2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three

Wednesday brings us to the third grouping of primary and caucus states to dissect. Yesterday's collection of states improved upon the Super Tuesday heavy group of states reviewed on Monday based in large part on the presence of Iowa and some quirky scheduling decisions in some states (notably the weekend primary in Louisiana--Then again the home of Mardi Gras in the US certainly couldn't vote on Fat Tuesday/Super Tuesday, so they waited until the weekend after.). Today, FHQ travels back in time to look at the delegate selection events in states from New Hampshire in the east to Montana and Nevada in the west. In reality, we'll just continue ambling through an alphabetical look at the states.

The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.

Massachusetts:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The northeast primary states (with the exceptions of Connecticut and Vermont) were a Clinton stronghold in 2008. Her Massachusetts win got a bit more press than it maybe normally would on a day with over 20 contests because of the Ted Kennedy endorsement of Obama prior to Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: This one had home state alert written all over it as soon as Mitt Romney entered the race for the GOP nomination. Moving on.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B-
Comments: One of the last states to move in the lead up to the 2008 primary season (November of 2007), Massachusetts played what FHQ refers to as the "Keeping Up with the Super Tuesdays" strategy. The Bay state, like California and New York, moved from Super Tuesday 2004 to Super Tuesday 2008. Typically that means no move at all, but in a year when the momentum was behind the idea of holding a delegate selection event on February 5, it meant frontloading and moving up a month.

Michigan:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-7-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 1-15-08/primary
Dem. Influence: I've read something about this contest somewhere. I just can't remember where I saw it or what it was about. It seems like someone wasn't on the ballot because the Michigan contest broke Democratic Party rules. Does that ring a bell with anyone?
GOP Influence: This was a partial favorite son state for Romney and really only had the effect of keeping the former Massachusetts governor alive until Super Tuesday. The contest did count (immediately) for the GOP, though with a penalty of half the state's delegation.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: F
Comments: Michigan falls even lower than Florida simply because not only did the state's January 15 primary lead to the debacle the Democratic Party finally solved on May 31, but because, the state did not have any real effect on the Republican nomination either. The ballot issue on the Democratic side pushed this one over the edge.

Minnesota:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Caucus means Obama. Haven't you ever heard that old expression?
GOP Influence: Caucus means...oh this is the GOP, so uh, Romney.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: The Land of 10,000 Lakes was another of the "Keeping Up with the Super Tuesdays" states. But Minnesota had the fortune of having held a caucus, which proved a beneficial system of delegate selection to the Obama (and Romney) campaign(s).

Mississippi:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-11-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A large African American turnout made this one less exciting than a stand-alone contest might otherwise have been. This one was a near certainty for Obama even after Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio a week earlier.
GOP Influence: A week late and a dollar short. Mississippi had the honor of being the first contest after McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination. That hurt.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: C-
Comments: Standing in place had one positive effect for the Magnolia state: the three southern states that held contests on the same date as Mississippi in 2004 abandon ship leaving Mississippi all by its lonesome on March 11. Sadly, that date was a week too late or the contest was not competitive enough for the state to have been meaningful.

Missouri:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A tight contest but one that got lost among many of the bigger delegate prizes of the day. Early February in 2004 was better than in 2008 for Missouri.
GOP Influence: Missouri was further evidence of McCain's dominance in winner-take-all states on Super Tuesday. The Arizona senator won by 2 points with 33% of the vote and got all 58 of the state's delegates.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C+
Comments: The Show-Me state held still after 2004 and watched as the field around them on February 5 got bigger and bigger and bigger. Bellwether that it is though, Missouri correctly tapped both Obama and McCain as the winners on Super Tuesday.

Montana:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-8-04/primary (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (GOP)--6-3-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Montana helped bring up the rear and in the process put Obama over the top in the delegate count. Being decisive helps.
GOP Influence: The state GOP in Montana opted for an early caucus and as a result got lost in among the bigger states of the day. McCain did well enough in the winner-take-all states that he could cede the caucus states of the day to Romney.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (GOP)--South Dakota (Dem.)
Grade: B
Comments: Montana was invisible on the Republican side on Super Tuesday but decisive for the Democrats. Being last is good when you can be the state that "decides" the nomination.

Nebraska:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-11-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-9-08/caucus (Dem.)--5-13-08/primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: The Democrats in Nebraska opted to hold a first-ever caucus and ended up helping start an Obama streak of wins and continue his streak of caucus dominance.
GOP Influence: Ho hum. Another post-Ohio/Texas contest that ceded attention to the Democrats. This one didn't even have a delegate-allocating, Democratic contest on the same day.
Contest Company: Kansas, Louisiana and Washington (Dem.)--Stand-alone contest (GOP)
Grade: C+
Comments: Nebraska gets that early caucus boost on the Democratic side, but the meaningless GOP contest and the fact that the Democrats could have gained much more by staying in place and holding a primary on the same day as West Virginia both hurt.

Nevada:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-14-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-19-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Iowa was one thing, but Nevada was the point that Obama's caucus prowess was truly revealed. He lost the popular vote, but won the delegate battle. This will be one that Clinton supporters will point to when they make the case against caucuses in the future.
GOP Influence: The GOP meanwhile was focused on South Carolina. Romney won the caucus going away, but against a field that was focused further east.
Contest Company: South Carolina (GOP)
Grade: B
Comments: Nevada did well in its new, favored position among the Democratic contests. No Nevada contest on the presidential level (in the primary phase) had ever been so meaningful. On the GOP side? Well, here's hoping South Carolina doesn't hold a contest on the same day in 2012.

New Hampshire:
2004 Date/contest type: 1-27-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-8-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-3-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Clinton's win was foreshadowing of the back and forth nature of the Obama/Clinton race. A struggle that was abated only by the late February Obama streak.
GOP Influence: McCain solidified himself as the new front-runner for the GOP nomination. Enough said.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: A
Comments: Maybe the Clintons made a mistake by not re-settling in New Hampshire following their eight years in the White House. With Clinton bouncing back from her Iowa third place finish and McCain doing likewise from his summer 2007 swoon, New Hampshire is the home of political comebacks on the presidential level. Comebacks aside, being first (or almost first) is a plus, just as it is in Iowa.

