around the beginning of each yr, people begin beating up on themselves, agonizing about matters not carried out within the past, and then they are searching for a solution in some dim, poorly concept out pledge to be and/or act in a different way in the approaching 12 months. For those of the Christian religion, it is apparent that many have confused themselves into wondering that Lent is a 12 months round thing and that a new year decision is set denial. For others a decision is not a decision except it's miles grandiose and has as an introduced advantage of requiring a main exchange in life-style or life direction. these are frequently folks who make these choices and pledges, after having had several glasses of champagne. The fortunate ones do now not do not forget it the next day! To make a brand new 12 months resolution, one needs to understand why there's any price at all in doing so. here are 4 matters to consider when constructing sound desires for new year resolutions.

First, the most essential factor is that a resolution need to be designed for fulfillment and not primarily based on denial. Denial is awful in nearly all matters. in case your faith is worried right here, preserve repeating "this isn't Lent" as you work in your resolution!

second, a decision ought to no longer pledge someone to stop doing something they really enjoy because it has a completely small margin for success. cease smoking, giving up chocolate (no longer Lent recollect), maximum weight loss plan pledges and resolutions which might be structured of a person else doing some thing, are doomed to failure. several years in the past, a Catholic pal made a brand new years decision, which called for some other buddy to get married that year. this is a want; in a stretch, it could be taken into consideration a prayer. but, it isn't a resolution designed for success. growing or committing to a brand new Years resolution that has no margin for success, has no cost. If a person does not consider the aim on which the resolution is primarily based is potential, then it is stupid and again, has no fee. save your prevent smoking plan and eating regimen techniques for way of life changes which you work on along with your medical doctor and your health guru, now not for a brand new 12 months resolution.

The 0.33 element is that for a resolution to be successful, it ought to deliver the person true personal delight. To do this, the resolution need to be some thing the person definitely needs, even desires to be distinct of their life. personally, two of my best resolutions on this decade have been wonderful successes for this very motive. In, 2001 I resolved to prevent carrying neckties. i've no longer accomplished so on account that, no longer even at my wedding that 12 months. Get a few collarless dress shirts, some best print shirts and some silky mock turtlenecks and one is ideal to move. the subsequent yr I resolved to forestall sporting a wristwatch. I do, occasionally, carry my Father's gold railroaders pocket watch and in a pinch, my mobile phone will inform me the time.

 other examples might also help illustrate the electricity non-public satisfaction can play in a well concept out New Years decision. even as still in his teens, a fellow to whom i am close became informed via his Father that one ought to "inform a first rate deal about a person by means of whether they stored their footwear shined." since this person disliked shining footwear, he idea of his Father's words on any occasion that he noticed his own stupid or scoffed footwear while in a collection of other human beings. 365 days, he pledged to common shoe shine stands and get regular shoe shines. whenever he did this it made him consider his Father, of whom he changed into each fond. Now that could be a New Years decision!

the second one instance is a person who made a resolution in 1979 no longer to go into a church except to look at the design or structure until the occasion turned into a marriage or funeral for which he could not discover a way to get out of going. simplest one time has he did not maintain that pledge. On yuletide Eve of 1990, he entered Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris to observe the incredible of the middle of the night Mass birthday celebration. no longer precisely grounds for branding him a backslider!

The fourth key to fending off silly purpose-setting in New Years resolutions is to evaluation the scope of your destiny disappoint if you fail to paste to the pledge. if you make the resolution so that you can convey your self pleasure or even happiness, to fail to attain the final results will deliver you neither. Failure is in all likelihood to make a person quiet upset with themselves. That is not an area we need to remedy to be shortly after starting a new 12 months. through searching internal one's self like this, we will increase our probabilities of spotting a decision with the ability for fulfillment from one with the intention to convey sadness. Do no longer make a resolution that your head or your coronary heart tell you'll convey disappointment and make you experience terrible approximately yourself.

Ask your self questions based totally on those four hints to get at an understanding of your proper conviction regarding the decision. is that this about denial? If there's denial involved, step faraway from the denial. is that this a huge way of life alternate? in that case, it isn't always likely to turn out to be a a success resolution. Will my fulfillment with this resolution convey carry me great private pride? If the solution is sure, you are most of the way there my pal. Am I depending on the moves of others to be successful with this decision? If the answer is sure, flow on from this decision to 1 where you're the only in control. via answering a few questions of this kind and different i am positive you can think about, you may greatly boom your odds of gaining the extraordinary personal pleasure of efficiently residing your New yr Resolutions.

