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’s op-ed on Iraq in today’s Washington Post is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6753-2004Apr12.html
I agree that Kerry should lay low. All these bad things that are happening to Bush are Bush’s own fault, and there is no way the worst of it can get better for him. However bad Iraq looks now, it will get worse. Furthermore, Bush is so irresponsible that, whenever new facts are discovered about his conduct, they will always be bad.
What you do not want is for John Kerry’s name, voice, or face to be associated with the bad Bush stuff. Let those things stick to Bush.
Sometimes I don’t understand how people can come up with certain ads. For instance, there is this attack ad of Bush’s that has a bunch of goofy talk about John Kerry and taxes or something. What sticks with me about that ad is how upbeat it sounds. I don’t care what they are saying, I just associate “John Kerry” and the upbeat tone. Wouldn’t it be nice if Bush would run upbeat “John Kerry” ads right up to Election Day!
We really do not want to see Kerry juxtapose himself with mayhem in Iraq or an irresponsible and frankly criminal White House.
I certainly agree with Kerry laying back right now, talking economics and jobs and raising money. The “Free Media” is working to discredit Bush on his strengths — War President and Anti-Terrorist — and what Kerry needs to do is be prepared to sell his case to those who are open to retiring Bush after they have been convinced by non-partisian information that a new President is in order. It’s a two step thing — first, strong questioning of Bush’s effectiveness, and then movement toward the alternative. Kerry needs to save his energy and assets for the right time to make the sale and close the deal with Independent voters.
The methodology behind the Rasmussen polls is, I gather, pretty unconventional, since, apparently, it involves robo-calling. Other things being equal, I’d give more weight to the conventional (and more expensive) polls.
On the other hand, I’m not sure why the Rasmussen polls should not be measuring genuine movements within whatever subset of the American population their methodology actually selects. On still another hand, I’ve certainly seen a number of cases in which Rasmussen goes one way, and conventional polls another, even on the same days.
RE: “And the latest Newsweek poll, conducted April 8-9, has Kerry ahead by 7 (50-43).”
You should qualify your statement, that these particular numbers are the projected result in a head-to-head matchup, and in the absence of a Ralph Nader candidacy.
When Nader’s candidacy is factored into the equation, Kerry leads the Newsweek poll, 46% to 42%.
Okay, so let me get this straight: Iraq is becoming a quagmire of immense military, political, economic proportions, AND in terms of lives lost. The actions of Mr. bush prior to 9/11 define the word mis-management.
How can he be moving UP in the polls?
I say that the dems need to draft Richard Clarke as their nominee.
Ruy Teixeira really needs to explain why he is so positive with Newsweek,CBS, and other polls and does not even mention Rasmuusen. Rasmuusen seems the most legit because it has a large sample (1600) and is of likely voters as opposed to registered voters or adults.
Help me understand Ruy!!
Yes, but . . . if the strategy of letting Bush self-destruct all by himself is working so well, then why are the two men essentially even in the polls? I know that it’s still early, but if this is how Bush looks during a BAD stretch, what is he going to look like after his campaign succeeds in defining Kerry as a waffling, tax-supporting, Jane Fonda-loving Massachusetts liberal? Because that’s what they doing with those ads. And I’m just not seeing a very urgent response by the Kerry people to (1) counter those images, and (2) keep the pressure on Bush. Complacency with this incredibly ruthless crowd is a mistake.
My suggestion being, I’d like you to consider reading the text for a “state of the union” address that I believe is imperative for this country of ours. To get to it, all you need do is click on the below enclosed U.R.L
http://www.bcvoice.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=205
By the way, the proprietors of the http://www.BCVoice.com website have provided a couple ways for you to leave your comments.
Plus, the media isn’t focusing that much on Kerry right now anyway, so he should wait until Sept. for some really hard hitting speeches.
I agree with FranklyO. I think Kerry needs to let events take Bush down while he promotes his positive alternative. A couple weeks before the election when a critical mass of voters have become critical or doubtful will be the time to have some hard hitting ads. And them the ads should be Buish’s words . For example an ad built around him laughing about the nonexistant WMDs or an ad quoting from Woodward’s book.
