DeSantis is not without Organizational Strengths in the Republican Nomination Race

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• On presidential primary legislating, the Missouri General Assembly once again made Congress look functional. Still, there is one thing in the Show-Me state that just does not add up. And there may be a super penalty problem for a handful of states on the Republican presidential primary calendar. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was back in Iowa over the weekend. And some accounts detail how he impressed Hawkeye state Republicans, but as The New York Times noted...

And while Mr. Trump still leads in the state, according to the latest public polling, his team team had also so lowered the bar for Mr. DeSantis’s first outing with weeks of merciless mocking that by merely showing up and not committing any significant gaffes with crowds that were eager to check him out, he fared well.

Polls and mocking aside, the real coup for DeSantis in the home of the first-in-the-nation caucuses was pulling in a long list of state legislative endorsements -- endorsement primary -- in the state before he even touched down to flip burgers, visit barbecue joints or generally retail politick. More than anything else, that group of 37 endorsements speaks to the demonstration of a level of organization that has not been as apparent in recent weeks as the governor's fortunes have swooned according to some metrics. Yes, the aligned super PAC, Never Back Down, has been on the airwaves (continually in the upstate of South Carolina during the evening news hour FHQ can report) and there is plenty of money behind the nascent campaign, but that is a depth of endorsements that speaks to some underlying political strengths in the battle ahead. 

...once DeSantis formally enters the race. Are endorsement the same as organizing folks to come out to caucuses across the Hawkeye state? Not exactly, but it is a positive push in that direction. 

...

And now for something completely -- well, sort of -- different. Allow FHQ a moment to veer off into general election 2024 territory. Michael Scherer and Tyler Pager at The Washington Post report that President Biden's reelection team is targeting both Florida and North Carolina as possible pickup opportunities in 2024. First of all, if there are any potential flips out there, then Florida and North Carolina are likely the only ones to chase. They were the only two states that Biden lost by less than five points in 2020. However, incumbent presidents and incumbent parties have had a difficult time trying to expand the map in recent years. The Obama team trained its sights on Arizona and Georgia in 2011 before dropping them to focus their efforts on more competitive states as the 2012 election drew nearer. Similarly, the Trump campaign eyed both Minnesota and New Mexico in 2019 before it scaled operations back once the calendar flipped to 2020. Presidents may want to play offense during their reelection bids, but more often than not, they end up playing defense on the same ground they narrowly won during their initial, victorious bid. And often that is a function not of adding states to the fold, but of trying to hold together a winning coalition from the first time surpassing 270.

...

With the spotlight on Iowa over the weekend, it was nice to see some reporting that actually acknowledged that at this time there is no date for the Iowa caucuses. There is no date. There has been no date. Part of what has enabled both Iowa and New Hampshire to successfully defend their first-in-the-nation turf on the primary calendar over the years is that each is adept in their own ways at waiting until late in the year (if need be) to make a scheduling decision. When threats have arisen, waiting them out has tended to work at least in terms of fighting off threats from other states. National parties? Well, that is a different type of battle. With South Carolina Democrats locked into that February 3 date granted them by the DNC, Iowa and New Hampshire are more than likely, and barring something unforeseen and hugely unprecedented, going to end up in some time in January next year. 

...

On this date...

...in 1972, George McGovern bested his competition in precinct caucuses in a pair of Mountain West states, Colorado and Utah..

...in 1984, Colorado Sen. Gary Hart swept the Nebraska and Oregon primaries, extending his dominance in states west of the Mississippi River to that point in the race.

...in 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney handily won late-season primaries in Nebraska and Oregon, increasing his delegate advantage and inching closer to an overall majority in the count.

--

Recent posts:

Sunday Series: An Update on 2024 Presidential Primary Movement

[From FHQ Plus] About the California Republican Party Delegate Rules for 2024

Endorsements, Non-Endorsements, Unendorsements and Pre-Endorsements

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

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

Sunday Series: There's no budding feud between Iowa and New Hampshire, but the Democratic parties in each are approaching 2024 differently. Here is how.

Much happened this past week with respect to the maneuvering at the very front of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Iowa Democrats finally revealed an initial draft of their 2024 delegate selection plan. In the General Assembly in the Hawkeye state, the Senate pushed through a bill intended to protect the first-in-the-nation caucuses that now heads to Governor Kim Reynolds (R). And the motivation, at least part of it anyway, for that bill was to further insulate the caucuses from triggering the first-in-the-nation law in fellow early state, New Hampshire. 

But in the rush to draw battle lines between the pair of traditionally early states -- battle lines that do not really exist in the first place -- many missed an important story developing in plain sight. In the face of new calendar rules for 2024 on the Democratic side, state Democratic parties in Iowa and New Hampshire are taking vastly different approaches to protecting their early calendar turf. 

