Would Bernie have performed better had he actually competed in the South? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 10:50:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Would Bernie have performed better had he actually competed in the South? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: skip
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 44

Author Topic: Would Bernie have performed better had he actually competed in the South?  (Read 1456 times)
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,600
United States


« on: May 26, 2016, 07:16:18 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 16 queries.