and, of course, has been a key roadblock to Sanders’ overall chances for the nomination. However, it will be very interesting to see whether the results among African-American voters in Michigan — among whom Sanders was beaten only 2 to 1, instead of nearly 8 to 1 in much of the South — will be replicated in other Northern states.
Much of the attention in the primary has been on how Sanders has helped nudge Clinton to the left on economics. But I think it’s fair to say that Hillary has also had a positive effect on Sanders, prompting him to address issues of racial justice alongside what started as an almost entirely class-based appeal.
paulsimmonssays
When I view the image in Firefox (the browser in which I created the post), it appears.
When I view the post in Chrome, the number “1119” appears, but no image.
Black voters support Clinton. And in states with more black voters, she wins. Hmm, who would have thought?
paulsimmonssays
The graph was to demonstrate the extent of the correlation.
Alsays
are these states ones in which the Democrat can win in a Presidential election, or are they just examples of a racial divide between the votes Clinton gets versus Sanders in those primaries?
Did you mean states like NC and VA and OH and MO and FL?
Trickle upsays
I am pondering the curve. Why should the law of diminishing returns apply in this case? Why wouldn’t Clinton’s blacks support be a linear function of black voting population?
Why is the curve steepest near the Vermont end?
I wonder if it doesn’t have something to do with the electorate as a whole in those states. If, for instance (and I’m not saying this is true) a sizable black population increases the white vote for the GOP at the expense of Sanders.
Whatever. I just think that curve is telling us a story that is a lot more than “black folks like Clinton.”
A few ideas:
1. A good argument could be made to remove VT from the dataset because it convoluted the b-w issue and the home state issue. Remove VT from the data set and the curve is much closer to linear on this x-axis.
2. As black pop increases, esp. in states where diversity boils down to white Protestant and black Protestant, we do see that being the dividing factor in politics. We see it, for example, in MS, AL, and SC. The more % black (Democrats) in a state, the more likely the remaining (white) population will be a member of a different political party. I’m arguing correlation, not causality, but it’s not too hard to make the connection.
doublemansays
Is there cause for concern in Sanders ability to win these groups and the nomination. Of course. He probably can’t and won’t – even if he cuts the margins in half for upcoming states, it might not be enough.
Assuming he somehow accomplishes that. Is there a cause for concern that Sanders would have trouble in a general winning these groups with good turnout? The topline numbers don’t say, but there is little reason to believe that the Democratic nominee would not do well among solid Democratic voters in the general (especially since Sanders has incredibly high favorables within the party – many Dems simply prefer Clinton but also really like Sanders).
I think there is other cause for concern in some of the other numbers we saw last night, though. Clinton is not doing well among independents.
Clinton led among self-described Democrats who made up 69% of those voting, with a 57%-41% edge over Sanders. But among the 28% who voted in the primary who described themselves as independents, Sanders won handily, 71%-28%.
Will the typically Democratic-leaning independents line up behind Clinton or possibly back Trump? We don’t know yet, but we do know that Clinton has not energized independents to vote for her in large numbers thus far. That’s concerning. Also, she does worse with men and white voters – where Trump does very well.
Sanders’s vote totals so far show serious issues with his ability to win the nomination, Clinton’s show some weakness for the general. Everywhere you look, it’s really messy this year.
johnksays
so there will be crossovers on both sides. I’ve already started hearing about it on the Republican side, talk about not voting or voting for Clinton. Now this was a week ago, so after Illinois, Florida and Ohio are in Sanders could be part of the conversation.
paulsimmonssays
Thus, my concern, as expressed here, is that the intra-Party hostility be kept within bounds; and that the Presidential cycle.
Irrespective of the final nominee, neither can win without support from the other’s base.
centralmassdadsays
The 2008 primary was pretty damn hostile,and went on a very long time. If the stupid search on this site worked better, you could go back and look at how bitter the commentary here was, especially once HRC declined to simply drop out, even after Obama started to build a formidable lead. And then the nominee ran against a well-respected Republican with a reputation for moderation and even opposition to the Bush administration. And won, handily.
Keep perspective, the intra-party hostility seems more like what my parents called a “discussion” than like a fight, even compared to 2008.
Mark L. Bailsays
I don’t think either candidate will forget that.
I was particularly impressed with Bernie’s respect for Black Lives Matter. He was brought up short when they protested and took the mike from him. Instead of getting mad or even, he broadened his view. I didn’t vote for him, but I’ll never forget that. I actually agreed with the BLM tactic, but I was also pleased with Bernie’s handling of it.
JimCsays
n/t
marcus-gralysays
Remove the outlier (VT) and the relationship is is more linear.
The non-linearity comes from Sanders’s (foolish) decision not to invest in states where he doesn’t think he can win. Apparently whoever is advising him doesn’t realize that Democrats allocate delegates proportionally and getting blown out of the water in moderately a small state is a bigger deal than winning a large state narrowly. Hence the increase in slope at the bottom. That’s the point where a state is white enough that Sanders decides that it’s worth his while to compete there.
hoyapaulsays
that Sanders’ overall delegate strategy might fall into the same trap as Clinton’s in ’08. Back then, Clinton successfully won some narrow victories in some important states but ignored smaller- to medium sized states altogether — and got blown out in those states.
