Sunday, February 28, 2016

Bernie's black blowout

Hillary dominated South Carolina last night because nearly two-in-three primary voters were black:


As I wrote in December:
It's easy to forget that Hillary beat Obama handily among whites, 56%-44%, and among Hispanics, 64%-36%, in the 2008 Democrat primaries. But she was trounced among the most monolithic voting bloc in the US and that cost her the election. Blacks backed Obama, 85%-15%.

Hillary learned the hard way that there is no winning the Democrat nomination without dominating the black vote. White liberals are simply not going to vote en masse against a candidate that black Democrats support (that would be Racist!--it if did occur, it would signal an enormous fissure in the Fringe Coalition), and black Democrats all vote for the same person. So whoever that person is gets the nomination. In 2016, that person is Hillary.
Bernie is running through the beginning of a brutal and potentially campaign-killing gauntlet. South Carolina is just the first of the body blows he's set to receive this week.

Following are the percentages of Democrat primary voters in 2008 who were black by states that vote on Tuesday:

Alabama -- 51%
Arkansas -- 17%
(Colorado is a non-binding caucus for which no exit polling data are available, though it's conceivable that this will be, in addition to Vermont and possibly Massachusetts or Minnesota, another Bernie win)
Georgia -- 51%
Massachusetts -- 6%
(Minnesota also caucuses)
Oklahoma -- 7%
Tennessee -- 29%
Texas -- 19%
Vermont -- 0%
Virginia -- 30%

Even in states like Texas and Arkansas, the black contingent is enormously important. If Hillary wins blacks like as she did in South Carolina, she can afford to lose to Bernie among non-blacks by 15 points and still win the states. A couple of polls have shown her narrowly losing with whites, but in the 47%-53% range, nowhere near the 15 point gap that Bernie would have to make up, and that treats non-blacks as all white, which is of course not the case with the Coalition of the Fringes. Bernie's Hispanic support is lower than it is among whites.

Consequently, it'd be stunning if, to go with his South Carolina beating, Bernie didn't get crushed in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. He'll win Vermont, and the other small states could go either way. Irrespective of those results, though, the story will be one of Hillary's domination and the pressure will really be put on Bernie to bow out.

Parenthetically, in response to the anticipated objection that in '08 Obama's candidacy brought out an exceptionally large number of blacks that won't be repeated this time around, note that the '08 Democrat South Carolina exit poll put the black figure at 55%. Tonight's exit poll put it at 61%.

Trump doesn't need to go after Sanders anymore. To the contrary, he should play up the way he's been treated by the Democrat party as part of the Hillary-as-corrupt-as-hell narrative. There is enough frustration with the establishment that some of those Bernie backers will come to Trump in November.

11 comments:

Mil-Tech Bard said...


AE,


AE,

Hillary pretty much broke even with white men in the S.C. vote, all 17 of them . . .

The following is somewhat related.

The disparate turn out between Democrats and Republicans in the first four primaries and caucuses too date amounts to a swing of a swing of 735,960 voters from the Democrats to the Republicans between 2008 and 2016.

Republican turn out in SC was 737,917 voters this year, up 306,721 from 2008.

Democratic turn out in SC was 369,240 voters, down 162,987 from 2008.

See:

Ignore the Pundits, There is a Trump Tsunami–UPDATE
By Larry Johnson -
Saturday, 27 February 2016

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/78920/ignore-the-pundits-there-is-a-trump-tsunami/

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Right, the shifts are huge. We've noted New Hampshire here.

Where does he come by the Iowa and Nevada numbers on the Democrat side? It almost doesn't matter. The surge in Republican turnout in Iowa and especially Nevada--where Trump got more votes than the entire Republican field combined did in 2012--in addition to the Republican advantages in New Hampshire and South Carolina point to a Trumpian tidal wave.

I have some suspicions as to why this isn't being detected in opinion polling, though the registered voter numbers do give me pause. Something doesn't quite add up.

