The Calm After the... Well, It Wasn't a Storm.

...not in 2009, at least.

As we saw recently the clock is ticking on the frontloading bills proposed during 2009. The year's legislative session has ended in most states and the crucial cross-over deadline has passed in still more. That particular deadline is typified by what was witnessed in North Carolina in May. For example, a bill has to have passed in its originating chamber and have crossed over to the other legislative chamber for consideration by a particular point in the session. Bills that don't pass by that point are dead for the session.

And this rule came into play in several other states considering primary-shifting legislation in 2009. The catch is that there are several other states, like Georgia, where legislation is allowed to carry over from one legislative session to the next. The table below updates the one from FHQ's original post by adding in the cross-over and carry-over information.

Frontloading Bills (2009 Legislative Session)
State	Bill	Status	Session Adjourns/Cross-over Deadline	Description
Arkansas	HB 1021	passed	May 1/none	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to the Tuesday after the third Monday in May
Florida	HB 759/SB 2304	died in committee	May 8/none	moves presidential primary from last Tuesday in January to the second Tuesday in March
Georgia	HB 848	carried over to 2010 session	April 4/March 12	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to first Tuesday in March
Illinois	HB 2308/SB 46	in committee/could carry over to 2010	year-round May 31/April 3	moves state and local primaries from first Tuesday in February to third Tuesday in March/first Tuesday in June
Indiana	SCR 28	passed Senate, no action in House	April 29/Feb. 26	forms commission to investigate moving presidential primary
Minnesota	HF 31/SF 157	in committee/could carry over to 2010	May 18/none	creates presidential primary and moves to first Tuesday in February
New Hampshire	HB 341	in committee/could carry over to 2010	July 1/ March 25	allows only Iowa caucus to precede presidential primary
New Jersey	A 2413	in committee	year-round/none	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to first Tuesday in June
North Carolina	S 150	in committee/could carry over to 2010	early July/May 14	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday after first Monday in May to first Tuesday in February
North Dakota	SB 2288	passed	May 2/Feb. 20	eliminates state involvement in presidential preference caucus
Oklahoma	HB 1340	in committee/could carry over to 2010	May 29 22/March 12	shifts financial burden of presidential primary from state to state parties
Oregon	SB 412	in committee/cannot carry over to 2010	late June/none	moves presidential primary from third Tuesday in May to first Tuesday in February
Texas	HB 246	in committee/cannot carry over to 2010	June 1/May 15	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in March to first Tuesday in February
Source(s): National Conference of State Legislatures, MultiState.com

With the cross-over information added, New Jersey and Oregon are the only states remaining with active bills to frontload their state's 2012 presidential primaries during the 2009 session. The drawback is that the bill in Oregon will have to be acted upon before the end of the session at the end of June. Otherwise the bill will die, and without a carry-over provision in place, similar legislation will have to be reintroduced the next time the legislature convenes. And though the Texas legislature has adjourned, the Lone Star state is in a similar position to Oregon in that there is no carry over there. The New Jersey bill, meanwhile, was already carried over from 2008 to 2009 and will expire when the members of the legislature stand for reelection in November.

However, in several states, 2009 legislation could carry over like Georgia's did. Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Oklahoma could all have presidential primary-related legislation revived in 2010, though it is less certain in each than in the case of the Peach state.

All in all, it was a quiet cycle for frontloading. The legislature in Arkansas successfully repealed the Natural state's separate presidential primary and Hawaii Republicans adopted a February caucus to replace the Aloha state's May convention. But for the year after an election, that isn't all that surprising.


Recent Posts:
Past is Prologue? The New Jersey Governor's Race

No Move is Good Move: Texas Won't Change 2012 Primary Dates in 2009

New Jersey Gubernatorial Primary Today

New Jersey Gubernatorial Primary Today

The Democratic primary seems like a done deal, as embattled incumbent, Jon Corzine, is being challenged in the primary (just not seriously) while seeking a second term. On the Republican side, US Attorney, Chris Christie may also be a done deal in a primary match-up mainly against Steve Lonegan, among others.

This would set up an interesting general election, especially since Christie has been leading Corzine in the trial heat polls conducted thus far. In a blue state, though, November is a long way off. The office would be a major grab for Republicans if they can clinch it then. Curiously, the race was left off the latest Line on The Fix (with no comment on the reasoning, mind you). The race actually was taken out of the top ten gubernatorial races most likely to switch (partisan) hands in either 2009 or 2010. The polls tell me otherwise on this one. My question: Are there actually ten other races that are more likely to switch parties than New Jersey? Feel free to chime in on that in the comments section.

FHQ will be back later in the day with more (sometime) after the polls close at 8pm eastern. There won't be a run-off, so go ahead and cross that possibility off your list. Recount? It's possible, I suppose, but I wouldn't think it'd be expected in this case. Next week in Virginia may be a different matter.


Recent Posts:
FHQ Hangin' Out in FL-08

Oklahoma Bill to Have Parties Pay for Presidential Primaries is Done for 2009

No Split in Springfield...Illinois

Down and Out in Minnesota

Nothing like a slow death in committee.

Monday came and went and as the clock struck midnight, the Minnesota legislature adjourned for the year. While a bill to shift the state's general primary from September to August passed (and awaits Governor Pawlenty's signature), both HF 31 and SF 157 were left languishing in committee, postponing for at least a year the decision to make the switch from a caucus system to a primary.

The House bill hadn't budged since being introduced in mid-January. On the other hand, the Senate version made it out of the State and Local Government Operation and Oversight Committee with a "Do Pass" authorization, but got held up once it was re-referred to the Finance Committee. [I suppose there comes a time when you actually have to consider paying for these things.] But neither ultimately made it through and the Land of 10,000 Lakes will have to wait to make the switch from caucus to primary for at least another year. And it is likely that any future bill's success will depend in large measure on how well the state is doing economically.

