What bothers me about South Carolina is Biden was ahead by double digits, and then suddenly it is

[still_one]

neck and neck between him and Bernie

That makes no sense because of their differences on the issues

The only thing that makes sense is because South Carolina is an Open Primary, are republicans voting in the Democratic Primary?

What is to stop things like that happening in other open primary states?

If that is happening, and I say IF, then the Democratic primary is essentially over

My question is, does the Democratic party in a state determine if non-Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary, or is that decided by the states legislature?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Makes a lot of sense if you look @Bernie's aggressive progressive agenda focused on the workin class

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

[Devil Child]

5. That's a bingo! N/T

[tirebiter]

122. The tea party is progressive?

It”s an open primary and the Tea Party is voting for Bernie to make things easier for Trump. Something they leaned from the Russians, evidently.

[still_one]

9. I wonder if they have the stats on how many registered republicans are voting in the Democratic

Primary in South Carolina.

If it is not very many then you might have a point

[orwellsighs]

49. There will not be any such stats.

There’s no party registration in South Carolina.

[still_one]

55. Interesting. Thanks for that information. I know South Carolina cancelled their republican

presidential primary, but I would assume a South Carolinian can only vote in either the Democratic primary or the Republican Primary, but not both. Correct?

[orwellsighs]

66. Correct.

When you check in at your polling place you ask for a Democratic or Republican ballot.

Like you, I would love to know how many R’s will be voting in our primary. Kinda sucks!

[jcmaine72]

116. Spot on!

[Autumn]

141. That his support from blacks and latinos has risen has South Carolinians giving him another look.

They like what they are seeing.

[NY06DemSoc]

156. And with good reason.

[link:

|

[ProfessorPlum]

144. great post

I can't understand all of the head-scratching at DU where if you offer working people a reason to go to the polls, working people (of whom there are a lot) vote for you.

[Devil Child]

2. What makes sense is that Sen. Sanders is resonating with voters

Who see him as a viable candidate to defeat Trump. I see no grand conspiracy afoot.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Yup, they see Bernie as inevitable... soon Bernie's fellow Democrats will too!!

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

[msongs]

14. bernie by definition cannot have "fellow democrats" nt

[still_one]

11. Of course you don't, seeing who your candidate preference is says quite a lot

[Devil Child]

25. Nothing I haven't heard before and my preferred candidate has same number of victories as yours

Says quite a lot I’d say. The difference as I see it if Sen. Sanders becomes the nominee I’ll be celebrating quite happily.

[still_one]

31. I will definitely vote for Sanders if he is the nominee without hesitation. Incidently, my

preferred candidate has some delegates, how many does yours have?

[Devil Child]

36. Zero, and probably will remain that way

I’ll still sleep soundly at night and life will go on! I can only control my own vote and nothing else.

[still_one]

50. Same here, but I have to wonder out of curiosity why you wouldn't just support Bernie or Warren for

that matter, especially Sanders, because he is most likely going to be the Democratic nominee?

Gabbard has no chance

and republicans voting in the SC Democratic primary isn't some conspiracy theory that I just made up, it was discussed in a New Yorker article

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/the-party-raiders-of-south-carolina

[Devil Child]

58. I do support Warren and Sanders, supported Yang too

By support I mean donations. Even sent some cash to Biden. I support many of the candidates that are running except for Bloomberg. I can only vote for one and I always use my primary vote to vote my preferred candidate not who I think will win the primary.

[2naSalit]

68. And an interview with one of the head instigators of this move

they intend to disrupt all primaries as much as they can. They aren't hiding it.

Probably one of the reasons the RNC decided not to have primaries this year..?

If we're they only ones holding primaries, it's more fun for the miscreant class to go vote just to fuck over people they don't like. It's a lot more motivation for that sort.

I'm going to rely on the convention where every body is in the same room. This is going to be a 1st order catastophuck to the end, they have already promised that it will be so we have to figure out how to outsmart them.

[still_one]

70. The New Yorker had an article on this. Thanks 2naSalit

[2naSalit]

71. I heard it on NPR this evening.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/23/808681569/south-carolina-primary-lookahead

[JustAnotherGen]

150. +1

[rzemanfl]

52. Could it be perspective? n/t

[sheshe2]

82. ...

[pnwmom]

102. A Tulsi supporter sees no conspiracy afoot.

Okie dokie.

[enid602]

114. Jill

I wonder how Jill Stein might weigh in on this one.

[pnwmom]

115. LOL. nt

[Devil Child]

161. You can always send her one of them Twitter messages

Take your question straight to the source.

[Devil Child]

160. Another post noting who I support in the Primary!

It’s not like it’s a big conspiracy who I support considering I’ve made use of the “who do you support” forum feature. It’s pretty cool. Okie dokie?

