Friday, June 16, 2023

DeSantis is flirting with the qualifying thresholds in the delegate game

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...
  • FHQ has spent most of the week at Plus on state-level Republican delegate selection rules coming into clearer view. But there are a number of other things that have happened on the calendar and rules fronts throughout the week. 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...
...
Coming on the week of a second indictment of Donald Trump, there continues to be a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. 

Now, whether it is a lagging indicator of things -- or is accurately depicting any of that uncertainty -- the polling of the contest paints a clear enough picture: Trump is ahead and his lead has even increased in some state and national polls in recent days. [There is also an argument that the former president's position has been fairly stable since mid-May.] But Trump hovering in a range from 47-53 percent, as he has done since April in the national polls, is pretty immaterial when considered through the lens of the ultimately currency of the nomination process: delegates. Trump hitting anywhere in that range is going to help him rack up a lot, if not all, of delegates in primaries and caucuses next year. 

And while nothing is set in stone at this point -- the first votes will not even be cast for another 7-ish months -- the Trump number is potentially less significant than those of his opponents for the nomination. That is because, as of now, few others are actually in range of actually qualifying for any delegates. Most of the announced candidates are mired in the single digits. But even Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Trump's main competition and the next closest in the polls, is flirting with the median qualifying threshold in states on or before Super Tuesday on March 5. 

In fact, DeSantis hovers just over that point -- 20 percent -- in the averages at both FiveThirtyEight and Real Clear Politics. Fall below that point in the actual voting and that means no or very few delegates (depending on how the allocation rules are set up) in ten of the 20 states that are likely to hold contests on or before Super Tuesday. And among those ten are delegate-rich states like California, North Carolina and Texas, among others. 

Again, it is early. Things are apt to change in a dynamic nomination process with some measure of uncertainty. But it is worth noting that most of the non-Trumps are well below qualifying for delegates in most early states and the one closest to qualifying besides the former president is dangerous close to being on the outside looking in as well. That is a potentially big deal if the trend persists.


...
FHQ linked yesterday to the NBC story about DeSantis heading out to early state, Nevada, this weekend. But there were a couple of other items in there worth addressing. I will deal with one one here and the other later. The first...
"The Republican National Committee has not yet finalized its primary calendar, but Nevada state law now calls for the state's primary to be held on Feb. 6. That would likely place it just behind Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina among the early states that can boost (or sink) candidates' momentum in the race for the presidential nomination."
Forget all of the positioning among the early states for a moment. Yes, that is uncertain. But that first line is wrong and is typical of the misunderstanding about how the rules and the primary calendar come together each cycle. The RNC has finalized its primary calendar. It did so in April 2022 when it again set Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada as the early states on the 2024 calendar. 

That order is implied, but obviously it may not end up that way for a variety of reasons. But the point here is less the order than the sequence in the rules-making process. The RNC has done its work. It adopted in April 2022 the rules that will govern the 2024 nomination process. It is the states and state parties that are now active as they always are in the year before the presidential race commences. It is those state-level actors who have not yet finalized the calendar for the Republican (or the Democratic one, for that matter) process yet.

Yeah, I get it. This is splitting hairs. But again, the RNC has done its work on the calendar. All the national party can do now is react to any misbehaving the states and state parties do relative to those set guidelines. The ball is in the states' court.


...
From around the invisible primary...
In the travel primary both Nikki Haley and Tim Scott will be back home in the Palmetto state next week for town halls on consecutive days. Haley holds one in the Lowcountry on Monday, June 19 and Scott has his with Sean Hannity from Myrtle Beach in the Pee Dee region on Tuesday, June 20.


...
On this date...
...in 1999, Vice President Al Gore officially entered the race for the 2000 Democratic nomination.

...in 2015, Donald Trump came down the escalator and announced a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

...in 2016, just after the conclusion of primary season, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders addressed his supporters via video, saying that Democrats' top priority is defeating Donald Trump in the general election. Sanders did not concede the race to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, nor did he endorse her for the nomination. 



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, June 15, 2023

Who ends up embarrassed if Iowa and New Hampshire go rogue in 2024?

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...
  • In case you missed it, Idaho Republicans have a pair of proposals the state party is considering for earlier than usual delegate allocation and selection in the Gem state in 2024. 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...
...
FHQ has decreasingly little patience for clickbait that masquerades as a story about the primary calendar. And that is what this latest piece from Alex Thompson at Axios is: clickbait. The only thing new in there to most folks who do not obsessively follow the ins and outs of the calendar is that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting Friday, June 16 to start the process of reviewing 2024 delegate selection plans submitted by the state parties. 

No, I could not even get through the headline before I got cranky about it. 

Headline: Biden could lose first two ’24 contests to RFK Jr.

I mean, Thompson ultimately points out what other reporting has revealed. That Presidential Biden will not be on the ballot in any rogue state in 2024. Yet, somehow that is the headline. 

