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.
Why can’t we get some better trolls? Bring back S Robinson!
Bush didn’t win the debates. He won the spin war afterwards.
After the first debate, the consensus from pundits and undecideds was that Gore had won.
But it wasn’t long before the RNC served up its talking points and the media started parroting them and suddenly things were back onto script (Gore is a big fat liar).
Dave,
I don’t underestimate Bush as a debater. He has a great advantage of having the bar always set low. Fortunately for Kerry, the same seems to be happening. I remember the last time Ted Kennedy debated during his re-elction. It seemed everyone was expecting a bumbling drunk to be on the stage. He went on to destroy his opponent, the now governor Mitt Romney I believe, by having a firm grasp of all of the issues. I don’t think either has an advantage on the “low bar” issue. Thinking about it, I guess it’s pretty sad when you don’t expect a lot from the leader of the free world!!
Re: The debates
The recent issue (jul/aug) Atlantic Monthly had a good article on the upcoming debates. They were calling it assymetrical warfare.
Basic points: Do not underestimate Bush. He has ‘beat’ a number of qualified opponents in debates – including Ann Richards and Al Gore – by staying on point, on message. Kerry wins debates by out-thinking his opponents and staying in control and command of everything going on.
A very worthwhile read.
Mara,
I’m sure that Bush’s people going to try and minimize the height issue by wanting them to sit, etc. But, one of the debate formats is going to be a town meeting style. That will mean, no podiums, or anything else for Bush to hide behind. Even in the other formats, they will meet at center stage both before and after the debate to shake hands. But, I’m sure that the Bushies are probably going to try and stop that too.
The good thing is, Kerry will overshadow him on the issues , as well.
Keith,
I remember reading about Kerry agreeing to something that would equalize the height gap – sitting down or allowing Bush to stand on a soap box, something. Wish I could remember where I read it. Anyone else hear about this? I am serious.
I have no worries about Kerry’s speech. Being originally from Massachusetts, I have seen him speak on a number of occasions. If they are purposely setting the bar low, it will look like he hits a home run. Where he’ll really take it to Bush will be in the debates. I remember the one when he was in a tough race for the Senate against, the then popular governor, Bill Weld. He is great in a debate format. Plus, he’ll tower over Bush physically. Never a bad thing when you’re trying to look “pesidential.”
Political pundits are like sports reporters — today’s game is always the most crucial..at least until tomorrow’s rolls around. It’s obviously helpful if a candidate gives a solid speech at the convention (and most, even such dullards as Gerry Ford and Mike Dukakis, have been proclaimed to have done so). But the effects are ephemeral, and the election in the end comes down to basics: how is the incumbent doing, and is the challenger minimally acceptable as alternative? By the standards of today’s thinking, Reagan was a spectacular flop at convention 1980, since he couldn’t establish a convincing lead against an incumbent with 40% approval. In that case, pundit conventional wisdom is that Reagan “made the sale” at the late debate with Carter (so I guess there’s more than one “last chance”), but even there, post-debate polls didn’t show an instant jump: the race was considered too close to call right up until the returns started flowing in. So maybe Reagan was always going to get the anti-Carter majority, and none of the rest mattered.
For Kerry’s future, there are far more important things than his speech — specifically, continuing news from Iraq, and the upcoming economics/jobs reports.
Agree that Kerry’s speech is of limited importance. Remember, Gore gave a fine speech at the 2K convention, but it didn’t seem to have much impact on election day. The October-November ad blitz and the debates will be more important.
Bob–if you feel confident that your political beliefs are correct, I recommend that you test them by reading “We’re Right, They’re Wrong” by James Carville. If you’re sure that your way of political thinking is really what it should be, then what’s stopping you? I read “See, I Told You So” by Rush Limbaugh, and I was not convinced. If it gets too tough, just read this exerpt:
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/james-right.html
There’s always “Had Enough?” but that’s a pretty long one–it’s James Carville writing a book about the Bush presidency.
Hey everybody, we’ll make him look stupid instead of struggling with difficult questions!!
Hey, I never said that I didn’t go to Public (government) school! 🙂
“will” should be “with”
See, the effects are showing already!
Thanks for bumping my IQ down a couple of notches will your post, Bob.
You know, it must be nice for Democratic Despots to have a bunch of mindless followers for ‘Crats to vote for them. Some of the crap that I heard slithering out of Clinton (x2) just amazed me. How do you people believe that stuff?
Don’t worry, I am not a Bush supporter either…he is waaaay too liberal. Yes, Bush is a liberal. Kind of harsh, but a liberal in sheeps clothing.
Does anybody realize that Kerry has no plan, except that he has a plan? Hows he gonna reduce debe? hows he going to provide socialized health care, without turning this nation into a socialist one? does anybody read the great philosopher historians??
But alas, seems that the only thing we learn from history, is that we don’t learn from history. And liberalism is just what the mindless clinton coolaid masses need.
Ruy, I would be interested in your coments on the latest ABC/Washington Post Poll showing Bush in the lead?
Good article. I agree. It’s too late for Kerry to attempt to reinvent himself. Besides, that would only play into the Republican’s referring to the convention as the “extreme makeover.”
I’m also tired of hearing all the pundits talk about how Clinton or Edwards might overshadow Kerry. I don’t think that’s the case at all. Everyone knows who the nominee is. They’re all building up Kerry. Quit making controversey where there is none.
If the ability to give a rousing speech was so important to the public in choosing a president, then Bush would be a political dead man.