"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

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

"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.

"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.

"Iowa Matters Less Than Ever for Democrats, but They Can’t Quit It"

Reid Epstein at The New York Times looks at why prospective 2028 Democratic presidential candidates are still going to Iowa:

Not only did Democrats in the Hawkeye state lose their spot among the states in the early presidential primary calendar in 2024, but...

"This summer, Ken Martin, the new D.N.C. chairman, took Iowa’s delegates off the party’s powerful rules committee, which is expected to begin debating the 2028 calendar at its meeting in Washington next month and make a final determination by next summer. So far, D.N.C. members have shown little appetite for returning Iowa to its first-in-the-nation status.

"One major reason Democrats keep going to Iowa, though, is the media attention that still follows."

--

Noteworthy: FHQ has seen this question posed a few times elsewhere over the course of 2025 and NYT's Epstein does well to hone in on the media attention a trip to Iowa (even an Iowa with a delegate selection event likely outside of the early window for Democrats in 2028) at this stage can potentially bring a prospective candidate.  But is that draw inevitable? Will it be perpetual if so? Or is Iowa likely to turn back into a pumpkin at some point before the race for the 2028 Democratic nomination really heats up? We walk through a discussion of those questions 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.

"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. 

"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.

"DNC set to start process for deciding which states will vote earliest in 2028 presidential primaries"

Hunter Woodall at CBS News provides an update what the Democratic National Committee is likely to look for in states that will make up the early window on the 2028 presidential primary calendar:

"A source familiar with the calendar efforts detailed the materials written by the co-chairs of the party's rules and bylaws panel, including a draft resolution and request for proposal, were shared Friday with members. At the late October meeting, members will have a chance to revise and vote on the work.

"The resolution outlines standards, which according to the source, cover the following:

• "'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;
• Efficiency: the lineup of early states must be affordable and practical for candidates and not exhaust their resources, precluding them from effectively participating in future contests;
• Fairness: the practical ability to run a fair, transparent and inclusive primary or caucus.'

"The plans call for four or five states to be chosen by DNC members to hold a nominating contest in what's known as the "early window," which comes before states begin voting in large numbers on Super Tuesday and the weeks afterwards. Under the draft, each of the four regions being focused on by the DNC, the East, Midwest, South and West, would need to have at least one state from its respective areas be chosen."

--

Noteworthy: The draft resolution cited above lays out criteria for those state parties petitioning the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) to be among the primaries and caucuses included in the early primary calendar in 2028. The points are consistent with those that Chair Ken Martin laid out in early August, but it also fleshes that out some by carrying over elements from the 2024 process. For starters, the party is looking for regional representation across four regions of the country in the early window. The RBC will also look to fill the early window -- ranging from the first Tuesday in February to the first Monday in March -- with four to five contests. [There are five Tuesdays in February 2028.]

One thing that is not included in the 2028 list that was among the criteria for 2024 (and will be just as inescapable now)? Feasibility.

More at FHQ Plus (subscription):

DNC Chair Martin lays out early state checklist for 2028

"DNC Chair says Democrats plan to be competitive in Iowa despite caucus uncertainty"

Skylar Tallal at KGAN/CBS2 pulls back the curtain on DNC Chair Martin's latest comments on Democrats running in Iowa in 2026 and the caucuses there in 2028:

"Yet, looking ahead to 2028 and the future of Iowa Democrats regaining their first-in-the-nation title back is still unclear.

"'What's important to me is there's no predetermined outcome in terms of what the calendar looks like,' Martin said. 'Everyone who wants to make a bid will have a fair shot and opportunity to actually make their case including Iowa.'

"Iowa Democrats lost their first-in-the-nation caucuses back in 2024 and have since asked Iowans to fill out a survey asking what they should for 2028 if Iowa is once again left out of the early presidential nominating calendar.

"Martin said him [sic] and the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee, who chooses the order of the calendar, will be looking for states that can test their nominees, is fair and cost efficient."

--

Noteworthy: Look, there is not that much here. Tallal's is a story that mainly highlights Democratic efforts from the top down to compete in Iowa in the 2026 midterms. There just is not that much about the calendar, Iowa's place in it and 2028. However, Martin continues to repeat what has been a drumbeat out of the national party concerning its process to select states to fill out the early calendar in the coming presidential cycle. And while the oft-used line about Iowa having the same chance as any other state petitioning the national party to go early in 2028 continues to be trotted out, leaving the door open to Iowa's inclusion in the early window, other signals have been more ominous for Democrats in the Hawkeye state. The scheduling and/or sanctioning of their delegate selection -- be it caucus or party-run primary -- is still months away while the available evidence points toward not being included in the states granted a waiver by the party to go early. 

