Living in SC, I just don't see the state being worth much investment for Dems. You can ungerrymander it by initiative. The Upstate is Wyoming-level red. The 42-44% floor looks enticing, but it's a mirage. The normie GOPs, who do tend to run the state, couldn't even get Tom Rice into a runoff in a 5 person primary after he voted to impeac…
Living in SC, I just don't see the state being worth much investment for Dems. You can ungerrymander it by initiative. The Upstate is Wyoming-level red. The 42-44% floor looks enticing, but it's a mirage. The normie GOPs, who do tend to run the state, couldn't even get Tom Rice into a runoff in a 5 person primary after he voted to impeach Trump, and that was in relatively less right coastal/peedee area. We sunj a ton of cash into Jamie Harrison's run against Graham, who is not beloved, and it wasn't really close.
I don't know much about SC but it would be helpful to at least grow the Democratic Party's presence locally first, even in red areas outside of say SC-06 which Jim Clyburn represents.
SC-01 could be a good Congressional District by which Democrats can organize in.
I don't disagree, and if you could build up the Ds in Charleston then it would be harder gerrymander to the present 6-1 split we have now. But we had a lawsuit like the Alabama one about gerrymandering specifically on racial packing Clyburn's district that went no where. CD01 is Nancy Mace and her district was made redder after she beat Joe Cunningham. Plus the state level is badly titled too.
I just think there are better places to spend money than SC.
Agreed on investment being better spent in other states. I'd only selectively focus on SC for the exact reasons I mentioned but yes, definitely want to aim where the traction is the most.
AZ, GA and TX represent room for growth for Democrats as do AK and KS.
Living in SC, I just don't see the state being worth much investment for Dems. You can ungerrymander it by initiative. The Upstate is Wyoming-level red. The 42-44% floor looks enticing, but it's a mirage. The normie GOPs, who do tend to run the state, couldn't even get Tom Rice into a runoff in a 5 person primary after he voted to impeach Trump, and that was in relatively less right coastal/peedee area. We sunj a ton of cash into Jamie Harrison's run against Graham, who is not beloved, and it wasn't really close.
I don't know much about SC but it would be helpful to at least grow the Democratic Party's presence locally first, even in red areas outside of say SC-06 which Jim Clyburn represents.
SC-01 could be a good Congressional District by which Democrats can organize in.
Should have been cannot fix by initiative.
I don't disagree, and if you could build up the Ds in Charleston then it would be harder gerrymander to the present 6-1 split we have now. But we had a lawsuit like the Alabama one about gerrymandering specifically on racial packing Clyburn's district that went no where. CD01 is Nancy Mace and her district was made redder after she beat Joe Cunningham. Plus the state level is badly titled too.
I just think there are better places to spend money than SC.
Agreed on investment being better spent in other states. I'd only selectively focus on SC for the exact reasons I mentioned but yes, definitely want to aim where the traction is the most.
AZ, GA and TX represent room for growth for Democrats as do AK and KS.