Iowa Republican caucuses remain at the head of the 2028 presidential primary queue

Tom Barton at The Gazette in Cedar Rapids, IA with the latest on the Republican National Committee locking in Iowa as the first-in-the-nation contest for 2028:

"Iowa will retain its first-in-the-nation position in the Republican presidential nominating process in 2028, preserving the state’s influential role in GOP presidential politics even as national Democrats again move forward without Iowa in their early-state lineup.

"The Republican National Committee approved its presidential nominating calendar Thursday during the party’s gathering in Dallas, maintaining the traditional “carve-out” states with Iowa first, followed by New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, according to the Republican Party of Iowa.

"The vote followed approval Wednesday by the RNC Rules Committee and comes after months of work by a committee led by Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Jeff Kaufmann.

“'I’m pleased to announce that Iowa’s First in the Nation status is officially preserved through 2028,' Kaufmann said in a statement. 'As Chair of the RNC’s Presidential Nominating Process Committee, I led the effort to keep Iowa first and protect the carve-out system. Democrats may have abandoned Iowa, but Republicans under President Trump and RNC Chairman Gruters are committed to ensuring the Iowa caucuses remain a defining part of the presidential nominating process.'"

--

Noteworthy: This has not exactly been a mystery. Republicans in the traditional early states and in and around the RNC have signaled that the status quo calendar was likely to be maintained for the 2028. And the national party has now confirmed that at its summer meeting in Dallas, TX. The caucuses in Iowa will once again lead off the 2028 Republican primary calendar followed by contests in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. 

The order suggests that South Carolina Republicans have permanently ceded the third slot on the calendar to Nevada, something that was not in the national party rules for 2024, but Palmetto state Republicans voluntarily gave up for a spot right before Super Tuesday. That is a fairly significant change to what had been a longstanding alignment in the Republican calendar since 1980. South Carolina had not only been the first-in-the-South state in the Republican process -- it retains that position -- but also the third state. The RNC rules now imply the primary in the Palmetto state will fall fourth in the order. 

[FHQ uses terms like imply and suggests because, unlike the Democratic Party rules, the Republican rules do not give specific dates for these early contests. There is a list of carve-out states and therein an implicit order. But it is not mandated as South Carolina Republicans showed in shifting to fourth from third in the list for 2024.]

But while those questions have been addressed about the Republicans' 2028 primary calendar, other important ones remain unanswered for the time being.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Is calendar chaos in the offing for 2028? 

The notion is neither farfetched nor on anyone’s radar as the focus shifts to the Republicans’ calendar

"SC Democrats set their presidential primary date. When will GOP contest happen?"

Joseph Bustos at The State in Columbia, SC checks in on when Palmetto state Republicans might schedule their presidential primary now that South Carolina Democrats have their date:

"With South Carolina Democrats planning to hold their presidential primary Jan. 22, 2028, now Republicans have to decide when they want to have their primary.

The Palmetto State will be the first in the nation primary for Democrats. South Carolina Republicans will hold the GOP’s first in the South contest.

Both primaries have proven pivotal in whom each party nominates to be president.

SC GOP Chairman Drew McKissick told reporters that he and leaders of the Republican parties in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada will meet at the Republican National Committee’s meeting in September in Dallas to discuss the calendar, including when the early window closes.

--

Noteworthy: Perhaps things have changed for the 2028 cycle, but it might be a while before South Carolina Republicans weigh in on where exactly their presidential primary may be on the primary calendar for 2028. It was mid-June 2023 when the state party set the date for the 2024 cycle. And that came after much of the dust had settled on the calendar for that cycle. That has tended to be the protocol for early states, especially on the Republican side where specific dates are not spelled out in RNC rules for the early carve-outs.

--

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

At FHQ Plus: Defiant or disappointed? Iowa and New Hampshire find themselves on the outside looking in as the Democrats enter their super penalty era

Over at FHQ Plus...

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) formally adopted its rules for the 2028 presidential nomination process last weekend. That included the calendar rules that set the lineup of states granted waivers to conduct primaries in the early window prior to Super Tuesday. And while much of the Saturday general session of the DNC in Austin was devoted to speakers from each of the six states selected to fill out the early calendar, it was a day that was ultimately not full of surprises when it came to the rules. Outside of one tweak unrelated to the calendar, the full party adopted exactly what the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) passed last month in Washington, DC.

