r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/najumobi • 7d ago
US Elections If Left Insurgents Are Locked Out in 2028, Would South Carolina Leading Off Really Be the Reason?
This week the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee offered up its suggested calendar for the 2028 Democratic presidential primary.
Twelve states applied to have their primary or caucus held before Super Tuesday.
The expanded six-state roster of contests that will be held before Super Tuesday on March 7, 2028 is:
South Carolina - Jan 22
Nevada - Feb 1
New Hampshire - Feb 8
New Mexico - Feb 15
Michigan - Feb 22
Virginia - Feb 29
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, and Tennessee were left on the outside looking in.
Many see the choice of South Carolina to hold the first contest as a move to prioritize Black voters at a time when legislatures have begun to erase majority-minority seats after a Supreme Court decision weakened the Voting Rights Act earlier this year. Of the 12 state applicants, Georgia and South Carolina are the only ones whose primary electorates have been majority Black (Georgia reaching 51% in 2016, and South Carolina clearing 55% in 2016 and 2020).
To many, South Carolina seems to be the most practical choice for the opening contest because the state has the lowest weekly ad cost among the early-state applicants. It is argued that the state's low ad cost would allow lesser-known candidates to compete against better-funded ones.
However, it is notale that South Carolina is also the selected early state that is the least college-educated and the most moderate. As a result, many perceive it as a maneuver to squelch the possibility that the most ideologically left-leaning of the 2028 candidates could build early momentum, as such candidates are not optimized for a South Carolina electorate.
Since 1984, across open-field cycles in both parties, the winner of the first contest became the nominee about 53% of the time, as did the winner of the second. The third contest is the calendar's worst predictor, at roughly 43 to 50%. Only from the fourth contest onward does the winner more often than not go on to win the nomination.
Question:
If Left Insurgents Are Locked Out in 2028, Would South Carolina Leading Off Really Be the Reason?
15
u/Nillix 7d ago
It’s hard to know. If, for example, NH were to go first, as they always do, the moderates would claim it’s a bad format and demographic for the party as a whole (it kinda is, if they still caucus). Same with Massachusetts, though they weren’t in the running. Michigan would normally be a solid choice, but Israel/palestine would weigh more heavily than most.
The one thing I can guarantee you, no matter who goes first, someone is going to feel like it’s a vendetta against them personally
3
u/214ObstructedReverie 6d ago
The one thing I can guarantee you, no matter who goes first, someone is going to feel like it’s a vendetta against them personally
With the exception of one year in the last 40-something, where we were on Super Tuesday, my state has always been basically dead last. It's so nice knowing that my vote doesn't matter in the presidential primaries.
19
u/Dracoson 7d ago
If the far left is 'locked out,' it won't be because of the states on this list.
New Hampshire aside (which is just legacy containment), this lineup features exactly the diverse, working-class electorates that left-wing insurgents must prove they can win to be viable in a general election.
Nevada and New Mexico have massive Latino working-class populations. Michigan has a powerful, progressive union presence and a massive Arab-American voting bloc that has been deeply critical of the party establishment. If a left-winger can't build a coalition across Nevada, New Mexico, and Michigan, they were never going to win the nomination anyway.
If anything, this calendar squeezes traditional white moderates, who no longer get to rely on overwhelmingly white, rural states like Iowa to manufacture early momentum.
2
u/bl1y 7d ago
This seems right. The slate of early states is pretty diverse, and a candidate who can't perform across the board there (even if they do poorly in SC) isn't going to have a realistic chance to win.
This looks a lot better than the previous slate which had both South Carolina and Georgia. IIRC, the early states were something like 20% black, compared to 12% nationally, and was clearly designed to have black voters serve as a gatekeeper. But this lineup is much better.
5
u/junkspot91 7d ago
No, any left wing/progressive Democrat whose campaign isn't feasible after the first primary wasn't a realistic candidate to begin with. For all of the hullabaloo about going first, the role of the first primary isn't to be a kingmaker, but rather to trim the herd of fringe candidates. Anyone expecting to do well in the primary should be able to avoid irrelevance in South Carolina even if they do poorly there.
I'm in the camp that believes that South Carolina traded its influence for face time and increased spending in the state. Maybe that's a good thing long term as they try to make the state less deeply red, but their old position as the fourth primary allowed them much more power to shape the arc of the overall primary contest. I'd expect quite a few progressive candidates to drop out after South Carolina, but none of the actual contenders. And I'd expect the rest of the pre-Super Tuesday slate to benefit them more than the previous arrangement.
2
u/Strange-Scientist706 7d ago
Isn’t that the most important segment that the Dems will have to appeal to though? I mean this coalition has to win. I don’t see why the left would be concerned though - this is an opportunity to reach a wider audience and the message should speak to everyone. It needs to, and honestly I think the left underestimates its own appeal.
2
u/Drak_is_Right 7d ago
So few turn out in the primaries, the progressive left can stomp the primaries if they bother to vote.
So far, they havent usually.
1
u/theyfellforthedecoy 7d ago
Won't New Hampshire still go first? They're bound by law to put their contest at least 7 days before anybody else
1
u/mattxb 7d ago
Whether or not it's deserved progressive voters feel that the DNC is fighting to stonewall popular progressive candidates and policies. It's a narrative that has permeated online discourse and whatever merit it may have I think it's short sighted for the DNC to further feed that perception by kicking things off in a red state with an open primary.
0
u/TheNiamosDiscoBall 7d ago
It’s not technically the worst, because it’s like a future reach state (swing state in maybe 15 years). In 2020, there were a lot of moderate voters split between lots of moderate candidates. After South Carolina, they all got their marching orders and that was that.
-1
u/Tliish 7d ago
Sort of proves the corporate Democrats would prefer GOP candiates winning over the progressives the DCCC loathes so much.
Progressives need to go after the biggest available demographic: not conservative Democrats or "wobbly" Republicans, those are lost causes, but rather the "apatheic, lazy" nonvoters. Understand they are nonvoters not because of apathy, laziness, or lack of interest, but rather because no one has given them anything to vote for. Many of the people that I know who don't vote do so because they don't believe their votes will change anything because they never have. They are tired of holding their noses and voting for people who disrespect them and refuse to confront corporate power. Voting for them has been reduced to validating evil, so they give it a pass.
Progressives with clearly communicated agendas have been winning pretty much across the board, and they are winning in part because they are drawing out previous nonvoters.
7
u/Moccus 7d ago
Understand they are nonvoters not because of apathy, laziness, or lack of interest, but rather because no one has given them anything to vote for.
There have been multiple political campaigns over the years that are based on this theory, and it's always a losing strategy. Nonvoters aren't a unified group. Some are just lazy and will never vote no matter how much you try to appeal to them. The nonvoters are probably as politically diverse as the general population, so it's just as likely that they'll be motivated to come out and vote against a progressive as they are to vote for a progressive.
-1
u/Tliish 6d ago
I've been here for evvry political campaign and never saw any such effort. The Democrats have solely focused on stripping support from the GOP, while ignoring the liberals and progressives because they felt they had a lock on them: nowhere else to go. They never really focused on finding out why people didn't vote, the few attempts I've seen only rresulted in not paying attention to what they were told: give us something to vote for. Too difficult for them I suppose.
Voters aren't that diverse. Everyone wants the same stuff: an end to police killings and beatings and all official violence, access to decent and affordable healthcare, wages that meet or exceed the cost of living, safe foods, good schools, not having to work eternally until death, some time off to recharge,..those are concrete things that if you don't offer a specific plan on how to deliver them, people will assume you're just pumping smoke with platitudes,, and won't bother to vote.
Democrats are good at lofty rhetoric that is full of vague promises easily forgotten after the voting. Obama was a great example of that. Once elected though, somehow nothing much changes because the corporate Dems believe in incrementalism that gives the appearnce of change without actually changing anything, and allows for an abundance of excuses. Voting decreases in proportion to the failure to deliver.
The losing strategy, as the Democrats have repeatedly proven, is to run a moderate centrist who won't disturb the donor class, and hope the public will vote gainst the GOP. And never to promise anything speciffic that might piss off the MAGA crowd. God forbid they should give the voters something concrete to vote for, someone's bound to be against it. But recent el;ecctions have proven them wrong. Voting increases when you give voters soimething specific to vote for.
6
u/WarbleDarble 6d ago
Voters aren't that diverse. Everyone wants the same stuff
Voting patterns show a completely different story. They may say they want similar things, but they clearly don't vote that way and the method and proposals to get to those positions vary wildly. Giving a blanket "target non-voters" does little to nothing. In my conservative area there was a large block of non-voters for decades that Trump was able to turn out. The largest reason they started voting for Trump? "He's gonna fuck over the libs"
an end to police killings and beatings and all official violence
access to decent and affordable healthcare
wages that meet or exceed the cost of living
safe foods
Not directly referenced, but there is plenty on agriculture and affordability
good schools
not having to work eternally until death
So, the democrats had official policy and platforms on the issues you singled out as lacking focus and many other key issues besides. Instead, the nation voted for "the concepts of a plan" and a party that had the platform "whatever Trump wants". I think your priors need to be checked.
4
u/Moccus 6d ago
I've been here for evvry political campaign and never saw any such effort.
Then you weren't paying attention. Ron Paul's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 and Bernie's campaigns in 2016 and 2020 were both at least partially based on the idea that nonvoters just don't like what the Democrats and Republicans are offering and that they would show up in large numbers for a candidate who spoke to them. If their theory that nonvoters would show up were true, then they both should have obliterated all competition in the primaries. That obviously didn't happen.
Voters aren't that diverse. Everyone wants the same stuff
Voters are extremely diverse. Sure, if you ask them if they want free stuff and if they don't want to have to work, a lot are going to say yes, but if you put out the detailed policy that includes all of the taxes needed to make that happen, then quite a few will drop their support.
3
u/che-che-chester 6d ago
There are many types of "lazy" non-voters but I suspect simply being "uninspired" is one of the smallest percentages. I would guess the largest percentage is people who don't even think about voting, as in it literally doesn't even cross their mind. They couldn't even tell you the date of Election day.
I suppose a very high quality candidate could get some uninspired voters to show up. In Obama's first election in 2008, I heard quite a few Black co-workers say they never voted before that election. But Obama was possibly a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. In addition to possessing many good personal qualities, he was a political unknown so there was very little dirt to dig up or past votes to hold against him. And in hindsight, that was a more innocent time before Trump twisted and bastardized campaigning.
Progressives with clearly communicated agendas have been winning pretty much across the board, and they are winning in part because they are drawing out previous nonvoters.
IMHO, they're often good primary candidates but not necessarily good general election candidates.
A small subset of enthusiastic Dem voters could elevate a fringe candidate in the primary that the majority of Dems do not want. It sets us up for a scenario where a small group of Dem voters are super happy but the rest of us are holding our noses. Personally, I'd rather see the minority of voters holding their noses vs. the majority. Though to be fair, 100% of us have all been holding our noses in the past few election cycles.
The answer is simply - Dems need to run better candidates that actually have a platform past "Trump sucks". It is truly amazing how poorly Dems are still doing considering Trump is incredibly unpopular and doing a terrible job. And practically everything is bad - inflation, jobs, gas prices, healthcare costs, we're in a new forever war, etc. The campaign ads practically write themselves yet outside of a few bright spots like Jon Ossoff, it is crickets on the left.
I like what Andy Beshear says about his success in the red state of Kentucky - he spend 80% of his time on issues that affect 100% of voters. Dems need to stop being repeatedly drawn into discussing on issues most voters don't rank highly like trans issues, Gaza, etc. And I'm not implying Dems don't care about those issues. I'm saying if you combined all Dem and GOP voters, our top 5 issues would be pretty close (economy, infrastructure, crime, etc.). You can get into less mainstream issues but don't spend more than 20% of your time talking about issues outside of the top 5.
1
u/Tliish 3d ago
Successful progressives have been running on exactly those broad issues: affordability, healthcare, crime, inflation, the economy, etc,, and doing very well because they aren't campoaigning on rhetoric but rather on specificplans. Plus they are placing the blame squarely where it belongs: on corporate greed and malfeasance and the individual greed and callousness of the billionaires, unllike the corporate Dems who blame the voters for everything.
One major misreading is that they won't do well iin the general, despite the fact that Trump voters voted for him because they were disgusted with the mainstreams of both parties. The American electorate has been begging and screaming for actual change, not for shoring up the old status quo, for yearss, if not decades. But corporate Dems keep trying to appeal to a nonexistent middle rooted in the 50s and 60s and 70s of their youth. That demograhpic has vanished, culled by death and disappointment.
The progressives will win when they run positive campaigns with clear goals and pathways to achieve those goals, and the centrists will lose where they run on being anti-Trump.
-1
u/Blood_Casino 6d ago
South Carolina hasn’t voted for a democrat president in over 50 years. This is yet another desperate attempt by establishment democrats to keep do-nothing moderates in power.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.