Nebraska Democrats voted on December 8 during their quarterly State Central Committee meeting to conduct the state party's 2020 national...
Nebraska Democrats voted on December 8 during their quarterly State Central Committee meeting to conduct the state party's 2020 national delegate allocation process through a presidential primary.
This is a reversion to the mode of delegate selection Cornhusker state Democrats used prior to 2008. For that cycle and the succeeding two cycles, the party held caucuses. And the primary motivation for the switch from primary to caucus ahead of 2008 was to move to an earlier date on the presidential primary calendar. That allowed for (Saturday after Super Tuesday) February caucuses as opposed to the traditional May primary.
But that move never got rid of the primary. By Nebraska law, caucus or not, a party's candidates appear on the presidential primary ballot. And in both of the competitive Democratic presidential cycles of 2008 and 2016 the later primary added two turnout data points for comparison to the caucuses. Despite the later date of the non-binding primary contests, the turnout was higher than in the caucuses.
That has remained a sticking point in discussions in and out of the state party in Nebraska and has been a primary incentive to move back to a primary election currently scheduled for May.
Nebraska now becomes the sixth state to make a switch from a 2016 caucus to a 2020 presidential primary; joining Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, and Utah.
The Nebraska change has been added to the FHQ 2020 presidential primary calendar.
--
Related Posts:
Caucus or Primary? Nebraska Democrats Have the Decision Before Them
Nebraska Democratic Party Platform Committee Passes Caucus-to-Primary Resolution
Nebraska Democrats Signal Caucus-to-Primary Switch for 2020
Nebraska Democrats will convene this weekend to conduct their quarterly State Central Committee meeting. And on the agenda is the caucus or...
Nebraska Democrats will convene this weekend to conduct their quarterly State Central Committee meeting. And on the agenda is the caucus or primary question as the group continues to consider the state party's draft delegate selection plan for 2020.
Yet, the party is not newly coming into this discussion. In fact, at its 2018 state convention this past June, Democratic delegates considered the matter as well. The state convention platform committee at the time ultimately passed a resolution calling for a switch to a primary from the caucus system the party has used to select and allocate national convention delegates from the Cornhusker state for each of the last three cycles (since 2008).
But news of the inner workings within the party on the caucus-to-primary question went quiet after that point. The convention resolution on the matter did not (and does not now) appear among the listed resolutions that were passed on the floor of the convention at the time.
However, it was listed among the passed resolutions in late June. Here's the language:
Why it disappeared from the passed resolutions was a mystery; one that was not settled later when I tried to reach out to the Nebraska Democratic Party (NDP) about it in July once I returned from vacation. Nor were they answered to any greater degree by the resolution's sponsor, Angela Thomas when FHQ reached out to her once news of the December State Central Committee meeting was reported toward the end of November.
Ultimately, this really is neither here nor there, but it was odd.
Regardless, the resolution would have been non-binding on the party. Additionally, the progression of the idea -- switching from a caucus to a primary -- has followed if not taken an expedited path as laid out by NDP Chair Jane Kleeb at the time of the state convention:
The party’s State Central Committee most likely won’t make a final decision until March, after the national Democratic Party issues guidance to the states, said Chairwoman Jane Kleeb.
The party has seemingly moved the consideration of caucus-to-primary up a quarter from March 2019 to December 2018 in order to incorporate the decision on mode of delegate selection into the party's draft delegate selection plan to be submitted to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee by early May.
Heading into the decisive State Central Committee meeting December 7-8, it should be noted that the resolution to eliminate the caucuses drew cheers back at the state convention when it was introduced in the platform committee and as of late November the idea of a caucus-to-primary shift was said by party Chair Kleeb to have held a three to one advantage among the party's grassroots.
Take that as internal momentum to change the state Democrats' mode of delegate selection for 2020. And that parallels the external momentum to move from caucuses to primaries in Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, and Utah that has already produced change in 2016-18.
From the Omaha World-Herald : Nebraska Democrats are weighing whether to scrap their decade-old practice of holding presidential caucuses. ...
