After the relatively focused early contests, the surviving candidates enter a dizzying array of primaries. They must decide where to concentrate their efforts and resources as they jump around the country trying to hit key media markets and win enough delegates to gain the party nomination.
Overview of the Primary Process
To secure their respective parties' nominations, candidates compete in a series of state primaries and caucuses that select delegates to the national conventions. The calendar of primaries and caucuses has been and continues to be based on the premise that several early retail contests serve to winnow the field in advance of the great mass of primaries and contests. The theory is that the early retail contests allow even a candidate with modest funds to compete against better funded and more well known contenders. The Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have traditionally gone first, although critics characterize the two states as being unrepresentative. South Carolina is first in the South, and Democrats added Nevada in 2008 as an early state for demographic and geographic balance.
Rules governing primaries and caucuses and their timing are set out
in national party rules
and state laws. Caucuses are
multi-step, party run processes that generally start at the precinct
level and work up through county and district levels to a state
convention. Caucuses generally have very limited participation
because
of the time commitment involved. Presidential
preference primary elections
are usually run by the state, meaning state laws apply (there are
party-run primaries, but they are rare because it is expensive).
Some
states
hold
their
presidential preference primaries on different dates than the regular
state primaries while in others both the presidential primary and the
state primary
occur on the same date. Some states allow unaffiliated
voters to participate in party primaries
(these are open primaries) and some do not (closed primaries).
Dates of Democratic and Republican contests generally but do not always
coincide. The
two parties have different rules governing their processes.
Democratic delegates are
allocated proportionally, whereas Republican rules allow for
winner-take-all contests.
In recent election cycles the calendar has been
plagued by frontloading
caused by states seeking to go earlier in the
process and thereby have more influence. In 2008 the crush of
early primaries pushed the Iowa caucuses to January 3 and the New
Hampshire primary to January 8, necessitating campaigning over the
holidays, and there was even talk that some contests might be held in
2007. More than
30 states (+)
held their presidential nominating contests in February, including 24
on February 5. Following the 2008 campaign, both parties
adopted rules which aimed to push back the start of the calendar to
February and to forestall frontloading.
Out of the experience with the
2008 nominating process, the Democratic National Committee established
a Change Commission charged with examining "1) changes to the opening
of the
window and pre-window, 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3)
changes to the caucus system." In December 2009 the Change
Commission adopted its report recommending improvements to the
nominating process (+);
the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee moved to
effect those recommendations, and the full DNC finalized the changes at
its Fall
meeting held August 19-20,
2010. Most importantly the rules set out
dates for the early contests: Iowa on February 6, New Hampshire on
February 14, Nevada on
February 18, and South Carolina on February 28; the window for the rest
of the states is to open on March 6. (Note however that the four
days between the New Hampshire primary and the Nevada caucuses violates
New Hampshire law, which requires a seven day
cushion). The DNC also diluted the
numbers of unelected "superdelegates"
about which there was some controversy in 2008 (+).
A rules change adopted by the Republican National Convention in 2008 gave the Republican National Committee more flexibility in setting the timing of primaries and caucuses. In 2009 the RNC established a Temporary Delegate Selection Committee to "review the timing of the election, selection, allocation, or binding of delegate and alternate delegates to the Republican National Convention." On Aug. 6, 2010 at its Summer meeting, the RNC adopted changes which allow Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada to "begin their processes at any time on or after February 1" while other states can go starting the first Tuesday in March (+).
| No
primary,
caucus, or convention
to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national
convention shall occur prior to the first Tuesday in March in the year
in which a national convention is held. Except Iowa, New
Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may begin their processes at any
time on or after February 1 in the year in which a national convention
is held and shall not be subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)(2)
of this rule. RNC Rule
15(b)(1)
|
No meetings,
caucuses,
conventions
or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the
presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary
states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be
held prior to the first Tuesday in March or after the second Tuesday in
June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided,
however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 29
days before the first Tuesday in March; that the New Hampshire primary
may be held no earlier than 21 days before the first Tuesday in March;
that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days
before the first Tuesday in March; and that the South Carolina primary
may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in March.
In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection
procedures on or between the first Tuesday in March and the second
Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this
rule. DNC Delegate
Selection Rule 11(a)
|
To combat
frontloading, both parties adopted incentives to
encourage states to go later in the process. Republicans adopted
a rule that
requires states holding contests prior to April 1 to allocate their
delegates on
a proportional basis; states going from April 1 on can use the
winner-take-all system, which gives them more clout.
Democrats developed
a bonus delegate scheme to encourage
states to move their primaries or caucuses further back in the
calendar or stay further back in the calendar. There are three
stages—March 6-31, April 1-30 and May 1-June 12. Depending on
the changes they make, states can gain
from 10-percent to 20-percent more delegates above the base
level. In an effort to counter the random hither and yon aspect
of the
primaries, Democrats also sought to encourage regional
clustering. (In 2008, for example, the
February 12
Potomac Primary, encompassing DC, Maryland and Virginia, allowed
for efficiencies in campaigning). Under their rules for 2012,
Democrats will give
states 15-percent more delegates to encourage regional
clustering. The
effectiveness of these incentives remains to be seen.
As noted above, national party rules set windows when primaries and caucuses can occur. Periodic attempts to challenge the privileged positions of Iowa and New Hampshire by states seeking to have a greater voice in the nominating process have not been successful; Iowa and New Hampshire officials and party leaders are fierce defenders of their first status (+) and candidates tend to favor the system as it is (+). In 2008 some states violated the national party rules, set earlier dates, and were assessed penalties. (Democrats had to contend with very messy situations with Michigan and Florida, and were actually talking about re-votes into March 2008; they eventually backed off on the penalties).
The Democrats' protracted primary battle in 2008 did show that later states can have an impact. Democrats had concerns about a divisive primary, but the long primary season ultimately helped Obama by getting issues such as the controversy over Rev. Wright aired, and by allowing him to build the strong field organization and finance capabilities he took into the general election.
For 2012, maximum
attention will be focused on the Republican calendar since it appears
likely the Democratic nomination will not be seriously contested.
Democrats will still go through their delegate selection processes;
their challenge will be to encourage interest.
Throughout much of 2011 individual state legislatures,
secretaries of state and
state parties
determined when to hold their contests. In the 2008 cycle (>),
the
date
of
the
Iowa
caucuses
was
not
set
until
October
2007,
the
New
Hampshire
primary
on
November
21,
and
on
November
26
Massachusetts
Gov.
Deval
Patrick
(D)
signed
into
law
a
measure
setting
the
state's
February
5
presidential
primary.
This
cycle,
manoeuvering
continued
into
October.
National Party Committees' Best
Laid Plans Thwarted by Rogue States
National party leaders had envisaged a primary calendar that would
have started with the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 6, followed by the New
Hampshire primary on Feb. 14, the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 18, South
Carolina on February 28 and Super Tuesday on March 6. For a while
it looked as if their efforts might work, and there might be a more
measured primary calendar.
However,
Republican leaders in a number of states again wanted to go
earlier than the rules allow, despite the threat of losing half their
delegates and other sanctions. Seeking to dissuade such activity
the RNC in April 2011 formed a committee
to "educate RNC Members, state parties and elected Republican
officials"
on its rules. At the RNC Summer meeting in Tampa in August 2011,
this committee proposed a formal warning, but that did not advance; the
matter is expected to be pursued again at the Winter meetings in
January 2012. Nonetheless, a few rogue states pressed ahead.
Arizona and Michigan have set their primaries for February 28, in
violation of RNC and DNC rules. In Arizona, on September
12, 2011 Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed a proclamation
setting the primary date at February 28 (Brewer had been leaning
towards moving the primary up to January 31). In Michigan, the
matter was handled by the state legislature; on September 15, 2011 the
state Senate passed a bill
setting
the date of the primary on the fourth Tuesday in February, the House
followed on September 21 and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the
bill on October 4.
Florida was the most egregious violator of the
rules. As they did last cycle, Republican leaders in the Florida
legislature looked to set an early primary. In a March
31,
2011 letter
(+) to RNC members then
South Carolina Republican Chair Karen Floyd to suggested that,
"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." Nothing came of
that proposal, however. On May 19, 2011
Gov. Rick Scott
(R) signed an elections law (+)
that
among
other
provisions
established
a
ten-person
Presidential
Preference
Primary
Date
Selection
Committee
which
is
to
pick
a date
(between Jan. 3, 2012 and March 6, 2012) by October 1, 2011.
On Sept. 16, 2011 the members of the committee were announced (+).
Meanwhile RNC
co-chair Sharon Day, who is from Florida, was actively
working for months to resolve this situation. It was all for
naught. On
Sept. 30, 2011,
the
Date Selection Committee voted 7-2 to set the date of the presidential
preference primary on January 31, 2012 in violation of RNC and DNC
rules.
