One of my favorite wonky topics is the presidential nominating process, and as it happens, the way it’s shaping up for Democratic in 2024 is unusual, as I explained at New York:
Donald Trump’s 2024 announcement signaled that we are now officially in the run-up to the next presidential election. But there’s a big missing piece of basic election infrastructure, at least for Democrats: The order of states holding presidential primaries is very much up in the air.
Earlier this year, the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, which sets guidelines for the nomination process and administers sticks and carrots to get states to comply, announced it would authorize five “early states” allowed to have nominating contests prior to March 1, 2024. The four states that were allowed across this golden rope line from 2008 through 2020 — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — would have to reapply for privileged status along with everyone else. As many as 20 state Democratic parties expressed interest in vying for these five spots. But because some of the changed calendar positions would require action by the state government, which typically control and finance primaries, the DNC delayed a final selection until after the midterms sorted out who ruled where.
Now Michigan Democrats, who flipped both legislative chambers and hung on to the governorship this month, are galvanizing the 2024 calendar discussion with a clear bid for an early spot, as NBC News reports:
“Michigan Democrats — led by Rep. Debbie Dingell — feel well positioned to join the coveted ranks of the early states, after they made huge gains in the Nov. 8 election. With Iowa facing possible eviction from the early states, many expect Democrats to elevate a Midwest state.
“Democrats now have full control of the Statehouse in Lansing, which would allow them to easily change state laws to support a new date for the 2024 primary.”
The DNC’s previously announced criteria for early states, as reported by CBS News, were diversity (racial, ethnic, geographic, and economic diversity as well as union representation), general-election competitiveness, and feasibility (whether states can move their contest into the early window, if they can run a “fair, transparent and inclusive nominating process,” and the logistical requirements and cost of campaigning in that state). It was an unstated but understood criterion as well that the five early states would represent different regions. So Michigan may be competing for an early-state slot with Minnesota, where Democrats also nailed down a trifecta in the midterms.
Iowa’s traditional first-in-the-nation caucus has looked doomed all along. The state is famously nondiverse and is now solidly Republican in general elections. The “feasibility” of an Iowa event was also called into question by the 2020 fiasco, in which no Iowa caucus results were announced until the next day.
New Hampshire will be harder to dislodge, despite its nondiverse population, because of a state law that authorizes the secretary of state to move the primary date around in order to maintain the position of first primary. But Nevada Democrats are making a sustained effort to leap ahead of New Hampshire by switching to a primary and aggressively advertising their superior diversity and obvious competitiveness. It’s unclear, however, whether Republican Joe Lombardo’s gubernatorial win in Nevada will disrupt efforts to authorize a new state primary.
That points to one of two variables complicating the early-state selection process: By and large, Republicans are happy with the existing order of states. There is no pressure within the GOP to dump Iowa or displace New Hampshire or do anything else unusual. So in states where Republican cooperation is necessary to move things around or make the requisite resources available, Democrats have to convince their partisan enemies to care about it as well. And if the proposed new primary date in any given state violates the RNC’s existing calendar rules, that state’s Republicans could be penalized and lose delegates to their own convention. The prospect of a serious battle for the GOP presidential nomination adds another series of calculations.
It’s a Rubik’s Cube, and that’s largely why the existing calendar for both parties has stayed in place for so long aside from the fact that, in Iowa and New Hampshire, both parties have long cooperated to defend their calendar privileges like crazed badgers.
The other big variable facing Democrats is the broader context: What sort of decisions will Democrats be facing in 2024? At this point, we don’t know for sure whether President Biden is running for a second term, and we don’t know if he’ll face major competition if he does. If Biden has to fight for renomination, how he performed in particular states in 2020 may have some influence on a loyal DNC deciding where he has to run in 2024. That might really doom Iowa, if it’s not already doomed, given Biden’s fourth-place finish there in 2020. And Biden finished fifth in New Hampshire. The DNC likely wouldn’t want to give calendar privileges to the home state of a potential rival.
But decisions have to be made, and the Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to make them when it meets from December 1 through 3 in Washington, D.C.
McGreevey won’t make a difference one way or the other. It’s a funny state. Tends to go Republican for Governor (Keane, Whitman), but also goes Dem (Florio, McGreevey). The tendency is to be unhappy when the Gov is Dem and content with the Repub Gov. But the legislature trends Dem and national elections, I think, trend Dem. Went for Nixon, like everyone else. Not sure where it went with the Reagan and Bush I years. But went for Clinton and Gore. Both Senators are Dem (Corzine and Lautenberg). I think it will go Dem this time. That’s my ear to the street sense talking.
To compare the various polls, go to:
http://www.fastpolitics.com then scroll down the right side column to Polling Report and you’ll see them all. It’s a great site. This morning Kerry was ahead in four polls, Bush in two, and they tied in one. :))) Most encouraging.
Isn’t McGreevey becoming more popular (or at least less hated) in Jersey? Will that keep on through November?
Rasmussen has Kerry up by 5 points in Florida as of May 20. It was tied the previous week.
Don’t worry about those California and NJ polls. Kerry has to be up by more than a point in California if you accept that Kerry is even or slightly ahead nationwide. The New Jersey poll may be reflecting some unpopularity with Governor McGreevy but New Jersey should be there in November for us. As for Rasmussen his last poll in 2000 had Bush beating Gore 49-40. So don’t take his poll too seriously.
