CNN/ORC SC Poll-Hillary +18, Trump +16

[Mehmentum]

But imagine if Carson gets 3rd place as a surprise... and they declare Rubio the winner for his come-from-behind 4th place victory!!!

[EliteLX]

What

[RBH]

Carson's support has to mostly come from voters that support him because nobody is running negative ads against Ben Carson.

[Adam Griffin]

If this poll is anywhere near accurate, then Clinton is in trouble for the long haul. I've been talking for the past week about how Sanders getting within 30 points of Clinton in SC is dangerous for her; multiple polls are now showing that it's happening. I'll just share a collection of some recent posts from AAD in recent days here (actual Atlas quote links don't go the threads since they weren't posted here but timestamps are accurate):

I actually spoke with someone in Sanders' SC apparatus today to get some credible intel on the situation there:

The Sanders campaign's internals show that he's getting about 28% of the black vote in SC at the moment.

...

The SC electorate will be approximately 55% black and 40% white. If Sanders gets 50% of the white vote and 30% of the black vote, then that gets him slightly about the "magic 35% mark". Getting 35% of the total vote in SC will be a shot across the bow and a sign that his campaign can logistically win the PV. Getting 40% of the total vote - while I don't believe is possible - basically indicates that HRC is ing done.

That combination would work as well, as would several different tweaked variations. NH & IA are solidly white, yes, and that's exactly why I think that if the campaign continues, Sanders can up his share of the white vote. As with all things relating to race and polarization, generally the greater the share of the non-white population, the more propensity there is for polarization. I think HRC running about in the coming weeks with Trayvon Martin's family in tow, trying to curry favor with black voters by talking about police brutality, guns and other racial dogwhistles, will have the effect of increasing the percentage of white Democrats who consider Sanders (while not boosting her own numbers with blacks, as their support for her right now has absolutely nothing to do with policy). Even the Democratic primary is not immune to this sort of dynamic.

I voted yes: I'm surprised to see unanimous no votes otherwise. If Clinton's margin of victory in SC is more than a point or two smaller than Bernie's in NH, then she isn't winning this nomination. I posted a lot about this over in the "what % of black voters will Sanders get in SC" thread, but long story short: if Bernie is >35% (all voters) in SC, then the race will drag on for a long time; if Bernie is at or above 40%, then Hillary is ing done.

For Bernie to get to 35% means he has won a majority of whites and 30% of blacks; to get to 40% means he has won a landslide of whites and at least one-third of blacks, which is enough to shut Hillary down outside of the Deep South and the occasional random state (NY, AR, etc).

Uh, Sanders getting 35% of the vote in SC isn't him getting the sh**t bombed out of him: it means he is doing about as well as he can possibly do in the state (winning a majority of non-black voters and getting 30% of the black vote) given the utter rigidity of the black vote. I've been rambling on about this for days, but if he gets 35%, this campaign is going to continue for months and the media is going to keep selling the "underperforming Clinton" narrative; if he gets 40%, he's likely going to win the nomination*.

*Assuming the superdelegates don't rudely and selfishly anoint Clinton

[Fusionmunster]

If this poll is anywhere near accurate, then Clinton is in trouble for the long haul. I've been talking for the past week about how Sanders getting within 30 points of Clinton in SC is dangerous for her; multiple polls are now showing that it's happening. I'll just share a collection of some recent posts from AAD in recent days here (actual Atlas quote links don't go the threads since they weren't posted here but timestamps are accurate):

I actually spoke with someone in Sanders' SC apparatus today to get some credible intel on the situation there:

The Sanders campaign's internals show that he's getting about 28% of the black vote in SC at the moment.

...

The SC electorate will be approximately 55% black and 40% white. If Sanders gets 50% of the white vote and 30% of the black vote, then that gets him slightly about the "magic 35% mark". Getting 35% of the total vote in SC will be a shot across the bow and a sign that his campaign can logistically win the PV. Getting 40% of the total vote - while I don't believe is possible - basically indicates that HRC is ing done.

That combination would work as well, as would several different tweaked variations. NH & IA are solidly white, yes, and that's exactly why I think that if the campaign continues, Sanders can up his share of the white vote. As with all things relating to race and polarization, generally the greater the share of the non-white population, the more propensity there is for polarization. I think HRC running about in the coming weeks with Trayvon Martin's family in tow, trying to curry favor with black voters by talking about police brutality, guns and other racial dogwhistles, will have the effect of increasing the percentage of white Democrats who consider Sanders (while not boosting her own numbers with blacks, as their support for her right now has absolutely nothing to do with policy). Even the Democratic primary is not immune to this sort of dynamic.

I voted yes: I'm surprised to see unanimous no votes otherwise. If Clinton's margin of victory in SC is more than a point or two smaller than Bernie's in NH, then she isn't winning this nomination. I posted a lot about this over in the "what % of black voters will Sanders get in SC" thread, but long story short: if Bernie is >35% (all voters) in SC, then the race will drag on for a long time; if Bernie is at or above 40%, then Hillary is ing done.

For Bernie to get to 35% means he has won a majority of whites and 30% of blacks; to get to 40% means he has won a landslide of whites and at least one-third of blacks, which is enough to shut Hillary down outside of the Deep South and the occasional random state (NY, AR, etc).

Uh, Sanders getting 35% of the vote in SC isn't him getting the sh**t bombed out of him: it means he is doing about as well as he can possibly do in the state (winning a majority of non-black voters and getting 30% of the black vote) given the utter rigidity of the black vote. I've been rambling on about this for days, but if he gets 35%, this campaign is going to continue for months and the media is going to keep selling the "underperforming Clinton" narrative; if he gets 40%, he's likely going to win the nomination*.

*Assuming the superdelegates don't rudely and selfishly anoint Clinton

So Bernie Sanders is literally Hillary Clinton in 2008. Attempting to win with a huge majority of whites and very few minorities.

[Adam Griffin]

So Bernie Sanders is literally Hillary Clinton in 2008. Attempting to win with a huge majority of whites and very few minorities.

Yes and no. If you broadly paint it as "Clinton is the 'black people's candidate' and Sanders is the 'hero of the white working class'", then yes: Sanders will do well in many areas where Clinton did well in 2008, and Clinton will do well in many areas where Obama did well in 2008.

However, if you calculate what it would take for Sanders to win 50% of the primary vote and then examine the composition of the 2012 Obama coalition, then it would mean that Clinton is carrying 60% of the 2012 Obama minority voting bloc; Sanders would have 40% of the bloc. I don't think having 40% of the non-white Obama coalition on your team quantifies as "very few minorities".

For Sanders to win, he will need to almost certainly win a majority of Latinos in addition to whites (and Asians).

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

So Bernie Sanders is literally Hillary Clinton in 2008. Attempting to win with a huge majority of whites and very few minorities.

Yes and no. If you broadly paint it as "Clinton is the 'black people's candidate' and Sanders is the 'hero of the white working class'", then yes: Sanders will do well in many areas where Clinton did well in 2008, and Clinton will do well in many areas where Obama did well in 2008.

However, if you calculate what it would take for Sanders to win 50% of the primary vote and then examine the composition of the 2012 Obama coalition, then it would mean that Clinton is carrying 60% of the 2012 Obama minority voting bloc; Sanders would have 40% of the bloc. I don't think having 40% of the non-white Obama coalition on your team quantifies as "very few minorities".

For Sanders to win, he will need to almost certainly win a majority of Latinos in addition to whites (and Asians).

Can we stop comparing Hillary 2008 or Sanders 2016 to anything approaching Romney 2012?