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.
Yes, we can win if we just stop whining.
We can use magic.
And magical thinking.
Yeah, that’ll work.
I am getting awfully tired of listening to Democrats finding ways to explain why they are going to lose an election before the election is held. We Dems can WIN this election if we can just stop whining.
I didn’t consider my comment to be a whine as much as an analysis of the current political climate.
By criticizing the right, I more than indicated my disdain for them. I am fully aware of how much worse off our country is under the Republicans. It’s only taken about 30 years for their failed economic policies to decimate the middle class, destroy the labor movement, and concentrate the wealth in the hands of a few.
But I don’t think any of this means we should just give the Democrats, including President Obama, a pass. The truth is that, thanks to corporations and Wall Street, the lines between the two parties get blurrier every day. It’s up to the Democratic base to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire.
If we don’t, it will not matter which party is in control. The lines distinguishing one from the other will have been obliterated.
I understand the frustration, but let’s keep in mind how things would be if the Republicans were still in charge now. Things are absolutely better now than when the Repubs were in charge. Now is not the time to sit on your hands, now is the time to fight harder. Sitting on your hands only gives the Republicans more power. What do you think will happen with your agenda then? GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!! Or quit whining.
President Obama, by seeking bipartisanship as an end, rather than a means, and by staking out a center-right position, has alienated many in his base. This is especially true among progressives, who campaigned hard for the President and who expected more than the few crumbs he has thrown our way.
Also working against Democrats this primary season — and undoubtedly again this November — is the successful campaign the right has launched to marginalize the new commander-in-chief.
Taking their cue from Rush “I hope he fails” Limbaugh, conservatives have thwarted not only modest efforts on the administration’s behalf, but also wholly right-wing measures originating with Republicans (read: health insurance mandates).
By failing to take control of the narrative in the health care reform debate, Obama let not just the right but the crazies in the right define the terms. Thus did we witness the socialization/nazification/communization of reform legislation which reformed almost nothing and, in fact, catered to the corporate interests.
Given a choice between the eccentric (conservative crazies) and the evil (the Muslim, Kenyan terrorist occupying the White House), fringe voters and fencepost sitters are going to choose the whackos. Combine that with a depressed voter turnout among the Democratic base, and the result is a resurgent Republican party, whose bad governing and declining demographics should have spelled its demise, but which instead has risen, like a phoenix from the ashes, to soar once more.
It’s not hard for me to understand. We thought electing Democrats would effect a change, and it has not. A year for “health reform” that benefits the insurance companies that contribute to the crisis, financial reform that does nothing to prevent another crisis — and which is being watered down as we speak, no realistic idea when there will be an end of the wars, no policy to reduce or end dependence on foreign oil. In short: No Change.