The national Democratic party is weighing proposals behind-the-scenes that could give Michigan a leading role in the 2028 presidential nominating process

The party is deciding which state will hold the first presidential primary election.

Iowa and New Hampshire had long been the initial states to host a Democratic primary or caucus. That changed in recent years.

Former President Biden pushed to set South Carolina as the first state to hold a Democratic primary in the last election cycle, though New Hampshire jumped ahead of it with an unsanctioned contest.

Now those states and Iowa are jockeying again for the pole primary position, along with Michigan and Nevada.

Michigan Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell is part of a committee determining the 2028 primary order.

Dingell says the decision will impact the presidential candidates’ policy priorities.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length

U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell: The state that goes first is the state that gets a lot of attention. The candidates spend a lot of time there. The press spends a lot of time there. The country knows what the issues are there. But, unfortunately, some of the states that have gone first do not reflect the diversity of the country. They don’t have solid organized labor groups that, quite frankly, people have thought of traditionally as Democratic-leaning, but are not always these days Candidates should have to talk directly to the people about the issues that are going to determine the election in November.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: When you’re looking at it from that point of view, is Michigan a good choice to go first?

DD: I refuse to say that Michigan should go first. I don’t think any state should have a lock on going first. I think states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, purple battleground states that determine the outcome of what happens in November, should be part of the early process. Candidates should have to talk about the issues that are gonna determine the outcome in November.

QK: When you look at states like Michigan that have a large population, some people worry that they are too big for candidates to connect on the ground with many individual voters. They think those states favor candidates who have a lot of money to buy commercials. Do you think that’s a legitimate criticism, not just of Michigan, but of any larger state?

DD: I think that candidates are gonna have to be on the ground in larger states as well as they’re gonna have to be in the smaller states. And these larger states actually are dealing with the kind of issues that determine the outcome in November. Candidates should have to appear there. Work there. Win there. And part of that is raising money. That’s part of winning, to be perfectly frank. But I also think it’s more important to have “retail” politics. Going to union halls, talking to working men and women, hearing what they think, getting into senior centers, getting into veteran’s halls. Many of these purple states have a whole lot of different stakeholders that need to be heard from. And the candidates need to be talking with them about how they feel about the issues.

QK: I’ve heard some Democrats raise concerns about certain states, including Michigan, where they fear the party could become divided right off the bat over the situation in Gaza. States where there might be a large Arab or Jewish population. States that saw the rise of the “Abandon Harris” or “Abandon Biden” movements in the last presidential election over their support for Israel. Do you think there’s any legitimacy to that criticism?

DD: First of all, I think that while we do have a significant Muslim population and a significant Jewish population in Michigan, this is an issue that matters around the country. And I think it is better to talk about those issues early than to be losing in November and talking about it for the first time. I think it’s very important they be part of the early discussion.

QK: You were saying in 2016, when people thought that Hillary Clinton had a pretty good lead over then-candidate Donald Trump, that you thought Trump was actually making many more inroads among working-class people than was shown in polling. You predicted he had a good shot at winning in Michigan and elsewhere. When you look at what Democrats need to do now, both in the primary process and going forward, period, do you think your party needs to strengthen those kinds of “working-class” connections more than they are currently?

DD: Yes. That’s why I think that they have to campaign in states where those groups matter and where the stakeholders matter. I knew Hillary was gonna lose before that November election because I was in those union halls. Too many candidates don’t walk into a union hall. They need to.