Some interesting statistics

[Algernon Moncrieff]

Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation; Real Clear Politics

1) Sanders has won 3 primaries as opposed to 5 caucuses. There is a certain irony here, as many of his supporters were screaming about the caucus process after Iowa and Nevada. Nevertheless, it has seemed to favor him. Note that this total includes his home state of Vermont.

2) Clinton has won 9 primaries and 2 caucuses. Note that this total includes what could be considered her home state of Arkansas. She has links to Arkansas, New York, and Illinois -- so it's hard to say.

3) Delegates: Clinton 658 Sanders 471; Super Delegates Clinton 458 Sanders 22; Total Delegates Clinton 1130 Sanders 499

4) Sanders has not done well in states with high African American/Black populations. Sanders' eight victories have come in states with an average (mean) (per Kaiser Family Foundation statistics) of 3.75%, with a range high of 7% (OK) and low of 1% (several states). Clinton states have an average African American/Black population of 18.09%, with a range high of 31% (two states) and a range low of 3% (Iowa). If this proves to be a statistically accurate indicator, it would tend to predict Clinton victories in the upcoming primaries in Mississippi, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri. Why this has been happening is an interesting question that I suspect Political Scientists will study for a decade.

e.t.a. With the identical caveats, the data would tend to predict that Clinton will lose every state west of the Missouri River that she has not already lost (including California). Again, with the identical caveats, it would also tend to suggest that Clinton would win New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware.

[earthshine]

1. Very condescending.

many of his supporters were screaming about

Makes your opinions and interpretation of this data quite irrelevant.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

2. No, not really

It simply means you don't like them

[earthshine]

3. Since your bias is "screamingly" clear, I don't trust your analysis -- period.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

4. The numbers are what the numbers are.

Sanders has won 5 caucuses and 3 primaries. Fact.

Those 8 states have a low percentage of African American voters, ranging from 1-7%. Fact according to the KFF. If you don't like their stats, take it up with them.

The numbers are what the numbers are. To this point, Hillary Clinton has done well in states ranging from 3% (IA) to 31% (GA & SC) AA population. Three of the states won by Sanders (including his home state of Vermont, as well as Maine and New Hampshire) have AA populations of 1%.

[earthshine]

6. Yeah. So what?

This is very trite. It's a given fact that Hillary does better with POC than Bernie.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

7. The "so what" is that Sanders most recent wins...

...are in states (KS, NE, ME) that lack significant racial diversity.

[earthshine]

8. You merely state the obvious. What is it about the word "trite" that you don't understand?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

9. Well, I don't understand why you'd use it in connection to events that happened in the past week

I don't understand the "so what?" attitude. If my candidate were only winning states with 7% of less African American population, I'd think maybe we were on the wrong track.

Again - I can't help that you don't like math. What I quoted was the math. The math works for Bernie Sanders in many states, but (with caveats mentioned upthread) doesn't appear to work for him in the next 10 days or so.

..and there was opposition in the Bernie Sanders group (which won't ban me, despite my repeated requests) to caucuses after Iowa and Nevada (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280122409). Now that the process is working in is favor, I'm not seeing that.

[earthshine]

13. The words "condescending," "trite", and "obvious" apply to the use of language in your posts.

and there was opposition in the Bernie Sanders group (which won't ban me, despite my repeated requests)

The Bernie Sanders group doesn't take you seriously. Neither do I.

Despite the fact that I have written that what you say is "obvious," you seem to have a further need to be right, as well as to be "condescending."

I think you have some personal issues that need addressing. I suggest you ask yourself why you made the OP to begin with.

I will appease your desire for self-justified righteousness by giving you the last word. Come and get it if you want.

I will not respond to you further.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

15. Wow - now I have personal issues

Here's what I don't get - if you don't take any of this seriously -- why respond at all? Ask yourself that...also, if you could put in a word with the Bernie Sanders group to ban me, I'd appreciate it. I consider their banned list a group of DUers I'd like to stand with.

..and seriously -- who at DU doesn't "need to be right"?

I made to OP to indicate where the candidates strengths and weaknesses lay. Based on current trends, Sanders will win a bunch of caucuses in the West, while Hillary looks likely to win the remaining Southern primaries, as well as those in the Industrial Midwest and Mid-Atlantic.

[stonecutter357]

11. +1000

[Garrett78]

5. And as I pointed out elsewhere...

18% black more closely resembles the overall Democratic electorate than 3.75% black.

As for California (and Arizona and New Mexico), I wouldn't count on a Sanders victory. In Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and the like, sure. Oregon and Washington are also strong possibilities. But, with the exception of Washington, those states have relatively few delegates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. The flaw in the seminal poster's logic is that HRC will lose CA because it lacks...

The flaw in the seminal poster's logic is that HRC will lose CA because it lacks a certain threshold percentage of African Americans. The flaw is the Democratic electorate in California is heavily Hispanic and that is a demographic Hillary Clinton does quite well in, spurious statistics from the Nevada caucus notwithstanding.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

16. You may well be right. For this purpose, I only looked at the AA vote.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Hillary won CA in 08 by mitigating her losses among African Americans by winning..

Hillary won CA in 08 by mitigating her losses among African Americans by winning large majorities of Asians and Hispanics:


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM


She will win comfortably this time because she will win the African American vote with ease.

As to AZ and NM I haven't really thought that about those states.

[auntpurl]

17. I agree. I think Hillary will win California.

It seems to be minorities across the board who are voting for Hillary, not just African Americans. She's also got the support of the farm unions, to which many Californian Latinos belong.

[stonecutter357]

10. K&R!

[bigwillq]

12. It looks like Hillary will be the DEM nominee

But I still think Bernie is doing fairly well. There's many folks who want an alternative to the perceived establishment candidate. Sanders' base is limited, though, which will likely prevent him from winning the nomination.