Nevada Democratic Caucus Result (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 08:41:10 PM
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 7017 times)
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


« on: February 12, 2016, 02:53:02 PM »

Clinton will probably win.  60%+ is definitely doable, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Sanders would need NH-esque numbers with whites to win.  That's just not happening imo.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2016, 03:05:17 PM »

Why not? Mountain West white Dems are really, really liberal.

Nevada whites were Clinton enough in 2008 for her to win, and this was with the African American vote going against her.  Sanders has a nonzero chance of winning but a lot of the posters here seem to just be drinking Kool-Aid.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2016, 03:31:09 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.

Uh, wtf?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea that Sanders is raking in white working class votes is unsubstantiated.  This is a generational struggle, and nothing else.  The advantage Sanders has with low-income whites is almost entirely a product of the age gap, i.e. younger voters tend to have lower incomes and also tend to support Sanders.  See also: the "marriage gap" where single voters were more likely to support Sanders.

We saw a similar age gap in 2008, with young voters supporting Obama, and this was coupled with similar income and marriage splits.  The difference is that Sanders, unlike Obama, doesn't have African Americans to bolster his numbers. 
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2016, 03:52:39 PM »

Do you have any evidence that the polls showing Sanders winning lower income voters is entirely a product of the age effect?

Simple math?  We won't know for sure unless exit polls get released which break down the vote by both age and income like they often do with age and race.  My conclusion is largely drawn from the fact that the income split is very small compared to the age split, and that younger voters tend to have much lower incomes than older ones.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And how many under 30's (the core of the Sanders vote) are making over 200k a year?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I thought Obama dispelled this particular fiction already.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2016, 04:13:02 PM »

Well, the new Nevada poll certainly seems to change the dynamics of this.

junk poll!
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2016, 05:38:02 PM »

I'm not sure what the relevance of Obama is. We have already seen that this race has different dynamics than 2008 (Clinton also won whites in New Hampshire in 2008), so there is no use in using it as a guide this election.

Angry woman turnout just wasn't high enough in NH this time.
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 0.025 seconds with 13 queries.