Does South Carolina have too much, too little, or an ok amount of influence on who gets nominated?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:56:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Does South Carolina have too much, too little, or an ok amount of influence on who gets nominated?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Does South Carolina have too much, too little, or an ok amount of influence on who gets nominated?
#1
Too much (D)
 
#2
Too much (R)
 
#3
Too much (I)
 
#4
Too little (D)
 
#5
Too little (R)
 
#6
Too little (I)
 
#7
An ok amount (D)
 
#8
An ok amount (R)
 
#9
An ok amount (I)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 84

Author Topic: Does South Carolina have too much, too little, or an ok amount of influence on who gets nominated?  (Read 7769 times)
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 13, 2020, 02:22:58 AM »

?
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,918
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2020, 01:26:32 AM »

I'd say too much because of how quickly it turned Biden around, but for Dems at least that's understandable because that's the first state where a major part of their base votes. I'm really not sure.
Logged
bagelman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,602
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2020, 03:15:19 AM »

Way too much. North Carolina is a far more relevant state, and frankly has been for decades. So has Georgia. South Carolina is too old and too religious.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2021, 11:58:24 AM »

A good amount

A Democratic will not be elected President without high black turnout. Period

Iowa and New Hampshire might not pick the best nominee possible because they are very white states
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2021, 02:07:15 PM »

Right amount.  Collectively, IA, NH, NV, and SC are reasonably representative.  They can be first, but should vote simultaneously.  It’s fine to have a select group of small states go first, as long as they collectively contain some diversity and are fairly representative of the nation at-large.

I was born in Iowa, yet I don’t objectively believe it should always be first.  But New Hampshire’s case is not any stronger.  Sorry.  (Except for maybe the fact that it has a proper primary, but it’s still a rural, overwhelmingly white state).

Logged
Rookie Yinzer
RFKFan68
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2021, 10:41:34 PM »

Way too much. North Carolina is a far more relevant state, and frankly has been for decades. So has Georgia. South Carolina is too old and too religious.
Neither of those states would vote too much different from SC though. Black voters vote as a bloc for the most part so it wouldn't change much.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2021, 09:45:45 PM »

Seems okay.  South Carolina is a Republican base state and a reasonably good microcosm of the party for their primary.

For Democrats, South Carolina is a test run for how the presidential candidates are doing with the black vote.  This is very important for us.  Is there some other state which could fill that role better?
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2021, 10:15:58 PM »

Okay.
Logged
Interlocutor is just not there yet
Interlocutor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,213


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2021, 11:17:17 PM »
« Edited: January 21, 2021, 11:22:51 PM by Monstro Believed in a Blue Georgia (and a Blue Texas) »

It's ok. But I wouldn't be opposed to Georgia or North Carolina trading places with SC.

Iowa though? Way too much. Especially if they're still gung-ho on their damn caucuses.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2021, 10:34:36 AM »

Why does any one state can go first? Why do the first four states get a whole month?

I am a firm believer in all states going on the same day. Why should IW, NH, NV, and SC determine who is the nominee is? Why drag out the primary which only creates tension?

And no more caucuses. They are very undemocratic and confusing.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2021, 08:04:27 AM »

Seems okay.  South Carolina is a Republican base state and a reasonably good microcosm of the party for their primary.

For Democrats, South Carolina is a test run for how the presidential candidates are doing with the black vote.  This is very important for us.  Is there some other state which could fill that role better?

Nevada would be the best for either party to do number 1. Includes the least chance a Warren or Cruz candidate can win due to the lack of that upscale base for either party. Also has a relatively diverse population.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2021, 12:24:37 PM »
« Edited: January 23, 2021, 12:27:50 PM by Virginia Yellow Dog »

If anything, South Carolina should have more influence on who gets nominated as opposed to two lily white states that are no longer reflective of either the Democratic Party or the country.  Why should it remain fourth on the primary calendar?

Seems okay.  South Carolina is a Republican base state and a reasonably good microcosm of the party for their primary.

For Democrats, South Carolina is a test run for how the presidential candidates are doing with the black vote.  This is very important for us.  Is there some other state which could fill that role better?

In another thread, I suggested Nevada and South Carolina (in that order) should replace Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two states on the Democratic primary calendar.

It has had mixed results based on the poll I posted.  
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2021, 03:46:27 PM »

Too much, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada also have too much.

