In a head-to-head CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll of Wisconsin RV’s conducted Sept. 9-12, 2004, Bush leads Kerry 50-45 percent, with 5 percent neither/unsure.
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.
With the exception of some New England states, the winning of virtually *ANY* state by the Democrats in presidential elections is accomplished in just a handful of counties, primarily metropolitan ones (see Oregon and Pennsylvania, for example, in the map I’ve linked below). By no means is the phenomenon confined to Wisconsin.
I would still label Wisconsin “lean Kerry” as, in all likelihood, we’re currently in a Bush “high water” period and the race in Wisconsin is very close according to some polls (such as Rasmussen, as noted above).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm
The Wisconsin scandals pitched out Republicans as well as Democrats. A state which prides itself on being intelligent and clean sure had a crop of dirty idiots in charge of its government.
It’s the “Bowling Alone” phenomenon again. Wisconsin decayed into a cesspool because the formerly public-spirited citizenry walked away from its responsibilities. Nobody wanted to run for office. Nobody wanted to work on political campaigns. (I realize that sounds odd given the current tidal wave of Kerry volunteers, but until this year, political activism at the local/state level was getting roughly zero new blood. Arguably, outside the presidential race, that’s STILL the case.)
In the absence of genuine mass political participation in Wisconsin, certain shortcuts emerged, in both parties, like using tax-funded legislative staffers to illegally build campaign voter lists, or letting lobbyists finance campaigns.
Okay, so all the legislative leaders went to prison. Still no new blood. Now what?
Kerry had damn well better win Wisconsin. Even if he gets a million more popular votes than Bush, without Wisconsin, how could he win the electoral college? Ohio, I guess, but that’s even chancier.
By the way, the 2000 election pretty well cemented the notion that Republican areas are coded red and Democratic areas blue. I used to do the opposite, but I have bowed to the overwhelming consensus. Reading the reversed version in the preceding post(“bright-red” Milwaukee? “Deep blue” suburbs?) is like being an American trying to drive a car in London.
The problem with Wisconsin is that really only the southeastern corner of the state is Democratic any more. Gore won in 2000 based on a lot of Democratic votes in Milwaukee and Milwaukee county. The GOP is surging in Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Washington, Dodge, Jefferson, Columbia and Dane (except for Madison proper) counties — true suburbs of Milwaukee. Bright-red Milwaukee is ringed by deep-blue counties. Green Bay is 50-50, and the rest of the state — largely rural — is blue.
The state went through a huge governmental scandal that’s upended politics statewide. Large numbers of incumbent Democrats, along with their effective GOTV machines, are gone.
The GOP has used the state’s same-day registration law to flood the polls with GOP voters in every race in the last three years. The Dems have done almost nothing in this regard; although their registration effort this year is going strong, it probably won’t be enough to counter the past three years of GOP voter-roll growth.
Wisconsin lost fewer jobs than any other Midwestern state, and it is gaining them faster than any other Midwestern state.
Although Iraq and healthcare are hot-button issues for Wisconsinites, Kerry has proven ineffective in posing an alternative plan to Bush’s stay-the-course on the war. And Kerry’s healthcare message is getting lost in the barrage of other issues Kerry and Edwards keep talking about in the state.
Kerry could win Wisconsin if:
1) He proposes a clear, simply plan with clear signposts/decision points along the way for getting America quickly out of Iraq.
2) Kerry begins barraging his target groups — elderly, working poor, small business owners and those who work for them — with specifics on how his healthcare plan is going to relieve them of the high cost of healthcare.
I think this latter, in particular, is do-able. Kerry’s Web site contains no specifics on the plan whatsoever. Ask most people in the street, and they think Kerry’s plan is only importation and permitting Medicare to negotiate lower prices with drug companies. Kerry’s done a very poor job of explaining what his healthcare plan is, how it will lower premiums and cover more working people, and how it will be paid for.
My suspicion is that Bush’s support in Wisconsin is weak as water. His true base there is limited to anti-abortionists and anti-tax fanatics. Bush is pulling those who believe that Bush is strong on national security. But there’s 10-15 percent of Bush’s support that would move to Kerry if Kerry only came out strong and crystalline clear on these two issue.
IMHO.
“I almost wonder if it isn’t a contrarian backlash against our progressive tradition. Anyone?”
Is fundamentalist Christianity on rise in Wisconsin? A Minnesota friend says it certainly is there. Possibly an explanation for what seems quite bewildering.
you may not agree with my take, but I think Kerry calling Lambeau Field “Lambert Field” has effectively killed his chances in Wisconsin. That whole state bleeds green and yellow and I think they felt insulted by Kerry’s gaffe. I also heard that Brett Favre may be endorsing Bush.
I’m so embarassed. My state used to be a guaranteed win for the Dems. A McGovern state!!! Home to Fighting Bob LaFollette and the Progressives!
With Illinois, Minn. and Mich. surrounding us and looking pretty good for Kerry I find myself wondering: “What’s wrong with Wisconsin? What happened?”
I almost wonder if it isn’t a contrarian backlash against our progressive tradition. Anyone?
rasmussen is a republican pollster. Do not trust them.
Rasmussen now has Bush up 49-47 in Wisconsin.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Wisconsin%20Sept%2014.htm