The News and Observer reports that “In what may be the closest presidential race in the state since 1992, Democrat John Kerry is within 3 percentage points of President Bush in a new poll”.
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.
As of “flip-flopper”: Remember that it worked last time around. They called it “reinventing himself” and it was devastating. Dubya makes much of his “staying the course”. He never takes back anything, no matter how wrong or stupid it might occur. That’s the reason why he will never throw out Cheney or Rumsfeld.
The sad thing is: The electorate seems to have liked this stubbornness so far. Fortunately there are some indications that this is changing. But I wouldn’t bet on it. The “reinventing”-charge against Gore only fully blossomed in September und October.
It looks like someone finally polled Colorado but it is not yet on their web site. Survey USA says Colorado is tied 47-47. I saw this at 2.004k.com.
Looking at 2 sites that give good state by state data we find that Kerry is doing better than expected in AK, TN., VA, WVA, OH and now NC.
Kerry’s choice of Edwards could now be made to pay off big time if Chris Lehane would schedule Edwards on a continuous circuit of travel that covered AK., TN, NC, western VA, WVA and south east OH. Those are areas where Edwards’ populist politics flavored with his religious values will resonate.
Even if such a stategy were not entirely successful, it would move the numbers and grab enough media attention to force the Bush campaign to respond with money and Bush’s time. Bush doesn’t need that.
Ahh Ed..
You cant let the likes of Bush and the other “christians” in the white house determine your thoughts, feelings and perspectives on christianity. If you are a Bible reader or a reader of the life and times of Christ, you will quickly realise that Judas had his close moments with Christ too but… alas, the money. I dont think that many people deliberately fashion their christianity off of Judas’ but because of greed and a distinctly singular purpose in life, some become replicas of Judas. They will lie, cheat, steel and deceive to obtain their purpose. If you are following these elections, you will know exactly what I mean. I dont need to spell out anything here.
So Bush’s style should not affect your style, just like it didnt affect Peter and James and John and the other members of the crew.
And then there is the Thomas approach where a person need answers and evidence. In the eyes of some, this is a wishy washy christian, however in the eyes of others, Thomas might more fit the researcher/scientist mold. Its about perspectives, purposes and causes.
So naaaaaah…. dont let him make you wonder what christianity is… you didnt let Judas, so why Bush. We cant let people mislead us with this born again phrasing. The excellent thing about Christianity is that its a life style and hence you know people by how they walk. You also know how you are progressing by how you walk and what makes it even more excellent is that people walk differently and hence we will have differing approaches to the same subject. Ask Peter and Paul (EX-SAUL).
What I also love about Christianity is that it suits humble people really well, cause it allows you to make mistakes, to totally screw up and then take a step back, review the last move and try again.
For the arrogant and the fundamentals however, its a rigid, stiff, do or die thing. So you live in this proverbial straight jacket and you try to commit suicide everytime you mess up and in this life you will mess up billions of times. Ask Peter.
So keep trucking Ed.. Dont let your spiritual eyes rest on Bush and his “born again” phenomenon. Keep the focus… and you know where.
Cheers
“Its this brand of christianity which causes people to be sympathetic to evil and evil doers.”
This is so true with me! I thought things were going to be special with Bush because he was a “born again” Christian. And then, I guess it was a few months, after 911 my attitude changed about him and now I have serious questions about just what Christianity is?
Hey Mimiru… I catch your strong objection but it was meant to imply Bush’ style of christianity, where he shakes hand with the truth from an eternal distance.
I cant quite grip why they dont understand that thinkers wont hold fast to the flip/flopper thing on elections day.
Lets face it, who would prefer a perpetrator of terminological inexactitudes to a flip flopper? I am sure the filp flopper wins everyday. Its so hard to trust a person who lies constantly and its worse when that person juggles the lies perpetually and hence never confesses. You cant want a worse person… How frightening.
Is sure does amaze me though that the evangelicals who support the GOP so strongly are not “christian” enough to come out and declare that this administration does not wallow in the truth. I just cannot comprehend how they can sit so stoically on TV and proclaim the gospel, reaching souls for Christ and still support an administration and a person that appears so evil.
Its this brand of christianity which causes people to be sympathetic to evil and evil doers. Its because they cant find the line that divides the righteous from the unrighteous and as such they cant tell who they should be supporting. Its a pity.
I have posted a few times that this brand of Christianity is such a debgerous tool in the hands of a master like Bush. It makes it even more dangerous because the evangelicals support him and they have such huge followings in the US and across the world that they can quite easily create a mass following which can make this earth and even more dangerous place to live.
Change is essential. It cant be pleasant to have this kinda thing happening to the world. I support Christianity but I like the style that Chirst portrayed. So until we get someone with that level of balance lets keep Bush away from being a perpetrator.
“but directly with Bush’s christian approach to truth”
I object to that pretty strongly. Don’t tar all Christians with a single Bush, er brush. Many of us object to Bush, its just the vocal crackpots who get all the press.
Bel,
Re “flip/flopping” – you are taking the rational, adult attitude. The sorry truth is that any dumb ass negative label will do – the point is to find something that sounds bad, not to find a reason that stands up to rational analysis. I remember when I was eleven years old and our whole class was calling each other “nose-breather!” “oh, yeah? well you’re a mouth-breather!” That, unfortunately, is often the level of debate we will get in american politics.
I could never understand this “Flip/flopper” thing either. I remember GW’s Daddy doing that with Clinton, weeks upon weeks of staged rallies with everyone waving little American flags and daddy Bush calling Clinton a flip/floppper. It didn’t work then either. I seem to remember, during Kerry’s primary campaign, Barbara Bush saying something to the affect that she is seeing the same thing happening to her son that happened to her husband in the loss to Clinton. I don’t know what exactly she meant by that but maybe she knew something that we will find out.
I am always examining Kerry’s approach and wondering this and that about his campaign. While I may only comment on Kerry’s approach, I do take good long looks at Bush’s approach too.
From what I have seen for the past 6 – 8 months, I am of the distinct impression that Karl Rove and crew are actually painting Bush into a corner. They are removing his attack capability and are not providing any defense for him.
They have limited Bush to attacking Kerry on small and almost insignificant issues, have not taken the time to hoist any new programs onto the political platform, have not created the positives out of Bush’ record and have not given him something about himself to market. When I do the analysis, I can see that their approach is going to leave Bush doing a hop scotch in order to move himself from the acute and sharp angles of that corner.
I am not sure why they decided to brand Kerry as a flip flopper because people reserve the rights to change their minds on any issue as many times as they see fit. Especially if conditions and times warrant such. So targetting Kerry’s voting patterns over the past 20 years cannot be a genuine reason not to vote for him. He must have won his senate term on more than one occassion over the past 20 years and as such, people must know how he votes by this time. I dont think its possible to find a single candidate who voted in exactly the same manner over the past 20 years. If such a person can be found, I would be bold enough to declare that such a person could not be representing the people’s interest unless the electorate never changed, times never changed etc.. etc.. In this regard every candidate would have voted in different modes from time to time and in some instances in a non-partisan manner. To me therefore, its wasted energy to keep harping on a flip flopping Kerry. It seems elementary, infantile and blatantly childish.
With regard to Iraq, I am sure that the electorate recognised a long time ago that Iraq is indeed a complex issue. Notably, they will have recognised that its complexity has nothing to do with Saddam or WMDs but directly with Bush’s christian approach to truth. In this regard, then the electorate does not expect Kerry to act in any manner contrary to the information given. I am pretty certain that his vote is reflected in the varying degrees of indecision exhibited by most of the other senators. So I am sure that when the analysis is done, it will show that he voted in similar vein to the core of senators.
Its really an insult to challenge the record of someone who actually found themselves in the line of fire because the Commander in Chief sent them. Its almost reprehensible that those who didnt get the opportunity to serve in the way that Kerry served can find the courage to challenge his record of service in the military. There will come a point when the electorate will recognise the “red-herring” that this challenge really is and will move on, leaving Bush with the red-herring in his hand, wondering what really happened.
