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.
Per Missouri…I haven’t seen tv ads for either candidate in a few days. While the ads were running, they were evenly matched. I have begun to see more Kerry/Edwards signs & bumper stickers. For a time, I thought it was just Bush/Cheney, but the Kerry signs are begining to crop up here & there. I live between rural & suburbs.
Good point Gabby Hayes. I love hanging out in bookstores. After the DNC, the Newsweek Poll comes out – my son and I are high-fiving eachother (JK 8 points ahead one), I go to the bookstore- there’s the latest Newsweek with a big, beautiful cover photo of K&E – New Direction for Cmountry. I just got back from the bookstore tonight – there’s the latest Newsweek with a big, (ugly) cover photo of Bush – trumpeting his march to the WH.
What we are seeing is a concerted effort on the part of several media organs to push Bush.
The post convention contortions to promote only the portions of those polls which show Bush getting a good lead in “likely voters” is a clear attempt to ignore all the polls that show otherwise. Further, the refusal to see the obviously poor methodology cannot be an oversight.
You’d think The Washington Post, NBC News, MSNBC, and Newsweek were all owned by the same people.
Oh, wait. They are. General Electric, top ten defense contractor, multibillion dollars per year.
Bizarroworld – the disparity between polls – between national vote vs battlefields – Zogby, who is usually simpatico described a fairly gloomy outlook on his site along with his latest poll data, reports – some anecdotal – of hordes of new voters registering, probably Dems, but obviously no indication of hopefully positive impact on the election. (sorry for the ungrammatical stream of consciousness)
gail,
I’m about to look more closely at that. It’s a 6% Bush lead in the RV’s. The median of CBS, ABC, Gallup, Fox, and ICR is +4 for Bush, which is what Marshall reported was the Republican and Democrat’s separate estimates post-convention. The 4% is imprecise, but my guess is not a bad estimate. Definitely within reach.
uGH- Just got a Washington Post update in my Email – blaring headline about Bush solidifying lead – yeah it’s a Post/ABC News poll, but still…
What is so bizarre is the huge gap between Bush’s negatives and the positive Bush poll results. So the electorate believes he is leading the country down the wrong track, but hell, they’ll vote for him anyway? Thanks to Tony for a summation of the latest polls. So which do I trust – would love to go with the ones that suit me!
Per Joshua Marshall’s site, the ABC/Washington Post lead will be in the ballpark of the CBS poll, or worse. Dang it.
vote on-
thanks for the correction
i am felling much encouraged.
Here’s confirmation of the Kerry campaign’s perception of the battlegrounds:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/strategy.ap/index.html
“Kerry strategist Tad Devine said the campaign had several million dollars in advertising time reserved for Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas, which he called a sign of commitment to those battlegrounds. But the ads aren’t scheduled to air until October, if then. No money has been given to TV stations for the October buys.”
In addition to the Bush 2000 states of Ohio, Florida, NH, WV, and Nevada, Kerry is spending on the Gore 2000 states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Maine, Washington, and Oregon. So…he’s defending 9 and attacking 5. And Ohio and Florida seem to be the key possible pickups.
Devine argues that Kerry is in a better state in Ohio and Florida than Gore was in September 2000. Do we have any info to compare on those two?
If he *does* pick up, say, Ohio and New Hampshire, then Kerry could lose 14 EV’s of Gore states. For instance, Iowa and New Mexico, or any Maine and either Minnesota or Wisconsin. He has to hold Pennsylvania and Michigan….
Gail,
Here’s a quick rundown of what I’ve seen of polls since the twin 11% polls:
Gallup…7% lead for Bush among LV’s, but only 1% among RV’s, Sept. 3-5.
ICR…Kerry up 1% among RV’s, Sept. 1-5
Fox…Bush up 4% among LV’s, with no RV report, Sept. 7-8
CBS…Bush up 7% among RV’s, Sept. 6-8.
Plus a report from Josh Marshall that the two campaigns show Bush up by 4%.
Rasmussen’s tracking shows Bush up by 0.7%.
Zogby showing Kerry with an ECV lead in his last battleground poll.
If you just go with Gallup RV, ICR RV, Fox LV (since they have no RV), and CBS RV, you get an average Bush lead of a smidge under 3%.
And that’s after the Republican convention, the Elephants slinging mud furiously for a long while when the Democrats haven’t responded well. This is going to be close. Kerry should be able to rally in the Gore states. Will he be able to turn Ohio or Florida, or the combination of New Hampshire, Nevada, and West Virginia?
CBS Poll is out – Bush solidly ahead – how to ratioanalize this – need to think something – getting migraine
As a Missourian, I can say that after the Repub convention, I saw a lot of Bush signs go up in yards. However, I’m seeing a lot of Kerry signs as well.
Missouri is deeply divided among its rural and urban regions. I live on the cusp of the rural areas and the suburbs so I get a taste of both. When I got into the suburbs I see a lot of Kerry support (more than I saw for Gore in 2000), but in the rural areas I’m seeing a lot of Bush support.
I don’t think Bush has an 11-point lead here, especially right after Zogby showed them tied just the other day.
I really believe Missouri will boil down to GOTV. Don’t give up on us yet!
Missouri will go Bush. I hate to say it, but Kerry’s message does not resonate there – most citizens are deeply socially conservative and relate to Bush personally and with his social values. There are economic troubles in MIssoui, but unfortunately this election is not about the economy, stupid.
I saw a report (not sure where. The Washington Post?) that Kerry was not targeting Missouri with ads right now. Can anyone confirm? If so, I’d take that as a sign that there might be some more truth to the idea that Bush is surging there.
From the article, the five Bush 2000 states Kerry was targeting were Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Nevada. NH and either WV or Nevada flipping would create a tie, going presumably to Bush in the House. If this is so, the strategy would seem to be (a) holding the Gore states; and (b) picking up one of Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire/WV/Nevada.
If that’s the strategy, I’m wondering if it might not have been helpful to have Graham on as VP.
Oops. The polls started 1-2 days AFTER the conventions.
Still in the afterglow, IMO.
Rremember that ALL of these new state polls were conducted DURING the convention and 1-2 days afterward.
Regarding Missouri, my initial thought was that the combination of the Repub convention and the Anti-Gay measure (passed with about 70% in favor) on the recent ballot there may have fired up the base. But I haven’t looked for any polling data to support that thought.
tim kaastad –you are confused. Ruy has been staunchly against using LVs until much closer to election day. And the links provided give you both LV and RV.
i am a little lost..is this site a pep rally.?
you didn’t report LV’s which according to you months ago was the true measure of the contest.
Missouri is more culturally conservative and rural than the nation as a whole. It’s often referred to as a “bellwether” for the nation, but I think it’s a step or two to the right of the country overall. That said, I’m not sure things have gone THAT far south there; other current surveys have it closer, though with Bush a few points ahead (Zogby has a tie.)
And the Ohio results are, along with Gallup’s national horse race results, a pretty egregious example of the fallacy of the “likely voter screen.”
I’m guessing the Missouri poll is an outlier. The other recent polls aren’t that strong. But there is a high level of southerner influence in the state and the Republican base was envigorated by the convention, so I’m sure that Bush’s support there is stronger than it was. But 11 points? I’m not buying that.
Anyone have any ideas on why things seem to be going south in Missouri?
When we look at events that will affect the tone of the campaign, I think it is hard to overestimate “Rock for Change.” Having Bruce Springsteen out there proselytizing for Kerry will be an Event. It will persuade and mobilize.
From this point forward, the mojo is definitely with us.