The results of the Democratic Primary in SC for the last 30 yrs, and who got the eventual nom

[ehrnst]

It's worth noting that it's been a bellwether for the final nomination.

1992 (March 7): Bill Clinton (63%), Paul Tsongas (18%), Tom Harkin (7%), Jerry Brown (6%), uncommitted (3%), and others (2%)
1996: Primary cancelled
2000 (March 9): Al Gore (92%) and Bill Bradley (2%)[9]
2004 (February 3): John Edwards (45%), Jon Kerry (30%), Al Sharpton (10%), Wesley Clark (7%), Howard Dean (5%), and Joe Lieberman (2%)[10]
2008 (January 26): Barack Obama (55%), Hillary Clinton (27%), and John Edwards (18%)[11]
2012 (January 28): Barack Obama (unopposed)
2016 (February 27): Hillary Clinton (73%) and Bernie Sanders (26%)


2020 (February 29): Joe Biden (48%), Bernie Sanders (20%), Tom Steyer (11%), Pete Buttigieg (8%), Elizabeth Warren (7%), Amy Klobuchar (3%), and Tulsi Gabbard (1%)

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

[RandySF]

1. Note on 2004

The Kerry campaign declined to let Edwards win S.C. since they were already looking at him as a running mate.

[frazzled]

12. How can a candidate decline to let another candidate win?

He had no power to do that. Not sure what you mean by this.

[RandySF]

13. oops. Decided

Damn autocorrect.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. And two out of five became President.

What type candidate do we need to nominate to actually win the White House in the current political climate? That is the question we all have to grapple with.

[ehrnst]

3. And one has zero chance to become President if one doesn't win the nomination, yes?

You see, that SC primary talking point isn't relevant to anyone but those who are frantic to downplay the results of yesterday's SC primary, some of whom are attempting to post it anywhere the SC results are being discussed.

In the case of this particular OP, that response is a red herring.

Joe Biden won by 28% over second place, whereas the spread between winner Edwards and second place Kerry, where Kerry took the nomination, was only 5%.



You and I both know that you and many others would have been posting this history in many OPs as 'proof' that Sanders was on track if he had won, rather than trying to swat it away as "irrelevant" whenever it's been brought up. Others are interested in statistics and trends, and the data show that SC is a bellwether - likely because WOC are the most reliable voting bloc for Dems, and no one will get the nomination without their support.

[BComplex]

4. Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar

That's who we need to become president.

[in2herbs]

5. Agree 1,000%. The only way I would be happy with a Biden presidency is if he chooses

a female for VP. IMO that would give Biden one term as Pres (after that he'll be too old) and the young female VP two terms as Pres. So if this is the only path we can take to get a female Pres, I will be for it. For the time being, however, I'm sticking with EW.

[ehrnst]

6. I agree. (nt)

[BComplex]

7. Biden doesn't have the charisma to win against Trump.

Nobody is going to brave a rainstorm, snow storm, or even bad weather to go out to vote for Biden. There are a great many hard core democrats, and a few republicans (!) that hate Trump and fear for him being reelected, and wild horses couldn't drag them away from the polls on election day 2020. Same for the MAGAts.

But that isn't where elections are won/lost. There's that huge swath in the not-so-political crowd of Americans that need to have someone with a fire in their belly to crank them up out of their fog so they'll go vote. Trump cranked 'em up. Biden doesn't crank 'em up.

Elizabeth Warren has drawn huge crowds, as has Bernie. They have charisma, and Mayor Pete has a little bit of that. But Biden has a fan base among the people who are so scared of Trump that they think they're going "safe" with Biden, and trying to let their "strategy" guide them. That never works.

Very few people I've talked to are voting for Joe because they would follow him to the ends of the earth, because they think he is going to save them from a government that is out of control with corruption and unfair practices. He has already said that he is going to have the same government that we've had all along. In this new world we live in, nobody wants that!

On edit: I just want to add that I think Joe Biden is a very good, kind human being. I think he's wonderful, and has given this country many great years. And I'm grateful to him for that. He's just not going to inspire the masses on election day in a way that will create the kind of turnout we're going to need to get rid of Trump and the Russians.

[nsd]

10. And yet Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the charisma to win against Joe Biden (at least, so far).

First, let me say that I like Warren a lot. If she became the nominee, I would gladly support her.

But I'm mystified by all these posts -- not just this one -- that extol her electoral virtues while trashing Biden's. I can't help but think: "If Warren is so great, why isn't she winning?" If anything, the Democratic primary electorate is much more receptive to a candidate like Warren than a general election electorate would be.

You write that people aren't voting for Joe because they'd "following him to the ends of the earth." Well, who would do that for Warren? I'm sure there are some, but apparently they constitute only about 10% of Democrats who have voted so far (whereas Joe has about 29%).

[BComplex]

11. I totally see your point, nsd.

Of course, we've only had primaries/caucuses in 4 out of 50 states, but Biden has been out front (usually 1st or second place) most of the campaign season. I know a lot of democrats who are pushing him to the front because they think he's safe. He is safe for hard core democrats...those who vote in primaries, or post on political websites.

As my post says, I'm just concerned that he isn't going to have the charisma to push the non-hard-core dems, indies and republicans-that-don't-like-or-hate-trump to get out of the house and cast their vote come November. That is where the real numbers are. And we're not just voting against republicans in November...we're also fighting a war with russia at the ballot box. It feels like we're going to need a "movement" to get the white house.

[frazzled]

14. There's another perspective to be had on that

I was thinking of Pete Buttigieg's observation at the most recent debate, asking people to imagine a debate in the general election in which two guys are up there yelling and waving hands and fists in the air. And a lot of people here said they actually want to see that: that we need someone who can "fight" Trump on his own turf. (Note to self: you can never out bully a bully.)

And then I thought of something my husband said probably 20 years ago, when he used to arrange these public "dialogues" between famous journalists and creatives. And after a bit of time, he said he realized that you can't have two like personalities on stage at the same time— two lively, chattering ones, or two mild-mannered, thoughtful ones. I just goes badly. He said it only works for the audience if one is animated and the other more reserved. Based on how I had seen earlier of these events go down, I totally agreed with him that the most successful dialogues were the ones where the personalities contrasted.

I think that may hold somewhat true for debates. Frankly, I want to see someone composed and exuding an even temperament to contrast with Trump's craziness and extremism. That could be several of our candidates, but Joe fits that bill: he is kind, can be humorous, and shows empathy. That works very well against a high-tempered opponent.

[in2herbs]

15. IMO a lot of voters are for Biden because of his association with Obama and that gives

them comfort in their fear of rump. I think EW would be much farther ahead if Biden had not entered the race.

[ehrnst]

8. "What type candidate do we need to nominate to actually win the White House in the current political

climate? That is the question we all have to grapple with."

Since you did bring that into a discussion of something else, it's relevant to note Sanders has weighed in on that very issue before, as history shows:

On May 29, 2016, Sanders said superdelegates had the “very grave responsibility to make sure that Trump [is not] elected president of the United States. Vote for the strongest candidate.

And even as Clinton secured the Democratic nomination the following week, Sanders continued to push for superdelegates to vote to override Clinton’s pledged delegate majority.

Told on June 7, 2016, that his superdelegate convention push would defy history and the will of the voters, Sanders said, “Defying history is what this campaign has been about.””

Bernie Sanders pushed for a contested convention in 2016. Now he wants to avoid one. Feb 27, 2020

[Recursion]

9. The ones who become President are under 60 years old

Barring a sudden surge by Mayor Pete we're out of luck as far as that goes