New Jersey:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-8-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The result was closer than one would have thought, given that a New Yorker was running. Clinton's presence on the ballot, though, meant the focus would be somewhere other than New Jersey on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: McCain's win moved Huckabee into "believe in miracles not math" mode. It was the beginning of the end for the former Arkansas governor in demographically hostile territory (save western Virginia).
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: F
Comments: Stay in June and be forgotten or move and be overshadowed by bigger states on Super Tuesday. That was the dilemma that faced the New Jersey state government in the lead up to 2008. They chose the latter (twice) in an effort to at least have a say in who the nominees would be. Hindsight being what it is, though, it is easy to say this, but New Jersey messed up twice; first moving away from their traditional first week in June primary date (when they would have been the biggest draw over Montana and South Dakota) and then moving again from the final week in February (when the Garden state would have been the only game in town) to Super Tuesday (when they weren't). There have been several "what ifs" about states that moved their delegate selection events for 2008. Political science colleagues and fellow bloggers, Matthew Shugart (fruitsandvotes.com) and Steven Taylor (poliblogger.com) have examined the moves in California and Alabama, respectively. None of the frontloaders for 2008 match New Jersey though. Sick of being last and having no say in who either party's nominees were, legislators in New Jersey acted to move the state's 2008 primary to February 26. That was an open week ahead of the contests in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont. As more and more states moved to February 5, signaling an earlier end to the nomination contests (and, hey, if you take the most recent nomination campaigns as a guide, then you can't fault the thought process), New Jersey opted to move again in order to have at least some say in who the nominees of the parties would be. In the process of course, the state moved away from what would have been two advantageous dates; dates that would have granted New Jersey a much larger influence than what they got on Super Tuesday. But the Garden state is well positioned for 2012 should the process revert to form then.


New Jersey ended things on a low note, but this is a group of states that did pretty well by moving (or not moving) their primaries or caucuses. Of course, early states like Nevada and New Hampshire averaged out states like Michigan and New Jersey where moves backfired and cost each influence over the process.


Up next: New Mexico through South Carolina.



Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)

The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Two

Yesterday FHQ began a look back at the effectiveness of state's moving their delegate selection events for the 2008 cycle. Today that examination continues with the next ten states alphabetically.

The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
If a state moved (or did not) and/or was influential in deciding the nominees in each part, the state's grade will be higher.

Hawaii:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-24-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-19-08/caucus (Dem.)--5-15-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Obama claims at least 37 states as one of his home states. This one though is toward the top of that list. Clinton focused much of her efforts on Wisconsin that week and ceded the Aloha state to Obama.
GOP Influence: Do you recall Hawaii holding a caucus during the weekend between West Virginia and Kentucky/Oregon? I don't either.
Contest Company: Wisconsin
Grade: C-
Comments: Hawaii is just to far away to get too terribly much candidate attention. And when the contest is either dominated by a native or falls after the point at which the nomination has been decided, that's a recipe for disaster.

Idaho:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-24-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (Dem.)--5-27-08/primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Like Alaska and the other caucus states of Super Tuesday, Idaho gets a bump (retrospectively) for being a part of the caucus bump that propelled Obama to the Democratic nomination. The Gem state was largely ignored at the time, but being a piece of that organizational triumph for the Illinois senator's campaign is a plus.
GOP Influence: Do you remember the Idaho primary on the Tuesday between Kentucky/Oregon and Montana/South Dakota? I don't either.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (Dem.)--Stand-alone contest (GOP)
Grade: B-
Comments: Idaho was a valuable part of the caucus strategy that the Obama campaign employed but fell on a date after which the GOP nomination had been decided. Not holding their events simultaneously hurt Idaho's already minuscule chances of influencing the outcome of the nominations.

Illinois:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-16-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: At the time, the Illinois legislature moving the state's primary was seen as a boost for Obama in light of New York and New Jersey having already moved to Super Tuesday. The Land of Lincoln was seen as a contest that could help secure some delegates and keep him alive following Super Tuesday. He needed those delegates from his home state, but not necessarily for the reason the legislature may have thought.
GOP Influence: It wasn't a winner-take-all primary but a 54-3 trouncing (via a Loophole Primary) of Romney handed McCain quite a big prize on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: A big delegate prize on Super Tuesday, Illinois helped send both McCain and Obama off toward their nominations. Obama's home state status detracts from the grade slightly, but like California, we're talking about a delegate-rich state here.

Indiana:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-4-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 5-6-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A tight contest with the nomination on the line. Clinton edged Obama, but Indiana got a rare dose of the spotlight on the Democratic side.
GOP Influence: There was a lot of Clinton/Obama talk but very little about McCain.
Contest Company: North Carolina
Grade: A
Comments: Doing nothing about moving the Hoosier state's primary for 2008 certainly didn't hurt. If I were making the decisions in Indiana (and I'm not), I wouldn't bet on lightning striking again in 2012. In fact, as early as this past January, at least one Indiana state legislator said she was going to propose legislation during the 2009 session to move the state's primary for 2012. For the Republicans, Indiana was business as usual; the nomination has already been wrapped up.

Iowa:
2004 Date/contest type: 1-19-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 1-3-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: The one that started it all made a viable candidate out of one Illinois senator and began to cast light on the cracks in the Clinton camp's armor.
GOP Influence: McCain did better than he did in 2000 and Huckabee got a win that helped sustain him through Super Tuesday and into March.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: A
Comments: Being first (and staying there) has its advantages.

Kansas:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-13-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-9-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: Another Super Tuesday caucus in another Obama home state. Kansas, like those other caucus states, provided the Illinois senator with much of the final delegate margin and was, as a result, consequential to the outcome.
GOP Influence: Along with Louisiana on the same day, Kansas was among the last of the Huckabee wins. After the squabble over the Washington caucus tally on the same day, Huckabee was never the same. Kansas was a part of the voting block that cast doubt on McCain's ability to woo Christian conservatives.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (Dem.)--Louisiana and Washington (GOP)
Grade: B+
Comments: After the state legislature failed to pass a plan instituting a primary, both state parties did well to move their contests into the window of decisiveness.

Kentucky:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-25-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 5-20-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Kentucky, along with West Virginia, pointed out the white Appalachia problem Obama has. Clinton's win in the Bluegrass state made all the more poignant her argument that she would be the better general election candidate because of the blocs of voters she could bring to the Democrats.
GOP Influence: Ho hum. Another post-Ohio/Texas contest that ceded attention to the Democrats.
Contest Company: Oregon
Grade: B-
Comments: Though Kentucky was a foregone conclusion, it was still influential in its position late in the process. Like Indiana, this was a case where doing nothing actually paid off.

Louisiana:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-9-08/primary
Dem. Influence: As was the case in other states across the deep South, heavy African American turnout pushed Obama over the top in the Pelican state's primary.
GOP Influence: This was one of the last hurrahs for the Huckabee campaign. Another regional win that questioned how well McCain would be able to motivate evangelicals in the fall.
Contest Company: Kansas, Nebraska (Dem.) and Washington
Grade: B+
Comments: Like Alabama or Georgia, Louisiana was a state that witnessed Obama and Huckabee wins simultaneously. Unlike those two, Louisiana moved its primary to a weekend date with a trio of caucuses. Instead of being lost in the shuffle, the Pelican state enjoyed a bit more exposure than its neighbors to the east.

Maine:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-8-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-10-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-3-08/caucus (GOP)
Dem. Influence: This was another caucus win for Obama, but one in an older state demographically, which should have favored Clinton. The Clinton camp was also beginning to see the Obama caucus strategy.
GOP Influence: After McCain's win in Florida, Romney came back with a win in nearby Maine (nearby Massachusetts, where he had been governor). The win did little to help him going into Super Tuesday, though.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: C
Comments: Sunday contests set Maine apart from all the other states. The results, though, did little to move the needle. Romney and Obama continued to excel in caucuses. For a small state, Maine did well to hold stand-alone contests that would maximize what would still be minimal coverage, but an increase over past years.

Maryland:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-12-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Maryland continued the post-Super Tuesday streak for Obama. His resounding wins in all three Potomac primary states lifted the Illinois senator to his peak during primary season.
GOP Influence: McCain's win moved Huckabee into "believe in miracles not math" mode. It was the beginning of the end for the former Arkansas governor in demographically hostile territory (save western Virginia).
Contest Company: One third of the Potomac Primary (DC and VA)
Grade: B+
Comments: The state government in Maryland was smart (Ha! Hindsight is 20/20) to pull away from Super Tuesday for the first time since 1984 when the Old Line state still held a May primary. Coordinating their efforts with the primaries in Virginia and DC on the same day was beneficial in focusing the week's agenda on the that subregion.


By and large, the grades for this group of states is higher than those of the states examined yesterday. Having Iowa and states with contest dates other than Super Tuesday helps though. Being first helps as does holding a contest on a less crowded week or weekend. It isn't uncommon for caucuses to be conducted on the weekend, but it will be interesting to see if, barring any reform measure, other states follow Louisiana's lead and move their primaries to the weekend in 2012. I suspect that we'll witness a return to the types of campaigns that we saw in 2000 or 2004 in 2012. In other words, the nomination(s) will be decided on Super Tuesday. That will likely be the first Tuesday in February again; the earliest allowable date to hold a delegate selection event. It will be difficult for states to move ahead of that point simply because of fear of becoming another Florida or Michigan. The plan that recently failed in Kansas would have established a primary and scheduled it for the weekend prior to Super Tuesday in 2012. That provision wasn't why it failed, but it is noteworthy that some states have taken notice of the Louisiana move in 2008.

Up next: Massachusetts through New Jersey.


Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One

A Big Thanks to Demconwatch

Texas Caucus Final Tally: ?% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part One

Now that primary season is complete the movement (or non-movement) of state delegate selection events as compared to 2004 can be assessed a little better. By their nature, the nomination races in 2008 were a different animal than was the race Democratic race in 2004. Both parties had contested nominations and the Democratic race remained competitive to the final contest. On both counts, the opportunity for a state to influence the 2008 process was divergent from the same chance in 2004.

The question of the day: Did states make the right moves (or non-moves) in preparation for the 2008 cycle? During this week, FHQ will take a look at all 50 states (10 states a day in alphabetical order) and determine to what extent their individual frontloading (or lack thereof) influenced the races for the Democratic and Republican nominations. There were contests outside of the fifty states. However, they won't be considered here. The mere fact that Democrats Abroad or Guam were mentioned warrants a grade of A in their cases.

The basic grading criteria are as follows:
1) Did the state move between 2004 and 2008?
2) Did the state change contest types (caucus to primary or vice versa)?
3) Did the state's contest influence the Democratic/Republican nomination in any significant way?
4) Was the state's contest one among many (ie: on Super Tuesday) or by itself (ie: Pennsylvania)?
Of the ten states (plus the District of Columbia) covered in today's post, nine held contests on February 5.

Alabama:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-1-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Alabama was among the states that gave Obama a vote of confidence on Super Tuesday. But the state moved from the first week in June to have a voice in who the nominee(s) would be. They did, but Alabama got lost in the shuffle on Super Tuesday. We could be talking a bit about Alabama now as a state that put Obama over the top in addition to Montana and South Dakota.
GOP Influence: Mike Huckabee got a solid post-Iowa victory to go along with a string of other wins on Super Tuesday. Would that support have gone to McCain or Romney in Huckabee's absence? That's a good question. Romney played the role of GOP Obama that day, doing well in most of the caucuses. Huckabee was a regional candidate for the most part and Alabama's move helped sustain him until the first week in March.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C+
Comments: More influential on the GOP side than on the Democratic side. The move to February made the state consequential in both nominations for the first time since 1988.

