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.
So what if Iraq HAD WMD and a way to deliver them. . . so did Russia for so many years. So why didn’t they zap us when they had the chance?
Because we have the enormous power to retaliate, that’s why. Therefore, it dosen’t wash that Saddam would’ve delivered WMD to the USA.
WMD was nothing but a pretext from Bush and Co. to grab a significant oil producing country AND scare the heck out of us so he can do what he pleases in the name of national security.
Big John
Sorry, I intended to paste the address, but the site wouldn’t let me . It is:
http://www.electoralvote.com
Bush won Nevada by just under 4% in 2000.
Bush 301,575 49.52%
Gore 279,978 45.98%
What in the world is the MoE for these polls, especially the FL one. I have trouble believing Bush surged that much so fast. I could believe Bush is up, but within or just barely outside the margin. Also, I agree with the general sentiment that if millions of people don’t have TV or electriticity or are generally displaced, polling is worthless for another couple weeks in the sunshine state.
Still, NV is good news, 4 points is probabbly w/i MoE. Kerry needs to do another trip out to Vegas and the Vegas burbs to help the house candidate there (get some $) and raise the spirits of his Nevada campaign.
I would say Kerry needs NH WV and then try to get either FL or OH for good measure; right now, it looks like FL is a better bet than OH.
Looks like Nevadans definitely want the nuclear dump in their state. I’m beginning to think may be we deserve this moron as the president.
and more good news, A judge threw Nader off the ballot yet again.
Anyone know a URL that has a good discussion of why RoboPolls suck?
I got into an extended and heated argument with a local TV station’s news director over his use of Survey USA in the last mayor’s race.
The Poll was off by over 12% in the event and prior to the last polling round, was off by a similar margin from a highly respected normal poll
About what states are needed. If Kerry were to win all the Gore 2000 states, and Bush retain all the Bush 2000 states, then Bush wins 278-260.
Using that as a baseline, if the only change is Kerry winning Ohio, he wins 280-258. If Wisconsin also changes (to Bush), Kerry still wins 270-268. So…Kerry doesn’t need to win both Florida and Ohio, assuming he can hold all of the Gore states, or that he loses no Gore state worth more than 10 electoral votes. [That is, if he gets Ohio, he can lose any one of Minnesota, Iowan, Wisconsin, Maine, Oregon, or New Mexico.]
Florida is worth 27 electoral votes, so if Kerry were to win there, that would add another 7 electoral vote buffer.
And he has the lead in New Hampshire, which also gives him another 4 electoral votes.
So…Going back to Nevada….If Kerry can keep Pennsylania and Michigan and pry away either Florida or Ohio, there’s a good change Nevada won’t matter.
But…if the only changes from 2000 are Kerry getting New Hampshire and Nevada, the election ends up deadlocked at 269, throwing it to the House and Senate to pick President and VP. If the Dems can pry away the Senate, that could well leave us with a Bush/Edwards tandem. That’s not what I’d prefer, but better a half loaf than nothing, so I want Nevada to go Democratic.
The Florida poll must favor northern Florida, since that’s the part that isn’t evacuated/reeling re: the hurricane. It’s also the more GOP-heavy part of the state. It’s a crappy poll.
Florida polls can’t be worth much right now, with the hurricane and all. (If South Florida got evacuated this week, but the Panhandle’s evacuating this week, I’d expect gains for Kerry next week based solely on who will be home to answer their phones.) The NV results are unfortunate, but we don’t need that state to win: we do, I think, need either CO or WI or BOTH FL and OH.
I think this poll is worthless, with all the hurricane stuff the past two weeks, does anyone realistically believe an accurate poll would come out of that mess at least until Ivan blows past.
Never mind. I just checked, and there are no RV figures. I wish to hell they would stop taunting us with figures that are likely imaginary.
What is the percentage of Registered Voters?
Nader is back on the FL ballot. So, it probably is worse for Kerry. And yet, I know we will win. I took a poll in the mirror this morning and Kerry is doing fine. Thank you zanex.
Two things to point out:
(1) all of these polls report likely voters, which isn’t necessarily incorrect, but does employ certain assumptions about voter turnout.
GOTV efforts, obviously, can make a huge difference, and this is an area in which the Dems have been losing ground to the GOP over the last two decades. Hopefully the DNC is developing an effective field machine, gathering corps of volunteers to phone Democratic voters less likely to vote (i.e., those below the median income) as well as undecided voters on election day and offer rides/baked cookies/lemonade etc.
(2) in the FL poll for the SAME RESPONDENTS there is quite a bit of ticket-splitting, as Castor (D) is ahead of Martinez (R) in the Senate 49 to 45.
Now this suggests to me that there remains about 5-6% of voters in FL who are seriously in play.
In general, Kerry needs to make better use of local politicians who are (sometimes) more popular than he is in their states–not merely FL but elsewhere, esp. in swing states that have popular Dem governors, i.e., AZ, WI, MI, PA, NC, etc. I know that some coordinated campaigning has been done, but not nearly enough. And there are some governors (e.g., Mike Easley in NC) who do not seem to want to share the stage with Kerry.