Saturday, September 22, 2018

Racial distribution of 2008 and 2016 Democrat presidential primary votes in two-way races

The 2008 numbers are virtually complete for the 50 states, DC, and the four American territories that hold nominating contests. The 2016 numbers include 26 states.

For 2016, Texas, Florida, and New York are included but California is not because Hillary Clinton had already secured the nomination by the time California's Democrat primary voters had their day. Figures for the Iowa and Nevada caucuses are very conservatively estimated, at 20 times and twice the delegates awarded, respectively:



In 2008, Clinton handily won whites and Hispanics but got clobbered among blacks and so lost the nomination. Having learned in defeat that the key to securing the Democrat nomination is getting the monolithic black vote, Clinton pandered to and mobilized urban Democrat political machines across the country to shut Bernie Sanders out. Owning the superdelegates was just a gratuitous insurance policy.

The Democrat party is the Black Party now. A lot of white people have yet to come to terms with it, even on the left, but they will. Despite polls showing Biden, Clinton, Sanders, and Warren as the top contenders for 2020--with non-whites all in the single digits, it will be Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick, or maybe even Cory Booker.

In The Current Year, blacks vote overwhelmingly for black Democrat candidates and SWPLs refuse to correspondingly vote overwhelmingly against black Democrat candidates. Ergo, if at least one black candidate runs, a black candidate will win. It doesn't matter if the candidates in question are less than fully black, black is the identifier that earns the most Diversity! points so any candidate who has some African ancestry leverage it to the hilt.

33 comments:

IHTG said...

Well, 56-44 isn't exactly "handily". Ultimately, "woke whites" may be Barack Obama's more important legacy. Obama's blacks failed to turn out after he left, but his whites are crazier than ever.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

In 2008, I went to the Democratic caucus in my state. Young whites and minorities went all in for Barack Obama. Older white women went all in for Hillary Clinton and were furious that young women preferred Obama over Clinton. Older white men were dispersed among the remaining white male candidates like John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, etc. Since I lived in a liberal college town, Obama won handily. Yet the demographic differences between the bases could not have been more stark. As a young liberal, I was heartened by the outcome because it meant that the young people were the future of the party, leaving the white candidates and their older, whiter base behind. The writing was clearly on the wall even back then.

Glen Filthie said...

Where do you stand now, Random?

Sid said...

Random Dude,

What's striking to me is how older white SWPLs flipped from Hillary to Bernie. My mother, for example, is basically the Platonic ideal of a Nice White Lady. She supported Hillary so strongly in 2008 that she seriously considered going with McCain for awhile.

Come 2016, and she voted for Bernie, though in the understanding he had hardly a chance and that she would vote for Hillary against Trump.

What was the difference? From my vantage point, it was that Hillary in 2008 actually ran for president. In 2016 she sat around, having already arranged for the win behind the scenes.

One thing that was remarkable about 2008 was how Hillary did better among blacks until Obama won Iowa. After that, they monolithically flipped to him.

I think part of it was that blacks assumed that a black man would never win the presidency, and were too despondent to bother with him. But probably the more important factor is that blacks are the lowest information voters out there, and just vote according to social pressures. Once Obama won Iowa, the "community leaders" flipped to Obama and that was that, only to later revert to Hillary.

At any rate, we need to bring back literacy tests for voting. Just passing a basic civics test would be enough to dramatically improve the quality of the electorate.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Where do you stand now, Random?

Pretty much GTKRWN. I got disillusioned fast with the radicalizing SJW faction, starting with the progressive stack that got rolled out with OWS. Then you had the one-two punch of Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown. It was pretty obvious what was going on and I didn't like it. Honestly it was pretty clear how it was going to play out well before those events, I was just too naive and idealistic to see it. Since I'm white and don't hate my skin or my penis, it was inevitable that I would break from the Democrats. I still have a lot of lefty opinions but making sure white people survive and thrive takes priority over all over issues right now.

> One thing that was remarkable about 2008 was how Hillary did better among blacks until Obama won Iowa. After that, they monolithically flipped to him.

