I don't think it comes as much of a surprise to anyone that Fred Thompson decided to hang it up to potentially return to playing Rudy Giuliani on TV. How does his departure affect the race for the GOP nomination though. I'm sure the folks aligned with Huckabee would have liked for the former Tennessee senator to drop out before South Carolina last weekend. Here's the take on the situation from The Fix over at The Washington Post.
Meanwhile they are still cleaning up the carnage from the debate hall in northeast South Carolina. If you missed the Democrats' debate from Myrtle Beach Monday night, you may want to go check it out (CNN still has the debate up and the transcript is also there.). You may also want to fire up your memory while you're at it because we'll see/hear some of this material again come general election time. The viable Republican candidates sure will once one of them emerges as the party's nominee. You can't complain when intra-party battles help your own potential opposition research for the fall campaign. What do you think? Will this debate bickering hurt both Clinton and Obama in South Carolina? And will that help Edwards? The CNN page linked above has a video with undecideds turned off by what they saw.
There are a few things to note as we approach the Democratic primary on Saturday:
1) Will Jim Clyburn make an endorsement? The influential South Carolina Democrat said he wouldn't (...until after Iowa), but there is some chatter out there indicating that a well-timed Obama endorsement could happen on Thursday. Thanks to The Caucus at the New York Times for that link. Hopefully this isn't a case of a runaway blog story, but there is some other speculation to "back this up."
2) What will turnout be like for the primary this weekend? Turnout for the GOP primary was down as compared to what the state experienced for the Republican primary there in 2000, but let's remember that South Carolina has an open primary system. Independents may have stayed home last weekend so that they could participate in the Democratic contest this weekend. But it could just have been the cold, rainy weather, a crop of unsatisfying candidates or that undecideds just couldn't decide and stayed home.
3) What do Clinton's trips to California yesterday and New York today mean (track daily visits at Slate.com)? Is she ceding South Carolina to Obama or is her campaign focusing on February 5? The big win that Rob spoke about Obama needing in the comments section the other day may not mean so much if Hillary didn't give her all in the state.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Nevada Caucuses (postmortem)
If you haven't already, head over to politickerNV and check out David Damore's wrap up of the unprecedented week that was in Nevada last week.
Monday, January 21, 2008
R-E-F-O-R-M
CQ has a great article up about efforts on the part of the RNC to reform the presidential nominating process (eg: to keep frontloading in check). Here's the thing: The Democrats were the party of change on this front starting with the radical changes to the system for the 1972 cycle and tweaking those changes into the mid-1980s. After Bill Clinton took office though, and on through the present, it has been the Republicans who have been the most active in trying to reform the frontloaded system.* Starting in the lead up to the 1996 convention there was talk of a delegate bonus incentive system to motivate states to position their delegate selection events later on the calendar (see Busch 2000).
When that plan didn't pass muster, the GOP again tried to cure what was perceived to ail the nominating system during the 2000 Republican convention. The Delaware plan, as it was/is called, would allow the small states to go first, nurturing the retail brand of politics that has been the hallmark of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary for decades and then let progressively larger states fall in behind them sequentially. Of course this rehashes the same sorts of issues that plagued the Founders when they were trying to conceive of an appropriate legislature for a nation in its infancy. The divisiveness of big states vs. little states plus the reality of getting the state legislatures and states parties to fall in line behind the plan gave pause to an image conscious party attempting to show unity behind its nominee.
The Delaware plan lives on however and has again come up in the RNC's discussion of reform ahead of the party's 2008 convention in St. Paul, MN. CQ describes that plan and the at least four others (that are on the table):
*This isn't to say that the Democrats have done nothing of late to reform the system. Some of the problems associated with frontloading find their root in the notion that Iowa and New Hampshire have too large a voice in the process. In answer to that the DNC included Nevada and South Carolina among the states exempt from sanctions attendant to positioning a delegate selection event ahead of the party's designated window (Feb. 5 is the earliest all non-exempt states were allowed to go during this cycle.). The reason they were included was to diversify the voices of the early states. That goal was accomplished but it also exacerbated the frontloading problem by bumping two states (and a group of states campaigned for two those spots given to South Carolina and Nevada in the summer of 2006) up in the process. Florida and Michigan were the two most notable states which took exception to this. So why is it that South Carolina and Nevada get a seat at the table occupied by just Iowa and New Hampshire previously and other states, which have their own issues to bring into the process get sanctioned for moving. That is the issue at stake for both parties as they eye 2012.
When that plan didn't pass muster, the GOP again tried to cure what was perceived to ail the nominating system during the 2000 Republican convention. The Delaware plan, as it was/is called, would allow the small states to go first, nurturing the retail brand of politics that has been the hallmark of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary for decades and then let progressively larger states fall in behind them sequentially. Of course this rehashes the same sorts of issues that plagued the Founders when they were trying to conceive of an appropriate legislature for a nation in its infancy. The divisiveness of big states vs. little states plus the reality of getting the state legislatures and states parties to fall in line behind the plan gave pause to an image conscious party attempting to show unity behind its nominee.
The Delaware plan lives on however and has again come up in the RNC's discussion of reform ahead of the party's 2008 convention in St. Paul, MN. CQ describes that plan and the at least four others (that are on the table):
One plan not mentioned as being considered is Thomas Gangale's American plan (in PS, Jan. 2004). In that plan, the randomness of what's called the Dingell-Anuzis modified plan by the RNC plays some role, but the largest states have the possibility of being positioned as early as the fourth week of the process. So while the plan protects the smaller states from being completely ignored in the process, it doesn't automatically shunt the larger states to the back of the line. I've liked this plan since I first read it, but understand all the same that the American public may not go for what is essentially a lottery to determine which states go when. Simplicity seems to be what people want as there has been some support for the idea of a national primary through polls taken during this current cycle."• Modified Delaware Plan: The latest version of the proposal initially approved but then rejected by Republican officials in 2000, the Modified Delaware Plan is being spearheaded by Republican National Committeeman John Matlusky of Delaware.
This plan would divide the nation into four “pods” that are organized by population. The least-populous states would be placed in one pod and vote first, followed in series by the next more-populous states. Under this plan, voting events would begin later than they have in 2008 and other recent election cycles and would be spread out over a four-month period.
The Modified Delaware Plan would preserve the early-voting traditions of Iowa, which could hold its precinct caucuses as early as the last Tuesday in January (Jan. 31 in 2012), and New Hampshire, which could hold its kickoff primary as early as the first Tuesday in February (Feb. 7 in 2012).
The states in the first pod would then begin voting on the second Tuesday in February (Feb. 14 in 2012) and would consist of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maine and Idaho. Six other jurisdictions that are not states but elect convention delegates — the District of Columbia and the territories of American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas Islands — also would be included in this earliest grouping.
• Ohio Plan: Promoted by Ohio Republican leader Bennett, who made a presentation Thursday, the Ohio Plan would create a pod of small-population states that would be permitted to vote first in every presidential election year. It differs from the Delaware Plan in that the Ohio Plan’s three other pods would be based on region and not scaled according to state size. These groupings — one of states in the Eastern and Midwestern United States, one encompassing the South and other covering the West — would have roughly similar allocations of electoral votes, and would rotate their order in the nominating process every four years.
The Ohio Plan would allow Iowa and New Hampshire to go before other states — and it also would extend that special exemption to Nevada and South Carolina, which the DNC included as early-voting states for the current 2008 campaign to lend greater geographic and racial diversity to the early-voting period. Those four states only would be allowed to hold a primary, caucus or convention before Feb. 1 in the presidential election year.
• Dingell-Anuzis Modified Plan: For those who follow politics in Michigan, the state that generated this plan, that name is not a misprint. It is a bipartisan effort promoted by Debbie Dingell, a prominent Michigan Democratic activist whose husband is veteran Democratic Rep. John D. Dingell , and Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party.
Debbie Dingell is a high-profile opponent of Iowa and New Hampshire’s primacy in the presidential selection process. The longstanding opposition among Michigan politicians to the overwhelming influence that Iowa and New Hampshire have long held over the presidential nominating process spurred a bipartisan agreement to hold the state’s 2008 primary on Jan. 15 — even though the move violated each major party’s scheduling rules setting Feb. 5 as the first date for most states’ contests, spurring the DNC to strip its Michigan affiliate of all its convention delegates and the RNC to penalize the Michigan GOP of half its delegates.
The Dingell-Anuzis plan is patterned after legislation sponsored in the U.S. House (
HR 1523 ) by Michigan Democratic Rep. Sander F. Levin and in the U.S. Senate (S 2024 ) by Florida Democrat Bill Nelson . Democrats in Florida, who have gone along with a new state law setting its primary for Jan. 29 in violation of national party rules, also has been denied all of their national convention delegates by the DNC (while Florida Republicans similarly have lost half their delegates).The Michigan-based plan would divide the nation into six regions, from which six “interregions” — made up of one or two states from each region — would be shaped. Each interregion would vote two or three weeks before the next interregion.
The Dingell-Anuzis plan would create a lottery 14 months before the presidential election to determine the voting order of the interregions. The same interregion could not go first in consecutive presidential elections.
Their plan also places Iowa and New Hampshire in their respective interregions and would not automatically permit them to vote early.
• Modified NASS Plan: Sponsored by Republican National Committeeman Ron Schmidt of South Dakota, this is essentially the plan long promoted by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), the organization of state election officials. It divides the nation into four regions — the East, South, Midwest and West — and each region would be given an election date before which it could not vote (early in March, April, May or June). The region that votes first, in early March, would vote last in the next presidential election year, and the region that voted second, in early April, would then move up to first.
The major difference between Schmidt’s version and the NASS plan is that Schmidt’s does not allow Iowa and New Hampshire to vote first. The NASS version allows exemptions for Iowa and New Hampshire to keep voting earlier than the rest of the nation.
• Texas Plan: This proposal, sponsored by Republican National Committeeman Bill Crocker of Texas, would divide the nation into four groups, with each drawing in a few contiguous states from one particular area of the nation and a few contiguous states from another area of the nation. One of Crocker’s groups, for example, would take in the Midwestern states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, and also the Southern states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.
The states in the first group could hold binding nomination contests as early as Feb. 1, with the three subsequent groups to follow in early March, April and May. Like the NASS plan, Crocker’s proposal includes a provision that the group voting first in one presidential election year would vote last in the next election. This plan also would end the special privilege to go first that has long been accorded to Iowa and New Hampshire."
*This isn't to say that the Democrats have done nothing of late to reform the system. Some of the problems associated with frontloading find their root in the notion that Iowa and New Hampshire have too large a voice in the process. In answer to that the DNC included Nevada and South Carolina among the states exempt from sanctions attendant to positioning a delegate selection event ahead of the party's designated window (Feb. 5 is the earliest all non-exempt states were allowed to go during this cycle.). The reason they were included was to diversify the voices of the early states. That goal was accomplished but it also exacerbated the frontloading problem by bumping two states (and a group of states campaigned for two those spots given to South Carolina and Nevada in the summer of 2006) up in the process. Florida and Michigan were the two most notable states which took exception to this. So why is it that South Carolina and Nevada get a seat at the table occupied by just Iowa and New Hampshire previously and other states, which have their own issues to bring into the process get sanctioned for moving. That is the issue at stake for both parties as they eye 2012.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Clinton and Romney claim Nevada Victories and SC polls just closed
Former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney made it two in a row with an easy win in the Nevada GOP caucus this morning to go along with his win in the Michigan primary on Tuesday. Taking a winning streak into an off week won't hurt him either with Florida voters now having just less than two weeks to consider what still remains an open race on the Republican side. While Romney's camp made a last minute decision to focus on Nevada every other candidate (well, almost every other one--Giuliani is still in Florida) was putting in time in South Carolina. The polls just closed in the Palmetto state and early exit polls indicate the economy and immigration (see 7:09pm post) were on the minds of South Carolina's Republican primary voters; a clear advantage for Huckabee. TRACKING...
