"Republicans in Concord draft bill to counter DNC move against NH primary"

Adam Sexton at WMUR on the backlash in New Hampshire to the new DNC calendar rules for 2028:

"In the wake of a vote against the New Hampshire primary by the Democratic National Committee, Republicans at the State House are drafting a bill to tie taking part in the primary to access for the November ballot for presidential nominees.

"Republicans are preparing a legislative counterpunch to the DNC's move against New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary status."

"'The Democratic National Committee can make whatever sets of rules that they want in respect to our New Hampshire primary,' said state Rep. Joe Sweeney, R-Salem. 'We as a state can also make any sets of rules that we want in respect to who has ballot access in the state of New Hampshire.'

"Sweeney is drafting a bill to tie November election ballot access for presidential nominees to participation in New Hampshire's presidential primary."

--

Noteworthy: This is the first of what will be many, many (formal) responses to the new DNC calendar rules recently passed by the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee in the Granite state. It is also, as Kathy Sullivan noted in the Sexton's piece, unconstitutional. The matter of which side takes precedence in these matters where state laws conflict with national party rules has been repeatedly litigated over the years. And the courts more often than not side with the parties. It is they who ultimately get to determine the rules of their nominations (with some limits). But yes, that has been complicated over the years by states becoming more directly involved in the process via the state-funded primary. 

But this move by Rep. Sweeney is trying to win a battle while likely losing the war. If this draft bill were to become law, it would likely further erode the first-in-the-nation primary law by putting even more space between the state government and the state parties on the issue than the DNC calendar rules already have over the last two cycles. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

"Maine Democrats fight national party on ranked-choice voting in 2028"

Benjamin Kail at the Bangor Daily News reports on the reaction in Maine to a DNC rule proposal on ranked choice voting:

"Democratic lawmakers in Maine alongside ranked-choice voting advocates are fighting a proposal by the national party that would restrict the process in 2028’s presidential primaries.

"The Democratic National Committee in a little more than two weeks will decide on a proposed rule change that would bar ranked-choice tabulation for delegate allocation. Maine lawmakers who embraced the voting system years ago say the change could keep the state’s delegates from being seated at the 2028 convention."

...

"The DNC says ranked-choice voting is incompatible with the party’s delegate allocation process, but that its new rules will include a carveout for states like Maine where it is on the books. If the proposal goes into effect along with DNC rules after a full meeting on Aug. 15, only the first round will be considered for delegate allocation purposes."

--

Noteworthy: I will have more to say on this over at FHQ Plus either over the weekend or early next week, but for now I will say that state-based concern over delegates not being seated at the national convention is probably a tad premature if not overblown. The rule under consideration by the full DNC next month -- it already passed the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee twice -- would not "bar states from using a ranked ballot." Under the rule, the Maine ranked choice voting and tabulation can proceed, if necessary, after the likely Super Tuesday primary in 2028. But only the results from the first round would be used for the purposes of allocating national convention delegates slots. 

For Democratic delegates from the Pine Tree state to be affected at the convention, the Maine Democratic Party would have press on with a plan to use the ranked choice tabulation for determining delegate allocation in their delegate selection plan, a document that has to be submitted to, reviewed and approved, yes, the Rules and Bylaws Committee. All of that will happen next year, starting in the spring with submissions, continuing with reviews in the summer and perhaps into the fall. That is a lot of back and forth and a lot of opportunities to square the differences between the two sides and bring some plan into compliance with the DNC rules. 

...you know, if the proposed RCV rule is adopted next month. That is the next thing to watch for in all of this.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Democrats and ranked choice voting in the 2028 presidential nomination process

Coming off a Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting primarily devoted to the primary calendar, the headline maybe instead should be about RCV.

At FHQ Plus: Let's talk about the Democrats' 2028 presidential primary calendar, part one

Over at FHQ Plus...

So, the Democrats have a calendar for 2028.

Well, the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) has adopted calendar rules and waivers for six states to hold early presidential primaries on the following dates:

• South Carolina, January 22, 2028
• Nevada, February 1, 2028
• New Hampshire, February 8, 2028
• New Mexico, February 15, 2028
• Michigan, February 22, 2028
• Virginia, February 29, 2028

Now those rules, as part of the amended delegate selection rules, the early state waivers, an updated Call for the Convention and amendments to the Charter and Bylaws all head to the full Democratic National Committee (DNC) for final approval next month at the party’s summer meeting in Austin, TX. Yes, that is another hurdle the complete rules package for 2028 has to first clear.

No, it is unlikely that there will be much resistance or that any that arises will be enough to derail the rules package the RBC will report to the full body. For example, the 2024 calendar rules and waivers were brought before the DNC in February 2023 and while the package was opened to discussion on the floor of the meeting, the rules were adopted as is.

A cycle earlier, in 2018, when the proposed delegate selection rules came before the full DNC, the calendar process was operating under the old (pre-2024) rules — the early calendar positions of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina were written directly into the rules — there was more discussion than there was in 2023. But it was not over the calendar. Rather, the heated discussion at the DNC meeting that adopted rules that cycle was over the superdelegate changes recommended by the Unity Reform Commission with language later crafted by the RBC. There, some amendments were heard and adopted, but they were minor in scope.

A similar discussion, if not debate, may arise in Austin. There may even be some subtle changes made to the rules package. But, again, that is unlikely to include changes to the calendar proposal above. That, or something close to it, will be the schedule that commences the voting phase of the Democratic presidential nomination process in 2028.

