SC votes Republican because of its white voters, so I don't see how dismissing their role in Democratic primaries because they vote Republican in general elections, isn't doing exactly that.

Plus, California is possibly the most reliably Democratic state in the country. Their voters aren't the ones that we need to win to be competitive at the national level.

The republican party is La Raza for whites. It is built on white identity politics. The democratic party is the negation of that. What really makes no sense is holding early primaries in the states with the lowest minority %s. Iowa is the 5th most white at 87%. New Hampshire is 4th at 91%. Most of the field is eliminated before non-whites have any say.

The order should be something like Maryland, New Mexico, Hawaii, Georgia, Nevada. Starting with small states reduces the cost of entry. But the field of candidates should be working to figure out how to get black, hispanic, asian votes. Every county commissioner in Iowa has been courted endlessly by candidates for president, but it's possible to get the democratic nomination without engaging directly with non-whites. That's bad. We already have segregated schools, segregated housing. Desegregate the campaigning for president.

http://www.governing.com/topics/urba...in-states.html

I'm dismissing their role in Democratic primaries because South Carolina doesn't actually have a very large number of Democratic voters. Any argument about underrepresented voters applies just as well to California.

By the same logic, it's bat**** to give outsized consideration to any state in the South besides Florida.

Good post. (also good point mentioning Georgia, only 51-46 last November)

Weird, since you have no problem bringing in right wing hyperbole into any issue. E.g. Hillary's mails.

The interesting part of SC is the Democratic primary electorate is heavily Black. That's their representation in the early primaries.

It also had more voters in 2016 than the three primaries that preceded it.

I have argued against conservative ideas before and will do so again, but you just don't see too many of them here. A single conservative post on the Politics forum immediately gets drowned out by dozens of posts filled with name calling and insults. By the time I arrive, the poster is either no longer participating or is banned. But then, I suppose that's the strategy.

Don't you find it a bit odd that there aren't more conservative posters here? I mean, I'd expect a well educated population to "lean" left, but simple probabilities dictate there should be many more conservative opinions than can be found on 2p2 Politics.

Not really. chez gave them a forum to post in and Mat shut it down for being virulently racist, which is the reason why they weren't allowed here to begin with.

lol *I* engaged in hyperbole. I simply mentioned that Sanders could've taken a lot more advantage of her Achilles heel than he did.

But only total idiots on the right believed the email bull****. He wasn't trying to convince them.

You say that like it's a bad thing. "Conservative" as defined by americans is a complete joke of an ideology. It has no principles other than getting liberals mad and excusing racism (the grunts) and getting tax cuts for the rich (the elites). This isn't some balanced debate where all sides are equal. Adding a "conservative" "viewpoint" to any debate is a net negative. The scope of reasonable debate in a civilised society is between the american centre left (right wing) and the american far left (left wing)

Why didn't Bernie bring up Benghazi more guys?!

Well, you called media reports on Donald Sterling being a racist ******* a lynching, so, uh, yes, physician, heal thyself.

Is that what happened? I ventured over there a couple of times and wondered why so many conservative talking points were being bandied about. When you say virulently racist, do you mean like something Morgan Freeman would say?
Or do you mean virulently racist in the literal sense? I can't imagine that Chez wouldn't have immediately perma-banned someone who was a virulent racist.

lol of course you can't.

As in reciting discredited ideas about race, cranial sizes, certain races' propensity towards violence, the usual blaming of all ills on the welfare state, etc.

Yes they were pretty racist.

The final straw was Wil and his band of deplorables spreading Nazi propaganda regarding the Charlottesville murder. Specifically, the idea that (((George Soros))) should be investigated and possibly imprisoned because the deplorables were suspicioius that (((Soros))) was sending liberals to impersonate Nazis to agitate and make the right look bad.

All while trying to apologize for the actual Nazi who murdered Heather by looking for any possible way to blame the protesters for provoking the Nazi murderer to run over them.

Some really dark, twisted and sick ****.

Why are you telling that to Lestat like he'll be convinced? He doesn't care, he thinks there's good reasons one might do that without having an inner heart that hates black people.

Here we go again. I can't believe you're not as sick of this as I am by now.

1. I first questioned the ethics of making public what was supposed to be a private phone call. Call me silly, but I take privacy issues seriously. If your girlfriend or any friend, uses subterfuge to let you believe you're on a private call and then takes it public, I think that's an egregious betrayal of trust. Law enforcement needs a warrant for something like that. That comes before anything else to me, even if he told her he murdered someone.

2. I don't like trail by media. I didn't like it in the Joe Paterno case (does that make me a pedophile?), and I didn't like it here. Even though it's 99% certain that Paterno knew what was going on, I think he had a right to his day in court, or at least get his side out, before everyone piled on. That said, I came around to the fact that once the Sterling tape was made public, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. It was racist. It was offensive. And the NBA had every right to take away his ownership. Just as I'm sure that even if Paterno ever did have his say, he'd still have wound up behind bars as he should have.

this site is now overrun with liberal younger people. that is the way of the world tho. when people are young they tend to lean to the left. no problem there. but as they get older they tend to turn more conservitve due to other things. as a proof i suggest that in the 60's the young people tended to lean further left than the young of today. hippies, draft dodgers etc. were probably pretty liberal thinking. now these hippies of the 60's are the elderly of the times now. and they are being classified as the old white racists of this time. that is the biggest problem with the democratic party. you see it is like thatcher said, sooner or later somebody elses money runs out and then it is your turn to be the donater. then these liberals decide it is time to get a little more consevitave,as i have stated before the state of massachusetts is a prime example. it has democratic govenors until the bough breaks and then brings in a republican to clean the mess up.

Hates trial by media.




All aboard with blackballing Kaepernick.

Trump dodged the draft so thats ok now as a conservative position.

yes my point exactly. young trump was a democrat and now old trump is a republican

I'm sure Bernie and Hillary will be Republicans any day now.

Emails were a right wing fishing expedition to nail hillary on anything that would stick, even though nothing ever did. But here you are telling that a much better candidate that either clinton or trump, coulda/woulda/shoulda used the opportunity to hit her harder. Which by the way bernie's supporters most certainly did. I lost a lot of respect for tyt during the primaries.