Hillary Clinton Can Win White Vote Against Top GOP Candidate

[ericson00]

In recent elections from 2000-2012, the Democrats got killed in the white vote, often by more than 15 points. However, if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Hillary would be in a statistical tie for white voters.

In a hypothetical general election match-up between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, white registered voters were split 50-46 according to a new poll from CNN/ORC. Fifty to 46, with a margin of error of 4 -- meaning that it's essentially a tie.

Last time the Dems came that close with white voters was in 1996, when Bill Clinton came within 3 points of Bob Dole in white voters (it went 43 C 46 D 9 P). (I've debunked the Perot issue, and even if that 9 percent went 5 to Dole 4 to Clinton in Perot's absence [would still a basis on which to do that], Clinton still comes much closer to winning it than other recent nominees and would also take Perot's non-white support by a mile).

What this means is that if Donald gets the nomination, Hillary will win a massive landslide election, assuming she has at least or better of Obama's non-white support. I am salivating at this thought. This is what I think the map would look like in such a case:
<>

But if this happens, she's gotta go for the mandate. Screw downticket spots. Bill coulda run up the score in 1996 and tried the downticket game, gimping his final result and thus possibly his second term (once again as in 1992, Perot took away his mandate). I wanna see the Clintons run up the score this time.

Its also great because given how KY, TN, LA, AR, and WV did vote for the Clintons twice (WV went Clinton by a mile both times, LA was a blowout 51-38 in 1996), those electoral votes never hurt anyone potentially down the line. While yes we don't need the white vote to win, a cushion is a nice thing to have given Murphy's Law. Also, in spite of the growing non-white demographics of this country, whites are still the majority and will likely be for a while.

God I love The Donald! Gift that keeps on giving.

[JI7]

1. she could win white women and that would be enough

she wont win white men though .

[ericson00]

3. still tho, that's an accomplishment

for the reasons I've given. Having such a map feels good and if some of those states can be pulled into the D column on a more permanent basis, all the better in case Hillary has a tough 2020 re-election fight (I expect that bc not since 1944 has a party won a 4th term). Of course landslides don't always last, tho they do feel good.

But still that map looks pretty.

[oasis]

2. Women will sweep Hillary into the White House.

I have a hunch that women are hovering under the radar ready to make it happen for a candidate who will prioritize their issues.

Never underestimate Hillary's ability to "gal"vanize female voters.

[artislife]

5. Have to give you props on the pun!

[oasis]

7. Thanks, and while we're on the subject of women...

I was watching the Rachel Maddow show and she was all fired up about Bernie packing in crowds in various venues. Rachel is always pumped up in her presentations, but I have a feeling she's excited about his candidacy. Rachel's fair with her commentary and has a top rate research team. There are very few people in her profession who can match her knowledge on the issues and relate them to the audience in an instructive, entertaining way.

If I were to fall asleep tonight,until the day after the general election, I would have no problem waking up to discover Rachel Maddow had been elected president.

[artislife]

9. We would be very blessed

She is hella smart.
I loved it when she was on Air America, I was always stuck in terrible Seattle traffic happy because she was on the air waves...making sense!

[winter is coming]

6. Ugh.

I don't know which is more unappetizing: the assumption that women will vote for HRC because she's a female, or the assumption that only HRC can/will adequately address women's issues.

[oasis]

12. "Assumption that only HRC can/will adequately address women's issues".

Reason number 1: Women can check her record.
Reason number 2: See reason number 1.

[beam me up scottie]

20. We can check Bernie's record too.

Not only has he always supported women's rights, he supported equal rights for lgbt people decades before Clinton finally came around.

I won't forget that.

[oasis]

23. Whatduya say we call it even and use Emily's List for the tie breaker?

Okay?

[beam me up scottie]

24. No, sorry.

I'm tired of HC supporters pretending she has a better record on equal rights.

[oasis]

26. The Emily's List focus is on women's issues.

I'm not "pretending" to focus on anything else on this thread.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Bernie's record on women's rights is impeccable.

And I wasn't specifically talking about you, oasis, other posters here have repeatedly claimed that Bernie doesn't support women's rights.

I also wonder why Hillary won't support a federal $15/hr minimum wage when that would lift so many women out of poverty.

[oasis]

30. Bernie has his strengths on certain issues.

But again, overall, Hillary is the best candidate when it comes women's issues.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Why is she the best?

[oasis]

32. After all these posts you never checked

With the Emily's List website OR the Hillary DU Group?

I agree Bernie is more in tune with economic fairness. I would like to see Glass-Stegall returned,which I know, he favors. You'll never see me knock him or O'Malley on their personal integrity.

Let's face it, Hillary has her faults, but her accomplishments as First Lady, and SOS far outweigh her negatives.

[beam me up scottie]

33. I thought we were judging her based on her record?

I'm not saying she's not supportive of women's rights, just that her record isn't better than Bernie's.

And I agree, no candidate is perfect. We all get one vote and have our own reasons why we prefer one candidate over the others.

[oasis]

35. I'm hoping the top three Democratic

candidates get a fair opportunity to present their vision to American voters. We'll see where we go from there.

Nice exchange, I'll say goodnight now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. LOL ...

Such a formulaic response ... First, he/she dismisses women as women just voting for HRC because they are women and she is a woman; then, baseless question that HRC is weak on women issues; then, scream what about MY GUY, he's impeccable on women issues, never-mind what women say.

You handled that well ... for not pointing that out.

[ieoeja]

56. How about a well based question on HRC's record.

Hillary has already said we should seek "common ground" on abortion with those who want all abortion banned.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rupert-murdoch-loves-hillary-clinton/

Pre-DLC bigotted White Men would often vote for Democrats because Democrats represented their economic interests. They had to compromise. After abandoning that issue, the DLC convinced Democrats to compromise on social issues. This is standard DLC strategy. They published White Papers on this shit.

[beam me up scottie]

75. No kidding. Women are more than capable of looking at both records.

I don't vote because of the race or gender of the candidate.

It's insulting to think we'll will flock to Hillary because she's a woman.

[udbcrzy2]

101. Didn't see them flocking to Palin n/t

[beam me up scottie]

109. And I'm not flocking to Hillary either.

It's insulting to think all women base their votes on gender.

Hillary is a rich, successful white woman, not an oppressed minority who suffered because of her gender and/or race.

And her record proves she didn't give two shits about poor women, poc or lgbt people when she had the chance to fight for them.

[beam me up scottie]

71. How about you stop misrepresenting my posts, 1SBM?

First, he/she dismisses women as women just voting for HRC because they are women and she is a woman

Where did I do that?

baseless question that HRC is weak on women issues

Where did I post a baseless question?

then, scream what about MY GUY, he's impeccable on women issues

I didn't "scream" and his record is impeccable, if you have evidence to the contrary please present it.

never-mind what women say

You're the one dismissing what this woman is saying, and you're being dishonest about what I said.

Stop trying to make this about you and your issues.

I have every right to ask why I should vote for Hillary.

Simply being a woman isn't enough for me.

I want a president whose record proves he supported equal rights for all, not one who had to "evolve".

[LeftOfWest]

84. kick and recommend.

this post.

so wel said.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Thanks. If they want my vote they need to appeal to my brain, not my vagina.

I asked why her record was better than Bernie's and was attacked for it.

And I'm the one being accused of dismissing women.



Believe it or not HC supporters, some women actually care about facts.

Just being a woman isn't good enough for me and you don't get extra points for having lady parts.

[BlueMTexpat]

36. The last time I checked, Bernie is NOT a

woman. Yes, he has been a strong supporter of women's rights and I am extremely happy that he is. But he is NOT - repeat - NOT - a woman.

He has never personally experienced second-class treatment in the workplace, sexual harassment, patronizing treatment or worse with respect to reproductive rights, domestic violence, the threat of sexual assault/rape, medical issues specific to women, etc., etc., etc. As a white male, he never - ever - had to fight for the right to vote as women have had to even as recently as 1984 (Mississippi did not ratify the 19th Amendment until then), nor did he ever have to resign from his employment because he got pregnant.

Thank heavens that Bernie has always been supportive of these concerns. I thank all males who understand and who have been supportive. My own husband is one such. We could not have come so far without them.

But these concerns simply cannot resonate for Bernie in the same way as they can for women who face/have faced them and/or are/have been aware of them. Those who cannot see that have as much of a problem with women's issues as those who simply refuse to understand how the specific concerns of #BlackLivesMatter resonate for African-Americans.

Now I have no problem with Bernie and I know that there are many women who support him. That is all fine and good and I have no problem with that. But I am a woman and Hillary is MY first choice. I also have a strong feeling that I am in the majority of women insofar as Hillary is concerned for exactly the reasons that I mentioned above. And - as I have mentioned elsewhere - Hillary is the most qualified candidate in every respect in that she is the full package: long-time standing and service as a Democrat, education, professional experience, public-service experience, and, most importantly for me personally for any candidate, experience and understanding of global issues.

That she is a woman is a wonderful bonus.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. +1. But be prepared for your post to be reduced to mere tribalism ...

ever notice that when women or PoC support people that look like them, it's tribalism ... never an examination of the issues; but, the 250 years of white men voting for white men, but more pointedly, in the most recent times, white men choosing white men over a PoC, and now, possibly, a woman, the tribalism idea is NEVER applied.

[bobbobbins01]

44. That post was the definition of tribalism

No reduction necessary. Hillary is a woman, Bernie is not...that sums it up. If a white guy said I'm voting for this person because he's white and male, same thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. The white guy doesn't have to ...

say anything because the question never arises.

[bobbobbins01]

47. True, and that is a problem

but that doesn't make her comment any less tribal.

[BlueMTexpat]

83. Thanks for your comment.

I notice that my other two replies more or less prove our points.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Yes ...

It's the height of privilege to deny to argue that one's race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., can't/shouldn't provide a unique perspective/sensitivity regarding matters regarding race/gender/sexual orientation.

It goes back to one of my frequent observations/complaints about (white) liberals ... who believe that their vicarious observations regarding matters of race, should hold equal (or even, greater) weight to the lived experience of Black people ... Clearly, the same is being applied here.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Her gender doesn't get her extra points with me.

I base my vote on facts.

And that's a problem with HC supporters, they love to scream "sexism!" whenever a someone criticizes Hillary.

But it's not quite as effective when that voter is a woman, is it?

It goes back to one of my frequent observations/complaints about (white) liberals ... who believe that their vicarious observations regarding matters of race, should hold equal (or even, greater) weight to the lived experience of Black people ... Clearly, the same is being applied here.

Except you're a man who is ignoring my concerns as a woman.


You don't get to have it both ways, 1SBM, either all women's opinions count or none of them do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. No ...

Except you're a man who is ignoring my concerns as a woman.

I acknowledge your concern(s), just as I do the concern of the other woman in this sub-thread; but/and, in neither case, am I substituting MY experience, as a man, for yours, as women.

I do, however, see more of a commonality in her position, with my experience as a Black person, then yours.

With that said ... sell that "scream sexism" straw man, somewhere else ... Recognizing/Acknowledging that a member of a particular class, might have more insight into/sensitivity to issues that affect their class, is not being sexist; however, refusing to do so, might be.

[Dawgs]

42. Ugh!

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. Yep. n/t

[Dawgs]

49. Yep, what? You have no idea what I meant. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. True. You were implying something, right? n/t

[Dawgs]

52. No. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Oh. But that's how the post read to me.

[beam me up scottie]

70. So what? Sarah Palin is a woman too and she's not my ally. Bernie is.

Last edited Tue Jul 28, 2015, 03:41 PM - Edit history (2)

Gender has nothing to do with being supportive of women's issues.

I work in an almost exclusively male industry and many of my male coworkers have not only been supportive, they have fought for my rights in the workplace. Some women have not.


And Hillary was adamantly opposed to same sex marriage, so her record on equal rights is inferior to Bernie's.

I chose the candidate who has always supported equal rights for everyone, not just heterosexuals.

Who cares what gender he is?

[BlueMTexpat]

105. I was just trying to explain why

more women (and this is true generally - even though not for you apparently) identify with Hillary in the kinds of negative responses that Hillary seems to generate among many Bernie supporters and so are more likely to vote FOR her. They've been there and done that.

As I also said, I appreciate Bernie and other male supporters for that support. I certainly bear no ill will towards males as some in this thread seem to think, being wife to one (actually spouse #2 of 34 years & still on good terms with #1 of 13 years), mother to four others as well as to a transgender, grandmother to four others, and great-grandmother to another.

I am glad for you that you have been in a male-dominated industry where males have been supportive to you and that your experience generally has been good. But that has certainly not been the case for all women - and certainly not for women of my fairly advanced generation. We always had to be twice as good to get half as far and we see that being repeated in Hillary's case.

The mere fact that you raise "Sarah Palin" in response to my statements about Hillary shows how much you misunderstand what I am saying.

McCain's selection of Sarah Palin - a woman who had absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with Hillary except gender and who is an outright idiot to boot - as a running mate in 2008 as a ploy to attract disappointed Hillary supporters not only seriously backfired but was absolutely THE most patronizing thing towards women that his campaign could have done. Anyone who can't see that just doesn't "get" it - and likely never will.

The overwhelming majority of former Hillary supporters reacted to that selection in 2008 exactly as I did - by immediately signing up for Barack Obama's campaign and contributing substantial amounts to it. And we are not now so suicidal that we would not support Bernie if he is the Dem candidate. Of course, we will. But we are currently working for Hillary to be the Dem candidate and hoping profoundly that will be the case.

If people really want to understand where we are coming from, then they should not react negatively when we explain why.

[Paka]

13. Thank you.

This is one old white woman that is definately not voting for HRC. And none of my women friends are either. It insults us when she plays the female card. Gender does not over rule issues.

[Dawgs]

43. +1. All but one of the women I know are supporting Bernie.

[redstateblues]

55. I still can't believe Nixon won. Everybody I know voted for McGovern

[Dawgs]

77. And, that's something I would never say. Polls are actually very accurate on election day.

Of course we are over 15 months from that date so your comment is irrelevant.

[beam me up scottie]

73. The vast majority of DUers support Bernie - not Hillary.

Some folks don't like that fact and try to claim it's because we're "sexist".

They did the same thing in 2008.

Same PUMA mentality, different election.

[beam me up scottie]

22. +1

No one automatically gets my vote because of their gender.

She hasn't earned it.

[Sheepshank]

66. really...she could ever earn you vote?

given the nature and tone of your disregard for Hillary, making that statement is ludicrous

[beam me up scottie]

72. She hasn't earned it.

I will vote against the Republican if she wins the primary.

My opinion of her is based on many issues, being a woman who supports women's rights is not enough for me.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. Maybe we should all just have

"idiot" tattooed to our forehead and be done with it. So fucking insulting.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

110. Mine's going to read "toidi" so I can read it better in the mirror. ;)

[NCTraveler]

74. While it might not be very pc or appetizing.....

Women are severely underrepresented in this country. Every single President in our history has been a man. And yes, being a man has played an enormous role in that. It is what has been historically found to be acceptable. Speaking more recently to be fair, almost all offices across the spectrum are male dominant. I would hope you might be able to see why gender would actually play a role in someone's vote. Not the whole determining factor, but a major role. It has been the way it is for electing men, now women are actually knocking on the door, and some want it to be a non-issue. Not for me it's not. Then again, her stance and votes on some issues have taken her out of the running for me. But if she makes it to the general, I promise my mother and I will both have tears running down our faces as we get to help elect the firs woman to office. Don't dismiss gender on its own. It's called representation and has been perfectly acceptable to recognize it for the other sex since our inception.

[winter is coming]

82. Gender is way, way down on the list of things I care about in a candidate.

Policies and history are far more important to me. I'm not forgetting Hillary's IWR vote for the sake of "representation" any more than I'd vote for a Republican woman.

[BlueMTexpat]

106. Thanks, NC Traveler, it is clear

that you "get" it.

As you say, we may not be "pc" in this - and we are apparently not in the same corner as yet and perhaps never may be, which is fine - but that is exactly it.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 was a remarkable achievement in its symbolism for African-Americans, just as the election of Hillary Clinton in 2016 would be for women. However some may feel about it, dismiss it, or criticize it, that fact simply cannot be discounted.

[dsc]

4. against trump likely any Democrat would come close to winning the white vote

but other than that, I doubt we will do that much better than Obama did in that regard no matter whom we nominate. Our share of that vote has been going down for a while and will likely continue that decline long term. Obama probably lost a little of the white vote due to being non white, but he probably lost more due to his voters being non white than his being non white. Hillary would help with women but that would be offset by losing some men. I figure she, or any Democrat, is going to win races in ways similar to how Obama won them.

[ibegurpard]

8. I can guarantee you that Hillary Clinton will not take Montana

In fact I worry very much she will be a big drag on down ballot races.

[ericson00]

10. In a landslide like the one in the picture that would happen against Trump,

given that Bill did win it in 1992 (while I don't have exit polls for that state without Perot, not only was it not terribly strong Bush in 1988, won by less than 6 against Dukakis when he was popular, but I've gone thru the Perot myth before. The state was MoE in 1992 with Perot, and without Perot it likely also woulda been MoE) and almost win it in 1996 (exit polls that year showed without Perot the margin is near the same), I think its appropriate to be in the map if a Democrat can come so close in the nationwide white vote (Obama got blown out in the white vote). The map in my post is basically all the states Bill Clinton or Obama ever won.

About downballot, in a landslide like the one possible against Trump, getting a strong mandate is what matter. We're not taking the house or senate back anytime soon anyway.

[ibegurpard]

15. I live in Montana

Hillary Clinton will not take it. Bill did not take it in '96. It has been trending more conservative since then although not to the extent of its neighbors. Democrats do OK on the state races but there's a very strong libertarian streak that makes it difficult for "big city liberals" to break through. Hillary won't even do as well here as Obama did in '08. He only lost by 2 points in '08 but got creamed in '12. He is very unpopular here and Democrats here have paid the price for it. We were killed in 2010 and haven't recovered.

[ericson00]

17. you're missing the point of the map:

he lost the white vote by 20 and won the general by 3.9. If Hillary loses the white vote by only 4 or even 6, as the poll in the OP shows, its a landslide general win (unless somehow Obama's Hispanic and Black numbers go in the opposite direction), and in which case as a candidate's margin in the GE goes up, so does their statistical chance of winning more states.

[ibegurpard]

18. you're missing the point of someone on the ground

In a state who knows it well telling you that it's not going to happen here.

[delrem]

11. "Screw downticket spots". Yup, it's all about Hillary and only Hillary.

Yippeee yi yaa!

[ericson00]

14. more about the exclamation point on the rejection of the GOP

and 2016 isn't terribly promising in the Congressional races anyway. Who wouldn't mind an indisputable mandate?

[delrem]

16. Well, by your reasoning for certain Hillary will profit by putting the screws to "downticket" Dems.

So yah, I can't see how you could find a problem with that.

[ericson00]

19. unless we actually take back the House or Senate,

picking up a seat here or there is not worth the political capital of an extra 3-4% of the popular vote. House and Senate seem to be more predictable with the super high incumbent re-election rate, and those numbers aren't looking good.

[delrem]

21. As you say, if it's good for Hillary Rodham Clinton, screw those downticket Dems.

Really now, we can make up our rationalizations later, don't you think?

[ieoeja]

57. In 1992 it seemed like Bill criticized House Democrats more than he did President Bush.

I remember the media talking about how weird it was that he seemed to be running against his own Party rather than against the Republican incumbent.

It worked. After House control for all but 2 of the previous 60 years, we lost the House. We went on to also lose our majority of state legislators and governorships. Nobody has done more to damage the Democratic Party than Bill Clinton. But they still can't see it.

Democrats on the Third Way are like Republicans on Trickle Down economics. It has done nothing but fail for decades, but they can not see past their dogma and accept reality.

[ericson00]

60. those House Dems were very unpopular

if he actually did, and I've found a lot of these "I remember" stories are distorted anyway. But lets revisit the Congressional Dems of the 1980s and early 1990s:

1. Keating Five (McCain was the sole Republican)
2. S&L Scandal
3. House Banking Scandal
4. Jim Wright resignation
5. Abscam

Those things did happen and did not make Congress very popular. Clinton had no part in any of them.

[ibegurpard]

76. And then redistricting redrew the maps

Just in time for the "Republican Revolution" of 1994...coincidentally...

[ericson00]

80. willful ignorance is somewhat bliss

yes the redistricting hurt but the sheer scope of that congressional election does owe in part, if not mainly, to those scandals.

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. Trump is unlikely to be the actual GOP candidate. n/t

[ericson00]

81. IDK, especially when moderate Republicans are starting to float sitting out

then it means Trump may seriously get the nod

[azurnoir]

27. first a comparison of 2016 and 1992 is irrelevant IMO

in 1992 we were coming off a solid 12 years of Republican POTUS's with all that comes with that war, deregulation, and most of all a recession, a bad rescission, one in which a portion of the 'white vote' learned 'disenfranchised' meant them too, and learned it the hard way

In 1996 the recession had cleared, so Clinton instituted 'welfare reform' a draconian measure that targeted poor women and children and one that red state whites saw as targeting minorities in particular Blacks, there was also the crime bill which again was seen by certain red state types as targeting Blacks and other minorities, it could easily be said that Clinton won what are/were red states because of the perception he had made minorities and poor women as miserable as possible, also welfare reform was seen as a moral judgement against 'sinful' women who had children out of wedlock-you know those old fashioned 'family values' we hear so much about

[Admiral Loinpresser]

48. +1 n/t

[ericson00]

63. you're right that 1992 is a tough comparison, but 1928 in reverse

is a better comparison if Trump is the nominee. In 1928, Herbert Hoover ruined Al Smith for a 3rd incumbent party term because he was an unacceptable candidate to much of the populace, as Trump would be in 2016. Hoover won more electoral votes than Coolidge 4 years earlier. The 12 years of GOP from 1921-1933 began after 1920, when Wilson, who like Bush II won a close re-election 4 years before, saw his popularity sink to extreme lows, making the path for Harding to win the White House easy.

Also, with regard to Clinton, don't let the losses of Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis get lost on you: Clinton had to put an end to that, and for the faults of welfare reform and tough-on-crime, his presidency was not only better than more GOP terms (President Dan Quayle anyone?), but during and after him, the GOP has had an extremely tough time getting to the WH. Before him, it was super easy. In the 6 elections before Clinton, the GOP averaged over 400 electoral votes. Since 1992, they've averaged 210, or on average they lose.

[oasis]

79. Hopefully DUers will commit those facts to memory.

[eridani]

29. But she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the 63% n/t

[ZombieHorde]

34. I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter,

but I will take HRC over any Republican any day.

[BlueMTexpat]

37. I am a Hillary supporter.

But I will gladly and strongly support Bernie (or whoever becomes the Dem nominee if not Hillary) over any Republican any day also. I know exactly what's at stake.

[ZombieHorde]

59. Exactly.

No one is perfect, but the Republican candidates are a joke.

[Gothmog]

39. The Democratic Party does not need the white vote to win

[Romulox]

58. Then why run a white candidate in the first place? nt

[Gothmog]

89. President Obama won with 39% of the white vote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/04/how-many-more-white-votes-did-mitt-romney-need-to-get-elected-in-2012-a-lot/

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. A suicidal falsehood. 74% of voters are white. n/t

[Gothmog]

88. I am talking about a majority of the white vote

President Obama got 39% of the white vote and won easily http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/04/how-many-more-white-votes-did-mitt-romney-need-to-get-elected-in-2012-a-lot/

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. 39% wont cut it this time.

Less than 43% = we lose.

[Gothmog]

95. On what do you base this? The white vote will be 70% instead of 72% in 2012

In 2012, the white vote was 72% of the electorate and in 2016 the white vote is projected to be 70%. That means that less white vote is needed unless the GOP can convince Hispanic and African American votes to vote for the GOP candidate

[ericson00]

97. history does bode very badly in getting that third consecutive term

the GOP's 1988 margin was 7.7% after an 18.2% point margin in 1984. In 2000 Al Gore's popular vote margin was .5% after Clinton's 1996 margin of 8.5%. That downtrend of margin of victory means that there isn't much wiggle room to work with for 2016 unless a strategy change is made. Demographics might be an easy area to do that with, which is why if the non-white vote holds or goes up and the Democrat can pull closer in the white vote (within 10 points instead of 20), its a third term.

[lumberjack_jeff]

100. Black turnout will be closer to the historical norm of 56-57%

Whites will remain at 65% or so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/census-blacks-voted-at-higher-rates-than-whites-in-2012/2013/05/08/7d24bcaa-b800-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html

[Gothmog]

96. Do you have a cite? The numbers that are published show that in 2012 the white vote was 72%

The white vote is projected to go down to 70% in 2016

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. fourth paragraph

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/census-blacks-voted-at-higher-rates-than-whites-in-2012/2013/05/08/7d24bcaa-b800-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html

[George II]

51. She needs to concentrate on her own election, the down ticket elections will take care...

...of themselves, and for the most part will follow her lead.

Would really like a blowout win, which is distinctly possible.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Unfortunately Trump will not be the nominee and getting 37-40% of the white vote is a more...

Unfortunately Trump will not be the nominee and getting 36%-40% of the white vote is a more realistic goal.

[ericson00]

61. Trump was supposed to be dead after he attacked McCain

but as Maddow said, he's "gaffe proof" simply because he doesn't care. The "rapists" remarks were supposed to kill him too.

Tho yea if Trump isn't the nominee, we'll probably start down 15-20 in the white vote but I think one of Clintons' advantages is that she can pull to near 10 or less in the white vote and still own in the non-white vote if Obama's approvals are above water.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. I just don't see how we get Trump no matter how much we wish it to be so./nt

[John Poet]

64. Well, since Hillary has so many votes to spare,

some of them should just register Republican so they can get Trump nominated....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. That's an excellent idea...

eom

[John Poet]

67. Trump has a better chance than people think.

He's been playing the race-cards with the Republicans like a virtuoso-- that's really what shot him to the top of their polls. It sure isn't any secret anymore that a large chunk of their party likes that kind of talk, and they like the guy with the "guts" to "come right out and say what they've been (regrettably) thinking".

With so many candidates, the GOP winner in Iowa and New Hampshire could have as little as 20 percent or even less of the actual votes. He's over that now in the early polling.

The GOP voters tend to coalesce around the early primary winners, faster than I think the Democrats do. If he manages to win Iowa and New Hampshire, there may be no stopping him, particularly with the large number of "winner-take-all" delegate schemes in the Republican primaries, including such large states as New York, Pennsylvania and California.

The other thing Trump has going for him is, he's self-funding; the GOP establishment can't cut off his money since he has plenty of his own.

Will he self-destruct with his big mouth? (I would have thought we should have been past that point already). Frankly, how horrible does he have to be before his (racist) share of the GOP rank-and-file will abandon him? They LIKE what he's been saying....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. I suspect the GOP establishment will coalesce around one candidate for no other reason ...

I suspect the GOP establishment will coalesce around one 'mainstream' candidate for no other reason that he can not be controlled and a man that can not be controlled is a dangerous man.

OTOH, maybe a plurality or majority of GOP voters are that bat shit crazy and will supply The Don with as much votes and delgates as he needs to secure the nomination, the wishes of the GOP establishment notwithstanding.

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. We don't need to get all of 'em or even most.

But we need to do better among them than the 39% we got in 2012. We should be able to get at least 44-48%.

[ismnotwasm]

69. K&R

[FloridaBlues]

78. She can and will win!

[Motown_Johnny]

93. Fantasy.

Trump won't be their nominee, our nominee (no matter who) won't win the white vote.

You sound exactly like a Trump supporter claiming he can win the Latino vote. Also fantasy.

If you want to focus on how to win in 2016, think Florida and the elderly Jewish swing voters who Sen. Sanders will appeal to.

[ericson00]

98. just like Trump was supposed to be done after McCain

or "rapists," or the rebirth of the Ivana story, etc. And even tho odds are the Democrat won't win the white vote vs. Trump, Hillary, unlike others, can pull it within 10 or 6 points, which mathematically means an overall landslide if the non-white recent numbers hold. That doesn't hurt when we're alright fighting history to increase the margin of victory. The GOP's '80-'88 margins of victory went 10.8, 18.2, and down to 7.7 in 1988. Ours from '92-'00 went 5.5, 8.5, .5. Getting more white vote, even if we lose whites but by less than Obama in 2012, means Hillary can buck this. Obama's margins of victory went 7.2, 3.9, so we don't have a lot of room from the outset.

[Thinkingabout]

102. I'm with you ericson, I think Hillary can do very well with the white vote and POC, this will result

in good numbers for Hillary.

[DonCoquixote]

103. so the "white vote" is what matters

never mind integrity or democratic principles, we better realize some votes matter more than others, right?

[ericson00]

104. Bill and Hillary Clinton are the two of the most honest politicians I've seen

the only "scandal" that had a shred of evidence against the Clintons was the Lewinsky thing, and that shoulda meant nothing to anyone aside from Bill and Hillary. The fibs that the Clintons have made are no worse than any other major politician.

Oh yea, Sander's isn't exactly 100% on this integrity you speak of as if Clinton doesn't have it.

A person does not please tens, if not hundreds of thousands, or millions of people by always telling the truth, which is why I actually hold politicians to lower standards than regular people.

[DonCoquixote]

107. and that changes the title of your piece how

your title was that hillary can win THE WHITE VOTE. Do forgive if I am sick of seeing people thrown under the bus to please a bunch of Reagan democrats that love throwing us under the bus.

[ericson00]

108. I'm a Clinton Democrat

not a Reagan Democrat, nor a McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis Democrat either. Closer to JFK/Scoop Jackson/Truman and Clinton/Gore Democrat. Also, I never changed the title of the piece.