Where Does New Hampshire Fit into All the Early 2024 Calendar Jockeying?

Since FHQ ended its post-election hiatus after the inauguration the other week, we have spent considerable time discussing the (VERY) early maneuverings on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Much of that has been in response to news accounts that have filtered out about a couple of states in particular: Iowa and Nevada.

Iowa, the lead off state on the primary calendar for the entirety of the post-reform era, has its issues after a 2020 process that did not exactly go as planned. That has the state's future as first-in-the-nation contest clearly in the crosshairs of, if not the Democratic National Committee, then certainly of activists and other vocal early state dissenters. Whether that criticism is enough to disrupt the calendar order that came to dominate the second decade of the 21st century remains to be seen. There are some institutional roadblocks. But Republicans in the Hawkeye state also seem intent on trying once again to band together with Iowa Democrats and their early state counterparts on the RNC to protect the caucuses. 

But should Iowa falter and the DNC opt for some change at the front of the queue, Nevada stands ready and willing to fill the void. That is true in the case of a caucus to primary shift for 2024, but also to jump into Iowa's position as well. 

And though FHQ has mentioned it in passing in these discussions, short shrift has likely been paid to another likely player in how this will all ultimately shake out: New Hampshire.  

Unsurprisingly, John DiStaso of WMUR, one of the stalwarts of the #FITN beat in the Granite state had a fairly typical response to the Nevada speculation, yet another of the quadrennial rites of passage challenges to New Hampshire's traditional standing on presidential primary calendar.

"And by the way, in case you need reminding (and we’re sure you don’t): New Hampshire has a little thing called a state law ensuring that the primary will be first – with or without the blessing of the political parties and the awarding of delegates.  

"Also, we expect that soon to emerge will be a public show of unity between New Hampshire Democrats and Republicans – yes, even in this sharply divided partisan atmosphere -- to push back against the building opposition to the primary’s status."

DiStaso is absolutely correct that there is a state law in New Hampshire that protects the states position on the calendar. That is not up for dispute. Not only does the law require that the New Hampshire primary be at least seven days before any similar contest (read: primary), but Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D) has adeptly used the law (and the latitude it provides him in setting the date of the primary) since 1976 to keep New Hampshire exactly where it has been. 

But 2024 might be different for New Hampshire (if not Iowa). 

Said state law has been successful in preserving New Hampshire's position, but that law has come to be buttressed in recent cycles by national party delegate selection rules and more importantly penalties in both parties. Not only has New Hampshire's place been codified in both sets of national party rules, but the penalties have (for the most part) further protected the Granite state and the other three carve-outs from the encroachment of would-be rogue states. 

In other words, there has been a price to pay for ambitious states that have not been Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina in the recent past. On the Democratic side, such a state would lose half of its delegates and candidates would lose any delegates won in any rogue state if they campaigned there. In the Republican rules, such a violation would knock a state's delegation (depending on its size) down to just six or nine delegates. Those are substantial penalties that have been largely effective at protecting all four carve-out states, potentially surpassing the continued efficacy of the state law in New Hampshire. 

What FHQ means is that with or without that state law, the nation party rules have been engineered to protect the early states. But what if those same penalties are turned around and pointed at New Hampshire?

Let us assume for a moment that the DNC and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee over the next year and a half or so come to the conclusion that enough is enough and it is time at last to reconfigure the beginning of the primary calendar. The hypothetical rules would no longer reserve the second position -- or the first primary position -- for New Hampshire. Should Secretary Gardner opt to flaunt the rules and bump the presidential primary in the Granite state back up to that first position, then that would actually open up New Hampshire to penalties being assessed against the state party rather than to protect them and their delegation.

That is a different environment than New Hampshire has faced in the recent past and takes us back to past cycles when the state was on its own for the most part to protect its position. After all, in 2008, the first cycle in which all four carve-out states' position were codified, Florida and Michigan blew up the early calendar and forced the early states to break with the exact rule on timing. All moved to protect their positions, but none followed exactly the guidance provided each state for scheduling in the rules. Six states, then, broke the rules. But Florida and Michigan were targeted because they forced the others to move to keep up with the order -- or something close to it -- laid out in the rules. 

Florida and Michigan bore the brunt of the penalties that cycle while Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were free to pursue positions somewhat consistent with the DNC rules without sanction (even if a stricter reading of the rules could have opened the door to them).

Before 2008, New Hampshire often threatened to torpedo candidates in the state if they opted to campaign in rogue states. Lamar Alexander, Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole all steered clear of campaigning in Delaware in 1996 when the First state primary fell just four days after the New Hampshire contest. Steve Forbes ignored the insistence from New Hampshire officials and went to Delaware and won, but he paid a price in New Hampshire, finishing a distant fourth. 

However, the Democratic delegate selection rules already deal with that eventuality. Candidates who campaign in rogue states lose any delegates won in those states. Again, that has protected New Hampshire in the past, but what if that same penalty is turned on the Granite state should Gardner ignore any hypothetical rules from the DNC with respect to the timing of delegate selection events?

That is a huge unanswered question on which the past does not adequately guide us. 

If the DNC sets a Nevada primary as the first contest, and then Gardner schedules the Granite state primary earlier than that, then New Hampshire would presumably lose half of its already paltry sum of delegates. But additionally, any candidate who campaigns in New Hampshire under those supposed rules would lose any delegates won as well. [No, delegates are not necessarily the name of the game that early in the calendar.]

Look, all of this is extremely speculative given how far the process is out from a finalized primary calendar, much less a set of delegate selection rules. But the notion of what happens to New Hampshire if the rules turn on the state in 2024 are being undercovered already in the face of the usual clapback of "but our state law" from New Hampshire. 

The one thing that FHQ would say at this juncture in closing is that one should notice that it is the Democratic Party and its rules that are discussed in the scenario analyses above. If Biden seeks renomination, then all of this may be moot. The real action will be on the Republican side. And there does not appear to be any movement as of yet among national Republicans to strip the Granite state of its position in the GOP nomination process. 

But, as usual, time will tell that tale.

Recent posts: 

Montana Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to March

Nevada's Willing, but Will the Stars Align for a Push to an Earlier Point on the 2024 Calendar?

New York Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June, but...

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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

Montana Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to March

With rare exception, Montana has conducted a consolidated primary -- including the presidential primary -- on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June throughout the post-reform era. 

The only times when that was not the case were in 1984, when state Democrats opted to hold March caucuses instead, and in 2008 when Treasure state Republicans had a February state convention. Other than those two instances, Montana delegate allocation in both parties has tended to stem from the June presidential primary.¹

And it is additionally true that the Montana legislature has done little to alter the scheduling. It has not been common for legislators to introduce legislation shifting the primary date -- presidential or otherwise -- because 1) that entails a budgetary decision on creating a separate and earlier presidential primary or 2) moving the consolidated primary would mean moving the legislators own primaries (and increase the length of their campaigns if the date is earlier than June). [Unlike many other states, Montana's legislature only meets in odd numbered years, so a change in the primary date would not mean that legislator would be campaigning for the hypothetically earlier primary during the legislative session; something that has been a roadblock in other states.]

While other states surrounding the Treasure state have shifted their presidential primaries over the years, Montana just has not seen much activity to affect the same change there. Within the last decade there have been just two bills that would have made any change to the scheduling of the Montana presidential primary: 

1) a 2015 effort to move the primary to August (which would have made the presidential primary non-compliant), and...

2) 2013 legislation to consolidated the presidential (and other) primaries with school elections in May.

In the face of a bevy of post-reform efforts across the nation to frontload presidential primaries, then, Montana has resisted the urge to follow suit.

But as the process eases into the 2024 cycle, that may be changing. New legislation -- HB 248 -- introduced by Rep. Kelly Kortum (D-65th, Bozeman) would move the consolidated primary in the Treasure state up three months from June to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March. That likely Super Tuesday date would align the Montana presidential primary with primaries from a host of states across the country with Utah as its likely closest neighbor. That would not be the earliest presidential nominating contest in Montana (That's the 2008 Republican convention.), but it would be the earliest primary election the Treasure has conducted. 

--

In the initial committee hearing for HB 248 on Tuesday, February 2, the State Administration heard arguments for and against the shift. Bill sponsor, Kelly Kortum made the case for the added economic benefit of an earlier primary, but failed when pressed to come up with anything more than abstract notions of candidate visits and spending in the state. Montana would be among the least delegate-rich states on Super Tuesday and would be hard-pressed to draw anything more than campaign spending on advertisements. Keaton Sunchild, director of Montana Native Vote, backed the bill citing the increased emphasis on rural, native and western voices in the process. But he was the only proponent of the legislation. 

Everything else during the hearing was a push back against the change from election administrators at all levels across the state. Dana Corson, the director of elections and voting services in the Montana secretary of state's office, balked at the date change and when it would be implemented. To do so for the 2022 cycle would put stress on a new voting system being put in place, but even had issues with the filing deadlines changes if implementation was pushed back to 2024. The latter was a refrain that was repeated by both Regina Plettenberg (county clerks of Montana) and Shantil Siaperas (Montana Association of Counties). Neither thought that moving filing deadlines and elections training into the holiday season to accommodate a March primary would be workable. But this is a common point of dissension among clerks and counties when similar primary bills are raised in other areas across the country. 

The committee will later consider a recommendation to pass (or not) to the House floor. Early indications are that there was neither a solid and persuasive argument for the change, nor enthusiasm on the committee for the change. But that is not atypical this early in a presidential election cycle. That urgency may be there in two years time. 

--

A link to this legislation has been added to the 2024 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

--

¹ For a number of post-reform cycles, the Republican presidential primary in Montana was a beauty contest and treated as merely advisory to the delegate selection/allocation that would take place at a subsequent state convention.

Recent posts: 

Nevada's Willing, but Will the Stars Align for a Push to an Earlier Point on the 2024 Calendar?

New York Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June, but...

Iowa Will Not Go Gentle into That Good Night for 2024

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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

Nevada's Willing, but Will the Stars Align for a Push to an Earlier Point on the 2024 Calendar?

Nevada pushed back into the news again yesterday. Michelle L. Price at the Associated Press reported that movers and shakers in the Silver state are attempting to position a potential new presidential primary there as the first-in-the-nation contest for the 2024 cycle. That is nothing new. In fact, FHQ just last week discussed the contours of such a shift in the context of a January Washington Post article on the matter. 

But there were some other interesting nuggets in that story worth reflecting on that are new. Last week, FHQ was more abstract and speculative when talking about the possibility of a Nevada presidential primary. Then, the idea of a state legislative push to establish a presidential primary election was definitely that: speculative. However, Price reported that legislation (with supposed bipartisan support) is likely for a legislature that just gaveled in for the session on February 1. There is no bill yet.

And that seemingly settles (or at least starts to settle) a question FHQ posed in the previous post: which route will Nevada decision-makers take? The state parties could seize this one by the reins and hold a party-run primary, but appears that there is support across party lines in the state legislature to create a state-run/state-funded presidential primary option. 

Of course, that leaves some of the previous questions from last week unanswered. Establishing a primary election is one thing, but scheduling it is another. How will any forthcoming legislation deal with that question (especially in light of the fact that neither national party has finalized much less really started finalizing their respective 2024 delegate selection rules)? Will legislators punt on that decision and pass a later bill scheduling the 2024 contest? Will they follow the lead of both New Hampshire and Georgia and leave the date unset, ceding the date-setting authority to, say, the secretary of state? The latter would potentially maximize the Nevada's ability to move on the fly and respond to any potential move by New Hampshire's secretary of state to stay first. [For the record, Bill Gardner, the secretary of state in the Granite state nonchalantly responded to the Nevada speculation in the AP story by suggesting that it would all settle out in good time.]

Furthermore, it should be noted that Nevada is no stranger to these sorts of attempted maneuvers. A 2013 bill, one that ended up going nowhere, sought not only establish a primary in late January, but allowed the secretary of state to change that date to an even earlier position should one or more of a list of western states tried to move in on Nevada's first-in-the-west position carved out by the national parties. This bill was resurrected (but mostly as a placeholder) in 2015. That bill was ultimately significantly amended and became the legislation that died at the end of the legislative session (in part because Harry Reid intervened).

That intervention is an important sidebar. Nevada's position as a carve-out state on the Democratic side has it codified in national party rules as a caucus state. Switching to a primary could have in 2015 jeopardized the Silver state's early position in future cycles. However, in the time since, the terrain has shifted away from caucuses on the Democratic side. The combination of Nevada's willingness to adopt a presidential primary as the means of allocating national convention delegates and Iowa Democrats' problematic implementation of their 2020 caucuses may play to Nevada's advantage during the 2024 cycle. But part of that willingness -- at least this early -- is about making the change to a primary and likely not yet selecting the date on which it will occur. That remains to be seen as one awaits any legislation to be introduced on the subject in the coming days and weeks. 

Keeping the date as an unknown not only likely helps grease the wheels with the national party, but would also aid the state in any prospective calendar battle with New Hampshire (and maybe Iowa) in 2023.

--

Speaking of Iowa, the other tidbit worth flagging in Price's reporting for this story comes from the Hawkeye state. Earlier this week, FHQ wrote some about the standard operating procedure in Iowa with respect to protecting the caucuses' position. Typically, that means both state parties acting in concert with one another, banding together in defense of the caucuses. In the past that has worked. But there are signs of vulnerability on that front for the 2024 cycle. Republicans are there and so, too, is the newly elected Iowa Democratic Party chair. 

But there is dissension in the ranks of the Iowa Democratic state central committee about the prudence of protecting the caucuses this time around. After 2020, some on the committee view keeping the caucuses as an "uphill battle." And some in that camp see moving to a primary and focusing on "winning elections" in a state that became a deeper shade of red in the Trump era as a better path to take than clinging to the caucuses. 

That there is any division on the Democratic state committee on the matter of the caucuses is noteworthy. That division ultimately poses some trouble not only for Iowa Democrats in search of another cycle at the front of the primary calendar queue but potentially for Republicans as well. The interesting thing may be how carve-out state members of both the DNC and DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee work together (or if they do). Republicans from those states on the RNC are unified. Democrats may not be. And that speaks to the different priorities and incentives in both parties when it comes to the early 2024 calendar line up.

Recent posts: 

New York Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June, but...

Iowa Will Not Go Gentle into That Good Night for 2024

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Actions versus Words

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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

New York Bill Would Shift Presidential Primary to June, but...

For the last several cycles, the scheduling of the New York presidential primary has fallen into a regular rhythm. Following the end of any presidential election year, the date of the primary -- wherever it has been scheduled in the previous cycle -- reverts to an early February date that is non-compliant with national party rules. 

That routine is no different as the 2020 cycle transitions to 2024. 

What initially was set before the Covid-19 outbreak as a late April primary date has once again been automatically pushed back to the first Tuesday in February, the day after the (would-be) Iowa caucuses (if the scheduling of the past few cycles carries over to 2024). But that has been the placeholder for the presidential primary -- the spring primary -- in the Empire state since the 2008 cycle. One could argue, and FHQ has, that this forces state legislators to revisit the date of the primary every cycle and to consider alternatives that might be advantageous to the state. The clearer argument just jumps to the latter explanation. Legislators in New York do not need to be forced, but rather they collectively and voluntarily reexamine the date of the presidential primary in the light of the national party rules that have been released during the midterm election year. 

But now, newly introduced legislation would disrupt this regular rhythm of the last decade and consolidate the presidential primary with the primaries for state offices. S 1819 would eliminate the spring primary language and move the date of the presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the fourth Tuesday in June.

Astute readers and calendar watchers will no doubt spot the problem with the legislation introduced and sponsored by two Democratic legislators, Sen. James Skoufis (D-39th) and Sen. Brad Hoylman (D-27th). Yes, the plan would move the New York presidential primary out of the early calendar problem area  near or before the four carve-out states. But it would create the same problem on the back end of the calendar. The late June primary was fine in 2020, however, only because of latitude provided to the states/state parties due to the pandemic. Assuming there is no global outbreak in 2024 and that the national party rules on timing carry over to the coming presidential primary season, then a fourth Tuesday in June primary in the Empire state would also be non-compliant. 

Now, obviously this has not stopped New York legislators in the past. Again, see the description of that "regular rhythm" above. They could as they have over the last several cycles schedule the primary for an alternative (and compliant) time, but if this legislation passes and is signed into law, there would also be the matter of the state primaries tethered to the presidential primary. Would legislators move the entire consolidated primary to an earlier date or would they merely split them again, shifting the presidential primary alone to different point on the calendar? 

That remains to be seen should this legislation actually make it through the legislative branch and end up signed into law. But the one thing that is for certain is that it would be tempting from a cost savings perspective to keep the two sets of contests together. And that is likely the main thrust of this legislation.

--

A link to this legislation has been added to the 2024 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

Recent posts: 

Iowa Will Not Go Gentle into That Good Night for 2024

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Actions versus Words

Missouri House Bill Would Eliminate Presidential Primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

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

Iowa Will Not Go Gentle into That Good Night for 2024

Another Monday and another Iowa and 2024 story that lingered over the weekend. This time, John McCormick at the Wall Street Journal has more from on the ground in the Hawkeye state about the efforts to save the caucuses one more time.

One thing that FHQ touched on last week was that if a change was to be made to the early part of the presidential primary calendar in 2024, then it would be in the national parties' interests to come to some formal or informal agreement about what that might look like. Things are much more likely to stick long term that way. And that stability -- certainty, as FHQ tends to call it -- is something that not only both major parties typically like in these nominations processes, but those playing the game -- the candidates and their campaigns -- do too. 

Lack of agreement at the national party level is something that could be potentially exploited by state political parties, especially those attempting to protect the status quo. If national Democrats opt to drop the Iowa caucuses and the Republican National Committee decides to stick it out one more cycle (or even indefinitely), then the two state parties in the Hawkeye state can use that "disagreement" to their advantage by sticking together. 

And that is exactly what the two Iowa parties are going to do. It is what McCormick describes in his reporting and what Iowa state parties have done with consistency in the efforts to save their position when threatened throughout the post-reform era. 

What is more, that sort of cohesion exists not only in Iowa but across the four carve-out states. As Republican Party of Iowa chair, Jeff Kaufmann said to McCormick:

"...the four early states -- sometimes referred to as carve-out states because of their special status on the party calendars -- are unified in their commitment to maintaining the status quo, at least on the Republican side."

Whether that extends to the Democratic deliberations for 2024 remains to be seen. But newly elected DNC  chair, Jaime Harrison does hail from South Carolina. That could mean an effort to strip out contests that were not representative to the broader party (like the three states that preceded South Carolina on the 2020 Democratic primary calendar). But it could also translate to a maintenance of the status quo if the delegations from each carve-out state's party to the DNC sees benefit in coalescing. 

That the state parties are on the same page in Iowa is typical. That the four carve-out states have begun to seek some strength in numbers is a more recent development. But both are meaningful to the discussions that will decide what the 2024 presidential primary calendar ultimately looks like. 

Recent posts: 

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Actions versus Words

Missouri House Bill Would Eliminate Presidential Primary

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- RNC Neutrality in 2024

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Actions versus Words

Talk can be cheap in politics. 

Recently, FHQ wrote a bit about Sen. Josh Hawley's most recent denial that he is running for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. And that is a good case in point. Sure, it is early enough in the 2024 invisible primary; early enough that those sorts of nays now turn into ayes or maybes later. But the bottom line is that those words are not really worth following at this point. Well, perhaps they are worth following but with the usual grains of salt. 

Instead, the better metrics to assess whether some particular candidate is running for -- albeit not necessarily in -- any given presidential is what a candidate and those potential surrogates around them are doing. Are they hiring staff? Are they running ads? Are they releasing a book? Are they fundraising (or trying to)? 

Sure, it is much much too early for any candidate to be running ads or hiring staff with 2024 specifically in mind, but that does not mean there are no maneuverings quietly occurring behind the scenes. Left for (politically) dead after the events at the Capitol on January 6, there has been some circling of the wagons behind Hawley in the time since as the Republican Party has generally settled on an overall less reactionary strategy. This and the fact that actions are more important than mere words in the invisible primary was epitomized earlier this week when news broke that the Senate Conservatives Fund was coming to the defense of Missouri's junior senator. Now, that may mean propping Hawley up for reelection or for a potential 2024 presidential bid. Regardless, it is indicative of some part of the broader Republican Party coalition acting on his behalf; something Sen. Hawley would certainly not turn down if any 2024 run were to happen. 

Often it is said to follow the money in politics. Well, that is part of the invisible primary equation, but not all of it. And those things matter more in candidate emergence than words alone. 

Recent posts: 

Missouri House Bill Would Eliminate Presidential Primary

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- RNC Neutrality in 2024

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Hawley and Shermanesque/Sherman-ish Statements

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

Missouri House Bill Would Eliminate Presidential Primary

A bill filed earlier this month in the Missouri House of Representatives would repeal the requirement to conduct a presidential primary in the Show-Me state. 

First term Representative Adam Schwadron (R-106th, St. Charles) on January 6 introduced HB 680. The legislation would strip out two separate sections of Missouri election law referring to the scheduling and conduct of a presidential preference primary election, thus eliminating the contest in future cycles. 

While there were a spate of Republican state parties that in 2019 canceled presidential primaries (or caucuses) in order to conduct precinct caucuses instead, those actions are more common than a 2024 cancelation in Missouri would be. What prompted state parties in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina to make those moves was that President Trump was running virtually unopposed for the Republican nomination. On the one hand, the maneuvering was viewed as a means of protecting the president. However, none of the prospective competition to Trump was ever really viable in a party that continued to overwhelmingly back the president. Through that lens, the actions were fairly normal for parties with incumbents seeking renomination largely unopposed. Often it is merely a cost-savings change. 

But Schwadron's bill in Missouri does not fit that trend. Missouri has shifted in the 21st century from general election bellwether to reliably red state for Republican candidates. And canceling -- or potentially canceling -- a presidential primary breaks 1) with a trend toward more presidential primaries in the post-reform era and 2) with a trend that only sees contrary movement on that front during uncontested cycles. 2024 is not shaping up to be an uncontested cycle on the Republican side. 

...unless former President Trump jumps into the race and is able to simultaneously ward off any viable competition. [Alternatively, this could be a means through which to aid a presidential bid from favorite son, Sen. Josh Hawley (R) should he opt to run and make it to the point on the calendar when hypothetical Missouri caucuses are held. see Rand Paul and Kentucky in 2015. That plan did not work.] Even then, this would be an atypical move by a Republican legislator much less in an early-ish Republican primary state. 

--

A link to this legislation has been added to the 2024 FHQ presidential primary calendar.

Recent posts: 

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- RNC Neutrality in 2024

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Hawley and Shermanesque/Sherman-ish Statements

A Presidential Primary in Lieu of Caucuses in Nevada?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook or subscribe by Email.

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- RNC Neutrality in 2024

One of the parlor games of the moment inside and outside the beltway in DC is the hunt for any break between the Republican Party (in its many forms) and former President Donald Trump. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly has no desire to speak to Trump again, but House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is headed down to Florida for a fundraiser and will speak with the former president in the process. But again, that is just one facet of the Republican Party, the party-in-government. 

The formal party apparatus itself, the RNC, recently broke with how it dealt with the president in 2019 ahead of the 2020 presidential primaries. Ronna Romney-McDaniel, the recently re-elected chair of the Republican National Committee, told the Associated Press in an interview...

“The party has to stay neutral. I’m not telling anybody to run or not to run in 2024. That’s going to be up to those candidates going forward. What I really do want to see him do, though, is help us win back majorities in 2022.” [McDaniel's response when asked whether she wanted to see Trump run again in the next presidential election.]

While that is a formal declaration of the chairwoman and is consistent with the rules regarding the conduct of the RNC in contested presidential nomination cycles, it differs from the national party's approach to 2020. It was, after all, at the RNC winter meeting in 2019 when the party stopped short of formally endorsing the president's renomination and reelection, but passed a resolution lending Trump the party's "undivided support." [The difference between a full endorsement and the symbolic show of unanimous support of the president among the party membership was one rooted in financial support (that an endorsement would have carried). But it should be noted that the RNC and the Trump reelection forces had already united by that point.]

Now, conditions are different in 2021 than they were in 2019. Trump is no longer the sitting president as he was then. Additionally, McDaniel's comments are not a reflection of any formal vote of the RNC membership (but merely a recitation of the party rules on the matter) as opposed to 2019. But in the end, formal or not, they mark a departure from the party's 2019 position and creates some light between the party and its (formal) former standard bearer. 

However, it will likely be Trump moving forward who will freeze the potential field of 2024 Republican candidates and not the Republican National Committee. But this is one to track as the invisible primary lurches forward. 

Recent posts: 

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Hawley and Shermanesque/Sherman-ish Statements

A Presidential Primary in Lieu of Caucuses in Nevada?

Iowa, Democrats and 2024  

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Hawley and Shermanesque/Sherman-ish Statements

"'No, I'm not running,' Hawley told Insider in a brief hallway interview on Tuesday at the US Capitol before ducking into an elevator. He didn't elaborate."

Not exactly, Shermanesque. #InvisiblePrimary #GOP24https://t.co/k4VK7hfyJh

— Josh Putnam (@FHQ) January 27, 2021

--

Yesterday, Business Insider ran with a scoop that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) had briefly answered that he was not running for president in 2024. Now, on the surface that is both a splashy comment and scoop from someone who had since the 2020 election neither been shy about his 2024 intentions nor inactive on what one might call the invisible primary front. And even if neither of those are exactly true, Hawley's name has been bandied about in 2024 chatter and his actions -- particularly around the electoral vote tabulation in a joint session of Congress -- have been interpreted through a 2024 invisible primary lens as an attempted play at the Trump end of the Republican Party spectrum.

But here is the thing: This is not Hawley's first time saying no to a 2024 run. CNN asked him that question back in November 2020. His response? "I'm not."

Neither blunt denial, however, is all that Shermanesque. "No, I'm not running," and "I'm not" are not definitive declinations. Both leave the door wide open to, if not a change of heart, then to simply saying something along the lines of "I wasn't running then, but I am now," later on down the line. The trick for the Shermanesque statement is always whether one can effectively add "yet" to the end of the turndown response.

Compare "No, I'm not running," with Sherman's "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." A "yet" can be added to the former but is much harder to tack onto the latter. Hawley, then, was not Shermanesque in either his November or January responses. 

But was he Sherman-ish? 

That is a different question spurred by a variation on the Shermanesque statement that gained some notoriety around the time of the 2018 midterms when the candidate side of the 2020 invisible primary was beginning to heat up. It was around that time that both Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) responded to 2020 questions with answers that looked like some variation on, "I intend to serve the full six years of my [Senate] term." Now, obviously, in O'Rourke's case that was rendered moot when he lost the election to Texas' incumbent, junior senator, Ted Cruz (R). But when he said it -- before the election -- serving the full Senate term was still at stake. 

But for Gillibrand, the statement, before and after the 2018 midterms, was not a clear denial. However, it, on the one hand, kind of painted her into a corner, but on the other, kept the door open to at least "exploring" a run for the 2020 Democratic nomination. The lengths of that exploration can be wide ranging. In her case, Gillibrand ran for 2020 -- and with a formal entry -- up until August 2019. But she never ran in 2020.

The key in the Sherman-ish statement is that "painting oneself into the corner" bit. It is not a definitive "no," but it does potentially set up roadblocks to entry later. No one wants to start a campaign off by having to answer "why did you change your mind/why are you abandoning your word and/or constituents to run?" questions (not that that is any serious obstacle).

The true measure of running or not running is less what the prospective candidates say and more about what they do. Follow those actions and one will get a much better sense of what is happening in the invisible primary. 

In Hawley's case, the statements have been neither Shermanesque nor Sherman-ish, but his actions have maybe pointed elsewhere. Yes, that includes his very public position-taking on the electoral college tabulation. But it also includes things like out-of state fundraisers (like the one that got canceled in Florida in the wake of the events of January 6).

Recent posts: 

A Presidential Primary in Lieu of Caucuses in Nevada?

Iowa, Democrats and 2024

The 2020 Electoral College Spectrum

A Presidential Primary in Lieu of Caucuses in Nevada?

Circling back to this from Michael Scherer at the Washington Post nearly two weeks ago. 

The prospect of a presidential primary in Nevada is nothing new. That was true before 2008 when the Silver state was added to the early state line up on the presidential primary calendar. Nevada was a primary state, after all, when it sought to encroach on New Hampshire's privileged position in the first post-reform cycle. It is true even in the window of time since Nevada was added to the group of carve-out states. Efforts to establish a Nevada presidential primary were derailed in part by Harry Reid at the end of the 2015 state legislative session. 

The common thread across those two actions separated by nearly 50 years was Reid. And after Iowa's caucus snafu in 2020, Reid was not shy about promoting the virtues of Nevada as an alternative first-in-the-nation option. And the former Senate majority leader reiterated the proposal as 2020 came to a close.

But such a change is easier said than done. 

Political actors on the state level in Nevada are likely to wait for cover from the national parties first (which is to say after the national parties set their 2024 rules next year). Party leaders in the Silver state may have, as WaPo reported, "taken steps to shift to a presidential primary in 2024," but the full contours of finalizing such a decision may have the party out in front of its skis a bit. A full-on switch from a caucus system to a primary may correctly anticipate a change that may come down from the DNC anyway: a mandate (or close to it) for state parties to utilize primaries rather than caucuses to select and allocate national convention delegates in the next cycle. 

Yet, that raises some additional questions. First, through what means will Nevada Democrats attempt to make the caucus-to-primary shift? Does the state party unilaterally make the decision and opt for a party-run process? Or does the party lean on the state legislature to establish a state-funded, state-run primary option? The former may provide the party with some latitude in dealing with New Hampshire in a prospective calendar race while the latter may not remain in Democratic control after the 2022 midterms. [Silver state Republicans may not be as receptive to a primary after then as they were in 2015.] 

And there may or may not be a fight with New Hampshire depending on what rules the DNC drafts for 2024 (especially if that includes a primary mandate and/or resets the early primary calendar order).

That brings this around to the second question. Assuming there will be a Nevada presidential primary in some form or another in 2024, where will that primary fall on the calendar? The shift to a primary is something that can be done legislatively or through the state party before the national party rules are set. [The Nevada legislature is due to gavel in on February 1, but no legislation has been filed in advance to shift to a presidential primary.] But timing that contest is trickier. Again, it is here where national party cover may come in handy. If one or both of the national parties rejiggers the beginning of the calendar and Nevada claims that spot, then either the state party or the state government can move to schedule the contest early (or earlier than New Hampshire).

What is clear is that there is a sequence to all of this. Nevada Democrats could shift to a primary early on with or without any mandate from the national party. In fact, Silver state Democrats could use that as an argument to the DNC as to why they are prepared and ready to move into a bigger/earlier spot in the limelight. But only after having made that switch can (or will) the party move to schedule the contest. If both happen simultaneously, then it will all happen in 2023. But Nevada -- either the state legislature or state parties -- could act now to shift to a primary only to schedule it later when effective penalties are in place to deal with any rogue states (Iowa and/or New Hampshire).

All of this is speculative at this point in any event. The regular rhythm to this sequence is for the national parties to spend the year and a half after the presidential election year retrospectively considering the pros and cons of the previous cycle's primary season and making rules for the next cycle. Only then, in the year following the midterm elections, do state parties and state governments react and make their plans for the cycle in view of those rules/rules changes. There are exceptions to those rules, but they are rare. 

But this "which early states?" question will come up in the coming weeks and months. And Nevada will likely be a part of the discussion. 

Recent posts: 

Iowa, Democrats and 2024

The 2020 Electoral College Spectrum

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Biden Running for Re-election

Iowa, Democrats and 2024

Yes, it is still true that no one really wants to talk about 2024 right now. Yet, there was NPR, in the wake of Jaime Harrison's election as DNC chair, with a story over the weekend discussing Iowa's chances of retaining the first-in-the-nation caucuses in the next cycle. 

And while FHQ will agree that it is probably too early for most, it is also true that this question is not new. Iowa's place at the front of the primary and caucus queue comes up to varying degrees every four years. And with each passing cycle, Iowa, not to mention New Hampshire (and since 2008, Nevada and South Carolina), continue to hold down their privileged positions. But the Iowa-in-2024 question specifically is not new either. That question was agitated into prominence before the results were even clear in the 2020 caucuses. In fact, the world continues to wait for an AP call in the race that never came. 

Those snafus understandably brought out caucus opponents and small-d democracy advocates, but there was enough blame to go around. It was not just Iowa. Nor was it specifically the caucus system. The DNC also played a role in doing its (continued) due diligence around the security of the problematic smartphone app that fueled the issues. However, the confluence of issues, in the abstract, seems like a potential inflection point in the generation-plus long history of the caucuses in the Hawkeye state. And if not that, then a fitting bookend to a process that has come to be seen as outdated in a state, the Democratic electorate of which does not exactly conform to the current make-up of the broader Democratic Party.

But as an exhausted electorate shies away from talk of another electoral cycle on the heels of a marathon 2020 blitzkrieg, the question remains: What will come of Iowa's caucuses in 2024? Fitting though the bookend may have been after 2020 and however outdated the caucus process may seem, there still remain some institutional factors that will help Iowa maintain its position or make it more of an uphill climb to replace than some think. Again, it is more complex than: 

Step 1: the caucuses are bad 

Step 2: ???? 

Step 3: Iowa suddenly has a primary and/or it is later in the primary order.

In the days in early February 2020 after the caucusing had stopped in Iowa and the count continued, FHQ penned a piece at the Monkey Cage outlining some of the institutional barriers to changing the early calendar. While most of it holds up reasonably well, things have obviously changed in the months since those Iowa caucuses that may or may not influence that previous outlook. But first things first: a quick review of those institutional barriers. 

First, Iowa Democrats are not likely to go quiet into that good night. The party is likely to argue that the DNC is better with the devil they know than the one they do not. In other words, even with its supposed warts, Iowa is still a safer or more certain alternative than some other state. A cost-benefit analysis version of that argument would be something along the lines of, "The start up costs elsewhere are potentially more 'expensive' than dealing with the 'tweaks' Iowa Democrats would employ to improve their system." Yes, one's mileage may vary on the true balance between those two ends of the ledger. 

Second, the DNC plays a role in all of this as well. In fact, the national party is the group to whom Iowa Democrats would be pitching the argument above. And it is there -- at the national party level -- where things have evolved the most over the last eleven months. While it is clear that there will be a robust discussion over the next two years around Iowa and the others among the early state group, it is not yet clear where things will end up. 

National parties like certainty, but they also want to at least appear sometimes to be responsive to needs if not problems within the presidential nomination process. It was, after all, inter-cycle commissions that both created and eliminated superdelegates in the nomination process. In a global sense, both moves were made by a party sensitive to the balance between the interests of the party elites and those of the grassroots in the nomination process. But a more narrow view holds that the party was merely righting a perceived wrong from the previous cycle. 

The perception of an Iowa problem is very real at the outset of the 2024 invisible primary and there will definitely be pressure to make a change based on 2020. But long term, the DNC will again look to what the proper balance should be and whether a change is prudent. 

Third, part of that calculus will hinge on what Republicans do with their own early calendar line up. No, there is nothing -- no law or rule whether formal or informal -- that says both parties should have the same early calendar. In fact, they already do not. Democrats place Nevada third in the order and South Carolina fourth while Republicans flip them on their early calendar. Yet, breaking up those first two states in the order across both parties is potentially fraught with disruptions to the current incentive structure. For Democrats to drop Iowa from its current perch while Iowa Republicans retain their position is to give incentive to Iowa Democrats to not only band together with their Hawkeye brethren but to possibly go rogue in 2024 as well. The national parties -- especially the DNC in this case -- would rather deal (relatively) quietly with this now rather than invite trouble later that is amplified in the lead up to primary season later. Of course, dealing with it quietly outside of the spotlight could mean keeping Iowa where it is under the condition that changes are made -- preserving the status quo -- or making a change while threatening to penalize the state party back to the stone age should it go rogue. The former upsets a lot of vocal critics while the latter does not necessarily guarantee compliance. 