But before weighing on the impact of that calendar of primaries and caucuses for 2028 (the future part two of this series of posts), I want to talk some about the Friday session of the RBC meeting. There were a number of state-level responses, both jubilant and defiant, from state parties and the local media and a number of national accounts that mainly focused on the divisions on the committee (and in the broader party coalition) over which state should be first. However, to FHQ’s mind, there were, big surprise, a few things that flew under the radar that deserve some attention. I will focus on those items over at FHQ Plus.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar 

Tracking the evolution of the timeline of delegate selection events that will determine the next presidential nominees

--

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber for access to the remainder of the post.

--

"DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Proposes Early States for 2028 Democratic Presidential Nominating Calendar"

DNC press release:

Committee members highlighted the calendar’s ability to battle-test the field of candidates with a rigorous, fair, and efficient mix of early states.

Today, at the July meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), the RBC voted to select six states for the early window of the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating calendar: South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, and Virginia. At the meeting, the RBC voted to issue the waivers to each of the six early window states, inviting them to hold nominating contests prior to Super Tuesday in the following order:

• South Carolina, January 22, 2028
• Nevada, February 1, 2028
• New Hampshire, February 8, 2028
• New Mexico, February 15, 2028
• Michigan, February 22, 2028
• Virginia, February 29, 2028

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

“The Rules and Bylaws Committee has proposed a rigorous, fair, and efficient calendar that will win Democrats back the White House in 2028. After months of hard work and deliberation, we are very proud of the calendar that the RBC has put forward — which is also the most diverse calendar Democrats have ever had for an open nominating contest. We look forward to presenting the proposal to our colleagues across the DNC for their approval in a few weeks.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin released the following statement:

“I commend the RBC for their diligent work and commitment to a fair and transparent selection process. As a result of their hard work, today, Democrats took a critical step toward retaking the White House in 2028 by ensuring we have the strongest possible nominee.”

Additional Context on the Early Window Process:

• During the meeting, RBC members debated the potential early window options and ultimately determined that the six states selected best fit the goals laid out by the committee: a rigorous, fair, and efficient calendar that will produce the strongest possible nominee to win back the White House.
• The RBC also chose to amend the Committee’s previously adopted resolution on the Principles and Procedures for Review of the 2028 Democratic Party Presidential Primary Calendar. The amended resolution allowed them to select a sixth state for the early window, instead of only 4 or 5. Members explained this change was a reflection of the numerous strong applications and their goal to create the best early window possible from their available options.
• The RBC’s decision will now be put before the full DNC for a vote at the DNC’s summer meeting, August 13-15.
• The RBC’s decision comes after many months of careful planning and deliberation by the RBC, including:
• Deliberately chosen criteria for selection and an open application process
• Thoughtful consideration of applications and presentations by states
• Thorough review of the rules for the process
• The full meeting was livestreamed and can be found on the DNC’s YouTube page here.

Background on Selected States:

• Battle-testing Our Candidates: The early window delivers on RBC’s goal of a battle-tested nominee both with key battleground states and tests with a comprehensive range of voters key to winning back the White House.
• Key battleground states are prominently featured in the early window with both Nevada and Michigan.
• Other early window states feature competitive downballot races and swing voter populations with New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Virginia.
• Comprehensive Test with Diverse Voters: The early window provides a comprehensive test with diverse groups of voters that are key to winning a general election. In fact, it is the most diverse open field early window in Democratic Party history, massively increasing diverse representation from 2020 early window states.
• Black Voters: 4.6 million Black people live in the early window states, an increase of 2.8 million.
• Latino Voters: 4.2 million Latinos live in the early window states, an increase of 2.4 million.
• AANHPI Voters: 1.4 million Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islander Americans live in the early window states, an increase of 900k.
• Native American Voters: 370k Native Americans live in the early window states, an increase of 280k.
• Non-college Voters: 14 million Americans in the early window states do not have a college degree, an increase of 7.7 million.
• Young Voters: More than 2.8 million young (18-24) people live in the early window states, an increase of more than 1.6 million.
• Union Voters: More than 1.1 million union workers live in the early window states, an increase of more than 700k.
• Veterans/Military Voters: More than 2.1 million veteran and military voters live in the early window states, an increase of more than 1.2 million.
• Keeping the Contest Open, Affordable: The early window is open and affordable for candidates — ensuring voters choose our 2028 nominee, not money.
• The earliest portion of the window creates an open field, and does not box out any candidates based solely on warchest and name ID.
• South Carolina has a very affordable media market, with estimated weekly ad cost that is among the lowest of any of the early states.
• The relatively inexpensive Reno media market serves the vast majority of Nevadans outside of the Las Vegas media market.
• Both South Carolina and New Hampshire are geographically compact states, making travel more affordable and accessible.

--

More on this to come over the weekend at FHQ Plus.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

At FHQ Plus: The coming 2028 primary calendar vote from the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee

Over at FHQ Plus...

The Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) of the Democratic National Committee opened up the first of two days of meetings on Thursday, July 23 and it looks as if the panel has cleared the way for further, if not final, consideration of the states that will make up the early calendar lineup on the party’s 2028 presidential primary calendar. With work on the delegate selection rules and Call for the Convention now done, the RBC can now return its focus to determining which states will kick off the presidential primary process in a year and a half or so.

