"Scoop: Dems eye ranked-choice voting for primaries"

Holly Otterbein at Axios has the details on the push to bring ranked choice voting to Democratic presidential primaries in 2028:

"Democratic politicians and activists are quietly lobbying to upend the way the party picks its presidential nominee by urging the use of ranked-choice voting.

"It's a tool that drew national attention when it propelled New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani to a decisive primary win.

"Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin and other top party officials have met privately with advocates who are pushing for the voting method to be expanded for the 2028 presidential primaries, three sources tell Axios."

...

Burying the lede: "For the DNC to approve the use of ranked-choice voting in primaries, it would need the support of the powerful rules and bylaws committee and a majority of the 450-member body. State parties also would need to OK it, and many states would need to amend their election laws."

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The latest trial balloon for ranked choice voting in presidential primaries.

Recent lobbying efforts to bring RCV to the Democratic presidential nomination process face obstacles in and outside of the national party.

"Democrats set January deadline for states to apply for early 2028 primary contests"

Meg Kinnard at The AP with the details on the DNC Rules and Bylaws-passed resolution guiding the selection of early primary states for 2028:

"The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee on Monday approved a plan giving states until January 16 to submit applications to hold voting contests in the early window ahead of Super Tuesday, when a massive haul of delegates will be awarded.

"Four or five states will get an early slot, and all four regions — East, Midwest, South and West — must be represented, according to the framework."

And from Caroline Vakil at The Hill:

"States seeking to be one of the first stomping grounds to weigh in on the 2028 Democratic presidential primary will be evaluated on rigorousness, efficiency and fairness."

More from Elena Schneider at Politico:

"The DNC planned to reevaluate the order ahead of the 2028 primary, but the committee’s moves take on fresh significance for a wide-open presidential primary process, in which the voting order of states will likely impact candidates’ strategy. But unlike in 2022, when Biden set the calendar, the DNC now has control of the process.

"Jockeying for a calendar spot has already started, though several DNC members privately said they expect the composition of the early window to resemble previous years — which included South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Michigan. The order of the states may prove trickier than which states are included."

--

And there were reactions on the state level...

Iowa (via Brianne Pfannenstiel at the Des Moines Register):

"'I am disappointed the DNC is already backtracking on its promise for an open and democratic process by rushing through this proposal,' [Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita] Hart said in a statement. 'Whatever fake timeline the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee tries to put on this process, I remain committed to having continued family conversations regarding our Iowa Caucus process with members of our State Central Committee, our campaigns and Democrats across the state.'

"She said 'all options are on the table' as the party weighs where to go next."

Nevada (via Mini Racker at the Nevada Independent)¹: 

"'In Nevada, we’re very respectful of the process,' [Nevada DNC member Artie] Blanco said... 'We don’t cry about it; we don’t get angry. We just go back and we start the fight again.'"

New Hampshire (via Josh Rogers at New Hampshire Public Radio):

"New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley participated in Monday's meeting, but did not speak. Yet in a memo Buckley released last week, he argued that New Hampshire deserves to lead off Democrats’ 2028 nominating calendar because it is a state that fairly tests candidates by making them go face to face with voters.

"'We believe that we should go first because we are a small, purple state with unmatched civic participation. In other words, there is no other state that better meets the efficiency, rigorousness, and fairness criteria needed in our presidential nominating process,' Buckley said.

"'New Hampshire's racial diversity continues to increase, especially among our youngest Granite Staters,' Buckley wrote, adding that New Hampshire has a record of diversity that extends beyond race.

"'We are the only state in the country to elect a woman both governor and senator — which we’ve done multiple times,' Buckley said."

--

¹ Racker's quotes from Virginia DNC member Elaine Kamark on the early state selection process for 2024 were particularly interesting as well. They shed some additional light on the hours before Biden released his letter on the 2024 calendar:

"'I think New Hampshire would have ended up first,' Elaine Kamarck, a Brookings senior fellow who authored Primary Politics and is a veteran member of the committee, told The Nevada Independent. 'Because of the history of New Hampshire and because it’s in the Eastern time zone.'"

 And...

"'We’d been asking for guidance for months, so there was kind of relief,' Kamarck said. 'We didn’t know if the president was going to weigh in or not. So it was kind of like, ‘OK, good. He’s finally made his wishes known.’ Some of us thought that, ‘Well, maybe he just won’t weigh in. You know, maybe it’s up to us.’ But he did.'"

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know what they're looking for.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee met earlier this week and passed a resolution laying out what the party wants in the 4 or 5 early states for 2028.

New Hampshire Democrats make a pitch for first ahead of DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting

Elena Schneider in Politico Playbook has the details on a memo making the rounds from New Hampshire Democrats arguing the case for why the Granite state should go first in 2028:

"Fight for first: New Hampshire Democrats are circulating a memo to DNC members, arguing their case to return to the first-in-the-nation primary slot, after being demoted ahead of the 2024 cycle. The memo, scooped by POLITICO’s Elena Schneider, argues that New Hampshire should retain its coveted first-place slot, not “based simply on tradition,” but because “we are a small, purple state with unmatched civic participation.” The memo takes a more conciliatory tone, in a shift for the state that held an unsanctioned primary in 2024 with in-state Democrats organizing a write-in campaign on behalf of then-President Joe Biden. It is timed ahead of Monday’s meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee , which is charged with setting the Democrats’ presidential primary calendar."

--

Noteworthy: A case was always going to be made by New Hampshire Democrats to keep (or return, depending on one's perspective) the Granite state first in the order of primaries in the Democratic presidential nomination process for 2028. And given that similar memos were already circulated by Nevada Democrats around the August Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meeting, one from the Silver state's Democratic counterparts back east is no surprise. This is an introductory maneuver, one made to fit the New Hampshire primary into the rubric voiced by DNC Chair Ken Martin and likely to be taken up in the form of a resolution during the October RBC meeting. That is why the state party is playing up the small and purple virtues of New Hampshire.

But FHQ does not read that as taking a more conciliatory tone. After all, the rubber has yet to meet the road in all of this. New Hampshire Democrats did not strike a defiant tone with the DNC until after the calendar rules for 2024 were initially passed by the RBC in late 2022. Any tone shift from New Hampshire Democrats this time around will not be truly felt until a similar juncture in the 2028 cycle (if at all). Of course they are playing "conciliatory" now. The calendar rules are still undecided. 

