"These Are the 12 States Vying to Kick Off Democrats’ 2028 Contest"

Reid Epstein, Lisa Lerer and Shane Goldmacher at The New York Times shed light on the 12 states that are vying for four or five early slots on the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar:

"Democrats in 12 states have applied to kick off the party’s 2028 presidential primary contest, pushing arguments about race, geography, size, diversity, the rural-urban divide and their relative status as battlegrounds, according to copies of hundreds of pages of application materials reviewed by The New York Times.

"The Democratic National Committee, which will decide the order, has said that one state from each of four regions will hold nominating contests in the so-called early window, the month before Super Tuesday. A bonus fifth state could also be selected. State parties in these places applied:

"West: Nevada and New Mexico

"South: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia

"Midwest: Illinois, Iowa and Michigan

"East: New Hampshire and Delaware."

--

Noteworthy: Fewer state parties submitted applications in 2026 as compared to 2022. Then, there were 20 state and territorial parties that threw their hats in the ring to be considered for early spots on the 2024 Democratic presidential primary calendar. Of those 20 from 2022, eight (8) state parties submitted applications again for the 2028 process (in alphabetical order): Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Four states submitted applications for early window consideration for the first time this time around: New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. 

But why were there fewer applicants in 2026 relative to the process in 2022? 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at 

Some thoughts on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar process now that the deadline for state parties to apply with the DNC has come and gone

"What's in Iowa Democrats' bid to regain first-in-the-nation status?"

Brianne Pfannenstiel at the Des Moines Register weighs in on Iowa Democrats push to return to the early window for 2028:

"In its bid to regain a toehold in early days of the presidential nominating calendar, Iowa Democrats are arguing that the national party cannot build sustainable national majorities without reconnecting to rural America.

"To help the party accomplish that, Iowa Democrats are touting the flexibility they can provide with their caucuses. Faced with several years of upheaval and experimentation, state Democratic Party leaders say they can create a system that is more inclusive and transparent and eliminates many of the pitfalls that bedeviled it in 2020.

“'No other state has the knowledge, infrastructure and history of giving long-shot presidential candidates a fair chance,' party leaders wrote in an application to a panel of the Democratic National Committee that sets the presidential nominating calendar. 'When Iowa is included among the early states, we complement and represent an intentionally well-designed balance of our party’s values and priorities.'"

--

Noteworthy: Iowa Democrats are treading a very fine line. The party obviously wants the caucuses back in the early window (if not to be first again) and are clearly bending over backwards to appear flexible in their application to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC). However, that flexibility in method -- in-person caucusing, voting electronically, voting via telephone, vote-by-mail, etc. -- runs the risk of coming across as less flexible than a muddled a la carte menu of options from which the state party cannot choose (or appears unable to choose).

Why does that distinction matter? It matters because the members of the RBC were adamant in their discussions of what they were after in these applications at their October 2025 meeting. They wanted not only clarity of method, but a demonstration of what worked in the past, what did not and how a state party would mitigate any lingering issues from the past implementation in 2028. 

All is not lost for Iowa Democrats. FHQ finds it hard to imagine the state party not being invited to make a presentation to the RBC for inclusion of its caucuses in the 2028 early window. [More on why soon at FHQ Plus.] So they will have a chance clean up any perception that this is a muddled mess by focusing on what the party could do to enhance what went right with the vote-by-mail party-run primary from 2024.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

"As the DNC chooses the 2028 primary order, NH makes its case for first"

Margie Cullen, New England political reporter for USA Today, has the story on New Hampshire Democrats' push to return to a sanctioned early position on the 2028 presidential primary calendar:

"New Hampshire is planning on holding the first-in-the-nation presidential primary once again in 2028 — whether the rest of the country likes it or not.

"The Democratic National Committee will likely decide the order of its 2028 presidential calendar by the end of the year, and states that wish to hold a presidential primary or caucus before Super Tuesday must submit their plans to the Rules and Bylaws Committee by Jan. 16, 2026.

"New Hampshire has held the first primary since 1920 — even in 2024, when the DNC wanted South Carolina to go first instead. The state is applying to go first again in 2028, but officials have said it doesn’t really matter what the DNC decides: New Hampshire will be going first no matter what, as mandated by a state law passed in 1975.

"'Whether or not it is sanctioned or not, is really the conversation,' New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said."

--

Noteworthy: Chair Buckley pretty much hits the nail on the head with his statement above. New Hampshire will have the first contest. The only catch is if the DNC sanctions that scheduling. 

The only caveat that FHQ would add is that that notion is true under current conditions, where New Hampshire is under unified Republican control (or even divided in some configuration of state government in 2027). But if Democrats sweep back control of state government in the 2026 midterms and install a Democratic secretary of state, then it is worth questioning just how much pressure the DNC might exert on Democrats in elected office in the Granite state to alter the oft-discussed presidential primary law. That is likely the only way in which the above scenario does not play out in some way, shape or form.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

"[Illinois] State Democrats looking to push forward 2028 primary"

Benjamin Cox with WLDS in Jacksonville, IL discusses the Democratic Party of Illinois' efforts to win an early slot on the 2028 presidential primary calendar:

"The Democratic Party of Illinois has formally submitted a proposal to the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee seeking to move Illinois into the party’s early, or “pre-window,” presidential primary calendar.

"Democratic Party of Illinois Chair Lisa Hernandez said Illinois offers a uniquely representative testing ground for Democratic presidential candidates, citing its mix of urban, suburban, and rural communities, as well as its racial, economic, and geographic diversity.

"Hernandez also framed the proposal in national political terms, arguing that Illinois voters have been directly affected by policies of the Trump administration and would scrutinize candidates on issues including healthcare costs, reproductive rights, civil rights, and protections for marginalized communities."

--

Noteworthy: The Illinois bid for an early calendar position in 2028 is not unlike the effort in Virginia. It is a blue state -- even bluer than the Old Dominion -- with unified Democratic control of state government. Thus, a calendar change can easily be facilitated. That is one big factor in the state party's favor. But the question is, does Illinois have the profile of a state that the DNC wants in the early window? 

Blue state applicants, like those state parties in Delaware, Illinois, New Mexico and Virginia, can be thought of as contrasting the virtues of their own attempts with their regional neighbors in the pool that have some history in the early window -- New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina, respectively. And by extension, those efforts may best be viewed as moves for any fifth spot in the DNC's early window on the 2028 presidential primary calendar (should the party opt to squeeze in another early contest).