The actions of a small group of Florida Republicans pushed the
sanctioned early states to move up
their dates
(1,
2, 3, 4).
South
Carolina
Republicans
set
the
date
of
their
primary on January 21 (+), Nevada
Republicans set their caucuses for January 14, Iowa
Republicans set their caucus for January 3 (+).
After New Hampshire
Secretary of State Bill Gardner signaled that he might hold the first
in the nation primary in December 2011 (+),
Nevada Republicans moved back to February 4 (+).
The net result is the Iowa caucuses will again be held on January 3,
necessitating campaigning
over the Christmas and New Year's holidays as happened in 2008.
Most of the states that held contests in
February 2008 did adjust the dates of their presidential
primaries to later dates. March 6 will likely
be a very big day on the calendar. For example, the Virginia
General Assembly passed and Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) signed
a bill
moving the primary to the first Tuesday in March. Tight budgets
are a factor in a number of states. In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott
Walker (R) signed a bill to move the presidential primary
from third Tuesday in February to the first Tuesday in April coinciding
with the spring general election. In California,
which held a February 5 primary in 2008, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed
into law a bill to
consolidate the presidential and statewide primaries on the first
Tuesday after the first Monday in June. In Washington, Gov.
Gregoire's proposed
2011-13 budget, released in mid-Dec. 2010, would suspend the state
presidential primary, saving $10 million in general fund
expenditures. Josh Putnam's Frontloading HQ is the
place to follow these developments.
During the period between the end of the primaries and the conventions, the presumptive nominee bolsters the campaign organization and places key people in the national party committees to prepare for the general election. The campaign works on positioning for the general election. For example, conventional wisdom has it that the presumptive nominees must move back to the center after playing to more committed or extreme elements of their respective parties to win in the primaries. How the candidate uses this time can have an important effect on his or her success in the fall.
In 1992 Bill Clinton used the month of June to regroup following a tough passage through the primaries. In 1996 Bob Dole had essentially won the nomination by mid-March, but he faced the period from April to the convention with virtually no funds. In June, Dole gained much attention when he surprised everyone by resigning his Senate seat.
Again in 2000 the post-primary period proved important. Gov. George W. Bush effectively secured the Republican nomination on March 7, 2000; during late March and April he introduced a reading initiative, a plan to clean up brownfields, a "New Prosperity Initiative" to help people move from poverty to the middle class and a health care plan. More such proposals followed in the months leading up to the convention. For Vice President Al Gore, however, there were some bumps. He moved his campaign headquarters to a third location and brought on a new campaign chairman, while weathering concerns about his polling numbers. In June Gore launched a "Progress and Prosperity" tour.
In 2004 the calendar again led to early selection of the Democratic nominee. Sen. John Edwards, the last major challenger to Sen. John Kerry, withdrew from the race on March 3. In the months leading up to the convention Kerry engaged in record-breaking fundraising efforts.
In 2008, on the Republican side, Sen. John McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination on March 4, leaving almost six months until the convention. In early April McCain did a week-long "Service to America" tour designed to highlight elements of his biography; later in the month he toured "forgotten places." McCain also did a lot of fundraising in this period. Sen. Barack Obama took a risk in his trip to the Middle East and Europe from July 18-26.
Once a candidate gains enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee, speculation on possible running mates accelerates markedly. People advocate for or against various prospects; there are columns and cover stories and websites devoted to particular favorites. All sorts of rumors develop, but there is little reliable information. Behind the scenes the campaigns do extensive vetting of vice presidential prospects, for the presumptive nominee does not want any unpleasant surprises as happened with Tom Eagleton in 1972 or the Dan Quayle choice in 1988.
The presidential candidate weighs many factors. The most obvious criteria is that the vice president should be capable of ascending to the presidency in the event of the unexpected. Compatability is a concern. The vice presidential pick should also add balance to the ticket geographically, ideologically or in terms of experience. The timing of the announcement must be considered as well. Frequently this is done in the week leading up to the convention to build momentum toward that event and the fall campaign. However one can envision a scenario where an earlier announcement might work, where, for example, it could be helpful to have the duo out on the trail spreading the message. During the 2008 primaries, there were suggestions that Sen. Clinton, trailing in the Democratic race, might emulate the example of Ronald Reagan, who, on July 26, 1976, challenging Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, announced that he would pair with Sen. Richard Schweiker (R-PA).
In 2008 both nominees ended up
choosing somewhat surprising running mates. Obama announced his
selection of Sen. Joe Biden (DE) five days before he accepted the
nomination, on August 23 in front of the Old State Capitol in
Springfield, IL.
