The Concord Monitor has a great piece this morning looking at the thinking within both the Democratic and Republican Parties concerning the rules (RE: timing) for 2012 presidential delegate selection. The consensus seems to be that the Democratic Change Commission and Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee (meeting today) are both committed to closing the window (of time in which primaries and caucuses can be held) to exclude February from the equation. The Democrats are still willing to let Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina go in February and the Republicans are committed to same thing (with the exception of Nevada*). Still, the commitment appears to be there on the part of both parties to scale the length of the presidential primary process back with regard to timing.
Both groups making 2012 recommendations are committed to this, but will the actual decision-makers within the parties (the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee and the full RNC) who will sign off on this actually do that? That is the question of the moment. For the time being, though, the fact that the parties are working separately together on this speaks to the idea that both acknowledge the necessity of teamwork to change the system and avoid additional Florida and Michigan situations in either party.
NOTE: This article has also done a good job at looking at some of the rules changes from 1996 onward that brought the primary system to where it was in 2008. A good read.
*What will Nevada Republicans do if this comes to pass? It seems like they would have an incentive to shirk on this discrepancy if the penalty isn't just right to dissuade them. That will come up at some point.
As to timing, the discussion was relatively brief and consistent with prior discussions – Iowa/NH/SC/Nevada can go after Feb. 1, every other state goes after March 1, the rules should encourage regional clusters by offering incentives such as bonus delegates, the RBC will address enforcement procedures and sanctions, and the DNC will try to coordinate timing with the RNC rules committee. The RNC coordination process is ongoing.
Commission members recognized that the best hope for a spread out process lies with agreement with the RNC on starting date, both parties imposing the same penalties for going out of turn, incentives to states to move back and cluster, and the states recognition that frontloading is no longer the best way to get attention. One caveat – the Commission should consider the effect of offering bonus delegates both for moving back and for clustering – too many bonus delegates may distort the traditional delegate allocation which is typically based on Democratic vote and population.
Now the puzzle pieces are starting to come together in terms of both the Democratic Party and Republican Party coordinating their efforts to curb primary frontloading. Those efforts are certainly still in their formative stage, but as I have indicated, if reform of the nomination process is truly desired, the two major parties will have to work together to incentivize going later in the process and punish those states that go too early.
DemRulz also has in that post (linked above) a look at the prospects for change in terms of the caucus process and the folks formerly known as superdelegates.
ALSO: Commission member Suzi LeVine had this and more to say on the discussion regarding the timing of delegate selection events at today's Democratic Change Commission meeting in Washington:
#1: recommended encouraging regional primaries and spreading out the calendar – with incentives (ie – bonus delegates). RBC to determine incentives. (We did not address penalties or how to handle when a state’s legislature breaks the windows without the party’s permission).
Rasmussen is showing in its latest survey of Minnesota that Governor Tim Pawlenty would only have the votes of 42% of Minnesotans if he were to run for president and win the Republican nomination in 2012. 46% would not vote for him. No, that's not necessarily a vote for Obama because the president's name was not used in the question, but it does provide a sense of just how blue Minnesota is.
Here's the question:
Suppose Governor Tim Pawlenty runs for President in 2012 and wins the Republican nomination. If Pawlenty was the Republican Presidential candidate, would you vote for him? Yes 42% No 46%
This isn't a true trial heat, but it would have been interesting to have seen how the answers to the two questions (the one above and a head-to-head with Obama) would have differed. My hunch is that the difference would have been similar to the difference between polling an incumbent (for any office) against both an actual named opponent or a generic, unnamed one. Look, for instance, at Sen. Burr's numbers in the latest Public Policy Polling survey of the 2010 race for Senate in North Carolina. Burr performs better against named opposition than against Generic Democrat X and I would assume that Pawlenty's numbers above would decrease if we were talking about a ballot question pitting the Minnesota governor against President Obama.
The one big criticism I have of what I've read about the Democratic Change Commission meeting this weekend is that there still is no viable incentive structure in place to get states who have or will in the future want to frontload their presidential primaries and caucuses to move back or stay put. That's a thorny issue, though, at the intersection of state parties, national parties and state legislative jurisdiction, so I don't blame the 37 member group for not having gotten to that point yet. [Their recommendations won't come until after the group's December 5 meeting in Washington.]
However, what I can't forgive is one bit of misinformation that made its way out of the proceedings that is bad, bad, bad. Here's the Q&A exchange with North Carolina State Senator Dan Blue fielding the questions (from DCC member, Suzi LeVine's notes):
Q: what is the situation about states having separate state & presidential primaries? Ie – California did it.
A: expensive – but sense that California being so late is problematic. Last time California went early and they still didn’t get the attention. Very unsatisfactory then. State legislature seems to like moving it up. However, remember that incumbents benefit with an early primary ‘cause challengers haven’t been able to raise money and awareness and these positions are often chosen in the primaries.
Q: How would budget deficit in California affect 2012?
A: Bifurcating the 2 primaries is expensive. Usually have to stay unhitched to address local laws. Brought up the Affect of redistricting (will happen ‘cause of census)
Q: states with federal and state primaries on the same day?
A: most are together – but will find out exact number.
WRUH-ONG! [It is difficult to make something monosyllabic, have two syllables.] Find out why after the jump.
Frank Leone over at DemRulz is on the scene in Washington and has a rundown of the morning half of the Change Commission's meeting. The group picked up with what they were to have addressed during their August meeting (postponed due to Ted Kennedy's funeral): public comments on the issues the group is charged with examining.
Let's look at what was discussed on the issue of timing. From DemRulz:
"Curtis Gans, Director of the Study of the American Electorate at American University made a presentation. He criticized the 1988 Super Tuesday Southern primary for starting the race to early primaries; this resulted in a process based on “state selfishness.” It is more important to select the best person to be president than for a state to get more attention. He recommended a bipartisan, durable system with less frontloading and less moving around. He recommended starting with smaller, diverse, individual primaries, and a spread-out process – not regional primaries. Regional primaries may result in different candidates representing different regions and split the party. He opposes a rotation where it all changes every four years. He favors a long process which worked this year, allowing candidates flexibility to skip certain states, 20-day filing deadlines to allow new candidates to file. Spread out individual primaries will encourage grassroots and discourage negative campaigning – if you have 20 primaries on one day, you need to rely on negative TV. He would prefer to start the whole process in March, but is okay with IA, NH, SC, and NV going early — it worked well in 2008. In response to a question from Jeff Berman, he stated that there is an opportunity for cooperation with RNC in setting calendar and the GOP is likely to agree on starting date."
...and also...
"Hon. Dan Blue (Comm. Member, NC State Senator) – late primaries can be good. In 2008, NC linked the presidential primary with state office primaries, the late primary got a lot of attention, and Obama and Democratic candidates won in November. Grouping of 29 states on the same day is crazy – you need to break it up, spread out process."
The Democratic Change Commission, which is reviewing the Democratic Party presidential nomination process will meet on Saturday, October 24, 2009, at 9:30 (tentative) at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street, NW, Washington DC. The Commission will continue to focus on state nomination process calender, superdelegates, and caucuses.
We will be scouring the web for updates and news and posting them here. Here are a few links I'll be keeping an eye on:
DCC Member Twitter feeds: Claire McCaskill Suzi LeVine (Oh, and here is her blog where she posted some great material following the first meeting. She's already alerted folks following her Twitter feed that she'll be posting updates on her site. Now, whether that happens tomorrow or later is yet to be determined, but this remains a great place for firsthand accounts from inside the process.) Rebecca Prozan Joan Garry
DemRulz (Frank Leone had a great live blog from the first meeting in Washington. He has already said he will reprise that role tomorrow. Here, too, is his Twitter feed.)
It wasn't a rout, but Mike Huckabee did win the 2009 Value Voters Summit straw poll by a margin greater than any of his opponents received. Huckabee won a plurality of the 597 voters with Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin and Mike Pence all jumbled up behind the former Arkansas governor.
Huckabee: 28% (~167)* Romney: 12% (74) Pawlenty: 12% (73) Palin: 12% (72) Pence: 12% (71) *Raw votes in parentheses (via Jonathan Martin) ------------------------ Newt Gingrich, Bobby Jindal, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum all split the remaining 24% of the voters. Rick Perry pulled his name off the ballot on Friday.
One thing that struck me as curious was that, in looking back at the 2007 Value Voters straw poll, Romney won and there were approximately ten times as many votes cast. The total two years ago was inflated by online voting whereas this year's poll was comprised of those in attendance.
What does it all mean? Well, the top two are still the same as they were two years ago, but the ordering is reversed. Again though, it is still early yet to be thinking about the 2012 race (despite the fun). One thing that is interesting is that Huckabee's position in these results mirrors some of what we've seen in the 2012 polls conducted thus far. Especially in the case of the general election trial heats against Obama, Huckabee has consistently done the best. Head-to-head in the Republican primary polling, though, the former Arkansas governor has been trading the top honor with both Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, with all three clustered atop the list well ahead of all other prospective candidates. Are those general elections trial heats driving this straw poll result or are these the type of voters that are being picked up in and supportive of Huckabee in those polls? It is an interesting question that I don't think we really have an answer to.
