Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Connecticut Republicans Adopt a More Proportional Method of Delegate Allocation

File this one under things that happened BF (before Florida) last week but FHQ couldn't get to until AFSC (after Florida/South Carolina):

The Connecticut Republican Party State Central Committee recently voted to alter the parties bylaws concerning the method by which it will allocate delegates in the April 24 presidential primary. Traditionally, Nutmeg state Republicans have used a straight winner-take-all allocation rule, but has this cycle changed the formula to allow for the possibility that a portion of the party's 28 total delegates can be allocated proportionally.

Here's the breakdown in Connecticut:

  • 3 automatic delegates (state party chair, national committeeman and national committeewoman)
  • 15 district delegates (3 delegates X 5 congressional districts)
  • 10 at-large delegates (base number of delegates each state receives; five for each US Senate seat)

[NOTE: This is the general method of RNC delegate apportionment. It is constructed in a way that mirrors representation in Congress; a set number of delegates that each state gets and then a separate set based on population. There are also bonus delegates, but Connecticut has no Republican governor, senator or control of either chamber in the legislature; the determining factors along with past presidential election vote for bonuses.]

In the past, the winner of the Connecticut Republican primary -- whether by majority or plurality -- would have won all 25 non-automatic delegates. [The automatic delegates go to the convention unpledged.] But in 2012 that will change (...under certain circumstances). If one candidate wins a majority, then all 25 non-automatic delegates are allocated to the winner; just like it was under the old rules. If, however, no candidate clears the 50% barrier, then the 10 base, at-large delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the statewide vote to all candidates who receive at least 20% of the vote. The remaining 15 district delegates will be allocated on a winner-take-all basis according to the top vote-getter in each congressional district.

Those are details, but what are the implications?

Well, first of all, the change was not entirely necessary. With the primary in the Nutmeg state falling after April 1, no change to the winner-take-all allocation rules of the past was required. Actually, this plan is one that would pass muster with the RNC in the pre-April 1 proportional window. Allocating those base, at-large delegates proportionally according to the statewide vote is the only change to the past Connecticut Republican Party rules that is mandated by the national party delegate selection rules.

It is curious, then, that Connecticut Republicans opted to make any change at all. These are rules better fit for a March 6 primary than an April 24 primary. The prime motivation seems to have been to attract the candidates to the state.

"My belief is this could make Connecticut a little more attractive to our Republican presidential candidates in terms of their attention," Jerry Labriola Jr., the state's GOP chairman, told Greenwich Time in an interview Wednesday.
Labriola also told JC Reindl of The Day...
"We certainly have a lot of [candidates] who are in Connecticut's airspace flying to New Hampshire, but it would be nice to see some of them touch down in Connecticut," Jerry Labriola Jr., chairman of the state Republican Party, said in an interview Thursday.
This seems counterintuitive. If the idea is to get candidate attention later in the race, then would not the prospect of taking away from Connecticut a net 25 delegate gain -- from the winner's perspective -- be better than a far smaller margin between the winner and those candidates clearing 20% of the vote? Why fight over less unless it is a close race? But even then, it would be the competitiveness of the race that drives the candidates to the state and not the delegate change.

Let's game this out a bit, shall we?

Let us suppose that the field has been winnowed to two by mid-April before the northeast/Mid-Atlantic regional primary (Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) on April 24. New York is winner-take-all if a candidate wins a majority and proportional otherwise. Rhode Island is straight proportional. Delaware is straight winner-take-all. Pennsylvania is a loophole primary. The biggest delegate gain, then, is likely to come from New York on that day. Well, the candidates would be motivated to spend time and money there in the hopes of winning a majority theoretically. There is no perceived gain for Connecticut in switching.

Let's further assume that those two remaining candidates are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney and that the competition for delegates is close.  That is a tough week for Perry on the surface and rejiggers the scenario with generic, nameless candidates above. Presumably, Perry has a few options. One is to focus his efforts on North Carolina, Indiana and West Virginia -- more favorable territory on paper -- on May 8; two weeks down the road. In a close race, though, that is ceding a lot of ground to Romney. Plus, this is a date and a series of contests that is being circled on a lot of calendars as the first point at which Romney could lock up the nomination -- or force a Perry exit -- if the race has become a protracted one.  If only for those reasons, Perry would almost be forced to compete in those states.

