• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2024 Presidential Primaries and Election

WakeForestRanger

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
22,959
Reaction score
1,169


Seems like a good move to replace Iowa with a more representative state to go first.
 
Good move. Michigan, Wisconsin, or Nevada make the most sense.
 
Admittedly sour grapes on my part, but Biden elevating South Carolina to first primary just reads to me as him rewarding them for coronating him. The National Democratic Party knows that southern black Democratic Primary voters aren’t going to elevate a leftist or any outsider candidate. I realize a lot you may not like that answer, but this is what “diversity” means in the context of Democratic primary voters - voters who are establishment loyalists and distrust candidates who they aren’t most familiar, which is any candidate that hasn’t previously been elevated within the party ranks.
 
Seems like the answer to that is for progressives to do a better job courting Black voters.
 
That’s blatantly payback for Biden’s primary win and Jaime Harrison bringing home the bacon.

And as a native North Carolinian, it’s offensive that SC supposedly represents Black Democrats. And if the goal is to make sure Black Democrats have a say, Georgia is a swing state and has a higher Black population than SC.
 
Yeah I don’t understand not having GA if you’re going for a Southern state
 
That’s blatantly payback for Biden’s primary win and Jaime Harrison bringing home the bacon.

And as a native North Carolinian, it’s offensive that SC supposedly represents Black Democrats. And if the goal is to make sure Black Democrats have a say, Georgia is a swing state and has a higher Black population than SC.

I agree with you. I also assume that Georgia has a much younger Democratic voting base than South Carolina does, and would potentially be more open to progressive candidates.
 
I just understand why you would put up a state that absolutely won’t be in play in the general.
 
Makes no sense.

MDMH, to take your point further, one of the big challenges for Dems is getting enough turnout from young voters, Black voters, and Latino voters in large metro areas in swing states to overcome Republican margins in the rest of the state. So the goal is to run up margins in Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philly, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, etc. They also need to make inroads in Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Dallas, Austin, Houston, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc.

So why start the primary in a state without a Top 70 metro area?
 
Makes no sense.

MDMH, to take your point further, one of the big challenges for Dems is getting enough turnout from young voters, Black voters, and Latino voters in large metro areas in swing states to overcome Republican margins in the rest of the state. So the goal is to run up margins in Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philly, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, etc. They also need to make inroads in Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Dallas, Austin, Houston, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc.

So why start the primary in a state without a Top 70 metro area?
I agree with what you're saying - opening in South Carolina is a bad idea when other, larger, and more winnable Southern states are available like GA and NC. But it does make sense in that this is clearly political payback for Clyburn's support in SC in 2020, and a nod to Clyburn's continuing influence in the party and Congress. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it does make sense in that perspective. Still a terrible idea though.
 
Yes. I agree with that. But trading political favors around the party influence of two people from a deep red state makes no sense.

This is probably part of the package he owes Clyburn for that 2020 endorsement.
 


Because she’s campaigning for Veep. So is Tim Scott if he runs.
 
Back
Top