Over at FHQ yesterday, I shared some quick thoughts on where the process is and what seems to be coming in reaction to Shane Goldmacher’s reporting at The New York Times. But DNC Chair Ken Martin led off day one of this RBC meeting in Washington with some remarks that are worth incorporating into how one might approach any calendar vote that might be coming on Friday. I dig into all of that over at FHQ Plus.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

--

Subscribe below and consider becoming a paid subscriber for access to the remainder of the post.

--

"South Carolina and Nevada Fight to Kick Off Democrats’ 2028 Presidential Calendar"

Shane Goldmacher at The New York Times has the latest on the two frontrunners for the Democrats' top primary calendar spot for 2028:

"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."

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

Are they or aren't they? Not so fast on those 2028 DNC calendar rules.

Yesterday FHQ put reporting from the Associated Press that Democrats could vote later this week on which states will fill out the party's early state lineup for 2028 into the context of what a decision now may mean for which states are likely to make the cut. 

What was missing from the AP account was just how much weight that could was carrying. Adam Sexton at WMUR in Manchester, NH shed a little more light on that: 

"There is a lot of uncertainty right now over what the Democratic National Committee's Rules & Bylaws Committee will do when it potentially starts voting on the order of its presidential nominating calendar later this week.

"'It could be this week, could be the next couple of weeks,' said Ray Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. 'It could be in the next couple months. That's really up to the committee to decide.'"

Buckley is not only chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party but a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee as well. FHQ would not say that the chairman is throwing cold water on the notion of a vote this week to determine which states might get waivers from the party to hold early contests in 2028 and when those contests will be. However, Buckley is not saying that things are full steam ahead on that front either. 

--

Noteworthy: So what? What does it matter if there is a vote on the calendar rules now, in two weeks or two months? 

Well, again, a vote now, as FHQ argued in yesterday's post, takes a number of options off the table. The states, among those 12 that applied for early status with the DNC, 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. And only time, not to mention the certainty of the midterm results, can resolve that. 

In a nutshell, that is what the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee are wrestling with: Decide now and move on or wait and use the information from the midterms to better tailor an early calendar order. Clearly the latter would represent in many respects a repeat of the party's process for the 2024 calendar. And while it has been a while, it has been reported that DNC Chair Frank Martin seems to be pushing for an earlier decision. As Politico put it in a piece nearly a year ago:

One DNC member, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly, said DNC Chair Ken Martin told them he wanted the primary calendar to be sorted out quickly, potentially as soon as the end of 2025 or early 2026, and has urged rules members to expect related meetings throughout this fall.

No, a decision on the calendar did not come in 2025 or early 2026, but that does indicate some pressure from the chair for a decision earlier rather than later. That may factor into the timeline for a calendar decision.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Some additional thoughts on the Democrats' recent 2028 primary calendar meeting 

Learning, incentives, appearance versus reality and the limits of the national parties in calendar crafting

"Democrats could take preliminary vote on their 2028 presidential primary calendar later this week"

Meg Kinnard and Joey Cappelletti at The Associated Press share the latest on the Democrats' efforts to nail down the early states for 2028:

"Democrats could vote as early as this week on the order of their primary calendar for the 2028 presidential election, although the decision wouldn’t be final until the full Democratic National Committee agrees.

The panel that sets the party’s voting order could make that determination as early as Friday when it meets in Washington, two people with knowledge of the party’s process but not authorized to discuss it publicly told The Associated Press on Monday.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee has been holding monthly meetings as it considers the order in which states will vote during the 2028 primaries. The panel has heard presentations from a dozen states hoping to kick off the party’s primaries and caucuses, including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

The calendar isn’t considered set until it’s approved by the full DNC, which is scheduled to meet in August."

--

Noteworthy: Let's start at the end. The calendar rules are not set until they are approved by the DNC. As the Democrats' 2024 calendar process demonstrated, rules are one thing, implementing them is another. If the calendar was set when the DNC adopted the rules, then the New Hampshire primary would have been the same day as the Nevada primary and the Georgia primary would have occupied a spot in mid-February. 

It did not work out way.

That aside, there is a bigger point about the 2028 presidential primary calendar that is missing in the AP account. If the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is making a decision at this point, before the midterms, then it likely means that of the 12 states who applied for early status, those currently lacking Democratic control of state government are out of the mix. That group includes Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee. And it is not exactly a revelation. Additionally, it is unlikely that the RBC reverses course on the Iowa's caucuses. Again, that is not really a surprise. 

And that leaves a handful of blue states -- Delaware, Illinois, New Mexico and Virginia -- and four of the five states initially granted waivers in 2023, three of which ended up in the early window -- Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina. All three and New Hampshire check more of the boxes in the criteria for early state selection than the four blue states. But that latter group is most likely to fill any fifth slot for which the RBC may grant an early state waiver.

It is a largely status quo group of states relative to 2024 with some lingering mystery about the order. 

--

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

"Would You Let New Mexico Pick the President?"

Jesús Rodríguez at The New Yorker on the Democrats' efforts to settle on a lead-off state for 2028:

"Democrats are deciding what kind of party they want to be, but first they have to decide who gets to decide. Since January, twelve states have been trying to court the Rules and Bylaws Committee, insisting that their primary is the one that will determine a Democratic Presidential candidate who can beat the Republican heir to the maga movement. This has turned the discussion, at least in part, into a competition over which state is most like the rest of the nation, as several officials and party chairs told me. 'Nevada is a microcosm of the United States, with its diverse population,' the Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto said. 'I think you get a microcosm of the Democratic Party here,' Representative Sarah McBride, one of Delaware’s biggest boosters since the Bidens, said of the literal First State. 'We are a state, I think, that is the melting pot for the country,' Anderson Clayton, the chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said. 'We look like America,' Curtis Hertel, the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, said. 'It’s a country of fifty states, but Georgia is the best representation of the diversity of our party,' Charlie Bailey, who chairs the Georgia Democrats, said.

