Biden pushes South Carolina as first primary state, elevates Georgia and Michigan

[former9thward]

Source: Washington Post

President Biden has asked leaders of the Democratic National Committee to make South Carolina the nation’s first primary state, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada a week later, and subsequent weekly primaries in Georgia and Michigan, according to Democrats briefed on the plans.

The tectonic decision to radically remake his party’s presidential nominating calendar for 2024 came as a shock to party officials and state leaders who had been lobbying hard in recent weeks to gain a place in the early calendar, which historically attracts millions of dollars in candidate spending and attention.

The proposal is likely to win approval from the Democratic officials, given the support from the leader of the party. By breaking with decades of tradition, Biden’s move is meant to signal his party’s commitment to elevating more variety — demographic, geographic and economic — in the early nominating process. Iowa, a largely White state that historically held the nation’s the first Democratic caucus and experienced embarrassing problems tabulating results in 2020, would have no early role in the Biden plan.

“We must ensure that voters of color have a voice in choosing our nominee much earlier in the process and throughout the entire early window,” Biden wrote in a letter to members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that was set to be delivered Thursday evening, as members planned to meet for dinner. “As I said in February 2020, you cannot be the Democratic nominee and win a general election unless you have overwhelming support from voters of color — and that includes Black, Brown and Asian American & Pacific Islander voters.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/01/2024-primaries-biden-democrats/?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert

[brooklynite]

1. SC CANNOT go before NH.

They'll start a hopscotch tournament where each advances their date to be first. NH has shown a willingness to move to the prior year/Christmas season to hold on to "first in the nation".

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. The DNC can decline to accept NH's delegates if it plays games. Nt

[former9thward]

5. The DNC can, but won't.

They made that threat in 2008 when Michigan moved up its primary. They said they would disqualify Michigan delegates. The day before the convention they caved and seated the entire MI delegation with full voting rights. No one wants to anger a state going into a general election.

[certainot]

13. but mich is a BIG state. NH? not so big.....

[DemocraticPatriot]

11. As they initially did Michigan delegates, in 2008...

I was not happy with the DNC's initial action against Michigan delegates in 2008, but I was not happy with the state Democratic politicians who sought to subvert the national party rules in 2008, either...


However, this year Michigan has been one of the-- ok, THE brightest spot of Democratic voting returns in the 2020 election,
and we DESERVE a spot in the first primary states in 2024! We are 'midwestern', and have been more loyal to the Party than Iowa for the past 20 years...

I don't advocate for a "first" spot in the schedule, but we are more deserving of a 'first spot' than Iowa is, anymore!


First four, I would be ok with that.

[certainot]

14. it should be the state with the least amount of RW radio stations, either instate or blasted by

nearby very loud out of state stations

[DemocraticPatriot]

10. Know what ??

I am tired of New Hampshire and Iowa, both....

You love New Hampshire for some reason??


Yes, DNC cannot control when state legislatures determine that their presidential primaries will occur--
but they can control whether those votes count at all (delegates),

or whether they are a meaningless "beauty contest"....




WAKE UP, OLD MAN!

[brooklynite]

16. "they can control whether those votes count at all"

So you want to throw away the opinion of all the Democrats in a State with TWO US SENATORS that RELIABLY VOTES DEMOCRATIC IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, in favor of a State with NO US SENATORS that NEVER VOTES DEMOCRATIC IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, for the sake of a two week difference in schedule placement?

Personally, I have no favoritism about who goes first, other than to ensure they support retail politicking to allow lesser known candidates to gave an opportunity to be competitive. On the other hand I recognize the political reality that New Hampshire WILL schedule their Primary ahead of any other State with a Primary, so the choice of South Carolina is largely symbolic.

[DemocraticPatriot]

19. 'Rhetorical excess' much??

I don't propose to "throw away" anything--- but I think that Democrats in New Hampshire are reasonable, and will recognize that they have had their "place in the sun" for 70 years, more or less--- but that does not mean that it should go on for all ETERNITY...

If they are loyal to the party, they will remain loyal to the party-- and should abide by the will of the WHOLE party, not just the few in their state with-- what is it? 3 electoral votes, or 4 ??

