Would Bernie have performed better had he actually competed in the South?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I was thinking, had Bernie actually campaigned in the South and made a serious effort, would he have done better? I think he would, maybe not win necessarily, but he could have maybe gained 10% of the vote on average in the South and maybe a couple dozen more delegates. The only issue was the African American community, which he made a big mistake by not seriously campaigning for their votes.

Realistically I don't think so.

[Ljube]

100% No.

[Vosem]

Bernie did put a lot of effort into South Carolina. He still got crushed there. Pulling out and focusing his resources elsewhere was probably wise.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah Sanders outspent Clinton in SC, made plenty of campaign stops, had some local endorsements, and had many more field offices. He still lost by 50%.

[ElectionsGuy]

In the white areas of the south, yes. He could've won some more counties in Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and gotten about 10% better. When proportionality means more than winning in the Democratic Primary, his strategy of ignoring the south was really stupid.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In the white areas of the south, yes. He could've won some more counties in Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and gotten about 10% better. When proportionality means more than winning in the Democratic Primary, his strategy of ignoring the south was really stupid.

There was probably also some room to grow in Texas. Latinos /=/ Blacks.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes. States like SC could have been made a 60-35 win, but instead he chose to ensure he got another 2.5% of the vote in NH. Then he let Hillary take many proportional delegates.

[This account no longer in use.]

Tennessee is one state he could have invested in.

[Young Conservative]

Yeah Sanders outspent Clinton in SC, made plenty of campaign stops, had some local endorsements, and had many more field offices. He still lost by 50%.

See but South Carolina is a harder state because the Clintons have amazing organization and history there. He should've competed harder in tennessee, arkansas, virginia, north carolina, and georgia where he would've lost but reduced the delegate deficit substantially

[BundouYMB]

If he coupled that with an overall shift in strategy to actually appeal to blacks and make them part of his coalition, yes.

If he just bused in some white college kids for a rally in Georgia and changed nothing else, then obviously not.

[RaphaelDLG]

Hindsight is 20-20, but he should have pulled out of South Carolina earlier, spent more in the whiter upper south states like Tennessee, Virginia because he could have done much better there. 

No disrespect to Bernie, but the Clintons are unbeatable among black voters - even against Obama, HRC was winning black voters by a significant margin at the beginning.  He wasn't going to build a relationship with them that was good enough no matter what policies he proposed or how hard he campaigned in just a few months, barring an endorsement from Obama or something.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Probably, he wouldn't flip a bunch of states but I imagine he could make a play for Tennessee and maybe Virginia, as well as manage only 20 point losses in both Georgia, South Carolina, and hold Clinton below 70 in Mississippi, and below 65 in Louisiana, and below 60 in Texas.     

[RaphaelDLG]

Probably, he wouldn't flip a bunch of states but I imagine he could make a play for Tennessee and maybe Virginia, as well as manage only 20 point losses in both Georgia, South Carolina, and hold Clinton below 70 in Mississippi, and below 65 in Louisiana, and below 60 in Texas.     

I don't think so, not without doing worse in the other states.  You should remember that 1) he had little name recognition so spending money even in favorable white liberal states was very necessary and 2) he had a very finite amount of money for expensive ad buys.

I think he should have spread his resources out more evenly because the big margins in the states he didn't campaign in at all killed him but still punted the states where basically all of the Democrats are black (i.e., Clinton Country).

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

One strategy that could have worked is pick one "whiter" southern state (Virginia, Tennessee, or Texas if he had the money) to go all in on and try to win. Given how desperate the media was to keep the horserace going (at a time when it wasn't clear that Sanders would stay in no matter what), they would have definitely helped promote the narrative of "We got a YUGE win!!!!" if it worked, even if the delegate allocation in MN/CO/OK/MA became less favorable to him as a result. This would have made Michigan into a "He did it again! Hillary is doomed!" story, rather than a "WTF? Last minute buyer's remorse?" story. Maybe a full two week negative news cycle for Hillary would have turned MO and IL into 3-5 point Bernie wins, and made OH the close race it was "supposed" to be. We'll never know.

[The Mikado]

Remember, campaign time is a zero-sum game. Every moment you spend in one place takes away from others.

Could Bernie have done better in some places in the South? Yes, especially Tennessee and maybe Arkansas, Virginia, Texas, and Florida. Should he have campaigned more in those states? Remember, on Super Tuesday, Bernie lost Massachusetts and on March 15th Bernie lost Illinois and Missouri, and all three of those states were very winnable and, in the case of Massachusetts, was a highly symbolic and demoralizing loss (ditto the other two to the extent that it meant he was shut out on March 15th).

[Adam Griffin]

In TN, NC & AR: yes. Elsewhere, probably not (or at least not enough to make it worth the effort).

PPP released a national poll in February of likely primary voters that showed 46% of black voters had "no opinion" of Sanders. Now, there are multiple potential reasons why individuals might not have an opinion of a particular candidate, but when you consider that a) that same number was in the single-digits for white and Latino voters, and b) since Sanders announced, polls had shown him lagging among blacks by 20-30 points in terms of opinion and name recognition when compared to other groups, then it's fairly obvious that said number was so high because very large numbers of black voters didn't really know anything about the guy. "Name recognition" and "opinion of" polling tend to track well with one another.

It's one thing for that to be the case in the summer of 2015, but quite another for that to be the case after several months of media coverage, periods in which Sanders appeared to be pulling even nationally with Clinton, and the then-recent hype over the fact that the first primary contests were about to begin or had already occurred. Honestly, given that, I don't think there's anything else he could have done to break through. There was just a total disconnect here that didn't exist elsewhere; short of showing up at each house in America, what else could have been done? Again, likely primary voters.

It is actually eye-opening, however, when you consider those numbers: if roughly half of black voters didn't know enough about Sanders to have an opinion, then what percentage of those voters do you think went for Clinton? Probably damn near 100%. Sanders seems to be winning around 20% of the black vote nationally, so that means of the half who did have an opinion on him in February, around 40% voted for him. There would have been no guarantee that Sanders would have won the nomination had things been different, but the actual situation definitely guaranteed that Sanders would never be able to win the nomination.

[IceSpear]

He would've done better, not not better enough to make a major difference. Remember, he actually invested in SC and still lost by 50.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He would've done better, not not better enough to make a major difference. Remember, he actually invested in SC and still lost by 50.

He pulled out a week before the contest, which probably lost him a good 8 points or so. Also VA/TN/TX have better demographics than SC for him.

[Ebsy]

He did compete in the South, but ran a horrible campaign.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not in SC. Another couple of visits to IA instead, and he likely wins it. Maybe he should have put more effort into TN.

[Figueira]

He could have done somewhat better, but not enough to win.

[Santander]

TN was winnable, and he could have done better in TX to at least limit the damage of losing such a big state. He had no chance in the Black Belt, and even trying in SC was chasing a mirage.

[IceSpear]

TN was winnable, and he could have done better in TX to at least limit the damage of losing such a big state. He had no chance in the Black Belt, and even trying in SC was chasing a mirage.

I don't think a 32% black state was winnable.

[Mehmentum]

Virginia was never winnable for Sanders.  He would've had to win the D.C. suburbs, which is implausible to say the least. 

What really killed Sanders in the South wasn't just his losses with Blacks, it was the fact that he lost whites as well.  In 2008, Clinton lost blacks by just as much against Obama, but she didn't get blown out of the water in the way that Sanders did because of her massive wins with Southern Whites (and Hispanics, where the existed).

Take a look at Texas:
Whites: Clinton +16
Blacks: Clinton +68
Hispanics: Clinton +42

A complete blowout with every demographic.

We can only speculate why Sanders did so terribly with southern whites, though a big clue is that he won whites in North Carolina.  I wonder why?  I have to imagine that if Sanders had actually invested in these states, he could have done at least somewhat better.

[IceSpear]

Virginia was never winnable for Sanders.  He would've had to win the D.C. suburbs, which is implausible to say the least. 

What really killed Sanders in the South wasn't just his losses with Blacks, it was the fact that he lost whites as well.  In 2008, Clinton lost blacks by just as much against Obama, but she didn't get blown out of the water in the way that Sanders did because of her massive wins with Southern Whites (and Hispanics, where the existed).

Take a look at Texas:
Whites: Clinton +16
Blacks: Clinton +68
Hispanics: Clinton +42

A complete blowout with every demographic.

We can only speculate why Sanders did so terribly with southern whites, though a big clue is that he won whites in North Carolina.  I wonder why?  I have to imagine that if Sanders had actually invested in these states, he could have done at least somewhat better.

He did much better in NC than in VA for two reasons. One, as you mentioned, is investment. The other is that VA was open and NC was closed.

I think he probably made a wise choice. While it would be better in terms of the delegate math to win only Vermont but not get completely destroyed in Texas, Virginia, etc. the idiotic media does not cover it that way, and instead only cares about state wins. He was much better off trying to win 5/5 (he got 4/5) and have the media continue to pump him up as a real contender despite the fact that his path to the nomination essentially closed that day, rather than start the chorus of drop out calls "because he could only win his home state!" even if he actually ended up in a better position overall. Also, keep in mind he could not take MN/CO for granted, because at the time we had no idea how Sanders-friendly caucuses would be (though many suspected it, IA/NV created some skepticism) and internal polls, or any polls, don't help you gauge a caucus result very much.