Phones and Blame Fly at the DNC

Pod Save America

The Pod Save America episode covers the DNC's new 2028 primary calendar, spotlighting South Carolina as first, sparking debate over strategy and representation. It also features Ben Wickler discussing Wisconsin’s politic

Key takeaways

• South Carolina now leads the 2028 primary calendar.

Transcript preview

Speaker 6 (0:00) Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. July means vacations, long weekends, and beach days. While you're out having fun, you want peace of mind that comes with knowing your home is protected. That's why, yeah. Speaker 3 (0:10) Sounds of affirmation. All right. Is that okay? Speaker 4 (0:13) Yeah, no, it's really good. Speaker 6 (0:14) Simply Safe protects you. It covers your exterior blind spots. It's here you have the strongest first line of defense when your attention is maybe elsewhere. With Simply Safe, you can customize your system to fit your needs. It's more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors. indoor and outdoor cameras, 24-7 professional monitoring. The have guided setup is simple, and there is no drilling required, unless you request it. So you can install and arm your system in under an hour. No long-term contracts or cancellation fees. Monitoring plans start around $1 a dollar per day. Our CEO recently had a Simple Save system installed in her home. Installation was kick and easy, and the system was up and running in no time. It has worked smoothly since day one. It gives the family total peace of mind to see who's dropping by, or you can easily chat with visitors to the camera, even when you're away. We partnered with SimplySafe to offer an exclusive discount to our listeners. Right now, you can get 50% off your new system by visiting simplysafe.com slash crooked. That's half off at simplysafe.com slash crooked. There is no safe like SimplySafe. Speaker 7 (1:11) This summer America celebrated its 250th birthday. But if you actually sit down and read the Declaration of Independence, you'll notice something wild. Buried right near the end is a brutal rant about, and this is a direct quote, merciless Indian savages. As it turns out, relations with Native nations weren't just a footnote in the American Revolution. they were central to it. Think about the Boston Tea Party. The colonists literally disguised themselves as Native Americans. Later, the country's very first attempt that a government collapsed, largely because it couldn't handle the sheer power and sovereignty of Native nations. First America is hosted by journalist Rebecca Nagel, who hosted Crooked's excellent This Land podcast, along with leading Native historians. It completely reframes how our democracy was actually built, which feels pretty relevant in our current political moment. Find First America wherever you get your podcasts. Speaker 1 (1:57) Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm John Favarrow. New studio. Speaker 3 (2:23) Looking good guys. Speaker 1 (2:24) If you're listening to this only, this is the moment that you're going to watch us on YouTube and subscribe to the Potsave America YouTube channel because we have a brand new studio here. It's awesome in here. All refurbished. Speaker 4 (2:35) Look at this. Speaker 1 (2:36) I know. It's exciting. All right. On today's show, we're going to talk about the Democrats' new 2028 primary calendar, which puts South Carolina first and has already set off a debate about who that helps. We'll also talk about one Democratic leader who seems beyond help, DNC chair Ken Martin, the subject of not one, not two, but three leak-filled stories about the party's financial crisis. Then we'll cover Trump's trip to Michigan in the big Senate race there, as well as the latest with the Iran War. And the biggest bombing of the weekend, the president's performance at the rescheduled White House correspondence dinner. Finally, Ben Wickler stopped by the studio to talk about the DNC drama, the Wisconsin gubernatorial primary drama and his brand new drama-free book. This is the plan. All right, guys, let's start with the biggest news from over the weekend that will impact the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. we have a new primary calendar. It's here. On Friday, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to make South Carolina the first primary state on January 22nd, 2028. It will tentatively be followed by Nevada on February 1st, New Hampshire a week after that, New Mexico, a week after that, Michigan the next week, and finally, Virginia on February 29th, before a bunch of other states vote in early March on Super Tuesday. The new calendar still has to be approved by the full DNC, which will meet next month. But there's already one potential stumbling block. New Hampshire has a law that requires the state to go at least one week earlier than any other state primary. The DNC's proposed solution is for the New Hampshire Democratic Party to fund and hold its own primary that's separate from the official state primary. But it doesn't sound like New Hampshire Democratic leaders are on board with that plan just yet. Speaker 3 (4:22) Or Republican leaders. Speaker 1 (4:23) or Republican leaders, right? There's also been some grumbling from a few progressive activists. No. They're putting stuff. I say a few because Axis is like, progressives upset with South Carolina. And then it's