John Kerry Leads George Bush 49-47 percent of nation-wide LV’s, according to a Democracy Corps Poll conducted 10/20-21. The Poll also found that Kerry leads Bush 52-45 percent of LV’s in Battleground states and has a 50-41 percent lead among Independent LV’s.
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.
Jim J:
Michael Jordan publicly supported Bill Bradley in 2000. I don’t have any other information on his past and current political activities.
“The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.”
Obviously, people don’t like to admit they voted for the “loser” (even when the “loser” actually won).
Bush has been in the White House for the last 4 years, so many people remember voting for him who didn’t.
The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.
Are the respondents misreporting, or is the poll oversampling Bush 2000 voters? Or is it something else?
Posted by James E. Powell at October 24, 2004 04:06 AM
==========================
oversampling Bush 2000 voters
IMO
DemDude :
I list polls from latest to earliest and do not count any from earlier than the 17th.
Also, I try to look more heavily at the ones that depict the situation of Nader being on or off the ballot accurately for the state.
Iowa:
Strategic Vision (GOP poll) shows Bush with a 1 point lead there (48-47)
Zogby with Nader shows Kerry up (48-51)
Mason Dixon shows Bush up 6 49-43.
M-d has been leaning heavily to Bush.
CONCLUSION. BUSH ISN’T UP 6. Look at the first number in each of these 49,48,48. That’s bad for the incumbent. Even M-D shows a bad # for Bush. Up 6 just doesn’t jibe. They’ve played with the definition of “Likely Voter” here most likely undersampling Kerry voters) Had they had Bush over 50, I might trust the up 6 a bit more.
Of the polls without Nader we have
Rasmussen Bush up 2 48-46
Central Surveys Kerry up 1 45-46
Strategic Vision Tie 46-46
Zogby Kerry up 48-51
(I dropped a Susa poll because even SUsa has changed it’s numbers 3 times.)
But even counting Susa’s poll Race.com projects Iowa within 5,000 votes. It’s definitely IN PLAY AND TOO CLOSE TO CALL.
Arkansas:
Polls with Nader (he’s on the ballot)
Opinion Research. Tie 48-48
Zogby Bush 50-48
Only polls this week with Nader on the ballot.
Usually 50 is the magic number. This appears a bit harder than Iowa.
Polls without Nader
Zogby Tie 49-49
Susa 51-46
Race 200’s projection model at the moment there has it within 300 votes!!! 300 votes!!! Send the Big Dog Boys!!! But given Bush over 50 in a couple polls, this one is actually going to be a bit harder than Iowa IMO.
Co: Cirulli Bush 48-42
Zogby Bush 49-48
Rasmussen Bush 50-45
Gallop, 51-45
Colorado is clearly an uphill fight but there’s some close races downticket there that are really close that Kerry can have an impact on. Plus, he can hit Nevada (Polls show the race closing there and New Mexico, pretty safe for Kerry, on the same trip.)
As to NC.
Rasmussen 51-45 Bush
Zogby 51-47 Bush
Susa 50-48 Bush
Only polls this week The Race.com model projected about a 200k Bush lead.
Not that Polls or Projections are completely accurate, It’s all about GOTV, GOTV, and NC is worth some effort, but the indication here is that NC will be a more difficult target than any of the other states you listed.
But I’d like to see him come down south. I’d make the drive over to R/D/CH just to see him. It really wouldn’t hurt to make a whistle stop in his travels between Florida and Ohio Would it???
Well, I don’t think that the Republican party as it is now could nominate a Pataki or a Guliiani. Those guys are too centerist for the right wing core.
I haven’t seen anything on what’s happening in the Colorado referendum on the allocation of electoral votes. The outcome could mean a crucial 4 EVs for Kerry. Does anybody have any info on how it’s looking?
Good article on front page of LA Times today about newly registered voters and how they might (or might not) affect the election.
You are assuming MJ is a Democrat. Do we know this to be true? Frankly I would tend to doubt it. He loves his money too much.
Obsessives (self included),
At some point you “just need to believe” – we all know we can find information on the web to assure or assail our desires. Someone mentioned “having a beer with Bush” — Yikes! First, you would need to be prescreened and agree to drink Coors – not on your life.
I too have had some peptic upset with Zogby, however, I am certain he will provide assurances as we move forward. I suspect today’s numbers will have us all a twitter. Relax and make sure to work on GOTV. Sanity will win out over Bush.
Jody
As something to demonstrate the subjectiveness of “Likely voters” there’s an article on Harris’s website today that says “Bush up by 8, or 2, depending on your definition of Likely Voter”.
