Showing posts with label Ron DeSantis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron DeSantis. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 24, 2023

DeSantis starts as the clearest Trump alternative, but is a repeat of 2016 inevitable?

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...
  • Look, this Trump trial is going to be a big deal in the middle of primary season next year. But where it lands on the calendar and how the calendar is very likely to settle make the combination potentially quite disruptive. All the details at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
The one common theme in many of the send ups of Ron DeSantis on launch day for his presidential campaign is that the Florida governor is well enough positioned to challenge former President Donald Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, but neither have been strong enough to ward off the entry of other candidates with the conventional qualities of formidable, if not successful, past presidential aspirants. The thought goes -- and there is evidence to back it up -- that those other candidates in or on the verge of being in the race are focused more in recent days on challenging for the mantle of the Trump alternative than they are on actually directly taking on the former president. 

None of this is news. DeSantis has been taking incoming fire in recent weeks from not only the Trump campaign but the other candidates seeking to break out of the single digits in public opinion polling of the race. Understandably, that also conjures up memories of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination contest. But even with the presence of that echo of 2016, DeSantis enters a race for the 2024 nomination with far different dynamics. 

And those differing dynamics center on the former president and not Governor DeSantis. First of all, as the political world was reminded again yesterday, Trump faces criminal charges that he is set to go on trial for at a crucial point on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. That will add an element of uncertainty to the progression of primary season unprecedented in the post-reform era (much less any era of American history). But, by virtue of being a former president (among other things), Trump is also in a far better position in 2023 than he was in 2015. Notably, throughout the competitive portion of the 2016 process, Trump only approached (but did not attain) majority support in the national polls after big victories in the cluster of primaries in the mid-Atlantic and northeast in late April, right before the last of the remaining competition withdrew from the race. 

Look, FHQ does not want to harp on national polls too much, especially seven months before any votes are set to be cast. But Trump has basically been in the same position in the national polls that he was in at the height of his 2016 support all along during the 2024 invisible primary. And in the last month, the former president has crested above majority support. Yes, all of the usual caveats apply. It is May before a presidential election year. Things may change. Additionally, state polls may offer a better idea of where the candidates stand relative to one another in a sequential (not national) contest.

Still, Trump has been and is in a position to claim a lot of delegates under the rules that will govern the 2024 process. And delegates are the currency of a nomination race. His position in 2023 is consistent with or above his best in 2016. Yes, there will be winner-take-all contests that will allow a plurality winner to be awarded all of the delegates in some (but not all) primaries and caucuses after March 15 just like in 2016. But that distinction matters little if Trump is winning a majority of support in those contests. Even if Trump trails off from his current pace and drops below majority support, it may not change the fact that DeSantis is the only candidate to this point who is even flirting with the delegate qualifying threshold in most states (20 percent) with contests before March 15. And in recent days DeSantis has dipped below that mark. 

The point is that the candidate dynamics of 2023 may resemble those of 2015-16 on the Republican side, but they may meet a different set of preferences among the electorate (at least according to polls at this point) and will intersect with a more frontrunner-favorable set of delegate allocation rules in 2024. Neither of those are a repeat of 2016. The end result may be. Trump may end up the 2024 Republican nominee, but there may be similarities and differences in how the process gets to that point relative to 2016.


...
In the endorsement primary, DeSantis nabbed another congressional backer, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA, 6th). Team DeSantis also lined up the support of over 100 former Trump administration officials. The executive branch is huge, but this is no small show of support, especially when the president they all worked for is running for the same position again.


...
A handful of quick hits:


...
On this date...
...in 1984, two days after winning a beauty contest primary in the Gem state, Colorado Senator Gary Hart won the Idaho Democratic caucuses, where delegates were allocated.

...in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush claimed victory in the Idaho primary.




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

Monday, May 22, 2023

Tim Scott Enters the Race

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 is something of a time crunch for the two parties in Iowa to schedule the 2024 caucuses, but much of it seems self-imposed. There is a time they want to have that completed by and a point they have to have that set. Plus an additional note on Trump and 2024 delegate allocation rules. 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...
...
After filing with the Federal Election Commission on Friday, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott is set to officially announce his candidacy for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination on Monday, May 22. The move comes a little more than a month since the junior senator from the Palmetto state launched an exploratory committee. 

Scott is the first to strike in a week that seemingly promises at least one more similar announcement, but Scott's entry also comes at an interesting time. Donald Trump still enjoys a comfortable lead in the endorsement primary among Senate Republicans. However, the upper chamber in the US Congress is increasingly looking as if it may be a flashpoint of sorts in this Republican nomination race. And that may or may not be because of Tim Scott. Scott will enter the race with two Senate endorsements, both from South Dakota colleagues. Mike Rounds, FHQ has talked about, but Scott also scored the important endorsement of Senate Minority Whip John Thune over the weekend. And there is said to be a reservoir of support for Scott among those he works with most closely. 

Moreover, Republican senators not aligned with Trump have been increasingly outspoken in recent weeks. First, Indiana Senator Todd Young unendorsed Trump. Then another member of the Senate Republican leadership, Senator John Cornyn last week noted that Trump cannot win a general election. And Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy followed suit over the weekend. Neither Cornyn nor Cassidy went quite as far as Young did in their comments, but they come at a time that gives Scott some cover as he announces his bid. No, none of it is explicitly pro-Scott, but it is anti-Trump enough, via an electability argument. 