Remember when the Denver Nuggets recently lost the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals to the Vegas Golden Knights? Neither do I. The Nuggets were not on the ice. They were not facing off against the Knights. That may not be fair. That may not be a good analogy. But come on. Biden cannot lose a contest where he is not on the ballot. That is not to say Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cannot win those contests, but he will not have beaten Biden in so doing. 

And that leads to... "That sets up a scenario in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or another long-shot Democrat could win those states — and embarrass the president."

Maybe it would be embarrassing to Team Biden if some fringe candidate were to win one or two rogue contests. It would not affect the president much in the delegate count. There will not be any delegates at stake in any rogue state contests. But it would not necessarily be a good look for the president in the court of public opinion as the Republican primary season kicks off. Press accounts on this story really seem to like this angle. It promises future drama. 

But again, do you know who is going to be more embarrassed than the president and his campaign that Kennedy or Williamson or whomever wins rogue Iowa or New Hampshire? Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Here is that scenario: 
1) Your state party just defied the national party rules to stick with tradition and hold early contests. 

2) Those same state parties "embarrass" the president that the broader party network is trying to reelect for the short term benefit of going first. 

3) Someone other than the president wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire.

4) Those state parties pitch the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee -- the same one that rejected them for 2024 and whose rules those two states defied in response, leading to the 'embarrassment" of the president the whole party was trying to reelect -- on being a part of the early window of states for 2028. 

Who exactly is embarrassed in that scenario? In the long term, probably Iowa and New Hampshire. 

...should either or both go rogue. But that part of the story rarely sees the light of day in most press accounts.

But what about Iowa and/or New Hampshire? There is an important difference between those two; in how Democrats in each have reacted since the DNC adopted the calendar rules back in February.

Thompson does eventually get around to that too: "Iowa Democrats haven't been as publicly hostile over Biden's move. But in the past two months they've quietly moved to hold their contest the same day as Iowa Republicans — in January, but with a mail-in option for ballots."

So close. So very close. Yes, Iowa Democrats have behaved demonstrably differently than their peers in New Hampshire. Aside from the fact that Rules and Bylaws is meeting on Friday, that is -- or should be -- the lede here. But no, it gets buried in the piece and is followed by the overly dramatic and misleading "but they're going to caucus early anyway."

Yes, Iowa Democrats will caucus on the same night as Iowa Republicans some time next January. But we do not yet know when the vote-by-mail preference vote will occur. And by extension we do not yet know when delegates will be allocated. That is the important action that both the president and the DNC are and will be looking at. The delegate allocation. 

That is not to be confused with delegate selection which is proposed to start in Iowa at those January Democratic caucuses. Early selection is not a rogue activity in the eyes of the DNC. Perhaps this likening of delegate allocation/selection to getting and distributing Taylor Swift tickets would be helpful to Mr. Thompson (and others).

I get it. Drama gets folks to click. 

And while there is drama in the process of the 2024 presidential primary calendar coming together, it need not be overly and misleadingly amplified. That is what this story does. And it is not alone. There are others out there and they pop up in every cycle in which an incumbent is seeking reelection. The prospect of a ho-hum, incumbent renomination phase is not ideal for attention-grabbing headlines or stories. Remember those stories about all those Republican primaries and caucuses that got cancelled in 2019-20? They were built up in a similar fashion in the context of Trump's reelection efforts. It was a story, but one that only really only ultimately appealed to calendar/rules nerds like FHQ.  

At the end of the day, there just is not a lot of news in incumbents vying for renomination. Those folks tend to be pretty popular, or at least, popular enough within their own party. If they are not, it tends to draw legitimate challengers into the race. But there are no legitimate challengers in the race for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. And that is mostly boring. Just like Joe Biden.  


...
Seth Masket is good here on Trump and his opponents taking a position on pardoning the former president.


...
From around the invisible primary...

...
On this date...
...in 2015, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush formally entered the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Wednesday, June 14, 2023

Tim Scott is making it tough for others in South Carolina

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...
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...
...
Just yesterday FHQ responded to a report that some in the DeSantis orbit have been complaining about the two South Carolinians in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. But perhaps DeSantis world is not -- or should not be -- alone in the griping. It was already going to be a little cramped to have two South Carolina heavyweights involved in the contest, but Senator Tim Scott is not just making things difficult for the Florida governor. His recent and robust endorsement list from the Palmetto state and subsequent show of donor strength in South Carolina is only going to raise eyebrows in the contest-within-a-contest between Scott and former Governor Nikki Haley. 

In the zero-sum game that the invisible primary can sometimes be, Scott is seemingly inching ahead of Haley in some important metrics within South Carolina. That is taking endorsements and potentially South Carolina donors away from every other candidate. But it arguably stands to hurt Haley and DeSantis the most. It will potentially force Haley deeper into Iowa-or-bust mode and could help to crowd Team DeSantis out of the Palmetto state if Donald Trump continues to fly high there. 

