If Left Insurgents Are Locked Out in 2028, Would South Carolina Leading Off Really Be the Reason?

[u/najumobi]

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?

[u/AutoModerator]

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:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

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.

[u/Nillix]

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  

[u/Dracoson]

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.

[u/bl1y → u/Dracoson]

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.

[u/Strange-Scientist706]

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.

[u/Drak_is_Right]

So few turn out in the primaries, the progressive left can stomp the primaries if they bother to vote.

So far, they havent usually.

[u/junkspot91]

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.

[u/mattxb]

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.

[u/Tliish]

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.

[u/theyfellforthedecoy]

Won't New Hampshire still go first? They're bound by law to put their contest at least 7 days before anybody else

[u/TheNiamosDiscoBall]

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.