Nevada Democrats move to end presidential caucuses

[Joe Republic]

The bill passed out of committee along party lines.  It now has until Tuesday the 20th to pass the Assembly.  It’s likely it’ll get held up in Ways & Means due to the fiscal impact (estimated $5 million cost for a state-run primary separate from the regular primary later in the season).

[The Mikado]

BIIIIIIG Bump:

https://mynews4.com/news/local/lawmakers-pass-bill-making-nevada-1st-presidential-nominating-state

Nevada lawmakers passed a bill on Sunday that aims to make the state the first to weigh in on the 2024 presidential primary contests.

The move upends decades of political tradition and is likely to prompt pushback from other early states that want to retain their places in the calendar.

The bill that passed in the state’s Assembly on Wednesday and the Senate on Sunday still must be approved by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak to become law. It would also need the backing of the national political parties to eventually make the change for the 2024 calendar.

Read the rest of the article for more.

Want comment from Joe Republic, but thoughts:

A. NV wants first Tuesday in February, which will drive Iowa and New Hampshire crazy and should lead to an amazing argument.

B. NV wants this primary date for both parties, and the RNC's and DNC's incentives might differ here. The RNC has been balls deep on "WE HAVE TO KEEP IOWA FIRST" while the DNC's been a bit more open to changing up the order. Could we see a divergent Dem and Rep calendar this time?

C. Would the RNC be willing to sanction NV and strip it of delegates given that NV is a top tier swing state???

[Chips]

I do know it caused controversy in 2020.

[Joe Republic]

The GOP had came out strongly against it (even though they supported ending the caucus in 2012), but in the end it earned 5 of 16 Republican votes in the Assembly, and 3 of 9 votes in the Senate.  I guess that makes it count as bipartisan?

During the bill hearings, the question was asked about how it would conflict with New Hampshire.  Speaker Jason Frierson, who sponsored the bill, responded that he's not trying to interfere with or supersede legislation in another state.  What this bill does is simply "make the case" for Nevada to go first.

It's worth noting that this bill specifies a date for the Nevada primary (the first Tuesday in February).  New Hampshire's law does not specify a date, only that it must take place a week before any other state has their primary.  So both national parties don't really have to say or do anything at all, and the traditional order resets itself automatically.  Remember that the 2008 NH primary took place on January 8th!

Honestly I don't much care about the "me first! me first!" horse race.  I'm just happy that the dumb caucus system is dead here.

[The Mikado]

The GOP had came out strongly against it (even though they supported ending the caucus in 2012), but in the end it earned 5 of 16 Republican votes in the Assembly, and 3 of 9 votes in the Senate.  I guess that makes it count as bipartisan?

During the bill hearings, the question was asked about how it would conflict with New Hampshire.  Speaker Jason Frierson, who sponsored the bill, responded that he's not trying to interfere with or supersede legislation in another state.  What this bill does is simply "make the case" for Nevada to go first.

It's worth noting that this bill specifies a date for the Nevada primary (the first Tuesday in February).  New Hampshire's law does not specify a date, only that it must take place a week before any other state has their primary.  So both national parties don't really have to say or do anything at all, and the traditional order resets itself automatically.  Remember that the 2008 NH primary took place on January 8th!

Honestly I don't much care about the "me first! me first!" horse race.  I'm just happy that the dumb caucus system is dead here.

It's possible with IA now literally only one of two Dem side caucuses (shout out to Wyoming) the Dems just bite the bullet on the "only primaries count" rule, and IA's GOP state government isn't moving their June primary so Dem side IA goes from first to last. GOP isn't messing with their caucuses, so IA will stay first over there.

Could be the early states end up IA-NH-NV-SC on the GOP and NH-NV-SC on the Dem side.

[Bacon King]

Could be the early states end up IA-NH-NV-SC on the GOP and NH-NV-SC on the Dem side.

it's worth noting that unless the DNC changes their delegate allocation formula in the 2024 Call to Convention, each state will lose all their delegates if their presidential nominating contest is held before the following dates:

Iowa: February 5th
New Hampshire: February 13th
Nevada: February 24th
South Carolina: March 2nd
all other states: March 5th

[NewYorkExpress]

Could be the early states end up IA-NH-NV-SC on the GOP and NH-NV-SC on the Dem side.

it's worth noting that unless the DNC changes their delegate allocation formula in the 2024 Call to Convention, each state will lose all their delegates if their presidential nominating contest is held before the following dates:

Iowa: February 5th
New Hampshire: February 13th
Nevada: February 24th
South Carolina: March 2nd
all other states: March 5th

Iowa should lose all of their delegates if they don't change to a primary (I don't mind them going first). New Hampshire should lose all of their delegates if they don't change their law regarding them being the first primary on the calendar (they really should switch places with one or both of Nevada/South Carolina).

The dates don't bother me, as long as we aren't having the Iowa caucus or New Hampshire Primary sometime in 2023 (which I wouldn't put past Bill Gardner).

[Joe Republic]

Could be the early states end up IA-NH-NV-SC on the GOP and NH-NV-SC on the Dem side.

it's worth noting that unless the DNC changes their delegate allocation formula in the 2024 Call to Convention, each state will lose all their delegates if their presidential nominating contest is held before the following dates:

Iowa: February 5th
New Hampshire: February 13th
Nevada: February 24th
South Carolina: March 2nd
all other states: March 5th

I suspect that this ultimately ends up being an empty threat.  Remember in 2008 when Michigan and Florida both went "too early" and initially lost all their delegates.  Then they compromised and allowed all the delegates to be seated but with only half a vote each.  Then finally, in the middle of the convention during the warm fuzzy glow of Obama-Clinton unity after a bitterly divided campaign, the delegates were granted their full voting rights after all.  The threats ended up being a total bluff.

[Nutmeg]

Nevada is the state that makes the least sense to choose our president. Low levels of political and community involvement, high levels of transience, and difficult geography really render this an odd move. New Hampshire and Iowa at least have a history of paying attention to politics and seem to comprehend the high responsibility we randomly have thrust upon them.

But now that I think of it, a state where almost everyone lives in a sad exurban-type development or a trailer in the middle of nowhere probably represents the future of this country.

[Joe Republic]

Nevada is the state that makes the least sense to choose our president. Low levels of political and community involvement, high levels of transience, and difficult geography really render this an odd move. New Hampshire and Iowa at least have a history of paying attention to politics and seem to comprehend the high responsibility we randomly have thrust upon them.

But now that I think of it, a state where almost everyone lives in a sad exurban-type development or a trailer in the middle of nowhere probably represents the future of this country.

There is an insultingly dismissive description for literally every state in the union, including why it doesn't "deserve" to have any particular precedence over any other.  Yours for Nevada is not original.

[Nutmeg]

Nevada is the state that makes the least sense to choose our president. Low levels of political and community involvement, high levels of transience, and difficult geography really render this an odd move. New Hampshire and Iowa at least have a history of paying attention to politics and seem to comprehend the high responsibility we randomly have thrust upon them.

But now that I think of it, a state where almost everyone lives in a sad exurban-type development or a trailer in the middle of nowhere probably represents the future of this country.

There is an insultingly dismissive description for literally every state in the union, including why it doesn't "deserve" to have any particular precedence over any other.  Yours for Nevada is not original.

Then I’m glad others agree with my observations about Nevada’s lack of civic culture.

[Mr. Morden]

Could be the early states end up IA-NH-NV-SC on the GOP and NH-NV-SC on the Dem side.

it's worth noting that unless the DNC changes their delegate allocation formula in the 2024 Call to Convention, each state will lose all their delegates if their presidential nominating contest is held before the following dates:

Iowa: February 5th
New Hampshire: February 13th
Nevada: February 24th
South Carolina: March 2nd
all other states: March 5th

I suspect that this ultimately ends up being an empty threat.  Remember in 2008 when Michigan and Florida both went "too early" and initially lost all their delegates.  Then they compromised and allowed all the delegates to be seated but with only half a vote each.  Then finally, in the middle of the convention during the warm fuzzy glow of Obama-Clinton unity after a bitterly divided campaign, the delegates were granted their full voting rights after all.  The threats ended up being a total bluff.

I don’t view the 2008 example that way.  States moving their primaries earlier do so in order to actually influence the outcome of the overall primary race or at least to make the candidates believe they *might* influence the overall primary race, and so campaign in their state and pander to them.

I don’t remember the details of the sanctions from the DNC in 2008, but I believe that in addition to stripping away the delegates from the respective states, there were sanctions on individual candidates that they would suffer if they campaigned in states that broke the rules.  This was enough to deter all the candidates from campaigning in both Florida and Michigan, and there was no meaningfully contested primary in either state.  When delegates were later restored to both states, it was only done so knowing that it wouldn’t be enough to prevent Obama from winning the nomination.  That’s like retroactively adding 5 points to the score of a basketball team that lost the game by 10 points.  Who cares if it has no chance of changing the outcome?  In terms of preventing the offending states from either influencing the outcome of the nominating contest or getting the candidates to campaign there and cater to them, the sanctions were extraordinarily successful.

It was the RNC sanctions in the same year that were toothless.  They stripped half the delegates from NH, MI, SC, and FL, all for holding their primaries too early.  But no one cared, because taking delegates away from the early states doesn’t really matter as long as the candidates still campaign there, and the media touts them as important.  That’s because the importance of the early states lies in their ability to provide momentum for the later contests, moreso than the actual delegate count.  Since the GOP candidates still campaigned in those states (with McCain winning the nomination on the back of victories in 3 of them), it was a non-issue for them, in contrast to how it played out on the Democratic side.

[Joe Republic]

Nevada is the state that makes the least sense to choose our president. Low levels of political and community involvement, high levels of transience, and difficult geography really render this an odd move. New Hampshire and Iowa at least have a history of paying attention to politics and seem to comprehend the high responsibility we randomly have thrust upon them.

But now that I think of it, a state where almost everyone lives in a sad exurban-type development or a trailer in the middle of nowhere probably represents the future of this country.

There is an insultingly dismissive description for literally every state in the union, including why it doesn't "deserve" to have any particular precedence over any other.  Yours for Nevada is not original.

Then I’m glad others agree with my observations about Nevada’s lack of civic culture.

Having worked in the heart of Nevada's government for an entire legislative session, interacting with literally thousands of deeply passionate and motivated citizens, I can confirm that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Joe Republic]

I don’t view the 2008 example that way.  States moving their primaries earlier do so in order to actually influence the outcome of the overall primary race or at least to make the candidates believe they *might* influence the overall primary race, and so campaign in their state and pander to them.

Yes, that's exactly why Iowa and New Hampshire were "forced" (by themselves) to go so early; because other states had attempted to leapfrog in front for the exact reason you describe.  Same reason why Nevada has done it now.

I don’t remember the details of the sanctions from the DNC in 2008, but I believe that in addition to stripping away the delegates from the respective states, there were sanctions on individual candidates that they would suffer if they campaigned in states that broke the rules.  This was enough to deter all the candidates from campaigning in both Florida and Michigan, and there was no meaningfully contested primary in either state.

That's not an accurate recollection of what happened.  There was no penalty for any of the candidates who stayed in the MI and FL primaries.  Nearly all the candidates dropped out, in deference of the national party's rules.  Hillary Clinton, notably, stayed on the Michigan ballot even when all her other major opponents withdrew.

When delegates were later restored to both states, it was only done so knowing that it wouldn’t be enough to prevent Obama from winning the nomination.  That’s like retroactively adding 5 points to the score of a basketball team that lost the game by 10 points.  Who cares if it has no chance of changing the outcome?  In terms of preventing the offending states from either influencing the outcome of the nominating contest or getting the candidates to campaign there and cater to them, the sanctions were extraordinarily successful.

Yes, that's not really disagreeing with me, other than perhaps the way the timeline of events had influenced the rationale to reinstate the delegates' full voting rights.  Obama had already clinched the nomination, and Clinton had conceded and endorsed him a month and a half prior to the convention.  The reinstatement was, by that point, a goodwill gesture to ease any remaining tensions (in two big swing states) after a long and bitter campaign.

The long term problem for the DNC with that decision was that it showed any future rule-breaking states (such as... Nevada?) that any threats to strip their delegates are probably completely toothless.  It also showed the same to any future candidates considering withdrawing as well.

[Nutmeg]

Nevada is the state that makes the least sense to choose our president. Low levels of political and community involvement, high levels of transience, and difficult geography really render this an odd move. New Hampshire and Iowa at least have a history of paying attention to politics and seem to comprehend the high responsibility we randomly have thrust upon them.

But now that I think of it, a state where almost everyone lives in a sad exurban-type development or a trailer in the middle of nowhere probably represents the future of this country.

There is an insultingly dismissive description for literally every state in the union, including why it doesn't "deserve" to have any particular precedence over any other.  Yours for Nevada is not original.

Then I’m glad others agree with my observations about Nevada’s lack of civic culture.

Having worked in the heart of Nevada's government for an entire legislative session, interacting with literally thousands of deeply passionate and motivated citizens, I can confirm that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm seriously and unsarcastically glad to hear it. I worked for a presidential candidate in Nevada in 2007-2008, living in Battle Mountain, Elko, and finally upgrading to the Arts District/Downtown Las Vegas for the actual caucus, and in traveling to all of the state's counties, my teams and I found about 7 Nevadans who had given thought to the presidential election at that point. I held that in contrast to working for that candidate in New Hampshire, where the average person we contacted was able to carefully compare and contrast Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack's policies unprompted and wouldn't consider voting for someone who hadn't at least come to their town, if not their living room. If the passionate and motivated residents of Nevada are going to choose our next president, I hope they are up for the job.

Still the worst urban planning in the country, though, in objective terms. Even the Arts District/Downtown mostly is strip malls on multi-lane highway-type roads. My disdain for the lack of urban fabric in Nevada is not based in general prejudice but rather my specific experience of unsuccessfully searching for months for somewhere to live where I could walk to a grocery store and not fear for my life running across 7 lanes of traffic.

[Joe Republic]

Sisolak signed the bill into law today.  RIH, caucus!

The 2024 Nevada presidential primary will be on Tuesday February 6th.  Which would likely put New Hampshire's primary on or before January 30th.