[No, the DeSantis campaign is not going to completely abandon South Carolina. But the overall effort could refocus its resources elsewhere, deemphasizing the first-in-the-South primary if Scott continues to build out his forces there.]


...
Harry Enten is good over at CNN discussing Chris Christie's odds in the Republican presidential nomination race. Enten ends up in a place similar to where FHQ was last week in talking about the Republican primary debate qualification rules. It is not so much about where Christie is now. It is about where Trump and DeSantis are combined at this moment in the invisible primary. Both are gobbling up most of the support. That is a different environment for long shot candidates, an environment that has not been conducive to dark horse success in the past.


...
A day after the Rhode Island House unanimously passed SB 1010, the state Senate followed suit on Tuesday, June 13, concurring by a 37-0 vote on HB 6309. That is the House version of the same legislation to shift the presidential primary in the Ocean state up to April 2 for the 2024 cycle alone. As was the case on the House side with the concurrence on the Senate version, the lower chamber took up the Senate's measure as part of a 44 bill/appointment consent calendar. The primary bill was not considered by itself, but rather passed on one vote as part of the larger package.

Both primary bills now head to Governor Dan McKee (D) for his consideration. 


...
From around the invisible primary...
  • In the endorsement primary, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum picked up the endorsement of former North Dakota governor and current Senator John Hoeven on Tuesday. All of the US senators from the Dakotas are now off the board. South Dakota's Rounds and Thune are behind South Carolina Senator Tim Scott's bid and now North Dakota's Hoeven and Cramer have backed Burgum.
  • Oklahoma Senator James Lankford indicated that he intends to stay on the sidelines of the Republican presidential nomination race. Count Lankford among the pool of non-endorsements in the Republican invisible primary.
  • In the money primary, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is on swing through California raising funds ahead of the end of the quarter at the close of June. 
  • Over in the staff primary, Haley continues to fill out her Iowa team, naming Bill Mackey (Rep. Zach Nunn's former campaign manager) her director in the Hawkeye state. The former South Carolina governor also added state Sen. Chris Cournoyer and Rep. Austin Harris to her leadership team. Count those two as state legislative endorsements.

...
On this date...
...in 1976, Idaho Senator Frank Church ended his campaign for the Democratic nomination, throwing his support behind presumptive nominee, Jimmy Carter, and urging his delegates to do the same. 

...in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush won the North Dakota primary, the last contest on the calendar for the cycle. On the Democratic side, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis claimed victory in the beauty contest primary in the Peace Garden state. North Dakota Democrats had allocated and selected delegates through an earlier caucus process.

...in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the primary in the District of Columbia to close out primary season.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Tuesday, June 13, 2023

Are the Two South Carolinians Hurting DeSantis in the Palmetto State?

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...
  • Haven't had a chance to check out the latest deep dive on the proposed Michigan Republican hybrid primary-caucus plan to allocate delegates in 2024? Go check it out. But coming later at FHQ Plus, Michigan Republicans may not have the only pre-Super Tuesday (but compliant) contest on March 2. 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...
...
Some folks in the DeSantis orbit are, according to Shelby Talcott at Semafor, griping about the impact the crowded field is having on the Florida governor. In particular, the focus appears to be on the injurious effect the two South Carolinians in the race -- former Governor Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott -- are having on DeSantis in the Palmetto state. 

But assertions that Haley and Scott are only in the race in pursuit of a spot on the ticket with Trump or a  slot in a hypothetical Trump cabinet aside, is the pair hurting DeSantis now or likely to in the future in the first-in-the-South primary state? 

Talcott hints at the answer being yes in her piece, citing current Real Clear Politics averages of polls of the race in South Carolina. The former president checks in just above 40 percent, DeSantis is about half that and both Haley and Scott are hovering just over ten percent. If one combines DeSantis, Haley and Scott support, then yes, the conglomerate (presumably headed by DeSantis) is competitive with if not slightly ahead of Trump in the state. 

Yet, would Haley's and/or Scott's South Carolina support go to DeSantis if either or both were suddenly on the sidelines? There is some evidence outside of mere speculation that it would be. An April survey of Palmetto state Republicans from National Public Affairs, for example, showed that Haley's and Scott's support was more correlated with DeSantis than Trump. But while that is suggestive, it is just one poll.

And the presidential nomination process is, after all, sequential. What happens between now and the South Carolina primary early next year will have some impact on the course of that election. The remainder of the invisible primary will matter. The Iowa caucuses will matter. That primary in New Hampshire will matter as well in terms of what is likely to transpire in the South Carolina primary. Haley and Scott may stay in the race through the third contest. But either or both could also pull out so as not to be embarrassed at home.

