Fool Me Once, Shame on Me. Fool Me Twice...

Look, FHQ gets it: Florida has created a lifetime's worth of uncertainty for the presidential primary calendar (and the nomination process itself to some extent) over the last two cycles. But the reactions to the latest on the efforts by the Republican National Committee to tinker with the party's nomination process/rules ignore the current reality where Florida and 2016 intersect.

Perhaps, it is deserved. FHQ isn't here to defend Florida, but as of right now, the Sunshine state is not in a position to continue to be a "serial scofflaw", as Jason Linkins describes the state, much less have it assumed that Florida will once again throw a monkeywrench into the best laid plans of the parties and/or the infringe on the turf of the carve-out states, as Craig Robinson does.

The reality is that this super penalty is nothing new. The so-called Bennett rule -- named after former Ohio Republican chairman, Bob Bennett, who devised it -- has been codified in the RNC rules since Tampa. The only thing new based on the reporting that Peter Hamby at CNN did was to shed light on the mathematical problem that FHQ mentioned months ago. Basically, if a state has a small enough (pre-penalty) delegation, it could receive a lesser penalty than the 50% reduction that was on the books in 2012. Again, this was a very limited number of states. But there was some potential for the rules to be exploited; not keeping with the original intent of the rule (which was to provide some certainty to the front end of the calendar).

But that is the small states; not Florida.

The point is, political actors in Florida -- those in the state legislature, governor's mansion and the Republican Party of Florida -- saw those changes. After all, the infighting that produced those rules changes, including the Bennett rule, happened in their backyard; in Tampa. What was the reaction in Florida once the Bennett rule was added? Well, the state legislature very quickly moved to push the Florida primary back on the 2016 and future primary calendars during its 2013 session.

Unlike the 2008 and 2012 cycles, there is actually some certainty -- right now -- as to when the Florida presidential primary will be held. If the Republican Party of Florida tweaks its allocation rules, the primary will be on the first Tuesday in March. If the state party opts to continue with its tradition winner-take-all allocation, then it will be on the third Tuesday in March, the point on the calendar when it is apparently proposed that the proportionality requirement should expire. The 2016 Florida primary date hinges on the point on the calendar where the Florida delegation will not be penalized; the earliest unpenalized date. That, as FHQ noted, is dependent upon what combination of rules the Republican Party of Florida opts to utilize.

[And one other thing that FHQ would like to push back on is Robinson's description of the penalties that Florida faced in 2012. Yes, Florida broke both the timing and allocation rules. But the RNC only had one 50% penalty it could levy. The RNC rules did not provide for a double penalty scenario. That has been changed for 2016. There is the Bennett rule (9 delegate plus automatic delegates) penalty and a separate 50% penalty for states that do not comply with the provisions in the proportionality requirement. This rule was put in place in reaction to both Florida and Arizona in 2012. Both technically were double violators.]

There was ample motivation for Florida to have reacted this way; to provide certainty instead of uncertainty in this process for once. Some have argued that it was the rules change or more precisely the new, more draconian penalty. Others contend that Marco Rubio and his allies in the state advocated for the move with a potential Rubio run for the nomination in mind. This is likely not an either/or thing. Those two factors and a desire to play nice in 2016 because of them is as good an explanation as any for the move.

Could this change? Absolutely. The Florida legislature may change its mind in 2015 and reverse course, but such a change would have to make it through the governor to be enacted. No matter how the gubernatorial election goes in Florida in 2014, the sort of provocative primary movement that Florida made in 2008 and 2012 is not likely going to pass muster.

The Sunshine state is definitely part of the reason why the rules/penalties changes were made, but at this point -- in late 2013 -- it doesn't look like Florida is going to be the troublemaker it has recently been in the presidential nomination process.

No, at this point, FHQ would suggest looking at Michigan and Arizona.¹ Both contests are currently positioned on the last Tuesday in February; a clear violation of the intended RNC rules. [It is unclear how either state will fare under the Democratic Party rules. The party has yet to officially begin its rules-making process, but past rules put both Arizona and Michigan on the wrong side of the penalty threshold.]

Again, maybe Florida deserves it simply for 2008 and 2012, but FHQ does not think Florida will be the one causing the trouble -- should any occur -- in 2016.

--
¹ The recent change in North Carolina also means the Tar Heel state is vulnerable to the super penalty. However, FHQ has been told that will be taken care of. Recall that the provision anchoring the North Carolina primary to the South Carolina primary was added late to an omnibus elections bill. The addition was so last minute, that it was largely glossed over because of the importance placed on passing the whole elections bill. Those with reservations, then, didn't want to rock the boat and delay or derail the efforts to make changes (voter ID requirement, changes to early voting process) that the Republican majority in the North Carolina General Assembly wanted to push through before the legislature adjourned for the year.