Your arguments about South Carolina having never gone Democratic since 1976 are well taken--
however, this preliminary committee choice is about BLACK VOTERS, the most loyal constituency of the party-- not about the general election results about that particular state-- (and the primary results from 2020 make the President sentimental about the state.... )

I am sympathetic to the choice for those reasons, but not sure that I agree.... I only agree that New Hampshire should not remain the first Democratic presidential primary for all eternity!! (nor that Iowa should remain the first newsmaker of the presidential campaign, with their convulated caucuses... I traveled there once in my youth to work a campaign)


"for the sake of a two week difference in schedule placement?"

Oh, don't pretend to be naive--- you are well aware of the influence of the "placement" of the first primaries over the rest of the race!

Indeed, since it's inception, no president was ever elected without having won their primary in New Hampshire-- until Clinton and Obama broke that precedent! (Their record has been poor ever since...)

"I recognize the political reality that New Hampshire WILL schedule their Primary ahead of any other State with a Primary"

On the other hand, whether that primary will actually account for ANYTHING is open to question.... I agree that if they schedule their primary ahead of anyone else, it will be a very significant "beauty contest"--- quite possibly as significant as the early pre-caucus Iowa "straw polls"....

I reside in Michigan. In 2008, as you may remember, my state and Florida decided to hold our party presidential primaries earlier than the national party allowed-- and the initial reaction of the DNC was to declare that we were stripped of all delegates, and they pressured all the Democratic candidates not to campaign in our states for these illicit primaries, and not to have their names on the ballot-- as a result, the only Dem candidate's name on the ballot was Hillary Clinton, whom I did not support at the time--- and there was NO primary campaign in Michigan that year... However, that certainly had no influence over me standing in line for about 1.5 hours, (the longest before or since), to vote for the Democratic ticket headed by Senator Barack Obama! (I suspect Democratic voters in New Hampshire to be as loyal as myself, in 2024-- whether their primary delegates were counted or not).

At the time, I personally opposed the actions of the local Democratic politicians, who made this happen against the will of the national party... and rendered any vote in my presidential primary to be "useless"-- so far as I knew at the time.


If New Hampshire intends to do the same in 2024, I fully expect and support that their delegates to the Democratic convention will be greatly reduced-- or even ELIMINATED--- and their primary vote should be recognized as not much more than a 'beauty contest'.

(You are probably right, they will "vote" ahead of anyone else-- since the Republican politicians will demand it, and they have their "state law" which does the same...)

As a loyal Democrat, in that case I will maintain that their "vote" is significant of NOTHING.
(Sorry NH Democrats, but it is what it is.)


Otherwise, celebrating Michigan's inclusion in the early order!
We ARE and HAVE BEEN a loyal Democratic state since 1960, with a few anomilies--

(most years in which Republicans won in landslides---- and 2016, when the Democratic presidential nominee failed to campaign much ((or at all)) in the state, and so Democratic turnout in Detroit was depressed)

[brooklynite]

21. No objection to Michigan's placement...

...and the Democratic Government can implement it.

I DO object to a schedule for SC and NV that Democrats cannot implement because of their Republican Governors.

[DemocraticPatriot]

23. OK..... pragmatism, I understand...

You think those Republican governors would object to earlier Republican presidential primaries for their states??

Seems to me they would like it---
but they have to deal with their own national party...

Certainly I think South Carolina Republicans would be happy to elevate their state primary to first place--
but the losers (Iowa) want to run their caucuses on Halloween 2023 "if necessary"


Yes, it may be a mess that will take time to work out....

However, I don't intend that the Democratic party should plan their nomination process based upon the tantrums, plans and/or fantasies of Republicans in whatever state where they may reside...

[DemocraticPatriot]

24. Give me a reasoned argument against any of my other arguments,

in the morning, if possible. lol


I do like New Hampshire as a very small state, for an early contest, where poor unfunded candidates can compete via "retail politics"--
but it is too damned white to be representative of our party...


Maybe the first primary should be in Delaware......

