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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

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

"Has New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation law outlived its usefulness?"

UNH political scientist Dante Scala provides some Granite state perspective on the the FITN presidential primary:

"New Hampshire’s political elites quickly pointed fingers after a Democratic National Committee panel voted Friday to strip the Granite State of its first-in-the-nation status on the presidential nomination calendar. Republican elites blamed Democrats for the Rules and Bylaws Committee decision. Democratic elites blamed their national party leadership. What neither side did, but should, is consider the following: On their watch, New Hampshire has become much less capable of defending its role in the process."

--

Noteworthy: Look, I would like to just copy and paste all of Scala's piece here. It is such helpful grounding for understanding the place of New Hampshire's presidential primary in an ever-changing nomination system and the utility of the infamous law that has protected its early position in the process for decades. Highly recommended piece. Go read it.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

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

"Iowa Dems call 2028 presidential calendar snub a 'slap in the face'"

Brianne Pfannestiel at the Des Moines Register shares the reaction in Iowa as Hawkeye state Democrats are on the outside looking in on the early calendar again for 2028:

"Iowa have been shut out of an officially sanctioned spot on the 2028 presidential primary calendar, despite national Democrats expanding the map to include two additional early voting states.

"The Rules and Bylaws Committee, the powerful arm of the Democratic National Committee that sets the presidential nominating calendar, voted Friday, July 24 to again bypass Iowa and instead start the 2028 primary process in South Carolina."

...

"But even as they [the Iowa Democratic Party] left the door wide open to holding a rogue first-in-the-nation caucus in defiance of the national party, Iowa’s next steps remain unclear.

"[Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita] Hart and other Iowa Democratic Party leaders said Friday they intend to first focus on the 2026 winning elections."

...

“'We’ll have more to say after November,' Hart said."

--

Robin Opsahl from the Iowa Capital Dispatch with a quote from former Iowa RBC member, Scott Brennan: 

"Scott Brennan, an Iowan serving on the DNC and a former member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, said in a news conference Friday he expected Iowa would not be chosen in the early window once again. Brennan lost his spot on the RBC in 2025, after the election of DNC Chair Ken Martin earlier that year.

“'Look, I’m not surprised by this decision,' Brennan said. 'It was probably decided 18 months ago when the new members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee were appointed by Chair Martin. … When we lost the White House, we did make a good faith effort to share our concerns, but clearly, our case was not heard by this committee or Chair Martin.'”

More on the RBC membership decisions by DNC Chair Martin here.

...

More from Hart via Iowa Capital Dispatch:

"'I had this conversation with Ken Martin and with some of the members of the RBC, that it’s pretty hard to defend any kind of situation that we’re in right now,” Hart said. “When we got slapped last time, when we worked in cooperation with the DNC and lost our representation on the RBC, in comparison to other states that did not cooperate and got rewarded. So it’s really hard to make a case to these people that say, you know, ‘why work with the DNC going forward?’ But I would say that that is a conversation that is not doesn’t need to be taking place right now. As we, when we get to November, and we have some newly elected Democratic officials, they’re gonna have some things to say about that, along with the rest of our Democrats.'"

--

Others in Iowa politics also weighed in: 

Democratic US Senate nominee Josh Turek:

"Speaking with reporters after a joint event in Des Moines, Turek was asked whether Iowa should go first regardless of the committee's decision.

"'Yes,' Turek said. 'Iowa law is really clear. We go first. And in the U.S. Senate I’m there to represent Iowa and Iowans regardless over any other interest or group.'"

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

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

"New Hampshire politicians defiant after DNC picks South Carolina for first-in-the-nation presidential primary"

Steven Porter at the Boston Globe on New Hampshire Democrats now staring down a conflict between state law and DNC rules that now slot the Granite state presidential primary third:

"New Hampshire politicians from both major parties reacted with outrage and defiance on Friday after an influential rulemaking body of the Democratic National Committee selected South Carolina to host first party-approved primary on the 2028 presidential nominating calendar, once again bumping New Hampshire.

"The DNC’s plan, which seems poised for final approval in August, calls for New Hampshire to vote third, after Nevada. But that would contradict a state law that requires New Hampshire’s top election official to schedule the state-run presidential primary to occur at least seven days before any similar election.

"New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, said the state will follow its law and maintain a first-in-the-nation tradition that has endured for more than a century. In other words, Granite Staters will hold their primary vote first in 2028 regardless of what the DNC’s calendar says, just as they did in the 2024 cycle."

