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.
Yes, Allan, character matters. That’s why it’s so galling to have this moral midget in the White House. This silly frat boy has not earned ONE thing on his own in his life. Oh, maybe his cheerleading slot, but I doubt that. He has had every string pulled for him to get him out of military service, to allow him to make money by running businesses into the ground, to gain the presidency by having his brother rig Florida and his Daddy’s buddies on the Supreme Court write him in on the most poorly reasoned SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott. He lies. He cheats. He steals from the poor to give to the rich. He wraps himself in the flag and Jesus in order to further the interests of his corporate cronies. PATHETIC! People like you are duped. Even more PATHETIC!
Worst. President. Ever.
Allan, Nick is right. Even if Bush wins reelection he’s a self-limiting disease. Democrats will take over the White House and Congress again, and we’ll once again have budget surpluses and start to pay down the national debt instead of doubling it like the village idiot we have in office now. And once again we’ll have someone in office who isn’t so obsessed with a country that was no threat to anyone outside of the Middle East (and as long as Iran was there to soak up Hussein’s attention he wasn’t much of a threat there either) that he’ll abandon our true enemy right before catching him to go off on a wild goose chase.
Maybe we’ll have a president who listens to people who actually know what they’re talking about instead of just people who tell him what he wants to hear. We sure as hell don’t have that now.
Allan: The difference has always seemed to me that conservatives equate ‘character’ with sex; liberals equate it with ‘public character,’ for lack of a better term. Yeah Clinton lied about sex … but that was between him and Hillary, in my view. Bush lied about war, the most solemn and seriious responsibility a President has. Big difference. And as far as the polls go, survey 5-10 percent more Republicans, you get a Republican lead. Survey numbers more indicative of actual turnout — 4-8 percent more Dems in the last three Presidential elections — and you’ll get the Democrat in the lead.
Your making my argument for me Nick. What your saying is what all democrats were saying back then, character doasn’t matter. There are more things in life then money Nick. Clinton did next to nothing about terrorism even though all the signs we blaring back in his terms. Good debate though.
Hey Allan — But during Clinton’s time, you could comfort yourself with the knowledge of huge budget surpluses, a growing economy, no disastrous war and the fact Administration knew Al-Qaeda was the major threat…
Jim, at least we live in a country where we can have these kind of debates. Now you know how most Republicans felt for eight years when Bubba was in office. It doesn’t feel good does it? Oh and by the way, there’s a new NY Times/CBS poll out that shows Bush up nine.
Oh, the previous data was courtesy of mydd.com, who obtained it from theleftcoaster.com who got it from Gallup.
Get people to the polls, and President Kerry will happen.
Guess what that nasty Gallup poll shows:
“Kerry leads Bush by ten points among independents who are registered to vote, 51-41.”
Stunning.
I’ll take more bad news like that.
And I like my jazz rough.
Nearly 50% of PA voters say that Bush’s moral values are closely aligned with theirs. I think I’m gonna move to another state.
It’s so frustrating to read that people think W is tougher on terror than Kerry. As I recall…now, maybe I’m wrong…but I believe 9/11 occurred during the Bush administration.
Leadership? Well, if you consider lying to people to persuade them to be leadership, then I guess Bush is your man. Bush had led 1,000 Americans to their deaths.
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I inhabit the same country (and state) with so many nitwits. How anyone…ANYONE…can vote for W is completely beyond me. Grrrrr!