[[link removed]]

PUTTING SOUTH CAROLINA FIRST COULD MEAN LESS POWER FOR BLACK VOTERS
 
[[link removed]]


 

Jonathan Martin
July 24, 2026
Politico
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The party's latest calendar overhaul risks an unintended
consequence for the voters it sought to empower. _

A person fills out their ballot at a polling place in a school on the
day of the Republican primary voting day in Columbia, South Carolina
on Feb. 24, 2024., Jamie Kelter Davis for POLITICO

 

The history of the Democratic National Committee reshaping its primary
calendar is the story of unintended consequences. And history, to
paraphrase the old line, may not be repeating itself — but it sure
does seem to be rhyming.

Nearly 40 years ago, the DNC unwittingly elevated Jesse Jackson by
frontloading its schedule with Southern states. At the time, committee
members hoped the shift would help a moderate white candidate, who
they thought could more easily win a general election. Instead,
Southern Black voters rallied to Jackson’s history-making candidacy.
On Friday, the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee again sought to
push its nomination fight to the South.

This time, though, the panel’s decision to lift South Carolina to
first-in-the-nation status was done expressly with the state’s Black
voters in mind. The party wanted to reward their most loyal
constituency and those voters who, in the modern era, have invariably
determined its nominees.

Yet in making South Carolina first overall, rather than keeping the
state in its previous role as first in the South, the party risks
diluting the influence of Southern Black voters.

The state traded the prospect of nominating power for attention and
money. It will get a wealth of candidate visits, and its state party
will reap a financial windfall.

But South Carolina will now effectively become what Iowa was for the
preceding half-century: the contest where also-rans are culled rather
than the one that vaulted Democrats to the nomination or at least
narrowed the race to a final two.

This could have profound implications for who the party nominates in
2028. The reason why Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) delighted, at least
until this week, in his state coming third or even fourth was because
it meant they played a decisive role. With the field narrowed by the
time it got to South Carolina, Clyburn and the state’s Black voters
could all but choose the nominee, as they memorably did in 2020 with
Joe Biden.

With its population of Black churchgoers and white retirees and
suburbanites, the South Carolina Democratic primary became what its
GOP equivalent had been before the Trump era — the place where
insurgencies went to die. The reason why Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
is batting .000 in presidential nominations is in large part because
he couldn’t appeal to this AME-AARP demographic, the de facto
Democratic establishment.

Now, though, whoever on the left emerges as the Sanders heir doesn’t
have to concern themselves about his or her fate being decided by this
Orangeburg-to-Isle of Palms coalition. The moderating force in the
Democratic primary has now been shifted from batting cleanup to
leadoff, to borrow Clyburn’s recent metaphor
[[link removed]].

That could mean South Carolina winnows the field, as Iowa always did.
But it may also just ensure the state’s voters splinter among so
many mainstream Democrats that they only muddy who the top contender
is from the establishment wing of the party.

There’s something else, which veterans of the Democratic
presidential nominating wars were already chattering about Friday.
South Carolina always stuck out of the early-state lineup because it
was a surefire red state in the general election. If Democratic
candidates don’t have to worry about undermining their prospects
there in the fall, why fret over the risks of softening their efforts
toward the state’s primary?

I doubt any formidable Democrat would dare skip South Carolina
entirely — the symbolism of rejecting a state where half the primary
voters are Black makes that a non-starter. Yet it’s certainly
possible the new, six-state early window followed immediately by Super
Tuesday will tempt more progressive candidates to downplay the state.

Why would Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), for example, spend
significant time and money in South Carolina when she can potentially
create a firewall in Nevada, New Mexico and Michigan, all states now
in the early-vote window? AOC could spend (just) enough time in South
Carolina and count on (just) enough of an establishment-lane fracture
to post a respectable vote there and not have to worry if that means
she comes in fourth. In years past that would be fatal to a campaign
— now it could garner the coveted “better-than-expected.”

And before you know it, AOC would already be stumping with casino
workers in Las Vegas and college students in Ann Arbor.

The other way South Carolina going first could lessen the clout of
Black voters is if there are multiple Black candidates still in the
race by the state’s primary. Were former Vice President Kamala
Harris, Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland and Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) to
all be on the ballot there in 2028, it could rupture the Black
community, potentially along gender lines. Again, this runs the risk
of muddying the race more than clarifying it, as South Carolina has
done in the past.

Now, what South Carolina partisans will tell you is that such a
scenario would be empowering, because whoever wins the
primary-within-a-primary of the state’s Black voters (and can also
appeal the most to South Carolina’s white voters) will quickly
emerge as the mainstream candidate to beat going forward.

But keep in mind that Democratic primaries, unlike their GOP
counterparts, distribute delegates proportionally. They’re not
designed for quick, winner-take-all knockouts. So, yes, South Carolina
can and likely will cull a handful of poor-performing and financially
strapped candidates. Yet many Democratic hopefuls will stay in the
race, hoping that the quick, week-by-week succession of races gives
them a chance to climb back into the competition.

It’s likely that Michigan and Virginia, which are slated to hold
primaries at the end of the early window, will play the more pivotal
role South Carolina did in past races. That will reward candidates who
can either self-fund or raise significant money because of the size of
the two.

If a candidate can win both of those states, they’ll be hard to stop
for two reasons. For one, because the losers will find it difficult to
raise the money to be viable in all the Super Tuesday states coming
quickly after Michigan and Virginia; and also because, to give the DNC
credit, these two states conveniently reflect the city-suburbs-small
town demographic mix that also mirrors the country at large. So should
one candidate win both, he or she can say they’re best equipped to
run a general election campaign.

This, of course, is great news for Democratic stalwarts such as former
Gov. Terry McAuliffe, his ally and former Virginia state Chair Susan
Swecker and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), who has been pushing to
include Michigan in the early window since the Wolverines were playing
in leather helmets (I kid, D2, I kid).

It is, however, less promising for South Carolina and its Black
voters. Democratic primaries in Michigan and Virginia would, at most,
have only about half the Black representation as in South Carolina —
a blow for the very voters Democrats set out to elevate in the first
place.

_JONATHAN MARTIN is POLITICO’s senior political columnist and
politics bureau chief. He’s covered elections in every corner of
America and co-authored a best-selling book about Donald Trump and Joe
Biden. His reported column chronicles the inside conversations and
major trends shaping U.S. politics._

_POLITICO_ [[link removed]]_ is the global
authority on the intersection of politics, policy, and power. It is
the most robust news operation and information service in the world
specializing in politics and policy, which informs the most
influential audience in the world with insight, edge, and authority.
Founded in 2007, POLITICO has grown to a team of more than 1,100
working across North America and Europe. In October 2021, POLITICO was
acquired by, and is a subsidiary of, __Axel Springer SE_
[[link removed]]_. _

_POLITICO.com is accessible without subscription. POLITICO's newspaper
is available for free in locations throughout Washington. Domestic
subscriptions are $200 for one year and $350 for two years. Overseas
subscriptions are $600 per year. To subscribe, please __sign up
online_ [[link removed]]_ or call
866-504-4251._

* DNC
[[link removed]]
* Jim Clyburn
[[link removed]]
* South Carolina
[[link removed]]
* primary
[[link removed]]
* voting
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Bluesky [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]