RNC Chair names members of the 2028 Presidential Nominating Process Committee

September 30 was not just the end of the fiscal year for the federal government. Under the rules of the Republican National Committee (RNC), it was also deadline day for the national party chair to name the members of the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process for the 2028 cycle. 

According to Rule 10(a)(9):

There shall be a Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process to review the rules governing the nomination of the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall appoint all temporary members of the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process, not to exceed eleven (11) members, and shall appoint one (1) as chairman, and the chairman of the Republican National Committee shall serve as an ex officio member. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall convene the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating process at his discretion, but no later than September 30 of the year following a presidential election. The Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process shall make any recommendations it deems appropriate and report such recommendations to the Republican National Committee no later than June 30 of the year two years prior to a presidential election.

At least two of the new members of panel have come forward publicly following the appointment:

1. Republican Party of Florida Chair Evan Power

   Honored to have been appointed to the @GOP committee on the Presidential Nominating Process pic.twitter.com/fPr0gf4FVG

   — Evan Power (@EvanPower) September 30, 2025

   More here:

   “I am deeply honored to serve on the RNC’s Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process,” Power said.

   
   

   “Having participated in multiple national conventions, I’ve seen firsthand how a strong, inclusive nominating process empowers our voters and elevates principled candidates. I look forward to working with fellow committee members to refine our rules, promote geographic diversity, and build on the successes we’ve achieved in Florida — ensuring the Republican Party remains united and ready to win big in the cycles ahead.”

    

2. West Virginia Republican National Committeeman Larry Pack

   I’m proud to have been appointed to serve on the @GOP RNC Committee on Presidential Nominating Process. It’s time to begin preparing for 2028 and a GOP victory

   — Larry Pack (@LarryPack) September 30, 2025

--

Noteworthy: Comparatively, Republican rules set up a timeline for crafting a presidential nomination cycle's rules that is modestly more compact than what is likely to occur on the Democratic side. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) has been at work throughout 2025 but was not fully seated until August. Yes, the primary calendar rules will gain all of the attention, but the RBC will work through not only the full delegate selection rules but the Call to the Convention as well into 2026. Although the calendar work may extend beyond next summer, the remainder of the 2028 rules will likely be set in stone by August 2026. 

Republicans, on the other hand, have just empaneled their nominating rules committee whose work is due to the full RNC in the form of recommended changes (if any) by June 30, 2026. The RNC then has until September 30, 2026 to finalize and adopt the rules that will govern the 2028 presidential nomination process. It all occurs in a window that is exactly one year long. 

[Under Rule 12, September 30, 2026 is the last date on which amendments can be made to a subset of the Rules of the Republican Party for the 2028 cycle.]

The First-in-the-Nation defense commences in New Hampshire

The election of a new national party chair did not trigger 2028 calendar reactions in South Carolina alone. 

No, Ken Martin's election as chair of the Democratic National Committee -- the formal kickoff to the process for crafting nomination rules for the next cycle -- has set off the typical responses in all the usual places. That list now includes New Hampshire where Paul Steinhauser at the Concord Monitor has a recap of 2024...

While the Republican National Committee (RNC) didn’t make any changes to its 2024 calendar and kept the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary as their first two contests, the DNC upended its calendar. The party overwhelmingly supported a proposal by former President Joe Biden to put South Carolina first, with New Hampshire and Nevada coming a week later. 

Adhering to a nearly half-century-old law that mandates the Granite State hold the first presidential primary a week ahead of any similar contest, New Hampshire Secretary of State Dave Scanlan scheduled the contest for Jan. 23, 2024, with the Democratic presidential primary ending up being an unsanctioned election. 

Biden didn’t set foot in the state and kept his name off the primary ballot. But, to avoid an embarrassing setback for the then-president, a write-in effort by Democratic Party leaders in New Hampshire boosted Biden to an easy primary victory as he cruised to renomination. Seven months later, following a disastrous debate performance against President Trump, Biden ended his re-election campaign and was replaced by former Vice President Kamala Harris at the top of the Democrats’ 2024 national ticket.

...and the latest from the Granite state...

Veteran New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley, who backed Martin in the DNC chair race, told the Monitor he believes the new chair will keep his word that every state will have a “fair shot.” 

“We don’t need any special favors, but we don’t need somebody putting their thumb on the scale against us, either,” Buckley said. “We think we have a powerful message on why we should retain the first-in-the-nation primary.”

--

Steinhauser hits most of the New Hampshire-centric points, but fails to lay out the "battle" lines in the 2028 calendar fight other than to merely summarize the dispute between the DNC and Granite state Democrats ahead of (and into) 2024. So let's more clearly discuss the terms of the "battle" ahead.

First, 2024 does not appear to have been an aberration for the Democratic Party. Implicit in all of the chatter from Chair Martin and Chair Buckley (NH) about "fair shots" is that there will be for 2028 another process where state Democratic parties will apply/make the case for privileged spots on the early calendar And that will once again be followed by the national party, through the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), reviewing those submissions and selecting a handful of state contests to start the presidential nomination process in early 2028.

In other words, the 2028 process will not revert to the method often used prior to 2024 when the starting point was Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina having had those positions codified in the previous cycle's rules. Iowa and New Hampshire, then, are not assumed to be the first two contests. That is no longer the baseline.

The acknowledgment of that fact is no small thing coming from either the DNC chair or his counterpart in the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 

And actually that is the big take home lesson from Martin's election: 2028's process will look more like 2024's rather than previous cycles. So mark that off of the list.

However, there are some second order questions to consider at the outset of the 2028 rules process. 

On the DNC side, the big question is whether the hassle of dealing with a potentially rogue New Hampshire is even worth it if the party opts to traverse a road similar to the one it took during the 2024 cycle. It is not clear that the standoff with New Hampshire Democrats in the lead up to and during the 2024 primary process was ultimately injurious to the party or the nominee. Yes, there was a feeble attempt at a protest vote in the unsanctioned beauty contest primary in New Hampshire on January 23. But the Palestinian strain of that protest did not really reach a fevered pitch in the Granite state. Instead, the uncommitted movement found its footing later on as the Michigan primary approached in February.

