Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hillary is currently leading the polls for California, New York and Pennsylvania. Even if Sanders ties Hillary in California they split the 546 delegates. That would put Hillary at 1,985. A tie in New York bring her to 2,123.5, Pennsylvania another 90 for a total of 2,213. That leaves Hillary looking for a mere 169 delegates out of Maryland (95), New Jersey (126), New Mexico (24), and DC (20).
If the map holds as true as it has so far (Il being the only exception) not only does Sanders have to win, he has to win decisively in each and every one of those states to deny Hillary the nomination outright. I wouldn't get your hopes up for a brokered Democratic convention.
Why in your opinion are non-white voters in the (D) party drawn to Clinton?
My best guess, is that the Clintons through their appointment of people of color to high office, their steadfast support of non-white candidates over the years, and their ability to communicate and thus relate to non-white voters is pretty well established in those communities. There is also the lingering belief that non-whites achieved greater economic gains during Clinton's presidency. In short, the Clinton's have a lot of chits floating out their in non-white communities.
Finally, one of the more interesting theories that I've come across is the opinion that non-white voters aren't as ready to buy into pie in the sky promises having learned from hard experience that change comes gradually not in huge leaps as Sanders promotes. Non-whites are not into "burning down the house" they want someone who is going to bring about real, tangible day to day results, and they just aren't for good or for ill buying what Sanders is attempting to sell.
The former argument is what has me sitting in the Clinton column despite the fact that philosophically, am pretty close to Sanders on every issue but from a real-politic perspective a lot more realistic.
My best guess, is that the Clintons through their appointment of people of color to high office, their steadfast support of non-white candidates over the years, and their ability to communicate and thus relate to non-white voters is pretty well established in those communities. There is also the lingering belief that non-whites achieved greater economic gains during Clinton's presidency. In short, the Clinton's have a lot of chits floating out their in non-white communities.
Finally, one of the more interesting theories that I've come across is the opinion that non-white voters aren't as ready to buy into pie in the sky promises having learned from hard experience that change comes gradually not in huge leaps as Sanders promotes. Non-whites are not into "burning down the house" they want someone who is going to bring about real, tangible day to day results, and they just aren't for good or for ill buying what Sanders is attempting to sell.
The former argument is what has me sitting in the Clinton column despite the fact that philosophically, am pretty close to Sanders on every issue but from a real-politic perspective a lot more realistic.
Its also insulting to assume that everyone who isnt black is white.
Hawaii is 20% white. It is the least white state in the country. Alaska is 57% white. Less than South Carolina and Louisiana. Sanders crushed Hillary there yesterday. But Asians, Native Americans, Muslims and even hispanics all are treated as whites by the Hillary camp at various stages of the campaign when they feel threatened. They did it in Nevada as well, which suddenly turned "over 80% white" according to the Hillary camp when Bernie rapidly gained on Hillary in the polls there and the hispanic community had a chance to hear his message as he campaigned there.
Polling also shows huge numbers of people in black communities have no clue who Sanders is while Hillary is the most famour woman in the black community apart from Oprah Winfrey. Hispanic communities in the south and southwest are some of the poorest people in the country, same with blacks. Internet penetration is very low in these areas. They often work long hours and are not generally tuned into politics like people in the west or New England. To suggest that Sanders will "burn down the house" and promises pie in the sky is simply far right rhetoric and scare mongering meant to discourage and scare the most vulnerable people in society in order for them to accept their current position in society. Its shameful rhetoric. There wouldnt even be a civil rights movement if people bought into that rhetoric. MLK was a self-professed democratic socialist who mocked precisely this rhetoric as a tactic by the elites to preserve the status quo.
You guys notice how PCALMike always tries to dismiss Hillary's wins among minorities? Yet he tries to imply that Bernie's meager wins among other minorities are somehow "more important". Newsflash: the largest minority groups in the USA are Hispanics and blacks, not Asians or Native Americans.
If the map holds as true as it has so far (Il being the only exception) not only does Sanders have to win, he has to win decisively in each and every one of those states to deny Hillary the nomination outright. I wouldn't get your hopes up for a brokered Democratic convention.
And even then, what case does Sanders even have for the convention??? That he can win caucus states that are gonna go red anyway? If he, by some chance, happens to win California, it would be largely because the ultra-liberal demographic in that state put him over the top. But it would not be an indication the rest of the country wants him as president.
You guys notice how PCALMike always tries to dismiss Hillary's wins among minorities? Yet he tries to imply that Bernie's meager wins among other minorities are somehow "more important". Newsflash: the largest minority groups in the USA are Hispanics and blacks, not Asians or Native Americans.
All people are important. But it is shameful to portray all people who are not black as whites. CNN recently called Alaska the most diverse state in the country with Native Americans, Asians and hispanics in larger numbers than anywhere else. When Bernie won 82-19 over Hillary there yesterday, CNN portrayed it as a white haven and dismissed it.
Asians are a far bigger minority on the west coast than African Americans. In general, they are highly educated, both in Hawaii, Washington and Oregon, more educated than whites, which bodes well for Bernie Sanders in California.
No matter what happens, this combination of Democratic seniors and African Americans as a bulwark against progressive change in America is a non-viable coalition for the future, and that's what makes the establishment so afraid of the coming wave of New Dealers in the future who will take away much of their privilege and create an economy and government that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy campaign donors and their allies in the corporate media.
Last edited by PCALMike; 03-27-2016 at 03:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