And together it all offers an interesting set of signals from among a group of the most high-profile possible gets in the endorsement primary.


...
South Carolina Republicans convened over the weekend and narrowly re-elected Chair Drew McKissick. With both Tim Scott and Nikki Haley on hand and Donald Trump addressing the delegates in a video, McKissick turned back a challenge from Jeff Davis, head of a Trump-loyalist group in the Upstate of South Carolina. This was not a convention where 2024 delegate rules were on the table -- the winner-take-all by congressional district system is not one South Carolina Republicans are going to mess with -- but it was a demonstration of another state Republican Party battling on pragmatism versus purism grounds, something that has flared up in other states as 2024 approaches. That may not have implications for delegate allocation rules in South Carolina, but it bears watching elsewhere as the rules increasingly get nailed down. 


...
Harry Enten has another good one up about the comeback path DeSantis may take to the Republican nomination. He draws a parallel between where DeSantis is in the polls now to where both Barack Obama and John McCain were in 2007. Both obviously went on to win their respective nominations in 2008, but both needed early wins to help propel them in that direction. Of course, DeSantis' main competition, Donald Trump, is probably closer to where Hillary Clinton was in 2015 than to where she was when she was the poll leader -- ahead of Obama -- in 2007. And that matters as well. 


...
In a further fleshing out of an ongoing story, Tom Beaumont describes the tough work ahead for DeSantis-aligned super PAC, Never Back Down, in attempting to flex organizational muscle. Again, that effort is a kind of Frankenstein's monster, combining the grassroots strength and knowhow of the 2016 Cruz campaign with the similar try at organizing through a super PAC that the Jeb Bush campaign pushed in the same cycle. 



...
On this date...
...in 2012,  former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney swept primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky.

...in 2020, the voting in the all-mail Hawaii Democratic party-run primary concluded.



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

Thursday, May 18, 2023

Missing the Real Story on the New Hampshire Primary

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...
  • How does Iowa fit into the Republican National Committee delegate rules? A deeper dive on the history of Rule 16 and how Iowa Republicans have no real recourse if New Hampshire leapfrogs the Hawkeye state into the first slot on the 2024 calendar. 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...
...
Another day, another story from out of one of the traditionally early primary calendar states. Yesterday, it was Iowa. Today, New Hampshire is on the docket. 

But folks, in their zeal to make a story out of something that probably will not be a much of a story in 2024, some outlets have missed the real story in the battle between New Hampshire Democrats and the Democratic National Committee over the primary calendar next year. Well, most have missed the true story in Iowa and thus miss the bigger picture story on the evolution of the beginning of the 2024 calendar. 

That bigger picture story? How much differently Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire are approaching the threat of 2024 calendar rules that shift each from their traditional positions. Look, as FHQ noted yesterday, Iowa Democrats' draft delegate selection plan was a deescalatory document. Yes, the date of the more primary-like preference vote is still unknown, but the signals from out of the Hawkeye state are that Iowa Democrats are playing for a spot -- any spot -- in the early window on the Democratic primary calendar. In other words, they are not fighting for first. South Carolina already has that (official) distinction They are fighting for early. Iowa Democrats are demonstrating flexibility. They appear willing to play ball with the DNC.

New Hampshire Democrats do not. 

To this point, from the draft delegate selection plan to comment after comment from New Hampshire Democrats to state legislative actions that Democratic state legislators have supported, the picture is just the opposite of what is coming out of Iowa. It is all still shock and anger and disbelief. The pose New Hampshire Democrats have struck remains defiant. And the one good thing that the latest story from Politico by Holly Otterbein and Lisa Kashinsky does is showcase how very rigid and inflexible New Hampshire Democrats are being on this. 

A party-run primary as a possible alternative?
Meanwhile, Democrats in the state are shutting down the idea of a party-run primary before they’ve even formally been approached about it. Buckley said a party-run primary would be a logistical nightmare and extremely expensive, costing upwards of $7 million. 
“Absolutely impossible,” he said. “Where would I rent 2,000 voting machines? Hire 1,500 people to run the polls? Rent 300 accessible voting locations? Hire security? Print 500,000 ballots. Process 30,000 absentee ballots.”
Never mind that states equal in size or bigger than New Hampshire held first-time, vote-by-mail party-run primaries in 2020. ...during a pandemic. Democratic parties in both Hawaii and Kansas pulled that off in the last cycle. Any thought in New Hampshire of consulting with those state parties to discover best practices, potential problems, anything? Nope. Just overestimates on scale and costs and a complete inability to think even a little outside of the box. 

And that fig leaf that was a feeble attempt at passing no-excuse absentee voting in New Hampshire?
New Hampshire Democrats also argue they’ve made a good-faith effort to meet the second part of the party’s requirements to stay in the official early-state window — expanding voting access by pushing Soucy’s legislation to create no-excuse absentee voting in the state, albeit to no avail.
That just is not very likely to carry much if any weight with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. Is it a good-faith effort at a provable positive step toward the changes the national party requested of New Hampshire Democrats. It is! But it is also a very small step in the grand scheme of the plan the national party has put forth for the 2024 presidential nomination process. 

It is a half step at best. All the DNC wants in something like this is a willing partner to come to the table and work toward a compromise of some sort. New Hampshire Democrats' my way or the highway approach to all of this will put them in the same boat that Florida and Michigan Democrats found themselves in 2007-08. Democratic legislators (and governors in Michigan's case) supported those rogue primaries and when the DNC suggested alternative caucuses to comply with the national party rules, both state parties threw up their hands and balked at the prospect. That got each a full 100 percent reduction in their 2008 national convention delegations.1 New Hampshire is likely looking at the same fate. 

