RNC adopts rules to try and shorten 2016 primary season

[Likely Voter]

Today the RNC approved new rules that change (and notably attempt to shorten) the 2016 primary season...

4 Contests in Feb

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Early March Contests Proportional

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last contests in May/Convention in June

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course the RNC can't actually compel states to make all the changes they want, but they did allow for waivers for Dem states that hold primaries after the 45 day cutoff date.

Will decide on debates later

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Most of the reporting on this is wrong in several ways, including this article.

The RNC hasn't actually shortened the primary season with this move.  They already passed most of this stuff at the 2012 RNC, including the "super penalty" for states that jump ahead in line.  Most of what they did today was just to tweak the language of the rules here and there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, fat chance on Iowa.  I'll get back to this in a subsequent post, when I have more time to elaborate.

The notion that they're forbidding states from holding primaries in June is also wrong.  What'll happen instead is that (possibly, depending on the timing of the convention) the states that hold primaries as late as June 7 will have to have already selected their delegates before the primary.  But then the primary will still decide who the delegate is pledged to support at the convention.  So the primary will still be held in June, and will still be meaningful.

Again, I'll elaborate on this stuff in another post later today.

[Likely Voter]

As I noted in the title this is a 'try' on their part. Preibus said...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The RNC has decided the process is too long and there are too many debates and their candidate needs to get access to general election funds earlier. Now will the states cooperate and make changes? Who knows. But it is interesting that the RNC is trying hard to shape the process.

Frontloading HQ has some analysis and skepticism as well
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2014/01/rnc-passes-2016-delegate-selection.html

[BaconBacon96]

Moving the early primary states to February? Interesting.

[Mr. Morden]

As I noted in the title this is a 'try' on their part.

Right, but my point was….they already passed these same penalties (minus a few tweaks) at the 2012 RNC.  Changing the rules for 2016 in an attempt to shorten the primary season is something that was done ~17 months ago (and here's the thread I made on it at the time), not something that's happening now.  That's why the media coverage of this is misleading.  This is a point that FHQ makes here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/the-rnc-already-increased-penalties-on.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yes, they already imposed these penalties more than a year ago, creating the "super penalty" for states that hold primaries more than a week before March 1, though it does sound like they may have tightened the penalty a little for smaller states now, since reducing your delegation to nine delegates might not be a big deterrent for states that don't have many delegates anyway.

What I'm less clear on is whether they've done anything to alter the penalty for states like Arizona and Michigan that are scheduled to hold primaries just one week before March 1.  IIRC, the intention at the 2012 RNC was to allow such states to suffer a 50% delegate penalty, but that the rule was written in ambiguous language that needed to be fixed.  I'll wait on further word from FHQ to see if that's been fixed, or if that window still exists at all.  Assuming that Arizona and Michigan hold tight on Feb. 23rd, and aren't given anything more than a 50% delegate penalty, then Iowa (and possibly New Hampshire) will end up in January.

The next item on the list of rules changes is the "proportionality" rule.  As you note, they have now changed the proportionality rule, forcing non-IA/NH/NV/SC states that vote on March 15 or earlier to allocate their delegates "proportionally".  However, this is basically just reintroducing a new version of the rule that was in place for 2012.  In 2012, there was this same "proportionality" requirement for states that voted on March 31 or earlier.  Now they've shrunk that window to March 15 or earlier.

(Should also be noted that "proportional" delegate allocation isn't really proportional.  The rules allow states, if they so desire, to fulfil the "proportionality" requirement even if most of their delegates are allocated WTA by congressional district, as long as there's still a portion of their delegate slate allocated by statewide PR.  And they allow states to revert to WTA if one candidate gets 50% or more of the vote in the state.)

Finally, with regard to the supposed attempt to shorten the primary calendar on the other end, by eliminating June primaries…..well, Priebus would like to do that, but it's not happening.  The new rules do require the states to submit delegate lists at least 45 days before the convention.  If the convention is held in late June or early July (we don't know the exact date yet), then where does that leave the states with primaries as late as June 7?