In the meantime, though, mark another state off the list of potential 2012 movers.

...for now.


Recent Posts:
Hawaii Republicans Adopt Caucus System, Set Date for 2012

When Did Primary Become a Verb?

2012 GOP Candidate Emergence Tracker

Time Running Out for Frontloading Bills in 2009

As was witnessed recently here in Georgia, a bill to shift the Peach state's presidential primary back to March for 2012 was introduced on the last day of the General Assembly's session. The intent in that instance was to introduce the bill in order for it to carry over to the 2010 session, but it got FHQ thinking about the time left in other states where frontloading (or backloading) bills have been introduced. And in reality, there isn't much time left.

Frontloading Bills (2009 Legislative Session)
State	Bill	Status	Session Adjourns	Description
Arkansas	HB 1021	passed	May 1	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to the Tuesday after the third Monday in May
Florida	HB 759/SB 2304	died in committee	May 8	moves presidential primary from last Tuesday in January to the second Tuesday in March
Georgia	HB 848	carried over to 2010 session	April 4	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to first Tuesday in March
Illinois	HB 2308/SB 46	in committee	year-round	moves state and local primaries from first Tuesday in February to third Tuesday in March/first Tuesday in June
Indiana	SCR 28	passed Senate, no action in House	April 29	forms commission to investigate moving presidential primary
Minnesota	HF 31/SF 157	in committee -- House/out with "Do Pass" -- Senate	May 18	creates presidential primary and moves to first Tuesday in February
New Hampshire	HB 341	in committee	July 1	allows only Iowa caucus to precede presidential primary
New Jersey	A 2413	in committee	year-round	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in February to first Tuesday in June
North Carolina	S 150	in committee	early July	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday after first Monday in May to first Tuesday in February
North Dakota	SB 2288	passed	May 2	eliminates state involvement in presidential preference caucus
Oklahoma	HB 1340	in committee	May 29	shifts financial burden of presidential primary from state to state parties
Oregon	SB 412	in committee	late June	moves presidential primary from third Tuesday in May to first Tuesday in February
Texas	HB 246	in committee	June 1	moves presidential primary from first Tuesday in March to first Tuesday in February
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Arkansas and North Dakota were able to move on their respective bills prior to the close of their legislative sessions and Indiana's Senate was able to sign off on a resolution forming a committee to examine the possibility of frontloading. In the remaining states, however, things are either dead or stuck in committee.

Florida's adjournment last week killed the two bills proposed to move the state's controversially scheduled primary back to spot in line with both parties (2008) nomination rules. Frontloading bills in North Carolina, Oregon and Texas have all been left twisting in the wind in committee while the bill to eliminate the separate February presidential primary in New Jersey has met the same fate. The difference -- and it is a slight one considering the New Jersey bill was one introduced in 2008 and will die prior to elections there this fall -- is that the clock is running out in North Carolina, Oregon and Texas. By the middle of July, all three states' legislatures will have adjourned and without action, will kill these bills in the process.

Meanwhile, the creation of a presidential primary in Minnesota is down to its last week with the legislature closing up shop next week on May 18. The Senate bill has emerged from the committee concerned with elections with a "Do Pass" designation and has been re-referred to the Finance Committee, but the House bill has gone nowhere since being introduced in January.

In Oklahoma, the bill to have parties pay for their own presidential primaries -- something that has elicited more and more talk recently -- like the Minnesota House bill mentioned above, hasn't seen any action since being introduced. That isn't really the type of momentum you'd like to see if you're a proponent of this measure before the session goes sine die at the end of the month.

Similarly, the two bills to separate state and local primaries from the presidential primary and shift them to later dates in Illinois have been stuck in committee as well. Like New Jersey, though, the legislature in the Land of Lincoln is a professional legislature (For those outside of political science, that professional refers to a legislator's duties being his or her main profession, not that a part-time legislaure is any more or less professional than a full-time one.). The clock then, won't run out until the next election changes the membership of the chambers.

Finally, the bill in New Hampshire stipulating that only Iowa's caucuses could precede the Granite state's presidential primary is likewise stalled in committee.

None of this is particularly surprising given that 1) it is still really early for 2012 primary movement and 2) most states are playing the wait-and-see game with how the parties will set their nomination rules for the 2012 cycle. And that largely fits with the cyclical logic espouced here. Of course, if that trend holds, we should expect to see even fewer bills regarding presidential primaries introduced next year.

Woe is FHQ, woe is FHQ! Eh, we'll find something to talk about.


Recent Posts:
Much Ado About Nothing in Texas

Back in Business

Open Thread: Home Renovation Edition

"Real" Republicans and the Implications for the 2012 GOP Nomination

Yesterday Politico's Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin penned a piece on the growing divide between the Inside-the-Beltway Republicans and all the other Main Street Republicans out there. I don't want to read too much into that. After all, there was a similar divide in the Democratic Party in terms of a winning position on the Iraq War after losing the 2004 presidential election.* And 2008 isn't yet a distant memory. Though the divide wasn't necessarily issue-based, the intra-party division over the question of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton was very real. My point here is that these apparent divisions can quickly take a backseat to the greater goal of winning elections. A schism in 2009 isn't the same as a divided Republican base in 2012.

But this isn't really about a divided base. This is about party elites versus its rank and file membership. Again, electoral goals can make strange bedfellows, but they can also get all or most of a party on the same page with a startling quickness. I'm not, then, as concerned with the notion of an irreconcilable division within the Republican Party in the context of the 2012 presidential nomination race so much as I'm enthralled as a political scientist who studies these nominations by the rarity the political occurrence. There has not been this kind of battle for the party since the Ford-Reagan nomination race in 1976.

