Why ethnic minority voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

[UWS]

During the Democratric presidential primaries of 2016, ethnic minority voters (Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc.) massively voted for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Why?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Because that's just simply how she set up her campaign. Hillary was sort of the Bernie Sanders in 2008. Her base was made up of working whites and she carried the liberal economic cause. The moment she lost the nomination in 2008 she immediately got to work. She knew that if she were to win the nomination she had to appeal to minorities and drive up the vote in delegate-heavy states like in the south. But in doing so, abandoned the working class that then went to Bernie and Trump. She focused her 2016 campaign on social and racial justice which strongly appealed to Latinos and African Americans.

[RINO Tom]

Because she pandered to them and their fears/concerns.

[Arbitrage1980]

Sanders is an actual socialist, meaning that he sees everything through the lens of class conflict rather than race. The modern Democratic Party is obsessed with racial, gender, and sexual orientation identity, and those who don't worship at its altar will not win the nomination.

[Rookie Yinzer]

The modern Democratic Party is obsessed concerned with tackling racial, gender, and sexual orientation identity discrimination, and those who don't worship at its altar champion those causes will not win the nomination.

[Beet]

What a lot of people don't realize is that being born with darker skin doesn't automatically make you a liberal. There are a lot of moderate and conservative ethnic minorities who are only in the Democratic party because the other party is seen as a white ethnonationalist party. If that wasn't the case, the GOP would win every election in a landslide. These folks are "on the plantation", so to speak, but the problem is that when it comes to a primary, they won't necessarily have any investment in a leftist challenger.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I was under the impression that it was only black voters (and really, Southern and older black voters, at that) who massively voted for Clinton over Sanders.  She didn't do quite as well (though still did better than Sanders, for the most part) with Latinos, Asians, and younger ethnic/racial minority voters in general - again, outside the South. Is this not correct?

[I Won - Get Over It]

Re: Why ethnic minority voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

There is basically no logic behind this. At least not that I can think of.

[Santander]

There are many non-black minorities who are solidly Democrat but came from socialist/communist countries and do not want anything to do with socialism.

[AtorBoltox]

What a lot of people don't realize is that being born with darker skin doesn't automatically make you a liberal. There are a lot of moderate and conservative ethnic minorities who are only in the Democratic party because the other party is seen as a white ethnonationalist party. If that wasn't the case, the GOP would win every election in a landslide. These folks are "on the plantation", so to speak, but the problem is that when it comes to a primary, they won't necessarily have any investment in a leftist challenger.

More race baiting from Beet

[Lord Admirale]

What a lot of people don't realize is that being born with darker skin doesn't automatically make you a liberal. There are a lot of moderate and conservative ethnic minorities who are only in the Democratic party because the other party is seen as a white ethnonationalist party. If that wasn't the case, the GOP would win every election in a landslide. These folks are "on the plantation", so to speak, but the problem is that when it comes to a primary, they won't necessarily have any investment in a leftist challenger.

"I love minorities... as long as they have the same beliefs I do." - Totally-Not-Racist-At-All

[Del Tachi]

Black voters in the South maintain an effective "veto" over the Democratic nomination process because of DNC delegate allocation rules that make Southern states relatively delegate-heavy.  No Democrat has won the nomination without securing the bulk of Southern Black's support - not Hillary, not Kerry, not Gore, not Bill, etc.  In that sense, Hillary was very smart to tailor her message and campaign to Southern Blacks.

To answer the broader question, Black Democrats (especially in the South) see themselves as much more the beneficiary of activist government than White Democrats.  For this reason, there is a propensity for Southern Blacks to gravitate towards more pragmatic, electable candidates because they have too much to lose by supporting an ideologue like Bernie Sanders.  White liberals don't have the same skin in the game, so to speak. 

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Black voters in the South maintain an effective "veto" over the Democratic nomination process because of DNC delegate allocation rules that make Southern states relatively delegate-heavy.  No Democrat has won the nomination without securing the bulk of Southern Black's support - not Hillary, not Kerry, not Gore, not Bill, etc.  In that sense, Hillary was very smart to tailor her message and campaign to Southern Blacks.

To answer the broader question, Black Democrats (especially in the South) see themselves as much more the beneficiary of activist government than White Democrats.  For this reason, there is a propensity for Southern Blacks to gravitate towards more pragmatic, electable candidates because they have too much to lose by supporting an ideologue like Bernie Sanders.  White liberals don't have the same skin in the game, so to speak.  

