Showing posts with label New Hampshire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Hampshire. Show all posts

Friday, July 14, 2023

The DeSantis-is-sinking stories may be oversold to some degree, but...

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...
  • Trump either wins Iowa or plays the victim card next January. Does Iowa even matter in 2024? Yeah, the caucuses in the Hawkeye state still matter. 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...
...
There has been a lot of ink spilled in the last week or two about the shape the DeSantis campaign is in a little more than a month since the Florida governor launched his bid for the Republican nomination. Donors are nervous. Deck chairs are being moved. Murdochs are looking elsewhere. Poll numbers are plateauing if not trending downward. And that collective picture could portend an ominous swing into debate season starting next month. Or it could be blip on the radar, a summer lull. Time will tell that tale, but DeSantis remains the clear second option in the current field, albeit not as clear as it may have once been. He continues to bring in money at a pretty good clip. And for some reason he continues to draw in a fair number of endorsements. He may not be best positioned in the race for the 2024 Republican nomination, but he is well positioned even despite the current (real or perceived depending on the metric used) slide.

But here is the thing: DeSantis is now flirting with the threshold for qualifying for delegates that will be used in a lot of states. He is on the wrong side of 20 percent in the latest Morning Consult national poll. No, the Republican nomination process is not a national primary, but not being able to meet delegate qualifying thresholds will kill a campaign quickly once votes begin to be cast. 

...if the ship is not righted. 

There are still six months until the Iowa caucuses and the first few states -- at least as the rules are understood at this point -- have low bars to claim (small shares) of delegates. There is no formal threshold in Iowa, it is set at 10 percent in New Hampshire and Nevada's rules in previous cycles have set the threshold below five percent. But the winner-take-all by congressional district method South Carolina Republicans use is not forgiving and neither are rules in the Super Tuesday states, the majority of which have the maximum 20 percent threshold. 17 percent for DeSantis still puts space between him and the rest of the field, but it is far enough behind Trump right now that the Florida governor is in danger of missing out on delegates when it counts next March and beyond. 

Still, much can happen between now and the voting phase and that could be good or bad for DeSantis.


...
Not surprisingly, New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan is giving January 23 a good look for an eventual landing spot for the presidential primary in the Granite state. That has made sense since South Carolina Republicans settled on a February 24 date for their primary, clearing enough space in front of the South Carolina Democratic primary for both Iowa and New Hampshire in January next year. But there is a question that has to be answered first before Scanlan is able to pull the trigger later this fall on that late January date. 


...
From around the invisible primary...


...
On this date...
...in 1972, South Dakota Senator George McGovern accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in the wee hours of the morning of July 14 in Miami.

...in 2007, former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore dropped out of the race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. 



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Nevada GOP Primary/Caucus Lawsuit Shot Down in Carson City

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...
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 Nevada Independent has the latest on the Nevada Republican Party effort to end the newly established presidential primary in the Silver state:
"A Carson City judge has denied a motion by the Nevada Republican Party to block the state from holding a presidential primary election next year in favor of a caucus.

"Judge James Russell issued the ruling from the bench Monday, denying the state party’s lawsuit filed in May challenging a 2021 law moving the state away from a presidential caucus to a primary election."
And NVGOP Chair Michael McDonald indicated late Monday that the party is "prepared for a long fight." But the question continues to be why? The lawsuit and any prolonged legal battle over the primary are entirely unnecessary. 

Don't want the primary? Don't use it. [Nevada Republicans retain the right to opt out of the state-run presidential primary.]

Don't want a Republican primary at all? Don't have the candidates file for it. [The quickest and easiest route out of the primary and to the caucuses that the state party apparently wants is to encourage candidates who actually want delegates from the state to file for the party-run caucuses and not the primary. There will only be a Nevada Republican presidential primary if more than one candidate files with the state.]

The bigger news than the inevitable flop of the lawsuit in the Silver state is confirmation that the Nevada Republican Party intends to hold caucuses in 2024. The lawsuit suggested that that was the case, but the party never really came out and said that. They did over the weekend via their spokesperson in a CNN piece about the Iowa caucuses date. And Chair McDonald further confirmed that intention in his comments on Monday to The Nevada Independent:
McDonald added that the party still intends to hold a caucus in February to allocate the state’s presidential delegates, and is now seeking to avert a state-run primary election to avoid confusing voters and prevent a “huge waste of taxpayer money.”
The question is where on the calendar do these proposed Nevada Republican caucuses end up? Saturday, February 10 -- after the state-run primary -- is a likely destination. That would carve out a spot for the caucuses a little more than two weeks after the (still unsettled but increasingly likely) January 23 New Hampshire primary and two weeks before the South Carolina Republican primary. 


...
Yes, it was inevitable that Republicans would try to use the Democratic National Committee calendar changes against Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidates have been quick to do that in the Granite state. And New Hampshire Democrats are fretting about what that portends for the general election. 

The concern? According to The Messenger, independent voters venturing over to the Republican primary and staying with the party in the fall.
The concern from some New Hampshire Democrats is that independent voters will participate in a more crowded and important GOP primary over the Democratic contest, then stick with the GOP in the general election.

“My biggest fear is that if they become invested in participating in the Republican primary, it's going to be much more difficult to pull them back over for the general election,” said Jim Demers, the state’s former House Democratic Whip. “That’s something we’ve never had to deal with before.”
But the thing is that most of the independents lean toward one party or the other and will behave that way in the general election regardless of the primary in which they opt to participate. However, might that matter if the pure independents opt for the competitive Republican primary in January next year and stick with the Republican nominee in November? It could if Biden dips below his seven point margin in New Hampshire from 2020 in 2024. 

Of course, New Hampshire Democrats have been making this argument since December. Here is what FHQ said then...
Furthermore, they argue that those same independents may stick with the GOP in a general election, potentially tipping the balance against Democrats in a narrowly divided state, and by extension, possibly costing the party Senate control and/or electoral votes.

All of that is true. Those things could happen. But it could also be that President Biden seeks reelection, ends up running largely unopposed, and New Hampshire independents flock to the competitive Republican presidential primary anyway. Is it a gamble for the president and the DNC to potentially irk a sliver to a lot of New Hampshire voters by coming down hard on the state Democratic Party for fighting to maintain its traditional position? It undoubtedly would be if it is not already. But are independents, Democratic-leaning or otherwise, going to vote for a Republican nominee in the Trump mold (or Trump himself) over Biden because of the primary? The answer is maybe (or if one is in New Hampshire, YES!). But that seems to be a gamble the president and those around him are willing to take in this fight. There are very few scenarios where New Hampshire's four electoral votes serve as the tipping point in the electoral college. It is possible although less probable than other, bigger states. And neither New Hampshire US Senate seat is up until 2026. Is that gamble worth it? Time will tell that tale.
The bottom line is that this New Hampshire thing is going to go on for a while with the DNC. And Republicans will try to use that against Democrats in the Granite state. But the battle is over a decreasingly small sliver of pure independents.


...
From around the invisible primary...


...
On this date...
...in 2020, Louisiana held its twice-delayed presidential primary. Biden and Trump won in their respective contests.



--
Recent posts:




Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

A mid-week Invisible Primary Roundup

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...
  • Idaho Republicans voted over the weekend to hold caucuses next year contingent on there not being a March presidential primary in the Gem state. And there appears to be no momentum to bring the state legislature back for a special session to fix that. 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...
...
  • General election match ups were polled -- the first in the series (so there is no direct comparison) -- and President Biden was comfortably ahead of both Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis by the same 49-40 margin. Trump and DeSantis both ran further behind Trump's 2020 vote share in the Granite state (45 percent) than Biden did his (53 percent). Yes, it is one poll in one state 16 months before the next general election, the participants in which have not been identified yet. But that difference does not exactly suggest that Biden will be penalized in New Hampshire for the 2024 calendar shake up on the Democratic side. That is something to continue to eye (but probably in 2024).
  • Speaking of delegate allocation, neither Kennedy nor Williamson are close to qualifying for delegates in New Hampshire mired in the single digits in this survey. It does not speak to a groundswell of support for a Biden alternative (in a state where the president may not be on the primary ballot).

...
There are by no means no perils in Democrats changing the early state lineup on the 2024 presidential primary calendar, but this piece overstates just how "messy" things are. Folks, let the process play out. There is no date for the Iowa Democratic mail-in preference vote. If it comes in noncompliant, then one can cross the "mess" bridge. And seriously, Iowa Democrats are playing the game differently than their counterparts in New Hampshire. 

And New Hampshire? Well, that may end up being a mess and it may not. Perhaps Democrats in the Granite state will go the way of a (compliant) party-run process in the end. No, that is maybe not likely, but that possibility does exist and goes unmentioned in that piece. It is not just the DNC who can budge in this process. New Hampshire Democrats could defuse the situation as well.


...
Over at Tusk, Seth Market has a peek inside the news coverage of the Republican nomination race. And it is kind of revealing.


...
Ad spending has topped $70 million in the Republican presidential race. Who is spending where? Trump is on cable, DeSantis is focused on Iowa and South Carolina -- Never Back Down has this ad running during the nightly news on the regular in the Palmetto state in recent days -- and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum is throwing a lot at New Hampshire. 


...
From around the invisible primary...
  • In the endorsement primary, another raft of state legislative endorsements came the way of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. 19 legislators, including the House Majority Leader Josh Bell threw their support behind DeSantis. So did Supreme Court Justice Phil Berger, Jr. 
  • South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem does not appear inclined to join the growing field of contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, noting that "right now" there is no path for someone other than Trump. [This really cannot be considered winnowing. Although Noem's name was mentioned in those assessing possible candidate for 2024, she never really did the sorts of things that prospective candidates do.]


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 5:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, June 27, 2023

DeSantis and Trump battle to influence state-level delegate rules for 2024

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...
  • There may be some missing pieces at this point in the invisible primary, but there is a general idea about where the 2024 presidential primary calendar will end up. However, what about filing deadlines? When do candidates and their campaigns have to clear hurdles to get on the ballot in the various primaries and caucuses next year? 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...
...
It is not exactly news that Donald Trump and his campaign have been working state parties in order to assemble as advantageous a set of state-level delegate selection rules for the former president as possible for 2024. The Washington Post ran a story in February that covered similar ground and also brought up Idaho and Michigan as battlegrounds on that front. 

But that is not to say that there is nothing (or nothing new) in the story about Team Trump pushing for rules changes on the state level up at Reuters today. One just has to dig and parse a bit to get at it. 

Yes, Nevada is in the mix, but questions about whether the early contest in the Silver state would be a primary or a caucus are not new. In fact, the primary calendar filling out still hinges on that decision to some degree. A lesser degree than before South Carolina Republicans weighed in recently, but the decision Nevada Republicans will make still matters. 

And Missouri is a bit of a wildcard as well. The legislature's inability to restore the presidential primary for 2024 in the Show-Me means that there is some mystery in -- if not jockeying by the candidates to influence -- what rules Missouri Republicans settle on in the coming weeks and months. 

Those states make some sense. Each was, has been or will be up for grabs in terms of what the delegate selection rules will look like. 

But Alabama? 

That is an interesting one. It is one that the DeSantis campaign is eyeing and over the threshold to win delegates. Importantly, Alabama Republicans have used a system that requires candidates to win 20 percent in order to qualify for delegates in recent cycles. [The Yellowhammer State was a truly winner-take-all state before 2012.] Yet, 20 percent is the maximum at which a state party can set the qualifying threshold. If there is any change there, then it will be to a lower level than 20 percent. 

That is noteworthy and hints at some underlying strategic direction from Team DeSantis that has not really been adequately explored out there. Part of that lies in the qualifying thresholds that the Florida governor is flirting with in some cases. But another is the assumption that caucuses are good for Trump. That could turn out to be the case. The former president did not necessarily excel in the format in 2016, but the complexion of state parties have changed some in the time since, moving toward Trump in some respects. And that suggests that there may be a real battle in caucus states like the above once the calendar flips to 2024. Until then -- or October 1 anyway -- the lobbying continues.


...
The headlines today all seemed to read that Trump had expanded his lead in first-in-the-nation New Hampshire. And indeed the former president pulled in just south of 50 percent in a pair of new polls released from the Granite state. But FHQ scrolled down a little further to see where everyone else was. 

Why?

Delegates are on the line. No, the New Hampshire primary has never been about delegates. There will only be 22 at stake there some time in January next year. But here is the thing: Trump has a sizable lead, and it is just the former president and DeSantis who qualify for delegates. Even with a fairly low 10 percent qualifying threshold, no one else would be in the running for delegates out of the Granite state. Trump would take somewhere in the range of 16-17 delegates and DeSantis would take the rest. No, it is not about the delegates in New Hampshire, but even Jeb Bush got three in 2016. 

And this is yet another illustration of just how much oxygen the pair are taking up in the race for the Republican nomination. It is crowding others out even though it is somewhat lopsided at this moment in the invisible primary. 


...
From around the invisible primary...

...
On this date...
...in 2011, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann officially launched her bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. 

...in 2019, Democratic presidential candidates gathered for the second of two consecutive nights of debates in Miami, the initial primary debates of the 2020 cycle. 

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

Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

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...
  • South Carolina Republicans made a move over the weekend that is pretty atypical for early states. The party in a way disarmed and retreated on the calendar. Yes, the primary in the Palmetto state is still among the earliest, but it is unusual for one state to yield an earlier position to another. More on that 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 an aside in the discussion of the South Carolina Republican primary being set at FHQ Plus, I closed by taking a big picture view of the likely early primary calendar on the Republican side:

Would the Republican National Committee prefer that primary season kick off in February as intended? Yes, but given that the Democratic rules pushed the Michigan primary into late February and nudged South Carolina on the Democratic side up to the beginning of the month, the start point creeping two weeks into January is not that bad on the whole. 

The four early Republican carve-out states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — have, under RNC rules, a window of a month in front of the next earliest contest in which to schedule their own primaries and caucuses. If the Iowa Republican caucuses do, in fact, end up on Monday, January 15, then those contests will have fit within a 43 day window before the Michigan primary, (maybe) the next earliest contest. And given the complications the Democratic calendar changes introduced for Republicans, again, it is not that bad. And it hardly counts as “chaos.”

That scenario -- that Iowa's Republican caucuses and the New Hampshire presidential primary would be outside of that one month granted by RNC rules to the early states -- brought a question into my inbox. Basically, does that set Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire up for the super penalty? After all, both would seemingly be too early by the RNC definition that far into January.

FHQ would contend that the answer is no.

There was a time -- back in 2008 -- that both New Hampshire and South Carolina were docked half of their delegates for violating the timing rules.1 But the language in the relevant rule, Rule 16(c)(1) now, was different then when it was Rule 15(b)(1)(i). Instead of a month before the next earliest contest, both New Hampshire and South Carolina were treated just like any other state for 2008, and could not conduct their primaries before the first Tuesday in February. 

However, there was no out for them in the rule. The 2008 Republican National Convention added a carve out for the pair of early primary states (for future cycles) but without specific reference to the actions of other, would-be rogue states, the non-carve-outs. Yet, that was after the fact. When Florida and Michigan crashed into January for 2008, it had the effect of pushing both New Hampshire and South Carolina up. Michigan triggered the first-in-the-nation law in New Hampshire, and Florida's move violated the first-in-the-South position that Republicans in the Palmetto state had carved out for themselves in the calendar over time. Republicans in all four states plus Wyoming ended up taking a 50 percent hit to their national convention delegations. 

As for the states' treatment under the current rule? 

FHQ would argue that they are fine. Yes, the excerpt above from over at Plus noted that Michigan is the next earliest contest, but there is an argument that can be made about the South Carolina Democratic primary being the next earliest state. It was the Democratic National Committee moving the South Carolina primary to the first position for 2024 that ultimately will push New Hampshire and Iowa into January. But the rule is silent on whether it is events on just the Republican primary or the overall calendar of contests for both parties that might serve as the backend of that window of time in which the early states can schedule contests. 

And it will be much easier politically to blame Democrats for contests that are too early than state-level Republicans. Yet, none of this is not official. And until Iowa and New Hampshire are in place on the calendar on the Republican side and the national party has responded, it is an open question. But it is pretty easy to chart out where that would likely go. 


...
In the travel primary...
The other day, FHQ referred to Nevada as "the redheaded stepchild of the early primary calendar." That has meant a number of things over the years since the Silver state was added to the early window of the presidential nomination process. Poorly implemented caucuses. Talk of replacement in the early calendar lineup. But by far the most consistent aspect of this phenomenon is how Nevada measures up to its early state peers. The Nevada Independent tells a familiar tale: Nevada in 2023 lags far behind Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in candidate visits so far in the cycle. 


...
From around the invisible primary...


--
1 Iowa and Nevada were both exempt without mention in the rule because neither selected nor allocated national convention delegates at their precinct caucuses.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 3:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, June 15, 2023

Who ends up embarrassed if Iowa and New Hampshire go rogue in 2024?

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...
  • In case you missed it, Idaho Republicans have a pair of proposals the state party is considering for earlier than usual delegate allocation and selection in the Gem state in 2024. 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...
...
FHQ has decreasingly little patience for clickbait that masquerades as a story about the primary calendar. And that is what this latest piece from Alex Thompson at Axios is: clickbait. The only thing new in there to most folks who do not obsessively follow the ins and outs of the calendar is that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting Friday, June 16 to start the process of reviewing 2024 delegate selection plans submitted by the state parties. 

No, I could not even get through the headline before I got cranky about it. 

Headline: Biden could lose first two ’24 contests to RFK Jr.

I mean, Thompson ultimately points out what other reporting has revealed. That Presidential Biden will not be on the ballot in any rogue state in 2024. Yet, somehow that is the headline. 

Remember when the Denver Nuggets recently lost the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals to the Vegas Golden Knights? Neither do I. The Nuggets were not on the ice. They were not facing off against the Knights. That may not be fair. That may not be a good analogy. But come on. Biden cannot lose a contest where he is not on the ballot. That is not to say Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cannot win those contests, but he will not have beaten Biden in so doing. 

And that leads to... "That sets up a scenario in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or another long-shot Democrat could win those states — and embarrass the president."

Maybe it would be embarrassing to Team Biden if some fringe candidate were to win one or two rogue contests. It would not affect the president much in the delegate count. There will not be any delegates at stake in any rogue state contests. But it would not necessarily be a good look for the president in the court of public opinion as the Republican primary season kicks off. Press accounts on this story really seem to like this angle. It promises future drama. 

But again, do you know who is going to be more embarrassed than the president and his campaign that Kennedy or Williamson or whomever wins rogue Iowa or New Hampshire? Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Here is that scenario: 
1) Your state party just defied the national party rules to stick with tradition and hold early contests. 

2) Those same state parties "embarrass" the president that the broader party network is trying to reelect for the short term benefit of going first. 

3) Someone other than the president wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire.

4) Those state parties pitch the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee -- the same one that rejected them for 2024 and whose rules those two states defied in response, leading to the 'embarrassment" of the president the whole party was trying to reelect -- on being a part of the early window of states for 2028. 

Who exactly is embarrassed in that scenario? In the long term, probably Iowa and New Hampshire. 

...should either or both go rogue. But that part of the story rarely sees the light of day in most press accounts.

But what about Iowa and/or New Hampshire? There is an important difference between those two; in how Democrats in each have reacted since the DNC adopted the calendar rules back in February.

Thompson does eventually get around to that too: "Iowa Democrats haven't been as publicly hostile over Biden's move. But in the past two months they've quietly moved to hold their contest the same day as Iowa Republicans — in January, but with a mail-in option for ballots."

So close. So very close. Yes, Iowa Democrats have behaved demonstrably differently than their peers in New Hampshire. Aside from the fact that Rules and Bylaws is meeting on Friday, that is -- or should be -- the lede here. But no, it gets buried in the piece and is followed by the overly dramatic and misleading "but they're going to caucus early anyway."

Yes, Iowa Democrats will caucus on the same night as Iowa Republicans some time next January. But we do not yet know when the vote-by-mail preference vote will occur. And by extension we do not yet know when delegates will be allocated. That is the important action that both the president and the DNC are and will be looking at. The delegate allocation. 

That is not to be confused with delegate selection which is proposed to start in Iowa at those January Democratic caucuses. Early selection is not a rogue activity in the eyes of the DNC. Perhaps this likening of delegate allocation/selection to getting and distributing Taylor Swift tickets would be helpful to Mr. Thompson (and others).

I get it. Drama gets folks to click. 

And while there is drama in the process of the 2024 presidential primary calendar coming together, it need not be overly and misleadingly amplified. That is what this story does. And it is not alone. There are others out there and they pop up in every cycle in which an incumbent is seeking reelection. The prospect of a ho-hum, incumbent renomination phase is not ideal for attention-grabbing headlines or stories. Remember those stories about all those Republican primaries and caucuses that got cancelled in 2019-20? They were built up in a similar fashion in the context of Trump's reelection efforts. It was a story, but one that only really only ultimately appealed to calendar/rules nerds like FHQ.  

At the end of the day, there just is not a lot of news in incumbents vying for renomination. Those folks tend to be pretty popular, or at least, popular enough within their own party. If they are not, it tends to draw legitimate challengers into the race. But there are no legitimate challengers in the race for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. And that is mostly boring. Just like Joe Biden.  


...
Seth Masket is good here on Trump and his opponents taking a position on pardoning the former president.


...
From around the invisible primary...

...
On this date...
...in 2015, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush formally entered the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.



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

Saturday, June 3, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] Uncertainty and the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

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. 

--

The 2024 invisible primary has gotten to a point where more and more folks are starting to look at the calendar of nominating contests that the Republicans vying for the presidential nomination will face next year. And due to the proximity to the beginning of primary season seven-ish months away, the order of those contests is taking on increasing importance. 

But here things are, seven months or so from the kickoff of primary season 2024, and uncertainty remains. And it exists at the very beginning of the calendar. There is not one Republican primary or caucus in any state that has an official date on the calendar before Super Tuesday. Or stated differently, every state one might expect to fall before Super Tuesday in 2024 has at least one caveat that makes it impossible to know exactly where those states may end up when the calendar dust settles.

Now, some of us are of a mind that all of this will shake out with some drama over the coming months, but limited drama. It all depends on the moves the various players make. Here are a few of the moves about which there is uncertainty, but from which the calendar answers will come.

  • Michigan Republicans: Do Republicans in the Great Lakes state opt into the late February presidential primary or choose to select and allocate national convention delegates in a party-run caucus/convention process? The party is in a bind either way (but this will not directly affect the earlier protected states in the Republican process).

  • Nevada Republicans: Same question, different state Republican party: Do Nevada Republicans opt into the state-run presidential primary on February 6 or decide to use a slightly later (but before a Michigan Republican primary) caucus/convention process? The later caucus option may save Republicans from starting primary season in early instead of mid-January. [And just this week, there were signals from Silver state Republicans that they are aiming for caucuses.]

  • South Carolina Republicans: Theoretically, the decision here will hinge to some degree on what Michigan and Nevada decide. But what Palmetto state Republicans decide is also colored by the political custom in the state for the parties have (state-run) primaries on 1) a Saturday and 2) on different days. Breaking from those traditions may provide some additional leeway, but they are traditions for a reason. If Nevada Republicans opt into the primary in the Silver state, then South Carolina Republicans would likely have a primary no later than February 3 alongside Democrats in the state. However, if they follow tradition, then Republicans in the first-in-the-South primary state would likely hold a primary a week earlier on January 27. And that would leave Iowa and New Hampshire with a very narrow sliver of calendar in which to operate (under the traditional rules of calendar engagement).

  • New Hampshire: The secretary of state in the Granite state -- the person who makes the primary scheduling decision -- is cross-pressured on two sides, sandwiched between the decisions Iowa and South Carolina actors may make. But the South Carolina Democratic primary is scheduled for February 3. That means that the New Hampshire primary will be no later than January 23, on a Tuesday at least seven days before any other similar election. South Carolina Republicans may push that a little earlier if they schedule a January primary. On the other side, Iowa Democrats' decision to conduct a vote-by-mail presidential preference vote raises red flags in New Hampshire because it too closely resembles a primary. But there is no date for the conclusion of that preference vote. If that vote concludes on caucus night, whenever in January that ends up, then that could draw New Hampshire to an even earlier date ahead of Iowa.

  • Iowa Republicans: Decision makers within the Republican Party of Iowa are also stuck to some extent; stuck between what Iowa Democrats are planning and what New Hampshire's secretary of state may do in response. But the party is mostly stuck because decision makers seem to want to make a decision on the caucus date for 2024 some time early this summer when there may not yet be enough information to make a decision that protects the traditional calendar order in the Republican process. Waiting for Iowa Democrats' preference vote (conclusion) date to settle is likely to resolve much of this drama at the very front end of the calendar. 

The takeaway is that there is some uncertainty that is sure to create some drama over the final calendar, but it is uncertainty that can be boiled down to a handful of decisions in a handful of states. Admittedly, it can go in a number of different directions -- choose your own adventure! -- but there is a pretty narrow range of possibilities. 

Follow the evolving calendar here.

--

[Side note: FHQ likes the Ballotpedia way of looking at the primary calendar. While FHQ attempts to explain all of the chaos away (or to put it into context), their model is simpler: what is confirmed. But if one is going to do that, then one has to actually confirm confirmed primary dates. Ballotpedia lists Colorado as confirmed for Super Tuesday. Now, FHQ fully expects that that is where the presidential primary in the Centennial state ends up in 2024. The secretary of state has it on the calendar. The Colorado Democratic Party has it in their delegate selection plan. But the date is not official yet. The secretary of state and the governor make that decision. And nothing has been said publicly about that yet. For comparison, Governor Polis announced the 2020 presidential primary date at the end of April 2019. By law, decision makers have until September 1 of this year to set the date.]



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

Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Iowa Democrats' Last Hail Mary and Calendar Chaos

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...
  • Be on the lookout for a fun new post later today. If you have been on the fence about subscribing to FHQ Plus during our first couple of months, this one might be one to get you off of it. Come check out 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...
...
Iowa Public Radio's Clay Masters was on NPR's Morning Edition this morning updating the state of the Republican race in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. And he closed with a comment on how the DNC primary calendar change has thrown a kink into business as usual at this time in a presidential nomination cycle in the Hawkeye state:
"Now, the DNC voted to boot Iowa out of the early window, but their calendar is currently in chaos. Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican, has until the end of the week to sign a bill that could deny Iowa Democrats their kind of like last Hail Mary to try and stay in the early window."
Folks, this, very simply, is a fundamental misreading of the current situation in Iowa. And it is not a new development. The combination of amendments to the bill Masters cited and the draft Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan means that the bill no longer hampers Democrats in the Hawkeye state or nationally. Under the plan, Iowa Democrats will caucus in person on the same night as Republicans in the state. But those proceedings will not have a presidential preference vote component. That will occur in a separate vote-by-mail process that is completely unaffected by the bill currently under consideration in Des Moines. 

The only thing that might hold the Iowa Democratic Party back from implementing such a plan is the Democratic National Committee, and the national party will only step in if Iowa Democrats opt to conclude that all-mail preference vote before February 3 -- the date of South Carolina's Democratic primary -- of before March 5 without a waiver. 

A possible waiver is the key factor in the Iowa 2024 calendar story right now. It is the main reason Iowa Democrats did not include a specific date for the all-mail presidential preference vote in the draft plan. The state party is not angling for first. It is pushing for a spot in the early window when Georgia and New Hampshire are unable or unwilling to comply with the DNC's waiver requests when their deadline to act comes on Saturday, June 3. That is the Hail Mary and the bill has nothing to do with it. 

And as for calendar chaos? Please. There is some drama in the 2024 calendar coming together, but this is not chaos. Everyone outside of Iowa and New Hampshire is behaving as if Iowa and New Hampshire will be first and second in the Republican order. And most folks in those states are doing the same. Is there an issue between Iowa and New Hampshire set off by the DNC calendar change? Sure, but odds are that will get ironed out with minimal trouble. Most of the pressure on that front is self-imposed anyway. 


...
There are a number of things that one could tease out of this interview with New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. Some have already tried to stir the pot some in an effort to make stories where there just is no there there. The one thing that goes unsaid in that NH Journal piece is that Buckley is against the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the first-in-the-nation status of the presidential primary in the Granite state. If the amendment were to fall short of the two-thirds necessary for ratification in a public vote, then that failure could be used against New Hampshire in future cycles. 

That is not wrong. 



...
Seth Masket is good here on how the number of candidates may or may not affect Trump's chances at claiming the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. A couple of things...
  1. He notes that Trump 2023 is in a position not dissimilar to Hillary Clinton's in 2007-08 in her Democratic nomination fight. The former president is in a good spot, but not an unbeatable one. Still, he also is not far off from where Clinton was in 2016 either. Ultimately, there was a unified opposition to Clinton in 2015-16, but it was not a large enough bloc to prevent a Clinton nomination. There is not a unified Trump opposition at this point. At this point.
  2. This really should be repeated and repeated and repeated: "Yes, it matters if a lot of candidates each have 5 to 10 percent of the vote, but that doesn’t tend to be how these things play out. You tend to see three or four candidates with the bulk of the vote, and the rest hovering just above zero. (At the beginning of January 2016, only four of the 17-ish Republican presidential candidates had above 5 percent. At the beginning of January 2020, only four of the 20-ish Democratic presidential candidates had above 5 percent.)" Maybe 2023-24 will be different, but there has been a very distinct tendency in how this has worked in recent cycles.

...
Invisible Primary quick hits:

...
On this date...
...in 2015, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley announced his intentions to seek the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.



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

Friday, May 19, 2023

The Disconnect on Iowa and New Hampshire 2024

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 the end of its legislative session approaching, it looks as if New York will set in motion its unique method of codifying the presidential primary date and delegate allocation rules for 2024. 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...
...
One thing that FHQ has noticed in this week's renewed chatter about Iowa, New Hampshire and the 2024 presidential primary calendar is that stories about possible uncertainty at the front of the calendar keep sporadically popping up. But those stories arise almost in isolation from the coverage of the evolving race for the Republican presidential nomination. Folks, whether in the campaigns or media or even at the national party level, acknowledge that some calendar uncertainty exists, but most everyone is behaving as if Iowa will have the first Republican contest in 2024 followed by the primary in the Granite state. 

Yes, there are exceptions to that behavior. New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan is doing what secretaries of state in New Hampshire do: He is defending the first-in-the-nation turf by remaining coy, leaving open the door to the possibility that he may schedule the primary for some time in 2023 if necessary. And Jake Lahut's story at The Daily Beast asks a smart question -- that honestly FHQ has not really seen in the press -- about just how prudent the DeSantis team's full-court press to come in Iowa is given that there is a possibility that New Hampshire may jump the caucuses in the Hawkeye state on the calendar. 

However, those are exceptions to the current conventional wisdom it seems. And that suggests something. It suggests that the campaigns and other actors have reasonable confidence -- maybe blind faith -- that the calendar stuff will sort itself out like it always seems to do. That Iowa's Republican caucuses will lead off the process in January next year with the primary in New Hampshire being held a week and a day later. It will be a process, but given what FHQ written in recent days, it does look like it will all work out. The process the Iowa Democrats will likely use will not be a threat to New Hampshire (or should not be viewed that way anyway) and that will allow the calendar to proceed as planned on the Republican side. It may be a little earlier than anticipated -- a January and not February start -- but it will likely progress in the order implied in RNC rules.


...
The 2024 Republican presidential primary field appears as if it will add to its current list of candidates in the coming week, but chatter, if not the number of other signals, is picking up for other potential aspirants not named DeSantis (or Scott). 

...
It has been a busy week in the endorsement primary. FHQ has covered some of the DeSantis endorsement roll outs in this space this week, but that by no means has been all that has occurred. In no particular order... 

...
On the travel primary front, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson has been making the rounds in Iowa this week.


...
Trump added to his campaign in first-in-the-South primary state of South Carolina. New staff primary hires to the Palmetto team include former Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, former Nancy Mace campaign manager, Austin McCubbin, and Justin Evans, who was on the Trump White House advance team in 2020.


...
On this date...
...in 1980, Utahns in both political parties caucused across the Beehive state.

...in 1992, President George H.W. Bush and Arkansas Governor won their respective primaries in Oregon. Bush also won in neighboring Washington. The Washington Democratic primary was a beauty contest that Clinton won, but delegates were allocated through earlier caucuses in the Evergreen state.

...in 2020, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden won in Oregon.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)