But where would he compete? The motivation would be to keep Romney from winning a majority in New York (Romney's is the opposite strategy.). Delaware and Connecticut would be natural choices, but Romney would have the same thought. But again, in Connecticut's case the attention would be dependent upon the dynamics of the race and not the rules (Note to self: not that Connecticut Republicans particularly care about that.).

One additional layer to add to this is that Ron Paul, if he decides to stick around in the race as a spoiler, could have an impact. That impact, though would be less on the delegate race than on the vote totals each candidate manages. Even at his best in 2008, Ron Paul rarely topped 20% of the vote in any nominating contest during the Republican primaries. And the four instances in which that occurred were all in caucus states. In a state like Connecticut in 2012, not clearing 20% of the vote means not receiving any delegates. But Paul's vote total could affect the top two candidates. It could more likely keep one of them under 50% and deny Perry or Romney an outright winner-take-all win that otherwise would have gone their way if Paul had not been in the race.

[NOTE: That type of threshold will be more likely in earlier states as they change their rules to meet the proportional requirement. And that has additional implications.]

Conceivably, Paul continuing in the race could help Perry out by hurting Romney in states like New York or Connecticut, where a majority win means winner-take-all allocation. That could lead Perry to focus all of his efforts on Delaware and Pennsylvania where the rules, if not the territory, are potentially more accommodating.

Yes, this scenario analysis is putting the cart WAY before the horse, but -- and this is a big but -- if the race remains competitive into April these are the sorts of discussions that will be going on in campaign headquarters. The lesson of 2008, one that won't necessarily be repeated in 2012, is that rules matter, but that they particularly matter in hotly contested delegate battles. The rules change in Connecticut is a bit of a head-scratcher because it runs against the grain of what the RNC intended with their overall shift in the delegate selection rules: that early states be punished by losing some of their winner-take-all clout and later states be rewarded with a choice of how to allocate. Often that was discussed in the media as a reward of being able to choose winner-take-all rules, post-April 1. But that hasn't really happened overall or in Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut moved in the opposite direction.



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

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Michigan Presidential Primary Bill Signed into Law: Primary Set for February 28

[Click to Enlarge]

Michigan has not represented a threat to the calendar -- at least not to jump any further forward than February 28 -- since the Michigan Republican Party passed a resolution calling on the Republican-controlled state legislature to set a date between the last Tuesday in February and the first Tuesday in March. At the end, Michigan is in the calendar spot it was in since its non-compliant January 15 primary was held in 2008; the fourth Tuesday in February date called for by state law.

That was solidified when the state legislature in September passed a bill keeping the date on February 28 but also "closing" the presidential primary.1 That bill (SB 584) -- including the presidential primary date -- was signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder (R). Michigan, then, officially became non-compliant today. With a pre-March 6 date, Wolverine state Republicans will lose half of their delegation to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

For a history of the process to change/keep the primary date Michigan follow the Michigan post history. And find an updated 2012 presidential primary calendar here.

--
1 The primary is not formally closed as in other states. Primary voters are required to sign a sworn statement that they are a member of the party of the ballot they are requesting.


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

Update on Nevada: Republican Caucuses Before January 21

This probably does not come as stunning news, but the Nevada Republican Party has, according to Laura Myers at the Las Vegas Review Journal, decided to hold its precinct caucuses on a date prior to January 21.
GOP Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian said Nevada doesn't want to compete with South Carolina for attention from the candidates, who had to choose between the two states the last time around.
...
"We want to make sure the presidential candidates play here in Nevada," Tarkanian said Monday after South Carolina set its date. "We want to be a focus and absolutely not go the same day."
In sum, that means a few things:

  1. Nevada Republicans will not hold caucuses simultaneous with the South Carolina Republican primary in 2012 as the party did in 2008. In other words, Nevada's Republicans are attempting to carve out their own distinct date within the pre-window period; one with enough distance between it and the South Carolina primary that does not require the candidates to choose between the two.
  2. This eliminates Saturday, January 21 as a possibility for Nevada. 
  3. And that, in turn, means that if the party sticks to its resolution to hold caucuses on the Saturday after New Hampshire, there are only two options left that are actually on the 2012 calendar: January 7 and 14. 

Again, the resolution to the conflict between the Nevada Republican resolution (setting the caucuses the Saturday after New Hampshire) and the New Hampshire state law (requiring a week between it and the next contest) will decide how many options are open to both states in addition to Iowa. Something will have to give. Either New Hampshire will seek out a non-Tuesday primary date or Nevada Republicans will abandon weekend caucuses. Absent a Nevada change, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner is likely to pull the trigger on the nuclear option: a December primary (or at least threaten it).