Still, the back and forth between the national party and the state party in New Hampshire was a distraction to President Biden, his campaign and the reelection effort. And whether following a similar path as in 2024 with respect to the scheduling of the presidential primary in the Granite state for the upcoming cycle continues to be viewed that way remains to be seen. It is another political question the RBC will have to tackle at some point before fall 2026. 

Yet, there is a New Hampshire side to this as well and that, too, will influence the RBC's thinking moving forward. 

While the New Hampshire state party did defy the national party rules in 2024, opting into the rogue state-run primary, Granite state Democrats did ultimately cave to the DNC. It will be meaningful to the decision makers on the national party panel that New Hampshire Democrats devised a post hoc state party-run process to select and allocate delegates to the national convention. This is one place where a 2028 bid by New Hampshire Democrats for an early calendar position will face some questions from the members of the RBC.

If New Hampshire Democrats could quickly slap together a state party-run process after the rogue primary in January 2024, then why can Democrats in the Granite state not lay the groundwork for a similar process well in advance of 2028 if the state government proves to be an obstacle to changing the state law regarding the state-run primary? 

That is a much tougher question for New Hampshire Democrats to answer post-2024. The state party will no longer have the luxury -- not in the judgment of the RBC in any event -- of dragging its feet on having a back up option ready for 2028. 

Those are the questions. And the answers to them will define the battle over New Hampshire's stake on the first-in-the-nation primary in the 2028 Democratic nomination process. 

What does a new DNC chair mean for South Carolina's position on the 2028 presidential primary calendar?

The Democratic National Committee's election of Ken Martin (MN state party chair, DNC member and president of the Association of State Democratic Committees) as chairman was the first shoe to drop in the process of the party devising the rules that will govern the 2028 presidential nomination. In the near term that means Martin appointing members to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. Further down the road, that panel will lay the groundwork for the early window of the presidential primary calendar. 

And that has stakeholders in the states with early contests in past presidential nomination cycles attempting to assess the playing field, measuring the chances of retaining an early slot on the calendar in three years' time. Joseph Bustos from The State (Columbia, SC) read the tea leaves from the perspective of the Palmetto state on Martin's comments on the 2028 calendar prior to the his election as chair:

"It’s not up to the next DNC chair to put their thumb on the scale in any way, shape or form. It’s not one person’s decision. It is the party’s decision,” Martin said. “Any state that wants to have their voice heard and make a bid for this will be heard. Second, the calendar we put forward has to be rigorous, it has to be efficient and it has to be fair," Martin said. “It has to battle test our nominees so we win and it has to honor the great diversity of this party, and it has to honor the great traditions of this party.”

Martin's criteria closely align with the review process the party utilized in selecting the early primaries for the 2024 cycle. That is a bigger signal -- that something akin to the 2024 application/review/selection process will carryover -- at this point than which states will ultimately make up the three to five states in the early window on the calendar prior to Super Tuesday in early March. 

Logistically, however, of the three states that made up the list of officially sanctioned contests on the Democratic primary calendar in 2024, two -- Michigan and Nevada -- have their calendar positions codified in state law. In South Carolina, the state parties set the dates of the presidential primaries. While Michigan and Nevada may have partisan obstacles to changing the dates of their primaries, the same is not true (at this time) in the Palmetto state. The DNC may find its hands tied with respect to Michigan and Nevada but could exert some pressure on the South Carolina Democratic Party to comply with any calendar position (or position change) for 2028. 

But that is a political question the Rules and Bylaws Committee will weigh in the coming months before the rules for 2028 are formally adopted in the late summer/early fall of 2026.

Uncommitted delegates are not necessarily Listen to Michigan delegates

Leading the day at FHQ...

The Michigan presidential primary is now in the rearview mirror, and while others will move on to the next contests or focus on the perceived threats the results in the Great Lakes state have on both likely nominees, FHQ will do what it does. And namely, that means digging into the delegates. 

For those who are interested in such things, there are a pair of delegate stories out of Michigan -- one on each side -- worth fleshing out some. 

Democrats

The story of the night in Michigan -- well, it seemed like it had already been flagged as the story well in advance of last night -- was how Listen to Michigan's push for Michiganders to vote uncommitted in protest of President Biden's Gaza policy would fare. Lowball estimates from the group and its allies aside, the group did pretty well. And by pretty well, FHQ means that they were probably wildly successful in capturing the attention of media folks and political junkies desperate for something other than "Biden and Trump win again."

Well, Biden and Trump won again and Listen to Michigan certainly grabbed some attention. Some will try to read the tea leaves on what that portends for the general election in a battleground state -- a fool's errand -- but there are other ways of looking at how uncommitted did in the Michigan primary.

Some of this FHQ contextualized yesterday over at FHQ Plus. Uncommitted 2024 did about as well as Uncommitted 2012 would have done had the Michigan Democratic presidential primary actually counted and not been a beauty contest that cycle. And that is to say that Uncommitted 2024 failed to hit 15 percent statewide to qualify for any PLEO or at-large delegates. Despite that, Uncommitted 2024, just like Uncommitted 2012 would have, managed to qualify in a couple of congressional districts. Then, it was the sixth and tenth districts. Last night saw Uncommitted 2024 qualify in the sixth and 12th districts, receiving just north of 17 percent in each. 

And what does that get Uncommitted 2024 in the delegate count? 

Two delegates. 

One delegate in each of those districts. 

[As of this writing, the Michigan secretary of state has all 83 counties reporting, but the tally may not be complete.]

However, just because there are two uncommitted delegates does not mean that those are two Listen to Michigan delegates. Again, they are uncommitted delegate slots. Uncommitted. Any national convention delegate candidate that files as uncommitted in the sixth and 12th districts can run for one of those two slots. It will be the uncommitted delegates to the congressional district conventions in May who will decide who gets those positions. 

Listen to Michigan may organize its supporters in Michigan to run for and win spots to the congressional district conventions -- more on that process here -- but the group does not have a lock on those delegate slots. Nor does it have the ability to vet potential national convention delegates in the same way that an actual candidate and their campaign can. The group will not have that check. 