"But the contest over the first-in-the-nation primaries has also become a proxy war over the future of the Party. The D.N.C.’s decision, expected by late summer, could have a significant effect on the 2028 cycle—from the crop of campaign staffers who can afford to relocate, to the ability of small campaigns to break through in large media markets. Although Iowa and New Hampshire haven’t always picked candidates that go on to win the Presidency, the early victors get to fly out of Des Moines and Manchester with an extremely valuable spoil: momentum, the type that an inert political party might need against a major popular movement. 'The issue here is about the stakes in this election, in 2028,' the New Hampshire senator Maggie Hassan, who won her seat in 2016 by a thousand and seventeen votes, told me. 'We have to win. We have to reverse Trumpism.'"

--

Noteworthy: This is a really nice, well-reported piece. But... [You knew there was going to be a but.]

But it is typically gauzy media account in how it approaches this "battle" within the Democratic Party. Rodríguez goes heavy on diversity and representation, which are important! Each are among the many factors the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is using to home in on the four or five states that will ultimately fill out the party's early window on the 2028 presidential primary calendar.

However, what's missing from the piece is arguably the most important component to the RBC's decision: Can the state/state party actually get the contest in question into the early window? And if one is going to report that a calendar decision is "expected by late summer," then not mentioning feasibility of primary/caucus movement -- even once! -- stands as a pretty glaring omission.

Why?

Well, if the end of summer is the point at which a decision on the calendar is to be made, then it really constrains the choice that is being made. It would limit the decision to states with contests already in the window or those that can easily get there. And not all 12 of the state parties that threw their hat in the ring for one of those early spots can get there. 

Not without the certainty that the midterms will likely bring. 

Control of state government come January 2027 will not be assured until then. And which party controls the levers of power will determine whether those states can or will be motivated to move a contest into February ahead of 2028. State governments hold that power in 10 of the 12 states vying for early slots in 2028. Iowa and South Carolina are the only exceptions.

These things matter. They may not be wholly determinative of the outcome, but they have an outsized role in how this is all going to shake out at some point later this year. 

And don't get FHQ started on this "two-hundred-and-seventy-thousand dollar fine" that the DNC will slap "on any state that staged an unauthorized competition." There is much more to it than that.

--

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

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Votes to Strengthen Penalties for Violations of Early Window of Presidential Nominating Calendar

DNC press release:

At this week’s meeting, the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) voted to strengthen penalties for states that hold or candidates who participate in an unsanctioned contest in the early window of the presidential nominating calendar. The RBC is working diligently to establish a calendar that delivers the strongest possible nominee for president. These strengthened rules aim to enforce a fair and orderly nominating process by providing clarity for both states and candidates. Importantly, these changes are being implemented early in the process, prior to a decision on the calendar and before any candidates are in the field, to ensure fairness to all parties.

Highlights from the changes include:

• Increasing the delegates lost for states that host an unsanctioned contest from 50% to 100%, including all automatic delegates.
• Requiring campaigns and candidates to denounce any efforts to campaign on their behalf in unsanctioned contests, expanding existing requirements beyond just a ban on direct participation.
• Prohibiting candidate participation in DNC debates, if that candidate or their campaign violates the early window rules.
• Prohibiting candidates who violate the rules from earning delegates in any early window contest.
• Implementing a $270,000 fine for any state that hosts an unsanctioned contest.
• Setting clear deadlines for states to establish the dates of their contests.
• Preventing backtracking on penalties for states or candidates who violate the rules.

The strengthened penalties were added via amendments to Rule 21 of the 2028 Delegate Selection Rules. The full meeting was livestreamed and can be found on the DNC’s YouTube page here.

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

“Today, the Rules and Bylaws Committee completed its work on the 2028 Delegate Selection Rules, creating a fair, efficient, and rigorous process to govern how we select our 2028 nominee. These newly-adopted rules strengthen the Delegate Selection Process to ensure maximum participation and clarity.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin released the following statement:

“Democrats must retake the White House in 2028. Today, the Rules and Bylaws Committee took important steps to bring us closer to that reality by creating a clear and orderly process to deliver the strongest possible nominee.”

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations

The Rules and Bylaws Committee adopted new enhanced penalties to punish states and candidates who break timing rules in 2028

Nevada's first in the nation bid earns major endorsements from national Latino, AAPI groups

Nevada Democratic Party press release:

Following last week’s Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in Pittsburgh, Nevada’s bid to host the first in the nation presidential primary scored two major endorsements from leading national Democratic organizations representing prominent Latino and AAPI voices, CHC BOLD PAC and ASPIRE PAC. The organizations highlighted Nevada’s unparalleled diversity and emphasized that it is the one state in the early window where presidential campaigns can craft and pressure-test an economic message that resonates across the country, begin the work necessary to build support among working-class voters, and mobilize diverse communities who are critical to our success.

CHC BOLD PAC called on the DNC to elevate Latino voters by making Nevada the first presidential primary so candidates can prove they can win back working-class and Latino voters who voted for Trump in 2024 – many of whom are now regretting their vote. BOLD PAC pointed to Nevada’s nearly one million Latino residents, its status as a battleground state, and its proven track record of electing Democrats through strong Latino engagement, arguing that no state better reflects the diverse working-class Latino coalition Democrats need to win in 2028.