And that is the story here. It is tale of two "aggrieved" states and how differently each is reacting to the threat of calendar rules changes for 2024. It is the rigidity of the New Hampshire Democratic Party compared to the flexibility of Iowa Democrats. What it is not is a "predicament ... of the president's own making." It just is not. That is like saying the Florida and Michigan ordeal was one of the DNC's own design. Those states broke the rules the DNC put in place for 2008. Those state parties refused to explore alternatives for delegate selection. Those parties paid a price. The 55 other states and territories followed the rules. 

In 2023, all signs point toward 56 states and territories following the DNC calendar rules. [There are other budding violations of other rules elsewhere.] Only one state, New Hampshire, is indicating that it not only will not but also will not doing anything to meet the national party even part of the way there. Folks, that is not the president's problem. It is not the DNC's problem. It is New Hampshire's problem and Democrats there are trying to blackmail the national party into caving because of the possible general election implications. That is not a new practice, but in 2024 that is a recipe for sanctions from the national party. 

[One option in New Hampshire that FHQ has suggested and still has not seen anywhere else is tying something -- party-run primary, alternative state-run primary -- to town meeting day in March. That is when the New Hampshire presidential primary is supposed to be anyway. Or would be if not for the law that says it will fall on town meeting day unless another similar election is before the primary in the Granite state. Town meeting day is going to happen after the January presidential primary regardless. It could be an option for the Democrats in New Hampshire. It could be, but again, the party so far has not been receptive to alternatives.]

...
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is going to announce a presidential run? If only there had been some signs that this was coming. Seriously though, DeSantis closed the deal on 99 Republican state legislative endorsements (out of 113) in the Sunshine state on Wednesday, May 16. The floodgates referred to in this space yesterday were opened up. And DeSantis has a more than reasonable endorsement primary counterweight to the Trump rollout of Florida congressional delegation endorsements in recent weeks.


...
FHQ could use the Landmark Communications poll in Georgia out yesterday to point out how poorly Governor Brian Kemp would do in a Republican presidential primary in his home state. But that is unnecessary -- Kemp is not running -- and would miss an opportunity to talk about delegate allocation in the Peach state next year anyway. Yet, that is something of a question mark. Georgia will have an earlier presidential primary in 2024 than it (initially) did in 2020, and Republicans in the state will have to change the delegate allocation system they used in the last go-round to something more proportional (as the RNC defines it). 

Also, it is worth noting that Trump will address Georgia Republicans at their state convention next month where delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle may be on the agenda.


...
On this date...
...in 1976, California Governor Jerry Brown won the battle but lost the war in the Maryland Democratic primary. But since Brown had not filed a slate in the Old Line state, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter won the delegate fight and also won in the Michigan primary. On the Republican side, President Gerald Ford swept both the Maryland and Michigan primaries.

...in 1987, Illinois Senator Paul Simon formally entered the contest for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry swept primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and Oregon.


--
1 Yes, both Florida and Michigan Democrats had half of their delegations restored by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee during Memorial Day weekend in 2008 and full delegations from both were seated at the Denver convention with full voting rights after a concession from the Obama campaign. But the conditions will be different for New Hampshire in 2024. Team Biden and the DNC will potentially be less willing to show such leniency. The incumbent president will not be coming off a hard-fought nomination win in the primaries and needing to bring two sides of an evenly split party together. Instead, it will be two sides: one comprised of 56 states and territories and the other of one state delegation that wants to hold onto a first-in-the-nation relic that the president is trying to change in favor of a rotation system at the beginning of the calendar. Sure, there are general election implications here as well because of New Hampshire's status as a battleground state. But it is a battleground state with just four electoral votes.


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

Wednesday, May 17, 2023

Chaos? What Chaos? Iowa Republicans signal January caucuses, but that has been clear for a while.

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...
...
It has been clear since December when the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee first signed off on a newly revamped early presidential primary calendar lineup for 2024 that the Iowa caucuses -- the precinct caucuses for Republicans in the Hawkeye state, anyway -- would end up in January 2024 sometime. When one national party schedules a non-traditional state first for the first time in half a century it has some impact on the actions of decision makers in the two traditional lead-off states, Iowa and New Hampshire. 

And it has had an impact. 

Those moves, made official by the full DNC vote in February (based in part on assurances from South Carolina Democrats that they intended to request a February 3 primary date for next year), have triggered all of the typical responses. Leapfrogging states! Calendar chaos! Competing state laws to protect early calendar status! National party penalties! The full gamut (albeit with some new wrinkles, perhaps). 

So it was nice that Brianne Pfannenstiel at the Des Moines Register got Iowa Republican Party Chair Jeff Kaufmann on the record about his thoughts on the caucuses schedule for 2024.
“It looks as though we're heading for a mid-January caucus,” Republican Party of Iowa Chair Jeff Kaufmann said in an interview. “But it's still very unsettled. … That uncertainty prevents me from saying anything definitive.”
That confirms the reality that has existed since December, but FHQ would push back on Pfannenstiel's characterization of all of this as a "complicated calendar fight." Folks, it is not that complicated. What is true is that the DNC complicated the outlook by straying from business as usual for 2024. But the range of options moving forward is pretty limited. 

