-14), but tightening its definition of proportionality as well. While those alterations will trigger subtle changes in reaction at the state level, other rules changes -- particularly the new binding requirement placed on state parties -- will be more noticeable.
MISSISSIPPI
Election type: primary
Date: March 8
Number of delegates: 40 [25 at-large, 12 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15% (statewide)1
2012: proportional primary
--
Changes since 2012
While there was an attempt to shift the Mississippi presidential primary up a week to join other southern states as part of the SEC primary, it remained just that: an attempt. Neighboring Alabama moved and left Mississippi as the lone southern state on the calendar between the two dates -- March 1 and March 15 -- with the most delegates at stake this cycle.
The Mississippi Republican Party, then, has the same primary date as 2012 -- second Tuesday in March -- but has also mostly carried over its rules from the 2012 cycle. The allocation is proportional and still split across congressional districts and statewide. There are some subtle changes, but those will be dealt with below.
Thresholds
The first of those subtle alterations has to do with the thresholds to qualify for delegates. Statewide, a candidate must reach 15 percent of the vote to receive any of the at-large and automatic delegates. A new wrinkle for 2016 is that the party has inserted a lower threshold of 10% as a fall-back option should no candidate surpass 15 percent of the vote. This is not an uncommon response on the state party level given how large the field of Republican candidates was when rules were being finalized in the late summer/early fall of 2015. But as a field winnows, the necessity of that fall-back, lower threshold decreases.
There is no winner-take-all trigger in Mississippi for a candidate who wins a majority of the statewide vote in the primary. However, there also is no prohibition on a backdoor winner-take-all scenario. If only one candidate receives more than 15% of the vote, then that candidate would claim all 28 at-large and automatic delegates. The usual winnowing caveats apply. As the field shrinks, so too do the odds that only one candidate will receive more than 15% of the vote.
At the congressional district level, there just one threshold; a winner-take-all trigger. Should a candidate receive more than 50% of the vote in any of Mississippi's four congressional district, then that candidate is entitled to all three of the delegates from that district.
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
There is not a lot of intrigue here. Again, candidates above 15% of the vote will receive a proportional share of the 28 at-large and automatic delegates based on the statewide vote in the primary. The allocation equation divides the candidates' shares of the statewide vote by the qualifying vote (the votes of just those over the threshold). If all candidates reach 15 percent, then the allocation is roughly proportional to the candidate's statewide share of the vote. Yet, as the share of the vote outside of the qualifying vote grows, the shares of the delegates for the qualifier increase as well.
For example, if one candidate misses the cut with 14 percent of the vote, that 14 percent of the delegates is distributed to the candidates who qualified. That would give them a share of the statewide delegates that is greater than their raw share of the statewide vote.
The rounding rules are fairly simplistic. Any fractional at-large and automatic delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number. If that results in an overallocation of delegates, then the superfluous delegates are subtracted from the last qualifier -- the one with the fewest votes -- to square the delegate distribution/count. In the event that the rounding results in an under-allocation, then those delegates would become unbound. This is counter to how a number of other states have handled similar, under-allocation situations. The norm is that when fewer delegates are allocated than a state has that the under-allocated delegate is added to the total of the top votegetter (see Michigan for example). That is not the case in Mississippi. That delegate (or delegates) would be unbound.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Some states have had a number of ways of allocating their congressional district delegates. As FHQ has been fond of saying, though, there are only so many ways to allocate three delegates. The Mississippi Republican Party has kept the process pretty basic. If no one wins a majority of the vote in a congressional district, then the winner is allocated two delegates and the runner-up one. There is no threshold to qualify. There is, however, a winner-take-all threshold. Should a candidate win a majority, then that candidate would be allocated all three delegates from that district.
All that matters is whether someone wins a majority and, barring that, how the candidates place. Being in the top two is of the utmost importance. Third place (or lower) on the congressional district level is no place to be because such candidate would be left out of the delegates.
Binding
The Mississippi Republican Party requires delegate candidates to file with the party and affiliate with a candidate in the process. In addition, the candidates (or their representatives) have some input at the state convention over who ends up filling their allocated delegate slots. The campaigns have more influence in getting "their guys" through to the national convention as compared to other states. Due to that connection -- based on the filing requirements and the candidates' say -- the Mississippi delegates are bound until released. If no one drops out, then the delegates remain bound. There is no limit to how long this bond lasts in terms of a number of ballots. It depends entirely on whether the candidate or their campaign releases the delegates from the binding.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
1 If no candidate reaches the 15 percent threshold, then it is lowered to 10 percent.
--
MISSISSIPPI
Election type: primary
Date: March 8
Number of delegates: 40 [25 at-large, 12 congressional district, 3 automatic]
Allocation method: proportional
Threshold to qualify for delegates: 15% (statewide)1
2012: proportional primary
--
Changes since 2012
While there was an attempt to shift the Mississippi presidential primary up a week to join other southern states as part of the SEC primary, it remained just that: an attempt. Neighboring Alabama moved and left Mississippi as the lone southern state on the calendar between the two dates -- March 1 and March 15 -- with the most delegates at stake this cycle.
The Mississippi Republican Party, then, has the same primary date as 2012 -- second Tuesday in March -- but has also mostly carried over its rules from the 2012 cycle. The allocation is proportional and still split across congressional districts and statewide. There are some subtle changes, but those will be dealt with below.
Thresholds
The first of those subtle alterations has to do with the thresholds to qualify for delegates. Statewide, a candidate must reach 15 percent of the vote to receive any of the at-large and automatic delegates. A new wrinkle for 2016 is that the party has inserted a lower threshold of 10% as a fall-back option should no candidate surpass 15 percent of the vote. This is not an uncommon response on the state party level given how large the field of Republican candidates was when rules were being finalized in the late summer/early fall of 2015. But as a field winnows, the necessity of that fall-back, lower threshold decreases.
There is no winner-take-all trigger in Mississippi for a candidate who wins a majority of the statewide vote in the primary. However, there also is no prohibition on a backdoor winner-take-all scenario. If only one candidate receives more than 15% of the vote, then that candidate would claim all 28 at-large and automatic delegates. The usual winnowing caveats apply. As the field shrinks, so too do the odds that only one candidate will receive more than 15% of the vote.
At the congressional district level, there just one threshold; a winner-take-all trigger. Should a candidate receive more than 50% of the vote in any of Mississippi's four congressional district, then that candidate is entitled to all three of the delegates from that district.
Delegate allocation (at-large and automatic delegates)
There is not a lot of intrigue here. Again, candidates above 15% of the vote will receive a proportional share of the 28 at-large and automatic delegates based on the statewide vote in the primary. The allocation equation divides the candidates' shares of the statewide vote by the qualifying vote (the votes of just those over the threshold). If all candidates reach 15 percent, then the allocation is roughly proportional to the candidate's statewide share of the vote. Yet, as the share of the vote outside of the qualifying vote grows, the shares of the delegates for the qualifier increase as well.
For example, if one candidate misses the cut with 14 percent of the vote, that 14 percent of the delegates is distributed to the candidates who qualified. That would give them a share of the statewide delegates that is greater than their raw share of the statewide vote.
The rounding rules are fairly simplistic. Any fractional at-large and automatic delegates are rounded to the nearest whole number. If that results in an overallocation of delegates, then the superfluous delegates are subtracted from the last qualifier -- the one with the fewest votes -- to square the delegate distribution/count. In the event that the rounding results in an under-allocation, then those delegates would become unbound. This is counter to how a number of other states have handled similar, under-allocation situations. The norm is that when fewer delegates are allocated than a state has that the under-allocated delegate is added to the total of the top votegetter (see Michigan for example). That is not the case in Mississippi. That delegate (or delegates) would be unbound.
