Zogby’s new poll has Kerry up, 48-46 over Bush. The poll also has Bush’s job rating down to 46 percent, a decline of 5 points from Zogby’s mid-February reading. And Bush’s re-elect number, consistent with the Newsweek poll I have been discussing, is mired at 45 percent. Again, this underscores the extent to which recent gains by Bush, such as they are, do not reflect any real change in the public’s evaluation of the job he’s doing and whether he deserves to be re-elected.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
January 16: Towards a 2028 Democratic Primary Calendar
Don’t look now, but it’s already time for the DNC and the states to figure out the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar, so I wrote an overview at New York:
The first 2028 presidential primaries are just two years away. And for the first time since 2016, both parties are expected to have serious competition for their nominations. While Vice-President J.D. Vance is likely to enter the cycle as a formidable front-runner for the GOP nod, recent history suggests there will be lots of other candidates. After all, Donald Trump drew 12 challengers in 2024. On the Democratic side, there is no one like Vance (or Hillary Clinton going into 2016 or Joe Biden going into 2020) who is likely to become the solid front-runner from the get-go, though Californians Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris lead all of the way too early polls.
But 2028 horse-race speculation really starts with the track itself, as the calendar for state contests still isn’t set. What some observers call the presidential-nominating “system” isn’t something the national parties control. In the case of primaries utilizing state-financed election machinery, state laws govern the timing and procedures. Caucuses (still abundant on the Republican side and rarer among Democrats) are usually run by state parties. National parties can vitally influence the calendar via carrots (bonus delegates at the national convention) or sticks (loss of delegates) and try to create “windows” for different kinds of states to hold their nominating contests to space things out and make the initial contests competitive and representative. But it’s sometimes hit or miss.
Until quite recently, the two parties tended to move in sync on such calendar and map decisions. But Democrats have exhibited a lot more interest in ensuring that the “early states” — the ones that kick off the nominating process and often determine the outcome — are representative of the party and the country as a whole and give candidates something like a level playing field. Prior to 2008, both parties agreed to do away with the traditional duopoly, in which the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary came first, by allowing early contests representing other regions (Nevada and South Carolina). And both parties tolerated the consolidation of other states seeking influence into a somewhat later “Super Tuesday” cluster of contests. But in 2024 Democrats tossed Iowa out of the early-state window altogether and placed South Carolina first (widely interpreted as Joe Biden’s thank-you to the Palmetto State for its crucial role in saving his campaign in 2020 after poor performances in other early states), with Nevada and New Hampshire voting the same day soon thereafter. Republicans stuck with the same old calendar with Trump more or less nailing down the nomination after Iowa and New Hampshire.
For 2028, Republicans will likely stand pat while Democrats reshuffle the deck (the 2024 calendar was explicitly a one-time-only proposition). The Democratic National Committee has set a January 16 deadline for states to apply for early-state status. And as the New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher explains, there is uncertainty about the identity of the early states and particularly their order:
“The debate has only just begun. But early whisper campaigns about the weaknesses of the various options already offer a revealing window into some of the party’s racial, regional and rural-urban divides, according to interviews with more than a dozen state party chairs, D.N.C. members and others involved in the selection process.
“Nevada is too far to travel. New Hampshire is too entitled and too white. South Carolina is too Republican. Iowa is also too white — and its time has passed.
“Why not a top battleground? Michigan entered the early window in 2024, but critics see it as too likely to bring attention to the party’s fractures over Israel. North Carolina or Georgia would need Republicans to change their election laws.”
Nevada and New Hampshire have been most aggressive about demanding a spot at the beginning of the calendar, and both will likely remain in the early-state window, representing their regions. The DNC could push South Carolina aside in favor of regional rivals Georgia or North Carolina. Michigan is close to a lock for an early midwestern primary, but its size, cost, and sizable Muslim population (which will press candidates on their attitude towards Israel’s recent conduct) would probably make it a dubious choice to go first. Recently excluded Iowa (already suspect because it’s very white and trending Republican, then bounced decisively after its caucus reporting system melted down in 2020) could stage a “beauty contest” that will attract candidates and media even if it doesn’t award delegates.
Even as the early-state drama unwinds, the rest of the Democratic nomination calendar is morphing as well. As many as 14 states are currently scheduled to hold contests on Super Tuesday, March 7. And a 15th state, New York, may soon join the parade. Before it’s all nailed down (likely just after the 2026 midterms), decisions on the calendar will begin to influence candidate strategies and vice versa. Some western candidates (e.g., Gavin Newsom or Ruben Gallego) could be heavily invested in Nevada, while Black proto-candidates like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Wes Moore might pursue a southern primary. Progressive favorites like AOC or Ro Khanna may have their own favorite launching pads, while self-identified centrists like Josh Shapiro or Pete Buttigieg might have others. Having a home state in the early going is at best a mixed blessing: Losing your home-state primary is a candidate-killer, and winning it doesn’t prove a lot. And it’s also worth remembering that self-financed candidates like J.B. Pritzker may need less of a runway to stage a nationally viable campaign.
So sketching out the tracks for all those 2028 horses, particularly among Democrats, is a bit of a game of three-dimensional chess. We won’t know how well they’ll run here or there until it’s all over.
