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.
Here is something that would help our cause:
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS
If you like to call yourself a liberal, please don’t. It does not help the Democratic party by using that term publicly.
“Liberal” is a terribly self-defeating word. It has negative connotations from the 1960’s-70’s when it was associated with liberal spending on welfare programs, culminating in the 80’s with Reagan’s assertion that black “Welfare Queens are driving Cadillac’s.”
Liberals created welfare and over time it has been associated with being too free with spending the government’s money. Most Americans do agree that we should be conservative in managing our own personal finances as well as the government’s use of our tax money.
It is more difficult to convince an undecided independent voter by using the term “liberal” than by replacing that term with one that carries a lot less negative baggage, “Progressive.”
Progressive is a much better term because its meaning is associated with the only constant law in the universe, which is “change.” Progressive or change-minded means we should not keep repeating the policies of the past over and over, as “Regressives” (Republicans) are wont to do. To achieve a better society, we need to have policies which “progress” along with the advancement of the constantly changing times. When progressive policies don’t keep up with the changing times, Republican “regressive” actions result, and we stay stuck in the past.
Now let me make it perfectly clear that I am not apologizing for being a liberal.
I am a proud liberal and it is o.k. to use that term among us.
But when we are talking to people, who’s politics we do not know,
I strongly recommend we use the term Progressive.
The truth is that there really
is no difference in the meaning of the two terms.
But, “Progressive,” will get us more votes.
Lyndon Johnson’s quipped, “Democrats look ahead through the windshield while Republicans continue to gaze in the rearview mirror.” “True, true, true”, as Harry Truman was fond of saying.
So, I would ask that all Democrats (candidates and activists) stop using the word “liberal” and in its place, always use the term “progressive.” And to drive the point home, we need to stop referring to Republicans as Conservatives and call them REGRESSIVES. Because they truly “are always looking in the rear-view mirror.”
This is not just a matter of semantics. It is a matter of dead serious political consequence. It is an important sociological fact which affects voting behavior consciously or unconsciously. And semantics aside, isn’t it true that only voting behavior matters!
It might take a while before the word “regressive” is absorbed into our lexicon. But if we all keep using it, it will.
WORDS MATTER.
WORDS ARE POWERFUL,
MORE POWERFUL THAN THE SWORD.
Wendell H. Williams
Former Democratic Nominee
U.S. Congress (CA10)
Does anyone believe a product is new or improved just because the ad agency printed “New! Improved!” on the wrapper? The term “liberal” became pejorative because liberal policies failed on issues like crime, education, inflation, taxation, illegal immigration and energy. If we offer the voters the same policies under a new label, the term “progressive” will soon be as pejorative as “liberal” has become.
No Democrat in a competitive race calls himself or herself a “liberal” or a “progressive.” They know, if they have any sense, that the only political labels that matter for winning or losing elections are “Republicans” and “Democrats.” The relatively low-information voters and swing voters who decide competitive elections have little or no clear conception of the meaning of “liberal,” “progressive,” “left-wing” “right-wing,” “fascist” or “semi-fascist.” They just know they’ll have a choice between “Republicans” and “Democrats.”
That fact calls for GENERIC anti-Republican attack ads and messaging as the focus of Democratic campaigning. Ads that damage the Republican BRAND as a whole. Here in Pennsylvania we’re seeing a constant barrage of John Fetterman campaign ads attacking Dr. Oz for his personal weaknesses — his mansions, his super-rich lifestyle, his not being a Pennsylvanian. All legitimate attacks. But they don’t help other Democrats running in competitive Pennsylvania races, including state legislative candidates whose names swing voters will never recognize.
A barrage of generic anti-Republican attack ads that damage the Republican brand and use the term “Republican” to define those who will deny women and girls the ability to make decisions about abortion and their personal lives and who will empower and protect the super-rich would help Democrats up and down the ticket.
The simple message “Republicans say it’s not your body, it’s theirs. Vote them out” defines the choice for midterm voters, especially women, suburbanites and young people, as well as any pro-Democratic message could. And it uses the term that matters most — “Republicans.”
We might see that type of ad from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund or similar groups this fall. But we’re not seeing them here so far. And we need to.
So basically, it will come down to turnout. If white college grads turn out in higher numbers, the way they usually do, and non college whites turn in lower rates, the way they usually do, then it’s a major advantage for the Democrats.