That yields a choice set, something like this:
December 26-30 or January 2-3: Iowa
January 3, 7 or 10: New Hampshire
January 14 or 17: Nevada
The January 17 option for Nevada is probably slightly more probable than anything else, but that depends on whether the Nevada Republican Party judges that four day period between it and South Carolina to be a long enough space of time. Nevada is, perhaps, unfairly feeling the pinch here. South Carolina got to provide itself with enough space between its primary and Florida's, and now New Hampshire is requiring Nevada to give it space. Stuck in the middle with seemingly very little say is Nevada. Well, Nevada Republicans think they have some say, but they are and will continue to find out that that isn't not the reality.



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

Bill Gardner Discusses New Hampshire/Nevada on Face to Face

Jon Ralston tonight on Face to Face took a call from New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to chat about the next looming conflict to determine the final 2012 presidential primary calendar.1 At issue, as FHQ has discussed, is the discrepancy between the longstanding New Hampshire election law that requires seven days between the primary in the Granite state and the immediately subsequent primary or caucus and a newly-enacted Nevada Republican Party resolution tethering the party's caucuses to the Saturday following the New Hampshire primary. Many have tried the same thing and many have failed. As Secretary Gardner stated in the interview, several states in the 1990s attempted unsuccessfully to schedule their contests for the same date as New Hampshire. Wyoming Republicans in 2007 had a similar resolution to Nevada's on the books before rewriting it and moving the state's county meetings to January 5. Delaware scheduled a Saturday after New Hampshire primary in 2000 but it was non-binding on the Democratic delegate selection process in the First state.

The point is, Bill Gardner has seen a great number of states challenge New Hampshire's first in the nation status, but none has succeeded. The man is undefeated in keeping New Hampshire first since he -- the only secretary of state in New Hampshire during the time -- was given the authority to set the date in 1976 (based on the 1975 law cited in the segment below). If only for that reason alone, it might be worth taking Gardner at his word that New Hampshire will get what it wants: a seven day buffer between it and any subsequent contest.

But why?

Part of it, as I have mentioned, is that there is a collective desire on the part of the early, exempt states to avoid pushing this into December. To cross that barrier means to put the privileged positions the early states enjoy even further under microscope when the next round of delegate selection rules is crafted starting during the conventions next year, but in earnest during 2014. None wants to be the one to push the calendar into December, but I take Gardner at his word that he will do that if that is the only way to preserve New Hampshire's status. I would contend that it is a bluff, but we have never and probably will never know because when these sorts of conflicts arise, New Hampshire is not the one to blink.

Again, why?

New Hampshire is good at what it does. No, not necessarily in terms of picking nominees or presidents, but in quickly and flawlessly staging early presidential primaries. There is likely not another state that can more quickly get the infrastructure in place to hold a presidential primary. That ability coupled with the flexibility of the date decision resting in the hands of just one actor has made New Hampshire an unparalleled force at the front of the presidential nomination process throughout the post-reform era and stretching back further still.

New Hampshire can play chicken, then, like no other. They can wait and wait and wait, all the time knowing that they can put a primary together quicker than their competition and run it more smoothly. That places a great deal of pressure on other states. Not only is the clock running down on them to decide, but they too have to get a presidential nomination contest planned, prepped and ready to go.

And in this particular instance, Gardner and New Hampshire have a trump card. They know full well that every second is going to count for the Nevada Republican Party based on the party's mismanaged caucus convention system four years ago. South Carolina was on the same date and even with the candidates' attention on the Palmetto state, Nevada had problems in its trial run as an early state contest. Those problems persisted throughout the process. Ron Paul, who finished second at the precinct level, had enough delegates make it through to completely disrupt the 2008 state convention. It was cancelled and the state party's central committee chose the delegates to attend the convention in St. Paul. And as of a month and a half ago, the planning was still underway for 2012.

Not wanting to repeat that and not knowing when the caucuses will ultimately be held will weigh heavily on the Nevada Republican Party between now and their October 22 central committee meeting. And Bill Gardner will still be talking about going in December then. That would give Nevada Republicans less than two months to prepare for their caucuses if they are to go on the Saturday following New Hampshire. That won't be ideal for them.

...and Bill Gardner knows it.

--
1 Below is the Face to Face show from October 3. The segment in which Bill Gardner appears is right after the opening and some other news.




