Democratic South Carolina Primary results thread (polls close @7pm ET)

[IceSpear]

To be fair, Cenk did say that if Sanders loses Massachusetts he's done and will probably drop out.

That makes even less sense though. If MA is a must win for him and not for Hillary, then how does him winning it make him the favorite?

[RBH]

kinda curious how bad the result got for Bernie in Justin Bamberg's house district (Bamberg endorsed Bernie).

Hillary beat Bernie 88% to 10.5% in Bamberg County, SC. Rest of the district includes part of Colleton (82% Hillary overall) and some precincts in Barnwell County.

[Illiniwek]

Cenk Uygur just said that if Bernie wins MA, CO & MN on ST, "I think he's the favorite". Seriously.

It'll be impossible for Sanders to match Clinton's delegate count on Super Tuesday, but Cenk would be right in saying that winning those states would keep him on the map. To be a viable contender for the nomination, he'd have to win Ohio and/or Illinois on the 15th. If he can't, it's over.

There's quite a difference between barely surviving and "being the favorite."

Used to love TYT, but I really see them as a joke now. They are living in fantasy denial land. Can't stand Cenk anymore....

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Southerners have been a gaggle of fuctards that don't know how to vote their own interests for decades.  Are we shocked?

[Hydera]

Cenk Uygur just said that if Bernie wins MA, CO & MN on ST, "I think he's the favorite". Seriously.

It'll be impossible for Sanders to match Clinton's delegate count on Super Tuesday, but Cenk would be right in saying that winning those states would keep him on the map. To be a viable contender for the nomination, he'd have to win Ohio and/or Illinois on the 15th. If he can't, it's over.

Ever since OWS their coverage of politics has gotten weirder and weirder and i tuned out from there ever since.

There's quite a difference between barely surviving and "being the favorite."

Used to love TYT, but I really see them as a joke now. They are living in fantasy denial land. Can't stand Cenk anymore....

[Likely Voter]

I suspect that those at TYT and other uberliberal sites know it is a fantasy, but since the summer they have been so excited to have a real genuine liberal talking about liberal things every day that they want to keep that party going as long as possible, and part of that is keeping up enthusiasm.  They aren't stupid. They know absent some huge game changing event that Sanders is toast. Sanders knows it too.  But the longer he can go the more his message gets out to more people.

Tonight a VT socialist got half an hour of primetime on CNN giving his stump speech. Every day he loses he gets to do it again. Then they get to go into the convention with maybe 30-40%+ of the delegates and change the Democratic party forever.   That is the goal now and they all know it in their hearts.

[Wiz in Wis]

Southerners have been a gaggle of fuctards that don't know how to vote their own interests for decades.  Are we shocked?

Some day, I'm sure, they'll learn how to vote the way you want them to, oh genius.

[DrScholl]

The results were surprising in terms of the margin, as nearly 50 points was not something that most would even have thought of (the Clemson poll definitely gets credit for nailing the margin). As I said before, name recognition was everything and it really contributed to the size of the win. With that said, I do think that Super Tuesday could really close out this race.

[This account no longer in use.]

Well done to Clinton. And my apologies for assuming that Clemson outlier was a junk poll. But maybe this means that the AL and AR Overtime polls are spot on

[Sorenroy]

Anyone know when that last precinct will be reporting? Probably tomorrow, but you never know...

Also, while I'm at it, Jesus Christ! Congrats Clinton supporters, never in my wildest dreams did I expect this to be the margin. The "completely ditch the states we are not going to win in" strategy does not seem to be working out as well as you might expect /sarcasm.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

To be fair, Cenk did say that if Sanders loses Massachusetts he's done and will probably drop out.

That makes even less sense though. If MA is a must win for him and not for Hillary, then how does him winning it make him the favorite?

He said if Bernie wins all three states the media will start playing up the horse race narrative, giving him momentum.

[This account no longer in use.]

To be fair, Cenk did say that if Sanders loses Massachusetts he's done and will probably drop out.

