South Carolina has only .5% of the US's Hispanics. So...

[Bonobo]

Following the "logic" of the self-serving and disingenuous arguments being advanced by some posters here, the SC primary would be meaningless because it is not representative of the US population at large.

There are 52 millions Hispanics in America and only 250,000 in SC. If Biden wins there, will those some people say that it is meaningless without knowing the Hispanic vote?

Let's see some consistency here, folks. And failing that, how about some intellectual honesty.

[booley]

1. Some do seem to be cherry picking when minority votes count

The reason Sander got more votes in Iowa is because of votes from PoC
But somehow Iowa overall is too white so those minorities don't' count.

We are supposed to wait until S. Carolina until we care about minority votes.

I wish people making this argument would just admit they are hoping black voters will save Biden. That's ok. Even if unlikely.

What is wrong is making certain minority voters invisible because they don't' serve your candidate's narrative.

[Bonobo]

2. Yes, if they were simply honest enough to say they prefer Biden

or another candidate without trying to pretend that the issue they REALLY care about is equal representation by black or brown people, it would be preferable.

Note, I am NOT saying they do not care about those things. But it is apparent to me that they are consciously unconsciously grabbing upon anything they can in order to tear down someone they do not like.

If, in fact, the issue of representation by minorities was an issue that was really on their mind, they would show some consistency on the issue. But they do not.

And THAT is the purpose of this OP.

I believe I dropped the mic on this one but I do not expect the thread to receive much attention or likes.

[booley]

5. Exactly!

I also dislike how minority voters are treated as this monolith. As if black people all think the same.

Ehhh I could go on forever.

But I get your point.

I also agree many will probably not get your point. But I think I do.

[pnwmom]

11. How do you know Bernie got more votes because of PoC?

I've filled out those cards and they don't ask you to specify your race, age, orientation, or anything else.

[stlstdg]

3. I'm all for intellectual honesty

so how about:

1) the fact that Sanders "won" New Hampshire with barely 26% of the vote when he
won with 60% last time? You Sanders folks are telling us that your guy will trounce
Trump, and will bring about sweeping social change. Yet over 70% of the voters of a
state in his own turf chose someone else. I know he had to compete against more
than one other candidate, but again, this was his home turf, even more so than Warren's.
He should have run away with it, especially if he, in the view of some of the Sanders
supporters I've read on this site, has already practically sewn up the nomination .

2) your guy did not win Iowa; you have to concede that he's the undisputed winner in
all of one state.

3) realistically, there's no front runner yet. Sure, Sanders has pulled ahead in some of
the national polls, but again, none of the candidates is in sight of 50% preference. Until
that happens, it remains anyone's race.

4) Even Nate Silver, who has given Sanders a 50/50 chance of winning the nomination,
has projected that as of now he'll fall short of the number of delegates needed to win the
nomination on the first ballot when all of the primary voting is finished.

Let's all be intellectually honest and consistent then, and at least wait until after South Carolina
and Nevada before anyone starts gloating.

[booley]

6. so lets do this point by point

your guy did not win Iowa; you have to concede that he's the undisputed winner in
all of one state.

Except Sanders did get more votes. And lost by .1% of the estimated delegates.
As there will be no coin tosses in the general election to decide electors, Sanders actually comes out ahead of the guy who declared victor before any of the results were even known.

realistically, there's no front runner yet.

This is true. Not that that seemed to stop anyone from declaring Biden the front runner when his poll numbers were high. Regardless there is still evidence that Sanders is better situated than the rest. And unless you are suggesting the entirety fo the Democratic party won't support whoever gets the most delegates, I don't see the point of the rest of your argument there.

Even Nate Silver, who has given Sanders a 50/50 chance of winning the nomination,
has projected that as of now he'll fall short of the number of delegates needed to win the
nomination on the first ballot when all of the primary votings is finished.

Ok. Which means super delegates then come into play.

So hypothetically what would happen if Sanders got a majority of the delegates over the other candidates and then the super delegates took that away and gave the nomination to someone who technically lost?

I don't think they would do that. I guess it depends on how self-destructive the DNC leadership is.

