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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

--

Michigan Democratic Party statement on the application:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

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

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

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

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

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

"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. 

"Michigan lawmakers weigh moving primary date ahead of 2026 campaign"

Craig Mauger, Beth LeBlanc and Melissa Nann Burke at The Detroit News detail a bipartisan legislative push in the Great Lakes state to move the date of the primaries for state and federal offices:

"Michigan lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, are weighing a new push to move the state's August primary to May, a change that could shake up next year's fight for control of state government.

"While there's been little bipartisan cooperation in the divided Legislature so far this year, members of the Democratic-led Senate and representatives within the Republican-led House have both been considering yet-to-be-unveiled proposals to alter the traditional August primary date."

--

Noteworthy: Could any change on this front in Michigan affect the scheduling of the 2028 presidential primary in the state as well? I'm glad you asked. Let's walk through some of the possibilities at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Would Michigan primary consolidation stop at state/federal and municipal offices?

"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.

Uncommitted delegates are not necessarily Listen to Michigan delegates

Leading the day at FHQ...

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

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

Democrats

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

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

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

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

Two delegates. 

One delegate in each of those districts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

• Alabama

--

Recent posts:

Trump and Titanic Tuesday 2008

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

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

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

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

On "the nitty-gritty battle for delegates" for 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...

• California Republicans were always going to have to do something with their delegate selection plan to bring it into compliance with national party rules. But under those RNC rules there are variations in the proportional methods required before March 15. And consequentially, Republicans in the Golden state are planning to use a different proportional in 2024 than they did in 2020. 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...

...

Look, I thought the AP story on Trump and the delegate battle now and ahead was a good and informative read. It did well in pulling together a number of disparate pieces to tell a story about how the Trump campaign has done well playing defense on the delegate rules it established in 2020 and even some of the offense it has played on a smaller scale. 

It is an important story. There have been more wins -- as measured by status quo maintenance -- for the former president than losses, and that is no small thing as the invisible primary pushes deeper into the third quarter of 2023. Whether this 2024 Republican presidential nomination race develops into an actual delegate battle or not is colored to a great degree by how the frontrunner (or front-running campaigns if there are multiples) shuts the door now on opponents in the delegate rules and across the various other invisible primary metrics (fundraising, endorsements, staff, etc.).

Yes, the polling support could collapse for Trump at some point, but for now the former president has some built-in advantages that insulate him to some extent. It is not the incumbency advantage, but this [understatement alert] has not been the typical competitive nomination cycle either. 

...

Still, it can be tough for me not to read accounts like the AP's with anything other than a critical eye. There are a couple of things FHQ would highlight:

1) On Michigan Republicans' and the process they have laid out for delegate allocation and selection in 2024...

"In Michigan, where the state GOP has become increasingly loyal to Trump, the party’s leadership this year voted to change the state’s longtime process of allocating all its presidential delegates based on an open primary election. Under a new plan widely expected to benefit Trump, 16 of the state’s 55 delegates will be awarded based on the results of a Feb. 27 primary. The other 39 will be distributed four days later in closed-door caucus meetings of party activists."

There will be a congressional district caucus process in Michigan at some point, but it is not clear whether that will fall on March 2, four days after the state-run primary. Yes, that plan was adopted last month, but the caucus scheduling hit a snag with the RNC earlier in July.

2) On California Republicans and their plans for 2024...

"One potential opening for a challenger like DeSantis could be California, which has 169 delegates to dole out, more than any other state. 

"Thanks to changes passed by Democrats in the state Capitol, California’s primary contest will be on March 5, requiring the state GOP to change its delegate plan in order to comply with national GOP rules for early contests. 

"The changes, which the state’s Republican Party is set to consider and approve late this month, are set to award delegates proportionately to the candidate’s share of the vote, rather than award all delegates to the winner. 

"That could give a candidate trailing in second place a chance to make up ground—especially someone like DeSantis, who has made a point of campaigning in the state."

Democrats in Sacramento did change the primary date to Super Tuesday. 

...in 2017. 

