Democrats’ South Carolina presidential-primary scheme is a last-ditch effort to hold off the DSA

NY Post ^ | 8/18/26 | Daniel McCarthy

[Libloather]

Don’t believe the Democratic National Committee’s official storyline: The DNC’s decision to make South Carolina the first Democratic presidential primary in 2028 isn’t about introducing more racial diversity into the early contests.

It’s actually about keeping power in the hands of the party establishment — the people who backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, and who are likely to wind up supporting Kamala Harris in 2028.

The fix is in.

South Carolina was the establishment’s firewall against Bernie Sanders’ left-wing insurgency twice over.

In 2016, Sanders nearly beat Hillary Clinton in the first caucus, in Iowa, and went on to defeat her in the New Hampshire primary.

Four years later, there was a brief moment when Sanders looked like the frontrunner — until he got clobbered by Joe Biden in South Carolina.

It’s true that the black voters who make South Carolina’s primaries more racially diverse than the contests in Iowa or New Hampshire are also less politically radical.

So it’s easy for the DNC to say it’s not trying to choke off support for the socialist wing of the party; it’s just giving black voters more of a say.

The Democratic Socialists of America, the left fringe of the party, is disproportionately white — even its New York City chapter is 60% white, according to DSA’s own membership polling.

---

TOPICS: Education; History; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: democrats; dsa; primary; scheme

[Libloather]

Commies holding off commies and nazis. Not one sign of disarray. Nope. Say, since the commies don't want the socialists, shouldn't everyone else do the same thing?

[Salman]

The DSA is the up-and-comers. Hating Israel (and Jews in general) is a core doctrine.

The old guard are the commies who are still OK with Israel and (old school liberal) Jews.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Long live James Clyburn.

[texas booster]

It’s true that the black voters who make South Carolina’s primaries more racially diverse than the contests in Iowa or New Hampshire are also less politically radical.

So now we have to judge our black voters by how radical they are, or are not? Do any other races count?

My head spins.

What about what is best for the country?

[Jeff Vader]

“The Democratic Socialists of America, the left fringe of the party, is disproportionately white — even its New York City chapter is 60% white, according to DSA’s own membership polling.”

60% is not disproportionately white

[packrat35]

New Hampshire state constitution makes it mandatory that it holds the first primary. How are they getting around that? Are they just going to ignore it?

[WhiteHatBobby0701]

Clyburn, my SOCIALIST legislator for ten years. I had to lead the fight to get him out and we’re back in Wilson territory.

He gets his name on every overpass and he does nothing except put lunacy. He makes race first and ignores our bases in his territory. And now Annie Andrews has a new weapon against whoever wins next Tuesday’s primary runoff. Get on Greenville Channel 13 when “The View” starts its new season. They can’t find “The Price Is Right” now that Channel 7 is now NewsNation. No CBS affiliate, you have to go into the “thousands” and it’s not available on an antenna. It’s the same strategy that worked in Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Detroit. (GSPA is NBC 4, ABC 13, Fox 28, NewsNation 7)

[DIRTYSECRET]

Please be more glass half full. He gave us Kamala didn’t he?

[j.havenfarm]

I was saying this here when the news broke last week. Most interpreted this primary lineup as any-white. It’s not. Being anti white is ok with Democrats, but that’s just the cover story. it’s anti-commie and merely secondary that the commies who would have given AOC a win in New Hampshire happen to be white commies

[j.havenfarm]

The penalty for not holding your primary per party rules is that they can refuse to seat your delegates at the convention.

[packrat35]

So are the democrats permanently writing off New Hampshire to the Republicans???

[dfwgator]

The DSA will win because they have the greater will, just like the Nazis did.

[j.havenfarm]

Not at all. NH will vote for the rat candidate in November. What they’ll likely do is hold the early primary per state law, but then hold a nominating convention later to elect delegates who will be seated the the convention. They’ll do it after the party-selected nominee is already apparent. A lot of the drones will fall in line and vote as they’re told. AOC may still win, but it won’t have the effect of a dominating win right out of the gate that could give her momentum to actually take the nomination

[WhiteHatBobby0701]

Yes he did. Disgusting legislator. Race baiter.

[Tallguy]

But of course Hitler & the Nazi’s didn’t really gain electoral power until the liberal powers that be under Pres. Hindenburg decided that the correct political move during the formation of the next government was to cut a deal to make Hitler Chancellor in order to get a governing coalition. Big Mistake! And one that I expect the Democrats will soon make if not in this election cycle then certainly in the next.

[dfwgator]

One way or the other, the Nazis would he achieved power.

[ek_hornbeck]

iberal powers that be under Pres. Hindenburg

Paul Hindenburg and his circle (Kurt von Schleicher etc) were not "liberals". They were the conservative faction in Germany who were willing to make any alliance to keep Communists and Socialist Democrats out of power, Hindenburg was elected because Germans were tired of the Social Democrats' economic policies under previous Weimar Republic governments.

Hindenburg, von Schleicher, etc made Hitler chancellor because his party won a plurality (not a majority) in the Reichstag, and because unlike the Communists and Socialists, the Nazis didn't plan to nationalize private property. The deal didn't end well for von Schleicher, shortly after Hindenburg's death both he and his wife were murdered by the Nazis during the Night of Long Knives.

[Steven Scharf]

New Hampshire state constitution makes it mandatory that it holds the first primary.

State law not the constituion.

New Hampshire state law provides: “The presidential primary election shall be held on the second Tuesday in March or on a date selected by the secretary of state which is 7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election, whichever is earlier.”

[Menes]

Dear Mr. Dfwgator,

I am sorry, but I have to disagree respectfully: it was by no means certain that the Nazis would have come to power.

Yes, they used deception to a degree unheard of in the 1200 year long history of the German people. If Hindenburg had been clear about Hitler‘s motives, he certainly would not have appointed the tyrant as Chancellor.

Or if Germany had been allowed to remain a constitutional monarchy.

Even if William II might have been forced to abdicate in favour of his son (or grandson, for that matter - there was the idea of making the grandson, young Prince William, the new Emperor, with Prince Max of Baden as Protector of the Realm during the former’s minority years), I cannot see either of them appointing Hitler as head of government.

However, I make no bones of the fact that, in the case of Germany, I would always have considered a constitutional monarchy the best solution. After all, this had been a time-honored tradition since the year 800 😀

[ek_hornbeck]

If Hindenburg had been clear about Hitler‘s motives, he certainly would not have appointed the tyrant as Chancellor.

Hitler's agenda and motives were clear to everyone from day one, he not only never tried to hide them, he spelled them out in most of his speeches and in Mein Kampf.

The reason Hindenburg and his circle were willing to appoint Hitler as Chancellor is that they believed that he - an Army Corporal and high school-dropout, would be stupid and easy to control by elite military officer and technocrats. In fact, he proved to be much more clever and politically astute than they gave him credit for, and Hitler wound up running circles around his "betters" like von Papen, von Schleicher, etc.

There was also some aspect of desperation to the appointment of Hitler - had the Communists and Socialist Democrats been given more time and had they formed a coalition, they would have had a Reichstag majority and created a government - in which case Hindenburg and Co. would be stuck with a Marxist as Chancellor, something they wanted to avoid at all costs. There's also the fact that Hindenburg was physically and mentally rather frail in his final years (he was in his mid or late 80s when he died, I believe), so his ability to control what happened after Hitlers appointment was limited.