In closing, right here's an commentary that may be regarded as a bit of a disclaimer. Resolutions that involve any sort of commitment to ordinary exercise must no longer have these guidelines or this evaluation applied to them. exercise is not approximately denial, it is about achieving the field and dedication to maintain. it's far approximately feeling higher due to the fact you do it. this is about your fitness. exercising that doesn't pound your body around but as an alternative facilitates you keep your muscle groups, coronary heart and properly-being must be within the New yr's decision "try, try again" record. trying and failing to achieve the commitment and subject for success will deliver disappoint, absolute confidence about it. The key is to keep at it until you find an improving activity like Yoga, on foot, or maybe swimming that finally lets in you success and personal delight. I accept as true with that Yoga, all with the aid of it's self can be the middle of many sound desires that may provide New Years resolution success. normal yoga exercise provides an umbrella way of life for workout, stress control, meditation, stability and nicely-being. As I stated before, now it really is a new 12 months's decision!

whilst attending the brand new year's party quite a few humans are probable to take their New year's resolutions as properly. And understandably quite a few them might not feel secure with their gift economic function. So, they may eventually decide to defer from taking any New yr's decision, but first rate or important it may be, for one extra yr. thankfully, there are infinite possibilities to fulfill your dedication within your finances or even free of any cost. In this text, i'm able to discover possibilities of a change-off between fee and commitments towards enjoyable our New 12 months's resolutions.

popular New yr's resolution:

before delving into further information, let me explain what a brand new 12 months's decision manner. A decision is a dedication towards attaining self-development goals. it's miles all approximately both to broaden a good habit or to remove a terrible addiction. famous resolutions encompass - ingesting less alcohol, give up smoking, have a better health, getting a higher process, or, to keep money. With weight reduction main the listing of famous resolutions in the course of the beyond few years, the maximum popular resolution in 2009 was to shop cash, probably pushed by means of monetary meltdown. each decision commonly carries a splendid issue of existence. sadly it's miles found to be extraordinarily difficult to sustain those promises for a sizeable time frame. allow us to discover the way to make your decision a success.

New year's resolution - the way to Make it a success:

it's miles stated commitments are made to be damaged. And fact is that most people ultimately fail to keep our New year's resolutions. Researches had been conducted to discover the motives of failure and manner to reap our targets. To set your resolution you need to analyze yourself impartially. You want to don't forget precisely what are the stuff you want to acquire or need to alternate in yourself. You must dream of it. You ought to describe your objective exactly. It need to be like a mission announcement, as a way to manipulate the way you'll act within the year to come. it's miles said that in place of aiming at something summary it's far better to consider something measurable. in case you want to shred off a few extra pounds, rather than a popular resolution like 'to lose weight', a extra unique decision like 'to lose a pound every week' appears to be more goal and achievable. it is also better to mix unique resolutions. as an instance, you could extend your resolutions to encompass each 'end smoking' and 'reduce alcohol consumption', via framing a decision like 'eliminate horrific behavior - cease smoking and reduce alcohol intake'. except, a decision have to not be some thing too trendy in nature. something, that you already exercising, have to no longer be taken into consideration as a resolution. For people, who have to tour a lot, have to now not don't forget 'travel' as their new 12 months's decision. A resolution have to serve a unique purpose in the direction of creating a better person out of you by way of obtaining a higher habit. however, it's miles to be borne in mind that gratifying a resolution commonly involves extra prices - like paying club prices in nearby gyms or purchasing merchandise to help you cease smoking. this can simply unsettle your circle of relatives price range. but there are myriads of options to meet your dedication without slicing a large hole for your pocket. allow me provide an explanation for how to acquire your resolution within your stringent budget restriction.

cost effective options to preserve New year's resolution:

As such we are yet to conquer the adverse effect of recession. economic horror testimonies are arising each different day. In a latest article, I examine the surprising news of Delaware puppy owners, who were compelled to surrender their pets due to process losses and foreclosures. glaringly, there are charities, which have extended help for homeless pets. anyway, ache and distress of these affected human beings may be without difficulty understandable. In view of this example, it's also very important to recollect financial aspects whilst taking a decision.

as an example, in an effort to get a higher form often we be part of expensive weight reduction programs, or, purchase steeply-priced supplements. maximum of the give up smoking products also are luxurious. besides, these all may also contain ordinary month-to-month expenses. So, to meet your decision, you may turn out to be unsettling your month-to-month price range. but, there are loads of low priced alternatives. you may effortlessly acquire fitness education DVD from your friend and observe the practise to get a better shape. you could without difficulty follow the free on line instructions to attempt to end smoking rather than spending difficult-earned bucks to shop for expensive products with questionable best. As such, take into account the old proverb - if there's will, there is way. So, make a positive decision and search for inexpensive options to acquire it. wish you every success with your New year's decision in advance.

Since early 2016, a trend has evolved in how the 2020 presidential nomination process will operate. In that time, several formerly caucus states have abandoned the format in favor of a state-funded primary. That has happened in states like Idaho and Nebraska where there was already a primary option included in state law, but also in states like Colorado and Minnesota, where citizen-driven initiative or the legislature, respectively, created the primary option.

The latter group used to include the caucus-to-primary shift in Maine.

Used to.

The 2016 effort to re-establish a presidential primary in the Pine Tree state passed and became law, but most of the provisions in the bill (then law) expired on December 1, 2018. The sole surviving component -- the only part that did not expire -- was the study the Maine secretary of state was to have conducted with respect to the funding of the election. And while that report was issued on December 1, 2017, as called for in the statute, questions lingered about how state reimbursement to the counties conducting the elections would function among other issues.

The impetus for the sunset provision, then, was to allow for some fact finding on the funding issue, but also in order to force legislators to consider those implications before solidifying the primary for 2020. That consideration continues now.

However, there is legislation -- LD 245 -- newly before the Maine legislature to make permanent the provisions that re-established the presidential primary, but which expired toward the end of 2018. As FHQ described in 2016, those provisions include the following:

• The secretary will then by November 1 of the year prior to a presidential election year set the date of the contest for some Tuesday in March. This date selection process will be done in consultation with the state parties. 
• That last part is key. The state parties obviously have the final say in all of this. Despite there being presidential primary, the state parties are not required to opt into it. Those parties could continue to use caucuses as a means of both allocating and selecting delegates. But by providing some (early calendar) flexibility and by consulting with the parties, the new law maximizes the likelihood that the two state parties opt into the primary and allocate delegates through the vote in the contest. 
• This legislation does a couple of interesting things. First, as mentioned above, the secretary of state has some carefully calibrated discretion on setting the date of the primary. The law does not set the primary for a specific date, but rather calls for it to happen on a Tuesday in March. More importantly, though, the decision on the date of the primary for 2020 and in the future rests with the secretary of state -- like in New Hampshire and Georgia -- instead of having to filter any date change through the legislative process. The discretion that the Maine secretary of state will have on this is far more restricted than in either New Hampshire or Georgia, but there is some flexibility there. That makes Maine a bit more adaptable than states with primaries scheduled for specific dates.

--
The Maine bill has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the day that was...

Just prior to the holidays the Democratic National Committee released a schedule for upcoming presidential primary debates. The party at that time even included a contingency plan for the very real possibility that a slew of candidates have entered the race, forcing the party to have double-bill debates. Rather than follow the Republican big fish/little fish format from 2016, the DNC will instead randomize the selection of participants in each part of a two-tiered debate kickoff.

Outside of those provisions, however, the DNC remained relatively silent on the specifics of an important aspect of the process: how does one qualify? What measures will be utilized to separate participating presidential candidates from those who, well, do not measure up?

It was not that the announcement was without specifics, but they lacked definition. There were two main measures laid out and it was stated that the bar for entry would be kept low for the first debate (and likely rise over time).

Polling was listed as one component, but one that is not without drawbacks given a large field of candidates and the lack of, at this point in time anyway, a clear (and clearly separated) frontrunner. Any resulting polling-based threshold can end up rather arbitrary in such a scenario. What is to say that there is a true difference in sentiment for and between candidates sitting at or just above five percent in polls and those just below that level in the hypothetical situation where the cutoff is set at five percent? Well, not that much in many cases.

It is partly for that reason that the DNC has signaled that it will lean on other metrics as well to determine who gets in and who is left out of the initial two part debates. The other component is some demonstration of "grassroots fundraising". Outside of personal funds and money from PACs, super PACs and/or other groups, how much can/should a campaign pull in and how widespread should those donations be (in terms of from where they are coming)?

That remains an open question before the DNC at this point. But it is not coming into that discussion blindly. This same basic concept has been used elsewhere in the presidential nomination process.

Although it is more than a little outdated, other than for campaigns desperate for a cash infusion to stay alive, the federal matching funds system that in a bygone era helped fund presidential nomination campaigns sets a few markers that may serve as a baseline for the DNC as it continues its deliberations about debates qualifications.

The matching funds system continues to set a minimum of $100,000 raised across at least 20 states (at least $5000 in each) as the threshold for access to federal funding. No, serious candidates do not ultimately end up opting into that system anymore. They can far out-raise not only the threshold but their share and the match combined.

But that reality is beside the point in this setting. Candidates are not attempting to qualify for funding. Instead, they are attempting to do what the matching funds system was originally set up to accomplish: force the candidates and their campaigns to demonstrate wide enough support. Polling and widespread fundraising can build a more robust picture of that support than any one metric alone can.

Yet, that does leave one question unsettled; one with which the DNC will have to wrestle before it finalizes the rules likely in March. If the matching funds system is a starting point, then is the threshold it sets too low, too high, or just right for debate entry? And does the party use any of the information out there about the fundraising being done by candidates officially in or exploring a run up to that point? It is hard to imagine that data not making its way into and potentially influencing those discussions. And that may impact those who are already in versus those who are not at that point.

That may be problematic for a party coming off a cycle when accusations that it played favorites in 2016 continue to bubble up, not to mention the pressure it may continue to put on candidates to expedite announcement decisions.



Related: On DNC Debate Requirements and Candidate Strategy


--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. Gillibrand officially joins the fray.

2. Pete Buttigieg gets a lengthy profile in WaPo.

3. Sanders continues to staff up.

4. Expectations are already being set for Warren in New Hampshire.

5. Brown now has carve-out state trips planned, but any official announcement will have to wait.

6. Once openly talked about as potential presidential candidates in 2020, Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum are now being discussed as sought after endorsements and signal-givers for those candidates who have or will throw their hats in the ring.

7. Add Seth Moulton to the list of folks heading to New Hampshire.

8. Booker's travels take him to Louisiana, a state with a primary the weekend just after Super Tuesday.

9. Klobuchar's potential bid gets a thumbs up from her family.

10. Nate Silver has a coalition-building theory about the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

11. Kevin Collins responds with an alternative hypothesis centered on invisible primary resource acquisition.

12. A component of those resources is the team campaigns, nascent or otherwise, put together. There is only so much seasoned staff to go around in a large field, and potential staff are biding their time.


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.

Legislators are back at it in Washington state.

Since eliminating the presidential primary for the 2012 cycle, there have been ongoing, albeit unsuccessful, attempts made to not only reposition the presidential contest on the primary calendar, but to reconfigure the process in the Evergreen state as well.

The sticking point in 2015, as illustrated in the descriptions linked to above as well as in 2017 when similar legislation was introduced, has always been how to balance both the lack of party registration in Washington and the history of a top two primary ballot in the context of a presidential primary.

None of the remedies to this point have been sufficient enough to get an omnibus presidential primary bill passed. And that has continued to keep the contest in its relatively late May position, but has also given Democrats continued opportunities to opt for caucuses in lieu of the presidential primary.

And now there are competing, partisan bills in the Washington state Senate to again make some attempt in 2019 at changing several aspects of presidential nomination process in the state. The Republican version -- SB 5229, and its House companion, HB 1262 -- would move the primary from the fourth Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in March. This mirrors the date on which neighboring Idaho currently has its presidential primary scheduled and the date legislation in southern neighbor, Oregon, is targeting in a similar move.

In addition, the bill would also grant the secretary of state the ability to shift the date of the primary from that new March position to a date as early as February 15 or to move it to a later date. The added flexibility is intended to help the secretary to potentially facilitate a western regional primary with any state from among Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, or Utah.

The current law already gives the secretary the power to initiate a date change, but the ultimate decision to do so resides in a bipartisan group that includes the secretary as well as state legislative and state party leadership. Changes outlined in the new legislation would shift even more discretion to the secretary of state, but not without some guardrails. Should any new date chosen deviate from the second Tuesday in March date by more than three weeks, then the secretary would continue to have to receive a green light from bipartisan committee detailed above in order to move the primary.

All of that is relatively uncontroversial. Again, the point of contention has always been over who gets to participate in the presidential primary in a state with no party identification. Under the Republican proposal all registered voters would be able to participate, but it would be up to the state parties to decide which of those votes actually counts toward their delegate allocation.

Here's how that would work:

• All candidates -- Democrats and Republicans -- would be listed on the ballot with their party affiliation listed as well. 
• Partisans who wish to declare and affiliation with a particular party -- swear an oath through a mark on the ballot -- would only be able to vote for a candidate who shares that affiliation. Democrats can vote for Democrats in other words. 
• Unaffiliated voters  -- whether they wish to declare that they are unaffiliated on the ballot or not -- would be able to vote for whomever they want, regardless of party, but may not ultimately have that vote counted toward the delegate allocation. 
• Again, that decision rests with the state parties. 

Under the Republican plan none of the information stemming from the party declarations would be made public as it is in semi-open primary states with similar sorts of oaths.

In contrast, the Democratic bill, sponsored by nearly the entire Democratic leadership in the Washington state Senate and including the chair of the State Government, Tribal Relations and Election committee to which the bill has been referred, differs in subtle way. SB 5273 would also shift the date of the presidential primary from the fourth Tuesday in May to the second Tuesday in March. And the measure would also allow the secretary of state to alter the date in order to form a western regional primary (with the same group of nine states).

However, the secretary, unlike under the provisions in the Republican bill, would only be allowed to shift the date of the primary up as far as the national parties' delegate selection rules would allow (the first Tuesday in March under the current national party rules). That eliminates the potential for Washington to go rogue as is allowed under the Republican legislation.

Moreover, the secretary would have similar discretion to what secretaries of state have under the current law. Deviations from the second Tuesday could continue to occur, but not without a thumbs up from two-thirds of the bipartisan committee described above.

Again, these are subtle differences, but the secretary of state would have less latitude under the Democratic bill than the Republican one.

The framework also differs under the Democratic plan with respect to participation. The all-encompassing ballot would remain as would the partisan declarations. But the Democratic plan does not include the possibility of unaffiliated declarations; declarations that a voter is unaffiliated with a party. Yet, any voter who does not declare an affiliation could vote, but at the discretion of a state party, not have their votes counted toward the the delegate allocation. Finally, the Democratic legislation would make public partisan declarations of affiliation sworn to on the ballot.

There is a lot to digest in these bills, but the main takeaways are that both seek to change the date of the primary and both make some attempt at balancing the history in the state of a blanket primary-type ballot and the state parties' desire to tamp down on crossover voting in particular, but potentially curbing unaffiliated voters influencing the presidential nomination process.


--
The Washington bills have been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.

In what has almost become a custom in the Lone Star state over the last two state legislative sessions, a new bill has been introduced to move the Texas primary from the first Tuesday in March to the fourth Tuesday in January.

Unlike the bill recently introduced further west in Oregon, this is not a new potential swipe at New Hampshire and the other carve-out states. In fact, Lyle Larson (R-122nd, San Antonio) has made this a habit since 2015. But this is merely the representative's third try at a "why not Texas?" bill; one he called a "flamethrower" intended to send a message in 2017. And the current legislation -- HB 725 -- is likely to continue to get the same sort of reaction. Other members on the committee will like the idea of Texas stealing the spotlight, but elections administrators from the county level will balk as will the two major parties in Texas. The latter continues to take issue with the move because of the implications -- national party penalties -- it would have for the delegations the state would send to the national conventions in 2020.

The 2015 version failed to get out of committee, but the 2017 version cleared that committee hurdle only to die from inactivity when the session adjourned. The 2019 version is likely to meet a similar fate.

Historically, Texas just has not budged much from its primary positions. Legislators have only willingly moved the primary twice in the post-reform era; once from May to March for 1988 and again from March to earlier March for 2008. Redistricting dispute forced the state to shift to a late May primary for the 2012 cycle.

More on the history of attempted Texas primary movement here.

--
The Texas bill has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the movements during the day that was...

As presidential nomination cycles have come and gone over the years, the stories change in terms of how states maneuver within that system and why. That is not to suggest that the collision of states and the decision-making conditions they confront is complete chaos every four years. Rather, the terrain is constantly shifting. That is true for a lot of electoral decisions that state legislatures make, and that includes how states position their delegate selection events -- primaries and caucuses -- on the quadrennial presidential primary calendar.

Eight years ago, nearly half the states in the country had newly non-compliant primary dates leftover from a 2008 cycle that saw a slew of states push into February and cluster primarily at the beginning of the month. When the national parties informally coordinated a later start to primary season for 2012, all those February states from 2008 had to make changes to state law.

And the result was at least somewhat predictable. State governments that were under unified Republican control shifted back their dates much less than did the handful of states that were controlled by Democrats after the 2010 midterm elections. Whereas Democratic-controlled states pushed back to traditional positions (California and New Jersey back to June) or positions later on the calendar (the northeastern/mid-Atlantic regional primary in late April), most Republican-controlled states ended up somewhere in March.

At least part of the motivation, then, was partisan. Decision makers in Republican state governments were preparing for an active nomination race and attempted to schedule their primaries for advantageous -- for voters and for drawing candidate attention -- spots on the calendar. Democratic decision makers had no such similar calculus. With no real competition for the Democratic nomination, decision makers in Democratic-controlled states could afford to shift back further in 2012 to take advantage of a new series of delegate bonuses the DNC built into their delegate selection rules for that cycle.

However, when the calendar flipped over four more times, the decision-making matrix at the state level was different for 2016. Both parties had varying levels of competitive races looming and again, acted in at least somewhat predictable ways. Republican-controlled states, already largely in early positions, saw minimal movement.

But Democratic side of the ledger was different. First even in 2014, before the 2015-16 legislatures had been elected, Democrats had a clear frontrunner for 2016 in Hillary Clinton. Second, after the 2014 midterms, there were only a handful of states with unified Democratic control. That is a recipe for little movement, and, in fact, none of those seven Democratic states made any changes for the 2016 cycle.

So as the process heads into 2019, what does the balance of power look like in states across the country for 2020?

For starters, the number of Republican-controlled states is similar to 2015. While there were 23 states with unified Republican control in 2015, there are 22 in 2019. However, there are more Democratic-controlled states now than four years ago and the gains came not from Republican states, but from those with control divided in some way, whether inter-branch or intra-branch.

Not only has the map of partisan control changed, but so too have the conditions under which these decisions are made. Like 2011 or 2015 for Republicans, Democratic decision makers in 2019 seemingly have a wide open and competitive nomination race on the horizon. Those actors, like Republicans in the recent past, have incentives to potentially shift around the dates on which their presidential primaries are held.

That incentive was great enough that California moved from June to March for 2020 back in 2017, an atypical time in the cycle to make such a move.

And that incentive could be enough to motivate the cluster of Democratic-controlled states in the northeast to coordinate an earlier cluster of contests; the inverse of 2011. There is already some evidence that a western regional primary could form in a position just a week after Super Tuesday.

On the Republican side the motivation is different, and not exactly like what Democrats faced in 2011. Yes, defending the president is chief among the concerns of Republicans like the Democrats of eight years ago. However, the defense is potentially different. Democrats, with no real threat of a challenge to President Obama, made moves potentially with the general election in mind; to attempt to influence who emerged as Obama's opponent.

Republican legislators may act, but with the nomination phase in mind; to ward off a challenge to the president. This may happen, as was the case eight years ago on the Democratic side, at the behest of national Republican actors, but it will take place at the state level.

Does that mean Republican-controlled states unilaterally pull back and set later dates? That would be an historical anomaly. States have not typically done that except in situations where it has meant consolidating separated primaries in order to reduce costs; save a line on the state budget. But in more polarized times, both nationally and increasingly in state legislatures, the rules may be different.

It is early in the 2019 state legislative sessions, but it is there that these calendar decisions will be made, and begin to provide a picture of what the 2020 presidential primary calendar will eventually look like.


--
Elsewhere in the invisible primary...

1. Gillibrand end last week with a flurry of activity, whether it was lining up potential campaign headquarters, planning trips to Iowa, staffing up, or privately signaling her intentions.

2. She's not the only one headed to Iowa. Brown is going to visit the Hawkeye state too.

3. Swalwell is taking a late January trip to New Hampshire.

4. Inslee is taking flak back home from Republicans and from some New Hampshire Democrats.

5. In West Virginia, announced Democratic presidential candidate, Richard Ojeda, is resigning his state Senate seat to run for president.

6. Meanwhile, Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is in.

7. So is Julian Castro.

8. And DeBlasio isn't closing any 2020 doors, but, boy, is the clock ticking and the alarm may have already sounded for statements about door-closing/considerations being either serious or taken seriously.

9. Warren continues to add staff. This time some New Hampshire staff additions were announced while Warren was visiting the Granite state.

10. If Biden's walking, he's running [for 2020].


Has FHQ missed something you feel should be included? Drop us a line or a comment and we'll make room for it.