2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIn my opinion, it was more important to win the Latino vote than to win that caucus.
If I had to pick between the two, I'd pick the Latino vote, every single time. And, obviously, it would have been nice to have won the African-American vote, also. The Latino vote is going to be extremely important in upcoming delegate-heavy states. Latinos just don't appear to be falling for Clinton's divisive "identity politics", and dirty tricks, and are turning out to be receptive to the uniting politics of Bernie Sanders:
That's not to say Clinton can relax after Nevada. Even after her campaign tried to call Sanders' commitment to immigration reform into question and Clinton promised to put forward immigration legislation on the issue during her first 100 days in office, she lost Latino voters to Sanders 53 percent to 45 percent.
South Carolina does not have a large population of Hispanic voters, but Texas and Colorado do, and both will go to the polls on Super Tuesday. If Sanders' success among Latinos extends beyond Nevada, that could spell trouble for Clinton in delegate-rich states like Florida, New York and California and give Sanders staying power.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nevada-democratic-caucus-hillary-clinton-wins-black-voters-loses-hispanics/
dana_b
(11,546 posts)Someone else posted something about it tonight... it might be on the GDP first page, about how Bernie COULD win the rest of the caucuses and the Latino community is crucial to this.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)I had been paying attention to the polls, before the election, and expected Bernie to win the Latino vote and lose the African-American vote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1262964
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)We were both let down.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Just don't bring the rest of us down with you.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)I really wanted that pony.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)My parents said we already had one and then pointed towards my room. Memories.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)Especially for a Caucus.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)If they show Bernie winning, they are as reliable as Old Faithful. If they show Hillary winning, they are junk.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Entrance polling said Sanders won Latinos, but someone posted links that suggested that Sanders did poorly in areas that were mostly Latino. I'm not sure how to square that circle. Were people lying to pollsters? Did more Latinos actually caucus in places they wouldn't be expected to?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's like they think HRC was OWED a Latino majority.
FrenchieCat
(68,867 posts)I think that's what you think, which is not the same thing!
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Latino caucus voters. What proportion of NV Latinos who turned out for BHO in 2008 turned out for yesterday's NV caucuses.
IMO, taking age distribution into account very likely turns SBS Hispanic vote forecast for the GE not a win, but rather a YUGE loss.
I suspect SBS did very well among naive Latino millenials, but not so well among greyer Latinos who've lived through Nixon, Reagan, and two Bushes.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)But, as FiveThirtyEight noted, Nevadas voters are mostly old. And the support of millennials and the Latino community wasnt enough to edge out Clinton, who won the Nevada Democratic caucus with 52% of the vote.
http://qz.com/621302/sanders-may-have-lost-nevada-but-he-won-over-the-crucial-hispanic-vote/
As Nate Cohn points out, Nevadas voters are fairly old and no demographic trait has better predicted support for the Democratic candidates than the age of the voter, with younger Democrats flocking overwhelmingly to Sanders and older ones to Clinton. And maybe its Clinton who benefits from holding a caucus since Sanders relies on support from first-time voters who may not show up to vote at 11 a.m. on a Saturday morning.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/nevada-caucus-south-carolina-primary-presidential-election-2016/