"Democratic Calendar in Disarray: The Importance of the 2028 Presidential Primary Schedule"

Nick Field, writing at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, looks at some of the questions facing Democrats as they set out to put together an early calendar lineup for 2028:

"[T]he primary calendar is now under the purview of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. Martin has reshaped this critical committee, as 32 of its 49 members are new, with Martin ousting some party power brokers who haven’t been shy in making their displeasure known far and wide. According to what Martin told Favreau, the committee won’t release their proposed calendar until the winter of 2027...

"Top of the agenda for the group is bound to be whether New Hampshire leads the pack again or South Carolina now assumes that role. There’s also the question of Nevada, and whether any other states can join the pre-Super Tuesday portion of the calendar. This trio of states is set to get two seats each on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, perhaps an indication that none of them will be dropped from the early window.

"All of these scheduling questions could ultimately prove pivotal for the potential 2028 candidates."

--

Noteworthy: Perhaps this is one of those cases in which a headline writer was overly playful with an often over-expressed notion -- Dems in disarray -- that does not exactly match the tenor of the piece. However, having written for Crystal Ball a few times over the years, my experience was that the author came up with them. Regardless of whether it was used tongue-in-cheek or seriously, I just do not see that much disarray with the Democrats and their 2028 calendar. 

That is, not yet anyway. 

Look, if used seriously in the context of Nick Field's piece, the usual thicket of rules that the two major parties, but especially the out-party, faces every four years can be confused for disarray. But I don't think it is disarray at this point. After all, Democrats on the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) are literally at the beginning of what is likely to be a lengthy process. Everything is seemingly on the table. 

But as this process progresses and we learn more about how state parties will be able to pitch their primaries or caucuses to the RBC and the new members of the panel get the historical context of the rules and the rules-making process that staff quadrennially provides, that aforementioned everything will winnow down to a much smaller, actually feasible, set of options from which the committee will ultimately choose in the next 18 months.

And no, none of this necessarily portends big changes to the early calendar for 2028. But yes, the New Hampshire question will be among the more prominent ones the RBC will have to tackle.

--

There is more in there to respond to, but I will save that for something over at FHQ Plus, where I have a bit more space to address things.

In the meantime, here is where the 2028 primary calendar currently stands.

"Should Iowa Democrats go 'rogue' and go first with 2028 caucuses? Survey seeks party input"

Brianne Pfannenstiel at The Des Moines Register digs in on where Iowa Democrats are with the 2028 presidential primary calendar process at the starting line:

"As national Democrats begin gearing up for a conversation about the 2028 presidential nominating calendar, Iowa Democrats are asking themselves whether they want to obey the national party’s process or go 'rogue' with a renewed push for first-in-the-nation status.

"In a new survey set released to Iowa Democrats Thursday, Aug. 21, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart writes that although the party’s focus is on winning elections in 2026, 'discussions about the 2028 nominating process have begun.'

“'Without an incumbent president on the ballot, we are likely to have one of the deepest and longest nominating campaigns in history,' she wrote in the survey introduction. 'Unlike 2024, the outcome of the presidential nominating process will be in doubt. As Iowa Democrats, we have choices to make about how to proceed.'”

--

Noteworthy: Chair Hart struck a pragmatic tone at the outset of the national party's calendar deliberations. While the survey teases the idea that Hawkeye state Democrats may go rogue for 2028, Hart pointed out that 1) it is still much too early and 2) there are a lot of moving parts that will affect what the state party may do with regard to the caucuses next time around, including how the party performs in state contests during the 2026 midterms. 

Others within the party were much more forceful, recently removed DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member (and Iowa national committeeman) Scott Brennan among them. "Full speed ahead and damn the DNC," he said, striking a defiant posture. 

Of course, Iowa Democrats can be defiant without actually breaking any likely DNC rules for 2028. One should expect the state party to hold early caucuses again during the next cycle. It is, after all, state law. What those early -- January? February? -- caucuses do, however, matters. If they merely select delegates to go to the next step of the caucus/convention process as was the case for the 2024 cycle, then Iowa Democrats will not have held their "first determining step," as the DNC calls it, and will be rules-compliant. 

What matters is not that preliminary selection process. The part that will be and always has been important, not to mention determinative, is the allocation process. If the results of any caucus vote determines which candidates win how ever many delegate slots -- allocation -- then such a caucus would run afoul of DNC rules. 