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

"Virginia Democrats push for earlier spot on 2028 presidential primary calendar"

Brandon Jarvis at Virginia Scope has the story on Old Dominion Democrats' bid to become an early state on the DNC's 2028 presidential primary calendar:

"Most of Virginia’s Democratic congressional delegation is making the case for Virginia to be one of the early primary states in the 2028 presidential race.

...

"In making the case for an earlier primary, party leaders pointed to the state’s election infrastructure and track record.

"'Virginia seeks inclusion in the early nominating process based on its demonstrated capacity to administer a rigorous, fair, and transparent presidential nominating contest and its consistent record of national leadership within the Democratic Party,' the letter continues. 'The Commonwealth conducts elections through a professional, statewide system that is continuously active, uniform across jurisdictions, and capable of supporting a high-profile early contest in compliance with national party rules.'

"The letter also referenced the Virginia Democratic Party’s diversity and how it is more reflective of the national party than competitors like South Carolina, which typically holds an early primary but is a conservative state."

--

Noteworthy: The bid by Virginia Democrats for an early slot on the 2028 presidential primary calendar has something that most of those other state parties vying for the honor from the South do not: newly-minted, unified Democratic control of state government. Democrats in the commonwealth, then, can facilitate a date change today that their counterparts in Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee cannot (and may ultimately not be able to). 

Maybe that will change after the 2026 midterm elections. Perhaps Democrats in neighboring North Carolina and Tennessee will overcome significant (gerrymandered) barriers and win control of state legislatures in one or both states. It is possible, though not probable depending on the extent of any blue wave that could materialize. And Georgia could elect a Democratic secretary of state (the actor that sets the date of the presidential primary in the Peach state). Maybe. 

But Virginia Democrats can make that happen now and that is seemingly why party leaders turned their focus toward contrasting an early primary in the Old Dominion with one from early state stalwart, South Carolina:

"Virginia’s electorate reflects the breadth of the modern Democratic coalition and provides a meaningful test of presidential candidates’ ability to build durable support across diverse constituencies and regions,” the letter states. “Candidates competing in Virginia must demonstrate organizing capacity, coalition-building skill, and governing readiness across urban, suburban, and rural communities that closely resemble the national electorate Democrats must assemble to prevail in a general election." 

Of course, South Carolina Democrats might counter -- in fact, they already have -- that the Palmetto state is a smaller and less expensive state and is the better option in the early window. 

Regardless, it seems worth pointing out that the southern region by far had the most applicants (five [5]) for early slots on the calendar. That does not guarantee that any additional (fifth) slot would go to a state from the region, but it does not hurt. Virginia might -- might -- not be competing with South Carolina.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

"South Carolina Democrats file formal bid to keep first-in-nation presidential primary spot in 2028"

The Post and Courier's Caitlin Byrd takes a look at South Carolina Democrats' application to retain an early window slot in 2028:

"The national Democratic Party’s deadline to submit proposals to be part of the so-called “early window” of states in the 2028 presidential primary field expired Friday with South Carolina Democrats filing a bid they hope keeps it first.

"The competition is expected to be fierce. Other states are submitting their own packages, among them battlegrounds like Michigan and Nevada, and historic leadoffs like Iowa and New Hampshire.

"State Democrats say the Palmetto State has a strong case to remain at the front of the nominating process: It’s a smaller state that makes campaigning here cheaper, meeting voters easier and reaching a turnout bloc long seen as crucial for the party’s future success."

--

Noteworthy: It is interesting. All of the usual arguments are here for South Carolina being first. As state Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain told Byrd:

"We will again make the case that Black, rural, urban and Southern voters must lead the way in the First in the Nation primary."

It is a familiar diversity argument. But one other consistent theme in some of the arguments for a first-in-the-nation 2028 South Carolina primary from folks in and associated with the state party is that they do not see the 2024 primary in the Palmetto state as having been first. No, that is not a reflection of New Hampshire Democrats opting into the noncompliant state-run presidential primary and holding an unsanctioned primary before South Carolina's. Rather, it is a function of 2024 not being a competitive nomination race. 

This argument basically boils down to, "we have not really seen what the nomination system looks like with South Carolina as the lead." In other words, some in and around the state party see 2024 as something of a dry run, but a practice run and not a true test. 

South Carolina DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member Carol Fowler made that argument:

"We haven't seen how it works with South Carolina first, because I truly did not count the last time,” Fowler said of the 2024 contest where Biden faced no serious primary challenger and months later suspended his bid. “We deserve a chance to see if Joe Biden was right."

And so did state party Executive Director Jay Parmley:

"We're making the case that the primary in 2024 was not an open primary,” said state Executive Director Jay Parmley. “There was an incumbent president on the ballot, and the current calendar has not been tested in a true competitive open primary system."

Neither is wrong. But it also is not clear how successful the party will be in advancing that particular part of the case to be first with the national party. 

What South Carolina Democrats continue to have on their side in all of this -- whether being first or merely among the early states -- is that it is among the easiest pieces to move around on the calendar. That may not pay dividends with respect to the competition for the first slot, but it is a feather in Palmetto state Democrats' caps that none of the other southern state party applicants can boast. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

"Nevada Democrats push to host first 2028 primary, highlighting battleground advantages"

Kenzie Margiott at KRNV News 4 (Reno) shares the news of Nevada Democrats officially applying for a spot among the early states on the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar:

"The Nevada State Democratic Party has submitted a proposal to the Democratic National Committee requesting to host the first presidential nominating contest in the 2028 election cycle."

...

"Nevada Democrats argue the state’s majority-minority population, large working-class electorate, and status as a competitive battleground make it a strong testing ground for Democratic presidential candidates. Party leaders also point to Nevada’s relatively small size, two major media markets, and expanded voting access as meeting the DNC’s criteria for rigor, fairness, and efficiency."

--

Noteworthy: Similar to the situation in Michigan, Democrats in Nevada already have an early primary for 2028. In 2021, legislation established a presidential primary in the formerly caucus state and scheduled the election for the first Tuesday in February. That election will occur then unless there is a change triggered by the state legislature. Regardless, neither the state party nor the legislature may be inclined to make a change unless it is to move the primary even further up to secure the first position on the calendar. 

If Nevada does not make the DNC's cut at all, then there may be resistance to changing the current law regardless of what happens in the midterm elections with respect to control of state government. Unlike Michigan, the incumbent governor in the Silver state is a Republican who may balk at any changes to the status quo. [NOTE: Nevada Republicans opted out of the state-run presidential primary in 2024, choosing instead to conduct caucuses.]

