Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:14 PM Oct 2015

Why 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?

79 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why South Carolina? (Original Post) kenfrequed Oct 2015 OP
The primary elections are not the general elections.nt sufrommich Oct 2015 #1
Exactly! kenfrequed Oct 2015 #5
It's democrats voting for a democratic nominee.Are you saying sufrommich Oct 2015 #12
No... kenfrequed Oct 2015 #26
I agree. zappaman Oct 2015 #46
Then CA should be first. RandySF Oct 2015 #57
O rly? KamaAina Oct 2015 #64
Yeah really RandySF Oct 2015 #70
Its an open Primary. Perogie Oct 2015 #78
Because it suits their meme. nt artislife Oct 2015 #2
Basically yeah kenfrequed Oct 2015 #36
Because it is a heterogeneous state... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #3
SC has been Red for decades. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #7
Because Nevada and South Carolina are heterogeneous states DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #11
Totally workinclasszero Oct 2015 #25
They should start the primary season in a state that is most demographically similar to America. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #27
That would rule out mostly white, gunny/godly/rural IA and NH, then....and they relish their MADem Oct 2015 #32
FL wanted to be first... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #35
IA and NH are "godly" states? Umm, no. But check out South Carolina. PotatoChip Oct 2015 #66
IA, according to the source I quoted, IOWA was 22/50 on the religiosity scale. MADem Oct 2015 #69
Yes, we certainly have churches here in Iowa stone space Oct 2015 #72
At last. MADem Oct 2015 #73
Well, we can't all live in MA. stone space Oct 2015 #79
Definitely!!!! K&R!!!!! n/t RKP5637 Oct 2015 #33
Like California? zappaman Oct 2015 #49
That would be exciting DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #50
Apparently the "state most like America" is Illinois Scootaloo Oct 2015 #52
not when I was there reddread Oct 2015 #74
Maybe because we are in primary season and not the general election. William769 Oct 2015 #4
Maybe because the last five presidents have won the South Carolina primary... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #8
That's true also. William769 Oct 2015 #9
You are welcome, sir. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #13
I only count Democratic presidents for these purposes kenfrequed Oct 2015 #21
NV ans SC are heterogeneous states. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #23
Why is this a question in the first place? Is it because Hillary leads in SC? randys1 Oct 2015 #51
Lindsey Graham? left-of-center2012 Oct 2015 #6
You appear to be unfamiliar with the primary process. nt Cali_Democrat Oct 2015 #10
Yep. nt sufrommich Oct 2015 #14
The DNC has allowed South Carolina to have an early primary for decades 72DejaVu Oct 2015 #18
I think we're supposed to punish democrats in red states... sufrommich Oct 2015 #19
Ridiculous kenfrequed Oct 2015 #24
I am trying to be restrained but the argument that the right folks aren't voting in... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #17
And you are being condescending and dismissive kenfrequed Oct 2015 #22
The democrats in SC ,or any other red state democrats, sufrommich Oct 2015 #28
Uh no. kenfrequed Oct 2015 #37
Simple answer 72DejaVu Oct 2015 #15
2 things: 1. Its was 54% (R) to 45% (D) in 2008. Anything is possible with the right candidate. aikoaiko Oct 2015 #16
Delegates in the primary workinclasszero Oct 2015 #20
Why don't YOU care? brooklynite Oct 2015 #29
Yeah... kenfrequed Oct 2015 #40
Well then, I'll give you the broader point... brooklynite Oct 2015 #55
Same reason folks are watching us here in Iowa. South Carolina is 3rd in line. stone space Oct 2015 #30
Because it is a "nominee harbinger." MADem Oct 2015 #31
Are you describing Iowans, or Iowa Republicans? stone space Oct 2015 #62
Well, Iowa Republicans do not caucus with Democrats, quite obviously. MADem Oct 2015 #65
This will be my wife's first Iowa Democratic Caucus. stone space Oct 2015 #71
The primary and general are two distinctly different events. NCTraveler Oct 2015 #34
Engaging in the dirtiest politics in the USA... 99Forever Oct 2015 #38
Well... kenfrequed Oct 2015 #39
The better question is why are you trying to minimize it. hrmjustin Oct 2015 #41
Well, one of us is wrong. stone space Oct 2015 #43
Sc is the third for Republicans. Nevada is third for Democrats. hrmjustin Oct 2015 #44
ah...forgot about Nevada...another caucus state, if I recall correctly. (nt) stone space Oct 2015 #45
Yes. hrmjustin Oct 2015 #48
Because it's an early primary state Le Taz Hot Oct 2015 #42
It is among the DEMOCRATS of SC treestar Oct 2015 #47
Hyperbole much? kenfrequed Oct 2015 #58
So you are thinking the SC Democrats treestar Oct 2015 #59
Doubling down on your hyperbole doesn't help you kenfrequed Oct 2015 #61
South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum. James Louis Petigru Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2015 #53
One reason is communites have been busting their asses.... Historic NY Oct 2015 #54
Delegates RandySF Oct 2015 #56
In the 08 cycle, South Carolina was where both Hillary and Barack sold their last remaining bits of Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #60
Indeed! kenfrequed Oct 2015 #67
I double dog dare you to crosspost this in the South Carolina group. stone space Oct 2015 #63
Geography:Iowa (central), New Hampshire (north east), Nevada (west) and South Carolina (south east). ieoeja Oct 2015 #68
Why South Carolina? House of Roberts Oct 2015 #75
South Carolina is not significant for the Democrats. ladjf Oct 2015 #76
Bar-B-Q !!! That's why. pangaia Oct 2015 #77

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
5. Exactly!
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:24 PM
Oct 2015

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)
12. It's democrats voting for a democratic nominee.Are you saying
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:35 PM
Oct 2015

that democratic primaries shouldn't matter if the state doesn't go to the democrats in the general??

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
26. No...
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:56 PM
Oct 2015

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)
46. I agree.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:51 PM
Oct 2015

It's shameful that a blue and populous state like mine, California, has to wait until June.
Usually the nominee has already been picked!

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
36. Basically yeah
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:17 PM
Oct 2015

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)
3. Because it is a heterogeneous state...
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:19 PM
Oct 2015

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.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
11. Because Nevada and South Carolina are heterogeneous states
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:35 PM
Oct 2015

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)
25. Totally
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:55 PM
Oct 2015

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.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
32. That would rule out mostly white, gunny/godly/rural IA and NH, then....and they relish their
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:07 PM
Oct 2015

"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)
35. FL wanted to be first...
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:09 PM
Oct 2015

It skews a tad bit old but beside that it is a good demographic representative of the nation.

PotatoChip

(3,186 posts)
66. IA and NH are "godly" states? Umm, no. But check out South Carolina.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 04:47 PM
Oct 2015


South Carolina beats IA and NH in gun ownership too.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
69. IA, according to the source I quoted, IOWA was 22/50 on the religiosity scale.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 05:46 PM
Oct 2015

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)
72. Yes, we certainly have churches here in Iowa
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 06:10 PM
Oct 2015
and the religious element in IA is an important aspect.



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)
73. At last.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 06:32 PM
Oct 2015

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)
79. Well, we can't all live in MA.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 10:23 PM
Oct 2015
At last.


I guess that don't see religion as negatively as you do.


 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
74. not when I was there
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 06:55 PM
Oct 2015

sucker was about as white as North Dakota.
Las Vegas, allegedly the exception.
Las Vegas is NOT Nevada in toto.

William769

(55,124 posts)
4. Maybe because we are in primary season and not the general election.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:24 PM
Oct 2015

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)
8. Maybe because the last five presidents have won the South Carolina primary...
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:27 PM
Oct 2015

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.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
21. I only count Democratic presidents for these purposes
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:49 PM
Oct 2015

That is too broad a generalization to make. I imagine it doesn't sound as compelling to just count Democrats.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
23. NV ans SC are heterogeneous states. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:52 PM
Oct 2015

That is why the former states loom large because they portend what is to come.


randys1

(16,286 posts)
51. Why is this a question in the first place? Is it because Hillary leads in SC?
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:58 PM
Oct 2015

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.

72DejaVu

(1,545 posts)
18. The DNC has allowed South Carolina to have an early primary for decades
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:39 PM
Oct 2015

Because they knew that some day it would be bad for Bernie.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
24. Ridiculous
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:54 PM
Oct 2015

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)
17. I am trying to be restrained but the argument that the right folks aren't voting in...
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:38 PM
Oct 2015

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)
22. And you are being condescending and dismissive
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:51 PM
Oct 2015

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)
28. The democrats in SC ,or any other red state democrats,
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:57 PM
Oct 2015

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)
37. Uh no.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:20 PM
Oct 2015


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)
15. Simple answer
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:37 PM
Oct 2015

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)
16. 2 things: 1. Its was 54% (R) to 45% (D) in 2008. Anything is possible with the right candidate.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:38 PM
Oct 2015

2. This is the primary and SC Democrats are just as important as those from any other state.

brooklynite

(93,851 posts)
29. Why don't YOU care?
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 12:57 PM
Oct 2015

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)
40. Yeah...
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:31 PM
Oct 2015

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)
55. Well then, I'll give you the broader point...
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 02:19 PM
Oct 2015

...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)
30. Same reason folks are watching us here in Iowa. South Carolina is 3rd in line.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:00 PM
Oct 2015

It would be a little weird if folks weren't watching South Carolina.



MADem

(135,425 posts)
31. Because it is a "nominee harbinger."
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:04 PM
Oct 2015

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)
62. Are you describing Iowans, or Iowa Republicans?
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 04:22 PM
Oct 2015
Just like Iowa and New Hampshire are "nominee harbingers" for the GOP, owing to their primarily caucasian, rural, god-fearing, gun-loving population.


MADem

(135,425 posts)
65. Well, Iowa Republicans do not caucus with Democrats, quite obviously.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 04:40 PM
Oct 2015

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)
71. This will be my wife's first Iowa Democratic Caucus.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 05:57 PM
Oct 2015
Not that the majority of voters turn out for those antiquated caucuses, anyway.


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)
34. The primary and general are two distinctly different events.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:08 PM
Oct 2015

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.

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)
39. Well...
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:26 PM
Oct 2015

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.

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
43. Well, one of us is wrong.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:47 PM
Oct 2015
The state is the 4th primary state.


I just claimed that SC is 3rd up above.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
42. Because it's an early primary state
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:42 PM
Oct 2015

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)
47. It is among the DEMOCRATS of SC
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 01:52 PM
Oct 2015

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)
58. Hyperbole much?
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 02:50 PM
Oct 2015

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)
59. So you are thinking the SC Democrats
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 03:25 PM
Oct 2015

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)
61. Doubling down on your hyperbole doesn't help you
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 03:46 PM
Oct 2015

I at no time said Exclude.


Suggesting otherwise is lying. Stop lying.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
60. In the 08 cycle, South Carolina was where both Hillary and Barack sold their last remaining bits of
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 03:36 PM
Oct 2015

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)
67. Indeed!
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 04:47 PM
Oct 2015

This is what I meant by dirty politics. How long do we have to indulge the worst aspects of sleeze?

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
68. Geography:Iowa (central), New Hampshire (north east), Nevada (west) and South Carolina (south east).
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 04:52 PM
Oct 2015

House of Roberts

(5,120 posts)
75. Why South Carolina?
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 09:00 PM
Oct 2015

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)
76. South Carolina is not significant for the Democrats.
Mon Oct 12, 2015, 09:05 PM
Oct 2015

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?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why South Carolina?