In other words, Listen to Michigan is vulnerable to a knowledgable and organized delegate operation, one that could run or overrun the uncommitted delegate pool in those congressional districts and take those uncommitted slots for their own. 

Yes, FHQ is suggesting that the Biden campaign could swoop in and win those uncommitted delegate slots in Michigan's sixth and 12th districts.  

But they likely will not. That would likely end up being far more trouble than it is worth. Why stir up an angry hornets' nest any more than it is already riled up over two delegates? There really is no need to. Had uncommitted fared better last night, reaching, say, a third of the vote, then maybe there could have been a more concerted effort to contest the selection of delegate candidates to those allocated slots. But as it is -- at two delegates -- why attempt that particular flex?

Republicans

FHQ is not really sure what the deal with the AP delegate count in Michigan on the Republican side was, but it had been stuck on Trump 9, Haley 2 for the longest time. The Michigan Republican delegate selection plan is weird, but this is not that hard (even with an incomplete tally at this point).

Here is the number one needs to know: 25 percent.

If Nikki Haley slips under 25 percent in the Michigan primary results then she will claim three (3) delegates. As it stands now, she is over that mark and would be allocated four (4) delegates.

Trump will get the rest regardless of whether his total climbs some or falls. Why? 

Well, as of now, Trump is sitting on 68.2 percent of the vote in the Michigan primary. That would qualify him for 11 delegates. If the former president's total rose above 68.75 percent, then he would grab the last delegate, his would-be twelfth. But he would claim that delegate no matter what. Even if Trump stayed right where he is -- under 68.75 percent -- he would still win the last delegate. It would be unallocated based on the results, but all unallocated delegates go to the winner of the primary. 

--

FHQ has started rolling out the state-by-state series on Democratic delegate allocation rules over at FHQ Plus. So far there have been looks at rules in...

• Colorado 
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• North Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia

What's the difference between Democratic and Republican delegate selection rules? FHQ Plus has it covered.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Continue here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. That includes the latest from...

• Alabama

--

Recent posts:

Trump and Titanic Tuesday 2008

Haley's Path Forward ...and more in response to New Hampshire

2024 has been a weird cycle in New Hampshire ...and more

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

2024 has been a weird cycle in New Hampshire ...and more

Leading the day at FHQ...

Happy New Hampshire primary day!

It has been a weird cycle in the Granite state. 

The Democratic primary there today will happen as it always does, but it will not count toward determining the outcome of the nomination after the national party reshuffled its early primary calendar for 2024. [There will be New Hampshire delegates -- reduced by half -- but they cannot be allocated based on the results of an unsanctioned primary.] But all the chatter of bumping the primary and the resulting write-in effort on President Biden's behalf in New Hampshire will likely garner a few seconds more attention than the primary otherwise would in an incumbent cycle for Democrats. And that is to say, not much.

On the Republican side, well, this looks like it. If the last polls, especially the tracker in the field after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suspended his campaign, are taken as the final results or anything near them, then Donald Trump is in for another romp. A 60-38 win would translate to a 14-8 delegate win for Trump over former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. And that, not the net delegate gap, per se, but the 3:2 loss in a state that is supposed to be "good" for the former UN ambassador, would make it a little easier to bow out with her home state up next. Haley is not on the ballot in Nevada, so South Carolina would be next. And even in the event of a closer than expected loss, Haley would be staring down the prospect of getting whipped at home for a month and a day. In other words, she may have made it out of New Hampshire with a win relative to expectations, but that would not necessarily carry her all the way to and through South Carolina. The winnowing pressures would have grown deafening in that time.

As FHQ said before Haley's third in Iowa took some of the [limited] air out of her sails, "Haley may or may not become a disruptive factor in her bid for the presidential nomination, but if she does, it is more likely to be in the form of a speed bump rather than a total roadblock."

But that it came down to two viable Republicans by New Hampshire -- just the second contest -- is the weirder thing for the Republican contest relative to past cycles. It is one thing to have local Granite staters politically plugged into the politics of it all complain in the year before the primary about candidates not showing up as much as they used to, but it is quite another for folks on the ground in New Hampshire to be talking about how dead things are in the 24 hours leading up the voting. 

New Hampshire typically does at least some of the winnowing -- and the primary may yet in a limited capacity for 2024 -- but most of the winnowing took place in the invisible primary (and after Iowa) before New Hampshire. And a lot of this is it is just the nature of the cycle. After all, there is an incumbent president running on one side and a former president running on the other (and one of them is not even on the ballot in the Granite state). 

Again, it has been a weird cycle. But it is not clear that some of the same forces will not return to New Hampshire for 2028. It remains to be seen if the Democratic National Committee wants to take another shot at shunting New Hampshire to a different slot on the calendar, but the nationalization of the process in the invisible primary preceding New Hampshire will continue to be a factor that likely detracts from the way the New Hampshire primary "used to be."

--

Over at FHQ Plus... 

I pushed back on what has seemingly become a dominant narrative in how the delegate rules came together on the Republican side for 2024. There has been way too much Trump was heavy-handed in forcing state parties to adopt favorable rules and not nearly enough examination of the actual rules. 

If anything the delegate rules are marginally less favorable to Trump in 2024 than they were in 2020. 

That does not mean that they are not well suited to the former president. Far from it! But there very simply was not much improving Team Trump could have done in 2023. They did some incremental work, but most of it was working the phone lines to defend what they established for the 2020 cycle. That is the story of the Republican rules for 2024.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Start here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. 

--

Recent posts:

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

Trump's firewall isn't the delegate rules, it's his support ...and more in response to Iowa

What if Iowa Republicans used the old Democratic caucus rules? ...and more

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

Leading the day at FHQ...

By now the story is old hat. At least around these parts it is. The Democratic National Committee altered its presidential primary calendar rules for the 2024 cycle. New Hampshire Democrats did not take kindly to the change that saw South Carolina's primary nudged into the first slot and spent 2023 openly defying the national party rules changes. 

Now, under the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party, such a move on the part of New Hampshire Democrats carries a penalty, a 50 percent reduction in the size of the base delegation. That reduction has taken place, and New Hampshire Democrats now have 10 delegates to the national convention in Chicago later this summer. But the reporting, if one reads it closely, still seems to toggle between saying that New Hampshire Democrats will lose/have lost half of their delegates and that Granite state Democrats will lose/have lost all of their delegates.