“If Democrats want to flip the White House in 2028 and continue winning up and down the ballot, we must prioritize Latino voices through early outreach and meaningful engagement in the presidential nominating process. No state better represents the broad coalition of diverse working-class voters that our party must build in order to be successful than Nevada.” – CHC BOLD PAC Chairwoman Linda Sánchez

ASPIRE PAC also endorsed Nevada’s bid, citing the state’s nation-leading AAPI population among early-state contenders and the growing political power of AAPI voters nationwide. Nevada being the First in the Nation primary would ensure presidential campaigns engage AAPI communities early and meaningfully, strengthening the Democratic Party’s relationship with one of the country’s fastest-growing electorates.

“The diversity of Nevada’s voters best represents the broad coalition that a viable 2028 Democratic presidential candidate must have to take back the White House. Candidates who can win the primary in a battleground state with significant Asian, Black, and Latino primary voters will have a solid path to the Democratic nomination and can defeat a Republican in the general election.” – ASPIRE PAC Chair Marilyn Strickland

These endorsements come after other prominent organizations including Latino Victory Fund, Somos Votantes, UNITE Here and AAPI Victory backed Nevada’s first in the nation campaign earlier this year, demonstrating the growing support as national organizations recognize that the Democratic presidential nominating process should begin in the battleground state that best reflects the country and the voters who will decide the next presidential election.

--

Noteworthy: Nevada's endorsement from this pair of groups comes on the heels of South Carolina previously being endorsed by Democratic state party chairs across the Deep South and tapping Joe Biden to help make a 2028 push for first-in-the-nation status.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

The Annotated 2028 Presidential Primary Calendar

Tracking the evolution of the timeline of delegate selection events that will determine the next presidential nominees

"Iowa Democrats split on defying DNC in 2028 presidential calendar fight"

The Des Moines Register's Brianne Pfannenstiel has the summary of the Iowa Democratic Party survey on the 2028 caucuses:

"Most Iowa Democrats who responded to a state party survey want to be in the early voting window when it comes to presidential primaries, but they’re split over whether they should defy national Democrats to make it happen.

"The Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee voted Saturday, Dec. 6, to release the results of a survey the party conducted to gather feedback about the future of its presidential nominating caucuses.

"The results offer insight but no clear consensus for a party that is continuing to grapple with the fallout of major shifts in the national presidential nominating calendar."

--

Survey of 750 Iowa Democrats (results):

Timing of the Iowa caucuses

Iowa should go first: 

44.7 percent

Iowa should go early: 

20.6 percent

Iowa should go on Super Tuesday (or later): 

12.6 percent

Don't care (where Iowa is on the 2028 calendar): 

22 percent

Following DNC timing rules

Work within the early state selection rules and accept the DNC's decision on timing (even if Iowa is not early): 

51.1 percent

Work within the rules but flout them if Iowa is not granted a waiver for an early contest: 

34.4 percent

Go rogue without regard for the decisions on Iowa's scheduling at the DNC level: 

14.4 percent

...

Noteworthy: The state central committee also voted at its December 6 meeting to not surprisingly move forward in the DNC's early state selection process. Those waiver proposals -- state party cases for why their contest should be early in the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar -- are due to the Rules and Bylaws Committee by January 16. 

The split results on the two questions above will not necessarily make it any easier for the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) either in the state or with the national party. It is not the united, near-consensus front IDP Chair Rita Hart would otherwise like to present to the DNC and it means that no matter what the state party opts to do for 2028 with respect to the caucuses, that some sizable enough faction is going to be less than happy with the direction the party chooses. 

--

Much more on the results to the survey from on the ground in Iowa from John Deeth.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

How long will Democratic presidential contenders keep going to Iowa? 

Possible 2028 Democrats keep trekking to the Hawkeye state but those visits aren't guaranteed to last. Here's why.

"Booker backs national party returning N.H. to FITN"

Kevin Landrigan at the Union Leader:

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on a visit to New Hampshire saying things that people who are thinking about (if not actually) running for president say in places they often say them:

"'This is my second favorite new state after New Jersey. The culture up here blew me away when I ran. There’s something special here in New Hampshire and I support your efforts to be the first-in-the-nation primary,' Booker told WMUR during an interview Friday."

--

Noteworthy: Usually, the extent to which presidential candidates, prospective or otherwise, weighed in on the order of a primary calendar in the past was behind the scenes and through proxies at and/or on the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC). This is not that. And, in fact, Booker's statement may be the first of many ahead of any calendar decisions being made in 2026. It is a byproduct of the DNC opening up the process for states beyond the traditional ones to become a part of the early calendar lineup. There was some of this during the 2024 cycle, but the input was mainly coming from the incumbent Biden administration/campaign and the president's marginal challengers complaining, rightly or wrongly, about thumbs being put on the (rules) scales. 

Prospective 2028 candidates may be much more involved in voicing their opinions on the early calendar as those discussions continue within the RBC into 2026.

For what it is worth, Booker received votes in the 2020 New Hampshire primary, but he had withdrawn (in January) from the race for the Democratic nomination before any votes were cast (in February) in either Iowa or New Hampshire during the last cycle under the old early calendar rules.

"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. 

Uncommitted delegates are not necessarily Listen to Michigan delegates

Leading the day at FHQ...

