Following the 2020 Democratic primary, where the Iowa Caucus saw a disaster of delayed results and overall chaos, and the New Hampshire primary went hilariously to Bernie Sanders, there seemed to be a growing chorus of support for reordering the calendar to emphasize different states earlier on.
Messing with the presidential primary order is never a popular topic, especially with the states that stand to lose their spot at the front of the line. In this case, officials in Iowa and New Hampshire are not pleased with efforts to dethrone them from the caucus and primary kickoff status they have reveled in for decades. As the saying goes, “Iowa picks corn while New Hampshire picks presidents,” but neither state picked the eventual nominee in 2020.
Related: 2024 Primary Schedule
Now it appears that although national Democratic Party officials would like to drastically shake up the calendar, and bring in states toward the front that better represent a more “diverse” cross-section of voters, nothing seems set to happen before the 2024 election:
Iowa and New Hampshire, after fending off challenges to their one-two order in the primary calendar for years, appeared especially vulnerable following the 2020 election. The two heavily white states were derided as insufficiently representative of the Democratic Party’s diverse electorate, while Iowa’s caucuses were marred by delayed results and calculation errors. The eventual nominee, Joe Biden, lost both states badly, further straining their claims to privileged status.
As noted, Biden didn’t win either contest, placing fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire. In fact, after those two losses, it looked almost impossible to imagine Biden as the 2020 Democratic nominee.
Still, he was the choice of the party establishment so every effort was made to delegitimize the first two contests and pin hopes on South Carolina, where a more diverse electorate of African-American voters could push Biden to a win, which they did.
Just because Iowa and New Hampshire will be left alone in 2024, however, doesn’t mean they’ll be safe forever:
Interviews with more than two dozen Democratic National Committee members, state party chairs and strategists laid bare widespread desire to avoid a divisive, intraparty dispute in 2022 — and skepticism that any change enacted after the midterm elections could be done in time for the next presidential campaign.
“I think it’s going to stay the same,” said Colmon Elridge, the chair of the Kentucky Democratic Party. “The energy that was around tinkering with the calendar. … It hasn’t come up a lot, but when it does, it’s, ‘We’re not there anymore.’”
On the sidelines of the South Carolina meetings, one Democratic strategist said “there’s no energy for it,” while a DNC member who closely follows the calendar process asked, “Why not kick the can down the road to ’28, when you’re presumably going to have an open White House?”
Iowa, he said, “may still be f—ed. The real question is whether it’s f—ed in 2024 or 2028.”
It’s clear that as far as diversity goes, neither Iowa nor New Hampshire checks the right boxes. Both states are predominantly white in demographic makeup, and more so than the country on average. That fact alone has bristled Democratic activists. They seem to ignore, however, when Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus in 2008, and barely placed second in New Hampshire the same year, then went on to become the nominee and president. Those facts don’t matter though, because there’s too much “whiteness” at the early end of the primary calendar, apparently.
Ultimately, without a big push from President Biden, as current “head” of the Democratic Party, it looks like Iowa and New Hampshire are safe for now:
The party’s waning appetite for a calendar change is reflective of its defensive posture heading into the midterm election year. DNC members are expected as early as next month to begin discussing the 2024 order of states. But many Democratic officials are fearful of doing anything more to project a disunified front as they scramble to maintain their Senate majority and limit losses in the House. Without a strong push from the White House, which did not respond to a request for comment for this story, many Democrats think sheer inertia will keep things as they are.
If Biden plans to run for reelection, then the 2024 Democratic primary calendar shouldn’t matter, right? On the other hand, if Biden bows out, and Vice President Harris can’t tie up the nomination without the need for a primary, it’s very possible to see a bitter battle in 2024. However, if things remain as they are, it would give Democrats time to put more thought into the 2028 calendar.
There’s also the upcoming 2022 midterms which require activists in every state to lend a hand to local campaigns. Threatening to remove Iowa or New Hampshire as early states could agitate and anger rank-and-file Democrats further causing issues in an election year when Democrats already face serious headwinds.
The former DNC Chairman, Tom Perez, says that the days of the status quo are numbered, though, and expect to see a change at some point:
Perez, who has long been critical of Iowa and New Hampshire’s favored status, said that despite the delays, he believes the 2024 calendar will ultimately be changed by the beginning of 2023. “I’m pretty confident there will be movement on the order of the primaries. I would be stunned if Iowa is still first,” he said, also noting he’d spoken to Reid several times about Nevada’s place in the calendar.
It’s pretty clear that to placate party activists, who complain loudly on Twitter and elsewhere, that Iowa and New Hampshire will have to be bumped down the calendar for a more diverse selection of states. There’s nothing “special” per se about either state or why they get to vote first. It’s more of a regional thing since Iowa represents the midwest and New Hampshire represents the northeast, then South Carolina with the south, and the newly added Nevada to the early mix represents the west.
It’s no easy task to make primary schedule changes, Iowa and New Hampshire will not accept the changes easily without a fight if it means they become less relevant in the presidential contest. These states depend on millions of dollars each year in advertising and interest as campaigns spend time and money corraling voters.
Democrats risk alienating voters in both states in the name of diversity, or risk leaving their calendar as-is and being dissatisfied with the results. It’s not an enviable position heading into 2024 and 2028.
Donate Now to Support Election Central
- Help defend independent journalism
- Directly support this website and our efforts