--

Nevada Democratic Party statement on the application:

NV DEMS SUBMITS PROPOSAL TO HOST FIRST IN THE NATION PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONTEST

As a majority-minority, working-class, battleground state, Nevada is best poised to nominate a candidate who can win in November

Today, the Nevada State Democratic Party submitted a proposal to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee to be included in the early presidential primary nominating calendar and earn the first spot in 2028.

Nevada State Democratic Party Chair Daniele Monroe-Moreno released the following statement:

“There’s no better proving ground for any Democratic presidential contender than a union-strong, majority-minority, competitive battleground state. Putting a state that looks like America at the front of the calendar will put our party in the strongest position to win back the White House.”

In the proposal, we outline selecting Nevada as first is a strategic decision for the future of the party:

“The Democratic Party is facing a critical moment where we must be strategic in our efforts to earn back Latino support, craft an economic message that resonates across the country, begin the work to reach working-class voters, and turn out diverse communities … As a diverse, working-class, battleground state, Nevada is best poised to nominate a candidate who can win in November.”

Additionally, we underscore that Nevada is best positioned to be first in the nation because we fully meet all metrics outlined by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee:

Rigorousness: “Nevada is the most working-class and most diverse battleground state in the nation. We have a majority-minority population, and we have the highest concentration of non-college educated voters of all battlegrounds. We are also home to urban, suburban, and rural communities, making us geographically diverse. Nevada looks like America and best represents the coalition we need to win in 2028”

Fairness: “Nevada is a small and accessible state of just over three million people with two media markets where presidential contenders can still meet voters face to face, and retail politics with a strong grassroots organization can make a real difference.”

Efficiency: “Nevada has some of the most progressive voting laws in the country, making both registration and voting widely available.”

This proposal has garnered support from prominent leaders and organizations including Nevada’s federal delegation, Culinary Union 226, Nevada State AFL-CIO, and Somos Votantes.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

"Michigan Democrats apply to vote early in 2028 presidential primary"

Craig Mauger and Melissa Nann Burke at The Detroit News have the latest on Michigan Democrats officially applying with the DNC to be among the early states in 2028:

"Michigan Democrats submitted an application Friday in hopes that the battleground state will be chosen to be among the first to vote in the 2028 presidential nominating contest.

"In 2024, the rulemaking arm of the Democratic National Committee picked Michigan to be the fifth state to hold its presidential primary. Michigan's primary took place on Feb. 27 in 2024. State law currently says Michigan's presidential primary will be on the fourth Tuesday in February going forward.

"In an interview Friday, Curtis Hertel, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said the new application would allow Michigan to potentially keep its late February date, which would be Feb. 22 in 2028, and make Michigan a place for early investment in 2028. Hertel said he's not expecting Michigan to move to the front of the line, where South Carolina was in 2024.

"'I have said several times that we are not pushing for first,' Hertel said of the order."

--

Noteworthy: It is worth noting that the Michigan presidential primary is already in the early window of the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar. Further action on the part of legislators in the Great Lakes state, then, would not be necessary so long as the state party secures a slot among the early states. Additional action would only be required if either 1) Michigan is granted the first (or an earlier) position or 2) the state is left out of the early state lineup. 

The DNC would, depending on control of Michigan state government following the 2026 midterms, likely encounter a far more motivated state party/state government in the event that Michigan is bumped up the order rather than left out of the early window entirely. Odds are not in favor of the latter happening at this point, but should Michigan be left off the list, then legislators may not find incentive to change the date to comply with the changes. That would raise the specter of a potential rogue primary and/or a battleground state party having to opt out of the state-run contest in favor of a compliant (later) state party-run contest (party-run primary or caucus).

I am not a betting man, but I would not bet on that scenario. It would not be in the interest of any of the parties concerned.

--

Michigan Democratic Party statement on the application:

STATEMENT: MDP Submits Application for Michigan To Be in 2028 Early Primary Window

Today, the Michigan Democratic Party formally submitted its application to the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) for Michigan to hold an “early window” primary for the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating convention. Applications to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee are due today.

Last year, the RBC established the process through which Democratic State Parties may apply to be in the early window for 2028. The resolution established that the RBC must select between four and five states for the early window and must include one state from each of the DNC’s four geographic regions (Midwest, East, South, and West). The RBC requires State Parties to hold their nominating contests after the first Tuesday in March unless specifically exempted. In 2023, Michigan passed legislation moving our presidential primary to the fourth Tuesday in February.

“For Democrats to have the strongest presidential candidate, the early nominating states should closely mirror Democratic voters nationwide and be representative of America. Michigan is the most diverse battleground state in the country and investments made on the ground early are beneficial to electing a Democratic president in the general election,” said Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel. “Michigan is a perfect candidate to be in the lineup of early nominating contests, and it’s crucial that our new national calendar for selecting the next president includes Michigan in an early position.”

“We like to say that ‘the road to the White House goes through Michigan.’ As the most diverse battleground state, Michigan embodies all the constituencies that will be key to winning the presidency. The middle class was built right here in Michigan, and our two biggest industries – manufacturing and agriculture — employ millions of hardworking people across our state,” said Governor Gretchen Whitmer. “Michigan is an ideal state to be included in the early window for the 2028 presidential primary process, and I wholly support the application submitted by the Michigan Democratic Party.”

“All roads to the White House go through Michigan. Key groups that Democrats need to persuade and turn out to win national elections are the backbone of our state. In addition to racial and cultural diversity, we have both industrial urban centers with manufacturing and more rural agricultural areas than many other states,” said Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. “A Michigan presidential primary is a down payment on the general election, giving us a head start on critical organizing efforts that pay huge dividends in November. I don’t think that any one state should have a lock on going first, but Michigan will always fight for a battleground state to be a part of the early primary process.”

“Teeing off our nation’s elections in Michigan will show the strength and relevance of the Democratic party and will remind people of every political persuasion across the country that, even in challenging times, progress is possible when we have the courage to show up and use our voice,” said Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks.

“Michigan is a decisive battleground state. In the last five presidential elections, Michigan voters have cast their ballots for the winning candidate-demonstrating that success here requires building the same coalition needed to win in November,” said House Democratic Leader Ranjeev Puri. “An early primary in Michigan ensures Democratic nominees are tested with the voters who will ultimately decide the presidential election.”

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

And Michigan Democrats may not be pushing for the first-in-the-nation slot, but...

Are Democrats really considering putting Michigan's primary first for 2028? 

The early answer appears to be yes. But why when the Great Lakes state is not a perfect fit for the national party's selection criteria?

"Democrats battle over who votes first in 2028, a proxy for the party’s future"

Maeve Reston and Dylan Wells at The Washington Post provide the latest on deadline day as state parties scramble to apply to be among the early states on the 2028 calendar:

"The lobbying campaign is one of the most aggressive in a battle royal among states seeking to get early spots in the party’s 2028 nominating calendar. The fight over the order formally begins Friday when about a dozen states are expected to submit proposals to the Democratic National Committee to get early spots, a privilege that gives their voters and politicians added influence and attention.

"The contest is not only important to the party and individual states involved but also exemplifies the broader debate among Democrats over how — both in its policies and its process — to improve their positioning for presidential contests.

"Many Democratic insiders argue that their viability could hinge on designing an early state gauntlet that better pressure-tests their 2028 nominee and more accurately reflects the racial, socioeconomic and geographic makeup of the party. The decisions of where to campaign affect which voters get to shape the conversation and the set of issues that candidates prioritize. Iowa’s longtime hold on the nation’s first caucuses, for example, is credited with helping farmers preserve subsidy programs, while South Carolina’s large population of Black Democrats helped Joe Biden overcome earlier losses in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2020.

This year, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are among the states pushing hardest for the first spot, according to interviews with more than a dozen DNC members, party strategists and state chairs. Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa and Virginia are also vying for either the first spot or at least a spot in the early window, before a busy day of state contests known as Super Tuesday. And the lobbying — which includes a fair amount of state-on-state jousting — has been going on behind-the-scenes for several months."

--

Noteworthy: One thing that is consistent across this round of news dispatches ahead of the Democrats' early state application deadline is that the group of states listed as "fighting hardest for" and/or likely to end up first in the order of states on the 2028 presidential primary calendar has shifted. It is a slight shift, but it is a shift. 

Calendar news trickled out in 2025, but what little there was tended to be dominated by mentions of three states likeliest to be at the head of the queue for Democrats in 2028: Michigan, Nevada and New Hampshire. In addition, the reporting throughout 2025 also painted a bleak picture of the prospect of the first state on the 2024 calendar, South Carolina. 

It is different now on both fronts. 

Michigan and South Carolina have seemingly reversed roles. The former is now seemingly to repeating the "just happy to be in the early window" line that was earlier associated with South Carolina. Meanwhile, the latter in now more often mentioned as a distinct possibility for the first slot. 

Why? What changed? [There is a question for you, reporters.]

Some of the explanation, FHQ suspects, boils down to the combination of timing and sources. It was early enough in the process in the summer that the notion of which state would lead the calendar in 2028 was still theoretical and sources were willing to speculate. Now that state parties are starting to actually apply for the honor of being sanctioned the first contest, there are some actual states in the mix, no longer just theoretically so. 

Earlier sources tended to have been DNC members as well and they often discussed which states could go first. This go-round of reporting ahead of the deadline appears to have incorporated more state-level voices in the discussion, voices that are actively lobbying to go first. There is a difference there in what is being covered.

Anyway, it should not be lost on anyone that regardless of the above distinctions between Michigan and South Carolina, the two states that are in both sets of reporting -- summer 2025 and now -- are Nevada and New Hampshire. That is not by mistake. Read into it what one might, but there is a signal in there and folks following the 2028 calendar process should probably take heed. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

"Inside Democrats’ Brewing Debate Over Which States Should Vote First in 2028"

Shane Goldmacher at The New York Times has an update on the Democrats' consideration of the 2028 primary calendar as the early state application deadline approaches:

"Democratic Party insiders are beginning to puzzle over one of the more consequential decisions for the party’s future: which states should vote first in the 2028 presidential primary elections.

...

"The Democratic National Committee has set a Friday deadline for states to apply to be placed in the so-called early window, the month leading up to Super Tuesday.

"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."

...

Noteworthy: Honestly, there is not much news in this piece. Goldmacher is merely providing a refresher on where things stand early in the DNC's consideration of the 2028 pre-window states. And things stand about where they have for some time: still at or very near the starting gate. That said, a couple of things...

1) Goldmacher spoke with sources from the usual suspect states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Michigan. In addition there were the obligatory (for the 2028 cycle anyway) quotes from party officials in Georgia and North Carolina, two neighboring states vying to theoretically replace South Carolina in the early window. Thus, it is the same seven states that have been routinely mentioned in these conversations since the 2024 election. 

In Goldmacher's telling of where the process is to name the early states on the Democratic presidential primary calendar for 2028, it is a status quo story. In other words, there may be a shake up to the order of states in the early window relative to 2024, but it will not see much change in terms of the actual states in that window outside of a piece or two (which is not nothing!).

2) Minnesota, which was in the mix in 2022 for the slot that ultimately went to Michigan on the 2024 calendar is not applying for an early window position for the 2028 cycle. It was not raised in Goldmacher's piece, but one has to imagine that this has much to do with former Minnesota DFL Chair Ken Martin now being at the head of the Democratic National Committee and wanting to avoid any appearance of playing favorites in the process.  

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Deadline day approaches for would-be early Democratic states for 2028 

Some thoughts from FHQ now that the deadline has drawn the attention of the media

"Scoop: S. Carolina Dems enlist influencers for primary fight"

Holly Otterbein at Axios has the latest on South Carolina Democrats ramping up their defense of an early calendar spot:

"South Carolina will host a "creator" briefing alongside the national party's meeting in Los Angeles this week — a reflection of the growing importance of Democrat-friendly influencers as the party seeks to recapture young voters from the GOP.

"It's part of an increasingly hot battle within the party over which states will get the earliest slots on the 2028 primary calendar — and likely have outsized sway in determining who wins the Democratic nomination."

...

Noteworthy: One's mileage may vary on just how significant it is that South Carolina Democrats are turning to influencers in the state party's effort to retain an earlier (or the first) spot on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. More notable I would argue is the fact that Palmetto state Democrats are taking this approach in a public way ahead of and concurrent with the upcoming DNC meeting. No decisions will be made on the calendar this week, but South Carolina Democrats are following in the footsteps of their counterparts from New Hampshire who lobbied the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) during the panel's October meeting. 

This activity will likely only escalate between now and when waiver requests to the RBC are made by state parties in the lead up to (and very likely after) the January 16 deadline. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Are Democrats really considering putting Michigan's primary first for 2028? 