California Republicans had to make a change to the winner-take-all by congressional district system -- NOT truly winner-take-all -- used before then for the 2020 cycle. The problem was that the changes to the CAGOP bylaws in 2019 were only temporary and reset to the same noncompliant winner-take-all by congressional method after 2020. That Republicans in the Golden state have to change back to a more proportional system for 2024 is a condition of their own making. There is really no need to place the blame on Democrats in 2017.

And FHQ does not know if a second place finisher in California is going to make up ground in the delegate count. They will lose less ground than if it were winner-take-all by congressional district, but they will not make up ground. 

There is much more on the proposed California Republican delegate allocation and selection plan at FHQ+.

...

From around the invisible primary...

• In the money primary, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are doing well raising funds back home in the Palmetto state. [Nice map by the P&C breaking it all down across South Carolina.]
• Over in the endorsement primary, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice has thrown his support behind Donald Trump.
• Early state polling from FOX in Iowa and South Carolina shows Trump way out in front. There are stories to be told about that second tier, but there is a lot of meaningful distance between the frontrunner and the rest of the pack. 
• Tim Scott may be ready for his turn in the discovery, scrutiny, decline ride.
• In the travel primary, Trump is on the cusp of opening an Iowa headquarters in Des Moines later this week. DeSantis is set to see the Hawkeye state by bus this week (among other future events laid out by Never Back Down). Mike Pence will deliver an address to the National Conference of State Legislatures next month in Indianapolis. 
• The staff shake up continues on Team DeSantis.
• A month out from the first Republican debate in Milwaukee, six candidates appear to have qualified.

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] A second state-run primary option in New Hampshire?

Another way to look at current support for the First-in-the-Nation primary in New Hampshire

A twist in the 2024 Republican endorsement primary

Follow FHQ on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon and Post or subscribe by Email. Oh, and find us on Threads: @fhq.plus.

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

Sunday Series: About that Unique Michigan Republican Primary-Caucus Plan (Part One)

Looking for Part Two? A closer look at the details of and problems with the primary-caucus hybrid Michigan Republicans have proposed for 2024 can be found at our sister site, FHQ Plus.

--

News broke Friday that Michigan Republicans had come to a consensus and were prepared to vote on whether the party would go the primary or caucus route in the presidential nomination process for 2024. 

Rather than automatically utilize the state-run primary as the state party had done every competitive Republican presidential nomination cycle following 1988, the Michigan GOP was backed into a corner on its 2024 plans based on four main factors:

1. Democrats in the state took unified control of state government in the Great Lakes state after the November 2022 midterm elections. 
2. At least partially (if not completely) because of that flip in control of the state legislature and Democrats retaining the governor's office, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to add the Michigan presidential primary to early window lineup of states on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Michigan Democrats seized on the opportunity to have an earlier, if not greater, voice in the nomination process and moved to comply with the new DNC calendar rules for 2024.
3. However, the new February 27 date for the state-run Michigan presidential primary would violate Republican National Committee (RNC) rules prohibiting states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding primaries or caucuses before March 1. Opting into the primary, would open Michigan Republicans up to the super penalty associated with a violation of those timing rules, which would strip the state party of all but 12 delegates (nine delegates plus the three automatic/party delegates) to the national convention. 
4. Regardless of the potential for penalties from a rogue primary, Michigan Republicans, under new leadership as of early 2023, were already leery of a state-run presidential primary process that would be open not only to Republicans and independents (who want to affiliate with the party in the primary) but Democrats as well. 

Given those factors, the Michigan GOP in consultation with the RNC did not look on the primary or caucus question for 2024 as either/or but rather as one and the other. In a revised resolution of intent adopted on Saturday, June 10, Michigan Republicans chose to split 2024 delegate allocation across both the February 27 primary and congressional district caucuses to be held on Saturday, March 2. In a statement following the vote the Michigan Republican Party said the following¹:

In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  

This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 

The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 

They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed. 

Cutting through the spin

Okay, revisit those four factors FHQ laid out above because they are important in pushing past the spin in all of this and getting to the crux of the matter. 