That makes even less sense though. If MA is a must win for him and not for Hillary, then how does him winning it make him the favorite?

He said if Bernie wins all three states the media will start playing up the horse race narrative, giving him momentum.

Well, in that case, he's not completely wrong. But if he said anything about 'being the favorite', then into the trash his analysis goes.

[Averroës Nix]

SC turnout:

2008 D: 532k
2016 D: 369k (-30%)

2008 R: 446k
2016 R: 738k (+65%)

[nclib]

best Sanders/worst Clinton counties:

Pickens - 44.13%-55.47%
Oconee - 39.64%-59.63%
Lexington - 38.63%-60.95%
York - 36.11%-63.50%

[Crumpets]

I suspect that those at TYT and other uberliberal sites know it is a fantasy, but since the summer they have been so excited to have a real genuine liberal talking about liberal things every day that they want to keep that party going as long as possible, and part of that is keeping up enthusiasm.  They aren't stupid. They know absent some huge game changing event that Sanders is toast. Sanders knows it too.  But the longer he can go the more his message gets out to more people.

Tonight a VT socialist got half an hour of primetime on CNN giving his stump speech. Every day he loses he gets to do it again. Then they get to go into the convention with maybe 30-40%+ of the delegates and change the Democratic party forever.   That is the goal now and they all know it in their hearts.

Okay. I don't get this. What would Sanders actually change about the Democratic Party? How is his substantively (or to use his words, "revolutionarily") different from the current left wing of the Democrats? This is the party that has elected Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, Al Franken, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, not to mention Barack Obama. It's not like Bernie Sanders is some Sawant-type Marxist who wants to destroy capitalism and pretty much start over from scratch. Is his speech at the DNC going to actually substantively change anything about the party or its voters? Who might the Democrats nominate in 2020 or 2024 that they might not have voted for this year, but that a Sanders candidacy would bring into the fold?

If the Democrats weren't already at least somewhat the party of Sanders, I probably wouldn't support them.

[jimrtex]

Turnout in the Republican primary was double that in the Democratic primary. In some upstate counties, including Greenville and Spartanburg, Clinton finished fourth. Clinton won among a small electorate that would never consider voting for a Republican.

In Pickens County, Rubio doubled Clinton ... and finished a very weak 3rd. Trump tripled her support, and Cruz was up 2.5X. There were 5.26X Republican voters as compared to Democratic voters.

The timing of the primaries may have had an impact.

If you were wanting to vote for an outsider, you could choose from among Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Sanders. With all the media attention on the Republican primary, how many such voters would hold off to vote for Sanders?

In a state that nominated Alvin Greene, surely there were voters who did not realize that there was going to be a Democratic primary in a week, or that voting in the Republican primary would prevent them from voting in the Democratic primary.

Since you can vote in either primary in South Carolina, and many voters are used to voting in the Democratic primary most of their life, there will be more selecting the interesting primary, than in states where cross-over voting is more restricted. How many supporters of Fritz Hollings voted in the Democratic Primary and how many in the Republican?

The Haley, Scott, and Graham endorsements would drive voters to vote for Rubio or Bush, or to vote for Trump or Cruz; but they wouldn't drive people to wait a week and vote for Clinton or Sanders. Voters who would note that Haley is a woman or an Indian; Scott is black; and Graham is unmarried, would not wait then vote for Clinton or Sanders.

[This account no longer in use.]

I suspect that those at TYT and other uberliberal sites know it is a fantasy, but since the summer they have been so excited to have a real genuine liberal talking about liberal things every day that they want to keep that party going as long as possible, and part of that is keeping up enthusiasm.  They aren't stupid. They know absent some huge game changing event that Sanders is toast. Sanders knows it too.  But the longer he can go the more his message gets out to more people.

Tonight a VT socialist got half an hour of primetime on CNN giving his stump speech. Every day he loses he gets to do it again. Then they get to go into the convention with maybe 30-40%+ of the delegates and change the Democratic party forever.   That is the goal now and they all know it in their hearts.