And it is worth raising another reality: Now that Iowa Democrats have held a mail-in party-run presidential primary, it will be hard for the state party to make the case for returning to the in-person caucuses alone, rogue or not. That is a much more difficult argument to make before the national party and to rank-and-file Democrats in the Hawkeye state. 

--

Related at FHQ+:

Background on 2023 state law change and the implications for Iowa Democrats

--

More:

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Iowa Democrats launch survey, discussion on future of presidential caucuses

Associated Press: Iowa Democrats consider bringing back lead off caucuses, even if it means going ‘rogue’ in 2028

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

More on the 2028 presidential primary calendar here and here.

"DNC chair says Democrats will start process of setting 2028 primary calendar this month"

Sarah Fortinsky at the The Hill summarizes DNC Chair Ken Martin's comments on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar:

"Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said on Sunday that the party will begin deliberating the 2028 primary calendar later this month at a meeting in Minneapolis.

"'We’re going to start that conversation actually this month in August at our DNC meeting in Minneapolis,' Martin said in an interview on NewsNation’s 'The Hill Sunday,' when host Chris Stirewalt asked about the primary calendar in the next president election.

"'The Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is newly composed, will start this conversation by putting forward the rules and procedures, and start to really figure out how we’re going to engage in this,' he continued.

"Martin said the process will play out over the next year, and he expects to have a calendar set by the end of next year."

--

Noteworthy: The rough timeline here suggests that the DNC will carry over some elements of the process from the 2024 cycle. That the final calendar decisions at the national party level did not come down until not only after the 2022 midterms but in December of that year was a break from the protocol the party had utilized in most previous post-reform cycles. Usually, those early window calendar slots were settled on in the late summer/early fall of the midterm year alongside the formal final adoption of the entire rules package for the upcoming presidential nomination process. 

--

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

DNC Chair Martin lays out early state checklist for 2028

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

...

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

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

--

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

• Diversity
• Competitiveness
• Feasibility

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

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

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

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

"What are the early states to watch?

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

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

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

--

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

"‘Who’s got next?’ Democrats already lining up for 2028 presidential race in early voting states"

The AP's Steve Peoples, Meg Kinnard and Holly Ramer on early 2028 candidate travel:

"The first presidential primary votes won’t be cast for another two and a half years. And yet, over the span of 10 days in July, three Democratic presidential prospects are scheduled to campaign in South Carolina.

"Nearly a half dozen others have made recent pilgrimages to South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa — states that traditionally host the nation’s opening presidential nomination contests. Still other ambitious Democrats are having private conversations with officials on the ground there.

"The voters in these states are used to seeing presidential contenders months or even years before most of the country, but the political jockeying in 2025 for the 2028 presidential contest appears to be playing out earlier, with more frequency and with less pretense than ever before."

Related from The Hill:

"South Carolina becomes early hot spot for potential 2028 candidates"

--

Noteworthy: Decisions on the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar are far off, so the press is maybe being a bit reflexive in focusing on Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as usual. Still, that is where the potential candidates have been popping up to this point in the cycle. Perhaps that is an indication of where the calendar will go (or where the candidates think it will go). And that is not without import.

However, left with far fewer visitors and a much lower frequency of visits are two states that, unlike the traditional three above, are locked into likely early calendar positions by state law (subject to change): Nevada, a state that has been in the early lineup on the Democratic side as long as South Carolina has, and Michigan. 

That said, Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) was in Detroit in the days leading up to July 4.

"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?

Who ends up embarrassed if Iowa and New Hampshire go rogue in 2024?

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...

• In case you missed it, Idaho Republicans have a pair of proposals the state party is considering for earlier than usual delegate allocation and selection in the Gem state in 2024. 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...

...

FHQ has decreasingly little patience for clickbait that masquerades as a story about the primary calendar. And that is what this latest piece from Alex Thompson at Axios is: clickbait. The only thing new in there to most folks who do not obsessively follow the ins and outs of the calendar is that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting Friday, June 16 to start the process of reviewing 2024 delegate selection plans submitted by the state parties. 

No, I could not even get through the headline before I got cranky about it. 

Headline: Biden could lose first two ’24 contests to RFK Jr.

I mean, Thompson ultimately points out what other reporting has revealed. That Presidential Biden will not be on the ballot in any rogue state in 2024. Yet, somehow that is the headline. 