First, it is highly unlikely that either Michigan Democrats or Democrats in the national party were ever rubbing their hands together, saying "We've got Michigan Republicans now!" The timeline on the Democratic primary calendar decision suggests otherwise. The national party waited until after the midterms -- after it was clear which party was going to be in control of a variety of state governments -- before it settled on a lineup for the 2024 early window. Michigan, already an attractive option to the members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, became even more attractive once it was clear after the November elections that the state would be under Democratic control. 

The national party decision on the calendar and any subsequent moves made in Lansing were made to affect the Democratic primary. There was little regard for the Republican process. And perhaps that is problematic. However, national Democrats have been rebuffed by the RNC over the last two cycles in their efforts to even informally coordinate the calendar. And on the state level in Michigan, it was Republicans in the state legislature who were driving a legislative push to an even earlier February primary date just a few months ago in late 2022. 

But shunt all of that to side for a moment. Democrats in Lansing and elsewhere were never really in control of anything other than moving the state-run primary anyway. Michigan Republicans always had paths out of trouble. But they were going to need a waiver from the RNC no matter what they chose to do. The point is that Michigan Republicans potentially had a national party waiver at their disposal if they successfully made that case before the RNC. Ultimately, it was state Democrats who had made the change and shifted the primary to a point on the calendar that violated RNC rules. And those rules have outs for just these types of possibilities.

Yet, choosing to go the caucus route would have potentially required a waiver from the RNC too. Michigan Republicans could not just choose to conduct caucuses. Those caucuses would have had to follow the February 27 primary to remain compliant with the RNC rules on timing. But merely opting to hold caucuses would not have ended the primary. Under state law that primary would have gone on as a beauty contest. And under RNC Rule 16 (a)(1), any statewide vote "must be used to allocate and bind the state's delegation to the national convention..." [Put a pin in section of the RNC rules. It is important for Part Two.] To hold caucuses after a statewide vote like that is counter to the intent of the rule, the language of which was added to prevent a double vote and/or non-binding scenario like those that proliferated in the 2012 cycle.

An RNC waiver would have provided a way to circumvent that conflict. But so, too, would have legal action on first amendment, freedom of association grounds (if the national party was for some reason not receptive to issuing a waiver). Political parties have a right to determine how they associate and who associates with the organization. Nominations fall under that banner, or precedent holds that they do anyway. 

The bottom line is this: If Michigan Republicans want to say that Democrats made the primary change without consulting them, then that is fine. That is a fair criticism. If the state party additionally wants to argue it prefers a caucus/convention system closed to all but registered Republicans to an open primary that allows non-Republicans to participate, then that is fine too. That is also legitimate. But exaggerating the control state Democrats have over the process is just that: an exaggeration. That is even more true in light of the fact that Michigan Republicans had recourse. They had ways around Democratic "control." One need not pretend otherwise.

Looking for Part Two? A closer look at the details of and problems with the primary-caucus hybrid Michigan Republicans have proposed for 2024 can be found at our sister site, FHQ Plus.

--

¹ The full statement from the Michigan Republican Party after the vote on the resolution:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Michigan Republican Party Protects the Voice of Michigan Republican Voters 

Grand Rapids, MI – June 10th, 2023 – In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  

This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 

The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 

They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed.  

The Michigan Republican Party would have been derelict in duty, and grossly irresponsible to leave the decision of full delegate representation of Michigan Republicans in the hands of the Democrats.  

Republican voters are tired of the party seeking to cut deals with Democrats instead of protecting the voice and interest of Republican voters.  

This drastic reduction in representation at the Republican National Convention would have marginalized millions of voters and stifled our ability to have a meaningful say in the selection of the 2024 Republican presidential nominee. The Resolution of Intent passed by the Michigan Republican Party State Committee protects the voice of millions of Republican voters across Michigan by ensuring the will of those voting in the primary will be heard.  

This resolution simultaneously prevents the RNC penalty.  

Recognizing the urgency and gravity of this situation, the Michigan Republican Party State Committee took decisive action today. The Michigan Republican Party has taken a crucial step towards ensuring fair representation for their constituents. 

"The Michigan Republican Party stands firmly against any attempts to diminish representation of Michigan Republicans," said Kristina Karamo, Chair of the Michigan Republican Party.  

"We are committed to preserving the integrity of the electoral process and guaranteeing that all Michigan voters, regardless of their political affiliation, have an equal opportunity to participate in the primary process." 

For those in the party who do not trust the election system run by the Secretary of State due to election integrity concerns, they now have a representative voice for some of the delegates from Michigan.  

By asserting their commitment to protecting the rights of Republican voters in the state, the Michigan Republican Party has demonstrated their dedication to preserving a fair and inclusive electoral system. 

The Michigan Republican Party encourages all Michigan voters to stay informed and engaged in the political process. By participating in the upcoming primary elections, voters can make their voices heard and contribute to shaping the future of our great state. 

###

--

Recent posts:

[From FHQ Plus] Folks, the new caucus law in Iowa does not affect state Democrats' plans for 2024

Legislative Inaction Struck a Blow Against a Primary Move in Connecticut, but the effort may not be dead

Pat Robertson, 1988 and the Modern Caucus Strategy in Republican Presidential Politics

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

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

[From FHQ Plus] Uncertainty and the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar

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

--

From Uncertainty and the 2024 Presidential Primary Calendar:

The 2024 invisible primary has gotten to a point where more and more folks are starting to look at the calendar of nominating contests that the Republicans vying for the presidential nomination will face next year. And due to the proximity to the beginning of primary season seven-ish months away, the order of those contests is taking on increasing importance. 

But here things are, seven months or so from the kickoff of primary season 2024, and uncertainty remains. And it exists at the very beginning of the calendar. There is not one Republican primary or caucus in any state that has an official date on the calendar before Super Tuesday. Or stated differently, every state one might expect to fall before Super Tuesday in 2024 has at least one caveat that makes it impossible to know exactly where those states may end up when the calendar dust settles.

Now, some of us are of a mind that all of this will shake out with some drama over the coming months, but limited drama. It all depends on the moves the various players make. Here are a few of the moves about which there is uncertainty, but from which the calendar answers will come.

• Michigan Republicans: Do Republicans in the Great Lakes state opt into the late February presidential primary or choose to select and allocate national convention delegates in a party-run caucus/convention process? The party is in a bind either way (but this will not directly affect the earlier protected states in the Republican process).

• Nevada Republicans: Same question, different state Republican party: Do Nevada Republicans opt into the state-run presidential primary on February 6 or decide to use a slightly later (but before a Michigan Republican primary) caucus/convention process? The later caucus option may save Republicans from starting primary season in early instead of mid-January. [And just this week, there were signals from Silver state Republicans that they are aiming for caucuses.]

• South Carolina Republicans: Theoretically, the decision here will hinge to some degree on what Michigan and Nevada decide. But what Palmetto state Republicans decide is also colored by the political custom in the state for the parties have (state-run) primaries on 1) a Saturday and 2) on different days. Breaking from those traditions may provide some additional leeway, but they are traditions for a reason. If Nevada Republicans opt into the primary in the Silver state, then South Carolina Republicans would likely have a primary no later than February 3 alongside Democrats in the state. However, if they follow tradition, then Republicans in the first-in-the-South primary state would likely hold a primary a week earlier on January 27. And that would leave Iowa and New Hampshire with a very narrow sliver of calendar in which to operate (under the traditional rules of calendar engagement).

• New Hampshire: The secretary of state in the Granite state -- the person who makes the primary scheduling decision -- is cross-pressured on two sides, sandwiched between the decisions Iowa and South Carolina actors may make. But the South Carolina Democratic primary is scheduled for February 3. That means that the New Hampshire primary will be no later than January 23, on a Tuesday at least seven days before any other similar election. South Carolina Republicans may push that a little earlier if they schedule a January primary. On the other side, Iowa Democrats' decision to conduct a vote-by-mail presidential preference vote raises red flags in New Hampshire because it too closely resembles a primary. But there is no date for the conclusion of that preference vote. If that vote concludes on caucus night, whenever in January that ends up, then that could draw New Hampshire to an even earlier date ahead of Iowa.