First, look at the calendar. South Carolina Democrats have a February 3 primary. The next earliest Tuesday at least seven days before that is January 23. Under state law, that is latest point on the calendar where New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan would schedule the presidential primary in the Granite state to keep it first. The clearest action that would force New Hampshire any further up on the calendar is if some other contest ends up between the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary and that January 23 point on the calendar. That could be a South Carolina Republican primary. [The primaries there for both parties have traditionally not been on the same day.] It may also not be. That likely hinges to some degree on what Nevada Republicans decide to do.

The easy rule of thumb, then, is that if South Carolina Republicans select a date before the February 3 date on which the Democratic primary is in the Palmetto state, then the New Hampshire primary is likely to end up on at least January 16.

But what about the Iowa Democratic caucuses-turned-mail-primary!?! 

Yes, that change breaks from tradition as well. If the caucuses are not caucuses, then New Hampshire is going to jump Iowa, right? FHQ would argue that that is not necessarily the case. And that conclusion has everything to do with the draft delegate selection plan Iowa Democrats released at the beginning of May. While some bought the headlines that Iowa Democrats would caucus on the same night as Republicans in the Hawkeye state and assumed the worst, the reality was something far less ominous. Rather than being an aggressive and defiant document -- one that might actually have led to a chaotic calendar fight -- the Iowa Democratic delegate selection plan was innovative while being slightly coy.  

The draft plan was innovative in that it veered off the usual course, bifurcating the delegate selection process and the delegate allocation process more clearly than has ever been the case in the Iowa Democratic process. Yes, Iowa Democrats will caucus on the same night as Republicans in the state, whatever that date is. But that will have no bearing on the delegate slots that are allocated to particular presidential candidates. All that is going to happen for Iowa Democrats on that January night is party business: electing folks to go to the county conventions, talking platform ideas, among other things. There is no winning candidate in that process. No score to keep. No horserace to assess. 

That will come from the separate presidential preference vote that the Iowa Democratic Party will conduct by mail. The vote-by-mail preference vote will be for Iowa Democrats what the DNC calls the "first determining step" in the delegate allocation process. Delegates from Iowa will be allocated based on the results of the preference vote. And that is the coy part of the story because there is, at this time, no date for the preference vote. And Pfannenstiel raises that:
Scott Brennan, Iowa’s representative to the [DNC] Rules and Bylaws Committee, said the committee will meet in June, but he doesn’t expect the group to consider Iowa’s proposal until its meeting in July. 
“My guess is that they will find the plan noncompliant because it does not have a date for the caucuses,” he said.
But why does it not have a date? The all-mail preference vote does not have a date yet because Iowa Democrats are still fighting for an early spot on the calendar. Importantly, that is not for the first slot, but an early spot. The gamble is that when Georgia and New Hampshire are unable or unwilling to meet the early calendar requirements for the DNC that there will be an opening for the formerly first state to seize a spot among the earliest states for 2024. 

That is not threatening to New Hampshire. In fact, the Iowa Democratic delegate selection plan was deescalatory in nature (with both New Hampshire and the DNC). All of this will take some time to play out, and in the meantime, there are likely to be reports of back and forths among various actors that get described as chaos. But that is not what this is. Iowa Democrats are negotiating (or will be) with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee for an early spot. The resulting preference vote is very likely to conclude after the South Carolina Democratic primary. [Remember, that will be after New Hampshire, rogue or not.] 

That is a lot to sift through, but it is not that complicated. At the end of the day, one may not know the exact dates for the Iowa Republican caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. But one does know that it depends on what Nevada and South Carolina Republicans do and how the negotiations go between Iowa Democrats and the national party go. Regardless, what is really at stake is whether Iowa Republicans caucus on January 8 or January 15. That is how small the range is. 

...even at this stage. That is not chaos. It is earlier than the Republican National Committee had planned. But it is not chaos.

...
In the travel primary, little more than a month since his last visit to the Granite state, DeSantis will once again drop in on New Hampshire to meet with state legislators later this week. Republican candidate visits to first-in-the-nation New Hampshire have increased in frequency in recent days. Trump, Scott, Haley, Hutchinson, Ramaswamy and Pence have all also trekked to the Granite state since the beginning of the month.


...
It was two steps forward and one back in the endorsement primary for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Tuesday. On the plus side of the ledger DeSantis secured valuable endorsements from legislative leaders in both chambers of the Florida legislature. Losing so many endorsements from members of the Florida congressional delegation to Trump in recent weeks was a bad look for the Sunshine state governor and would-be presidential candidate. But if the leadership endorsements open up the floodgates for additional Florida state legislative endorsements for DeSantis down the line, then that will serve as some counterweight to the inroads Trump has made in Florida endorsements. [Whether DeSantis would be able to work those state legislative relationships was an open question FHQ posed a few weeks ago.]

On the negative side, the Never Back Down roll out of state legislative endorsements of DeSantis from New Hampshire was already undercut by the split Trump-DeSantis endorsement from one Granite state representative, but another, Rep. Lisa Smart (R) went even further and reneged on signing onto the letter of support for DeSantis, going back to Trump. Better to make these sorts of mistakes early rather than consistently and/or later in the invisible primary. But still.


...
On this date...
...in 1976, Democrats caucused in Utah.

...in 1979, Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker (R) withdrew from the 1980 Republican presidential nomination contest after a short run that began in March 1979.

...in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis won their parties' primaries in Oregon.

...in 2016, Donald Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders claimed victory in the Oregon primary while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in Kentucky. [Republicans caucused in the Bluegrass state earlier in the calendar.]



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

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

Trump and the 2024 Delegate Allocation Rules

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 is unique among states with state-run and funded presidential primaries. In some ways that helped elevate the Palmetto state to the first slot on the 2024 Democratic primary calendar. But quirkiness presents some challenges as well. 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...
...
Gregory Korte had a nice piece up at Bloomberg the other day concerning the delegate allocation rules and how the Trump campaign's efforts to massage them in 2020 may pay dividends for the former president in 2024. As he notes, however, there will not be a complete picture of the state-level delegate allocation rules until October 1. That makes it tough to game out the impact of the rules for next year. 

Moreover, the various campaigns are doing the same thing. They are currently trying to plan this out, but they are also simultaneously trying to affect what those rules are to lay the groundwork for advantageous allocation rules next year. And that makes for some potential, if not likely, cross-pressures with which state-level party officials/committees/conventions making these decision will have to deal. Together that makes for a challenging decision-making environment. FHQ talked about this in setting the 2024 Republican delegate allocation rules baseline back in March:
If decision makers in state parties across the country cannot see a clear advantage to an allocation change one way or the other, then it is more likely that the 2020 baseline method survives into 2024. That theoretically helps Trump. ...if he is the frontrunner. But if Trump is not the frontrunner once primary season kicks off, then any shift away from the 2020 baseline -- a baseline with the knobs turned toward incumbent defense (or frontrunner defense) -- may end up helping a candidate other than the one intended. 

Another factor adding to this uncertainty is how decision makers view a change playing with rank and file members of the party. If elected officials or other elites in the party are wary of endorsing one Republican candidate or another, then they may also be less willing to make an allocation change for fear that it would be viewed as helping or hurting Trump. In other words, it looks like they are putting their thumb on the scale one way or the other. That is the sort of view that augurs against change. And again, the status quo likely helps Trump (if current conditions persist). 

Basically, the bottom line is this. Allocation changes are tough. They are tough to make because there is uncertainty in the impact those changes will have. It is much easier to see the potential impact of moving a primary to an early date for example. It could help a favorite son or daughter candidate. But an earlier primary or caucus definitely better insures that the state influences the course of the nomination race. If a contest falls too late -- after a presumptive nominee has emerged and clinched the nomination -- then that contest has literally no impact. Some impact, no matter how small, is better than literally zero impact. The same is true with respect to the decision to conduct a primary election or caucuses. There are definite turnout effects that come with holding a primary rather than caucuses. And greater participation in primaries typically means a more diverse -- less ideologically homogenous or extreme -- electorate.

Things are less clear with allocation rules changes. 
There is much more in that post. FHQ will be drawing from it throughout the remainder of the invisible primary if not into primary season in 2024. Go read it. But in the meantime, a couple of additional things:
  1. Yes, more truly winner-take-all states help Trump at this time. But they would help any frontrunner. These are, after all, frontrunner rules. They help build and pad a delegate lead once the RNC allows winner-take-all rules to kick in on March 15, entering 50-75 rule territory.
  2. But Team Trump is likely looking toward (and looking to maintain) the other rules changes from 2020 for an earlier-on-the-calendar boost. An earlier (technical) knock out for a 2024 frontrunner may come from states earlier than March 15 with winner-take-all triggers. If a candidate wins a majority of the vote statewide and/or at the congressional district level, then that candidate wins all of the delegates from that jurisdiction (or all of a state's delegates available if the delegates are pooled). Alternatively, if no other candidates hit the qualifying thresholds (set to their max of 20 percent in most proportional states in 2020), then the winner is allocated all of the delegates in some states even if they do not have a majority. And the name of the game here is not necessarily winning all of the delegates, but maximizing the net delegate advantage coming out of any given state. All of the Republican campaigns are asking how much they can improve on a baseline proportional allocation, and picking spots on the map and calendar where they can do. Well, campaigns are doing that if they know what they are doing anyway.

...
In the travel primary, former Vice President Mike Pence will be back in New Hampshire on Tuesday, May 16. And it looks at if a super PAC has formed around his before the end of June presidential launch. The interesting thing is less the formation of an aligned super PAC and more about some of the staff primary hires the new group has made. There are folks from the orbits of a former Republican presidential nominee (Scott Reed, former campaign manager of the 1996 Dole campaign), a once talked-about possible 2024 aspirant who declined to run (Mike Ricci, former spokesman for former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan) and a still-talked about possible 2024 candidate who says he is not running (Bobby Saparow, former campaign manager for current Georgia Governor Brian Kemp). In total, that makes for an interesting mix of old school Republican politics and new school Trump resistance within the party. That may not represent a winning path in the Republican nomination race, but it is indicative of a unique course forward for Pence relative to his competition.


...
Endorsement Math. Yesterday, FHQ raised the sizable number of Iowa state legislative endorsements Florida Governor Ron DeSantis rolled out before his weekend trek to the Hawkeye state. And on Monday, Never Back Down, the super PAC aligned with DeSantis, released another 49 new endorsements from fellow early state, New Hampshire. [That is 51 endorsements minus the previously revealed support of New Hampshire House Majority Leader Jason Osborne and the double endorsement -- of both Trump and DeSantis -- from Juliet Harvey-Bolia.] Three of those DeSantis endorsements in the Granite state are from representatives who have supported Trump in the past.

But the math is different across both of those waves of DeSantis endorsements from Iowa and New Hampshire. The 37 state legislative endorsements from the Hawkeye state accounted for more than a third of all of the possible Iowa Republican legislators -- House and Senate. In New Hampshire, those 50 endorsements, all from members of the state House, register differently. They make up just a quarter of the total number of possible endorsements from the lower chamber alone. Yes, that may be splitting hairs, but it is also a long way of saying the pool of endorsements is bigger in New Hampshire. Others will be vying for the support of the remaining 150 Granite state House members. 


...
On this date...
...in 1972, Alabama Governor George Wallace, a day after being shot campaigning in Maryland, won primaries in the Old Line state and in Michigan. 

...in 2000, long after becoming the presumptive nominees of their parties, George W. Bush and Al Gore won the Oregon presidential primary.

...in 2019, long shots, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Rocky de la Fuente, respectively entered the Democratic and Republican presidential nomination races. 



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

Monday, May 15, 2023

DeSantis is not without Organizational Strengths in the Republican Nomination Race

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...
  • On presidential primary legislating, the Missouri General Assembly once again made Congress look functional. Still, there is one thing in the Show-Me state that just does not add up. And there may be a super penalty problem for a handful of states on the Republican presidential primary calendar. 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...
...
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was back in Iowa over the weekend. And some accounts detail how he impressed Hawkeye state Republicans, but as The New York Times noted...
And while Mr. Trump still leads in the state, according to the latest public polling, his team team had also so lowered the bar for Mr. DeSantis’s first outing with weeks of merciless mocking that by merely showing up and not committing any significant gaffes with crowds that were eager to check him out, he fared well.
Polls and mocking aside, the real coup for DeSantis in the home of the first-in-the-nation caucuses was pulling in a long list of state legislative endorsements -- endorsement primary -- in the state before he even touched down to flip burgers, visit barbecue joints or generally retail politick. More than anything else, that group of 37 endorsements speaks to the demonstration of a level of organization that has not been as apparent in recent weeks as the governor's fortunes have swooned according to some metrics. Yes, the aligned super PAC, Never Back Down, has been on the airwaves (continually in the upstate of South Carolina during the evening news hour FHQ can report) and there is plenty of money behind the nascent campaign, but that is a depth of endorsements that speaks to some underlying political strengths in the battle ahead. 

...once DeSantis formally enters the race. Are endorsement the same as organizing folks to come out to caucuses across the Hawkeye state? Not exactly, but it is a positive push in that direction. 


...
And now for something completely -- well, sort of -- different. Allow FHQ a moment to veer off into general election 2024 territory. Michael Scherer and Tyler Pager at The Washington Post report that President Biden's reelection team is targeting both Florida and North Carolina as possible pickup opportunities in 2024. First of all, if there are any potential flips out there, then Florida and North Carolina are likely the only ones to chase. They were the only two states that Biden lost by less than five points in 2020. However, incumbent presidents and incumbent parties have had a difficult time trying to expand the map in recent years. The Obama team trained its sights on Arizona and Georgia in 2011 before dropping them to focus their efforts on more competitive states as the 2012 election drew nearer. Similarly, the Trump campaign eyed both Minnesota and New Mexico in 2019 before it scaled operations back once the calendar flipped to 2020. Presidents may want to play offense during their reelection bids, but more often than not, they end up playing defense on the same ground they narrowly won during their initial, victorious bid. And often that is a function not of adding states to the fold, but of trying to hold together a winning coalition from the first time surpassing 270.


...
With the spotlight on Iowa over the weekend, it was nice to see some reporting that actually acknowledged that at this time there is no date for the Iowa caucuses. There is no date. There has been no date. Part of what has enabled both Iowa and New Hampshire to successfully defend their first-in-the-nation turf on the primary calendar over the years is that each is adept in their own ways at waiting until late in the year (if need be) to make a scheduling decision. When threats have arisen, waiting them out has tended to work at least in terms of fighting off threats from other states. National parties? Well, that is a different type of battle. With South Carolina Democrats locked into that February 3 date granted them by the DNC, Iowa and New Hampshire are more than likely, and barring something unforeseen and hugely unprecedented, going to end up in some time in January next year. 


...
On this date...
...in 1972, George McGovern bested his competition in precinct caucuses in a pair of Mountain West states, Colorado and Utah..

...in 1984, Colorado Sen. Gary Hart swept the Nebraska and Oregon primaries, extending his dominance in states west of the Mississippi River to that point in the race.

...in 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney handily won late-season primaries in Nebraska and Oregon, increasing his delegate advantage and inching closer to an overall majority in the count.



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

Friday, May 12, 2023

Endorsements, Non-Endorsements, Unendorsements and Pre-Endorsements

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...
  • California Republicans have a problem with their allocation rules (and it may cost them delegates next year), Missouri legislators snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on the presidential primary bill in the Show-Me state and more. 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...
...
For an established politician, Donald Trump is almost uniquely adept at having it both ways. No, not on everything, but as a rare defeated former president to return for a third try at a nomination in the post-reform era, it would be easy, if not natural, to assume such a candidate would be considered "the establishment." And in many ways the former president is just that, the establishment. After all, at the moment he has a commanding lead in the current 2024 polling, does not lack for resources and has so far lapped the field in endorsements, both in quantity and quality. 

Still, this is not 2019 when the Republican Party was in lockstep behind the president as he set out to defend the White House. Republicans responding to surveys are looking around at and supporting alternatives and big money donors within the Republican Party network are doing the same. And while Trump has high-profile endorsements, elites and elected officials are not all with the president. So, on the one hand, Trump can both demonstrate that he is the establishment of a sort, but also that there are potential cracks in the armor, that this is not 2019. He can lay claim to endorsements from, for example, one fifth of the Republican caucus in the Senate, but that also means that the remaining 80 percent are not yet on board. 

And that is an important distinction at this point in the 2024 invisible primary. Trump can suggest that he is the establishment -- that he is inevitable -- but at the same time run against a party that is not behind him in the same way that it was in 2019-20. That is a valuable mixed signal to be able to send to Republican primary voters and it has an impact on those elites and elected officials who are not yet aligned with the former president (or anyone else). 

The result is this melange of endorsements, non-endorsements, unendorsements and pre-endorsements. Trump's endorsements are clear enough. But Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) became an early unendorsement of the former president on Thursday, May 11. Young did not jump to one of the Trump alternatives. Instead, he just made clear he was not behind Trump for 2024. And Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SC) hinted at reservoir of support in the Senate for Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC). No, it was not a pre-endorsement, per se, but that story also is not new. Rounds was very careful with his wording, saying that "[a] lot of us that are holding back on looking at anybody else until Tim makes up his mind." But it was suggestive of a potential change when and if the junior South Carolina senator enters the race. 

However, that says a lot. The careful wording, the praise but non-endorsement. Trump may have the bulk of the high-profile endorsements at this time, but he does not have all of them. Most are still sitting on the sidelines. And the question moving forward is whether they stay that way. Given Trump's current position in the race and standing as a former president, 2024 is less likely to be a situation like 2016 when a number of Republican elites did not throw their support behind any candidate until after the primaries or caucuses in their states. The pressures and incentives will be different. Trump can make the inevitability case, but can also publicly other those who may dissent by opting for other candidates. And as long as it stays like that, Trump can straddle the line, boasting to be an establishment of his own while simultaneously running against the "other" Republican establishment who opposes him. 

But how long can that persist? Just as the burgeoning field of 2024 candidates could not be frozen forever, neither likely can endorsements, well, non-endorsements. 


...
Elsewhere in the endorsement primary. Ahead of his trip to first-in-the-nation Iowa this weekend (travel primary), Florida Governor Ron DeSantis reeled in a pair of important state legislative endorsements from the Hawkeye state. Both Senate President Amy Sinclair and Iowa House Majority Leader Matt Windschitl threw their support behind the nascent DeSantis presidential effort. 


...
And in the staff primary. Bloomberg's Christian Hall has the latest on Tim Scott's efforts: 
The Republican senator from South Carolina has tapped Targeted Victory, a consultancy, to aid the campaign’s fundraising, and brought on board three advisers: Jon Downs, Trent Wisecup and Annie Kelly Kuhle from FP1 Strategies. That firm will serve as the campaign’s political advertising firm, the person familiar said.


...
On this date...
...in 1988, President Ronald Reagan endorsed Vice President George H.W. Bush for president a few weeks after Bush had secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination (and when it was apparent that all other candidates were out).

...in 1992, President Bush and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton handily won primaries in Nebraska and West Virginia.

...in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden won the Nebraska primary on his way to the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.



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

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

The National Parties and the Sanctioning of Presidential Primary Debates

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...
  • Efforts are under way during the final week of the 2023 General Assembly to resurrect the presidential primary in Missouri 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...
...
It was not necessarily hidden yesterday, but the news that the Republican National Committee (RNC) was floating tentative debate criteria for the first presidential debate this coming August quickly got shunted to the side in the wake of civil trial decisions and upcoming New Hampshire town halls. But the basic outlines of a debate qualifications regime from the RNC offered a glimpse into the continually evolving role the national parties play and have played in sanctioning primary debates over the last several cycles. 

After all, it was not that long ago that debates had already started at this point in earlier cycles. Democrats debated during the first week in May in 2003. Republicans did the same in 2007 and also held a debate with a truncated group of candidates during the first week in May 2011. However, it was that cycle, the 2012 cycle, that served as the straw that broke the camel's back. In all, there were 20 Republican presidential primary debates that cycle, highlighted by two debates from New Hampshire on successive days in January 2012 before the primary in the Granite state. There were a lot of debates and both during and after the general election of 2012, the sense was that all of that exposure had not necessarily helped the party's cause. That sentiment was borne out in the party's Growth and Opportunity Project report -- the so-called Autopsy. It cited the need for national party oversight of the debates process; that state parties, competing with one another for candidate attention, were partnering with media outlets to schedule debates. In turn, that led to a proliferation of the forums.  

The result was that the RNC empaneled a standing committee devoted to the sanctioning of presidential primary debates for the 2016 cycle. And that committee cut down on the number of sanctioned debates, prohibited candidates from participating in any unsanctioned debates and further scrutinized media partners for those debates. But because so many candidates threw their hats in the ring in 2015, the standing committee that cycle also had to wrestle with the various formats to present all of those candidates. The size of the field demanded some qualifications but also balancing that against the need to at the very least appear inclusive to any and all candidates with demonstrated support in public opinion polls. The initial solution was to hold two debates, a main event for candidates with 3 percent or more support in polls and an undercard for those under that threshold. 

Fast forward to the 2020 cycle and it was the Democratic Party that was faced with similar issues. Like Republicans four years earlier, the Democratic National Committee (DNC)  had a wide open nomination race that attracted a slew of candidates. And like their Republican counterparts, the party was coming off a general election defeat in the previous and dealing with complaints about the debate process during the primaries that cycle. While the Democratic nomination race was open in 2016, there was a prohibitive favorite and the incentives to develop a structure similar to what the RNC had devised were not as apparent. However, seeking to avoid a repeat in 2020, the DNC adopted a debates qualifying strategy similar to but modified from the 2016 RNC process. 

The innovation the DNC added for the 2020 cycle was to tweak the qualifications. Not only did the party initially set a polling threshold that candidates had to hit (an average of at least one percent in DNC-approved surveys), but to further, or more clearly, demonstrate widespread support, candidates also had to have at least 65,000 individual donors across at least 20 states (minimum 200 donors from each). However, the supply of candidates, even at those thresholds, was still sufficiently large enough to force two debates. Yet, rather than an undercard and a main event series of debates on the same night, the DNC instead split the debates across two nights and randomly selected participants from the entire qualified pool. 

Just as was the case for Republicans in 2016, the Democratic Party in 2019-20 had to devise a system aimed at a moving target. In both cases, the parties felt compelled to set minimum qualifying standards for debates, but did not want to set them so high as to prevent candidates with some support (and some likelihood of catching on with the voting public in the future) from participating. For better or worse, everyone having a shot in the process is a notion that both parties have nurtured throughout the post-reform era. And that dovetails nicely with primary scheduling as well. Both parties like what the Growth and Opportunity Project report in 2013 called the "on-ramp" to the heart of primary season (basically a lead up to Super Tuesday). The idea of the little guy being able to compete in and do the sort of grassroots-building retail politics in small states that can potentially lead to primary wins (and maybe the nomination) is an ideal that is part of the fabric of the process in both parties. 

Moreover, it is also something that is layered into the proposed RNC debate qualification rules for 2024 that are now making the rounds. Initially, those levels would be set quite low, just one percent support in polls and 40,000 unique donors. Left unanswered at this stage is whether the RNC, like the DNC in 2019-20, will approve the polls that determine qualification or if a candidate's donor base has to be dispersed across a set minimum of states. It also goes without saying that those barriers to debate entry are lower than what the DNC utilized just four years ago. 

And there is a reason for that. The field is different. In many ways the 2024 Republican field is akin to the 2016 Democratic field in that there is a clear frontrunner -- a former president, no less -- who has had some impact on the number of prospective candidates willing to enter. Now, clearly the field looks poised to grow in the coming weeks, so there will likely be supply for a robust debate, but perhaps not enough to require a second debate (on the same or subsequent night). Very simply, Trump is gobbling up too large a share of support (at this point) for the number of qualifying candidates to create a need for a second debate, undercard or otherwise.

But that is the moving target with which the national parties have to contend. They not only have to balance the need to be inclusive to candidates with some measure of support, but they also weigh thresholds that to create a robust debate without opening up the floodgates. Yet, this is a role the national parties have taken on in recent cycles when it took on the responsibility of sanctioning presidential primary debates in the first place. But first thing first, the RNC has to formalize the debate qualifications for 2024.


...
DeSantis quick hits: 
  • In the endorsement primary, DeSantis picked up another congressional endorsement from Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), someone Never Back Down (the DeSantis-aligned super PAC) founder Ken Cuccinelli called "one of the 'first five' that got us great rules in the House..." Good was in fact one of the McCarthy holdouts in the January speaker election. And as an aside, that group has been fairly active in the endorsement primary. Of the 20 who, on one speaker vote or another, opposed McCarthy, 11 have endorsed in the presidential race. Eight of those are behind Trump with two more counted as DeSantis supporters. Nikki Haley rolled out a Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) endorsement on launch day. 
  • Never Back Down also won the support of former Trump adviser, Steve Cortes. Together, the staff primary and endorsement primary continue to offer evidence of an erosion of Trump support, but only to a point. As always, the former president in 2023 is behind the pace he set as an incumbent in 2019 but well ahead of where he was in 2015. 
  • In a signal of what may soon be coming in terms of a presidential run, the Florida governor also on Tuesday decoupled from Friends of DeSantis. It is a move that is likely a precursor to freeing up the money in the committee for use in a presidential bid. 

...
Viewed through one lens, it is curious that Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) would call on President Biden to break the DNC rules for 2024 and file to be on the New Hampshire primary ballot even if, as expected, the state goes rogue and holds a primary too early next year. If Khanna is behind the president, as he suggests he is, then why not call on New Hampshire Democrats to come up with an alternative to selecting delegates through a rogue primary? However, viewed through a 2028 lens, the reason may become more apparent. Khanna is not wrong that the Biden-driven calendar rules changes may hurt the president in New Hampshire in the general election, but the question is whether the damage has already been done or if it will take the president not being on the ballot (in a largely uncompetitive race) to fully push enough New Hampshire supporters away. FHQ is dubious. Clearly, Khanna is betting that New Hampshire will be there (early) in 2028, and that is no sure thing. 


...
On this date...
...in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis both handily won the Nebraska and West Virginia primaries.

...in 2016, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won the West Virginia primary. Trump also won in Nebraska. [Democrats in the Cornhusker state had caucused earlier in the year. Delegates were allocated based on that contest despite there being a beauty contest primary in Nebraska.]



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 1:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)