Bernie Sanders dismisses Clinton lead: ‘A lot of that came from the South’

[Ban my account ffs!]

It is hard to deny that primary calendar so far favored Hillary. Nothing sinister about it, just a matter of schedule.

He and his campaign have repeated the same talking point waaaaaay too many times to be unintentional.
It's intentional and it's offensive for any Democrat to say to black voters that their votes count less than those of people in Idaho and Kansas.

True, and I'm not intending to defend that. However, there are plenty of Hillary supporters hinting that caucus states "doesn't" or "shouldn't matter". We may not like the mechanism of caucuses but how these people votes matters as much as the Southern vote. Sure, Idaho won't vote Democratic, so won't South Carolina, but it's not GE we're talking about.

Wrong username on that quote, it was Lyndon's . But in regards to your statement, both campaigns need to stop acting like certain states are worth less or do not matter, because it's insulting to the people that live in those regions. On top of that, I don't even get the logic behind the thought that "Clinton's win in those states doesn't matter because we never win them in general elections!". Like, what difference does that make? Are they not Democrats too? As I said, it's insulting.

The south has an outsized influence on the primary process because despite having relatively few Democrats anymore, half of the formula for allocating delegates state by state is by population...

Basically Half the formula is determined by the proportion of votes in a state for the Democratic candidate in the last three elections compared to the total of all democratic votes for president nationally in said elections.  This benefits states that vote Democratic and have high turnout.  The other half is determined purely by The number of electoral votes a state has which really is a disadvantage for loyal high turnout states.  It also gives more clout to small states.

So states in the south and states like Texas have a disproportionately high number of delegates for the number of Democratic votes that are received.

So the system basically equalizes The benefit of high turnout. And then it awards extra to states with both low turnout and that don't vote for the Democrat.  Once again loyal democratic states with high turnout get punished.

You can argue that states like Utah or Wyoming also benefit from the system... But they also have relatively few delegates anyway.  It's set up to reward the south and machine states like New York.

[Likely Voter]

if you divided all the delegates awarded so far into South and not-South, the Sanders has won 55.5% of the not-South. So giving him the benefit of the doubt, he seems to be implying that Clinton's best days (the South) are behind her and he will keep winning outside the south.  However even if he did win 55.5% of all the remaining delegates, he would still lose because of Clinton's lead from the South. And then there is the issue of how it really doesn't look like he is even going to win a majority of the remaining delegates. But I guess he has to say something.

[Ebsy]

It's hard to view for me to view the diminishing of Southern democrats as anything but dog whistling.

[Virginiá]

The south has an outsized influence on the primary process because despite having relatively few Democrats anymore, half of the formula for allocating delegates state by state is by population...

This is actually the first time I've heard someone say this. You have a good point, but when I hear people argue that those states "don't matter", it's not in reference to the delegate allocation but rather that they are red states and thus don't matter simply for that reason. As if only blue states matter in regards to selecting the nominee. The opinions of Democrats in South Carolina are just as valid as a Democrat from New York. That is the way I see it, at least.

So while you make a good point, this isn't the logic I've debated with numerous people IRL/OTI.

[Gustaf]

Is it really true that Clinton states benefit from the allocation system? Has anyone checked?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Is it really true that Clinton states benefit from the allocation system? Has anyone checked?

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Alloc.phtml

Both candidates benefit to some extent...since both candidates best states have benefited from this...but Hillary has benefited more.

Small, low turnout (in prez general elections) Republican states benefit most by the electoral vote equalizer.

[Ebsy]

The voters that get the most outsized say are those that vote in caucuses. Wyoming got like 14 delegates for its 7,000 democratic caucus goers, while Missouri got 71 for its 620,000. That's 1 delegate for every 500 voters in Wyoming while 1 delegate for ever 8700 in Missouri. Tell me whose voters are getting disenfranchised.

[Likely Voter]

I did some quick excel to test the outsized south theory and it doesn't add up.

The southern states have  1,107  Delegates total for a population (2010 Census) of 102,286,605
.
Non-southern states (and territories) have  2,951  delegates for a population of   211,174,589.

