"South Carolina and Nevada have emerged as the two front-runners to begin the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating calendar, but their jockeying has grown acrimonious and pitted Black and Latino party leaders against each other, according to interviews with more than a dozen party officials involved in the discussions.
"A powerful panel of 49 insiders of the Democratic National Committee is set to meet this week in Washington to sketch out the order of the early-state calendar. The full party body would then vote next month to finalize the choices."
--
Noteworthy: There is a lot in Goldmacher's piece, but let me offer a few thoughts on where the process to select the four or five states that will make up the Democrats' 2028 presidential primary calendar is:
1. Remember, there may or may not be a vote on this matter at the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meeting this week.
2. Still, South Carolina and Nevada seemingly lead for the top slot. And while it is good to have that progress report, it is also true that around this time last year the chatter was about Michigan, New Hampshire and Nevada having a leg up for first-in-the-nation. Things change. But importantly, time is running out (even if the RBC vote is delayed beyond this week).
3a. It is striking that New Hampshire is not in the mix for the first spot. In some ways, the Granite state's absence is understandable. The 2024 experience between the state party in New Hampshire and the national party was, well, rocky and Democrats in the Granite state broke the rules before they ultimately complied with them. That is not to say that this is retribution on the part of the DNC. The support seemingly just is not there on a revamped RBC. And it is notable that workarounds like pairing New Hampshire and Nevada's primaries on the same day are not being floated this time around as in 2022. But New Hampshire remains in good position to be granted a waiver for some spot in the early window, but probably not first.
3b. That New Hampshire appears to be on the outside looking in with respect to the leadoff spot suggests a number of things. That the DNC is up to repeating the same fight for 2028. That the national party feels comfortable that the harsher penalties it is likely to adopt next month in Austin will keep rogue states in check.
4. The fifth spot, according to Goldmacher's sources, seems to be coming down to a couple of blue states (with unified Democratic control of state government) with other states from their respective regions vying for the top spot. In fact, it appears that the fifth slot may hinge on whether South Carolina or Nevada goes first. If South Carolina gets the nod, then New Mexico would join Nevada and give the early window two western states. If it is Nevada, then Virginia would, alongside South Carolina, be a second southern state before Super Tuesday.
5. There appears to be some friction on the RBC about the timing of this decision. Some members of the panel appear poised to vote on the early calendar lineup now while others want to wait. As Goldmacher writes about the former group:
Others believe that waiting could cause a mangled mess, because it would probably mean that candidates would announce their bids before a final calendar had been set.
That really is not a good reason to vote now. Prospective candidates are already doing the things that presidential candidates do before announcing their candidacies. Voting to finalize the calendar now is not going to affect any of that one way or another. Those announcements are an arbitrary point in the process. And regardless, the calendar rules may be set ahead of the announcement window, but the calendar is not set until states and state parties do their part next year. I mean, that is FrontloadingHQ 101.
And as I argued earlier today, waiting until after the midterms likely maximizes the ways in which the pieces available to the RBC can be moved around in the early window. Or alternatively, the states considered "may not be limited all that much by a decision now, but where those pieces could be moved around in the early window of the primary calendar would be greatly constrained."
--
No comments:
Post a Comment