2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate Emergence: The View Through Google Trends

The other day I speculated about value of watching Google search trends as a means of tracking presidential candidate emergence. As I said in that post, it is one thing to look at that in real time, but quite another to look at how this looks over the course of an entire invisible primary period. Fortunately Google Trends has archived search data back to January 2004 and that affords us the opportunity to put this idea to the test in the context of 2008 presidential candidate emergence.

Now, keep in mind that this is an idea still very much in its infancy (and it may stay there given the limitations of the data and other complications). First of all, what you'll see below may not be tracking an organic growth and solidifying of support behind a candidate (or viability behind a candidacy) so much as a media-triggered urge to go find out something about a candidate. If we're looking for a causal chain, then, it may be something like:

endorsement/fundraising total --> news story --> internet search

In the context of a modern campaign built on social networking (via technology especially) the chain of events isn't as clear and regardless, all of the points in that chain have something of a recursive relationship anyway.

The other caveat is much more easily accounted for. Obviously, we'd expect the volume of searches to go up as a presidential election year approaches. That kicks the chain of events (in whatever order) into hyperdrive.

All caveats aside, though, how did this look in the context of the Democratic field of candidates as they emerged, announced and ran for the Democratic nomination between 2004 and 2008?

The expectation going in is that Hillary Clinton would dwarf all the other included candidates (and I just included FHQ's estimation of the top five candidates on the Democratic side) and at some point be passed by Barack Obama. And that is generally what we see in the full chart at the top. But it is easier to see Clinton's lead in search volume across all of 2005 and well into 2006 in the yearly snapshots. Around the time of the midterm elections in 2006 we see Obama's searches shoot up. The Illinois senator's numbers increased most likely because of his appearance on Meet the Press, where he discussed the possibility of a White House run. You'll also note that Edwards numbers also jump at the end of 2006 when he announced he would be seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination. There were similar spikes for Clinton and Obama when they announced during the first couple of months of 2007.

We don't see candidate emergence here so much, but we do see some candidate displacement. Hillary Clinton was very much a factor in the 2008 presidential campaign. In conversations I had here at UGA as early as 2005 the discussion centered on a Clinton-McCain general election in 2008. To some degree then, the story is more about the emergence of an alternative to Clinton. For instance, John McCain emerged as the alternative to George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. Edwards actually runs ahead of Obama through 2005 and 2006 (minus the Obama MTP blip), but once Obama announced his bid, he consistently ran ahead of Edwards for most of 2007. Obama, then, displaced Edwards as the Clinton alternative and that was solidified by Edwards opting into the federal matching funds system for the primaries in the late summer/early fall of 2007.

Now, we are limited by this data to some degree. These are weekly snapshots of the candidates' positions relative to each other in terms of their individual search volumes. Daily accounts are available and would provide us with a richer story (especially vis a vis the "which came first the news or the search" conundrum), but that's a something for another day.

Up next? The 2008 GOP candidates.


Recent Posts:
And Your 2012 GOP Presidential Nominee Is...

TARHEELS!

76,914-76,817 77,017-76,934: Murphy Tedisco Leads in NY-20

Live Blog: UGA Getzen Lecture featuring Newt Gingrich

Wrap Up: A very interesting lecture from someone who is high on the FHQ Elite Eight list for 2012. Some things mentioned to me at the reception afterward:

"Where were the solutions?"

"He was more partisan than I thought he would be."

Both were true and aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Several times Gingrich mentioned not getting into things because of time constraints. You can understand that, but when you're talking about such a fundamental restructuring of the federal government, people are generally going to want specifics. Of course, those were some of the same specifics people wanted from Obama throughout 2008. But that's life on the campaign trail.

Gingrich has a vision, but how compelling that story is -- in view of 2012 that is -- will depend on how Obama has been viewed. If Obama's version of change hasn't actually changed that much in Washington and across the country, that'll make a sweeping vision like Gingrich's much more palatable -- not that it isn't already. And this could be an interesting clash in 2012. Obama as the "government can work for you" candidate against Gingrich as the "government is inefficient if it is filtered through a broken bureaucratic system" candidate.

And what about that Jindal mention? Of course, that was couched after the fact as "Jindal won't be John McCain's age until after 2040." In other words, this guy's a future leader in the GOP.