So which is it? Half or all?

Actually, it is both. The actions of the New Hampshire Democratic Party -- opting into the noncompliant state-run presidential primary on January 23 -- cost the party half of its delegates. That is done. However, due to a tweak in the national party delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle, state parties cannot allocate any delegates to any candidate who campaigns in a state like New Hampshire which has a primary scheduled in violation of the guidelines. Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson cannot even win any actual delegates by being on the ballot in the upcoming primary in the Granite state (even if they manage to qualify). 

So, New Hampshire Democrats have 10 delegates but cannot allocate them. Half and all, all rolled into one. 

The question is, what happens with those 10 delegates? Obviously the back and forth continues between the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the national party to resolve their impasse. But in the meantime, here are some thoughts at FHQ Plus on where things may go as primary season progresses. 

--

In the continuing state-by-state series on delegate allocation rules, FHQ examines changes for 2024 in...

• Utah: Republicans in the Beehive state have once again shifted to caucuses for selecting and allocating delegates. Otherwise, the same eccentricities remain under the surface in the allocation process.
• Vermont: FHQ often says that there are only so many ways to proportionally allocate three congressional district delegates under RNC rules. Well, that is true in terms of the 17 delegates Vermont Republicans have to offer as well. Nevertheless, Republicans in the Green Mountain state have built some unique features into their delegate selection plan.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Start here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. 

--

Recent posts:

Trump's firewall isn't the delegate rules, it's his support ...and more in response to Iowa

What if Iowa Republicans used the old Democratic caucus rules? ...and more

Colorado Republicans Eyeing a Primary Switch? ...and more

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Trump's firewall isn't the delegate rules, it's his support ...and more in response to Iowa

Leading the day at FHQ...

Over at FHQ Plus yesterday, I had a long takedown of the notion that Donald Trump has a firewall in the state-level delegate allocation rules across the country. 

Look, the rules Team Trump crafted for 2020, and for the most part defended for 2024, are not a bad thing for the former president. But no firewall provides any real safety if it is a conditional firewall. And for the next month, true success in the delegate count for the Republican frontrunner is going to depend on how often he hits 50 percent in states and in congressional districts in many cases. 

If the results in Iowa demonstrated anything it was that Trump's support among Republicans is his firewall. Yes, the Hawkeye state is state that is well-suited to the former president, so one should use some care not to extrapolate too much from the caucus results. But still, a majority is a majority in Iowa and that does not mean nothing. But if the caucuses prove to have been a harbinger of things to come, then Trump will likely rack up a lot of delegates in March. 

--

Speaking of delegates...

As it stands now, the delegate count coming out of Iowa will end up somewhere around the following:

Trump -- 20 (51.1 percent of the vote)

DeSantis -- 9 (21.2 percent)

Haley 8 -- (19.1 percent)

Ramaswamy -- 3 (7.7 percent)

That is no different than it was last night before I turned in, but overnight there was an interesting shift and a delegate moved to unallocated. And how do the Iowa Republican rules work in the case of an unallocated delegate? Here is what FHQ had to say on the matter last month in our rundown of the Iowa rules:

Hypothetically, there is one unallocated delegate after rounding and Donald Trump has won a little more than half the vote. His raw, unrounded share of the delegates ends up at 20.47. On the other hand, Asa Hutchinson receives a little more than one percent of the vote (but under 1.3 percent) and his raw, unrounded share lands on 0.48 delegates. Hutchinson would receive the last delegate because his remainder is closer to the .5 rounding threshold than Trump. He would gain one delegate and Trump would stay on 20 delegates.

Well, overnight Ron DeSantis saw his vote share drop from 21.3 percent to 21.2 percent. Big deal, right? Actually, it meant that his raw delegate share dropped below the rounding threshold, lowering his total from nine to eight delegates and leaving one delegate unallocated. 

But that also left him with a fairly high remainder. The unallocated delegate came down to Trump (20.4 unrounded delegates) and DeSantis (8.48 delegates). DeSantis has the highest remainder under the rounding threshold, and as such, the unallocated delegate goes (back) into his column. 

Rounding rules at work!

[Yes, it is more than a little eerie that the very same .48 remainder I made up for Hutchinson in the hypothetical above was the remainder DeSantis ended up on.]

--

Maybe New Hampshire shakes things up next week, but I stand by this from that Firewall piece over at FHQ Plus:

First, let’s dispense with the obvious: Trump remains a heavy favorite to become the Republican Party standard bearer atop the ticket in the general election. Haley may or may not become a disruptive factor in her bid for the presidential nomination, but if she does, it is more likely to be in the form of a speed bump rather than a total roadblock.

DeSantis placing second in Iowa had many on cable news last night speculating about whether that may have blunted any momentum Haley had or has heading into the Granite state next week. It also had them -- and this was true on Fox News last night and NPR this morning -- falling back on the tired 2016 adage that Trump does well when his opposition is divided among several candidates. 

Maybe, but it is not as if DeSantis coming in third last night and joining Ramaswamy among the winnowed candidates was going to set his supporters rushing off to Haley. Some DeSantis folks may gravitate toward Haley, but many, maybe even most, would likely drift over to Trump, bolstering the former president's prospects even more moving forward. Still more may have decided to stay home rather than participate in subsequent primaries and caucuses. 

It just is not clear at this point that a continued split in Trump's opposition is hurting the opposition. It may just be that Trump has majority support and the opposition cannot be helped (...at least not to a winning position). 

Perhaps DeSantis and Haley need each other to limit Trump's delegate haul through the early part of March. Of course, that sort of three person race is not sustainable long term. The winnowing pressures are only going to pick up in the days ahead. And besides, one them will have to figure out how to not only win, but win consistently to derail Trump. 

On to New Hampshire.

--

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Start here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. 

--

Recent posts:

What if Iowa Republicans used the old Democratic caucus rules? ...and more

Colorado Republicans Eyeing a Primary Switch? ...and more

There is a central tension point in the New Hampshire presidential primary situation, but this still isn't it. 

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

What if Iowa Republicans used the old Democratic caucus rules? ...and more

Leading the day -- caucus day! -- at FHQ...