If one is in the DeSantis camp, the first point to focus on may be the filing deadline for candidates in the Palmetto state. Regardless of whether Haley and/or Scott withdraw from the race after Iowa or New Hampshire, or whether either or both are on the ballot in South Carolina at all matters. If both South Carolinians are still actively in the race at that point, they may pull a meaningful amount from DeSantis in South Carolina. However, even if both suspend their campaigns before their home state contest, they may still siphon off a smaller but sizable enough amount of support from DeSantis if Haley and Scott remain on the ballot. 

Those things matter, but what likely is of greater significance (or should be) to the broader DeSantis presidential effort is the Florida governor being able to pick off one of the first two contests. The worry is better trained on Haley and Scott in Iowa than it is on either one of them back home in the Palmetto state. 

Another question: How are Haley and Scott affecting DeSantis in South Carolina in terms of the invisible primary metrics? That may be the true source of the grumbling. It maybe less that Haley and Scott may rain on the DeSantis parade in the South Carolina primary and more that they are gobbling up institutional support in the state that might otherwise be receptive to DeSantis. There have been headline-grabbing waves of endorsements for the Florida governor in Iowa and New Hampshire. But something has deterred similar inroads (so far) in South Carolina. 


...
The Rhode Island House on Monday, June 12 unanimously passed SB 1010, concurring with the Senate version of legislation to move the presidential primary in the Ocean state up from the fourth Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday in April for just the 2024 cycle. The House did not vote on the measure by itself. Rather, the body took up and adopted by a 67-0 vote a seven bill consent calendar package including SB 1010. 

The bill now heads off to Governor Dan McKee (D) for his consideration. However, it is likely to be joined shortly by HB 6309, the House version of the same bill, which is on the state Senate's consent calendar for Tuesday, June 13. Should the upper chamber concur, Rhode Island will join New York as states eyeing presidential primary shifts to April 2 where bills have fully cleared the legislative hurdle in the process.


...
From around the invisible primary...
  • Doug Burgum did not take long after his announcement last week to hit the airwaves. The North Dakota governor has ads up and running in Iowa and New Hampshire, part of a $3 million buy. 
  • In the money primary, First Lady Jill Biden has been deployed on a fundraising junket ahead of the second quarter deadline at the end of the month.

...
On this date...
...in 2011, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. 

...in 2015, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton officially launched her campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Monday, June 12, 2023

An Invisible Primary Round Up to Start the Week

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...
  • Late last week, Michigan Republicans released details of a plan to use both the February 27 presidential primary and March 2 congressional district caucuses to allocate delegates to the national convention next year. All the in-the-weeds details of the plan 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...
...
In the money primary, the Des Moines Register has a nice rundown of outside spending in first-in-the-nation Iowa so far in 2023. The Trump-affiliated Make America Great Again, Inc. super PAC has spent more than $20 million in the Hawkeye state, most of it on television ads against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. But that $20 million total is nearly five times more spending than all of the other candidate affiliated groups combined. 

A few things that all of this signals...
1) The candidates, their campaigns and affiliated groups continue to behave as if Iowa will, in fact, have the first contest on the 2024 presidential primary calendar (despite all of the recent calendar drama).

2) There is a certain inefficiency to all of that spending. Yes, all of those dollars are being shelled out in a state that will have, if not the first contest, then a very early one. [Iowa will very likely end up first.] The spending is useful in that sense. However, that is a lot of money spent to mobilize voters for a caucus in a state that is unlikely to be competitive in the fall campaign. 

The Democrats have changed the calculus on this, but have their own inefficiencies built into the primary calendar on their side. The handpicked new leadoff state, South Carolina, is no more competitive for Democrats than Iowa is in the general election, and there is the potential negative impact of shunting New Hampshire to a later slot. But the Democratic calendar will feature a new primary in Nevada and a newly early primary in Michigan during the early calendar in 2024, two likely battlegrounds for the fall. Granted, Democrats do not appear to have competitive nomination phase ahead of them and that is its own built-in, institutional inefficiency with respect to mobilizing/energizing voters during the primary phase of the campaign. But the notion of there being inefficiencies like this at all is a byproduct of the work the DNC did to revamp the calendar for 2024. 

Still, interesting figures out of Iowa.


...
In the endorsement primary, it was a busy weekend.
  • Former President Donald Trump picked up the support of a couple of Georgia congresspeople, Rep. Andrew Clyde and Rep. Mike Collins. Both endorsed Trump, timed along side the former president's trip to address the state convention of Peach state Republicans in Columbus over the weekend.
  • Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt became the first fellow governor to line up behind Ron DeSants's bid while the Florida governor was in the Sooner state for an event in Tulsa this past weekend. 
  • In what might be considered an intra-state battle in South Carolina, Senator Tim Scott rolled out endorsements from 29 state lawmakers, including the state Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, and dozens of other current and former elected officials from across the Palmetto state (more than 140 in all). It is difficult not to view those endorsements as a sort of zero-sum game between Scott and former Governor Nikki Haley. Trump already claims high profile endorsements in South Carolina from Governor McMaster and Senator Graham, so the battle for endorsements in the first-in-the-South state is for other officeholders. Thus far, Scott is outpacing his fellow Sandlapper in the count at home.
  • North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum did not have to go far to gain his first big endorsement. From right in his Roughrider state backyard, Senator Kevin Cramer endorsed the governor on Monday.