It should also be noted that there is a direct line of communication between the RNC and the North Carolina General Assembly. State Representative David Lewis (R-53rd) is the national committeeman from the state and additionally is the chairman of the North Carolina House Elections Committee. [The other wrinkle here is that the amendment to the elections bill that changed the North Carolina primary date was added in the state Senate at the last minute.] FHQ is told by folks in the know here in North Carolina and in the RNC that this will be changed at some point next year. We shall see.

Recent Posts:
A Closer Look at What the RNC Subcommittee on 2016 Delegate Selection Rules Has Been Up To

"Can it stick?"

In which FHQ begs George Will to just once dig a little deeper into the presidential nomination process

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Round Up on RNC Rules Committee Meeting

There weren't any surprises at the RNC Rules Committee meeting in DC this afternoon. Here are a few takes on the proposed 2016 delegate selection rules changes, post-meeting:

Zeke Miller at Time says the rules moves are all about the money.

WaPo's Reid Wilson and USA Today's Susan Page talk calendar compression.

Benjy Sarlin over at MSNBC frames the changes as an attempt to reduce the odds of a divisive primary.

FHQ will weigh in when we have had a chance to see the actual language of the changes. In the meantime, the package of revisions that passed the Rules Committee on a near-unanimous voice vote today heads off for consideration in the full RNC tomorrow. To pass, the series of changes will require a three-quarters vote. That is a pretty high bar, but the Rules Committee vote signals pretty close to a consensus on the changes. The committee reports will be made to the full RNC a little after 11am tomorrow morning.

Recent Posts:
The RNC Already Increased Penalties on Potential Rogue Primary States

Morton Blackwell on RNC Rules Subcommittee Proposals for 2016

For RNC Members, A Rules Contradiction That Would Affect Them in 2016

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

June Conventions?

Why does this keep coming up? 

...with no details about how a June convention is even logistically possible in the context of a primary calendar that stretches into that month?

The draws of an early convention are obvious. Candidates, nay, presumptive nominees, can make the financial transition to the general election warchest. That can be a big deal for said nominee following what may be a moderately to very difficult nomination race that has run deep into the well of primary phase money. This makes sense.

But the drawbacks -- or more appropriately the political and structural impediments -- to shifting up a convention to that early a point are quite onerous. Again, recall that the Republican autopsy of the 2012 election and the primary process -- the Growth and Opportunity Project Report -- mentioned that a nominee needs "an estimated 60-90 days to prepare for the Convention". That is, there should be 60-90 days between the conclusion of the delegate selection process and any subsequent national convention. Even a late June convention means that delegate selection will have had to run its course in all states two to three months in advance. In the best case -- 60 day -- scenario, that's some time in April.

As the autopsy's convention point goes on:

"If the Convention were to be held in July, the last primary would need to be held no later than May 15. If the Convention were to be held in late June, the final primary would need to be held no later than April 30. Moving primaries up will require states and state parties to cooperate."

FHQ is less concerned with those date thresholds, but that last statement is noteworthy. Moving primaries up will require states and state parties to cooperate. Does that mean the same states and state parties that have cooperated in the post-reform era in not moving up to non-compliant dates on the front end of the calendar?

Actually it does not. The rogue states have been the same cast of characters for quite a while. By now, regular readers here can reel them off from memory quite quickly. And Arizona, Delaware, Florida, and Michigan are not really the ones the RNC needs to worry about. They are already compliant with not being in that April to June window that would be problematic for a June convention.

No, the states that litter the latter part of the primary calendar are a different lot and offer a different set of issues.

...all while potentially facing the same sort of penalties that have dogged the rogue states challenging the early end of the calendar.

What sorts of issues?

For starters, there are partisan concerns. California and New Jersey -- two states that dropped early and separate presidential primaries in favor of later (June) consolidated primaries in 2012 -- strike FHQ as states not necessarily willing to budge on the move in the future. That may or may not have anything to do with the inertia of making yet another change, but it will certainly have something to do with which party is in control of the date-setting apparatus in those states. In the Golden state, Democrats maintain unified control of the legislature and the governor's mansion and will not shift the date unless there is some clear benefit to the Democratic Party or one or more of the potential Democratic candidates.¹ An RNC directive will not do much to move that needle. A similar DNC measure may affect some change in California and other Democratic controlled states at the back of the calendar queue. Granted, Democrats are not necessarily high on the idea of a June convention. Folks FHQ has chatted with in the DNC are willing to go along an earlier convention, but not as early as June.