The Michigan presidential primary is now in the rearview mirror, and while others will move on to the next contests or focus on the perceived threats the results in the Great Lakes state have on both likely nominees, FHQ will do what it does. And namely, that means digging into the delegates. 

For those who are interested in such things, there are a pair of delegate stories out of Michigan -- one on each side -- worth fleshing out some. 

Democrats

The story of the night in Michigan -- well, it seemed like it had already been flagged as the story well in advance of last night -- was how Listen to Michigan's push for Michiganders to vote uncommitted in protest of President Biden's Gaza policy would fare. Lowball estimates from the group and its allies aside, the group did pretty well. And by pretty well, FHQ means that they were probably wildly successful in capturing the attention of media folks and political junkies desperate for something other than "Biden and Trump win again."

Well, Biden and Trump won again and Listen to Michigan certainly grabbed some attention. Some will try to read the tea leaves on what that portends for the general election in a battleground state -- a fool's errand -- but there are other ways of looking at how uncommitted did in the Michigan primary.

Some of this FHQ contextualized yesterday over at FHQ Plus. Uncommitted 2024 did about as well as Uncommitted 2012 would have done had the Michigan Democratic presidential primary actually counted and not been a beauty contest that cycle. And that is to say that Uncommitted 2024 failed to hit 15 percent statewide to qualify for any PLEO or at-large delegates. Despite that, Uncommitted 2024, just like Uncommitted 2012 would have, managed to qualify in a couple of congressional districts. Then, it was the sixth and tenth districts. Last night saw Uncommitted 2024 qualify in the sixth and 12th districts, receiving just north of 17 percent in each. 

And what does that get Uncommitted 2024 in the delegate count? 

Two delegates. 

One delegate in each of those districts. 

[As of this writing, the Michigan secretary of state has all 83 counties reporting, but the tally may not be complete.]

However, just because there are two uncommitted delegates does not mean that those are two Listen to Michigan delegates. Again, they are uncommitted delegate slots. Uncommitted. Any national convention delegate candidate that files as uncommitted in the sixth and 12th districts can run for one of those two slots. It will be the uncommitted delegates to the congressional district conventions in May who will decide who gets those positions. 

Listen to Michigan may organize its supporters in Michigan to run for and win spots to the congressional district conventions -- more on that process here -- but the group does not have a lock on those delegate slots. Nor does it have the ability to vet potential national convention delegates in the same way that an actual candidate and their campaign can. The group will not have that check. 

In other words, Listen to Michigan is vulnerable to a knowledgable and organized delegate operation, one that could run or overrun the uncommitted delegate pool in those congressional districts and take those uncommitted slots for their own. 

Yes, FHQ is suggesting that the Biden campaign could swoop in and win those uncommitted delegate slots in Michigan's sixth and 12th districts.  

But they likely will not. That would likely end up being far more trouble than it is worth. Why stir up an angry hornets' nest any more than it is already riled up over two delegates? There really is no need to. Had uncommitted fared better last night, reaching, say, a third of the vote, then maybe there could have been a more concerted effort to contest the selection of delegate candidates to those allocated slots. But as it is -- at two delegates -- why attempt that particular flex?

Republicans

FHQ is not really sure what the deal with the AP delegate count in Michigan on the Republican side was, but it had been stuck on Trump 9, Haley 2 for the longest time. The Michigan Republican delegate selection plan is weird, but this is not that hard (even with an incomplete tally at this point).

Here is the number one needs to know: 25 percent.

If Nikki Haley slips under 25 percent in the Michigan primary results then she will claim three (3) delegates. As it stands now, she is over that mark and would be allocated four (4) delegates.

Trump will get the rest regardless of whether his total climbs some or falls. Why? 

Well, as of now, Trump is sitting on 68.2 percent of the vote in the Michigan primary. That would qualify him for 11 delegates. If the former president's total rose above 68.75 percent, then he would grab the last delegate, his would-be twelfth. But he would claim that delegate no matter what. Even if Trump stayed right where he is -- under 68.75 percent -- he would still win the last delegate. It would be unallocated based on the results, but all unallocated delegates go to the winner of the primary. 

--

FHQ has started rolling out the state-by-state series on Democratic delegate allocation rules over at FHQ Plus. So far there have been looks at rules in...

• Colorado 
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• North Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia

What's the difference between Democratic and Republican delegate selection rules? FHQ Plus has it covered.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Continue here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. That includes the latest from...

• Alabama

--

Recent posts:

Trump and Titanic Tuesday 2008

Haley's Path Forward ...and more in response to New Hampshire

2024 has been a weird cycle in New Hampshire ...and more

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

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

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

Leading the day at FHQ...

By now the story is old hat. At least around these parts it is. The Democratic National Committee altered its presidential primary calendar rules for the 2024 cycle. New Hampshire Democrats did not take kindly to the change that saw South Carolina's primary nudged into the first slot and spent 2023 openly defying the national party rules changes. 

Now, under the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party, such a move on the part of New Hampshire Democrats carries a penalty, a 50 percent reduction in the size of the base delegation. That reduction has taken place, and New Hampshire Democrats now have 10 delegates to the national convention in Chicago later this summer. But the reporting, if one reads it closely, still seems to toggle between saying that New Hampshire Democrats will lose/have lost half of their delegates and that Granite state Democrats will lose/have lost all of their delegates.

So which is it? Half or all?

Actually, it is both. The actions of the New Hampshire Democratic Party -- opting into the noncompliant state-run presidential primary on January 23 -- cost the party half of its delegates. That is done. However, due to a tweak in the national party delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle, state parties cannot allocate any delegates to any candidate who campaigns in a state like New Hampshire which has a primary scheduled in violation of the guidelines. Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson cannot even win any actual delegates by being on the ballot in the upcoming primary in the Granite state (even if they manage to qualify). 

So, New Hampshire Democrats have 10 delegates but cannot allocate them. Half and all, all rolled into one. 

The question is, what happens with those 10 delegates? Obviously the back and forth continues between the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the national party to resolve their impasse. But in the meantime, here are some thoughts at FHQ Plus on where things may go as primary season progresses. 

--

In the continuing state-by-state series on delegate allocation rules, FHQ examines changes for 2024 in...

• Utah: Republicans in the Beehive state have once again shifted to caucuses for selecting and allocating delegates. Otherwise, the same eccentricities remain under the surface in the allocation process.
• Vermont: FHQ often says that there are only so many ways to proportionally allocate three congressional district delegates under RNC rules. Well, that is true in terms of the 17 delegates Vermont Republicans have to offer as well. Nevertheless, Republicans in the Green Mountain state have built some unique features into their delegate selection plan.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Start here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. 

--

Recent posts:

Trump's firewall isn't the delegate rules, it's his support ...and more in response to Iowa

What if Iowa Republicans used the old Democratic caucus rules? ...and more

Colorado Republicans Eyeing a Primary Switch? ...and more

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and now find us on Threads (@fhq.plus) and Bluesky (fhq@bsky.social).

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

[From FHQ Plus] The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo"

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's subscription newsletter. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

From The Georgia primary isn't really in "limbo":

FHQ always follows along with rules meetings when I have the time. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) meeting late last week from Minneapolis was no exception. It was a productive if not eventful meeting. Among other things, the panel extended the early calendar waiver for New Hampshire and took up 19 state delegate selection plans, clearing 15 of them as conditionally compliant. 

Much of it seemed straightforward enough. But then I read some of the recaps and kept asking myself if folks had watched the same meeting I had. Sure, rules can have their various interpretations, but these sorts of sessions — those where delegate selection plans are being reviewed — can be pretty technical, pretty black and white. Yet, that did not stop some folks from reading shades of gray into matters where there really is none. Or in the case of the New Hampshire waiver, seeing what they wanted to see.

The consideration of the Georgia presidential primary (and any waiver extension for it) at the DNCRBC meeting last week was one of those situations. Like New Hampshire, the presidential primary in the Peach state had a spot in the early window of the Democratic calendar reserved for it for 2024, but ran into resistance with Republican state officials back home. However, unlike the situation in New Hampshire, the date of the Georgia primary has been set by the secretary of state. That deal is done. 

And DNCRBC co-Chair Minyan Moore seemed to acknowledge that in her comments about what she and fellow co-Chair Jim Roosevelt would recommend to the committee. She conceded that, despite the efforts of Democrats in Georgia and nationally, Peach state Republicans would not budge. They would not cooperate with the proposed change. And though Moore did not acknowledge it, it was an entirely understandable position. Any Georgia primary in mid-February would have cost Peach state Republicans a sizable chunk of their delegation to the national convention in Milwaukee next summer. Their hands were tied. They always were with respect to a February 13 position under Republican National Committee rules. [There were, however, other early window options that may have worked.]

But after that explanation, Moore said…

“…it does not seem to make sense to extend the Georgia waiver at this point. Regardless, I think the foundation has been laid for 2028, and it is a discussion that we need to continue.”

The key phrase in that statement is the highlighted one, at this point. Its addition was enough for the Associated Press to say that the Georgia primary was in limbo, that the committee had “opted not to immediately offer such an extension to another battleground state, Georgia.”

Look, the at this point was in reference to 2024 in its entirety, not this particular point in the 2024 cycle. And the reference to 2028 should have driven that point home. There is no number of waivers that the DNCRBC could offer Georgia Democrats that could get the state-run primary out of that March 12 slot. None. It is not in limbo. It is set for 2024. And this discussion can continue. 

…for 2028.

But it should be noted that there is a loose thread in all of this. There still is no draft delegate selection plan from the Georgia Democratic Party. Its absence at this time could create enough uncertainty that one may be inclined to suggest that maybe a party-run primary of some sort is in the works. 

Maybe. 

But if that was the case, then the DNCRBC would have granted an extension on the Georgia waiver last week. They did not. And they held back on that waiver extension because Georgia is done. The primary is set. 

The committee is set to address delegate selection plans from the southern region at its July meeting, so this all should clear up to some degree by then. 

--

Recent posts:

The difference in how the national parties approve delegate selection plans

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

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

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

Iowa Democratic Draft Delegate Selection Plan Points Toward Changes Ahead

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...

• Today is deadline day for state parties to submit draft delegate selection plans to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. An update on where that process stands. Also, the Hawaii bid to establish a presidential primary appears to have taken another hit. 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...

...

Iowa Democrats (IDP) got a draft in just under the wire. As noted above, it is deadline day for draft delegate selection plans to be submitted to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and the 2024 draft plan is now publicly available from Hawkeye state Democrats. Importantly, IDP indicates that it will conduct caucuses on the same day as Iowa Republicans next year. That fact, alongside the caucus bill that is working its way through the state legislature, would appear to indicate that Democrats in Iowa are prepared to defy DNC rules.