Regardless, this is an early feather in Huckabee's 2012 cap.
...but will he decide to run? (See, I told you it was early.)
It is too bad that this story appeared over at The Hill on Saturday. It is something that got lost amid the distractions of a long holiday weekend.
To the victor goes the spoils.
DNC Chairman Tim Kaine last week appointed several new members to the Rules and Bylaws Committee (Remember them?) of the Democratic Party. To me, though, the interesting thing is not the inevitability that Clinton supporters in positions on the committee were replaced by Obama supporters (or New Hampshire's representation on the R&B), but the fact that there are at least three members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that are simultaneously serving on the Democratic Change Commission. Jeff Berman, Minyon Moore and Randi Weingarten are all pulling double duty.
Why is this noteworthy?
Well, as things are set up for 2012 (presidential nomination) rules making, the Democratic Change Commission debates, formulates and recommends a plan to tweak and ultimately govern delegate selection for the 2012 nomination. That recommendation, though, is passed off to the Rules and Bylaws Committee for approval. The Change Commission is due to make said recommendation by January 1, 2010, and if history (the 2008 cycle) is any indication, the R&B will formalize those rules some time during the late summer of next year.
Still, what does the fact that several members are pulling the double matter? It means that the Rules and Bylaws Committee has representation (at least 3 of the 37 Democratic Change Commission members) on the Change Commission. Does that mean they can push through or prevent reform to some degree? Not really (with so many total members), but it does provide the committee with something of a symbolic footprint on the meetings this fall of the DCC. It also further bolsters the notion that real change to this process will be shunted off to be dealt with in the future and that the president (as so many presidential nominees of both parties before him) is attached to the status quo; the process though which he won the nomination.
In a summer of discontent this likely won't sit well with those on the left looking for change. And though, I'll admit that the Change Commission (at least some among its ranks) foresee the need to make some significant changes to the nomination system, that has always run against the notion that presidents stick with what got them there. Does that mean that the latter will outweigh the former in this instance? It does not, but it would be wise to consider both as the 2012 rules are being considered, crafted and certified.
I don't know how I missed this on Thursday (I suppose there are only so many times you can search "Democratic Change Commission" in Google News. At least the news broke after I wrote that all was quiet.), but in the wake of the Kennedy death and funeral, the DNC postponed the Change Commission's meeting "until further notice."
Here comes word of the latest cancellation out of respect for the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
A Democratic Party panel that is taking another look at the presidential nominating process -- likely including the timing of the early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire -- was scheduled to meet Saturday in St. Louis.
That will be the day of Kennedy's funeral in Boston, expected to draw many Democratic leaders.
The Democratic National Committee said the meeting of the Democratic Change Commission has been postponed until further notice. The panel, created last year, is to address "1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system."
The commission must issue its report and recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee no later than Jan. 1.
There's really nothing new in there other than the delay of the meeting (That January 1, 2010 deadline looms, too though, I suppose). And with the third meeting scheduled for October 24, the panel has a bit of time during September for another meeting. But I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled the second and third meetings into one in October. And I'm going to throw this out there too: It would be nice if they would hold this meeting in the home state of the other commission co-chair, Jim Clyburn (This second meeting was in co-chair Claire McCaskill's home in the Show-Me state.). And yes, I say that for completely selfish reasons. It is far easier to go from North Carolina to South Carolina than it is to go from the Tarheel state to DC or Missouri.
*** Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’: Missing those daily superdelegate counts? The speculation about when states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan would hold their primaries/caucuses? Come on, admit it -- you miss it. Well, if you are, you can head over Saturday morning to the first meeting of the DNC’s Democratic Change Commission, which has been tasked with reforming 1) the primary calendar, 2) the number of superdelegates, and 3) the caucus system. Presiding over the meeting will be DNC chair Tim Kaine and commission co-chairs Jim Clyburn and Claire McCaskill, and there isn’t supposed to be any big news. The 37-member commission will listen to a presentation of Democratic Party presidential nominations by Rhodes Cook; a look at the superdelegates by Elaine Kamarck; and an examination of the caucus system by Organizing for America’s Mitch Stewart. This is all in the fact-gathering stage, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that this DNC would dramatically change a system that helped launch the president's campaign? Iowa and South Carolina are VERY safe. As for the superdelegate system, well that’s another story…
As I said earlier in the week, no decisions are going to be made tomorrow, but it is quite another thing to see how much listening the group will be doing tomorrow. That probably isn't the kind of action most people want. My hope? That the DNC posts the presentations as part of their coverage.
RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENTS TO TEMPORARY DELEGATE SELECTION COMMITTEE
WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele today announced the appointment of Ohio National Committeeman Bob Bennett, Wisconsin National Committeeman Steve King, Florida National Committeeman Paul Senft, former Maryland Secretary of State Mary Kane, former Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis, former Office of Personnel Management Director Kay James, former Iowa Republican Party Chairman Brian Kennedy, former White House Spanish media spokesperson Mercy Schlapp, and former New Hampshire Attorney General Tom Rath to the RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee.
“I am proud to announce the appointments of this impressive group of people to the RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee. They are all exceptionally qualified people and I look forward to working with them in the future,” said Chairman Steele.
The RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee serves to review the timing of the election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegate and alternate delegates to the Republican National Convention. In accordance with The Rules of the Republican Party, the RNC Chairman appoints three RNC members and six non-members to the RNC Temporary Delegate Selection Committee, which is already comprised of four elected RNC members.
Recently over at FHQ, I had a look back through the lens of Google Trends at Democratic (here and here) and Republican (here, here and here) presidential candidate emergence in the lead up to 2008. But I thought I'd cast an eye toward 2012 as well. There is a cyclical pattern to this process. All is relatively quiet in terms of presidential candidate Google searches in years one and two of any four year presidential election cycle, but once the midterm congressional elections hit, the more candidate-specific searches begin to climb in number. That's exactly the pattern that was witnessed between 2005 and 2008.
In other words, the expectations for this current period in the presidential election cycle should be quite low. Hey, we just finished an election! Why think about the next one? Well, some of us are, much to the chagrin of others. The bottom line is that we have to take these trends with a grain of salt this far out. But just for the heck of it let's take FHQ's Elite Eight for 2012 and add Bobby Jindal and Ron Paul. Now, it could become necessary to add (or subtract) someone in later, but I'll leave it at these ten for the time being.
"Today, Governor Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced the 37 member Democratic Change Commission, which will recommend changes to the Democratic Party's rules for the 2012 presidential nominating and delegate selection process. Governor Kaine also announced that he has named Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri as Co-Chairs of the Change Commission."
Now, this is significant news, but first let's look a bit more closely at the intent of the Commission and then I'll give my rapid fire thoughts on the commission's membership.
"The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system."
[Thoughts and the Full Press Release after the jump]
Hello DemConWatch readers. My name is Josh Putnam and I've been invited by the DemConWatch team to contribute some thoughts on the (at this point slow) formation of the 2012 presidential primary calendar. I'll be updating the progress here as news arises, but will also make some related (and hopefully useful) comments along the way.
"Well, what do you know about it? What makes you an expert?" A good question indeed. I am a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Georgia specializing in campaigns and elections. But I also run the site, Frontloading HQ. Some of you may have meandered over FHQ's way during the general election when the good folks here at DCW included our electoral college projections in their index of predictions. My research and also the site are devoted to examining the constantly evolving positioning of presidential delegate selection contests from one cycle to the next. This frontloading is a problem in the eyes of some, but is perceived as consequential to the nomination outcome by most (see 2008 for example). In other words, position matters.
A good place for me to start is by looking ahead to 2012. State law in most of the primary states already tells us where the majority of states will be (unless moved) three winters from now. And there has already been some movement in regard to 2012. What follows is a piece that is cross-posted at FHQ. Before I get to that, though, let me take this opportunity to thank the DCW guys. I'm looking forward to contributing over here.
With Arkansas making the state's presidential primary move from February to May official, FHQ is compelled to update the 2012 Presidential Primary Calendar. Now, I should add that I'm going to leave these updates somewhat messy on purpose to provide as much detail as possible. The "clean" version -- the version with the calendar as it currently stands -- will always be in the side bar [at FHQ]. [The side bar calendar will also have a link to the most current "messy" version of the 2012 calendar at the bottom.] Here, then, are the caveats to what you see below:
Caucus states are italicized while primary states are not.
States that have changed dates appear twice on the calendar; once by the old date and once by the new date. The old date will be struck through while the new date will be color-coded with the amount of movement (in days) in parentheses. States in green are states that have moved to earlier dates on the calendar and states in red are those that have moved to later dates. Arkansas, for example, has moved its 2012 primary and moved it back 104 days.
You'll also see that some of the states on the calendar are live links. These are links to active legislation that would shift the date on which that state's presidential primary would be held in 2012. That allows us to track the status of the legislation more easily.