like a jacobin op-ed and like one comment from Hassan Piker. But there's a few progressive activists. Speaker 3 (4:39) Yes, yes, it was. Speaker 1 (4:40) Because I did my diligence. I started reading and I'm like, okay, this headline is great. Anyway, there's been some grumbling that putting South Carolina first gives an advantage to more moderate establishment candidates. But we'll get into all of this. Before we get into what we think about the proposed calendar, do you guys want to talk about why this is such a big deal and how much you think the early state calendar matters? Speaker 4 (5:01) I'm just nostalgic for when we were in Iowa rigging the caucus for Buttigieg. And this didn't work. This is the thanks we get. Speaker 3 (5:08) Yeah, we probably shouldn't have rigged it for him to only be revealed like four or five days later. That was real. Speaker 1 (5:13) But anyway, so much for Iowa. I was not. Speaker 3 (5:15) I mean, I think the early state calendar in its totality just could not be more important. it's the whole ball game. From the Obama perspective, like Obama's not the nominee if he doesn't win Iowa because it gave us huge momentum and it made people over the country believe that he could win, but also it taught us how to organize and we put in place those organizing practices in all the future caucus states and mopped up delegates against Hillary Clinton as we went forward. So kept paying out dividends during that long, drawn out, awful primary process. The order will also determine, you know, what policy areas get highlighted. Like, for example, Iowa being first meant that we talked about ethanol, probably far too much for far too long. Speaker 1 (5:53) Now we may never talk about it again. Speaker 3 (5:55) It may not be as big of an issue. We now have New Mexico with southern border state. We'll see if immigration is more salient this time around. In Michigan, we'll probably hear about autos and unions in Virginia. Maybe Doge is an issue again, right? You have a lot of government employees in northern Virginia. It also gives more power to different demographics and, you know, types of voters, older voters, white voters, black voters, right? So that's been a big part of the conversation that we'll get into in a minute. but I do think like figuring this out is essential and it really does help and harm specific candidates. Speaker 4 (6:24) So I'm a counterpoint. I don't know that I agree with that. So I think you're right. The schedule in early 2008 was very important, in part because Iowa's was perfect for Barack Obama to prove that despite being a black candidate, he could put together a coalition of white voters that were hyper-engaged and built a great organization on the ground. Had Hillary not had a surprising win in New Hampshire, it probably would have been over sooner, but that allowed the race to go back and forth. What what's interesting is the way the race ultimately goes back and forth, it was told as a momentum and narrative, but in reality it was often more about the demographics of the the voters in each state kind of rickishing back and forth as like the fundamental dynamics of the race didn't shift. On the other side, you have Joe Biden becoming the nominee. He loses in Iowa. He loses in New Hampshire, but he says wait for South Carolina. He's able to overcome those early losses because they had set expectations. And he comes out of South Carolina with so much momentum that he's able to clean up on Super Tuesday and become the nominee. So I do think it's important. To me, what I think is the most important is where the actual swing states fall in the schedule, right, where Michigan is, for example. But sometimes I think we get into this idea of the order of states mattering when in reality it's partly about the order, but also about managing expectations and how campaigns fare over the next few contests. It can win, but I don't know if it's like a as different. Speaker 3 (8:07) But it's not just order. It's new states, too. Like, let's say if it was instead of South Carolina and Nevada, New Hampshire, it was Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona. Like, that's sort of what I'm getting at. Yeah, yeah. Having these new states in there will just changes the issues in demographics. Speaker 1 (8:19) Yeah, there's two factors there. There's order and then there's states. Right. You know, I do think you can make an argument that order doesn't matter as much as everyone thinks it does. I think that which states, the composition of the states in the early window is hugely important. Speaker 3 (8:36) Yeah, that's what I was getting at the totality of them. Speaker 1 (8:38) And especially now that there are five, I think you're probably going to have a slower momentum build over time. But if you have five states in the early window before Super Tuesday and the two last states are very big states like Michigan and Virginia, both of which are also going to be competitive states in the general election, especially Michigan, you are going to know a lot by the time Super Tuesday rolls around about who can put together a campaign that could win almost any demographic group. in any region of the country. And like I find it hard. Unless now we, Democrats award delegates in each of these states proportionally, unlike Republicans do a lot of winner take all states. So they might, who knows, they