Alaska:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-20-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Any state that was a part of the Super Tuesday caucus revelation for Obama gets high marks, whether intentional or not. Democrats in the Great Frontier opted for the earliest allowable date and became a decisive part of the delegate margin that Obama used to finally wrap up the Democratic nomination.
GOP Influence: Again, Romney was a quiet caucus success on Super Tuesday, but no one heard about it because he was getting trounced in all those winner-take-all states the same day by McCain.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B
Comments: The move paid off in that Alaska was among the states that were decisive in both nominations. The one month jump from 2004 to 2008 helped that, but being a far away caucus on a day packed with delegate-rich states, put both parties in the state behind the eight ball.

Arizona:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A comfortable win for Clinton and a state that didn't seem to get too much by way of mentions on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: None.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: D
Comments: Being a home state of one of the major candidates on a day when there are only so many places a candidate can visit will get you relegated to bypass status in a heartbeat. For the Republicans, that was the case. For the Dems, it was, along with California, evidence of Obama's potential problem among Hispanic voters.

Arkansas:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-18-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: None (see Arizona for McCain. The same was true for Clinton in this one.).
GOP Influence: None (Huckabee's favorite son status pushed him to an easy victory.)
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: D-
Comments: Of all the states that jumped, Arkansas' gamble worked out almost worst of any state not named Florida or Michigan. Favorite sons and daughters doomed the contest as soon as Huckabee won Iowa (if not before). And they're already talking of a return to May for 2012.

California:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Once Obama jumped to a lead on Super Tuesday (measured by the number of states won), California proved a big win and delegate boost for Clinton.
GOP Influence: McCain's Florida win the week before really carried over into Super Tuesday and California was certainly evidence of that.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: A-
Comments: The Golden State could probably go on any date, but has insisted upon being ahead of the nomination decisive point since 1996. That goal was achieved again during 2008. What if California held its primary last week, where it had traditionally been in the post-reform era up until 1996? Clinton would have been deprived of an early and important victory that may have forced her hand earlier than June 7. McCain likely would have gone on to take the nomination, but he too may have been made to wait until Mississippi during the second week of March or until Pennsylvania in April to have formally wrapped up the nomination. That would have been a precarious month for McCain.

Colorado:
2004 Date/contest type: 4-13-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: Like Alaska, another caucus state that bolstered Obama's delegate lead; one that lasted into the waning days of the nomination race.
GOP Influence: Romney did well in the caucuses. Enough said. This one was lost among the shuffle of other, larger delegate gems on a busy day.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: It may be that these caucuses didn't truly find their influence until after the fact, when people began to put all the pieces together. In a retrospective examination, that's a good thing though. Colorado jumped into the window decisiveness and was fairly influential on the Democratic side (in the end) while being an also-ran for the GOP candidates.

Connecticut:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: An aberration on Super Tuesday for Obama. It was the only northeast primary state that went for Obama until Vermont a month later (Maine, the weekend after Super Tuesday also gave the nod to Obama.). In that respect the Constitution state got several mentions in the press coverage during the evening of Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: Another winner-take-all state that McCain took. The Arizona senator dominated among the winner-take-all states on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C-
Comments: This was a small primary jump and a small state that didn't get too much from the candidates in the way of attention; especially on a day when over 20 states held contests.

Delaware:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Obama won, so correctly picking the nominee has to mean something, right?
GOP Influence: McCain won, so correctly picking the nominee has to mean something, right?
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: D-
Comments: Delaware was like Connecticut, but further South. On such a crowded day, the First state didn't stand a chance. They were on essentially the same date in 2004, but with far fewer states, and certainly didn't gain anything by competing on an even more crowded date.

District of Columbia:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-14-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-12-08/primary
Dem. Influence: This one was a foregone conclusion for Obama, but the DC primary was part of the post-Super Tuesday streak that Obama ran up before Ohio/Texas on March 4.
GOP Influence: You're kidding, no?
Contest Company: One third of the Potomac Primary (w/MD and VA)
Grade: C
Comments: The District made the move from caucus (with advisory primary) to primary, but they've held advisory primaries as early as early January before. DC isn't going to get too much attention, but was smart to coordinate with Maryland and Virginia a subregional primary that was a valuable part of Obama's sweep through the later 3/4ths of February.

Florida:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 1-29-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Florida's influence was in extending the chaos of the Democratic race into the last week of contests.
GOP Influence: McCain's win in the Sunshine state catapulted him into Super Tuesday and to the nomination.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contest
Grade: C
Comments: Florida is a study in extremes in the 2008 nomination battles in both parties. Very influential in the GOP race and very influential in the Democratic race (just not in a positive way). An A for the GOP effort and an F for the Democrats averages out to a C. The Florida legislature's gamble paid off. Well, it is Republican controlled after all. Maybe I should bump the grade up because of that.

Georgia:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Other than being the first state called for Obama on Super Tuesday, the Peach state was lost in the shuffle then and in the grand scheme of the nomination battle.
GOP Influence: This was another of Huckabee's post-Iowa wins that kept him going. McCain had jumped in the polls after Florida, but that support proved fleeting. Georgia going for Huckabee was indicative of the problems McCain would have (and still has) to clear up with Christian conservatives.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C
Comments: Georgia is like Alabama without as big a jump from 2004 to 2008. Obama won based on a heavy black turnout and Huckabee emerged as a victorious regional candidate.

On the whole, low marks for a group of states that gravitated towards February 5. Those gambles didn't really pay off other than keeping or putting states in a position to be a decisive part of the nominations. All were a part of it, but few proved very influential.

Up next: Hawaii through Maryland.


Recent Posts:
A Big Thanks to Demconwatch

Texas Caucus Final Tally: ?% of the Caucus Vote, 57% of the Caucus Delegates

VP, VP, VP. Who Will They Choose?

The Long and Winding Road

And here we are, five months after we started, at the conclusion of primary season. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I have a tear in my eye at the thought. But hey, talk of states moving their delegate selection events for the 2012 cycle has already begun (Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota). And the Republicans have nomination system reform on the agenda for their convention later this summer. So, I'll manage to keep busy (...between that and this general election thing, whatever that is. FHQ has always been of the mind that these presidential elections end once primary season ends anyway. But that's just a personal preference just like my affinity for the early rounds of the NCAA tournament. But I digress.).

Montana and South Dakota bring up the rear today in the final two contests of the nomination phase of the 2008 campaign. [Of course, there are Republican contests in New Mexico and South Dakota today as well. The GOP already held delegate selection in Montana during a February 5 caucus, but hold a beauty contest primary today. My guess is that McCain improves upon his third place showing there, though Romney still has all 25 delegates--until the convention that is.] For the Democrats, both states offer a combined 31 pledged delegates, not to mention some interesting rules quirks. Yeah, you knew I'd take notice of those.

In South Dakota the polls close on the closed primary at 9pm Eastern.

One hour later, the polls close in Montana (10pm Eastern). The primary format is more suitable to Obama in the Treasure state. Open primaries have been more favorable to Obama with independents allowed to participate. That Montana's primary is open and South Dakota's is closed may explain some of the differences between the expectations in the two states. South Dakota is expected to be the closer of the two races (...though, as Rob pointed out in the Maine post below, the latest poll out of South Dakota has Clinton up by 26 points. Fivethirtyeight discounts that finding though, pinning the race as a five point Obama win.). Montana has the added quirk that it treats its delegate allocation as if it were still 1980 and the state still had two congressional districts. The state is split into eastern and western halves with each getting 5 of the 16 pledged delegates.

I'll be back with some brief coverage tonight, but it will be interesting to chart the superdelegate endorsements throughout the day. Demconwatch is the place to track that, if you are so inclined.


Recent Posts:
Maine Final Tally: 59% of the Vote, 63% of the Delegates

Half and Half: The Florida and Michigan Story

Carl Levin's Statement to the Rules and Bylaws Committee

A Timeline of the Florida/Michigan Impasse

I'm not one to simply regurgitate news. However, on this day when the DNC is set to potentially decide the fate, not to mention the make up, of the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Democratic National Convention, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has a great timeline of events that led to this unprecedented meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

Key dates related to the Democratic National Committee's handling of the 2008 Michigan and Florida primaries:

2006:

July 22: The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee recommends to the DNC that a Nevada caucus be held in 2008 between Iowa's Jan. 14 caucus and New Hampshire's Jan. 22 primary. The committee also suggests that South Carolina have an early primary after New Hampshire's and that other states cannot hold their contests before Feb. 5.

Aug. 19: The DNC approves the committee's recommendations and penalties against presidential candidates who campaign in states that cut in line. Candidates would be denied delegates from those contests.

2007:

Jan. 23: Florida lawmakers introduce legislation to move the date of the state's 2008 primary from March 4 to Jan. 29.

April 5: The two leaders of the rules committee notify the Florida congressional delegation about the penalties for states that violate the timing of primaries.

May 21: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signs a bill moving the state's presidential primary to Jan. 29, 2008.

July-early August: In discussions with the Florida Democratic officials, the DNC offers to pay about $880,000 for a state party-run caucus.

Aug. 25: The rules committee decides to strip Florida of its 210 presidential convention delegates. It gives the state party 30 days to comply with rules by moving its contest back at least seven days.

Aug. 30: The Michigan Legislature sends a bill to the governor setting the state's 2008 presidential primary for Jan. 15.

Aug. 31: Democratic presidential candidates Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden pledge not to campaign in states that hold early nominating contests in violation of party rules. The pledge is circulated by Democratic leaders of the early-voting states — Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Sept. 1: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards also sign on to a pledge to skip states that break party rules by holding early primaries.

Sept. 4: Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs a bill moving Michigan's presidential contests to Jan. 15, 2008.

Oct. 9: Democratic presidential candidates Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson file paperwork to withdraw from the Michigan ballot. Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich say in statements that they also were bypassing the primary. Chris Dodd and Clinton say their names will remain on the ballots.

Dec. 1: Democratic leaders strip Michigan of all its 156 delegates for scheduling an earlier-than-allowed primary.

2008:

Jan. 15: Michigan holds its primary; Clinton wins.

Jan. 29: Florida holds its primary; Clinton wins.

March 17: Facing strong opposition, Florida Democrats abandon plans to hold a do-over presidential primary with a mail-in vote.

April 4: The executive committee of the Michigan Democratic Party says "it is not practical" to conduct a party-run primary or caucus as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the Denver convention.

April 25: The leaders of the rules committee sends members a memo announcing a meeting on May 31 about the disputed Florida and Michigan primaries.

May 27: The Democratic Party's lawyers say the committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Clinton wants.

___

Source: Associated Press, Democratic National Committee.

The Florida and Michigan frontloading in 2008 is part of the progression of the general frontloading trend. It wasn't inevitable that either state would violate the "window rule" (period within which states could hold their nominating contests) of either party. In the post-reform era, states that wanted to move, moved to dates that fell within the window. The decision by the DNC to allow South Carolina and Nevada to move into the pre-window period, though, triggered a resumption of an age-old conflict in American history: small states vs. big states. So while the DNC's intent was to bring more diversity into the opening contests, they once again got some unintended consequences out of the changes (All you have to do is look at frontloading as an example of one of the DNC's post-reform, unintended consequences.).

Why South Carolina and Nevada and not Michigan and Florida? Of the ten states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina and West Virginia) that petitioned the DNC to move ahead of the window's starting point, Michigan was by far the largest (Measuring by electoral votes, Michigan was the only state with more than 10.). Yet, the DNC opted for two smaller states to fill those spots. And that decision, along with Florida and Michigan's defiance of these rules, underscores another of the problems facing the various reform plans that have been proposed. Big states still will not be allowed to go first. And that is why today's meeting is so important. If the sanctions for moving ahead of the window are not upheld, what will hold states back from moving to whatever date they choose in the future (whether reforms are enacted or not)? Michigan certainly wouldn't have gone on January 15 if any of the reform plans (save the one in four chance that Michigan's region in the NASS regional primary plan was chosen to go first) were in place in 2008. The same motivation, therefore, would have been there for lawmakers in Michigan even in a reformed system.

