Nevada Democratic Caucus Result (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2024, 02:07:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Nevada Democratic Caucus Result (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Huh
#1
Clinton 65% and up
 
#2
Clinton 60-64%
 
#3
Clinton 55-59%
 
#4
Clinton 50-54%
 
#5
Sanders wins
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 75

Author Topic: Nevada Democratic Caucus Result  (Read 6963 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,006


« on: February 12, 2016, 03:25:55 PM »

Yeah but what was the basis of Clinton's non-black primary support in 08? She won working class voters because a lot of them saw Obama as a Lincoln-praising neo-liberal from blood red Kansas. Those same voters will go for Sanders over Clinton because he offered them more. How many make under $15 an hour?

They've got one candidate saying it'll happen, even if there's only a 10% chance. They've got another candidate saying it'll never happen, e.g. 0% chance. If you're making $11 an hour, which do you pick?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,006


« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2016, 03:42:21 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you have any evidence that the polls showing Sanders winning lower income voters is entirely a product of the age effect? He won every demographic except those making over $200k/year in New Hampshire, e.g. the top 1%.

Even if he was only doing equally well as Clinton with working class whites, it would be amazing. Even since the hard hat rebellion in 1970, it has been an article of faith that the better you do among college students, the worse you do among the working class.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,006


« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2016, 03:58:17 PM »
« Edited: February 12, 2016, 04:04:27 PM by Beet »

No, Obama did worse among the working class. He only did better in the general.

This is quite remarkable. Liberal intellectuals rarely connect with the working class. Even Karl Marx didn't. In a way, it's the holy grail of the Left.

Sanders isn't winning because people see him as a better personality or he got a good news cycle or any nonsense like that. He's winning on the basis of deep historical / structural divides -- a contradiction in society, as a Marxist would put it. This is why Clinton's not going to turn it around simply by putting in a good debate performance or overperforming low expectations in Nevada.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,006


« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2016, 04:05:16 PM »

Most working class voters are voting for Trump, so I'd imagine whatever rump group leftover is more liberal than in 2008.

As of today, that literally is not true. Sanders got more working class white votes than Trump in the sum of the two states that voted so far.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,006


« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2016, 04:24:34 PM »

Most working class voters are voting for Trump, so I'd imagine whatever rump group leftover is more liberal than in 2008.

As of today, that literally is not true. Sanders got more working class white votes than Trump in the sum of the two states that voted so far.

How are you teasing that out of the exit polls? It's not like all whites who make before a certain threshold are "working class". In Iowa, at least, Trump's support was highly correlated with rates of typical working class employment.

He got half the vote in Iowa. Trump got a quarter. Even with higher GOP turnout, he'd have had to have won overwhelmingly among Iowa's poor white Republicans to come close to Sanders' number.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 15 queries.