Kerry should spend no time addressing Ralph Nader. Bush/Cheney should be the sole targets for our nominee.
Nationally, that is the job of Howard Dean, who managed to draw in progressive and liberal minded people to his campaign by reminding them that the Democratic party is the party of economic and social progress.
Locally, that is the job of progressive and liberal minded people who mistakenly backed Nader in 2000 and no understand that their mistake brought an extremist to office whose agenda was counter to every one of their values that they wished to express with their ill-conceived vote. Remind them that Ralph Nader’s candidacy gave us a president who has already rescinded and/or undermined the majority of environmental, consumer, and labor safeguards that make Nader’s committments in those areas pale in comparison. Also, remind them that Nader did not seek a third party like everyone assumed, but rather played electoral politics by focusing on only the nine swing states and that Pat Buchannan to his credit ran a national campaign.
Unrelated to the question is this: If someone is still unwavering in their support for Nader, implore them to responsibly vote by finding someone in a solid red state who wants to vote for Kerry and have that person vote for Nader on the basis that there will be a vote in a swing state cast for Kerry.
My friend is unwavering in his support for Nader and he and I have since made a deal. I will cast my vote in Idaho for Nader, whie he will cast his vote in Ohio for Kerry.
Events are out of our hands.
A missed warning and a terror bombing stateside, a serious stock market tumble, another round of massive layoffs, Iraq in flames — any of those things could get rid of Bush. Not much else.
I don’t think there’s much Kerry can do either way. His job right now is not to sell a new program. Just don’t fuck up too bad and be there when the dust settles.
If events don’t cause a Bush implosion, he will be re-elected. I think it’s that simple.
You all seem much more optimistic than me. I am very concerned that they are so close in the polls. What more could Bush do to lose public support? Given his wars, his attacks on the constitution and the nevironment, his appointments of radical judges, his cover-ups of 911 toxic contamination and intelligence failures…and Kerry is only 5 points ahead? Plus I am afraid that the more people learn about Kerry, the less they like him, so I fail to see how he will gain in the polls. I’m sorry to be negative, but I really want to win in November and I am trying to be a realist. I really hope Kerry will pick Edwards as a VP, because I think Edwards can provide the inspiring, exciting, and positive energy that this campaign desperately needs. I think he coulde get us a few points in every state, because he has a very diverse appeal. I hope our Democratic leaders are thinking about this, because there is just so much at stake!
Kerry doesn’t need to be tough on Bush. Kerry needs to show he’ll be tougher on terrorism than Bush.
Because of his record, Bush is in self-destruct mode. Remember it’s about competence.
Or, stated another way, it’s about incompetence, stupid – Bush’s stupid incompetence.
Kerry only needs to show he won’t be distracted by his own ideology.
Kerry should be defining himself right now. Tough on Bush, sure – but only to keep Bush on the defensive (where the Bush guys seem to flounder).
Kerry first needs to define himself, then when normal people start paying attention get tougher on Bush. Make calls for Bush to investigate the failures of his administration and accuse him of stonewalling when he does nothing.
I think Kerry needs to be tougher on Bush, too, and I think increased toucghness will help pull people away from Nader. If the Nader people see and hear Kerry saying the things about Bush which need to be said, they will be more enthusiastic about voting for him. I am disappointed right now in Kerry’s ads. The ones I’ve seen are too wishywashy and in the stye of Dukakis and Mondale. he needs to be slapping that 500 billion dollar deficet up against everybody’s eyeballs.
While polls are interesting to look at from time to time, maybe there is something else to talk about for the next five or so months until polls actually start to mean something. And let’s not forgot, a national poll means little, especially in a close race. As we all know, Gore won nationally last time and it didn’t mean anything.
I am still puzzled by the size of the Nader support. If it is centered in California, Mass., Vt. and other safe Blue states, it might not make a difference. But if Nader is picking up support again in Fla. or Ohio, Kerry, and America, will have a big problem on Nov.2.
I think its time that Kerry not only gets tough on Bush, he should also start peeling the bark off of Nader. This is no longer funny.
Not only does it show that Bush’s drop is not just a temporary dip, but it shows that the first $15-20 million that Bush spent on ads in all those swing states has amounted to something around nil.
Let’s hope that the rest of Bush’s ads over the course of the next eight months are just as effective.
reignman, are Hispanics *that* loath to vote for Kerry?
How awful for Democrats. I guess that gay-bashing and abortion-bashing keeps Hispanics with the GOP.
The problem for Kerry is that any comment he makes will be distorted by the media. So even if he makes a fantastic foreign policy or national security speech, the media will say that he was wearing mismatched socks, or that his suit is tailored.
The media doesn’t want Bush to lose. And unless that changes, he won’t lose.
One other thing:
in the 1980 election, 40% of those who voted for Reagan didn’t believe in the things he was saying, they just wanted Carter out of office.
another example: I was watching MSNBC, and they were talking about Bush’s declining popularity w/ hispanics, so the narrator of the piece surmised: who else are they going to vote for?
obviously, Kerry has to say was he is FOR as opposed to what he is AGAINST, or he will suffer from Perot syndrome.
yep.
This must be Bush’s lowest approval rating in a Zogby poll sunce taking office..