...
Miami Mayor Francis Suarez hometown paper reports that a major announcement is coming from the mayor during his upcoming trip to the Reagan Library later this week. FHQ has not said much about the mayor but he has been talking about a presidential run for a while.



...
On this date...
...in 1999, Texas Governor George W. Bush officially entered the race for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination. 

...in 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) ended his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, but transferred the money left over from his campaign to start the advocacy group, The Campaign for Liberty.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 2:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Sunday, June 11, 2023

Sunday Series: About that Unique Michigan Republican Primary-Caucus Plan (Part One)



--
News broke Friday that Michigan Republicans had come to a consensus and were prepared to vote on whether the party would go the primary or caucus route in the presidential nomination process for 2024. 

Rather than automatically utilize the state-run primary as the state party had done every competitive Republican presidential nomination cycle following 1988, the Michigan GOP was backed into a corner on its 2024 plans based on four main factors:
  1. Democrats in the state took unified control of state government in the Great Lakes state after the November 2022 midterm elections. 
  2. At least partially (if not completely) because of that flip in control of the state legislature and Democrats retaining the governor's office, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to add the Michigan presidential primary to early window lineup of states on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Michigan Democrats seized on the opportunity to have an earlier, if not greater, voice in the nomination process and moved to comply with the new DNC calendar rules for 2024.
  3. However, the new February 27 date for the state-run Michigan presidential primary would violate Republican National Committee (RNC) rules prohibiting states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding primaries or caucuses before March 1. Opting into the primary, would open Michigan Republicans up to the super penalty associated with a violation of those timing rules, which would strip the state party of all but 12 delegates (nine delegates plus the three automatic/party delegates) to the national convention. 
  4. Regardless of the potential for penalties from a rogue primary, Michigan Republicans, under new leadership as of early 2023, were already leery of a state-run presidential primary process that would be open not only to Republicans and independents (who want to affiliate with the party in the primary) but Democrats as well. 
Given those factors, the Michigan GOP in consultation with the RNC did not look on the primary or caucus question for 2024 as either/or but rather as one and the other. In a revised resolution of intent adopted on Saturday, June 10, Michigan Republicans chose to split 2024 delegate allocation across both the February 27 primary and congressional district caucuses to be held on Saturday, March 2. In a statement following the vote the Michigan Republican Party said the following1:
In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  
This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 
The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 
They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed. 


Cutting through the spin
Okay, revisit those four factors FHQ laid out above because they are important in pushing past the spin in all of this and getting to the crux of the matter. 

First, it is highly unlikely that either Michigan Democrats or Democrats in the national party were ever rubbing their hands together, saying "We've got Michigan Republicans now!" The timeline on the Democratic primary calendar decision suggests otherwise. The national party waited until after the midterms -- after it was clear which party was going to be in control of a variety of state governments -- before it settled on a lineup for the 2024 early window. Michigan, already an attractive option to the members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, became even more attractive once it was clear after the November elections that the state would be under Democratic control. 

The national party decision on the calendar and any subsequent moves made in Lansing were made to affect the Democratic primary. There was little regard for the Republican process. And perhaps that is problematic. However, national Democrats have been rebuffed by the RNC over the last two cycles in their efforts to even informally coordinate the calendar. And on the state level in Michigan, it was Republicans in the state legislature who were driving a legislative push to an even earlier February primary date just a few months ago in late 2022. 

But shunt all of that to side for a moment. Democrats in Lansing and elsewhere were never really in control of anything other than moving the state-run primary anyway. Michigan Republicans always had paths out of trouble. But they were going to need a waiver from the RNC no matter what they chose to do. The point is that Michigan Republicans potentially had a national party waiver at their disposal if they successfully made that case before the RNC. Ultimately, it was state Democrats who had made the change and shifted the primary to a point on the calendar that violated RNC rules. And those rules have outs for just these types of possibilities.

Yet, choosing to go the caucus route would have potentially required a waiver from the RNC too. Michigan Republicans could not just choose to conduct caucuses. Those caucuses would have had to follow the February 27 primary to remain compliant with the RNC rules on timing. But merely opting to hold caucuses would not have ended the primary. Under state law that primary would have gone on as a beauty contest. And under RNC Rule 16 (a)(1), any statewide vote "must be used to allocate and bind the state's delegation to the national convention..." [Put a pin in section of the RNC rules. It is important for Part Two.] To hold caucuses after a statewide vote like that is counter to the intent of the rule, the language of which was added to prevent a double vote and/or non-binding scenario like those that proliferated in the 2012 cycle.

