Current Events > Biden boycotting N. Hampshire primary since it won't let South Carolina go first

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-won-t-appear-on-new-hampshire-democratic-primary-ballot-but-write-ins-are-still-an-option/ar-AA1iN7r9

President Joe Biden won't file to have his name appear on the 2024 New Hampshire Democratic primary ballot, his reelection campaign said Tuesday, opting to skip a contest that the state plans to hold in defiance of a revamped primary order that the White House has championed.

Julie Chavez Rodriguez, manager of Biden's reelection campaign, wrote in a letter to New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley that while the president wishes to participate in the primary, he is obligated to comply" with party rules.

The president looks forward to having his name on New Hampshires general election ballot as the nominee of the Democratic Party after officially securing the nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, where he will tirelessly campaign to earn every single vote in the Granite State next November, Rodriguez wrote.

Biden last year urged the Democratic National Committee to shake up the order of the 2024 primary, replacing Iowa's leadoff caucus with the South Carolina primary to better empower Black and other minority voters crucial to the partys base. In February, the DNC approved a new 2024 calendar, beginning with South Carolina's primary on Feb. 3, followed three days later by New Hampshire and Nevada.

But New Hampshire has balked at the plan, arguing that it has traditionally held the nation's opening primary a rule that Iowa only got around by having caucuses. Top New Hampshire Democrats say state law there mandates hosting the nation's first primary, and officials have vowed to have a primary prior to South Carolina's regardless of what the DNC says.

The DNC has warned that such a move would lead to an unsanctioned primary that could trigger sanctions, including New Hampshire potentially losing delegates to the 2024 Democratic convention in Chicago.

This is Cenk's chance.

Giving some states primaries before others gives them unearned priority in the process. Why should NH or SC voters get to have their say earlier than, say, Maryland or Georgia?

Intro2Logic posted...

Giving some states primaries before others gives them unearned priority in the process. Why should NH or SC voters get to have their say earlier than, say, Maryland or Georgia?

Primaries should be legally required to be the same day in every state.

And also be a public holiday where no business with a few exceptions is allowed to operate(same for election day) and those that do have strict hours restrictions that are BRUTALLY enforced.

Top New Hampshire Democrats say state law there mandates hosting the nation's first primary, and officials have vowed to have a primary prior to South Carolina's regardless of what the DNC says.

What, like they have a state law that says they have to have their's first? How the hell does that work?

Inohira posted...

Biden last year urged the Democratic National Committee to shake up the order of the 2024 primary, replacing Iowa's leadoff caucus with the South Carolina primary to better empower Black and other minority voters crucial to the partys base.

How?

Intro2Logic posted...

Giving some states primaries before others gives them unearned priority in the process. Why should NH or SC voters get to have their say earlier than, say, Maryland or Georgia?

Well, New Hampshire law says it must go first. Other states could pass the same laws if they wanted.

South Carolina has no good reason to go first, but it saved Biden's campaign after his devastating losses in Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada, so the DNC put it first at Biden's request to ensure that future candidates similar to Biden start with an advantage instead of a disadvantage. (basically political kickback and ethically embarrassing)

A_Good_Boy posted...

How?

Iowa: 89.8% White
South Carolina: 68.9% White

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

Primaries should be legally required to be the same day in every state.

I get why maybe you would want this, however under the current rules it's entirely likely you would have no nominee after the primaries as no one would have 501. Also, the nominees would quite likely have been very different than the previous results. You may see that as either a positive or negative but is a significant difference. And ofc finally this would likely diminish the power of any underdog candidate who would have no ability to get momentum and would have to run a nationwide campaign on meager funding.

Smart to you know, abandon a wishy washy state in favor of a state that will never vote for Biden.

Biden needs NH far more than he'd ever need South Carolina.

Dude's had a myriad of unforced errors the last few weeks. It's astonishing.

Doe posted...

Iowa: 89.8% White
South Carolina: 68.9% White

Wouldn't that still not matter in the end? The votes all get tallied together regardless at the end of the primary.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Wouldn't that still not matter in the end? The votes all get tallied together regardless at the end of the primary.

Each state has delegates based on largely the percent of the vote. It's not total votes tallied at the end

States falling over each other to have the first primary is always ridiculous, I'm pretty sure there are like 10 states that have it in their constitution that they go first (but obviously don't). Doing all of them on the same day sounds good but isn't a real solution either since then you're locked in from the start and there's no real "campaigning" to earn the nomination.

Basically, political parties are garbage and Washington was right.

A_Good_Boy posted...

How?

Most Democrats in South Carolina are black.

But there are other states like that. Real wonder why Biden wants SC specifically to go first. /s

aarrgus posted...

I get why maybe you would want this, however under the current rules it's entirely likely you would have no nominee after the primaries as no one would have 501. Also, the nominees would quite likely have been very different than the previous results. You may see that as either a positive or negative but is a significant difference.

Oh well we can't have that, best to ensure every nominee is like Biden.

aarrgus posted...

And ofc finally this would likely diminish the power of any underdog candidate who would have no ability to get momentum and would have to run a nationwide campaign on meager funding.

That's already going to happen with South Carolina replacing Iowa as the first state. After three straight states voted for either younger Democrats or grassroots progressive outsiders in 2020, South Carolina overwhelmingly voted for the old ex-Vice President establishment guy.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Wouldn't that still not matter in the end? The votes all get tallied together regardless at the end of the primary.

The fact there's a first primary instead of doing them all at once means campaigns, especially those with less big money backing, can use the first primary population as a 'proving ground' without needing to spend country level money. The first primary or first couple is a point where many candidates drop out because they realize they are just not viable. Well for this idea to work it'd be better if the first primary demographically well represents the country population.

Inohira posted...

Oh well we can't have that, best to ensure every nominee is like Biden.

Um... you do fucking realize that having a vote on the same day will make it MORE likely to have Biden type candidates? You know... the popular ones with lots of support and funding and can more easily run a nationwide campaign.

And what is your proposal for when someone doesn't get 50%+1 on a single primary day? Most votes/delegates? You could end up with a candidate that had 15% support. Throw it to the convention to go through a voting process there? Congratulations you just changed it back to the pre 1960's system where primaries are largely irrelevant.

Inohira posted...

That's already going to happen with South Carolina replacing Iowa as the first state. After three straight states voted for either younger Democrats or grassroots progressive outsiders in 2020, South Carolina overwhelmingly voted for the old ex-Vice President establishment guy.

Sorry that your "younger, grassroots, progressives" don't try to compete in every state. Maybe they should try that...

aarrgus posted...

Um... you do fucking realize that having a vote on the same day will make it MORE likely to have Biden type candidates?

Not really? Biden got 4th place in Iowa when it went first. If SC went first he probably would've won it by more than he originally did.

Compared to the old system a 1 day primary is worse but compared to the current system it's better.

aarrgus posted...

You know... the popular ones with lots of support and funding and can more easily run a nationwide campaign?

Biden's campaign was going broke before South Carolina: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/21/fec-bernie-2020-funding-116558

Funding was heavily split in that primary.

aarrgus posted...

Sorry that your "younger, grassroots, progressives" don't try to compete in every state. Maybe they should try that...

Telling a grassroots candidate to campaign in Jim Clyburn's state is like telling Trump to campaign in California. It's not gonna change anything.

My attitude is that every election should have primaries cycled in advance to have a state from each region vote simultaneously.

Have a Midwestern, Northeastern, Southern, and Western state or two vote each week, and have the orders set by lottery 4 years in advance so that everybody knows the order well before campaigns begin. That way, no individual state or region is advantaged, as all areas have elections throughout the campaign and no states are consistently favored.

Biden shouldn't be on any ballot...

The reason they are not on the same day in this day in age is because campaigns can't manage that.

Inohira posted...

Well, New Hampshire law says it must go first. Other states could pass the same laws if they wanted.

South Carolina has no good reason to go first, but it saved Biden's campaign after his devastating losses in Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada, so the DNC put it first at Biden's request to ensure that future candidates similar to Biden start with an advantage instead of a disadvantage. (basically political kickback and ethically embarrassing)

Thats a terrible rule for the 99.607% of the US population who is not a part if the largely white, largely rural NH population. And SC uses caucuses so they arent limited to the same rule for early starts.

Both NH and SC should be told to go fuck themselves.

GA saved this country in the last 2 elections, if anybody deserves to go first it's theirs.

And someone should definitely challenge that NH "our law literally says we get to go first!" nonsense, like how the hell do you even make that an actual law since it involves dictating the actions of every other state's elections?

The DNC can't do shit to him anyway. He has free reign to push them around all he wants

Inohira posted...

Compared to the old system a 1 day primary is worse but compared to the current system it's better.

How? You get six or more candidates vying for 50%+1, nobody gets there, and super delegates determine who wins.
Awesome you just made everything less democratic.

Unknown5uspect posted...

How? You get six or more candidates vying for 50%+1, nobody gets there, and super delegates determine who wins.
Awesome you just made everything less democratic.

The combination of proportional delegates+superdelegates exists to make sure your vote doesn't matter and party bosses always pick the candidate but people keep lapping that shit up.

Good. Not that it matters in this situation, but still.

I think the idea of spread-out primaries is good tbh. Almost feels like it should be randomized on which states go first, though, but that would have its own issues, lol.

TheDurinator posted...

The combination of proportional delegates+superdelegates exists to make sure your vote doesn't matter and party bosses always pick the candidate but people keep lapping that shit up.

Said as if superdelegates have ever mattered.

No state that doesn't actually vote for democrats in the election should go first in the primary.

Inohira posted...

But New Hampshire has balked at the plan, arguing that it has traditionally held the nation's opening primary a rule that Iowa only got around by having caucuses. Top New Hampshire Democrats say state law there mandates hosting the nation's first primary, and officials have vowed to have a primary prior to South Carolina's regardless of what the DNC says.

Lol, so fucking stupid. So what happens if/when another state make a state law that mandates THEY host the nation's first primary.

Kradek posted...

...SC should be told to go fuck themselves.

As someone who lives here, agreed.

videospirit posted...

Said as if superdelegates have ever mattered.

Superdelegates matter optically and have the potential to matter electorally.

The fact that the superdelegates nigh unanimously endorsed Hillary before the 2016 primary even started heavily discouraged other Democrats from entering the race. Media outlets often counted superdelegate endorsements alongside official state delegate counts, making Hillary's momentum look greater than it actually was. And ultimately the Associated Press called the race for Hillary before she earned an actual total majority of available state delegates, simply because when counting SDs she did reach a total majority of all available delegates.

In 2020 their role was different. Superdelegates were forced to vote alongside their states on the first DNC ballot. Surely that solved the problem? Well not entirely, since SDs were still free to vote for whoever they wanted if the race went to a second ballot. So the media got to fearmonger a scenario where someone like Bernie might go into the DNC having won the most delegates, but not a majority, and fail to win the nomination on the first ballot... only for all the SDs to switch to a less popular candidate on the second ballot, propelling them to the nomination instead of Bernie, and basically crashing the party because Bernie's supporters would feel robbed and go scorched earth against the Dems. In an era focused on uniting the party and beating Trump, just that possibility alone would heavily discourage a neutral voter from supporting Bernie at all.

Their whole existence is toxic and needs to go.

K181 posted...

My attitude is that every election should have primaries cycled in advance to have a state from each region vote simultaneously.

Have a Midwestern, Northeastern, Southern, and Western state or two vote each week, and have the orders set by lottery 4 years in advance so that everybody knows the order well before campaigns begin. That way, no individual state or region is advantaged, as all areas have elections throughout the campaign and no states are consistently favored.

That's what I was thinking too. Maybe even just pic a few states to go the same day at random and build out the entire primary process that way.

Inohira posted...

Superdelegates matter optically and have the potential to matter electorally.

The fact that the superdelegates nigh unanimously endorsed Hillary before the 2016 primary even started heavily discouraged other Democrats from entering the race. Media outlets often counted superdelegate endorsements alongside official state delegate counts, making Hillary's momentum look greater than it actually was. And ultimately the Associated Press called the race for Hillary before she earned an actual total majority of available state delegates, simply because when counting SDs she did reach a total majority of all available delegates.

In 2020 their role was different. Superdelegates were forced to vote alongside their states on the first DNC ballot. Surely that solved the problem? Well not entirely, since SDs were still free to vote for whoever they wanted if the race went to a second ballot. So the media got to fearmonger a scenario where someone like Bernie might go into the DNC having won the most delegates, but not a majority, and fail to win the nomination on the first ballot... only for all the SDs to switch to a less popular candidate on the second ballot, propelling them to the nomination instead of Bernie, and basically crashing the party because Bernie's supporters would feel robbed and go scorched earth against thr Dems. In an era focused on uniting the party and beating Trump, just that possibility alone would heavily discourage a neutral voter from supporting Bernie at all.