Delegate allocation (congressional district delegates)
Some states have had a number of ways of allocating their congressional district delegates. As FHQ has been fond of saying, though, there are only so many ways to allocate three delegates. The Mississippi Republican Party has kept the process pretty basic. If no one wins a majority of the vote in a congressional district, then the winner is allocated two delegates and the runner-up one. There is no threshold to qualify. There is, however, a winner-take-all threshold. Should a candidate win a majority, then that candidate would be allocated all three delegates from that district.
All that matters is whether someone wins a majority and, barring that, how the candidates place. Being in the top two is of the utmost importance. Third place (or lower) on the congressional district level is no place to be because such candidate would be left out of the delegates.
Binding
The Mississippi Republican Party requires delegate candidates to file with the party and affiliate with a candidate in the process. In addition, the candidates (or their representatives) have some input at the state convention over who ends up filling their allocated delegate slots. The campaigns have more influence in getting "their guys" through to the national convention as compared to other states. Due to that connection -- based on the filing requirements and the candidates' say -- the Mississippi delegates are bound until released. If no one drops out, then the delegates remain bound. There is no limit to how long this bond lasts in terms of a number of ballots. It depends entirely on whether the candidate or their campaign releases the delegates from the binding.
--
State allocation rules are archived here.
--
1 If no candidate reaches the 15 percent threshold, then it is lowered to 10 percent.
--
Saturday, April 18, 2015
A Coda on Mississippi and the SEC Primary or Sometimes Moving Up Isn't All It's Cracked Up to Be
FHQ has been meaning to get to Geoff Pender's autopsy of Mississippi's failed attempt to join the SEC primary all week. The crux of it that internal Republican politics played some role in dooming the legislation to move the presidential primary in the Magnolia state.
Though it is a fun read, FHQ is less interested in the rivalry between Mississippi Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves (R) and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann (R). What is of more use for our purposes here is the argument each is making either to move the presidential primary or to keep it where it is on March 8.
Hosemann, a proponent of Mississippi joining the SEC primary coalition made the case to Pender this way:
But Reeves countered with this argument:
Some states value relevance in the presidential nomination process more than others. But if you are a state legislator or some other actor with a part to play in moving the date of a delegate selection event there is a great deal to weigh when making such a decision. Being relevant depends on a number of things for which decision-makers cannot account. One thing state-level actors can control is the date. The later a contest -- primary or caucuses -- is held, the more a state is gambling (on just how relevant the contest will be in the process). Again, that entails something like move up or get left behind.
If every state, or at least the majority that are/have been willing and able to move earlier on the calendar, then the outcome is the sort of Super Tuesday herding of contests typical of calendars like 2008 or 2000. That sort of logjam highlights the fact that all states are not equal when it comes to delegate-richness or ease and convenience of access (to the states) for candidates and the media. When given a choice, rationally-acting candidates tend to opt for bigger states over smaller states.
Yes, those campaigns are chasing delegates, but it is also true that there are only a finite number of candidate visits that can be paid to states. If the herding of contests is large enough, that forces candidates on the air in lieu of visits to some states, usually smaller ones. This is what makes the regional primary idea so attractive. It can somewhat circumvent that problem, offering a reduced geography (and a potential homogeneity of issues) to cover as a means of attracting visits and spending.
Yet, depending on which states are involved -- how much intra-regional herding is taking place -- the same dynamic as above may still play out but on a smaller scale. That is the argument being made by Reeves in and about Mississippi moving forward a week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. The campaigns can see the delegates available. Do you go to Georgia that has just a handful of delegates fewer than Alabama and Mississippi combined or do you fit in trips to Alabama and Mississippi, too? Furthermore, is a visit to Georgia or Texas or Tennessee a regional visit, playing as well in Georgia (in person and in resulting news coverage) and Alabama and Mississippi? In other words, is a regional proxy visit enough?
