2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy South Carolina?
Why is it that Democrats get so excited about winning in South Carolina?
The state has not voted for a Democrat for president in almost 40 years. The state also has a well-earned reputation for engaging in the dirtiest politics in the US (which might explain their support for republicans.)
Why do we care about South Carolina?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)We are letting a state that has practically a nil chance of supporting a Democratic presidential candidate select our candidate for us.
When you ask Iowans and the people of New Hampshire they always say that they cherish or take seriously their role as the first primary states.
When you go to South Carolina, you get crazy bullshit like John McCain's secret love child. At a certain point you have to ask whether they earned it or if they are truly representative.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)that democratic primaries shouldn't matter if the state doesn't go to the democrats in the general??
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I am saying that if your state Hasn't supported a Democratic candidate for president in almost 40 years maybe you should take a back seat to a state that actually DOES support Democratic candidates occasionally.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)It's shameful that a blue and populous state like mine, California, has to wait until June.
Usually the nominee has already been picked!
RandySF
(57,632 posts)And Hillary will win here.
RandySF
(57,632 posts)She will win CA
Perogie
(687 posts)Republicans can vote also in the Democratic Primary in South Carolina
artislife
(9,497 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)
Yikes...typo!
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)In all fairness I really am looking outside this election though.
Yes, I supported president Obama and so did South Carolina in the primary. But their state refused to vote for him.
I just question the fairness of positioning South Carolina so early.
Of course a lot of this could be considered moot if we could do away with the electoral college.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Because it is a heterogeneous state with a large voting bloc that which without the Democrats would not have won one national election since 1964.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So I fail to see how the state has helped Dems in national elections.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Because Nevada and South Carolina are heterogeneous states and are infinitely more representative of an increasingly more heterogeneous nation than homogeneous states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Iowa and New Hampshire are the truly non representative states and its a shame that they have such a large sway over who gets the early attention/media/money.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)eom
MADem
(135,425 posts)"First in the Nation" status--their economies DEPEND on it, in fact--those primaries are worth a fortune to the state economies.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)It skews a tad bit old but beside that it is a good demographic representative of the nation.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)South Carolina beats IA and NH in gun ownership too.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I never claimed that South Carolina wasn't religious--not sure why you're going there. But religiosity is a predictor when it comes to that GOP vote--it's one of many, but it IS one.
NH isn't very religious at all (though many profess 'belief' they don't go to church)--in fact, only VT beats them for being "not religious," but they have a lot of gun owners in the state, and they also have a lot of white, unaffiliated voters who slop back and forth, depending on which contest they want to influence. NH has large rural swathes, too, once you get past southern NH, which is like a suburb of MA--Concord and Manchester could pass for large towns, it's a place where people do tend to know one another. Given that Trump is in the race, they may want to go for him--or they may want to upset the applecart on the other side. Time--and the vote count (because there are a finite number of voters in that state) will tell if there's a large shift in voters from one side to the other.
But IA and NH are known as GOP harbingers--they do a better job of weeding out the GOP candidates and the demographics and guns of both states and the religious element in IA is an important aspect.
The Super Tuesday states, because of their urban/rural mix, their diversity of demographics and wide variety of types of employment in those states, do a better job of weeding out the Dem candidates. Those voters look more like Democratic voters across the country.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Here's a 2007 church wedding that took place here in Ames in the middle of the campaign leading up to the 2008 Iowa Democratic Caucus.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The Unitarian Universalists are atypical in the extreme, though--I doubt many of their number are Republicans, and I wouldn't be surprised if religious Republicans turn their noses up at them and claim they aren't much of a religion. The Republicans would be wrong, of course, but that is how they roll.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I guess that don't see religion as negatively as you do.
RKP5637
(67,031 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)sucker was about as white as North Dakota.
Las Vegas, allegedly the exception.
Las Vegas is NOT Nevada in toto.
William769
(55,124 posts)Many primary candidates in the past have dropped out after South Carolina votes in the primary. This primary season won't be any different.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Maybe because the last five presidents, from both parties, have won the South Carolina primary and the last three presidents , from both parties have lost New Hampshire.
William769
(55,124 posts)Thanks for adding on.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)eom
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)That is too broad a generalization to make. I imagine it doesn't sound as compelling to just count Democrats.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)That is why the former states loom large because they portend what is to come.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I dont know, i have been preoccupied with not dying from another heart attack.
What I do know is the right is committing election fraud and voter suppression all over America.
Remind everybody you meet, everybody you know, everybody you see from now till 13 months from now to VOTE because the ONLY way the Democratic candidate can win the WH is if they get approximately 5% more than the con, the amount they can suppress and switch, so on.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)OK - guess not.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Because they knew that some day it would be bad for Bernie.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)or something.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I speaking in general terms for all of our elections. I am from Minnesota and we are crowded in terms of when we get our say in the candidate.
Personally I could see it if it were some kind of rotating calender or something. But giving a state that has a well earned reputation for dirty politics that does not support Democratic candidates for president seems silly.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I am trying to be restrained but the argument that the right folks aren't voting in certain states is disturbing.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I am simply stating a fact. We are really excited to get South Carolina during the primaries but they do nothing for us in the general election. That is fairly straight forward.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)matter as much as blue state democrats.They have the same right to determine the democratic nominee,that's the point being made.Dismissive and condescending would be claiming they shouldn't matter as much as blue state democrats.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You were implying I was ignorant. Which is almost textbook for behaving condesending.
As far as Dismissive, the electoral college already has that covered.
Your rubber-glue retort was a fail. Try again.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Because of when it's held.
Just like Iowa and New Hampshire, their importance is primarily due to where they sit on the schedule.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)2. This is the primary and SC Democrats are just as important as those from any other state.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
brooklynite
(93,851 posts)I keep getting told that Bernie Sanders is competitive everywhere. Winning SC early on would prove both his organization skill and his ability to make further inroads in the South.
Are they having second thoughts?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I know that there is a nice little Bernie Tag next to my name, but this was actually trying to consider the broader point.
Thanks for playing though.
brooklynite
(93,851 posts)...Setting aside the historical intertia that drives our political process (every attempt to re-order the early phase of the voting process has died a horrible death), the South Carolina Primary is intended to a) engage the southern voters, and 2) prove candidate viability in southern States. We don't win SC, but we have won in NC and VA, and GA is becoming more purple. It's useful to know if a candidate is competitive in a geographic zone of the Country, and SC serves as the stand-in.
stone space
(6,498 posts)It would be a little weird if folks weren't watching South Carolina.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Just like Iowa and New Hampshire are "nominee harbingers" for the GOP, owing to their primarily caucasian, rural, god-fearing, gun-loving population.
The population diversity, in terms of race as well as urban/rural, does an OK job of reflecting the sense of a party's electorate--it's a perfect petri dish to establish the mood and motivation of the party faithful.
Also, it's a key state to plow through Super Tuesday.
stone space
(6,498 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Not that the majority of voters turn out for those antiquated caucuses, anyway.
The state does have some "liberal" gun laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Iowa
They are somewhat more religious than most https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_religiosity
and they are a predominantly white state http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/19000.html
These are variables that poll well with the GOP.
stone space
(6,498 posts)She had wanted to caucus for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but didn't get her citizenship until just this summer, so she was quire disappointed about that.
She's looking forward to caucusing in February, though.
This time, her voice will be heard.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That would be a good starting point to a better understanding of it's importance. You have completely conflated two distinctly and unattached events in order to make some sort of point while asking a question. I would start over and look at who votes in our primary for a better understanding of the question you pose. Most of what you have written has no reflection on the question you asked at all.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)...is right in Team Clinton's wheelhouse.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I wouldn't say that much.
I would say the state has a reputation for mudslinging and lie-mongering in politics that is at least partially deserved. Maybe there is something in the water there that makes people willing to say or do anything.
Minnesota would relish having their caucus early and having that much of an effect on national politics. We could trade maybe. Minnesota is as liberal as South Carolina is conservative. It would be interesting to see candidates have to come through here for that reason.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The state is the 4th primary state.
stone space
(6,498 posts)I just claimed that SC is 3rd up above.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)And even though it's overwhelmingly Republican, Bernie needs to make inroads there for the General. No, he's not going to get South Carolina in the General (or probably in the primaries as they seem to love their corporate shills) but he can make inroads and for goddess sake don't write off the damn state which the corpora Dems WILL do. Ironic that they'll be forgotten by the Democratic Party the second the primaries are over yet they'll STILL vote for overwhelmingly for the corporate shill. Personally, I don't want to hear their whining when all is said and done about how the Democratic party abandoned them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Who have every right to a day on who the DEMOCRATIC candidate will be.
Fail of the day. No the entire year
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Wow... this is your "fail of the year?"
Someone from one of the MANY other states in the union making the simple observation that:
A: South Carolina hasn't voted for a Democrat in almost 40 years
and
B: South Carolina gets to pick a candidate whose votes they will not recieve.
You had a lot of intelligent or at least plausible arguments you could have selected and a few of them were even ones I argued with above, but you decided the best response on a political discussion board was "fail of the year." Wow. Amazing. I don't know how you haven't heard of this Donald Trump guy by this point, but...
In addition to some of the arguments against what I have said above Here is a bonus argument you could have used:
1) It is BECAUSE that Democrats in South Carolina are so utterly disenfranchised that their voices are so important to be heard during the primary.
2) It is important to be there to counter some of the worst propaganda that is pumped out of South Carolina.
treestar
(82,383 posts)are not voting the right way in the primary, so you want to exclude them? This has nothing to do with the general. They SC Democrats may be outnumbered by Republicans in their state, but that does not mean they should be excluded from picking the candidate!
A lot of the SC Democrats will be African American, too. Even more despicable.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I at no time said Exclude.
Suggesting otherwise is lying. Stop lying.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)off to GOTV and get people registered.
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20080124/NEWS/207726588
http://firstinthesouth.com/
RandySF
(57,632 posts)And most other Southern primaries follow SC's lead.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)soul, the Clinton campaign made terrible comments, the Obama campaign held homophobic events. I've never thought of either of them the same after that. Still don't. And the voters there that required this sort of politics from them, they are not voters I would expect to be comfortable with Bernie Sanders for reasons similar to those that caused Obama to hire some evangelical ex gays to pitch for him there.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)This is what I meant by dirty politics. How long do we have to indulge the worst aspects of sleeze?
stone space
(6,498 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)House of Roberts
(5,120 posts)I waited all day at work for someone to remember the 2010 Senate race where Jim DeMint faced an unknown African American candidate with an outstanding felony obscenity charge pending, instead of a well-known Dem who should have won the primary easily. When you assign credibility to Dem primary results in SC, remember that fiasco.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)The Republican "Southern Strategy" continues to sucker people into voting against their own best interest.
How much longer is this lunacy going to rob us of our government?