The Great Primary Calendar re-shuffle Megathread

[Bull Moose Base]

Catch this from the Florida article?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and then at the very end...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I assume Team Romney crapped themselves somewhat when the new calendar rules passed.  The penalties are less problematic for Florida as a state than they are for Romney as a candidate, since they stand to give him much weaker leverage out of his regional strength.  I think a plausible theory is that his allies are trying to kill the cow who starts the stampede, or simply protect Florida as a big, fat jackpot for Romney.  And consider it in context with the general- hey, am I coining this?- Palinophobia from the Bushes.

Found the article's framing interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...the "effort" doesn't need to be abandoned.  It already succeeded. They changed the law.  Florida goes early as of 2008.  The effort would now actually be to move Florida back, which is a little stickier to sell.  Maybe the reporter was fed and swallowed spin from the Romney allies?

[Bull Moose Base]

I assume Team Romney crapped themselves somewhat when the new calendar rules passed.  The penalties are less problematic for Florida as a state than they are for Romney as a candidate, since they stand to give him much weaker leverage out of his regional strength.  I think a plausible theory is that his allies are trying to kill the cow who starts the stampede, or simply protect Florida as a big, fat jackpot for Romney.  And consider it in context with the general- hey, am I coining this?- Palinophobia from the Bushes.

I assume that Romney would love to see Florida hold a prominent straw poll shortly before the Iowa caucuses, and steal some of Iowa's "first in the nation" thunder.  He'd have a better chance at winning the FL straw poll than the Iowa caucuses, because the former would rely more on money and organization.  Of course, a straw poll wouldn't actually allocate any delegates, so there's every chance that other candidates skip it, and the media doesn't give it much coverage, which means that it wouldn't matter.  It only works if more than one candidate wants to contest it.

I agree Romney would love a Florida straw poll but that's not mutually exclusive with a January primary though this Thrasher fellow is linking them.  This is about Romney wanting to move Florida later.  The momentum he would generate by winning Florida in late January would be easily offset by the damage the penalties his good states will pay if nothing changes, hence my verb-object choice "crapped themselves".  I think he is furiously lobbying to move states later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

but

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...the "effort" doesn't need to be abandoned.  It already succeeded. They changed the law.  Florida goes early as of 2008.  The effort would now actually be to move Florida back, which is a little stickier to sell.  Maybe the reporter was fed and swallowed spin from the Romney allies?

I don't know if it's actually spin, or just ignorance.  You'd be surprised by how many state legislators and state party leaders don't really seem to understand how the primary calendar works, even though they're the ones who are creating it.  It's quite possible that numerous Florida state legislators don't actually realize that they already have an early presidential primary, and all they have to do to keep it is do nothing.  It's just not something that that's necessarily on their issues radar, and most of them probably haven't given it much if any thought.

It's also likely that they haven't actually studied the new RNC rules.  They may simply be buying the media spin (which was generated by the national parties themselves) that the new penalties are tougher than they were in 2008.  Not so much on the GOP side of the aisle.  A January primary would mean that Florida would lose half its delegates.  But that penalty already applied in 2008, so that's no biggie.  The only new penalty is that they have to allocate their delegates proportionally, but there are like 30 other states that are in the same boat, so I don't see that as being a big deal.

At some point before legislation is actually drawn up on moving the primary, FL state legislators may simply realize that the penalties aren't much different from 2008, and they might as well keep the primary where it is.
[/quote]

But the effort to abandon the effort to do nothing is being led by Thrasher, the GOP FL chairman, who is definitely aware of the specific penalties and their role in the big picture or is taking orders from someone who is.  Romney and his inner circle are definitely aware of it and have definitely been gaming out the race.  They're probably even checking in with blogs like frontloading to keep tabs on developments.  Who knows?  Maybe someone even stumbled on and keep up with this board and absorbed our previous analysis of how bad the new rules would be for Romney if they didn't jump on it.  If you're reading this Mr. Romney, I'm speculating you or an anonymous numbskull with your blessing called in a favor from Thrasher.  (I don't really think he reads this though.)  (PS Dog goes on the inside of the car.)

Romney's been palling around with Thrashers.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/david-hunt/2010-06-15/romney-thrasher-wearing-bullseye

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Italics are Romney's quote.  It's pretty safe to say Thrasher (how can he not be a bit of an a**hole with that name btw?) would never be advocate this move-disguised-as-not-a-move if Romney was against it.

As for Florida being just one of 50 states, it's one of the biggest and the most Romney-friendly.  And beyond that, its behavior has in recent history affected other states.  In 2008, Florida and Michigan forced Iowa and friends into January creating the vacuum that sucked every other state up.  They were the first two to jump offsides I believe.  Here's my awesome theory: Romney wants Florida, the leader of the bloody insurrection against the party's oppressive calendar of 2008 (if you consider only getting half a delegate slate bloodshed) to turn peacemaker/pacemaker/Thrasher, and feign ignorance while leading the states back to the better-for-Mitt-Romney-2012 way it was before.  He wants Florida to remain a big, juicy, uncut delegate prize, and also help reverse the tide so California and New York do too.  Anyway, I assume he has chits to cash in with Thrashers in those state legislatures too.  Romney's is a campaign that has already telegraphed his intention to ignore evangelicals, i.e. yield a lot of states he has no shot in.  He has surely noticed the recent ppp polls showing how relatively weak he is in many regions. 

This little Florida story is imo way bigger than it looks.  The headline should be "Romney Proposes Bill in Florida Legislature that He Be the 2012 Nominee"  If the Florida legislature succeeds its in effort to abandon the effort to not do anything, and that calms the herd and the calendar slides later, Romney becomes way tougher to beat and the risk of a boring primary goes, unfortunately for us, way up.

[Bull Moose Base]

Unless he crashes and burns before the primaries start, Romney is likely to lose Ia and SC and win Nev and NH. Given that, with NY, Ca, and NJ pretty early on, Romney has some big states he's likely to win- if polling stays somewhat in the vicinity it is now and no moderate suddenly starts doing well.

Plus, if the calendar is pretty similar to 2008, Romney didn't compete in the later states thus has a lot fewer folks who voted for him last time around. He took second in Florida and a pretty close second at that, so he has something to work with.

My own take is that early mo is less important for Romney than for everyone else.  Or at least that he's confident of enough momentum from winning NH and NV to prefer Florida avoid the penalty.  The attempt to move in Florida, being orchestrated by a steering committee chair from Romney's 2008 campaign and a guy he raised serious money for in a close race, is, I'd say, fairly strong evidence of Romney's strategy.  The guy even cites the party penalties in his explanation.

I agree with Morden's assessment that, from the point of view of the state's self-interest, why should Florida care about the penalties?  It played a much more pivotal role in the GOP 2008 contest penalties notwithstanding.  It was where McCain forced Giuliani out and headed off Romney from turning the race on its head.  In fact, because, from the state's point of view, the penalties would so plainly be outweighed by the status of being in the club with Iowa, New Hampshire etc, it seems even more transparent to me that the Florida bill is meant as a favor to Romney.  Actually, imo, the conflict between what is good for Florida and what is good for Romney explains why the state senator and likely player on Romney's 2012 campaign who is leading the effort to move Florida back would want to spin it as just leaving it the way it is.

[Bull Moose Base]

Slipping a mention of proportional representation into an argument that moving to April is good for Florida is the equivalent of Romney mentioning Obama getting economic stimulus ahead of 2012 in his column arguing the tax deal was bad for America.  It betrays his real motives.

If only WTA makes a state important, explain the push to do a 2011 straw poll that awards no delegates at all?  Is it a serious claim that candidates would blow off a January Florida primary because of PR?  Also, on the GOP side in 2008, there was no real "battle": January primary, penalties, the end.  Florida could go in March and still be in compliance with GOP rules so why the push for April?  Seems transparent enough to me.  Romney, gauging Florida to be one of his most winnable states, wants momentum from the 2011 straw poll (as the Ames poll which is riskier for him, this could offset it) but he wants his Florida delegate pot uncut- which could yield him 6X the delegate tally from the state- his allies in the legislature, led by his 2008 FL co-campaign chair, are trying to orchestrate that for him.  While other reps are questioning if such a move gambles with FL's relevance.

[Bull Moose Base]

The real way to delay the start would be for opinion and party leaders in later states to shun the winners of early states, that is, to offset the momentum with stigma.  And the best way would be for later states to unite in their resentment at Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and uniformly call on candidates to not campaign in those states.  Candidates being asked about the arbitrary privilege of early states would be a little bit like Obama watching the protests in Egypt- you have to be careful not to alienate the dictator(s) if they stay in power or the uprising if they don't.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

[Bull Moose Base]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Bull Moose Base]

Do you mean Super March Tuesday?  I think going 2/7 wouldn't change South Carolina etc's plans.  Though it'd diminish Florida's status a bit and they'd probably still prefer it to seeing FL go 1/31.  Btw, if you're getting hit with penalties regardless, why would any state go in Feb instead of Jan?

[Bull Moose Base]

It's still very much a question mark as to whether either Missouri or Wisconsin will move from their current February dates.  FHQ speculates that if Missouri stays on Feb. 7th, then FL, GA, and MI might all jump up to late January, and we might end up with something like this:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/07/follow-up-on-missouri-presidential.html

January
Iowa
New Hampshire
Nevada
South Carolina
Florida
Michigan
Georgia

February
7th Missouri
21st Wisconsin
28th Arizona

And that's not including some of the caucus states that may or may not stick with February.  Minnesota, for example, looks very likely to stick with Feb. 7th.

Any one in February even a caucus would push Iowa (and then everything) into January, no?  Pawlenty is hoping Minnesota goes the day after Iowa but we can assume that won't happen.

[Bull Moose Base]

New York has now moved to April 24:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/07/cuomo-signs-bill-moving-new-york.html

Calendar in the OP has been updated.  Also, the California legislature has passed a bill moving the state's primary to June 5th:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/07/california-senate-passes-june.html

but it's not official until Brown signs it.

Feb. 7th is dead as Super Tuesday.  March 6th is the new Super Tuesday.  Though it's an extremely weak Super Tuesday, as there are only 7 states voting that day.  (Though a couple more will probably end up joining.)  But yes, March 6th is the date that'll have the most delegates at stake.  If both California and New Jersey move to June 5th as expected, then June 5th will probably be the date with the second most delegates at stake.

Very bad for Mitt if they move back.

I'll dissent.  I think it's really good news for him.  I like his chances of winning NY and CA and their being penalized could have cost him the nomination.  And I don't think winning them earlier would have given him a knockout in any case.

[Bull Moose Base]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65285.html

Nevada set for Saturday, January 14, pushing New Hampshire to first week of January, probably Tuesday, January 3, which pushes Iowa into December.

"Romney may have an advantage campaigning here because if I'm not mistaken Mormons don't celebrate Christmas until March" -Rick Perry, December, 2011.

[Bull Moose Base]

Sounds to me like NH will go Tues 1/3 and Iowa will go the last week of December.

[Bull Moose Base]

You think they'd avoid the 27th-29th?

[Bull Moose Base]

I still say there's a non-negligible chance that NH goes before Iowa, and the media hasn't really caught onto this yet.

It's highly likely that next Sunday, the Iowa GOP will vote to hold their caucus on Jan. 3.  That's when we find out if Bill Gardner is bluffing.  If he's really serious about sticking with a Tuesday, going at least 7 days before Nevada and giving NH a week of its own that it doesn't share with other states, then we'll have a December New Hampshire primary.

Does Iowa then abandon Jan. 3, and jump up to December as well, to keep up with New Hampshire?  Possibly, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.  Sticking with Jan. 3, and letting NH go first would be a very real possibility.  In general, being the first primary/caucus state maximizes your influence.  But it's not clear that that would hold if you really move your primary or caucus up into December and the holiday season.  Any momentum one would get from a December primary could easily evaporate, as people are focused on the holidays.

I guess we'll find out soon enough....

Maybe they'd both go January 3.  But to clarify: Iowa is not locked in by the date they choose next Sunday, no?  They can move the caucus date after New Hampshire sets its date?

[Bull Moose Base]

http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20111013/NEWS0605/110609989

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perry is considering boycotting a caucus in a state where the governor has endorsed him?

Isn't it obvious Perry would be way smarter to now boycott New Hampshire in defense of Iowa?  It might boost him/damage his rivals there where he has a better chance.  Even if some others joined the boycott of New Hampshire, it'd just put a huge asterisk next to a Romney win there.  Perry is going to get embarrassed in New Hampshire no matter what and he's being handed on a silver state platter, a perfect excuse not to compete there.  You'd think the campaign that dodged Ames to great success would have figured this out by now.

[Bull Moose Base]

Bachmann boycotting Nevada.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bachmann-nevada-20111014,0,4796870.story?track=icymi

[Bull Moose Base]

Every indication is that Nevada is going to move to Feb. 4 on Saturday, but we still have to wait and see to be sure.

Also, in Ohio, the state senate has passed a bill that would move the primary there to June 12:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2011/10/ohio-senate-passes-bill-creating.html

The extra time gives them more time to sort out the redistricting mess.

State with primary dates still in flux:

Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio

I know you've probably mentioned this before, but if Nevada goes go back to February 4 do you think New Hampshire would then fill in the January 10 slot, because of the 7-day rule, or would they ignore that rule and go to January 17 with Iowa possibly moving back to January 10?

South Carolina is January 21st so NH would look insane to move to the 17th after the whole NV fiasco.  What I don't understand is why Nevada doesn't move to January 17, 24 or 28 instead of letting Florida go first and potentially either clinch it for Romney or whittle it down to Romney and some candidate who has no shot in Nevada.