Black Humans vs. Gay Socialists: The DNC Civil War

In this episode of Based Camp, Simone and Malcolm Collins unpack the Democratic Party’s multi-layered civil war and institutional mess. The DNC just fought an open racial and ideological battle over which state goes first in the 2028 presidential primary—South Carolina (Black voters) vs. Nevada (Latino voters)—while the party sits millions in debt, faces donor flight, phone-throwing drama from Chair Ken Martin, and a delayed, incomplete 2024 election autopsy that buried a chapter blaming Biden’s refusal to step aside.

They cover:

* Why the first primary state matters so much (and how it historically blocked Bernie and could block AOC-style candidates)

* Open racial primacy sniping between Black and Latino Democratic factions

* Establishment/moderate Black voters as a firewall against the DSA/progressive left

* DNC financial collapse versus the RNC’s cash pile

* Gen Z’s extreme salary expectations and accelerating demand for socialism

* Younger Democrats’ sharp leftward shift on capitalism, policing, and institutions

* Whether the party can hold or is heading toward collapse/replacement by something more radical

* Speculations on 2028 candidates (including the Hunter Biden “banished prince” theory)

Plus the usual Based Camp mix of data, personal political experience, and unfiltered analysis of identity politics, donor incentives, and what comes next.

Show Notes

Intra-Democratic Fight

* The conflict was triggered by DNC’s choice of which state goes first in the 2028 presidential primary

The Dispute

* Black voters make up a large share of South Carolina’s Democrats and have long been the party’s most loyal national base

* Nevada is a diverse battleground with a substantial Latino population.

* Black leaders treated keeping South Carolina first as a non-negotiable recognition of Black voters’ centrality—especially after recent Supreme Court rulings that weakened Voting Rights Act protections and triggered redistricting fights that reduced Black representation in the South.

* South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain put it bluntly in comments that went viral, elevating Nevada over South Carolina “would be because of their Latino vote. So you would then be telling Black voters that you matter less than brown voters.”

* Al Sharpton and others echoed the “slap in the face” framing.

* Some countered, saying things like: “The earliest primaries should be in competitive swing states. Not South Carolina. Honoring the importance of black voters to the Democratic base is also valid, but that still shouldn’t be South Carolina, it should be Georgia and Michigan” … “The purpose of a primary is to choose the strongest nominee to win the general election. It does us no good to show us a candidate is popular in a state that will be irrelevant when it really matters”

* Latino advocacy groups (Voto Latino, Latino Victory Project, etc.) and Nevada Democrats pushed hard the other way, arguing Nevada better reflects the modern coalition Democrats need and that Latinos deserved the symbolic first slot after their 2024 shifts.

* This produced open, racially charged sniping between Black and Latino Democratic factions right before the committee vote—exactly the “giant fight between blacks [and] Hispanics” described.

* The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee ultimately recommended South Carolina first (on or around Jan. 22, 2028), followed by Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, and Virginia. The full DNC still needs to ratify it.

The Broader DSA/Progressive Struggle

* Progressives and DSA-aligned voices viewed the South Carolina-first outcome as an establishment move to disadvantage left-wing or socialist candidates.

* Here’s how one person in that camp, Christo Aivalis, put it: “South Carolina is an early state for 1 reason only: to block any challenge to right-wing Democrats. It’s got nothing to do with the Black vote. Georgia has a higher proportion of its population that is Black, it’s a swing state, and its Black population is more representative of the national Black population”

* South Carolina’s Black primary voters have repeatedly rejected far-left figures (Bernie Sanders lost the state badly in both 2016 and 2020).

* Many on the left saw SC as a filter that favors more moderate/Black-establishment-aligned candidates and makes it harder for an AOC-style or DSA-backed contender to survive the opening round.

* Nevada was seen as more favorable terrain for progressives (stronger unions, different demographic mix).

* Axios reported progressive anger after the vote: some explicitly framed putting South Carolina first as the establishment trying to “shut down” a progressive presidential candidate and fight the party’s leftward shift. Online, DSA/progressive accounts went after the decision as protecting the “Black, Jewish, and Moderate alliance” (a common left shorthand for traditional Democratic power centers that progressives often criticize as insufficiently radical or too tied to certain institutional interests). This is the “DSA and progressive types go at the Black, Jewish, and Moderate alliance” part and the “left is eating itself” dynamic.

DNC Money Troubles

I did not know the democratic party was having troubles:

NY Times: Inside the Phone-Throwing Drama at the Troubled, Broke Democratic Party

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/26/us/politics/ken-martin-dnc-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0lA.7wDs.OpuSYQKTgP8r&smid=url-share

* “So much is going politically right for Democrats these days. President Trump’s approval is down, gas prices are up and an unpopular war with Iran drags on. But dysfunction and debt inside one of the party’s key institutions — which is getting crushed in fund-raising by its Republican counterpart — are creating rising anxiety for top Democrats.”

* “Mr. Trump controls a $400 million super PAC, and the Republican National Committee is sitting on nearly $130 million. Mr. Martin’s D.N.C. is $2 million in debt.”

* “For more than a decade, the D.N.C. has transferred millions of dollars every election to sister committees responsible for winning the House and Senate. But the national party is now so short on cash — even after taking out a $15 million loan last year — that officials have privately conveyed to congressional leadership that there will be no such transfers in 2026.”

* “Some of the problems are a hangover from 2024. While Vice President Kamala Harris raised record sums that year, her loss left many big Democratic donors disillusioned with the party. Her campaign also had millions in debt that the D.N.C. spent much of last year paying off, with Ms. Harris’s help.”

* Part of me wonders if the strategy is good, though? They’re giving all the money to state/local committees to WIN ELECTIONS. They shouldn’t be sitting on cash, they’re spending it, and they are… so maybe I think they’re doing the right thing.

* “Mr. Martin’s pledge to increase monthly handouts to state parties has been the centerpiece of his spending agenda. But his inclusion of the territories has caused consternation.”

What Can We Expect from the Future of the DNC?

Some donation troubles: There was a sharp post-2024 pullback by DNC megadonors frustrated