--

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley's statement on the Rules and Bylaws Committee decision: 

Today's vote shows that many party insiders have learned nothing from 2024. New Hampshire has a proven track record of testing our candidates with a rigorous, fair, and efficient process, yet those qualities did not prevail. This committee's vote does not change the realities governing New Hampshire's primary, which are beyond the control of both this committee and our state party. Democrats' guiding North Star should be winning general elections, and New Hampshire Democrats will get back to work focusing on the 2026 elections and addressing the significant challenges facing America's overwhelmed working class. Today's vote moves the party further away from that objective.

--

New Hampshire's all-Democratic congressional delegation also weighed in: 

The Democratic National Committee's decision today is wrong for Democrats, wrong for New Hampshire, and wrong for the country. New Hampshire's First in the Nation primary is a tested proving ground in a closely contested swing state that forges better candidates and better presidents -- and despite what DNC insiders say, that hasn't changed. As a state with highly engaged voters, we put candidates through their paces and thoroughly vet them. And our small size means that actually meeting and talking to voters takes precedence over super PACs or mega-donor-fueled campaigns. Regardless of today's vote, Granite Staters remain committed to the hard work of organizing and electing candidates who stand up for our Live Free or Die values.

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Democrats devise their own super penalty for primary calendar violations 

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

"New Hampshire Democrats prepare to make case for first-in-the-nation primary status"

Adam Sexton at WMUR has the latest on the Democrats' 2028 presidential primary calendar from on the ground in the Granite state:

"The New Hampshire primary is facing a critical test in the weeks ahead as state Democrats prepare to make their case to the Democratic National Committee to restore the Granite State's first-in-the-nation status on their presidential nominating calendar."

...

"In an interview for 'CloseUp,' New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said he's feeling positive about the DNC process so far.

"'Obviously, there was a thumb that was put on the process last time. We thought we were in good position,' Buckley said. 'This time, there's no thumb on what the final decisions are going to be. We have made an effort. We're meeting with them individually.'

"Buckley said he expects a final vote on the DNC primary calendar sometime toward the end of the summer."

--

Noteworthy: In an additional video post, Sexton revealed that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) next will meet this week and will hear pitches from the 12 states being considered for early window spots in May. A May 2026 DNCRBC meeting for 2028 early state pitches would be about a month earlier than a similar meeting during the 2024 cycle. 

Chair Buckley, also a DNCRBC member, forecasting a finalizing of the 2028 early calendar by late summer would seemingly suggest either little shake up to the early calendar lineup from 2024 for 2028 or that any change is likely to be driven largely by the blue state parties that applied for early calendar status. Purple and red states will likely face uncertainty over their ability to move into position until the midterms provide further clarity. 

--

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

"Pete Buttigieg stays out of fight over NH primary"

Former Transportation secretary and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg was in New Hampshire late last on the hustings for Democrats running for office this year in the Granite state. Adam Sexton at WMUR out of Manchester got the secretary on record about New Hampshire's place in the national party's plans for an early calendar lineup for 2028:

Sexton: 

You were very diplomatic during the administration in terms of the debates at the DNC about New Hampshire first-in-the-nation status. The Granite state wants it back now. Are you going to be on New Hampshire's side and say New Hampshire should go first? 

Buttigieg:

I respect that I am not one of the people who gets to make the rules or make those decisions. What I will say is that campaigning in New Hampshire made me, I think, a better public servant. The conversations that I had, the way that the size, the scale and the civic spirit of the state really forces people on the national stage to stop and pay attention to things on a more immediate human scale. I think that’s a very healthy thing to have in our politics."

--

Noteworthy: Look, clearly I fell prey to the headline to this one. There really is not a whole lot there. Buttigieg was, to borrow Sexton's word, diplomatic in response to the question about being on "New Hampshire's side" in the 2028 calendar discussions. And not to make a mountain out of a molehill, but a couple of things:

1. Buttigieg's nonresponse is, in and of itself, notable. It may have been missing in 2024, but one does not have to go very far back in time before that to find ample evidence of candidates falling over themselves to defend New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status while campaigning there. Buttigieg did not, well, pander in his brief answer to Sexton's question. Instead, he deferred to the process the DNC has laid out for deciding on the early calendar for 2028. The DNC may not have kept New Hampshire from being the (unsanctioned) first contest in 2024 and it may not have kept all candidates out of the state then, but the change in process has kept candidates -- candidate, singular, I suppose -- from reflexively defending New Hampshire traditional status. And again, that is a noteworthy change.
2. Note also that Buttigieg plays up the virtues of retail politics, and specifically how the New Hampshire primary fills that role (or did so during his time campaigning there during the 2020 cycle). That is something that is a plank in the Rules and Bylaws Committee's criteria for the states vying for early 2028 slots on the calendar (see Section III of the Request for Proposals). However, at least some folks on the committee are questioning the value of in-primary-season retail politics in an ever-changing presidential nomination campaign landscape. How the committee deals with that will go a long way toward determining New Hampshire's place in the early part of the 2028 calendar. 