Now, Clinton’s healthy delegate lead is largely due to Sanders’ ignoring some states he was probably going to lose anyway but where he could have kept down the margin. It’s possible that he can do well in some upcoming caucus states, but narrow victories aren’t going to cut it. You have to compete everywhere when proportional delegate allocation rules apply.
paulsimmonssays
His campaign had not (and has not) a clue about how to do competent outreach to black voters; black women in particular (roughly 60% of the black vote), particularly in the South.
The problem – and this is endemic to progressive politics – was a total misunderstanding of internal black political dynamics.
The larger issue goes to turnout in November, and I don’t see the beginnings of any competent GOTV on behalf of either candidate at his point.
hoyapaulsays
You are exactly right about this, and I think it gets to a broader point I think we need to acknowledge: both Democratic candidates are flawed in their own ways. Clinton has failed to generate excitement among important parts of the coalition (strong liberals; younger people) while Sanders has failed to adequately reach out to other key parts of the coalition (especially minority voters). Might some other candidate have done better (like Elizabeth Warren?). Perhaps. But we have what we have.
But, ultimately, I think what we have is a couple of great candidates. You look at the remaining four Republicans and realize that our candidates, even if flawed, are far superior to the demagoguery and, frankly, ridiculousness that is happening on the GOP side. I’d happily and enthusiastically vote for either in the general election.
paulsimmonssays
However, I’d sleep better at night if I knew that the Democratic nominee will have a competent operation on the ground. I tend to believe that, all things considered, organization takes precedence over candidates.
Your last paragraph is correct from a moral standpoint, but electoral politics aren’t morality plays. I’m less concerned about imperfect candidates than I am about inadequate organization.
Christophersays
Clinton definitely has a solid ground game having been a part of it, and from what I can tell so does Sanders. Plus the national party is very good at this so they will be able to strongly assist the nominee.
I agree, an optimal strategy to win delegates in a static game is to spend a little money in places where you can turn a blowout into a 2:1 loss, or a 2:1 loss into a 3:2 loss, etc.
Sanders can’t play that game as the underdog. He has to win states in order to become a credible candidate. For Sanders, the value of a 50.1% win instead of a 49.9% loss is not the 2 delegates. It’s the message — the man can win.
Sanders’ people know this. So does Clinton’s. That’s why Sanders is throwing the 35 yard passes and Clinton is running between the tackles. Sanders is throwing massive roundhouses, Clinton is throwing jabs. Sanders is gerund(big_metaphor($sport)) big_metaphor($sport), whereas Clinton is gerund(small_metaphor($sport)) small_metaphor($sport).
and, of course, has been a key roadblock to Sanders’ overall chances for the nomination. However, it will be very interesting to see whether the results among African-American voters in Michigan — among whom Sanders was beaten only 2 to 1, instead of nearly 8 to 1 in much of the South — will be replicated in other Northern states.
Much of the attention in the primary has been on how Sanders has helped nudge Clinton to the left on economics. But I think it’s fair to say that Hillary has also had a positive effect on Sanders, prompting him to address issues of racial justice alongside what started as an almost entirely class-based appeal.
When I view the image in Firefox (the browser in which I created the post), it appears.
When I view the post in Chrome, the number “1119” appears, but no image.
What’s up?
Maybe a caching issue?
I use Chrome and it shows up for me.
Black voters support Clinton. And in states with more black voters, she wins. Hmm, who would have thought?
The graph was to demonstrate the extent of the correlation.
are these states ones in which the Democrat can win in a Presidential election, or are they just examples of a racial divide between the votes Clinton gets versus Sanders in those primaries?
Did you mean states like NC and VA and OH and MO and FL?
I am pondering the curve. Why should the law of diminishing returns apply in this case? Why wouldn’t Clinton’s blacks support be a linear function of black voting population?
Why is the curve steepest near the Vermont end?
I wonder if it doesn’t have something to do with the electorate as a whole in those states. If, for instance (and I’m not saying this is true) a sizable black population increases the white vote for the GOP at the expense of Sanders.
Whatever. I just think that curve is telling us a story that is a lot more than “black folks like Clinton.”
A few ideas:
1. A good argument could be made to remove VT from the dataset because it convoluted the b-w issue and the home state issue. Remove VT from the data set and the curve is much closer to linear on this x-axis.
2. As black pop increases, esp. in states where diversity boils down to white Protestant and black Protestant, we do see that being the dividing factor in politics. We see it, for example, in MS, AL, and SC. The more % black (Democrats) in a state, the more likely the remaining (white) population will be a member of a different political party. I’m arguing correlation, not causality, but it’s not too hard to make the connection.
Is there cause for concern in Sanders ability to win these groups and the nomination. Of course. He probably can’t and won’t – even if he cuts the margins in half for upcoming states, it might not be enough.