Trent,
The news Faux News/Opinion Dynamics poll has Bush up in the swing states. They have the 3-way race 40-40-3, but Bush up 43-37 in 16 battleground states.
Consider the source, but also consider that Bush gets only 43% in battleground states in this obviously slanred poll.
So what poll was that blond Republican bimbo on ‘Crossfire’ bragging about tonight when she said Bush is ahead in the swing states?
Gropenator is not helping Bush because he is riding high right now. Plus the gropenaror will be going to trail in UK for sexual harrasment shortly.
CA is safe , period. Only a san andreas earthquake can shake loose CA for Bush.
News just in that Kerry may not accept Democratic Party’s nomination at the convention. Acceptance will be delayed to permit Kerry spending donated campaign funds, without limitation, just like Bush. This would put him in sync with Bush on the expenditure limits of the $75 million in public funds.
Presumably, Kerry’s formal acceptance of the nomination would be in Sept. about the same time as Bush’s. One of Kerry’s aides explained to the media that they have no intention of fighting with on hand tied behind their back. Way to go Kerry!
RE: California polls — thanks to the several explanatory posts above, I have now relaxed enough to slip a sliver of lime in my Corona Extra and start enjoying my weekend. Much obliged.
“Why does the Rasmussen poll consistently show better data for Bush than most of the other polls?”
Because Scott Rasmussen is a Republican. And the poll is a CRAP poll anyway.
Yeah, getting back to NJ, no worries here either. Went for Gore strong in 2000. Major job losses in the tech industry since then. Fed dollars bypass us in a big way with the Bush regime and Republican Congress. This state is not going Republican in 2004. Only problem we could run into is McGreevey, Dem governor, is unpopular and viewed as corrupt by many, which could hurt Dem chances in many ways. But I don’t think McGreevey has big enough “negative coattails” to help Bush.
JTBLA, Thanks for your post. I do remember that Calif. poll in 2000 that had Bush within 2, which turned out to be way off the mark.
As a Calif. resident I can guarantee that Bush has NO chance to win out here. That poll is out of whack with others that show Kerry up 10+, including a recent LA Times poll. In 2000 there was a late poll that showed Bush within 2 of Gore and people freaked. Gore won the state easily.
I don’t know what CA poll people are referring to, but let’s remember DR’s consistent arguments about the incumbent’s approval rating being more important than horse-race numbers at this point. Then, with that in mind, take a look at this story from early April:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/04/06/MNGPO616OS1.DTL
“A new poll shows President Bush’s approval ratings in California have plummeted, even in the state’s most GOP-dominated conservative areas.”
“With the Iraq war taking a difficult turn and questions raised at home about the administration’s terrorism policy, the poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University released Monday puts Bush’s state approval ratings at just 38 percent, while 50 percent disapprove.”
“That’s a dramatic change from the start of the year, when 49 percent of Californians approved of the job the president was doing, and 40 percent disapproved.”
Also keep in mind that this poll was from almost two months ago, just as the deadliest month for Americans in the entire Iraq conflict was beginning, and before the prison abuse scandal. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that Bush’s approval ratings in CA haven’t improved since then.
Though I think the independent voters are important. I really think that bringing out the base will be most important.
Isn’t even the Groppenfurer distancing himself from Bush in Cali?
I believe there’s only one poll that has Kerry’s lead in California at just a point. Don’t worry; there’s no way Bush will win that state. You can take that to the bank.
Interesting and VERY encouraging. Remember, the Bushies have spent the vast majority of their campaign funds so far in the battleground states. This is the best they can do. The news won’t get better from Iraq, and the general opinion around my household (for what it’s worth) is that things will get worse there after the make-believe power handover. I do not celebrate that, but I do read the tea leaves that arise from it.
Don’t worry about NJ. I’m here. I got your back.
These data are largely good news, but I echo the previously stated concerns about California, and add New Jersey to that. Further: given the power structure and the loose definition of democratic rights there, Florida should not be considered in play. By hook or, more likely, by crook, Bush will end up with its electoral votes.
I’ve wondered about California myself. With such a majority of Deocratic voter registration, this state should be the Dem’s to keep for a long time. I took the 2000 election numbers and looked at the states where W has pretty much done himself in that are swing states and came up with Kerry winning the election with 292 electoral votes. This assumes that the voting machine are not rigged for Bush. Ohio should be a slam dunk for Kerry, as should Michigan, New Hampshire, and even West Virginia. Nevada should be Blue this time as Nevadans should start to glow from nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountains very soon. With all the scandal (especially the NEW torture pictures on top of the old ones), Plamegate (something I think is a major issue and should be more public this summer), deficits and spending, this guy should be sent to Gitmo for retirement.
That data is encouraging, but here’s what I want to know (and I haven’t yet seen this addressed elsewhere): Why is Kerry only up by ONE point in the recent California polls? Shouldn’t that be a slam dunk, double-digit lead for him? Is he in trouble there, possibly because of Schwarzenegger’s successes? Is it possible that he could LOSE California? Is California really in play for this election, or are these poll results an aberration? I’d love to hear from someone who has some insights into this issue.
Why does the Rasmussen poll consistently show better data for Bush than most of the other polls?