The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:55:49 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20
Author Topic: The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread  (Read 66465 times)
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2011, 02:27:11 AM »

If RNC is serious about starting in February, they would have to threaten to remove all of Florida's delegates and to take the 2012 convention away.

I find it amazing that Florida GOP has been awarded the convention and is yet thumbing their nose at their own party.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2011, 04:35:37 AM »

If RNC is serious about starting in February, they would have to threaten to remove all of Florida's delegates and to take the 2012 convention away.

They're not serious though.  They would *like* to move the primaries later, but they have no desire to repeat the 2008 DNC vs. FL/MI fiasco.  They'll make a lot of noise, but won't really do anything about it.

And again, it's not just Florida.  Florida's just the most open about it.  Other states are likely to follow suit, and stick to late Jan. / early Feb. primaries.  Utah's 2012 primary is still scheduled for Feb. 7th, and the legislature adjourns in a couple of weeks and no one's put forth any legislation to move the primary later.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 25, 2011, 05:05:41 PM »

So what penalties would there be?  Half-delegates?
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 26, 2011, 09:14:16 AM »

So what penalties would there be?  Half-delegates?


States that vote earlier than April 1 have to allocate delegates by PR rather than WTA, and states that vote earlier than the first Tuesday of March will lose half their delegates (at least for all states besides IA, NH, NV, and SC, which can vote as early as Feb. 1 without losing any delegates).  Those are the rules the RNC adopted.  Unlikely they're going to be changed to anything harsher than that.

Also, Idaho has officially moved their primary May 15th:

http://www.ballot-access.org/2011/02/25/idaho-bill-signed-moves-primary-one-week-earlier/

and I've updated the calendar in the OP.  In Virginia, McDonnell will likely soon be signing the bill that moves that state's primary to March, as it's passed both houses of the legislature.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 26, 2011, 09:48:34 AM »

I know this is a larger issue But why does everyone feel like they have to vote on a Tuesday. Couldn't Florida, or any state, hold their vote on Thursday March 1 and avoid any penalty?
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2011, 10:10:09 AM »

Nope.  Because:

-If any other state holds primaries/caucuses before the first Tuesday of March, they lose half their delegates.

The penalty is for going before the first Tuesday of March, not March 1st.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2011, 10:20:20 AM »

Nope.  Because:

-If any other state holds primaries/caucuses before the first Tuesday of March, they lose half their delegates.

The penalty is for going before the first Tuesday of March, not March 1st.


Okay. Thanks for explaining that.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2011, 11:05:30 AM »

Super Tuesday seems a bit small.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2011, 01:53:10 PM »


At least five of the states on the current "Super Tuesday" of Feb. 7th (including CA) are likely to move later, and the new Super Tuesday will probably be March 6th.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: February 27, 2011, 10:54:49 AM »

So the Republicans want to create a longer primary, allowing Obama to create an unstoppable campaign machine?
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: February 28, 2011, 05:06:26 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2011, 06:53:52 AM by Mr. Morden »

FHQ gets a copy of the actual text of the new RNC rules:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/02/update-on-2012-republican-delegate.html

and notes that we've all been misled on the proportionality requirement.  The rule is written extremely broadly, and allows states to fulfill the requirement by using a statewide PR / WTA by CD hybrid system.  Let me explain:

States with primaries after April 1 can allocate their delegates however they like.  States that vote before April "have to allocate their delegates by PR", but it's really faux-PR, at least for those states with primaries in March.

Let me use MN as an example.  MN held their caucus on the first Tuesday of February in 2008.  For 2012, they've moved to March 6th.  That means that they can't allocate their delegates via WTA.  They have to use a system that incorporates PR.  If they want to allocate all 37 of their delegates by PR, they may do so.  But if they want to, they can actually allocate up to 24 of those delegates by CD, with the winner of each of the 8 CDs in the state getting 3 delegates, and the remaining 13 delegates being allocated proportionally based on the statewide total.  (The fraction of delegates that can be used for WTA by CD varies by state, but is typically over 50% of the state's delegates.)  And even with those 13 delegates allocated by statewide PR, the state can set a minimum threshold as high as 20% if they like.

In 2008, the MN GOP caucus results were:

Romney 41.4%
McCain 22.0%
Huckabee 19.9%
Paul 15.7%
and Romney gets a plurality in all 8 CDs

So yes, under 2012 RNC rules, MN could write its allocation rules so that Romney gets 41.4% of the delegates, McCain gets 22.0% of the delegates, Huckabee 19.9%, etc.  But they could also write their rules such that 24 delegates are WTA by CD (all going to Romney), and the remaining 13 delegates are distribution between Romney and McCain, as Huck and Paul don't crack 20%.

(EDIT: Oh yeah, and I forgot the best part.  States can also include a provision in their allocation rules such that it reverts to WTA if one candidate gets more than 50%.  So again, this isn't real PR.)

These options would be available to the states with primaries in March.  The states with primaries in Jan. / Feb. would be hit with the additional penalty of the 50% delegate cut.  And it's unclear whether they'd have the same options with respect to PR, or if they'd be forced into full blown statewide PR for all of their delegates.  It may depend on how the RNC ends up interpreting the rule, which hasn't been decided yet.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: February 28, 2011, 05:18:01 PM »

FHQ gets a copy of the actual text of the new RNC rules:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/02/update-on-2012-republican-delegate.html

and notes that we've all been misled on the proportionality requirement.  The rule is written extremely broadly, and allows states to fulfill the requirement by using a statewide PR / WTA by CD hybrid system.  Let me explain:

States with primaries after April 1 can allocate their delegates however they like.  States that vote before April "have to allocate their delegates by PR", but it's really faux-PR, at least for those states with primaries in March.

Let me use MN as an example.  MN held their caucus on the first Tuesday of February in 2008.  For 2012, they've moved to March 6th.  That means that they can't allocate their delegates via WTA.  They have to use a system that incorporates PR.  If they want to allocate all 37 of their delegates by PR, they may do so.  But if they want to, they can actually allocate up to 24 of those delegates by CD, with the winner of each of the 8 CDs in the state getting 3 delegates, and the remaining 13 delegates being allocated proportionally based on the statewide total.  (The fraction of delegates that can be used for WTA by CD varies by state, but is typically over 50% of the state's delegates.)  And even with those 13 delegates allocated by statewide PR, the state can set a minimum threshold as high as 20% if they like.

In 2008, the MN GOP caucus results were:

Romney 41.4%
McCain 22.0%
Huckabee 19.9%
Paul 15.7%
and Romney gets a plurality in all 8 CDs

So yes, under 2012 RNC rules, MN could write its allocation rules so that Romney gets 41.4% of the delegates, McCain gets 22.0% of the delegates, Huckabee 19.9%, etc.  But they could also write their rules such that 24 delegates are WTA by CD (all going to Romney), and the remaining 13 delegates are distribution between Romney and McCain, as Huck and Paul don't crack 20%.

(EDIT: Oh yeah, and I forgot the best part.  States can also include a provision in their allocation rules such that it reverts to WTA if one candidate gets more than 50%.  So again, this isn't real PR.)

These options would be available to the states with primaries in March.  The states with primaries in Jan. / Feb. would be hit with the additional penalty of the 50% delegate cut.  And it's unclear whether they'd have the same options with respect to PR, or if they'd be forced into full blown statewide PR for all of their delegates.  It may depend on how the RNC ends up interpreting the rule, which hasn't been decided yet.


I thought state's leeway in deciding how PR is implemented was reported when the new rules passed, no?  I remember something about the RNC chairman being able to arbitrarily decide who gets punished too which excited me, at least while Steele was still in charge.

I wonder if IA and NH get punished if everyone else goes in February and they say look we have no choice.  We're special.

As for the 20% threshold... I don't think it's impossible Iowa can be won with <20% if you have folks who are middling run with some level of parity like Romney, Palin, Pawlenty, Daniels, Gingrich, Bachmann.  How wonderful would it be if no one won any Iowa delegates?!  Probably a pipe dream.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2011, 05:28:08 PM »

I thought state's leeway in deciding how PR is implemented was reported when the new rules passed, no?

It was reported that the rule was vague, but this is the first time it's been made explicit that the states are actually free to allocate a majority of their delegates by WTA by CD, escaping proportionality altogether for all but about 1/3rd of their delegates.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

20% is the maximum threshold that states can set as their minimum for getting delegates.  But they're free to set that threshold anywhere between 0% and 20%.  Iowa has traditionally used something approximating straight PR, and will probably do the same in 2012.  McCain even got a delegate there in 2000, despite getting less than 5% of the vote.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2011, 08:00:46 PM »

To start with, I'll try to post what I understand the "current" calendar to be in the near future.  I'll get to that soon, and edit this post appropriately.  In the meantime, here are two versions of it:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2010/06/2012-presidential-primary-calendar.html
(that is a very useful blog on this topic btw)

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

Neither one of those blogs get everything right concerning South Carolina.  Frontloading gives a more likely date for the South Carolina GOP primary, but neglects the fact the parties can, have, and likely will, have their primaries on different dates.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless the truly unexpected happens and Obama faces a real primary challenge, the SCDP is not going to make waves and will not be going before the February 28 date the DNC has set as their earliest possible date.  Indeed, instead of Feb 28, they might even decide to go on June 12 so as to have their presidential primary coincide with primary for the other offices.  Not that I think they will, but it wouldn't shock me in the least.

The date of the Republican primary is similarly easy to figure out.  So long as Florida remains at Jan 31, SC will go on Jan 28.  If Florida goes at least one week later, the SC GOP primary will be on Feb 4.  (Too many states currently on Feb 7 to expect any other dates from the SC GOP.  Of course, if some other State tries to push back into January, SC will make certain they go before them.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2011, 09:18:43 PM »

To start with, I'll try to post what I understand the "current" calendar to be in the near future.  I'll get to that soon, and edit this post appropriately.  In the meantime, here are two versions of it:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2010/06/2012-presidential-primary-calendar.html
(that is a very useful blog on this topic btw)

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

Neither one of those blogs get everything right concerning South Carolina.  Frontloading gives a more likely date for the South Carolina GOP primary, but neglects the fact the parties can, have, and likely will, have their primaries on different dates.

Like me, FHQ is only tracking the GOP calendar.  The Dem. calendar is unimportant (unless and until Obama gets a serious primary challenger).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that a given?  In 2008, SC positioned itself 10 days before Florida rather than 3.  Why isn't that a possibility for 2012?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2011, 11:01:41 PM »

To start with, I'll try to post what I understand the "current" calendar to be in the near future.  I'll get to that soon, and edit this post appropriately.  In the meantime, here are two versions of it:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2010/06/2012-presidential-primary-calendar.html
(that is a very useful blog on this topic btw)

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

Neither one of those blogs get everything right concerning South Carolina.  Frontloading gives a more likely date for the South Carolina GOP primary, but neglects the fact the parties can, have, and likely will, have their primaries on different dates.

Like me, FHQ is only tracking the GOP calendar.  The Dem. calendar is unimportant (unless and until Obama gets a serious primary challenger).

But FHQ gives February 28 (the earliest date the Democrats can and be compliant) as the date the GOP might move to, but the GOP only requires SC be after Feb 1.  Unless everybody on Super Tuesday moves to March, which won't happen, the absolute latest the SC GOP primary could happen is Feb 4.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that a given?  In 2008, SC positioned itself 10 days before Florida rather than 3.  Why isn't that a possibility for 2012?

[/quote]
Back when the 2008 date was set, several states were still considering moving earlier, and Nevada had already scheduled its caucus for the same date as South Carolina chose for its primary.  They went for 10 days before because they wanted to be (along with Nevada) not just the first in the South, but also the first after Iowa and New Hampshire.  (As it was, Michigan later changed to before South Carolina.)  Nevada has moved its caucuses to mid-February and at the moment, no State is considering moving its contest into January.  If the present circumstances hold, South Carolina has no reason to not be considerate to Iowa and New Hampshire, especially if Florida moves its primary later.  Feb 4 would fall within the RNC guidelines,
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2011, 11:14:48 PM »
« Edited: February 28, 2011, 11:16:44 PM by Mr. Morden »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that a given?  In 2008, SC positioned itself 10 days before Florida rather than 3.  Why isn't that a possibility for 2012?

Back when the 2008 date was set, several states were still considering moving earlier, and Nevada had already scheduled its caucus for the same date as South Carolina chose for its primary.  They went for 10 days before because they wanted to be (along with Nevada) not just the first in the South, but also the first after Iowa and New Hampshire.  (As it was, Michigan later changed to before South Carolina.)  Nevada has moved its caucuses to mid-February and at the moment, no State is considering moving its contest into January.  If the present circumstances hold, South Carolina has no reason to not be considerate to Iowa and New Hampshire, especially if Florida moves its primary later.  Feb 4 would fall within the RNC guidelines,
[/quote]

If Florida moves later, then I agree SC would go on Feb. 4th to stay within RNC rules.  If Florida stays on Jan. 31st, then SC might just as easily move to the 21st as 28th, just in case.  It gives SC more of a buffer on either side, and decreases the probability that some candidates will try to sidestep SC in favor of FL.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: March 01, 2011, 03:37:54 PM »

Why does Florida want to go so early and lose half its delegation?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: March 01, 2011, 09:10:21 PM »

If Florida moves later, then I agree SC would go on Feb. 4th to stay within RNC rules.  If Florida stays on Jan. 31st, then SC might just as easily move to the 21st as 28th, just in case.  It gives SC more of a buffer on either side, and decreases the probability that some candidates will try to sidestep SC in favor of FL.

The sidestep argument holds more weight than the buffer argument.  They tried a buffer last time and it failed as Michigan still ended up going before South Carolina.  In any case, we'll know for certain if South Carolina goes on Jan 21 no later than  Oct 21.  (Current state law specifies that a party has to inform the SEC (State Election Commission) at least ninety days before of the date they intend to hold the primary, but exactly ninety days before, Oct 23, is on a Sunday, so they'd need to inform them on the Friday before that.)
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2011, 11:52:05 PM »

OK, it appears I was led astray by a mistake by FHQ on the date of Minnesota's caucus.  It should be Feb. 7th.  Apparently, state law sets both parties' caucuses as the first Tuesday of Feb., unless the state has the consent of both political parties to move that date.  The parties have to agree to this before March 1st of the year before the caucuses:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Minnesota_caucus_could_scramble_12_calendar.html

Well, March 1st has come and gone, and the Minnesota GOP refused to move the caucus date.  So it's still scheduled for Feb. 7th.  The MN GOP says this shouldn't be a problem for the primary calendar because the caucus is "non-binding".  But technically, I think almost all the caucuses are non-binding, so I think it kind of is a problem for the RNC pushing the calendar later.  Just another indication that the primaries are likely going to start in early January again.

Meanwhile, it looks like Michigan, which is currently scheduled for Feb. 28th, has no intention of moving later to avoid sanctions, and may again move *earlier*, as in 2008:

http://detnews.com/article/20110304/POLITICS02/103040402/Michigan-will-try-again-for-early-primary
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: March 05, 2011, 01:54:23 AM »

And now a bipartisan group of state legislators in Georgia has offered a bill that would allow the Georgia Secretary of State (currently a Republican) to set the state's primary date himself:

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2011/03/04/in-a-game-of-presidential-primary-poker-georgia-will-play-it-close-to-the-vest/

He'd be able to name any date he likes, provided that it's no earlier than Jan. 30th and no later than the 2nd Tuesday of June.  And he wouldn't have to announce the date until Dec. 1, thus potentially waiting out every other state.

Apparently, the speculation is that this might be a bid to join Florida on Jan. 31st, but Georgia wants to wait and see how the current clash between Florida and the RNC plays out before committing to that date.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: March 05, 2011, 10:10:00 AM »

Apparently, the speculation is that this might be a bid to join Florida on Jan. 31st, but Georgia wants to wait and see how the current clash between Florida and the RNC plays out before committing to that date.

If Florida stays on January 31 and Georgia joins it, then South Carolina will go for January 21.  They might have gone for just a three day window if it was only Florida to worry about, but not if Georgia joins them.
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: March 06, 2011, 05:17:42 PM »

Geez, we really don't have a lot of time left. For states that want change, most have to go to the legislature, and in most cases states are already halfway done meaning few new bills will be able to enter and make it out before the session closes.

If it weren't for Florida being such narcissists this could have worked out where only the first four states went in February, and then the rest in March and April mainly. Florida could have even gone at the end of February (though it wouldn't be worth it to lose half their delegates).
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: March 06, 2011, 06:46:18 PM »

Geez, we really don't have a lot of time left. For states that want change, most have to go to the legislature, and in most cases states are already halfway done meaning few new bills will be able to enter and make it out before the session closes.

A lot of states have bills in the pipeline.  Of course, not all of them will pass.  Virginia actually has a bill that would move the primary later that's been passed by both houses, and is just waiting for McDonnell's signature.  Every Feb. 7th primary state except DE, NY, and UT has a bill having to do with primary timing that's at least been proposed, if not yet voted on.  Utah is actually the most significant case, as they have a very short legislative session, which actually ends as early as this coming week.  So the chances are pretty good that Utah will be sticking with Feb. 7th.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that's true at all.  As previously mentioned, it's not just Florida.  There are several February primary/caucus states that aren't going to move.  Utah will probably stay on Feb. 7th.  MN is likely going to stay on Feb. 7th.  New York is a question mark, but nothing's been proposed in the legislature yet.  Arizona probably isn't going to move later.  Michigan probably isn't going to move later, and might even move earlier.

The DNC and RNC were naive if they actually thought their rules changes were going to be enough to shift the start of primary season back to February.  It was never going to work.  They only way to stop primary season from starting in January is via federal legislation.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2011, 07:14:11 PM »

I also think NH, IA etc would call special leg. sessions to make sure their primary is the earliest/most rad.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.