[DemocraticPatriot]

20. New "who" ???

[DemocraticPatriot]

22. Are you going to suddenly withdraw support from OUR President

over a 'scheduling difference of a week or two' in the 2024 primaries ??

LOL



Bear in mind, it seems to me that President Biden intends to run for re-election,
as he has said from the beginning---

As such, it seems there will be no significant primary opposition...


Whatever decision the Democratic national committee makes now, it will only apply to the 2024 presidential primairies--
(not to 'ETERNITY' as proscribed in the laws of the state of New Hampshire, and perhaps Iowa)


Personally, I am very happy that the particular DNC committee has voted to "violate tradition and sundry laws of tiny states" to change the schedule for Democratic presidential primaries in 2024--- but it is not set in stone yet, only a committee recommendation...

... and as it seems clear that President Biden will run for re-election, it would be of less importance---


but I like the precedent!

I would suspect that the primary lineup in 2028 might have some small differences from 2024 in the early states--
and I would support that, also!

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Great idea! I like it!

Especially moving NV, SC and MI to prominent early dates,

[iluvtennis]

4. Yes,like the idea very much. Iowa doesn't properly reflect the demographic of the US population. nt

[onetexan]

12. +1 k&r

[Polybius]

6. Yep, Biden's running for re-election

That much is certain now.

[former9thward]

7. It may mean he is not.

This is for 2024 and no one serious is going to run against Biden if he runs again. He may be setting the table for someone he favors.

[Polybius]

8. Hmm, didn't think of it that way

Perhaps the VP?

[IzzaNuDay]

9. Hope they do!

This falls in line with the House changing their leadership to younger people. We have to evolve if we want to keep on winning.

[BeyondGeography]

15. I guess there are worse ideas than giving a deep red state an outsized role in choosing our nominee

Compelling all contenders to spend disproportionate amounts of time and money in a place where Republicans control everything; governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature.

Gimme some time, I’ll think of one.

[msfiddlestix]

17. Michigatn should be the first.. on he other hand, why not have all the states primaries on the same

day? Just the presidential primary on the ballot, no other offices or initiatives.

[former9thward]

18. Then only billionaires or celebrities could get the nomination.

It would cost hundreds of millions to participate in a national primary. An Obama or for that matter a Biden, Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter would stand little chance of winning.

[msfiddlestix]

25. Seems like that's pretty much the game now

regarding the cost factor, isn't that about what the costs amount to, if not much more?

My feeling is we should take a page from other democracies regarding campaign seasons. it should be much shorter, say 3 months from start to finish. I think it's worth hashing out, discussion. I don't see how we're doing it works so great for democracy.

[karynnj]

27. I agree on Clinton and Carter and probably Obama

Obama had to do everything right to stay alive beyond the super Tuesday, which I think had 23 states and had been seen as a barrier to anyone beating HRC. By keeping things close on delegates and doing exceptionally well on the caucuses on super Tuesday, Obama not only climbed the barrier, but was better positioned in the rest of the states. The Clinton team had not done as much in later states as the assumption was she would clinch the nomination on super Tuesday. The Obama team saw super Tuesday as something to survive and then do well in later states.

If instead of 23 states, preceded by a few earlier states where Obama did better than expected, I am not convinced he would have had a path.

The one I disagree on is Biden. Before any primaries and caucuses, he polled well. He then under performed in the early states. He needed the strong SC result to put himself back in as the frontrunner. With a national primary, I don't think any of the others could have gained enough recognition.

Otherwise, I agree 100 percent that a Carter, a Clinton or anyone not already the biggest name ( or the wealthiest who could create ads to play everywhere) could win.

[karynnj]

26. I completely understand why Biden wants to reward SC for 2020, but think the other states

Mentioned are better. SC is good because to win the primary a candidate must be one of those who can gain significant POC votes. However, the same is true for Georgia and to some degree Michigan and Nevada. The difference, NH, Nevada, Georgia and Michigan are swing states.

Elections are won and lost in the swing states. Having an early primary in those states requires the winner to be among those best able to win a close election. In addition, it means many people in those states may actually meet the candidate.