Democrats Vote In South Carolina

“The Democratic presidential contest has moved to South Carolina, where voters began casting their ballots Saturday in a primary that serves as two starkly different milestones for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders,” the Washington Post reports.

“Clinton is looking to her expected victory here to prove her strong support among African American voters โ€” and to cement her status as the presumptive front-runner heading toward Super Tuesday three days later, when six of 11 Democratic contests will take place in Southern states with large populations of black voters.”

Politico: Clinton flips the script in South Carolina

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
  • abctefg

    Be nice everyone.

    • Alki

      I hate you I HATE YOU unelectable cold tone-deaf blah blah blah SOMETHING MEAN

      • hitlery shrillary socialist berniebro cankles cackles unelectable something something

    • Digitaldarling

      ๐Ÿ™Š๐Ÿ™‰๐Ÿ™ˆ

    • vance

      I’m just back from voting for Hillary! Went with my two daughters who also voted for her. Go Hillary!! Is that nice enough?

      • Alki

        The “mythical” enthusiastic Hillary voter, everyone.

  • Trajan8

    The Democratic primary is to the Republican primary what C-SPAN/PBS is to E!/Bravo. Sadly, we live in a nation where the latter gets better ratings.

  • Just for the record, if every Democrat who believes Bernie Sanders is unelectable, voted for Bernie Sanders, he’d carry 39 states. Donald Trump isn’t going to beat Bernie Sanders and we have hard data that says so. Only Democrats can do that, and it’d be nice if they had a reason beyond stubborn insistance on a McGovern comparison that is utterly unsupported by the facts.

    …Or we could pretend that someone named Clinton won’t galvanize the opposition, and then if she wins we can pretend not to be terrified that she’ll bomb someone, pack the FDA with Monsanto executives, and put Brian Sandoval on the Supreme Court. It’s pathetic, really: Only Democrats could fumble away the opportunity Trump is giving us, by nominating a Republican.

    • evave2

      Wow, she’s a bombin’ mama, poisoner, labor-hater. I don’t know that person you do.

    • WADE_NYC

      Translation: I’m still hating on Hillary.

      Give it a rest. Your schtick is tiresome.

    • APV

      Yeah, in your warped view there is a world of difference between Sanders and Clinton, but not much between a Republican and Clinton. None of the facts support your view.

      When both Clinton and Sanders were in the Senate between 2006 and 2008, they voted the same way 93% of the time. Sometimes her votes were to the left of Obama and Biden, when they all served in the Senate.

      • CSStrowbridge

        “When Both Clinton and Sanders were in the Senate between 2006 and 2008,
        they voted the same way 93% of the time. Sometimes her votes were to the
        left of Obama and Biden, when they all served in the Senate.”

        And if Dave doesn’t believe you, he can read the facts himself:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0

        I’m tired of these so-called Democrats who think Hillary is some monster.

        • well, he’s pretty unpersuasive, if suspiciously persistent

        • L2thaL

          Same ones who forced Obama to remind everyone he is indeed “not a Republican”

    • Alki

      If every democrat who believed David Duke was unelectable voted for him he’d carry 39 states too.

    • Alki

      Yeah, a socialist won’t galvanize republicans at all.

    • lostintheswamp

      i know today’s a tough one for sanders’ supporters but predictions about who’ll get bombed and who’ll be on the supreme court, etc., are not the best way to make the day better … you do know that a sandoval nomination was likely never serious but a bit of superior trolling, and at any rate, he’s already said ‘no’, preempting any maybe nomination ….

      • CSStrowbridge

        “you do know that a sandoval nomination was likely never serious but a bit of superior trolling”

        This is what I assumed for the minute I heard about it. Obama never publicly said he was going to nominate Sandoval, but only leaked that he was vetting Sandoval. It was trolling to show how unreasonable the GOP were acting.

        • that’s because you pay attention

    • LarryBurt

      Nice job trying to make a rational case, Dave, and I’m going to try to keep my response rational.

      First, practically everyone on here will vote for Bernie if he’s the nominee. Most of Hillary’s supporters realize that any Democrat is more important than which Democrat. That’s not even a significant question.

      As to Bernie’s current head to head match-ups, there’s no denying that he is currently doing very well. But there’s also no denying that any Republican attacks on Bernie have been very narrow at most, and close to non-existent. There’s also no denying that, should he be the nominee, they will come. Additionally, there’s no denying that they will be the most vicious malicious distortions of reality that his opponents can muster.

      The only question is whether they will matter. They won’t to engaged supporters like almost everyone here; but engaged supporters won’t decide the election in November. The reality is, the voters who actually swing the vote one way or the other pay attention to nothing more illuminating than the ads interrupting the show they were trying to watch.

      Now Clinton has some negatives too, but the ones you list are unfounded speculation, based on what you would like us to believe and very akin to what the Republicans will launch against Bernie; but let’s assume they are valid. Who would care? Only Democrats and they will vote Democrat over Republican anyway. They would be positives for anyone inclined to support the right, making them more likely to help than hurt her in November. More importantly, her negatives are not an unknown. They’re already out there and seem to grow weaker each day as one by one they are refuted.

      Finally, Clinton has a high probability of being the nominee. Your argument that Bernie could win the general is of no value if he is not the nominee. Continuing to fight for Bernie to be the nominee makes perfect sense, but trashing Hillary does not. As I mentioned at the beginning, most people here know that electing any Democrat is more important than which Democrat and sabotaging our own best interest is not prudent.

      • Trajan8

        Very well stated. And those scrolling through the comments should take a moment to read it.

        • LarryBurt

          Thank you.

      • Alki

        Seriously, when did liberals start watching Fox for their opinions on Hil?

    • exxgoper

      I am afraid you are right. If everybody with a vowel or consonant in his or hers last name vote for Bernie, he would be a shoe in! Beside I don’t trust that Clinton woman either, ever since she started that awful collaboration with those aliens of the planet Nebulazer. I am telling you, she is selling the earth oceans to those aliens and to the Andromeda St. galaxy bankers. And dont let me get going in the Trilateral Commission and the New world Order! I heard she even has a Cuadrilateral Commission! I better stop now, her minions are listening to me thru my teeth implants. I don’t want to end up in one of those concentration camps she created at Club Med. My poor uncle Oscar is in one of them. I never bought the schizophrenia nonsense. {Kindly cue in the Twilight Zone tune).

      • L2thaL

        I probably shouldn’t be saying this here, but since they can already read my mind, who cares. Hillary is picking Giorgio Tsoukalos as VP. Goodbye cruel world!

        • exxgoper

          Oh you too? See, I am not the only one. Make an aluminum cone hat. Fit tight around your head. Careful not to suffocate. That vixen Hillary is reading out brain wave. Thanks good I don’t have any active wave anymore. Viva Bernie!

    • if everyone who isn’t going to vote voted there’d be more votes for the person they voted for

    • Wynstone

      If Bernie can’t win the primaries, he can’t win the general election and he’s not losing just because people are afraid of putting up a “real progressive”. He hasn’t articulated specific achievable near-term goals.

      • embo66

        So far, his “revolution” isn’t.

    • KurtBusiek

      Strangely enough, if every Democrat refusing to vote for Hillary voted for her, she’d do fantastically well too.

      There may just be something to this “if everyone who disagreed with me did what I wanted we’d get the results I prefer” approach to politics.

      On the other hand, there may be a few problems with it, too. Let’s hope real hard and see how events play out.

    • Alki

      Wow. Over 100 likes for statements in opposition to one comment, with three likes in support.

      • Trajan8

        Yeah, but the up votes are as rigged as Hillary’s votes in the primary.

        (meaning they aren’t)

        • Alki

          I assure you the upvotes are not rigged. Try saying anything that isn’t 100% anti-trump and see the crickets.

  • nycguy

    I will consider anything less than a 15 point loss a positive for Bernie. Let’s see what happens.

    • Alki

      That being said it might be a 30 point loss. Curious to see what happens too

      • APV

        Clemson University’s latest poll has her leading by 50 points, 64-14, with 22% undecided.

        538’s projected result is 67-29.

    • CSStrowbridge

      Nate Silvers said anything less than a 25-point loss is a sign of progress for Bernie Sanders, because the demographics are so bad for him. Ouch.

      • exxgoper

        Yep. Hopefully he will get 10 or 12 votes. That would be a positive sign for you too. But who is keeping count! lol.

    • APV

      I think you transposed the numbers. Did you mean 51%?

  • tiredofit

    I think if Hillary wins this one it is over. Bernie will have only won his neighboring state, and has made little progress since then.

    For all out there, I’m talking about the state of the race and not my candidate preference. I’m still rooting for Teddy Roosevelt and Emma Goldman’s love-child to rise from the shadows and claim her rightful place leading the Democrats.

    And, yes, I know TR had an R after his name. Times were different.

    • nycguy

      That’s a pretty low bar you’re setting. Hilary is going to win the state.

      • tiredofit

        I disagree. Winning Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina gives her a midwestern state with a almost universally white population, a western state with a huge hispanic population, and an eastern state with a huge African American population.

        This will give the media a great narrative that Hillary has proven her wide popularity across populations, and that Bernie’s momentum has stalled. This leads right in to Super Tuesday with all the press positive for her, and the last thing an insurgent can take is that. The “new voters” he’s mobilized — the ones who usually don’t vote — will stay home because they usually don’t vote and are largely motivated by Bernie’s potential. They stay home, Hillary wins.

        Not saying it’s a slam dunk, just that this is what I see in my mind’s little eye.

        • Unsphexish

          This will give the media a great narrative that Hillary has proven her
          wide popularity across populations, and that Bernie’s momentum has
          stalled.

          Ha! Candidate preference aside, the media is not going to want to report that the Democratic race is sewn up. They need the horserace for ratings and clicks.

          • tiredofit

            They can happily move on to BENGHAZI E-MAIL and the fact that her husband cheated on her 20 years ago.

          • Unsphexish

            Ah, the good old stand-bys ๐Ÿ™‚

  • DemTracks

    Sanders supporters need to ask themselves why a Conservative Super Pac is launching attack ads on Hillary and her Wall Street Speeches. Could it be they want to help Sanders because they want to run against him?!?
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/hillary-clinton-pac-ad-speech-transcripts/index.html

    • nycguy

      Good. We want to run against them too.

      • DemTracks

        Sorry. But the rest of us don’t want Trump in the White House and another Scalia on the court just so Sanders gets the chance to run and fail.

    • jsnow

      Could it be they’ve checked the prediction market, concluded that Clinton is most likely to win the Democratic nomination, and determined that the possibility of helping Sanders win is a risk they’re willing to take?

      I don’t decide who I vote for or support based on which candidates some conservative Super PACs chooses to support or attack.

      • Trajan8

        True. But consider the reverse for a moment. If you were a Republican voter, would you view the comments here that we think Trump & Cruz to be the easiest to defeat in the general as evidence the Republicans should support Rubio or Kasich?

        The Republicans think Sanders would be easier to defeat in November. That alone isn’t reason not to support him, but it’s worth taking into consideration.

  • sc_rogue

    After enduring the months of garbage ads (mostly JEB), I finally get to vote. Then, in this hopelessly red state, all the candidates will abandon us until 2019.

    • Trajan8

      You never know what this general election will look like. Maybe Clinton will feel SC is worth putting some effort in as part of a 40+ state campaign. In the best case scenario, that would be in order to help put Congress in play.

      • LarryBurt

        If South Carolina every got 100% turnout, or even 100% representative turnout, it would blow the doors off the Republican party.

      • if we run against trump with the gop in disarray we have a shot at taking the House back. a long shot but possible in a wave year. women and latinos, gays and single parents, gig economy workers and unemployed 55 year olds, black folks and muslims, asians and social democrats, all of us could make that wave happen.

        • Alki

          Now would be a great time for Obama’s first campaign.

    • Allan Williams

      Even if you can’t flip your state, there is a difference between a 5% win and a 10% win in the national vote. The first is a meh, the second is a mandate.

      • embo66

        5% isn’t meh; it’s roughly the margin Obama won by in 2012.
        And it’s twice the margin Bush won by in 2004, and then claimed he had a “mandate” loaded with “political capital.”
        So by that light, 10% isn’t just a mandate, it’s a big wet kiss blowout!

        • Allan Williams

          Yeah, Reps get a mandate just with a win…Dems need double digits…don’t know why…just the way it is…

          • embo66

            It’s only “the way it is” if Dems just continue to meekly accept that.

            The real problem lies in the partisan nature of the entire country at this point — which makes a 5% win about as big a one as we’ll ever see.

            Dems ought to seize on that new reality and redefine what “mandate” really means.

  • Allan Williams

    “Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America – there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.” Barack Obama 2004.

    I just long for the time when we talk about votes. Not black, white, hispanic…just votes. Democrats are supposed to be inclusive. Dividing the electorate is what the GOP does.

    • who are Democrats excluding?

      • Allan Williams

        I guess my point is that the media is trying to make this into a divided primary. We should just be careful not to play along and to point out how we are not divided.

        • Alki

          I have a feeling this isn’t going to be missed by the media by the time it’s Clinton v Trump

        • gotcha. agreed. Dems and liberals in general are unusually well aligned these days.