Democrats only won the presidential vote 1 time in SC since 1964.

[Bonobo]

Please explain to me again why some of the Hillary supporters keep screaming that it is such an important state in the Democratic Primaries?

[msongs]

1. because it's a ....primary? nt

[Bonobo]

3. Ummm, what?

That doesn't really explain why some Hillary supporters are holding SC out as if only a win in SC is important.

SC will NOT go blue, no matter who wins.

Starting to see the point? A win there by either candidate does not presage a Democratic victory in the Presidential race.

[Matariki]

21. Delegates is why

[brush]

5. Exactamento! There's a big difference between the primaries and the general

Something you'd think 100% of the people on this site would know.

[Bonobo]

8. LOL. What?

Yeah, a fish is different than a telephone too.

What's your point?

[brush]

18. The title of your OP about dems only having won the presidential vote SC once since 1964

You don't see a problem with that?

We're going into a primary now not the presidential vote.

[Bonobo]

23. I get that.

My point is in response to the claims that NH and Iowa are meaningless and that only if Bernie wins SC can we take him seriously.

[NanceGreggs]

29. You don't seem to really "get that".

The primaries are about states choosing the Dem nominee, and have nothing to do with the general.

If BS doesn't win in the remaining states, he WON'T be the nominee - and he won't be taken seriously if he's not.

NH an Iowa are "meaningless" in the sense that their demographics are not reflective of the Party at large. To be "taken seriously", BS has to win in states where the demographics are as diversified as the nation itself. THAT would be the proof that he appeals to all segments of Dem voters - black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. - and not just the overwhelmingly-white voters in Iowa and NH.

And you KNOW that, Bonobo.

[Roy Ellefson]

2. exactly

I don't get it either

[Cheese Sandwich]

4. It's the first primary with a lot of black people. It's understood as the first big voice of African

Americans in the Democratic nominee selection process. So that's one of the reasons it is significant. NH and Iowa are very white. Nevada is more diverse but SC is what it is.

[Bonobo]

9. Black people in SC are different than Black people in other states

Just as White people are different from state to state.

South Carolina is South Carolina.

[Cheese Sandwich]

14. Team Hillary is hyping it because they expect to win there by a huuuuge margin

It's politics. They want to hype up the importance of something they expect to win really big.

[Bonobo]

17. Yep! Iowa and NH = "Yawn, they're white".

They are hanging onto a desperate hope that the disparity between white voters and black voters will continue.

But, overall, it is not a smart strategy to keep saying "Fuck White people. They're not important."

[brush]

19. Ahhh . . . that's not the point. 60% of dems in SC are African Americans

[bettyellen]

24. Just delete this crap ---> ""Fuck White people. They're not important.""

Go home, you're embarrassing Bernie.

[TTUBatfan2008]

25. No more than David Brock embarrasses the Clintons...

with his race-baiting bullshit.

[Bonobo]

26. You clearly misunderstand.

I didn't say "Fuck White people. They're not important."

Nor do I say that anyone here says that explicitly.

But the prevailing message from some Hill supporters that Iowa and NH don't matter because of the amount of White people is not a good message.

[TheBlackAdder]

30. Another act of censorship, preventing discourse from playing out. (Pretend everything's fine.)

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is nothing but a personal attack. "Race baiting", "stuck in slime". Please hide.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 10, 2016, 03:55 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just so folks are aware that juries with Bernie supporters serving on them are not biased, I vote not to hide this comment. bettyellen is posting some hard truths and that poster should take note of and think twice about how offensive their posts have been in this thread.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This thread :_(
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Based off of the discussion at hand, there is nothing inappropriate with this comment. If there are discussions that an evoke passion, those passions must be carried out to their logical conclusions--else there will just be the illusion of resolution. Just like using "n-word," when calling out its use, actually aids and abets the writer by masking the ugliness of the word's use--removing the power of the exposition. This comment should remain.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Except no one is saying that ...

perhaps you should examine why it is, that is what you are "hearing".

[BeyondGeography]

6. That was the Clinton argument against Obama in '08

He wins mostly red states and loses the big blue ones!

Whatever.

[Bonobo]

10. Well, they got it wrong in 1988, 2000 and 2004. nt

[HooptieWagon]

32. This^

Only twice since 1976 has South Carolina primary winner gone on to win the nomination. And neither the Democratic candidate or South Carolina primary winner is going to carry South Carolina in the General Election. IOW, South Carolina is pretty far down the totem pole when it comes to being a bellweather state.

[uponit7771]

11. PoC went to Hillary by 25% above Sanders after 3 months of campaiging in IA... he has 3 weeks to

... win over PoC in SC where his numbers are where the GOPs pols are

[Bonobo]

13. His numbers will improve.

I strongly believe that some of the support going to Clinton is because he remains the presumptive nominee.

As that chips away, so too will her numbers.

And that is not rank speculation. Her numbers have not gone up as this Primary has gone on. Only down.

This is a terrible, terrible sign of things to come for your candidate.

In the end, as a deep red state, I personally attach as much significance to the will of the SC populace as I do to other deep red states.

[BeyondGeography]

16. When Bernie wins the Idaho and Utah caucuses maybe you'll

realize how silly this thread is.

[uponit7771]

22. +1, post of the night... I don't see how people are still minimizing the PoC vote in the US seeing

...it mathematically reached a critical mass during the mid 2000s.

[frylock]

20. And what was it at 3 months prior to the caucus?

50%? 75% for Hillary?

[uponit7771]

33. Down 2 billion, that's irrelevant to the point that were he spent a lot o time campaigning and PoC

... heard his message they didn't like it by a wide margin.

He was known and had name recognition so those to factors didn't exist in IA

[frylock]

37. What's irrelevant is you continuing to throw out that number like it means something.

[uponit7771]

38. It does, they knew who Sanders was... heard his message and voted against it in large numbers

... that's significant no?

[frylock]

40. Not without something to compare it to.

[uponit7771]

41. We can compare it to 08... right?!

[frylock]

42. I'd settle for September 2015.

bye.

[HooptieWagon]

31. And PoC in NH went nearly 50% for Sanders.

[Beacool]

12. One word: Delegates.

Bernie Sanders will win at least 13 of the Democratic delegates in New Hampshire and Hillary Clinton will win at least nine. Two delegates haven't yet been allocated.

In the overall race for delegates, Clinton has 394, thanks in large part to endorsements from superdelegates — party officials who can support the candidate of their choice.

Sanders has 42 delegates.

It takes 2,382 delegates to win the Democratic nomination for president.

[Major Hogwash]

28. That was because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Same thing is true for Idaho . . . this frickin' state has gone for the Republican candidate ever since 1964.
It's enough to make me puke!

[uponit7771]

39. What's wrong the the 64 CRA? I thought it was a good thing for the country...

[Gothmog]

35. Because South Carolina has 53 delegates compared to NH's 24

Texas has almost three times the number of delegates as Iowa and New Hampshire combined. The purpose of the primary process is to win delegates and South Carolina has more delegates than New Hampshire.

[MineralMan]

36. Simple. Every state has Democrats in it.

Democrats are represented at the national convention, regardless of which state they live in. South Carolina sends 59 delegates to the convention. 53 of those are pledged delegates, selection proportionally to the primary voting.

That's more delegates than either Iowa or New Hampshire, so that state's Democrats are truly more important than either of the other two states. More delegates = more importance in selecting the nominee.

Whether South Carolina votes in the General Election for Democratic Presidents or not is irrelevant to the Democratic Party nominating process. The Democrats in SC have the right to be represented, according to the population of their state, basically.

The Presidential nomination is a national process. All 50 states are represented at the convention.

[Godhumor]

43. Because every state's Democrats should have a voice in picking our nominee

Not just the states we expect to win or battle for in the GE.

Not sure why this is hard to understand.

[Vinca]

44. Because of the delegate count.

In the general it's a long shot at best.