Will the sanctions stay or will they go? The educated guess is that half the delegates from Florida and Michigan will make it to the convention in Denver, but how will that half be determined and what effect would that have on the delegate counts for Clinton and Obama?

Recent Posts:
Will Kennedy's Diagnosis Hurt McCain?

The Electoral College Maps (5/28/08)

Test Run: The McCain-Obama Map (5/28/08)

And Off Again: Kansas Presidential Primary Bill Vetoed

Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius today vetoed a bill that would have established a presidential primary in the state for the 2012 presidential nomination cycle (via Ballot Access News). For the second straight year, then, Kansas' efforts to transition to a primary election came up short. Last year, the plan to create a primary and schedule it on the Saturday prior to Super Tuesday failed to make it out of the state legislature before the session ended. This year's version proposed the same Saturday before the first Tuesday in February date, but was hampered by the inclusion of a provision within the law requiring a photo ID at polling places in order to vote.

The quirk in all of this? Well, as I've been pointing out (see here, here and here), scheduling a primary on such a date would violate both major party rules on the matter. At least in terms of the rules as they were constructed for the 2008 cycle. Kansas would have faced losing half their delegates on the Republican side and (at least initially) all of their delegates in the Democratic process. Of course, all this assumes that the same rules from 2008 are used in 2012. With the GOP already advancing one plan aimed at reforming the presidential primary process, it is up in the air as to how the calendar will look four years from now. And that doesn't even include a discussion of what penalties the parties would impose on state violating any reformed rules. The reform process will undoubtedly be arduous enough even excluding the potential sanctions the parties would impose to keep all the states in line.

Speaking of Kansas, the Democratic Party there has told me that results from the weekend's state convention should be online some time tomorrow. I'll be back then with an update on how those 11 delegates were allocated.


Recent Posts:
The Links for 5/19/08: Kentucky, Oregon, Electoral College Ties and More

Nevada Final Tally: 45% of the Vote, 56% of the Delegates

Obama in the Red States: What Mississippi's 1st District Means

Let the Backloading Begin: 2012 Arkansas Primary

There has already been a handful of states that have introduced or signaled that they would introduce state legislative bills to establish and/or move up a presidential primary for the 2012 cycle. Indiana and Kentucky have indicated that their May primaries could coincide with what would be Super Tuesday during the next cycle (should the same rules from 2008 be used then), the first Tuesday in February. The legislature in Kansas (here, here and here) has gone back and forth over the idea of establishing a presidential primary for 2012 and scheduling it for the Saturday before Super Tuesday. And Minnesota has discussed shifting from a caucus system to a primary, but would keep the contest on Super Tuesday for 2012.

Arkansas, however, becomes the first state to reconsider their decision to frontload the state's presidential primary for 2008. State Rep. Nathan George has already said that he will introduce legislation next year to move the newly-created, separate presidential primary election back to the late May date that coincides with the state's primaries for state and local offices (via Ballot Access News). Of course, had the Natural state held its primary where it had been since 1992, we'd be talking about Clinton's great chances next week in Arkansas and Kentucky and possibly of Obama needing to come through with a victory in Oregon to hold off a late Clinton charge.

Such a move is not without precedence. Arkansas moved its delegate selection back to the same May period for the 1992 cycle after a caucus in 1984 and a primary among the other southern states during the Southern Super Tuesday in 1988. In both instances the benefits of the move didn't necessarily match (or exceed) the costs. Both times Republicans benefited from the move Arkansas made. In 1988, George H.W. Bush used the southern swing as means of establishing himself as the front-runner (and nearly inevitable nominee) while the Democrats split the contests of that day. The 2008 Arkansas primary was an afterthought on the Democratic side because of Clinton's presence on the ballot. Meanwhile, favorite son, Mike Huckabee used his win there combined with his other southern wins on Super Tuesday to cast doubt on McCain's ability to appeal to the conservative side of the Republican Party. In essence, then, the Democratic-controlled state legislature in Arkansas has helped the Republican Party more with its moves (Though, with some potential division within the GOP bubbling below the surface, it could be argued that Arkansas helped to raise questions about McCain, if that division were to become more pronounced. But in a world of quick fixes and instant gratification, that's crazy talk. "Wait for the effects of these things before reacting? I don't think so. Let's move this thing back.").

I would wager that this decision in Arkansas over this proposed move (if, in fact, it is introduced) hinges on a couple of things:
1) Financial concerns: If the return on investment is viewed as sub-par, then the decision may be made to move back and save the money. Having an influence over who the nominee is before the decision is made, though, may outweigh that. Which brings up...

2) Will 2012 more closely resemble 2004 or 2008? If it is the former, Arkansas may value that influence even if it means scant attention from the candidates among a crowded field of contests. If 2012 looks like 2008, Arkansas could move back and get more attention.

I've maintained in this space before that 2008 is move aberration than anything and that 2012 will offer a return to the past in many respects; rapid-fire nomination decision(s) being one of them. More often than not though, what we've witnessed in the post-reform era is that once a state moves early, it stays early. The jury's still out on what Arkansas will do.


Recent Posts:
Did IN/NC Deal Clinton a Death Blow in the Electoral College?: The Electoral College Maps (5/14/08)

20%!?! That's the Bar in West Virginia?

Would McCain Have Won Under the Ohio Plan?

20%!?! That's the Bar in West Virginia?

You have to love the expectations game. One week you're winning North Carolina and doing better than expected in Indiana. The next? You're hoping for twenty percent in West Virginia. How far the mighty have fallen. Well, not really. But when the outcomes of the remaining contests are clearer than North Carolina and Indiana were a week ago, it is easier for a candidate to fend off a poor showing; even if that showing is 20% of the vote for the presumptive nominee/front-runner for the Democratic Party. There Barack Obama was yesterday, shooting pool in West Virginia and claiming that he'd accept anything higher than that mark in today's West Virginia primary.