But as FHQ noted yesterday, there seems to be a fundamental misreading of that legislation and how it interacts with the proposed plans for Democratic delegate selection in the state in 2024. Here is the operative section from the draft plan on the proposed scheduling of the delegate selection process in Iowa:

The Iowa Caucuses shall consist of an expression of presidential preference, conducted by mail, AND in-person precinct caucuses. The precinct caucuses will be held in accordance with Iowa Code (ICO 43.4) at least eight days prior to any other state’s presidential nominating contest, on the same date as the Republican Caucuses. The purpose of the precinct caucuses will be to elect unbound delegates to county conventions, elect precinct committee persons, and move platform resolutions to the county convention. No expression of presidential preference will be tabulated at the precinct caucuses. The period for expression of presidential preference by mail will begin and end on dates included in the Iowa Democratic Party Chair’s call to caucus, which shall be issued no later than 90 days prior to the Caucuses.

So what does that suggest? A few things:

1. The caucuses will coincide with the Republican delegate selection process. That is still likely to be in January 2024.
2. Note that there is no mention of any "first determining step," the language the DNC uses for when votes are cast to determine delegate allocation.
3. In fact, that section goes to great lengths to bifurcate the delegate selection and allocation processes. Unbound delegates will be chosen at the likely January precinct caucuses. [Binding is Republican Party language, but FHQ digresses.] No attempt is being made at the precinct caucuses to select delegates pledged to any particular presidential candidate. [There will not, at least under this draft plan, be any slating of delegates before the preference vote.]
4. The allocation process will be based on the vote-by-mail presidential preference vote, the dates of which are unspecified, and left to remain that way until a caucus call is issued by the Iowa Democratic Party no later than roughly three months before the caucuses (late summer/early fall 2023). That is a tell of sorts. On some level, that issuance of a call rider to the section above allows Iowa Democrats to kick the can down the road a bit on this matter and continue to potentially lobby the DNCRBC for a spot in the early window (should some other previously selected early state fail to comply). And barring that, it simply buys the state party time to figure all of this out (on its own or in conjunction with the DNCRBC).
5. Look, Iowa Democrats may call this a caucus, but it is not. More than ever before the 2024 plan resembles the Democratic delegate selection/allocation process in most other states. There is, on the one hand, a process, usually a state-run primary, for voters to express presidential preference. The allocation is based on that. And on the other, there is a caucus process designed to actually select the human beings/delegates who will fill those allocated slots. The preference vote Iowa Democrats describe above is a primary. It is a party-run primary by any other name, and allocation will be based on that. Delegate selection will continue to run through the caucus process. Only now, that will potentially begin before the preference vote. That, in and of itself, is not necessarily unusual. 

Now, flashback to that caucus bill in the legislature. Folks, it got amended before being passed by the state House earlier this week. And the new provisions fit well with the bifurcated process Iowa Democrats detail in their draft delegate selection plan. Many raced to the conclusion that the in-person caucusing component doomed Iowa Democrats' plan. It does not. What the amended bill does do is the same thing that the draft delegate selection plan does: it makes a point to separate out the allocation and selection processes. And that is a big change in Iowa.

In the meantime, recall that this is a draft plan. It will go before the DNCRBC for review and together both sides will hammer out something that works under the new DNC guidelines for 2024. 

...or Iowa Democrats will face penalties. But the plan above makes it more likely that Iowa Democrats will be able to comply.

...

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) looks like he will make a splash in the staff primary by hiring the first woman of color to run a Republican presidential nomination campaign. Jennifer DeCasper may not register as a seasoned hand at the presidential campaign level -- there is no defection here, for instance -- but her hiring carries a certain symbolism to it. 

...

I don't know, but it seems like maybe Politico is late to this story. Those who have been reading Invisible Primary: Visible this year will know that Trump 2023 is closer to Trump 2019 than Trump 2015 by most measures. And part of that is campaign discipline, something endorsements have continued to show. 

...

On this date...

...in 1976, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter won the Democratic caucuses in Colorado. 

...in 1980, the Texas primary saw frontrunners win on both sides; former California Governor Ronald Reagan on the Republican side and President Carter in the Democratic contest. But that was back when Texas Democrats were using the Texas Two-Step system with delegates allocated in caucuses the same day as the primary.

...in 1988, Vice President Bush swept Republican primaries in Indiana, Ohio and Washington, DC while Jesse Jackson's win in the nation's capital kept Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis from winning all three contests in the Democratic nomination race. 

...in 2003, Democrats held their first presidential primary debate of the 2004 cycle. In a mark of how different the era was as compared to now, of the nine debate participants, only three -- Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham and Al Sharpton had officially launched formal presidential campaigns. The remaining candidates had merely formed exploratory committees to that point in the race before formal announcements later in 2003.

...in 2007, Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination debated for the first time at the Reagan Library in California in a forum hosted by MSNBC. 

...in 2008, Illinois Senator won the Democratic caucuses in Guam (by seven votes).

...in 2015, Ben Carson announced his bid for the 2016 Republican nomination.

...in 2016, Donald Trump won the Indiana primary, forcing Texas Senator Ted Cruz from the race and prompting RNC Chair Reince Priebus to declare that Trump would be the presumptive nominee.

--

Recent posts:

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Did Glenn Youngkin Run for 2024?

Invisible Primary: Visible -- New Hampshirites Are Not Surprisingly Defending the New Hampshire Primary

Sunday Series: Have the Democrats Actually Created Calendar Chaos for 2024 and Beyond?

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

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