The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread

[Mr. Morden]

I also think NH, IA etc would call special leg. sessions to make sure their primary is the earliest/most rad.

They don't need them.  In Iowa, the individual state parties set the caucus date (and the two parties don't have to go on the same day, though historically they have).  In NH, the Secretary of State sets the primary himself (the same system being proposed in Georgia).  That way, they can wait until very late in the game before announcing their primary date.

That's part of the hypocrisy of IA and NH.  They yell and scream about other states breaking national party rules by going too early, but then they also insist that they're not going to be bound by national party rules themselves, and will move their primaries earlier than everyone else no matter what the national parties say.

[The Mikado]

It occurs to me that if a lot of states (including big ones like FL, MI, and NY) take the 50% delegate penalty, then if their gamble fails and the race is still competitive by Super Tuesday, the leftover big states will have vastly disproportionate influence (like TX).

[Bull Moose Base]

Mikado,
Half-true.  Their gamble won't fail so much in that they'll still be showered with candidate visits and ad buys, just that later states will as well.  I used to think it was going to screw Romney over but looks like Cali will move their primary to June and I like his chances there with a one-on-one race if it comes down to it.  Varies by opponent but generally it seems like a strong state for him and a motherlode of delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

Utah is now locked in to a Feb. 7th primary, as the state legislature has adjourned for the year, without changing the primary date:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/03/update-on-utah-locked-in-on-feb-7.html

While the Utah GOP could still decide to hold a later caucus that they pay for themselves (as opposed to the primary, which the state pays for), there's no reason to believe that's going to happen.  The state appears to be essentially a lock for a Feb. 7th primary, which is a month earlier than the national parties would like.

We now seem to have something of a split among the January / February primary states.  On the one hand, states like California, New Jersey, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, Maryland, and others all have bills in the pipeline to move the primary to March or later, and all seem to be on track to do so.  In each of those cases, the push for a later primary appears to be bipartisan.

On the flip side, the states that look most willing to defy DNC and RNC wishes, and stick with January or February primaries are Utah, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Minnesota.  They all seem willing to accept the risk of a 50% delegate loss in order to go early.

The biggest question mark remains New York.  If California moves to June as expected, then New York is the biggest delegate prize among February primaries.  Are they going to move too?  There haven't yet been any bills presented in the legislature that would effect primary timing, and I'm not aware of any public statements by any state legislative leaders on this.  But I believe the New York legislature meets year round, so there should still be plenty of time on this.

[Lief 🗽]

The Utah legislature adjourns for the year in March?! What.

[Mr. Morden]

Yeah, the Utah legislature only meets for about six and a half weeks a year (between January and March):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Legislature

There are several other states that only meet between January and April.  And on the other end of the spectrum, you've got states whose legislatures are in session pretty much year round.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, looks like everyone got the Utah story wrong.  True, the legislature didn't change the primary date, but they also failed to appropriate any money for the primary next year:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/51428755-64/primary-date-utah-party.html.csp

Which means that, while Utah law says there will be a primary on Feb. 7th, there actually won't be one, because there's no money for it.  The parties are on their own, and have to fund their own delegate contests, which might be a party-run primary, or a caucus, or a state convention, or whatever.  It sounds like the Utah GOP will likely go late with their contest, possibly as late as June.

So I've changed the calendar in the OP to reflect this, and would also now amend the list of states I consider most likely to defy national party rules to go early as: FL, GA, AZ, MI, and MN.

[Mr. Morden]

Missouri joins the states with a good chance of keeping an early primary.  There had been some support in both parties for moving to a later date, but the GOP leadership was divided on the issue, and when a bill came up in the state senate to move the primary to March, a Republican senator offered an amendment that would actually require that the primary be held just one week after NH (whenever NH decides to hold its primary) instead, and the amendment passed by a vote of 16-14:

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/dfbdf304c117464986fbb88495d044e8/MO-XGR--Presidential-Primary/

It's not clear that the revised bill is actually going to go anywhere, and even if both houses passed it, it would probably be vetoed by Nixon.  But this definitely increases the chances that the legislature simply won't be able to agree on when to schedule the primary, which means that it stays on Feb. 7th, one month earlier than the national parties would like.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yeah, the Utah legislature only meets for about six and a half weeks a year (between January and March):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Legislature

There are several other states that only meet between January and April.  And on the other end of the spectrum, you've got states whose legislatures are in session pretty much year round.

And then, of course, there's Texas, whose legislature only meets every other year.

[The Mikado]

Yeah, the Utah legislature only meets for about six and a half weeks a year (between January and March):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_State_Legislature

There are several other states that only meet between January and April.  And on the other end of the spectrum, you've got states whose legislatures are in session pretty much year round.

And then, of course, there's Texas, whose legislature only meets every other year.

They'll likely have a bunch of special sessions this term, though.

[Likely Voter]

question for those who are following this? What is up with Florida? Are they really sticking with late Jan date? And if so, then is NV going to move into Jan (along with IA, NH and SC)?

[Bull Moose Base]

question for those who are following this? What is up with Florida? Are they really sticking with late Jan date? And if so, then is NV going to move into Jan (along with IA, NH and SC)?

I thought Florida had relented to at least move to February.  Not sure if that changes anything.  Guess my streak of thorough linking to sources and not being lazy continues.

[Mr. Morden]

There are bills in both houses of the Florida legislature to move the primary later, but they're backed by Democrats, while it's the Republicans who are in the majority.  The GOP leadership in the legislature says they're willing to move to February, but only if Florida can still go before any other state besides IA, NH, NV, and SC.  Since at least a couple of the Feb. 7th states are probably going to stay where they are, I don't see Florida moving.

Florida's legislative session ends on May 6th, so that's the deadline for making a change.  Two other February primary states (Arizona and Georgia) have legislative sessions that end in April.  There haven't been any bills proposed in the Arizona legislature to move the primary.  And in Georgia, the only bill to move the primary would actually allow the state's Secretary of State to set the primary date unilaterally, allowing him to go as early as Jan. 30th if he wants.

[Bull Moose Base]

Even if Florida was willing to go in April, if even one rebel state stays Feb 7, Iowa obviously ends up mid-January at latest.

[Likely Voter]

So has NV indicated they are going to move into Jan to secure position as fourth state? NV is pretty important for Romney. He needs that second win after NH to fend off losses in IA and SC.

If NV does not move, Romney could go into the fourth contest (either FL or a mini-super Tuesday on Feb 7) facing a candidate with two wins (IA and SC), he needs NV to at least make it even (or have him facing two single win candidates). 

[The Mikado]

So, should all this happen, we'd be looking at the first 10 or so states having half-delegates?  Wouldn't big states like FL, MI, and others, besides, having half delegates mean that the later states would have that much more weight if the contest ends up split like 2008?  (Texas, especially, will be a heavyweight)

[Bull Moose Base]

Romney's strategy is being reported to expect a couple early losses to go with wins in NH and NV, hunker down for a long, expensive slog.  And/or they're just lowering expectations in IA and SC.  No doubt he doesn't want Pawlenty to be the other finalist and prefers a Bachmann or Palin blows him out of the race early.

Mikado, definitely. And many late states looked bad for Romney.  But the California bill to go in June passed committee easily, which depending on who he faces could be like playing Game 7 at home. I do think it'll be unsettled until June.  One can only hope the race is long, messy and dirty.  Even as a Democrat, Obama vs. Hillary was high entertainment.

[Mr. Morden]

So has NV indicated they are going to move into Jan to secure position as fourth state? NV is pretty important for Romney. He needs that second win after NH to fend off losses in IA and SC.

Nevada is still clinging to the hope that all the other states will move into March like the RNC wants them to.  Of course, that's not really going to happen.  Not all of them are going to move.  Nevada will probably move up into January in the end, but nothing's certain.

So, should all this happen, we'd be looking at the first 10 or so states having half-delegates?  Wouldn't big states like FL, MI, and others, besides, having half delegates mean that the later states would have that much more weight if the contest ends up split like 2008?  (Texas, especially, will be a heavyweight)

Yes, there could end up being a lot of states with half delegates.  But remember, back in 2008, the RNC had similar 50% delegate penalties for states with January primaries, including NH, SC, and FL.  But even with delegate penalties, McCain basically won the nomination by winning those three states.  He won because the momentum he got from winning those states carried over into Super Tuesday and beyond.  That's the gamble that each of these states is making by setting early primaries dates.  The gamble is that "momentum" trumps delegates.

This is a good read that I've linked to before:

http://www.slate.com/id/2179500/pagenum/all

"We don't nominate presidents anymore by getting to the point where somebody has a majority of the delegates. We nominate someone when we get to the point that there is a communal sense that one of the candidates has effectively won the nomination and the race is over."

Of course, that was said just before the 2008 Democratic race, a contest in which delegates actually mattered more than momentum.  Maybe the 2012 GOP race will end up like that.  But there's no way to know yet.

[Bull Moose Base]

On communal sense and momentum over delegates... I'd be surprised if that's not gone for good. Nate Silver argues Romney could either score a quick KO or win a long slog.  But Silver is himself the one who exposed the media's dishonesty in prolonging Obama Hillary by misrepresenting her chance to catch him in delegates (or chance to win with a deficit in pledged delegates).  I would bet on a long slog if it was on intrade.  If Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire and is polling ahead in NV and FL and competitive in SC, the media including FOX (or powerful parts thereof) will frantically report on polls showing resistance to a candidate who passed a mandate, polls showing Romney weak in the South and Midwest, downplay the NH win as favorite son, puff up another choice.  If Pawlenty wins IA and NH, they'll give his fake Southern drawl the Dean scream treatment.  The object of (even conservative) media will be make the GOP the party of no consensus.  With McCain, the GOP was winner-take-all so their hands were tied when he won CA and NY and Romney obliged by dropping out.  A Huckabee comeback was not slightly feasible and they already had Obama v. Hillary to sell.  They need the GOP to be their show next year and the light (penalized) delegate prizes up front will give them ample ammo to blow away the Gladwellian scenario in your linked article.  Even if Bachmann is hanging on and Rove, Brooks and George Will are shouting to call the fight for Romney, others will remind you every other minute, he's still way short of the clinching # and this is far from over.

[Mr. Morden]

Yes, the media has something of an interest in prolonging the nomination fight.  And yet, that's been the case forever, and there are still many cases in which a winner is annointed very early.  The most extreme recent case is the Democratic race in 2004.  Kerry looked to be dead in the water as late as December 2003.  Then, once the primary voting actually starts, he wins back to back victories in IA and NH, and he becomes the putative nominee.  The race ended right away, well before he had amassed a majority of delegates, despite the fact that every Democratic primary assigned delegates by proportional representation.

Maybe the 2012 GOP nomination race will be like that.  Maybe it won't be.  There's no reliable way to predict such things this far in advance.

[Bull Moose Base]

Fair enough.  Certainly the media helped destroy Dean post-Iowa which arguably shortened the contest.  Likewise, if Palin served up a doozy of a gaffe in a South Carolina debate, hard to imagine they'd be able to resist the temptation to pounce on it no matter their bigger agenda.  I do see analogies to Democrats 2004. Massachusetts flipflopper linkable to president on the issue that most motivates your own base's anger.  But also a background well-suited to the particular election.  Here's a difference: Kerry's war vote wasn't the exception.  I do think if John Edwards had been a consistent Iraq War opponent who'd voted no on authorization, Kerry might have struggled after early sweeps.  If Romney starts off running the table, he's still the only one so connected to ObamaCare and at most one of two Mormons.  But maybe it won't be enough or maybe  Pawlenty will be the one off to the races...

[Mr. Morden]

Virginia officially moves to March 6th, to avoid the 50% delegate penalty:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/03/gov-mcdonnell-makes-it-official.html

I've updated the calendar in the OP accordingly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Theoretically, Reince Preibus could use his power to exempt a bunch of early big states like Florida to ensure there is a guarranteed front runner comming out of January into the Super Tuesday whether in Feb or March (likely February at this point). A prime candidate for such treatment would be Florida since its large and early, though that would anger SC considerably as FL would become cemented as the Southern king maker.

Preibus would seem to be someone who wants it over and done with quickly. He doesn't want to be remembered as the guy who failed to oust Obama during his term, and that would be impossible to prevent if this doesn't end till June in California, or even worse, at the Convention in Tampa.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Mr. Morden considers it more appropriate, I have no problem with him merging this thread with the pinned one about the primary calendar.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/SC_Republicans_escalate_calendar_feud.html?showall

South Carolina Republican Party Chair Karen Floyd today brought into the open the simmering tensions between the traditional early states and the others -- particularly Florida -- jockeying to break into the primary calendar.
Floyd's demand: If Florida won't step aside, the RNC should move its convention out of the state.

She writes to fellow RNC members:

...

Simply put, if Florida does not respect the process by which our primary calendar was set, the RNC should not be bound to the process by which the convention site was selected.

If Florida refuses to move its primary date into compliance with RNC rules, I am respectfully requesting that the Committee convene a special task force to select a new site for the 2012 Convention outside the state of Florida...

...

It is, in other words, on.

[Tender Branson]

I support Karen Floyd on this.

It would be better if Florida moves to Super Tuesday instead.