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

Monday, October 3, 2011

"Avoid[ing] front-loading of primaries and caucuses in the current cycle proved fruitless."

That's John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader post-South Carolina earlier today.

Man, I couldn't disagree more. This has been one of the most frustrating things about the conversation around the primary calendar in 2012. This cycle has been unlike any other for primary movement in general. After over a generation of states gradually pushing their primaries and caucuses forward -- closer and closer to the beginning of the process -- that take away is understandable. But it is wrong. In the sense that states have set non-compliant dates in 2011 and pushed the early four states up to the beginning of the calendar year, 2012 is a repeat of 2008 and seemingly a continuation of the past.

But folks, that isn't frontloading. That's "front". The "loading" part has been completely absent. What marked the 1972-2008 period was that not only were states moving their nominating contests to earlier dates, but they were clustering more and more around each other on the earliest allowed date. This was most pronounced in the hyper-frontloaded 2000 and 2008 calendars. 2004 was an exception to the rule because in that cycle Democrats opened the window in which contests could be held to include February. Some states took advantage of the opportunity and moved up to February, decreasing the volume of states on the first Tuesday in March -- still Super Tuesday that year. But with both parties nominations at stake in 2008 a great many states were motivated to move into February and most moved to the earliest allowed date: the first Tuesday in February.

Go and look at that 2008 calendar again. Now go look at 2012. The first Tuesday in March 2012 -- the earliest allowed date -- is still the date on which the most contests are being held, but only marginally so. That isn't Tsunami Tuesday. Heck, that is a Super Tuesday a month later than in 2008. There is no similar compression there [in 2012] to either 2008 or 2000. Better yet, go and look at the first 2012 calendar FHQ put together in -- yeah, I'll admit to it -- December 2008. There are twenty primary states scheduled in January or February based on state law at that time. That was before the informal coordination of the rules between the RNC and DNC in 2009 and 2010 -- rules that put in place the early four states in February, everyone else in March or later rules regime. Following the establishment of the rules, fifteen of those primary states moved back in in order to comply.  Two -- Arkansas and Illinois -- had already moved back by the time the rules were crafted, leaving Florida, Michigan and Arizona as the only states that stayed in either January or February.  And if that wasn't enough, none of the three have moved up. Hardly even the "front" mentioned above. But I'll gloss over that.

Was the effort to combat frontloading fruitless? No, it wasn't. A .850 winning percentage is not the record of a loser. It speaks otherwise. FHQ should also add that we don't buy the RNC's goalpost-moving reaction to Florida last week either.
"While the primaries will now start earlier than planned, the overarching goal of the current rules was to allow more states and voters to have a role in choosing the next Republican nominee for president. This goal will be met," said RNC spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski.
In a scenario where all it takes is one state to overturn the applecart, though, all it took was Florida to jump into January to destroy the best laid plans at the RNC. And another RNC official alluded to as much later:
"One state changed the dynamic," said an RNC official, speaking of the calendar goal.
In other words, there is such a small margin for error that it is almost impossible to claim victory from a rules perspective in any cycle. Again, where the problem lies is with the penalties, not the rules. But that is a story for another time. The bottom line is that this calendar, even in the most pessimistic of views, is not a frontloaded calendar. No states moved forward and there isn't nearly as much compression at the front as there was four years ago. Look closely at what follows Florida in February -- not much. This is an early calendar, but it is not a frontloaded one.  Frontloading takes moving forward and clustering, neither of which we've gotten.



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

South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary to January 21

[Click to Enlarge]

CNN is reporting that the South Carolina Republican Party will choose a January 21 date for its presidential primary.1 The date puts South Carolina ten days before the recently-scheduled Florida primary; just as it was in 2008. The move also places a great deal of pressure on the remaining three early states -- Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada -- to fit their contests into a 17 day window from January 1-17. Realistically, the three will be shoehorned into an even smaller window based on the holidays.

As FHQ mentioned last night, any date earlier than January 24 for the South Carolina primary risks pushing the process into December. This brings into starker contrast the proposed four day window between Nevada and New Hampshire, a Nevada Republican Party rule that violates New Hampshire law. According to New Hampshire law, no similar contest can can be held within a week after New Hampshire's primary. More accurately, the New Hampshire primary cannot be scheduled for a date that is within a week after the primary in the Granite state.