Yeah. I think the key was that blacks just assumed that Obama wasn't going to make it. To be fair, they really pushed the post-racial narrative with Obama, which is how he was able to win out over Hillary Clinton. If Obama ran in 2008 with the same BS he was running with in the last years of his second term, he would have likely come in behind Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in Iowa, likely lost whatever momentum he had, and would have fizzled out thereafter. See: Jesse Jackson's performance in the 1980s, which he did relatively well but was not close to being enough to beat out liberal white candidates. A bait and switch situation for sure.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

It’s a landslide at be national level.

Sid/Random,

Through the 2000s, I played basketball regularly—as in 4 or 5 nights a week—at an apartment complex gym across the street from where I worked, and most of the people I played with were black or Hispanic.

Through 2007, none of them knew who Obama was. I distinctly remember making a joke to a halfrican guy (white mom, black dad) in the winter of 2007 about how he should use his white half when he goes outside just like obama was doing in Iowa to keep from getting cold. He had no idea what I was talking about. A year later, he voted for Obama for president.

Low information indeed, in everything. But unlike other non-white low information people, blacks still reliably take action even when they don’t know what they’re doing.

I suspect I’ll be revisiting this theme a lot in the coming years.

Audacious Epigone said...

at the* national level

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Low information indeed, in everything. But unlike other non-white low information people, blacks still reliably take action even when they don’t know what they’re doing.

It's why I'm 100% convinced the baste black angle will never get any GOP candidate's black voter share past the single digits. I know a lot of it is meant to grant "permission" to the boomercons but it's such a waste of political capital. Blacks will vote with the other blacks, which is fine, we just need whites to do the same.

DK said...

@Sid
"My mother, for example, is basically the Platonic ideal of a Nice White Lady. She supported Hillary so strongly in 2008 that she seriously considered going with McCain for awhile. Come 2016, and she voted for Bernie, though in the understanding he had hardly a chance and that she would vote for Hillary against Trump.

The really interesting thing is how she gets along with your father :-)

216 said...

Random,

The easiest way for the GOP to get more black votes is to stop being pro-wealthy. It also helps to stop making noise about slashing the public sector, which employs blacks out of proportion. The only significant causal factor that seems to move blacks to the GOP is being a military veteran, and even then its only 10 points or so.

It would also help if Boomercons were schooled on social media, as they can't help but trip over themselves to make tone-deaf comments towards blacks. Any gratuitous swipe at a black person that goes WorldStar equals higher Dem turnout.

Will it ever get the GOP a majority, or even into the 30s? Probably not. But it would reduce turnout rates, assuming a future Dem Congress doesn't pass turnout maximizing laws.

Anonymous said...

The most fascinating part of the two sets of data for me is the lack of Hispanic support for Obamacare in 2008 primary. I think this reflects Hispanic distrust of blacks and makes you wonder how stable the coalition of the fringes is going to be if it is perceived as a black party.

Sid said...

Random Dude,

Agreed, Obama ran as a post-racial candidate in 2008, but thereafter took steps to be an increasingly zero-sum, anti-white race hustler.

Obama was sly about it. During the beer summit scandal of summer 2009, he saw how he got hit for saying the police officer "acted stupidly," and never repeated the mistake of challenging white American identity directly. Instead, he would let his team whip up SJWs, give his voice in support of causes that had already arisen, and generally "lead from behind" on racial discontent. As such, he was widely praised as a statesman, even when he did loathsome things like condemn "systematic racism" in the police at the funeral for the five policemen killed in Dallas.

AE,

You often see blacks, including rappers like Jay-Z and Russell Simmons, talk about how other blacks need to go out there and "share their voice," vote, stand up, get involved, etc.

Of course, it's also completely inane and boils down to wanting more gibs. Hispanics and Asians who aren't interested in politics can be persuaded to vote with enough social pressure, but it's not self-generating the same way it is with blacks.

DK,

My father is a Boomercon. Our views largely overlapped for many years, but since 2015 they have increasingly diverged.

My mother and I have never agreed on much politically, but she's amiable and doesn't make it a point for others to have her political views, so politics have never affected our relationship. I can't say that about other family members.

aNanyMouse said...