I'll be back shortly with some more thoughts.

4:08pm: Ends on the Second Amendment.

4:04pm: Israel and Iran?

A: "Would not be shocked if Israel took pre-emptive action."

4:00pm: Government Shutdown?

A: It was healthy. "I have a different view on this than the media. We were the only Republican majority reelected when a Democratic president was being elected."

Downsizing/Restructuring?
A: Again, back to the bureaucracy. "Show me a bureaucracy that operates like the Toyota mode of production."

3:57pm: Global warming?

A: Green Conservatism (Contract with the Earth): Unelected Supreme Court and an unelected bureaucracy making these decisions. Carbon tax is akin to helping fuel China.

3:55pm: de Tocqueville's soft tyranny in the US?

A: Paraphrasing: A government that can fire the head of GM is a government to be feared.

3:51pm: Future of the GOP?

A: Name-dropping: Bobby Jindal!
GOP has to: 1) Worry about the GOP and not America.
2) Solutions, solutions, solutions
3) Work to bring together those who are not committed to a hard left ideology.

3:47pm: How would you describe America to the rest of the world given Obama's statement about American having been arrogant on the world stage?

A: Yes, there has been some arrogance, but would tell Europe that we are "partners in freedom," that the Europeans have to provide some help and not just talk.

3:41pm: Obama's foreign policy?

A: "I think he had a bad trip [abroad]." The French and Germans didn't give anything. North Korea tests a missile just before Obama is set to deliver a speech on nuclear disarmament.

Obama is at a defining moment. He has a choice between being Jimmy Carter and learning nothing or being John Kennedy and learning that the world is a tough place.

3:40pm: Q&A!

3:39pm: Everything hinges on fundamentally changing the way in which the government works, especially the bureaucracy.

3:35pm: The bottom line here is that outcome-based implementation of metrics can work to fix the bureaucracy around foreign policy, education, etc. to prevent the failure of the American civilization. In this case, we're talking about the US as the top nation in a unipolar world.

3:32pm: Values --> Vision --> Metrics --> Strategy

3:30pm: Nate Silver may like this talk. Gingrich just cited Moneyball as a good use of metrics.

3:27pm: Real change takes will-power. In the New York case of implementing this metrics-based reworking of the law enforcement bureaucracy, it meant manipulating the bureaucracy; forcing the old school thought process and people out.

3:21pm: The metrics approach to the bureaucracy management is borrowed from Giuliani's New York model.

3:19pm: Problems in foreign policy are similar to what the US faces in terms of health care: The bureaucracy is broken.

3:15pm: Hints of responsible parties here. A cohesive national party message. Not in 1994 with the Contract with America, but in 1980 with what Gingrich calls the 5 Capitol Steps.

3:10pm: Two questions: What is it that America has to do to survive (as a civilization)? How do you convince the American people to go along with it?

3:05pm: Topic: Effective American Policy in an Increasingly Dangerous World

3:00pm: Alright, we're waiting through the introduction of Mr. Gingrich here live in the UGA Chapel. It is difficult for FHQ to approach anything like this without a view toward 2012, so we'll be covering this with an eye toward that election.


Recent Posts:
And Your 2012 GOP Presidential Nominee Is...

TARHEELS!

76,914-76,817 77,017-76,934: Murphy Tedisco Leads in NY-20

And Your 2012 GOP Presidential Nominee Is...

[Click Bracket to Enlarge or HERE for more Discussion at NPR]
[Image Courtesy of NPR]

Other than Ron Paul winning this thing, the process wasn't that unlike a typical post-reform primary season. The field of candidates got winnowed down, there were some upsets and surprises along the way, and ultimately one candidate emerged and became the inevitable nominee.

I wish I had kept closer tabs on the voting throughout the last few days. Political Junkie says Paul edged South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint by 13 points (Yes, edged considering the spread was 91-9 at one point early on during the voting.) with nearly one million votes cast. That the Paul lead was whittled down to a mere 13 points indicates that there may have been an anti-Paul voting faction out there. If this were an actual primary season context, it would have been indicative of buyers remorse having set in among Republican voters. Recall that Ron Paul was the candidate taking some anti-McCain votes during the 2008 primaries (especially after McCain had clinched on March 4).

Well, this has been fun and whether NPR does it again next year or not, FHQ will dust off its own bracket and see how it stands up to a year's worth of hindsight. All the while, we'll be hoping for a Carolina repeat in the basketball version.


Recent Posts:
TARHEELS!

76,914-76,817 77,017-76,934: Murphy Tedisco Leads in NY-20

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

TARHEELS!

2009 National Champions
Yeah, that has a nice ring to it. Go Heels!


Recent Posts:
76,914-76,817 77,017-76,934: Murphy Tedisco Leads in NY-20

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

Blame Palin?

76,914-76,817 77,017-76,934: Murphy Tedisco Leads in NY-20

Tip of the cap to Jack for the news.

Here's more.

And thanks to Matt for the re-re-update.


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

Blame Palin?

Presidential Candidate Emergence: An Alternate Measure

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

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

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

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

What Taylor finds evidence of is that...

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

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


Recent Posts:
Blame Palin?

Presidential Candidate Emergence: An Alternate Measure

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

Blame Palin?

John Sides over at The Monkey Cage, freshly back from the Midwest Political Science Association conference over the weekend, has an interesting post* up this morning from a paper that was presented there. The paper by Richard Johnston and Emily Thorson uses the 2008 National Annenberg Election Study to examine the relationship between the candidates' poll standing over the last few months of the election, survey respondents' economic evaluations and the presidential and vice presidential candidate favorability ratings over the course of that period as well.

The weird thing? McCain's polls numbers, overall economic evaluations and Sarah Palin's favorability track almost exactly. As John says, "It's eerie."

It is and this is all interestingly suggestive, but is it possible that Palin was something of a reverse Obama during the campaign. No, I don't mean ideologically; that's fairly obvious. My angle here is that during Obama's emergence prior to the 2008 primaries, the then-senator from Illinois was still an unknown quantity. Those on the left paid more attention to the build up to the nomination race more and some on that side attached their hopes and dreams to Obama's run. Obama, say, would have had more movement in his support numbers when information emerged (negative or positive) than if something newsworthy broke on Hillary Clinton.

Well, Sarah Palin was that unknown quantity on the Republican side, but she was introduced during a much more hyper-partisan period than Obama. Folks -- on the right especially -- attached their hopes and dreams to her in a way similar to what Obama enjoyed over a much less partisan period and over a much longer length of time. But because of the general election environment in which she was introduced, folks on the left and some in the middle attached their negative feelings on the economy and the general state of things to her -- and apparently the McCain campaign -- as well.

Very interesting stuff. And what's more, the economic evaluations fluctuate more than what I glean from Tom Holbrook they did in the NES.

*Head on over and check out the graphs. Great visuals of the trend.


Recent Posts:
Presidential Candidate Emergence: An Alternate Measure

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

Georgia in 2012: Back to March?

Presidential Candidate Emergence: An Alternate Measure

I had this link come into my inbox the other day and it really got me thinking about using this Google search data to track presidential candidate emergence during the invisible primary.

[Image Courtesy of irregulartimes.com. Click to Enlarge]

Now sure, Google itself warns against using their Labs-designated (read: not quite ready for primetime) Trends tool data for heavy duty research, which this isn't, so I couldn't help myself. The good folks at Irregular Times got the ball rolling on this in terms of tracking the 2012 Republican candidates' emergence in real time, but that only tells us a little bit of the story. Google Trends stretches back to January 2004 and that affords us the opportunity to track the fluctuations of the 2008 candidates on both sides as a baseline for comparison.

But here's the thing: I actually prefer the Google data over the Cafe Press search data. Yes, Irregular Times makes the point that Google search data pulls in all the search data regardless of whether you were looking up John McCain in 2006 in the context his 2008 presidential bid or some legislative work he was doing on the Hill. I can buy that. And while the benefits of using the Cafe Press search data (searching for actual candidate-related merchandise) are that we are gaining strength of attachment, the drawback is that we are potentially losing out on data concerning searches that while not as strong, are still related to these candidates in terms of the presidency. In other words, I'd like to take the larger view and try to narrow the scope somehow than narrow things unnecessarily right off the bat and miss something important.

[Fine FHQ, what's the point?]

This actually settles quite nicely into the realm of political science. The very first thing I thought of when I saw this data was issue evolution. The classic model constructed Carmines and Stimson (1981) looked at issue changes (such as on racial issues during the 20th century) on two planes. First, issue stances change over time, but secondly, their evolution takes place at the elite level within the party (in terms of perception and actions in Congress) and works its way down to the mass level affecting perceptions on the issues there.

This obviously has a link to the invisible primary period we are in now ahead of 2012. No, it isn't terribly active right now. Not at the mass level, at least. But there's no doubt there is jockeying going on at the elite level and that ultimately finds its way down to the masses. This approach has already seen some attention within the literature. Cohen, et. al (2003, 2005, 2008) have examined this at the elite level, tracking candidates' efforts to woo donors and high-profile endorsements. It strikes me, though, that this Google Trends data is an interesting means of tracking the level to which this permeates the masses. Now granted, the Cohen argument is that the system is set up in a way to allow for party autonomy over the nomination decision, but this data seems like an alternate means of investigating this as opposed to focusing on polling (which may have some endogeneity issues with internet searches) or waiting for vote outcomes in the primaries.

This week, then, we'll be focused on this relationship (among other things). Ideally I'd be able to roll this out in one big post, but I don't have the time tonight (and I suppose I've been sitting on this for a couple of days already anyway) to put it all together. We all may be better served having it broken down into its component parts. Regardless, this should be fun to look at.


Recent Posts:
The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (4/4/09)

Georgia in 2012: Back to March?

Championship Set in NPR's 2012 Bracket

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

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

With a bill having been introduced to move the presidential primary in Georgia, another 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar update is in order. Here again are the rules from the last update:

1. Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not.
2. States that have changed dates appear twice (or more) on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days.
   
3. You'll also see that some of the states on the calendar are live links. These are links to active legislation that would shift the date on which that state's presidential primary would be held in 2012. That allows us to track the status of the legislation more easily (in the states that allow you to link directly to the bill status).
4. For the sake of tracking relevant legislation dealing with presidential primaries generally, but not the dates directly (ie: Minnesota potentially switching from caucus to primary), FHQ will include links in parentheses next to such states (H for House action, S for Senate action).
   

New Additions: Georgia

2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses*

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire*

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

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

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

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

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana

Tuesday, February 14: Maryland, Virginia

Tuesday, February 21: Wisconsin

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

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

Tuesday, March 13: Mississippi

Tuesday, March 20: Colorado caucuses****

Tuesday, April 24: Pennsylvania

Tuesday, May 8: Indiana (S), North Carolina and West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15: Nebraska, Oregon

Tuesday, May 22: Arkansas (-104), Idaho, Kentucky

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note on the Minnesota caucuses.

Notes:
The Green Papers is also getting in on the 2012 act now. They've got a nice delegate projection up for the Democrats in 2012 and what they're calling a primary calendar for them as well. Sure, it amounts to applying the 2008 rules to 2012 in terms of when Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will be, but that would mean that Nevada would be ahead of New Hampshire on the calendar and I just can't buy into that. There is no way New Hampshire is going to allow Nevada to slide into the period between Iowa and New Hampshire. It just won't happen unless the parties try and do away with the Iowa and New Hampshire exemption. As long as they allow both to be exempt, though, New Hampshire is only going to let Iowa go before it. Case in point: Just look at the law that has been proposed in the Granite state General Court. That is meant to deal specifically with the possible encroachment of another caucus; namely Nevada. So no, I'm going to leave Nevada behind New Hampshire on this projection of the calendar. But the Green Papers did make me think twice about it.


Recent Posts:
Georgia in 2012: Back to March?

Championship Set in NPR's 2012 Bracket

Whither Campaign Finance? The Fair Elections Now Act

Georgia in 2012: Back to March?

First Florida and now Georgia.

Regional policy diffusion is the name of the game and in the lead up to 2012, it looks as if the backloading of presidential primaries may be an idea that is spreading. Of course, a bill being introduced is far different than it becoming law, but there is currently an active bill in both chambers of the legislature in Florida and now one in Georgia that would shift the 2012 presidential primaries in each to later dates not earlier ones.

There's a reason that I mentioned the distinction between bill introduction and a bill becoming a law, though. Sure, Florida and Georgia are following the lead of Arkansas -- which has already moved back -- but the circumstances are different in Arkansas than in Florida/Georgia. In the Natural state, the move to February in 2008 was a costly one. It meant having to fund an all new election for the presidential race (one separated from the May primaries for state and local offices). And that cost was just too high when Arkansas legislators looked back on it. Arkansas has done this before; moving up in 1988 to coincide with the other southern states and moving back to May in 1992.

The situation in Florida and Georgia, though, is quite different. Both states have essentially institutionalized a separate presidential primary. First, it is difficult to comply with national party rules on presidential delegate selection when your other primaries are in July (Georgia) and August/September (Florida). It forces both states to hold a separate presidential primary unless the state government opts to move the primaries for state and local offices. But with that Florida and Georgia have a bit more freedom to move that presidential primary having established the contest as a free-standing event.

So the Sunshine and Peach states are home free and can shift back to later dates in 2012, right? Well, they could if the majority of the state legislature was in a favor of the move. But that isn't the case in either state. HB 848 in Georgia and the two bills in Florida (House and Senate) are bills sponsored and introduced by Democrats (Rep. Billy Mitchell in Georgia) in Republican-controlled legislatures (not to mention governments considering both states have Republican governors) and partisanship is likely to stand in the way of these moves. With the Republican nomination at stake in 2012, Republican legislators are going to be much less inclined to shift their state back and into potential irrelevance on the matter unless required to by the national party.

And thus far in the positioning for 2012 (or at least in terms of the current bills that propose primary movement before 2012), that has been the mark of legislative efforts: They are being proposed by a member(s) of the out-party.

• In Florida and Georgia, Democrats are pushing backward shifts of presidential primaries in Republican-dominated states.
• In North Carolina, the situation is reversed (times two). A group of Republicans are sponsoring a bill to move the Tarheel state's primary up to the first Tuesday in February in a Democratic legislature. The story in Oregon is the same.
• In New Jersey, a Republican has called for an Arkansas-like repeal of the separate presidential primary that would place the contest on the same June date as the state's other primaries. But the bill there is a hold over from the 2008 session.
  

I've pretty much dismissed any of these moves taking place during this legislative cycle; the conditions just aren't right. And that likely won't change until the national parties force the states' hands or these bills gain some measure of bipartisan support.

UPDATE: Mitchell's bill in Georgia is apparently in response to a resolution adopted at the Democratic convention last August that closes the window in which non-exempt states can hold delegate selection events to points during or after the first Tuesday in March. [The Georgia General Assembly won't address the issue until 201o anyway because today -- April 3 -- is the final day of the Assembly's session.] This sets up a conflict if the Republicans don't follow suit and eliminate February contests as well. The Democratic Party's task of getting states into compliance with that March call would be complicated in Republican-controlled states by the fact that those Republicans may have no desire to move unless compelled to by the national party. I'm assuming this idea will be discussed at some point during the Democratic Change Commission's meetings because it is a problem in February (2008) states like Arizona*, Florida, Georgia and Utah, where the state government is controlled by Republicans, or in Alabama (governor), California (governor), Connecticut (governor), Louisiana (governor), Michigan (Senate), Missouri (House and Senate), Oklahoma (House and Senate), Tennessee (House and Senate) and Virginia (House), where some portion of the government is Republican-controlled. That's an extensive list of states where partisanship could prove preventative to presidential primary date shifts that could bring a state into compliance with just one party's rules.

The Democratic Change Commission does have some wiggle room on this. The resolution that created the body states:

"...and that in making its recommendations, the Commission consider any revision of the Rules of the Republican Party of the United States adopted by the 2008 Republican National Convention regarding the scheduling and sequence of presidential nominating events."

Some of this, then, rests with the as yet unfilled Temporary Delegate Selection Committee that is charged with a similar task to the DCC's for the GOP. But if that group only offers up minimal alterations, the DCC will have to seriously consider dropping the "no February contests" portion of that resolution. And the commission can change that. That ability to change the rules mid-cycle is what has separated the Democrats from Republicans in that regard in past cycles.

*In Arizona, the governor -- currently a Republican -- can set the date of the presidential primary by proclamation if the set late February date is deemed to be too late to have an impact on the nomination process.

A big shout out to Matt from DemConWatch for the heads up on the bill.


Recent Posts:
Championship Set in NPR's 2012 Bracket

Whither Campaign Finance? The Fair Elections Now Act

NPR's 2012 Bracket Results (3rd Round) Are Now Up