In the coming days there is going to be enough written on Iowa's Republican caucuses and the results therein. Who finished second? Did Trump beat the expectations (that many worked feverishly over the last weekend before the caucuses to set)? The questions go on and on.

One thing that struck FHQ in this final weekend before the (in-person) voting phase of the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race begins was how candidates campaigned (bundled up!). But not just where they were but how they approached one another in their final pitches to potential Iowa caucus goers. After months of relative quiet -- an implicit truce if not an unofficial alliance -- Trump turned on Ramaswamy. And after going toe to toe on the debate stage last week, DeSantis and Haley continued to attack one another (and also draw contrasts with Trump). 

But it is funny. Rather than shrug those off and chalk them up as normal caucus fare, those strategic decisions made me think about how things might be or have been different under different rules. Iowa Republicans, after all, will caucus on Monday night, but that process differs from how Hawkeye state caucus goers convened and operated on the Democratic side four years ago. Yes, Iowa Democrats bungled their attempt at a revamped caucus. But FHQ is not talking about that. 

Rather, I mean the difference in how both state parties have traditionally handled the caucuses. Republicans, when they gather in gyms, conference centers and living rooms across Iowa, will hear speeches from candidates or in most cases their proxies and vote by secret ballot on presidential preference. Some will leave. Others will stick around and haggle over party business and choose who will move on to the next stage of the caucus/convention process. 

Yes, the Democratic process in Iowa is new, different and later for 2024. But Democrats, relative to Republicans in the state, have traditionally convened, heard similar pitches, conversed with neighbors, friends and others and then gathered with likeminded supporters to express presidential preference. There is no secret ballot. Individuals physically move to join with the Biden group or the Sanders group or whomever to express presidential preference. Those candidate groups with more than 15 percent of all of those in the room move on to the next round. 

However, the people in the candidate groups with less than 15 percent then become free agents. Their candidates are eliminated in a given precinct and they can realign with a viable group (one with more than 15 precent support). Post-realignment movement helped Barack Obama surge across the state in 2008 and sunk Joe Biden in some cases in 2020, for example. After that process is complete, some folks leave while others hang around to do exactly what Republicans will do after the preference vote tonight. 

But it is that middle part, the difference in process, that sets the Republican and (old) Democratic methods in Iowa apart. And it is exactly that which would have some impact on the stretch run of the campaign. 

Take the Selzer poll of the Iowa Republican caucuses that was released over the weekend:

Yes, Trump has a commanding lead. Yes, Haley slipped into second place. Yes, DeSantis and Ramaswamy, after their full and double Grassleys, are further back in Iowa.

But if the caucus rules were different, then how each of them has talked about the others might have been different down the stretch. Under those old Iowa Democratic rules, Ramaswamy might be above 15 percent in a handful of precincts across the state, but would be well under it in most. His supporters in the caucuses, again, under Democratic rules, would then become free agents. Would Trump have been attacking Ramaswamy over the weekend or courting his voters with a second round after realignment in mind? 

And DeSantis would be facing a similar situation, albeit in the inverse. As opposed to Ramaswamy, DeSantis would likely be above 15 percent in most places, but below it in a handful of precincts. And honestly, at 20 percent, Haley would likely be in a similar but perhaps less vulnerable position as well. In past races on the Democratic side, that is a situation where campaigns of those two candidates might strike a deal. If DeSantis groups slipped under the 15 percent threshold and were not viable in some precinct, then under the agreement, they would realign with Haley supporters to give her a better shot against the frontrunner. And Haley groups would do the same for DeSantis when they failed to reach viability and a DeSantis group made it. Strategically, the collective moves would potentially keep delegates away from the frontrunner. 

Look, this is not the way things will work tonight in the Republican process. But this what-if does shed some light on the impact the process -- the rules of the process -- has on campaign strategy. What has been witnessed in the Republican campaign as the caucuses draw nearer may have been different under different rules. Yes, rules matter. 

Something fun to consider as everyone passes time until caucus o'clock. 

Happy caucus day, everyone!

--

In the continuing state-by-state series on delegate allocation rules, FHQ examines changes for 2024 in...

• Oklahoma: The year may be different but the rules are not for Oklahoma Republicans in 2024. All the fun quirks are back again from when the Republican presidential nomination was last competitive.
• Tennessee: There are frontrunner-friendly delegate rules and there's the Tennessee Republican delegate selection rules. While other states may have moved in a Trumpier direction for 2024, the Volunteer state did not. But that does not necessarily mean it is any easier for non-Trumps.
• Virginia: After an incumbent cycle using a state convention for delegate selection, Virginia Republicans are back to a primary, but with markedly different allocation rules in 2024 than in 2016.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Start here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. 

 

--

Recent posts:

Colorado Republicans Eyeing a Primary Switch? ...and more

There is a central tension point in the New Hampshire presidential primary situation, but this still isn't it. 

Which couple of states?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Yes, Donald Trump is ahead in the delegate battle. That has not changed.

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...

• Earlier this month Utah Republicans informed the state that the party would opt out of the state-run presidential primary and conduct caucuses on Super Tuesday instead. There has been some primary-to-caucus movement this cycle, but it has been muted and the maneuver by Beehive state Republicans is not exactly like the rest. 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 appreciated the delegate story from CNN yesterday, but honestly, I cannot really tell what contribution it is making. The general story is that in the race for delegates in the Republican nomination process, former President Donald Trump is ahead. He is ahead in influencing the setting of what the Trump campaign considers to be favorable delegate rules. [They certainly are rules that benefit frontrunners, assuming said frontrunner hits some particular benchmarks in the voting across the country during parts of the first six months of 2024.] That, in turn, should give Trump a leg up when delegates are actually allocated. Or in the worst case scenario -- again, from the Trump campaign perspective -- insulate the former president to some degree should an insurgent (or insurgents) rise, prolonging the race for the nomination. 

But most of the tale that the folks at CNN tell is one covered throughout 2023 in reporting at other national outlets. In fact, it ends on essentially the same "rigging/Ken Cuccinelli" note that a Politico story from earlier in August detailed. There is not a lot of news here. However, that is not to say that there is none. 

