The First In The Nation Sweepstakes Begins!
Hello Hackaroos!
It’s true: we are obsessed with politics. But a lot of other people are obsessed and many of them have names that start with “Senator” and “Governor” and “Reality TV show host” so believe us when we say it’s not too early to start looking at… wait for it… the 2024 Presidential primary season!
Yup. Now remember, most of the politicking for the 2024 primaries actually happens in 2023… aka next year. That’s because the bulk of the voter primaries actually occur at the start of 2024. So your campaign really has to be in gear and operating in the second half of 2023. Plus, it’s never too early in politics to silently plot and scheme. So in this issue of the Hacks on Tap newsletter we want to focus on the various scenarios for the early 2024 primary calendar.
We also want to hear what you think. What state should go first? What should the order be? Leave us your thoughts, as always, in the comments section!
And if your friends want in on the action, be sure to share the newsletter with them: https://hacksontap.bulletin.com/subscribe!
Let’s begin…
Who’s on first for the Democrats?
Photo Credit: JIM WATSON / Getty Images / Collection: AFP
MURPHY: Well Gibbsie, I think most of the action regarding the Presidential primary calendar adjustments will be on the Democratic side, haunted as they are by the Iowa caucuses nightmare of 2020. To recap, it was a very high stakes contest with… no apparent way to determine the winner, which screwed up the momentum into New Hampshire theory (since with no winner there can be no “bounce”), which of course is the only reason any candidate even focuses on the Iowa caucuses in the first place! It’s supposed to be the rocket blast off pad where little known candidates can work town to town and break through to media attention, money, and success down the line.
So, what will the post Iowa trainwreck Democratic caucuses look like in 2024?
Source:CNN.com
GIBBS: Great question, Murphy. And as I start this, I want, as always, to profess my undying love for Iowa. I have nothing but great memories from my time driving around that state and seeing up close the process by which voters there make up their minds as to whom they’ll support.
I especially hold a deep fondness for the results on that Caucus night in January 2008, though don’t get me started about momentum and rocket blast offs into New Hampshire! But as you mentioned, things went more than a bit askew in 2020. So, the DNC has started the process of reviewing the 2024 nomination calendar and has now asked state parties to send in what amounts to their specific case for being part of the process. They also seem to be leaning towards eliminating caucuses altogether, and therefore the uncertainty of not having the election apparatus of state support behind it. Obviously, that further spells trouble for Iowa. First, it's unlikely Iowa maintains its first position for two reasons. One, what happened in 2020, but two, the likelihood that they're going to get rid of caucuses—it’s unclear whether the Iowa legislature would actually let the Democratic caucus become a state-supported primary. The Democratic Party as a whole has reduced the number of caucuses, going from 14 in 2016 to just 3 in 2020. 2024 could well see that number further reduced to zero.
That development alone will cause a shakeup in the calendar. Murphy will remember from his halcyon days on the 2000 McCain Straight Talk Express bus that there's a state law in New Hampshire that requires it to be the first primary. And so, on the Democratic side, it’s pretty likely that New Hampshire ends up first. New Hampshire is extraordinarily protective of its place here even telling people in years’ past that if they needed to hold their primary around Thanksgiving the year before, they’d do it in order to maintain their position.
The biggest challenge, frankly, to either state may be in the concern that there's no real diversity in the two states at a time when Democrats want more diverse contests to pick their nominees. In 2016, the website FiveThirtyEight.com looked at and ranked the states based on how representative they were of the overall Democratic coalition.
Source: FiveThirtyEight.com
In the end, I think New Hampshire is going to end up first. I think Nevada ends up second in the schedule for good reason – you have to put together a multi-racial coalition to be successful there. It was for that reason that after Nevada in 2020, the only two Democratic candidates likely to end up as the nominee that year were Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
I think South Carolina stays third, particularly for importance of appealing to Black voters and the impact they have on the remaining nominating calendar.
So, that leaves us with who rounds out the first four. For me, I think it’s important to add a Midwestern state if the Democratic Party moves away from Iowa to make sure that we are maintaining some geographical and demographic diversity, but also that you spend the time having to do the real organizing that Iowa forced candidates to do. I would lean towards a place like Michigan. What’s crucial for me is it’s also a swing state. Pennsylvania could also work here as well, substituting a Rust Belt state for a Midwestern state, but still getting you a mix of urban, suburban and rural with the added benefit of being a swing state.
But look, you could also pick a different Midwestern state like Illinois. Again, here you’d have to build a multi-racial coalition. The only challenge is the Democratic vote is fairly concentrated in just one expensive media market, Chicago. The other states listed above like New Jersey, New York or Florida would favor candidates who have greater access to a lot of money. That’s important, but we’ve seen that money and support aren’t always the same thing.