[Kurt V.]

3. We could have fixed this decades ago. but there is no centralized leadership outside of

Fundraising.

[still_one]

16. I agree, whether that is the situation here or not, it is still bad policy to have open primaries

[thesquanderer]

26. There are pros and cons to it. (n/t)

[still_one]

34. As far as I am concerned there are no pros to open primaries, because it allows non-Democrats to

determine who the Democratic nominee is

Why should non-Democrats be allowed to do that?

Why have political parties in that case?

[thesquanderer]

40. Imagine a non-Dem who really doesn't like Trump. S/he has motivation...

...to vote for his/her favorite candidate in our primary, hoping to be able to vote for that person in November.

Since non-Dems who dislike Trump is part of who we need to appeal to in November, there is some advantage to having those people help determine who we put up... because in fact there is an advantage to putting up a candidate who appeals to them.

It's not cut and dried.

[still_one]

69. Its cut and dried for me. I don't want non-Democrats choosing who the Democratic nominee is. If

person doesn't like trump, and doesn't want to be a Democrat, then that is what general elections are for

[thesquanderer]

95. But we win by having a candidate those people like. Always a double-edged sword. n/t

[Cha]

117. It's Not the Will of the Democrats.. it's the Will of

Operation Chaos.. and of course BS supporters see no problem with this

[Celerity]

88. semi-closed primaries are the best way to go for a fair balance

They allow indies to vote but not members of the other party in most states. I would also suggest that they make a party switcher (not a non affiliated) switch LONG before the primaries, to avoid Rethugs gatecrashing ours. I also would add a proviso, perhaps, that IF you voted in one party's primary for POTUS, that is the ONLY party you can vote for in terms of the POTUS general election later in the year. I do not think that would pass muster though.

[still_one]

92. I disagree. That is California. The California Democratic Party has no problem with people who

don’t want to identity as Democrats, “no party preference” to vote in their primaries. The California Republican Party requires you be a registered republican to vote in their primary

People who don’t want to register as Democrats do not want to be Democrats. It is unfair to those of us who are registered Democrats

[Celerity]

98. I disagree, and I am a California registered overseas voter.

Independents need to have a stake in the primary, as they make up a huge percentage of the national vote and to alienate them is court disaster, especially in swing states. There are more NPP voters in California now than there are registered Republicans. I am open to whatever mechanism can be put into place that blocks actual Rethugs from voting in our primaries though. I do dislike our jungle primary system for non POTUS offices as well.

[still_one]

100. We will never agree on this. As to you view that you want something in place that blocks actual

rethugs from voting in our primaries, Newsom just made it easier by allowing anyone to change their voter registration through election day, to vote on election day, and then change that registration back to whatever after that vote. That will be effective this Super Tuesday

We are definitely in agreement on the jungle primary system though. The political party should choose its preferred candidate against the opposing political party choosing its preferred candidate, who will then run against each other in the general election

[thesquanderer]

96. re:IF you voted in one party's primary for POTUS, that is the ONLY party you can vote for {for pres}

Nah. First, your November presidential vote is supposed to be private, so nobody would know, there's be no way to tell anyway. Second, it is perfectly valid to not want to vote for the same party's candidate in November. You could have crossed to the other party to vote for the person you most liked and really hoped to vote for in November, but that person didn't win that party's nomination, and you prefer your original party's nominee to the nominee the other party ultimately settled on. Basically, you don't want anyone's primary vote to essentially cost someone their general election vote.

[Celerity]

99. that is a valid argument (although I did say that it would only effect POTUS, and that would entail

2 ballots for the general, one only for POTUS, and then one for all the rest.)

[still_one]

106. Not easy to explain, but I agree

[cannabis_flower]

131. It certainly wouldn't pass muster..

Let's do a hypothetical here. If I'm an independent and I vote in the Democratic primary for POTUS and then something terrible comes out about that candidate I shouldn't be compelled to vote only for him. Suppose the candidate was a child molester or something just as terrible. Not saying any of our candidates are, but what if. What if they shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue!

[Celerity]

140. True. It was the first time I ever attempted to add something like that.

Trial balloon went down in flames.

[rownesheck]

124. Open primaries are stupid.

Today's republican party is made up exclusively of trolls. I would guess that none of them are voting for someone whom they would like to vote for against trump. They are all being bags of dipshits and trying to fuck with us. Hopefully, it'll end up biting them in their sorry asses and they get crushed in November.

Also, if someone wants to vote in a certain primary, they need to join that fuckin party. Pick a side!!!!