Also, the other candidates are expected to get even less so why is this only a problem for Bernie Sanders?

Let's all be intellectually honest and consistent then, and at least wait until after South Carolina
and Nevada before anyone starts gloating.

I agree. It's ridiculous to act as if Buttigieg or Klobuchar are real contenders yet. His one win by less than a percent based on math errors is hardly something to be bragging about.

As for Bernie, I like my chances though ironically I will be honest and say my support is based on more than how likely I think him winning is. Sometimes you have to stand for something.

[pnwmom]

12. Bernie is only better situated if you ASSUME that he hasn't already reached the limit of

his support, at about 30%.

You also have to assume that millions of Hillary voters will choose him instead of getting behind one of the others. That's an awfully big assumption, especially since he's not doing anything to reach out to those people.

[progree]

4. Yes, and African Americans are overrepresented in S.C. -- 26.8% in S.C. vs. 12.8% in U.S.

so yeah, a horribly unrepresentative state. (sarcasm thingy)

And then there are Asian Americans and Native Americans and I bet there percentage in S.C. is a lot different than the U.S. average and on and on it goes.

(That 12.8% U.S. is non-Hispanic African Americans, I couldn't find the African American population including Hispanic African Americans in a quick Google search, but that might be an additional percent)

[SunSeeker]

7. Insulting DUers as "self-serving and disingenuous" is not how you're going to convince them.

[Bonobo]

8. I called the arguments self-serving and disingenuous. nt

[SunSeeker]

10. It appears you're going to do what you're going to do, perception be damned. nt

[Bonobo]

13. Any interest in wasting a word or two on the substance of the post?

As opposed to tone-checking me?

[SunSeeker]

15. I am not "tone-checking" you. I am strategy checking you.

I will agree with you on one thing. I am probably "wasting words" here, since you appear intent on employing insults.

If you sincerely want me and others to address the substance of your post, drop the insults. Asserting you are insulting arguments, not the DUers making them, is a distinction without a difference. Insults are insults. If you think an argument is incorrect, then just say that. Saying it is disingenuous, or a lie, is an insult to the person making that argument.

On substance, your post fails to acknowledge that black voters, particularly black women, are Democrats' most loyal voting block. They determine who the Democratic nominee will be, and if that nominee will be successful. Starting with two white states disrespects that voting block and leads to unhelpfully skewed starts of our nominating process.

Momentum among black voters is a better indicator of success than winning in Iowa or other early primary states. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/11/25/why-the-race-for-black-voters-is-the-most-important-democratic-primary-of-them-all/

[HarlanPepper]

9. +1

The sanctimonious scold approach is not going to win a lot of converts.

[Lexblues]

14. But black people are the base of the Democratic Party

And they deserve to have a state go first where they have a say. I don't give a rat's ass about South Carolina. Hell, my state of Kentucky is more diverse than IA or NH. That's what we are arguing. Two lily white states that aren't representative get to go first and that is wrong.

[SunSeeker]

16. Yep. Black voters also determine if that nominee will be successful in the general election.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/11/25/why-the-race-for-black-voters-is-the-most-important-democratic-primary-of-them-all/

[dsc]

17. actually there is unrepresentative and there is unrepresentative

SC has only 5 million people about 1/65 or 1.5% of the nation. That means they have about a third as many Hispanics as they should to represent the nation. NH is 1.1% black, the nation is 12.1% black meaning they have about an eleventh as many blacks as they should to represent the nation. If we are going to be intellectually honest.

[Bonobo]

18. You seem confused about the point of my post, so I will restate.

The argument was made here that the first two primary events were not meaningful because African-Americans were not represented, and I will stipulate that it is true that they were under-represented -as you say.

But my post is in response to those that said that we must wait for SC to hear from African-Americans, and then and only then can we make a true judgment about our potential candidates.

The argument, restated for you, is that there is extreme under-representation of Hispanics in SC, so if we are going to talk about under-representation of minorities, it doesn't stop at SC.

[dsc]

20. No you are not stating my post correctly

Hispanics are slightly under represented in SC vs blacks being massively so in NH and IA for that matter. But I assume you knew that.

[MrsCoffee]

19. Lol.