2 Likes
Yeah MI a much better 1st choice but SC is >>> IA and NH for sure imo
3 Likes
Making MI first puts Big Gretch on a glide path to the White House.
1 Like
i get 15 sick days and 3 personal days off a year.
we get paid for any personal time we didnât use at the end of the year.
ask me how many of those iâve used lmao. âdoctorâs appointmentâ is all i ever put for the sick time. sometimes like 2-3 days ahead of time 
1 Like
Having Iowa first didnât give Tom Harkin a glide path to the White House in 1992.
He was up against Bill Clinton in his prime.
I get a shit ton of sick time but I canât actually use it barring something fairly serious and Iâm simply expected to schedule shit around my schedule⌠that theyâre currently mandating I work over time on.
Nobodyâs challenging him in the primary. A state where the dem electorate is majority black absolutely should go first. This is a good thing.
2 Likes
You got a few fingers and toes you can function just fine without. Each should be worth two weeks.
2 Likes
Itâs because your job isnât a real job.
5 Likes
The goal of the primary should be to find the candidate who has the best shot (or close to it) at winning the general election. While early success is by no means a guarantee of victory it can translate to more media coverage, fund raising, name recognition etc. which will feed on itself to create a feedback loop and possibly snowball. So the early primary states skew the results to a certain degree.
The winner will be probably not the same person for a primary where the early states are all in the South, northeast or the prairie.
yes and? I mean specifically what does this have to do with the idea that SC in particular is a bad state for an early primary specifically because D isnât going to carry SC in the general? It might be bad for other reasons but nobody has explained âthis stateâs outcome in the general makes this a bad state for an early primaryâ. Theyâre independent outcomes (for the purposes weâre discussing here).
Iâd guess that there is probably some value in a state like Georgia (similar demographics but an actual swing state) going first, but SC seems better than LOLIOWA. Letâs be honest, Iowa isnât a swing state anymore.
why is a state that is a swing state in the general good at being an early primary state
I have nothing scientific to back it up but my feel is that it could have some marginal effect in juicing turnout in the general of the candidate the electorate voted for in the primary is on the ballot? Iâm sure itâs minor if there is an effect. The most important thing is the demographics of the electorate, which is why I think South Carolina is good, Georgia just might be ever so slightly better.
I have explained in the rest of my post. States that are unwinnable should not have an outsized influence on the outcome of the primaries because of how those votersâ preferences probably will align less well with what is needed to win the general election.
Imagine a primary season where the first states are ND, SD, MT, WY, ID and NE. What kind of candidate will emerge as the front runner there? Will he have a better or worse chance than a candidate that won a slate of blue-ish states?
that assumes facts not in evidence
explain the link between âcanât win the general in this stateâ and âthe D primary voters are somehow not aligned with what we need to win the generalâ
âunable to win the generalâ just tells me about numbers, not about those voters ideologies.
No, I think thatâs the eDEM mistake/trap. Fuck swing voters, we need to motivate our base voters to turn out. The democratic base voters are people of color. âSwingâ voters are a myth.
GA is a must-win state for Dems now that OH and FL are out of play, pandering to those voters is a great idea.
1 Like
Yeah, or at least 1, which is why I think SC is fine. Heavy Latino state also important, which is why Nevada should be in that mix too. The red all-white Midwest states like Iowa should go last.
1 Like