Very good point. Minorities are much more likely to be poorer than whites. Do you think the average  Black Democrat in Alabama is going to care much about transgender rights or global warming? No, they are much more likely to care about pragmatic issues that actually effect them like a higher minimum wage,  healthcare and voting rights/civil rights. White wealthier Liberals have the luxury to ignore those more basic bread and butter issues and focus on other more esoteric things.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sanders is an actual socialist, meaning that he sees everything through the lens of class conflict rather than race. The modern Democratic Party is obsessed with racial, gender, and sexual orientation identity, and those who don't worship at its altar will not win the nomination.

This isn't true though. Bernie first became interested in politics because his relatives in Poland didn't do so well because of politics.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Black voters in the South maintain an effective "veto" over the Democratic nomination process because of DNC delegate allocation rules that make Southern states relatively delegate-heavy.  No Democrat has won the nomination without securing the bulk of Southern Black's support - not Hillary, not Kerry, not Gore, not Bill, etc.  In that sense, Hillary was very smart to tailor her message and campaign to Southern Blacks.

To answer the broader question, Black Democrats (especially in the South) see themselves as much more the beneficiary of activist government than White Democrats.  For this reason, there is a propensity for Southern Blacks to gravitate towards more pragmatic, electable candidates because they have too much to lose by supporting an ideologue like Bernie Sanders.  White liberals don't have the same skin in the game, so to speak.  

Very good point. Minorities are much more likely to be poorer than whites. Do you think the average  Black Democrat in Alabama is going to care much about transgender rights or global warming? No, they are much more likely to care about pragmatic issues that actually effect them like a higher minimum wage,  healthcare and voting rights/civil rights. White wealthier Liberals have the luxury to ignore those more basic bread and butter issues and focus on other more esoteric things.

I think you're partly right, but on one hand, I think it's disingenuous to write off certain issues as "esoteric" to poor people - the big one here being climate change. Climate change does/will disproportionately affect poor and minority communities - Katrina being a good example. Same for other forms of environmental destruction, e.g. the Flint crisis and Standing Rock both affect and attract the attention of lots of disadvantaged people.

On the other hand, resources and the capability to make change still play a big role. Hence why a poor black resident of Flint, even if they're super passionate about the Flint crisis for obvious reasons, might not have time to care about Standing Rock. The point is, it's really difficult to separate which issues are "esoteric" and which are "bread and butter."

(Also, I'm pretty sure that poor transgender people care very much about transgender rights, even more so than rich transgender people, since they're a lot more likely to be subject to violence and not have access to the appropriate resources. Again, what's "esoteric" to one poor person is "life or death" for another.)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Because ethnic minorities, especially in the south, always vote against liberal white males in competitive primaries, unless the liberal white male is from the south.

[Crumpets]

Because her husband played the saxophone on Arsenio Hall's show in 1992, obviously.

/s

[Shadows]

Ethnically Minority = Blacks I presume?

Because Sanders won the hispanic vote in many polls, NV, Illinois, Colorado & on & on & ran close in most states. He won the most diverse state in Hawaii, won Asian Americans in many places. He also won the Native American votes in Oklahoma, Alaska & in most states of reasonable Native American concentration.

The question should be why he did bad among the African American community because they are not the only ethnic minority group!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ethnically Minority = Blacks I presume?

Because Sanders won the hispanic vote in many polls, NV, Illinois, Colorado & on & on & ran close in most states. He won the most diverse state in Hawaii, won Asian Americans in many places. He also won the Native American votes in Oklahoma, Alaska & in most states of reasonable Native American concentration.

The question should be why he did bad among the African American community because they are not the only ethnic minority group!

Come on Shadows, you know that Hawaii is a rural white state next to Vermont.

[Shadows]

Ethnically Minority = Blacks I presume?

Because Sanders won the hispanic vote in many polls, NV, Illinois, Colorado & on & on & ran close in most states. He won the most diverse state in Hawaii, won Asian Americans in many places. He also won the Native American votes in Oklahoma, Alaska & in most states of reasonable Native American concentration.

The question should be why he did bad among the African American community because they are not the only ethnic minority group!

Come on Shadows, you know that Hawaii is a rural white state next to Vermont.

Could be, lol !

Because ethnic minorities, especially in the south, always vote against liberal white males in competitive primaries, unless the liberal white male is from the south.

Maybe you are right. But then about Kerry 2004 ?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Sanders is an actual socialist, meaning that he sees everything through the lens of class conflict rather than race. The modern Democratic Party is obsessed with racial, gender, and sexual orientation identity, and those who don't worship at its altar will not win the nomination.

This isn't true though. Bernie first became interested in politics because his relatives in Poland didn't do so well because of politics.

How is that relevant?

[NOVA Green]

Ethnically Minority = Blacks I presume?

Because Sanders won the hispanic vote in many polls, NV, Illinois, Colorado & on & on & ran close in most states. He won the most diverse state in Hawaii, won Asian Americans in many places. He also won the Native American votes in Oklahoma, Alaska & in most states of reasonable Native American concentration.

The question should be why he did bad among the African American community because they are not the only ethnic minority group!

Shadows raises some good points here, namely that Sanders did actually perform quite well with Latino voters in many parts of the Country (Puerto Ricans in Chicago, Mexican and New Mexican Spanish voters in NM, Latinos in the causes in Nevada & Colorado, not to even delve into California (See Below)...

Certainly precinct level results from California and Oregon suggest that he won the votes of working-class Latinos in many parts of of these two states....

Pull up the Democratic Primary results from Watsonville (Food Processing City in SC County), heavily Mexican-American precincts in the Inner Mission District of San Francisco (Bernie's best neighborhood in the SFC)

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=238571.msg5109575#msg5109575

Look at relatively working-class Latino precincts in the East Bay Area, go down to SoCal and take a look at the numbers from CD-34 and CD-46 with large Latino populations.

Shoot, even in the Central Valley, it appears that Bernie actually performed quite well, and where there were some of the largest swings against Clinton compared to her '08 numbers.

It's also pretty clear that there was a significant Regional/Age gap between Bernie's performance in the Midwest and West and his performance in the States of the Old Confederacy (Including Texas). Look at the numbers in places like Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and St Louis for example and compare to his performance on Super Tuesday and nearby primaries in the Southern States.

Asian-American voters in the Democratic Primaries are a bit harder to capture, but there appears to be a contrast between earlier primaries (Texas) for example if you look at Sugarland (Houston suburb) vs heavily Asian-American precincts in Seattle, Portland, Bay Area, and Southern California.

In the West Coast Primaries, it appears that Clinton performed much better among Asian-American voters in wealthier precincts, that voted roughly similar to their "White" or "Anglo" neighbors and co-workers vs more working and Middle-Class Asian-American precincts.

How the hell did Bernie win Oakland California for Christ's sake?

Part of the reason I suspect why Bernie performed so poorly among many Latino and African-American voters early in the Primary Season, compared to towards the end of the Primary Season, had to do with the name recognition factor.

Now, overall it is pretty clear that overall Clinton won "Ethnic Minority" voters in the '16 Primary, and convincingly so among African-American voters, even in Northern and Western States.

Part of the reason I believe, is that many voters saw Clinton as the successor to the Obama legacy, and particularly Black Women were some of her strongest supporters overall within the Democratic electorate, regardless of region or age.

Latino voters in the '16 Dem Primary is a much more complex question, and really is almost a Masters Thesis in its own right.

Why did Puerto Ricans in Florida, New Jersey, the Bronx and Hartford CT vote so much differently than Puerto Ricans in Chicago?

Why did Tejanos and Latinos in Texas, and to a lesser extent Arizona, vote so much differently than those from Central-American and Mexican American heritage in California, not to mention the "Old Spanish" and Mexican-American voters of New Mexico?

This is certainly not an easy question to answer, however obviously in the case of Texas and Florida, Bernie was still building name recognition, and essentially made a token effort in both states, trying to recalibrate for upcoming battles in the Midwest, NE, and Western States.

By the end of the Primary Season, Bernie was making an aggressive push in California, Oregon, New Mexico, etc, and part of that involved a more concerted effort to communicate his message, including to Latino voters, in Primary States vs Western Caucus States.

Again, there is definitely an "older" vs "younger" voter dynamic at play here.... Look for example at the sheer number of "Provisional Ballots" in California, that disproportionately included those <35 Years and roll that down to the precinct or municipal level in heavily Latino parts of the State (Which many Counties in California have detailed breakdowns of and we were tracking live daily during the month long process of counting California Ballots), and you see that dynamic at play.

I still strongly believe that much of the variance with Bernie's primary performance among "Ethnic Voters" is explained more by the Primary Calendar than anything else, combined with a strong regional variance between African-American Voters in Northern vs Southern States.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Ethnically Minority = Blacks I presume?

Because Sanders won the hispanic vote in many polls, NV, Illinois, Colorado & on & on & ran close in most states. He won the most diverse state in Hawaii, won Asian Americans in many places. He also won the Native American votes in Oklahoma, Alaska & in most states of reasonable Native American concentration.

The question should be why he did bad among the African American community because they are not the only ethnic minority group!

Shadows raises some good points here, namely that Sanders did actually perform quite well with Latino voters in many parts of the Country (Puerto Ricans in Chicago, Mexican and New Mexican Spanish voters in NM, Latinos in the causes in Nevada & Colorado, not to even delve into California (See Below)...

Certainly precinct level results from California and Oregon suggest that he won the votes of working-class Latinos in many parts of of these two states....

Pull up the Democratic Primary results from Watsonville (Food Processing City in SC County), heavily Mexican-American precincts in the Inner Mission District of San Francisco (Bernie's best neighborhood in the SFC)

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=238571.msg5109575#msg5109575

Look at relatively working-class Latino precincts in the East Bay Area, go down to SoCal and take a look at the numbers from CD-34 and CD-46 with large Latino populations.

Shoot, even in the Central Valley, it appears that Bernie actually performed quite well, and where there were some of the largest swings against Clinton compared to her '08 numbers.

It's also pretty clear that there was a significant Regional/Age gap between Bernie's performance in the Midwest and West and his performance in the States of the Old Confederacy (Including Texas). Look at the numbers in places like Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, and St Louis for example and compare to his performance on Super Tuesday and nearby primaries in the Southern States.

Asian-American voters in the Democratic Primaries are a bit harder to capture, but there appears to be a contrast between earlier primaries (Texas) for example if you look at Sugarland (Houston suburb) vs heavily Asian-American precincts in Seattle, Portland, Bay Area, and Southern California.

In the West Coast Primaries, it appears that Clinton performed much better among Asian-American voters in wealthier precincts, that voted roughly similar to their "White" or "Anglo" neighbors and co-workers vs more working and Middle-Class Asian-American precincts.

How the hell did Bernie win Oakland California for Christ's sake?

Part of the reason I suspect why Bernie performed so poorly among many Latino and African-American voters early in the Primary Season, compared to towards the end of the Primary Season, had to do with the name recognition factor.

Now, overall it is pretty clear that overall Clinton won "Ethnic Minority" voters in the '16 Primary, and convincingly so among African-American voters, even in Northern and Western States.

Part of the reason I believe, is that many voters saw Clinton as the successor to the Obama legacy, and particularly Black Women were some of her strongest supporters overall within the Democratic electorate, regardless of region or age.

Latino voters in the '16 Dem Primary is a much more complex question, and really is almost a Masters Thesis in its own right.

Why did Puerto Ricans in Florida, New Jersey, the Bronx and Hartford CT vote so much differently than Puerto Ricans in Chicago?

Why did Tejanos and Latinos in Texas, and to a lesser extent Arizona, vote so much differently than those from Central-American and Mexican American heritage in California, not to mention the "Old Spanish" and Mexican-American voters of New Mexico?

This is certainly not an easy question to answer, however obviously in the case of Texas and Florida, Bernie was still building name recognition, and essentially made a token effort in both states, trying to recalibrate for upcoming battles in the Midwest, NE, and Western States.

By the end of the Primary Season, Bernie was making an aggressive push in California, Oregon, New Mexico, etc, and part of that involved a more concerted effort to communicate his message, including to Latino voters, in Primary States vs Western Caucus States.

Again, there is definitely an "older" vs "younger" voter dynamic at play here.... Look for example at the sheer number of "Provisional Ballots" in California, that disproportionately included those <35 Years and roll that down to the precinct or municipal level in heavily Latino parts of the State (Which many Counties in California have detailed breakdowns of and we were tracking live daily during the month long process of counting California Ballots), and you see that dynamic at play.

I still strongly believe that much of the variance with Bernie's primary performance among "Ethnic Voters" is explained more by the Primary Calendar than anything else, combined with a strong regional variance between African-American Voters in Northern vs Southern States.

Obama having unjustly kidnapped *ahem* "deported" the most people out of any president in history probably didn't hurt the man running against the person promising to continue his legacy(though IIRC he did help kill an immigration reform measure in '06 or '07 over "american workers" or some other such awfulness).

[Mr. Morden]

Ethnic minorities usually tend to go with the so-called "pragmatic" choice in competitive primaries between "pragmatism" and "purity".  See, e.g.:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/pragmatic-tradition-of-black-voters.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Obama having unjustly kidnapped *ahem* "deported" the most people out of any president in history probably didn't hurt the man running against the person promising to continue his legacy(though IIRC he did help kill an immigration reform measure in '06 or '07 over "american workers" or some other such awfulness).

Isn't this because the definition of deportation changed under the Bush administration to include those who were also turned away at the border?

Source.