Red states should not be considered "wins" in the primaries

[SoLeftIAmRight]

it is stupid to let states that we will not win in the general hold sway in the primaries

[rjsquirrel]

1. Good thing

you aren't in charge then.

What, the democrats living in those states don't count?

Divide and lose.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

3. not in the gereral - when did SC last vote blue???

i have not looked it up

no - you do not count in the general - sad fact -

[stone space]

15. This is directed at Sourh Carolina? Oh, good grief!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

17. Bama Tenn Texas? all the red states - How a Dem does in the red states

does not help in the general

[stone space]

19. OK, I'm out. If anybody asks, the alerter was me. (nt)

[demwing]

25. 1976

for their neighbor Carter

[rbrnmw]

30. There are a lot good people in SC

I guess you have never been there. Their is diversity in SC it's my second home. It's so nice of you to imply that SC doesn't count. I am sure Jim Clyburn would strongly disagree. I am probably going down there to help canvass, then come back to Ohio and do the same thing. Does Ohio count?

[rjsquirrel]

52. This is a primary

You suggest we abandon our comrades in red states?

Or could it be that you don't like the odds in SC for your guy?

Nah, that's not it right?

[hrmjustin]

2. I guess you don't believe in Democracy.

Unrec!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

5. do you understand that solid red state voters do NOTHING for us in the general

it is a sad FACT

[hrmjustin]

10. Clearly you fail to realize red state Democrats count as well.

Or you just don't care about them.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

12. care about them???

it is simply a sad fact - They do nothing for us in the general

[hrmjustin]

16. Who the hell are you to say they do nothing for us?

They donate, they phonebank, they work for ocal candidates, and they travel to swing states to campaign for the nominee.

You should stop while your behind now.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

20. no -

The swing states are the key - Clinton or Sanders must win there

How they do in SC Alabama Texas ... red states is no help in the general

[tazkcmo]

29. Your arguement holds true

for the GOP in blues states. I suppose you then support denying Republican voters any say in selecting their nominee if they live in New York or California or any other solidly blue state?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

32. it is not about denying voters

just a fact

A Clinton or sanders win in swing states is more important that a win in a blue or red state

california is just as "nothing" as SC

[tazkcmo]

35. Your OP is about denying voters.

Importance is a different matter. I think we'd all agree that swing states are more important but that doesn't lead to your call for denying them the right to participate in the nominating process which you've clearly called for.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

38. no no no - I just point out that I do not see..

the SC vote as important in the whole picture -

I am talking about perception not fact

[tazkcmo]

43. Then maybe you need to edit.

"it is stupid to let states that we will not win in the general hold sway in the primaries"

I read this, as do most other respondents, as "Don't let them participate in the nominating process."

[hrmjustin]

49. Why do you want to disenfranchise these voters? To boost Sanders?

That is low!

[Travis_0004]

59. By that token, what do blue states do?

Lets not let California have a primary. The state will go blue regardless of who runs.

Lets only have the swing states vote in the primary? Right???????

[thesquanderer]

18. Two things. First, it doesn't matter if those states don't help in the general...

...because a Democrat is still likely to win in the general, and that Democrat will be the president of the people in South Carolina as much as anywhere else, so for that reason alone, the Dems in that state deserve a voice in selecting who is likely to be their next President, even if their state doesn't provide that president with their electoral votes.

Second, take nothing for granted. In 1972 49 of the 50 states voted for the same party in the general. Times change. Even if you assume SC won't vote blue this November, you have to allow for the fact that, eventually, they might. If you disenfranchise before that can possibly happen, well, it will almost certainly never happen.

Okay, one more thing... realistically (and I believe constituitionally) there needs to be *some* mechanism by which the state assigns its delegates. If there were no primary in SC, the state's delegates would be selected some other way, presumably by party bosses. How is that better than giving the people a voice? Though I suppose, if you're a Clinton fan, that would pretty much assure she would get 100% of the delegates, as opposed to the proportionate share she will get in a primary.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

28. all i am saying is

a strong showing in Ohio - is better than a strong showing in a solid red state

[thesquanderer]

40. Ah, I agree with you on that. (n/t)

[stone space]

4. That's silly. Democrats in those states deserve a voice.

We're talking about a Presidential campaign here, and that President will represent the people in all states.

Just because Democrats are outnumbered in some state doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a voice in selecting the Democratic nominee.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

8. sad fact

red state voters do NOTHING to help in the general

FACT - I do not like it - it is just true

[stone space]

13. So cut the Democrats in those state off, and let them fend for themselves.

Just tell them to go and create their own Third Party?

Is that the plan?

Because I'm having trouble seeing your endgame here.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

14. i do not like this fact

the south will not help us win in the general - why let them pick our candidate

[tazkcmo]

22. So what would you do?

And how would it help to expand the Democratic party in these red states?

[rbrnmw]

39. Bless your heart

You probably really don't know the good people in SC, I am sure they like not counting in your eyes. Have a good day!

[SoLeftIAmRight]

41. I feel the same about California

IT IS THE SWING STATES -

WHO CAN WIN the swing states

[rbrnmw]

55. Ohio will probably go to Hillary

but I like canvassing and driving people to the polls. I drive all candidates supporters. The main thing is, that they vote.

[demwing]

33. No that would be silly

Instead, lets have a shortened campaign system -

6 months of debates and forums (1 of each, every month) and a single primary month of voting for all states. Vote any time within the month, no results released till the EOM.

That way, no state is more important than any other state.

[Agschmid]

6. Yah fuck the democrats who live in red states, who cares about those idiots...

Really?

[cali]

7. Oh boy. It burns

[PowerToThePeople]

9. Conservative states select conservative Dems

And a real Republican will beat them almost every time in the general.

[tazkcmo]

24. That may or may not be true.

I don't know. Apparently you do though so how about the links showing all the conservatives red state Dems have nominated? Denying them a voice in the primaries isn't consistent with American values or the spirit of the Constitution.

[PowerToThePeople]

27. I do not agree with denying them a voice.

Do you really need me to track down a list for you? Prime examples in Florida and Louisiana, for starters.

[tazkcmo]

31. Yes, I do.

You made a claim now I'd like you to provide proof of your claim so as to maintain your credibility. Of course, you're free to continue to make claims w/o evidence but then it's just an opinion that's easily countered by another opinion.

[PowerToThePeople]

37. Ok, here is a start

Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri (1985–1986)
Gov. Chuck Robb of Virginia (1986–1988)
Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia (1988–1990)
Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas (1990–1991)
Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana (1991–1993)
Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma (1993–1995)
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (1995–2001)
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana (2001–2005)
Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa (2005–2007)
Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee (2007–2011)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

[SoLeftIAmRight]

36. denying them a voice.

California will go blue - SC will go red

The swing state support for Clinton or Sanders is the key fact

[MineralMan]

11. There are Democrats in every state, and they have

the right to vote in the primaries for the candidate they prefer. What you suggest amounts to disenfranchisement for those Democratic voters. How does that make sense in any way?

I suppose you aren't thinking this through completely. This is the United States, not the Democratic States or the Republican States. In this country, everyone gets to vote, and their votes are counted.

Please consider this more carefully.

[tazkcmo]

21. Finally!

An OP that unites us! You are entitled to your opinion as are the rest of us. I'll go out on a limb here and say democracy is valued in all 3 of the Democratic campaigns and none of them are willing to deny American citizens the Right to vote on who the Democratic nominee is no matter where these Democrats may live.

[rbrnmw]

57. yes it's nice

[redstateblues]

23. Stupid post

[sufrommich]

26. That would effectively silence the minority vote.

Or was that your point?

[Ford_Prefect]

34. Stupid is as Stupid does. The last Democrat to apply a less than 50 state strategy lost!

I have been a democrat all my life no matter where I lived and voted. Some of my family live in Red states that were not always red. As a Democrat and a citizen my vote is supposed to matter to the Party. If you contend that it does not, then you are accomplishing what the Republicans and DWS and the DNC cannot yet do-completely nullifying my vote.

Such a short sighted strategy would have less than 1/4 of the party decide who we may vote for not only in the presidential campaign but the party platform, House and Senate and local legislature as well. If you do not see this then think again about what the republicans have been saying for decades about who the Democrats are: a political and intellectual elite who do not represent the majority of voters or their interests. Limiting the primaries to only those states that are dominated by Democratic majorities creates that bias in reality.

Thanks so much for your kind concern for the rest of us Democrats.

[HereSince1628]

42. Some of the good things about those early little influential often red states are

that they are early, and have less sway in delegate counts, and are great places for small-challenger campaigns to get organized, test their message, and gain some traction for primary dates that make really big differences.

If it wasn't for that sort of a start to the primary season candidate and issue selection for the GE would be completely dominated by the party establishment.

Hurrah! for those little meaningless states with their habit of giving too much relevance to other people's candidates!

[Thinkingabout]

44. Maybe you are only looking at a few years of elections

The south was Democratic for many years, it just may be again, as a Democrat voting in a southern state I still have the right to vote and to voice my opinion. If you start to exclude certain groups this would be following the GOP lead on voter suppression.
As a Sanders supporter would you like to have his supporters omitted in the primaries because his agenda does not win? Sounding like voter suppression. Maybe we should just allow the super delegates decide the nominee.

[underpants]

45. The primaries reflect Democratic voters

Being in a red state doesn't make your vote count less.

[MuseRider]

46. LOL

I vote in every election, would be nice not to have to worry my little head about who runs our country just because I choose to live in the place of my ancestors. I am not willing to move just because you think I should in order to vote. Signed a Free State daughter in red state Kansas.

Bite me.

[dsc]

47. gee almost like you don't want black folk to have a voice

hardly a coincidence that it is the first black dominated state and you don't want it to count.

[rjsquirrel]

54. Yes isn't that interesting?

Just a coincidence that many black voters live in those useless states and just a coincidence that Hillary leads in those states?

I love Bernie. Some of his supporters make me wonder what they have in mind for the future though. We need *massive* turnout nationwide to beat a facist right. This was the brilliance of the 50 state strategy. We abandon it at our peril.

Whoever wins the primary on our side is going to need every single vote everywhere.

[R B Garr]

48. Yes, only states that will sufficiently coddle Bernie matter.

No other states should be counted except those states. LOL,

[ShrimpPoboy]

50. I get the logic

But this is a national party. Excluding half of it in the selection of its most important nomination will never and shpuld never happen.

[unapatriciated]

51. maybe our votes won't carry a win in a red state for the GE

but I'm still going to vote.

[delrem]

53. Nice way to ensure that any state that goes red, stays red.

You're quite some strategist.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

56. Wait, I thought Bernie.....

.....was wooing all the hard right teabaggers and winning them over? So much so they want open primaries to vote for him.....or are we changing that narrative now?

[mythology]

58. I need both more faces and more palms to properly face palm this

This is a horrible idea.

[onenote]

60. The Delegate allocation formula effectively does weight "bluer" state more than "red" states

So you really don't have anything to complain about.