That race, though, occurred while the post-reform nomination process was solidifying; it wasn't forty years after the fact as will be the case in 2012. And that's largely why I shot down the idea of a "Sarah Palin against the party" run to the GOP nomination. Reagan didn't succeed in 1976 and no Republican nominee has risen to the nomination in any way other than going through the elite level of the party first in the time since. But...

As I've said, and as Nate Silver said just yesterday, Palin possesses the type of grassroots-level enthusiasm to make it interesting in the same way that Reagan did. And that just isn't something we get to witness all that often within the Republican Party: an elite versus rank and file battle.

Will that happen? I don't know, but it will be fun to see whether it materializes. We don't often get the chance.


*Of course the difference between what is happening with the GOP right now and what happened with the Democrats during the earlier part of this decade is that the war issue kept moving closer and closer to the anti-war protesters position. For the GOP, the immigration issue is a bit more muddled: respondents would rather the level of immigration stay where it is or drop, but generally like the idea of immigration. The situation is similar for taxes. On gay marriage, though, things are moving away from the (at least vocal rank and file) members of the party.



Recent Posts:
One View from the Right on the 2012 Field

More Texas-less Fun

Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

Earlier is Better (And not just during a presidential primary race -- After it too)

There's a lot of talk around these parts that the earlier your state's primary is, the more, I don't know, candidate attention your state will receive. That's certainly what FHQ has stressed in its discussions of this, but it neglects one other valuable asset in all of this: what a president is able to do for states after they've been elected.

Kathryn Dunn Tenpas in Presidents as Candidates: Inside the White House for the Presidential Campaign shows that presidents exert their power through executive agencies to reward states and constituencies valuable to their reelection efforts. Iowa and New Hampshire receive, for instance, what Mayer and Busch (2004) call special policy concessions because of their privileged position at the front of the presidential primary queue. If a president running for reelection is able to secure added procurements for an early states, all the better for his or her chances.

Obviously, that's only part of this equation, though. What if states get rewards for picking the winning presidential candidate during the primary phase? Here is a constituency within a state or states that has been with a candidate the longest. And the later a state is, the easier the choice is as the candidate field is winnowed. Early states, then, have a tougher choice. From the presidential candidate's view it's, "Hey, you chose me all the way back then out of all those candidates." Under those circumstances, it could certainly be hypothesized that earlier states could get policy concessions and added procurements for their state simply by having chosen correctly in the primary phase. Well, that's exactly what Andrew Taylor has found. Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina can look for their check in the mail. New Hampshire, on the hand, can keep waiting since the Granite state opted for Hillary Clinton over Obama.

What Taylor finds evidence of is that...

"If the first state chooses the ultimately victorious presidential candidate in a competitive nomination ... it receives $35.29 more in procurement per capita than if it had picked a loser." In comparison, the benefit if the eighth state picks the eventual winner would be approximately $22.05 more in procurement per capita. Beyond the ninth contest, Taylor says, the benefits are no longer statistically significant.

So it isn't simply a matter of buttering up some valuable constituency for a reelection bid. It's also a matter of what have you done for me. Another way for Obama to keep score, I suppose.


Recent Posts:
Blame Palin?

Presidential Candidate Emergence: An Alternate Measure

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/4/09)

Elite Eight: FHQ's 2012 Presidential Primary Bracket

[Click to Enlarge]

Last week when I posted the retrospective 2008 presidential candidate bracket, I said that I wanted to put one together for 2012 as well. Well, I did before NPR put out their bracket with the top 32 GOP contenders for 2012. Still, some were interested in seeing FHQ's top 8. Here, without comment, is that Elite Eight (with an Obama Tanks and is Challenged scenario tacked on).

The comments section awaits your cheers and boos.


Recent Posts:
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (3/28/09)

Minnesota in 2012

Illinois in 2012 Redux

On the Move Again? 2012 Arkansas Primary

What? Already?

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Yes, already. In our earlier Arkansas discussion, FHQ described the particulars behind the second bill (SB 253) that proposed moving the primaries in the Natural State -- all the primaries -- to August. From back in early February, I had this to say:

"...the May primary for state legislative positions will occur within a couple of weeks of the end of the one of the legislative sessions. That leaves only a small window of time for incumbents to campaign for the election. On top of that, legislators have traditionally eschewed fundraising (due to a self-imposed rule) activities during sessions and for 30 days before and after them. That obviously encompasses the primaries in this case and poses a problem for state legislative incumbents."

The amendment process had the bill in and out of the Senate committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs and first changed the language to meet the changes (repealing the presidential primary and moving back in line with other primaries) signed into law before moving the proposed primary date back to the first week in June. This latter change was no doubt instituted because of the national party rules that cut the nomination phase of the presidential election off during the first couple of weeks of June. That also gets state legislators closer to their goal of having 30 days in between the end of the legislative session and a primary election. There may be a couple of days lost, but that gets incumbents closer to their self-imposed rule and within the national party guidelines for delegate selection.

And those amendment changes seem likely to be pushed through. The bill just yesterday emerged from the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee with a "Do Pass" authorization (see bill link above for a detailed look at the list of actions SB 253 has been through). Committees in both chambers granted HB 1021 (the original bill to repeal the presidential primary and move it back to May) the same authorization before it was passed and signed into law.

So buckle up folks. Arkansas may not be done backloading for 2012 and beyond yet.


Recent Posts:
Oregon in 2012

I'll Admit It. CQ's Got Me on This One.