The early answer appears to be yes. But why when the Great Lakes state is not a perfect fit for the national party's selection criteria?

"Scoop: Dems eye ranked-choice voting for primaries"

Holly Otterbein at Axios has the details on the push to bring ranked choice voting to Democratic presidential primaries in 2028:

"Democratic politicians and activists are quietly lobbying to upend the way the party picks its presidential nominee by urging the use of ranked-choice voting.

"It's a tool that drew national attention when it propelled New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani to a decisive primary win.

"Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin and other top party officials have met privately with advocates who are pushing for the voting method to be expanded for the 2028 presidential primaries, three sources tell Axios."

...

Burying the lede: "For the DNC to approve the use of ranked-choice voting in primaries, it would need the support of the powerful rules and bylaws committee and a majority of the 450-member body. State parties also would need to OK it, and many states would need to amend their election laws."

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The latest trial balloon for ranked choice voting in presidential primaries.

Recent lobbying efforts to bring RCV to the Democratic presidential nomination process face obstacles in and outside of the national party.

"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.

"DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Votes to Establish Procedure for Presidential Nominating Calendar Early State Selection Process"

The following is a press release for the DNC on the October 27 Rules and Bylaws Committee that adopted a resolution laying out the guidelines for state parties to apply for early spots on the 2028 primary calendar:

Today, the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) voted to pass a resolution to establish the next steps in determining the early window of the 2028 presidential nominating calendar. The Resolution lays out criteria to ensure a rigorous, efficient, and fair process that will deliver the strongest possible Democratic nominee for president. Following the Resolution’s passage, Democratic State Parties will receive a formal Request for Proposal (RFP), which they can complete and submit to the RBC if they wish to apply for the early window.

Highlights from the Resolution and RFP include:

• The Resolution and RFP establish the fundamental goal for the calendar process of “produc[ing] the strongest possible Democratic nominee for president.”
• The Resolution instructs the committee to execute the calendar process “in the most transparent, open, and fair manner feasible,” requiring the RBC to provide “adequate, clear, and timely notice on major milestones and requirements.”
• The Resolution and RFP establish three pillars that will be used to evaluate early state applicants. Those pillars are:

• Rigorousness: the lineup of early states must be a comprehensive test of candidates with diverse groups of voters that are key to winning the general election;
• Fairness: the lineup of early states must be affordable, practical for candidates, and not exhaust their resources unreasonably, precluding them from effectively participating in future contests;
• Efficiency: the practical ability to run a fair, transparent, and inclusive primary or caucus.

• The Resolution further establishes that the RBC must select between four and five states for the early window and must include one state from each of the DNC’s four geographic regions (East, Midwest, South, and West).
• The Resolution establishes the deadline for state RFP submissions as January 16, 2026.

RBC Co-Chairs Minyon Moore and James Roosevelt, Jr. released the following statement:

“Establishing the nominating calendar is one of the most important responsibilities of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and we are committed to executing a fair and transparent process that will deliver a battle-tested nominee who will win back the White House for Democrats. Today, the RBC took a crucial first step in charting our path for 2028.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin released the following statement:

“The Rules and Bylaws Committee is hard at work designing a nominating calendar that will result in the strongest possible Democratic nominee for president through a fair, rigorous, and efficient process.”

--

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.

New Hampshire Democrats make a pitch for first ahead of DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting

Elena Schneider in Politico Playbook has the details on a memo making the rounds from New Hampshire Democrats arguing the case for why the Granite state should go first in 2028:

"Fight for first: New Hampshire Democrats are circulating a memo to DNC members, arguing their case to return to the first-in-the-nation primary slot, after being demoted ahead of the 2024 cycle. The memo, scooped by POLITICO’s Elena Schneider, argues that New Hampshire should retain its coveted first-place slot, not “based simply on tradition,” but because “we are a small, purple state with unmatched civic participation.” The memo takes a more conciliatory tone, in a shift for the state that held an unsanctioned primary in 2024 with in-state Democrats organizing a write-in campaign on behalf of then-President Joe Biden. It is timed ahead of Monday’s meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee , which is charged with setting the Democrats’ presidential primary calendar."

--

Noteworthy: A case was always going to be made by New Hampshire Democrats to keep (or return, depending on one's perspective) the Granite state first in the order of primaries in the Democratic presidential nomination process for 2028. And given that similar memos were already circulated by Nevada Democrats around the August Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meeting, one from the Silver state's Democratic counterparts back east is no surprise. This is an introductory maneuver, one made to fit the New Hampshire primary into the rubric voiced by DNC Chair Ken Martin and likely to be taken up in the form of a resolution during the October RBC meeting. That is why the state party is playing up the small and purple virtues of New Hampshire.

But FHQ does not read that as taking a more conciliatory tone. After all, the rubber has yet to meet the road in all of this. New Hampshire Democrats did not strike a defiant tone with the DNC until after the calendar rules for 2024 were initially passed by the RBC in late 2022. Any tone shift from New Hampshire Democrats this time around will not be truly felt until a similar juncture in the 2028 cycle (if at all). Of course they are playing "conciliatory" now. The calendar rules are still undecided. 

"Iowa Democrats plot 2028 comeback for caucuses"

From Alex Thompson at Axios:

"Iowa Democrats are urging the national party to restore the state's traditional place as the first contest of the presidential primary season — and some are pushing for Iowa's caucuses to be first even if the Democratic National Committee disagrees.

"Iowa returning to the lead-off spot could scramble the 2028 presidential contest, and significantly affect who becomes the Democratic nominee.

"Some Iowa Democrats are arguing for their state party to go first in primary season — no matter what the DNC does — because Republicans are set to hold their Iowa caucuses anyway. The Iowa Democrats don't want to cede the national media limelight to the GOP."

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

Are the Iowa caucuses coming back to the early Democratic presidential nomination process?

The First-in-the-Nation defense commences in New Hampshire

The election of a new national party chair did not trigger 2028 calendar reactions in South Carolina alone. 

No, Ken Martin's election as chair of the Democratic National Committee -- the formal kickoff to the process for crafting nomination rules for the next cycle -- has set off the typical responses in all the usual places. That list now includes New Hampshire where Paul Steinhauser at the Concord Monitor has a recap of 2024...

While the Republican National Committee (RNC) didn’t make any changes to its 2024 calendar and kept the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary as their first two contests, the DNC upended its calendar. The party overwhelmingly supported a proposal by former President Joe Biden to put South Carolina first, with New Hampshire and Nevada coming a week later. 