Remember when the Denver Nuggets recently lost the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals to the Vegas Golden Knights? Neither do I. The Nuggets were not on the ice. They were not facing off against the Knights. That may not be fair. That may not be a good analogy. But come on. Biden cannot lose a contest where he is not on the ballot. That is not to say Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cannot win those contests, but he will not have beaten Biden in so doing. 

And that leads to... "That sets up a scenario in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or another long-shot Democrat could win those states — and embarrass the president."

Maybe it would be embarrassing to Team Biden if some fringe candidate were to win one or two rogue contests. It would not affect the president much in the delegate count. There will not be any delegates at stake in any rogue state contests. But it would not necessarily be a good look for the president in the court of public opinion as the Republican primary season kicks off. Press accounts on this story really seem to like this angle. It promises future drama. 

But again, do you know who is going to be more embarrassed than the president and his campaign that Kennedy or Williamson or whomever wins rogue Iowa or New Hampshire? Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Here is that scenario: 

1) Your state party just defied the national party rules to stick with tradition and hold early contests. 

2) Those same state parties "embarrass" the president that the broader party network is trying to reelect for the short term benefit of going first. 

3) Someone other than the president wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire.

4) Those state parties pitch the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee -- the same one that rejected them for 2024 and whose rules those two states defied in response, leading to the 'embarrassment" of the president the whole party was trying to reelect -- on being a part of the early window of states for 2028. 

Who exactly is embarrassed in that scenario? In the long term, probably Iowa and New Hampshire. 

...should either or both go rogue. But that part of the story rarely sees the light of day in most press accounts.

But what about Iowa and/or New Hampshire? There is an important difference between those two; in how Democrats in each have reacted since the DNC adopted the calendar rules back in February.

Thompson does eventually get around to that too: "Iowa Democrats haven't been as publicly hostile over Biden's move. But in the past two months they've quietly moved to hold their contest the same day as Iowa Republicans — in January, but with a mail-in option for ballots."

So close. So very close. Yes, Iowa Democrats have behaved demonstrably differently than their peers in New Hampshire. Aside from the fact that Rules and Bylaws is meeting on Friday, that is -- or should be -- the lede here. But no, it gets buried in the piece and is followed by the overly dramatic and misleading "but they're going to caucus early anyway."

Yes, Iowa Democrats will caucus on the same night as Iowa Republicans some time next January. But we do not yet know when the vote-by-mail preference vote will occur. And by extension we do not yet know when delegates will be allocated. That is the important action that both the president and the DNC are and will be looking at. The delegate allocation. 

That is not to be confused with delegate selection which is proposed to start in Iowa at those January Democratic caucuses. Early selection is not a rogue activity in the eyes of the DNC. Perhaps this likening of delegate allocation/selection to getting and distributing Taylor Swift tickets would be helpful to Mr. Thompson (and others).

I get it. Drama gets folks to click. 

And while there is drama in the process of the 2024 presidential primary calendar coming together, it need not be overly and misleadingly amplified. That is what this story does. And it is not alone. There are others out there and they pop up in every cycle in which an incumbent is seeking reelection. The prospect of a ho-hum, incumbent renomination phase is not ideal for attention-grabbing headlines or stories. Remember those stories about all those Republican primaries and caucuses that got cancelled in 2019-20? They were built up in a similar fashion in the context of Trump's reelection efforts. It was a story, but one that only really only ultimately appealed to calendar/rules nerds like FHQ.  

At the end of the day, there just is not a lot of news in incumbents vying for renomination. Those folks tend to be pretty popular, or at least, popular enough within their own party. If they are not, it tends to draw legitimate challengers into the race. But there are no legitimate challengers in the race for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. And that is mostly boring. Just like Joe Biden.  

...

Seth Masket is good here on Trump and his opponents taking a position on pardoning the former president.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the travel primary, Donald Trump has recently lined up trips to the Upstate of first-in-the-South South Carolina for July 4 weekend and another to Super Tuesday Alabama in August.
• Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will trek out to Nevada this weekend. Republicans in the Silver state will likely have early caucuses in 2024. 
• Miami Mayor Francis Suarez filed paperwork with the FEC to officially enter the 2024 Republican presidential nomination race and has a super PAC behind his effort running ads in three of the four early states on the Republican primary calendar.
• Iowa Democrats approved a caucus plan with mail-in participation. Does it violate state law? Nope.

...

On this date...

...in 2015, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush formally entered the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

--

Recent posts:

Tim Scott is making it tough for others in South Carolina

Are the Two South Carolinians Hurting DeSantis in the Palmetto State?

An Invisible Primary Round Up to Start the Week

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

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