Those sorts of partisan divisions -- or lack of unified control -- now exist not only in California and New Jersey but in New Mexico, Montana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Oregon and Kentucky among the May and June states alone. That could be problematic if the end goal for the RNC is a June primary.

But let's assume for a moment that those states look more like, say, South Dakota after midterm or state elections in 2014 or 2015. That is, they are controlled by Republicans. That rids the national party of a political problem but does not erase a very real structural one. Revisit that California/New Jersey discussion above. The issues in those states were a combination of partisan and structural. Beyond the partisan complications that we have assumed away in this thought experiment, there is some benefit to pretty much every state at the end of the calendar having consolidated primaries -- combined presidential, state and local primaries.

Altering that structure would mean moving everything up -- presidential, state and local -- or creating and shifting up a separate presidential contest like what North Carolina did just this past week. The former is something that state legislators of all partisan stripes are not always open to. It affects their reelections whether a threat exists affecting those chances or not. The system has worked for those legislators in winning office one or more times in the past. Why change it? In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The alternative is to create and fund a separate presidential primary election. Not every state requires the $100 million it takes to fund such a contest in California, but state governments are not racing to expend multiple millions of dollars in the current economic environment for these sorts of purposes. That outlook may change between now and 2015 when these date-setting decisions will be made, but don't place any wagers on that just yet. That dilemma, if it was even a dilemma, did not seem to affect the calculus in North Carolina recently. The General Assembly in the Tarheel state charged ahead with the primary change with little or no mention of the estimated $4 million price tag of a separate presidential primary.

Still, as FHQ has shown, one of the primary determinants of state movement -- or non-movement in this case -- in the post-reform era has been whether a state holds its presidential primary concurrently with the primaries for state and local offices. Those with consolidate primaries have been much less likely to move.

Given those constraints, what is the RNC to do if the end goal is a June convention? Well, it can press forward of course. But the party is very likely to find some resistance, more so from states than state parties. If that is what happens -- the RNC moves on this initiative and finds widespread state-level resistance to the idea -- the only move left at the national and state parties disposal at that point is to transition from a non-compliant consolidated and late primary to earlier and compliant caucuses.

...but that conflicts with another recommendation in the GOP Report: "discouraging conventions and caucuses for the purpose of allocating delegates to the national convention". But the caucus route may be the only one open to the RNC in a number of late states because of partisan or structural complications. However, that would mean the addition of as many as ten or eleven new caucus states; an increase of around 100%. That opens the door to a number of unintended consequences that possibly exacerbates any rift in the party or reverses the inroads made toward cooperation.

A June convention is an uphill battle. Even late July seems tough given the apparently required 60-90 day window.

--
¹ The partisan picture is similar in New Jersey minus Democratic control of the governor's mansion. But a party potentially needs to have unified control of the legislative and executive branches to make these primary moves happen.

Recent Posts:
RNC Rules Committee Shunts Reexamination of Presidential NominationRules to Subcommittee

In Answer to a Nagging Question About the RNC Delegate Selection Rules

Much Ado About Nothing RE: 2016 Rules at RNC Summer Meeting in Boston?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Five Takeaways from the 2016 Convention Rules Committee Meeting

It would be easy to get lost in all the parliamentary procedure of the marathon, one day session the Republican Convention Committee on Rules pushed through a day ago. All the maneuvering aside, though, there were actually a number of noteworthy actions that emerged from the committee's work that will stretch through 2016 and remain influential into the 2020 cycle. Here are five:

1. Presidential nomination study committee
Much as it did eight years ago in Minneapolis, the Rules Committee created a temporary body to consider some of the thornier presidential nomination process questions outside the convention. The scope of the 2009-10 Temporary Delegate Selection Committee concerned just the ins and outs of the primary calendar (leading to additions like the proportionality requirement, for example). However, the newly created temporary committee on presidential nominations has a seemingly broader scope. Everything from delegate apportionment (Rule 14), the calendar (Rule 16) and penalties (Rule 17) will be on the table.

But why not just deal with this all at the convention?

As proponents yesterday in Cleveland collectively put it, the intent was to give the Republican Party the time and space to adequately consider those matters. The argument, as was later borne out in even limited discussion on Rules 14 and 16 matters, was that a maximum two day Convention Committee on Rules was not sufficient to fully consider controversial rules destined to stir up lengthy debates.

Unlike a 2013 subcommittee the Republican National Committee chartered with much the same goal, this committee will likely have a membership that encompasses more than merely Standing Rules Committee members. Instead the new 11 member study panel will potentially have a wider, more representative membership. Of course, the rule vested the power to select the membership in the national committee chair.