Okay. I don't get this. What would Sanders actually change about the Democratic Party? How is his substantively (or to use his words, "revolutionarily") different from the current left wing of the Democrats? This is the party that has elected Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, Al Franken, Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, not to mention Barack Obama. It's not like Bernie Sanders is some Sawant-type Marxist who wants to destroy capitalism and pretty much start over from scratch. Is his speech at the DNC going to actually substantively change anything about the party or its voters? Who might the Democrats nominate in 2020 or 2024 that they might not have voted for this year, but that a Sanders candidacy would bring into the fold?

If the Democrats weren't already at least somewhat the party of Sanders, I probably wouldn't support them.

If I recall correctly, if Sanders gets 25% of delegates, he'll get to have some influence on the Democratic Party platform written at the convention. He is certainly left of many Democrats on several issues (tax rates and Wall Street come to mind, as well as some of his less important issues, like decriminalizing marijuana).

[Ebsy]

25% of delegates are required to add a "minority report" to the official party platform. This the route that Humphrey took in 1948 to change the Democratic Party.

[IceSpear]

Bernie got about the same amount of raw votes in SC that Hillary did in NH. Dayum.

[/]

The CNN headline "Clinton Crushes South Carolina" is kind of awkward...

Maybe "Clinton Crushes in South Carolina" could work, but they're making it sound like Clinton is actually crushing South Carolina itself.

[HillOfANight]

I think the nyt's "Clinton wins SC" is a bit understated compared to how other news are reporting it. Then again, they spun her Iowa win as a tie/moral loss.

[izixs]

SC turnout:

2008 D: 532k
2016 D: 369k (-30%)

2008 R: 446k
2016 R: 738k (+65%)

The difference in turnout trends is perhaps the most disturbing thing about this primary season for me. The conventional wisdom is that Republicans are just super extra excited because of reasons and that this won't at all translate to higher R turnout in November.

I'm not so convinced. Yes in this case there might be something to the splitting of  the primary into two contests on two days, but that can't explain away NH and IA's turnout problem. This trend is a problem and I highly suspect it will continue.

To an extent I blame both campaigns for this. Sanders might be working to turnout new voters and young voters, but his machine just isn't meeting expectations there. Lots of enthusiasm is good, but its not enough to make sure the footwork is completed and done in a fashion that is effective. If he can't push folks to engagement we default to the core regular primary voter core which both doesn't much care for him and are not getting people excited for the general. As for Clinton, having effectively cleared the field before this contest even began means that the Democratic race hasn't been the least bit interesting to more casual Dem voters. The party needs more than just disgust at the Trumps and Cruzs. It needs its voters to be thinking about why they should support their candidates in order to convince the rest of your voting coalition to even show up and to expand. And right now, I'm really not seeing much of that outside places like here and other similar communities that are always well informed and excited about politics. And there's the whole issue of people that vote in primaries are very likely to do the general as well, and having more viable candidates in the field would certainly help with that. But nah, Clinton had to have this one to herself because it was her turn.

So yeah, not too happy with either candidate/campaign on this front. And I do believe it spells major trouble for November.

[HillOfANight]

Definitely on Clinton's side, she's only budgeting $100 million for the primary. Lots of articles about how Robby Mook refused to staff up or open more offices after Sanders started blowing $. For example, Sanders had 200 staffers in SC compared to 14 for the Clinton campaign.

HRC is facing a less competitive match in Sanders than she is in Obama, so her team is just fighting to win, not fighting like they're going to lose.

[ElectionsGuy]

Finally, the last precinct came in, the final count is...

Clinton: 271,514 (73.5%)
Sanders: 95,977 (26.0%)

What a disaster for Sanders.

In the battle for turnout...

Republicans: 737,917 (66.6%)
Democrats: 369,526 (33.4%)

[This account no longer in use.]

Requiescat in pace
The campaign of Bernard Sanders



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIuotFZnBtk