"2028 presidential hopefuls flock to key battleground states: Where have they traveled?"

Oren Oppenheim at ABC News:

"One year out from the 2026 midterms, major Democratic Party names have been taking the show on the road, saying that they’re helping the party lay the groundwork to battle for the U.S. House.

"They also might be preparing to run for president."

...

"ABC News has tracked at least 43 visits or planned visits so far in 2025 and 2026 by Democratic presidential hopefuls to key early or battleground presidential election states. Some of those states are also expected to be key House battlegrounds in 2026."

courtesy of ABC News

--

Noteworthy: This is not the first and will not be the last glimpse at the travel of prospective 2028 Democratic presidential candidates, but it is a check-in following the 2025 off-year elections. There is nothing all that surprising in the pattern of the candidate visits thus far. 

However, despite its double billing as both (very likely) early 2028 primary state and general election battleground, Nevada still does not garner that much attention. ABC News could have (should have?) discounted travel by candidates to neighboring states. Under those conditions, the Silver state has had just three candidates drop in during 2025 (or that are scheduled to trek that way in early 2026). 

Nevada has been a part of the early window on the Democratic calendar for nearly 20 years now -- five, and likely six, cycles -- and in many ways that still has not translated. By comparison, Iowa, a state that is very likely to be excluded from the early window on the 2028 calendar (but could go rogue!), is seeing more visitors. A visit to Iowa still carries more weight.

Will that affect Nevada's attempt to nail down the lead-off spot in the order for 2028? It may be a knock on Silver state Democrats' case. But it is still early yet. 

"Democrats set January deadline for states to apply for early 2028 primary contests"

Meg Kinnard at The AP with the details on the DNC Rules and Bylaws-passed resolution guiding the selection of early primary states for 2028:

"The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee on Monday approved a plan giving states until January 16 to submit applications to hold voting contests in the early window ahead of Super Tuesday, when a massive haul of delegates will be awarded.

"Four or five states will get an early slot, and all four regions — East, Midwest, South and West — must be represented, according to the framework."

And from Caroline Vakil at The Hill:

"States seeking to be one of the first stomping grounds to weigh in on the 2028 Democratic presidential primary will be evaluated on rigorousness, efficiency and fairness."

More from Elena Schneider at Politico:

"The DNC planned to reevaluate the order ahead of the 2028 primary, but the committee’s moves take on fresh significance for a wide-open presidential primary process, in which the voting order of states will likely impact candidates’ strategy. But unlike in 2022, when Biden set the calendar, the DNC now has control of the process.

"Jockeying for a calendar spot has already started, though several DNC members privately said they expect the composition of the early window to resemble previous years — which included South Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Michigan. The order of the states may prove trickier than which states are included."

--

And there were reactions on the state level...

Iowa (via Brianne Pfannenstiel at the Des Moines Register):

"'I am disappointed the DNC is already backtracking on its promise for an open and democratic process by rushing through this proposal,' [Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita] Hart said in a statement. 'Whatever fake timeline the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee tries to put on this process, I remain committed to having continued family conversations regarding our Iowa Caucus process with members of our State Central Committee, our campaigns and Democrats across the state.'

"She said 'all options are on the table' as the party weighs where to go next."

Nevada (via Mini Racker at the Nevada Independent)¹: 

"'In Nevada, we’re very respectful of the process,' [Nevada DNC member Artie] Blanco said... 'We don’t cry about it; we don’t get angry. We just go back and we start the fight again.'"

New Hampshire (via Josh Rogers at New Hampshire Public Radio):

"New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley participated in Monday's meeting, but did not speak. Yet in a memo Buckley released last week, he argued that New Hampshire deserves to lead off Democrats’ 2028 nominating calendar because it is a state that fairly tests candidates by making them go face to face with voters.

"'We believe that we should go first because we are a small, purple state with unmatched civic participation. In other words, there is no other state that better meets the efficiency, rigorousness, and fairness criteria needed in our presidential nominating process,' Buckley said.

"'New Hampshire's racial diversity continues to increase, especially among our youngest Granite Staters,' Buckley wrote, adding that New Hampshire has a record of diversity that extends beyond race.

"'We are the only state in the country to elect a woman both governor and senator — which we’ve done multiple times,' Buckley said."

--

¹ Racker's quotes from Virginia DNC member Elaine Kamark on the early state selection process for 2024 were particularly interesting as well. They shed some additional light on the hours before Biden released his letter on the 2024 calendar:

"'I think New Hampshire would have ended up first,' Elaine Kamarck, a Brookings senior fellow who authored Primary Politics and is a veteran member of the committee, told The Nevada Independent. 'Because of the history of New Hampshire and because it’s in the Eastern time zone.'"

 And...

"'We’d been asking for guidance for months, so there was kind of relief,' Kamarck said. 'We didn’t know if the president was going to weigh in or not. So it was kind of like, ‘OK, good. He’s finally made his wishes known.’ Some of us thought that, ‘Well, maybe he just won’t weigh in. You know, maybe it’s up to us.’ But he did.'"

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know what they're looking for.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee met earlier this week and passed a resolution laying out what the party wants in the 4 or 5 early states for 2028.

"Inside the Dems' fight to be 'the new Iowa' and hold the first 2028 primary"

Alex Thompson at Axios pulls back the curtain on the beginning of the Democrats' process to set the 2028 early calendar :

"Democratic Party officials are quietly battling over which state will be the first to vote in the 2028 presidential primary — a fight that's set to break into the open next week, when the officials meet in Minneapolis.

"Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan are currently the frontrunners to be 'the new Iowa,' and lead off the 2028 Democratic primary season, according to several people familiar with the Rules and Bylaws committee that will determine the order."

--

Noteworthy: First of all, I don't know how much "fight[ing]" or "battling" there is over the calendar at this point. As Thompson notes much further on in the story than was probably necessary, the process is at the starting line. If there are fights now, then that portends a likely ugly process. It won't be. It will be politics as it usually is. State parties will jockey for early spots, candidates will push their preferences (directly or through proxies/supporters on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and those members of the panel will have their own opinions as well. There will be some push and pull, and things may get heated along the way -- they probably won't (although it may be reported that way) -- but the calendar is a collective action problem the party's new (as of the 2024 cycle) process has already resolved once. 

As for "the new Iowa," well, Michigan was already the new Iowa in 2024. The Great Lakes state became the midwestern state in the early window. And, yes, South Carolina was the new first (sanctioned) state in the process as well. Would Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan not be vying to be the new South Carolina? 

And finally, this passage from Thompson's piece merits a response:

"For decades, Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary kicked off the presidential primary season.

"But the order of contests has become a free-for-all since Iowa botched its caucuses in 2020, and then-President Biden changed the calendar in 2024 to favor his re-election bid by moving up the primary in Biden-friendly South Carolina."

I don't know that Iowa's caucus experience in 2020 triggered the reexamination of the calendar. It was a part of it, but the DNC was already moving in the direction of diversifying the early calendar and opening the process up for 2024. The party voluntarily moved toward an orderly process -- not a free-for-all -- whereby Iowa and New Hampshire (and Nevada and South Carolina) no longer received (near) automatic waivers to hold early contests. Rather, all state parties -- those that wanted to anyway -- could pitch the party on being early. 

And then as now, the early favorites to win those slots were states that were mostly already early. That's the story here: that Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan are the states being talked about now as the possible first Democratic primary state for 2028. All were granted early spots during the last cycle.

Bottom line: there is a long way to go, folks.

--

More on the 2028 presidential primary calendar here and here.

"South Carolina Democrats will fight to keep 'first in the nation' primary status in 2028"

Alexandra Marquez weighs in at NBC News on the uncertainty of the early 2028 primary calendar for Democrats:

"Three years before 2028, the outlines of the next presidential race are already growing clearer, with large fields of potential primary candidates in both parties already making early moves.

"But one big thing is very much unclear for Democrats: which state will vote first when the primaries start."

...

"In South Carolina, which was tapped to host the Democrats’ first sanctioned primary for the first time in 2024, state Democrats are adamant they will be first in line on the primary calendar again in 2028.

"'Oh yeah, we’re first,' South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain told NBC News at the party’s headquarters in Columbia earlier this month. She added, 'South Carolina is first. That means the South is first. So we’re gonna continue to fight for that.'"

--

Noteworthy: Early reporting on the South Carolina angle of the 2028 primary calendar story has come to lean so heavily on comments from Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC, 6th) that they have almost become conventional wisdom:

"Clyburn told reporters at his annual fish fry he’s not concerned about South Carolina being the lead off contest, after the Democratic Party kicked off its 2024 presidential nominating process with the Palmetto State.

“'I never asked for anything more than keep us in the pre-primary window which covers a whole month before the primary starts,' Clyburn said. 'So I think it’s important to the party for that to be the case. Whether it be one, two, three or four, I don’t care.'”

But the resulting picture -- a kind of "we're just glad to be here" sentiment -- is maybe a bit too deferential to Clyburn. There are other perspectives among state Democrats on the "should South Carolina be first?" discussion as Chair Spain demonstrates. 

However, would one expect her to say anything less at this stage of the process? Of course she is going to advocate for the Palmetto state going first in 2028. But this is the first break (of sorts) from that South Carolina conventional wisdom that has developed in the reporting on the primary calendar. 

"South Carolina's early state status is far from secure. But 2028 Dems are going anyway."

Note that the title of this piece changed from when it was first released via RSS. It is now published under the headline "Democrats in South Carolina are barely pretending they're not already running for president."

--

Politico's Brakkton Booker and Elena Schneider report on prospective 2028 Democrats' travel to traditional early states (and shuffling the calendar moving forward):

"South Carolina Democrats know their grip on the top spot is tenuous, with traditional early states like Iowa and New Hampshire eager to reclaim their lead-off position, and others — like North Carolina and Georgia — seeking to emerge as new states to consider. And it comes as there’s been a major reshuffling on a powerful panel at the Democratic National Committee that has huge sway over the presidential nominating process."

...

"But moving the order of primary states is easier said than done. North Carolina is hamstrung by state law from moving its date, and Democrats would need the GOP-controlled legislature to agree to any changes. DNC members have also emphasized smaller states to allow lesser-known candidates to build followings.

“'The most powerful force in the universe is inertia, so South Carolina is probably the favorite to stay just because of that,' said an incoming member of the committee granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. 'Every state has a chance to be first, but I do think we have to come into this with a degree of realism.'”

--

Noteworthy: In 2022 the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) had a short checklist for states vying for one of the several early calendar slots for 2024:

• Diversity
• Competitiveness
• Feasibility

The first two, to be sure, were and are more than aspirational or symbolic. Diversity of the Democratic primary electorate in a given (prospective early) state was always important to the DNCRBC when the calendar decisions were made in 2022. General election competitiveness was less so. Both paled in comparison to the unavoidable third item on the list: feasibility. A state cannot be early if decision makers cannot get a date change made. That is all the more difficult when 1) Republicans control all of some of the levers of power in state government (whether governor, secretary of state or state legislature) and/or 2) there is no Republican buy-in at the state and/or national level. And conversations between Democrats and Republicans at the national, much less the state, level are not apparent at this time ahead of decisions on the 2028 calendar. 

It is early yet for 2028, and those conversations can happen at any time, but there is no evidence they have or are in the offing at this point. And that is food for thought as the media treatments of this topic gain steam. Feasibility matters.

"[I]t seems that New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada will remain early"

CNN's Zachary Wolf and Isaac Dovere recently chatted about the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination:

"What are the early states to watch?

"WOLF: Biden forced a lot of changes in the primary process for Democrats, including Iowa not really being an early state for them anymore. What’s the early map going to look like?

"DOVERE: Biden did push through some changes, especially making South Carolina first. But some of the other changes, particularly moving Iowa off of the early-state calendar, were very much supported by a lot of other people in the Democratic National Coalition. We’ll see what the calendar ends up looking like. The chances that Iowa gets back to a primary position seem very low. That said, the chances that New Hampshire gets back to the first-in-the-nation spot that actually is required by New Hampshire state law seem much higher.

"We won’t know the full answer on the calendar until at least sometime in 2026, and there is a lot of wrangling and back-and-forth among the states and among the DNC members. What is definitely true, though, is that no matter what arrangement will come, it seems that New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada will remain early. Where exactly they are is a little bit unclear."

--

Noteworthy: It is very early in the 2028 process, but at this juncture, FHQ agrees with Dovere's assessment. It does seem like Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are "safe" in the early window for 2028. But again, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has yet to formally sit down to even begin the process of hearing pitches from state parties that want their state's primary or caucus included in the early lineup for 2028, much less actually settling on which states will fill those slots. That heavy lifting likely will not start taking place until after August and more likely toward the end of 2025/beginning of 2026. The early window for 2028 may ultimately come to look similar to 2020 (sans Iowa), but that is far from guaranteed this far out.

Is confusion inevitable in the Nevada Republican Party primary/caucus situation?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• A belated look at the recent DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting. Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire stole the headlines -- and for good reason -- but there was some other interesting stuff that transpired in St. Louis. Some thoughts on Iowa, New Hampshire and all the rest: All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

In the wake of the filing deadlines passing for both the Nevada presidential primary and the Republican caucuses in the Silver state over the previous two days, Natasha Korecki of NBC News had a piece up about the confusion the two contests may create for Nevada Republican voters next year. 

It is not the first time the notion of voter confusion has arisen in the context of the double dip elections taking place in Nevada in 2024. But it does raise some questions. Why are Nevada voters different from other voters who have encountered similar two-pronged processes like this in past cycles? Why (or maybe how) is the Nevada primary and caucus situation different from states that have had both previously? Is any of this primary/caucus conundrum in the Silver state unique at all? 

First of all, FHQ is of a mind that Nevada voters are not substantively different from voters in, say, Nebraska or Washington. Both had Democratic caucuses for allocating delegates and a state-run beauty contest primary as recently as 2016. Voters did not appear to be anymore confused than usual at the process in either case. Sure, more folks showed up to participate in the primaries than the caucuses, but that is not a new feature of the caucus/convention process. They are low turnout affairs by nature (if not design). 

Yet, one difference between those two sets of contests from 2016 and the Nevada situation in 2024 is their timing, or rather the time between the two events. Nebraska and Washington Democrats had March caucuses before May beauty contest primaries. That two months buffer (and the sequencing!) was different than what will take place in Nevada next February. Only two days will separate the state-run beauty contest primary on February 6 from the Republican party-run caucuses on February 8. And the binding contest will follow the beauty contest. So maybe that is a little different. 

But still, confusion? Texas Democrats did not seem to be muddling through the Texas two-step all those years. For much of the post-reform era Democrats in the Lone Star state held a primary and caucuses on the same day. The primary allocated about two-thirds of the delegates while the post-primary caucuses allocated the remainder later in the evening. [Incidentally, while the Texas two-step died on the Democratic side starting with the 2016 cycle, Republicans in the state have revived it and will use it again in 2024.] Voters seemed to make it through that process. Delegates were allocated. And all of it happened with no buffer between the two contests. 

But the real difference between Nevada in 2024 and some other earlier similar examples is that there will be interesting cross-pressures in the Silver state next year. Some debate-qualifying candidates will be urging Nevadans (at least to some extent) to participate in the primary for which they already have a ballot in the mail. Others, and it is most of the big-name candidates, will be trying to get out the vote in the caucuses two days later. 

That is different than previous examples. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were on the primary and caucus ballots in Nebraska and Washington. Barack Obama and Clinton were both participants in both phases of the Texas two-step in March 2008. None of those candidates were working against another group of candidates who were only vying for delegates or attention in one or the other of the two contests in a given double dip state. 

What this Nevada Republican situation is akin to is like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary in 2008. Under rules new to the DNC that cycle, candidates were not supposed to campaign in states like Michigan (or Florida for that matter) that held unsanctioned primaries earlier than allowed by the national parties. But some Democratic candidates -- Obama and John Edwards among others -- went a step further and removed their names from the January 15 ballot in the Great Lakes state. Clinton did not. The former group asked their supporters to vote for "uncommitted" in the primary in the hopes of swinging some delegates in any subsequent fight, but that Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot had some impact on turnout. 

And it is likely that the split filings across contests will have some impact on turnout in the Nevada beauty contest primary. But that dampening effect and any felt by the primary being a beauty contest may be masked to some extent by the convenience of voting by mail on a ballot provided to all registrants. Even without that masking effect, the turnout is very likely to be higher, if not much higher, in the primary than in the caucus. And participation in the primary may even be a drag on later caucus participation. 

That may or may not also be by design. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the money primary, Nikki Haley scored a coup in winning the support of Florida-based investor, Keith Rabois, who shifted from backing DeSantis to the former UN ambassador.
• Big donors in Tennessee remain on the sidelines, but Donald Trump tops the field in money raised in the Volunteer state followed by South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
• There are only so many statewide endorsements to go around in Iowa and one of the big ones, Attorney General Brenna Bird. has thrown her support behind former President Trump.
• TIM PAC, the super PAC supporting the White House bid by Senator Scott nixed its $40 million ad buy in three early states.
• Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) may still be entertaining a challenge to President Biden for the Democratic nomination, but he appears to be focused on the same unsanctioned contest that Robert Kennedy Jr. was eyeing, New Hampshire. Yeah, the one where the president will not be on the ballot. He has already missed the filing deadline in Nevada.

--

Recent posts:

In Nevada, a choice between a symbolic win and delegates

The incentives of chasing delegates in California's Republican primary

The 14th amendment and presidential primary ballot eligibility

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

In Nevada, a choice between a symbolic win and delegates

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• Over the weekend, The New York Times had yet another "Trump is working his connections in state parties to affect the delegate rules" stories. The article and others of its ilk keep falling into the same trap in considering the depth of Team Trump's efforts without contextualizing either it or the lacking outreach from other campaigns. It was not all bad, but we go over the good, the bad and the ugly from the piece. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

Today is the filing deadline in Nevada for the state's newly established presidential primary. It comes a day after filing closed for the Republican caucuses in the Silver state. 

Since the Nevada Republican Party is prohibiting candidates who file in the primary to also file in the caucuses, the nearly overlapping filing deadlines offered a split screen comparison of sorts. Some candidates -- Mike Pence and Tim Scott -- opted for the primary while others -- Donald Trump, Doug Burgum, Chris Christie, Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis -- have filed in the caucuses. 

[It is not clear that Nikki Haley filed or not in the caucuses, but if the former UN ambassador has not yet filed in the caucuses, then the primary will be the only remaining option.]

The choice confronting the campaigns is one between a symbolic win in the primary two days before the Nevada Republican caucuses or of claiming some share of a small pool of delegates on the line in the February 8 caucuses. That the campaigns standing behind known quantities like the former vice president and a current US senator from South Carolina (one with significant financial backing) opted to forgo even a small share of delegates suggests something about the state of their campaigns and their thinking about how Nevada fits into the broader 2024 Republican presidential nomination process. 

For starters, the qualifying threshold for delegates in the Nevada caucuses is relatively low. "All candidates who receive the percentage of vote required for one or more delegates" qualify under the standing rules of the Nevada Republican Party. The state party suggests that is roughly 4.5 percent.¹ And all things considered, that is a pretty low bar. 

Yet, Pence and Scott have taken a pass on any of those delegates by filing in the beauty contest state-run primary. That strongly suggests that both campaigns view the odds of succeeding in the caucuses as long and/or that, even set so low, the qualifying threshold is too high. There are also alternative ways of looking at either of those. The odds can be seen as long because the rules put in place for the caucuses by the state party appear to advantage Donald Trump. As for the delegate threshold, it may be less that the bar is too high and more that the payoff is so low in the Silver state. After all, there are just 26 delegates at stake that will be divided among the qualifying candidates. 

Through that lens, the gamble may be worth it to Pence and Scott. A win in a statewide primary -- even a beauty contest -- with likely more participants than the caucuses later in the week may grab some attention. That may be worth something. But what exactly that something equates to is harder to pin down and likely destined to quickly dissipate. The effects may not wear off before the caucuses two days later, but will certainly trail off well in advance of the next contest, the South Carolina Republican primary on February 24. 

Is that worth more than taking some small share of 26 total delegates in Nevada? 

In the very short term (next February), maybe. But long term, probably not. At some point candidates are going to have to start treating the race for the Republican presidential nomination as a process to keep delegates away from Trump. Delegates, after all, are the currency of the process in the end. And whether a campaign views Nevada as a lock for Trump or not, it is probably a mistake to cede any delegates. 

However, it is worth pointing out that the Nevada Republican caucuses of 2024 are not some Harkin-in-Iowa-1992 scenario. Pence and Scott may have opted out of the Silver state contest where candidates are vying for delegates, but others have filed for the caucuses. And that may be enough to trim some delegates from Trump's total in the state. There is no winner-take-all trigger, so there is only so much that the former president can run up the score on the rest of the field. 

Still, proportional states are where the field has to collectively dent Trump's haul.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the filing primary, Tim Scott filed in South Carolina today ahead of the deadline there at the end of the month. And DeSantis opted for the Nevada caucuses on the last day of filing.
• The AP has a go at a Trump-bolsters-his-campaign-in-Iowa story. Folks are making the obvious comparisons to Trump's 2015-16 efforts in Iowa, but here is another: this slow build feels a bit like the pace of the Romney operation the Hawkeye state in 2011. There are differences, of course. Iowa was never really a good fit for Romney in the 2012 cycle. That is not exactly the case for Trump in the state in 2023. But polling suggests a weaker Trump advantage there than nationally. And while Trump 2023 may be emphasizing Iowa differently, he has not exactly pushed all of his chips into the Iowa-or-bust pot. ...because he does not have to. 
• Over in the money primary, Q3 reports continue to be released. President Biden and the DNC jointed posted a $71 million figure for the period ending on September 30. North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum raised $3 million in July-September. Former Vice President Pence raked in $3.3 million for the quarter but debt accrued to this point is starting to be a drag.

--

¹ There is some wiggle room on that figure based on the full language of the rule, but that is a story for a separate post. Plus, how NVGOP interprets its own rules matters in this context regardless of any variation in interpretation of the qualifying threshold.

--

Recent posts:

The incentives of chasing delegates in California's Republican primary

The 14th amendment and presidential primary ballot eligibility

About that debate last night...

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Nevada GOP Primary/Caucus Lawsuit Shot Down in Carson City

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• Iowa Republicans signaled back in May that they were eyeing a January landing spot for their 2024 caucuses and that the decision was likely to be made at their July state central committee meeting. All of that came to pass this past weekend, but what do the decision and the timing say about the rest of the 2024 presidential primary calendar? All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

The Nevada Independent has the latest on the Nevada Republican Party effort to end the newly established presidential primary in the Silver state:

"A Carson City judge has denied a motion by the Nevada Republican Party to block the state from holding a presidential primary election next year in favor of a caucus.

"Judge James Russell issued the ruling from the bench Monday, denying the state party’s lawsuit filed in May challenging a 2021 law moving the state away from a presidential caucus to a primary election."

And NVGOP Chair Michael McDonald indicated late Monday that the party is "prepared for a long fight." But the question continues to be why? The lawsuit and any prolonged legal battle over the primary are entirely unnecessary. 

Don't want the primary? Don't use it. [Nevada Republicans retain the right to opt out of the state-run presidential primary.]

Don't want a Republican primary at all? Don't have the candidates file for it. [The quickest and easiest route out of the primary and to the caucuses that the state party apparently wants is to encourage candidates who actually want delegates from the state to file for the party-run caucuses and not the primary. There will only be a Nevada Republican presidential primary if more than one candidate files with the state.]

The bigger news than the inevitable flop of the lawsuit in the Silver state is confirmation that the Nevada Republican Party intends to hold caucuses in 2024. The lawsuit suggested that that was the case, but the party never really came out and said that. They did over the weekend via their spokesperson in a CNN piece about the Iowa caucuses date. And Chair McDonald further confirmed that intention in his comments on Monday to The Nevada Independent:

McDonald added that the party still intends to hold a caucus in February to allocate the state’s presidential delegates, and is now seeking to avert a state-run primary election to avoid confusing voters and prevent a “huge waste of taxpayer money.”

The question is where on the calendar do these proposed Nevada Republican caucuses end up? Saturday, February 10 -- after the state-run primary -- is a likely destination. That would carve out a spot for the caucuses a little more than two weeks after the (still unsettled but increasingly likely) January 23 New Hampshire primary and two weeks before the South Carolina Republican primary. 

...

Yes, it was inevitable that Republicans would try to use the Democratic National Committee calendar changes against Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. The candidates have been quick to do that in the Granite state. And New Hampshire Democrats are fretting about what that portends for the general election. 

The concern? According to The Messenger, independent voters venturing over to the Republican primary and staying with the party in the fall.

The concern from some New Hampshire Democrats is that independent voters will participate in a more crowded and important GOP primary over the Democratic contest, then stick with the GOP in the general election.

“My biggest fear is that if they become invested in participating in the Republican primary, it's going to be much more difficult to pull them back over for the general election,” said Jim Demers, the state’s former House Democratic Whip. “That’s something we’ve never had to deal with before.”

But the thing is that most of the independents lean toward one party or the other and will behave that way in the general election regardless of the primary in which they opt to participate. However, might that matter if the pure independents opt for the competitive Republican primary in January next year and stick with the Republican nominee in November? It could if Biden dips below his seven point margin in New Hampshire from 2020 in 2024. 

Of course, New Hampshire Democrats have been making this argument since December. Here is what FHQ said then...

Furthermore, they argue that those same independents may stick with the GOP in a general election, potentially tipping the balance against Democrats in a narrowly divided state, and by extension, possibly costing the party Senate control and/or electoral votes.

All of that is true. Those things could happen. But it could also be that President Biden seeks reelection, ends up running largely unopposed, and New Hampshire independents flock to the competitive Republican presidential primary anyway. Is it a gamble for the president and the DNC to potentially irk a sliver to a lot of New Hampshire voters by coming down hard on the state Democratic Party for fighting to maintain its traditional position? It undoubtedly would be if it is not already. But are independents, Democratic-leaning or otherwise, going to vote for a Republican nominee in the Trump mold (or Trump himself) over Biden because of the primary? The answer is maybe (or if one is in New Hampshire, YES!). But that seems to be a gamble the president and those around him are willing to take in this fight. There are very few scenarios where New Hampshire's four electoral votes serve as the tipping point in the electoral college. It is possible although less probable than other, bigger states. And neither New Hampshire US Senate seat is up until 2026. Is that gamble worth it? Time will tell that tale.

The bottom line is that this New Hampshire thing is going to go on for a while with the DNC. And Republicans will try to use that against Democrats in the Granite state. But the battle is over a decreasingly small sliver of pure independents.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• More FEC data is going to become available this week, so it will be a good time to look at the money primary. Nikki Haley's numbers are in and her campaign (not counting affiliated groups) pulled in $7 million in the second quarter. [Trump had already reported a $35 million quarter and DeSantis $20 million.]
• Billionaire North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum will not have trouble raising money but he may have some issues getting on the debate stage next month. The donor threshold has the governor offering $20 gift cards in exchange for a one dollar donation. 
• In another campaign finance innovation (but one not necessarily aimed at debate entry), Vivek Ramaswamy is paying ten percent of donations that participants in Vivek's Kitchen Cabinet raise.
• Not surprisingly, it will be an eventful and event-filled summer in Iowa. 
• In the endorsement primary, Ron DeSantis picked up the first state senate endorsement in New Hampshire. Senator Regina Birdsell, who backed Marco Rubio in 2016, has lined up behind another Floridian for 2024.

...

On this date...

...in 2020, Louisiana held its twice-delayed presidential primary. Biden and Trump won in their respective contests.

--

Recent posts:

Outside groups working against Trump

A different kind of non-endorsement in the Republican presidential race

A mid-week Invisible Primary Roundup

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

The difference in how the national parties approve delegate selection plans

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• Unless Georgia Democrats are planning a party-run primary, then the presidential primary in the Peach state is not in limbo. It is set for March 12. That reality was missed on folks who misinterpreted the Georgia-related comments at the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting last week. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

It has been unusual since news broke over the weekend that the South Carolina Republican Party had set the date of the presidential primary for 2024 that stories keep adding something to the effect of "the primary will be on that date if the [delegate selection] plan gets approved by the RNC." First, the decision by Palmetto state Republicans is rules-compliant, so there is not really any mystery here. The primary will be on February 24 unless the state party changes its mind, something that seems unlikely. 

Second, there is, I suppose, a process of review on the Republican side, but Rule 16(f) filings come in so late -- the deadline is October 1 for state parties to submit plans -- that a review and approval process like what the Democratic Party does publicly over the course of months every four years is just not possible after the deadline. That is not a judgment of the Republican process. Rather, it is a description. Republican state parties submit plans and they are either compliant or they are not. 

Clearly, state parties can consult with the national party ahead on time on these matters. After all, it recently came out that the Michigan Republican Party had been in consultation with the RNC on its 2024 plans. But the state parties do not have to do that. Virgin Islands Republicans did not strategically select a Thursday for their caucuses in 2016, for example. No, they missed the deadline for plan submission in 2015 and were forced to use the same rules that governed their process from the previous cycle. That included the date, March 10. Obviously, there was no consultation there. The 2012 rules were just made to carry over to 2016 under the RNC rules. 

None of this means much in the grand scheme of things. It is just that the repeated mentions of "if approved" coming out with the South Carolina news is, well, new in the context of Republican state parties creating plans. It simply has not been a regular part of reporting on these things in the past. 

...

Sure, Nevada Republicans could theoretically hold a primary and a caucus next year. But there are questions about whether that would conflict with RNC rules. The answering of those questions seems moot anyway. There will only be a Republican primary in Nevada next year if more than one candidate files to be on the state-run primary ballot. And if Republicans in the Silver state allocate delegates through a caucus process, then candidates will be drawn to that and not the primary anyway. If Nevada Republicans want a caucus, then they will have caucuses and caucuses alone. 

...

Folks in Florida should just go ahead and move the primary in the Sunshine state up to November or December sometime. If Florida Senator Rick Scott jumps into the race, then there is going to need to be some mechanism to winnow the field of candidates from the Sunshine state alone to see who among them can run in the remaining primaries. 

FHQ is kidding, of course, but four is a lot of Floridians potentially running for 2024. Yes, Scott has again denied that he is seeking the presidential nomination. But even if the consideration is real and a run ultimately is not, it all speaks to a certain level of continued tension in the informal Republican nomination process. It is not a breakdown, per se, but folks continue to enter the race (or consider entering it). And that is despite signals that the path would be narrow at best. Trump is formidable, but not that formidable and DeSantis is well-positioned. Together, the two capture around three-quarters of support out there in public opinion surveys. 

Still, there is enough uncertainty -- around Trump's legal issues and DeSantis's supposed stumbles in the early days of the campaign -- to fuel consideration of a run if not an official bid from others. And a big part of that is that there has not been a rush of elite level support for either main candidate. Elected officials and big donors not massing behind either Trump or DeSantis is one way to look at that. Another is that those same folks are quietly in search of alternatives behind the scenes, urging prospective candidates to run. This seems to have been the case with Chris Sununu. He was going to run. Until he was not. And part of the story that made it look like Sununu was going to join the field was that he was receiving positive feedback on the possibility of a bid. However, the New Hampshire governor overrode those signals and remained on the sidelines. 

It could be that Rick Scott sees a path. But it could also be that he is also hearing from folks who are encouraging a run. Normally, a party might collectively try to tamp down on that. The signals, for example, may discourage bids when two main candidates are seemingly sucking up most of the oxygen in a race. But the 2024 Republican invisible primary is not normal. There is a certain cacophony to it all that makes reading the signals tougher for prospective candidates. 

Or it makes it easy to choose the signals that those prospective candidates want to hear. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Will Hurd just launched his presidential bid. The former Texas congressman may not be the longest of long shots currently in the race, but his odds of making the debate stage, much less succeeding beyond that, are slim. So it was maybe a surprise that right out of the gate on day one Hurd essentially sealed his fate on participating in any upcoming debate. He has refused to the sign the RNC pledge to support the eventual nominee. 
• The Tampa Bay Times has a retrospective look at the first month of the DeSantis campaign.
• Who does not love a good diner campaign story? Steven Porter at The Boston Globe sizes up the vocal Trump critics in New Hampshire from the Red Arrow Diner. 

...

On this date...

...in 2003, and with nary a scream, Vermont Governor Howard Dean officially launched his bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 2019, former Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak joined an already huge field of Democrats seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. 

...in 2020, Kentucky and New York held pandemic delayed presidential primaries.

--

Recent posts:

Nevada responds to State Republican Party suit against the new presidential primary

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Nevada responds to State Republican Party suit against the new presidential primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• There are two operative questions that have yet to be answered in the New Hampshire Democratic Party's calendar standoff with the Democratic National Committee. No decisions made by the Rules and Bylaws Committee in Minneapolis last week changed those questions. But of course it was not reported that way. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

The always great Nevada Independent has the scoop on the state of Nevada's response to the recent lawsuit filed by the Republican Party in the Silver state to stop the presidential primary. Here is the most important factor in all of this (and something FHQ has pointed out already):

"Under the 2021 law, the state will hold a presidential primary election for both major political parties on Feb. 6, 2024, as long as more than one candidate has filed to run."

The lawsuit is unnecessary. If Nevada Republicans want to opt out of the primary, then they can. If candidates want to chase actual delegates, then they will file, under whatever conditions the Nevada Republican Party sets, to run in the caucuses. There will not be a primary unless more than one presidential campaign wastes its time, money and energy in filing to run in what would be a meaningless beauty contest primary. Without the Republican primary, there will be no potential conflict for Nevada Republicans with Republican National Committee rules. 

The short version of this is that as long as one or fewer candidates file for the Republican presidential primary in Nevada, there will not be one. There have already been some innovative filing proposals in party-run processes this cycle. Perhaps Nevada Republicans could make it a part of the caucus filing for candidates to not file for the state-run primary?

Again, the lawsuit is unnecessary.

...

Henry Gomez at NBC News was nice enough to chat to FHQ about the recent South Carolina Republican presidential primary decision. He and Matt Dixon have a thoroughly reported piece up about it. To some degree, the pair play up the gap in the calendar that South Carolina Republicans are seeking to take advantage of. 

There was always going to be a February gap in the primary calendar after the changes on the Democratic side for 2024. But up until this past weekend, the question seemed to be whether Republicans in the Palmetto state (and those in Nevada, for that matter) would jump into January or settle in early February. In other words, if South Carolina and/or Nevada Republicans filled that February gap, then the expectation was that it would be on the front end. However, South Carolina Republicans surprised in gravitating toward the end of the gap instead. And there is a sizable space between a New Hampshire primary hypothetically on January 22 and the South Carolina Republican primary on February 24. That, again, gives Nevada Republicans quite a bit of runway for scheduling their caucuses and noticeably decompresses the beginning of the calendar.

Good piece from Gomez and Dixon. 

...

From the endorsement primary...

• Former Vice President Mike Pence picked up the support of Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb. It is Pence's biggest endorsement to date, and although it comes from a later primary state, it is a nice bit of homegrown support.
• It is funny. Just last week FHQ noted that Senator Tim Scott's efforts at home were potentially crowding out non-Trumps in the Palmetto state. Well, Ron DeSantis is heading back to South Carolina for another visit and town hall, and the Florida governor has rolled out an endorsement list that includes 15 South Carolina state legislators -- 11 from the House of Representative and four state senators. It is not what Scott has, but the support is not nothing either (a little more than 10 percent of the Republicans in the state legislature). In a state where the big names are either running for the Republican presidential nomination or have endorsed Trump, these state legislative endorsements are important signals. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Former Texas Representative Will Hurd (R) launched his oft-teased presidential bid.
• Doug Burgum has not been shy about tapping into his personal wealth to fund his campaign. The North Dakota governor has been the biggest spender in the Republican presidential field since he officially kicked off his run earlier in June. 
• Big donors in Illinois Republican circles are pushing former Prairie state Governor Bruce Rauner (R) to back former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. But other forces within the broader party network in the Land of Lincoln are backing DeSantis. It is an interesting proxy battle in a state deeper into the primary calendar, and it notably does not seem to include Trump.

--

Recent posts:

One more quirk in the scheduling of the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

Are Iowa and New Hampshire likely to face RNC penalties?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• South Carolina Republicans made a move over the weekend that is pretty atypical for early states. The party in a way disarmed and retreated on the calendar. Yes, the primary in the Palmetto state is still among the earliest, but it is unusual for one state to yield an earlier position to another. More on that at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

As an aside in the discussion of the South Carolina Republican primary being set at FHQ Plus, I closed by taking a big picture view of the likely early primary calendar on the Republican side:

Would the Republican National Committee prefer that primary season kick off in February as intended? Yes, but given that the Democratic rules pushed the Michigan primary into late February and nudged South Carolina on the Democratic side up to the beginning of the month, the start point creeping two weeks into January is not that bad on the whole. 

The four early Republican carve-out states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — have, under RNC rules, a window of a month in front of the next earliest contest in which to schedule their own primaries and caucuses. If the Iowa Republican caucuses do, in fact, end up on Monday, January 15, then those contests will have fit within a 43 day window before the Michigan primary, (maybe) the next earliest contest. And given the complications the Democratic calendar changes introduced for Republicans, again, it is not that bad. And it hardly counts as “chaos.”

That scenario -- that Iowa's Republican caucuses and the New Hampshire presidential primary would be outside of that one month granted by RNC rules to the early states -- brought a question into my inbox. Basically, does that set Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire up for the super penalty? After all, both would seemingly be too early by the RNC definition that far into January.

FHQ would contend that the answer is no.