• Iowa Republicans: Decision makers within the Republican Party of Iowa are also stuck to some extent; stuck between what Iowa Democrats are planning and what New Hampshire's secretary of state may do in response. But the party is mostly stuck because decision makers seem to want to make a decision on the caucus date for 2024 some time early this summer when there may not yet be enough information to make a decision that protects the traditional calendar order in the Republican process. Waiting for Iowa Democrats' preference vote (conclusion) date to settle is likely to resolve much of this drama at the very front end of the calendar. 

The takeaway is that there is some uncertainty that is sure to create some drama over the final calendar, but it is uncertainty that can be boiled down to a handful of decisions in a handful of states. Admittedly, it can go in a number of different directions -- choose your own adventure! -- but there is a pretty narrow range of possibilities. 

Follow the evolving calendar here.

--

[Side note: FHQ likes the Ballotpedia way of looking at the primary calendar. While FHQ attempts to explain all of the chaos away (or to put it into context), their model is simpler: what is confirmed. But if one is going to do that, then one has to actually confirm confirmed primary dates. Ballotpedia lists Colorado as confirmed for Super Tuesday. Now, FHQ fully expects that that is where the presidential primary in the Centennial state ends up in 2024. The secretary of state has it on the calendar. The Colorado Democratic Party has it in their delegate selection plan. But the date is not official yet. The secretary of state and the governor make that decision. And nothing has been said publicly about that yet. For comparison, Governor Polis announced the 2020 presidential primary date at the end of April 2019. By law, decision makers have until September 1 of this year to set the date.]

--

Recent posts:

Real Talk: FHQ has to roll its eyes at coverage of this new caucus law in Iowa. It's bad.

Republican Sound and Fury in Nevada Over 2024 Presidential Primary, Signifying Little

Nevada Republicans Sue to Restore Presidential Caucuses

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

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

The Lessons of the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Process, Redux

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...

• An update on some maintenance to the 2024 presidential primary calendar, primary-related legislation is moving in New Hampshire and Rhode Island and delegate selection plans keep trickling in on the Democratic side. 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...

...

There are a couple of inter-related themes that FHQ has revisited in this space with respect to the 2024 invisible primary. One is attempting to assess where former President Trump is (in 2023) on a scale of Trump 2015 to Trump 2019. In other words, across an array of measures -- fundraising, endorsements, organization, etc. -- is the former president closer to where he was in 2015 as a first-time candidate or 2019, when he carried the advantages of incumbency and the Republican Party infrastructure behind him? 

The other theme focuses on lessons various actors involved in the Republican presidential nomination process have learned from and since the last competitive nomination cycle in 2016. One such lesson Team Trump has taken to heart is to not take the delegate selection portion of the process for granted. While they may have been out-hustled on that front in 2016, the Trump campaign of 2019-20 designed a set of rules at the national level and pushed for changes on the state level that would ward off challengers, yes, but maximize the number of delegates the president would win in the process on his way to claiming a second nomination as well. 

Fast forward four years and Trump no longer enjoys the trappings of the office of the presidency nor the direct backing of the Republican National Committee. But the lessons of 2016 have not been forgotten. Team Trump is using a network of connections forged during his time in the White House to potentially influence the state-level delegate selection rules for 2024 if not some of the future Republican delegates in 2024. Politico's Alex Isenstadt updated his March story with further details of Team Trump's outreach to state party leaders. And it is clear that, despite doubt about Trump's delegate rules acumen in opposing campaign networks, the former president is mindful of the shortcomings of the 2016 operation and tending to the relevant state-level players to avoid a repeat in 2024.

Isenstadt leads with the recent effort to woo Republicans from Louisiana. And that is an interesting test case. Yes, the Cruz campaign lapped Trump in delegate selection in the Pelican state after Trump won the primary there. But that was not unusual in 2016. The Cruz campaign was adept at exploiting the intricacies of the delegate rules to their advantage where available. However, the Trump reelection effort in 2019-20 cleaned up much of that. Louisiana Republicans, for example, greatly streamlined their process from 2016 for 2020. A later primary date in the 2020 cycle allowed the state party to use truly winner-take-all rules to allocate and bind all of the state's delegates to the winner of the primary. 

Now, there is a delegate rule story (or many more) in every state, but this Louisiana example is instructive. Team Trump likely wants the party to utilize rules that more closely resemble the 2020 rules with respect to allocation and binding rather than those of the 2016 plan. And they are doing that outreach not only to Louisiana Republicans but Republicans in state parties across the country. Importantly, according to Isestadt's reporting, all signs point toward the president not only having a head start in these efforts but that his campaign is the only one wooing state party actors at this time.

Together, all of this is important and worthy of continued tracking. Trump wants to maintain for 2024 as much of the baseline rules from 2020 as possible. 

...

Team Trump is not the only one working those who will make decisions on the rules that will govern the 2024 Republican presidential nomination process on the state level. Vivek Ramaswamy was in Michigan this past weekend and he made the case for Michigan Republicans to conduct a primary next year rather than caucuses. Yeah, the state party will need a waiver from the RNC no matter what they decide.

...

FHQ has raised Trump's standing with evangelicals in response to a number of stories that emphasize each side of a divide with his falling support among the group on one side to his continued good standing there on the other. Seth Masket has a good one that mostly falls into that latter category, casting Trump's relationship with white evangelicals as transactional and that, because Trump delivered for them during his time in the White House, he remains in good shape with that particular demographic. Good piece.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale won the Maryland and North Carolina primaries while Sen. Gary Hart's narrow victories in Indiana and Ohio kept his campaign alive for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 1987, Gary Hart dropped out of the 1988 Democratic presidential race (for the first time that cycle) after reports of an extramarital affair surfaced.

...in 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was three for three against nominal competition in the Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia primaries as he closed in on securing the delegates necessary to claim the Republican nomination.

--

Recent posts:

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

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

Checking in on 2024 Republican Delegate Math

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

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

Invisible Primary: Visible -- It's Trump's until it's not

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

Strategizing about the when, where and how to best defeat Donald Trump is not a new thing. In fact, it has not always been a particularly partisan thing. After all, just seven years and a day ago, the New York Times ran a story about Republican efforts to chart a course forward toward an alternative. That was not the first such story and it certainly was not the last. There are likely more on the way.

With the former president mounting his third bid for the Republican presidential nomination, the strategizing Trump's downfall industry his whirred back to life. And that is not without reason. It is spurred on by the relatively weaker hand Trump has in 2023 minus the incumbency advantage the then-president carried with him four years ago. And there are possible indictments looming over Trump in Manhattan, Georgia and the nation's capital. The terrain is both more different than it has been during the Trump era and all too familiar (at least in the ways that various actors, including Trump, are reacting and how the race is being covered).

Those weaknesses -- real or perceived -- are a lens through which the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is being viewed. But the underlying mindset is akin to giving folks a hammer: They are going to go looking for nails and probably "find" them. For example, Trip Gabriel of the New York Times had a recent dispatch from Des Moines, where all eyes -- Trump's and his rivals' -- are on the first nominating contest of 2024. And understandably so: the caucuses in Iowa are the first contest.

“I don’t see a formula where Trump loses Iowa and it doesn’t really wound him and his chances as a candidate,” said Terry Sullivan, who managed Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Or maybe New Hampshire will be Trump's demise. Republican strategist Susan Del Percio sees unaffiliated voters, who are allowed to participate in the presidential primary in the Granite state, as a key potential buffer against extremists lining up behind Trump. 

[As an aside, a Trump loss in Iowa would be less a signal about Iowa specifically and more one stemming from the fact that it is a caucus state. If Trump is losing among low turnout caucus electorates then that will say much about his institutional support within the party among a more motivated slice of the overall primary electorate. And that says nothing of the blow that would strike to the former president's organizational strength. As for independents in New Hampshire, maybe 2024 will be different. But Trump ran ahead of his statewide support in New Hampshire among independents in 2016. That may not be what starts the ball rolling against Trump in 2024.]

Of course, both of those visions are a bit more forward-looking into a future that has not accounted for the events that will transpire during the remainder of the invisible primary between now and when votes begin to be cast. Perhaps it will be in the courtrooms across the country where a Trump slide (or a resurgence!) begins. Seth Masket throws some water on that notion:

All this is to say that him being indicted will likely not harm him much in the presidential contest — his supporters will not turn against him — but nor will it help him. “Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters will support him enthusiastically if X happens” has been proven true time and again for eight years but doesn’t really tell us very much.

