discussion Update: NH ignoring DNC threats, going forward; New dates: 1)SC-2)NV(+NH*?)-3)GA-4)MI

[Vermillion]

 

[Taylena]

Iowa and New Hampshire both punished for voting Bernie and South Carolina now being first since their voters do anything the DNC tells them to. Not even a bit shocked lol 

[A Bomb]

I mean, progressives have a lot to offer older black voters, and Bernie did have a chance of winning until Clyburn. I’m hoping courting, and bringing out voters under 45 is the main strategy for any progressive running in the presidential primaries, and NOT hoping to get by with just 30% of the vote.

[Pheromosa]

what does this mean 

[Wonderland]

I think shifting the opening primary to a more diverse state is a step in the right direction.

 

In saying that, I do find it weird that so much weight is always put on these states that never vote Democratic in a General Election  

 

Surely it makes more sense to reward either the most loyal Democratic states or states like Arizona and Georgia who swung Democratic in the most recent election.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Wonderland

[Communion]

Rank of states by median age:

South Carolina: 12th Oldest

Georgia: 40th Oldest

 

Odd how the demand to include southern representation has to result in a state that's +12 points deep Republican and not, y'know, the one southern state Democrats have actually won in recently. 

 

The best idea I heard was to have 4 go in the first week, with one from each region.

With Georgia there, you do not need South Carolina. 

 

Having NV, MI, NH and GA all go on the same day first would give the most accurate picture of where Democrats across age, race and location actually feel. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Communion

[ClashAndBurn]

5 minutes ago, Communion said:

Rank of states by median age:

South Carolina: 12th Oldest

Georgia: 40th Oldest

 

Odd how the demand to include southern representation has to result in a state that's +12 points deep Republican and not, y'know, the one southern state Democrats have actually won in recently. 

 

The best idea I heard was to have 4 go in the first week, with one from each region.

With Georgia there, you do not need South Carolina. 

 

Having NV, MI, NH and GA all go on the same day first would give the most accurate picture of where Democrats across age, race and location actually feel. 

Yeah, well. The point is to frontload the conservative Southern states to make sure that a progressive will never be able to get forward momentum. South Carolina being first especially is for Biden to flex and head off anyone who dares to challenge him in a primary, and is expected to set up Kamala for a sweep in 2028. Highly unlikely she wins Iowa and NH in a contested primary, but SC with older black voters who want tough on crime politicians that will throw young black men in jail by the truckload? Absolutely.

[Communion]

1 minute ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Yeah, well. The point is to frontload the conservative Southern states to make sure that a progressive will never be able to get forward momentum. South Carolina being first especially is for Biden to flex and head off anyone who dares to challenge him in a primary, and is expected to set up Kamala for a sweep in 2028. Highly unlikely she wins Iowa and NH in a contested primary, but SC with older black voters who want tough on crime politicians that will throw young black men in jail by the truckload? Absolutely.

I'm just shocked of... how little faith do they have to need to rely on SC? They don't think Kamala could win Georgia?  SC's inclusion just doesn't make sense outside of rubbing elbows with Clyburn. Though I think the bold is most true and your right - it'll only be used for 2024 to ensure no primary challenger and then moved by 2028.

 

In fact, putting Georgia first and winning it would actually give the centrist winner, if a centrist could win it, credence to their claim of electability because it's a proven swing state (this is a criticism against both Iowa and South Carolina; that neither actually could be won in a presidential election by Democrats).

 

Having Georgia as where centrists hoped to tack in their first win would also then help them nullify some momentum NV gives progressives. And yet, they're doubling down on SC and really insulting of our intelligence by going "hmm so you HATE black grandparents don't you??? Sounds pretty white socialist to me!!". 

[Gov Hooka]

Wait y’all “progressives” still care about playing with the DNC and participating in their nonsense after these past 3 years... Lolol. **** electoral politics (especially nationwide) and focus on joining your local orgs and helping those in need in your community. 

[ClashAndBurn]

7 minutes ago, Communion said:

I'm just shocked of... how little faith do they have to need to rely on SC? They don't think Kamala could win Georgia?  SC's inclusion just doesn't make sense outside of rubbing elbows with Clyburn. Though I think the bold is most true and your right - it'll only be used for 2024 to ensure no primary challenger and then moved by 2028.

 

In fact, putting Georgia first and winning it would actually give the centrist winner, if a centrist could win it, credence to their claim of electability because it's a proven swing state (this is a criticism against both Iowa and South Carolina; that neither actually could be won in a presidential election by Democrats).

 

Having Georgia as where centrists hoped to tack in their first win would also then help them nullify some momentum NV gives progressives. And yet, they're doubling down on SC and really insulting of our intelligence by going "hmm so you HATE black grandparents don't you??? Sounds pretty white socialist to me!!". 

Georgia and Michigan are too big to flood with resources the way that Iowa (and NH) had been. South Carolina is small enough to justify moving to the front of the line for that reason.

 

But yeah, like you said, Georgia is also too young to be emphasized. I don't think they'll move SC from the front again until after Kamala flops in the general. But heading off progressive insurgents might be enough of a reason to keep it anyway. The mawmaws and pawpaws in SC will never vote for anyone to the left of Shontel Brown, after all. Especially not with Jim Clyburn having the ability to single-handedly anoint a winner.

[Rotunda]

20 minutes ago, Communion said:

I'm just shocked of... how little faith do they have to need to rely on SC? They don't think Kamala could win Georgia?  SC's inclusion just doesn't make sense outside of rubbing elbows with Clyburn. Though I think the bold is most true and your right - it'll only be used for 2024 to ensure no primary challenger and then moved by 2028.

 

In fact, putting Georgia first and winning it would actually give the centrist winner, if a centrist could win it, credence to their claim of electability because it's a proven swing state (this is a criticism against both Iowa and South Carolina; that neither actually could be won in a presidential election by Democrats).

 

Having Georgia as where centrists hoped to tack in their first win would also then help them nullify some momentum NV gives progressives. And yet, they're doubling down on SC and really insulting of our intelligence by going "hmm so you HATE black grandparents don't you??? Sounds pretty white socialist to me!!". 

I think SC going first has a lot to do with Clyburn 

[Communion]

1 minute ago, Rotunda said:

I think SC going first has a lot to do with Clyburn 

Love the future of the Democratic Party being decided by a conservative octogenarian!

[GhostBox]

This is a good thing. ????

[Redstreak]

15 hours ago, Wonderland said:

I think shifting the opening primary to a more diverse state is a step in the right direction.

 

In saying that, I do find it weird that so much weight is always put on these states that never vote Democratic in a General Election  

 

Surely it makes more sense to reward either the most loyal Democratic states or states like Arizona and Georgia who swung Democratic in the most recent election.

It’s because they want the early states to prop up the most conservative and corporate candidate the dems have

[ClashAndBurn]

3 minutes ago, GhostBox said:

This is a good thing. ????

Well, yes! By giving octogenarian conservadems the first say, there will never be a progressive president. Congrats, centrists, you’ve got the party you want for generations to come.

[GhostBox]

7 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Well, yes! By giving octogenarian conservadems the first say, there will never be a progressive president. Congrats, centrists, you’ve got the party you want for generations to come.

Iowa and NH shouldn’t be the firsts either ? would I choose SC? Maybe not. But it’s long over due for a change up. 
 

I personally would have the first 5 be 
NV, Michigan, PA, Wisconsin, maybe  Georgia/AZ. These are the states the presidential election will be won or lost in. The last two mostly because those are the 2 states the democrats seem to be peeling away from the gop currently and they should be showing interest in those states more. . 

Edited December 3, 2022 by GhostBox

[ClashAndBurn]

Just now, GhostBox said:

Iowa and NH shouldn’t be the firsts either ? would I choose SC? Maybe not. But it’s long over due for a change up. 
 

I personally would have the first 5 be 
NV, Michigan, PA, Wisconsin, maybe  Georgia/AZ. These are the states the presidential election will be one in. The last two mostly because those are the 2 states the democrats seem to be peeling away from the gop currently and they should be showing interest in those states more. . 

Michigan, Georgia, and PA are too large to make the initial investment, and arguably so is Wisconsin. IA and NH have held their status for so long because by nature, their populations are smaller and candidates can appeal to them more intimately.

 

SC accomplishes what Biden wants. It basically sets up an insurmountable mandate for his re-election bid to discourage any primary challenge, and conventional wisdom would suggest that it helps his personally chosen successor, Kamala Harris, in 2028 as well.

[Vermillion]

16 hours ago, Pheromosa said:

what does this mean 

I've updated the OP to be clearer but I unfortunately don't have a straightforward answer for you.

 

Mostly because Iowa's adamant according to their own state law that they're still going first but then might be threatened by the DNC with losing delegates. If Biden had more viable competitors in 2024 they wouldn't be risking the fight with pulling Iowa delegates but I think they're more than willing to take that step to put people in line. 

 

New Hampshire's situation is even messier as brought up in the OP and is harder to explain.

 

The point is, nothing is finalized, and the Democrat's primary process, despite progressives having no shot at launch at competitor to Joe, is still going to be messy with rogue states, delegates getting pulled, legal fights, and accusations thrown throughout the press. To be clear though, no political observers across the spectrum think Iowa and New Hampshire will be getting their spots again.

 

Because of that, culturally and politically, it's still a big deal. In terms of demographics, funding, national attention, party priorities and much more.

[Harrier]

This isn't too much of a concern for me. Biden is unbeatable in the 2024 primary anyway. In the ideal situation where he does not run, SC being first is unlikely to affect the outcome.

[Vermillion]

Apparently the Des Moines store downtown sells a T-shirt with this line from the video of Gillibrand - it's the only thing I'm going to miss.

 

 

[heckinglovato]

This is simply not gonna happen. New Hampshire state law requires them to be the first primary in the nation and NH's Republican governor would have to sign off on any changes, which he said he won't, regardless of DNC sanctions.

[Chemist]

It should be Georgia

[Pierrot]

Kamala you will never be president 

[Vermillion]

4 hours ago, heckinglovato said:

This is simply not gonna happen. New Hampshire state law requires them to be the first primary in the nation and NH's Republican governor would have to sign off on any changes, which he said he won't, regardless of DNC sanctions.

It's gonna be messy, whatever ends up happening:

 

 

[heckinglovato]

21 hours ago, Espresso said:

It's gonna be messy, whatever ends up happening:

 

 

Yup it's exactly as he summed it up, NH doesn't care about not receiving delegates at the convention (which was already a small number anyway). They're going to have the first primary no matter what.