Audacious Epigone said...

MTB,

I see that he used delegates instead of actual votes on the Democrat side, since those are the only numbers that are publicly available. Glad to know I hadn't been missing anything. Although his presentation in table form is a little misleading, the thrust is right on the money.

TangoMan said...

Using Mil-Techs data on turnout.

Republicans had a turnout of 737,917, 96% of whom were white and men comprised 51% of the total. Democrats had a turnout of 369,240, 35% of whom were white and white men comprised 14% of the primary.

All told, 428,031 white men voted in SC, and 376,338 voted in the Republican primary. Only 12% of white men in SC voted in the Democratic primary.

All told, 837,634 whites voted in SC and 708,400 of them voted Republican, only 15.4% of whites voted Democrat.

Now, for the white Bernie fans, this saying applies "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." Think of their heartbreak as they stand before the wreckage of the Bernie campaign and come to realize that their own political viewpoint is so distant from those of the blacks who surround them. Is there a place for white liberals in such a black-dominated party?

TangoMan said...

Distractions, distractions, correction: 412,978 white men voted and 361,284 voted Republican.

Dan said...

It is interesting to me that the black vote coalesced perfectly around Hillary considering that there is no policy reason why blacks should favor her over Bernie.

I am guessing the idea of a Bernie revolution is simply offensive to blacks. As in, what's wrong with Obama's revolution?

Also Bernie is basically an atheist, and I wonder if that was known on the ground in South Carolina. The Democratic machine runs through black churches; even I know that. That is why my state of Maryland rejected gay marriage in 2011, even though generally assembly is overwhelmingly Democrat. Of course they kept ramming harder and harder in 2012 with the help of all the national Democrats, until the bleeding bunghole of the legislature finally gave way.

And when I say bleeding bunghole, I mean it.

Delegate Tiffany Alston was the crucial flip from yes to no that turned the tide against SSM in 2011. Before the next legislative session, she found herself facing a 10 year prison sentence for corruption.

So in 2012 she flipped back to yes on same sex marriage and escaped with a 1 year suspended sentence and $800 in fines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Alston#Criminal_charges

Audacious Epigone said...

Tangoman,

This is Steve's suggested strategy for the GOP in action (even though they haven't done anything to deserve the fruits they're harvesting from it), the branding of the Democrat party as the Black Party.

Dan,

I'll quote the Inductivist on another reason that Bernie doesn't appeal to blacks:

"Perhaps the problem is that Bernie might be best known for proposing free college. White liberals LOVE the idea, but if I'm an ordinary black guy, what do I care about college? Bernie would do much better if he proposed sending each black person a check because of the burden of being black."

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>>I see that he used delegates instead of actual votes on the Democrat side, since those are the only numbers that are publicly available.

The Dem NV vote number I heard, as opposed to delegates, was ~80K.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

See this post at TCTH --

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/29/guest-post-the-2016-election-stats-the-media-and-establishment-republicans-prefer-to-ignore/comment-page-1/#comment-2166057

They are projecting _73_ million Trump votes in the gneral election.

Obama only got 66 million in 2008.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

The conventional wisdom just caught up with the voting numbers you have been highlighting, see Instapundit --

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/227877/

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Demographically, White males alone outnumber black voters in America (male and female together) seven to one, AKA 14.3% of the white male vote equals the entire black vote nationally.

High school graduate or lower educated white males are over 60% of that white male number, AKA a little over 4/7ths of the total white male population.

White working class male voter turn out has been hovering at 50% in the 21st century per one of A.E.'s links.

So, if working class white male voter participation goes from 50% to 75% — Trump has catered to their issues in the general election — we are looking at higher white male voter number general election turn out equivalent to the entire black vote for Pres Obama in 2008.

That turn out will not bet evenly distributed by state.

IL, MA, MN, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WN will be more GOP than they’ve been anytime since 1984.