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (1st Round) Are Now Up

Obligatory Brackets Post: 2008 Presidential Candidates

Look, I'm a basketball fan. It is hard to grow up in North Carolina and not be. Indiana may get the Basketball State distinction, but that's high school basketball. So I say Indiana Schmindiana. I'm talking about college basketball. And North Carolina is the home of college basketball (in my opinion).

The fact that I'm a fan, then, may have been lost during last year's NCAA tournament, but I was much more involved in the presidential tournament that coincided with the Big Dance. This is true every four years, but 2008 was unusual. Typically the presidential candidates take care of their party business and clear out in time for the basketball start. But not in 2008. No, the top two seeds in the Democratic bracket had to extend their contest until June. And even though there weren't any contests after March 11 (or before April 22 for that matter), the battle was still on. Who can forget Obama's "bittergate" injury or his association with the now infamous agent, Jeremiah Wright, which jeopardized his amateur status?

[Note to self: No more bad jokes linking politics and basketball.]

Well, maybe just one more.



Seeding above is a bit post hoc, but I had to weigh the difference between issue/longshot candidates and when each candidate dropped out. There is no perfect formula. However, this is my opinion of where everyone would have been slotted. And as is the case with the NCAA Selection Committee, the FHQ Committee of One is second-guessed to no avail (...or those watching usually forget about the selection process and get wrapped up in the tournament process once it begins).

Just for fun, I'll try and put up a prospective 2012 bracket at some point in the next couple of days.

Related reading:
The Obama Basketball Bracket

FiveThirtyEight's Swing State Bias Analysis of the Obama Bracket and [UPDATE] Nate Silver's overall projections as well.

Now, let the real upsets begin.


Recent Posts:
Election 2012: Obama 55 - Palin 35

Now Why Didn't They Just Do This Last Week?

The Links (3/18/09): ANES Edition

Backloading in 2012? Arkansas is Moving Closer

Back in May, just before Arkansas was to hold its primaries for state and local offices, State Rep. Nathan George (D-Dardanelle) went public with a call for legislation to move the state's 2012 presidential primary back to May from February to again coincide with the other primaries. On Thursday that call got a bit closer to reality as George and State Rep. Jon Woods (R-Springdale) prefiled a bill (HB 1021) that would come up for consideration once the 87th General Assembly convenes in January. The proposed legislation very simply strikes the changes made to Arkansas election law in 2005 when the separate February Arkansas presidential primary was signed into law by Governor Mike Huckabee.

Arkansas, then, was one of the first states to move in anticipation of 2008 and may again be quick to react with 2012 on the distant horizon. Well, why would Arkansas want to do this; to go against the frontloading trend? Here are a couple of points I made back in May about the reasoning behind such a move when this story came up the first time:

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.

Well, if the state is making their decision on 2012 now -- in this economic climate -- then that first point will likely play a major role in the legislature's thinking on this particular piece of legislation. "Return on investment? Who needs that? Let's just save some money!" And the second point could be rendered moot by the first. "We didn't have an impact in February and we never really had an impact when the presidential primary was in May. So what does it matter when we do this? Let's just save some money!"

Now, it could be viewed as rash for the Arkansas General Assembly to act now, but the Natural state isn't likely to prove decisive anyway. [Sorry Arkansans.] The thinking in the past has been "if you can't be decisive at least be a part of the decision." In other words, make sure to hold your primary before the nomination has been decided. That rationale has spurred an awful lot of frontloading in the past. However, that could change if states continue to pinch pennies.

The implication here isn't really the backloading but the potential for coincidental primaries as a budgetary measure. Could we see, for instance, some of the northeastern states (ie: Connecticut, New York, Vermont) with late summer/early fall primaries for state and local offices move those up to coincide with their presidential primaries as a cost-saving mechanism? Instead of backloading the presidential primary, then, we witness the frontloading of state and local primaries.

I don't suspect we'll have an answer to this in any substantial way until after the 2010 midterms, the point after which most state begin mulling their plans for the next presidential election year. Regardless, it will be worth keeping an eye on.

UPDATE: Kate Bodenhamer over at CapSearch adds that the separate presidential primary cost the state $1.7 million in 2008. Adjusted for inflation, that could be a pretty good chunk of change in 2012.


Recent Posts:
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

For the most up-to-date version of this calendar see the left sidebar under the 2012 electoral college projection or click here.

This verges on the ludicrous, but last week I thought I would glance back at the state laws in place regarding the timing of presidential primaries for 2012. My intent was to see if the changes made for the 2008 cycle were permanent shifts or merely one and done changes for this past cycle.

This is certainly a fluid process and will change over the course of the next few years, but I thought it might be instructive to start with a baseline from which we can compare changes. As I have stated, there will likely be less frontloading in 2012 for a couple of reasons:

1) Most of the 2008 moves were permanent. What that means is that fewer states will have the ability to move to earlier dates if the rules regarding the timing of primaries and caucuses remain the same for 2012. Most are already at the earliest allowable date -- the first Tuesday in February.

2) Barring a failed Obama presidency, the president-elect will not be challenged in the Democratic primaries. Only one party, then, will have an active contest for its nomination. And as the Maryland case demonstrated only yesterday, partisanship is a powerful potential factor in the frontloading equation. When both parties have a contested nomination, both parties within a state (or state legislature) can take an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" approach to frontloading. In other words, if both parties are motivated to move forward, then where's the harm? This is why I've said that GOP-controlled states will be the most likely movers for 2012 holding all other factors equal. They face only token Democratic opposition to a move that could potentially help a Republican nominee. In Democratic-controlled states or competitive (evenly divided) states, that opposition is greater.

Take the Maryland example: The Maryland GOP is discussing a split to the their delegate allocation structure. Some delegates would be at stake in the party's February 2012 primary, but they want to establish a caucus that would jump Iowa and New Hampshire. So the first salvo has already kinda sorta been fired. And the thing is, Maryland's GOP is considering this because there's no way the Democratic-controlled legislature is going to go along with a plan to move the state's primary to an earlier date [especially when that could help a potential nominee build grassroots in the state and challenge Obama in the state. Yes, yes, I'm fully aware that Obama's efforts in South Carolina during the primary campaign didn't prove fruitful in November. But my point is that there is no way the Maryland legislature is going to pass off on such a move, much less the Democratic governor, if there is even a slightly chance that it would slightly help the Republican candidate.].

Regardless, here is how things look for 2012 more than three years away from the opening contests of the nomination campaign (All of the following are primaries unless otherwise noted.).

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses*

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire*

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses*, South Carolina*

A note on the placement of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana primary

Tuesday, February 14: Maryland, Virginia

Tuesday, February 21: Wisconsin

Tuesday, February 28: Arizona**, Michigan***

Tuesday, March 6: Massachusetts***, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses****

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Idaho, Kentucky

Tuesday, June 5: Montana, New Mexico***** and South Dakota

*New Hampshire law calls for the Granite state to hold a primary on the second Tuesday of March or seven days prior to any other similar election, whichever is earlier. Florida is first now, so New Hampshire would be a week earlier at the latest. Traditionally, Iowa has gone on the Monday a week prior to New Hampshire. For the time being we'll wedge Nevada and South Carolina in on the Saturday between New Hampshire and Florida, but these are just guesses at the moment. Any rogue states could cause a shift.

**In Arizona the governor can use his or her proclamation powers to move the state's primary to a date on which the event would have an impact on the nomination. In 2004 and 2008 the primary was moved to the first Tuesday in February.

***Massachusetts and Michigan are the only states that passed a frontloading bill prior to 2008 that was not permanent. The Bay state reverts to its first Tuesday in March date in 2012 while Michigan will fall back to the fourth Tuesday in February.

****The Colorado Democratic and Republican parties have the option to move their caucuses from the third Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February.

*****The law in New Mexico allows the parties to decide when to hold their nominating contests. The Democrats have gone in early February in the last two cycles, but the GOP has held steady in June. They have the option of moving however.

A note on the Minnesota caucuses.

I've obviously added some caveats already, but there is one big one that I should note as well. On the surface this looks like a far less frontloaded calendar. However, it only accounts for a handful of caucuses -- the most predictable early ones and those that are controlled by state law. Montana and West Virginia Republicans in 2008, for instance, opted for caucuses as opposed to primaries and shifted them to Super Tuesday. That could certainly happen again. The other caucus states will be determined at a later date, as the states' delegate selection plans emerge in probably 2011.

Now that we have a baseline for comparison let the frontloading begin. You're on the clock Maryland.


Recent Posts:
Maryland GOP to Jump Iowa/New Hampshire in 2012?

FHQ Hasn't Disappeared...It Just Seems That Way

Live Blog and Open Thread: Georgia Senate Runoff

2008 Primary and Caucus Final Grade Sheet

I meant to put this up last week when I completed the grades for each state's primary and/or caucus in 2008. But alas, other things intervened. So let's look at those grades in the aggregate:

2008 Primary & Caucus Grade Sheet
State	Grade
Indiana	A
Iowa	A
New Hampshire	A
South Carolina	A
California	A-
North Carolina	A-
Ohio	A-
Pennsylvania	A-
Texas	A-
Washington	A-
Colorado	B+
Illinois	B+
Kansas	B+
Louisiana	B+
Maryland	B+
Minnesota	B+
New York	B+
Virginia	B+
West Virginia	B+
Alaska	B
Montana	B
Nevada	B
Wisconsin	B
Idaho	B-
Kentucky	B-
Massachusetts	B-
Alabama	C+
Missouri	C+
Nebraska	C+
North Dakota	C+
Oregon	C+
DC	C
Florida	C
Georgia	C
Maine	C
Oklahoma	C
Rhode Island	C
South Dakota	C
Wyoming	C
Connecticut	C-
Hawaii	C-
Mississippi	C-
New Mexico	C-
Tennessee	C-
Utah	C-
Vermont	D+
Arizona	D
Arkansas	D-
Delaware	D-
Michigan	F
New Jersey	F

Which states do well and which states do poorly? Earlier is better, but either having a lot of delegates or holding a stand-alone contest are also beneficial. Louisiana is an interesting case. It may simply be that the state government in the Pelican state wanted to avoid a primary election on Fat Tuesday (...Super Tuesday to the rest of nation), but they broke new ground by holding their primary on a weekend. Tuesdays are typically the domain of primaries, but the Louisiana example may prove a viable alternative for states in 2012. The legislature in Kansas has already considered such a weekend contest for 2012, though the plan was vetoed because a photo ID provision was included in the bill. It will be interesting to see other state legislative action on this as we move into the down time between cycles next year.

And what are the ties that bind those states that had the least influential contests in 2008? Well, there was some bad luck involved. That's fine to say in hindsight, but it is the reality of the situation. For most states that moved to Super Tuesday, the decision was a poor one. Most got lost in the shuffle, but essentially got what they were after: some influence over the nomination decisions. That was easy on the Democratic side, as the battle lasted through each state's contest. On the Republican side, any state that held a contest prior to March 4 technically had a say in the nomination, but got varying returns on their investments. Those states with contests following March 4 were out of the nomination equation (as most post-Super Tuesday states have been since 1988 with few exceptions). Small states on Super Tuesday and those states following March 4 were less successful in influencing the nomination, but the candidates' home states also fared poorly. And this is contrary to some of the stated thought processes of state governments. Such a move helps win a native son or daughter delegates, but that comes at the expense of having the contest matter in the grand scheme of things. If a contest is ceded to one candidate or another because of the home state factor, then the media stays away and the contest proves less than influential. Illinois is the exception here. The Land of Lincoln was delegate-rich enough to be buffered against the downside of the state being ceded to Obama. Arkansas and Arizona, though, were lost in the shuffle on Super Tuesday.

What did the calendar of 2008 teach us? Well, earlier is better, but early and alone is ideal. Most states don't and won't have access to such a combination without the party-sanctioned exemptions that New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada receive. Without reform then, the impetus remains behind holding a contest on Super Tuesday. And ultimately, that will lead to a national primary system with four states having an influence over the others. Is that an ideal system? Maybe, maybe not. But given how difficult it is going to be to significantly reform the system, that is probably what the system will end up looking like.


Recent Posts:
Insult to Injury: Obama and His Money

The Electoral College Map (6/18/08)

Idaho Final Tally: 79.5% of Vote, 83.3% of Delegates

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Five

Another day, another look back at how states fared in the influence game during the 2008 primary season. Today FHQ examines how the final group of 10 states (South Dakota-Wyoming) matched up against the rest.

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.

South Dakota:
2004 Date/contest type: 6-1-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 6-3-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Down to the wire and the Mount Rushmore state opts for the candidate who had her fate seemingly sealed the weekend before in Washington, when the Rules and Bylaws Committee decided how to deal with Florida and Michigan (not in favor of Clinton).
GOP Influence: A rock red state with absolutely no influence. Well, that's what happens when you go last; three months after the race effectively ended.
Contest Company: Montana, New Mexico (GOP)
Grade: C
Comments: The Mount Rushmore state, like so many others, considered a frontloading move (Super Tuesday, where else?), but decided against it, opting for the June primary it had held since 2000. Did it work? Well, the non-move wasn't designed to maximize influence. It was an economic move. By consolidating the primaries for president and state/local offices, South Dakota (or any other state for that matter) saves money. That the state proved at all influential in either contest was a function of the race lasting that long and not the primary being moved, or in this case, not moved.

Tennessee:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-10-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The Volunteer state was another Arkansas neighbor that provided Clinton with a boost on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: Unlike Oklahoma, this Arkansas neighbor actually benefited Mike Huckabee on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C-
Comments: Hmm, moving up a week may not have paid as many dividends as the move four years ago. Things were much more crowded in 2008 than they were in 2004 for the Volunteer state and it showed. Tennessee was much less likely to get noticed among more than twenty states than they were four years ago when only Virginia's primary coincided with the Tennessee primary.

Texas:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/primary-caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary-caucus (Dem.), primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: 3am or not, Clinton began her comeback after Obama's streak in Texas. She won the primary but he took the caucuses in the state and the delegate advantage overall. On rules alone, Texas got a fair amount of attention (and influence) this cycle.
GOP Influence: McCain putting Huckabee away in the Lone Star state sealed the deal for the Arizona senator and served as the death knell for the Huckabee campaign.
Contest Company: Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont
Grade: A-
Comments: Rules, rules and rules. The Texas Democrats' method of allocating delegates got all the attention from February 19 up until the state's contest on March 4. Huckabee's inability to win in Texas ended his campaign and Obama neutralized Clinton's primary win with a caucus win in the state of his own. The Texas legislature being unable to move legislation scheduling the state's primary for February 5 actually paid off. Texas is a huge delegate state and would have held its own on Super Tuesday, but March 4 offered more of a spotlight and as a result influence over the nominations.

Utah:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-24-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Obama continued his march through largely Republican states on Super Tuesday by winning Utah.
GOP Influence: Romney took advantage of another home state advantage, winning one of his few winner-take-all victories.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C-
Comments: Utah was another state that moved early (during the first quarter of 2006) and watched the stampede of states move in on its February 5 territory. The more states that joined the parade, the less influence it meant for Utah. The Beehive state got it alright; a small influence on the process. Obama emerged and Romney won another home state contest.

Vermont:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Polls showed Obama well ahead in the led up to the primary in Vermont. That netted the Green Mountain state a pass from the major candidates.
GOP Influence: Huckabee's inability to win in New Hampshire earlier in the cycle pretty much sealed the deal for the former Arkansas governor in Vermont.
Contest Company: Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas
Grade: D+
Comments: While Rhode Island was seen as a contest with a relatively tight margin on the Democratic side, Vermont seemingly leaned heavily toward Obama. Not only was the contest overshadowed by Texas and Ohio, but it was viewed as less competitive as well. For the GOP, it was all McCain. Huckabee had put in place a Texas/Ohio or bust strategy, that by the end of the night had failed.

Virginia:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-10-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-12-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Obama's lopsided victory in the commonwealth and in the other two contests of the day really began to cast doubt on the Clinton candidacy.
GOP Influence: Huckabee's performance among evangelicals continued to bring up questions of McCain's chances of potentially wooing those voters in November. Nonetheless, the Arizona senator still won a solid victory.
Contest Company: One-third of the Potomac Primary (w/Maryland and DC)
Grade: B+
Comments: The subregional primary put all three participating states (Well, two states and one district.) in a much bigger spotlight than in if any or all had gone on Super Tuesday. Obama's impressive performance coupled with question marks surrounding McCain and Christian conservatives (not to mention recent Democratic successes in statewide races.) brought Virginia into the swing state discussion

Washington:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-7-04/caucus
2008 Date/contest type: 2-9-08/caucus (Dem.)--2-9-08/caucus (GOP), 2-19-08/primary (caucus)
Dem. Influence:
GOP Influence:
Contest Company: on 2-9: Louisiana, Kansas (GOP), Nebraska (Dem.), on 2-19: Hawaii (Dem.), Wisconsin
Grade: A-
Comments: Another state legislature, another failed effort to establish a primary. However, the proposal would have placed the contest on February 5. Both parties most definitely benefited from the caucuses held the weekend following Super Tuesday. The Evergreen state was the biggest game in town that weekend but would have been lost amid the big boys four days earlier.