[jimfields33]

89. California just did this a few months ago and it's one of the most Democratic

States in the country. Why? I am clueless as to why any state would.

[still_one]

107. I am not following. California has semi-open primaries which have been in place for some time now

The California Democratic Party allows someone registered as No Party Preference, to vote in the Democratic Primary

[sheshe2]

84. Yes we could have.

However every time we take power we have to first clean up after them. Massive clean up like Obama had to do. We were on the brink of a Depression.

[mercuryblues]

4. open primaries

rat fucking

https://thehill.com/homenews/481489-republicans-urging-gop-voters-to-vote-for-sanders-in-south-carolina-primary-report

The plan — orchestrated by Greenville GOP chairman Nate Leupp and several other prominent Republican Party leaders — revolves around GOP leadership's belief that Sanders poses the least amount of challenge to President Trump in November's general election and its goal of getting the Palmetto State's Democratic lawmakers to agree to close the state's primaries.

“Bernie Sanders is the most socialistic, liberal candidate running in the Democratic presidential preference primary,” Leupp told The Post and Courier. “So we feel we can make a strong point that our Democratic state legislators need to help work to close our primaries so it protects them as well as the Republican brand.”

South Carolina has open primaries, meaning voters don't have to be associated with a political party to cast a ballot.
According to the paper, Leupp and company are set to unveil their plan on Thursday at a press conference at the GOP's headquarters in Greenville.

[delisen]

15. Yes this is one of the organized Republican operations to vote Bernie in SC primary

[DemocracyMouse]

46. Bernie is, according to polls not whims, the most electable Dem. So there's that.

[mercuryblues]

73. The GOP is not holding a presidential primary in SC this year

[sheshe2]

87. No.

With all the fuckery going on I most certainly do not believe the polls. Russia.

[krny9]

54. Yes, it all sounds logical

until the orange Fuhrer loses to Bernie in November. Then there will be tears and recriminations a plenty. The useful idiots and their pathetic evil plans ...

[counting]

6. tom steyers happens

https://www.fitsnews.com/2020/02/18/south-carolina-presidential-primary-is-the-black-vote-for-sale/

[still_one]

18. I think Steyer is hurting Warren more than Biden, and while Bloomberg isn't running in SC, he is

definitely hurting Biden more from the Amy, Pete, Biden block

[counting]

23. maybe in nv

but in sc, steyer is hurting biden more.

[still_one]

59. interesting

[Laelth]

35. Precisely.

Steyer is making a serious play for SC, and it's hurting Biden. Add that to all the Republicans voting for Sanders, and Joe is in real trouble in a state that he must win. It's ugly, but it is what it is.



-Laelth

[brooklynite]

7. What does that have to do with polling results?

[Voltaire2]

8. You are setting yourself up to believe that

the results are invalid. Don’t do that.

[sheshe2]

12. The mysterious surge.

Happened about a month ago. Couple that with Russia...a month ago.

[emmaverybo]

37. What a coincidence.

[sheshe2]

47. Ummhmm.

It was, wasn't it.

[uponit7771]

64. +1, ssssshhhhhh ... you're not supposed to speak of those facts / sarc

[sheshe2]

80. sssssssssssssssssssssshhh

[still_one]

72. There are a lot of confusing things going on. For one thing the South Carolina republican party

cancelled their presidential primary.

Another thing is in South Carolina you don't register by party:

" South Carolina does not have registration by party. In primaries, you can vote in only one party's primary."


https://www.scvotes.org/south-carolina-voter-registration-information

Lot of things going on in South Carolina sheshe

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/the-party-raiders-of-south-carolina

[sheshe2]

81. There is fuckery happening.

Sigh.

[still_one]

86. I think so, or definitely the potential for something nefarious to occur

[sheshe2]

90. Oh, it is indeed nefarious.

Every GOPER in House and Senate stand with Putin. They have made that perfectly clear. Their constituents will stand with them.

All trump loyalists.

[Corgigal]

109. I moved out of S.C. a few years back,

all of the above, thank you.

[pandr32]

151. It has turned into a sh*t show

The whole primary. Way too many to start out and then the rat f*cking attempt of Biden revealed during the Impeachment. His polls dropped a little but he still looked solid. Then the caucuses started and Bernie is all over the media. Biden suddenly finds himself hanging by a thread almost overnight.
We know that Russia wants DT to win. He has served up their agenda according to plan and they are very pleased.

[TwilightZone]

13. Steyer.

I think he's pulling a lot of support from Biden in SC.

I don't think the problem with Biden's polling is necessarily related to open primaries. Aren't they only polling Dems and Dem-leaning Is? If so, the reverse would be more likely to be true - the actual results wouldn't reflect the polls because of Rs voting in the primary. Those Rs shouldn't be reflected in the polls, though I could be wrong.

[still_one]

28. This is the criteria from the CBS poll.

This CBS News survey is conducted by YouGov between February 20-22, 2020. A representative sample of 2,000 registered voters in South Carolina was selected, including 1,238 self-identified Democrats, as well as independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary this year. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race and education based upon voter registration lists and the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, as well as the 2016 presidential vote. The margin of error is approximately 5.5 points.

It isn't clear if the independents are Democratic leaning or not?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1af1YadukuDouIbnoGHCAkIDgaRAXjr8M/view

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-primary-polls-2020-biden-sanders-steyer-democrats-cbs-news/

[TwilightZone]

33. If they're planning to vote in the D primary, then they're Dem-leaning

pretty much by definition.

I know that Rs talk about screwing with the primary system, but I wonder how much it happens in reality. As I recall, in 2016 the only place where there was a significant crossover was WV and that was anticipated well ahead of time because of the screwy demographics of the state, plus Manchin.

Not saying it doesn't happen, or even often, but I'd be curious to see how polls that don't include Rs match up with actual results over time. I don't recall seeing anything definitive.

[still_one]

45. I am going by what the New Yorker has discussed, calling it Operation Chaos.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/the-party-raiders-of-south-carolina

That, and the fact that the South Carolina republican party has cancelled the republican primary in that state, might be a motivating factor for them to vote in the Democratic primary

Here are the states that have cancelled the republican primary:

Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and Virginia.

[jmg257]

17. Pssst.. there are only polls in SC, no results on the early voting

have been released.

But repubs are indeed voting for Sanders.

Wilson, a self-identified Republican, cast her vote for Bernie Sanders. She said she is tired of Democrats voting in Republican elections and thinks if voters such as herself can alter the Democratic primary's results that perhaps the party will close future primaries in the state.

"I feel like it’s important in general for young people to vote," Wilson said. "I want to keep the White House red. I voted for Bernie one, because he’s independent, and I didn’t want to line myself with the Democratic Party. Two, we decided to go out and vote as Republicans for Bernie. If we go out and vote for him, it might encourage the DNC to close the primary."

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/21/you-can-vote-now-what-you-need-know-democratic-presidential-primary/4829537002/

[Cal Carpenter]

19. It's not neck and neck, and Steyer seems to have gotten those voters, not Bernie

[George II]

20. republicans are spending millions to get republicans out to vote for Sanders. Why in God's name....

....do republicans want Sanders to win?

[Rilgin]

38. Please provide a Scintilla of proof of this claim of Millions of Dollars.

How are they spending Millions of Dollars to get republicans to vote for Sanders? And just giving a link to some republican troll saying on a free site or on air waves Republicans should vote for Sanders. Where do you find evidence for a specific claim of Millions of Dollars or do you want to retract that claim and change it.

[George II]

56. It's right here in this thread.

[Rilgin]

104. I looked in every post. Couldnt find any reference to Millions of Dollars. Please show me where.

There are a lot of allegations on this site that Republicans are urging republicans to vote for Bernie. I have seen no reference to your claim which was NOT that. You claimed they are spending Millions of Dollars. How? Are you saying they are spending millions of dollars on car pools. Are there TV ads costing Millions. Please refer me to your evidence of Millions of Dollars. I am curious where this comes from or did it just sound good to you. I am not asking you to reiterate claims of others that Republicans are voting in Democratic Primarys and caucuses. I am asking about your claim of Millions of Dollars.

[Voltaire2]

148. Good luck getting an actual answer.

[Laelth]

39. They think they can beat him.

That's all I've got.



-Laelth

[still_one]

57. Thanks George. This was discussed in a newyorker article

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/the-party-raiders-of-south-carolina

[George II]

60. It's been all over the place for at least a week.

[still_one]

63. To make matters even more convoluted I just found out that South Carolina doesn't have politiical

party registration:

"No. South Carolina does not have registration by party. In primaries, you can vote in only one party's primary."

https://www.scvotes.org/south-carolina-voter-registration-information

[DanTex]

21. Iowa and New Hampshire happened.

Remember all those people who told you Iowa doesn't matter? They were wrong. Iowa does matter, not because of the delegates, but because it's a proving ground, and candidates who do well in Iowa get a bump in polling and in fundraising. And candidates that do poorly in Iowa get the opposite.

[thesquanderer]

27. Yes. Part of Biden's support was wanting to vote for a winner, and someone who can beat Trump.

Once there's more of a choice of candidates who people think can meet those criteria, some of those voters can move elsewhere.

[George II]

62. That's why Sanders got half the votes in New Hampshire than before, even with record turnout.

[uponit7771]

67. about a month ago right? tia

[FBaggins]

22. Biden's collapse in SC mirrors his numbers nationwide

It doesn’t have anything to do with open primaries (the effect of which would only show after the actual vote).

[madville]

24. Tom Steyer has bought about 10-12% support and hurt Biden in the process

By flooding the airwaves and media with commercials about slavery reparations targeting the large number of AA voters in SC. Here is an example:

[emmaverybo]

41. OMG and he is an investor in one of the largest private prison firms.

[Squinch]

29. Yes. Seems unlikely.

[Nanjeanne]

30. What makes sense it early polls had a lot to do with name recognition and Obama

connection.

Sanders has a good ground game in SC knocking on lots of doors. He is becoming better known and his policies are reaching more people.

Tom Steyer has spent a ton of $ there and some of the polling reflects that as well. Biden May pick up more of that support after the debate.

[apcalc]

32. It is decided by the state.

In PA , it is a closed primary. One can register, or re-register In any party , but can only vote for that party’s candidate in the primary. Independents may not vote in the primary.

To vote in the presidential, one has to have voted in the primary, but is not restricted to any party at that time.

[Lucky Luciano]

48. Wow that's bad. Not voting in a primary means you cannot vote in the general election?!

[Kingofalldems]

42. Will Sanders repudiate the MAGAt votes he will get?

[dflprincess]

43. Minnesota also has an open primary (on Super Tuesday)

Trump is the only one on the Republican ballot and, based on the comments in the Star Tribune, there are a good many MAGAts that plan to vote in the Democratic primary.

Per the "Strib" Klobuchar is ahead with 29%; Sanders has 23% Warren 11%, Biden 8%, Bloomberg & Buttigeig each have 3%, Gabbard & Steyer each have 1%.

The undecideds are still coming in at 21%


Article about it at this link:
http://www.startribune.com/klobuchar-and-sanders-lead-poll-of-minnesota-democrats/568110732/

Chart of the results here:
http://www.startribune.com/star-tribune-mpr-news-minnesota-poll-results-democratic-primary-klobuchar-sanders-warren-buttigieg-biden/567940781/

[doxyluv13]

44. Answers

1. Yes, South Carolina is an open primary. The state Democratic Party chooses. No one made them.
2. VP Biden himself said it was Steyer bombarding the state with ads that has brought his numbers down. And you can see Steyer is up to 17% in some polls, the same ones that see Biden dropping a similar amount.

[Garrett78]

51. Polls change. IA and NH always have an influence.

[quakerboy]

53. Electability

Bernie was some senator with moderate polling who lost to hillary.

Biden was thewell known vp who waswinning all the national polls.


Now bernie is the candidate who got the most votes in every single state so far.

And biden is an old dude who lost every single race, even coming in 5th..



Success tends to draw folks in.

Especially in a case where s csndidates prime argument is electability.. losing threein a row is gonna leave a mark.

[CousinIT]

61. Republicans are voting Sanders in open primaries and caucuses. They want him as nominee.

So does Russia and they are also meddling on social media to divide Dem voters. Sanders is helping them, too with comments about the "Democratic establishment" (which is just another form of "deep state" ) Ugh.

And that is because they know Trump with his disinformation machinery and Russian meddling can easily beat Sanders. The "socialism" thing alone will ruin him, nevermind anything they devise against him.

I like M4A and Sanders, AOC and Warren, but Americans by and large will not support this. They're too brainwashed and ignorant and too easily led around by their emotional noses by words like "socialism" and "government run healthcare".

I have no dislike for Sanders. And I will vote for him if he's the nominee.

But I'm pretty damn certain we'll end up with 4 more years of Trump if he's the nominee just based on Russian meddling, Republican ratfucking, decades of misinformation planted in American's pea-brains by the for-profit insurance and healthcare industries, etc.

Kiss America's ass as we've all known it all our lives goodbye if it's Sanders.

Americans are too stupid to save this country. I just don't think they will. No matter who the nominee is. And especially if it's Sanders.

i HOPE I'M WRONG. I HOPE THAT AFTER ELECTION NIGHT, EVERYBODY CAN COME BACK TO MY COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD AND LAUGH AT HOW WRONG I WAS. I'll own it. If we get Trump's criminal, rotund, ass out of OUR White House, I'll own that. (frankly I don't think he'll ever leave even if he does lose).

Mostly I think we're just fucked. No matter what.

I HOPE I'M WRONG.

[rwheeler31]

65. Clyburn is going to edorse Joe but their is so much

mischief going on with the Republicans, and phony polls I hope it is enough for him to win.

[still_one]

74. There are a lot of strange things going on right now for sure

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/the-party-raiders-of-south-carolina

[Bonobo]

75. Here is my response to this balloon you just floated.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287570665

[still_one]

77. This isn't something I just made up, the New Yorker had an article discussing this

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/the-party-raiders-of-south-carolina

[Hassin Bin Sober]

76. What does "open primaries" have to do with the polling?

Could the polling have anything to do with the fact biden hasn’t won any contests?

I mean 4th in Iowa and 5th in New Hampshire might have had an effect. No?

[Garrett78]

79. Nothing, of course. It has to do with IA and NH, clearly evidenced by this graph:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/south-carolina/

[still_one]

85. Because open primaries allow ANYONE to vote in the Democratic primary. That means someone who is

or identifies as a republican can vote in the Democratic primary

Since there is no party registration in South Carolina, and the republican party has cancelled its primary, is motivation for a republican to vote in the Democratic Primary in South Carolina

What does it have to do with the polling?

In the YouGov Poll it indicated both Democrats and "Independents", but since there is no party registration, it leaves open what the term independent means, and it didn't indicate in the poll whether those independents lean Democratic or republican

Also, if you read the stats on this poll, the respondents say that Iowa, NH, and Nevada had no impact on how they would vote

This CBS News survey is conducted by YouGov between February 20-22, 2020. A representative sample of 2,000 registered voters in South Carolina was selected, including 1,238 self-identified Democrats, as well as independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary this year. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race and education based upon voter registration lists and the U.S. Census Current Population Survey, as well as the 2016 presidential vote. The margin of error is approximately 5.5 points.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-carolina-primary-polls-2020-biden-sanders-steyer-democrats-cbs-news/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1af1YadukuDouIbnoGHCAkIDgaRAXjr8M/view

and here is the article discussing republicans voting in the Democratic Primary in South Carolina

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campaign-chronicles/the-party-raiders-of-south-carolina

The following link is the actual operationchaos site, so you may not want t

https://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article240463811.html

I don't mean to dump a bunch of links on you, just trying to address your questions, and starting the OP to know if this is a valid concern or not as a discussion point.

South Carolina is even more confusing because they don't have registration by party, and there really is no way to distinguish a republican voter from a Democratic voter. The only restriction is the same person cannot vote in both primaries

[NurseJackie]

78. Russian interference.

[OliverQ]

83. Bernie does well with minorities.

Biden hasn't been performing well at all, so maybe people ditching him could explain Bernie catching up.

It doesn't mean all Republicans are voting for Bernie. And let them. They'll likely regret it just like Dems regret putting up Trump is the best candidate for Hillary to beat.

[yaesu]

91. I wouldn't worry about the polls, Biden will remain strong in SC & it would surprise me very much

if he doesn't take the state. Open primary states can be skewed by the opposing party so I'm sure that is a factor. I have a hard time believing repukes would put that much time & effort into it when they barely bother to vote anyway.

[still_one]

93. I think he will take the state, but it will be much more narrow than before

[GETPLANING]

94. Several Republicans I know have confirmed to me that they are voting for Bernie

in the Democratic primaries.

[MisterFred]

97. No one has voted in SC yet.

Poll results are not votes.

Nothing unusual has gone on in SC. High name recognition has helped both. As Biden has dropped, other names have gone up. (Bloomberg more than Sanders.)

Further, this is not an issues-centered election, much as I wish it were.

Again, no one has voted in SC yet. Those are just opinion polls. You could be write that R's intend to interfere en mass. But if so, it hasn't happened yet.

I think in SC the open primary is by state law (I could be wrong) - but in the vast majority of states with open or semi-open primaries, that's because the state party has chosen for it to be so.

[Progressive2020]

101. No

It is the fact that Bloomberg and Steyers are pouring millions of dollars worth of ads into South Carolina. Joe did not perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he has been the man to beat in South Carolina. There is no secret Republican Conspiracy going on, as attractive as that idea might be. What it is- Bloomberg and Steyers are using their money to try and get former Biden voters, and they are succeeding to a certain degree.

Biden, Bloomberg, and Steyers are dividing the traditional Democratic vote between them, and Bernie is benefiting. A strong second place or first place showing in South Carolina for Bernie will propel him into Super Tuesday. So, I do no think the Republicans can take credit for what is happening in South Carolina. It is two Billionaires spending millions of dollars to steal votes from Biden. That is what is happening,

[Joinfortmill]

103. Yes

Republicans don't have a primary this year in SC and are being encouraged to vote for Bernie. Voting is Saturday, the 29th. Don't know what effect that will have on turnout.

[Capt. America]

105. It could just be the simple fact he's taken some big losses and people want to vote for a winner.

[still_one]

108. According to the latest polls, the poll indicated that the majority of South Carolina voters would

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2020, 07:03 AM - Edit history (1)

NOT be influenced by Iowa, NH, or Nevada

That was a specific question in the CBS/YouGov poll, and how they responded

[Garrett78]

119. Yet you can plainly see his drop in the polls correlates with his losses:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/south-carolina/

Drag the dotted line back to Feb 1 and then back again to where it is now. That's not a coincidence, nor is it the least bit surprising. IA and NH always have an outsized influence.

[still_one]

123. Excuse me, I was typing on though phone too fast and the poll statistics said the polled people

would NOT be influenced by the previous primaries or caucuses

Sorry about that

[Garrett78]

145. But they and others obviously have been, which is the point.

People can say such and such doesn't influence them. That doesn't mean they aren't influenced. Again, drag that dotted line back to Feb 1 and then back to where it is now. Iowa was Feb 3 and New Hampshire was Feb 11. Do you really think it's a coincidence that Biden's poll numbers in South Carolina plunged following those losses?

[still_one]

147. Either way it is what it is

[Mariana]

121. We know some posters here have changed their preferences

during the last couple of weeks. I don't know why anyone thinks it's so suspicious that some of the voters in SC have done the same.

[Midnight Writer]

110. Honestly, I think Biden's early leads were based on name recognition, familiarity and likability.

I think much of that support was soft. People become more focused towards Election Day, and come to know the other candidates.

[William769]

111. I think that's bothering alot of people.

[brush]

112. Steyer, not Sanders. Steyer spent millions there.

[Buzz cook]

113. Biden is running on name recognition and Obama association.

That only goes so far.

Once he lost the air of inevitability his support eroded.

Its as simple as that.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

118. Good point... now Bernie's lookin like He's inevitable & his poll numbers are soarin!!

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

[emmaverybo]

120. He has given some of the most profound speeches, moving appearances, town halls of anyone

now running and was the first to make a call to unity and to define what’s at stake in this election beyond policy, facts and figures. He confronted Trump when no others were, and his resume is unmatched. He also, unlike others, gave a dedicated foreign policy address that laid out our responsibilities in the world as a beacon of democracy, and both the threats and the opportunities we face. He warned of the rise of fascism in Europe, connected to our own crisis here with an unfit and authoritarian leader tearing up Democratic institutions. He connected the challenge of climate change to the world beyond our borders, seeing it as a global problem to solve through working together together.

He has brought wisdom, compassion, and judgement to his campaigning, missing ingredients in other candidate’s messages and mission. Recently, some have tried to appeal emotionally to audiences, but for much of the time they “stumped,” promoting, defending, laying out the details
of plans, selling their policies, persuading, yes, energetically, but without much real depth on a human level.

Biden has brought much more than a name or his years as a VP. He has brought dignity, a wide range of knowledge, and an empathy that makes many endorsers and supporters see him as a uniting and healing figure. He has always expressed optimism about our collective future and the abilities of our people to make miraculous strides in medicine, technology, education and in greater
inclusivity and justice economically, socially, and in our laws.

So much more than a name, and yet a respected one, trusted, well liked in his own right. If you missed him outside debates, you may have written him off as unexciting, having no policies, rather gray, so you simply judged him as less polished and sharp in his speech as the rest and did not bother to listen to him in interviews or review his many policy proposals.

You missed a lot. We may not have a man of his integrity, devotion to service, leadership ability, and presidential qualifications running again. Too bad. As Sully said in Nevada, sometimes experience makes the difference between life and death. I would absolutely trust Biden in a crisis. I can’t say the same for too many other prospects, as bright and full of bold ideas or personality as they are. I always wonder how they’d do in the war room or at 3 a.m. in the morning when that phone rings, as Hilary used to say.

[Walleye]

132. All true. I wish some of the Bernie fans took the time to know who Joe really is.

We need Joe as President

[Buzz cook]

159. No democrat

can expect to get the kind of coverage Trump has gotten. Even the eventual nominee will not get their speeches carried in full or a throughout report on any of their policy proposals.

One of the best things Obama did was to get a portion of the media on his side. Even then the media didn't give him the coverage they gave Trump in 2016 or that they will give in 2020'

[Recursion]

125. African American voters decide late. Happens every 4 years.

Remember at this point in 2008 Barack Obama's biggest worry was that he didn't have much support among black voters, and then Bill Clinton stuck his foot in his mouth ahead of SC.

It's a bit early for tea leaves but at least preliminarily it's looking like Biden is losing a good deal of African American support, some to Steyer and some to Bloomberg.