In other words, before and after the DNC vote in Austin, Iowa and New Hampshire were both on the outside looking in. Well, Iowa was entirely outside the early window anyway. New Hampshire, on the other hand, was, for the second cycle running, reserved a seat at the early calendar table, but outside of its preferred position at the head.

Understandably, that drew some reactions back home in the Hawkeye and Granite states. And they ran the gamut from disappointment with the decision to outright defiance. But the pattern in the backlash was noteworthy even in these early days of the 2028 cycle. After all, the calendar rules are but one step of this process. Now that the DNC rules are in place, the states and state parties have their chance to react to and within (or outside!?!) those rules and will over the course of the coming year or so. And early though it may be to think about those possibilities and their ramifications, as Yogi Berra once famously said, “It gets late early out there.”

Over at FHQ Plus, I will analyze the reactions, contextualize them and discuss Iowa and New Hampshire in the Democrats’ new super penalty era.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Let's talk about the Democrats' 2028 presidential primary calendar, part two

What are the implications on the race of the six states selected to hold contests in the Democrats' early window?

--

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

--

RNC Chair expects Iowa to be first on Republicans' 2028 presidential primary calendar

Stephen Gruber-Miller at the Des Moines Register provides an update on the Republican primary calendar and Iowa's likely place in it:

"The chair of the Republican National Committee says Iowa is all but certain to lead off the GOP presidential nominating process in 2028 after Democrats removed the state's first-in-the-nation status.

"'The road to the presidency starts here in Iowa,' RNC Chair Joe Gruters said Wednesday, Aug. 12, in an interview with the Des Moines Register. 'The fact that the Democrats just voted to remove Iowa from the primary calendar versus what we did. I put Chairman (Jeff) Kaufmann, your Republican Party of Iowa chairman, front and center. He's the chairman of our primary calendar. That's how much we value Iowa.'

"The RNC tapped Kaufmann in October 2025 to lead the committee tasked with determining the order of the 2028 presidential nominating calendar. Kaufmann held the same post ahead of the 2024 election, when Iowa went first and President Donald Trump overwhelmingly won the Iowa Caucuses.

"The party has not formally set its 2028 nominating calendar, but Gruters expressed confidence about Iowa's place."

--

Noteworthy: It has not exactly been a mystery that the Republican Party would carry on with the traditional four states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- atop its presidential primary calendar for 2028. However, the unanswered question is whether those four will be joined by other states ahead of Super Tuesday due to the new Democratic primary calendar. Yes or no, there are implications for the early calendar on the Republican side and how the nomination race may progress.

--

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

"Democrats to pitch new-look Iowa Caucuses in bid to go first once more"

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

"Iowa Democrats will travel to Washington, D.C., this week to pitch a streamlined caucus plan they hope will convince national party leaders that Iowa deserves another shot to be at the front of the presidential nominating calendar."

...

"Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart has argued repeatedly that the [DNC Rules and Bylaws] committee should reconsider Iowa as Democrats work to regain ground with rural, working-class voters who have fled the party in droves.

"'In order to do that, we've got to have a state like Iowa where any Democratic presidential candidate can compete, where it's affordable and where the candidates can look forward to getting up close and personal and really understanding the issues that will bring us back to an understanding of working class voters,' Hart told the Des Moines Register."

--

Noteworthy: The devil, as always, is in the details.

More will obviously be revealed when the Iowa Democratic delegation makes its case before the RBC this week, but one thing is clear in Pfannenstiel's interview with Chair Hart: The old caucuses are gone. 

There would be no more physical gathering in groups at caucus sites, determining viability (15 percent support) and realigning among viable groups to begin the process of calculating state delegate equivalents for the next steps in the overall caucus/convention process. All of that is out, streamlined and replaced by paper ballots similar to those used in the Iowa Republican presidential caucus process but to be preceded by an absentee voting period in the lead up to the caucus meeting (a carry over from the 2024 Democratic process).

Part the RBC will likely enjoy seeing included: the streamlined process. Anything that appears miles simpler than the 2020 process will go a long way.