I have also noted in another post that the anti-kerry issues which Bush has raised over the past 8 months have not really taken hold on the ground. In the recent past, the swift boat issue has not really taken off and it has left Brit Hume on Fox lamenting that the main stream media did not take up the swift book story and run with it. Of course they did take it up but they did not do the kinda home run which he was expecting.
In like manner, the direct question that Bush posed on Iraq to Kerry seems to have fizzled also. I agree that Kerry’s answer is still being deciphered, translated, extrapolated, studied etc.. etc. but the focus is no longer on Bush as a challenger but on Kerry in trying to clear his position on the issues. From just about every report that I have read, the writers all seem to be wanting Kerry to give a simple answer and move along. Alas, Kerry has not yet had his meeting with simple answers, so for now, he muddles things, smile and walk away.
I also think that Karl and crew did not make plans for a stalwart challenge from groups such as move-on.org and hence they are not responding to these groups successfully.
Finally, Karl and crew never did get around to finding a new agenda for George. Unfortunately, this has relagated him to rehashing old programs. I cant wait to hear the output from the coming convention.
I am not sure what the GOP plans to do but at this very moment, they are painting poor George into a corner and I suspect that he will be upset with quite a few people very soon. We may see some changes in the team before election day.
By the way… what has become of Mrs. C. Rice and Mr. C. Powell? The Don is surfacing again but this might not be a good idea.
Cheers
“Beforeth the Fall, goeth Pride.”
Be very wary, we are against an Enemy who knows no bounds.
Maybe this one check it out.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
One by one the Battleground States are falling into Kerry’s lap and the ‘new’ Battleground States are those that use to be solid red. There’s an Electoral Vote Map page I’ve been following in which Ohio and Florida went from Barely Bush to Weak Kerry in the last week. Sorry, I don’t have the URL handy but it should be pretty easy to Google.
This is great. I moved to MA from NC but kept my residence in NC so I can vote there. Now it seems like my vote might actually count.
Yeah it close, a dead heat…if you don’t count the undecided. I can just see Giuliani, Shwarzenegger and McCail swaying those undecided voter – “George Bush is not as bad as you thought, four more years of this.”
Well, let us not get overconfident.
Kerry’s advantage in current polls is very slight,
and Bush has plenty of chance to make it up with
his convention coming up.
This is just incredibly good news. If this keeps going on like that it will mean unfavorable press coverage in the fall for Bush, no matter how close the national polls. “Why does he have to campaign in this red state, why in that red state?” and so on.
Let’s hope we’re still standing on Monday, September 13th. (I’m confident, though. It’s terribly difficult for Bush to exploit 9/11 for political reasons.) And I hope Kerry studies the Gore debates carefully (sigh, sigh..)
NC has been becoming more and more open to dems.
There are a lot of military families there, there are a lot of transplants from points north and west…I think they should definitely spend some time there.
I just went down to see my family, and I noticed at least one Kerry sticker, several support our troops get rid of Bush type stickers and as far as my father is concerned -a lifelong republican, voted for Bush last time- he’s not sure what he’s going to do this election. He’s thinking voting Libertarian or not at all!
I hope Kerry’s campaign takes advantage of this positive polling news, and keeps fighting for those southern votes. The south doesn’t belong to Bush, unless you assume it does.
I have to think that campaigning in North Carolina in September was pretty high on Unka Karl’s list of Things We Don’t Want To Have To Do.
More and more good news for Kerry. One important thing to note is that many of the undecideds will give Kerry a hard look and the majority will vote for him. That inherent nature translates into an even bigger lead for Kerry.
Look at the electoral college… the swing states are poised to go for Kerry and he may pick a few red states off as well.
As it stands now, Kerry has a solid lead in that there seems to be little hope of Bush gaining any ground. I wish the election would end sooner rather than later, though!
I noticed that this poll says that there is 7% undecided. So, if it is true what they say about undecided voters usually voting for the new man Kerry would be on top in North Carolina.