How South Carolina DNC Win Could Affect Democratic Socialists' 2028 Plans
Newsweek · C · trust 58/100
0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search. The Democratic National Committee's (DNC) decision to make South Carolina the first presidential primary state in 2028 is already fueling debate over which wing of the party stands to benefit—and whether it could complicate the path for democratic socialists such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
On Friday, the DNC 's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to recommend South Carolina as the opening contest of the 2028 Democratic presidential primary calendar, beating out Nevada. The proposal, which still requires approval by the full DNC in August, would keep the Palmetto State in the first position after the party elevated it ahead of the 2024 election cycle.
Some political observers argue that South Carolina's Democratic electorate, anchored by a large bloc of Black voters who have historically favored more establishment candidates, could make it more difficult for progressive or democratic socialist contenders to build early momentum.
However, others contend that a crowded primary field could produce the opposite effect by splitting the moderate vote and creating an opening for an insurgent candidate.
The opening presidential primary often plays an outsized role in shaping the rest of the nominating contest.
A strong finish in the first state can generate media attention, boost fundraising and persuade undecided voters that a candidate is viable. Conversely, a disappointing showing can quickly end campaigns by drying up financial support and prompting candidates to suspend their bids.
With no incumbent Democratic president expected to seek the nomination in 2028, the first contest is likely to carry even greater significance as candidates compete for early momentum in what is expected to be a wide-open race.
The Democratic Party first moved South Carolina to the front of its presidential calendar for the 2024 cycle after then-President Joe Biden argued that the nominating process should begin in a state that better reflects the party's diverse coalition.
Supporters of keeping South Carolina first argued that the state gives Black voters—one of the Democratic Party's most reliable voting blocs—a greater voice in selecting the party's nominee. During this year's debate, South Carolina supporters also argued the state better represents the coalition Democrats need to win national elections, while Nevada backers emphasized its racial diversity and battleground-state status.
Some commentators believe the decision presents a more difficult path for candidates aligned with the Democratic Party's progressive or democratic socialist wing.
Conservative commentator Meghan McCain wrote on X that the move was "bad, bad news for the socialists and AOC's future presidential campaign."
Political scientist Craig Agranoff of Florida Atlantic University told Newsweek that South Carolina "rewards candidates who can connect with a large and influential Black electorate that tends to prioritize electability and practical results over pure ideology."
"That dynamic has historically been tough terrain for the most progressive voices in the party," Agranoff said. "McCain is right that it raises the bar for someone like AOC if she runs."
"Early states shape momentum and South Carolina will force every serious contender to prove they can build a broad coalition right out of the gate," he added.
The calendar change has also prompted speculation that Ocasio-Cortez could instead focus on a Senate campaign rather than a White House bid. Democratic strategist Alicia Smith wrote on X that the new calendar "could be causing AOC to lean towards a cakewalk Senate run and forgoing the 2028 presidential race," adding that the New York congresswoman is "young enough to where she can wait a bit anyways."
Other analysts argue that South Carolina's first-in-the-nation status may not necessarily disadvantage progressive candidates.
Political scientist Grant Reeher, professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School, said that presidential primaries typically attract the most politically engaged voters, who often hold stronger ideological views than the broader electorate.
"On the one hand, SC is a more conservative state, and even its Democrats tend to be more conservative, due in part to the predominance of African-American voters within the Democratic Party there," Reeher told Newsweek . "But primaries attract the most energized voters, and those who are more extreme.
"With a large field, that could help the one most progressive (or socialist) candidate emerge with a plurality," he added.
Outsider candidates with distinct political brands—such as Pete Buttigieg during previous cycles—could also benefit if the field becomes crowded, Reeher said.
"A lot depends on how large the field is. Some will drop out before the first primary, due to poor polling and fundraising numbers, like Harris did in 2020."
Agranoff also pointed to the importance of the size of the field.
"When multiple candidates compete for the same bloc of voters it can fracture support and create openings for someone like Buttigieg or even [Bernie] Sanders if he decides to jump in again (which at the moment seems unlikely)," he said. "Early states shape momentum and South Carolina will force every serious contender to prove they can build a broad coalition right out of the gate."
Former Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd echoed that assessment on X, writing that South Carolina could, "in theory," become "a big win for Bernie-wing" candidates if six to eight viable contenders split support among Black voters, allowing a candidate with weaker support from that constituency to prevail.
Jonathan Martin of Politico also said that the race could depend on how many Black candidates enter the contest, asking whether one contender could consolidate Black support while also…
Read the original at Newsweek →
Open in TruthVane →