Like the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee, this new committee is likely to meet in 2017 with the goal of providing the RNC with recommendations to act on in 2018.


2. Rule 12
Summer 2018 is the cut off for action on any changes to Rules 1-11 and 13-25 in the Rules of the Republican Party because of Rule 12. That measure, added at the 2012 convention, has been in the crosshairs of opponents since Tampa. Breaking with tradition, the five line Rule 12 more explicitly gave the RNC the power to make changes to the aforementioned sets of rules.

Unlike the rule that gave rise to the Temporary Delegate Selection Committee after 2008, though, Rule 12 shifted a more sweeping set of rules-making powers away from the convention and toward the Republican National Committee. The trade-off is that the rule allows the party to adapt to changes that may emerge outside the convention and before the next presidential nomination race.¹

Generally, the Rule 12 battle lines (and those of the Romney-led changes in 2012) have been drawn between the RNC proper supporting the latter view and some of the more grassroots elements and traditionalists within the party down to the rank-and-file in favor of the former. That meant that any vote like the one to strike Rule 12 from the rule book was a potential early-day proxy of the similarly divided vote that was expected later on unbinding the delegates.

The amendment to strike Rule 12 from the rulebook failed, garnering only 23 votes in the affirmative.


3. Inaction on Rules 14 and 16
Those two actions -- creating a study committee and retaining Rule 12 -- allow the RNC not only the ability hereafter to make rules changes outside the convention, but give the national party the space to fully consider some of the more time-consuming aspects of the presidential nomination process. All of that is contained primarily within Rules 14-17.

Surprisingly, no amendments were offered to Rule 17, the penalties regime that contributed to a much smoother pre-primary period (especially with respect to the formation of the presidential primary calendar, but also the finalizing of state party bylaws affecting the allocation process). Rule 17 aside, however, every additional measure brought before the Rules Committee failed. Not only was an attempt to force proportionality on the carve-out states voted down, but so, too, were a series of proposals to grant various bonus delegates to states under the Rule 14 apportionment formula.

In that vein, amendments were considered and voted down to add additional bonus delegates to the state-level at-large pool based on Republicans in a state's congressional delegation, and then for having Republican governors. The proposal that received the longest debate was over whether to provide a 20% bonus to states with closed primaries. As with the rest, this amendment was voted down as well. Unlike some of the rest the closed primaries incentive had been a part of morning side negotiations between a grassroots conservative group of delegates and the RNC. When a deal fell through there, the closed primary provision became vulnerable to the same lopsided results that continued to occur with some of the more controversial measures.

Part of what neutered any serious consideration of these proposed changes was the study committee the committee had voted on earlier in the day. A constant refrain throughout the consideration of this section of the rulebook was that the committee just did not have the time in two days of potential meetings at the convention to adequately dispatch with changes. The existence of a future study panel strengthened that argument and gave the majority group of Trump/RNC delegates an escape hatch from potentially time-consuming debate that could delay the progress of the full body in considering changes to all 42 rules.

Essentially, the study committee allowed the Convention Committee on Rules to hit the pause button on any changes to the presidential nomination process for now. However, the RNC will revisit those matters later and outside of the convention.


4. Binding/Unbinding
After failing to attack the specific binding language in Rule 16, the headline act -- the attempt to unbind the delegates to vote their conscience -- shifted into the third segment of the RNC Rules meeting. But before the conscience clause amendment to Rule 38 (the Unit Rule) was even raised, an amendment to Rule 37 from Nevada Rules Committee member, Jordan Ross, came before the committee. The Ross amendment and subsequent vote had the effect of taking the wind out of the sails of the Free the Delegates movement in the Rules Committee.

Rather than freeing the delegates, the Ross amendment moved in the opposite direction, adding more specific language to Rule 37 (and later Rule 38 as well) explicitly binding delegates based on the results of primaries and caucuses. Operationally, all this entailed was the addition of the phrase "nothing in the rule shall prohibit the binding of delegates pursuant to Rule 16(a)(2)" to the current text of Rule 37(b) and Rule 38.

The one-sided vote in favor of the change to Rule 37(b) laid bare what would come on the subsequent vote on Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh's conscience clause amendment that came up next in the sequence. But while the Free the Delegates proposal seemingly came in like a lion, it left the vote of the Convention Committee on Rules a lamb.

Assuming this package of rules changes passes muster with the full 2016 convention, Republican delegates in 2020 will more clearly than ever before be bound based on the results of the primaries and caucuses then. Yes, the convention will continue to have the ability to set its own rules, but such a change will require a significant grassroots movement to organize such a push. Even then, as this 2016 process has demonstrated, arguing to change the rules midstream is an uphill battle after millions of primary voters and caucusgoers have expressed their preferences.


5. The Infamous Rule 40
The final noteworthy change that came out of the committee's meetings was to Rule 40(b). Like Rule 12, this rule triggered some dissatisfaction in Tampa that has persisted for four years. Unlike Rule 12, Rule 40(b) loomed over the discussions of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process from at least 2014. The reason is that because so many candidates initially entered the race for the 2016 Republican nomination, the eight state majority threshold described in the rule seemed to potentially project a stalemate at the convention over the nominee. Even as the field winnowed, the Rule 40 doomsday scenarios morphed from no one meeting that threshold to multiple candidate reaching it (while others did not).

This controversy -- the complication -- was not lost on the members of the Rules Committee. In a unanimous vote, the committee voted on an amendment to revert the eight state majority threshold to its pre-2012, five state plurality level. Rules Committee chair, Enid Mickelsen, even interjected after passage that, "this thorn that has been in our flesh...for four years now that caused such disappointment and so much trouble has finally been removed."

While Rule 12 survived, then, the eight state majority Rule 40 did not.

--
All of this and more will go before all 2472 delegates on the first evening of the convention after the Rules Committee has convened one last time. Further debate could come up on the floor via the use of minority reports. But if the series of votes in Rules are any indication, that is an uphill climb for opponents of the package even if they have the signatures.



--
¹ As proponents of Rule 12, like New Hampshire's Steve Duprey argued, the rule laid the ground work for action by the RNC on the creation of the committee that examined the presidential primary debates process for 2016. But it also facilitated changes to the rules pushed through by the Romney team in Tampa. Chiefly, that included reinstating a mandatory proportionality requirement that had become optional, shrinking the proportionality window by two weeks and tweaking the penalties on rules-breaking states. In that regard, Rule 12 was actually used to scale back some of what 2012 delegates like Virginia's Morton Blackwell have called Romney's power-grab.


Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (7/16/16)

The Electoral College Map (7/15/16)

The Mechanics of the Rules Committee and Minority Reports

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

Is South Carolina losing its early-primary luster?

Here we go again.

FHQ realizes that we are still roughly two years away from the presidential primary season kicking off in earnest and story ideas are limited. But come on. There's absolutely no need to keep rehashing these same stories over and over again. Remember four years ago when Iowa Republicans -- and the press folks who pushed the story -- were lamenting the fact that none of the (prospective) candidates were traipsing across the Hawkeye state wooing potential caucus-goers?

Well, now the dateline has changed. The worrywarts have moved south to the Palmetto state and the fortunes of the South Carolina primary in the context of the Republican nomination process. And it is all no more warranted in South Carolina than it was in Iowa four years ago.

The question, then: Is South Carolina losing its early-primary luster?

No.

And the kicker here is that Ali Weinberg's piece at First Read says exactly why the answer is no. South Carolina Republicans haven't lost anything. In fact, unless the RNC fundamentally alters its primary rules between now and summer 2014, South Carolina will have gained leverage -- via the rules -- over the state's position in 2012. Not only does South Carolina have its position as one of the first four "carve-out" states to hold a nominating contest in 2016, but the state and the other three privileged states have up to a month before the next earliest contest in which to schedule their primaries or caucuses.

Does that guarantee "luster"?

I suppose that depends on how you want to define luster. If you define it -- as both the First Read and State items do -- as somehow hinging on this illusory notion of "picking presidents" then, yeah, perhaps South Carolina has lost one claim that has been able to trumpet in the context of Republican nominations since 1980. But come on. That's not luster.

The truth of the matter is that South Carolina will have either the third or fourth position in the Republican primary calendar in 2016, and with that comes something. FHQ won't call it luster. But it does offer South Carolina just what it has since 1980: a privileged position to have among the first cracks at importantly winnowing the field of candidates.

That's what these early contests do. Can they "pick presidents"? Sometimes. Do they always? Nope.  That really often depends on the idiosyncratic dynamics of a given nomination race and how it meanders through the sequence of delegate selection events.

--
As a postscript, FHQ does want to once again highlight something that looks to be, well, cumbersome to overcome for some during the 2016 cycle. Everyone keeps raising the specter of Florida. In this South Carolina discussion, it is that candidates would rather spend time in Florida than South Carolina. Of course, this is rooted in the activity -- the experience with -- the Sunshine state in the formation of the primary calendar these last two cycles.