We need a national all at once primary.
Logged
bee33
Rookie
**
Posts: 111


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2021, 06:12:46 PM »
« Edited: January 23, 2021, 06:25:48 PM by bee33 »

Too much. Oklahoma should go first.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2021, 06:46:34 PM »

Actually, the order of states should be decided randomly, each cycle.  Except, I would still like some small(-ish) states to go first.  California would be guaranteed its own primary in the middle of the cycle, and other big states could have a similar spot.  I would do something like this:

Round 1: A group of smaller-than average states go first, with at least one state from each of the 4 regions (decided at random).

Next few rounds: Same.

Rounds after that: Some medium states, decided randomly.

Next two rounds: Two or three of the largest states, decided randomly.

Middle of cycle: California.

Then: The rest of the larger states.

After that:  Rest of the medium and small states, order decided randomly.


It would still be a good idea to allow a few primaries at a time, rather than a national primary.  That way, candidates--along with their strengths and weakness--become better known.

I also think beginning with a handful of small states is still a good idea, to allow for some retail politics.  California and other states' going in the middle should be acceptable to them; at least they won't go last.

Deciding the spot of many contests randomly would be much fairer than having the same four small states go first every time.  I don't see what makes IA/NH/NV/SC that special.
Logged
AlterEgo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 252


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2021, 10:40:12 AM »

Too much, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada also have too much.

We need a national all at once primary.

A single national primary day over-advantages establishment candidates with deep donor pockets and strong name recognition. Puts in major barriers to lesser-know candidates.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2021, 09:42:50 AM »

Too much, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada also have too much.

We need a national all at once primary.

A single national primary day over-advantages establishment candidates with deep donor pockets and strong name recognition. Puts in major barriers to lesser-know candidates.
So? Lesser known candidates haven't gotten the nomination since 1976. Why should we bend over backwards to help them? This whole system is silly.

We give Iowa too much power with their undemocratic caucuses (that they can't even do right) just to give the Tim Ryan's and John Delaney's a nonexistent chance.

Democrats spent months fighting over Iowa and New Hampshire, states that actually did jacksh**t in saying who the nominee was. They didn't stop Joe Biden despite not even awarding delegates to him!

We should have a national primary day where every state goes on the same day, no caucuses.
Logged
AlterEgo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 252


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2021, 10:16:52 PM »

Too much, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada also have too much.

We need a national all at once primary.

A single national primary day over-advantages establishment candidates with deep donor pockets and strong name recognition. Puts in major barriers to lesser-know candidates.
So? Lesser known candidates haven't gotten the nomination since 1976. Why should we bend over backwards to help them? This whole system is silly.

We give Iowa too much power with their undemocratic caucuses (that they can't even do right) just to give the Tim Ryan's and John Delaney's a nonexistent chance.

Democrats spent months fighting over Iowa and New Hampshire, states that actually did jacksh**t in saying who the nominee was. They didn't stop Joe Biden despite not even awarding delegates to him!

We should have a national primary day where every state goes on the same day, no caucuses.

Well, personally, I'd argue that Democrats gave their lesser-known candidate their nomination in 2008. And to a lesser extent 1992.
Logged
gerritcole
goatofalltrades
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,940


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2021, 11:05:10 PM »

Too much, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada also have too much.

We need a national all at once primary.

A single national primary day over-advantages establishment candidates with deep donor pockets and strong name recognition. Puts in major barriers to lesser-know candidates.

With the internet there are far fewer barriers to entry and I would say that $$$ has less of an impact than ppl think
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2021, 11:23:00 PM »

Too much, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada also have too much.

We need a national all at once primary.

A single national primary day over-advantages establishment candidates with deep donor pockets and strong name recognition. Puts in major barriers to lesser-know candidates.
So? Lesser known candidates haven't gotten the nomination since 1976. Why should we bend over backwards to help them? This whole system is silly.

We give Iowa too much power with their undemocratic caucuses (that they can't even do right) just to give the Tim Ryan's and John Delaney's a nonexistent chance.

Democrats spent months fighting over Iowa and New Hampshire, states that actually did jacksh**t in saying who the nominee was. They didn't stop Joe Biden despite not even awarding delegates to him!

We should have a national primary day where every state goes on the same day, no caucuses.

Well, personally, I'd argue that Democrats gave their lesser-known candidate their nomination in 2008. And to a lesser extent 1992.

Obama wasn’t a unknown candidate, he gave the keynote address at the 2004 DNC. He only ran because Henry Reid and Chuck Schumer begged him, believing Hillary was weak. When the two highest ranking senate democrats want you, you aren’t a nobody like Tim Ryan was in 2020.

Bill Clinton gave the keynote in 1988 and was a popular governor from a region that was heavily heading right. Michael Dukakis said in an interview in that election that he would like to see Bill Clinton run in 1996 after his two terms were up (ha). Mario Cuomo, the man everyone assumed would be the next nominee, urged Clinton to run

The last time a nobody won was 1976 with Jimmy Carter. The world is very different. He didn’t have the internet or cable news. The primary system was still new and several candidates didn’t fully understand it. Carter rented some cheap motel room in Iowa with his own savings and literally went door to door himself in Iowa because he didn’t have much staff at first. That’s how he won the first few states and built a lot of momentum.

The point of having IW/NH/SC/NV go first is to give a nobody a chance to live in these states. But that hasn’t happened in 50 years. While Clinton and Obama didn’t start off as front runners, they were still national figures with a base.

Giving these four states so much power (especially Iowa’s umdemocratic caucus) for an argument that isn’t true for 50 years is just foolish
Logged
AlterEgo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 252


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2021, 09:36:13 AM »

Too much, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada also have too much.

We need a national all at once primary.

A single national primary day over-advantages establishment candidates with deep donor pockets and strong name recognition. Puts in major barriers to lesser-know candidates.
So? Lesser known candidates haven't gotten the nomination since 1976. Why should we bend over backwards to help them? This whole system is silly.

We give Iowa too much power with their undemocratic caucuses (that they can't even do right) just to give the Tim Ryan's and John Delaney's a nonexistent chance.

Democrats spent months fighting over Iowa and New Hampshire, states that actually did jacksh**t in saying who the nominee was. They didn't stop Joe Biden despite not even awarding delegates to him!

We should have a national primary day where every state goes on the same day, no caucuses.

Well, personally, I'd argue that Democrats gave their lesser-known candidate their nomination in 2008. And to a lesser extent 1992.

Obama wasn’t a unknown candidate, he gave the keynote address at the 2004 DNC. He only ran because Henry Reid and Chuck Schumer begged him, believing Hillary was weak. When the two highest ranking senate democrats want you, you aren’t a nobody like Tim Ryan was in 2020.

Bill Clinton gave the keynote in 1988 and was a popular governor from a region that was heavily heading right. Michael Dukakis said in an interview in that election that he would like to see Bill Clinton run in 1996 after his two terms were up (ha). Mario Cuomo, the man everyone assumed would be the next nominee, urged Clinton to run

The last time a nobody won was 1976 with Jimmy Carter. The world is very different. He didn’t have the internet or cable news. The primary system was still new and several candidates didn’t fully understand it. Carter rented some cheap motel room in Iowa with his own savings and literally went door to door himself in Iowa because he didn’t have much staff at first. That’s how he won the first few states and built a lot of momentum.

The point of having IW/NH/SC/NV go first is to give a nobody a chance to live in these states. But that hasn’t happened in 50 years. While Clinton and Obama didn’t start off as front runners, they were still national figures with a base.

Giving these four states so much power (especially Iowa’s umdemocratic caucus) for an argument that isn’t true for 50 years is just foolish


Meh. Sure the '04 Keynote vaulted Obama forward in a lot of circles, but those are typical insiders and establishment, maybe some highly-engaged rank-and-file. An averagely engaged Democrat may have known Obama's name after that but it's not like that vaulted him to instant name recognition with the vast majority of the overall electorate.

Heading into the '92 election, punditry and conventional wisdom believed that HW was heavily favored. While Clinton had been receiving some buzz from within the party, most of the big names thought it best to wait until '96. It's not like governor of AR gets you huge national name recognition among the average voter, especially in the '80s. Clinton was running neck-and-neck with Tsongas until Super Tuesday, when he cleaned up in the South, thereby solidifying momentum and front-runner status for the remainder of the primary.

As for Iowa's caucuses being "undemocratic:" Oh well? We have this idea that primaries are "voting" and therefore should be "democratic." It's not really voting. It's just how a party chooses their candidate. They could go back to smoke-filled rooms if they wanted. Personally, while I do like to see rank-and-file party members have a voice for their candidate, I abhor open primaries.

Finally, we're just discussing opinions, aka no right or wrong. I think using hyperbolic words like "foolish" to describe another opinion is a bit over the top.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2021, 10:15:31 AM »

Too much, and Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada also have too much.

We need a national all at once primary.

A single national primary day over-advantages establishment candidates with deep donor pockets and strong name recognition. Puts in major barriers to lesser-know candidates.
So? Lesser known candidates haven't gotten the nomination since 1976. Why should we bend over backwards to help them? This whole system is silly.

We give Iowa too much power with their undemocratic caucuses (that they can't even do right) just to give the Tim Ryan's and John Delaney's a nonexistent chance.

Democrats spent months fighting over Iowa and New Hampshire, states that actually did jacksh**t in saying who the nominee was. They didn't stop Joe Biden despite not even awarding delegates to him!

We should have a national primary day where every state goes on the same day, no caucuses.

Well, personally, I'd argue that Democrats gave their lesser-known candidate their nomination in 2008. And to a lesser extent 1992.

Obama wasn’t a unknown candidate, he gave the keynote address at the 2004 DNC. He only ran because Henry Reid and Chuck Schumer begged him, believing Hillary was weak. When the two highest ranking senate democrats want you, you aren’t a nobody like Tim Ryan was in 2020.

Bill Clinton gave the keynote in 1988 and was a popular governor from a region that was heavily heading right. Michael Dukakis said in an interview in that election that he would like to see Bill Clinton run in 1996 after his two terms were up (ha). Mario Cuomo, the man everyone assumed would be the next nominee, urged Clinton to run

The last time a nobody won was 1976 with Jimmy Carter. The world is very different. He didn’t have the internet or cable news. The primary system was still new and several candidates didn’t fully understand it. Carter rented some cheap motel room in Iowa with his own savings and literally went door to door himself in Iowa because he didn’t have much staff at first. That’s how he won the first few states and built a lot of momentum.

The point of having IW/NH/SC/NV go first is to give a nobody a chance to live in these states. But that hasn’t happened in 50 years. While Clinton and Obama didn’t start off as front runners, they were still national figures with a base.

Giving these four states so much power (especially Iowa’s umdemocratic caucus) for an argument that isn’t true for 50 years is just foolish




As for Iowa's caucuses being "undemocratic:" Oh well? We have this idea that primaries are "voting" and therefore should be "democratic." It's not really voting. It's just how a party chooses their candidate. They could go back to smoke-filled rooms if they wanted. Personally, while I do like to see rank-and-file party members have a voice for their candidate, I abhor open primaries.

Finally, we're just discussing opinions, aka no right or wrong. I think using hyperbolic words like "foolish" to describe another opinion is a bit over the top.

About 30-40 million people voted in the Democratic primaries. 80 million voted in the general. A process that isn't democratic is just going to create apathy and make millions of voters we need to be disgrutled and stay home.

Why do you hate open primaries? Do you like undemocratic traditions?
Logged
AlterEgo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 252


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2021, 02:01:20 PM »

You're not entirely wrong in the first paragraph, although I will say that, at least in the mid-20th Century, when we had party insiders choosing candidates in smoke-filled rooms general election turnout was much higher. So it's hard to say it's the primary system that has created the until-recent sense of apathy. Now, voters are fairly used to the current system, so going back to the old ways would certainly turn a number of people off.

Now, I'm certainly not advocating for a return to smoke-filled rooms. As I said previously, I think it is a good thing that rank-and-file members of a party get to choose THEIR candidate for said party. The Democratic candidate for president doesn't belong to the Republicans or to NPAs. I get the argument that we're all going to have to vote for one of two candidates, more or less, but I just believe that you should have a stake in the party you're choosing candidates for. Again, primaries are not "elections"; they're nominations.

But, we've kinda gotten off track from the national primary day argument. As to Obama not being a lesser know candidate: Polling of Democrats from late-2006 showed Obama around 12%, with HRC around 35%. He pulled into the mid-20s by about March 2007, which is where he stayed for about the next 10-11 months. He showed a big boost following the early primaries/caucuses, finally topping 30%. He has a small flatline around 32% there. But then he holds his own on Super Tuesday in a virtual dead heat (HRC took 20 more delegates out of the day, with Obama taking total states 13-10). But then he mops up in the rest of the February contests, passes Clinton's poll numbers around the third week of Feb, and hits 50% around the first week of March.

Could this have happened with a single primary day? I'd argue no. Seeing him as a real, viable candidate as the primaries went on probably convinced a lot of people to select him that may have been concerned with electability otherwise. In what was already a super-tight race, I'd imagine that without the ability to build that momentum, there would have been enough Democrats who had electability concerns to put HRC over the top if all primaries were held the same day.

Another issue is that no candidates are really forced to drop out. Typically, by the end of a primary we're down to a two-way race. If no one is really forced to drop out due to the fact that they are not picking up delegates and, therefore, momentum, we're left with 3 or more candidates--vastly increasing the odds that no candidate gets a majority. Now we have a brokered/contested convention, and we're back to those metaphorical smoke-filled rooms.

I also don't particularly like the argument that a drawn-out primary system hasn't helped any lesser-know candidates win. Not everything about a campaign is about winning or losing. Take the Sanders' candidacy for instance. His ability to get out there and espouse his stances has certainly had a influence on the Democratic Party.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,473


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2021, 07:56:23 AM »

You're not entirely wrong in the first paragraph, although I will say that, at least in the mid-20th Century, when we had party insiders choosing candidates in smoke-filled rooms general election turnout was much higher. So it's hard to say it's the primary system that has created the until-recent sense of apathy. Now, voters are fairly used to the current system, so going back to the old ways would certainly turn a number of people off.

Now, I'm certainly not advocating for a return to smoke-filled rooms. As I said previously, I think it is a good thing that rank-and-file members of a party get to choose THEIR candidate for said party. The Democratic candidate for president doesn't belong to the Republicans or to NPAs. I get the argument that we're all going to have to vote for one of two candidates, more or less, but I just believe that you should have a stake in the party you're choosing candidates for. Again, primaries are not "elections"; they're nominations.

But, we've kinda gotten off track from the national primary day argument. As to Obama not being a lesser know candidate: Polling of Democrats from late-2006 showed Obama around 12%, with HRC around 35%. He pulled into the mid-20s by about March 2007, which is where he stayed for about the next 10-11 months. He showed a big boost following the early primaries/caucuses, finally topping 30%. He has a small flatline around 32% there. But then he holds his own on Super Tuesday in a virtual dead heat (HRC took 20 more delegates out of the day, with Obama taking total states 13-10). But then he mops up in the rest of the February contests, passes Clinton's poll numbers around the third week of Feb, and hits 50% around the first week of March.

Could this have happened with a single primary day? I'd argue no. Seeing him as a real, viable candidate as the primaries went on probably convinced a lot of people to select him that may have been concerned with electability otherwise. In what was already a super-tight race, I'd imagine that without the ability to build that momentum, there would have been enough Democrats who had electability concerns to put HRC over the top if all primaries were held the same day.

Another issue is that no candidates are really forced to drop out. Typically, by the end of a primary we're down to a two-way race. If no one is really forced to drop out due to the fact that they are not picking up delegates and, therefore, momentum, we're left with 3 or more candidates--vastly increasing the odds that no candidate gets a majority. Now we have a brokered/contested convention, and we're back to those metaphorical smoke-filled rooms.

I also don't particularly like the argument that a drawn-out primary system hasn't helped any lesser-know candidates win. Not everything about a campaign is about winning or losing. Take the Sanders' candidacy for instance. His ability to get out there and espouse his stances has certainly had a influence on the Democratic Party.
I respect your argument. That is why we should use ranked choice voting with a national primary day

Regarding Obama in 2008, I would argue that times have changed. Most voters in 2008 still did not use the internet as their primary source of information.

In 2020, every Democratic voter knew everything about every candidate. The lines were drawn. There really wasn't any voters that could flip between Warren or Biden. Or Tim Ryan or Pete Buttigieg. Unlike 2008 when there were a lot of swing voters.

By the Iowa Caucus, every one had their top three. If their first choice drop out, than hopefully the second choice could take over. This happens with ranked choice voting

I would also argue that a drawn out primary did absoleulty nothing in 2020. At the end of the day, the front runner won. The only person who had a chance was the runner up in the polls.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,065
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2021, 03:06:14 PM »

Way too much. North Carolina is a far more relevant state, and frankly has been for decades. So has Georgia. South Carolina is too old and too religious.
Neither of those states would vote too much different from SC though. Black voters vote as a bloc for the most part so it wouldn't change much.

That's not always true--depends a lot on the dynamics of the primary. Even in 2020, where Biden consolidated support in part due to his strong performance with Black voters, Sanders and to a lesser extent Steyer won some Black voters over. There are plenty of other 'depolarized' primaries out there--NYC 2013 IIRC is another good example.

It's also worth noting that White voters in NC are a much more relevant voting bloc than in SC.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.