Murphy, I would love your thoughts on what makes a good state for a Presidential candidate from the perspective of building a strong Presidential campaign? Obviously, there's fundraising involved, but the great thing about Iowa and New Hampshire was you had to go out there and answer questions and meet the voters at town hall events at the local public library and you became a much better candidate simply because of that.
MURPHY: Well, first of all, let me agree that every operative who's worked on an Iowa campaign on either side comes away having a special appreciation for Iowa voters and fond memories of a happy experience in Iowa. Second, you're right, New Hampshire will always be the first primary. They’ve made an industry out of it and will never let the position change. Iowa was able to be first as the first caucus. So I guess the question is will another state be able to create a pre-NH caucus as the first contest. Tempting, but caucuses have a downside; low turnout, tricky tallying mechanisms, crank activists tend to have outside voices, etc.
With Identity Supremos running much of the current inside game in the Democratic party, I’d worry any new caucus wouldn’t focus on the sort of swing state stuff Democratic candidates need to learn how to get better at. The fact that Kamala Harris has a black belt in the lefty city of Oakland, CA politics is not good training to carry midwestern swing suburbs in a general election.
So, I think the Dems should add a few more early primaries, right after New Hampshire. Maybe a midwestern swing state like Michigan (or Wisconsin) or a New South state like North Carolina.
GIBBS: Yeah, the great thing about an Iowa was you have people that could have a strategy outside of just one media market and still have access to a lot of delegates. You weren't just going to three cities with decent sized media markets, although you did to get covered on TV and in the important newspapers. But the reason people used to brag about the number of counties they went to is because that's part of the delegate selection process. You could build delegates by having some strength in other parts of the state. And, this isn’t just true in Iowa. 2008 proved this because President Obama lost by six percentage points to Hillary Clinton in Nevada, yet we were able to declare Nevada a tie on caucus night because we'd spent time in places like Elko in the Northeastern part of the state and other primarily rural areas, allowing us to gain valuable delegates. It’s important to remember, in the Democratic Party’s nomination process for President, it’s a delegate fight. It wasn't then, and isn’t now, about simply counting who won different states. (Republicans after a certain number of races for the party’s nomination switch to the winner taking all delegates, so it really only matters after a few states who wins.) Democrats can slog it out to count delegates into early June if that's what happens. See 2008 and 2016.
MURPHY: Well, that's also connected to the Democratic, “I cried when Old Yeller died,” mentality of avoiding winner take all delegate contests. Awarding delegates based on fractional winners means the process goes on longer, with third and second place losers still getting delegates. The mean Republicans favor winner take all so their delegate selection process is mostly nasty, brutal and short.
If I were personally creating the Democratic setup, I would take a hard look at a “dosey doe” strategy. Or maybe call it a “Noah’s Ark” plan: do it in pairs of two.
First New Hampshire. A week later two key primaries: maybe Wisconsin and Nevada (primary instead of caucus this time?). Then maybe North Carolina or Georgia, and Arizona. Maybe a big ender in Florida a week after that, or a semi-Super Tuesday with Florida and a couple of other states. My point is break it down into two state pairs for a while; big enough to count, small enough to be manageable for multiple campaign. And choose states aligned to winning the actual generate election.
The potential thematic pairs are endless.
GIBBS: I like your pairs idea! Even better, Murphy, let's have the campaigns all rent buses and do a Carolinas primary. Do South and North Carolina together.
MURPHY: Or Michigan and Ohio together! The Mega Test in the Great Midwest? (Sorry, channeling Don King here.) That way you can extend it for a while and keep it interesting and then go to a Super Tuesday or something with a bunch of states. By the way, we're available if the DNC wants us to solve this mighty problem. And, at this point we are obligated to say this is a lot more fun to do as a fantasy sports exercise than as a real plan, since it is very hard to get the state ducks to walk in line and all play ball in a master scheme like this. But it would be in the Democrats' interest to be very smart about this coming calendar.
On the GOP side, I think the strategy will reflect the wishes of Donald J. Trump, which will be to favor the Sunbelt as much as possible. The once proud RNC building on First Street SE has become a dodgy outlet of Trump Inc. and you won’t see any thoughtful or courageous or even smart leadership out of there or the actual Committee alas. So I think few things will change beyond a Trump driven poke or two at states he wants to punish in the calendar for some past affront to the Emperor of Orange.
Now, we want to know what you think the order should be and why? Remember to leave us your answers in the comments and we’ll continue this conversation in the weeks ahead.
Have a great rest of the weekend!
Murphy and Gibbs