It has been clear for much of the year that both Trump and the campaign apparatus around him have been working his connections with state parties built during the course of his presidency. That network is stronger in some areas of the country than others, but it is an area of strength that one would expect for a former president. Trump should be ahead in these efforts and he is. Actually, it would be a much bigger story if he was not. But the story beyond Trump is perhaps what is more interesting and it is twofold.

First, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his campaign continue to appear to be the only other entity putting up much of a fight on the delegate front. But the DeSantis effort is different as CNN describes: 

The pro-DeSantis super PAC Never Back Down is running much of DeSantis’ political campaign from the outside. Many state parties only allow the campaigns themselves in the room for crucial talks, forcing Never Back Down to operate from a distance. DeSantis allies did not immediately respond to questions from CNN about this dynamic.

It is being run through its affiliated super PAC, Never Back Down. And that conduit to state parties is far less efficient, meaning that the DeSantis push to chip away at Trump's advantage here is being done on some level with one arm tied behind its back. That is another variation in the story of the Frankenstein's monster that the broader DeSantis campaign is attempting to assemble between its formal campaign and affiliated groups for 2024. Lobbying state party officials from afar is a tougher enterprise than doing so on a more intimate level as Trump has been doing for the last two cycles. 

The second thing is that if other campaigns outside of Trump and DeSantis are waging a delegate fight, then they are doing so very quietly. To be clear, it is still early to be organizing for any looming delegate battle next year. Those strategies may still be forming even in the top campaigns. One should actually expect those plans to be somewhat dynamic in nature anyway given the constant influx of new events and new inputs. However, it is way too late to be jumping into the game of influencing state party officials to put rules in place that are, if not beneficial, then clearly do not advantage one other candidate over all of the rest. 

Moreover, that those efforts from everyone not named Trump or DeSantis have been so quiet remains a big story under the surface of this race. After all, the rules are not yet set in stone at the state level. And they will not be on the Republican side until October 1. If campaigns have not already been out there advocating for particular rules for delegate allocation and selection already as they have locked in in fits and starts over the summer, then that says a great deal about either 1) their comfort level with the rules as they are or 2) that they just do not have the manpower to adequately make a push at all. Either way, that is an important invisible primary story. 

BONUS: For more reactions to other aspects of the CNN delegates story, see FHQ Plus.

...

Look, I love James Pindell. He and I have had some great conversations over the years about New Hampshire and the primary calendar. But I am going to continue to point out what I consider to be journalistic malpractice when I see it on the broader 2024 story about New Hampshire and the DNC's revamped early calendar. I understand the audience to which Pindell's recent New Hampshire Magazine piece was directed. Readers are primarily going to be made up of folks who want to see the presidential primary in the Granite state remain first. So throwing some blame at the feet of the national party makes sense. They changed the rules. New Hampshire has a state law. The national rules and the state law conflict. Impasse. That is fine. More to the point, it is true. However, it is only part of the equation.

Try as New Hampshirites might, defusing this situation does not completely revolve around the DNC and it caving, letting New Hampshire Democrats hold a contest wherever the secretary of state schedules it. The DNC is not the only one "in a pickle." New Hampshire Democrats are too. The state party has options it has ignored but could "fix" this situation. And most everyone else is ignoring those possibilities too. 

Secretary Scanlan is very likely to set the date of the New Hampshire presidential primary for January 23. That will conflict with DNC rules. And no one expects that contest not to happen. No one. That is not the question here and has not been since December. However, New Hampshire Democrats do not have to use the results of that contest to allocate delegates to the national convention. The state party could do that in some alternate party-run process that is conducted under conditions compliant with national party rules. Something in addition to a neutered, beauty contest Democratic primary on January 23. 

That the Democratic Party in the Granite state has not given one inch toward that possibility, doubling down on "live first or die," is unlikely to play well with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee after September 1, the new deadline for New Hampshire Democrats to comply. That is the same attitude that got Democrats in both Florida and Michigan in hot water in 2007. It is also what led to fairly significant penalties from the national party being levied against both. The DNC may again try to find an off ramp for New Hampshire, but at some point, whether that is immediately after September 1 or not, Democrats there are either going to have to take that off ramp or prepare for severe delegate penalties. 

It is a two-way street and all too often folks in and out of the media are only looking in one direction on this story. Look at what the state party is not doing too. That will play a role in how the DNC reacts and how this all plays out. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the endorsement primary, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has endorsed Donald Trump.
• Over in the travel primary, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott was already going to address Rep. Jeff Duncan's Faith and Freedom BBQ early next week, but he is going to use that trip to the Upstate to do some other campaigning across the first-in-the-South state as well, making stops in Charleston, Lexington and Greenville along the way.
• Former Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson will head the Trump campaign's efforts in Massachusetts.
• It was not an endorsement, but Indiana Senator Mike Braun had some nice things to say about Vivek Ramaswamy. Neither Indiana senator has rushed to line up behind Trump so far, but Braun seems to be forging a middle road.
• Big Pennsylvania Republican donors have mainly stayed on the sidelines so far in the money primary, but those who have cut checks to this point have sent them to candidates not named Trump.
• Katie Britt, Alabama's junior senator, is on a bit of an island in the Yellowhammer state. Alabamians in the state's delegation to Washington have lined up behind the former president and that has placed some pressure on Britt to follow suit.

--

Recent posts:

A Winner-Take-All Primary in New Hampshire?

Effectively Winnowed

A Self-Fulfilling Contested Convention?

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. 

[From FHQ Plus] Newly adopted California Republican delegate allocation rules offer clear benefits

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. 

--

From Newly adopted California Republican delegate allocation rules offer clear benefits:

But the plan is a gamble for Trump and the state party for different reasons:

Did FHQ not just discuss California delegate allocation rules?

Yup. 

But the California Republican Party executive committee jettisoned that widely circulated (and panned) plan in favor of an alternate version, a version that seemingly balances the party’s desire to draw candidates into the Golden state and the Trump campaign’s push to maximize its delegates in the contest next year. Those benefits are clear enough on the surface, but neither is guaranteed. 

And that means the revised delegate allocation scheme for 2024 is a gamble of sorts. For California Republicans and for Trump. Delegate allocation rules can be a zero sum game and the friction that developed in and around the Executive Committee meeting on Saturday, July 29 from multiple sides was evidence of the high stakes involved. 