Adhering to a nearly half-century-old law that mandates the Granite State hold the first presidential primary a week ahead of any similar contest, New Hampshire Secretary of State Dave Scanlan scheduled the contest for Jan. 23, 2024, with the Democratic presidential primary ending up being an unsanctioned election. 

Biden didn’t set foot in the state and kept his name off the primary ballot. But, to avoid an embarrassing setback for the then-president, a write-in effort by Democratic Party leaders in New Hampshire boosted Biden to an easy primary victory as he cruised to renomination. Seven months later, following a disastrous debate performance against President Trump, Biden ended his re-election campaign and was replaced by former Vice President Kamala Harris at the top of the Democrats’ 2024 national ticket.

...and the latest from the Granite state...

Veteran New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley, who backed Martin in the DNC chair race, told the Monitor he believes the new chair will keep his word that every state will have a “fair shot.” 

“We don’t need any special favors, but we don’t need somebody putting their thumb on the scale against us, either,” Buckley said. “We think we have a powerful message on why we should retain the first-in-the-nation primary.”

--

Steinhauser hits most of the New Hampshire-centric points, but fails to lay out the "battle" lines in the 2028 calendar fight other than to merely summarize the dispute between the DNC and Granite state Democrats ahead of (and into) 2024. So let's more clearly discuss the terms of the "battle" ahead.

First, 2024 does not appear to have been an aberration for the Democratic Party. Implicit in all of the chatter from Chair Martin and Chair Buckley (NH) about "fair shots" is that there will be for 2028 another process where state Democratic parties will apply/make the case for privileged spots on the early calendar And that will once again be followed by the national party, through the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), reviewing those submissions and selecting a handful of state contests to start the presidential nomination process in early 2028.

In other words, the 2028 process will not revert to the method often used prior to 2024 when the starting point was Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina having had those positions codified in the previous cycle's rules. Iowa and New Hampshire, then, are not assumed to be the first two contests. That is no longer the baseline.

The acknowledgment of that fact is no small thing coming from either the DNC chair or his counterpart in the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 

And actually that is the big take home lesson from Martin's election: 2028's process will look more like 2024's rather than previous cycles. So mark that off of the list.

However, there are some second order questions to consider at the outset of the 2028 rules process. 

On the DNC side, the big question is whether the hassle of dealing with a potentially rogue New Hampshire is even worth it if the party opts to traverse a road similar to the one it took during the 2024 cycle. It is not clear that the standoff with New Hampshire Democrats in the lead up to and during the 2024 primary process was ultimately injurious to the party or the nominee. Yes, there was a feeble attempt at a protest vote in the unsanctioned beauty contest primary in New Hampshire on January 23. But the Palestinian strain of that protest did not really reach a fevered pitch in the Granite state. Instead, the uncommitted movement found its footing later on as the Michigan primary approached in February.

Still, the back and forth between the national party and the state party in New Hampshire was a distraction to President Biden, his campaign and the reelection effort. And whether following a similar path as in 2024 with respect to the scheduling of the presidential primary in the Granite state for the upcoming cycle continues to be viewed that way remains to be seen. It is another political question the RBC will have to tackle at some point before fall 2026. 

Yet, there is a New Hampshire side to this as well and that, too, will influence the RBC's thinking moving forward. 

While the New Hampshire state party did defy the national party rules in 2024, opting into the rogue state-run primary, Granite state Democrats did ultimately cave to the DNC. It will be meaningful to the decision makers on the national party panel that New Hampshire Democrats devised a post hoc state party-run process to select and allocate delegates to the national convention. This is one place where a 2028 bid by New Hampshire Democrats for an early calendar position will face some questions from the members of the RBC.

If New Hampshire Democrats could quickly slap together a state party-run process after the rogue primary in January 2024, then why can Democrats in the Granite state not lay the groundwork for a similar process well in advance of 2028 if the state government proves to be an obstacle to changing the state law regarding the state-run primary? 

That is a much tougher question for New Hampshire Democrats to answer post-2024. The state party will no longer have the luxury -- not in the judgment of the RBC in any event -- of dragging its feet on having a back up option ready for 2028. 

Those are the questions. And the answers to them will define the battle over New Hampshire's stake on the first-in-the-nation primary in the 2028 Democratic nomination process. 

What does a new DNC chair mean for South Carolina's position on the 2028 presidential primary calendar?

The Democratic National Committee's election of Ken Martin (MN state party chair, DNC member and president of the Association of State Democratic Committees) as chairman was the first shoe to drop in the process of the party devising the rules that will govern the 2028 presidential nomination. In the near term that means Martin appointing members to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. Further down the road, that panel will lay the groundwork for the early window of the presidential primary calendar. 

And that has stakeholders in the states with early contests in past presidential nomination cycles attempting to assess the playing field, measuring the chances of retaining an early slot on the calendar in three years' time. Joseph Bustos from The State (Columbia, SC) read the tea leaves from the perspective of the Palmetto state on Martin's comments on the 2028 calendar prior to the his election as chair:

"It’s not up to the next DNC chair to put their thumb on the scale in any way, shape or form. It’s not one person’s decision. It is the party’s decision,” Martin said. “Any state that wants to have their voice heard and make a bid for this will be heard. Second, the calendar we put forward has to be rigorous, it has to be efficient and it has to be fair," Martin said. “It has to battle test our nominees so we win and it has to honor the great diversity of this party, and it has to honor the great traditions of this party.”

Martin's criteria closely align with the review process the party utilized in selecting the early primaries for the 2024 cycle. That is a bigger signal -- that something akin to the 2024 application/review/selection process will carryover -- at this point than which states will ultimately make up the three to five states in the early window on the calendar prior to Super Tuesday in early March. 

Logistically, however, of the three states that made up the list of officially sanctioned contests on the Democratic primary calendar in 2024, two -- Michigan and Nevada -- have their calendar positions codified in state law. In South Carolina, the state parties set the dates of the presidential primaries. While Michigan and Nevada may have partisan obstacles to changing the dates of their primaries, the same is not true (at this time) in the Palmetto state. The DNC may find its hands tied with respect to Michigan and Nevada but could exert some pressure on the South Carolina Democratic Party to comply with any calendar position (or position change) for 2028. 

But that is a political question the Rules and Bylaws Committee will weigh in the coming months before the rules for 2028 are formally adopted in the late summer/early fall of 2026.

New Hampshire blinders in the Democratic nomination race

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...