West Virginia:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-11-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/convention (GOP)--5-13-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Clinton's runaway victory in the Mountain state seemed a foregone conclusion heading in and ended up that way. The narratives emerging from that contest were Obama's troubles with working class whites in Appalachia and Clinton's inability, even given the huge victory, to catch up in the delegate count.
GOP Influence: The state convention wrapped up and was the first win of Super Tuesday. Huckabee won on the second ballot, but not before Romney, who won a plurality on the the first vote, could accuse Huckabee and McCain of being in cahoots. That sort of speculation fueled the Huckabee as VP chatter that has since faded.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: B+
Comments: For a small state, West Virginia lucked out with good timing on the GOP side and with the contest lasting to the last contests in the Democratic race.

Wisconsin:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-17-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-19-08/primary
Dem. Influence: With neither campaign making an effort in far-away Hawaii, Wisconsin was the big contest of the week. Clinton closed the gap in the polls heading in, but Obama won to extend the streak of victories to the March 4 contests two weeks later.
GOP Influence: Huckabee made a push in the state, but things were beginning to shift from math to miracles for him during this phase. McCain's inevitability was already apparent, but became even more so in Wisconsin.
Contest Company: Hawaii (Dem.), Washington (GOP)
Grade: B
Comments: Wisconsin carried this date over from the 2004 cycle and even though it fell after Super Tuesday in 2008, it still matter since both nominations were to that point undecided. Still the Badger state wasn't as influential as it was four years ago, virtually knocking John Edwards from the race.

Wyoming:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-6-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-5-08/caucus (GOP)--3-8-08/caucus (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: Obama's caucus successes had already been identified prior to this last caucus and while he won handily, the Clinton vote kept it under the threshold that would have given the Illinois senator anything more than a two delegate advantage in the caucuses.
GOP Influence: You can't argue with having the second contest, even when most were focused on the upcoming contest in New Hampshire. Romney won, but didn't get much mileage out of it.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: C
Comments: Raise your hand if you are familiar with any Wyoming contests prior to this year. I didn't think so. So, for the state to get the second contest in on the GOP and still be relevant after not only Super Tuesday, but Texas/Ohio on the Democratic side, was quite an accomplishment for the tiny (in population) Equality state.

The final group got good marks for having contests which were well-scheduled and as a result were influential in the nomination process. Some states moved (or held steady) in positions that were earlier than they had been in the past but avoided the logjam on Super Tuesday. When both contests made it past that point, several states were well-positioned to make a difference.


Recent Posts:
The Dry Erase Board Wiped Clean

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three

2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Four

Today FHQ takes you on a trip back in time to review the influence states from Vermont in the east to Oregon in the west, from North Dakota in the north to Texas in the south had on the the nomination races in 2008. Granted this is an alphabetical trip, so I can't really pick and choose. Well, I guess I already did. I choose to go through the state contests 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.

New Mexico:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus (Dem.)--6-3-08/primary (GOP)
Dem. Influence: New Mexico's Democratic contest stretched beyond Super Tuesday to be officially decided. When it was, the win provided Clinton with her only break from the Obama streak during February. Of course that news was blunted by the resignation of Patti Solis-Doyle (Clinton's original campaign manager) and Clinton's original loan to her campaign around the same time.
GOP Influence: I saw a lot more about Montana and South Dakota than I did about New Mexico's Republican primary.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday (Dem.)--South Dakota (GOP)
Grade: C-
Comments: New Mexico avoided being lost in the shuffle because ballot counting extended into the next week. However, while the Democratic primary didn't get lost among all those other Super Tuesday contests, but that news got filed away behind other news and Obama's streak. The GOP contest? Well, that one fell way after the point at which McCain had wrapped up the nomination, stuck in the background of the final Democratic contests.

New York:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Clinton played to her advantage on home turf. Much of the focus then was on other contests on a busy day.
GOP Influence: While Romney was busy winning caucuses, McCain was taking care of business in the winner-take-all states. If Obama built his delegate edge on caucus states, McCain used winner-take-all states similarly.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: B+
Comments: Another "keeping up with the Super Tuesdays" state. New York is a big delegate "get" in both parties, but Clinton had the "home state" advantage in the Empire state and McCain took charge in yet another winner-take-all primary.

North Carolina:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-9-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 5-6-08/primary
Dem. Influence: The Democratic primary mattered because Clinton's win in Pennsylvania two weeks earlier had cast doubt on Obama's inevitability and because the polls had closed to within the margin of error in the final days. Adding to that drama, North Carolina has been bandied about as a swing state in the fall with Obama at the top of the ticket.
GOP Influence: They had a contest? All I heard was how Obama won by a margin that was well behind where the polls had him in the state.
Contest Company: Indiana
Grade: A-
Comments: After holding primaries after the time during which the nominations had been settled for twenty years, the North Carolina legislature considered moving its primary, but the bill got stuck in committee and kept the Tarheel state primary in May. It didn't matter as the campaign stretched beyond March for the first time in nearly as many years.