Part(s) the RBC may push back on: Not only having a party-run process lead off (or be early on) the 2028 presidential primary calendar, but having a heretofore untested new (albeit simplified) party-run process be a part of the early window. Of the 12 states applying for an early window waiver, only Iowa is proposing a party-run affair. The remaining 11 all have state-run presidential primary elections. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know which states they are looking at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

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

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

"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.

"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. 

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

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

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

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

And from Caroline Vakil at The Hill:

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

More from Elena Schneider at Politico:

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

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

--

And there were reactions on the state level...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

 And...

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

--

More at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Now we know what they're looking for.

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

"DNC 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. 

"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

"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?

Iowa House measure would create first-in-the-nation presidential primary option

After Iowa Democrats lost their privileged position atop the presidential primary calendar in 2024, at least one Democrat in the Hawkeye state is pushing back. Rep. David Jacoby (D-86th, Coralville) has introduced HF 484 to establish a state-run presidential primary option alongside the state's long-running first-in-the-nation caucuses. 

On the one hand, Jacoby's legislation would align Iowa with the aims of national Democrats. The DNC has made a point over the last several cycles of encouraging increased participation in the presidential nomination process by nudging state Democratic parties toward primaries (state-run if possible) over state party-run caucuses. This bill successfully navigating the legislative process in Des Moines and being signed into law would shift Iowa Democrats closer to that national party goal. 

However, that one step forward is made in conjunction with another provision that runs counter to the national party rules with respect to the presidential primary calendar. On that front, Jacoby's bill would set the date for the state-run presidential primary for "at least four days earlier than the scheduled date for any meeting, caucus, or primary which constitutes the first determining stage of the presidential nominating process in any other state, territory, or any other group which has the authority to select delegates in the presidential nomination."

Now, no final decisions have been made by the DNC about which states will comprise the early window contests on the 2028 presidential primary calendar. That will not be settled until the late summer/early fall of 2026 at the earliest. Therefore, this bill would not necessarily put Iowa Democrats in the crosshairs of the national party with regard to the timing of this proposed state-run presidential primary. But nor does the potential law provide much statutory leeway either. If HF 484 becomes law and Iowa Democrats do not secure an early slot on the calendar -- and not just early, first -- then the state party would run afoul of national party rules, incurring sanctions. 

Indeed, Iowa would not only run afoul of the DNC rules under those circumstances, but that primary would also trigger the similar state law in New Hampshire (the seven days before any similar contest provision). And that would set off a race to see which state could organize the earliest (unsanctioned) contest the fastest, all under the auspices of state law in both cases. 

Those are all concerns that are layered into this particular bill. But there are issues back home in the Hawkeye state as well. Chief among those issues is that Democrats are locked out of power from the decision-making positions in Iowa. In other words, Jacoby would have to get at least some, if not a lot of buy-in from Republicans who hold the reins of power in both the legislative and executive branches in the state. It is not clear that Iowa Republicans, in or out of the legislature, would go for this bill. After all, the Republican Party of Iowa stuck with the first-in-the-nation caucuses in 2024 -- it was consistent with Republican National Committee calendar rules -- while state Democrats abandoned them for a vote-by-mail party-run presidential primary to stay within their national party's guidelines. 

An all new, state-run primary would also ostensibly require state funds to implement the legislation. There is no fiscal note included in this legislation, but any price tag would likely be met with some resistance from Republican legislators, who may or may not prefer the caucuses to a primary option. However, keeping Iowa first, as this bill does, would potentially win over some support for a primary option. Yet, given the presence of the caucus option already, it would likely be minimal. 

Some Iowa Democrats have been clamoring for a presidential primary option since 2023-24, and while this bill may meet that wish, it faces an uphill climb for a host of reasons.

--

NOTE: Counter to the reporting from KAAL TV in southern Minnesota, this legislation would not "end the [presidential] caucus system" in Iowa. Rather, it would provide for a state-run primary option if a state party chair requested such an election from the state commissioner of elections. The caucuses would remain an option, the default option in fact.

Sanders' trip to Iowa is not about the 2028 presidential nomination

Holly Otterbein buries the lede on Bernie Sanders' upcoming trip to the heartland:

Bernie Sanders, the two-time presidential candidate, is barnstorming Iowa and Nebraska to rally voters against what he calls “the oligarchy” — the kind of high-profile offensive that typically signals a potential run for the White House.