Again, how that difference is resolved with determine the final calendar. And the task just got harder. It can still be done, but the Nevada Republican Party will have to change its rule that places its caucuses on the Saturday after New Hampshire.

That would look something like this:

Monday, January 2: Iowa
Tuesday, January 10: New Hampshire
Tuesday, January 17: Nevada
Saturday, January 21: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

I don't know what the feeling in Nevada is about Tuesday caucus meetings, but the Nevada GOP may have to warm to the idea. The alternative is that New Hampshire either opts to push the button and hold a primary in December or New Hampshire pushes its primary up to a point that forces Iowa to slip into late December.

But as I said yesterday, get ready for an increased level of December threats coming from New Hampshire.

--
1 Here is the release from the South Carolina Republican Party:

SCGOP Chairman Connelly announces 2012 Presidential Primary dateFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PARTY
Columbia, S.C. – SCGOP Chairman Chad Connelly today announced South Carolina’s 2012 Republican Presidential Primary date. Chairman Connelly commented: 
“Last Friday, a nine person committee brought chaos to the 2012 calendar. Today, South Carolina is making things right. 
“South Carolina Republicans have a thirty year track record of picking the eventual Republican Presidential nominee. We will continue that historic tradition on January 21, 2012. 
“It will undoubtedly be a spirited campaign to make Barack Obama just the worst ONE term President in American history. We are united in this mission, and any candidate who ignores South Carolina does so at great peril.” 
Additional Note: In conjunction with Fox News, the South Carolina Republican Party will also host a “First in the South” Republican Debate in the days leading up to the primary.



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

Sunday, October 2, 2011

South Carolina GOP to Weigh in on Presidential Primary Date Monday at 11am

The State (Columbia, SC) is reporting that the South Carolina Republican Party will make known the date of their 2012 presidential primary Monday morning at 11am. Coming on the heels of the Florida move to January 31 and subsequent backlash from representatives from the first four primary and caucus states -- South Carolina included -- the expectation, nay, the foregone conclusion, is that Republicans from the Palmetto state will jump Florida as the party did four years ago. But the question that remains is just how far up the South Carolina Republican Party will move the Palmetto state Republican primary.

Chad Connelly, the South Carolina Republican Party chair, said Thursday -- before the Florida move, but when January 31 was considered a near lock for the Sunshine state primary -- that the party would shift to a point that was ahead of Florida, but that was as late as it could possibly be held. Connelly's 2007 counterpart at the helm of the party, Katon Dawson, allowed ten days between the January 19 South Carolina Republican primary and the January 29 Florida primary. In 2012, though, a full ten day cushion is a result that will get a fair amount of cross-pressure from the Republican National Committee. South Carolina on January 21 pushes Nevada up to January 14 pushes New Hampshire up to January 3 or 10 pushes Iowa up to a date between December 26 and January 2.

Each of the early four states is in the midst of a delicate dance to carve out a calendar position that gives them each a piece of the spotlight and provides them with enough time to bask in it. The spotlight is there, but the time is what is at stake now in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. All four want to avoid a situation where they force any of the other early states into or have to hold contests in December. If the goal is to preserve the early status, those four states have to find a way to work out their differences and schedule their contests in the now-30 day window that Florida has given them.

As fourth in line, South Carolina is the first to move. But how much space between the South Carolina Republican primary and the contest in Florida is enough? Chad Beam at The State has an extremely succinct rundown of the complications in the primary date calculus facing Chair Connelly and his party:

Earlier this week, Connelly said if Florida “pushes us real hard, I’m going to cut them off as close as I can,” scheduling South Carolina’s primary as close as possible before Florida’s primary in an effort to diminish the attention that state’s race gets. In theory, leaving little time between the two primaries, makes it more difficult for a candidate to lose South Carolina and, then, overcome that loss and win Florida.
But it’s a dangerous game.
If Connelly picks a date that is too close to Florida’s Jan. 31 primary, he could force candidates to choose between Florida and South Carolina. And, if he pushes the S.C. date too early into January, then he could push caucuses and primaries in the other early-voting states – Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada – into the Christmas holidays.

That notion of being too close to Florida and forcing candidates to choose between the two has to weigh heavily on the decision-making calculus in South Carolina. There are two constraints here. One is that South Carolina wants to go as late as possible, but not too close to Florida. Secondly, South Carolina can push only so far forward without negatively affecting the other three states who have yet to decide. If January 21 is too early and January 28 is the latest possible date that South Carolina could conceivably hold its primary without going on the same date as Florida, then that is the window in which we are looking for possibilities. If the intent is to keep the primary on a Tuesday or a Saturday, then Tuesday, January 24 and Saturday, January 28 are the only real possibilities.

But to find out for sure, check back in here at 11:00 in the morning.



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

Nevada to Move Caucuses to January, Date Remains Unsettled

After a Friday night and Saturday flirtation with the idea of holding February caucuses after Florida and remaining in compliance with RNC rules, the Nevada Republican Party Executive Committee Saturday night voted to push the caucuses past the Sunshine state and into January (via Laura Myers at the Las Vegas Review Journal):
"We think the convention has become a bit of a formality," said former Nevada Gov. Robert List, an executive board member who voted to approve the move. "Our nominee will be decided by then. Forfeiting a few delegates is not nearly as important as preserving the very important role Nevada has now as an early voting state." 
Tarkanian held out hope Nevada could work something out with the RNC to allow all of its delegates some role at the convention. 
GOP Committeewoman Heidi Smith was the only member of the executive board who voted against moving the caucuses to January. She said it wasn't worth losing delegates or violating the rules.
Scrap those Nevada in February scenarios and let's get back to the question at hand. While a date for the Nevada Republican caucuses was not set yesterday, the state party chose not to alter the newly enacted rule that links the Republican caucuses in the Silver state with the primary in New Hampshire. That would place the Nevada Republican caucuses on the Saturday following New Hampshire, a violation of New Hampshire state law.

Here again are the likely scenarios:

Option 1 (New Hampshire waits out Nevada and goes 11 days earlier)
Monday, January 2: Iowa
Tuesday, January 10: New Hampshire
Saturday, January 21: Nevada
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Option 2 (Nevada chooses a non-Saturday to hold caucuses)
Tuesday, January 10: Iowa (BCS championship on January 9 pushes Iowa to Tuesday)
Tuesday, January 17: New Hampshire
Tuesday, January 24: Nevada
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Option 3 (New Hampshire breaks its own law)
Tuesday, January 10: Iowa (BCS championship on January 9 pushes Iowa to Tuesday)
Tuesday, January 17: New Hampshire
Saturday, January 21: Nevada
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Option 3a (New Hampshire opts for a non-Tuesday primary date)
Saturday, January 7: Iowa
Saturday, January 14: New Hampshire
Saturday, January 21: Nevada
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida
The final calendar, then, hinges on how the showdown between New Hampshire and Nevada is resolved. History and the mechanics of primary/caucus movement are not on Nevada's side. New Hampshire will not break its own law and the legislature there is unlikely to chance it to accommodate Nevada. The possibility also exists for New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner to set the primary in the Granite state for a day other than Tuesday. That option, however, is a stretch in FHQ's opinion. That is why we list it as a suboption and not a separate scenario of its own. New Hampshire doing anything other than holding a primary at least a week prior to any similar contest just isn't in the cards.

...and Secretary Gardner knows it.

That is why we should all buckle in and prepare for three weeks of "primaries in December" talk. There will not be December primaries or caucuses, but that doesn't mean that we won't hear the threat of New Hampshire breaking the barrier into 2011 from every corner of the Granite state for the next few days and weeks. That threat is the only tool Bill Gardner has left at his disposal as leverage in this dispute with Nevada Republicans. The question is will Nevada Republicans call his bluff.

And it is a bluff. Nothing would threaten Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina and their privileged positions at the front of the calendar more than for one or more of those states to jump into the calendar year prior to the presidential election. Florida has already -- once again -- raised the issue of the inherent in a set of toothless penalties, but a December Iowa caucus or New Hampshire primary would put on the tables at both national parties a deeper reexamination of the rules around the nomination process if not the process itself.

In other words, it would be terribly counterproductive and shortsighted for any of the early states to break the 2011 barrier. It would potentially be a short-term gain, preserving a position that might not exist in future cycles.

Perhaps.

But the focus should not be on Bill Gardner and New Hampshire. Instead, it should be on Nevada and the state Republican Party there. Look no further than Robert List's comments above. Nevada values their new early status. They don't want to lose that. Losing delegates is fine, but losing that spot is not. The December threat is a bluff, but ultimately Nevada will fold.  Time is running out to set a date and Gardner can and will wait to set a date longer than virtually any other state. Iowa may hold out longer, but that's it. Nevada is not on that list. Why? The party still has to organize the caucus process, did not do a solid job of that in 2008 and is off to a slow start for 2012. A shorter run up to the Nevada caucuses is not in the Nevada Republican Party's best interest.