[still_one]

126. Bloomberg doesn't affect Biden in South Carolina because he isn't running there. What I fail to

understand is why Steyer is getting as much support as he is, since his chances for the nomination are very slim, but I guess they don’t think so, those supporting Steyer that is

[Garrett78]

146. Because he's spent a lot of money there.

I don't think his numbers will hold up come Saturday. Now that he isn't on the debate stage, he's getting less attention.

[Polybius]

155. Oh yeah, we're just late on everything

[Recursion]

157. No, not everything, but on primary decisionmaking, yes

That's kind of what happens when the first three state contests are basically the party telling black voters "we don't care what you think".

[hangaleft]

127. All primaries should be closed

Period. Exclamation point.

[still_one]

128. I agree, but cannot do anything about it now

[TheFarseer]

129. This happens every year

People hop on the bandwagon of whoever appears to be winning. It’s not anything nefarious. It’s people that want to support the winner.

[still_one]

130. that is true

[redqueen]

133. He's neck and neck in votes? Or in polls? How would republicans skew polls?

The more likely explanation is that people were convinced by the MSM and all the people who said there's no way Bernie can win this is Biden's to lose etc etc etc so they supported Biden, and then they saw Bernie actually winning and said fuck yeah let's do this.

[still_one]

134. Too many candidates in the race, Steyer, Republican primary cancelled in Soth Carolina,

South Carolina is an open primary state, and it is reported in the New Yorker and other publications that there is an effort by republicans to organize other republicans to vote in the Democratic primary. It is called Operation Chaos

Whether that is successful or happening to a significant degree we will never know because there is no party registration in South Carolina, so when people vote, they are not identified as Republicans or Democrats

[redqueen]

135. So it's the polls. Which are of likely dem voters, right? Not republicans?

[dsc]

136. Soon those voters will have to give up the ability to vote for Senate candidates in those primaries

in NC GOP voters can vote in our primary but have to forgo the ability to vote for Gov, LT Gov, Senate and President in the GOP primary to do so.

[USALiberal]

137. LOL, Bernie doing well means Republicans are voting for Bernie??? LOL! nt

[Ace Rothstein]

152. Well it can't be that Biden's support has been soft from the beginning.

[Garrett78]

153. Yeah, it's not like many of us haven't been predicting a decline.

Biden's previous attempts to get nominated ended very quickly, he seems lost without a script, and there's always been an enthusiasm gap that can't be overcome just by him having been Obama's VP. And, speaking of Obama, there have been numerous reports right from the start that he didn't really think Biden should run.

[Act_of_Reparation]

138. Most voters get behind candidates, not ideologies.

That people could easily make a jump from Biden to Sanders is not surprising at all.

[snowybirdie]

139. Tom Styer

has advertised heavily there and passed money around to various causes. Another example of a vanity campaign ruining it for the real candidates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. The results of the current primary are influenced by the results of the preceding ones.

Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. Joe was stronger everywhere.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

143. Maybe, just maybe, Sanders' support among blacks was better than people thought.

Maybe, just maybe, people like Sanders' more than Biden (or as much) now that they are getting a better feeling for what he is about.

Remember back in 2016 when the argument was that the person who gets the most votes in the primary is going to be the nominee and those that back the other person need to get over it. Apply that right now.

But, yeah, sure it's not anything wrong with Biden, it has to be RUSSIANS and CONSERVATIVES or whatever else is next.

[PunkinPi]

149. Don't forget a Steyer aide stole valuable volunteer data collected by Kamala Harris' campaign.

Some coincidence Steyer is currently in 3rd there.

COLUMBIA — A South Carolina aide for Tom Steyer's 2020 presidential campaign stole valuable volunteer data collected by Kamala Harris' campaign using an account from when he worked with the S.C. Democratic Party, according to multiple state and national party officials.

The Steyer campaign said that it does not have possession of the data and that Democratic officials were only aware of the download, which they said was inadvertent, because they proactively notified them. Both the Democratic National Committee and S.C. Democratic Party denied that.

The Democratic National Committee said they quickly caught the attempt on Friday by Steyer's deputy S.C. state director Dwane Sims to export Harris' data, which contained thousands of volunteer contacts collected over the course of the campaign in this critical early-voting primary state.

more here --> https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/tom-steyer-aide-resigns-after-stealing-kamala-harris-sc-volunteer/article_0daacd98-ff24-11e9-b9c7-87c46a5c6cc9.html

[NY06DemSoc]

154. That's the ONLY explanation?

I think you're underestimating the momentum and elect-ability concerns. Biden is trending downward. He doesn't have the inevitability that he tried to present.

[Gothmog]

158. This makes me smile

Link to tweet