Because:
Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed
On February 27th, Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders among African-American voters by 52 points.
By March 26th, she led Sanders among African-Americans by just nine points.
And today, Public Policy Polling, a widely respected polling organization, released a poll showing that Sanders leads Clinton among African-American voters in Wisconsin by 11 points.
It’s all part of a dramatic national trend that has seen Clinton’s support among nonwhite voters dwindle to well under a third of what it was just a month ago — not nearly enough support to carry her, as it did throughout the Deep South, to future electoral victories in the Midwest and Northeast.
This is more evidence that people who never heard of Sanders until recently like what they see when they start noticing him. Will the trend be enough to give him the nomination? I don’t know, but it’s not going to be the landslide Clinton victory we’ve been hearing about.
What’s being reported are actual numbers, still comfortably ahead in pledged delegates. I would take a lot for Sanders to catch up. Seriously, what is he smoking thinking he can take on Clinton to any great effect in the state she represented in the Senate?
There does seem to be evidence that Sanders spending time on the ground in upcoming states moves the needle in his favor, but it seems Clinton has not been matching him in terms of public events. Where has she been?
First, Huffington is not a neutral source. Next, they have compared to wildly different polls. Third, we’re talking about Wisconsin, not America.
Let’s keep it real, please.
There is a lot of speculation and zero statistical inference. For instance, note how in the second sentence the author makes a big deal of how Clinton’s leads among African Americans is down to 9 points on March 26. If you follow the link you can see that on April 1 her leads is back up to 21 points. This is clear indication that the author (an assistant professor of English) is just cherry picking poll results to make his point. If you go back and look up his other articles, it is pretty clear that this particular author writes nothing but extremely pro-Bernie articles.
In any case, I don’t think most people have been talking about a “landslide” victory for Clinton for quite some time, so I am not sure what kirth is talking about there. It still seems likely that she will win. Now if she loses NY it will get interesting…
MSNBC’s and all the corporate media has been pushing Hillary and ignoring Bernie ever since this started. She’s their candidate.
I actually get a pro-Bernie vibe from a lot of them.
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Clinton, Clinton, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Sanders, Trump, Trump, Trump….
I watch the primetime lineup and Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and frequent guest Joy Reid seem to lean Sanders.
Is Morning Joe heaping praise on Clinton when they talk about her? I doubt it. So I am not sure what you are asking for. You want them to spend more time attacking Sanders?
If the corporate media is so pro-Hillary why are they reporting so much on “e-male gate”?
I think it is fair to say that for a long time the media did not take Sanders seriously (and they were not the only ones) but that is not the same as saying they were rooting for Clinton, and they seem to be taking him seriously now.
Come on, get real.
Is not neutral. Release the transcripts. Agree that health care ought to be a human right, not a source of corporate profits to fund your campaign.
What does that mean? If Huffpro is less neutral than MSNBC then it is not neutral? Did you really mean to say “More neutral is not neutral”? Even so, it is pretty clear that it is false that MSNBC is “pushing” Hillary Clinton.
I messed up on that one. MSNBC is less neutral, but that does not mean that they are not pushing for Clinton.
MSNBC is pushing the corporate candidate. And why not? That’s how it is in the world. Big money runs everything. MSNBC has advertisers and needs the revenue. It would be nice if the people mattered, if labor had a voice, if we and not the corporate owners ran things, but I get it. I do. I see why the Hillary supporters are tired of me with this. To them, it’s just a theoretical debate over something that will never, ever happen and they are willing to accept this as long as there is a “Democrat” in the White House, whatever that means.
Like I said, if MSNBC were really pushing Clinton, they would not be spending so much time doing negative reporting on her. That’s a fact.
I can understand that the argument that MSNBC is a “corporate” media organization and that you see Clinton as being to much beholden to corporate instances, but the behavior of MSNBC in their coverage of Clinton simply doesn’t support your claim. I guess you could always claim that they would be even more negative if they weren’t biased, but I don’t see how you could show evidence for that other than your strong opinion.
The media outlets just like controversy and clicks.
I just got served a Facebook ad from the Globe suggested this article.
This article, Michael A. Cohen’s recent column about Sanders.
That fits in to the media just wanting clicks and controversy, but paying to advertise a political opinion piece against a particular candidate seems problematic.
I wish I knew how to add photos here and I’d post the screenshot.
Rachel Maddow’s soft ball interview with Clinton. Not one question on her vote for the Iraq War and so on….
So you are saying that Rachel Maddow is the puppet of her corporate overlords? Really?
In any case, I don’t see that she gave Clinton any easier an interview than Sanders. She asked both them to respond to the candidacy of Donald Trump and to comment on the current state of the race, super-delegates etc. She didn’t ask either of them questions about their old votes or positions. No, she didn’t ask Clinton about her Iraq vote nor did she ask Sanders about his gun vote. That is fine with me. If Clinton and Sanders had to rehash all the negative aspect of their records every time they are interviewed, they would never get to talk about anything else.
then obviously you are part of the establishment. Duh? Don’t bother with logic, doesn’t matter.
Planned Parenthood? Establishment.
Human Rights Campaign. Establishment.
(but don’t watch this). If you watched then you are part of the establishment too.
HRC’s history of running in the same circles of power as Dem-leaning powerbrokers and corporate leaders while often pushing aside many concerns not impacting members of the LGBTQ community other than rich gay white males could lead one to think of HRC as part of the establishment.
That said, establishment or not, their political calls this year have been dumb. The Clinton over Sanders call caused a bigger backlash likely larger than any potential benefit of an early Clinton endorsement (unless the Clinton administration would be so vindictive to hold a later endorsement against them), and then they follow that up with a truly terrible endorsement of Republican Mark Kirk over Tammy Duckworth (that female Asian-American disabled veteran member of Congress with a 100% rating from HRC [compared to Kirk’s 78%] who regularly co-sponsored pro-LGBTQ legislation and who has a very good shot at taking the seat and helping to tip the Senate).
Kirk may be the best Senate Republican on LGBTQ issues, but he’s still not that great, not nearly as good as Duckworth, and any of his singular good votes on the issues won’t matter because he’d be part of GOP control of the chamber where they would kill almost all of these measures.
I was just, just beginning to get over HRC’s endorsement of D’Amato over Schumer and they go and endorse Kirk.
From their standpoint, as a non partisan policy advocacy group, it is always better to have friends on both sides of the aisle. Not saying I agree with the endorsement, but I would dismiss the fact that Kirk has walked the walk on those two issues and guns. We always bemoan the loss of reasonable Republicans, and then cheer when they are thrown out of Congress by Democrats.
I’ve met Tammy and campaigned for her in multiple races, I signed her papers this cycle and I like her personally, but she owes every one of her positions in government to either Dick Durbin or Mike Madigan. I voted for her since her primary opponents were worse and she’s done a good job in Congress, but that district was drawn for her with hyperpartisan gerrymandering we would be up in arms about if a Republican did it.
And for a lot of moderate suburban collar county voters those machine connections will matter more than who controls the Senate. Kirk will probably be the only or second Relublican vote for Garland, and he neutralizes that argument against him too. He’s been lousy on immigration so Latinos should come out in force in Chicago and vote for Duckworth.
…and it’s a now 14-year-old vote I believe.
They basically governed Milwaukee uninterrupted from the late 20’s right through the 50’s. These pragmatic socialists were derisively called “sewer socialists” by their more radical peers for their focus on constituent work. They were quite popular across the board, Milwaukee citizens in the late 40’s choose to send Tail Gunner Joe to the Senate and re-elect their socialist Mayor at the same time.
By the middle of the 50’s it had collapsed due to a combination of red baiting and its membership folding into the Democratic Party. Similar fate that befell the MFL and NPL in MN and SD respectively. But for awhile they had a good run due to a reputation for honesty and anti-corruption and a focus on the practical substance of governing, not unlikely another socialist Mayor who would join the same body as Tailgunner Joe.
I’m in the middle of reading a book about the 1912 election which addresses LaFollette’s candidacy, his progressivism, and his push for presidential primaries (though the point of the book is that TR co-opted primaries as his issue despite initially being very skeptical).
Books on third parties have become interesting reads for me lately 😉
There is a book signing at Porter Square books in Cambridge on Tuesday night from Jonathan Martin, a Framingham Stats professor who wrote the book on Progressive Third Parties. Happy to forward the details to you or anyone else who are interested. Can’t confirm my own attendance yet since I’m probably packing .
Let The People Rule: Theodore Roosevelt and the Birth of the Presidential Primary. It is written by Geoffrey Cowan who himself was instrumental in increasing the number of primaries in 1968. In fact, ABC News has called him “the man who did more to change Democratic Conventions than anyone since Andrew Jackson started them.”
I’m not sure how much the book will go into Roosevelt’s third party campaign that resulted from his being denied the GOP nomination, but the split that handed Wilson the presidency is for me a cautionary tale about third party efforts.
Check out this quote from 1983, recently featured on NPR’s “first mention” segment:
I like that Bernie is a lefty, but I especially like that he is a former mayor.
It’ll be quite similar to Michigan. Madison and rural farm communities will go for Sanders, the suburbs of Milwaukee for Clinton, and the battleground will be the share of the black vote within the city. Have no idea how it will turn out, but if Sanders approaches 40% of the black vote again that’s a real trend that could continue in PA and NY. Though a Sanders voter myself, I am a little skeptical this will be the case.
piece, but the African American population is really small, smaller than Massachusetts.
Winning a large percentage of a small number is not the same as winning a small percentage of a large number.
PPP is a respected polling outfit, but it is simply irresponsible on the part of the HuffPost to extract from this one poll from one state to provide a headline that reads as it does. To give one contrasting example, last week’s Marquette poll (the gold standard in the state) had Sanders +4% among all voters in Wisconsin, but losing black voters 66%-31% to Clinton.
How are the numbers for black voters so different in these two polls despite both showing Sanders winning the state overall by a similar amount? Simple — Wisconsin has a very small percentage of black voters — smaller than Massachusetts or Rhode Island. When you are literally only talking about 70 to 100 black respondents in the entire survey, you will have huge margins of error. This is true of both the PPP and Marquette polls.
I wish the author of the HuffPost story had even rudimentary knowledge of polling science, because if he had, he wouldn’t have written the piece that he did.
She earned the right to be president and only a lying moron would suggest anything to the contary.
Get with the BMG program
Do I have to be both a liar and a moron?
And it’s a tough choice.
The Dem nomination has become an irritating bore. Someone posts a link to some cherry-picked crap polls, and then there are nearly 40 posts on whether MSNBC and Huffington Post are neutral. This nomination is not as close as 2008, and 2008 wasn’t really that close.
From the New York Times Wisconsin Exit Poll:
Among white voters:
Clinton – 41%
Sanders – 59%
Among black voters:
Clinton – 71%
Sanders – 29%
Latino, Asian, and “Others”, at 3%, 2%, and 2% of the Democratic electorate respectively, were statistically too few to be listed statistically in the poll.