An RNC waiver would have provided a way to circumvent that conflict. But so, too, would have legal action on first amendment, freedom of association grounds (if the national party was for some reason not receptive to issuing a waiver). Political parties have a right to determine how they associate and who associates with the organization. Nominations fall under that banner, or precedent holds that they do anyway. 

The bottom line is this: If Michigan Republicans want to say that Democrats made the primary change without consulting them, then that is fine. That is a fair criticism. If the state party additionally wants to argue it prefers a caucus/convention system closed to all but registered Republicans to an open primary that allows non-Republicans to participate, then that is fine too. That is also legitimate. But exaggerating the control state Democrats have over the process is just that: an exaggeration. That is even more true in light of the fact that Michigan Republicans had recourse. They had ways around Democratic "control." One need not pretend otherwise.




--
1 The full statement from the Michigan Republican Party after the vote on the resolution:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Michigan Republican Party Protects the Voice of Michigan Republican Voters 
Grand Rapids, MI – June 10th, 2023 – In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  
This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 
The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 
They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed.  
The Michigan Republican Party would have been derelict in duty, and grossly irresponsible to leave the decision of full delegate representation of Michigan Republicans in the hands of the Democrats.  
Republican voters are tired of the party seeking to cut deals with Democrats instead of protecting the voice and interest of Republican voters.  
This drastic reduction in representation at the Republican National Convention would have marginalized millions of voters and stifled our ability to have a meaningful say in the selection of the 2024 Republican presidential nominee. The Resolution of Intent passed by the Michigan Republican Party State Committee protects the voice of millions of Republican voters across Michigan by ensuring the will of those voting in the primary will be heard.  
This resolution simultaneously prevents the RNC penalty.  
Recognizing the urgency and gravity of this situation, the Michigan Republican Party State Committee took decisive action today. The Michigan Republican Party has taken a crucial step towards ensuring fair representation for their constituents. 
"The Michigan Republican Party stands firmly against any attempts to diminish representation of Michigan Republicans," said Kristina Karamo, Chair of the Michigan Republican Party.  
"We are committed to preserving the integrity of the electoral process and guaranteeing that all Michigan voters, regardless of their political affiliation, have an equal opportunity to participate in the primary process." 
For those in the party who do not trust the election system run by the Secretary of State due to election integrity concerns, they now have a representative voice for some of the delegates from Michigan.  
By asserting their commitment to protecting the rights of Republican voters in the state, the Michigan Republican Party has demonstrated their dedication to preserving a fair and inclusive electoral system. 
The Michigan Republican Party encourages all Michigan voters to stay informed and engaged in the political process. By participating in the upcoming primary elections, voters can make their voices heard and contribute to shaping the future of our great state. 
###


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, June 10, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] Folks, the new caucus law in Iowa does not affect state Democrats' plans for 2024

The following is cross-posted from FHQ Plus, FHQ's subscription newsletter. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. Follow the link below.


There is a lot going on with the new caucus law in Iowa. Governor Kim Reynolds signed HF 716 on Thursday, June 1 and the measure requires in-person participation at precinct caucuses that select delegates as part of a presidential nominating process. That one fairly simple change has created a great deal of confusion as to the true nature of its effects for the two major parties in the state in 2024. But just because the new requirement fits into a complicated web of component parts does not mean that one cannot suss out what is going on here. 

Here is what is going on in the Hawkeye state now that the law has been changed.

1) This new law does not affect the delegate selection plans for 2024 that Iowa Democrats have previewed. It does not. Read the language of the change:

If the state central committee of a political party chooses to select its delegates as a part of the presidential nominating process at political party precinct caucuses on the date provided in subsection 1, the precinct caucuses shall take place in person among the participants physically present at the location of each precinct caucus.

Everything one needs to know about that entire section and how it interacts with the Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan is right there in that one highlighted word, select. The proposed vote-by-mail component of the Democrats’ defined “caucus” procedure has nothing to do with the process of selecting delegates. It has everything to do with the allocation of delegates. That all-mail presidential preference vote affects the allocation and not the selection process. As such, it is unaffected by what Governor Reynolds signed into law on Thursday. 

The selection process for delegates to the national convention will commence at the precinct caucuses, presumably on the same night for Democrats in Iowa as Republicans. According to the draft plan from Iowa Democrats, that part will be conducted in person. It would comply with the new law. 


2) Just because the provisions of the Iowa Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan for 2024 comply with the newly signed law does not mean the law is constitutional. Private political parties have the first amendment right to freely associate, to freely and independently determine the rules of how their members associate. The new law abridges that freedom to some degree by requiring in-person participation. 