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

--

Related at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

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

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

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

Kevin Landrigan at the Union Leader:

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

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

--

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

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

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

"2028 presidential hopefuls flock to key battleground states: Where have they traveled?"

Oren Oppenheim at ABC News:

"One year out from the 2026 midterms, major Democratic Party names have been taking the show on the road, saying that they’re helping the party lay the groundwork to battle for the U.S. House.

"They also might be preparing to run for president."

...

"ABC News has tracked at least 43 visits or planned visits so far in 2025 and 2026 by Democratic presidential hopefuls to key early or battleground presidential election states. Some of those states are also expected to be key House battlegrounds in 2026."

courtesy of ABC News

--

Noteworthy: This is not the first and will not be the last glimpse at the travel of prospective 2028 Democratic presidential candidates, but it is a check-in following the 2025 off-year elections. There is nothing all that surprising in the pattern of the candidate visits thus far. 

However, despite its double billing as both (very likely) early 2028 primary state and general election battleground, Nevada still does not garner that much attention. ABC News could have (should have?) discounted travel by candidates to neighboring states. Under those conditions, the Silver state has had just three candidates drop in during 2025 (or that are scheduled to trek that way in early 2026). 

Nevada has been a part of the early window on the Democratic calendar for nearly 20 years now -- five, and likely six, cycles -- and in many ways that still has not translated. By comparison, Iowa, a state that is very likely to be excluded from the early window on the 2028 calendar (but could go rogue!), is seeing more visitors. A visit to Iowa still carries more weight.

Will that affect Nevada's attempt to nail down the lead-off spot in the order for 2028? It may be a knock on Silver state Democrats' case. But it is still early yet. 

"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.

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

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

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

--

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

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

"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.

"In Boost to FITN Fortunes, NH’s O’Brien Tapped to Head RNC Rules Committee"

Michael Graham at the NH Journal has the story on the new RNC Rules Committee chair:

"Former New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O’Brien has been elected chairman of the Republican National Committee’s powerful Rules Committee, placing the veteran GOP leader at the center of the party’s preparations for the next presidential election.

"O’Brien, who serves as New Hampshire’s Republican National Committeeman, was chosen by his colleagues to lead the panel through the end of the next Republican National Convention. The Rules Committee oversees the party’s governing framework, including convention procedures, delegate selection, and the presidential nomination calendar..."

--

Noteworthy: While there have been no rumblings of any imminent changes to the beginning of the 2028 presidential primary calendar on the Republican side, this is a feather in the cap for Republicans in the Granite state. New Hampshire probably is -- and was -- not going anywhere, but holding the gavel in Rules Committee meetings provides some additional insulation for the first-in-the-nation primary that was not there before.

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nikki Haley's path to the the 2024 Republican presidential nomination may have more obstacles.

Leading the day at FHQ...

Nikki Haley is marching on. 

...for now. 

A day after an expectations-beating performance in New Hampshire, the former South Carolina governor faces a daunting task ahead in her one-on-one duel with Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. Mired in the teens in the Granite state as recently as the holiday season, Haley rose as other candidates fell by the wayside. That cleared a path to a head-to-head with Trump, but the results in the New Hampshire primary did little to grease the skids for the former UN ambassador to rise much further. 

In fact, New Hampshire was a good state for Haley on paper: more college educated and fewer evangelical voters (than in Iowa), independents could participate, etc. And she still came up short. Still, the final polls made things looked bleaker than they turned out to be and that is not nothing. But exactly how much that something is worth remains to be seen. 

It buys Haley some time, but not much. And it is tough to chart out a viable path forward to the nomination, much less South Carolina on February 24. Viable path. There is a path, but it entails stringing together what little Haley's campaign can muster in the meantime. She is the headliner on the Trump-less primary ballot in Nevada. Yes, it is a beauty contest primary, and while a win promises no delegates, it may carry the distinction of garnering her more votes than Trump will receive in the Silver state caucuses two days later. Again, that is not nothing, but how much that particular something is worth is hard to gauge. A vote-rich "win" in the Nevada primary coupled with a win the caucuses in the Virgin Islands on February 8 probably does not hurt. 

But what does that buy Haley in two weeks' time? 

Maybe it grants her a bit more time, but it grants her time to consider that she is even further behind in the delegate count and that her home of South Carolina still does not offer much relief. Perhaps the polls in the Palmetto state will have moved by then. Maybe Nevada, the Virgin Islands and/or the campaign will spur such a change. But if the polls do not move, then, as FHQ noted yesterday, the cacophony of winnowing pressures from Republicans in the broader party network are only going to grow louder and the prospect of not just a loss at home, but a big loss, will loom large. 