What changes did the California Republican Party make? And what does that mean for the 2024 race for the Republican presidential nomination?

The adopted changes

The initially proposed changes offered by the California Republican Party set up a plan with a few notable features:

• A proportional allocation of the 13 at-large (and automatic/party) delegates based on the statewide vote with no qualifying threshold and no winner-take-all trigger (should one candidate win a majority of the vote statewide). 

• A proportional allocation of the 3 delegates in each of the 52 congressional districts based on the results within each congressional district. The top finisher in a congressional district vote would receive two delegates and the runner-up would receive the remaining delegate. Like the allocation of the at-large delegates described above, there would be no winner-take-all trigger should one candidate win a majority of the vote within the district. 

That method differs from the system the state party utilized in 2020 and it is also different than the plan adopted on Saturday. The newly adopted plan — the allocation plan California Republicans will use in 2024 — shed the separate allocation scheme for at-large and congressional district delegates and returned to a system that resembles the 2020 plan with one big exception: there is no qualifying threshold. But exactly like the 2020 delegate allocation among Golden state Republicans, the 2024 system will have the following provisions:

• All 169 delegates, including at-large, automatic/party and congressional district delegates, will be pooled (meaning they will all be allocated as one bloc). Again, that is just as it was for 2020.

• All 169 delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the statewide results. That, too, is just the same as under the 2020 rules. 

• If any candidate wins the California primary with more than 50 percent of the vote, then all 169 delegates will be allocated to that candidate. Just like the 2020 plan, California Republicans have included in their 2024 rules a winner-take-all trigger or winner-take-all threshold. 

However, unlike 2020, more candidates will likely be eligible for some share of the 169 delegates available because there will no longer be a 20 percent qualifying threshold, the highest bar allowed under Republican National Committee rules. That is a big difference. 

How big? 

The impact of 2020 versus 2024 rules

Pretty big.

Using the results from the 2020 Democratic presidential primary with the 2020 and 2024 California Republican Party allocation rules highlights the scale of the change.¹

With no qualifying threshold, as under the 2024 rules, five additional candidates would have been allocated delegates as compared to the 2020 rules. And candidates with as little as two percent support would have claimed at least some share of the pool of 169 delegates.² But importantly, the top two candidates — the only two who would have cleared the 20 percent threshold to qualify for delegates under the 2020 rules — would have lost a significant chunk of delegates in the transition from 2020 to 2024 rules. Sanders would have lost 34 and Biden, 26. 

Now, imagine that Sanders pulled in closer to half of the voters in the last California primary. Pretend Elizabeth Warren was not in the race and that the 13.2 percent the Massachusetts senator won went to Sanders instead. Under the 2020 California Republican allocation rules, Sanders would have won 108 delegates compared to 84 delegates according to the 2024 plan. What is clear is that Sanders would pay a price in delegates won without a qualifying threshold. 

FHQ raises the second scenario because Trump is currently hovering around the 50 percent mark in polling both nationally and in California. The penalty for not hitting the winner-take-all threshold, which is in the 2024 California Republican delegate allocation rules, would be significant, but it will be greater in the absence of a qualifying threshold. It makes strategic sense to secure the former threshold, but it is a gamble. 

If Trump does not hit it, then the price is steep and the net delegate advantage coming out of the California primary would likely differ very little from the original 2024 rules proposal that Republicans in the Golden state floated. However, if Trump does eclipse the 50 percent barrier and trips the winner-take-all trigger, then it is clearly close to a death knell for his opposition. A +169 is tough to overcome even if Super Tuesday’s results are mixed and states with truly winner-take-all rules lie ahead on the calendar. 

It is not that there are not advantages for Trump in this change (either relative to 2020 or the alternate 2024 proposal), but the new rules do place a great deal of pressure on the campaign to make it happen.

 

But why is there not a qualifying threshold?

That is the gamble the state party is making. 

If more candidates are eligible for delegates, then that may be enough of a carrot to lure candidates of all stripes into the state to campaign and spend money. In theory that makes sense. But in practice, the cost/benefit analysis may not work in the favor of California Republicans who are championing this revised plan. 

The candidates will go to California. They always do to raise money. But turning around and spending that money (in a variety of ways) in the Golden state may not offer as much bang for the candidates’ buck as it might in other states. Yes, California is the most delegate-rich state out there — and promises 169 delegates to anyone who can clear 50 percent in the primary — but it is also prohibitively expensive to reach voters and in turn win votes/delegates. And as long as Trump is threatening to hit the winner-take-all trigger, it may be enough to ward off concerted investment in the state. 

But where this plan is clever is in the fact that it potentially motivates all of the candidates. It draws the Trump campaign in to expend resources in the state to win all of the delegates. Yet, it potentially entices other candidates to take a risk to keep Trump under the majority mark and minimize the former president’s net delegate advantage coming out of California and Super Tuesday. 

And that is just it. Much of the above discusses California in isolation. But the California primary is not an isolated event. It falls on Super Tuesday when roughly a third of the total number of delegates will be allocated. Few may be able to run a truly national campaign leading up to March 5. And few may choose to incorporate California directly into their investments for Super Tuesday.³ The options may be better (and cheaper) elsewhere. 

Still, the Trump campaign is calling the change in California a win for them. And it may be. But only if the former president can win a majority. And that is not a sure thing.

--

¹ FHQ is using the 2020 Democratic results because the California Democratic primary was both early (as the 2024 primary is) and competitive. The 2020 Republican primary in California was also on Super Tuesday but uncompetitive, and the 2016 Republican primary in the Golden state was later and fell after Donald Trump’s viable opposition had withdrawn from the race. 

² That allocation outcome depends to some degree on how California Republicans choose to round. All fractional delegates are rounded up starting with the top vote-getter and progressing from there in descending order of vote share. Under different (and more conventional) rounding rules, even more candidates would have qualified for delegates (and with less than one percent support).

³ Candidates may choose to indirectly hit California through national ad buys instead.

--

Recent posts:

Is Trump rewriting the delegate rules or defending them?

Let's talk about the state of Republican delegate selection rules for 2024 (Part One)

Are the Republican debate qualification rules hurting business as usual in Iowa?

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.