North Dakota:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/caucus (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/caucus
Dem. Influence: This one gets a caucus bump for Obama, but it was a forgotten contest on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: See above (and insert Romney's name).
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C+
Comments: If it wasn't bad enough that North Dakota had considered changing the state's name to simply Dakota, the major candidates didn't pay them much mind either. Then again, North Dakota did hold its caucuses during Super Tuesday. They did get some attention during their late March state convention and received a caucus boost, but the Peace Garden state still didn't get much out of being where they were on Super Tuesday.

Ohio:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: After Obama's streak of eleven victories, Ohio was a welcome and big victory for Clinton. That win along with Pennsylvania helped drive home her "swing state" electoral college argument. When that argument was first made it didn't actually make sense given the polls, but later came to be a vital part of her fading argument to the party's superdelegates.
GOP Influence: McCain sealed the deal with the knockout blow made up of Texas/Ohio. It is to the Arizona senator, what Montana was to Obama, the state that put him over the top.
Contest Company: Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
Grade: A-
Comments: Ohio's legislature toyed with the notion of joining Florida on January 29, but ultimately held in place on March 4. That saved the state the headache of dealing with the Florida/Michigan problem and got the state a prominent position in the Democratic race and a close out spot in the GOP battle.

Oklahoma:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 2-5-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A big win for Clinton in terms of margin, but the regional ties to Arkansas had much to do with the former first lady's success there on Super Tuesday.
GOP Influence: Those same regional ties did not benefit the former Arkansas governor, as McCain took Oklahoma on Super Tuesday.
Contest Company: Super Tuesday
Grade: C
Comments: The Sooner state definitely did better by being earlier in 2004. A narrow Wes Clarke win then really hurt Edwards. In 2008, the rest of the crowd joined Oklahoma and rendered the state's primary much less influential.

Oregon:
2004 Date/contest type: 5-18-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 5-20-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Oregon pushed Obama over the top in terms of pledged delegates. He had a majority of those delegates after the Beaver state. It was a short trip from that milestone (and a valuable decision from the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee) to claiming the actual nomination two weeks later.
GOP Influence: Like so many contests after Ohio/Texas on March 4 when McCain claimed the mantle of presumptive nominee, Oregon just didn't mean as much with a competitive race on the other side. Down-ballot races in those same primaries took pre-eminence for the GOP.
Contest Company: Kentucky
Grade: C+
Comments: A milestone win on the Democratic side and a non-starter for the GOP made for mixed results for the primary in Oregon. There was a proposal to move the state's primary, but it didn't take. That "gridlock" made Oregon's primary meaningful if only because the Democratic contest obliged the Beaver state by lasting that long.

Pennsylvania:
2004 Date/contest type: 4-27-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 4-22-08/primary
Dem. Influence: A six week slog that continued Clinton's resurgence, Pennsylvania was an instrumental piece of the primary season equation in the Democratic race.
GOP Influence: The commonwealth is a swing state, so McCain spent some time there, but didn't break a sweat worrying about Ron Paul or defiant Huckabee supporters. Perhaps I should refer to the Paul folks as defiant.
Contest Company: Stand-alone contests
Grade: A-
Comments: No state outside of Iowa got as much of a break as Pennsylvania. The layover between Mississippi's contest on March 11 and Pennsylvania's on April 22 could only be rivaled by the time between the last contest of 2004 and Iowa's caucuses in 2008 in this cycle. That's a fair amount of attention.

Rhode Island:
2004 Date/contest type: 3-2-04/primary
2008 Date/contest type: 3-4-08/primary
Dem. Influence: Rhode Island helped keep Clinton alive after the February Obama streak.
GOP Influence: Without a northeasterner in the race anymore, McCain only had to fend off Mike Huckabee (who was focused on Texas) in the Ocean state.
Contest Company: Ohio, Texas and Vermont
Grade: C
Comments: Along with Vermont, Rhode Island played the role of little brother to contests in Ohio and Texas on March 4. The Ocean state was a part of the Clinton run through the day's contests, though.

South Carolina:
2004 Date/contest type: 2-3-04/primary (Dem.)
2008 Date/contest type: 1-19-08/primary (GOP)--1-26-08/primary (Dem.)
Dem. Influence: The lead up to South Carolina began the Clinton's long (inadvertent) effort to estrange black voters. Both the former first lady and the former president's comments damaged the New York senator's chances of legitimately keeping that voting bloc competitive with Obama.
GOP Influence: The gateway to the South is always an important contest and a role South Carolina's primary has filled on the GOP side since the 1990s. McCain's win in the Palmetto state (holding off Huckabee) made a big difference heading into Florida a week later. A Huckabee win there likely would have meant the former Arkansas governor would have been slightly more competitive in the Sunshine state. Instead he had to cede the state and shift his focus and limited resources to Super Tuesday contests.
Contest Company: Nevada (GOP)--Stand-alone (Dem.)
Grade: A
Comments: It is difficult to discount an early state and South Carolina fits that bill. All the woulda, coulda, shouldas spring forth from those early contests before momentum builds behind one candidate. That momentum could be felt in the GOP race through South Carolina, but was lacking on the Democratic side.

This group of states is littered with states with legislatures who considered frontloading moves, but ultimately didn't. The nature of the race in 2008 helped to make many of those states relevant in the presidential nomination decision-making process for the first time in a couple of decades. As I've maintained, those same states shouldn't stand idly by before 2012 waiting for 2008 to repeat itself. Without major reform, 2012 will mark a return to the way things were in the nomination game prior to this cycle. This group also benefited from New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, several heavy hitters in the delegate game, being among its ranks.


Up next: South Dakota through Wyoming.


Recent Posts:
2008 Primary and Caucus Grades, Part Three

The Electoral College Map (6/11/08)

The What If Primary: Louisiana Politics Goes National