Look, Democrats in Iowa may sue in an attempt to have this restriction rescinded, but that action would be taken because it infringes on the party’s broad first amendment rights and not because it affects the party’s plans for the 2024 presidential nominating process. It does not.

The big issue here is that actors in Iowa have blurred the lines on this for more than 50 years to protect the first-in-the-nation status of the caucuses. State government decision makers have legislated their way into political party business. And that works when everyone is on the same page, regardless of party. But when there is a split along partisan lines like there is in 2023, and one side attempts to further legislate to further insulate first-in-the-nation status, it raises red flags with respect to how much state law has crept into party business. That is what provoked this response from Iowa Democrats to the bill’s signing on Thursday:

"No political party can tell another political party how to conduct its party caucuses. Iowa Democrats will do what's best for Iowa, plain and simple," Hart said. "For many years, Iowa Democrats have worked in good faith with the Republicans to preserve our caucuses. This legislation ends decades of bipartisanship, and now Kim Reynolds has signed off on this attempt to meddle in Democratic party business."

Yet, that has nothing to do with Iowa Democratic Party plans for 2024.


3) One additional layer to all of this that FHQ should reiterate is that Iowa Democrats do everyone a disservice by continuing to call this new and newly bifurcated delegate selection process a “caucus.” It is not. There is a caucus component to it, the selection process. But overall, the whole thing is not a caucus. A traditional caucus process basically merges the beginning of the delegate selection process with the delegate allocation process. But under the plan, the precinct caucuses only affect the initial stages of the selection process. Again, the allocation process is separate and dictated by the results of the proposed vote-by-mail presidential preference vote. 

That is a long name. Let’s give it another one: party-run primary. The proposed preference vote is a party-run primary. It is that simple. Iowa Democrats’ plan for 2024 brings the party in line with the bifurcated process in nearly all state-run and party-run primary states. It is, in other words, completely normal. 

But Iowa Democrats continue to call this entire process a caucus. It is understandable why. There is a certain branding behind the caucuses as they have existed at the front of the presidential primary queue for half a century. Obviously that would be difficult to give up. And that is why Iowa Democrats have bent themselves into pretzels to satisfy both the national party and folks at home to whom being first matters. Thus, the caucus component of the process — the selection part, recall — will remain first in the nation and the party-run primary part will happen at a time that likely complies with DNC rules. All of this, of course, assumes the plan is approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee in the end. If it does not comply, then the plan will not be granted approval.

But let’s call a spade a spade. Iowa Democrats will have a party-run primary in 2024 if this plan is approved. They can call it what they want, but calling it a caucus only confuses things in the near term as all of this dust settles. 


4) Another point of confusion in the coverage of this new law is the how it affects the delicate relationship — one forged over half a century — between Iowa and New Hampshire. To repeat, this new law does not affect the plans Iowa Democrats have for their delegate selection process in 2024. By extension, then, it does not affect anything between Iowa and New Hampshire. 

The bottom line for New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scalan in all of this is simple. He is looking at one thing. One thing: the date on which the vote-by-mail preference vote concludes. Now, if that process were to wrap up on caucus night in early to mid-January, then yes, Secretary Scanlan would likely take issue with that move and act accordingly with respect to the scheduling of the presidential primary in the Granite state. He would, because of the law there, schedule the primary for before the end of the preference vote. 

But what if that preference vote ended not only after the precinct caucuses, but well after them? What if both that process concluded and the result were released some time in February (if a waiver was granted by the DNC to Iowa instead of Georgia and/or New Hampshire) or in March or later? Well, Secretary Scanlan would have little to worry about in that scenario. He could nudge the New Hampshire primary up beyond the South Carolina Democratic primary scheduled for February 3 and any other similar election that might slot into the calendar before that point. 

Iowa Democrats are angling for an early window slot on the Democratic primary calendar. That is the hold up right now. Once that date is known, the New Hampshire conflict will materialize and intensify or it will not. Iowa Democrats appear to be trying their darnedest to get back into the good graces of the national party after 2020, so the odds are very good that all of this supposed friction between Iowa and New Hampshire will melt away once the timing question is answered. 

But to reiterate, that supposed friction has nothing to do with this law. It has everything to do with the date of the preference vote being unknown. The two things are separate despite what the Republicans driving this change to the law in the Iowa legislature may suggest. That became clear when the bill was amended and passed the state House on May 1. Those changes to the initial bill gave Iowa Democrats the flexibility they needed to move forward with the delegate selection plan they unveiled two days later. The in-person requirement was window dressing for New Hampshire, but the real change was in the registration requirements the new law allows the parties to set. It is not specified but Iowa Republicans can institute the 70 day registration buffer that was stripped from the initial bill because of the broad discretion the new law affords the state party.

Is all of this complicated? 