What may be "good" for the campaigns may not end up paying the dividends that folks in Alabama or Arkansas or Mississippi think they will.
If I was advising Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi (and FHQ is not), I would suggest a two-tiered regional primary. Texas and Tennessee have already staked a claim to March 1. State laws in both have provided for those dates since the last presidential election cycle. Georgia will more than likely join them on March 1. Those three are the three most delegate-rich states on March 1. Let them have it. They are going to take the attention anyway.
Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi should form an SEC Light primary. Separate, they cannot curry much favor. The same is true if they were to share a date with the big boys on March 1. But if all three go together on a date a week later (March 8), that likely yields some attention from the candidates. Collectively, the three together would also be more delegate-rich than the states they would be competing with on March 8 (Idaho, Hawaii and Michigan). That two-tiered regional primary -- three tiers if one wants to consider the Louisiana primary scheduled between the two Tuesdays -- may serve to maximize regional influence, particularly if it solidifies/ratifies the decision made in those earlier southern contests. That, in turn, slingshots some candidate into the post-proportionality window part of the calendar (...or Florida) a week later on March 15.
Small states can only get so much out of this process. Not every state is Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Given that reality, if you can't beat the big boys, go a week later (if the state's you'd be competing with are alone and geographically dispersed). That is the sweet spot that is available to Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi. But it only works if they are together. If Mississippi is the lone southern state on March 8, then Secretary Hosemann is probably right to be taken aback by Reeves' suggestion that Mississippi would fare better.
In truth, it probably would not matter much either way. Mississippi would be ignored.
...unless they had some regional partners.
Though it is a fun read, FHQ is less interested in the rivalry between Mississippi Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves (R) and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann (R). What is of more use for our purposes here is the argument each is making either to move the presidential primary or to keep it where it is on March 8.
Hosemann, a proponent of Mississippi joining the SEC primary coalition made the case to Pender this way:
Hosemann says moving Mississippi's primary from March 8 to March 1 and joining with Georgia, Texas and other Southern states would force presidential candidates "to come to the South and to Mississippi and tell us their views" and listen to ours.
He said it would also be an economic boon, forcing campaigns to hire staff, travel and buy advertising, food and accommodations.That economic stimulus message is one that is being used in neighboring Alabama in its SEC primary discussion in the legislature.
But Reeves countered with this argument:
Reeves said Mississippi joining would have opposite the desired effect: Mississippi would be ignored in favor of the larger states.
"Texas has more electoral votes in the San Antonio media market than we do in our entire state," Reeves said. "That's not including Dallas, Houston … same thing with Atlanta. Where do you think a candidate is going to go … if they have to choose between Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, Atlanta or Hattiesburg?"
As it stands now, Reeves said, Louisiana's will be the Saturday before Mississippi's Tuesday primary and Florida's a week after. He said this is more likely to precipitate stops in Mississippi.
Reeves noted that in 2012, GOP candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum all campaigned in Mississippi despite its late primary. Romney notoriously said how much he liked Mississippi "cheesy grits."That cheesy grits comment and more importantly the substance of the debate between Hosemann and Reeves were matters that FHQ discussed in depth back in December before the legislative season revved up. [Reeves and/or Pender must have done their homework. FHQ was not consulted as a part of Pender's piece.] Here's how I concluded that post, singling Alabama and Mississippi out:
That raises questions if not red flags for a move for 2016 for those latter couple of states. Does a move away from a date that still finds Alabama and Mississippi dominant and to a date shared by a number of larger southern states net more or fewer visits in 2016 over 2012? If Ohio vacates March 8 tojoin a later March midwestern primaryprotect a more winner-take-all allocation plan, would it not be more beneficial to stick with a date you dominate versus a date shared with others? Is a visit to Texas -- a regional visit -- the same as a candidate visit in Alabama or Mississippi?