Turns out if you include everyone who says they will “certainly vote”, Bush leads by 2 points. If you discard people aged 18 to 24 who were old enough to vote in 2000 but didn’t, Bush’s lead is 8 points.
LVs can’t be trusted as different pollsters have different definitions.
It’s been said before, but it needs to be said again. Kerry needs to squeeze in a visit to NC, which never makes the battleground state lists, but where he is closer to winning (down 3) than IA ( -6), CO (-7) and AR (-5), according to most recent polls. These three states all have less than half of NC’s electoral votes (15) and they don’t have a homeboy on the ticket. I suggest Kerry-Edwards work the Black turnout in Charlotte and/or Wilmington, maybe take along former tarheel Michael Jordan to generate some excitement.
I would be interested to know how Democracy Corps screens for likely voters. Because the Gallup Poll seven question screen effectively eliminates first time voters. According to Gallup if you didn’t vote last time, don’t vote regularly and don’t know where your polling location is (just three of the seven criteria) you are ipso facto not a Likely Voter. Which effectively eliminates any non-anal voter under the age of 22. I remember my polling location because I voted there last time (see questions 1 & 2), but I have moved frequently and have never worried about the possibility of not finding it in my new location. Indeed I am not sure how a first-time voter could even find that information out weeks before the election without a trip to the County Courthouse.
LV vs RV never hit the radar screen until the Times/Newsweek double-digit Bush lead took the Blogosphere by storm. And the emphasis since then has been on Republican over-sampling. But I looked at the screening criteria and said “Man, they are pretending like Rock the Vote and Howard Stern don’t even exist”.
I firmly believe the long mythical young voter/new voter is going to show up this time. So if other polling outfits are using a screen similar to Gallup’s for their LVs they are measuring waves in the lagoon and missing the breakers crashing on the reef.
I am curious about something that I have seen in several polls, and in Democracy Corps polls more than once.
The Party ID, etc., all seem close to the known figures, but when asked for whom they voted in 2000, the Bush numbers significantly outnumber the Gore numbers, which doesn’t match what we know to be true.
Are the respondents misreporting, or is the poll oversampling Bush 2000 voters? Or is it something else?
There are always differences between the polls. This year the race is close and some show Kerry with a small lead and others show Bush with a small lead.
If one was comfortably ahead of the other, the polls would still differ with each other but they would point to the same “winner.”
Anybody know what’s up with the Honolulu Advertiser poll out today saying Bush up by .7 in Hawaii?
Remember… John Zogby outright predicted John Kerry would win the election last week. It’s in an article posted on his website.
I used to wonder why everyone always said it had to be a southerner to win the election. Now I understand… the democrats have to be able to peel a couple of those southern states away to be competitive. Imagine how much easier this would be with some southern states in play. I hope the republicans don’t wise up and start nominating NY Republicans like Guiliani or Pataki. Imagine trying to do this without NY.
As an aside I’d like to say it makes me mad that Bush is in this because of the “I’d like to have a beer with him” factor. Yea, I have a lot of friends I like to have beers with, but I wouldn’t vote for any of them for president. I wish more people could see beyond this.
As another aside, I’d like to say as a New Yorker, this is the first time I’ve ever been rooting for the Boston Red Sox. Good win tonight!
Justin
I wonder how much an impact Clinton can have.
Assuming Clinton can make a limited number of appearances, it is best for him to go to campaign rallies or would it be better for him to appear on Oprah, Leno or Larry King?
I’m not in a swing state, so I may be biased, but I would love to see the Big Dog on national television talking about his recovery and talking up Kerry.
But I would be satisfied if one of you fancy pollsters would explain why local news events in swing states can be more helpful than national appearances.
It’s all a matter of mental toughness. Fellow Dems need to stay frosty and keep working. You don’t see the Repubs getting all squirrelly when things get tight . . . we shouldn’t either Be prepared for anything. As long as Bush’s approval ratings stay low, Kerry is in good shape.
And help get out the vote!!
If I survive the anxiety bred by the uncertainty of this period and see John Kerry inaugurated as the 44th POTUS, it will be largely due Emerging Democratic Majority. Ruy Teixeira’s sanity keeps hope alive.
But I continue to be confused and troubled over the disparities between polls. I LOVE the Democracy Corps Polls because they put Kerry ahead. Of course I accept their results as the true picture. Yet a rolling poll published by Zogby/Reuters this morning Reuters had Bush up by 2 points. I hate Zogby/Reuters! How can there be so such differences between polls?
I am confident that the discrepancies in the polls this year will be fodder for survey experts for years to come.