• Michigan Republicans had everything in place with respect to their 2024 delegate selection plan. ...until they didn't. The plan adopted by the state party last month hit a snag with the RNC and will require a tweak. But the state party has options. 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...

...

Al Hunt had an eye roll-worthy opinion piece up at The Messenger over the weekend and it was the 315 billionth one since December to inform readers about how the Democrats' Biden-led calendar changes for 2024 have "backfired, spectacularly" in New Hampshire. And again, this was not revelatory. There has been a steady stream of stories and opinion pieces in this genre that have followed the same basic formula: accentuate the negative in the only story outside of the president's age to move the needle in a nomination race that looks like a yawner, only gather quotes from folks inside of and tied to the state of New Hampshire and assume the worst for the president. 

Look, if folks have caught even a whiff of one of these Biden/New Hampshire stories since late last year, then they will likely understand that upsetting folks in a battleground state may have implications for the president in the general election next year. That has been and remains clear. 

However, Hunt, like many before him, has chosen the New Hampshire-centric path that leads to hypothetical chaos (or some lesser form of uncertainty in the 2024 Democratic nomination race). And that path always seems to place some variety of blinders on those who spin these yarns of incumbent woe. 

Folks miss that New Hampshire Democrats are not without options in this saga. Like other state parties, New Hampshire's Democrats can opt out of a state-run presidential primary in favor of some party-run contest to allocate national convention delegates. The Democratic Party in the Granite state has the very same free association rights under the first amendment that all parties across the country do regardless of any state law on the subject. Perhaps, then, the state party could diffuse the situation by going along with the calendar rules supported by folks from 55 of 57 states and territories and adopted by the Democratic National Committee for the 2024 cycle. [It honestly is like that Politico piece from May was never reported. It certainly was not internalized by very many.]

But even if New Hampshire Democrats continue along the route of defiance, does that necessarily mean that the Biden campaign will topple like a house of cards on the evening of (probably) January 23? Is a non-loss by the president in an unsanctioned primary really the death knell for Biden in 2024? It could be. But it could also very well be that the South Carolina primary comes along eleven days later on February 3 and starts a string of (actual delegate-allocating) victories for the president, things become boring and attention goes where it most always does when an incumbent is seeking renomination: to the other party's active contest. But, of course, Hunt did not reckon with that possibility. 

Neither did he consider the long-term implications of New Hampshire Democrats' defiance in the short term. Again, what if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Marianne Williamson wins a New Hampshire primary, the ballot of which the president is not on? That is not embarrassing for Biden. That is embarrassing for New Hampshire Democrats. The state party would lose face and set itself back even further for future discussions of the calendar for 2028, a cycle that will actually matter on the Democratic side. It is shaping up to be competitive. 

Iowa Democrats still have a chance to mess this up, but this is what separates them from New Hampshire Democrats in this calendar kerfuffle. Iowa Democrats are seemingly playing the long game. If they go along with the 2024 calendar rules and manage to pull off a successful mail-in presidential preference vote, then the party will have a leg to stand on in pitching a return to the early calendar for the Hawkeye state in 2028. They may be rejected again, but that is still a firmer foundation from which to argue than "we defied the national party the whole way in 2024 and some conspiracy theorist won our meaningless primary." The membership of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee may change substantially between now and 2026 when the calendar decisions are made for 2028, but unless the entire committee is made of DNC members from New Hampshire, then Granite state Democrats are very unlikely to find a receptive audience for their early calendar pitch. 

But Hunt does not consider that either. And it is understandable. It is not a flashy story at the moment (if it ever is for more than just FHQ and, like, seven other people). But at some point, Hunt and others will get beyond this initial set of questions about the Biden/New Hampshire situation and dig a little deeper. One can only hope.

...

This addendum from Seth Masket to the most recent wave in his survey of Republican county party chairs includes a graphic that is just fascinating to look at. It charts the percentage of county party chairs considering various candidates against the percentage who do not want a particular candidate nominated in 2024. As he notes, there are caveats, but it does give a sense of the direction of movement in the race. And Tim Scott noticeably moved in a positive direction. The junior senator from South Carolina saw his consideration numbers go up and his against nomination numbers trail off. Neat graphic. Seth continues to do solid work over at Tusk. 

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the staff primary, the DeSantis campaign trimmed its payroll over the weekend, cutting loose a dozen staffers. That drew parallels to Jeb Bush and Scott Walker and others who have busted out of the gates with hype to spare only to find themselves in a similar position: not meeting expectations (that they did not set), scaling back only to scare skittish donors which leads to further scaling back. Wash, rinse, repeat: doom loop. [Look, it is another troubling sign in a series of them for DeSantis and company in recent days. It may or may not be premature to write the obituaries of the Florida governor's campaign. But the simple truth of the matter is that DeSantis remains well positioned to do well in the 2024 race. [Well may mean something other than winning the nomination.] The governor has raised a lot of money -- with some caveats -- has the (endorsement) backing of a fair number of elected officials and has experienced staff in the broader campaign orbit. On those measures, DeSantis is well ahead of every other nomination aspirant but one.]
• In the money primary, Mike Pence and Chris Christie turned in FEC reports that fell below $2 million. For what it is worth, both entered the race for the Republican nomination just last month. 
• Wall Street donors are opening up their checkbooks for Trump alternatives, but that money is going to multiple candidates. 
• The chatter may be there, but Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is not running for president. ...again. 
• DeSantis has been in the Palmetto state the last two days and Chris Christie will make his first stop in South Carolina on Thursday, July 21.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale is formally nominated in a roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.

...in 1988, the Democratic National Convention kicked off in Atlanta.

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] Yes, Iowa still matters

The DeSantis-is-sinking stories may be oversold to some degree, but...

The Trump Campaign has been very disciplined on endorsements during the 2024 cycle

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. 

Sunday Series: There's no budding feud between Iowa and New Hampshire, but the Democratic parties in each are approaching 2024 differently. Here is how.

Much happened this past week with respect to the maneuvering at the very front of the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Iowa Democrats finally revealed an initial draft of their 2024 delegate selection plan. In the General Assembly in the Hawkeye state, the Senate pushed through a bill intended to protect the first-in-the-nation caucuses that now heads to Governor Kim Reynolds (R). And the motivation, at least part of it anyway, for that bill was to further insulate the caucuses from triggering the first-in-the-nation law in fellow early state, New Hampshire. 