7:41pm: Very early but with one percent of precincts in, McCain has a 38-23 lead over Huckabee (Look, I said it was early.).
8:05pm: Just to show you that 1% isn't representative of the entire state of South Carolina on the GOP side: McCain 34, Huckabee 30 with 12% in. This one could be fun. Third place seems like a real battle between Thompson and Romney with hovering around 14%.
9:29pm: The New York Times is calling the race for McCain. When you look at that 15% that Thompson got you can't help but wonder how much that hurt Huckabee's chances at a win in SC. He (Huckabee) has a tough row to hoe now.
Meanwhile the Democrats had a caucus in Nevada as well, where Hillary Clinton continued a streak of her own. She has now run her streak of victories to two (three if you want to count Michigan and the DNC isn't) after an initial setback in Iowa's caucuses. And boy were the polls from earlier in the week wrong. What looked like a tight three-way race for the Silver state turned into a tight two-way race as former North Carolina senator, John Edwards managed a meager four percent of the vote. Clinton and Obama split the remaining 96%, 51-45. Obama didn't seem to get the support he was hoping for from the endorsement of the Culinary Workers union. While the union's endorsement was seen as a big deal, it didn't prove influential among the rank and file members as some strayed into the Clinton camp.
While the GOP is off until Florida on January 29, the Democrats have their own primary in South Carolina next Saturday where the support of African Americans will be key to which ever candidate claims victory there.
Nevada results.
7:41pm: Very early but with one percent of precincts in, McCain has a 38-23 lead over Huckabee (Look, I said it was early.).
8:05pm: Just to show you that 1% isn't representative of the entire state of South Carolina on the GOP side: McCain 34, Huckabee 30 with 12% in. This one could be fun. Third place seems like a real battle between Thompson and Romney with hovering around 14%.
9:29pm: The New York Times is calling the race for McCain. When you look at that 15% that Thompson got you can't help but wonder how much that hurt Huckabee's chances at a win in SC. He (Huckabee) has a tough row to hoe now.
Meanwhile the Democrats had a caucus in Nevada as well, where Hillary Clinton continued a streak of her own. She has now run her streak of victories to two (three if you want to count Michigan and the DNC isn't) after an initial setback in Iowa's caucuses. And boy were the polls from earlier in the week wrong. What looked like a tight three-way race for the Silver state turned into a tight two-way race as former North Carolina senator, John Edwards managed a meager four percent of the vote. Clinton and Obama split the remaining 96%, 51-45. Obama didn't seem to get the support he was hoping for from the endorsement of the Culinary Workers union. While the union's endorsement was seen as a big deal, it didn't prove influential among the rank and file members as some strayed into the Clinton camp.
While the GOP is off until Florida on January 29, the Democrats have their own primary in South Carolina next Saturday where the support of African Americans will be key to which ever candidate claims victory there.
Nevada results.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Nevada on the Horizon
With 2008 marking the first time that Nevada has been in the presidential nomination limelight, there are a lot questions about the caucus process there and about how the state has dealt with the hurdles involved in getting a high-profile race up and running. To the aid of those of us here and Georgia and other parts outside the Silver state comes politickernv.com for all your Nevada political needs.
A big thanks to Dr. David Damore at UNLV for the link. And be sure to check out his most recent post in the middle column under Opinion (here's the link). It's a great summary of what's happening and what may happen in the lead to Saturday's caucuses.
A big thanks to Dr. David Damore at UNLV for the link. And be sure to check out his most recent post in the middle column under Opinion (here's the link). It's a great summary of what's happening and what may happen in the lead to Saturday's caucuses.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
GOP opts for foot race to determine nominee following Michigan primary
Someone has to win this thing, right? First Huckabee. Then McCain. Now Romney (Sorry Wyoming. If the GOP race continues like this, those eight delegates may eventually prove consequential despite the lack of coverage ten days ago.). The AP is projecting that Romney has won the Michigan primary by a similar margin to what McCain won New Hampshire by last week. Honestly, don't be surprised if Fred Thompson wins in South Carolina over the weekend. So once Giuliani wins in Florida the Republicans can start over again on Super Tuesday.
Romney 37%
McCain 31
Huckabee 16
--with 11% of precincts in.
Meanwhile Clinton has a commanding 2-1 lead over "uncommitted" on the Democratic side.
Clinton 61%
Uncommitted 33
--with 18% of precincts reporting (9:20pm)
Oh and the Democrats are debating (sans Kucinich). I'm on the outside looking in since MSNBC and laptop aren't on speaking terms tonight. If you are in the same boat I'm in, The Caucus blog over at The New York Times is live blogging the debate.
Romney 37%
McCain 31
Huckabee 16
--with 11% of precincts in.
Meanwhile Clinton has a commanding 2-1 lead over "uncommitted" on the Democratic side.
Clinton 61%
Uncommitted 33
--with 18% of precincts reporting (9:20pm)
Oh and the Democrats are debating (sans Kucinich). I'm on the outside looking in since MSNBC and laptop aren't on speaking terms tonight. If you are in the same boat I'm in, The Caucus blog over at The New York Times is live blogging the debate.
Michiganders Unite! It's Primary Day
Iowa (check).
New Hampshire (check).
Michigan?
Wave good bye again to the novelty of retail politics for another four years as the campaign shifts from the up close and personal politics of Iowa and New Hampshire to practicing new techniques in the lead up to the twenty-two state blitz on February 5.
Today that blitz begins with the voters in Michigan. Well, half of the partisans in the Great Lakes State will be participating in the state's 2008 presidential primary as the GOP candidates battle for another pre-Super Tuesday prize. On the Democratic side, national party sanctions have done well at keeping the candidates away. Most don't even appear on the ballot. During the period that the constitutionality of the distribution of primary voter rolls was being questioned, thus threatening the state's primary, efforts were made to change ballot access rules to prevent candidates from keeping their names off the ballot (Does this sound like democracy?). Stalling Democrats in the Michigan legislature prevented this measure from taking immediate effect meaning that only Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich appeared on the ballot. This fight and the broader one between the state and the national party set the groundwork for today's non-contest for no Democratic delegates in Michigan.
The major candidates on the Democratic side (and Dennis Kucinich who by court order won the right to appear, though MSNBC is appealing) are in Nevada gearing up for tonight's debate (live on MSNBC @ 9pm--I'll have a link for the online version when it is made available.) ahead of Saturday's caucus in the state.
Some Nevadans are irritated with the timing and others with location. Who doesn't want to caucus on Saturday morning in a casino?
The GOP seems content to fight it out in Michigan today and skip Nevada on Saturday in favor of the South Carolina caucus on the same day. Those who win South Carolina (since 1980 when the primary system hit the state) win the Republican nomination. Nevada's loss is South Carolina's gain.
First thing's first though: Michigan. Real Clear Politics' average of the six most recent Michigan polls has Romney with a slight edge over McCain (who won in there in 2000) with Huckabee running third about ten points back. So we may be witnessing something of a replay in New Hampshire at least as far as the major players are concerned. Should the results play out similarly, Romney will be on the ropes. However, should he win today's primary that jumbles this race even further making Giuliani's "wait until Florida and Super Tuesday" strategy look like pure genius. You can't discount luck in politics.
You may have heard that Obama and Clinton have been sparring over racial issues. I'm still trying to figure out if not having an event this week gives that story more steam. Neither side has appeared too positive which Edwards must be loving. He got a boost in Nevada early this week with some poll numbers that have him (27%), Obama (32) and Clinton (30) within five points of each other. This is the only poll from the state since December (see RCP). Interesting news heading toward the weekend contest there. Tonight's debate will certainly have some say in how things play out.
Finally, it looks like the presidential race has been fairly newsworthy so far. Last week during the New Hampshire primary, the race accounted for 49% of the news according to the Project of Excellence in Journalism. Sadly this blog wasn't a major part of that (Thank you very much SPSA conference.).
As always I'll be online tonight tracking the results and the debate if anyone is interested in discussing matters ahead of tomorrow's live discussion group meeting.
New Hampshire (check).
Michigan?
Wave good bye again to the novelty of retail politics for another four years as the campaign shifts from the up close and personal politics of Iowa and New Hampshire to practicing new techniques in the lead up to the twenty-two state blitz on February 5.
Today that blitz begins with the voters in Michigan. Well, half of the partisans in the Great Lakes State will be participating in the state's 2008 presidential primary as the GOP candidates battle for another pre-Super Tuesday prize. On the Democratic side, national party sanctions have done well at keeping the candidates away. Most don't even appear on the ballot. During the period that the constitutionality of the distribution of primary voter rolls was being questioned, thus threatening the state's primary, efforts were made to change ballot access rules to prevent candidates from keeping their names off the ballot (Does this sound like democracy?). Stalling Democrats in the Michigan legislature prevented this measure from taking immediate effect meaning that only Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich appeared on the ballot. This fight and the broader one between the state and the national party set the groundwork for today's non-contest for no Democratic delegates in Michigan.
The major candidates on the Democratic side (and Dennis Kucinich who by court order won the right to appear, though MSNBC is appealing) are in Nevada gearing up for tonight's debate (live on MSNBC @ 9pm--I'll have a link for the online version when it is made available.) ahead of Saturday's caucus in the state.
Some Nevadans are irritated with the timing and others with location. Who doesn't want to caucus on Saturday morning in a casino?
The GOP seems content to fight it out in Michigan today and skip Nevada on Saturday in favor of the South Carolina caucus on the same day. Those who win South Carolina (since 1980 when the primary system hit the state) win the Republican nomination. Nevada's loss is South Carolina's gain.
First thing's first though: Michigan. Real Clear Politics' average of the six most recent Michigan polls has Romney with a slight edge over McCain (who won in there in 2000) with Huckabee running third about ten points back. So we may be witnessing something of a replay in New Hampshire at least as far as the major players are concerned. Should the results play out similarly, Romney will be on the ropes. However, should he win today's primary that jumbles this race even further making Giuliani's "wait until Florida and Super Tuesday" strategy look like pure genius. You can't discount luck in politics.
You may have heard that Obama and Clinton have been sparring over racial issues. I'm still trying to figure out if not having an event this week gives that story more steam. Neither side has appeared too positive which Edwards must be loving. He got a boost in Nevada early this week with some poll numbers that have him (27%), Obama (32) and Clinton (30) within five points of each other. This is the only poll from the state since December (see RCP). Interesting news heading toward the weekend contest there. Tonight's debate will certainly have some say in how things play out.
Finally, it looks like the presidential race has been fairly newsworthy so far. Last week during the New Hampshire primary, the race accounted for 49% of the news according to the Project of Excellence in Journalism. Sadly this blog wasn't a major part of that (Thank you very much SPSA conference.).
As always I'll be online tonight tracking the results and the debate if anyone is interested in discussing matters ahead of tomorrow's live discussion group meeting.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
McCain is the choice of New Hampshire Republicans again
Well, that didn't take long. Less than two hours after the polls closed the race has already been called for McCain on the GOP side (8:30pm). The real surprise is that with 15% of the precincts reporting Clinton leads Obama 40-36 with Edwards a distant third. Early numbers indicate that New Hampshire women are going with Clinton in a reverse from what happened in Iowa last Thursday (see 8:32pm post in above link).
UPDATE: The numbers on the Democratic side largely held up as the precincts continued to come in.
Clinton 39%
Obama 36
Edwards 17
So Clinton won a "shocking" comeback victory and the polls fooled us all.
UPDATE: The numbers on the Democratic side largely held up as the precincts continued to come in.
Clinton 39%
Obama 36
Edwards 17
So Clinton won a "shocking" comeback victory and the polls fooled us all.
New Hampshire Turnout. Who has the Advantage?
Much like I did last Thursday for the Iowa caucuses, I would like to think out loud about the effect turnout might play in today's New Hampshire primaries. There aren't any specific numbers being floated around today by either the candidates or the pundits like there were in the lead up to the caucuses in Iowa last week. However, on a general level, higher turnout is going to help the candidate with the most momentum, more often than not. This is clearer on the Democratic side than it is on the Republican side. There Huckabee is the momentum candidate, but the polls have shown what many thought coming out of Iowa: that Huckabee wouldn't necessarily play well in New Hampshire. It is less clear how this affects the race between McCain and Romney.
For Democrats, Obama qualifies as the candidate with momentum. This has been reflected in his rising poll numbers both in New Hampshire and nationally since Iowa. But today there have been reports already about long lines waiting to vote and requests to the Secretary of State for more Democratic ballots. This is a pretty clear indication that Obama could be in for a big night tonight when the results begin coming in.
Polls close at 7 pm.
For Democrats, Obama qualifies as the candidate with momentum. This has been reflected in his rising poll numbers both in New Hampshire and nationally since Iowa. But today there have been reports already about long lines waiting to vote and requests to the Secretary of State for more Democratic ballots. This is a pretty clear indication that Obama could be in for a big night tonight when the results begin coming in.
Polls close at 7 pm.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Iowa Implications from Paul Gurian
Democrats
Early New Hampshire polls indicate that Obama has moved up 5-10% in New Hampshire while Clinton has slipped a bit. Clinton’s perception as “inevitable” and “unbeatable” has been shaken. However, Clinton still has a substantial following and a strong organization. Frontrunners often lose Iowa but go on to win New Hampshire and the nomination.
Obama got a boost in Iowa. He showed that he’s truly competitive with Clinton and that he can win among white voters. By defeating Edwards, he took a big step toward becoming the alternative to Clinton. Democrats who don’t like Clinton have been divided among several candidates; they may now rally around Obama.
Edwards survived but did not improve his position. He needs to either win or come in a close second in New Hampshire to remain viable.
Republicans
Romney lost ground in Iowa. If he loses New Hampshire, he’s in serious trouble.
Huckabee got a big boost from the Iowa results. He needs to follow up this victory with a strong showing in New Hampshire or Michigan and a win in South Carolina. New Hampshire is not friendly territory. Huckabee may get a boost from his victory in Iowa but probably not enough to defeat either Romney or McCain there.
McCain benefitted from the Iowa results. McCain needs to win New Hampshire and his main opponent there, Mitt Romney, did poorly in Iowa. That will likely help McCain in New Hampshire. Early New Hampshire polls show McCain with a slight lead over Romney in New Hampshire, with Huckabee a distant third.
Giuliani’s hope is that no one candidate will emerge from the early contests with momentum. Giuliani is pinning his hopes on Florida and Super Tuesday. So he was probably pleased to see Romney fail to win Iowa. However, that increases the likelihood of McCain winning New Hampshire and gaining momentum.
Fred Thompson survived Iowa, but he’s running last in New Hampshire and is not especially strong anywhere else.
Independents in New Hampshire
New Hampshire has an “open” primary. Since there are a lot of independents in New Hampshire, those voters can make a difference. This year, New Hampshire independents seem to like Obama and McCain.
An average of New Hampshire polls taken January 4-5 show McCain with 33%, Romney with 28%, Huckabee with 11%, and Giuliani with 10%. Among Democrats, Obama has 35%, Clinton 30%, and Edwards 20%. If the results match the polls, Edwards, Romney and Thompson could be on their way out. South Carolina looms large for both parties.
--Paul Gurian
Early New Hampshire polls indicate that Obama has moved up 5-10% in New Hampshire while Clinton has slipped a bit. Clinton’s perception as “inevitable” and “unbeatable” has been shaken. However, Clinton still has a substantial following and a strong organization. Frontrunners often lose Iowa but go on to win New Hampshire and the nomination.
Obama got a boost in Iowa. He showed that he’s truly competitive with Clinton and that he can win among white voters. By defeating Edwards, he took a big step toward becoming the alternative to Clinton. Democrats who don’t like Clinton have been divided among several candidates; they may now rally around Obama.
Edwards survived but did not improve his position. He needs to either win or come in a close second in New Hampshire to remain viable.
Republicans
Romney lost ground in Iowa. If he loses New Hampshire, he’s in serious trouble.
Huckabee got a big boost from the Iowa results. He needs to follow up this victory with a strong showing in New Hampshire or Michigan and a win in South Carolina. New Hampshire is not friendly territory. Huckabee may get a boost from his victory in Iowa but probably not enough to defeat either Romney or McCain there.
McCain benefitted from the Iowa results. McCain needs to win New Hampshire and his main opponent there, Mitt Romney, did poorly in Iowa. That will likely help McCain in New Hampshire. Early New Hampshire polls show McCain with a slight lead over Romney in New Hampshire, with Huckabee a distant third.
Giuliani’s hope is that no one candidate will emerge from the early contests with momentum. Giuliani is pinning his hopes on Florida and Super Tuesday. So he was probably pleased to see Romney fail to win Iowa. However, that increases the likelihood of McCain winning New Hampshire and gaining momentum.
Fred Thompson survived Iowa, but he’s running last in New Hampshire and is not especially strong anywhere else.
Independents in New Hampshire
New Hampshire has an “open” primary. Since there are a lot of independents in New Hampshire, those voters can make a difference. This year, New Hampshire independents seem to like Obama and McCain.
An average of New Hampshire polls taken January 4-5 show McCain with 33%, Romney with 28%, Huckabee with 11%, and Giuliani with 10%. Among Democrats, Obama has 35%, Clinton 30%, and Edwards 20%. If the results match the polls, Edwards, Romney and Thompson could be on their way out. South Carolina looms large for both parties.
--Paul Gurian
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Indiana Shifts Focus to 2012
Stuck on a first Tuesday in May date again for the 2008 cycle, Indiana is among the first to begin thinking about moving its presidential primary for 2012 (Granted, many of the states that moved for the 2008 cycle moved permanently as opposed to the temporary move the NY legislature used in the 1990s.). State Rep. Suzanne Crouch (R-Evansville) has said recently that she plans on introducing a bill during the general assembly's 2009 session to move the state's primaries (all of them) to an earlier date.
I found it odd that Rep. Crouch would wait until next year when momentum may no longer be behind moving the primary. The assembly does meet every year unlike some states out west (eg: Oregon), which meet only every other year. So that wasn't the issue.
As the above article indicates several measures moving the primary have been proposed in the past only to fail. The difference this time seems to be that Rep. Crouch is advocating moving not only the presidential primary but the state and local primaries as well. Not to toot my own horn, but my own research has found that this is a major obstacle to a state frontloading its presidential primary. States that hold those two sets of primaries together are confronted with either moving everything or with creating an entirely new election for the presidential primary. Both cost money and states in this position are often hesitant or unwilling to make the jump.
So when we talk about frontloading, we are often talking about a state's ability to actually make the move. Those states with separate presidential and state/local primaries have a much easier job than those states where laws exist wedding the two primary types together. Indiana falls into this category. Once a state shows the willingness to move though, subsequent moves are all the easier to push through later (if need be). Maryland is a good example here. The state requires their primaries during a presidential election year to all be held at the same time. The state had already made the move to hold its presidential (and all others) on the traditional Super Tuesday (the first Tuesday in March) and when Super Tuesday moved up a month to the first Tuesday in February, the Maryland legislature had little trouble in inching its primaries up to maintain its position. Though, I should note that the legislature opted to move the primaries to the week after Super Tuesday (the second Tuesday in February).
I found it odd that Rep. Crouch would wait until next year when momentum may no longer be behind moving the primary. The assembly does meet every year unlike some states out west (eg: Oregon), which meet only every other year. So that wasn't the issue.
As the above article indicates several measures moving the primary have been proposed in the past only to fail. The difference this time seems to be that Rep. Crouch is advocating moving not only the presidential primary but the state and local primaries as well. Not to toot my own horn, but my own research has found that this is a major obstacle to a state frontloading its presidential primary. States that hold those two sets of primaries together are confronted with either moving everything or with creating an entirely new election for the presidential primary. Both cost money and states in this position are often hesitant or unwilling to make the jump.
So when we talk about frontloading, we are often talking about a state's ability to actually make the move. Those states with separate presidential and state/local primaries have a much easier job than those states where laws exist wedding the two primary types together. Indiana falls into this category. Once a state shows the willingness to move though, subsequent moves are all the easier to push through later (if need be). Maryland is a good example here. The state requires their primaries during a presidential election year to all be held at the same time. The state had already made the move to hold its presidential (and all others) on the traditional Super Tuesday (the first Tuesday in March) and when Super Tuesday moved up a month to the first Tuesday in February, the Maryland legislature had little trouble in inching its primaries up to maintain its position. Though, I should note that the legislature opted to move the primaries to the week after Super Tuesday (the second Tuesday in February).
Romney wins in Wyoming
The nomination fight left Iowa Thursday and headed, for the most part, to New Hampshire in anticipation of Tuesday's primary there. However, the GOP took a small detour to Wyoming today, for a caucus there. Mind you, this detour did not include any immediate attention from any of the Republican candidates, but it did include a caucus that distributed twelve delegates to this summer's GOP convention in Minneapolis. Small peanuts, sure. But a win's a win and Mitt Romney can now lay claim to a win in Wyoming's county conventions; wrapping up eight of the twelve delegates at stake.
What impact does that have on New Hampshire for Tuesday? Given that you really have to dig to find any news of this and the fact that visits from the candidates were limited at best, I doubt much affect will be felt.
The results:
Romney: 8 delegates
Thompson: 3
Hunter: 1
What impact does that have on New Hampshire for Tuesday? Given that you really have to dig to find any news of this and the fact that visits from the candidates were limited at best, I doubt much affect will be felt.
The results:
Romney: 8 delegates
Thompson: 3
Hunter: 1
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Huckabee takes Iowa...Obama too.
The New Yorks Times blog The Caucus is reporting that Romney has conceded and that's with just fifteen percent of the precincts reporting as of 8:05pm (IA time). On to South Carolina for Huckabee and Romney heads to New Hampshire to try and hold off McCain for the next few days.
For the Dems, it is a tight race. Obama tops the list and Edwards is literally a handful of votes ahead of Clinton with 50% of the precincts in.
UPDATE: Things are still tight on the Democratic side. Obama seems to be pulling away but as of 8:30pm Edwards led Clinton by just three votes. Obama is doing better than expected in conservative area; areas considered to be Edwards' strongholds.
UPDATE: The New York Times is calling the Democratic race for Obama. With 84% of precincts reporting (8:41pm), Obama led with 37% of the vote. Edwards still holds an extremely slim edge over Clinton (just four votes). Let the spin begin from those two camps. The way I read it, a third place finish is a third place finish for Clinton. It will be interesting to see how they play that as the race shifts to New Hampshire.
UPDATE: At 9pm with 92% of the precincts in, Obama-37, Edwards-30 and Clinton-30. Edwards holds a nine vote lead over Clinton.
For the Dems, it is a tight race. Obama tops the list and Edwards is literally a handful of votes ahead of Clinton with 50% of the precincts in.
UPDATE: Things are still tight on the Democratic side. Obama seems to be pulling away but as of 8:30pm Edwards led Clinton by just three votes. Obama is doing better than expected in conservative area; areas considered to be Edwards' strongholds.
UPDATE: The New York Times is calling the Democratic race for Obama. With 84% of precincts reporting (8:41pm), Obama led with 37% of the vote. Edwards still holds an extremely slim edge over Clinton (just four votes). Let the spin begin from those two camps. The way I read it, a third place finish is a third place finish for Clinton. It will be interesting to see how they play that as the race shifts to New Hampshire.
UPDATE: At 9pm with 92% of the precincts in, Obama-37, Edwards-30 and Clinton-30. Edwards holds a nine vote lead over Clinton.
