An Aug. 15-18 CBS poll gives Kerry/Edwards a one-point lead over Bush/Cheney. Without Ralph Nader included, the Kerry advantage rises to 3% – Kerry/Edwards 47% vs. Bush/Cheney 44%
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.
Why does Bush say the country would be better off if he is re-elected. Maybe he didn’t remember that 9-11 happened on his watch.?????
Jeff, yes. The future is now.
So what John?
I see VoteHillary.org which pushed a 2004 Hillary Rodham Clinton Draft presidency is now pushing her for president in 2008. The site is http://www.votehillary.org I have heard it will be launched as early as next week.
…Continued from above
Case in point:
No matter how the question is asked:
Do you believe it is time for a change?
Does Bush Deserve to be reelected?
Is America on the Right or Wrong track?
etc.
Consistently, 52 to 54% vote that it is time to change the leadership of the country.
That is why Bush never exceeds 44 to 46%. Because the remainder of people disagree with him.
If you look at it historically, this number is very important in the final outcome of the election.
The approval rating (Bush typically in the mid-40s) vs those who think it is time for a change (typically in the low 50s).
This poll doesn’t do anything to undermine that argument.
So no worries. We’re still doing okay.
Kerry has to do a better job defining this election. I told you all it was a mistake to focus so much on foreign affairs and his Vietnam record. Because those who vote on that subject will vote for Bush regardless of what is happening in Iraq or his own record in the military.
Kerry’s statement to the effect that he wouldn’t have changed his vote for the IWR was just stupid.
It isn’t too late. But Kerry definitely has to define this election about the economy – the haves vs the have nots.
That’s how he will win.
He needs a consistent confident message that people understand and resonates.
This poll, and other recent polls, is about Kerry – not Bush.
This CBS poll has gotten a lot of attention these past couple of days but here is why I am less concerned about it than others.
Asides from the veterans, which the polls shows is going for Bush by about 15% (incidently, Bush won the veterans vote in 2000 by about 35% – which means that in overall total number this is still a 20% gain for the Dems – considering that veterans make up about 10% of population, that means this is a total pick up of about 2% total for Dems and a loss of 2% overall for Bush).
Anyway, you’ll notice that Bush’s numbers still hover at the 44 to 45% mark, which is essentially where he is always at.
Bush will not win anything with 45% of the vote.
Thus, the dynamics are unchanged. If you think that Nader will get 2% of the vote. Bush 44% to 46%, that means that Kerry will win 52% to 54% of the vote.
So despite the bruhaha, this poll still shows Bush in trouble.
I suppose with the lead up to the Republican convention, the media has to talk about something.
But I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
When polls come out (not counting Gallup which always over-counts republicans by about 8%) that show Bush consistently getting 48% to 50% and Kerry getting about the same, then I will start to worry.
But when the polls demonstrate a close race at 44% or 45%, then this is just as bad as Bush getting 44% to 45% and Kerry getting 52 to 54%.
Because the undecideds always go to the challenger.
Remember 1980. The race was always “close” between Reagan and Carter – about 42% or so. This went on all the way to election day. Then Carter stayed at 42% and Reagan got the rest.