One of my favorite wonky topics is the presidential nominating process, and as it happens, the way it’s shaping up for Democratic in 2024 is unusual, as I explained at New York:
Donald Trump’s 2024 announcement signaled that we are now officially in the run-up to the next presidential election. But there’s a big missing piece of basic election infrastructure, at least for Democrats: The order of states holding presidential primaries is very much up in the air.
Earlier this year, the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, which sets guidelines for the nomination process and administers sticks and carrots to get states to comply, announced it would authorize five “early states” allowed to have nominating contests prior to March 1, 2024. The four states that were allowed across this golden rope line from 2008 through 2020 — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — would have to reapply for privileged status along with everyone else. As many as 20 state Democratic parties expressed interest in vying for these five spots. But because some of the changed calendar positions would require action by the state government, which typically control and finance primaries, the DNC delayed a final selection until after the midterms sorted out who ruled where.
Now Michigan Democrats, who flipped both legislative chambers and hung on to the governorship this month, are galvanizing the 2024 calendar discussion with a clear bid for an early spot, as NBC News reports:
“Michigan Democrats — led by Rep. Debbie Dingell — feel well positioned to join the coveted ranks of the early states, after they made huge gains in the Nov. 8 election. With Iowa facing possible eviction from the early states, many expect Democrats to elevate a Midwest state.
“Democrats now have full control of the Statehouse in Lansing, which would allow them to easily change state laws to support a new date for the 2024 primary.”
The DNC’s previously announced criteria for early states, as reported by CBS News, were diversity (racial, ethnic, geographic, and economic diversity as well as union representation), general-election competitiveness, and feasibility (whether states can move their contest into the early window, if they can run a “fair, transparent and inclusive nominating process,” and the logistical requirements and cost of campaigning in that state). It was an unstated but understood criterion as well that the five early states would represent different regions. So Michigan may be competing for an early-state slot with Minnesota, where Democrats also nailed down a trifecta in the midterms.
Iowa’s traditional first-in-the-nation caucus has looked doomed all along. The state is famously nondiverse and is now solidly Republican in general elections. The “feasibility” of an Iowa event was also called into question by the 2020 fiasco, in which no Iowa caucus results were announced until the next day.
New Hampshire will be harder to dislodge, despite its nondiverse population, because of a state law that authorizes the secretary of state to move the primary date around in order to maintain the position of first primary. But Nevada Democrats are making a sustained effort to leap ahead of New Hampshire by switching to a primary and aggressively advertising their superior diversity and obvious competitiveness. It’s unclear, however, whether Republican Joe Lombardo’s gubernatorial win in Nevada will disrupt efforts to authorize a new state primary.
That points to one of two variables complicating the early-state selection process: By and large, Republicans are happy with the existing order of states. There is no pressure within the GOP to dump Iowa or displace New Hampshire or do anything else unusual. So in states where Republican cooperation is necessary to move things around or make the requisite resources available, Democrats have to convince their partisan enemies to care about it as well. And if the proposed new primary date in any given state violates the RNC’s existing calendar rules, that state’s Republicans could be penalized and lose delegates to their own convention. The prospect of a serious battle for the GOP presidential nomination adds another series of calculations.
It’s a Rubik’s Cube, and that’s largely why the existing calendar for both parties has stayed in place for so long aside from the fact that, in Iowa and New Hampshire, both parties have long cooperated to defend their calendar privileges like crazed badgers.
The other big variable facing Democrats is the broader context: What sort of decisions will Democrats be facing in 2024? At this point, we don’t know for sure whether President Biden is running for a second term, and we don’t know if he’ll face major competition if he does. If Biden has to fight for renomination, how he performed in particular states in 2020 may have some influence on a loyal DNC deciding where he has to run in 2024. That might really doom Iowa, if it’s not already doomed, given Biden’s fourth-place finish there in 2020. And Biden finished fifth in New Hampshire. The DNC likely wouldn’t want to give calendar privileges to the home state of a potential rival.
But decisions have to be made, and the Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to make them when it meets from December 1 through 3 in Washington, D.C.
I AM REASSURRED THAT THE ZI POL REFLECTS WHAT I SEE IS THE CLEAREST PICTURE ON THE ELECTION. WITH SOME POLLS GIVING KERRY CALIF WITH ONLY A 50-42% ADVANTAGE I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. WHAT I DO SEE HAPPENING IS THE PUBLIC RESPONDING TO EITHER KERRY AND HIS PERHAPS DULL , BUT FORTHWITH SPEECHS THAT DEAL WITH THE ECONOMY AND IRAQ WHICH ARE INTERTWINED, OR THE WAY BUSH HAS DEALT WITH THE ADVERSITY IN IRAQ AND HIS RELUCTANCE TO ADMIT SOME A MOUNT OF FAILURE IN PROCESS. IN MY VIEW THIS IS BRINGING KERRY AND BUSH CLOSER TOGETHER CLOSER TO ELECTION DAY AND THE DEBATES WIL GO A LONG WAY IN DETERMINING THE WINNER.
I never believed bush had that 11 point bounce. They lied about WMD, social security, medicare, taxes, the economy, iraq, and everything else. Why should we believe rethug polls like gallup? “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
This may be off topic, but Survey USA strikes (out) again. Speaking as a resident of Maryland, I can say with some conviction that there is no way Bush is even with Kerry here. Other surveys taken just recently (during some of Kerry’s worst campaign coverage) showed Kerry up by 9-10 points. The GOP governor of MD said that Bush would be wasting his time and money campaigning here.
Of course, it’s always possible that SUSA is right and everyone else (myself included) wrong. But this is the same survey that showed Kerry up by only 4 points in Illinois last week and was promptly contradicted by other surveys that showed Kerry with a double digit lead. And that produced a California poll with more Republicans than Democrats that was not shared by other surveys.
Looking at SUSA closely, I find that they have a Democratic edge of only 44-35 among Maryland likely voters (about the same among RV’s) when party registration here is more like 57-30 Democratic (approximately). And Bush is said to be (barely) ahead among suburban voters–apparently they forgot to poll Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. And they have twice as many conservatives as liberals–accurate in many states, but not here.
SUSA is starting to resemble Gallup in its sampling. And I’m not sure about Zogby, either.
I remain highly skeptical of ZI polls, but maybe more wired states may provide more accurate interactive polls. States like WV however, which are less wired, may not work out as well. I mean c’mon, Bush with a double digit lead in WV? When they are handing out ice cream and Bibles in hell, maybe.
What has Zogby’s track record been in terms of accuracy in presidential polling? This latest batch of state news looks like great news for us…but it’s also a little out of line with some other polling data.