Again, Bill Gardner knows this and will use a steady drumbeat of December New Hampshire primary lines over the next few weeks. That and the backlash from it will likely wear on Nevada Republicans, forcing their hand, and likely triggering a revision of the Nevada Republican party rules to decouple the caucus date from the New Hampshire primary at the already-scheduled October 22 Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee meeting.



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

Saturday, October 1, 2011

The Nevada GOP Blinks Presidential Primary Calendar Scenario

A day ago FHQ looked at the post-Florida 2012 presidential primary calendar landscape. Contrary to a great many reports about "calendar chaos", FHQ is of the opinion that the Florida decision to hold a January 31 primary was 1) completely predictable and has been throughout much of 2011, and 2) provides calendar watchers with more information. In the case of the latter, with one more threat to the primary calendar officially on the calendar, the number of scenarios for the remaining states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- and the calendar are significantly reduced.

FHQ pegged the number of scenarios left at three or maybe four. Two of those require some give on New Hampshire's end: either breaking a state law that requires seven days between the primary in the Granite state and the next contest or moving the traditionally Tuesday primary to a non-Tuesday. Neither of those are likely. As FHQ noted yesterday, if there is to be any give in the conflict between New Hampshire state election law and Nevada Republican bylaws, it will be the latter.1

In fact, it looks as if Nevada Republicans are wavering, not because of any looming showdown with New Hampshire but because of Florida and the possibility of losing half of their delegates to jump and stay ahead of Florida. Yesterday's scenario analysis was predicated on the notion that the four "carve out" states would obviously move ahead of Florida. In the case of the Nevada GOP, however, that may not be the case. And as such, another scenario needs to be accounted for: a Nevada Republican caucus behind Florida, sometime in early February.

Here again are the previous scenarios with the new Nevada scenario at the end:

Option 1 (New Hampshire waits out Nevada and goes 11 days earlier)
Monday, January 2: Iowa
Tuesday, January 10: New Hampshire
Saturday, January 21: Nevada
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Option 2 (Nevada chooses a non-Saturday to hold caucuses)
Tuesday, January 10: Iowa (BCS championship on January 9 pushes Iowa to Tuesday)
Tuesday, January 17: New Hampshire
Tuesday, January 24: Nevada
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Option 3 (New Hampshire breaks its own law)
Tuesday, January 10: Iowa (BCS championship on January 9 pushes Iowa to Tuesday)
Tuesday, January 17: New Hampshire
Saturday, January 21: Nevada
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Option 3a (New Hampshire opts for a non-Tuesday primary date)2
Saturday, January 7: Iowa
Saturday, January 14: New Hampshire
Saturday, January 21: Nevada
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Option 4 (Nevada Republicans choose to stay in February)
Tuesday, January 10: Iowa (BCS championship on January 9 pushes Iowa to Tuesday)
Tuesday, January 17: New Hampshire
Saturday, January 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida
Saturday, February 4: Nevada

New Hampshire and Iowa get what they want out of that potential calendar alignment, but I don't know that the "three contests in a week" possibility serves South Carolina, Florida and Nevada all that well. The results in South Carolina and Florida would have very little time to resonate before the next contest. We can call that the New Hampshire rule. Allowing for some time between one's primary and the next one to maximize the amount of attention paid to, in this case, New Hampshire is the primary reason state law in the Granite state requires the post-primary seven day buffer. But does that same rule apply or even count in South Carolina and/or Florida? In South Carolina, where there were overtures of coordinating a tandem move with Florida -- one with a similar three day separation between contests -- ahead of Arizona/Michigan in the past, that same buffer is not necessarily required, nor is it necessarily a party of the calculus. That, however, was before Florida made the jump into January, and all bets may now be off on South Carolina's end because of that.

As for the space between Florida and a potential February Nevada Republican caucus, we have to look at Nevada for answers. Florida is locked into January 31, and none of the early states are willing to do Republicans in the Sunshine state any favors. In other words, Florida cannot do anything if other states are considered "too close" to them. Nevada Republicans are the only ones with the ability to make a date change in that relationship -- between Nevada and Florida. Where it might hurt Nevada to go on, say, Saturday, February 4 is that candidates may not focus on Nevada as much as in a situation, alternatively, where Nevada goes on Tuesday, February 7, a week after Florida. That is three more days of attention. Yes, such a move would also put Nevada on the same day as the non-binding caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, but Nevada would be sharing February 4 with at least some caucuses in Maine as well. With delegates on the line at the precinct level, Nevada would be a bigger draw to the candidates on either date.