These are tough questions to answer for state actors who have a limited state legislative session window in which to act in the spring of the year before the primary. And these folks tend to be risk-averse. Alabama and Mississippi would only gain by sticking with a later date is the nomination races are ongoing once they get to the second Tuesday in March. The field may be winnowed too much by then dropping the number of visits to either.
This is the mindset that has dominated the frontloading era. Move up or get left behind. But it isn't clear in this instance that states in the South will receive the attention they crave. In the meantime, decision makers in both Alabama and Mississippi seem to have forgotten what they gained in 2012 with their sub-regional coalition. Surely "cheesy grits" would have proven more memorable to elected officials in the Deep South. [Emphasis and edits are FHQ's.]The skepticism of moving away from March 8 there echoes Reeves' (or vice versa). The benefits of moving to March 1 are not clear. There is more to this than merely earlier equals economic gains.
Some states value relevance in the presidential nomination process more than others. But if you are a state legislator or some other actor with a part to play in moving the date of a delegate selection event there is a great deal to weigh when making such a decision. Being relevant depends on a number of things for which decision-makers cannot account. One thing state-level actors can control is the date. The later a contest -- primary or caucuses -- is held, the more a state is gambling (on just how relevant the contest will be in the process). Again, that entails something like move up or get left behind.
If every state, or at least the majority that are/have been willing and able to move earlier on the calendar, then the outcome is the sort of Super Tuesday herding of contests typical of calendars like 2008 or 2000. That sort of logjam highlights the fact that all states are not equal when it comes to delegate-richness or ease and convenience of access (to the states) for candidates and the media. When given a choice, rationally-acting candidates tend to opt for bigger states over smaller states.
Yes, those campaigns are chasing delegates, but it is also true that there are only a finite number of candidate visits that can be paid to states. If the herding of contests is large enough, that forces candidates on the air in lieu of visits to some states, usually smaller ones. This is what makes the regional primary idea so attractive. It can somewhat circumvent that problem, offering a reduced geography (and a potential homogeneity of issues) to cover as a means of attracting visits and spending.
Yet, depending on which states are involved -- how much intra-regional herding is taking place -- the same dynamic as above may still play out but on a smaller scale. That is the argument being made by Reeves in and about Mississippi moving forward a week on the 2016 presidential primary calendar. The campaigns can see the delegates available. Do you go to Georgia that has just a handful of delegates fewer than Alabama and Mississippi combined or do you fit in trips to Alabama and Mississippi, too? Furthermore, is a visit to Georgia or Texas or Tennessee a regional visit, playing as well in Georgia (in person and in resulting news coverage) and Alabama and Mississippi? In other words, is a regional proxy visit enough?
What may be "good" for the campaigns may not end up paying the dividends that folks in Alabama or Arkansas or Mississippi think they will.
If I was advising Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi (and FHQ is not), I would suggest a two-tiered regional primary. Texas and Tennessee have already staked a claim to March 1. State laws in both have provided for those dates since the last presidential election cycle. Georgia will more than likely join them on March 1. Those three are the three most delegate-rich states on March 1. Let them have it. They are going to take the attention anyway.
Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi should form an SEC Light primary. Separate, they cannot curry much favor. The same is true if they were to share a date with the big boys on March 1. But if all three go together on a date a week later (March 8), that likely yields some attention from the candidates. Collectively, the three together would also be more delegate-rich than the states they would be competing with on March 8 (Idaho, Hawaii and Michigan). That two-tiered regional primary -- three tiers if one wants to consider the Louisiana primary scheduled between the two Tuesdays -- may serve to maximize regional influence, particularly if it solidifies/ratifies the decision made in those earlier southern contests. That, in turn, slingshots some candidate into the post-proportionality window part of the calendar (...or Florida) a week later on March 15.
Small states can only get so much out of this process. Not every state is Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Given that reality, if you can't beat the big boys, go a week later (if the state's you'd be competing with are alone and geographically dispersed). That is the sweet spot that is available to Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi. But it only works if they are together. If Mississippi is the lone southern state on March 8, then Secretary Hosemann is probably right to be taken aback by Reeves' suggestion that Mississippi would fare better.
In truth, it probably would not matter much either way. Mississippi would be ignored.
...unless they had some regional partners.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Mississippi SEC Primary Bill Derailed in Conference
With the end of the 2015 legislative session in sight, time was running out on the Mississippi legislation to bump the Magnolia state presidential primary up a week to March 1.
Was.
SB 2531 breezed through the state Senate last month and was later unanimously passed by the state House with what seemed like a small amendment. That amendment and the division over it between the two chambers proved to be the undoing of the bill in conference. Standing in the way of Mississippi joining the proposed SEC primary was a dispute over whether to sunset the primary move. The House preferred making the presidential primary date change -- to the first Tuesday in March -- permanent while the Senate version would have had the primary revert to the second Tuesday in March date the state has occupied on the presidential primary calendar since 1988.
That gap between the two chambers' version could not be bridged in conference on Monday, March 30. That kills the bill and Mississippi's last chance to move up a week into the proposed SEC primary position. Instead, Mississippi will presumably compete with Michigan, Ohio, Hawaii Republicans and perhaps Idaho as well for attention on March 8.
Ultimately, this is a strange end for a bill that by all indications was a slam dunk even before the legislature convened in January. Everyone was apparently not on board.
Was.
SB 2531 breezed through the state Senate last month and was later unanimously passed by the state House with what seemed like a small amendment. That amendment and the division over it between the two chambers proved to be the undoing of the bill in conference. Standing in the way of Mississippi joining the proposed SEC primary was a dispute over whether to sunset the primary move. The House preferred making the presidential primary date change -- to the first Tuesday in March -- permanent while the Senate version would have had the primary revert to the second Tuesday in March date the state has occupied on the presidential primary calendar since 1988.
That gap between the two chambers' version could not be bridged in conference on Monday, March 30. That kills the bill and Mississippi's last chance to move up a week into the proposed SEC primary position. Instead, Mississippi will presumably compete with Michigan, Ohio, Hawaii Republicans and perhaps Idaho as well for attention on March 8.
Ultimately, this is a strange end for a bill that by all indications was a slam dunk even before the legislature convened in January. Everyone was apparently not on board.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Mississippi SEC Primary Bill Stalls After Senate Fails to Concur with House Amendments
The Mississippi state Senate did not concur with House changes to SB 2531 and invited the House to conference on the legislation. The bill move the Magnolia state presidential primary up a week to join the proposed SEC primary on March 1 next year came up on the Senate concurrence calendar on Wednesday, March 18.
The strange thing about this turn of events is that the House changes to the Senate-passed bill were minor. Even calling them minor is an understatement. Here is the one line the of the bill -- the last line -- that the House altered:
FHQ has mentioned particular line before. It was added in committee on the Senate side back in February. Go and look at that line again. Yeah, it proposes that the law would take effect on July 1, 2015 and expire on June 30, 2015; the day before the effective date. That would render the bill/law expired before it takes effect. Again, it is likely perhaps that that June date was intended to be in 2016 and that the move up to the first Tuesday in March is a one-off thing for the 2016 cycle. If that is the case, the House and Senate may be at odds on this. Both are supportive of the move to March 1, but only one chamber -- the House -- wants to make that change permanent.
That will make for an interesting conference.
The strange thing about this turn of events is that the House changes to the Senate-passed bill were minor. Even calling them minor is an understatement. Here is the one line the of the bill -- the last line -- that the House altered:
This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2015,That has absolutely nothing to do with the change to the date of the presidential primary in 2016. It has everything to do with the implementation of the bill/law if it passes and is signed.and shall stand repealed on June 30, 2015.
FHQ has mentioned particular line before. It was added in committee on the Senate side back in February. Go and look at that line again. Yeah, it proposes that the law would take effect on July 1, 2015 and expire on June 30, 2015; the day before the effective date. That would render the bill/law expired before it takes effect. Again, it is likely perhaps that that June date was intended to be in 2016 and that the move up to the first Tuesday in March is a one-off thing for the 2016 cycle. If that is the case, the House and Senate may be at odds on this. Both are supportive of the move to March 1, but only one chamber -- the House -- wants to make that change permanent.
That will make for an interesting conference.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
SEC Primary Bill Unanimously Passes Mississippi House, Heads Back to Senate
The Mississippi state House passed SB 2531 by a 117-0 vote on Tuesday, March 10. The bill that originated in the state Senate now heads back there after the state House made a small and likely uncontroversial amendment to the Senate-passed version.
The amendment struck a provision calling for the changes in the legislation to expire. The change would be permanent if the bill in its newly amended form passed the state Senate and is signed into law. The first time around, SB 2531 passed the Senate 40-10.
The amendment struck a provision calling for the changes in the legislation to expire. The change would be permanent if the bill in its newly amended form passed the state Senate and is signed into law. The first time around, SB 2531 passed the Senate 40-10.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
From Mississippi, One SEC Primary Bill Dead, Another Survives Deadline
Tuesday, March 3 marked the day in the Mississippi state legislature that bills passed in one chamber had to have made it through committee in the opposite chamber. Neither of the bills -- one from the House and one from the Senate -- affecting the date of the presidential primary in the Magnolia state had cleared that hurdle heading into Tuesday.
Once the dust had settled on the day, the state Senate-passed version of the bill (SB 2531) was reported favorably from the House Apportionment and Elections Committee while the House-passed version (HB 933) failed to navigate the Senate Rules Committee.
This was not an oversight. Recall that both bills started off in the same place -- with identical language -- but an amended version of the Senate bill passed the Senate and headed to the House. The bill introduced in the House, however, pushed through the committee phase and consideration on the floor without amendment.
The state Senate, then, would have been motivated to support its amended version and not the unamended one the House passed and sent the upper chamber.
That is one interpretation of the move. But this likely is not a story of inter-chamber dispute. Rather, the Mississippi legislature only has to pass one of these bills. It could wrangle over two different bills or it could drop one and negotiated over the particulars of the other. Given the events of yesterday, it is clear legislators opted to take the latter path.
The House Apportionment and Elections Committee made some minor changes to SB 2531 and recommended that the bill "do pass" on the House floor. But if the bill passes the House it will have to return to the Senate for the upper chamber's approval of the changes made by the House committee (and floor if there are amendments made there).
The bottom line, though, is that the process to move the Mississippi presidential primary up a week on the presidential primary calendar -- to the proposed SEC primary slot -- moved forward Tuesday.
--
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Once the dust had settled on the day, the state Senate-passed version of the bill (SB 2531) was reported favorably from the House Apportionment and Elections Committee while the House-passed version (HB 933) failed to navigate the Senate Rules Committee.
This was not an oversight. Recall that both bills started off in the same place -- with identical language -- but an amended version of the Senate bill passed the Senate and headed to the House. The bill introduced in the House, however, pushed through the committee phase and consideration on the floor without amendment.
The state Senate, then, would have been motivated to support its amended version and not the unamended one the House passed and sent the upper chamber.
That is one interpretation of the move. But this likely is not a story of inter-chamber dispute. Rather, the Mississippi legislature only has to pass one of these bills. It could wrangle over two different bills or it could drop one and negotiated over the particulars of the other. Given the events of yesterday, it is clear legislators opted to take the latter path.
The House Apportionment and Elections Committee made some minor changes to SB 2531 and recommended that the bill "do pass" on the House floor. But if the bill passes the House it will have to return to the Senate for the upper chamber's approval of the changes made by the House committee (and floor if there are amendments made there).
The bottom line, though, is that the process to move the Mississippi presidential primary up a week on the presidential primary calendar -- to the proposed SEC primary slot -- moved forward Tuesday.
--
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Mississippi Presidential Primary Bills Pass
The Mississippi state House unanimously passed HB 933 on Tuesday, February 10. The bill would move the Magnolia state primary up a week from the second Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in March. The latter is the date currently being targeted by a small cluster of southern states for an SEC primary.
The companion bill in the state Senate passed on Wednesday, February 11. However, the Senate version (SB 2531) emerged from committee with a small amendment that changed a bill that matched the House version. That amendment was subsequently withdrawn and another was added on the floor addressing a change in the presidential candidate filing period.
As the bills cross over to the opposite chambers, those differences between the two bills will have to be rectified.
--
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Recent Posts:
Vermont Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to Same Date as New Hampshire's
Texas Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to January
Idaho Republican Party Votes to Return to Presidential Primary, but...
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The companion bill in the state Senate passed on Wednesday, February 11. However, the Senate version (SB 2531) emerged from committee with a small amendment that changed a bill that matched the House version. That amendment was subsequently withdrawn and another was added on the floor addressing a change in the presidential candidate filing period.
As the bills cross over to the opposite chambers, those differences between the two bills will have to be rectified.
--
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Recent Posts:
Vermont Bill Would Move Presidential Primary to Same Date as New Hampshire's
Texas Bill Introduced to Move Presidential Primary to January
Idaho Republican Party Votes to Return to Presidential Primary, but...
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Mississippi Senate Bill to Bump Presidential Primary Up Moves Forward
The Rules Committee in the Mississippi state Senate has given the green light to SB 2531. The legislation would move the presidential primary in the Magnolia state up a week to March 1, the target date of the proposed SEC primary in 2016.
The Senate committee, like its House counterpart last week, passed off on the bill, recommending it as "Do Pass".
With a short legislative session -- due to expire in early April -- these two pieces of legislation seem to be on something of a fast track through the legislature. Then again, as FHQ has pointed out, there are indications that there is some consensus behind the move up to March 1.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15):
The Rules Committee actually passed a substitute bill to the one introduced. The change is minor but significant for 2020. The introduced legislation calls for the move to the first Tuesday in March to become effective on July 1, 2015. And though there seems to be a typo, the committee substitute adds a sunset provision; that the date change will expire on June 30, 2016. [Yes, it says June 30, 2015, but that could not be right. The change would be repealed before it took effect.] That would mean that after a supposed first Tuesday in March primary in 2016, that the Mississippi primary would revert to the second Tuesday in March date in the next subsequent cycle.
...unless another change is made.
--
Update (2/11/15): House and Senate bills pass
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Recent Posts:
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
The Senate committee, like its House counterpart last week, passed off on the bill, recommending it as "Do Pass".
With a short legislative session -- due to expire in early April -- these two pieces of legislation seem to be on something of a fast track through the legislature. Then again, as FHQ has pointed out, there are indications that there is some consensus behind the move up to March 1.
--
UPDATE (2/6/15):
The Rules Committee actually passed a substitute bill to the one introduced. The change is minor but significant for 2020. The introduced legislation calls for the move to the first Tuesday in March to become effective on July 1, 2015. And though there seems to be a typo, the committee substitute adds a sunset provision; that the date change will expire on June 30, 2016. [Yes, it says June 30, 2015, but that could not be right. The change would be repealed before it took effect.] That would mean that after a supposed first Tuesday in March primary in 2016, that the Mississippi primary would revert to the second Tuesday in March date in the next subsequent cycle.
...unless another change is made.
--
Update (2/11/15): House and Senate bills pass
Update (3/3/15): House bill dies in committee, Senate bill passes committee
UPDATE (3/11/15): Amended Senate bill passes state House
Recent Posts:
Vermont Bill Would Add Rank Choice Voting to Presidential Primary Ballots for Military/Overseas Voters
North Carolina: 2016's Rogue State?
Utah Again Linked to Possible Western Regional Primary
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)