From the Omaha World-Herald:
Nebraska Democrats are weighing whether to scrap their decade-old practice of holding presidential caucuses.
The Nebraska Democratic Party’s platform committee voted with no dissent Friday at Southeast Community College to advance a resolution calling for the elimination of presidential caucuses before the 2020 election.
When the resolution was introduced, there were cheers from the group, and several people exclaimed that they dislike the caucuses.
The unanimously passed resolution to abandon the caucuses for a primary to allocate national convention delegates will now go before the state convention. Win or lose there, the decision will likely not be finalized by the state central committee until 2019 after the Democratic National Committee has set its rules for delegate selection for the 2020 cycle.
Related:
Nebraska Democrats Signal Caucus-to-Primary Switch for 2020
March Presidential Primary Bill Dies as Nebraska Legislature Adjourns
Citing party resources stretched too thin and depressed primary turnout, the Nebraska Democratic Party is considering abandoning its caucuse...
Citing party resources stretched too thin and depressed primary turnout, the Nebraska Democratic Party is considering abandoning its caucuses for a primary to allocate national convention delegates in 2020.
Prompted by the promise of an earlier voice in the presidential nomination process and no clear hope of a legislative move to shift up the primary in the Cornhusker state, Nebraska Democrats in 2007 first established a (then-compliant) February caucus/convention system for allocating national convention delegates in 2008. And while the move has driven grassroots enthusiasm and drawn candidate attention over the last three cycles in a way that a May primary may not have, the caucus/convention process has diverted party resources (around $150,000) that could otherwise have been spent winning elected offices further down the ballot.
The process of creating that separate caucus has also had implications for the May primary. First, the switch to a caucus rendered the presidential contest on the May primary ballot a beauty contest, meaningless to the allocation of delegates to the national convention. With the allocation decided, there was far less interest in the primary and has yielded lower turnout in primary elections for state and local offices.
And that is not all that uncommon for states with later and consolidated primaries combining presidential preference and a vote for nominations to down ballot positions. States that opt to create a new and separate presidential primary earlier in the calendar leave behind later primaries for other offices. Those primaries, asking voters to return to the polls again in a relatively short window of time, tend to see far lower participation.
Nebraska Democrats have apparently felt those pressures and are open to a return to the primary in 2020. The preference seems to be for an earlier primary, but state party chair (and Unity Reform Commission member), Jane Kleeb has also indicated that even a May primary may work given the outlook for 2020 (a big field of candidates).
Democrats have not exactly balked at a primary date change in the non-partisan Nebraska Unicam, but efforts to shift the contest into April (in 2014) or March (in 2016 and 2018) have all fallen flat in recent years. It is unclear whether Republican aligned legislators will be receptive to a date change in a cycle in which Republicans may not see a contested presidential nomination race.
One thing is clear: In the wake of 2016, caucuses are under scrutiny at almost all levels of the Democratic Party. Yes, the Unity Reform Commission made some recommendations regarding caucuses, but independent of that push, a handful of states have already made the caucus-to-primary switch. Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota all made the change in 2016 and Utah laid the groundwork for a primary option (by funding the election) in 2017. The number of caucus states looks to contract substantially with or without a Nebraska shift.
As expected , a bill that would have established a separate and earlier presidential primary in Nebraska quietly died when the legislature i...
As expected, a bill that would have established a separate and earlier presidential primary in Nebraska quietly died when the legislature in the Cornhusker state adjourned in mid-April.
While the bill -- LB 1032 -- received a hearing in committee, it failed to gain traction just as a similar effort did in 2016.
The push in Nebraska is yet another primary movement casualty during the 2017-18 legislative sessions across the country. To this point, only California has successfully shifted the date of its presidential primary for the 2020 cycle. Every other bill in other states failed at some point in the legislative process. While the pace of 2020 primary movement has been slow thus far in the cycle, that is fairly common. Most of that activity continues to take place in the year before the presidential election year. Shifts happen during the other three years in a cycle, but it tends to be exception rather than rule.
Similar to a 2016 push , legislation to establish a separate presidential primary has stalled in the Nebraska legislature. Same sponsor, sam...
Similar to a 2016 push, legislation to establish a separate presidential primary has stalled in the Nebraska legislature. Same sponsor, same intent, same opposition.
Senator John Murante (49th, Gretna) introduced legislation -- LB 1032 -- to create a new statewide presidential primary election, severe it from the consolidated May primary, and shift the new election into March. The 2018 legislation is basically the same as the bill from 2016, but rather than move the new election to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, the 2018 version would schedule the primary for the second Tuesday in March.
In a late February hearing on the bill in the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, Murante, via the Lincoln Journal Star, argued for an earlier Nebraska role in the nomination process:
"Trump won Indiana and Cruz withdrew from the race and that ended Nebraska's opportunity to have a voice," Murante said.
An early presidential primary election would provide that opportunity, he said.
The reasoning for the move is the same as it was two years ago even before Nebraskans had cast their 2016 primary votes. It was additionally a goal of the sponsor to entice Nebraska Democrats -- already with an earlier caucus -- to opt into the earlier primary with the potential for increased participation.
However, the reasoning against was similarly as consistent in 2018 as it was in 2016. The costs of primaries in the Cornhusker state are laid on the shoulders of the counties, and county officials in the committee hearing again balked at the $1.6 million price tag.
State actors often have the willingness to make these moves to earlier dates, but do not always have an ability to bring such a change to fruition. Often the ability portion of the equation -- especially when it is lacking -- comes down to the hit such a move would have on the budget. If the costs are too high, a primary stays where it is.
LB 1032 according to the Journal Star failed to gain priority and will see no further legislative action in 2018. Most primary moves occur in the year before the presidential primary.
--
More: 2020 Presidential Primary Calendar
Before jumping into the new polls for the day, allow FHQ a moment to make a few technical points now that the calendar has flipped from Sept...
Before jumping into the new polls for the day, allow FHQ a moment to make a few technical points now that the calendar has flipped from September to October. First,
as promised, the possibility of electoral vote splits in Maine and Nebraska are now accounted for. One can most easily see that in the map above where the districts are being tracked now on the right side above the date. But that change is also reflected in the Electoral College Spectrum below (see particularly footnote #3).
Second, not only are the day's new polls added, but so too are the 50 state surveys from
UPI and
Ipsos. As the latter are a rolling three week tracking poll, FHQ has made the editorial decision to include just the most recent version. That will be the case until there is no longer any overlap across versions. The inclusion of those series of surveys has shuffled a few states around as the changes table below notes. Alaska, Kansas and Utah shifted into deeper red territory and Mississippi inched just inside the Strong/Lean line on the Lean side. Meanwhile, on the Clinton side of the partisan line, Maine and Oregon continued to huddle around two different lines of demarcation between the categories here at FHQ. Both Maine and Oregon nudged back into the Lean Clinton category but from different directions. Overall, the shake up in the Spectrum -- the underlying order of states -- was pretty minimal.
New State Polls (10/1/16) |
State | Poll | Date | Margin of Error | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Undecided | Poll Margin | FHQ Margin |
|---|
Nevada | | 9/27-9/29 | +/- 3.5% | 800 likely voters | 45 | 44 | 5 | +1 | +0.29 |
New Hampshire | | 9/25-9/27 | +/- 4.0% | 600 likely voters | 43 | 37 | 2 | +6 | +5.77 |
New Jersey | | 9/22-9/28 | +/- 3.9% | 638 likely voters | 46 | 40 | 5 | +6 | +11.37 |
Polling Quick Hits:
Three new polls were released on the first Saturday in October.
Nevada:
| Changes (October 1) |
| State | Before | After |
|---|
| Alaska | Lean Trump | Strong Trump |
| Kansas | Lean Trump | Strong Trump |
| Maine | Toss Up Clinton | Lean Clinton |
| Mississippi | Strong Trump | Lean Trump |
| Oregon | Strong Clinton | Lean Clinton |
| Utah | Lean Trump | Strong Trump |
The Bendixen poll for the Las Vegas Review-Journal is as much of a confirming poll as one could expect. Yesterday's Suffolk poll pushed the Silver state back to the Clinton side of the partisan line, but only barely. This poll is consistent with that positioning and is further evidence that there has been a shift away from that September streak of polls that established a range from Clinton and Trump tied to Trump +3.
New Hampshire:
Let's put it this way about the race in the Granite state: Clinton has not trailed in a poll there since July and that poll was an outlier. While other states have seen the race dance around a bit, New Hampshire has consistently had Clinton ahead in the five to seven point range. This GBA Strategies survey echoes that general dynamic.
New Jersey:
Before the Obama era -- especially during the Bush elections -- New Jersey always seemed to tighten up toward the end of the presidential race. It was never enough to make it competitive, but enough to grab the attention of poll watchers. This Stockton poll feels a little like those 2000 and 2004 days. Still, while Clinton lags behind Obama's 2012 performance in the Garden state, Trump is similarly trailing Romney's pace there. However, it should be noted that this poll has Trump right where Romney ended. But that 40 percent is on the high side of where he has been across the full series of New Jersey surveys.
--
The technical additions triggered a heavier load of changes than normal. Yet, the map and Spectrum remained largely unchanged. There was some more shuffling on and off the Watch List -- around the category lines -- than anything else.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 |
HI-42 (7) | | | | |
MD-10 (17) | | | | |
VT-3 (20) | | | | |
CA-55 (75) | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | OK-7 (10) |
CT-7 (168) | | | | WY-3 (3) |
1 Follow the link for a detailed explanation on how to read the Electoral College Spectrum.2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 275 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.3 Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes to candidates in a more proportional manner. The statewide winner receives the two electoral votes apportioned to the state based on the two US Senate seats each state has. Additionally, the winner within a congressional district is awarded one electoral vote. Given current polling, all five Nebraska electoral votes would be allocated to Trump. In Maine, a split seems more likely. Trump leads in Maine's second congressional district while Clinton is ahead statewide and in the first district. She would receive three of the four Maine electoral votes and Trump the remaining electoral vote. Those congressional district votes are added approximately where they would fall in the Spectrum above.
4 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category. |
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1 |
State | Switch |
|---|
Alaska | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
Delaware | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Maine | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Michigan | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Mississippi | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
Nevada | from Toss Up Clinton | to Toss Up Trump |
New Hampshire | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Ohio | from Toss Up Clinton | to Toss Up Trump |
Oregon | from Lean Clinton | to Strong Clinton |
Pennsylvania | from Toss Up Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Rhode Island | from Lean Clinton | to Strong Clinton |
Virginia | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories. |
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/30/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/29/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/28/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
New State Polls (9/28/16) State Poll Date Margin of Error Sample Clinton Trump Undecided Poll Margin FHQ Margin Michigan Mitchell Research 9...
New State Polls (9/28/16) |
State | Poll | Date | Margin of Error | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Undecided | Poll Margin | FHQ Margin |
|---|
Michigan | | 9/27 | +/- 2.2% | 1956 likely voters | 46 | 41 | 4 | +5 | +5.92 |
Nebraska | | 9/25-9/27 | +/- 3.6% | 700 likely voters | 29.3 | 55.7 | 6.6 | +26.4 | +20.59 |
Washington | | 9/25-9/26 | +/- 3.6% | 700 likely voters | 44.2 | 38.4 | 5.6 | +5.8 | +11.19 |
Polling Quick Hits:
Midweek brought the first post-debate state-level poll and a couple of others from Emerson that overlapped with the first debate on Monday night.
Michigan:
That first completely post-debate poll was from Mitchell Research out of the Great Lakes state. Throughout September, the Michigan average margin has narrowed as the polls have ranged from about a one to six point Clinton advantage. This latest Mitchell poll is on the upper side of that spread, but shaves a point off the early September survey from the firm. In the grand scheme of things in this race, it represents no real change. However, it is noteworthy that this is Trump's third consecutive poll in the 40s (rather than below that threshold).
Nebraska:
In Nebraska, Emerson's debate-straddling survey finds Trump inching up to within range of where Romney was in the state four years ago. Clinton, on the other hand, is lagging well behind not only Trump in one of the reddest states, but trailing Obama's final share of support by around ten points as well.
Washington:
If the trajectory of the race is toward a more normal position in the Cornhusker state, the opposite is true in Washington. There, though the polling has been light, the margin has been off the track as compared to the vote distribution in the Evergreen state during the Obama era. One thing can be said about the polling in Washington: it has been quite volatile. Clinton has led across the full set of surveys there in 2016, but both candidates' shares of support has varied widely; Clinton within a 14 point window and Trump in a 19 point range. Those are wild fluctuations given such a sporadically surveyed state.
--
Michigan trades spots with Virginia on the Spectrum and moves onto the Watch List. Other than that, all remains unchanged from a day ago.
The Electoral College Spectrum1 |
HI-42 (7) | | | | |
MD-10 (17) | | | | |
VT-3 (20) | | | | |
MA-11 (31) | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | AL-9 (12) |
OR-7 (161) | | | | WY-3 (3) |
2 The numbers in the parentheses refer to the number of electoral votes a candidate would have if he or she won all the states ranked prior to that state. If, for example, Trump won all the states up to and including Colorado (all Clinton's toss up states plus Colorado), he would have 274 electoral votes. Trump's numbers are only totaled through the states he would need in order to get to 270. In those cases, Clinton's number is on the left and Trumps's is on the right in bold italics.
To keep the figure to 50 cells, Washington, DC and its three electoral votes are included in the beginning total on the Democratic side of the spectrum. The District has historically been the most Democratic state in the Electoral College.
3 Colorado is the state where Clinton crosses the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidential election. That line is referred to as the victory line. Currently, Colorado is in the Toss Up Clinton category.
|
NOTE: Distinctions are made between states based on how much they favor one candidate or another. States with a margin greater than 10 percent between Clinton and Trump are "Strong" states. Those with a margin of 5 to 10 percent "Lean" toward one of the two (presumptive) nominees. Finally, states with a spread in the graduated weighted averages of both the candidates' shares of polling support less than 5 percent are "Toss Up" states. The darker a state is shaded in any of the figures here, the more strongly it is aligned with one of the candidates. Not all states along or near the boundaries between categories are close to pushing over into a neighboring group. Those most likely to switch -- those within a percentage point of the various lines of demarcation -- are included on the Watch List below.
The Watch List1 |
State | Switch |
|---|
Delaware | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Indiana | from Strong Trump | to Lean Trump |
Iowa | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
Maine | from Toss Up Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Michigan | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Nevada | from Toss Up Trump | to Toss Up Clinton |
New Hampshire | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
New Jersey | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Ohio | from Toss Up Clinton | to Toss Up Trump |
Oregon | from Strong Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Pennsylvania | from Toss Up Clinton | to Lean Clinton |
Rhode Island | from Lean Clinton | to Toss Up Clinton |
Utah | from Lean Trump | to Strong Trump |
1 Graduated weighted average margin within a fraction of a point of changing categories. |
Recent Posts:
The Electoral College Map (9/27/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/26/16)
The Electoral College Map (9/25/16)
Follow FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook or subscribe by Email.
![[2017-18 State Legislative Review: Proposed Primary Movement] Bids to Move Back to March Meet Dead Ends in Arkansas](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif4jA4ZAoL4KQqZXT25xV-4mIqfot51VDIxAfcNVb95qf5fggcKWANY0S5gcJXZtk7-5PN_Prsho-oT5myU40dDD3EFigTq_xqNhyphenhyphen0oJZ3Afvf1_BWLmGRimCLt4ZvJSABp_JiQv9KhAsm/s72-c/ar2017_2020.png)
Follow Us
Were this world an endless plain, and by sailing eastward we could for ever reach new distances