Dismissing the so-called "Confederate states" is contemptible.

[Zynx]

The Democratic Party's voters in those states are very heavily the descendants of the very people the Confederacy oppressed. The Democratic Party suffered grave electoral consequences to help provide basic recognition to the fundamental rights of African Americans being oppressed in those states. To simply dismiss those votes because they didn't go the way you wanted is a contemptible proposition forwarded by people who are being so plainly disingenuous that it staggers me we even have to have this conversation. I am calling shame on all that have made this argument. You're not forwarding an honest argument and you know it.

If we want to get into historical sins, I could point out that Sanders has won the only two states that never voted for FDR, Maine and Vermont. I could also point out he carried the home of Dick Cheney, Wyoming, or the regressive backwater of Kansas where a conservative majority oppressively dominates the state.

There are Democrats in all states and party rules have weighted each state for the approximate number of Democrats residing in each state. The delegates are awarded proportionately in order to best approximate the will of the body of Democratic voters.

Both candidates have won swing states. Clinton has won Ohio, Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, and Nevada (oddities in county conventions notwithstanding, she won the majority of those who caucused). Sanders has won New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Colorado. They have both won states that we won't win in November. Clinton has won Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Texas. Sanders has won Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska.

This isn't as simple as people would like to claim. The party rules are broadly fair and so far decently reflect the will of Democratic Party voters. All streaks and claims of momentum are merely the functioning of the clusters of demographic patterns that have dominated states so far. Clinton does well with broadly diverse states and closed primaries. Sanders does well with open primaries and predominantly white states. You can explain virtually every outcome to date with that analysis. I suspect we will continue to be able to do so.

[BillZBubb]

1. No, it is a matter of practical politics.

Those states are red. Those states will stay red. Democratic voters there tend to be more conservative given their environment. They also have fewer Democrats.

Stacking the primaries with states in the old Confederacy gave a huge, unfair early advantage to the conservative Democratic candidate. It was an uneven playing field tilted towards the Third Way, corporatist wing of the party. Those states shouldn't be allowed to pull the party so far rightward.

It's not that Democrats in those states shouldn't have a voice in the party's nomination process. It is that they shouldn't be front loaded to be the ones who thin out the possible candidates and create an artificial nominal leader.

[artislife]

14. Truth...but won't fit their meme.

Sadly.

[roguevalley]

20. someone in north carolina told me my state, alaska, was 'worthless' because

it only had about 2-3% AA's. That sword cuts both ways.

[Zynx]

28. I could say the same thing about weird western caucus states. Those aren't very representative of

the party, either. They're representative of one portion of it, but they don't have much to do with places like IL, OH, PA, and NY, which are all vital to the party.

[BillZBubb]

35. You couldn't because they weren't front loaded in the primary process.

I think the big blue states should have strong representation in early primaries. Then the smaller southern and western states.

Caucuses suck, no doubt about it.

[brush]

41. Hah! Good try, but those rules were in place long before Sanders came along and joined . . .

the party.

So he joins and everything is supposed to change for him?

He should have joined the party long ago and he would have carried some of those southern states, and gotten a haul of super delegates as well.

If he had done that, he'd probably be ahead in delegates by now and on the verge of winning the nomination.

He didn't so he isn't.

[BillZBubb]

43. Nice attempt to change the subject. Pay attention.

It is foolish for the party to give one region so much clout early in the nominating process. It is doubly foolish to use the most conservative region.

I never suggested changing anything for Bernie. It has nothing to do with Bernie in 2016 or Hillary in 2008. it is a bad way to narrow the field of Democratic candidates. The states more representative of the Democratic mainstream should be the ones holding the early primaries.

[brush]

53. Good try again.

Last edited Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:15 AM - Edit history (1)

"Stacking the primaries with states in the old Confederacy gave a huge, unfair early advantage to the conservative Democratic candidate. It was an uneven playing field tilted towards the Third Way, corporatist wing of the party. Those states shouldn't be allowed to pull the party so far rightward".

Those are your words, but the so-called "stacked primaries" were scheduled long before Sanders joined the party.

It's almost as if you haven't been paying attention for a very long time. Super Tuesday, when many of those so-called "stack primaries" took place has been in existence for several election cycles.

Why don't you know that? That scheduling didn't just come about to thwart Sanders.

And again, if he had joined the party long ago he would have won some of those primaries.

[BillZBubb]

60. Geez, you can't even read.

I said I know the primaries have been stacked for a while. The DLC did that and it is WRONG. It boosts the chances of the most conservative Democrat.

This isn't about Bernie.

Get a clue.

[brush]

62. Write with clarity and you won't be misunderstood

Again though, Sanders should have joined the party years ago and he would have won some of the early primaries.

He's only been a dem for 9 months. What happened in the early primaries is because the voters hardly knew who Sanders was. What do you think is going to happen when voters aren't aware of your candidate?

They're not going to vote for him.

Not rocket science.

[MFM008]

54. If HRC had come in just last year as a democrat

she would be tarred and feathered, hanged , drawn and quartered.

[brush]

55. Care to explain? I mean she's been a dem for years.

[jcgoldie]

63. So we should ignore red states

...like Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Kansas, Alaska, and Nebraska. Got it.

[All in it together]

2. The Democratic primaries in the South do matter in the Democratic Party,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. But unfortunately in the general election it's winner take all in each state and most often the southern states vote for Republicans. This is true in any deep red state, that the Democratic votes get disregarded in the electoral college. We should abolish the electoral college and make sure all citizens over 18 get to vote. The voting rights act should still all be in effect, the Supreme Court was wrong saying it wasn't needed.
I don't believe Bernie was putting the Southern States down no matter who they vote for.

[Zynx]

31. Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida are all competitive.

We even need Virginia. Our math is awkward without it because we're no longer competitive in Missouri and West Virginia.

Also, the purpose of the nominating contests is to reflect the will of the party at large. It's not to reflect only a portion of it.

[BillZBubb]

38. But that's why front loading one region is wrong.

That region's choices won't reflect the will of the party at large many times.

And make no mistake about it, the early primaries cause candidates who might do well elsewhere to drop out early. They also create a false image of inevitability that causes other candidates to lose donors and volunteers.

As a Democrat, I view picking the former Confederate states which are very conservative for our first primaries is nuts.

[Hiraeth]

3. has less to do with geopraphy and more to do with our election process.

[Lucinda]

4. I will not be surprised to see a southern state or two shift to us in the GE

Hillary has a lot of support in the South.

[Fawke Em]

21. LOLOLOLOL!

There will be NO Southern state that shifts to her. She is DESPISED down here by both Republicans and Independents (and us Democrats who are more liberal).

My neighbor didn't put up a sign regarding who he supported, but did put up a "Beat Hillary Clinton!" sign. The rest of the street has Bernie signs up. My city did go for Bernie, btw.

[Zynx]

26. I rather doubt Bernie will win a single southern state. So much for the "revolution."

Try taking back Congress with how poorly we're doing in the South.

[That Guy 888]

48. How poorly we're doing in the South? But we've been following James Carville can't lose strategy.

Find the most conservative Dem for any office, crap on any progressives that might run, and talk like a republican in the general election.

You mean it still doesn't work? Someone should inform the New Democrats, or whatever name they're using this week. DLC, Third Way, New Democrat, I'm not involved in marketing, but isn't constantly having to rebrand a sign that your product sucks?

[oberliner]

37. She is clearly very popular among African-Americans in those states

That seems to be evidenced by the results of the primaries.

[BillZBubb]

40. So is every Democratic nominee. It hasn't helped us win many electoral votes from there.

[oberliner]

42. Bill Clinton carried Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana

That was a nice chunk of electoral votes.

[BillZBubb]

44. And Al Gore carried how many of them? John Kerry? Barack Obama?

It was a small chunk one time. BFD.

You really are reaching with that response.

[oberliner]

45. Obama carried North Carolina and Virginia

That was not all that long ago.

[DrDan]

58. and Florida

[BillZBubb]

59. Oh please, this is getting ridiculous. You first listed four states.

They hadn't gone democratic in almost two decades. Now you throw out a couple more that are potential Democratic wins depending on the candidate.

But of the total electoral votes cast in the past 5 presidential cycles, exactly what percentage have those southern states given to the Democrats? It is peanuts.

[oberliner]

61. I listed the four states that Bill Clinton carried since we were discussing Hillary Clinton

Then you brought up more recent candidates, so I listed the states in the region that Obama won.

There have been important swing states for Democrats in the south in several elections over the last five cycles.

[cwydro]

56. She sure got a lot of votes down here for someone so "despised."

Just sayin.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Ever since we switched from that horrible plurality winner takes all electoral college nonsense

system to direct popular election of the president, arguments for why candidates should ignore voters in states where they had no chance of winning became ridiculous.

[geek tragedy]

6. Obama won 3 'confederate' states in 2008 and 2 in 2012.

One of those 'confederate' states has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators, in addition to voting for Obama twice.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. yes in any given election some of those states may be in play

but mostly they aren't.

Its a crappy system that effectively disenfranchises large segments of the voting population.

[geek tragedy]

8. I agree, which is why it's a terrible argument to try to spin/dismiss primary votes

in those states by referencing the electoral college.

It was offensive and dumb when Mark Penn and the Clinton campaign did it in 2008, and it's offensive and dumb when Sanders and his campaign do it in 2016.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. no it is a valid argument.

When discussing the significance of who won which states, how those states play in the ge is entirely relevant. .

The argument should focus on the seven swing states. Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa and New Hampshire. By the way, Clinton wins that argument on those grounds

Sanders, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Sanders.

It is stunningly stupid that seven states decide the election. Horrible system.

[davidn3600]

10. Really, those states don't decide....it's just the other states have locked themselves out

California can decide the election if they go for the Republican.
Texas can decide the election if they go for the Democrat.

The problem is those states have locked in so tight for a particular party they put themselves on the sideline during these elections and empowered the states have have more moderate voting trends.

[Henhouse]

11. Maybe not in your life time but, in mine I've seen California go Red...Reagan. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Unicorns can decide the election too.

But they don't. There are a few states that move into play for one election cycle or another, but the pattern is pretty stable as long as both candidates are competitive. If the Republicans run Trump or Cruz, there may be quite a few states that are normally red that come into play. The states don't "lock themselves out", the system, a first past the poll winner takes all multi-region indirect election system effectively disenfranchises voters.

[geek tragedy]

13. there are swing states every election, but their identity changes

from election to election.

Vermont and California used to be part of the Republican red wall--they went Republican for 5 straight elections--1972-1988.

I'm not terribly persuaded by performance in states as a predictor of how people will do in the general. Obama got shellacked in Ohio in 2008 by Clinton (which spurred a lot of "why can't Obama win with white men" punditry) , while McCain crushed the field there. Obama won.

Anyways, the argument is abstract--in material terms, a delegate from Alabama counts as the same as one from Oregon.

[uponit7771]

15. +1, "when you talk about ghettos traditionally, what you talk about is African-American communities"

[Warren Stupidity]

17. except of course that the term "ghetto" is borrowed from a much older tradition.

So if you are Jewish "when you talk about ghettos traditionally" you are talking about a shared history of the Jewish diaspora, of the urban Jewish enclaves of Europe, of the pogroms that periodically emptied those enclaves, and of the horror of the holocaust.

[uponit7771]

19. syntax, we know what connotation "ghetto" was being used here and it wasn't a less pejorative one...

... it was foolish

It wasn't a neutral context where the word was being applied.

[beedle]

33. Ghetto never has a neutral context

It means different things to different people in different times.

In America since at least the 60's (probably way earlier as African Americans were migrating away from the south since the early 20th century) the context has been largely "African American" Ghettos.

Do a Google image search for "American Ghettos" and see how many Irish, Italian, German, Polish faces in those pictures (hint: the only 'white' face I've seen so far ironically enough, is Bernie Sanders')

Ghetto, strictly speaking is just a group of people from the same 'minority' group living together. In the "American context', especially if you are talking about Ghettos in terms of poverty, the association is largely (whether you think it is racist or not) with the African American Ghetto.

Funny how when Sanders was framing everything in terms of poverty, the complaint was that his framing has to address the fact that African Americans are the group that suffers most from Sanders 'poverty' ... so he frames it in terms of African American poverty, and all of a sudden he's a 'racist', or he's ignoring other groups that live in poverty.

Something tells me that the people complaining are not really all that concerned with Blacks, or Poverty ... they just want Hillary to win at all costs.

[JackRiddler]

16. Yeah, I agree that this is the wrong way of seeing it.

Nevertheless, there is a divide between southeast and the rest. We don't have to characterize it positively or negatively. It is what it is. Clinton's strength and lead derive from the voting in the southeast. Since primaries have been in the northeast and west, Sanders has had the advantage.

[Zynx]

25. The southeast is the single most populous region of the country.

If you can't get anything done there at all, that's a problem.

[JackRiddler]

30. I don't know what you mean.

The far smaller Northeast, most densely populated Census Region, has 55 million people. I'm having trouble finding a breakdown by population by census region, but here is a Census Bureau graphic showing the regions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census_Regions_and_Division_of_the_United_States.svg

Here is a graphic in which the country is broken up into 38-million people units (population of California).



So by eyeballing that I figure the enormous Southeast is about two Californias.

Anyway, you may have noticed it's been a big problem for a long time now, with domination of the Southeast by Republicans on the federal and state levels. It will continue and won't only be a problem for a President Sanders.

[Zynx]

34. That version of the South East is not how it's usually defined.

It's usually inclusive of TN, NC, VA, WV, KY, FL, SC, GA, AL, and MS with sometimes AR and LA.

[JackRiddler]

36. Which version?

The cute graphic with the colors, the second link, is just a way to give an idea of population distribution.

The link to the Census map, however, shows the official census regions, and I think it's quite accurate for defining regions of the country as a whole. We can debate MD and DE, of course, also MO. (Also FL, for non-geographic reasons.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census_Regions_and_Division_of_the_United_States.svg

[Zynx]

46. The map you showed had it divided into close to equal segments.

The southeast as a whole, as it is usually defined, is more populous than any other region of the country, as they are usually defined. Looking at those big Census regions in that map, the South has far more people than any other region. The states Hillary has won so far have about half of the population of the country.

[JackRiddler]

49. The Census Southeast does not have "far more people."

It may be the most populous of the Census regions, can you find the figures? It won't be that dramatic and of course the Southeast is nowhere NEAR "half of the population of the country." It's about two Californias, 60, maybe even 70 million.

And no, the states Clinton has won alone are NOT anywhere near half the population! I daresay just the remaining states are about half of the population, with CA, NY, PA, NJ and another 20 to go.

But can you find the population figures by Census region? Or if you want to make such outlandish claims, why don't you add up the states and see?

[IamMab]

18. This topic is how I spot the phony johnny-come-lately progressive poseurs from the real thing. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. Contemptible? Whatever, but I suggest you don't put any money on a Democrat winning those states

in the General. That's NOT going to happen.

[Zynx]

24. If we don't win Virginia or Florida, we're in deep shit.

Also, are we going to win Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah, or Idaho? Wyoming? Alaska? Ha! We'll win Georgia and South Carolina before any of those.

[geek tragedy]

27. Virginia and Florida included? nt

[Dem2]

23. Thank you

I rarely rec posts because it's generally pointless, but I'd give this 100 recs if I could. Calm, accurate analysis is so lacking here it's often laughable what passes for "analysis" here. Excellent post.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. They absolutely need to be represented and supported.

But, counted upon to bring home a general election victory? No.

[Zynx]

32. What exactly does that have to do with what I said?

Also, I should point out that by the same standard we should totally disregard Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, and Wyoming. Sanders's map looks a little bare without those totally unwinnable states.

[JackRiddler]

39. I think Sanders makes almost all of those winnable.

And either Democrat can win FL and VA.

Do you think Clinton can win more of the South than that?

[Zynx]

47. You seriously think he can take Oklahoma? Kansas? Nebraska? Idaho?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[JackRiddler]

50. Bwahaha back at you.

Whatevah.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. They are "dismissable" as relevant to the general election.

States like South Carolina and Texas? They're going to vote Cruz, Trump or Rubio. It's in their nature - they're preferences in the primary are immaterial to actually getting a democrat elected president.

[Vinca]

57. No one is dismissing those states, but they do choose to vote for the other party in the general

so it's not terribly wise for a candidate to spend all their time and money in a state where the cake is already baked. I would love to know why so many of the voters in these states don't bother to show up at the polls. IMO, you don't get bitching rights unless you show up to vote.