After years of consideration, the Democratic National Committee decided at its summer meeting last month that South Carolina would hold the party’s first presidential primary in 2028. The decision upends the traditional calendar that kicked things off in Iowa and New Hampshire, opting instead for a Deep South state with a reputation for plucking presidents from an array of hopefuls.
Recent history tells the tale. In 1992, Bill Clinton dubbed himself the “comeback kid” after a series of scandals and a primary loss, but it was wins in Georgia and South Carolina that saved his campaign and justified the nickname. In 2008, despite early losses and polls showing him behind Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, Barack Obama’s decisive victory there paved his path to the nomination and the presidency. And in the 2020 primary, Joe Biden brought a losing streak to the state, but he left it leading the pack and carried that momentum into Super Tuesday and the White House.
As it happens, when the winner of a crowded South Carolina Democratic primary also wins the party nomination, they become president. Now, the party is hoping to front-load that magic. “This is about our approach to winning back the presidency,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said at the recent meeting. “It’s about the kind of Democratic Party and the kind of country we aspire to be.”
Democrats are engaged in a tug-of-war between progressives pulling the party left and a more moderate wing attempting to hold the center. By going to South Carolina first, the party is declaring that pragmatism is its electoral and governing philosophy.
The most obvious difference between starting in South Carolina on Jan. 22, 2028, rather than Iowa and New Hampshire, is the state’s diversity. In 2020, Black voters made up 56 percent of the Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina, but the state is two-thirds White and solidly Republican. That gives its politics a distinctive culture, one in which a nominee’s viability matters most. Politicians in Iowa and New Hampshire have long cited their states’ skill at vetting candidates as reason enough for remaining first, but their electorates look nothing like the coalition that nominates and elects Democrats. South Carolina’s population better fits the mold — racially and politically. Consequently, the state’s primary is a better test of whether a candidate’s viability holds up with different kinds of voters.
Given the party’s current moment, the more telling reality is that progressive candidates have not done well there. Biden won the state primary with nearly half the popular vote while Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), the field’s leftmost candidates, together garnered 27 percent. The divide by race and age, though, was stark: Biden carried the majority of voters over 45 — who made up 7 in 10 primary voters — and a supermajority of Black voters. But Sanders handily won voters under 30, and two-thirds of White voters chose a candidate other than Biden.
The party isn’t prioritizing Black voters over White ones by starting in South Carolina; it’s elevating the pragmatic politics prevalent among Black Southerners over the progressive politics favored by White liberals and younger voters of all ethnicities.
And yet, it’s unlikely that the state’s outcome will winnow the field. The ensuing early contests in states such as Nevada and Michigan bode well for progressive candidates with campaign war chests large enough to stay in the race. They could sweep these other contests and change the complexion of the contest. But South Carolina offers a preview of other Southern states whose large Black primary electorates and combined delegate count can help secure the advantage in a tight primary, as they did for Obama in 2008. This suggests that the more progressive a candidate is, the younger and more multiracial their primary coalition must be to win the nomination.
Another advantage South Carolina offers is that it’s meaningful to the Republican Party, too. The winner of the state’s GOP primary has secured the party’s presidential nomination every cycle since 1980, except when former House speaker Newt Gingrich won the primary in 2012. The state’s Democrats will cast their votes in 2028 with an eye toward the polling of Republican candidates, who are expected to compete a few weeks later in their primary. This gives Democratic voters a sense of who the competition will be in the general election, which is invaluable when assessing a candidate’s viability.
In the DNC’s autopsy report released in the spring the party took itself to task for focusing too heavily on identity politics. South Carolina is useful here, too. The majority-Black primary electorate holds an especially high bar for Black candidates to clear. Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker ran in 2020, but both polled behind Warren with Black voters in the state and dropped out before the primary. The question of electability often collides with candidates’ gender, ethnicity, age and ideology. The state’s primary voters usually opt for viability over identity, even if they do harbor a soft spot for Southern candidates, such as Bill Clinton and John Edwards in 2004.
The field is sure to be crowded in 2028 — the speculation has already begun. Starting next year, presidential aspirants will be campaigning in the state for months, hoping for a little magic. The DNC has had its say on the process it believes can produce the best nominee, and now it must wait to see who South Carolinians believe can win the White House.
The post Can South Carolina deliver the White House? The DNC’s big 2028 gamble. appeared first on Washington Post.
