tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post591711779256285224..comments2024-03-26T05:22:08.256-04:00Comments on Frontloading HQ: The 2012 Frontloading Problem: What's Our Incentive?Josh Putnamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06301836432446874997noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-73094086634717431592010-05-30T11:23:54.770-04:002010-05-30T11:23:54.770-04:00There are competing interests on that issue, MP. ...There are competing interests on that issue, MP. First, if Florida forces the pre-window states' hands, as I've been speculating, then there is a very finite amount of time in which those four contests can be held. This is colored by the fact that the national parties want to push things back from New Years. New Hampshire (and Iowa) could challenge that, but that would likely be viewed as an overreach. [Again, what would the parties do to IA and NH if they did challenge that?]<br /><br />In that environment, New Hampshire does what it did in 2008: Values being first over having the exact spacing between contests that they desire.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-10956517219573167762010-05-30T01:50:38.956-04:002010-05-30T01:50:38.956-04:00Thanks Josh, that all sounds reasonable to me. On...Thanks Josh, that all sounds reasonable to me. One question about that calendar on the left sidebar though. Doesn't NH always like to go at least 7 days before any other primary? If so, then if NV and SC are on Jan. 28th, why would NH go on Jan. 24th, which is only four days before?astrojobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643324377144064814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-73443505690053391232010-05-29T09:41:24.776-04:002010-05-29T09:41:24.776-04:00Democratic-controlled state governments will be a ...Democratic-controlled state governments will be a lot like the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee last weekend. They'll be focused on reelecting Obama and won't want to rock the boat. <br /><br />But these decisions to move up or back aren't happening independent of each other. If one or more states hold their ground in February, I don't necessarily see many states rushing to comply with either parties' rules. <br /><br />Let's say that happens. Florida stays where it is. If you are a Republican-controlled state you've got to move up if you want to have an impact. If you're a Democratic state, what does it matter? Obama is going to be reelected anyway, so why not move up, have an impact on the Republican process and be prepared already for 2016? You'd likely take some lumps short term at the convention, but long term you'd be in pretty good shape.<br /><br />The problem in that scenario is that if it is just one Democratic-controlled state that is behaving this way, then the party is likely to come down on that state's delegation pretty hard. However, if the activity is more widespread among those Democratic states, then the Democratic Party is going to be virtually powerless in addressing the issue. <br /><br />It is the reverse of what happened when the House was voting on the health care bill in November. The Democratic majority was insistent on having a two vote cushion on that vote so that one congress person did not become the deciding vote. The majority needed that strength in numbers. If any group of Democratic-controlled states has that same cushion, then I don't think they budge. They can always say, "But ___________ did it too."<br /><br />That said, I don't think that state legislators necessarily think that way. They will be more focused on 2012 than 2016. However, I do think they will be more apt to think about the next cycle than they have at virtually any time in the past. There's one question that will be in the backs of everyone's minds: What if 2016 is like 2008?<br /><br />----<br />I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe the GOP will do anything other than require proportionality for those early states. The 50% penalty for timing violations will be carried over and states won't be very much deterred from moving or not moving if they want to.<br /><br />----<br />I think some of those early states will move back, but I think Florida will hold its ground. And I think that the calendar in the left side bar looks better and better each day. A mid-January start time isn't what the parties want, but it gets the campaign out of the holidays for the most part. It actually ends up being a pretty good compromise position between 2008 and what the parties have proposed. If some states move back, then the 2012 calendar begins to look a lot more like 2004 than 2000. Interesting.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-80244520940970957822010-05-28T23:10:48.447-04:002010-05-28T23:10:48.447-04:00Thanks for the update Josh. I agree with Matt tha...Thanks for the update Josh. I agree with Matt that the states with Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures will be the most likely to comply with the new national party rules. There will likely be no contest on the Democratic side, so why not simply comply with the rules?<br /><br />For states with GOP governors or legislators though, the incentives are different. As long as the national party's sanctions aren't so severe that they prompt the candidates to ignore your primary completely (a la the DNC sanctions of FL and MI in 2008) you still have incentives to hold your primary early. This seems especially true in states with GOP governors, as the governors will all want to have something like the "kingmaker" role that Crist had in 2008.