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.
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.