Why ethnic minority voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders?

[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?

[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).

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

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.

I wasn't aware of that. Though people within the community might not realize that.