Biden's foreign policy expertise and lengthy Washington experience were
key attributes; it was also thought he could appeal to Catholic voters
and that his Scranton upbringing might help in Pennsylvania. On
the downside, Biden had a tendency to talk too much, he did fare poorly
in the Iowa
caucuses, and the selection of a Washington veteran ran counter to
Obama's change message. McCain announced his
selection of Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) on in Dayton, OH, on August 29, one
day after Obama accepted the Democratic nomination and six days before
he accepted the GOP nomination. The Palin choice was
seen as a bold gamble and energized delegates at the
Republican National Convention and Republicans generally, but quite a
few observers believe the choice ended up hurting McCain.
In 2010 there were a number of musings that President Obama might or
should replace Vice
President Biden. Journalist Sally Quinn penned a column "Hillary
Clinton should
be Obama's vice president" (Washington
Post,
June
18,
2010)
suggesting
that
the
two
should
change
positions.
Former
Gov. L. Douglas Wilder
advocated an Obama-Clinton ticket in 2012 in a column in Politico
(Aug. 2, 2010). Washington Post
op-ed columnist David Ignatius weighed in (Aug. 22, 2010), arguing
that Obama is "going to need someone to light a fire under him, someone
who can play politics fiercely—and also can bring in some new
voters." He concluded that Vice President Hillary Clinton would
be a "second-term masterstroke."
Notes.
1. An interesting article in the April 6,
2011 Boston Globe suggested
that national Democrats were encouraging Massachusetts and other Northeast and less Republican states to hold their primaries later, in part to boost prospects of
more conservative candidates in the Republican primary contest. A
DNC spokesperson said the objective was simply to produce a more
rationale calendar. See: Frank Phillips. "US Democrats seek
to delay primary." Boston Globe
(online), April 6, 2011.
2. Given the daunting challenges facing the
country, some, including Americans Elect, argue that a bipartisan
ticket is a good idea. Former Gov. Buddy Roemer (R), waging
a longshot bid for the Republican nomination but mindful of the
Americans Elect possibility, announced
on Nov. 27, 2011 that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) would be his first choice
for running mate.
Resources
Barbara Norrander. July 2010. THE IMPERFECT PRIMARY: Oddities,
Biases, and Strengths of U.S. Presidential Nomination Politics.
New
York:
Routledge.
"In The Imperfect Primary, political scientist Barbara
Norrander explores how presidential candidates are nominated, discusses
past and current proposals for reform, and examines the possibility for
more practical, incremental changes to the electoral rules. Norrander
reminds us to be careful what we wish for—reforming the presidential
nomination process is as complex as the current system. Through the
modeling of empirical research to demonstrate how questions of biases
can be systematically addressed, students can better see the
advantages, disadvantages, and potential for unintended consequences in
a whole host of reform proposals."
Jack Citrin and David Karol, eds. July 2009. NOMINATING THE PRESIDENT: Evolution and Revolution in 2008 and Beyond. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
"The 2008 presidential
nominations were unprecedented in many ways.
Marking another step in the democratization of the selection process
and a surprising loss of control by party elites, the contests in both
parties were unusually competitive and the outcomes belied the
predictions of experts. This book offers a fresh look at the role of
parties, the constraints of campaign finance, the status of
front-runners, and the significance of rules, race, and gender in the
post-reform era. In this volume, leading scholars assess the state of
the process with original research about money, scheduling,
superdelegates, and the role of race and gender in voting."
Elaine C. Kamarck. July 2009. PRIMARY POLITICS: How Presidential
Candidates Have Shaped the Modern Nominating System.
Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution
Press.
"In Primary Politics, political insider
Elaine Kamarck explains
how the presidential nomination process became the often baffling
system we have today. Her focus is the largely untold story of how
presidential candidates since the early 1970s have sought to alter the
rules in their favor and how their failures and successes have led to
even more change."
Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and Joel Zaller. Oct. 2008. THE PARTY DECIDES: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
"Tracing the evolution of presidential nominations since the 1790s,
this
volume demonstrates how party insiders have sought since America’s
founding to control nominations as a means of getting what they want
from government. Contrary to the common view that the party reforms of
the 1970s gave voters more power, the authors contend that the most
consequential contests remain the candidates’ fights for prominent
endorsements and the support of various interest groups and state party
leaders. These invisible primaries produce frontrunners long before
most voters start paying attention, profoundly influencing final
election outcomes and investing parties with far more nominating power
than is generally recognized."