Sid
Obama's Dallas BS was a major factor, in moving me from quasi-libertarianism, toward giving more attn./ emphasis to SJWs' increasingly explicit hatred of Western Civ.
Thus, I urge you all to spread the word on that speech, which, I'll wager, isn't very well known/ understood.
And, the rank injustice of this SJW tantrum vs. Kavanaugh has great potential, to awaken fence-sitters to the magnitude of SJW derangement.

There are a fair number of "moderate" Dems who can be affected by such factors, esp. insofar as the SJWs keep on getting more belligerent about most everything.
I feel that I've a pretty good grasp on how fence-sitters think about such things.
A relatively small change among fence-sitters can make a huge diff., esp. in key states, e.g. FL, MI, PA, and WI.

Steve in Greensboro said...

Are any of the betting sites making book on white v non-white Dem nominees? I agree 100% with AE that the 2020 Dem nominee (and the 2024 Dem nominee for what that's worth) will be non-white. And it sounds like all the bien-pensants are all in for a cracker, so there might be some money to be made.

aNanyMouse said...

" A lot of white people have yet to come to terms with it, even on the left, but they will."
And they are.

If I'm right here, the tell will be that Trump won't be meaningfully challenged for the GOP nod.
If he gets 80%+ of the primary votes (like RN in 1972), whites will ride with him like they did with RN in '72.
Whites will have no trouble, seeing the black Dem nominee as at least as dangerous, as they saw McGovern then.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

I know you don't do social media, but someone on Gab memed your golden quote above.

Anonymous said...


.

What is the material difference between an SJW and an hysterical woman?

.

Audacious Epigone said...

DK,

Ha!

216,

One thing that is clear is that any sort of pandering towards blacks by the GOP is counterproductive.

Anon,

You're in good company. Steve Sailer suggests the GOP respectfully point out that the Dem party is the Black Party as the best way to get JAHs to move away from the Dems and towards Republicans.

Sid,

He ran as the black candidate and the multiracial candidate depending on the venue, but he of course never ran as a white candidate.

aNanyMouse,

Had dinner with a pretty apolitical couple tonight and the Kavanaugh hearings came up. They know we're somewhere on the right, so they weren't risking much, but they found this whole ridiculous charade jaw-droopingly ridiculous. The woman even said it was a "red-pill" moment for her! Iow, I think you're spot on.

Steve,

Not so explicitly, but PredictIt does have a market on the 2020 Dem nominee. Despite what the polls are saying, the PIs know--Kamala Harris is at the top of the pack, at 23%. Sanders is next at 16%, Biden at 15%.

I'm maxed out on Harris yes, Sanders no, Warren no, and Booker no, btw. Re: Booker, it seems clear to me that Harris is running and there is no conceivable way Booker beats her for the non-white spot. Deval Patrick might be able to out-black her, but Booker just looks like another exotic rather than a black man.

Anon,

SJWs can be men--er, biological males, anyway--and hysterical women can be religious zealots? Yeah, I know SJWism is a sort of religion, but I mean in a conventional sense.

216 said...

AE,

Patrick, whatever he thinks to the contrary, is not Presidential timber. His two terms as MA Governor were inconsequential. Twice he passed up the opportunity to appoint himself to the US Senate, and he also punted on the nominee both times, leaving it up to the primary.

Current Governor Baker is a likelier candidate, either as the Full Cuck GOP candidate, or as a VP to the Dem ticket. John Kasich also wants to be President, but punted on running for the Senate this year (an easy win) out of petulance.

The interesting thing with Harris is that she's only faced one serious opponent (2010) in her career, and she needed election fraud to beat him. At 5'2", she'll be a terrible TV presence. Behind a committee desk she looks fearsome, but not outside of it. Will the people respond well to seeing such a vapid careerist with no redeeming qualities in the Presidency, not even Dem primary voters may like her.

On appearances, Gavin provides a better contrast to a 74 year old Trump, he's also taller and better looking than Pence. Cory Booker is 6'4", so presumably even better, but he's from a despised state, and we'll probably find out something dirty wrt to the Zuckerberg donation err... bribe.

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/33/47/10/7238201/5/rawImage.jpg

Passer by said...

OT

Latest WSJ/NBC poll shows that women may annihilate republicans in Novermber.

NEW WSJ/NBC POLL shows huge gender gap.

https://twitter.com/hookjan/status/1043847819998752769

Dems gain 12+ advantage among white women

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/23/gop-eyes-midterm-disaster-democrats-take-12-point-lead-nbc-wsj-poll.html

And Gender Gap in support for Kavanaugh

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-finds-less-support-for-kavanaugh-especially-among-women-2018-09-20

Polls taken after sexual assault accusations against Kavanaugh

I have a theory that the Me Too movement is pushing women to the left and if that movement was active during the 2016 elections Trump would have lost big time.

Anonymous said...

Charlie "Faker" Baker, a/k/a "too tall Deval," will never get the GOP presidential nod.

The "too tall Deval" nickname is not well known outside of Massachusetts, but it is often articulated by two conservative radio icons, Howard Lawrence Carr and Jeff Kuhner, both of WRKO, 680 AM, Boston. Every time I hear or say "too tall Deval" I can't help but laugh and smile. Deval Patrick is no taller than Jose Altuve.

If you are "too tall Deval," you have to be a RINO's RINO.


Liberty Mike

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

blacks have pretty much stagnated as a % of the population and have always been 12-13%. Hispanics, Asians, and "creative class" types are the growing constituencies within the democratic party.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

@Anon - my "dream candidate" for president would be someone with the domestic policy views of Charlie Baker and the immigration views of Jeff Sessions.

Audacious Epigone said...

Passer by,

Reuters-Ipsos, which was one of the most accurate polls at the national level in 2016, shows a +4 Republican advantage for the GOP among white women, and it hasn't changed going all the way back to March. It also shows a pretty consistent 5-7 point advantage for Ds overall. Several months ago I predicted we'll come out of the mid-terms at D+15 in the House. I'm sticking to that.

216,

Because the comparison to Obama, while seemingly almost too easy, is a good one. The only tough race Obama ever faced before the presidency was against Bobby Rush in 2000, and Obama got smoked. His 2004 Senate election was as easy as crossing the Red Sea was for Moses.

Obama is a vapid careerist, too. He didn't write his books--in the case of Dreams From My Father, it's obvious there was a ghostwriter, and Audacity of Hope is mostly just ported from things his speechwriters wrote for him--and he's a terrible extemporaneous speaker. He reads a cue card exceptionally well, though, and his demographic profile was one whose time had come. So it will be with Harris.

How is old huwhite man Biden going to respond to this in a Dem primary debate? No way he can in The Current Year, and sure as hell no way he'll be able to two Current Years from now. If he challenges her--LOL!--he explicitly loses. If he agrees, he implicitly loses because he's the reason all these things exist and she's the victim champion who will fight them.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Bad link, try this.

216 said...

AE,

If Biden runs, its because Obama explicitly gives him permission to, and gives him an endorsement. That's hard to argue with in a Dem primary. He's their Reagan without the senility.

Both of Obama's victories turned on event's outside of his campaign's control, the 2008 market crash and the 2012 hurricane. 2016 turned because of the Hillary faint, and the popular vote turned on the Access Hollywood tape. Such an event may not be in the offing for 2020.

Someone with the views of Harris should not be allowed to even sniff power in this country. The JCS issued a coup threat to Trump after Charlottesville, red states should issue a secession threat to Harris should she be installed as President.

Notably, Harris could (should) fall victim to the same "slut-shaming" that Sarah Palin did. Obviously the media will run interference, but she slept her way to the top and our people will make hay out of it.

216 said...

o/t

My instinct is to lead with "Ouch", but I'm not so sure when considering the question. Some respondents may have thought that refugees would be temporary and will return to their homelands at the end of the war.

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/09/socialist-spain-named-most-welcoming-nation-for-refugees-in-new-survey/#.W6koBko5I3o.twitter

Despite flashes of realtalk, like we see in the above survey, South African blacks show no signs of blaming the ANC instead of whites. Below, we see that whites are only hanging on because blacks have bad turnout rates. They apparently didn't have enough cash to survey all nine provinces.

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/documents/ancs-move-to-ewc-backfires-as-effs-support-surges-


Feryl said...

"blacks have pretty much stagnated as a % of the population and have always been 12-13%. Hispanics, Asians, and "creative class" types are the growing constituencies within the democratic party."

Blacks owning the Dem primaries in the 2000's and 2010's, as the white % of Dem voters dwindles, is something that the Berniebros despise after blacks gave Hilary the nomination. But it's not something anyone on the Left would publicly admit. The Wiki article on the 2016 Dem pres. race, when I last looked at it, doesn't mention explicitly the racial divide between Hilary and Bernie supporters (you have to read between the lines when they mention Hilary doing well in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and most urban areas).

Particularly galling is the urban "amplifier" used in Dem primaries. The PC reasoning is that these areas are historically "disadvantaged", so these days we need to give their votes more weight.

The Dems only nominating pres. candidates who clean up in the blackest parts of America, e.g. the South, the Mid-Atlantic, and the urban East, is obviously not democratic because it so favors an ethnic group that has rarely, if ever, made up more than 20% of the population. But then, Hilary flopping before the finish line, and Obama alienating wide swaths of the country, shoulda sent a message that pandering has it's costs.

Steve Sailer thinks that 80-90% of the chattering class that matters has it's body and/or soul in the Eastern US, esp. Southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic. This is why blacks continue to be given such importance, even though the Western US is much less black and is much more populous then it was even 20 years ago, let alone before then. CA has the most blacks per capita on the West Coast, but they make up less than 7% of the pop. there. The other Pacific states are well below 7%. There's just no way that 20th century American liberal culture of well-educated whites pandering primarily to blacks at the expense of everyone else can hold up for much longer. The BLM movement and so forth being put on the shelf for a while seems to indicate that liberals are not only tired of alienating white normies, but the growing ranks of very liberal Asian and Hispanic Millennials and Gen Z-ers can only tolerate black bluster of so long.

Feryl said...

"Someone with the views of Harris should not be allowed to even sniff power in this country. The JCS issued a coup threat to Trump after Charlottesville, red states should issue a secession threat to Harris should she be installed as President."

The Pentagon is obviously bigoted towards certain foreign countries, but that being said, they sure are as driven as anyone else is to fulfill the racial Eldorado dream within America. Just like every other Western institution in the post-WW2 era, what they most stridently oppose is the notion that a country would be better off with a minimum of diversity. Since the late 1980's, though, we've gone to increasingly Soviet lengths to censor and repress expressions of hostility towards mult-culturalism and erstwhile minorities.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> I know you don't do social media, but someone on Gab memed your golden quote above.

That's hilarious! Hopefully it resonates and creates a future shitlord(s) with it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Obama would've won without the crash. The election was a massacre. People forget what an utter blowout it was, the largest absolute vote margin since Reagan's landslide in 1984.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Obama would've won without the crash. The election was a massacre. People forget what an utter blowout it was, the largest absolute vote margin since Reagan's landslide in 1984.

It was a thorough rejection of neoconservatism. It had it's heyday in the mid 1970s through the 1990s but after that, it was increasingly harder to sell. You had the 2000 election and I suspect that the only reason why Bush won in 2004, even against the incompetent Kerry, was that people wanted Bush to finish what he started with respect to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, many of who believed was going to be over with in 2005 or 2006 at the latest.

Then people decided to move from neoconservatism to left wing neoliberalism and we're witnessing the beginning of the shift towards nationalist populism. Seems like these ideologies come and go in waves every 20-30 years or so. Curious what comes next after nationalist populism. If it ultimately is a failure, I assume it will be something like South Africa at the worst and Venezuela at its best.

People are so tired of neoconservatism, Are President trashed the Iraq War to Jeb and won handily. This is why Bill Kristol can only appear on left wing TV shows these days. With the likes of McCain dying, the roster of prominent neocons is pretty much limited to the likes of Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol. Even Lindsey Graham in recent months has seen the writing on the wall and is slowly changing course.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

With the likes of McCain dying, the roster of prominent neocons is pretty much limited to the likes of Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol. Even Lindsey Graham in recent months has seen the writing on the wall and is slowly changing course.

Romney has a politically safe base of operations he'll be able to cuck out of indefinitely, but his heart isn't really in the invading or inviting the world. And Kristol has always been an intellectually downwardly-mobile scion who pretends he is a chief even though he does not now nor has ever had any Indians.