But that incentive structure remains more intact if the two major parties can agree, formally or otherwise, to an early calendar order. If both were to hypothetically remove Iowa, then one state party would not have the opening to resist if just one party did. FHQ would not count this as a huge concern -- partisans will argue that no party should listen to or wait on the actions of the other -- but it is a part of the overall calculus on this question. 

Finally, if not Iowa then whom? Who takes the Hawkeye state's place atop the calendar should one or both parties move to replace the caucuses? Again, Iowa will fight for its position and argue that even with the problems, it is a safer bet than some unknown alternative. If the line is long to replace Iowa and the arguments for a replacement are diffuse (other than a not Iowa thread), then the case may be harder to make. Then it becomes a discussion of what the party wants represented at that beginning of the calendar. Defining those goals is no small task for either the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee or the full DNC for that matter. If keeping Iowa (with tweaks) is easier than that task -- and often persisting with the status quo ante is -- then that may go a long way toward answering this question. 

But allow FHQ to close by focusing on the one thing that has changed since last February. Joe Biden is now president. 

Typically those are times when a party will more or less rest on its laurels, carrying over the rules from the previous cycle. But it is not clear that that is what will happen in this case. What tends to gum up the works on primary rules changes in those instances is that the party of a newly-elected, first time president often maintains the rules that got that president to the nomination. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But Biden, as many have noted, did not benefit from either Iowa or New Hampshire. Neither was instrumental in his ascent to the nomination. 

While neither may have been instrumental to Biden's nomination victory, it may be more of a fight (see above) than the party or the president wants to take on. And some of this will be colored by the intentions of the president himself. If Biden opts to run again and the field look clear otherwise, then it could honestly go either way (pending some of the other considerations). The DNC could pull the trigger on a change in a cycle with little to nothing on the line and usher in a new era. Alternatively, it could just leave well enough alone and leave that battle for a time ahead of a more active nomination race. And without regard to how active a forthcoming nomination race will be, the party could also opt to punt on the question. 

But punting may not be an easy option if Biden signals that he will not run for renomination, opening the door to prospective candidates and their surrogates pithing the DNC/DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee lobbying for change. No such overt signal, however, is likely to come before the midterm elections and thus will come after the 2024 rules (including the calendar order) are in place. 

One thing that FHQ is particularly keen to see is how Iowa argues on its behalf. Yes, they will make the obvious play as described above (years of trial and error here are better than going with something uncertain elsewhere). But that may not be where things stop. How much do Iowa Democrats raise the heavy hand of the DNC in the problems of 2020? "But for the issues the national party (rightly or wrongly) raised, we (Iowa) could have pulled off a more seamless set of caucuses across the state." How effective Iowa Democrats are at making that argument and leveraging that against the DNC may go some way toward answering this quadrennial question for the 2024 cycle. 

Regardless, one thing is for certain: There will be a thorough discussion of Iowa's place among the early states and the early line up as well in the months ahead. Whether change is imminent there depends on the desire for change on one hand and the institutional barrier in place on the other. It is easy to call on Iowa to be replaced, but another to actually do it. But as was the case in the time after 2016, the same things were said about reducing the influence of superdelegates. Change happened on that front, but the conditions are different heading into 2024 than they were ahead of 2020. 

Recent posts: 

The 2020 Electoral College Spectrum 

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Biden Running for Re-election

A Few Notes on the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

The 2020 Electoral College Spectrum

Final version (certified results) 

The 2020 Electoral College Spectrum1
DC-3 VT-3 (6)2	IL-20 (162)	NV-6 (249)	AK-3 (125)	TN-11 (60)
MA-11 (17)	OR-7 (169)	PA-203 (269 | 289)	SC-9 (122)	AL-9 (49)
MD-10 (27)	NJ-14 (183)	WI-103 (273 | 269)	KS-6 (113)	KY-8 (40)
HI-4 (31)	CO-9 (192)	AZ-11 (308 | 259)	NE CD1-1 MO-10 (107)	SD-3 (32)
CA-55 (86)	NM-5 (197)	GA-16 (319 | 248)	IN-11 (96)	AR-6 (29)
NY-29 (115)	VA-13 (210)	NC-15 (232)	MT-3 (85)	ID-4 (23)
ME CD1-1 RI-4 (120)	ME-2 (212)	FL-29 (217)	MS-6 (82)	OK-7 (19)
CT-7 (127)	NH-4 (216)	TX-38 (188)	LA-8 (76)	ND-3 (12)
WA-12 (139)	MN-10 NE CD2-1 (227)	ME CD2-1 OH-18 (150)	NE-2 (68)	WV-5 (9)
DE-3 (142)	MI-16 (243)	IA-6 (131)	UT-6 (66)	WY-3 NE CD3-1 (4)
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum. 2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Pennsylvania (Biden's toss up states through Pennsylvania), he would have 289 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Biden's number is on the left and Trump's is on the right in bold italics. 3 Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the states where Biden crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election, the tipping point states in the order. The tipping point cells are shaded in yellow to denote that and the font color is adjusted to attempt to reflect the category in which the state is.

More analysis to come.

Recent posts:

#InvisiblePrimary: Visible -- Biden Running for Re-election

A Few Notes on the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar