The last time there was a fight about this in 2008, Florida wanted to go early. The DNC voted to strip their delegates. They also secured promises from Obama and Hillary not to campaign there, which they mostly followed.
The delegates were restored just before the convention to avoid pissing off a swing state. New Hampshire is also a swing state. NH will probably call the DNCs bluff.
NH may be a swing state, but too few EVs for DNC to really blink. Yeah, itās possible, that those votes are the difference maker, but if they estimate that the benefit of a different primary schedule outweighs that, then theyāre not actually bluffing.
The fact that South Carolina is full of crazy Republicans doesnāt mean the democratic voters there canāt pick a decent candidate. There isnāt really a huge difference between the people who vote Democrat in South Carolina and Georgia.
The keys to being a good early primary state are you canāt be too big or have too many media markets (if you let California or Texas go first you might as well not have a primary and just let the party decide) and you need to be somewhat representative of the party nationwide. Iowa and New Hampshire both fail the latter for Dems by being way too white and not having decent sized cities.
Itās this. Otherwise the lesser known candidates will never ever have a shot. I know it doesnāt feel like it, but Biden was an anomaly. Carter, Clinton and Obama made their names in Iowa because it was small enough for them to get to nearly every single voter in the lead up to the caucus. South Carolina should be fine for this, and more representative.
I donāt know. The real thing about being first is that it makes people care. Well, it did in Iowa. Everyone I spoke to, from Uber drivers to fast food workers to farmers to Dem party insiders all knew way more than your average American voter about the primaries, who was running, who they liked. Everyone had an opinion.
Iām not sure that kind of interest will have time to build in SC this time around. Give them a few cycles of being first and It might. Thereās also a lot of weird infrastructure (for lack of a better word) in Iowa around the election. The Steak Fry. The State Fair. The big Dem Party dinner. SC doesnāt really have that yet, that I know of, and it will take time to build hype around those things.
Iāll preface this by saying I have not followed this story but I find it curious she is the most powerful woman in the US and is getting painted with the exact same brush as the last woman to go down the same path.
Officially the VP has zero power, unofficially itās not much better. There are women in actual positions of power who donāt get this treatment. There are women who have run for President who didnāt get this treatment. I assume youāre referring to HRC although thatās not exactly the same path and Iād argue she didnāt get this treatment either. Nobody gave up on her until she lost to Trump and of all the criticisms against her Iāve never heard anyone claim she didnāt elevate herself to the face of the party. I think this has more to do with the fact that she got single digit support last time she ran for President and sheās been nearly invisible in a position where the only benefit is supposed to be increased visibility.
What is āthis treatmentā really? Democrats are somewhat desperate for a savior IMO.
If Kamala is getting negative messaging through unofficial channels my inclination is that people close to her believe she actually is a going to be a problematic candidate rather than gender bias at work. Even with this vague backstabbing Kamala is being treated by the Dems better than Pence was by the pro-Trump Republicans.
I think thereās a good chance that sheās both treated in a way that is biased because sheās a woman AND she deserves all kinds of valid criticism.