Kerry is doing the right thing for the right time, right now. The Bush admin is in a self detruct – death spiral mode and Mr. Kerry is taking full advantage by staying out of the way. Doesn’t cost him a penny, and every time they open their mouths to gasp for air, they get weaker and weaker.
Hey if the oponent is knocking himself out why waste your energy (and limited funds) trying to achieve what he is going to acheive on his own.
Kerry has been too cautious in the past two weeks. Bush is vulnerable right now, and Kerry needs to be attacking at the same time he’s unveiling his major policies. Let’s not forgot that Bush/Cheney is running lot and lots of negative ads in key states, taking full advantage of their current, substantial advantage in funds raised. Thus, while Bush is other respects seems to be reeling from the situation in Iraq, the 9/11 hearings, and the still-weak economy, he and his people are hammering Kerry on TV. And history shows that negative ads are very effective, particularly when the opposing candidates is not yet well-known among the general electorate (remember the Alamo and Mike Dukakis).
Kerry is back to trailing in Rasmussen. Condi has made America go back to loving and fearing Bush, as has the continued turmoil in Iraq. Bush is still the favorite, by a wide margin.
So Debra,
This means then that the next ARG and Newsweek polls are likely to show Bush ahead? More and more I’m getting the feeling that Texeira’s analysis has a lot of pro-Dem spin, rather than objective analysis that would help Dems make mid-course corrections.
Dan O.: “Does the DNC and Kerry campaign have a major ORGANIZED EFFORT to register voters and to get out the vote?”
I’m sure there’s an effort. It’s the “organized” bit that, at least for the moment, I have my doubts.
These results track the Rasmussen Daily polls for the dates they were condutced. April 8-9 for Newsweek Kerry was ahead: April 6-9 for ARG Kerry had the largest lead over Bush on April 7th.
The results mesh.
Independents will probably wait until the debates to decide. Democrats and Republicans have already made up their minds. If you look at the data, Independents are more critical of Bush than that of the national average, especially w/ Iraq related things. Kerry should do well w/ Independents, and we should see that in the home stretch. A Kerry-Edwards ticket would ice it, considering how well Edwards did w/ Independents and Republicans in the primaries (ex. Wisconsin). Edwards could also help out in West Virginia.
As for the electoral college, if you have a lead in the popular vote by about 5%, it will be virtually impossible to lose the electoral college. The popular vote and the electoral college were both virtual ties in 2000. In fact, looking at the 1948, 1960, and 1976 elections, the winner of the popular vote won by a humble margin, while he won the electoral college by quite a bit.
I’m not yet convinced of a Kerry lead. There’s the Rasmussen poll, and his numbers among independents in the ARG poll are statistically even with Bush’s. His lead comes from having (at least apparently for now) solid backing among Democrats, whereas Bush’s numbers have softened a bit among Repugs. Bush will, in the end, carry more than 90% of Republicans who turn out, and if Kerry is going to have a chance he needs at least a five point margin among Independents. So far, that ain’t happening.
I agree with the other posters. Until Bush is defeated and is safely back in Crawford, TX, we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to be ahead by 20-plus percentage points or until the electoral college votes him out in December of 2004. We cannot relax until a new president is sworn in!
Individual State polls can better indicate any important trends.
However, actual votes that are COUNTED in each State will determine the election.
Does the DNC and Kerry campaign have a major ORGANIZED EFFORT to register voters and to get out the vote?
Remember you can alway vote using absentee ballot, but you need to request a absentee ballot early!
You will also note that these polls are of either registered voter or just “adults”. That makes them not much less useful than a poll of “likely voters” or one that performs an analysis electorally. I know it is more expensive but I would much rather see polls generally show electoral spreads, not popularity spreads. We all know too well from 2000 that the popular vote means little if the electoral battle is lost.
But how does this translate into electoral votes? If all the lead is in New York or California or Massachusetts, it does little good.
I think Kerry is ahead also but Rasmuusen Reports, which had Kerry ahead earlier in the week on their daily tracking poll now has Bush ahead by 3 because they say Ms. Condoleeza’s testimony went over well with the American Public. Also, a recent poll on Florida by Mason-Dixon has Bush ahead there by 51-43. Help me I’m confused!