Dems Sideline White Voters in 2028

Republicans and Democrats used to have a grand tradition of presidential candidates heading up to New Hampshire, putting on LL Bean jackets and trying to talk down to small groups of skeptical senior citizens in diners. It was a stupid way to choose leaders, but, like democracy itself, it was also the least bad option because it forced national candidates to get out of their comfort zones and talk to random people in a state that they would have otherwise ignored.

Then the Democrats decided to run a senile presidential candidate in 2024 and to make sure that he had no possible competition, the DNC conspired to rig the primary calendar by starting the season off with South Carolina: a state whose political virtue was that political boss Rep. James Clyburn could deliver the black vote to anyone dead or alive, or, like Joe Biden, somewhere in between.

The DNC claimed that it was urgent to replace New Hampshire with South Carolina for the sake of diversity, because nothing epitomizes diversity like rigging an election for an old white man.

New Hampshire was ordered to move its primary back. New Hampshire Dems explained that the primary dates were set by state law and that they had to proceed with the primary on the usual schedule. The DNC told Democrats not to vote in the primary and then launched a write-in campaign that Biden somehow won, despite barely being able to remember his name on a good day, testifying to either the complete mindlessness or fraudulence of the party.

Once Biden had been ousted, the DNC could have put back the old primary calendar, instead it decided to host a showdown between South Carolina and Nevada to replace New Hampshire.

Nevada and South Carolina were at the top because unlike New Hampshire they had fewer white people, at least who voted Democrat, because most of those had decamped from a party that made a special point of hating them . The best argument for Nevada was that it was full of Latinos and the best argument for South Carolina was that it was full of black people.

And not picking South Carolina would be racist. The only question was whether not picking Nevada would be just as racist, more racist or slightly less racist.

“If South Carolina gets quietly bumped after one cycle of convenient praise, that sends a message louder than any speech at a Democratic dinner: the gratitude was performance, not policy,” Al Sharpton warned.

The DNC juggled two races until it decided that black people were the most important and so South Carolina will host the first state primary, Latinos were the second most important and so Nevada will go second, and white people were the least important, so New Hampshire would go third. Latinos however get a consolation prize with a fourth place spot for New Mexico, while fifth place goes to the all-important demographic of Hamas supporters in Michigan.

(New Hampshire Democrats still can’t move their primary, which means that if 2024 repeats itself, they’ll just conduct the primary on schedule and Biden will again win the write-in vote.)

Apart from potentially setting up an AOC presidency (as the most high-profile Latina and leftist candidate, she could potentially win 4 out of the first 5 primary states, and seal the deal), the primary calendar is a useful metric for bringing the racial ugliness of the Dems out into the open.

A statement by DNC leaders bragged that this was “the most diverse calendar Democrats have ever had for an open nominating contest” and the official site ranked the calendar based on the number of the 4.6 million black people, 4.2 million Latinos and 1.4 Asian Americans who live in the early window states. Sorry Asian Americans, you’ll need more votes if you want to rank.

Only 4 out of 49 of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee members backed New Hampshire for the top spot, while South Carolina scored 26 votes and Nevada took home 19 votes. Iowa, also once an early state, but deemed excessively white, wasn’t even on the table.

Democrats in New Hampshire and Iowa are discovering that diversity means no white people.

Under the new primary calendar, the racial makeup of the first 4 early window states drops from a distinct white majority to 57% or so, ensuring that minority voters play a much larger role in picking the party’s nominee. In reality, this really means that political bosses like Rep. Clyburn and the network of minority ‘voter outreach’ groups, often leftist non-profits, and powerful unions will be doing the actual picking. Much like 2024, ‘diversity’ is just a human shield for rigging the primaries by putting political machines and organizers in charge of manufacturing a bloc vote.

57% is well below the 64% of white Kamala voters. Despite all the hype and racial pandering, black voters only made up 16% of her voters and Latinos represented only 11%. But rather than try to win over white voters, the Dems are doubling down on erasing white voters and elevating black and Latino voters as being somehow superior to them purely on account of their race.

The last time Dems did this in New Hampshire, Kamala’s vote totals in New Hampshire were down by 6,000 from Biden’s totals in 2020, while Trump’s shot up 30,000. At this rate, Republicans will go back to winning New Hampshire.

This isn’t the sort of stuff that wins elections, but winning elections isn’t really the point.

The DNC carved out a primary calendar geared to promoting some candidates and suppressing others. The calendar likely kills the Buttgieg campaign dead, even before it would have died on its own, while making Kamala and AOC into viable contenders, and puts the Hamas supporters in Michigan in a powerful position to force concessions to their agenda from the candidates.

All of this is being done under the guise of promoting racial diversity, but what it does all too well is convey to voters that the Democratic Party only cares about them based on their race. The 2028 primary calendar is a document that shows exactly how the party ranks races. It’s as racist as anything that came out of Jim Crow and it’s how Dems want to pick their next president.

Greenfield has written a very insightful article. Thanks for posting. He makes excellent and obviously truthful observations.

Democrats in New Hampshire and Iowa are discovering that diversity means no white people.
Much like 2024, diversity’ is just a human shield for rigging the primaries by putting political machines and organizers in charge of manufacturing a bloc vote.
But rather than try to win over white voters, the Dems are doubling down on erasing white voters and elevating black and Latino voters as being somehow superior to them purely on account of their race.
All of this is being done under the guise of promoting racial diversity, but what it does all too well is convey to voters that the Democratic Party only cares about them based on their race. The 2028 primary calendar is a document that shows exactly how the party ranks races. It’s as racist as anything that came out of Jim Crow and it’s how Dems want to pick their next president.

It reminds me of the images of "diversity" in Spain the past few days.

“The DNC conspired to rig the primary calendar and is now starting the season off with South Carolina a state whose political virtue was that its political bossman, Rep. James Clyburn, could deliver the black vote to anyone dead or alive......or, like Joe Biden, somewhere in between.”

******

WIKI

In 1944, however, in Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 against the Texas white primary system. In that case, the Court ruled that the 1923 Texas state law was unconstitutional, because it allowed the state Democratic Party to racially discriminate.

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

WIKI

Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation. It overturned the Texas state law that authorized parties to set their internal rules, including the use of white primaries. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to delegate its authority over elections to parties in order to allow discrimination to be practiced. This ruling affected all other states where the party used the white primary rule.

The Democratic Party had effectively excluded minority voter participation by this means.

Lonnie E. Smith, a black dentist from the Fifth Ward area of Houston and a voter in Harris County, Texas, sued county election official S. S. Allwright for the right to vote in a primary election being conducted by the Democratic Party. Smith was attempting to cast his vote for a Democratic primary in which candidates for the House of Representatives, Senate, and Governor were being nominated, in addition to other state officers. He challenged the 1923 state law that authorized the party to establish its internal rules; the party required all voters in its primary to be white.

The Texas Constitution states that every person qualified by residence in a district or county, in addition to other factors that are not relevant, “shall be deemed a qualified elector” in Article VI, §2, and Chapters Twelve and Thirteen of the statutes require primary elections for Senators, Representatives, and state officers. Under Texas state law, the Democratic Party of Texas was a “voluntary association” that had some rights against state interference. The party was allowed to determine its own policies and membership and in 1932 adopted a policy that all white citizens qualified to vote in Texas were eligible for membership, therefore allowing only white citizens to vote.

The District Court denied relief for Smith, and the appellate court affirmed by applying Grovey v. Townsend.

Smith v. Allwright questioned whether or not denying Smith the right to vote in the democratic primary on the basis of his skin color violated statutory and constitutional rights under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments protect against such actions from any state. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve a purported inconsistency between two precedent decisions: Grovey v. Townsend and United States v. Classic. Thurgood Marshall, who, at the time, led the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and would later become the Supreme Court’s first black justice, represented Mr. Smith in the case. He championed this decision and later stated that this was his most important case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright

In U.S. v. Classic, two federal indictments were brought against six election commissioners, alleging conspiracy and corruption in the Democratic primary election for U.S. Representative. They were charged with miscounting and altering the ballots that were cast.

the Supreme Court had established a new precedent in United States v. Classic, which held that when state law makes a primary election an official part of the election process Congress has the power to regulate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright

Perhaps:

On the first Tuesday of October of every fourth year starting in 2027 the Commissioner of the FEC shall cause the names of all states allowing a presidential primary or caucus to be written upon and hidden in externally identical paper slips and placed in a goldfish bowl.

He shall draw enough slips out so the number of people in the states whose names are drawn exceeds 10% of the US population based on the last completed US census.

Those states shall have a primary, caucus or substitute process on the second Tuesday of January in the following year, and not otherwise.

The drawings shall continue with the primary, caucus or substitute process to be held on the following Tuesday, and not otherwise, until all the slips are drawn and dates set.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.