Well, as FHQ explains in this post:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/a-closer-look-at-what-rnc-subcommittee.html

what'll presumably happen is that states would select slates of delegates to be sent to the convention in advance of the primary.  But then the primary results would be used to bind the convention votes of those delegates to particular candidates.  So the primary would still be meaningful in the nomination contest.  (To the extent that any primary might be meaningful that late in the cycle.)

[Minnesota Mike]

Maybe the harsher penalties will be enough to bring all the states in line and we will have  a primary season that starts a little later but otherwise I don't see much change from 2012. Only a handful of states use a statewide winner take all system anyway so the April 1/March 15 change really will not change anything.

[Joe Republic]

Just watch as Florida f[inks] everything up again anyway, just like every election.  Then watch as all the carefully crafted reforms collapse overnight.

[Minnesota Mike]

Just watch as Florida f[inks] everything up again anyway, just like every election.  Then watch as all the carefully crafted reforms collapse overnight.

Florida is not the problem this time, they have already moved back their primary date. The problem states this time are Michigan (again), Arizona (again), North Carolina (changed date to Tue after South Carolina), Minnesota and Colorado (caucuses).   

[Mr. Morden]

From this reporting from Michigan:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140123/POLITICS03/301230124/1361/Republican-panel-approves-tougher-penalties-for-unauthorized-early-primary-states

it sounds like the RNC may now have eliminated the one week window before March 1, during which the penalty would only be 50% of delegates.  However, Josh Putnam (in the comments on this post: http://frontloading.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/rnc-passes-2016-delegate-selection.html ) says he hasn't yet seen the wording of the rules, so I won't jump to any conclusions yet.

In any case, if they do eliminate that one week exemption, then I'd assume that Arizona and Michigan will relent, and move their primaries later.  In that case, the calendar would probably look something like:

Mon, Jan. 25: Iowa
Tue, Feb. 2: New Hampshire
Sat, Feb. 13: Nevada
Sat, Feb. 20: South Carolina
Tue, Mar. 1: Super Tuesday
etc.

Whereas if there's still that one week exemption, then Arizona and Michigan stick it out on Tuesday, Feb. 23, and IA/NH/NV/SC all move one week earlier.

[New_Conservative]

I like the idea alot.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I like the idea alot.

Agreed, especially with Clinton supposedly running.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Iowa and New Hampshire will rebel to go in January anyway and take the delegate hit. Their symbolic importance is far more potent than whatever delegates they give.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think they are at cross purposes once again. The winner of the Florida primary in both 2008 and 2012 had as their demographic leaders (out performed overal numbers basically) amongst women, Independents and Hispanics.

Iowa, New Hamsphire are far less diverse, SC is dominated by social conservatives and Nevada caucus is dominated by a combination of mormon political activists (some are main stream, but many are highly conservtive, particularly on immigration) and paulists.

Losing Florida from the early states is hardly going to help with their desire to have a candidate who has broader appeal.

[Mr. Morden]

Losing Florida from the early states is hardly going to help with their desire to have a candidate who has broader appeal.

Florida already moved back to Super Tuesday last year, with the urging of Rubio, so that it would avoid any RNC sanctions.

The bigger question is whether the new rules preserve the one week window before March 1, that would allow Arizona and Michigan to hold their primaries then, and only suffer a 50% delegate penalty, as opposed to the "super penalty".  It's not clear whether that window is still there or not.  If not, then I imagine that AZ and MI are going to have to move back to Super Tuesday or later, because the super penalty is too much.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Losing Florida from the early states is hardly going to help with their desire to have a candidate who has broader appeal.

Florida already moved back to Super Tuesday last year, with the urging of Rubio, so that it would avoid any RNC sanctions.

The bigger question is whether the new rules preserve the one week window before March 1, that would allow Arizona and Michigan to hold their primaries then, and only suffer a 50% delegate penalty, as opposed to the "super penalty".  It's not clear whether that window is still there or not.  If not, then I imagine that AZ and MI are going to have to move back to Super Tuesday or later, because the super penalty is too much.

Yes I saw all that. My point was that losing FL from the early states was not all that good, not that this move by the RNC had the effect of causing it.

What will happen is that SC will go back to being the kingmaker most likely.

I understand the desire to have a short primary, but that cuts both ways and could easily lead to the corronation of an unvetted joke against Hillary's well oiled and seasoned campaign and media apparatus.

[Likely Voter]

This morning Chuck Todd asked Preibus about the calendar and how a conservative could win 3 of 4 of the February states and how it might give a more conservative candidate early momentum and could hurt a more electable candidate. Rance countered that the early March proportionality rules would stop that from happening.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-daily-rundown/watch/rnc-chair-on-huckabee-growing-the-party-128073283878

Seems to me that if conservatives consolidated around one candidate and he won 3 of 4 races pre-super Tuesday, it is hard to see that candidate losing as the other conservatives would drop out. If the race comes down to one conservative darling and the establishment favorite, the conservative is going to win.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It seems like they designed this on the expectation that Christie would be the nomine almost or something like that of an over-arching front runner. That is dead and thus it will be like 2008 in that whoever wins SC will dominate super tuesday and this time, you won't have the Florida last chance to take a different path and McCain won't be the SC winner.

[Mr. Morden]

This morning Chuck Todd asked Preibus about the calendar and how a conservative could win 3 of 4 of the February states and how it might give a more conservative candidate early momentum and could hurt a more electable candidate. Rance countered that the early March proportionality rules would stop that from happening.

I don't see the proportionality rules making that much difference, since the RNC's definition of "proportional" is pretty loose, and still allows states to award the bulk of their delegates to the statewide winner, if they win most of the CDs.  (It is true, though that the fact that so many states award an equal number of delegates to each CD biases things towards whichever GOP candidate has the most appeal in urban areas, as I explained here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=182322.msg3941534#msg3941534 )

I do agree with NCY that if the RNC squeezes out Arizona and Michigan, and any other potential interlopers at the end of February, then that boosts South Carolina's power, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday.  Keep in mind that Super Tuesday itself is heavy with Southern primaries.

But South Carolina being more important doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to go to the most conservative candidate.  SC has often tended to go with establishment choices.  (See, e.g., 1996 and 2008.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dole and Bush both could count at least some social conservative support, more so the latter then the former obviously. McCain was facing a completely unfunded opponent who had surged relatively late out of the third tier in 2008, with the Huckster. It also helped that McCain had just won NH a week and a half prior and was surging at that point, Romney had stabilized with his win in Michigan and Fred was attemping a push in the state. 

The other possibility other than a Christie candidacy expectation was that of expecting the "Lets Nominate a Conservative this time" playing right into the advancing of either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio who would have been running to the center already Bush style but still well defined as Conservatives to start. Rubio has not recovered from the immigration fight and Ryan has his eyes on bigger fish in the House. Whatever calculus that Reince is using, it was based on a situation that was temporary expectation at best. Bottomline, The RNC doesn't know what the hell it is doing and should just stick to the technology, infrastructure and money, the only things they can actually control directly.

Arizona would go with the more conservative choice I think. The only reason it didn't in 2012 is because of Romney's resources, immigration positions and his support amongst Mormon Republicans. Michigan tends to go with the more moderate candidate save for Romney in 2008 who used his ties to leverage a candidacy saving win there.

[Mr. Morden]

The other possibility other than a Christie candidacy expectation was that of expecting the "Lets Nominate a Conservative this time" playing right into the advancing of either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio who would have been running to the center already Bush style but still well defined as Conservatives to start. Rubio has not recovered from the immigration fight and Ryan has his eyes on bigger fish in the House. Whatever calculus that Reince is using, it was based on a situation that was temporary expectation at best. Bottomline, The RNC doesn't know what the hell it is doing and should just stick to the technology, infrastructure and money, the only things they can actually control directly.

Yeah, it's hardly a given that the leading "establishment candidate" will be Chris Christie, or someone in that mold.  It could just as easily be Rubio or Walker, etc.  Bush was of course the establishment candidate in 2000, fighting off an insurgency from his left in the form of McCain.

Like I said six months ago, the smart play for the GOP might be to nominate someone with a more conservative reputation than a Christie or Romney, who'll nonetheless run as a moderate:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=176951.0

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yea I read that back then. That was what I was trying to describe as the second potential motivation for this approach.