In the end, there are at least nine months left in the invisible primary. Things will happen. Needles will move. Candidates' fortunes will rise and fall. But right now, Trump is very much in the same position Jeb Bush was in 2015. That is not to suggest that the outcome will be the same for Trump as it was for Bush nor that the signals are not pointing more forcefully in Trump's direction now than they ever did for Bush then. But the majority of the invisible primary signals one looks at -- polls, fundraising, hiring, endorsements, organizational strength, etc. -- point in Trump's direction at this time. That may not continue to be the case as the invisible primary progresses, but it is the case now. 

That is why FHQ has been saying a variation on something in recent days that we often said back in 2015. Then it was "it [the 2016 Republican nomination] is Jeb's until it's not." Now, it is "it [the 2024 Republican nomination] is Trump's until it's not." In other words, the signals one relies on to tell one anything about the state of the race are pointing toward Trump. But that may not continue to be the case once indictments come down, or DeSantis enters the race, or a poor fundraising quarter is reported, or well on down the line, once votes begin to be cast in Iowa and New Hampshire. For now, however, it is Trump's until it's not.

...

How will public opinion react to a possible Trump indictment? Natalie Jackson says to look at the polling on January 6.

...

Harry Enten digs into recent CNN and Quinnipiac polls and finds that support among voters of color is part of what sets Trump apart from his competition for the Republican presidential nomination. 

...

Michigan Republicans are still "in a pickle" over whether to go the primary or caucus route in 2024.

...

On this date...

...in 1984, Walter Mondale edged Gary Hart in the Illinois primary, winning a small plurality victory on his way to the Democratic nomination. The Illinois primary ended up fairly closely resembling the popular vote breakdown in the contest nationwide at its conclusion.

...in 2012, Mitt Romney scored a double digit win over Rick Santorum in the Illinois primary, but dominated the former Pennsylvania senator in the congressional district delegates directly elected by a more than three to one rate.

...in 2020, the Indiana presidential primary was pushed back from May to June because of the coronavirus pandemic.

--

Recent posts:

Primary or Caucus in 2024? For Michigan Republicans, it's still up in the air

The Fix is in for the Idaho Presidential Primary Bill

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Karl Rove's Faux Certainty on 2024 Unknowns

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

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

Primary or Caucus in 2024? For Michigan Republicans, it's still up in the air

Recently elected Michigan Republican Party Chair Kristina Karamo appeared before a Muskegon County Republican Party function last weekend and shed some additional light on where the state party stands with respect to the presidential primary or caucus question for the 2024 cycle. The comments come on the heels of the Democratic-controlled legislature's decision to move up the state-run presidential primary to late February, drawing Republicans in the Great Lakes state out of compliance with Republican National Committee (RNC) rules on the timing of delegate selection events. 

The following is a transcript of the primary/caucus-related portion of the Q&A at that event:

Questioner: "So the Democrats moved... voted to move our primary up to the fourth Tuesday in February. Do you have any idea..."

Karamo: "So, that's a very complicated issue. So, um, what's going on is that the Democrats have voted to move up the primary. And according to RNC rules, if the primary is before a certain date, we will be penalized at the RNC convention. And we'll have... We'll be voting with a smaller delegate strength at the RNC convention for president. That's the way it works. So, what happens is, is when we vote in a presidential primary, all of our delegate votes go to whoever won the popular vote in our state. And then all the various delegates go to the RNC convention and then vote for the candidate for president. And that's how our Republican nominee for president is decided. Um, with that penalty from the RNC, that means that we'll lose some of our delegate votes which means we lose attention and all kinds of things in Michigan." 

"So, we're working that out. I'm not prepared to speak on all the details. I will say that isn't a decision that we make. Uh, or that I make or [Michigan Republican Party co-chairwoman] Malinda [Pego] makes. Uh, that is a state committee issue, but we're kind of not saying a lot about it until we go through everything. One of the things I am working on is having like a -- I hate to use the word listening tour -- but having an opportunity for people on various sides of the issue." 