Their whole existence is toxic and needs to go.

It sounds like your issue is the media coverage of super delegates and not the super delegates themselves.

Unknown5uspect posted...

It sounds like your issue is the media coverage of super delegates and not the super delegates themselves.

No, it actually sounds like he's mad Bernie wasn't undeservedly handed the nomination twice.

Unknown5uspect posted...

It sounds like your issue is the media coverage of super delegates and not the super delegates themselves.

I certainly draw issue with superdelegates stating their convention intentions before anyone's even properly voted. That sends voters the message of, "us leaders are pledging our points to this candidate and you're defying harmony and order if you support someone else."

But that aside there shouldn't be any potential anti-democratic element of the party for the media to sensationalize to begin with. Republicans have about 1/5th the amount of superdelegates and those SDs have no power whatsoever, being forced to vote alongside their states in all scenarios. Tiebreakers simply have to be decided some other way.

aarrgus posted...

No, it actually sounds like he's mad Bernie wasn't undeservedly handed the nomination twice.

Ignorant rebuttal, if I was mad that Bernie wasn't handed the nomination undemocratically then I would be saying that the superdelegates should've all voted for Bernie because he polled better for the general election than Hillary and outperformed Biden in the first three states in a row. But I didn't, because that's stupid logic on the level of team MAGA's.

Instead I just said superdelegates should either not exist or be deprived of all power like the GOP's.

Party fanboys can't help but project their partisanship onto others, though.

Unknown5uspect posted...

The fact that the superdelegates nigh unanimously endorsed Hillary before the 2016 primary even started heavily discouraged other Democrats from entering the race. Media outlets often counted superdelegate endorsements alongside official state delegate counts, making Hillary's momentum look greater than it actually was. And ultimately the Associated Press called the race for Hillary before she earned an actual total majority of available state delegates, simply because when counting SDs she did reach a total majority of all available delegates.

Lets discuss this for a minute...

So the AP called for Clinton yes.... but why don't we look at the pledged delegate total at the moment they made that call (June 6th):

Clinton 1812
Sanders 1524

At that moment, there was 715 pledged delegates remaining to be decided (4051-3336). If we assume that your preference is to ignore the superdelegates, then rightfully a candidate would need to get 50%+1 right? 2026.

Of the remaining pledged delegates, Clinton would have needed to win 214 of the remaining delegates. That's 30%. Bernie Sanders, would have had to win California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and the District of Columbia 71% to 29%. Sanders won exactly 4 states by similar margins, 3 being caucuses and the other his home state. He lost 5 of the last 7 states.

On March 15th of 2016 the math made it practically impossible for him to win. Not by superdelegates but by DELEGATES. He went from needing 55% to 58% to 60% to 70% of the remaining to win. And he quite simply was never going to consistently hit those numbers. The math said it was over.

the first states should be representative of the party. Otherwise people get shocked and bitter when the momentum inevitably shifts

aarrgus posted...

On March 15th of 2016 the math made it practically impossible for him to win. Not by superdelegates but by DELEGATES. He went from needing 55% to 58% to 60% to 70% of the remaining to win. And he quite simply was never going to consistently hit those numbers. The math said it was over.

That's besides the point. It was only ~100% impossible after California. AP could've easily just waited a day (assuming Hillary still beats Bernie in California) and instead of the statement being premature it'd have just been factual. But they made a hasty declaration based on technically unpledged superdelegates that potentially weakened Bernie's performance in the actual Californian vote (a theory supported by Hillary outperforming her polling in the state).

Even heavily liberal pro-Hillary MSNBC felt they unnecessarily muddled Hillary's historic victory: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/no-one-wanted-hillary-clinton-win-way-msna861381

It's all optical nonsense, Hillary was going to win the primary regardless, but without all the smoke and mirrors maybe people wouldn't have been so bitter about the primary they failed to back her up against Trump later. My suggestion at getting rid of the anti-democratic trolls is purely intended to help.

Inohira posted...

That's besides the point. It was only ~100% impossible after California. AP could've easily just waited a day (assuming Hillary still beats Bernie in California) and instead of the statement being premature it'd have just been factual. But they made a hasty declaration based on technically unpledged superdelegates that potentially weakened Bernie's performance in the actual Californian vote (a theory supported by Hillary outperforming her polling in the state).

No it isn't beside the point. The point is that responsible journalists should have called the race EARLIER than they did (late April when it became a mathematical joke, but it could have realistically be called earlier), and the existence of Superdelegates actually assisted Sanders in having both a gripe and a potential way to overtake Clinton.

The media fell all over themselves to continue to make the Clinton Sanders thing a race. Had it been a state on election night they would have looked at the projections, percentages, and remaining votes and called it much earlier. But instead the media completely ignored the math and kept portraying Sanders as having a path that he simply did not have.

All of this would be a moot point if primaries were held on the same day

Alchemist_Emil posted...

Biden shouldn't be on any ballot...

Your GOP heroes dont want there to be a ballot to begin with.

aarrgus posted...

No it isn't beside the point. The point is that responsible journalists should have called the race EARLIER than they did (late April when it became a mathematical joke, but it could have realistically be called earlier),

People go to the news for facts, not projections.

Political odds analysis is for outlets like 538.

aarrgus posted...

and the existence of Superdelegates actually assisted Sanders in having both a gripe and a potential way to overtake Clinton.

That's not a good thing, Bernie running a zombie campaign to the convention (just because technically all the SDs could switch to Bernie for no reason) probably hurt more than it helped. The dude also knew full well no SDs were switching, so the possibility was basically just a spiteful troll justification to keep the campaign open (and simultaneously indirectly boosted the GOP's propaganda against Hillary, since the only plausible scenario where the SDs might drop her was if the FBI actually indicted her for the emails).

And their use as a "gripe" doesn't help overall, most party voters don't like their candidates constantly complaining about the party. Endless complaint probably limited Bernie's ability to build a majority coalition.

Their potential use as a cover for childish behavior is another reason to get rid of them.

aarrgus posted...

Had it been a state on election night they would have looked at the projections, percentages, and remaining votes and called it much earlier.

Because election night isn't staggered. All the votes have already been cast before the reporting starts, so airing projections cannot influence the results. Whereas doing so in a primary can make them a self-fulfilling prophecy.

cjsdowg posted...

The reason they are not on the same day in this day and age is because campaigns can't manage that.

Basically this. Each party can afford to have two or three candidates running national campaigns, but not 14. Running staggered primaries allows for the people with no real chance of winning to face facts and drop out early, concentrating funding on the candidates with a legitimate chance of winning.

A secondary, less savory consideration is that losing candidates often negotiate with better performing candidates as to when and how to drop out, i.e. agreeing to support the winning candidate in return for a cabinet position.

Heineken14 posted...

Lol, so fucking stupid. So what happens if/when another state make a state law that mandates THEY host the nation's first primary.

Presumably the Supreme Court rules on it, as it would involve state governments suing each other.

CoyoteTheGreat posted...

No state that doesn't actually vote for democrats in the election should go first in the primary.

Operating on the assumption that all states will have both/all primaries on the same day, it makes more sense that the party with an open primary (in this case Republicans) would be a better option for the first primary. That would of course require which state is first to change between elections, as having a Democratic state go first would have made sense in 2020 when Republicans had a sitting president.

No sitting president has lost his party's nomination in the last 140 years. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but it's really fucking unlikely.

In the event of a sitting president terming out, pick the state with the closest popular vote from the previous election to go first - the purpleist of purple states, so to speak.

I think it would be fair to put state names in a hat and draw a random order every time.

But I can see why the establishment would be against this, it can lead to unforeseen advantages/disadvantages for some candidates.

I think the real issue here is who calls it N. Hampshire?

Just say NH or write New. "New" is just one more character than "N.". Also it's not like a Dakota or Carolina or Virginia where you have to specify which Hampshire it is.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Anti Hampshire. God help us if they ever collide.

Master_Kazuya posted...

I think the real issue here is who calls it N. Hampshire?

Just say NH or write New. "New" is just one more character than "N.". Also it's not like a Dakota or Carolina or Virginia where you have to specify which Hampshire it is.

It's like saying L. Angeles

Topic title limits. I ran out of letters and needed to cut some, hence why there's also no period for the sentence. Granted I could've just used "boycots" instead of "boycotting" and would've then been able to fully type out "New" and add the period, but I didn't think that far at the time. >_>