What does all of this mean?

Option 5 (Space between South Carolina, Florida and February Nevada is an issue)
Tuesday, January 10: Iowa (BCS championship on January 9 pushes Iowa to Tuesday)
Tuesday, January 17: New Hampshire
Saturday, January 24 or 28: South Carolina
Tuesday, January 31: Florida
Saturday, February 4 or 7: Nevada

This is the option with suboptions. If the length of time between it and Florida is an issue, South Carolina Republicans can move up as early as February 24 without pushing New Hampshire and Iowa up even further. Nevada will also have an option. They could follow Florida by just four days -- something they were willing enough to change their rules to do in relation to New Hampshire -- or shift back three more days to a week after Florida on February 7.

The Nevada Republican Party Central Committee is set to have another emergency meeting tonight and that may shed some light on all of this. It could also be that the party leaves it unsettled or jumps into January after discussions with the RNC and the other three early states.

--
1 New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, the one entrusted with the primary date decision in the Granite state, has nine previous cycles proven that he will take a "by any means necessary" approach to retaining the state's first in the nation primary status. Calling Gardner adept at maneuvering New Hampshire through countless calendar shuffles/threats over the years is an understatement.

2 We really should call this one the "news media hates the early states" option. All those consecutive Saturday contests would be a bear to cover.



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

Friday, September 30, 2011

The 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar (9/30/11)

Florida and Wisconsin now have official dates on the calendar.

[Click to Enlarge]


2012 Presidential Primary Calendar

Yet to decide/be confirmed:
Iowa Republicans
New Hampshire
Nevada Republicans
South Carolina Republicans
Missouri Democrats

January 2012
Tuesday, January 31: Florida


February 2012
Monday, February 6:
Iowa Democratic caucuses  (based on DNC rules and submitted delegate selection plan)

Saturday, February 4:
(through February 11) Maine Republican caucuses 


Tuesday, February 7:
Colorado Republican caucuses 
Minnesota Republican caucuses
Missouri (non-binding)

Saturday, February 18:
Nevada Democratic caucuses (based on DNC rules and submitted delegate selection plan)

Tuesday, February 28:
Arizona
Michigan (bill keeping primary on February 28 awaiting gubernatorial action)
South Carolina Democratic primary (based on DNC rules and submitted delegate selection plan)

March 2012
Saturday, March 3:
Washington Republican caucuses


Tuesday, March 6 (Super Tuesday):
Alaska Republican district conventions
Colorado Democratic caucuses 
Georgia
Idaho Republican caucuses 
Massachusetts (active legislation would move primary to June -- unlikely to pass)
Minnesota Democratic caucuses 
North Dakota Republican caucuses
Ohio
Oklahoma 
Tennessee 
Texas 
Vermont
Virginia
(through March 10) Wyoming Republican caucuses

Saturday, March 10: 
Kansas Republican caucuses


Sunday, March 11:
Maine Democratic caucuses


Tuesday, March 13:
Alabama 
Hawaii Republican caucuses
Mississippi
Utah Democratic caucuses

Saturday, March 17:
Missouri Republican caucuses


Tuesday, March 20
Illinois

Saturday, March 24:
Louisiana 


April 2012
Tuesday, April 3:
Maryland
Washington, DC
Wisconsin

Saturday, April 7:
Hawaii Democratic caucuses
Wyoming Democratic caucuses

Saturday, April 14:
Idaho Democratic caucuses 
Kansas Democratic caucuses 
Nebraska Democratic caucuses

Sunday, April 15:
Alaska Democratic caucuses
(through May 5Florida Democratic caucuses
Washington Democratic caucuses

Tuesday, April 24:
Connecticut
Delaware
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island 


May 2012
Saturday, May 5:
Michigan Democratic caucuses


Tuesday, May 8:
Indiana
North Carolina (active legislation would move primary to March 6 -- unlikely to pass)
West Virginia

Tuesday, May 15:
Nebraska
Oregon

Tuesday, May 22:
Arkansas 
Kentucky 


June 2012
Tuesday, June 5:
California
Montana
New Jersey 
New Mexico
North Dakota Democratic caucuses
South Dakota

Tuesday, June 26:
Utah (Republicans only) 




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