Assuming he somehow accomplishes that. Is there a cause for concern that Sanders would have trouble in a general winning these groups with good turnout? The topline numbers don’t say, but there is little reason to believe that the Democratic nominee would not do well among solid Democratic voters in the general (especially since Sanders has incredibly high favorables within the party – many Dems simply prefer Clinton but also really like Sanders).
I think there is other cause for concern in some of the other numbers we saw last night, though. Clinton is not doing well among independents.
Will the typically Democratic-leaning independents line up behind Clinton or possibly back Trump? We don’t know yet, but we do know that Clinton has not energized independents to vote for her in large numbers thus far. That’s concerning. Also, she does worse with men and white voters – where Trump does very well.
Sanders’s vote totals so far show serious issues with his ability to win the nomination, Clinton’s show some weakness for the general. Everywhere you look, it’s really messy this year.
so there will be crossovers on both sides. I’ve already started hearing about it on the Republican side, talk about not voting or voting for Clinton. Now this was a week ago, so after Illinois, Florida and Ohio are in Sanders could be part of the conversation.
Thus, my concern, as expressed here, is that the intra-Party hostility be kept within bounds; and that the Presidential cycle.
Irrespective of the final nominee, neither can win without support from the other’s base.
The 2008 primary was pretty damn hostile,and went on a very long time. If the stupid search on this site worked better, you could go back and look at how bitter the commentary here was, especially once HRC declined to simply drop out, even after Obama started to build a formidable lead. And then the nominee ran against a well-respected Republican with a reputation for moderation and even opposition to the Bush administration. And won, handily.
Keep perspective, the intra-party hostility seems more like what my parents called a “discussion” than like a fight, even compared to 2008.
I don’t think either candidate will forget that.
I was particularly impressed with Bernie’s respect for Black Lives Matter. He was brought up short when they protested and took the mike from him. Instead of getting mad or even, he broadened his view. I didn’t vote for him, but I’ll never forget that. I actually agreed with the BLM tactic, but I was also pleased with Bernie’s handling of it.
n/t
Remove the outlier (VT) and the relationship is is more linear.
The non-linearity comes from Sanders’s (foolish) decision not to invest in states where he doesn’t think he can win. Apparently whoever is advising him doesn’t realize that Democrats allocate delegates proportionally and getting blown out of the water in moderately a small state is a bigger deal than winning a large state narrowly. Hence the increase in slope at the bottom. That’s the point where a state is white enough that Sanders decides that it’s worth his while to compete there.
that Sanders’ overall delegate strategy might fall into the same trap as Clinton’s in ’08. Back then, Clinton successfully won some narrow victories in some important states but ignored smaller- to medium sized states altogether — and got blown out in those states.
Now, Clinton’s healthy delegate lead is largely due to Sanders’ ignoring some states he was probably going to lose anyway but where he could have kept down the margin. It’s possible that he can do well in some upcoming caucus states, but narrow victories aren’t going to cut it. You have to compete everywhere when proportional delegate allocation rules apply.
His campaign had not (and has not) a clue about how to do competent outreach to black voters; black women in particular (roughly 60% of the black vote), particularly in the South.
Sanders actually outspent Clinton, and had more paid staff in South Carolina.
The problem – and this is endemic to progressive politics – was a total misunderstanding of internal black political dynamics.
The larger issue goes to turnout in November, and I don’t see the beginnings of any competent GOTV on behalf of either candidate at his point.
You are exactly right about this, and I think it gets to a broader point I think we need to acknowledge: both Democratic candidates are flawed in their own ways. Clinton has failed to generate excitement among important parts of the coalition (strong liberals; younger people) while Sanders has failed to adequately reach out to other key parts of the coalition (especially minority voters). Might some other candidate have done better (like Elizabeth Warren?). Perhaps. But we have what we have.
But, ultimately, I think what we have is a couple of great candidates. You look at the remaining four Republicans and realize that our candidates, even if flawed, are far superior to the demagoguery and, frankly, ridiculousness that is happening on the GOP side. I’d happily and enthusiastically vote for either in the general election.
However, I’d sleep better at night if I knew that the Democratic nominee will have a competent operation on the ground. I tend to believe that, all things considered, organization takes precedence over candidates.
Your last paragraph is correct from a moral standpoint, but electoral politics aren’t morality plays. I’m less concerned about imperfect candidates than I am about inadequate organization.
Clinton definitely has a solid ground game having been a part of it, and from what I can tell so does Sanders. Plus the national party is very good at this so they will be able to strongly assist the nominee.
I agree, an optimal strategy to win delegates in a static game is to spend a little money in places where you can turn a blowout into a 2:1 loss, or a 2:1 loss into a 3:2 loss, etc.
Sanders can’t play that game as the underdog. He has to win states in order to become a credible candidate. For Sanders, the value of a 50.1% win instead of a 49.9% loss is not the 2 delegates. It’s the message — the man can win.
Sanders’ people know this. So does Clinton’s. That’s why Sanders is throwing the 35 yard passes and Clinton is running between the tackles. Sanders is throwing massive roundhouses, Clinton is throwing jabs. Sanders is gerund(big_metaphor($sport)) big_metaphor($sport), whereas Clinton is gerund(small_metaphor($sport)) small_metaphor($sport).