So the South gets 10.8 delegates/M and the rest of the country gets 14.0 delegates/M.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I did some quick excel to test the outsized south theory and it doesn't add up.

The southern states have 1040 Delegates total for a population (2010 Census) of  95,940,330.
Non-southern states (and territories) have 2998 delegates for a population of  216,919,097.

So the South gets 10.8 delegates/M and the rest of the country gets 13.8 delegates/M.

That's because you used a simplistic test to measure the wrong thing.

Half the allocation is based on the proportion of a state's average Democratic vote for the last three general presidential elections.  You take the votes in a state for John Kerry and for Obama from 2008 and 2012 and divide that by the total national vote for those two candidates in those three elections.

This awards states delegates based, basically, on how Democratic they are.

But that only accounts for half.

The other half is just the proportion of electoral votes a state has out of all electoral votes (538)... so... population, but skewed towards the small states because it's EV and not raw population.

This causes delegates to be taken from loyally Democratic states with higher turnout and given to Republican states with lower turnout.

I think this is unfair, because while the number of delegates per million southerners (10. is less than areas outside the south... it should be even smaller.

The DNC is basically saying that Wyoming and Mississippi Democrats are worth more in the nomination process than Minnesota or Massachusetts Democrats.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The voters that get the most outsized say are those that vote in caucuses. Wyoming got like 14 delegates for its 7,000 democratic caucus goers, while Missouri got 71 for its 620,000. That's 1 delegate for every 500 voters in Wyoming while 1 delegate for ever 8700 in Missouri. Tell me whose voters are getting disenfranchised.

We need to completely reform our primary system.  We should have an open primary nationally on one day.  The top two candidates then face each other in a run off.  If states want to have caucuses before hand, they can... but they have no direct influence on the primary.

The convention is then about platform and basically anointing the chosen candidate.

The system as it is is blatantly unfair and skewed in all kinds of bad ways.

[RaphaelDLG]

The voters that get the most outsized say are those that vote in caucuses. Wyoming got like 14 delegates for its 7,000 democratic caucus goers, while Missouri got 71 for its 620,000. That's 1 delegate for every 500 voters in Wyoming while 1 delegate for ever 8700 in Missouri. Tell me whose voters are getting disenfranchised.

We need to completely reform our primary system.  We should have an open primary nationally on one day.  The top two candidates then face each other in a run off.  If states want to have caucuses before hand, they can... but they have no direct influence on the primary.

The convention is then about platform and basically anointing the chosen candidate.

The system as it is is blatantly unfair and skewed in all kinds of bad ways.

The issue with that system is that having all states vote on one day makes money and name recognition of outsized importance, and retail politics/building a campaign from the ground up are unimportant.  I.e., people like Trump and Clinton would dominate even more than they already do.

But you're right, the current system is garbage - maybe something like 100% open primaries with lottery order that changes to the reverse four years later and is in five stages - i.e., 20% of the country votes one month, 20% the next, and so on.  Removes the unfair significance of perenially early states like Iowa, NH...

[dspNY]

The voters that get the most outsized say are those that vote in caucuses. Wyoming got like 14 delegates for its 7,000 democratic caucus goers, while Missouri got 71 for its 620,000. That's 1 delegate for every 500 voters in Wyoming while 1 delegate for ever 8700 in Missouri. Tell me whose voters are getting disenfranchised.

We need to completely reform our primary system.  We should have an open primary nationally on one day.  The top two candidates then face each other in a run off.  If states want to have caucuses before hand, they can... but they have no direct influence on the primary.

The convention is then about platform and basically anointing the chosen candidate.

The system as it is is blatantly unfair and skewed in all kinds of bad ways.

The issue with that system is that having all states vote on one day makes money and name recognition of outsized importance, and retail politics/building a campaign from the ground up are unimportant.  I.e., people like Trump and Clinton would dominate even more than they already do.

But you're right, the current system is garbage - maybe something like 100% open primaries with lottery order that changes to the reverse four years later and is in five stages - i.e., 20% of the country votes one month, 20% the next, and so on.  Removes the unfair significance of perenially early states like Iowa, NH...