Sure, there are a lot of component parts to it all. But those parts can be parsed out and that is what is missing in nearly all of the coverage of this new law in Iowa. There seems to be a lot of throw all of the information out there, let everyone figure it all out on their own and assume chaos. Hey, it gets clicks. But one does not have do dig too deeply or work too hard to put the puzzle pieces together. And that way chaos does not necessarily lie.


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |

Friday, June 9, 2023

Legislative Inaction Struck a Blow Against a Primary Move in Connecticut, but the effort may not be dead

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...
  • The effort to move the Connecticut presidential primary to early April may have failed earlier this week, but bills to move a couple of other states' primaries advanced on Thursday. 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...
...
The Associate Press account of how it came to pass that a Connecticut presidential primary bill was left to die in the state Senate Wednesday night before the legislature adjourned left a lot to be desired: 
Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff said in a statement that “unfortunately the bill had some opposition in the chamber and we didn’t have time to debate the bill and pass it.” 
Legislative records show the House of Representatives voted unanimously for the bill at 11:07 p.m., sending it to the Senate. Both the House and Senate adjourned at the midnight deadline.
First of all, the House passed HB 6908, the bill that would have shifted the presidential primary in the Nutmeg state up to April 2, at 11:07pm on Friday, June 2. That the state Senate was made to consider the bill at the last minute was not due to the lower chamber. It was all on the state Senate. And that body did not take up the presidential primary measure because a filibuster on an unrelated bill ate up much of the day on Wednesday before the legislature was constitutionally mandated to adjourn at midnight. 

Second, it is not at all clear whether the primary move was what helped keep the legislation on the back burner in the Senate. The primary date change was not the only provision in the bill. And it certainly was not controversial. Both parties in the state backed the change. What was problematic in the bill was a tweak to how minor parties file for ballot access. That got pushback in committee and drew an amendment before passing the House. That change may have driven some of the opposition on the Senate side.

That likely closes the door on the prospect of a presidential primary move in Connecticut in time for 2024. But the leaders of both major parties in the state stuck their foot in the door to leave open the possibility:
"Moving the Presidential Primary Election from the last Tuesday in April to the first Tuesday would have allowed Connecticut to join several other New England states, including New York, bringing more candidates, visibility and business to our state, and giving Connecticut voters a greater voice in their party’s Presidential nominee," the statement read. 
Both leaders added that they would continue discussions with lawmakers and the governor's office to "find a way to pass this legislation.”
Maybe a special session? Connecticut would not be the only state where legislative inaction  this year killed a primary (move) only to trigger calls for a special session. 

But here is the thing. When Connecticut moved to April from February for the 2012 cycle, the legislature in the Nutmeg state did not do what others joining the northeast/mid-Atlantic subregional primary that has been around in some form since that time. While others moved their primaries to the fourth Tuesday in April, Connecticut landed on the last Tuesday in April. Typically, that will not matter in most cycles. But most cycles are not like 2024, when April will have five Tuesdays. That difference already had the Connecticut presidential primary on a different date from the rest for next year. 

All the state legislative inaction does now is keep the primary there, alone as it would have been whether the other states moved or not. And it could all work out in the end. If the competitive phase of the Republican race stretches beyond April 2 when Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and maybe Pennsylvania hold their primaries, then Connecticut would be poised to gain a lot of attention from the candidates as the next contest in the sequence with a nice four week long lead in. That is not a bad place to be. Think Pennsylvania, 2008. Sure, it is a gamble that things will last that long -- a lot of delegates will have been allocated by that point -- but it would be better under that scenario than in one where Connecticut shares the limelight with up to five other states. 


...
FHQ commented on Pat Robertson's impact on the way in which some candidates have subsequently approached the delegate game in the Republican presidential nomination process. Chris Baylor pursued a similar line, adding to that picture in a fantastic deep dive on Robertson's grassroots political efforts in 1988 and beyond. It is a good one. 


...
Jonathan Bernstein looks at why candidates are still getting into the Republican presidential nomination race despite the fact that Trump and DeSantis are collectively pulling in around three-quarters of the polling support at the moment. Not to channel James Carville too much, but it is the uncertainty, stupid. Trump has some baggage and DeSantis has not closed the door. But Bernstein's note on winnowing bears repeating: the field may be growing now, but the process will exhaust the field in due time as winnowing kicks into full force.


...
In the endorsement primary, President Biden got the nod from the Laborers' International Union of North America, a construction workers union.


...
On this date...
...in 1987, Delaware Senator Joe Biden entered the race for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 1992, President George H.W. Bush won the North Dakota Republican primary. The beauty contest Democratic presidential primary was won by Ross Perot, a victory that was disputed by Lyndon LaRouche. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, won had won the March caucuses on which delegate allocation was based, came in a distant fifth in the primary, all on write-in votes. 

...in 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden won the pandemic-delayed primaries in Georgia and West Virginia.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 12:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)