First Iowa and NH weren't representative of the Party. But SC is?

[hangaleft]

Without question, Biden’s landslide win in SC gave his campaign a big boost.

But I contend too many people are jumping on his bandwagon and anointing him our nominee prematurely.

African Americans accounted for 60% of the SC vote. But of the entire Party, African Americans represent 25% of registered Democrats. Clearly, the support of African Americans is of great importance, and I’m not dismissing or minimizing its importance. But it shouldn’t be dispositive, especially in a state our nominee won’t carry no matter who s/he is.

No one state should determine who our nominee is. But if we were to emphasize the importance of certain states in determining who is “most electable”, it should be the reliably Blue states — most of New England, NJ, DE, MD, IL, NM, MN, CA, OR and WA. Also other states of importance like FL, OH, CO, MI, WI, PA, NV, plus GA and NC.

These are the important states. Not Iowa. Or NH. Or SC. We shouldn’t be jumping on the Biden bandwagon because he rolled through a Red state with a disproportionately high number of African American voters.

At the very least, let’s wait until Super Tuesday before abandoning our first choice.

I’m just blown away by all the DUers who have abandoned their candidate because Biden won one fucking state!

Personally, I’m hoping for a brokered convention. Not a contentious one, but one where we nominate our strongest candidate. And I don’t think it’s Joe. I think it’s Kamala. A moderate-left WOC would romp to victory!

End of rant.

[hlthe2b]

1. Well THAT is an apples and oranges comparison.

I'll just say nonpersuasive and leave it at that...

[rzemanfl]

27. I always look at profiles first, then am not persuaded.

[honest.abe]

2. Joe didn't just win SC, he demolished the other candidates.

He won nearly every demographic.. convincingly.

The real question is why Sanders can’t get black folks to vote for him??

[empedocles]

5. Important question. Not just numbers, but soul question also.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. What you're missin is that any state Bernie wins is unimportant... hope that helps!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[DonaldsRump]

4. Am feeling the Burn....the Biden Burn! n/t

[Sloumeau]

6. Stop and think for a moment about what just happened.

First, Tom Steyer dropped out, so people had to figure out which candidate they now wanted to support. Then, Pete Buttigieg dropped out, so, Buttigieg supporters needed to figure out who they wanted to support. Because Biden did well in SC, and because his positions seemed agreeable to a lot of people, a number of people, such as people who liked Tom Steyer or Mayor Pete, switched to Joe Biden.

No one has nominated Joe Biden prematurely. Individual people made individual decisions about which candidate each person wanted to support. We saw the same kind of thing happen when people like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker dropped out. It is nothing new, but as the number of candidates gets smaller, each person dropping out will seem to have greater significance. Also, since two candidates dropped out one right after the other, it made a much greater impact. That is all that happened. Candidates were always going to drop out, sooner or later, and this kind of thing was always going to happen.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Cater to blue states only

and that's all you'll get

IA NH can be very important. They could be the 4 votes that reach 270. PA MI OH WI can go either way. Need to pay special attention to them. All the DUers want a strong candidate and ticket. They read national polls, and state ones. So it's not like it's a rabbit from a hat.

[Vivienne235729]

8. I would think it is important bc SC has one of the highest % of AA in the country relative to its

size. More than 1 in 5 AA is a Democrat. Plus, they are there first state w the AA presence. And the fact that 2/3 of SC's AA vote went to Biden is a good barometer on where the AA block is leaning nationally. Warren did not resonate w people. And I think her missteps the past month or so has really hurt her. People want to know that whoever is the nominee will beat trump. She hasn't shown that she can.

[denem]

14. Warren's 'missteps in the past month'?

[Vivienne235729]

16. You don't think she made any?

[denem]

18. I'd like your opinion.

There's is a divide between 'moderates' and berners on this. What would you say her missteps are?

[Vivienne235729]

24. I was discussing it with someone who told me she won the bluest and reddest counties in IA. And yet

And yet she was a distant third. Why is that? I don't have hard answers but I think it was her weak image and these are my unresearched musings. She played it too safely and never really went after Bernie. But she sure went after bloomberg in NV though, who was going after trump. It think it made her look like she was angling to be a VP rather than a real contender. Bloomberg wasn't a threat to her. Or to getting rid of trump. Or atleast not perceived so by the general public. It got her some $ from her constituents which is great. But no new voters. No new endorsements. She is a thinker. But most people aren't. She talked policies. But that's all she offered. Bernie's schtick works bc he appealed to people's pathos and made them feel like they are changing the world when we both know he is FOS and can't get anything done. I mean, he's running this "revolution" denigrating the very system he expects to help him achieve said promises. It's irrational. But he's running off of the youth's superficiality, anger, resentment, and fear. Warren doesn't have that level of pathos in her campaign bc she has more depth and her people are thinkers. But the world we live in is messed up. And thinking isn't enough. We have to entertain or do something else to capture people. I think it would have helped her greatly to have catchy soundbites or do something that catches the attention of other demographics. Andrew Yang body surfed his way to a place no one thought he could get to. He had great ideas too. She looked old, dodgy, and angry at all the wrong places to me.

Then there's her abrupt turn towards super pacs. Mind you, I understand why she had to do that. But I think it weakened her position as a populist candidate. It made her look desperate for $ and able to be compromised. But the reality is that everybody up on that stage needs $. She should have just done it from the beginning. The funding was a sympton and she didn't address the problem. She just found a solution for it which isn't a bad thing. It's just not always the right thing, either.

And finally, It's a big world out there. And she didn't convince people outside of her lily white, very narrowed, voter base that she can win in the general. She didn't appeal to POC. I didn't see her trying, either. And if I missed it, you can bet plenty more people missed it too.

Thise are my musings. Why do you think she isn't leading the pack?

[dansolo]

9. Caucuses are definitely not representative.

I can't understand why there is so much emphasis on two states what have probably the most undemocratic sytem leading the primary season.

[Cha]

10. Excellent point. "caucuses"..

[beachbumbob]

11. if you are asking which of these 3 states are "more" representative of america, don't need to be a

brain surgeon to figure that out.

[yardwork]

12. This word "anointed" was used to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

I believe the source of the propaganda using the word "anointed" in 2016 was Russian troll farms. I don't like seeing the word on DU.

Clinton was not "anointed" in 2016 and Biden is not being "anointed" now.

I support Elizabeth Warren. I think she's the best candidate in the field. But I'm not going to use propaganda from Russian troll farms to support my candidate. No way.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Yes, but neither the Democratic Party nor the nation is 50/50 Black and white

so it isn't a "bad comparison". I wonder what state demographically is most representative of the Democratic Party electorate? Perhaps some place like NC which also has a fair number of Hispanics? Virginia? California?

Iowa and NH are far whiter than the Party as a whole, and SC is far blacker than the Party as a whole. Given that Democrats kick off the primary process in overwhelmingly white States SC justifiably serves as a counter weight under the current system..

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I support SC voting early. It is a travesty to have two overwhelmingly white states start the proces

Maybe SC deviates from the median less than Iowa, you can run the numbers if you want, but none of them closely represent the demographics of the Democratic Party.

[squirecam]

31. The base of the Democratic Party is AA voters.

They are not a majority of the vote outside of the south, but every democrat needs an 8 or 9 to 1 ratio with AA voters to win an election.

So what they think matters.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. They are 25% of the Democratic vote

I am fine with identifying Black voters as the Democratic Base. Of course what they think matters. We can't win without them. But it is equally true that we need support from the other 3/4's also (which includes other non-white demographic groups) in order to win. All things being equal it is obviously an advantage to nominate someone who has wide enthusiastic Black support. Biden for example fits that description. Conversely it is problematic to nominate someone who relatively few Blacks clearly feel positive toward. Butttigiege did and Klobuchar (unfortunately for your candidate) does fit that description currently. But any Democrat who runs on a platform embracing social justice in a General Election will win overwhelming Black support. The question is "how overwhelming", and at what turn out levels?

