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.
I really wish Kerry had made a strong statement warning the republicans against election fraud. Perhaps he will do so before the election. Let’s hopeand pray for America’s sake that the election is clean.
The other possibility, of course, is that maybe Dowd knows that the wheels are in motion for electronic theft of the election results, a possibility that scares the bejeezus out of me and one that I’m not convinced is being sufficiently managed by the DNC and the Kerry Camp.
makes sense given the administration’s adversion tofacts and insistence on “faith-based” approaches to the creation of their own realities (see kevin Drum).
The polls are encouraging one day, discouraging the next. Thanks, Tex, for at least trying to make some sense of it all.
It may come down to the ground game, after all. Especially to those of you in swing states…….call your local Dem HQ and volunteer some time. Most still need more people to work in a GOTV (Get out the vote) effort on Nov. 2.
Given the wide discrepancies in LV and RV results we’ve seen, and how much the LV polls differed from the actual result in 2000, is anyone prepared yet to state as a general principle either that: (a) Bush’s supporters consistently overstate their enthusiasm for their candidate to pollsters; or (b) that Democrats tend to understate their enthusiasm?
We can overthink this, or we can take it at face value. Either way
1. It’s a dodge
2. It’s true, because he’s complimenting Gallup on its work.
3. It’s true, because he believes it.
If it’s #3 then I’m thrilled, because the BC’04 campaign will feel great about an oversampled GOP poll, not a real reflection of actual voter thought (remembering of course the last Gallup poll before Election Day 2000….)
Must be “faith-based” polling . . .
This is not the first time that Republicans have cited Gallup as the authority. Dailykos has a broadcast e-mail from the Republicans that also relies on Gallup. Remember that Gallup is still building its models based upon the assumption of low turnout: 50-55%. This means that they take for granted a wildly successful suppression of the vote.
Let them go by Gallup! They did in 2000 and that’s why Bush and Rove were walking around like two peacocks as if they had already won. They slowed down campaigning at the end as well. I am afraid they are smarter this time but I truly wish they would believe the Gallup numbers for then there is absolutely no need for an October surprise since they have already won — right?
Wouldn’t surprise me: it fits the Administration’s delusional and sanguine view of the world and this election that runs contrary to reality. If you will New Jersey in play, it can be so!
Zogby has Bush with an approval rating of 44-46 %. Historically, this is bad news for the incumbent at this time. My hopeful hunch is that this election will mimic that of 1980. Carter and Reagan were in a close race, Carter had low approval ratings, and the undecideds did not turn until the last weekend. Watching the daily Zogby tracking polls – they don’t move much – I see the same thing happening. The polls will move Kerry’s way, but not until the last weekend. Karl Rove believes that Bush must be up by 4 points going into the last weekend in order to win. Historical trends are probably the best predictors at this point.
Amazing…
Well, I suppose that’s good news for us.
Would anyone take that comment seriously? I have a hunch he is just saying that because Bush is up in the Gallup.