A competitive Clinton vs. Warren primary map

[Mr. Illini]

Operating under the assumption that it is competitive in all races (so essentially they are all voting on the same day).

What would the map look like? My thought:

Clinton
Warren

[Holmes]

No way Clinton loses California, Hawaii and DC. Probably not Illinois either.

[Mr. Illini]

No way Clinton loses California, Hawaii and DC. Probably not Illinois either.

For Illinois I am thinking that Warren would win in Cook thanks to support in black areas and progressive white areas (lakeside north, Evanston, Oak Park, etc.). She would also pick up populist union Dem areas in the NW that vote as a block with eastern Iowa (Quad Cities, Knox and Fulton areas, etc). This combination could be enough to carry Warren in the state, assuming Clinton doesn't do too well in the suburbs, which she wouldn't. They would vote for her because she is moderate, but she's not that well-liked there.

California is a tough one. Warren would do well in many Bay Area counties, but Clinton would likely dominate SoCal as well as possibly certain NoCal counties as well.

I have no doubt Warren would win in DC. Not sure about Hawai'i.

[IceSpear]

[Holmes]

No way Clinton loses California, Hawaii and DC. Probably not Illinois either.

For Illinois I am thinking that Warren would win in Cook thanks to support in black areas and progressive white areas (lakeside north, Evanston, Oak Park, etc.). She would also pick up populist union Dem areas in the NW that vote as a block with eastern Iowa (Quad Cities, Knox and Fulton areas, etc). This combination could be enough to carry Warren in the state, assuming Clinton doesn't do too well in the suburbs, which she wouldn't. They would vote for her because she is moderate, but she's not that well-liked there.

California is a tough one. Warren would do well in many Bay Area counties, but Clinton would likely dominate SoCal as well as possibly certain NoCal counties as well.

I have no doubt Warren would win in DC. Not sure about Hawai'i.

Why are you so sure that Hillary Clinton of all people would lose the African American vote? Against Elizabeth Warren, no less.

[Mr. Illini]

No way Clinton loses California, Hawaii and DC. Probably not Illinois either.

For Illinois I am thinking that Warren would win in Cook thanks to support in black areas and progressive white areas (lakeside north, Evanston, Oak Park, etc.). She would also pick up populist union Dem areas in the NW that vote as a block with eastern Iowa (Quad Cities, Knox and Fulton areas, etc). This combination could be enough to carry Warren in the state, assuming Clinton doesn't do too well in the suburbs, which she wouldn't. They would vote for her because she is moderate, but she's not that well-liked there.

California is a tough one. Warren would do well in many Bay Area counties, but Clinton would likely dominate SoCal as well as possibly certain NoCal counties as well.

I have no doubt Warren would win in DC. Not sure about Hawai'i.

Why are you so sure that Hillary Clinton of all people would lose the African American vote? Against Elizabeth Warren, no less.

I realize that Obama being African American played a factor, but Clinton is still quite disliked in the community. Clinton is revered in the Hispanic community, and those two groups are often opposing blocks in Democratic primaries in urban areas. Warren also attracts African Americans looking for anti-Wall Street rhetoric. I am confident that Warren would do well on the south side and in the south suburbs.

[Mr. Illini]

If I had to draw something up for my home state:

[IceSpear]

No way Clinton loses California, Hawaii and DC. Probably not Illinois either.

For Illinois I am thinking that Warren would win in Cook thanks to support in black areas and progressive white areas (lakeside north, Evanston, Oak Park, etc.). She would also pick up populist union Dem areas in the NW that vote as a block with eastern Iowa (Quad Cities, Knox and Fulton areas, etc). This combination could be enough to carry Warren in the state, assuming Clinton doesn't do too well in the suburbs, which she wouldn't. They would vote for her because she is moderate, but she's not that well-liked there.

California is a tough one. Warren would do well in many Bay Area counties, but Clinton would likely dominate SoCal as well as possibly certain NoCal counties as well.

I have no doubt Warren would win in DC. Not sure about Hawai'i.

Why are you so sure that Hillary Clinton of all people would lose the African American vote? Against Elizabeth Warren, no less.

I realize that Obama being African American played a factor, but Clinton is still quite disliked in the community. Clinton is revered in the Hispanic community, and those two groups are often opposing blocks in Democratic primaries in urban areas. Warren also attracts African Americans looking for anti-Wall Street rhetoric. I am confident that Warren would do well on the south side and in the south suburbs.

Polls show Hillary as super popular among AAs, or are you referring to Illinois/Chicago AAs specifically?

[NerdyBohemian]

Warren would never win RI over Clinton.

[Mr. Illini]

No way Clinton loses California, Hawaii and DC. Probably not Illinois either.

For Illinois I am thinking that Warren would win in Cook thanks to support in black areas and progressive white areas (lakeside north, Evanston, Oak Park, etc.). She would also pick up populist union Dem areas in the NW that vote as a block with eastern Iowa (Quad Cities, Knox and Fulton areas, etc). This combination could be enough to carry Warren in the state, assuming Clinton doesn't do too well in the suburbs, which she wouldn't. They would vote for her because she is moderate, but she's not that well-liked there.

California is a tough one. Warren would do well in many Bay Area counties, but Clinton would likely dominate SoCal as well as possibly certain NoCal counties as well.

I have no doubt Warren would win in DC. Not sure about Hawai'i.

Why are you so sure that Hillary Clinton of all people would lose the African American vote? Against Elizabeth Warren, no less.

I realize that Obama being African American played a factor, but Clinton is still quite disliked in the community. Clinton is revered in the Hispanic community, and those two groups are often opposing blocks in Democratic primaries in urban areas. Warren also attracts African Americans looking for anti-Wall Street rhetoric. I am confident that Warren would do well on the south side and in the south suburbs.

Polls show Hillary as super popular among AAs, or are you referring to Illinois/Chicago AAs specifically?

Was speaking in general, but the divide is especially strong in Chicago.

[Mr. Morden]

No way Clinton loses California, Hawaii and DC. Probably not Illinois either.

For Illinois I am thinking that Warren would win in Cook thanks to support in black areas and progressive white areas (lakeside north, Evanston, Oak Park, etc.). She would also pick up populist union Dem areas in the NW that vote as a block with eastern Iowa (Quad Cities, Knox and Fulton areas, etc). This combination could be enough to carry Warren in the state, assuming Clinton doesn't do too well in the suburbs, which she wouldn't. They would vote for her because she is moderate, but she's not that well-liked there.

California is a tough one. Warren would do well in many Bay Area counties, but Clinton would likely dominate SoCal as well as possibly certain NoCal counties as well.

I have no doubt Warren would win in DC. Not sure about Hawai'i.

Why are you so sure that Hillary Clinton of all people would lose the African American vote? Against Elizabeth Warren, no less.

I realize that Obama being African American played a factor, but Clinton is still quite disliked in the community. Clinton is revered in the Hispanic community, and those two groups are often opposing blocks in Democratic primaries in urban areas. Warren also attracts African Americans looking for anti-Wall Street rhetoric. I am confident that Warren would do well on the south side and in the south suburbs.

Polls show Hillary as super popular among AAs, or are you referring to Illinois/Chicago AAs specifically?

Was speaking in general, but the divide is especially strong in Chicago.

The polls show that basically all of Warren's support comes from whites.  E.g., to take one example, from Marist's latest national poll:

whites:

Clinton 60%
Warren 16%
Biden 10%
Sanders 6%

blacks:

Clinton 60%
Biden 20%
Sanders 1%
Warren 1%

[Beet]

LOL. Self-proclaimed (and not so self-proclaimed) elitist liberals like to think that they head a coalition of African-Americans and working class whites against the "neoliberal" elitist Hillary, when the polls show the opposite is true. The reality is, Hillary is the one who heads such a coalition, and elitist liberals are working furiously to block it. Facts, polls, logic, and other such things, have never mattered in certain areas, however.

[Mr. Morden]

To be fair, I think at least a little of that gap is just due to the gap in name recognition.  Voters with more money and higher education levels are more likely than working class voters to know who Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are, because they're more likely to follow politics closely.  Whereas Clinton has near-universal name recognition among all socioeconomic classes.  This differential in name recognition would diminish somewhat if Warren were to actually run (but not nearly enough to eliminate the racial gap completely).

[Beet]

True, but there's also this persistent claim that Clinton is "disliked" in the African-American community but I've never seen a single poll bearing that out.

[Prince of Salem]

Agree with Beet and Morden on this one ^^ And I'd add that this also comes to show how the "political compass" is much more complicated than it looks like. Just because AAs and Hispanics are generally more "to the left" than most whites, doesn't mean they'll support a more radical or populist option over Clinton.

[Blair]

Yeah, I mean Clinton didn't do badly with AA's in 2008-she just faced Obama.

I'm a Warren Fan, but even I feel it's a myth that she's greatly popular-or a coalition builder like Obama,Clinton or Kennedy. She seems just to appeal to white, middle class students or older progressive types

[IceSpear]

LOL. Self-proclaimed (and not so self-proclaimed) elitist liberals like to think that they head a coalition of African-Americans and working class whites against the "neoliberal" elitist Hillary, when the polls show the opposite is true. The reality is, Hillary is the one who heads such a coalition, and elitist liberals are working furiously to block it. Facts, polls, logic, and other such things, have never mattered in certain areas, however.

Ugh, you're such a Hillary hack. The polls are skewed. Democrats hate Hillary (FACT) and she's going to lose in a landslide.

[Knives]

People keep pulling these supposed grand coalitions out of their asses (gays+unions) when the reality is Clinton leads almost all left leaning groups in a grand coalition already.

[CountyTy90]

If I had to draw something up for my home state:

If Putnam doesn't go for Warren I don't know how Bureau would. I think it copies LaSalle in its voting patterns. Check it out. And I can tell you LaSalle is Hillary country (present company included).