In the Granite state, Democrats started off defiant in December when the new DNC calendar rules were unveiled, have stayed defiant and give every indication that they intend to see this through to the national convention next  summer if they have to. Much of that defiance has come directly from the state parties and elected officials in the Granite state of all partisan stripes. But it is also right there in the delegate selection plan New Hampshire Democrats released back in March:

The newly released draft DSP specifies no date, a break from the past protocol. Additionally, it says what New Hampshire Democrats have been saying for months: 

The “first determining step” of New Hampshire's delegate selection process will occur on a date to be determined by the New Hampshire Secretary of State in accordance with NH RSA 653:9, with a “Presidential Preference Primary.” The Republican Presidential Preference Primary will be held in conjunction with the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary.

And, in truth, Iowa Democrats have not been saying much different from what their brethren in the Granite state have been. In February, new Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart was quick to strike a similar tone to New Hampshire's above in the immediate aftermath of the full DNC vote to adopt the 2024 rules.

“Iowa does not have the luxury of conducting a state-run primary, nor are Iowa Republicans likely to support legislation that would establish one. Our state law requires us to hold precinct caucuses before the last Tuesday in February, and before any other contest.”

Of course, none of that is surprising. Folks from both Iowa and New Hampshire have uttered similar things in past cycles when the calendar positions of each have been threatened. The mantra is simple in both states (for better or worse): When in doubt, lean on the state laws that protect the caucuses in Iowa and the New Hampshire primary. But on the surface this past week, it looked like Iowa Democrats were now doing the same thing in their delegate selection plan that New Hampshire Democrats did in March in theirs. Which is to say, it looked like the party was planning to defy the national party rules. 

Headlines that made their way to the fore after the release of the plan seemed to reflect that: "Iowa Democrats plan to caucus same night as Republicans." But under the hood, in the weeds of the Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan, the state party was telling a different story. The caucuses will take place on the same night that Iowa Republicans caucus. And that is likely to be sometime in January 2024. However, those precinct caucuses, at least according to the plan, will have no direct effect on delegate allocation in the Iowa Democratic process. It is not, to use the DNC terminology, the first determining step, the part of the process where voters indicate presidential preference which, in turn, determines delegate allocation. That is the step the DNC is watching. That is the step that would draw penalties should it occur prior to March 5, 2024, the first Tuesday in March for this cycle. 

What the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is concerned with is when that all-mail presidential preference vote concludes. It is that vote that will affect delegate allocation. Like the New Hampshire primary in the delegate selection plan in the Granite state, the date the preference vote is set to conclude was left unspecified. If the end of that vote-by-mail process coincides with the likely January caucuses, then it would be a problem. If the point at which the preference vote results are revealed falls later in the calendar, it may not (depending on where that is). 

The key here is that Iowa Democrats are more clearly than ever bifurcating the allocation and selection processes. Their plan does not roll everything into one "caucus" as has been the case in past cycles. The January caucuses will only advance the delegate selection process. That will not influence delegate allocation. Even if delegates aligned with, say, Marianne Williamson were to move to the county stage from the precinct caucuses and set themselves up to be selected to move on to the district and state convention stages, that would not mean that they would be eligible to fill any Biden-allocated slots (as determined by the preference vote). That is something that can occur in the Republican nomination process, but on the Democratic side, the candidates and their campaigns have the ability to approve the delegates that are pledged to them. It is a failsafe the Republican process does not have. 

Bifurcation, then, allows Iowa Democrats to have their cake and eat it too. They can continue to hold first-in-the-nation caucuses (as part of the selection process) that complies with state law but also comply with DNC rules by using a later vote-by-mail presidential preference vote as the first determining step in the allocation process. 

One could argue that there is a structural difference between Iowa and New Hampshire in this instance. The Iowa Democratic Party has more control over its party-run process than New Hampshire Democrats do with respect to a state-run presidential primary. And while that is true, it also obscures the fact that New Hampshire Democrats are not completely without discretion here. Granite state Democrats have chosen to live free or die with the state-run primary option as a means of protecting the first-in-the nation institution. 

But New Hampshire Democrats do have a choice. The state party has the same first amendment/free association rights as the state Democratic Party in Iowa. But they have chosen -- and folks, it makes sense for them to do so politically in New Hampshire -- to stick with the state-run primary rather than explore other options. That could be some party-run process or lobbying majority Republicans in the New Hampshire General Court to create a carve-out for either the Democratic Party or the party with an incumbent president running for reelection. As an example, there could be a state-run/state-funded option for Democrats aligned with town meeting day in March. 

But again, New Hampshire Democrats have chosen a different path in response to the new DNC calendar rules than Iowa Democrats have. And as FHQ has argued, New Hampshire Democrats may be vindicated in the end. They are banking on the fact that the national party will cave at the national convention and seat any New Hampshire Democratic delegates if the fight lasts that long. 