"Because one solution is to have a caucus where it will be [Michigan Republican Party] delegates voting on who the Republican nominee for president is in our state. So, that's some conversation that is being had. And so, I'm not taking a formal position as an individual on either side of the conversation. I've had my opinions, but then after talking with people on the other side of the opinion, I was like 'Ooh, this is a little bit of a complicated issue.' So, I'm not prepared to speak beyond that, but I think there is a lot of conversation that we need to have as a party of what we're going to do." 

"Because we are in a pickle. Because if the RNC doesn't grant us the waiver that means we're voting with less delegate strength. So then, sometimes the option is a caucus. And some people like a caucus because it keeps Democrats out of our primaries. [Statement greeted approvingly among those in attendance] Because that's a big problem that they jump in our primaries and if they do not have a new candidate... If they don't primary Joe Biden, then that means all of them will jump into our primary. And so the caucus prevents them from jumping in our primary and only actual Republicans are voting for president. So, there is a lot of conversation to be had, but I guess that's pretty much all I... I don't really have anything else to add to it."

Questioner [following up]: "Is the date locked or is there any challenge to moving that, or is this for sure going be the fourth week of February for our primary?"

Karamo: "Well, that's the Republican to Democrat legislature [transition], so I need the exact date, but that's totally up to them [Democrats in the legislature]. That's... That's one of the reasons why if we do find ourselves in the situation where we still have a primary, I think the RNC is... It would only be right for them to grant us a waiver. It wouldn't be fair to punish us for something we have no control over."

[Emphasis above is FHQ's. Michigan is not a winner-take-all state as Karamo seemed to imply. Even if Democrats in the Michigan legislature had not moved the date of the presidential primary to the end of February, the mid-March date would still have fallen before the point at which state parties could allocate delegates in a winner-take-all fashion. Michigan is a baseline proportional state in the Republican process with a winner-take-all trigger that is activated if a candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote statewide.]

--

Look, Karamo says a lot there that does not really reveal much of anything as of now. Obviously, this is a complicated matter. The state party is concerned about the impact of any RNC penalties if a waiver is not extended by the national party. But Karamo was quick to voice the virtues of conducting a closed caucus/convention process as opposed to an open primary that may invite some idle Democrats into the process. The former seemed to be the "side of the opinion" on which Karamo fell, but the chair also left open the door to alternatives (in a matter that will be decided by the state committee).

There are a couple of factors that FHQ would add to this. 

First, is that the RNC may or may not take an active role in all of this. The national party could remain hands off and let the Michigan Republican Party battle to opt out of the primary and hold caucuses that comply with the RNC rules instead. However, the RNC could alternatively choose to be more hands-on and issue a waiver only for the contest -- primary or caucus -- that it would prefer. If a primary occurs and there is a Republican vote (meaning Michigan Republicans were unable to opt out), then that statewide vote would, under RNC rules, have to be used to allocate delegates instead of later and rules-compliant caucuses. In other words, Great Lakes state Republicans would have to get a waiver in that case to hold caucuses and allocate/select delegates to the national convention through them. But it could be that the RNC would prefer the state party use the primary, even if it technically violates the rules, but with a waiver. As Karamo said, it is "very complicated."

Second, Karamo noted later in her remarks that the state party was in the hole after the prior administration (under the previous chair) left office. How much? $460,000. A state party that is in debt may be less willing to opt out of a state-run primary -- again, even a non-compliant one -- with few ways to actually fund an alternative. And the state party running a debt would definitely factor into any decision to conduct and pay for state party-run caucuses. That is not to say that the Michigan Republican Party could not raise the necessary funds, but that reality would factor into the decision making process. 

It is still a mess. And from the look of it, that mess will extend into the future for the Republican Party in Michigan. The RNC has a deadline of October 1, 2023 for state parties to have finalized their plans for delegate selection in 2024. Some resolution will likely come before then.

Related:

2/20/23: Michigan Republicans and 2024. It was a mess before the chair vote.

--

Recent posts:

The Fix is in for the Idaho Presidential Primary Bill

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Karl Rove's Faux Certainty on 2024 Unknowns

Invisible Primary: Visible -- 2024 Presidential Primary Movement So Far

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

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