There was a time -- back in 2008 -- that both New Hampshire and South Carolina were docked half of their delegates for violating the timing rules.¹ But the language in the relevant rule, Rule 16(c)(1) now, was different then when it was Rule 15(b)(1)(i). Instead of a month before the next earliest contest, both New Hampshire and South Carolina were treated just like any other state for 2008, and could not conduct their primaries before the first Tuesday in February. 

However, there was no out for them in the rule. The 2008 Republican National Convention added a carve out for the pair of early primary states (for future cycles) but without specific reference to the actions of other, would-be rogue states, the non-carve-outs. Yet, that was after the fact. When Florida and Michigan crashed into January for 2008, it had the effect of pushing both New Hampshire and South Carolina up. Michigan triggered the first-in-the-nation law in New Hampshire, and Florida's move violated the first-in-the-South position that Republicans in the Palmetto state had carved out for themselves in the calendar over time. Republicans in all four states plus Wyoming ended up taking a 50 percent hit to their national convention delegations. 

As for the states' treatment under the current rule? 

FHQ would argue that they are fine. Yes, the excerpt above from over at Plus noted that Michigan is the next earliest contest, but there is an argument that can be made about the South Carolina Democratic primary being the next earliest state. It was the Democratic National Committee moving the South Carolina primary to the first position for 2024 that ultimately will push New Hampshire and Iowa into January. But the rule is silent on whether it is events on just the Republican primary or the overall calendar of contests for both parties that might serve as the backend of that window of time in which the early states can schedule contests. 

And it will be much easier politically to blame Democrats for contests that are too early than state-level Republicans. Yet, none of this is not official. And until Iowa and New Hampshire are in place on the calendar on the Republican side and the national party has responded, it is an open question. But it is pretty easy to chart out where that would likely go. 

...

In the travel primary...

The other day, FHQ referred to Nevada as "the redheaded stepchild of the early primary calendar." That has meant a number of things over the years since the Silver state was added to the early window of the presidential nomination process. Poorly implemented caucuses. Talk of replacement in the early calendar lineup. But by far the most consistent aspect of this phenomenon is how Nevada measures up to its early state peers. The Nevada Independent tells a familiar tale: Nevada in 2023 lags far behind Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in candidate visits so far in the cycle. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• Team DeSantis is attempting to make inroads in Super Tuesday Massachusetts. 
• "There’s no chance 'on God’s green earth' he’s [California Governor Gavin Newsom's] running for president in 2024." But maybe campaigning alongside the president is prep for invisible primary 2028.
• The candidates, campaigns and affiliated groups will have to raise it in the money primary, but it looks like Republicans are on pace to spend $1 billion in the 2024 presidential primary cycle. 
• Americans for Prosperity are already knocking on doors in first-in-the-nation New Hampshire.

--

¹ Iowa and Nevada were both exempt without mention in the rule because neither selected nor allocated national convention delegates at their precinct caucuses.

--

Recent posts:

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

Sunday Series: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

[From FHQ Plus] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 

South Carolina's move greatly reduces uncertainty on the 2024 presidential primary calendar

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• A thorough contextualization of the decision by South Carolina Republicans to schedule the party's presidential primary for late February next year, plus another envelope-pushing Republican delegate selection plan that quietly slipped under the radar over the weekend. All the details at FHQ Plus.

If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.

In Invisible Primary: Visible today...

...

The big news out of the Palmetto state over the weekend was that the Executive Committee of the South Carolina Republican Party voted to schedule the 2024 presidential primary for February 24.

That significantly lowers the temperature on 2024 calendar “chaos” moving forward. With the South Carolina Republican primary in place toward the end of February, that gives Nevada Republicans a substantial runway to land somewhere in the first three weeks of the month. That also means one less contest to potentially compete for calendar space with Iowa and New Hampshire in January. 

There have been those outside of this site who have built up the notion of looming uncertainty with respect to the 2024 calendar, but breathless stories of rogue calendar maneuvering just has not made chaos materialize. It has not. That is not to say that there will not be drama down the stretch as the last calendar pieces fall into place, but it will be muted and all hinges on basically one question: 

On what date does the Iowa Democratic vote-by-mail presidential preference vote end? 

It could be in violation of DNC rules in February and still not affect the beginning of the Republican calendar. That preference vote could end on or after Super Tuesday and it would not change what seems likely. It is only in the event that the Iowa Democratic preference vote ends in January (and probably specifically either on in-person caucus night or merely ahead of the spot New Hampshire is eyeing) that things would turn problematic. 

In any event, there is so much more over at FHQ Plus about the South Carolina move and the early calendar options ahead.

And that triggered a giant update to FHQ's 2024 presidential primary calendar. Both are well worth checking out.

...

Seth Masket does a great job in laying out the balance national parties attempt to maintain in cycles when their incumbent president is seeking reelection. It is a nice departure into the the Democratic race over at Tusk.

...

From around the invisible primary...

Speaking of the nomination race on the incumbent president's side, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s scheduled attendance at PorcFest, a festival of the libertarian-minded New Hampshire Free State Project has drawn a response from New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. 

Kennedy and Williamson have one play in the contest with Joe Biden: win a rogue New Hampshire presidential primary and hope for the best. But one of those two winning in the Granite state next year either outright or relative to expectations against each other (with Biden not on the ballot) is still less likely to hurt Biden than it is to affect the future of the New Hampshire primary in the Democratic Party's early calendar lineup.

It is an outcome that the New Hampshire Democratic Party does not want. So when friction pops up between Kennedy and the state Democratic Party, it is noteworthy. 

--

Recent posts:

Sunday Series: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

[From FHQ Plus] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

DeSantis is flirting with the qualifying thresholds in the delegate game

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email.

See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies.