A poll of nation-wide RV’s conducted Sept 6-8 by YouGov for the Economist has Bush leading Kerry 46-45 percent, with 1 percent for Nader.
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.
Sorry, the link didn’t work. Here’s the URL for the Globe article. (Also in the url field below – click on my name).
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/09/05/poll/
I meant to post this earlier, but this is a better place for it. The Economist and Zogby are examples of internet polling, which has been criticized by some. But this article in the Boston Globe seems to suggest that internet polling is the way of the future. Very interesting.
Excerpt:
Most political pollsters regard online polling as an inherently unreliable way to measure public opinion. For one thing, they say, only between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans have Internet access. Internet polling “starts out ignoring one of the fundamentals of scientific survey research, which is that everybody in the population under study needs to have a chance to fall under the sample,” says Nancy Belden, president of the National Association for Public Opinion Research. Says Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of Gallup, “We at Gallup do not believe you can generalize to the general population using Internet samplings.”
But results, say the believers, speak for themselves. Three years before the California poll, a Harris online poll outperformed most of its telephone rivals in predicting almost exactly the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. And in Britain, online polling outfit YouGov has in four years gone from startup to one of the country’s most prominent polling organizations. (The firm’s first US poll, which began running in The Economist in July, currently shows George W. Bush and John Kerry in a dead heat.)
As Bush awaits the news on his post-convention bounce, 2004 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for the online polling industry. In the United States several major publications, including the Wall Street Journal, are experimenting with online polls. If Internet-based pollsters match their earlier success, or if beleaguered telephone pollsters misjudge the closely fought presidential race, some say, this year could be the beginning of the end for traditional polling.
But that’s NOT the headline my local paper – the Hartford Courant is trumpeting – we are getting “Bush Takes Big Lead” – from the WP poll. Hidden in the article is the important info on battleground stats. (Of course another article talks about fund raising efforts for our disgraced ex-Governor) And Ct is suposedly Kerry territory…
Great news.
I’m going to plant this here, because it relates to the polls, the Economist, London oil speculators, and what we have been discussing here the past week.
=============================
I read something online at democrats.com today which raised a good point regarding oil:
What is with the conflicting reports of oversupply, undersupply, etc.?
One day we have a report that there will be plenty of oil, then the next, shortages of US reserves. The current US reserves are lower than they have been in 6 months, and this is cause for concern, which creates an uptick in demand for oil, resulting in a slight increase in price.
Why are there all these competing headlines?
Think of the world’s oil interests as 527s that have a stake in the election. They are getting their stories out, and each has some side to pitch. The Saudis are clearly delivering on their promise to help Bush at election time as a reward for helping Saudis, including the bin Ladens, leave on September 13th, 2001, but they can only increase short term production so much, and that can be offset by either speculators who buy more product, or producing countries which reduce production short term.
Is this part of a Bush plan?
Yes. The speculators who sold off Monday were Saudis (and probably connected groups) who were delivering exactly when requested by Bush. The post convention poll play by the right and the Saudi oil promise were both intended to steamroll Kerry. The past 7 days they’ve been trying to deliver a knockout punch to Kerry. The polls, the Monday speculators selling off to drop oil for the Tuesday opening bell, the Tuesday Saudi announcement to further drive price concerns down, the Fox pep rally on Monday exhorting Wall Street it should be UP – all orchestrated to create an illusion of stampede for Bush.
Fox News was pushing the polls and their expectations of a good market reaction big time. Looking back at this past 7 days, we can say that media manipulation is an epidemic to which Fox is merely Typhoid Mary.
What about the other countries and other stakeholders?
Everyone has a stake in this election, and the oil consuming and producing worlds are most interested. Perception drives market price, and speculation is adding to the cost of a barrel of crude. The Iraq instability is also adding to the price. Energy supplies must be viewed as a stream, like a huge river flowing through the country. If the snow in the mountains is less in winter, we know we’re in for a hard spring and summer. Likewise, when there are saboteurs in Iraq and other places targeting oil production facilities, it raises the prospect of interruption.
Where is the price of oil going?
The current price barrel of oil is at least $8-12 a barrel higher than it should be, and the difference is speculation driven by fear of interruption due to terror and/or the war in Iraq and the instability it portends. If Bush gets a second term, oil will go up, up, up. If Kerry wins, it is coming down.
How can I say that?
Because the average price of a barrel of oil for the four years prior to 2004 was barely $28 a barrel. See here http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html While demand is definitely contributing to the increase in price this year, much of the current price is directly related to the Bush debacle in Iraq.
===========================
Later troops. I have things to do, but I want this out here for whoever needs it and can use it.