might change that for 28 as well in their side. So you could see a situation super Tuesday and beyond where it's like an Obama and Hillary fighting out a delegate battle. But I tend to think that having five states go and that many, that many states and that many votes in that period of time is going to pretty much tell you who's the who's the company by the Speaker 4 (9:41) time you get to super Tuesday but we'll see right they all like by the time you get through those early states you've been in uh whiter states you've been in Latino states you've been the state with a bigger African American population by the time you get to Michigan you have some like sort of prominent urban areas that have been you know strongholds for democrats you've gotten a good sense of the entire picture could you achieve that same thing if you did swap in a Texas in Oklahoma Texas is a big Hispanic population. It's also a border state. Oklahoma is a very white electorate, right? Might bring out more hyper-engaged Democrats in the same way that say like an Iowa would in the past, whatever. I think the part of the reason South Carolina was able to play such a big role in 2020 is Biden said explicitly wait for South Carolina. You can't become a Democrat. You will not be, there will not be a Democratic president who doesn't have strong support among African-Americans. And then he wins so handily in that state that kind of proves that case. And he kind of is able to march onto the nomination after that. In terms of how much it matters, though, like, Speaker 1 (10:35) You got to imagine every single campaign and waiting is after Friday's announcement is like now finally starting to plan their strategy. I mean, like it is everything for a campaign knowing which states go first and in an order. It's like every decision is made around that. Speaker 3 (10:51) Where you travel, what operatives you hire? And also there were people who are talking about waiting until after the midterms to figure this out. I was like, what are you talking about? Speaker 4 (10:58) You can't possibly do that. Yeah. When I saw that some of the progressives were like sort of. And I had the same thing. Who's actually upset about this? But, you know, oh, South Carolina is a boon to more moderate candidates. Well, that's sort of about what you're saying about the African-American electorate, not being as far to the left as some, like the more sort of the wider part of the Democratic base. But now for the first time, you might have, instead of candidates spending six months in, you know, ecru white Iowa, you're going to have people spending months and months and months in South Carolina. And it's like, well, that's a great opportunity for the left to prove that they can appeal beyond their sort of online and sort of more less diverse audience. Speaker 1 (11:39) With Iowa and New Hampshire finally being dethroned as the first two contests, how do you guys think that changes the race and strategy of these campaigns? Speaker 3 (11:46) Well, it's just where it's point out that both states actually have laws on the books mandating their place in the order. The Iowa law says the caucuses have to be held at least eight days before any other primary or caucus. Iowa officials currently want to punt on that fight until after the midterms for whatever reason, but we'll see what they do. I kind of don't think they're going to. Don't think they're going to fight it. New Hampshire is going to go down swinging, in part because you have a Republican governor who is not going to agree to move it, I don't think. They have the primary. So then they're going to be asked to pay for a party funded primary. And if they don't, I mean, there's real consequences. I mean, if a state party refuses to abide by the rules, the penalties are now they lose all their delegates at the 2028 convention. That's up from losing 50% of your delegates. And they have to pay a $270,000 fine and lose DNC membership. voting rights until the fine is paid off. So that's pretty serious for them. And there's penalties for the candidates. Even worse for the candidates. You lose all your delegates from the entire early state nominating window and you're prohibited from participating in DNC rule. Like debates, I mean. Speaker 1 (12:47) So New Hampshire is going to put on a party run, a separate party run primary or else they are just going to take themselves out of the early state window altogether. Those are the only two options because no one's going to deal with these penalties, the state of New Hampshire, the candidates. So I think what they're all grumbling about right now and what I saw, like Kathy Sullivan, who was a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman, because I had asked about this on Twitter. And she replied, she's like, look, we have, we're trying to spend money to elect two members of Congress in 2026 and a senator, two House members and a senator. And now we're going to need all this money to put on a primary. Like that is a big undertaking. So I'm sure maybe some of this will be bargaining to try to get some money from the DNC, which we'll get to. Just to put on the primary. but that is a big, it's a big deal. There's a possibility if New Hampshire bows out because they don't have the money and they don't want to do this, the only other northeastern state that applied that would slide into that slot is Delaware, which is kind of interesting. Do you guys like where the DNC landed on this group of states in this particular order? Speaker 6 (13:51) I would have liked more swing states, Speaker 4 (13:53) but look, I am not, maybe, I just, I have so much PTSD from 2007, 2008 where the calendar was treated as being this very, very important thing, when in reality the experience of working for Hillary Clinton in that period was she would always do well enough that she could justify going to the next contest, but not so well as to change the dynamics of the race. And to me, I'm glad, like, I'm glad Michigan's there. I think it is actually good that you no longer have this situation where the first two contests that draw so much attention in time for so long are these very... white places that don't reflect the broader Democratic electorate. But beyond that, I do think, in the end, part of the strategy is where you compete, but also part of it is just how you tell a Speaker 3 (14:42) story about where and when you're going to do best. So, look, I'm sad to see Iowa go because I know all the downsides of caucuses. We've talked about them. But there is, it forces you to invest in organizing. It forces you, it incentivizes a nicer brand of politics because you want to be your opponent's second choice for reasons we don't have to get into. So I think that, We'll be missing that. Actually, I reached up to a bunch of people who worked in politics just to like get their opinions on what they'd seen. And the responses range from it's good and I like it. It's impossible to know yet because of New Hampshire to this is going to boom around boomerang back on us and be a disaster. Speaker 1 (15:16) So what was the argument for that? Speaker 3 (15:18) That it's just going to be messy. New Hampshire is going to screw everything up. Once we get to northern Virginia, you're going to have like DC, you know, media market spend people like making a big determination. and it will just kind of be a mess and who the hell knows about what New Mexico whatever like it's just one person's opinion I feel my personal take was I feel like the DNC and the RBC did a pretty good job of navigating a very challenging process I don't think the New Hampshire piece is solved in any way share of reform I think we're whistling past the graveyard on that and something that's going to have to give there Speaker 1 (15:52) the thing's going to get what do you mean like I just Speaker 3 (15:55) I think New Hampshire is going to fuck around they don't have the money to pay for this party run process and the Republican governor is not going to move the state. So I just, I don't know what's going to happen here. Speaker 4 (16:06) I think, can you end up with a primary where just the candidates don't participate, right? I mean, Joe Biden won New Hampshire with a right in and the head to delegates didn't, right? Speaker 1 (16:15) Like, it was like that. No, but that's it's either they find the money to put on the primary or they're out. There's no other out. You know what I'm saying? Like that's and it's just, it's going to be up to them to Speaker 3 (16:24) figure out if they can get the money. Or you have the DNC threats work. No major candidates actually go there, put their super PACs muck around in New Hampshire and stage right in effort so they can show strength and they get new cycles at it. Right. So there's all these weird ways that they could kind of mess around the thing. So who knows? On South Carolina, I mean, I think South Carolina being first, I agree with you, like South Carolina first isn't like a massive change. I think it's a reflection that black voters are the base of the party. They're half of the primary electorate there. I think the talk of you always hear from South Carolina people is we have the track record of actually picking the nominee with who we vote for. And like that's true, but that's because they went the field was winnowed. And then it gets South Carolina. So they voted for, you know, South Carolina voters picked Obama, Clinton, and Biden. My guess is South Carolina will now just kind of be the win-a-where. It will be the filter function that Iowa and New Hampshire were. I do agree. It's a real bummer that it's just, it's not a Valgaunt state. Like you do all this organizing in these early states, and then the candidates never go back to them. Yeah. Speaker 1 (17:19) Yeah, I agree with that. And look, the reason that is is because the law is already in the books. And if you look for other states with heavy populations of black voters to go first, you have to find a state with a Democratic trifectus so they can move the primary date and it's a whole mess. So I sort of feel the same move about South Carolina. But I think they did, I think for South Carolina going first, they did a really good job of then balancing out the rest of the calendar because you have, I mean, they have diversity, all kinds of diversity, right? Racial diversity, geographic diversity, ideological diversity. I also like that the first four states are small states. And so the kind of retail campaigning that you got in Iowa and New Hampshire, and this will be true if Delaware takes New Hampshire spot, you get, so you'll have South Carolina, which is a relatively small state, Nevada, same thing, New Mexico, which is brand new to this process, which is pretty small as well. Speaker 3 (18:15) I just don't know what to think of that one yet. Speaker 1 (18:17) It's, New Mexico is interesting. So you have in that state, New Mexico's overall voting eligible population is 45% has. Hispanic. That is the largest percentage of any state in the country. They also have a significant Native American population. That's the first time that we have an early state with a pretty significant Native American population. Like you said, Tommy, it's a border state, which I think is great. We have a Democratic trifect there, so they should be able to move that. No problem. It is more non-college, the voters there than some of the other states, which I also think is helpful, because you're going to want to prove that you can win non-college voters and not just highly college educated voters like you get in New Hampshire. What is the different function than Speaker 4 (18:59) like in their theory that Nevada plays versus New Mexico? Matta also has a big Latino population. It is compared to other states, a lower percentage of college voters also has Las Vegas, which is a huge important center for unions. Is that like what is the different? Like what is the what is the other than just this is how it shook out. And we, I'm glad I liked having Nevada early when we were there. That was one of the last trips we took before COVID. Speaker 1 (19:22) Look, I was on record of saying this last time, but boy, am I. We'll be spending a lot of time in Nevada. Speaker 4 (19:28) We'll have no choice. Speaker 1 (19:29) We're just going to have to go. Speaker 4 (19:30) What is the theory of the different role in New Mexico versus Nevada plays? New Mexico is a border state? Speaker 1 (19:36) Yeah. And I don't even know if there's a theory of the being different. What I took it as is North Nevada and South Carolina were battling for first. And, you know, that South Carolina party chair was like, well, if Nevada goes first, what does that say to black voters that they don't matter as much? And I think you pointed this stuff to me a love it. So does that mean the reverse is true then? Right. And so now by having two, you know, two states with significant Latino populations, and Nevada also has a significant black population as well, not as much in South Carolina, but it does. Then you get, then you basically have two states in the early window that have pretty heavy Latino populations. Speaker 4 (20:09) I'll make another case for this now that I think about it. South Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, these are states that are not that cold in November, December, January. That is a very good. Speaker 3 (20:19) That is cool. That's what we want. Speaker 1 (20:20) Good for us. It's just going to be New Hampshire. And I guess Michigan. Michigan will be cold, too. It's going to be very cold. What do you guys make of the, like, that South Carolina disadvantages progressives, a progressive candidate? Speaker 3 (20:33) I think it's probably right. I mean, the South Carolina Democratic primary electorate's older, more moderate than Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada. About 40% of South Carolina Democratic primary voters were college graduates, about half identified as liberal, which is less than earlier contest. This is, I think, 2020 exep polls. They're more likely to be working class, more likely to go to church. once a week. Older. Biden won South Carolina in 2020 because he won with black voters, but he did especially well with black voters over 60. He and Bernie actually, I think, tied with black voters under 30. So I do think it's likely to be demographically set up to be more moderate. Speaker 4 (21:11) As we were saying before, if you're saying that you think South Carolina is a way to put a roadblock in front of progressives, you are saying that a black electorate is a roadblock in front of progressives. now, I think the point that would be made in responses is, as Tommy said, a generational thing, not a demographic thing. But of course, it's both. And we have seen like, you know, you see this in Michigan playing out that one of Abdul's challenges is trying to kind of build support in the black community. And I feel like this is an opportunity for the left if they want to start building a bigger coalition that can win in contest. like this, right? Because South Carolina, that is where Bernie goes down in 2020. Like, if that's, that, that is the test. And it may not happen in this election. You're right. It may be harder because of this. But, but also at the same time, even if South Carolina was third, fourth, or fifth, this test was always there. The candidate that, that wins black voters is going to be the Speaker 1 (22:14) nominee. Well, this is where I think that the order matters maybe less, or at least can cut both ways. Because let's say South Carolina does advantage more moderate candidates. Well, then, And so a fifth of South Carolina primary voters describe themselves as very liberal, which is relatively low. And then you go to Nevada, and a third of voters there describe themselves as very liberal. So like if you're a progressive lefty candidate and you don't do well in South Carolina, you hang on and you go to Nevada. You go to New Hampshire or Delaware. You go to, you try, you know, like, so there's basically there's a state on the map in that early window. for any kind of ideological flavor or, you know, a