Yesterday, president Biden announced that he hopes to overhaul the Democratic
primary process by changing which states go first.
He claims this is in the name of diversity, but
we'll tell you the real reason behind the change.first, some context.
President Biden and the Democratic National Committee are moving to radically
reorder the party's presidential process by making South Carolina the first primary
state starting in 2024.
Followed in order by Nevada and New Hampshire, Georgia and
then Michigan, here's what Biden said.
We must ensure that voters of color have a voice in choosing our nominee much earlier
in the process and throughout the entire early window.
Biden wrote in a letter Thursday to members of the DNC's Rules and
Bylaws Committee, a number of whom were stunned by the calendar proposals.
Black voters in particular have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but
have been pushed to the back of the early primary process.
We rely on these voters and elections but
have not recognized their importance in our nominating calendar.
It is time to stop taking these voters for granted, and
time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the process.
The New York Times reported on this story and to their credit,
they did a good job of spelling out what is actually going on.
The plan represents an effort to elevate the diverse working class constituencies
that powered Mr. Biden's primary victory in 2020.
The move would also be a reward for South Carolina, the state that saved Mr.
Biden's candidacy two years ago after he came in fourth in Iowa.
And fifth in New Hampshire, both of which are smaller and
have a higher percentage of white voters.
In other words, Biden wants the states where he performed better, to matter more.
Is that an indication he's running in 2024?
You read it to it as much as you'd like but at the same time I do think some
change are in order, it's a pretty messed up system too.
I know Jake you and I see a little bit differently,
I'd love to hear your thoughts on it first.
>> So, I'm curious what Ben and Mondale think of this cuz this one is complicated.
So, on the one hand it is great to hear from African-American voters,
a state that has way more African-American voters.
Especially in Democratic primary a little bit earlier in the process.
Now South Carolina's number 4, it's not like number 37 or anything like that, and
South Carolina and super Tuesday pretty much decide who's gonna be president.
Anyway, and super Tuesday is loaded up with Southern states with heavily
Democratic primary voters that are African-American, right?
But they're trying to move it up even further to get the knockout punch quicker.
Okay, so now diversity is great, so that's the upside of this.
The downside of this is, conservative Democrats do better in states with
a higher percentage of African-American primary voters.
So, we can get into why, we can get into how can we change that, but for
the moment being, that has been true for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, you name it.
Except of course Hillary had the issue of running against Barack Obama, and
that wound up throwing a monkey wrench into our plans in 2008.
But then she did use it effectively against Bernie Sanders in 2016.
So, establishment Democrats think, this is perfect win-win,
well, it'll look like we care about minorities.
But in reality, all we're doing is arranging their schedule so
that we have an even bigger advantage against progressives.
So,it's definitely self serving, their hearts
going out to minority voters is priority number 183,
them winning the primaries is priority number one.
Don't get it twisted as to why they're actually doing it,
they had all the time in the world to make this change before, but it wasn't as clear
before that it was a huge advantage for the establishment Democrats.
And now that they see that it is, that's why they're changing the calendar.
But it could still be the right thing to do, so for that discussion,
Mandela, why don't you start?
>> I think it's a complicated situation for me, I absolutely know that
the establishment democrats are thinking this is a benefit for them and
in a couple of lectures cycles.
It might be we, first of all, we know that this is not about diversity, this
is absolutely about them winning primaries and cutting off progressives for sure.
However, what we do also know is investment in voters increase
the likelihood that these voters will participate.
So what what we're gonna see eventually in South Carolina is more black democrats
participating in the primary, meaning will get more progressives.
I would argue that the reason conservative or yeah, just conservative Democrats do
better than progressives is because of those who participate in the elections.
I wouldn't say that black Democrats are more conservative.
Any other Democrats actually say the opposite, especially when we're talking
about issues about expanding rights for people, especially black people.
So if the Democrats really cared about diversity and black people's votes being
heard, Mississippi would have been the first thing, right?
It's the black state in the union.
And also they've been unheard.
I don't really think that the primary should be more representative of
the country.
I think the primary should be representative of the party.
And thinking about that, then we have to say that I was a mistake 50 years ago,
go in right now.
And so what I do know is research after research elections,
I got the election cycle always says.
The more money you spend on voters, the more likely they are to vote.
So what's gonna happen is it's gonna actually a couple election cycles.
And this is gonna backfire on establishment.
And we're gonna see progressive younger voters in South Carolina clicking more
progressive candidates in the primary.
And that's gonna be a wonderful thing for all of us.
>> I still think this is a net positive because yes, that might be the case that
because of the disenfranchisement of black voters in the primary process.
And the caucus process, they didn't come out in bigger numbers.
But Iowa and in new Hampshire, both the first two states, one caucus, one primary.