[marble falls]

25. Shhhh ... you're ruining his point!

[brutus smith]

15. And people wonder why Dems lose states in the mid west.

[brutus smith]

20. Down playing the Iowa caucus results.

[pinkstarburst]

19. What they should really do

Is get all the states who'd like to go first (take out the large states with expensive media markets that would be impossible for smaller candidates to compete in) and draw 4 states at random each time. Because it really shouldn't be about your vote is more important because you're from here or because you're this race. The fairest way to do it would be to randomize it.

[treestar]

28. AA are the real base

And Bernie isn't doing well with the base. Maybe because he is not a Democrat and runs against the Democratic party whenever he runs for POTUS as one.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

29. It speaks to the need to reach out and win AA vote

To build a wide enough coalition to beat Trump.

Hillary beat Trump but not in enough of the right states.

If Bernie is nominee, I honestly believe it will allow a fraudulent president to win popular vote and a bigger electoral landslide after flouting US laws and getting away with it.

Biden has already grabbed delegates from more diverse cross section of American demographics than Sanders after 4 contests.

[Alliepoo]

30. I'm guessing Handsome Joe will do A-OK in Ohio

I’m old-lived in this yucky state for most of my life and I’ve observed what (largely white, right wing, straight, so called Christian, homophobic) folks (this state is full of the aforementioned) around here do. They imo won’t support a “gay”, they won’t support a woman and they won’t support a “commie” (their word, not mine). Lots of narrow minded, backward thinking people in Ohio. Unfortunate but true. And the disgusting rwnj’s that are currently in charge at the statehouse will gleefully take every opportunity to use this to their advantage. They are a very nasty, cheating, low down bunch.

[LiberalFighter]

33. The delegate counts for each state is based on Democratic voter turnout from past 3 elections.

If two states had nearly the same population but one is more likely to be blue while the other is red they are allotted more delegates than the red state.

Montana has a population of 1,005,141. Rhode Island is 1,050,292.

Montana had a total of 611,215 for Democratic candidates.
Rhode Island had a total of 828,773 for Democratic candidates.

Those numbers are divided by the total votes for all states.

The formula used to obtain the allocation factor is 1/2 x ((SDV ÷ TDV ) + ( SEV ÷ 538 ) )

SDV being the state's popular Democratic vote for last 3 presidential elections.

TDV being the total popular Democratic vote for last 3 presidential elections.

SEV being the state's electoral votes for 2020.

538 being the total of all electoral votes.

The math gives Montana 25 and Rhode Island 36 delegates.
Montana has a base 19 delegates and Rhode Island has 26.

Those additional delegates are the state chair and vice chair along with any congressional members in the state and the regular DNC members. DNC members are also determined on Democratic presidential turnouts.

Georgia (9,919,945) and Michigan (9,883,360) are two more examples. Despite Michigan having a lower population it has 147 delegates while Georgia only gets 120. Michigan received 147 in 2016 while Georgia had 117. Looking at the turnout Michigan went from 2,872,579 in 2008 down to 2,268,839 in 2016. While Georgia went down in 2012 and then back up in 2016.

As a side note here is the Democratic turnout for Vermont:
2008 -- 219,262
2012 -- 199,239
2016 -- 178,573

[Faux pas]

34. Kickin'

[Zambero]

35. All 50 states combined are representative of the party

None of the four states with results are representative of the whole, but pieces of the larger map. Each state has its own mix of demographics that should not be superimposed onto a larger picture before a clear picture even emerges. From a practical standpoint, Democratic Party voters need to think twice about nominating an unelectable candidate based on a plurality of primary votes who would constitute a drag on the entire ticket. The time to consolidate is sooner rather than later. Later could to too late.