But in the rush to draw battle lines between the pair of traditionally early states -- battle lines that do not really exist in the first place -- many missed an important story developing in plain sight. In the face of new calendar rules for 2024 on the Democratic side, state Democratic parties in Iowa and New Hampshire are taking vastly different approaches to protecting their early calendar turf. 

In the Granite state, Democrats started off defiant in December when the new DNC calendar rules were unveiled, have stayed defiant and give every indication that they intend to see this through to the national convention next  summer if they have to. Much of that defiance has come directly from the state parties and elected officials in the Granite state of all partisan stripes. But it is also right there in the delegate selection plan New Hampshire Democrats released back in March:

The newly released draft DSP specifies no date, a break from the past protocol. Additionally, it says what New Hampshire Democrats have been saying for months: 

The “first determining step” of New Hampshire's delegate selection process will occur on a date to be determined by the New Hampshire Secretary of State in accordance with NH RSA 653:9, with a “Presidential Preference Primary.” The Republican Presidential Preference Primary will be held in conjunction with the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary.

And, in truth, Iowa Democrats have not been saying much different from what their brethren in the Granite state have been. In February, new Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart was quick to strike a similar tone to New Hampshire's above in the immediate aftermath of the full DNC vote to adopt the 2024 rules.

“Iowa does not have the luxury of conducting a state-run primary, nor are Iowa Republicans likely to support legislation that would establish one. Our state law requires us to hold precinct caucuses before the last Tuesday in February, and before any other contest.”

Of course, none of that is surprising. Folks from both Iowa and New Hampshire have uttered similar things in past cycles when the calendar positions of each have been threatened. The mantra is simple in both states (for better or worse): When in doubt, lean on the state laws that protect the caucuses in Iowa and the New Hampshire primary. But on the surface this past week, it looked like Iowa Democrats were now doing the same thing in their delegate selection plan that New Hampshire Democrats did in March in theirs. Which is to say, it looked like the party was planning to defy the national party rules. 

Headlines that made their way to the fore after the release of the plan seemed to reflect that: "Iowa Democrats plan to caucus same night as Republicans." But under the hood, in the weeds of the Iowa Democratic Party delegate selection plan, the state party was telling a different story. The caucuses will take place on the same night that Iowa Republicans caucus. And that is likely to be sometime in January 2024. However, those precinct caucuses, at least according to the plan, will have no direct effect on delegate allocation in the Iowa Democratic process. It is not, to use the DNC terminology, the first determining step, the part of the process where voters indicate presidential preference which, in turn, determines delegate allocation. That is the step the DNC is watching. That is the step that would draw penalties should it occur prior to March 5, 2024, the first Tuesday in March for this cycle. 

What the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is concerned with is when that all-mail presidential preference vote concludes. It is that vote that will affect delegate allocation. Like the New Hampshire primary in the delegate selection plan in the Granite state, the date the preference vote is set to conclude was left unspecified. If the end of that vote-by-mail process coincides with the likely January caucuses, then it would be a problem. If the point at which the preference vote results are revealed falls later in the calendar, it may not (depending on where that is). 

The key here is that Iowa Democrats are more clearly than ever bifurcating the allocation and selection processes. Their plan does not roll everything into one "caucus" as has been the case in past cycles. The January caucuses will only advance the delegate selection process. That will not influence delegate allocation. Even if delegates aligned with, say, Marianne Williamson were to move to the county stage from the precinct caucuses and set themselves up to be selected to move on to the district and state convention stages, that would not mean that they would be eligible to fill any Biden-allocated slots (as determined by the preference vote). That is something that can occur in the Republican nomination process, but on the Democratic side, the candidates and their campaigns have the ability to approve the delegates that are pledged to them. It is a failsafe the Republican process does not have. 

Bifurcation, then, allows Iowa Democrats to have their cake and eat it too. They can continue to hold first-in-the-nation caucuses (as part of the selection process) that complies with state law but also comply with DNC rules by using a later vote-by-mail presidential preference vote as the first determining step in the allocation process. 

One could argue that there is a structural difference between Iowa and New Hampshire in this instance. The Iowa Democratic Party has more control over its party-run process than New Hampshire Democrats do with respect to a state-run presidential primary. And while that is true, it also obscures the fact that New Hampshire Democrats are not completely without discretion here. Granite state Democrats have chosen to live free or die with the state-run primary option as a means of protecting the first-in-the nation institution. 

But New Hampshire Democrats do have a choice. The state party has the same first amendment/free association rights as the state Democratic Party in Iowa. But they have chosen -- and folks, it makes sense for them to do so politically in New Hampshire -- to stick with the state-run primary rather than explore other options. That could be some party-run process or lobbying majority Republicans in the New Hampshire General Court to create a carve-out for either the Democratic Party or the party with an incumbent president running for reelection. As an example, there could be a state-run/state-funded option for Democrats aligned with town meeting day in March. 

But again, New Hampshire Democrats have chosen a different path in response to the new DNC calendar rules than Iowa Democrats have. And as FHQ has argued, New Hampshire Democrats may be vindicated in the end. They are banking on the fact that the national party will cave at the national convention and seat any New Hampshire Democratic delegates if the fight lasts that long. 

In the near term, however, Iowa Democrats are differently approaching the threat to the caucuses (or what they are continuing to call caucuses). Their plan, rather than coming out defiant buys the state party both time and flexibility. And both are useful as the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee moves into the job of reviewing and approving 2024 delegate selection plans. Continued New Hampshire defiance in that process coupled with the flexibility the Iowa Democratic Party plan provides them means that, should New Hampshire Democrats draw sanctions from the DNC, then Iowa Democrats are well-positioned to make the case that their vote-by-mail presidential preference vote should be a part of the early window. That part of the process may not be first -- the caucuses, after all, will be in the selection phase -- but the all-mail preference vote could make the cut. 

...if the DNC feels compelled to keep four or five [compliant] states in the window before Super Tuesday. South Carolina, Nevada and Michigan are already there. Could more states be added? Iowa and Delaware, where things have been quite quiet, could be poised to move into that area of the calendar. 

The bottom line here is that there is no budding feud between Iowa and New Hampshire. Yet, the in the face of threats, state Democratic parties in each are taking on the new challenge in markedly and notably different ways. That is a story that merits more attention than any attempt to manufacture some non-existent calendar drama between the two. 

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] A Curious Decision on the Georgia Presidential Primary

Checking in on 2024 Republican Delegate Math

Raffensperger Zeros in on Date for Georgia's Presidential Primary

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

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