They tend to come out voters in general and take it much more seriously and
come out in much larger numbers because of the responsibility they have.
And the feeling that they have are influencing the outcome.
They're influencing who the front runner becomes and that is a power that I think
any community would be very happy to have and might activate voters.
As many of you may know, I ran for president of the United States and
you have to spend so much time in Iowa and new Hampshire and Iowa is a caucus day.
I'll get into that in a second way.
Tell you about how Biden wants to get to the caucus process as well.
But it's very convoluted, it's very complex.
You have to spend your time kissing the ring of as many of 99 precinct
chairs across the state with long drives in between and
try to get them all white people to get on board with your message.
And you're losing that time speaking to a more representative
demographic of what the country truly is.
And I think that's important not to mention the caucus process is
a complete mess.
As you remember in 2020, how badly they messed up counting the results of their
caucuses and we knew it was coming with this new phone system.
They did, and they kind of lost the right to have that spot, I think as well.
But I just think in general, we need to reflect the country more in who comes
out of the gates strong as a potential front runner in the presidential campaign.
Not just cuz it would have been better for me.
>> So now, a little bit more context to,
if they were serious about getting more minority representation.
They would also be very adamant about moving Nevada now,
Nevada's third anyway, right?
But you could, if they're moving South Carolina, that's fourth,
the first could move Nevada to second, for example.
But Nevada is heavily Latino and they, for
whatever reason vote more heavily progressive.
So they're like, no, now let's no, we're good with Nevada.
[LAUGH] Okay, so, I mean, it's super obvious,
they're just trying to get an advantage for the establishment candidates.
And so now on the caucuses,
progressives do great in caucuses and there's a reason why.
Okay, and this was also nuanced and complicated the reason progressives do
better in caucuses because they're more passionate.
So they're more likely to show up to a caucus, which is a giant pain in the ass.
Whereas establishment Democratic voters heard some pulp on MSNBC and
heard that progressives couldn't win.
And that we had to vote for the conservative Democrat,
otherwise Trump would win.
So they're like, okay, there's more casual voters and they go in and vote.
The caucus guys are more into politics.
So anytime there's a caucus state, Bernie Sanders and
progressives had a big advantage.
So that's why they're like, way Biden cares so much about diversity and
that's why we're gonna move Iowa down and move South Carolina up.
Okay, so far, that's the least logical and
that's why we're gonna get rid of caucuses.
But wait, what does that have to do with diversity?
Know all of this is 100% an effort by Joe Biden to make sure he
doesn't get primaries and lose a primary.
Okay [CROSSTALK] sure, that's the reason for it, but
it doesn't mean that it's wrong cuz Biden's right.
The caucus process is very complicated.
>> And the caucus process also makes it harder for smaller candidates.
So it just because it's peer pressure, you don't get to actually vote a blind ballot,
you literally have to how it works as you stand in a room.
And you say stand in this corner if you're for my candidacy,
stand in your corner of your for Bernie Sanders.
Biden and people have to then go and be convinced and move around and
that's much harder for candidates who are trying to buck the system and
break through to do when there's not a blind ballot.
And I think that makes it a lot more challenging a lot more a lot easier for
just establishment candidates whether they are progressive or
conservative on the Democrat's side to come through.
There's a little bit more we can talk about here.
So Biden wrote a letter also to the DNC saying our party should no longer allow
caucuses as part of our nominating process.
And of course he wields a lot of influence in making these changes but
the affected states are not happy.
And it rains to be seen if they'll be implemented small rural states
like Iowa must have a voice in our presidential nominating process.
Democrats cannot forget about entire groups of voters in the heart of
the midwest without doing significant damage to the party for a generation.
Said Ross Wilburn, the chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party,
I strongly oppose the president's deeply misguided proposal.
Make no mistake.
New Hampshire's law is clear in our primary will continue to be first in
the nation.
Said senator Maggie Hassan from New Hampshire and
they're just bucking it, they're saying no matter what gets decided by the DNC,
the states can still do what they want.
And they're gonna still be the first primary and so we'll see how that shakes
down Nevada's state senate majority leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Nevada.
State assembly speaker elect Steve Yeager.
Both Democrats released a joint statement refusing to move their primary date from
Tuesday February 6th to meet the Biden plan.
We strongly disagree with president Biden's proposed new order of early
presidential nominating states.
They said in the joint statement we are the right long term choice to be
first in the nation.
So they're trying to get that number one spot as well.
We'll see how it shakes down.
But I don't know I think some changes in presidential politics wouldn't be
for the worst.
>> All right, last thing I'll say on this is that look Nevada could play
the same identity politics and go that's it.
You're dissing Latinos.
Okay it's a heavily Latino state in the Democratic primaries and
that must mean that Democrats hate Latinos.
Of course not right.