Iowa Turnout. Who has the advantage?
There are a couple of numbers floating around today concerning turnout in tonight's Iowa caucuses and the expectations for who will come out victorious there. The thinking from within the campaigns and among outside observers is that high turnout is good for Obama and Huckabee. The Fix over at The Washington Post has cited the 200,000 caucus-goers as the line of demarcation for Obama. If the number tops that figure the advantage goes to the senator from Illinois according to his campaign (see here and here for more). As The Fix points out though, that is based on the idea that the growth in caucus participation is weighted toward Obama when in fact the distribution between the top three Democrats could be more even. The second choice voters are still important in Iowa as well. If their candidates don't reach fifteen percent, who do they back? Some polls seem to indicate Edwards and others Obama (The Edwards link is a little dated, but NBC reported as recently as Sunday night (Dec. 30) that Edwards led for the second choice folks.). Now, if the new caucus participants go for Obama and the supporters of the "non-viable" candidates align behind Edwards, will Hillary sink to third?
On the Republican side, 80,000 is the mark for Romney and Huckabee. The Romney camp has stated that anything over that number of caucus-goers could spell trouble for the former Massachusetts governor. Under that scenario, Huckabee's grassroots rise would likely bring enough new voters to the caucus to provide him with a victory.
On the Republican side, 80,000 is the mark for Romney and Huckabee. The Romney camp has stated that anything over that number of caucus-goers could spell trouble for the former Massachusetts governor. Under that scenario, Huckabee's grassroots rise would likely bring enough new voters to the caucus to provide him with a victory.
2008 Iowa Caucuses Online
Let's get the 2008 primary season underway with complete access: You can watch C-SPAN's coverage of the Iowa caucuses online tonight here. As of 10:15am (Jan. 3) both links (C-SPAN for the Dems and C-SPAN2 for the GOP) were working.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Happy New Year! It's a Presidential Election Year!
Here we are a day away from the official kickoff of the presidential primary season (Sorry caucuses, but research shows that you take a backseat to primaries--see Gurian. Ah, shameful namedropping.) and things are still up in the air in both parties. It's the beginning for the American electorate (or at least for those that care to show up for the primaries) and the beginning of the end for all but the most viable candidates with the exception of perhaps Dennis Kucinich and Alan Keyes. So what's been happening on the trail since the last update?
1) Paul sent this over today (via the latest Pew Research Poll):
McCain Rebounds In National Poll; Clinton Holds Big Lead
January 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Pew Research Poll
Rudy Giuliani's once solid lead among Republicans nationwide has vanished,
and John McCain -- whose campaign was regarded as dead in the water this
summer -- is back on top with the GOP leaders. McCain has 22 percent support
among Republicans, followed by Giuliani at 20 percent and Mike Huckabee at 17
percent. Mitt Romney follows at 12 percent with Fred Thompson at 9 percent.
The survey was conducted Dec. 19-30 and has a 5 percent margin of error.
Giuliani was counting on the 21 states that vote Feb. 5, but the poll indicates he
is in a virtual tie with McCain in those states.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton maintains her large national lead over
Barack Obama, 46 percent to 26 percent, with John Edwards at 14 percent.
So the national polls indicate McCain is a factor again in the race for the GOP nomination and Hillary is running away with things on the Democratic side. And while the US has the closest thing it has ever had to a national primary day with this year's February 5 Super Tuesday, these nominations still play out on the state level with Iowa and New Hampshire still going first.
2) Let's deal with the Republicans first:
Mitt Romney at one time or another had fairly comfortable leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Mike Huckabee and John McCain have challenged those leads in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively. With McCain basically writing Iowa off to focus on New Hampshire, the two-pronged attack on Romney in both early states is causing the former Massachusetts governor to split time between both states instead of going it one at a time. Here's the deal though. Romney and Huckabee are in essentially the same position as the top three Democrats in Iowa: neck and neck. That one could go either way. In New Hampshire though, McCain is going to rely on independents to once again deliver a victory in the Granite state. However, the LA Times is reporting that Obama could be siphoning off some of that independent support from McCain in the state (I apologize for the link to an Obama supporter blog, but the LA Times has already password protected that article For those that want to read the article from the source, a link is included and registration for the paper's site is just a click away.).
3) Which brings us to the Democrats:
Still locked in a three-way tie in Iowa, Clinton, Obama and Edwards continue to make last minute pitches to potential caucus goers. The thing that is going unnoticed again (as it did in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus) is the second choice voters. Now, the rules of the caucuses stipulate that supporters of candidates receiving less than fifteen percent can move to those other candidates in the upper tier. NBC Nightly News on Sunday (December 31) reported that Edwards was becoming the favorite second choice of those not already aligned with any of the top three candidates. The Edwards camp is also playing up the results of a poll that reallocates based on second choice votes (Edwards enjoys a 41-34-25 edge over Clinton and Obama respectively.). These second choice folks were the same ones that catapulted Edwards to his surprising second place finish in the state in 2004 and that bloc is still one to keep our eyes on tomorrow night.
UPDATE: Kucinich has urged his Iowa supporters to back Obama in the event that he does not reach the necessary fifteen percent.
4) If you haven't already and like to reminisce about campaigns past, be sure to check out CQ's review of presidential nomination campaigns since 1912. It's a nice eight part read.
5) Paul mentioned it before in an earlier email, but let me mention it also: C-SPAN is offering live coverage of the Iowa caucuses again this year. Here's the link. If I find that it will be simulcast online I'll send around that link as well. If they aren't covering it online (and I'm sure Paul will tape it), I'm going to try and DVR it through my media player and briefly post a "pirated" version on either this blog or my website tomorrow night at the conclusion of the coverage. I'll need to check on the space capacity of both first. But I'll find a way to get it up there for the group. Also, I'll be online tomorrow night to post and discuss the results, so come on by at your leisure to talk about all things Campaign '08.
1) Paul sent this over today (via the latest Pew Research Poll):
McCain Rebounds In National Poll; Clinton Holds Big Lead
January 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Pew Research Poll
Rudy Giuliani's once solid lead among Republicans nationwide has vanished,
and John McCain -- whose campaign was regarded as dead in the water this
summer -- is back on top with the GOP leaders. McCain has 22 percent support
among Republicans, followed by Giuliani at 20 percent and Mike Huckabee at 17
percent. Mitt Romney follows at 12 percent with Fred Thompson at 9 percent.
The survey was conducted Dec. 19-30 and has a 5 percent margin of error.
Giuliani was counting on the 21 states that vote Feb. 5, but the poll indicates he
is in a virtual tie with McCain in those states.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton maintains her large national lead over
Barack Obama, 46 percent to 26 percent, with John Edwards at 14 percent.
So the national polls indicate McCain is a factor again in the race for the GOP nomination and Hillary is running away with things on the Democratic side. And while the US has the closest thing it has ever had to a national primary day with this year's February 5 Super Tuesday, these nominations still play out on the state level with Iowa and New Hampshire still going first.
2) Let's deal with the Republicans first:
Mitt Romney at one time or another had fairly comfortable leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Mike Huckabee and John McCain have challenged those leads in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively. With McCain basically writing Iowa off to focus on New Hampshire, the two-pronged attack on Romney in both early states is causing the former Massachusetts governor to split time between both states instead of going it one at a time. Here's the deal though. Romney and Huckabee are in essentially the same position as the top three Democrats in Iowa: neck and neck. That one could go either way. In New Hampshire though, McCain is going to rely on independents to once again deliver a victory in the Granite state. However, the LA Times is reporting that Obama could be siphoning off some of that independent support from McCain in the state (I apologize for the link to an Obama supporter blog, but the LA Times has already password protected that article For those that want to read the article from the source, a link is included and registration for the paper's site is just a click away.).
3) Which brings us to the Democrats:
Still locked in a three-way tie in Iowa, Clinton, Obama and Edwards continue to make last minute pitches to potential caucus goers. The thing that is going unnoticed again (as it did in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus) is the second choice voters. Now, the rules of the caucuses stipulate that supporters of candidates receiving less than fifteen percent can move to those other candidates in the upper tier. NBC Nightly News on Sunday (December 31) reported that Edwards was becoming the favorite second choice of those not already aligned with any of the top three candidates. The Edwards camp is also playing up the results of a poll that reallocates based on second choice votes (Edwards enjoys a 41-34-25 edge over Clinton and Obama respectively.). These second choice folks were the same ones that catapulted Edwards to his surprising second place finish in the state in 2004 and that bloc is still one to keep our eyes on tomorrow night.
UPDATE: Kucinich has urged his Iowa supporters to back Obama in the event that he does not reach the necessary fifteen percent.
4) If you haven't already and like to reminisce about campaigns past, be sure to check out CQ's review of presidential nomination campaigns since 1912. It's a nice eight part read.
5) Paul mentioned it before in an earlier email, but let me mention it also: C-SPAN is offering live coverage of the Iowa caucuses again this year. Here's the link. If I find that it will be simulcast online I'll send around that link as well. If they aren't covering it online (and I'm sure Paul will tape it), I'm going to try and DVR it through my media player and briefly post a "pirated" version on either this blog or my website tomorrow night at the conclusion of the coverage. I'll need to check on the space capacity of both first. But I'll find a way to get it up there for the group. Also, I'll be online tomorrow night to post and discuss the results, so come on by at your leisure to talk about all things Campaign '08.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Just because it's Christmas doesn't mean that the Campaign is on hold
Actually, since I've been traveling (or preparing to) for the last couple days, the little bits of news from the trail have been piling up. It was a bit of a bummer to wake up this morning and find the map of campaign stops blank. I guess the candidates have to take a break sometime, but their recent blitz has taken its toll on voters in New Hampshire. Here are some things that have happened in the last few days:
1) The Campaign Discussion Group Committee of Seven has picked a Clinton-Romney match up for the general election.* The Clinton political machine wrapped up a 5-2 victory over Obama on the Democratic side while Romney was only able to secure a plurality for the GOP nomination. Guiliani was a close second with two votes and Huckabee and McCain got one vote apiece. Depending on when the group reconvenes for pre-/post-Iowa discussions, I thought it would be interesting to hold another "primary" online to allow those who were unable to participate last Friday to weigh in and to see if those who did, changed their minds (Fine, let's put it in the vernacular of the season: flip-flopped). I'll make a stand-alone post later in the week, so stop by and give us your choice for each party (given up-to-the-minute information) and a reason(s) for that choice in the comments section.
2) In the post below, Rob points out that Guiliani can get by on name-recognition alone (probably the only candidate on the GOP side that can make that claim). Adam Nagourney at the New York Times puts together a nice piece here concerning Guiliani's recent issues. The prevailing sentiment from that article is that Guiliani perhaps peaked too early; a charge that could be levied against any of the top four Republican candidates. But as Chris Cillizza put it in putting together his rankings of the candidates, someone has to win the GOP nomination.
3) Paul (via Audrey Haynes) just sent over the results of a Pew Research poll looking at the dynamics of the races on both sides. And given the gap in candidate satisfaction among each party's voters, it should come as no surprise that Democratic voters, are more prone to shifts based on personal or tactical errors while those on the GOP side are focused almost completely on the ideological differences among their candidates. Republicans just don't know their candidates as well as they have in the past (That and there's no "heir apparent" for them this time around.).
4) This from today's AJC isn't news so much but it does reflect the prevailing thinking among the members of the group: that the GOP nomination is the one more likely to go to and be decided at the convention (or past Super Tuesday).
5) Finally, I think we'll all find it interesting that the FEC is stuck in limbo this holiday season as a standoff between the White House and Senate continues over nominees to the commission. The effect that having only two of six members in position will have on the commission and the role it plays in the primary campaign is unknown, but it is a piece of information to file away for a later time.
As always the comments section is open to any and all comers. So have at it.
* The Committee of Seven reserves the right to change its mind at any time and for any reason. And with less than two weeks until Iowa, those changes may come more often than not.
1) The Campaign Discussion Group Committee of Seven has picked a Clinton-Romney match up for the general election.* The Clinton political machine wrapped up a 5-2 victory over Obama on the Democratic side while Romney was only able to secure a plurality for the GOP nomination. Guiliani was a close second with two votes and Huckabee and McCain got one vote apiece. Depending on when the group reconvenes for pre-/post-Iowa discussions, I thought it would be interesting to hold another "primary" online to allow those who were unable to participate last Friday to weigh in and to see if those who did, changed their minds (Fine, let's put it in the vernacular of the season: flip-flopped). I'll make a stand-alone post later in the week, so stop by and give us your choice for each party (given up-to-the-minute information) and a reason(s) for that choice in the comments section.
2) In the post below, Rob points out that Guiliani can get by on name-recognition alone (probably the only candidate on the GOP side that can make that claim). Adam Nagourney at the New York Times puts together a nice piece here concerning Guiliani's recent issues. The prevailing sentiment from that article is that Guiliani perhaps peaked too early; a charge that could be levied against any of the top four Republican candidates. But as Chris Cillizza put it in putting together his rankings of the candidates, someone has to win the GOP nomination.
3) Paul (via Audrey Haynes) just sent over the results of a Pew Research poll looking at the dynamics of the races on both sides. And given the gap in candidate satisfaction among each party's voters, it should come as no surprise that Democratic voters, are more prone to shifts based on personal or tactical errors while those on the GOP side are focused almost completely on the ideological differences among their candidates. Republicans just don't know their candidates as well as they have in the past (That and there's no "heir apparent" for them this time around.).
4) This from today's AJC isn't news so much but it does reflect the prevailing thinking among the members of the group: that the GOP nomination is the one more likely to go to and be decided at the convention (or past Super Tuesday).
5) Finally, I think we'll all find it interesting that the FEC is stuck in limbo this holiday season as a standoff between the White House and Senate continues over nominees to the commission. The effect that having only two of six members in position will have on the commission and the role it plays in the primary campaign is unknown, but it is a piece of information to file away for a later time.
As always the comments section is open to any and all comers. So have at it.
* The Committee of Seven reserves the right to change its mind at any time and for any reason. And with less than two weeks until Iowa, those changes may come more often than not.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Day That Was (12-20-07)
Tom Tancredo is out of the race for the Republican nomination. And he's decided to back Romney. Now why couldn't Tommy Thompson and Sam Brownback have held on long enough to make powerful, last minute endorsements prior to Iowa? And who are they endorsing again (I had to look it up: Thompson backs Guiliani and Brownback's for McCain.)?
So the question(s) of the night: 1) What impact does this have and 2) Does it matter anyway?
With Iowa now only two weeks away (Yes, only two weeks left. It's a mad rush and I'm already trying to fend off the primary season withdrawals I expect to have on February 6.), this is a well-timed exit/endorsement. And it looks even better that Tancredo, despite being the longest of long shots, was the one real issue candidate in the race. His position as the "immigration guy" now gives Romney a little something to hang his hat on concerning the issue. And he needs any extra push he can get now in Iowa to keep the Huckabee momentum at bay. How does that play in the general election though should Romney get the nod on the GOP side? Immigration is clearly an important issue for Republicans, but the position(s) posited thus far by the candidates seems to put any of them on the wrong side of the issue among the entire electorate.
Obama is facing yet another sticky issue. The latest question has arisen over the number of "present" votes he made while in the Illinois State Senate. There's yes. There's no. And then there's present. Were they votes made on principle as a sign of protest? "I'm here but I'm not going to vote for/against this piece of legislation until it is in its final form." Or were they votes intended to avoid taking a stance on some important issue. "I'm here, but I'm not touching that bill with a ten foot poll." The former is one thing, but the latter is obviously potentially more damaging. Ah, the pitfalls of being a legislator: actually having to vote on issues that may come back to haunt you later.
One other thing that I have wanted to bring up the last couple of weeks in the "live" discussion that may be better dealt with in this forum is the issue that IHOP is raising over so many states holding primaries and caucuses on February 5. That day happens to be National Pancake Day and the company has gone as far as writing the governors of fifteen states asking them to move their states primaries to different dates. Sadly, someone over in the research department didn't do their homework on this: North Carolina got a letter and the primary there is not until May 6, a day far removed from National Pancake Day.
So the question(s) of the night: 1) What impact does this have and 2) Does it matter anyway?
With Iowa now only two weeks away (Yes, only two weeks left. It's a mad rush and I'm already trying to fend off the primary season withdrawals I expect to have on February 6.), this is a well-timed exit/endorsement. And it looks even better that Tancredo, despite being the longest of long shots, was the one real issue candidate in the race. His position as the "immigration guy" now gives Romney a little something to hang his hat on concerning the issue. And he needs any extra push he can get now in Iowa to keep the Huckabee momentum at bay. How does that play in the general election though should Romney get the nod on the GOP side? Immigration is clearly an important issue for Republicans, but the position(s) posited thus far by the candidates seems to put any of them on the wrong side of the issue among the entire electorate.
Obama is facing yet another sticky issue. The latest question has arisen over the number of "present" votes he made while in the Illinois State Senate. There's yes. There's no. And then there's present. Were they votes made on principle as a sign of protest? "I'm here but I'm not going to vote for/against this piece of legislation until it is in its final form." Or were they votes intended to avoid taking a stance on some important issue. "I'm here, but I'm not touching that bill with a ten foot poll." The former is one thing, but the latter is obviously potentially more damaging. Ah, the pitfalls of being a legislator: actually having to vote on issues that may come back to haunt you later.
One other thing that I have wanted to bring up the last couple of weeks in the "live" discussion that may be better dealt with in this forum is the issue that IHOP is raising over so many states holding primaries and caucuses on February 5. That day happens to be National Pancake Day and the company has gone as far as writing the governors of fifteen states asking them to move their states primaries to different dates. Sadly, someone over in the research department didn't do their homework on this: North Carolina got a letter and the primary there is not until May 6, a day far removed from National Pancake Day.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
And the Campaign Discussion Group goes online
Here are a few things of note for the group in the lead up to our discussion on Friday:
1) Hillary Clinton and John McCain receive the endorsements of the Des Moines Register. Experience seems to be the name of the game for the editorial board at the paper. How else could you explain McCain getting the nod on the Republican side? Iowa hasn't been his strength in either 2000 or 2008. What impact will it have on the race? Well, Edwards got the paper's blessing in 2004 and that certainly didn't hurt him on his way to a surprising second place finish in the state. It is interesting that the write up of the endorsement made mention of this. And I will admit that I'm torn as to how to take the mention of the 2004 endorsement. Is the editorial board saying, "Well, this guy did well here four years ago and he's in this race as a top tier candidate too," or "This guy did well here four years ago and well, he's in third now." What does everyone else think?
2) And speaking of Hillary... Another of her surrogates, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, made the mistake of opening his mouth about Obama (then backed away from them). Fresh off the Bill Shaheen comments about possible drug use in Obama's past, the Clinton camp found another of its backers, Kerrey, highlighting the Illinois senator's middle name (Hussein) and Muslim background following an event with the former first lady. I thought it was the bloggers and members of the new media who were supposed to threaten the power candidates have over their own campaigns, not those within their camp.
3) Mitt Romney is making a rare stop in Georgia today. His swing through South Carolina closes across the border with meeting with the press in Savannah, GA. And who said Feb. 5 wasn't early enough for Georgia. [Blogger raising hand.]
4) Finally, if you don't already be sure and check out these other blogs:
The Fix (by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post): US elections in general are covered.
The Caucus (The New York Times politics blog): Campaign 2008
The Primary Source (by James Pindell of the Boston Globe): All about NH.
Feel free to drop a comment or any news you have by clicking on the link below. This should be fun.
1) Hillary Clinton and John McCain receive the endorsements of the Des Moines Register. Experience seems to be the name of the game for the editorial board at the paper. How else could you explain McCain getting the nod on the Republican side? Iowa hasn't been his strength in either 2000 or 2008. What impact will it have on the race? Well, Edwards got the paper's blessing in 2004 and that certainly didn't hurt him on his way to a surprising second place finish in the state. It is interesting that the write up of the endorsement made mention of this. And I will admit that I'm torn as to how to take the mention of the 2004 endorsement. Is the editorial board saying, "Well, this guy did well here four years ago and he's in this race as a top tier candidate too," or "This guy did well here four years ago and well, he's in third now." What does everyone else think?
2) And speaking of Hillary... Another of her surrogates, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, made the mistake of opening his mouth about Obama (then backed away from them). Fresh off the Bill Shaheen comments about possible drug use in Obama's past, the Clinton camp found another of its backers, Kerrey, highlighting the Illinois senator's middle name (Hussein) and Muslim background following an event with the former first lady. I thought it was the bloggers and members of the new media who were supposed to threaten the power candidates have over their own campaigns, not those within their camp.
3) Mitt Romney is making a rare stop in Georgia today. His swing through South Carolina closes across the border with meeting with the press in Savannah, GA. And who said Feb. 5 wasn't early enough for Georgia. [Blogger raising hand.]
4) Finally, if you don't already be sure and check out these other blogs:
The Fix (by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post): US elections in general are covered.
The Caucus (The New York Times politics blog): Campaign 2008
The Primary Source (by James Pindell of the Boston Globe): All about NH.
Feel free to drop a comment or any news you have by clicking on the link below. This should be fun.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Phase II
Now that the calendar for the 2008 presidential primary season has been officially (and completely?) set, I'm done with this thing for a while, right? Well, states probably won't shift their focus to 2012 until 2009 at the earliest (Arkansas, for example, moved to February 5, 2008 in 2005.), but the campaign presses on and the ramifications of the frontloading this cycle have yet to fully play out. So, this blog will continue to track those developments.
However, I'll also be adding a new feature. Over the holidays, I'll (we'll) take University of Georgia political science professor, Paul Gurian's quadrennial campaign discussion group online. With the Iowa caucuses coming on the heels of the holiday season this cycle and with school still being out, the group regulars will need an outlet. Hopefully regular posts and comments can help bridge that gap. Once the semester gets underway and the group resumes meeting regularly, I plan to use this forum as a means of satisfying the instant historians/political scientists out there. I want to augment our Wednesday discussions (not displace them) with posts and comments the night(s) that primary and caucus results are coming in. Sometimes you can't wait until the day after to weigh in on what's happened, right?
However, I'll also be adding a new feature. Over the holidays, I'll (we'll) take University of Georgia political science professor, Paul Gurian's quadrennial campaign discussion group online. With the Iowa caucuses coming on the heels of the holiday season this cycle and with school still being out, the group regulars will need an outlet. Hopefully regular posts and comments can help bridge that gap. Once the semester gets underway and the group resumes meeting regularly, I plan to use this forum as a means of satisfying the instant historians/political scientists out there. I want to augment our Wednesday discussions (not displace them) with posts and comments the night(s) that primary and caucus results are coming in. Sometimes you can't wait until the day after to weigh in on what's happened, right?
And to think, primary season might have kicked off today
Ah, what could have been. Today is the day New Hampshire's presidential primary could have been held. Sure, it turned out that December 11 was nothing more than a Bill Gardner scare tactic to show the rest of the states considering crowding New Hampshire at the front of the line that the state would not be crowded. But it is fun to think of how different the last two and half weeks would have been if Gardner had announced a move to Dec. 11 back on the day before Thanksgiving. The direction of the race would have taken on a completely different tilt. On the Republican side: Would Huckabee have risen the way he has or would he be peaking at the right time? Would Romney have made his religion speech or held that until the time between New Hampshire and the Iowa caucuses (if it was even necessary)? On the Democratic side: Would the coronation of Hillary Clinton have begun? She's comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and having that contest first would have been a potential boon to her chances. From her campaign's perspective, it sure beats the three-way dead heat that polls in Iowa are showing. Would we even be talking about Obama and Edwards? For this cycle though, we'll have to live with the ho-hum IA-NH-some other states-Super Tuesday progression toward the nominations in both parties.
