Sanders is (currently) winning the white vote...

[Adam Griffin]

...but not a majority in the states where we have exit polling.

Sadly, the latest contests + most of the caucuses do not have exit polls. With that being said, it'd appear that on balance, Sanders would be winning a healthy majority of the white vote in those states; it could almost be calculated accurately without exit polling for all but a few (AZ, WA, HI, LA).

The number of white voters in Louisiana and a good chunk of those in Arizona would be cancelled out by Washington; the margins in Washington would also be a lot stronger than the aggregate of LA/AZ, so it might even cancel both of those states out entirely. Then you have the smattering of other states where there weren't a lot of voters but where his margins were very large.

All in all, I imagine that the aggregate white vote in states without exit polling would boost his share of the white vote by another point; maybe two. That might give him a majority.

Nevertheless, with approximated vote totals, I'm showing the following for states with exit polling:

49.62% - Sanders - 4,377,533
48.27% - Clinton - 4,258,949
2.11% - Other - 186,152

Below is the white share of the vote for Sanders by state:



The asterisks reflect the fact that there was a less than negligible number of "uncommitted/other" voters in those states, most of whom ended up siding with one candidate or another once inside and faced with viability threshold. I think that ended up giving Sanders at least 50% in NV (hence the shading).

[IceSpear]

If this was the Republican primary he'd be a lock.

[This account no longer in use.]

He's winning the white vote because he's a white supremacist. He belongs in the American Freedom Party, not the Democratic Party.

[Boston Bread]

He's winning the white vote because he's a white supremacist. He belongs in the American Freedom Party, not the Democratic Party.

Since your sig suggests you agree with Sanders more than any other candidate, maybe you should join too.

[Adam Griffin]

Also, here are the totals for the 18-29 vote (all races):

70.52% - Sanders - 1,743,389
28.79% - Clinton - 711,781
0.69% - Other - 16,854

Comprises 16.93% of the primary electorate thus far.

[Boston Bread]

Considering that 18-29 Democratic voters are likelier to be non-white, those numbers are good news for the future of the left in the party with respect to how well they can perform with minorities.

[Adam Griffin]

Considering that 18-29 Democratic voters are likelier to be non-white, those numbers are good news for the future of the left in the party with respect to how well they can perform with minorities.

I think that is very telling just by looking at Illinois - a 42% non-white electorate overall and one that is certainly less white among the 18-29 group - was Sanders best non-home state performance among said group.

Even in states like my own, where the white share of the overall vote was 40%, the 18-29 electorate is likely a few points less white than that at minimum (it may not be as diverse as the demographics would suggest due to even younger whites over-representing their share of the electorate, but the shifts have been so profound that it's impossible for the group to not be less white as a whole).

[Boston Bread]

Imagine how the 18-29 map would look like with the caucus states... here's my estimate:

Clinton would be faring as poorly as Bradley in 2000 outside the south!
Although why does MA seem like an extreme outlier?

[Adam Griffin]

Although why does MA seem like an extreme outlier?

Something tells me that the often-present and rather abstract element of "coastal moderation" is at work there and will also be visible in the outstanding mid-Atlantic states. Depending on the region of the country and its voting tendencies, you often see a moderation of voting habits in stronger D/R counties along the coasts when compared to a bit further inland.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Imagine how the 18-29 map would look like with the caucus states... here's my estimate:

Clinton would be faring as poorly as Bradley in 2000 outside the south!
Although why does MA seem like an extreme outlier?

The older generation listens to a lot of NPR. It's no surprise they are ill informed and vote for Hillary.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

How is he doing with wealthier voters?

I would argue that just as there is "white liberal guilt", there is also rich liberal guilt--wealthy white liberals who are ashamed of their wealth and thus advocate for left-wing economic policies like redistribution of wealth.  Bernie Sanders is a perfect fit for those kind of voters.

[Adam Griffin]

How is he doing with wealthier voters?

I would argue that just as there is "white liberal guilt", there is also rich liberal guilt--wealthy white liberals who are ashamed of their wealth and thus advocate for left-wing economic policies like redistribution of wealth.  Bernie Sanders is a perfect fit for those kind of voters.

Nope. Only three of the 20 states had those making more than $100k being more pro-Sanders than those making less than $100k:

Ohio
<$100k: 55%
>$100k: 51%

Florida
<$100k: 67%
>$100k: 64%

South Carolina
<$100k: 74%
>$100k: 70%

Social and cultural guilt is one thing; it doesn't cost anything to have that. Start messing with the riches' money, however...

[Oak Hills]

Although why does MA seem like an extreme outlier?

Something tells me that the often-present and rather abstract element of "coastal moderation" is at work there and will also be visible in the outstanding mid-Atlantic states. Depending on the region of the country and its voting tendencies, you often see a moderation of voting habits in stronger D/R counties along the coasts when compared to a bit further inland.

Do you have any ideas on why such a phenomenon exists?

[YaBoyNY]

Imagine how the 18-29 map would look like with the caucus states... here's my estimate:

Clinton would be faring as poorly as Bradley in 2000 outside the south!
Although why does MA seem like an extreme outlier?

The older generation listens to a lot of NPR. It's no surprise they are ill informed and vote for Hillary.

I mean, to be totally honest, the more informed you are, the more likely you are.

Bernie's supporters are almost entirely good people, but most of them are ill informed.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Imagine how the 18-29 map would look like with the caucus states... here's my estimate:

Clinton would be faring as poorly as Bradley in 2000 outside the south!
Although why does MA seem like an extreme outlier?

The older generation listens to a lot of NPR. It's no surprise they are ill informed and vote for Hillary.

I mean, to be totally honest, the more informed you are, the more likely you are.

Bernie's supporters are almost entirely good people, but most of them are ill informed.

What exactly are they ill informed about? Don't you think people voting for Hillary while agreeing with Bernie on more issues then her seem more ill informed?