Yeah, only Iowa did not have in 2024 nor is likely to have in 2028 an early, much less first, contest in the Democratic presidential nomination process. And sure, Otterbein gets there, but it takes a while after she's pulled the same "catnip" clickbait move on readers.

Sanders is a keen observer — and critic — of the media, and he knows that the traditionally first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa is catnip for reporters, even after Democrats moved it back in their nominating calendar in 2024. Anything he does there is bound to get attention — something many Democrats are desperate for as Musk dominates the conversation on his social media site X alongside Trump.

This is a story -- the Sanders trip to Iowa and Nebraska -- that is more about the Vermont senator rallying Democrats and others in swing (congressional) territory and using Iowa's past glory in the presidential nomination process, on the Democratic side of the equation anyway, to grab some attention. 

It seems to have worked. 

He's not running.

State of the Race: Iowa -- Is the race for the Hawkeye state's 6 electoral votes really that close?

State of the Race offers quick hit reactions to state or national poll releases in the 2024 race for the White House. For a broader overview of the battle for electoral college votes, check out FHQ Plus. It is home to the 2024 FHQ electoral college projection. Much more there. Subscribe below.

--

Let's talk about this Iowa Poll from the Des Moines Register that was released this morning. It is one of those surveys that has the potential to grab attention heading into the week ahead. And sure, some folks are bound to take it and run with it. First thing's first... 

Yes, the Selzer and Co. poll of the Hawkeye state finds former President Donald Trump up only four points on Vice President Harris, 47-43. And yes, that is a marked departure from where things ended up four years ago in the Hawkeye state when the then-president took the state's six electoral votes with a 53-45 percent victory. Both 2024 candidates, then, are running behind the 2020 nominees in the state with Trump lagging further behind his own pace than Harris is Biden's. 

But the newly released poll also differs from the previous Iowa Poll released in June before the Atlanta debate between Biden and Trump. Before even factoring in that debate -- the event that ultimately led to Biden's exit -- the president was trailing Trump 50-32 in the Hawkeye state. Harris, then, has cut more than three-quarters into that deficit in the environment immediately following her own debate this last week with Trump. 

Comparing this poll to both the 2020 results in Iowa and the most recent poll -- a bit of an apples to oranges comparison -- would by extension give one the impression that the race for the six electoral votes in 2024 is quite close. It is certainly closer than those two benchmarks!

But here is the thing: 2024 has not exactly offered a bumper crop of polling data out of the Hawkeye state. In fact, this Selzer poll is the first such survey from Iowa since Biden stepped aside and Harris was formally nominated by the Democratic National Convention. Let me repeat that: this is the only public data on the Harris-Trump race in Iowa right now. Counting the September Selzer poll of Iowa in 2020, there had been 18 surveys of the state by this point in the initial Biden-Trump race. By election day there had been 46 surveys of the state. 

The data, then, is woefully lacking in 2024 at least by comparison. And couple that also with the fact that the 2020 polling missed pretty badly in Iowa. It was close with respect to Biden's share of support, overstating it by around two points. However, the Iowa polling in 2020 understated Trump support by nearly six points. 

Look, the 2024 race is not destined to have a polling miss or even have one that looks like (or about like) the error in 2020. It is much too early to come to that conclusion. So I don't want to go too far down that road. However, I do want to raise that in the context of this latest survey. But at this point, the more important factor is that there just is not that much to go in Iowa right now. 

Does this poll present a race that may be closer than expected? Sure, but what is the expectation? That is where the lack of polling data comes into play. Based on the regression-based prediction for under-polled states that FHQ has been running this cycle, regressing the 2020 presidential results on the available state-level survey data, this Iowa Poll from the Register is a couple of points closer than the projected margin between Harris and Trump in the state. 

That is to say that the poll is closer, but not as much as some of the other comparisons above might suggest. It would be more in line with the normal sort of variability one would see from poll to poll. And following last week's debate performance, one might expect a race that maybe contracted by a couple of points, drawing the vice president closer.

More on the rest of the day's polling here.

--

Recent Posts:

State of the Race: New Mexico -- Still leaning but trending which way?

State of the Race: Texas -- A repeat of 2020?

State of the Race: Virginia -- Is the presidential contest close in the commonwealth?

--

Follow FHQ on Bluesky, Threads and Twitter/X. Or subscribe to receive posts in your Inbox. 

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