Other News:
New Hampshire:
Fine, I missed the boat on New Hampshire's announcement to hold their primary on January 8. "And you call yourself Frontloading HQ?" Well yeah, I guess I still do. I will admit that the timing of the announcement was odd. It came across like one of those Friday afternoon leaks of information to the press that presidential administrations have always had an affinity for. It just got lost in the shuffle on a day when folks were preparing to give thanks. Of course those in the Granite State may be thankful that the powers that be (Secretary of State Bill Gardner) didn't rock the boat too much (Dec. 11 primary) triggering reform that could have bumped New Hampshire from its lofty position at the front of the primary line.
Michigan:
After having the January 15 primary struck down by a circuit court, the state appealed the decision only to have the state Court of Appeals affirm the lower court's ruling (that public voter lists should not go exclusively to two private entities, the state parties) on November 16.
Incidentally, that date was to have been the date on which the two parties were to have decided if they were even going to opt into the primary system set up in the initial law. The state then appealed to the state Supreme Court and won a 4-3 decision, putting the January 15 primary back in place. That triggered the New Hampshire announcement later in the afternoon.
Massachusetts:
The state legislature in Massachusetts also made news by moving the state's 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. The bill, SB 2414 made it through the Senate on Nov. 15 (by a vote of 33-5), the House on Nov. 20 (by a vote of 135-17) and was signed by Gov. Deval Patrick on Nov. 26. So, now Massachusetts joins half the country on February 5 for the Super Tuesday extravaganza that will (if you follow the model established in the years since 1988) most likely determine the nominees from both parties.
Other News:
New Hampshire:
Fine, I missed the boat on New Hampshire's announcement to hold their primary on January 8. "And you call yourself Frontloading HQ?" Well yeah, I guess I still do. I will admit that the timing of the announcement was odd. It came across like one of those Friday afternoon leaks of information to the press that presidential administrations have always had an affinity for. It just got lost in the shuffle on a day when folks were preparing to give thanks. Of course those in the Granite State may be thankful that the powers that be (Secretary of State Bill Gardner) didn't rock the boat too much (Dec. 11 primary) triggering reform that could have bumped New Hampshire from its lofty position at the front of the primary line.
Michigan:
After having the January 15 primary struck down by a circuit court, the state appealed the decision only to have the state Court of Appeals affirm the lower court's ruling (that public voter lists should not go exclusively to two private entities, the state parties) on November 16.
Incidentally, that date was to have been the date on which the two parties were to have decided if they were even going to opt into the primary system set up in the initial law. The state then appealed to the state Supreme Court and won a 4-3 decision, putting the January 15 primary back in place. That triggered the New Hampshire announcement later in the afternoon.
Massachusetts:
The state legislature in Massachusetts also made news by moving the state's 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. The bill, SB 2414 made it through the Senate on Nov. 15 (by a vote of 33-5), the House on Nov. 20 (by a vote of 135-17) and was signed by Gov. Deval Patrick on Nov. 26. So, now Massachusetts joins half the country on February 5 for the Super Tuesday extravaganza that will (if you follow the model established in the years since 1988) most likely determine the nominees from both parties.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Still no word out of the Granite State, but there is other news
As New Hampshire continues to play the waiting game as far as when the state plans on scheduling its 2008 (2007?) presidential primary, some other things of note have surfaced.
The Rhode Island Flip-Flop
Who said flip-floppery was the sole domain of junior senators from Massachusetts? Late last week in a session to reexamine vetoed bills (and other bills not passed during the regular session), the Rhode Island General Assembly initially indicated that it would not take up the bill (S1152 - To see the actions taken on the bill search for "1152" here.) moving the state's 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Later on October 30, that decision was reversed and the Democratic-controlled Assembly, not only took up the measure, but passed it when the special session continued on Halloween. However, Republican governor, Donald Carcieri, decided four days later to veto the bill citing difficulties in administering an earlier election.
Michigan in Trouble
And if you thought Michigan going on January 15 was a done deal, hold tight. First, a group of journalists and political consultants filed a lawsuit in county circuit court claiming that the new Michigan primary law was unconstitutional. The new law requires voters to identify themselves and which party ballot they would prefer. The resulting list of voters, according to the law, would then belong exclusively to the two state parties. At dispute is that private entities (the two state parties) have exclusive access to public information (voter lists). The lower court judge then sided with the plaintiff (This link the Ballot Access News has a nice comment from New Hampshire state legislator and Bill Gardner confidante, Jim Splaine.), nullifying the law. Understandably this triggered a scramble within the Michigan legislature. A bill rectifying the problems cited in the lawsuit passed the Michigan Senate 26-9, but Democrats refused to support a motion granting the measure immediate effect. As a result the changes would not have gone through until March, well after the January 15 primary date set forth in the unconstitutional law and now the bill to fix it. So what does all of this mean? Well, not too much really. The initial law has a cut off point of November 16 for the two state parties to decide if they will even use the primary on January 15. The Michigan GOP seems to be firmly set on Jan. 15, but the Democrats (who traditionally use a caucus as their means of allocating delegates) are still undecided as to when they will go and the method they will use. All this unpredictability does it push back the time when New Hampshire will announce and ultimately go. The longer this goes on though, the less likely a Dec. 11 New Hampshire primary is.
Massachusetts to Move?
From the looks of it, Massachusetts may be the latest to add its name to the February 5 juggernaut (see also Ballot Access News). The legislature has until the end of the session (Nov. 21) to get a bill passed moving the 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Democratic governor, Deval Patrick has signaled that he would support such a bill if it appeared on his desk for signature.
Where will New Hampshire end up?
No one really knows. Correction: one person knows. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner. And he'll only say that the decision will be made sometime during November.
The Rhode Island Flip-Flop
Who said flip-floppery was the sole domain of junior senators from Massachusetts? Late last week in a session to reexamine vetoed bills (and other bills not passed during the regular session), the Rhode Island General Assembly initially indicated that it would not take up the bill (S1152 - To see the actions taken on the bill search for "1152" here.) moving the state's 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Later on October 30, that decision was reversed and the Democratic-controlled Assembly, not only took up the measure, but passed it when the special session continued on Halloween. However, Republican governor, Donald Carcieri, decided four days later to veto the bill citing difficulties in administering an earlier election.
Michigan in Trouble
And if you thought Michigan going on January 15 was a done deal, hold tight. First, a group of journalists and political consultants filed a lawsuit in county circuit court claiming that the new Michigan primary law was unconstitutional. The new law requires voters to identify themselves and which party ballot they would prefer. The resulting list of voters, according to the law, would then belong exclusively to the two state parties. At dispute is that private entities (the two state parties) have exclusive access to public information (voter lists). The lower court judge then sided with the plaintiff (This link the Ballot Access News has a nice comment from New Hampshire state legislator and Bill Gardner confidante, Jim Splaine.), nullifying the law. Understandably this triggered a scramble within the Michigan legislature. A bill rectifying the problems cited in the lawsuit passed the Michigan Senate 26-9, but Democrats refused to support a motion granting the measure immediate effect. As a result the changes would not have gone through until March, well after the January 15 primary date set forth in the unconstitutional law and now the bill to fix it. So what does all of this mean? Well, not too much really. The initial law has a cut off point of November 16 for the two state parties to decide if they will even use the primary on January 15. The Michigan GOP seems to be firmly set on Jan. 15, but the Democrats (who traditionally use a caucus as their means of allocating delegates) are still undecided as to when they will go and the method they will use. All this unpredictability does it push back the time when New Hampshire will announce and ultimately go. The longer this goes on though, the less likely a Dec. 11 New Hampshire primary is.
Massachusetts to Move?
From the looks of it, Massachusetts may be the latest to add its name to the February 5 juggernaut (see also Ballot Access News). The legislature has until the end of the session (Nov. 21) to get a bill passed moving the 2008 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in March to the first Tuesday in February. Democratic governor, Deval Patrick has signaled that he would support such a bill if it appeared on his desk for signature.
Where will New Hampshire end up?
No one really knows. Correction: one person knows. New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner. And he'll only say that the decision will be made sometime during November.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Jan. 3 for Iowa Democrats too
CQPolitics is reporting that yesterday the central committee of the Iowa Democratic Party chose January 3, 2008 as the date for the party's caucuses.
It is now up to New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to finalize the calendar for the 2008 presidential nomination cycle. That decision is supposed to come sometime during the month of November. The ace up the secretary's sleeve is the threat to move the state's primaries to December 11, 2007, tearing down the precedent that delegate selection events should take place in the same year as the general election. Michigan senator, Carl Levin, has issued a counter-threat to have Michigan go on the same date as New Hampshire if the Granite State opts for a date earlier than when Michigan is currently positioned on January 15. This seems like a move to almost dare New Hampshire to move to December 11; a move that would undoubtedly spur talks of reforming the system of determining which states go first or which states go when. New Hampshire and Iowa have the most to lose in that scenario.
It is now up to New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to finalize the calendar for the 2008 presidential nomination cycle. That decision is supposed to come sometime during the month of November. The ace up the secretary's sleeve is the threat to move the state's primaries to December 11, 2007, tearing down the precedent that delegate selection events should take place in the same year as the general election. Michigan senator, Carl Levin, has issued a counter-threat to have Michigan go on the same date as New Hampshire if the Granite State opts for a date earlier than when Michigan is currently positioned on January 15. This seems like a move to almost dare New Hampshire to move to December 11; a move that would undoubtedly spur talks of reforming the system of determining which states go first or which states go when. New Hampshire and Iowa have the most to lose in that scenario.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Iowa GOP to Jan. 3...for now
The Iowa Republican party acted on Tuesday, October 16, to move the party's 2008 presidential caucuses to January 3. The move (from January 14) once again restores, at least for now, one of Iowa's parties to the traditional first in the nation position. As The Caucus blog indicated in a post yesterday though, the party was set to discuss the "pros and cons" of a January 3 or 5 date for the GOP caucuses, with a lean toward the 3rd. I'm a bit surprised to hear that Iowa Republicans went ahead and made the move, especially since there are rumors swirling that New Hampshire may make the leap in to 2007 with a December 11 primary (for both parties).
As the calendar stands now:
Jan. 3: Iowa GOP caucuses
Jan. 5: Wyoming GOP caucuses
Jan. 14: Iowa Dems caucuses
Jan. 15: Michigan primary
Jan. 19: Nevada caucuses, South Carolina primary
Jan. 22: New Hampshire primary
Jan. 29: Florida primary
Feb. 5: Super Tuesday
Now let's play Fact or Fiction:
As the calendar stands now:
Jan. 3: Iowa GOP caucuses
Jan. 5: Wyoming GOP caucuses
Jan. 14: Iowa Dems caucuses
Jan. 15: Michigan primary
Jan. 19: Nevada caucuses, South Carolina primary
Jan. 22: New Hampshire primary
Jan. 29: Florida primary
Feb. 5: Super Tuesday
Now let's play Fact or Fiction:
- Fiction: Iowa Dems on January 14. I would be surprised if the Iowa Democrats do not end up on the same date as the state GOP, whenever that is (December 3 or January 3).
- Fiction: New Hampshire on January 22. New Hampshire will either go on January 8 or December 11.
- Fact: Wyoming GOP, South Carolina, Florida and Michigan are more than likely set. Never say never, though, when it comes to 2008 presidential primary/caucus dates.
- Fact: Nevada may or may not move from January 19 to January 12. It is under consideration.
- Fact: Both parties' nominations will be decided on February 5.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Move of all Moves
January 22 never was going to be the date of the New Hampshire presidential primary in 2008; at least not after states like Florida, and to a greater extent, Michigan began encroaching on the state's first in the nation turf. Recently the speculation then has centered on New Hampshire going on January 8, 2008. Secretary of State, Bill Gardner, said recently that the state would hold its 2008 primary at least two weeks earlier than the fourth Tuesday in January date used during the 2004 race. And the second Tuesday in January 2008 is January 8.
This week however, Gardner and those around him, hinted that another date is being considered: December 11. That's the bombshell that has been out there since everyone began crowding New Hampshire and Iowa; a move that both states were hoping to avoid, but became almost inevitable following Michigan's move to January 15.
So, New Hampshire's legislature ceded the decision to place the primary date to the Secretary of State in 1975, freeing the state to move the presidential primary date with the least amount of resistance. If Michigan were to react, another special session of the state legislature would have to be convened to get the move passed. There was Democratic resistance within the legislature over the move to January 15 and any move to an even earlier date, would surely face greater scrutiny than its predecessor. In other words, Michigan and New Hampshire are not on a level playing field in this regard.
Now let the chain reaction commence. If New Hampshire is on December 11, will Iowa move to December 3, the traditional eight days ahead of the New Hampshire primary? Or will the Democratic and Republican parties in Iowa be content to be the first caucus in the nation, and not THE first contest overall? If past experience tells us anything, it is that Iowa will lean toward the former. If either or both moves come to pass, then I will have been off by a week in my guess (IA on Dec. 10 and NH on Dec. 18). But earlier is earlier, I suppose, at least in the minds of New Hampshirites and Iowans.
If this happens, the candidates had better get cracking because December 11 is less than two months away.
This week however, Gardner and those around him, hinted that another date is being considered: December 11. That's the bombshell that has been out there since everyone began crowding New Hampshire and Iowa; a move that both states were hoping to avoid, but became almost inevitable following Michigan's move to January 15.
So, New Hampshire's legislature ceded the decision to place the primary date to the Secretary of State in 1975, freeing the state to move the presidential primary date with the least amount of resistance. If Michigan were to react, another special session of the state legislature would have to be convened to get the move passed. There was Democratic resistance within the legislature over the move to January 15 and any move to an even earlier date, would surely face greater scrutiny than its predecessor. In other words, Michigan and New Hampshire are not on a level playing field in this regard.
Now let the chain reaction commence. If New Hampshire is on December 11, will Iowa move to December 3, the traditional eight days ahead of the New Hampshire primary? Or will the Democratic and Republican parties in Iowa be content to be the first caucus in the nation, and not THE first contest overall? If past experience tells us anything, it is that Iowa will lean toward the former. If either or both moves come to pass, then I will have been off by a week in my guess (IA on Dec. 10 and NH on Dec. 18). But earlier is earlier, I suppose, at least in the minds of New Hampshirites and Iowans.
If this happens, the candidates had better get cracking because December 11 is less than two months away.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Who Thought the Ride was Over?
After a quiet month on the frontloading front, it looks like the efforts are set to begin anew. And no, not for 2012. The dust has settled on the Florida and Michigan moves, but that has only triggered action on the part of the four states granted exemptions by the Democratic National Committee. Sure, Iowa and New Hampshire were always going to wait it out and set their dates at the last possible moment (Note: Both national parties' deadlines to set primary and caucus dates passed last month.), but now Nevada and South Carolina are taking a "Hey, we're exempt too" approach. "And since we're exempt, you wouldn't mind if we go ahead and move up a week or so, would you?"
With Florida smack dab on top of them on January 29, South Carolina Democrats now want the Democratic primary in the state to coincide with the Republican primary on January 19 according to The Caucus blog on the New York Times web site. The difference here is that South Carolina Democrats are not going it alone like Florida and Michigan before them. With the exemption from the national party still in place, they are going through the DNC to get the move on the books.
This line of thought seems to be prevailing further west in Nevada as well. Members of both state parties are discussing a move to January 12 (from January 19 where South Carolina is setting up shop) for both caucuses. The LA Times Top of the Ticket blog is reporting that such a move has been and is being discussed within the state and that party leaders there are waiting on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to move first. Waiting on South Carolina is one thing, but with this being the first high-profile caucus ever in Nevada, organizing this thing and playing a game of chicken with the pros from Iowa and New Hampshire is a different can of worms entirely.
And if those two potential moves were not enough, Iowa Republicans are eyeing January 3 as a possible spot for the caucuses there. The Caucus reports that that date is the recommendation of the state GOP's central committee. Interestingly, state Democrats are considering a January 5 caucus date; a rare date split between the two Hawkeye State parties.
What about New Hampshire, you ask? Well, word out of the Granite State is that Secretary of State Gardner has indicated that a date at least two weeks prior to the date used in 2004 is likely. For those of you scoring at home, that would be the second Tuesday in January at the latest (January 8). Regardless, the date is to be set within the next month. Thanks to Ballot Access News for that.
So here's the potential calendar as of October 8 (January dates only):
Thursday Jan. 3: Iowa GOP caucuses
Saturday Jan. 5: Iowa Dem. caucuses, Wyoming GOP caucuses
Tuesday Jan. 8: New Hampshire Dem./GOP primaries
Saturday Jan. 12: Nevada Dem./GOP caucuses
Tuesday Jan. 15: Michigan Dem./GOP primaries
Saturday Jan. 19: South Carolina Dem./GOP primaries
Tuesday Jan. 29: Florida Dem./GOP primaries
Iowa and New Hampshire might be trying to avoid moving into 2007, but it is looking pretty crowded up there at the front. Stay tuned.
With Florida smack dab on top of them on January 29, South Carolina Democrats now want the Democratic primary in the state to coincide with the Republican primary on January 19 according to The Caucus blog on the New York Times web site. The difference here is that South Carolina Democrats are not going it alone like Florida and Michigan before them. With the exemption from the national party still in place, they are going through the DNC to get the move on the books.
This line of thought seems to be prevailing further west in Nevada as well. Members of both state parties are discussing a move to January 12 (from January 19 where South Carolina is setting up shop) for both caucuses. The LA Times Top of the Ticket blog is reporting that such a move has been and is being discussed within the state and that party leaders there are waiting on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to move first. Waiting on South Carolina is one thing, but with this being the first high-profile caucus ever in Nevada, organizing this thing and playing a game of chicken with the pros from Iowa and New Hampshire is a different can of worms entirely.
And if those two potential moves were not enough, Iowa Republicans are eyeing January 3 as a possible spot for the caucuses there. The Caucus reports that that date is the recommendation of the state GOP's central committee. Interestingly, state Democrats are considering a January 5 caucus date; a rare date split between the two Hawkeye State parties.
What about New Hampshire, you ask? Well, word out of the Granite State is that Secretary of State Gardner has indicated that a date at least two weeks prior to the date used in 2004 is likely. For those of you scoring at home, that would be the second Tuesday in January at the latest (January 8). Regardless, the date is to be set within the next month. Thanks to Ballot Access News for that.
So here's the potential calendar as of October 8 (January dates only):
Thursday Jan. 3: Iowa GOP caucuses
Saturday Jan. 5: Iowa Dem. caucuses, Wyoming GOP caucuses
Tuesday Jan. 8: New Hampshire Dem./GOP primaries
Saturday Jan. 12: Nevada Dem./GOP caucuses
Tuesday Jan. 15: Michigan Dem./GOP primaries
Saturday Jan. 19: South Carolina Dem./GOP primaries
Tuesday Jan. 29: Florida Dem./GOP primaries
Iowa and New Hampshire might be trying to avoid moving into 2007, but it is looking pretty crowded up there at the front. Stay tuned.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
It is Official in Michigan and Nebraska Dems Embrace an Early Caucus
Michigan solidified its presidential primary position with Gov. Jennifer Granholm's signature on Tuesday. The Democratic governor signed SB 624 into law moving the state's 2008 presidential primary to January 15. You can read more from the AP and from CQ. This is a daring move from lawmakers and party leaders in Michigan though. With the DNC leveling its all or nothing delegate ultimatum to the Florida delegation and with the RNC not holding back either, Michigan is gambling for sure. Also not helping is the fact that the top Democratic candidates have now pledged to skip out on campaigning in any states violating the Democrats delegate selection rules. It will be an interesting showdown between Michigan/Florida and the national parties as this thing plays out. Both states appear to be taking a defiant stance.
Also, Nebraska Democrats made the news on Wednesday after deciding on abandoning delegate selection by primary. The typical late May primary has been dropped in favor of a February 9 caucus (the same day as the primary in Louisiana). The state party claims the move was made to "energize the party." Energizing by creating a contest that fosters lower turnout. I know I'd be energized if I was a Nebraska Democrat. Jokes aside however, both Nebraska and Louisiana would be the first in line to be important should the de facto national primary on February 5 produce muddled results.
Also, Nebraska Democrats made the news on Wednesday after deciding on abandoning delegate selection by primary. The typical late May primary has been dropped in favor of a February 9 caucus (the same day as the primary in Louisiana). The state party claims the move was made to "energize the party." Energizing by creating a contest that fosters lower turnout. I know I'd be energized if I was a Nebraska Democrat. Jokes aside however, both Nebraska and Louisiana would be the first in line to be important should the de facto national primary on February 5 produce muddled results.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
And it is on to the Governor with the Michigan Primary Plan
Why wait for it to be reported when you can go straight to the source? The Michigan legislature's web page now shows that SB 624 (the bill to move the state's 2008 presidential primary to January 15) was discharged from the House Ethics and Elections Committee today and was subsequently passed by a vote of 67 - 34 on the floor. The bill then went to the Senate where it passed the House alterations by a vote of 36- 0 with two either excused or abstaining members. Now the plan heads to Gov. Jennifer Granholm's desk where it is expected to be signed.
Your move Iowa and New Hampshire.
More later...
UPDATE: Ah, here's an AP account of what happened.
UPDATE II: And here is the story from CQ.
Your move Iowa and New Hampshire.
More later...
UPDATE: Ah, here's an AP account of what happened.
UPDATE II: And here is the story from CQ.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Tomorrow is Decision Day in the Michigan House
According to The Detroit News, Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) today said that action would be taken on Thursday to get the legislation (SB 624) that would move the state's 2008 presidential primary to January 15 out of the Ethics and Elections Committee. The bill has been stuck in that committee since last week when the Senate passed it. Chairman Marc Corriveau, who is a Democrat, opposes the measure and has attempted to bottle up the bill in the committee. House Speaker Andy Dillon (D) however, has indicated to the governor that a vote (or votes) will take place tomorrow to get the bill out of committee where it can then be voted on by the entire chamber. The chamber is split 58-52 in favor of the Democrats, and with Republicans supporting the move, gaining a majority on this bill should not be an insurmountable task. That would then send the legislation to a supportive governor.
Wyoming GOP Stakes Its Claim
After earlier this year voting to hold their nomination conventions on the same day as the New Hampshire primary (whenever that was), the Wyoming Republican Party reconsidered. With New Hampshire tentatively (And when I say tentatively, I mean this is the latest possible date on which New Hampshire will hold its primary.) slotted in on January 8, this moved Wyoming as well. Apparently that wasn't early enough for Wyoming Republicans. Bent on getting hard core Republican candidates like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani to plow through feet-deep snow drifts in the lead up to delegate-binding county conventions, the Wyoming GOP moved those conventions up to January 5. No, not February 5.
January 5.
Snow drifts aside, this is the earliest contest with a set date at this time. And because, as I stated earlier today, Republican National Committee rules exempt caucuses and conventions from frontloading sanctions, this is all fine. Granted not all of the state's delegates are up for grabs, but nearly half of the state's 28 delegates will be at stake on that day.
So take that Michigan.
January 5.
Snow drifts aside, this is the earliest contest with a set date at this time. And because, as I stated earlier today, Republican National Committee rules exempt caucuses and conventions from frontloading sanctions, this is all fine. Granted not all of the state's delegates are up for grabs, but nearly half of the state's 28 delegates will be at stake on that day.
So take that Michigan.
Correction: RNC rules exempt states that do not allocate delegates in the first step of their process. Iowa and Nevada qualify for that exemption, but Wyoming does not.
Minnesota Democrats Join Feb. 5
Joining their GOP counterparts, Minnesota Democrats announced on Tuesday that they would move their 2008 presidential caucus to February 5. Given that this was already in their delegate selection plan as of July 21, I thought the move from March 4 was already a done deal. You can read more about the move here and here. Thanks to Ballot Access News and Political Wire for the heads up on the USA Today blog.
Now the RNC is Getting in on the Act
Not content to let the Democratic National Committee alone attempt to deal with the "problem" of frontloading, the Republican National Committee on Tuesday made clear that it too would enforce its rules on delegate selection. What does that mean and who is affected? According to the rules (see my earlier post), states holding presidential primaries during the 2008 cycle, must do so between February 5 and the first Tuesday in June (June 3, 2008). In case you hadn't noticed, no one seems to be queuing on the back end. So which states are under fire from the GOP for attacking the front end? Florida, already under scrutiny from national Democrats for the state's proposed plan to hold a primary on January 29, is joined by South Carolina, Michigan and, believe it or not, New Hampshire.
Those four states face losing half of their delegates to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis next summer for violating the window rule. Florida, South Carolina and Michigan make sense. But why sanction New Hampshire? And why now? And come to think of it, why not Iowa? Iowa and Nevada are exempt from penalties because both states are holding non-binding caucuses and not primaries.
UPDATE (8-30-07):
After checking the Republican delegate selection rules again, caucuses and conventions are mentioned by name; not just primaries. However, Nevada and Iowa are non-binding contests which exempts them from national GOP scrutiny. Wyoming, on the other hand, is vulnerable to sanction because the plan recently decided upon there would award 12 of the state's 28 delegates during that first step on January 5.
Those four states face losing half of their delegates to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis next summer for violating the window rule. Florida, South Carolina and Michigan make sense. But why sanction New Hampshire? And why now? And come to think of it, why not Iowa? Iowa and Nevada are exempt from penalties because both states are holding non-binding caucuses and not primaries.
UPDATE (8-30-07):
After checking the Republican delegate selection rules again, caucuses and conventions are mentioned by name; not just primaries. However, Nevada and Iowa are non-binding contests which exempts them from national GOP scrutiny. Wyoming, on the other hand, is vulnerable to sanction because the plan recently decided upon there would award 12 of the state's 28 delegates during that first step on January 5.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
February 5 Adds Montana GOP Caucus
The Montana Republican Party voted yesterday to break with tradition (What else is new this cycle?), spurning the state's June primary date to adopt a caucus for allocating delegates to next September's GOP Convention in Minneapolis, MN. The GOP caucus in Montana joins caucuses in Alaska, Colorado (D), Minnesota (R), and North Dakota as well as primaries in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico (D), New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah on February 5. That now brings the total to 20 contests on that day.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Ouch! Florida Democrats Hit Where it Hurts
Out to avenge the irritation of having it own primary calendar plan defied, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee moved today to strip Florida of ALL the state's delegates to next year's convention if they continue with the plan to hold their 2008 presidential primary on January 29. State Democrats now have thirty days to revise and resubmit a delegate selection plan to the national party.
All week Florida Democrats talked a good game: urging Florida Democratic voters to contact the committee, arguing of the disenfranchisement of voters stripped of a meaningful primary, and today before the committee, claiming that the party had gone to lengths to prevent the GOP-controlled legislature and Republican governor from defying both parties' delegate selection rules. None of that seemed to pass with the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee though.
So what does all this mean? First of all, Florida Democrats will most likely hold a caucus on February 5. But does the beauty contest on January 29 now open the door for candidates to campaign in Florida again? That is the big question. If that is a loophole candidates can now take advantage of, then it would put to rest the arguments that preventing an official primary on the 29th, effectively hurts any nominee in the general election (An argument I don't put much stock in in the first place. Primary voters are the parties' core constituents and aren't going to be dissuaded from voting in the general election because of something like this; especially in light of the experiences the state had in the 2000 election.). This also sets a precedent for how the Committee would deal with the Michigan case should the State House pass the bill moving the state's primary to January 15. That decision could come as soon as next week.
EDIT: Well, apparently Florida Democrats doubt the feasibility of holding a party-funded primary. They seem somewhat taken aback by the severity of the party's decision, but are nonetheless holding their ground.
All week Florida Democrats talked a good game: urging Florida Democratic voters to contact the committee, arguing of the disenfranchisement of voters stripped of a meaningful primary, and today before the committee, claiming that the party had gone to lengths to prevent the GOP-controlled legislature and Republican governor from defying both parties' delegate selection rules. None of that seemed to pass with the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee though.
So what does all this mean? First of all, Florida Democrats will most likely hold a caucus on February 5. But does the beauty contest on January 29 now open the door for candidates to campaign in Florida again? That is the big question. If that is a loophole candidates can now take advantage of, then it would put to rest the arguments that preventing an official primary on the 29th, effectively hurts any nominee in the general election (An argument I don't put much stock in in the first place. Primary voters are the parties' core constituents and aren't going to be dissuaded from voting in the general election because of something like this; especially in light of the experiences the state had in the 2000 election.). This also sets a precedent for how the Committee would deal with the Michigan case should the State House pass the bill moving the state's primary to January 15. That decision could come as soon as next week.
EDIT: Well, apparently Florida Democrats doubt the feasibility of holding a party-funded primary. They seem somewhat taken aback by the severity of the party's decision, but are nonetheless holding their ground.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
The Showdown between Florida Democrats and National Democrats
Not to be outdone by Michigan and South Carolina, Florida remains in the news over the planned January 29 presidential primary there. State Democrats in Florida are vulnerable to penalties from the national party if they hold their primary on that date. In a conference call with state and local reporters yesterday however, Florida Democratic Party chair, Karen Thurman, dismissed the notion of the primary being a beauty contest that would precede a meaningful primary or caucus held on a later date. State and national party officials will meet this weekend to discuss the issue. For the time being however, Florida Democrats seem to be holding their line; declining partial funding of a caucus from the national party under the rationale that some voters would be disenfranchised.
Read more from the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times.
Read more from the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Michigan Expedites the Process
I'm surprised that it took the state legislature in Michigan until Wednesday to act on this, but the Senate today amended the language concerning the date of the state's 2008 presidential primary in SB 624. A bill that originally sought to change the date from February 26 to January 29 now seeks to bump the date up an additional two weeks to January 15. The Senate then passed the bill by a vote of 21 - 17 and transmitted it to the House where it already received its first reading. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has already indicated that she would sign the bill if it made it through the legislature.
Iowa and New Hampshire have the next move.
Iowa and New Hampshire have the next move.
Arizona's in too...officially
I swear, creating a summary of the presidential primary and caucus movement for the 2008 cycle seemed like a good idea at the time. With the rapid pace with which things are changing this time around though, such an effort can prove pointless before it is even done. At least I had the foresight to include a "Still Up in the Air" section. Michigan was the first state to prove why it was among those states with information coming out late last week that the state was considering a move to January 15. Arizona now becomes the latest on that list to make a move. As I mentioned in the summary last week, the speculation for much of the year has been that Arizona would move to February 5. And kudos to Governor Janet Napolitano (D) for exhibiting some restraint in her proclamation and not moving the state's presidential preference election any earlier. With Florida, South Carolina Republicans and now Michigan thwarting national party rules, the temptation to go even earlier must have been there to some degree.
Let's step back and scrutinize the Arizona case though. Most major news accounts, and even blogs, are simply saying that Gov. Napolitano has issued a proclamation to move the state's primary. All the while, political observers are missing the uniqueness of the Arizona system; mainly that the governor is making the decision to frontload and not the state legislature, as is the case for the majority of states that have moved thus far this cycle. The Arizona state legislature created a presidential primary (see the history section in the link) during the 1992 session (to take effect in 1996), but amended the statute in 1995 before it had even been tested. The new law (as altered by SB 1263) changed the designation of the election from a primary to a preference election (because the winner would not necessarily appear on the general election ballot), changed the date of the election from the second Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in February, and granted the governor the power to issue a proclamation changing the date of the election.
This gubernatorial power went unused through two cycles (1996 and 2000), but as several states moved into February for the 2004 cycle, Gov. Napolitano became the first governor to exercise this power, bumping up the date of the election three weeks to join six other states on the first Tuesday in February. Here is the proclamation from 2004. Just yesterday Gov. Napolitano repeated the action, moving the election to February 5. Here is a link to the governor's press release (click view file under the appropriate Aug. 21st entry).
Let's step back and scrutinize the Arizona case though. Most major news accounts, and even blogs, are simply saying that Gov. Napolitano has issued a proclamation to move the state's primary. All the while, political observers are missing the uniqueness of the Arizona system; mainly that the governor is making the decision to frontload and not the state legislature, as is the case for the majority of states that have moved thus far this cycle. The Arizona state legislature created a presidential primary (see the history section in the link) during the 1992 session (to take effect in 1996), but amended the statute in 1995 before it had even been tested. The new law (as altered by SB 1263) changed the designation of the election from a primary to a preference election (because the winner would not necessarily appear on the general election ballot), changed the date of the election from the second Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in February, and granted the governor the power to issue a proclamation changing the date of the election.
This gubernatorial power went unused through two cycles (1996 and 2000), but as several states moved into February for the 2004 cycle, Gov. Napolitano became the first governor to exercise this power, bumping up the date of the election three weeks to join six other states on the first Tuesday in February. Here is the proclamation from 2004. Just yesterday Gov. Napolitano repeated the action, moving the election to February 5. Here is a link to the governor's press release (click view file under the appropriate Aug. 21st entry).
Friday, August 17, 2007
Michigan is the latest monkeywrench in the 2008 primary calendar
On a day when I went forward with a summary post of what has happened in terms of primary and caucus movement for the 2008 cycle, Michigan hit everyone (or those of us paying attention) with a bombshell. The state is apparently close to moving to January 15 according to Chuck Todd with NBC. Again, just today I made a post discussing both January 29 and February 5 as possibilities for a Michigan move. It looks like the legislature will kick things off next week with a new proposal in the Senate.
Now, what are the implications? Michigan on January 15 means New Hampshire won't be going on the 12th. After South Carolina's GOP moved to January 19, this seemed like an outside possibility, but now the three days between New Hampshire and Michigan will surely not be enough of a buffer for leaders in New Hampshire. January 8 is the next possibility, but as I discussed last week after the South Carolina move, that would push Iowa to December 31. This is the case because state law requires Iowa to precede and other contest by eight days. Neither New Year's Eve nor Christmas Eve is in play, so that pushes Iowa to go on December 17 at the latest. As I said last week, the most likely scenario is Iowa on December 10 and New Hampshire eight days later on December 18. If that happens Michigan may move again to January 8, where Senator Carl Levin apparently wanted the state to land, if not before.
This just got interesting...again.
Now, what are the implications? Michigan on January 15 means New Hampshire won't be going on the 12th. After South Carolina's GOP moved to January 19, this seemed like an outside possibility, but now the three days between New Hampshire and Michigan will surely not be enough of a buffer for leaders in New Hampshire. January 8 is the next possibility, but as I discussed last week after the South Carolina move, that would push Iowa to December 31. This is the case because state law requires Iowa to precede and other contest by eight days. Neither New Year's Eve nor Christmas Eve is in play, so that pushes Iowa to go on December 17 at the latest. As I said last week, the most likely scenario is Iowa on December 10 and New Hampshire eight days later on December 18. If that happens Michigan may move again to January 8, where Senator Carl Levin apparently wanted the state to land, if not before.
This just got interesting...again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)