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.
OK, OK.
The ‘already voted’ lead for George Bush is a non-issue. Not only do I not trust any sample that small (81 respondents), technically speaking the MOE on those numbers is +/- 11. So, the Bush “lead” breaks down this way:
Bush: 38 to 60
Kerry: 23 to 45
Do you consider that to be a reliable range of voting behavior thus far? Neither do I. Besides, there is no evidence that people who vote early are representative of the population as a whole. Worry about these things at your stomach’s peril.
Regarding the YouGov poll, the sample size is higher because its an Internet survey. The Harris Poll also has a large number of respondents for its online poll. I’m really interested to see how the Internet polls do this year, because they’ve shown Kerry in a much stronger position than the telephone polls. Its an apples-to-oranges comparison to the telephone polls, because the data collection and weighting procedures are very different. YouGov has shown consistent leads for Kerry and well under 47% support for Bush. Harris’ online polls have been closer, but Bush support levels have been around 47 as well.
This could be the year of the Internet poll if Kerry wins by the margins that both Harris and Economist are suggesting.
Andy,
On early voting, most states that allow it are Red States. And early voters historically tended Republican. The big exception this year is Florida, where early voting in Broward and Miami – very Democratic – is through the roof. So I wouldn’t pay much attention to early voting nationwide when, with the exception of California, early voting is concentrated in the West and South. No New England state except New Hampshire allows early voting.
Same question here, maybe Ruy can comment the recent Zogby polls. What’s up with these? Michigan going red? That would be devastating.
But it seems not only his polls are volatile. New York Daily News quotes him declaring Kerry the winner while Bob Novak writes that Zogby told him Bush is winning. He explains that away with Kerry picking up 5 percent in Tuesday alone.
Too much coffee? (Or should I have some?)
> WORRISOME DEMOCRACY CORPS POLL INTERNALS
I am also worried about a rumor on NRO’s insufferable “Kerry Spot” website [http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp ]. According to an unnamed “source close to the [Bush] campaign, tuned in to the conversations at the highest levels”, “the last few days have seen a huge burst of momentum in their numbers”. “The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones – Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call.”
“Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup – Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Let’s hope the ‘wingers are deluding themselves, again. So far, I think the missing Iraqi explosives story has helped Kerry, since the WashTimes story about Russian involvement has been refuted. The public debate during the final week has so far been almost exclusively about “Shrub’s” past mistakes. No worried rumors about the Kerry campaign or anything.
MARCU$
I am puzzled by the Zogby polling. There are huge differences in the poll results of his “interactive” net based polling and these tracking polls which are so volatile. One example is New Mexico where last week Kerry is shown as up by 11% and is now down several points. I don’t believe in those kind of swings in the course of a week. Same with Michigan. His contradictory polling results undermines any sense of conficence in them. Can someone explain this?
1. The Economist Poll is so out of line with other polls as to not be credible; at no time did the Economist poll show Bush with over 45% approval or with any lead of over 1 or 2 points- a result which (like Gallup’s polls showing 10-15 pt Bush lead) is so far out of line with other polls as to be suspicious.
2. The Democracy Corps poll shows that of people who have already voted (8% of electorate) Bush leads 49-34. This means that Kerry can still be ahead by 2 points or so among people voting on 11-2 and still lose the election.
Reading the Economist poll, it is devastating to Bush. Over 3000 samples! And they endorse Kerry, after endorsing Bush the last time (we were in London then, we are here now, taking care of business.
WORRISOME DEMOCRACY CORPS POLL INTERNALS
There now have been a couple times in a row when I have been dissappointed in some of the internals in the Democracy Corps poll. Here are some of my “least favorite results.”
If I am reading the tabs right, about 8% of the sample had already voted. Among that group BUSH had a substantial lead, somewhere around 13% or so. This is bad enough as everything I have been reading (at least in the battleground states) seemed to indicate that it was the Democrats who were voting early.
What makes this result even worse is that this same block of early voters voted for the congressional Democratic Party candidate almost at the same rate as the Republican candidate. I think the Dems were at like -3. This means that Kerry is running about 10% behind the Congressional Democrats in the sample used in the poll. I know that there are a thousand possible rationals why this can be true and not a bad sign for Kerry, but I am uncomfortable with the result.
Also, I think this is the 2nd or 3rd time in a row that more people are getting an increasingly negative feeling about Kerry then about Bush. To clarify what I mean, due I guess to the negative campaigning, voters are becomming more negative about both candidates. However, the rate of increased negative feelings is higher for Kerry then for Bush.
Finally, I didnt like some of the results on personal attributes. Im not referring to the “strong leader” or “better commander in chief” numbers, I expected Bush to have much better numbers there. But I am dissappointed to see Bush do so well on questions like, “he is on our side,” “cares about people like me,” and “in touch with day to day reality (thats not exactly how the question is phrased but you know what I mean)”.
I know that I am “missing the forrest for the trees” in a way as Kerry is up by 3 in the poll. Still, some of that support is soft and I wonder if it will stick in light of some of the Bush attribute numbers.
By the way, Im not one who typically “freaks” at every poll result. Basically, I have been thinking Kerry will win by 3 since the debates. I still do. I am just posting this to see if anyone has some comments.
Do you have any comments on the poll internals? Are they any more reliable than all the others out there? Or should we simply consider them as part of the poll “noise”?