<br /><br />Since it doesn't look like the RNC wants a re-do of the public relations fiasco that the DNC had in 2008 over FL and MI, I'm guessing that whatever sanctions they impose will be mild, and several states will remain in early Feb. I would be stunned if they can get all 11 Feb. 7th states to move to a later date. And if at least one of them sticks in Feb., then New Hampshire will go at least a week earlier, and Iowa will go a week earlier than that.<br /><br />So it seems like by far the most likely scenario is that Iowa votes in mid-January at the latest. Would you agree with that Josh, or do you think there's really much chance that all of those early Feb. states are going to move?astrojobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643324377144064814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-28286277665948143272010-05-28T09:12:27.859-04:002010-05-28T09:12:27.859-04:00Hey MysteryPolitico. I'm going to risk looking...Hey MysteryPolitico. I'm going to risk looking partisan if I don't put something up about the Republican process soon. I've got a few things in the works, but the bottom line is that I either don't have the types of contacts within the GOP that I do within the Democratic Party, and/or their process has not been quite as transparent.<br /><br />TDSC member, Saul Anuzis said in <a href="http://twitter.com/sanuzis/status/13804861248" rel="nofollow">a tweet</a> that he would have the committee's recommendations up the night after they were accepted. Yet, nothing has appeared on <a href="http://www.thatssaulfolks.com/2010/05/16/weekly-musing-5-16-10/" rel="nofollow">his blog</a>. [And my comment there asking about it has either yet to be moderated or is being ignored.]<br /><br />There has been enough other news floating around on the GOP's process, but very little in terms of anything outside of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina saying their positions are safe. Several items I have read have referred to the winner-take-all ban before April as a punishment. But that is all I have seen in the way of penalties for going too early. <br /><br />I won't call the GOP lax, but they have always been much more willing to yield to the states to determine their own rules (I'll have more on that later.), and thus less willing to punish. <br /><br />Long story short, the language I have seen says nothing about any penalties. <br /><br />...but I'll have more on that later.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-37986701040530379392010-05-28T06:17:26.662-04:002010-05-28T06:17:26.662-04:00Has there been any hint as to what kind of penalti...Has there been any hint as to what kind of penalties will be written into the rules on the GOP side? Can you recap what the Republican Temporary Delegate Selection Committee recommended, including what they recommended with regard to penalties for states that go too early?astrojobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06643324377144064814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-81781628377326052402010-05-28T00:01:25.160-04:002010-05-28T00:01:25.160-04:00CtH,
It is true that state parties have some influ...CtH,<br />It is true that state parties have some influence over the scheduling decision in some cases, but the ultimate decision -- at least in primary states -- rests with state governments. A state party could be punished by the RNC, then, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what the state government would do.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-30642509838527632952010-05-27T23:52:12.657-04:002010-05-27T23:52:12.657-04:00That will definitely have an effect, Matt. At the...That will definitely have an effect, Matt. At the moment, my gut is telling me there won't actually be that much jumping forward in 2012. We'll either see some or all of these 19 February states comply with the proposed timing stipulations, or we'll see a handful hold their ground and leave open the question of whether the others will follow and/or late states move forward.<br /><br />We'll get the rules in August from both parties and then state legislatures will begin pre-filing bills in December for the sessions starting in 2011. State parties (at least on the Democratic side) have to have their delegate selection plans into the DNC/RBC by April. <br /><br />As 2008 proved, that's a fluid process. State parties can submit DSPs, but the state legislatures can change the timing aspect of that plan without the party's input. By this time next year, we'll have some sense as to whether there will be states that will challenge the proposed timing restrictions.Josh Putnamhttp://frontloading.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-6441583066945171952010-05-27T23:51:06.668-04:002010-05-27T23:51:06.668-04:00It seems that an alternative to going after the st...It seems that an alternative to going after the state's delegates is to go after the number of delegates it is allowed on the national committee and the different sub-committees. For example, a state that violated the rules would lose its votes (or a portion thereof) on the RNC until the next presidential primary.<br /><br />This attacks at the heart of the influence and prestige of exactly the people at the state party level who make the decisions on when to stage their primary.Closer To Homehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03434172501628008732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719252574677567989.post-60657791606290623712010-05-27T22:22:39.588-04:002010-05-27T22:22:39.588-04:00Josh - one thing to keep in mind. There's no i...Josh - one thing to keep in mind. There's no incentive for states to jump ahead on the Democratic side - as there won't be a primary campaign. So the pressure for states to move ahead will solely be on the GOP side in 2012 - the Democrats get a bye this cycle. And that may affect which states jump ahead.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02126730290750804530noreply@blogger.com