In the near term, however, Iowa Democrats are differently approaching the threat to the caucuses (or what they are continuing to call caucuses). Their plan, rather than coming out defiant buys the state party both time and flexibility. And both are useful as the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee moves into the job of reviewing and approving 2024 delegate selection plans. Continued New Hampshire defiance in that process coupled with the flexibility the Iowa Democratic Party plan provides them means that, should New Hampshire Democrats draw sanctions from the DNC, then Iowa Democrats are well-positioned to make the case that their vote-by-mail presidential preference vote should be a part of the early window. That part of the process may not be first -- the caucuses, after all, will be in the selection phase -- but the all-mail preference vote could make the cut. 

...if the DNC feels compelled to keep four or five [compliant] states in the window before Super Tuesday. South Carolina, Nevada and Michigan are already there. Could more states be added? Iowa and Delaware, where things have been quite quiet, could be poised to move into that area of the calendar. 

The bottom line here is that there is no budding feud between Iowa and New Hampshire. Yet, the in the face of threats, state Democratic parties in each are taking on the new challenge in markedly and notably different ways. That is a story that merits more attention than any attempt to manufacture some non-existent calendar drama between the two. 

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] A Curious Decision on the Georgia Presidential Primary

Checking in on 2024 Republican Delegate Math

Raffensperger Zeros in on Date for Georgia's Presidential Primary

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

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

From FHQ Plus: The State of Democratic Delegate Selection Plans for 2024

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From Friday Happy Hour Wrap Up 4/28/23:

As a general note, the release of the draft 2024 delegate selection plan from Democrats in the American Samoa brings the total number of publicly available plans up to 42 (at last check). That leaves parties in 15 states and territories that have not yet released draft plans ahead of the May 3 deadline next week for submission to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC). Many of them — think California and Wisconsin — are not hiding anything. As far as the dates of those state-run primaries go, they will fall on the dates state law specifies. The draft delegate selection plans will only confirm that.

For other states — like Idaho, Kansas and Missouri — there have been recent changes to state laws (or to the progress of primary bills) that leave their plans up in the air. All are teetering on the line between a state-run primary and a party-run caucus. That is big distinction for any state party planning a delegate selection event just a few short months away. And the uncertainty about the availability of a state-run and funded election will only cause more delays. 

Another subset of states that are delayed in making public their draft plans is also understandable. Iowa, for example, has asked the national party for an extension. Georgia Democrats already have that extension, having been granted one back in February. The date in the Peach state would be in doubt anyway because Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) holds the authority to set the timing of the primary. But both are examples of state parties with potential early state positions on the calendar at stake. Georgia Democrats could lose their spot and Iowa Democrats hope to somehow slip back into the early window.

And then there are the remainder of the territories. The parties there are notoriously tardy in releasing their plans. Actually, FHQ was quite surprised to see the one from American Samoa pop up now. It was not until July 2019 that the party’s 2020 plans there came to light. 

But all told, the number of calendar question marks on the Democratic side are dwindling. Other questions remain on the Republican side.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Forfeiting New Hampshire?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Trump's Inevitability?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Hutchinson's Turn to (Officially) Jump in

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

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

From FHQ Plus: The Blurred Lines Between State and Party on the Caucuses in Iowa

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's new subscription service. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to support our work. 

--

From Evening Digest, 4/12/23:

I dealt with part of the new bill to change the parameters of the caucus process in the Hawkeye state over at FHQ earlier today. But that bill — HSB 245 — moved past its first obstacle today and out of the Study Bill Subcommittee of the Iowa House Ways and Means Committee on a 3-2 vote, and it looks like it will face a full committee vote on Thursday. [NOTE: HSB 245 passed Ways and Means on a party line vote on Thursday, April 13.]

As some have noted the effort to require in-person participation at a caucus — to ban a proposed plan by Iowa Democrats to shift to a vote-by-mail process — is a move that would immediately be on shaky legal ground. Parties have wide latitude in setting the rules of their internal processes under Supreme Court precedent. And the caucuses are a party affair. The parties pay for them. The parties set the rules. The parties run them.

But the Iowa caucus operations have often blurred the line between state and party on the matter. The parties and the state government, regardless of partisan affiliation across either, have tended to work together to protect that first-in-the-nation status the caucuses have enjoyed over the last half century. There is a state law in Iowa, as in New Hampshire, but both 2008 and 2012 demonstrated that it is fairly toothless. The caucuses in neither case were eight days ahead of the next contest, as called for in state law, and neither party was hit with sanctions for the move.

Moreover, the state/party line has been blurred by the encroachment of same-day party registration at caucus sites in recent years. The state’s tentacles stretch into the caucuses, but that still does not change the fact that the precinct caucuses are a party affair, a party-funded and run operation. And that is kind of the ironic thing about the proposed 70 day buffer required between registration with a party and the caucuses in this bill moving through the Iowa legislature. It retracts those state tentacles to some degree, drawing a sharper line again between state and party domain.

In the end, the fate of this bill beyond the committee is uncertain. But one thing this episode demonstrates is the deterioration of the relationship between Iowa Democrats and Republicans on the one thing that has united them in the past: protecting the status of the caucuses. Republicans unilaterally introducing this measure without consulting the Democratic Party at all on the matter says a lot. And in the long run that will likely hurt Iowa’s efforts to retain its status in the future. 

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Friday Quick Hits

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Primary Creep in Iowa and "Similar Elections"

Invisible Primary: Visible -- An Iowa Acknowledgement

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

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

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Friday Quick Hits

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

The Iowa bill that would restrict how parties could conduct presidential caucuses advanced out of a House committee a party line vote on Thursday, April 13. But Democrats are already hinting at defending their plans through legal challenges (while stressing that the state party is still working on a delegate selection plan for 2024). 

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member from Iowa Scott Brennan had this to say:

“It’s a solution in search of a problem. I don’t understand it. It makes no sense. We have decades of history where the two parties came together and talked about issues important to Iowans in our (Caucus) process. Nothing this time.”

[As an aside, Democrats are attempting to present some uncertainty here, calling the legislation premature. Honestly, the state party can attempt to delay/create uncertainty in this instance because the Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan, no matter what ultimately makes it into the draft, will go back and forth between the state party and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee before it is finalized (perhaps well into the summer if not beyond).]

...

Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon did not pull any punches in a recent local op-ed concerning the presidential nomination process in the Gem state for 2024. 

"This past legislative session, Secretary of State Phil McGrane brought forward House Bill 138 — a bill that would remove the Republican Party’s March presidential primary. The bill passed out of the Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Brad Little.

"McGrane and his backers say an error and omission in the legislative language unwittingly removed the presidential primary; their goal was to move the primary to May. But because of sloppy drafting, Idaho is now without a “legal mechanism for political parties to request a presidential primary election,” as McGrane recently put it.

"In essence, McGrane’s goof makes an Idaho GOP presidential nominating contest that much more difficult for the people. Where does that leave us? The Idaho GOP is evaluating all legal avenues and working to determine how to safeguard the early March nominating process that has already brought significant benefits to Idaho."

She is not wrong. The "goof" was clear from the start. Now Idaho has no presidential primary (without a legislative fix). In the meantime, state Republicans can go a different route. And the state party seems to be exploring its options. But Moon has apparently backed off her proposal to hold (noncompliant) February caucuses. The emphasis appears now to be on keeping the process, whether primary or caucus, in March.

...

Never Back Down, the super PAC affiliated with the nascent Ron DeSantis bid for the Republican presidential nomination has made its first ad buy, set to roll out nationally on Monday, April 17.

...

Wyoming Republicans convene in Jackson this weekend and will have an election for chair amid an internal party squabble that may have been the story of the 2023 legislative session in the Equality state. FHQ raises this not because of the fight, but rather because these are typically the settings where decisions are made on rules for the coming presidential nomination process. That may or may not be in the offing this weekend in Wyoming, but it is worth flagging nonetheless whether the party battle affects the rules or not. 

...

Over at FHQ Plus...

• Michigan Republicans still do not seem to realize what they are up against in opting into a non-compliant presidential primary or going the alternate caucus route. 

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, Democrats held caucuses in Arizona.

...in 1992, Republicans caucused in Missouri. 

...in 1999, former Vice President Dan Quayle (R) announced a run for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination. Quayle as a classic "running for 2000, but did not run in 2000" candidate. He later withdrew in September 1999.

...in 2012, President Barack Obama swept a series of western Democratic caucuses in Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming. This cluster was the among the first to get the regional bonus delegates for clustering contests together on the same date.

...in 2019, Pete Buttigieg announced his intentions to seek the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination (after having formed an exploratory committee in January).

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Primary Creep in Iowa and "Similar Elections"

Invisible Primary: Visible -- An Iowa Acknowledgement

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Nikki Haley Tips Her Hand

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

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

Kansas Committee OKs Amended Presidential Primary Bill

During a working session Friday morning, March 24, the state Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee (FSA) convened to markup SB 321, the bill to create a one-off presidential primary election for the 2024 cycle in Kansas. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus. 

Related:

3/23/23: Kansas Presidential Primary Push Faces Friday Deadline

3/22/23: Alternate Kansas Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in March

3/4/23: Kansas Bill Would Reestablish Presidential Primary in the Sunflower State

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- National Scrutiny has Arrived for DeSantis

Idaho Presidential Primary Bills Pass Senate

Kansas Presidential Primary Push Faces Friday Deadline

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

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

Kansas Presidential Primary Push Faces Friday Deadline

The Kansas state Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee convened on Thursday, March 23 to conduct a hearing on the newly introduced SB 321. Brought forth formally just one day prior, the measure would establish a presidential primary election in the Sunflower state for the 2024 cycle. 

The Thursday hearing was revealing for several reasons:

1. This bill is going to move fast if it is going to move at all. Across the legislature, committees face a deadline of Friday, March 24 to complete work on certain bills. SB 321 is among those certain bills. It faces a very quick trip from introduction one day to public hearing the next and finally followed by a working session after which there will be action to either pass the bill on to the Senate floor for consideration or leave it in committee. That working session will fall on deadline day and is still awaiting a fiscal note being delayed by counties who have been asked to quickly ascertain how much an additional election would cost at the local level. 

2. The principal driver behind the effort to reestablish the Kansas presidential primary is the state Republican Party. The state Democratic Party was unaware of the possible change.

3. While the state Republican Party entertained an earlier Super Tuesday date for the primary, March 19 -- the first Tuesday after March 15 -- was chosen in order for the party be able to allocate delegates in a winner-take-all manner. March 15 is important because that is the date before which truly winner-take-all allocation methods are prohibited by Republican National Committee rule. [This is something FHQ raised on social media earlier.]

4. The sponsor of the competing Senate bill to reestablish the presidential primary but pair it with the primaries for other offices spoke in favor of the new legislation. But Senator Caryn Tyson (R-12th, Anderson) urged the committee to consider consolidating the primaries to cut down on the total costs associated with carrying out nominating elections. [The Kansas secretary of state's office at the hearing roughly estimated -- again, without full input from the counties -- that the price tag would come in around $4.5 million. That expenditure may or may not be an issue for legislators.] Tyson continued that her bill was intended as a conversation starter on shifting to a primary and that the first Tuesday following the first Monday in May date was a suggestion based on how little it would overlap with the legislative session. A consolidated primary any earlier would have legislators campaigning and raising funds during the legislative session, a conflict of interest issue that often pops up in states when consolidated primaries are discussed. The cost savings may be tempting to legislators but the campaigning conflict may offset it. The bottom line with respect to Tyson's bill (SB 290) is that it is not going anywhere and the May timing may or may not be workable. One thing consolidation would do would be to permanently schedule all the primaries for a particular time. 

5. On a similar note, as mentioned in the post about the introduction of SB 321, this is a one-off action for 2024. That there would just be a presidential primary in 2024 was confirmed in the course of the hearing. Kansas would revert to a system in which the parties run the process in 2028 and beyond. The consolidation path would avoid that drawback.

6. The state Democratic Party was not present to comment on the bill or whether they would opt into a primary, if available. Kansas Democrats held a party-run primary by mail in 2020.

Given the haste with which this measure has already moved, it is likely that it will come out of committee in some form after the working session on March 24. There may be some changes, but it seems unlikely that any of the thornier issues like consolidation will be addressed. It would open a can of worms in a process that has already been maximally streamlined and can afford no delays given the deadlines facing the committee. 

Related:

3/22/23: Alternate Kansas Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in March

3/4/23: Kansas Bill Would Reestablish Presidential Primary in the Sunflower State

--

Recent posts:

Hawaii Committee Shakes Up Presidential Primary Bill

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Republican Race is Over?

Alternate Kansas Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in March

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

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

Hawaii Committee Shakes Up Presidential Primary Bill

The lone surviving bill to establish a presidential primary in Hawaii no longer charts a path toward Super Tuesday. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

Related:

3/7/23: Hawaii Senate Passes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

3/1/23: Second Hawaii Committee Green Lights Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill

2/25/23: Hawaii Super Tuesday Primary Bill Stymied in House Committee

2/17/23: Super Tuesday Presidential Primary Bill Inches Forward in Hawaii

1/26/23: Companion Super Tuesday Bill Introduced in Hawaii House

1/23/23: Hawaii Senate Bill Proposes Super Tuesday Presidential Primary

1/20/23: Hawaii Bill Would Establish a Presidential Primary

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- The Republican Race is Over?

Alternate Kansas Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in March

Committee Hearing Demonstrates Broad Support for Effort to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

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

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

Alternate Kansas Bill Would Reestablish a Presidential Primary in March

New legislation out of Kansas would reestablish a presidential primary in the Sunflower state and schedule it for mid-March. 

Read the rest at FHQ Plus.

--

This legislation has been added to FHQ's updated 2024 presidential primary calendar. 

Related:

3/4/23: Kansas Bill Would Reestablish Presidential Primary in the Sunflower State

--

Recent posts:

Committee Hearing Demonstrates Broad Support for Effort to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

Idaho Presidential Primary Inching Toward Move to May

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Where are all the delegate selection plans?

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

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

Committee Hearing Demonstrates Broad Support for Effort to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

The push to reinstate the Missouri presidential preference primary finally got its day before committee on Wednesday, March 22. The House Special Committee on Public Policy heard testimony on two identical bills to put back in statute code that was eliminated as part of omnibus elections legislation that passed the General Assembly and was signed into law in 2022. 

A few things quickly became clear in the course of the hearing. First, but for one opponent and a handful of informational witnesses, everyone in a long list of those providing comments -- from voters to state and county party chairs to statewide and local elections officials to union lobbyists -- was in favor of the move. Rep. Rudy Veit (R-59th, Cole), the sponsor of one of the bills (HB 347) leaned heavily into the idea of caucuses disenfranchising military and government personnel (fire, police, etc.) relative to the options available in a state-run primary election. The sponsor of the other bill (HB 267), Rep. Cyndi Buchheit-Courtway (R-115th, Jefferson) mentioned that she got into politics with a simple slogan, "fighting for our voices to be heard," an idea she said was violated with no presidential primary. 

Notably, the leadership of both state parties -- Chair Nick Myers and Vice Chair Leann Green of the Missouri Republican Party and newly elected Missouri Democratic Party Chair Russ Carnahan -- supported the effort. Carnahan went so far as to say that hurting voters' ability to participate in the presidential nomination process would further erode perceptions about the legitimacy of elections. 

Second, the costs of such an election -- a stand-alone March presidential primary -- were repeatedly raised. Rep. Veit and others cited the estimated $10 million price tag, but shrugged it off, saying it was the price of democracy. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) in his testimony noted that the cost would not come out of one year of the budget but be spread across four. 

And while Ashcroft did not speak for or against the legislation, he urged lawmakers to "pick one," caucuses or a primary. But he also made a point, talking about the presidential primary, to say that he was "philosophically" against holding a vote that does not matter. The secretary did not mean that the March election would fall too late in the calendar. Rather, he wrongly suggested that the primary has no bearing on either delegate allocation or selection in Missouri; that delegates are not bound. 

[FHQ aside: Again, this is wrong. It is an impression that seems to have been forged during the 2012 cycle when Missouri lawmakers could not find a way to move or then cancel a primary that the Missouri Republican Party (who had the active nomination race that cycle) opted out of. The primary still occurred on the state's dime, but caucuses were where delegates were selected (and though unbound were largely committed to particular candidates). Missouri Republicans, however, did not operate in that manner during the last competitive cycle in 2016 (nor 2020 for that matter). The party allocated delegates based on the primary because RNC rules during that cycle mandated it and further backed up that binding in all states at the national convention.

Ashcroft also projects past Republican issues in Missouri onto Show-Me state Democrats, who do not and have not had those same problems as state Republicans because the process is more regulated at the national party level. But those problems have already been dealt with by the RNC.]

Finally, another theme that may end up affecting this legislation down the line was the idea of consolidating primaries. Elections officials in attendance and testifying described the difficulty of pulling off one presidential primary election in March only to have to turn around and do it all over again in April with nonpartisan local elections. But the same election administrators were cool to the notion of combining a partisan election with a nonpartisan election when it came up because of the impact it would have on correctly generating and distributing many different versions of a ballot to voters. 

But if there is no state law requiring a primary, then none of this matters anyway. A state law would, of course, require elections officials, regardless of the burdens, to implement whatever state law calls for. And although a consolidated election may increase some headaches for elections officials across Missouri, it would both tamp down on the costs borne by the state and maximize turnout.

No votes were taken on either HB 267 or HB 347 in committee on Wednesday, but the hearing showcased some of the common tradeoffs involved in the presidential nomination process. 

Related:

2/7/23: Senate Companion Introduced to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

1/12/23: Identical Third Bill Would Reestablish Missouri's Presidential Primary

12/20/22: Prefiled Bills Seek to Reestablish Missouri Presidential Primary

--

Recent posts:

Idaho Presidential Primary Inching Toward Move to May

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Where are all the delegate selection plans?

Ohio Bill to Move Presidential Primary to May Has Second Committee Hearing

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

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

Invisible Primary: Visible -- It's Trump's until it's not

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

Strategizing about the when, where and how to best defeat Donald Trump is not a new thing. In fact, it has not always been a particularly partisan thing. After all, just seven years and a day ago, the New York Times ran a story about Republican efforts to chart a course forward toward an alternative. That was not the first such story and it certainly was not the last. There are likely more on the way.

With the former president mounting his third bid for the Republican presidential nomination, the strategizing Trump's downfall industry his whirred back to life. And that is not without reason. It is spurred on by the relatively weaker hand Trump has in 2023 minus the incumbency advantage the then-president carried with him four years ago. And there are possible indictments looming over Trump in Manhattan, Georgia and the nation's capital. The terrain is both more different than it has been during the Trump era and all too familiar (at least in the ways that various actors, including Trump, are reacting and how the race is being covered).

Those weaknesses -- real or perceived -- are a lens through which the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is being viewed. But the underlying mindset is akin to giving folks a hammer: They are going to go looking for nails and probably "find" them. For example, Trip Gabriel of the New York Times had a recent dispatch from Des Moines, where all eyes -- Trump's and his rivals' -- are on the first nominating contest of 2024. And understandably so: the caucuses in Iowa are the first contest.

“I don’t see a formula where Trump loses Iowa and it doesn’t really wound him and his chances as a candidate,” said Terry Sullivan, who managed Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Or maybe New Hampshire will be Trump's demise. Republican strategist Susan Del Percio sees unaffiliated voters, who are allowed to participate in the presidential primary in the Granite state, as a key potential buffer against extremists lining up behind Trump. 

[As an aside, a Trump loss in Iowa would be less a signal about Iowa specifically and more one stemming from the fact that it is a caucus state. If Trump is losing among low turnout caucus electorates then that will say much about his institutional support within the party among a more motivated slice of the overall primary electorate. And that says nothing of the blow that would strike to the former president's organizational strength. As for independents in New Hampshire, maybe 2024 will be different. But Trump ran ahead of his statewide support in New Hampshire among independents in 2016. That may not be what starts the ball rolling against Trump in 2024.]

Of course, both of those visions are a bit more forward-looking into a future that has not accounted for the events that will transpire during the remainder of the invisible primary between now and when votes begin to be cast. Perhaps it will be in the courtrooms across the country where a Trump slide (or a resurgence!) begins. Seth Masket throws some water on that notion:

All this is to say that him being indicted will likely not harm him much in the presidential contest — his supporters will not turn against him — but nor will it help him. “Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters will support him enthusiastically if X happens” has been proven true time and again for eight years but doesn’t really tell us very much.

In the end, there are at least nine months left in the invisible primary. Things will happen. Needles will move. Candidates' fortunes will rise and fall. But right now, Trump is very much in the same position Jeb Bush was in 2015. That is not to suggest that the outcome will be the same for Trump as it was for Bush nor that the signals are not pointing more forcefully in Trump's direction now than they ever did for Bush then. But the majority of the invisible primary signals one looks at -- polls, fundraising, hiring, endorsements, organizational strength, etc. -- point in Trump's direction at this time. That may not continue to be the case as the invisible primary progresses, but it is the case now. 

That is why FHQ has been saying a variation on something in recent days that we often said back in 2015. Then it was "it [the 2016 Republican nomination] is Jeb's until it's not." Now, it is "it [the 2024 Republican nomination] is Trump's until it's not." In other words, the signals one relies on to tell one anything about the state of the race are pointing toward Trump. But that may not continue to be the case once indictments come down, or DeSantis enters the race, or a poor fundraising quarter is reported, or well on down the line, once votes begin to be cast in Iowa and New Hampshire. For now, however, it is Trump's until it's not.

...

How will public opinion react to a possible Trump indictment? Natalie Jackson says to look at the polling on January 6.

...

Harry Enten digs into recent CNN and Quinnipiac polls and finds that support among voters of color is part of what sets Trump apart from his competition for the Republican presidential nomination. 

...

Michigan Republicans are still "in a pickle" over whether to go the primary or caucus route in 2024.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, Walter Mondale edged Gary Hart in the Illinois primary, winning a small plurality victory on his way to the Democratic nomination. The Illinois primary ended up fairly closely resembling the popular vote breakdown in the contest nationwide at its conclusion.

...in 2012, Mitt Romney scored a double digit win over Rick Santorum in the Illinois primary, but dominated the former Pennsylvania senator in the congressional district delegates directly elected by a more than three to one rate.

...in 2020, the Indiana presidential primary was pushed back from May to June because of the coronavirus pandemic.

--

Recent posts:

Primary or Caucus in 2024? For Michigan Republicans, it's still up in the air

The Fix is in for the Idaho Presidential Primary Bill

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Karl Rove's Faux Certainty on 2024 Unknowns

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

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

Primary or Caucus in 2024? For Michigan Republicans, it's still up in the air

Recently elected Michigan Republican Party Chair Kristina Karamo appeared before a Muskegon County Republican Party function last weekend and shed some additional light on where the state party stands with respect to the presidential primary or caucus question for the 2024 cycle. The comments come on the heels of the Democratic-controlled legislature's decision to move up the state-run presidential primary to late February, drawing Republicans in the Great Lakes state out of compliance with Republican National Committee (RNC) rules on the timing of delegate selection events. 

The following is a transcript of the primary/caucus-related portion of the Q&A at that event:

Questioner: "So the Democrats moved... voted to move our primary up to the fourth Tuesday in February. Do you have any idea..."

Karamo: "So, that's a very complicated issue. So, um, what's going on is that the Democrats have voted to move up the primary. And according to RNC rules, if the primary is before a certain date, we will be penalized at the RNC convention. And we'll have... We'll be voting with a smaller delegate strength at the RNC convention for president. That's the way it works. So, what happens is, is when we vote in a presidential primary, all of our delegate votes go to whoever won the popular vote in our state. And then all the various delegates go to the RNC convention and then vote for the candidate for president. And that's how our Republican nominee for president is decided. Um, with that penalty from the RNC, that means that we'll lose some of our delegate votes which means we lose attention and all kinds of things in Michigan." 

"So, we're working that out. I'm not prepared to speak on all the details. I will say that isn't a decision that we make. Uh, or that I make or [Michigan Republican Party co-chairwoman] Malinda [Pego] makes. Uh, that is a state committee issue, but we're kind of not saying a lot about it until we go through everything. One of the things I am working on is having like a -- I hate to use the word listening tour -- but having an opportunity for people on various sides of the issue." 

"Because one solution is to have a caucus where it will be [Michigan Republican Party] delegates voting on who the Republican nominee for president is in our state. So, that's some conversation that is being had. And so, I'm not taking a formal position as an individual on either side of the conversation. I've had my opinions, but then after talking with people on the other side of the opinion, I was like 'Ooh, this is a little bit of a complicated issue.' So, I'm not prepared to speak beyond that, but I think there is a lot of conversation that we need to have as a party of what we're going to do." 

"Because we are in a pickle. Because if the RNC doesn't grant us the waiver that means we're voting with less delegate strength. So then, sometimes the option is a caucus. And some people like a caucus because it keeps Democrats out of our primaries. [Statement greeted approvingly among those in attendance] Because that's a big problem that they jump in our primaries and if they do not have a new candidate... If they don't primary Joe Biden, then that means all of them will jump into our primary. And so the caucus prevents them from jumping in our primary and only actual Republicans are voting for president. So, there is a lot of conversation to be had, but I guess that's pretty much all I... I don't really have anything else to add to it."

Questioner [following up]: "Is the date locked or is there any challenge to moving that, or is this for sure going be the fourth week of February for our primary?"

Karamo: "Well, that's the Republican to Democrat legislature [transition], so I need the exact date, but that's totally up to them [Democrats in the legislature]. That's... That's one of the reasons why if we do find ourselves in the situation where we still have a primary, I think the RNC is... It would only be right for them to grant us a waiver. It wouldn't be fair to punish us for something we have no control over."

[Emphasis above is FHQ's. Michigan is not a winner-take-all state as Karamo seemed to imply. Even if Democrats in the Michigan legislature had not moved the date of the presidential primary to the end of February, the mid-March date would still have fallen before the point at which state parties could allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion. Michigan is a baseline proportional state in the Republican process with a winner-take-all trigger that is activated if a candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote statewide.]

--

Look, Karamo says a lot there that does not really reveal much of anything as of now. Obviously, this is a complicated matter. The state party is concerned about the impact of any RNC penalties if a waiver is not extended by the national party. But Karamo was quick to voice the virtues of conducting a closed caucus/convention process as opposed to an open primary that may invite some idle Democrats into the process. The former seemed to be the "side of the opinion" on which Karamo fell, but the chair also left open the door to alternatives (in a matter that will be decided by the state committee).

There are a couple of factors that FHQ would add to this. 

First, is that the RNC may or may not take an active role in all of this. The national party could remain hands off and let the Michigan Republican Party battle to opt out of the primary and hold caucuses that comply with the RNC rules instead. However, the RNC could alternatively choose to be more hands-on and issue a waiver only for the contest -- primary or caucus -- that it would prefer. If a primary occurs and there is a Republican vote (meaning Michigan Republicans were unable to opt out), then that statewide vote would, under RNC rules, have to be used to allocate delegates instead of later and rules-compliant caucuses. In other words, Great Lakes state Republicans would have to get a waiver in that case to hold caucuses and allocate/select delegates to the national convention through them. But it could be that the RNC would prefer the state party use the primary, even if it technically violates the rules, but with a waiver. As Karamo said, it is "very complicated."

Second, Karamo noted later in her remarks that the state party was in the hole after the prior administration (under the previous chair) left office. How much? $460,000. A state party that is in debt may be less willing to opt out of a state-run primary -- again, even a non-compliant one -- with few ways to actually fund an alternative. And the state party running a debt would definitely factor into any decision to conduct and pay for state party-run caucuses. That is not to say that the Michigan Republican Party could not raise the necessary funds, but that reality would factor into the decision making process. 

It is still a mess. And from the look of it, that mess will extend into the future for the Republican Party in Michigan. The RNC has a deadline of October 1, 2023 for state parties to have finalized their plans for delegate selection in 2024. Some resolution will likely come before then.

Related:

2/20/23: Michigan Republicans and 2024. It was a mess before the chair vote.

--

Recent posts:

The Fix is in for the Idaho Presidential Primary Bill

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Karl Rove's Faux Certainty on 2024 Unknowns

Invisible Primary: Visible -- 2024 Presidential Primary Movement So Far

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

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