2012 Primary Schedule

by kasjogren, Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:13 PM EST

This primary season annoyed me.  It annoyed me mainly because the ads started last summer and the campaigns of the last two contenders have been going on for over 18 months already.  The silly season starts sooner and sooner and with states abilities to set their own dates they all push up the calendar in order to be more important.  I personally don't think this helps anyone except a few media conglomerates who make a lot of money on advertising.

With that in mind I wanted to look at the 2012 schedule with a few assumptions about what will happen, not to really judge whether this is good or bad (I think it is bad to have it start so early) but to let everyone see what is the VERY likely outcome of the FL/MI kafuffle.

First is the assumption that the Clinton campaign will be successful in overturning the DNC punishment of MI and FL for moving their primaries ahead of schedule.  This was originally done to prevent states from jumping the schedule as stated in the December 2nd WaPo.

Leaders of both major political parties have tried to enforce a calendar in which only a few states are allowed to hold their voting early. But several states, including Michigan and Florida, have bucked those rules, hoping to gain more influence over the nominating process by voting when the race is still wide open.

The stripping of delegates is really the only way to stop states from jumping the gun and has been used in the past.  The problem is even at the time the MI delegation was open about how ineffective it would be because from an MSNBC article the day before.

Michigan officials anticipated the action by the Democratic National Committee's rules panel. But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said before the vote that he didn't think the delegates would be lost for good. He expects the Democratic presidential nominee will insist the state's delegates be seated at the convention.

The second assumption would be that Barack Obama wins the nomination with or without FL/MI but Hillary Clinton uses the considerable delegate clout she has in order to change the Primary/Caucus system into a closed or semi closed primary system for 2012 when I fully expect her to run again whether or not Obama wins.  On this point I would like to state I do agree that the caucus system is inherently flawed.  I don't like it in MN as a way to choose a nominee for anything BUT I do love the party building aspect of it.  To change it this time is even more unfair but for next time I could see it being done and believe it will.

So with this in mind we now have a closed/semi open primary only schedule with no controls for timing involved for 2012.  I am pulling all my dates from this pdf for reference and this site for further reference.

First the Iowa caucuses were on Jan. 19th in 2004, Jan. 24th in 2000 and all the way on Jan. 3rd in 2008.  Most of you remember how many times Iowa moved up to stay ahead.  It only stopped after MI and FL were punished and the calendar jumping stopped.

So if we just say they jump double this time around just to stay first that would put it 6 weeks out considering the 3 week jump this cycle.  That would put it on November 22nd of 2011.  The tuesday before Thanksgiving.  THE TUESDAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING.

Also super tuesday this year went from 10 states on March 2nd in 2004 to 26 states and territories on Feb 5th this year.  Doing a little VERY NON SCIENTIFIC math in my head the primary schedule will look something like this for the next cycle.

November 22nd 2011 - Iowa
November 26th 2011 - NH
November 29th 2011 - California, FL, MI, SC, NV
November 30th 2011 - Race effectively over (yay democracy)
December 5th 2011 - WY

Large gap for holidays.  During this time you will only get to see two types of commercials.  Ads for diamonds and ads for candidates.  That is it.  No beer ads, no geico gecko, and certainly no pringles...diamonds and politicians (truly hell on earth)

Jan 3rd 2012 - ME, DC, VA
Jan 10th 2012 - Pretty much every other state in a new term dubbed (would have been super tuesday but all other candidates ran out of money by christmas so its just a beauty contest while states try to move their next primaries to June of 2015.)

Now granted, there is a bit of snark in there (maybe a lot) but the premise is very real.  I will bet an entire paycheck that if MI and FL get overturned and seated in full that we WILL have primaries in 2011 next cycle.  You can decide whether or not you think this is a good thing or not.

Oh and feel free to write up your own scenarios for fun!




Tags: Primaries, 2012, Clinton, Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Yes some of it is snark.

Seriously


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM EST

I don't see the point (none / 0)

of disallowing states to move up their primary.  Hell, candidates are campaigning for nine months usually before the Thanksgiving before the actual general election vote- that is not even a year worth of vetting for the most important job in the world.  I am completely fine with it if it means NH IA NV and SC don't get some sort of special priv. in the future.


I don't like being told by a bunch of folks that can rarely get their own states to turn blue, who I get to choose from for the primary season.  By the time I got to vote, all but two candidates had dropped out- thats the real travesty.  
by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST

Re: I don't see the point (none / 0)

See I want it pushed BACK for the exact reasons you state.  More vetting and less of the 2-6 states deciding who is the nominee.  If you have say a regional rotating primary that would be fantastic but with no mechanism to stop states from moving off the calendar it isn't fair to all the other states and their voters.  

So unless you are in a state that happens to think it is more important than all the other (IA, NH, SC, NV, MI, and FL) you DO only get the two choices.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can't we just have one day (none / 0)

one for rural states, one for urban states- make sure neither day would give any candidate a majority out right and then require candidates who wish to have their names on a ballot in a certain state, to actually campaign there...?  How about that?


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't we just have one day (none / 0)

OHHHH I like that idea of "you have to campaign here if you want to be on the ballot"  That is pretty ace.

As far as urban state/rural state, that would be a bit harder.  I mean MN is a completely different state in the twin cities as compared to the iron range and I bet most states are like that too.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is a rural vs. urban state? (none / 0)

Seriously, that doesn't make any sense.  Kas was right, places like Minnesota have both big cities and rural areas.

Plus, any sort of national primary in the style of a general election does not properly test the candidates under several different environments, it just tests name recognition.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is a rural vs. urban state? (none / 0)

Why should the candidates be tested under several different environments, as the general would be under the same conditions as a national primary?

It is fine to know that you could win a rural state in the south one month and a northwestern city a month later. But as you need to do both the same time in the general why not have a contest that ask you to do that as well?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:31:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because a primary *isn't* the general (none / 0)

No amount of trying to make the primary into a mini general election will work; just going with the candidate with higher name recognition among Democrats does not take into account the fact that the person who starts off being more popular among Democrats might not be the person we want running against the Republican in the general.

Open primaries test the candidate's appeal to swing voters, closed primaries test the candidate's appeal to the base, and caucuses test the candidate's ground game and organization.  If we nominate someone who turns out to have only very limited appeal, say someone who has a couple decades of name recognition among Democrats but no national organization to speak of and high negatives among Republicans and independants, then we could be in serious trouble in the general election.

Furthermore, a national primary takes away one of the most important factors of the primary season: the ability to have the candidates meet people all over the country as their primaries come up.  If you just run a national primary, folks will only campaign in the states that they need to scrape by a win... and we all know where the Ohio/Florida strategy has left us in the past, right?

We need a process that brings us a battle-tested candidate with strong organizational, inspirational, and budget-management skills, and a national primary does NOT do that.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:41:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

negative nelly (none / 0)

in a quite light hearted thread.  Do you always, always have to be right?


by linc on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not always (none / 0)

I mean, I don't dry up like a shed snakeskin if I'm not right.  I'm just usually right. :p

I guess I didn't realize that the rural/urban primary suggestion was a joke.  I've seen various "national primary" ideas tossed around seriously before.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see the point (none / 0)

Google "Tragedy of the Commons" for an explanation of the sort of problems that happen when people have to share a scarce resource. In this case, the scarce resource is "slots at the beginning of the primary calendar". The individual states each benefit from having an early primary, so it's a rational decision for them to move their primaries to the top of the calendar. But if this happens too many times, then all the states suffer.

The only way to avoid a "Tragedy of the Commons" situation is to have some mechanism to limit access to the scarce resource and punish people that try to take more than their fair share.

As to your second point...yes, it sucks to be in a state with a late primary, where most of the candidates have dropped out. A good way to restore fairness would be to set up some kind of rotating schedule, so every state gets a turn near the beginning.

In order to have a rotating schedule, the national parties have to be able to punish states that try to go out of turn. That's why the FL/MI situation is so important: If the Democratic Party gets bullied into seating the delegations as-is, then they won't have any credibility in 2012 if they need to threaten other states with penalties.


by mazement on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see the point (none / 0)

Another good way to solve the "Tragedy of the Commons" is to increase the amounts of resources available to match demand.

And that is exactly what happend this cycle.

we're this late in the cycle and only recently did the winner lock the contest up.

The first couple of slots aren't the resource, the campaigns are the resource. And the current election has show that there is no reason to believe that resource is finite by definition and need more then a non intrusive restiction if managed well.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

I would like to see the primaries start no earlier than March 1, with the country divided up into four regional quadrants.  Within these quadrants, the states would be ordered first to last in reverse to the size of their populations, with the largest states in each region (New York, California, Texas and Florida) going last, sometime around July 1.  There would be a random drawing (numbers out of a hat or something) to see which quadrant went first, second, third then fourth, then each state would roll out at one or two a week until all had voted.  This way the smallest states would go first, allowing the kind of retail politics that IA and NH insist is the only way to properly vet the candidates.

I would eliminate caucuses entirely, and all primaries would be either open or closed, as long as it was consistent I don't think it matters.


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:41:11 PM EST

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

The problem with quadrants is that it could promote a regional candidate to the nomination.   Suppose the northwest went first.  Obama won every single state there after all.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

I wasn't clear.  The quadrants, once the order is chosen, will rotate each week in the proscribed sequence.

What I want to end is any one or two states having a permanent special status that they do not deserve.  I have no problem at all with the smallest states having a special place, since they will end up ignored in the GE anyway, just like always.  The smallest four will always be first, but their order will be random (Wyoming, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Hawaii?)


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:00:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (2.00 / 1)

Hmmm interesting.  So it would go something like (guessing on population going by EV's):

VT, MT, NM, WV, DE, WY, UT, MS, NH, SD, NV, AR...

I don't know if that makes the system smoother or not.  It would tempt someone to stay in longer after a series of losses (which is how we got into the mess we're in now), but on the other hand, the low amount of money needed to compete in these races would enable a low name recognition candidate to win.

Of course, the main problem would be to get the Republicans to schedule the same date for the open primaries...


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (2.00 / 1)

the only reason why the primary season started early this time round is because the country was fed up with GWB.  they were looking to 2008 back in 2006.

course, that is just my opinion.

I think the DNC should allow any state to hold their primary starting the 1st week of January - you can still award late primary states more delegates to sweeten the pot, but this whole "firsters" crap has got to go.


by colebiancardi on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:45:45 PM EST

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

you can still award late primary states more delegates to sweeten the pot, but this whole "firsters" crap has got to go.

Something we can both agree on :D


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Oh and another counterpoint.  I think if we are going to set a hard date it would be the first of March.  With weather the way it is that time of year I think it makes it harder for two key groups to get out and vote.  Older folks (who WILL vote in the fall) and single parents (who usually have the most to gain or lose)

But again that is just talking about the trim on the car and not the care itself


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (2.00 / 1)

Why did everybody want to be in front this time?

Because the nomination was over after 2 elections, 2 weeks and less then 2% of the vote in 2004. And nobody else got to have say.

Why will nobody care about who is in front in 2012?

because in 2008 everybody got to vote

You know what better is then punishing people for frontloading the calander?

Removing the reason to frontload the calender.

The reasoning behind this diary is an classic example of fighting the last war instead of the next.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:46:30 PM EST

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (2.00 / 1)

The biggest reason to front load if you are a state is to get the income from the campaigns.  Without controls I don't think that is going to stop personally.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

It's not. But suppose it was, then you still got it wrong. Even then the biggest reason to front load was to get the income from the campaigns.

I don't know if you noticed but were down to the last couple of states and the amoung of money per state pumped into this contest is unbelieveable. Just like you don't need to rush to the front to get to have a say, you don't have to rush to the front for the campaign buck, as you'll still get just as much money if you wait.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

True this time, but if using past nominations as a guide the 2nd half of the race was to expected to be meaningless. In the end the later states got some serious financial rewards, but no one expected that last November when this was to be a done deal.


by patooker on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Nothing is certain, but the proportional delegate rule is a structional difference that is well documented to lenghten these campaigns.

The previous run to the front was based on the assumptions formed by the 2004 election which was unreasonable short.

in 2012 the assumptions will be shaped by the last election which was unhistorically long.

you prove my whole point, They expected it to be a rehash of 2004. What will they expect the next election? A rehash of 2008.

Wether or not that is a good assumption we don't know untill after the race. But in the run up to that race those assumption will make sure that no run to the front will happen.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Well IA has moved up its caucuses 4 times in a row now.  I think that qualifies as a trend but then again I didn't go to school for statistics.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Exactly, if campaigns cost $1M per day to run when things are hot, then you get a lot of income for your state by being relevant (which usually means early).

And that is why I like the four small states that are currently in the front, each has a unique demographic, and represent four regions of the country without requiring massive amounts of money. If a person doesn't like big money / big media influencing politics I think they should support small states first.  After that I'd love a regional rotation to keep campaign travel costs / time down, 3-5 states bordering each other every two weeks.  And I like the open primaries, I like to think elections are won by winning independents, and letting them have a say gives any party the best chance of having a highly competitive candidate.


by patooker on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wisconsin (none / 0)

will likely go back to the 1st Saturday in April.

Our nominally non-partisan judicial and local elections are set at that date in the State Constitution, and besides the cost savings, matching the Presidential race dilutes the huge funding edge the Rs showed in our State Supreme Court fight this year.




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:00:28 PM EST

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Who was responsible for putting so many states on Super Tuesday?  I've heard that it was Terry McAuliffe.  Is that true?


by RussTC3 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:20:31 PM EST

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

No.

The states themselves decided and feb. 5 was the earliest allowed date.

The decisions by the states to jump to feb 5 were all made during the tenure of Dean.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Another solution is to have 1 small populated state from each region (IA,NH,NV,and SC) have their Primaries and Caucuses from Early to Mid January. Have 1 large state from each region(MI,NJ,AZ,GA). These are diverse states with strong Reagan Democratic and Black Population- MI and GA. Strong Hispanic Population Arizona, and Yankee population New Jersey.


by nkpolitics on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:46:46 PM EST

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Another solution is to have 1 small populated state from each region (IA,NH,NV,and SC) have their Primaries and Caucuses from Early to Mid January. Have 1 large state from each region(MI,NJ,AZ,GA) in from mid January to late January. These are diverse states with strong Reagan Democratic and Black Population- MI and GA. Strong Hispanic Population Arizona, and Yankee population New Jersey.

Florida should have their primary on Feb Super Tuesday. It is a big populated state and we should not give CA,NY,and FL an unfair advantage.


by nkpolitics on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:50:38 PM EST

Here's a shocking scenario. (none / 0)

A national IRV primary in June with the nominee decided by popular vote. No more intrigue. No more insider manipulation. No more patchwork system for losers to gripe about.

Simple. Direct. Honest. Open. Democracy.

It's the Democratic way -- or should be.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:10:18 PM EST

Re: Here's a shocking scenario. (none / 0)

We are getting IRV for Minneapolis city elections for the first time this cycle.  I am pretty excited to see it in action.  I really like the idea of IRV for primaries though.


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's a shocking scenario. (none / 0)

Minnesota sounds like a fair and honest place.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's a shocking scenario. (none / 0)

We do have those evil caucuses though ;)

In all honesty though they are more about party building and you can just come in and vote and leave.  And speaking MN rocking for voting did you know it is state law that your employer HAS to give you unpaid time off for primary voting and PAID time off for general election if you are scheduled for more than 10 of the 12 hours when voting takes place.

I love this state, way more than my home state of Texas :D


I CAN HAZ BAHROCK DONASCHON?
by kasjogren on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's a shocking scenario. (none / 0)

If it just wan't so damned cold up there.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

I prefer spreading out the schedule.
States' positions should be rotated from year to year.

But I for one don't want to ever see a national primary to anything close to it. Name recognition should not be able to win a nomination. Voters in each state should have the opportunity to get to know the candidate.

Also, this primary season has been incredible for building up our state party organization (up to a point, which I think has long passed now).


democracy!
by BlueGAinDC on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:05:51 PM EST

Name recognition should not be able to win a nomin (none / 0)

Lot of good name recognition did Hillary. She came out of the gate losing.

I see no reason why any candidate like Obama couldn't do exactly as he did -- combine personna, proposals, record, organization, and popular fundraising into the nomination, regardless of whether the system is cumbersome and corrupt like the current one or not.

Every vote should carry the same weight and every voter should get to choose from a full slate of candidates rather than having the nomination decided before they get to vote, or only have a winnowed down choice of candidates.

Any process which offers less than full and fair democracy is unworthy of a party calling itself "Democratic."


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:05:46 PM EST

Re: 2012 Primary Schedule (none / 0)

Sorry I'm late to this, but unless people are discussing the GOP proposal on the table, the OH Plan, and the requirement for the Republicans to make any chnages at the Sept. convention, it's just another academic exercise.

Not wholly without merit but impractical for achieving change by 2012.

FYI, the OH Plan is something of a hybrid between the regional rotating plan adopted by the National Association of Secretaties of State as well as the National Governor's Assoc. and the old Delaware Plan which was torpedoed by the Bush campaign at the 2000 GOP convention.  The Delaware Plan calls for breaking the country into pods and starting from smallest to largest.  The idea being that no one can win without the bigs and the value of the smalls is in enabling so-called retail politics.

The OH Plan creates 4 pods with the first always being the 20 or so smallest states with the other three rotating every 4 years.

However, the OH Plan keeps the exempt status of IA/NH et al.

The bigs hate this since they only have a 1 in 3 chance of voting in 6th place at the earliest.

Remove the IA/NH exemption. Put them in with the other smalls who would then over time vie for becoming bellweather elections.  Good prelude to later state groups.

Remove the IA/NH exemption and you remove most of the motivation for other states to leapfrog the process.  

Any unknown underfunded candidate who could win or place in any state would get serious attention and have a chance to leverage that into a major campaign effort.

The case for a national primary being unfair to unknown and underfunded is slightly undermined by the fact of the Dean campaign.  Gov who? From where?  Recall from a blip in March that by Sept '03 he was ahead in polls, money, volunteers and mo'.  

The internets have become the major offset for traditional thinking a la TV exposure.


by 3rdyr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:19:34 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: