• donuts@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Are you aware that New Hampshire decided to unilaterally put themselves first in the primary schedule based on some nonsense in their state constitution?

    “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, of each year when a president of the United States is to be elected or the year previous,” the law says.

    But last year, the Democratic Party, supported by President Biden, announced it would be changing its primary calendar to prioritize South Carolina and move up battleground states such as Michigan and Georgia. New Hampshire’s state government, controlled by Republicans, refused to comply with the DNC’s new rules and scheduled the primary for Jan. 23, leaving it first.

    As a result, Mr. Biden is not appearing on the ballot, although his campaign has launched an aggressive write-in campaign. Democratic candidates participating in the unofficial primary on Tuesday will not win any delegates, so any victory will be symbolic.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-new-hampshire-primary-first-in-the-nation/

    As I’m somewhat a fan of democracy, I think that South Carolina is a much better first primary state than New Hampshire for the simple reason that it better represents the demographic and ideological makeup of that party.

    I agree with the commenter above, you’ve inventing shit to be mad at.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      10 months ago

      They stripped the state of their primary delegates…

      Because the state party wouldn’t violate state law…

      I get why you added the “somewhat” to that end but tho.

      And I don’t think any exchange with somone so anti-demacratic will ever be productive in a political sub.

      • donuts@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Yep, ya got me bro. Nothing says “i love democracy”, or as you call it “demacracy”, like advocating for a small state which is not at all representative of the broader voting base to unilaterally put itself first in line to the nomination process. 😂

        With people like you around it’s no wonder Socrates was put to death by popular vote. They also loved making shit up to get mad at back then.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yeah, if it was a single person, I’d agree with you…

          But your “party member” is the state party leaders who have no control over state law…

          And the NH state government, their House is Republican, their state Senate is Republican, and their Governor is Republican…

          So what the fuck was the state Democratic party going to do about NH State law in less than a year?

          And why does them failing to do that mean no NH Dem gets a say in who their candidate is?

          Seriously.

          How does this work out that you think the state party had any say?