And by the way I generally agree more with the Iowa New Hampshire Nevada delegations
that doesn't mean they're not biased either.
Of course they're biased.
They wanna be up earlier because it gives more power to their states.
So I understand everybody's different interests and
then make a right rational decision you would hope at least for yourselves.
And what you think is the right thing to do then you make
a rational decision is which one you wanna support.
Given that there are good arguments on both sides here, everybody's good biased,
but there are valid points that Biden and others are making.
And then finally,
my message to progressives is this is the same as as to Republicans.
Republicans go, my God, they're bringing all these immigrants.
So the Democrats can win.
And I say the Republicans, well then why don't you just win their votes, right?
Why are you assuming they're all gonna vote for Democrats?
Why don't you have policies that are better right now?
I'll say the same thing to progressives in the case of progressives,
their policies are not the issue.
And I can prove it to you in Mississippi for example, as Mondale just said they're
the most heavily African American state, 65% wanted Medicare for all.
That's in an exit poll in the last presidential primary.
Right, so they obviously voted for Bernie Sanders.
Right, nope, 78% in favor of Biden now.
So progressives weren't wrong on the policies,
they've got all the policies that African American voters want.
Their problem is in communication and I know it's super difficult
to get past the wall of propaganda that is corporate media.
So mainstream media will take that and go now remember everybody,
if you like Medicare for all you vote for Joe Biden.
He were like what Joe Biden is 100% against Medicare for all.
And remember everybody that Bernie Sanders is a 0% chance of winning,
make sure you vote for Joe Biden was the only person who could beat Donald Trump.
I know, so progressives, you know what?
Figure it out, get better.
Okay, get past the propaganda and win African American voters and
when you do then you'll have the entire Democratic party.
>> Paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.
>> [LAUGH] Yeah, I would I would also say just a gentle push back on some of it.
The fact that I don't think that our Latin brothers is are more progressive than
our black voters.
And what happens is if you look at how we vote in general elections versus who's
voting in the primaries.
I think that's what happens.
What happens in the primary is you tend to have older voters voting when you see
younger voters participating.
Young black voters are as progressive as any other voters, if not more progressive.
We saw this pan out when we Black men outperform every demographic for
support for women's right to choose at the Supreme Court.
The Delete Document from the Supreme Court,
even every demographic of women in this country.
We also know that in general elections, we see our Latin brothers and
sisters vote somewhere around close to 50% for Republican candidates.
That's a huge signal that they're not as progressive as black voters, but
I will say that there's some truth in what you're saying.
That there's nothing other than pure establishment trying to protect itself in
this move because, and
the caucus trying to get rid of the caucus says that more than anything else.
And I think if we are upset what happened in Iowa caucus,
then we figure out how we fix that.
I do think there's some truth to what I was talking about when he said if you
are a smaller candidate, not a statue but in finance and resources.
And you're gonna have a hard time winning the caucus because of the amount of work
and resources it takes.
Which is why people are in Iowa a year before the election.
So I think another thing about Bernie as a guy who is a Bernie guy,
I'm talking about myself.
What happened in in the last intellectual Bernie in the primary cycle was Bernie
took the four years between 2016 and 2020.
To spend all that time in Nevada building up his base in Nevada instead of going to
South Carolina.
And I don't know if you all know that black people are not
really interested in finding another old white man to yell at them.
So when Bernie came to South Carolina,
Joe Biden had already had the Obama swag on him attached to him.
So that was something that black people didn't have to learn about Joe Biden.
Whereas Bernie didn't have four years of relationship already built in to
black people in South Carolina.
Also, people like to give credit to Clyburn.
Clyburn is not a black person whispering.
Black people in southern states didn't vote for
Joe Biden because of Claiborne and South Carolina.
Black people, I would argue throughout Southern states don't know who Clyburn is.
But for those who are committed to the party and the primary system already,
majority of black people don't care about what Clyburn has to say.
Even in his district and you can tell about the number of black men and
black people who sit out elections every cycle and choose not to vote for him.
>> Yeah, I just wanna say one last thing because I don't wanna be misunderstood.
I think Mondale makes a terrific point about the age demographic.
The reason why you saw the results that you saw in 2020 where Latinos voted in
higher percentages for the progressive candidate.
Bernie Sanders is not necessarily because Latinos are more progressive.
No, African American voters,
if you look at the policy positions are very progressive.
And again, the media, excuse how they perceive those issues,
etc as we discussed before.
But it's the age Latinos are younger on average and
younger people are tremendously progressive.
And a lot of the African American voters since they are such song voters,
they're like the best voters in the country are older voters and older voters.
Unfortunately, watch television and that's why they get that propaganda and
that's why they tend to vote for the more establishment candidates.
So it's the age thing that makes a difference, much more so than race.