Again, there is a path forward for Nikki Haley. Only, it is not a particularly good path. And it certainly gets her no closer to the nomination. 

But hey, if she can manage to bankroll it, then why not play it out, grab what delegates she can, cross her fingers that Trump's legal troubles catch up with him and head into the convention in good standing? Yeah, that is a path, too. In theory. It just is not a sustainable path. Whatever incentives the former president's courtroom drama provide to stay in the race, the winnowing pressures will more than offset. And that would affect any "good" standing she may have as the candidate with the second most delegates at the convention.

The convention is way off. Haley's concerns are more immediate. And her path? Filled with obstacles.

--

All the New Hampshire results are not in, but it looks like the delegate count out of the Granite state is going to end at...

Trump -- 12 delegates 

Haley -- 10

But currently Haley is clinging to her tenth delegate. If she drops below 43.2 percent, then she will fall below the rounding threshold and that tenth delegate will become unallocated. Trump is not in a position to round up unless he approaches 57 percent of the vote. However, he would claim that unallocated delegate formerly in Haley's column because all unallocated delegates go to the winner of the primary. That would push Trump's total to 13 delegates in the state. 

UPDATE:

More on that last delegate and why it went to Trump at FHQ Plus.

--

Recent posts:

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

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

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

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. 

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

Leading the day at FHQ...

Happy New Hampshire primary day!

It has been a weird cycle in the Granite state. 

The Democratic primary there today will happen as it always does, but it will not count toward determining the outcome of the nomination after the national party reshuffled its early primary calendar for 2024. [There will be New Hampshire delegates -- reduced by half -- but they cannot be allocated based on the results of an unsanctioned primary.] But all the chatter of bumping the primary and the resulting write-in effort on President Biden's behalf in New Hampshire will likely garner a few seconds more attention than the primary otherwise would in an incumbent cycle for Democrats. And that is to say, not much.

On the Republican side, well, this looks like it. If the last polls, especially the tracker in the field after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suspended his campaign, are taken as the final results or anything near them, then Donald Trump is in for another romp. A 60-38 win would translate to a 14-8 delegate win for Trump over former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. And that, not the net delegate gap, per se, but the 3:2 loss in a state that is supposed to be "good" for the former UN ambassador, would make it a little easier to bow out with her home state up next. Haley is not on the ballot in Nevada, so South Carolina would be next. And even in the event of a closer than expected loss, Haley would be staring down the prospect of getting whipped at home for a month and a day. In other words, she may have made it out of New Hampshire with a win relative to expectations, but that would not necessarily carry her all the way to and through South Carolina. The winnowing pressures would have grown deafening in that time.

As FHQ said before Haley's third in Iowa took some of the [limited] air out of her sails, "Haley may or may not become a disruptive factor in her bid for the presidential nomination, but if she does, it is more likely to be in the form of a speed bump rather than a total roadblock."

But that it came down to two viable Republicans by New Hampshire -- just the second contest -- is the weirder thing for the Republican contest relative to past cycles. It is one thing to have local Granite staters politically plugged into the politics of it all complain in the year before the primary about candidates not showing up as much as they used to, but it is quite another for folks on the ground in New Hampshire to be talking about how dead things are in the 24 hours leading up the voting. 

New Hampshire typically does at least some of the winnowing -- and the primary may yet in a limited capacity for 2024 -- but most of the winnowing took place in the invisible primary (and after Iowa) before New Hampshire. And a lot of this is it is just the nature of the cycle. After all, there is an incumbent president running on one side and a former president running on the other (and one of them is not even on the ballot in the Granite state). 

Again, it has been a weird cycle. But it is not clear that some of the same forces will not return to New Hampshire for 2028. It remains to be seen if the Democratic National Committee wants to take another shot at shunting New Hampshire to a different slot on the calendar, but the nationalization of the process in the invisible primary preceding New Hampshire will continue to be a factor that likely detracts from the way the New Hampshire primary "used to be."

--

Over at FHQ Plus... 

I pushed back on what has seemingly become a dominant narrative in how the delegate rules came together on the Republican side for 2024. There has been way too much Trump was heavy-handed in forcing state parties to adopt favorable rules and not nearly enough examination of the actual rules. 

If anything the delegate rules are marginally less favorable to Trump in 2024 than they were in 2020. 

That does not mean that they are not well suited to the former president. Far from it! But there very simply was not much improving Team Trump could have done in 2023. They did some incremental work, but most of it was working the phone lines to defend what they established for the 2020 cycle. That is the story of the Republican rules for 2024.

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

--

Recent posts:

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

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

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

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.