different kind of voter that you can get. So I don't worry as much about that. I wouldn't worry if I was a progressive candidate or if I was an establishment candidate on like the order in that way. Speaker 3 (23:08) What under-discussed change, though, is Nevada going from a caucus state to a primary state, which I think is likely to disadvantage progressives, potentially because there's, you know, some progressives tend to organize well in these caucus states and unions tend to do better than, unions tend to do really well in caucus states. Which is interesting to see how that kind of cuts. Speaker 1 (23:28) I don't know yet. Oh, yeah. The fact that there's no caucuses means it's disadvantaging. I mean, that's progressives do better in caucuses for sure. But even without the caucus, Nevada will have like a more liberal primary election than South Carolina. Dan made an argument in his Saturday message box that South Carolina going first massively advantages Kamala Harris. What did you guys think about that? Speaker 4 (23:48) So I saw that and I thought, huh, that's interesting from Dan. And then I went back and looked at the South Carolina polling from before Kamala ended her campaign. And she drops out in the end of 2019 before any votes are cast. But in the closing weeks of the year, there were polls that had her somewhere between, say, five to 12 percent. I think she sort of was like ticking down a bit as we got closer. And so I don't know. I was like maybe that's true, right? But part of the reason she ended her campaign when she did is she just wasn't gaining traction even in a state like South Carolina. Speaker 1 (24:26) Yeah. What do you think, Tommy? Speaker 3 (24:27) I think, you know, basically the argument is that black voters are half the electorate in South Carolina, that Kamala Harris has the most support from black voters by far in polls. She has 69% favorability with black voters plus 42. You're right that like her presidential run in 2020 did not end well in South Carolina. any state, but that was just a bad campaign that didn't end well for her. And I think four years of being VP probably changed a lot of things. I think certainly, look, does it make her the frontrunner? Yes. But being the frontrunner's double-edged sword because the early states are not necessarily about winning all the early states, but expectations management and exceeding expectations in the early states. And when you're the early on frontrunner and everyone assumes you're going to romp in South Carolina for the following reasons, it puts a big old bull's eye on your back and the media looks for better, more interesting stories to tell for them. Speaker 1 (25:24) That's what I thought. And it's like as soon as South Carolina is over, now you've got four other states for that month, including two very big ones at the end. And does anyone think that the media, like, no matter how good of a campaign she's running, is going to be like, yeah, it's the Kamala Harris frontrunner story all through February. Like, that's just not going to happen. Speaker 4 (25:42) So it goes from like, oh, wow, South Carolina advantages Kamala Harris to Kamala Harris is the only candidate that has a state if she loses, it's over. Right? That's definitely true. Speaker 1 (25:53) Well, and the other thing we haven't talked about is if West Moore runs or Raphael Warnock, like, she's not the only black candidate that might run for president. And then you could have black candidates splitting votes. You could have. And then, you know, it's interesting, like, the two things that you need to know before we're starting to think about how the race is going to go and plan your strategies the campaign. One is the early state calendar, which is now locked. Two is the composition of the field. You need to know who's running, who's going to split what vote, how they're going to, like, that part we don't know yet. But like there is a situation too where if it's just Kamala Harris, if she's the only black candidate running and she's doing really well with black voters in South Carolina, then because the state is more moderate overall and you have a bunch of white moderates running aside from Kamala Harris, then they're all splitting a vote and then maybe the progressive candidate or two does even better. So just, and that's just an example. Like you don't, we have no idea. Yeah. Speaker 4 (26:46) Yeah, yeah. Speaker 3 (26:47) I do think like, you know, kind of like Pete Buttigieg, who has historically had a really hard time with black voters. Like, it's probably now at a disadvantage. Bernie Sanders, were he to run again, was probably a bit of a disadvantage for the reasons we just discussed. A lot of the conventional wisdom is also that AOC came out of this new primary process, helped because she does well with Latinos and with labor. We'll see if she runs. We'll see if that's true. But I'm mostly with you guys that like a lot of the early attempts to kind of, you know, handicap this race are just silly. We don't know what it's going to look like. Speaker 1 (27:19) Yeah, exactly. Ron Brunstein, who digs into these demographics and that's the better than most, he said that the one through line for all of the states is the candidate who's going to be able to do best with black voters and white college-educated voters as well is probably going to do the best. Because aside from Nevada