But it really does look as if many -- at least the ones that are writing about these issues so early -- are ignoring reality. The assumption is that South Carolina will happen and then ten days later, the next contest will be in Florida. That was absolutely the case in 2008 and 2012.

It is not the case for 2016 as of now. And even if Florida was somehow immediately after South Carolina, the Florida primary would not be the only game in town that week.

Why?

Well, the way the primary election law is structured in Florida, the primary there falls on the earliest unpenalized date. If Republicans in Florida stick with a true winner-take-all allocation of delegates (and the RNC fixes the may/shall issue for the proportionality requirement¹), then the Sunshine state primary will fall on the third Tuesday in March; well after where South Carolina will end up on the calendar.

Again, FHQ says "as of now" because the law can certainly be changed. But that just doesn't seem likely for now.

So, if you are into worrying about poor little ol' South Carolina and its primary, worry about Michigan and Arizona. They are more problematic to where the Palmetto primary will land.

…and it isn't clear that South Carolina really gives two shakes about either. Republicans there are only worried about being first in the South.

--
¹ It looks like that is going to be the case.

Recent Posts:
Fool Me Once, Shame on Me. Fool Me Twice…

A Closer Look at What the RNC Subcommittee on 2016 Delegate Selection Rules Has Been Up To

"Can it stick?"

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Two Outta Three Ain't Bad in South Carolina

The RNC and now the South Carolina GOP.

Perhaps some on the other side of the aisle are skeptical, but count FHQ among the group of folks with a different take on the South Carolina Republican Party Executive Committee resolution barring CNN and NBC from hosting presidential primary debates during the 2016 cycle. [See the full resolution here.]

Rightfully, many are questioning the ability of the national party to enforce such a resolution during 2015 and 2016. The temptation will certainly be there for candidates and state parties to shirk. However, if both the national party and state parties are against CNN/NBC debates -- and for a reduction in the total number of presidential primary debates -- then such action becomes more manageable from the national party's perspective. It helps. It removes one potential obstacle to the end goal coming to fruition.

Now, does it completely solve the problem?

No. The candidates will have a say in all of this as well. But it becomes harder for the candidates and their campaigns to justify siding with the two blacklisted networks over both the national party and state parties; particularly if this spreads in/across the other early states/state parties.

Still, will this resolution end up a "crumpled up piece of paper in the trash come 2015/2016"? Well, it isn't out of the realm of possibility. This is a resolution and not a party rule, mind you.

...for now.

FHQ doubts that will change on the state level, but the RNC could add some teeth to its debates resolution in its 2016 delegate selection rules deliberations in the coming months. For the time being, though, it is noteworthy that at least one early state state party is in lockstep with the RNC on the matter.

That's a good thing from the national party perspective.

Recent Posts:

As Expected, Mostly Quiet on the 2016 Democratic Rules Front in Scottsdale

A Deeper Dive on the New RNC Rules Subcommittee

DNC's Turn at Presidential Nomination Rules This Week in Scottsdale

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

DNC's Turn at Presidential Nomination Rules This Week in Scottsdale

Like the Republican National Committee a week ago, the Democratic National Committee is set to gather in Scottsdale, Arizona later this week (August 22-23). Also like their Republican counterparts, the DNC will consider a number of resolutions, though none will likely meet the same level of attention the Republican resolution barring debates on NBC and CNN had.

But the question, as always around these parts, is whether anything substantive will emerge from the Democratic meeting on the 2016 presidential primary rules front. We were treated to rules talk in Boston about debates, June conventions and a Republican Rules Committee meeting with few fireworks last week. Little, other than the creation of a subcommittee to Rules, came of it though.

Will that be different in Scottsdale?

No.

This DNC meeting will largely resemble the January winter meeting of the RNC in Charlotte. In other words, there will be talk about the present and future of the party, but with little in the way of actionable results.

...at least on the 2016 delegate selection rules.

The real reason the January RNC (Rules Committee) meeting is the best approximation of DNC (Rules and Bylaws Committee) meeting is that the real business at hand is the selection and settling of new members on the various underlying party committees; an orientation, if you will. And that has always been the case. Higher ups in the DNC -- on the RBC anyway -- have been saying all year that the Democratic Party would not really begin the process of examining the rules governing it delegate selection process until 2014. The meeting later this week is consistent with that timeline.

August is for installing new RBC members, who will, in turn, work with the remaining members of the RBC to begin fashioning a new set of rules that will be finalized around next year this time.

So don't expect many rules changes out of Scottsdale.

Recent Posts:
How Can a National Party Manage or Control Presidential Primary Debates?