So the Obama campaign is setting the bar low and driving down national attention to the race in the Mountain state. What's on the table for today's contest, though? 28 of the states 39 delegates are at stake in West Virginia's semi-open primary (the other eleven are superdelegates or add-ons). Independents can vote but Republicans can't. Are those on the right tempted to switch sides and take "Operation Chaos" to another state? Well, the GOP held a convention in February to decide on delegate allocation for its presidential candidates. Two thirds of the state's delegates were decided upon then and the rest will be at stake today. There is also a gubernatorial election in West Virginia this year, but only one Republican is vying for the opportunity to take on incumbent Democrat, Joe Manchin. With only congressional and local candidates on the ballot then, Republican identifiers in the state may be motivated to change registration and bump up Hillary Clinton's vote percentage in the Democratic contest. I haven't seen any reports of this, but you have to think it is a possibility with no serious action on the Republican ballot. The question is how widespread it would be. Not enough to swing the contest; Clinton already seems to have that in the bag. However, it could help her secure more delegates from the state. And in her position, where every single delegate counts, any extras would be beneficial.

Polls close at 7:30p.

Related: West Virginia Preview: Clinton by 39 points, 105,000 votes (via fivethirtyeight.com)


Recent Posts:
Would McCain Have Won Under the Ohio Plan?

Tales from the Kennedy School Symposium on Presidential Primaries

The Delegate Race: Is Obama There Yet?

Tales from the Kennedy School Symposium on Presidential Primaries

Recently, I brought up Harvard's Kennedy School symposium on presidential primaries. The meeting brought together election law scholars, journalists and partisans all of all stripes to discuss whether and how best to reform the presidential process. Though a paper on the proceedings is to be released by the Kennedy School, it has yet to emerge and information on the meeting has been been lacking at best. Rick Hasen, law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and moderator/author of the Election Law Blog, was a participant and had this to say:

"It was very interesting to see the very wide spectrum of views represented at the Kennedy school event yesterday on reforming the presidential primary process. (The conversation was on the record, and a transcript will be posted by the Kennedy school at some point.) I would say I walked away thinking how difficult change is going to be, how intractable the positions of those supporting and opposing a system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, how different the Democratic and Republican party philosophies are on how flexible rule changes should be, and how little support there was among this very diverse audience for a congressional solution (at least one that is foisted upon the national political parties against their will). There was talk of congressional carrots, and there seemed to be a consensus that fundamental changes to the Democratic rules would take place if Sen. McCain ended up winning in November. There also seemed to be agreement that something had to be done to fix the administration of caucuses in some states, such as Texas. But as for this diverse group reaching a general consensus over (1) what, if anything, is wrong with the current system of nominating the presidential candidates; (2) how, if at all, the system should be changed, and (3) who should implement those changes, forget about it."

That jibes with what I've been saying all along in regard to reforming the presidential primary process: that big changes would be difficult to pull off. Small changes, especially to caucuses seem more likely. We've already seen one caucus state from 2008 discuss both switching to a primary and scheduling the contest early in the process (Kansas) in 2012 and another caucus state that was already early discuss switching to a primary (Minnesota). The Republicans, though, have advanced one plan already that they will deal with at their convention in St. Paul, MN this summer. And as Hasen mentions, a consensus had formed among symposium participants that the Democrats would move in the direction of big changes if their chosen nominee lost to McCain in Novemeber. Back in January I posted a link to a CQ article that outlined the most of the big plans being considered by both national parties (and within Congress).

I want to revisit those plans but lay them out visually (Yes, more maps.) to examine where the differences really lie. All of these plans involve grouping the states in various ways as a means of combating frontloading but differ on how they group the states and whether to exempt Iowa and New Hampshire.

Modified Delaware Plan:
This altered version of the plan originally proposed in the lead up to the 2000 GOP convention groups the states by population size. After Iowa and New Hampshire, the next group of states to go are the smallest 10 states and Washington, DC (in teal) sometime in March. The remaining three groups of states go over the successive three months, one group per month. The drawbacks of this plan are the travel strains put on the candidates and their campaigns. Retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire is one thing, but extending that to an area stretching from Maine to Idaho would favor the front-running candidates (at least in terms of fund-raising) as they are favored in the current system.
Ohio Plan:
The Ohio Plan is the plan that the GOP pushed forward last month in anticipation of a broader hearing on the issue at the convention this summer. Iowa and New Hampshire maintain their traditional positions and South Carolina and Nevada would be next in line as they were in 2008. Following the exempt states, the smallest states go as they do in the Delaware plan. The remaining states are divided in a way that splits the groups' total electoral votes as evenly as possible. California and Texas will have the advantage over the other states in their "pods" while Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania are all lumped together in one group. The two biggest states, then, get the spotlight all to themselves while the next six largest states all go on the same day. That's a good number of the most populous states that will bring up the rear of the process every third cycle. When that group goes immediately after the pre-window states and the smallest states, it will put a lot of pressure on the candidates to be ready organizationally for all those big states as opposed to focusing much of the attention on California and Texas.
NASS Plan:
The plan that the National Association of Secretaries of States has been promoting places value on regional contiguity. There is a modified plan that removes the first-in-the-nation distinction from Iowa and New Hampshire, but the map below reflects the original plan from the NASS. This plan does offer a mix of both big and small states in each of the regions, and with the exception of the western region and California, all the big states are balanced out by other big states. California, in that scenario, could get all the attention or candidates could opt for an "everything but California" strategy. Given the way primary seasons of the past have progressed, this seems unlikely, but in light of Obama's small state strategy in 2008, this sort of strategy could gain momentum in the future. The regions would rotate--a different one going first each cycle--so when the western region went first, this strategy could play out. The one drawback to this system is that potential candidates could gain an advantage when their regions are first (similar to the favorite son success that some candidates have enjoyed in their home states.).
Dingell-Anuzis Modified Plan:
This is the plan that has been introduced in Congress. It divides the nation into six regions and splits primary season into six contests that are three weeks apart beginning in March and ending in June. Under this plan, Iowa and New Hampshire lose their favored, early positions. The contests are not simply made up of the regions though.
There are six contests, but a lottery determines what week anywhere from one to four states from each region will hold their contests. The map below shows one possible way that a lottery could split the states. The fifth week (in brown), for example, takes one state from each region: New Jersey from the Northeast, North Carolina from the South, Maryland from the Border states, Illinois from the Upper Midwest, Louisiana from the Southwest, and Oregon from the West. Believe it or not, the Michigan-based plan has Michigan going during the first week of the process during the first iteration.
Texas Plan:
Finally, the Texas plan splits the country into four groups of contiguous states (They are not completely contiguous, but as you can see in the map below, a group of three or more contiguous states in one region may be together with three or more contiguous states from another region--see states in green for example.). Again, Iowa and New Hampshire are stripped of their customary first positions, but are in the same group together and would go first with the rest of their group every fourth cycle. This is the group that is made up of the smallest states. The other three groups have most of the heavy hitters which have tended to get the attention.
For other symposium materials: See here and here.


Recent Posts:
The Delegate Race: Is Obama There Yet?

ABC News: Obama Now Leads in Superdelegates

Obama's Slide Revisited

Kansas is Back in for 2012! But for How Long?

For a state that has rarely been relevant in terms of the presidential nomination process, Kansas sure has haggled an awful lot over the last couple of years trying to become so for either 2008 or 2012. The trials and tribulations of the Kansas legislature during the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions have been well documented in this space (click on the "Kansas" label at the conclusion of the post for a fuller picture) and haven't been disappointing lately. After the House kicked a photo ID requirement/presidential primary combination bill back into conference last week, the plan for a 2012 presidential primary in the state looked to be left for dead. But yesterday, lost in all the hustle and bustle of North Carolina and Indiana, the Kansas legislature passed a compromise bill through both chambers. The bill now is just a governor's (Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius) signature away from making Kansas the first state to frontload its presidential nominating contest for 2012. Of course, the primary (or any future primaries beyond 2012) would have to be included in the budget by the legislature at that time.

Also with the date of the contest set for the first Saturday in February, Kansas could be in violation of national party rules if that first Saturday is before the first Tuesday in the month. [They're already excited at the notion of losing all their delegates in 2012 in Kansas.] This assumes, of course, that national parties maintain the same rules for 2012 that they had in 2008. As we've seen, the RNC has already been talking about reforms for the 2012 primary calendar. So, you're on notice Kansas.


...that is if the governor doesn't veto the bill.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Maps (5/7/08)

Identity Politics (Brazile v. Begala)

Primary Day, Part XVI (The IN & NC Edition)

Primary Day, Part XVI (The IN & NC Edition)

That's right. This is the sixteenth primary or caucus day of 2008 presidential primary season. And it may be the last, best chance for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to make a statement in terms of delegates before this phase of the process concludes on June 3. Of the 492 delegates from the remaining contests, today's contests in Indiana and North Carolina account for nearly half (44%). A split (Indiana to Clinton, North Carolina to Obama) or a sweep of today's two contests by Obama really tightens the screws on Clinton in the delegate count. Once the committed superdelegates from final states are removed from that remaining total there are only 245 delegates available following Indiana and North Carolina. If the current delegate margin holds through today's primaries, for Clinton to make up the 135 delegate deficit she would then have to win almost 78% (190 of 245) of those delegates just to tie Obama in the delegate count. And with just six contests left, that's a steep climb, even with half or two-thirds of them being closed to independents and/or Republicans, respectively. That even accounts for the contests in friendly territory coming up in West Virginia and Kentucky.

Having said that, what will everyone be looking for tonight? There are plenty or scorecards already out there for tonight's returns and most of them cover the bases. Here, though, are a few links that may be of interest to the loyal readers of FHQ:

fivethirtyeight.com: This site popped up in the comments section of my first electoral college map post and is a great resource. On their frontpage today (linked above), they have predictions for North Carolina and Indiana. But the gadget that is getting the most buzz around the web is the North Carolina outcome predictor that allows you to manipulate the white/black vote percentages for both Clinton and Obama and the percentage of the Democratic electorate that is black to see how each affects the results in the state.

Social Science Statistics Blog: I posted a link to this blog in the comments to the R&B Committee post below, but the rest of the site is worth checking out as well. Both the regression analysis here and the analysis on fivethirtyeight have Obama winning by double digits in the Tar Heel state. SSS also shows a six point Clinton win in Indiana.

Finally, Arnie Fleischmann here at UGA, passed along to me this New York Times story this morning dealing with the concerns those running for down-ballot races in states that hold their state and local primaries concurrently with their presidential primaries. See, there is an advantage to having those two sets of primaries split and then frontloading the presidential primary. Sure, turnout would be increased in a competitive environment like 2008, but at what cost? Apparently, a lack of attention to those running down-ballot.

And on that rather apropos note, back to the dissertation.


Recent Posts:
The Rules and Bylaws Committee vs. The Credentials Committee

Obama's Caucus Strategy

7! 7 Votes in Guam!

Kansas' On-Again-Off-Again Presidential Primary

The trials and tribulations of the Kansas state legislature continue in regard to the potential for a presidential primary in the state for 2012. If it wasn't bad enough that the legislature went through the same process during the 2007 legislative session to establish and frontload a presidential primary for 2008, it is now that they have repeated the same steps. The current bill (HB 2683--click link and type the bill number in the "Track Bill" space on the right) was only part of a larger piece of election law legislation that would have required a photo ID to vote (via Ballot Access News)as well. Despite that, the bill passed both houses of the legislature either on its own or as an amendment before heading to a conference committee. That legislation emerged from conference this week and was voted down in the House by a vote of 53-68 after having passed unanimously during the first go 'round. The bill now returns to conference, where the already small chances of a presidential primary for 2012 being established during this session grow slimmer.

After the massive frontloading in the lead up to this cycle, there just aren't that many states that aren't "early" anymore. The momentum of the frontloading trend will slow down for 2012 as a result.

...unless, of course, one or both of the parties shift the window for holding events to an earlier start date. That's the portion of the conventions I'll have my eye on this summer. How will those rules change or will they?

Recent Posts:
The Dakota Effect

Obama's Slide: Is Clinton Taking Advantage?

The Electoral College Maps (4/30/08)