Iowa should keep their caucus out of tradition. New Hampshire should keep their open primary out of tradition. The rest of the states should be closed primaries with a registration deadline one week from the date of the primary election with the only exception being voters who turn 18, who can register up to the day of the primary. The registration deadline one week from primary day is generous enough to allow independents to register with a party.

I like the idea of a group of 8 or 9 states voting on consecutive Tuesdays. It shortens the primary season significantly.

[Joe Republic]

Iowa should keep their caucus out of tradition. New Hampshire should keep their open primary out of tradition.

Throughout life and society, you'll find that some traditions are terrible and should be done away with.  Two (mostly white) states that have a combined share of only 1.4% of the total US population should not have the privilege of directing the shape of the rest of the primary campaign every four years.

[Gustaf]

There seems to be two things going on here.

1. Is the current system generally fair and good. Snowguy says no, I personally think it is legitimate to use a factor that promotes electability. I'm inclined to agree this is not the right balance though.

2. Does the system in this case benefit Sanders or Clinton. That was my original question and it doesn't seem to have been answered yet. Since both draw their highest support from Republican states I think the jury is still out.

[HAnnA MArin County]

So it's okay for Sandernistas to post threads calling Bill a racist, but when someone who doesn't support Sanders posts a thread that implies that Sanders is dismissing Hillary's wins in the South (where she has won big with black voters), the Sandernistas get their panties in a wad. So glad to see them upholding that good ole progressive principle of "tolerance" that they speak so highly of!

[Meclazine for Israel]

Hopefully Sanders gets some superdelegates.

[Wisconsin+17]

LOL at democrats having a hissy fit at being called 'confederates'. After all the crap they talk about the South.

[IceSpear]

Let's all be honest for a moment and recognize that if Hillary said this in 08, nobody would've given her the benefit of the doubt, and it would've been given wall to wall coverage as a "racist gaffe."

[Famous Mortimer]

Let's all be honest for a moment and recognize that if Hillary said this in 08, nobody would've given her the benefit of the doubt, and it would've been given wall to wall coverage as a "racist gaffe."

That's because she was running against a Black guy. If Sanders was running against a Black guy and said this, it would have gotten the same bad coverage. He isn't though. Totally different contexts.

[Hammy]

I don't particularly see this as racist as much as an attempt to paint her as a regional candidate or along the lines of implying her best states being behind her--aside from Iowa and Missouri which are statistical ties delegate-wise and don't make a difference for either candidate, she's really only won five states outside the South (and Arizona can arguably condidered part of the South at this point as well). If Sanders had swept most of the Southern states and Clinton had won primarily the Midwest, or primarily the West, or primarily the Northeast, I'm pretty sure he would've still said something similar if it constituted the majority or more of her delegate lead.

[IceSpear]

I don't particularly see this as racist as much as an attempt to paint her as a regional candidate or along the lines of implying her best states being behind her--aside from Iowa and Missouri which are statistical ties delegate-wise and don't make a difference for either candidate, she's really only won five states outside the South (and Arizona can arguably condidered part of the South at this point as well). If Sanders had swept most of the Southern states and Clinton had won primarily the Midwest, or primarily the West, or primarily the Northeast, I'm pretty sure he would've still said something similar if it constituted the majority or more of her delegate lead.

Haha, WHAT?!

[Landslide Lyndon]

I don't particularly see this as racist as much as an attempt to paint her as a regional candidate or along the lines of implying her best states being behind her--aside from Iowa and Missouri which are statistical ties delegate-wise and don't make a difference for either candidate, she's really only won five states outside the South (and Arizona can arguably condidered part of the South at this point as well).

[IceSpear]

I look forward to the "New York is kinda Southern tbh" posts in a week.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I look forward to the "New York is kinda Southern tbh" posts in a week.

Didn't you learn that Massachusetts was part of the Confederacy too?

[Matty]

Sanders is one of those annoying liberals who on the one hand claims to be a warrior for the poor and downtrodden and then on the other hand mocks the region of the country that is the most poor and downtrodden.