June Conventions?

RNC Rules Committee Shunts Reexamination of Presidential NominationRules to Subcommittee

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

As Expected, Mostly Quiet on the 2016 Democratic Rules Front in Scottsdale

Frank Leone explains:

No old business.  New business included the rules for the election of At-Large DNC member and Exect Comte members at the DNC meeting tomorrow.  under the rules, there will be no nominations from the floor and vote will be on the chair’s slate.  The RBC recommended a Charter amendment addressing  gender balance for DNC officers – providing that they be equally divided by gender as practicable. 

Next meeting likely in New Orleans in Nov – RBC will start looking at 2016 national convention delegate selection process and may address issues including calendar and state order and convention delegate affirmative action guidelines.  The DNC will consult with RNC re calendar as was done for 2012.

No, there is not a whole lot in there about the 2016 rules other than the mention of matters like the primary calendar being on the RBC's radar for consideration at future meetings. But, then again, the expectations were not for there to be fundamental changes to the rules coming out of Scottsdale.

The only other thing is the point that the DNC and RNC will be interacting with the 2016 rules in mind. FHQ will be in DC in late September for the one planned face-to-face between some of the rules makers from both parties. I'll have more on that as it approaches.

--
Thanks, as always, to Frank for chiming in on the the RBC's activities.

Recent Posts:
A Deeper Dive on the New RNC Rules Subcommittee

DNC's Turn at Presidential Nomination Rules This Week in Scottsdale

How Can a National Party Manage or Control Presidential Primary Debates?

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Christie's Primary Map May Be the Same as Romney's, But the Order of the Primaries Won't Be.

Dave Catanese over at The Run 2016 has this to say:

With the first four states likely to keep their pecking order, Christie’s team may just adopt the same mindset.  Must wins in New Hampshire and Nevada, with Iowa and South Carolina as only icing. 

… 

The main difference would be Florida, a primary that could be rendered mostly meaningless if one of its homestate contenders jumps into the race. If say, Sen. Marco Rubio is a candidate, then South Carolina may become demonstrably more vital to Christie.

FHQ does not disagree here on the basic campaign strategic point. On the surface, Christie's strategy would theoretically be the same as Romney's. Win in New Hampshire and Nevada, take what you can get in Iowa and South Carolina and win Florida. FHQ has hinted at as much stretching back into primary season 2012.

And Mr. Catanese is absolutely correct that a home state candidate from the Sunshine state -- whether Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush -- upsets the calculus some for the latent presidential campaign of the New Jersey governor.

But here's the thing: We don't know if that is going to be the order of those contests. FHQ is reasonably confident that the four carve-out states will retain their positions with perhaps minimal pressure from any rogue states. FHQ is also fairly confident that Florida will not be one of those states pushing the carve-outs in 2016. However, given the new law scheduling the Florida presidential primary, Florida is also not likely to hold down the fifth position on the calendar as it did in 2012. Right now that distinction belongs to Arizona and Michigan.¹

The situation in Florida -- the scheduling of the primary -- is conditional. The Sunshine state will conduct a presidential primary election on the first date in which there are no penalties assessed by the national parties. Many are interpreting that as the first Tuesday in March (March 1, 2016). But that misses one other highly relevant point. Florida avoids the timing penalty by holding a March primary, but there is also the matter of the proportionality window in the Republican rules.

Recall that Florida has stuck with a true winner-take-all allocation of its delegates. If the Republican Party of Florida continues with that practice in 2016, the new law would push the presidential primary in the Sunshine state back to the third Tuesday in March according to the proposed penalty structure likely to emerge from the RNC rules subcommittee reexamining the rules. Now, Florida Republicans could merely take the 50% delegate reduction associated with a violation of the proportionality requirement and go on March 1, but that is not what the law says. If Florida Republicans value the presidential primary as a means of allocating delegates, they would have to utilize the state-funded option that is administered by the (secretary of) state and follows the law.

…on March 15, 2016 along with the Illinois primary.

--
Arizona and Michigan now occupy the fifth position on the 2016 presidential primary calendar and are the biggest threats to the carve-out states. Florida will play a role, but it will likely be on or two weeks after Super Tuesday. That's different from Romney's map. Like Romney, Christie would like to and likely have to do well in Arizona and Michigan as springboards into Super Tuesday the next week. Christie would also need to employ a similar Super Tuesday strategy to the former Massachusetts governor: rack up wins and delegates outside the South while peeling off as many as possible delegates in the South.

That's what makes the method of allocation Texas Republicans adopt for 2016 so important. Remember "proportionality" on the Republican side isn't mathematical proportionality. There are a number of ways to get there.

--
¹ And that assumes Colorado, Minnesota and Utah do not opt into early February dates for their respective caucuses, caucuses and primary. It also assumes that Missouri either moves its primary back or once again adopts caucuses as a means of allocating delegates. North Carolina is newly rogue as well. …but for how long?

Recent Posts:
Another Take on the RNC's Efforts to Alter the Presidential Nomination Rules for 2016

Is South Carolina losing its early-primary luster?

Fool Me Once, Shame on Me. Fool Me Twice…

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

I Am Not an Ames Straw Poll Apologist

...but FHQ is among the most skeptical of skeptics when the conversation turns back toward the "Is Ames Dead?" discussion.

Look, I thought Jonathan Martin's piece Sunday in the New York Times was illuminating. This -- the "Is Ames Dead?" discussion -- is absolutely an ongoing topic within and outside of the Republican Party of Iowa and it has at least some tangential bearing on the progress of any Republican presidential nomination race (Results may vary.). But when it comes to actually killing off the straw poll -- the quadrennial August Republican rite in the year before a presidential election year -- well, it is a bit more complicated than the straw poll is on its death bed.

...and there are certainly more perspectives within the state party about the event than it being like a "Civil War doctor amputating a gangrenous leg to save the life of the patient".

Let's take Mike Murphy's comment from the article first because that is a great place to start. I don't know whether Murphy was channeling Wallace Shawn in Princess Bride or not, but invoking land wars in Asia is a good analogy in the context of an establishment candidate wading into a supposedly ultraconservative affair in Ames. The line is also analogous in a great many ways to attempting to put the halt on the straw poll altogether.

Why?

This is something FHQ will revisit later this week in a slightly different scenario, but in this instance there currently is a veto point within the Republican Party of Iowa concerning the Ames Straw Poll. Yes, it is significant that Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA) has openly called for an end to the practice. Very significant. Rare are the times when states volunteer to lose attention in the presidential nomination process. But the party infrastructure itself is not -- at least on this issue -- on the same page with the governor. That makes it quite difficult to stop the practice.

Not impossible, mind you. But difficult.

An example...

Take Obamacare. Republicans on the Hill and nationwide have made no bones about wanting to repeal what is considered by some to be among the signature pieces of legislation to work its way through Congress on the president's watch. However, the law is in place, it is taking effect in the staggered way in which it was intended (and in some cases not initially intended), and there are also veto points within the process of reversing the legislation. There is a Democratic-controlled Senate and a Democratic president standing in the way.

The institution has been erected in other words and is increasingly difficult to tear down the more it becomes, well, institutionalized over time.

Back in the Iowa context, then, there are interests that want the institution that is the straw poll in Ames to continue. And those interests pull the strings within the state party now, too. That makes the interests (ending the straw poll practice) of the governor and other Republican officials and operatives in the Hawkeye state -- those somewhat echoed by the national party or vice versa -- harder to bring to fruition.

Institutionally speaking, there are roadblocks -- prohibitive ones at this point in time -- to putting an end to the straw poll.

At one point -- nine months ago when this issue was last raised so prominently nationally -- there was talk of "tweaking the event" involved in this discussion as well. That sentiment has not disappeared, FHQ would wager. And really, that is where this is likely to end if change is in the offing for the Ames Straw Poll. It is an event -- a fundraiser at its core -- for the party. It is an event that is also somewhat insulated by the fact that Iowa has and will continue to lead off the presidential nomination process in 2016. That is not going to change. In fact, Iowa and the other three carve-out states have received additional protection from the RNC since the 2012 caucuses. And the order of those states is codified in the DNC rules that are likely to carry over to 2016. Iowa's caucuses have no real threat -- not of losing delegates anyway -- on the Republican side from non-carve-outs and have rules-backing on the order of the first four contests on the Democratic side.

Now, FHQ is not saying that there is no way for the Ames Straw Poll to die. But institutionally there are obstacles within the Republican Party of Iowa to that happening. More to the point, there is division within the party about whether holding the event is good or bad for the caucuses early the following year. The space between the two camps and the balance of power there is such that change is unlikely now, and if it occurs, is likely to be somewhere between holding the straw poll as usual and killing it.

And if it isn't totally dead in 2015, that means it ended up tweaked in some way.

...a way that likely favors those holding most of the cards on the decision. The state party.

Recent Posts:
Two Outta Three Ain't Bad in South Carolina

As Expected, Mostly Quiet on the 2016 Democratic Rules Front in Scottsdale

A Deeper Dive on the New RNC Rules Subcommittee

Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.