NEWSFLASH: Most of the US is not the Deep South, and Sanders is winning outside of Dixie

[Attorney in Texas]

Hillary's "50-state inevitability" meme has failed.

Hillary's new "no path inevitability" meme is also false.

Outside of the Deep-Red Southern States, Sanders is winning. By wide margins, Sanders has won 5 of 8 states outside of Dixie, and Clinton's 3 wins have been dirty and very narrow:

Iowa - Clinton won in dirty close race (closest in Iowa's history)

New Hampshire - Sanders won by wide margin

Nevada - Clinton won in narrower win than she beat Obama in 2008

Colorado - Sanders won by wide margin

Massachusetts - Clinton won dirty by very narrow margin

Minnesota - Sanders won by wide margin

Oklahoma - Sanders won by over 10% margin

Vermont - Sanders won by wide margin

The states of the former Confederacy include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The Clintons rose to power in the Deep South, and this is a region of the country that has not historically embraced Northeastern Jewish civil rights activists. Clinton has swept these states so far, but they are not states she can win in a general election.

These Southern states are not a perfect representation of America. Of course they get a vote in selecting our nominee (and I'm not suggesting otherwise), but these states do not get to pick our nominee to the exclusion of the majority of states with a different history, a different culture, and different attitudes toward progressivism. The Clinton campaign should stop suggesting the race is over simply because Clinton is winning Dixie and is currently losing outside of the Deep Republican South.

[Robbins]

1. Great analysis

most of states she won in south except for virginia no dem can win in fall.she can't win outside of south without voter fraud.

[redstateblues]

7. So many conspiracies.

[brush]

55. Don't understand why "Clinton can't win southern states in the GE" keeps getting repeated?

Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:57 PM - Edit history (2)

We've all seen in '08 and '12 that dems can win the GE without those southern states.

That meme doesn't fly, we're talking about the primaries and getting the nomination.

[Gore1FL]

82. The point is that her strength in Red states isn't as useful when it comes to the GE. nt

[roguevalley]

94. Trump will win them

[brush]

96. I got that point but it's a useless point since we don't need to win those states in the GE

Obama didn't win them in '08 or '12, which is one point that matters.

The other and most obvious point that shouldn't be ignored is that those primary victories and the resulting delegates count towards the dem nomination, nothing to do with the general election.

[brush]

115. We won in '08 and '12 without those states

Why is that point not getting across?

[Gore1FL]

143. What did I say that was contrary to that? n/t

[Garrett78]

145. But that's a meaningless point.

As I wrote elsewhere:

Of course the Democratic Party nominee isn't going to win Mississippi in the general election. Or Georgia. Or Alabama. And so on. Or Idaho or Wyoming or Oklahoma or Nebraska while we're at it. [*Caveat: unless a right wing 3rd party candidate splits the vote with the Republican nominee, in which case Clinton could actually win some southern states.] But why does that matter? It's not as though there aren't many solidly blue states where Clinton will beat Sanders (and would beat the Republican nominee), and it's not as though the Democrats in those southern states are drastically different (on the whole) from the Democrats in non-southern states (it's just that there are fewer Democrats in some of those southern states than there are in some of the non-southern states). You can't compare the overall electorate in Mississippi with the overall electorate in, say, New York. Not when we're talking about Democratic primaries/caucuses. Again, the Democrats in Georgia aren't so drastically different from the Democrats in Illinois.

Even if one wishes to argue that Clinton can't win the general election (in spite of her being a heavy favorite according to the oddsmakers), it makes no difference in terms of her nomination prospects. Her margin of victory in southern states is devastating to Sanders, because delegates are allocated proportionally. Since Democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries/caucuses, Sanders won't have the opportunity to make a big score (such as scoring all of Michigan's 130 delegates simply by winning by a single vote). Outside of Vermont, which only has 16 pledged delegates, Sanders isn't winning by margins comparable to Clinton's in those southern states. And, again, many solidly blue states (with a relatively high number of delegates) that are Clinton-friendly have yet to vote. Clinton will win most of the blue and purple states. It's just that hardly any blue and purple states, particularly the big ones with lots of delegates, have had their primaries yet.

So, I really don't understand the point folks are trying to make when they point out that the Democratic nominee will not do well in the Deep South come November (duh!). Rather, I understand the point they're attempting to make, but it's not a point worth attempting to make.

*Note: I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I am a fan of logic and I'm reading a disturbingly high number of irrational (or just plain meaningless) comments.

[Gore1FL]

155. Red states have less proportional delegates.

If her support is strongest in states she is unlikely to win, and weak in states that could flip, that is an issue in the General.

Additionally, Sanders has over performed, even on super Tuesday. He has a lot of donations and the momentum hasn't quelled.

I've been watching this since 1976. Not including elections with Democratic presidents up for re-election, I've seen the nomination come out like people expected in 1984 and 2000. Maybe 2016 is like 1984 or 2000. Maybe it is like 1988, 1992, 2004, or 2008.

Large states are still remaining. It's important that we let them vote.

[Garrett78]

156. But Clinton's an overwhelming favorite in those large states.

That's what seems to be lost on some folks. She's the favorite in states with a relatively high number of delegates, those blue and purple states. Whereas Sanders has an advantage in places like Nebraska, Kansas, Utah and some states near Vermont.

The idea that Clinton winning red states means she won't win blue and purple states is a fallacy. Worse than that, it's delusional.

[Gore1FL]

157. CA and NY are large states. n/t

[Garrett78]

160. Yes, they are.

And Sanders will be lucky to split the delegates in those states.

[Gore1FL]

161. I suspect that most off the delegates will be split in one fashion or another in almost all of them

None are winner-take-all in the Dem nomination phase. When more that 1/4 of the process is complete, the argument might carry more water.

[Garrett78]

162. I meant he would be lucky to get an even split...

...in CA and NY. Naturally both candidates will get a portion of the delegates, but chances are Clinton will win a majority in those 2 states. And in just about every other blue or purple state that is yet to vote.

[Gore1FL]

163. There are many contests left.

She has 596 delegates, and he has 407. Those can be made up. Sanders is not that far behind in delegates, not including super delegates. Super delegates are not going to decide the nomination. If they did, the party would explode on national television. So fa,r Sanders has out-performed expectations. A lot can happen between now and June. My crystal ball is in the shop. I have to rely on math. Sanders isn't mathematically eliminated.

[Garrett78]

164. Of course he's not eliminated.

FiveThirtyEight shows it being 609-412; not that it really matters. Nobody is saying the primary has officially concluded. The problem is Clinton is an overwhelming favorite in the blue and purple states that have a relatively high number of delegates. There's really no plausible path to the nomination for Sanders. He can't get the number of delegates he needs by winning the likes of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

[Gore1FL]

166. She was the favorite in 3 of the 4 states he won on super Tuesday.

They actually have to have the votes.

[JDPriestly]

102. She can get the nomination relying in part on the Southern states.

But although North Carolina voted for Obama in 2008, and Virginia has become a sort of swing state as has of course Florida, most of the other Southern states have not voted for a Democratic president since 1976.

That 1 9 7 6.

Here is the map.

http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

Arkansas and Louisiana voted for Bill in 1992 and 1996. Texas, the big one has not voted for a Democrat in a presidential primary since 1976. Same for many of the other states.

These states are not relevant to a Democratic presidential primary in terms of the chance of the candidate to win in November.

It's up to Democrats in those states to make their states relevant. We need stronger grass roots work in those states.

[onenote]

146. That's like saying Obama couldn't win California because he lost the primary by 7 points

Oh, wait, he went on to win the general in CA by 14.

Why do people insist on drawing absurd connections between the primary and the General.

She won Mass. Does that mean Bernie can't win it? Of course not.

I hate it when my fellow Sanders' supporters embarrass themselves this way.

[amborin]

2. K&R

[TCJ70]

3. This was alerted on...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Thu Mar 3, 2016, 10:57 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

NEWSFLASH: Most of the US is not the Deep South, and Sanders is winning outside of Dixie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403548

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Over the top smears and factually incorrect allegations against a Democratic candidate have no place on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 3, 2016, 11:05 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are no smears here. It's essentially a call to let everyone in the Democratic Party in the rest of the country have the opportunity to vote for a candidate before calling for one or the other to drop out.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If facts are in dispute then retort with the correct facts. OP linked to articles which supported allegations.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Easy hide. Tell the truth, or don't post.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Outside of the overuse of the word "dirty"- why the alert?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Address the factual problems in a response. Why alert?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: stop alerting on bernie supporters posts because clinton supporters don't like the facts.nothing wrong here.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[FlaGranny]

105. You've got to be kidding!!!

This post was alerted on?

[Raster]

123. of course it was... don't you know that in the HRC Hive, all dissension is forbidden...

FORBIDDEN. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. YOU WILL VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON. HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE THE NOMINEE. YOU WILL NOT QUESTION THIS FORE-GONE CONCLUSION. YOU WILL NOT ENTERTAIN ANY THOUGHTS OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY ENDORSED BY THE HIVE. IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION, IT CANNOT CONFLICT WITH HIVE THOUGHT. IF YOU CONSIDER TAKING ANY ACTION, IT CANNOT CONFLICT WITH HIVE DIRECTIVE.

[peacebird]

151. Nailed it.... Sadly.

[LibDemAlways]

107. Hillary supporters are the flies on the

picnic spread. They randomly alert just about every post that points out anything positive about Bernie. They inevitably lose the vote, too. In the words of their hero, "Cut it out!"

[beltanefauve]

140. I know

Posting facts, links and real, un--photoshopped pictures(such as the recent one with Bill and his bullhorn) are called "smears" by Hill's supporters and are prone to alerts. I have served on numerous juries where the alerter would rather alert than actually discuss.

[grossproffit]

4. More kicking and screaming.

[redstateblues]

5. HaHa. Every time Bernie loses

There is some conspiracy responsible. The fact that Bernie did not win NV and Mass is a devastating blow to his campaign. The margin in a purple state like VA is also an ominous sign for Bernie. I guess Bernie's peeps stealing data didn't even help. By no means is this over. Having said that I'd rather be in Hillary's place than Bernies.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. She is also leading - in some cases by large margins - in

several large states other than those in the South.

Bernie has a deficit of almost 200 pledged delegates to make up before he can equal where she is now. But Hillary will not be standing still in the meantime.

[mountain grammy]

57. and I would say, Colorado and Minnesota

are far more devastating for Hillary. In Colorado, the enthusiasm for Bernie is amazing. Caucus turnout was higher than in 2008. People stood in line to participate in a caucus!
Bernie won big, turnout, turnout, turnout! I believe at the top of the ticket in Colorado, he will sweep Democrats into elected positions in all parts of the state.
Where Hillary won, turnout was down. That worries me.

[Bjornsdotter]

113. Also Hillary lost

...in every district of Minnesota.

[mountain grammy]

135. and I read turnout was huge in MN too!

it's all about turnout!

[grasswire]

136. Turnout is down because she has nowhere to add voters..

...and cannot generate excitement.

Last night Bernie attracted 7,000 people to his rally and Hillary attracted 1,000 and claimed it was 5,000.

That is the death for Democrats, if she is nominated.

[Vote2016]

6. If these Dixie states were calendared on the same day as NY or California, this race would not even

be close!

The calendar should not dictate the nomination.

Why is the M$M suggesting Sanders has a problem in the South without questioning why Clinton is doing so poorly outside of the South despite the entire establishment selling her like a desperate salesman on commission pushing an expensive product nearing its sell-by date?

[JaneyVee]

13. Likewise, if the primaries didnt start in the...

2 whitest states in America would anyone even be talking about Bernie right now? Imagine where he'd be at this point without Iowa and NH.

[brush]

56. California has a huge Latino population, why do you think Sanders is going to there?

Also NY? Clinton lives there and was a Senator there.

[Vote2016]

148. I do but that wasn't my point. My point was if Dixie was not frontloaded, no one would think Hillary

was on target for anything but a crushing defeat.

[brush]

158. I still don't get it.

Clinton is not doing badly outside of the south.

Sanders is doing his best in mostly white states with small delegate counts, but that is no longer the overall make-up of the rest of the country, which is why I mentioned NY and Cali as examples.

[KingFlorez]

8. NEWSFLASH: THAT DOES NOT MATTER!

Posts like these prove why political science should be a required course in school, because some people have no clue about how the process votes. If the results in the south were reversed, we would not being seeing posts like this.

The antisemitism argument is wrong and unfair. It's seriously doubtful that most voters even know that Sanders is Jewish, because judging from the margins of victory for Clinton, it doesn't appear that most of the voters cared enough about Sanders to even run a Google search.

Next, we have to understand that the bulk of the vote in the southern states at this point isn't even what can be called "Dixie", it's almost totally new south. Atlanta, Birmingham, Dallas, Houston and Northern Virginia are huge portions of the southern vote and those are not conservative areas by any stretch of the mind. In fact, if you look at the map, Sanders did better in some of the most conservative areas in the south, including Forsyth County, GA which was segregated for many years. Sanders carried Oklahoma where Obama got under 60% of the vote in the 2012 primary against a nobody.

[BlueMTexpat]

15. This ...

If the results in the south were reversed, we would not being seeing posts like this.

Indeed.

[cemaphonic]

141. On top of that, Clinton's big wins in the Deep South

were in large part due to her overwhelming advantage among minority voters, especially AA. The little "Dixie" and "Confederacy" jabs are downright insulting in light of that.

I like Sanders a lot, and feel like his run has been a positive step toward a Democratic Party realignment to the left. But he's a huge underdog at this point, and the echo chamber around here is convinced he's going to cruise ahead any day now.

[YCHDT]

149. Well

[DCBob]

9. Be patient Mr Attorney.. there are some big "non-dixie" states coming up soon.

Eg.. Michigan, Florida, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania. I dont consider Florida as "dixie" since its demographics, culture and politics are much different than the typical deep south state.

All of which Madam Nominee is doing very well in the polls.

[Attorney in Texas]

14. Also on the horizon: Kansas Nebraska Maine Idaho Utah Alaska Washington Hawaii Wisconsin Wyoming etc

[DCBob]

17. That wasn't the topic of your OP.

Please keep focus.

[JaneyVee]

20. But she doesnt have to win those, only keep them within 20 points.

Democrats allocate delegates proportionally.

[book_worm]

52. Sure Bernie will do pretty well in some smaller caucus states

with Lily white populations which don't get big turnouts. Meanwhile Hillary will do well in more diverse states with big delegate totals like Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio.

[mountain grammy]

70. Very offensive post

Especially since Colorado is far from a "lily white" state, had a huge turnout, and went for Bernie.

[Beartracks]

118. Oh, the "lily-white" thing again.

===========

[HooptieWagon]

27. Newsflash...Florida was part of the Confederacy.

Some posters here should bone up on their history.

[DCBob]

29. Sure.. but it's a very different state as I commented earlier.

I would imagine no one, even a Bernie die-hard, would dismiss Hillary winning in Florida the same way as they have the other southern states. Correct?

[HooptieWagon]

38. North Florida is pretty much Alabama/Georgia.

The rest of Florida varies wildly, depending who moved to the area. There was only a tiny population at time of Civil War, and no RRs or roads in the peninsula. After the war, and for the next 100 years, the West coast was generally settled by midwesterners, the east coast by easterners. Latinos settled in Tampa first, to work in the cigar factories 100+ years ago. Latino immigration to South Florida and Orlando is much more recent. Conservative Democrats held the Governors mansion and Legislature from the end of Reconstruction until recently.

[DCBob]

41. So its different from a typical deep south state... right?

[HooptieWagon]

47. North Florida isn't. If anything it's worse.

[DCBob]

53. So, Florida as a whole is different from a typical deep south state... right?

[HooptieWagon]

60. Not much.

Except for G-ville and Tally, everything north of I-4 is Deep South. South of I-4 it varies. Arcadia is as redneck as you'll ever find, same with Everglades City and the towns around Lake O.

[DCBob]

64. No demographic or political analyst would ever lump Florida in with the other deep south states.

They are too different.

[HooptieWagon]

69. Ok, whatever you say.

I actually live there...since '65. Grew up in a redneck region in SW Florida. You want pickup trucks with rebel flags and gun racks? It's there in spades.

[DCBob]

72. I have lived there too.. both in the Orlando and Miami area.. those are nothing like the deep south.

My parents lived for a time in the panhandle.. yes that's "Alabama".

[HooptieWagon]

79. Large minority populations, just like Atlanta and Birmingham.

Last I checked both were in the Deep South. Sanford Fl. right outside Orlando... where Trayvon Martin killed.

[DCBob]

87. I lived near Winter Garden... nice place on lake Apopka.

Its not the deep south. I have also lived in Arkansas and Mississippi. Those places were very different from central Florida.

[HooptieWagon]

95. You can cherry pick any area.

Hell, if you were in Austin you'd think Texas was solid blue. Having lived in Florida for over 50 years, I can say much of it is the Deep South. Sometimes it's an undercurrent not noticeable to a casual visitor. I've been to Sanford, it's a pretty and quaint town at first glance, until you dig deeper.

[DCBob]

99. I think the bottom line is that FL votes much different than the rest of the deep south.

Which is why I do not lump it in with the rest of the deep south which are all Red.

[mountain grammy]

139. In 1957 in Miami, Fl.

My aunt, a white woman and a New Yorker, took a seat in the back of the bus. The bus driver wouldn't move the bus until she sat in the front.. not the deep south?

[FlaGranny]

109. Not true.

East coast South Florida from Palm Beach to Dade is majority democratic, but not that large a majority. The rest of the state is conservative. Florida's house/legislature is very similar to Georgia and the other southern states. So, not true, Florida as a whole IS very much like the other southern states.

Thank the powers that I live in the liberal part of the state, but I'm always having to hear Republican talking points wherever I go.

[DCBob]

112. Has any "Deep South" state, besides Florida, voted Dem in a Presidential election in recent memory?

No is the answer, which is why Florida is different.

[FlaGranny]

167. Squeaker, but

I feel like Florida is 2 states, eastern south FL (3 counties) is like northern states. The rest might as well be Georgia or Alabama. If it weren't for the 3 counties forget any Democrat even getting a squeaker.

[DCBob]

168. Yes, I totally agree with you on the Florida "2 states" comment.

But there are no other deep south states like that and that's why Florida is a different category.

[msanthrope]

30. The Cuban Miami vote is part of the legacy of the Confederacy? Someone tell them

that.....

[HooptieWagon]

44. To a certain extent, they are.

Cuba had a large slave economy, and supplied food and horses to the Confederacy.
And Cuban-Americans are less than half the Latino population.

[FlaGranny]

111. Plus, many are

on the conservative side of the coin.

[timmymoff]

48. Madame nominee

A better term would be Her Corporatist.

[guillaumeb]

62. You do not consider Florida as "Dixie", but how about Floridians?

From a news article from 2015:

Another day in post-racial America. This time in Florida's panhandle, where a group of Michigan high schools students and administrators were touring Florida colleges. Their bus broke down and the group of 90 students and adults were forced to rent hotel rooms for the night at the Econo Lodge in Live Oak, Florida:

Coordinator Blake Odum says right after dinner, is when the trip took a much different and disturbing tone.
"It was owned by white people. And they started taking pictures of all the kids as we were walking in and out of the hotel," said student Melissa Blacque.

"I heard one of the ladies, she said, 'If i see one more of them, I'm calling the law,'" Odum said.

Blacque says the students were peaceful, but felt uncomfortable at the hotel.

"They were calling us the N word and called Blake the N word. We were just like 'whoa,'" Blacque said.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/4/16/1378183/-Michigan-high-school-students-toured-Florida-colleges-ended-up-as-targets-of-racism

[DCBob]

76. The "panhandle" is definitely "Dixie".

The rest.. not so much.

[Raster]

124. I do believe you mean Madam Candidate, no?

I do not believe Clinton has been selected as anyone's Nominee, certainly not the Democratic Party's.

[SidDithers]

10. Newsflash...

Democrats who live in "Dixie" are just as legitimate as Democrats who live in New York or California.

Their voices, and their votes, matter just as much as those voices and votes in safe "blue" states.

Face it, huge swaths of Democrats are just not that into Bernie.

Sid

[timmymoff]

49. he's far from done.

and Hillary's deep pocket donors are almost maxed out.. time for a couple more wall st speeches.. uh oh.. immunity granted to her IT guy, but his name keeps coming up in the data gate "scandal" uh oh . Will even more people wonder about her "integrity"?

[aquart]

103. Planting stories and inviting wondering is a time-tested propaganda tool.

Hillary is probably the most honest pol we've ever had. She's been investigated down to her underwear drawer and despite deep desire, they couldn't find a thing. They still can't.

[timmymoff]

144. Al Capone had a streak like that as well

[peacebird]

152. Hillary is most honest poll we have ever had? Sniper fire? Flipflops from pragmatist to progressive?

And back again, many times over this campaign? Check out the twitter hashtag #WhichHillary

Bernie, on the other hand, is steady, honest, compassionate and a politician with true integrity.

[whatchamacallit]

110. Newsflash

People calling for Sanders to drop out don't value my California vote at all.

[stonecutter357]

119. +1000

[msanthrope]

12. "Dixie?" "Confederacy?" What the fuck is this shit? nt

[JaneyVee]

16. I think we both know.

[msanthrope]

28. Yeah--we do. nt

[zappaman]

61. Most of us do... n/t

[redstateblues]

18. It's Condescending bullshit

[DCBob]

22. AIT is desperately trying to find something/anything to dismiss Clinton's amazing success..

in the southern states. Its pathetic.

[brush]

63. Yeah, they love to mention how Clinton can't win the southern states in the GE

Like that matters right now in winning delegates for the nomination.

And we've seen in '08 and '12 that there is a path to winning the presidency without those southern states.

Duh! Obama's been in the White House for seven plus years.

[Attorney in Texas]

23. The Deep Republican states of the Old Confederacy have a different attitude toward Progressivism.

That is a fact.

It is not a racial issue because it is not African American voters who hold this view but a cross-racial majority of voters in the Deep South who hold this view.

You cannot pretend that the states of the former Confederacy are not distinct in their political views as compared to the rest of the United States. It is true and it is a cultural, not a racial, phenomenon.

[msanthrope]

25. You know....there are thousands of actual Sanders supporters on this site who are able to

write supportive posts about their candidate without using racially charged language that insults all Democrats.

Try it.

[Duckfan]

54. I wish you were on MSNBC

They need their butt kicked over there.

[CherokeeDem]

31. As a progressive Democrat....

and a Southerner, living in a Southern state... I've come to expect the BS about the South that runs rampant on this board.

The holier than thou attitude by Democrats living in other areas of this country is bigoted and elitist. They act like only the only red states are in the South. There are racists and bigots in every state in the US... and more red states than blue.

I would prefer more blue states but go pick on other parts of the country... singling out the Southern US for ridicule only demonstrates the ignorance of those who purport it.

[JaneyVee]

33. Meanwhile, we should be expanding the base to try turning red states purple.

Instead of having purity pledges. We shouldnt be alienating the south, especially with demographics turning in our favor.

[CherokeeDem]

43. Exactly...

The misdirection of purpose by so many Democrats is hurting us more than helping us. We are Democrats and should act like it.

I'm not asking for these people to start eating fried chicken and grits... just stop demeaning an area of the country that holds a strong and growing Democratic base. I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing how the population of Tennessee is changing... more people moving in from other parts of the country and the political climate is beginning to change there. Let's hope that migration will help other red states across the US.

The Southern US does not live in the Confederate past... there are certainly some who still long for the old days... but the modern South is not the image people would like us to be.

[msanthrope]

36. I think, at this point, it's time for this board to recognize that this benefits no Democrat---

either Sanders or Clinton. So why do some posters persist? It's time to start asking the questions.

[CherokeeDem]

75. I don't the answer...

I wish I did. Democrats can be their own worst enemies and we are definitely proving it this election cycle.

[Andy823]

116. I know

I have yet to hear anyone of these posters, those who trash and bash, explain how all the hate posts here one DU actually HELP Bernie get elected. I for one think that a lot of those here on DU who post this kind of crap are not really the progressives they claim to be. I think they may have a completely different agenda than getting Democrats elected to office.

[msanthrope]

117. Yes...and it's a realtively small cadre. nt

[Attorney in Texas]

40. I'm a progressive Democrat from the South. Don't we agree that Elizabeth Warren could NEVER get

elected to any statewide office from any state in the Deep South?

Don't we agree that it's cultural/ideological, not racial, and if there was an African American candidate who espoused Warren's platform, he or she would never get elected to any statewide office in any Deep South state?

Likewise, would Sen. Joe Manchin get elected as a Democrat in any state outside of the Deep South? I am not criticizing Sen. Manchin -- I'm saying he would lose a Democratic primary in almost every state outside of the Deep South on grounds that he is too conservative for Democrats outside of the Deep South.

The South is different. I'm not saying the South is bad.

But because the South is different, it should not be surprising that it prefers conservative candidates who rose to power in the Deep South over a Northeastern Progressive, and this fact is not only unsurprising but confirms that the Deep South should not be treated as a threshold region that gets to unilaterally select our nominee to the exclusions of the other states' voices.

[CherokeeDem]

73. Once again...

you are falling into the same old rhetoric....

"if there was an African American candidate who espoused Warren's platform, he or she would never get elected to any statewide office in any Deep South state?"

Do the names James Clyburn and John Lewis ring a bell? Yes, they are both African-Americans who hold statewide/national office in deep Southern states. These men are both progressive Democrats and I would match their views to those of Warren's any day. In fact, I prefer the platforms of these men. There are many African-American progressives who hold statewide office in South Carolina, and other Southern states as well. Oh... might even be a progressive white person or two. like the new governor of Louisiana. (I know... he's not quite as liberal as Warren... but he was elected in a red state.)

I am one of those people who, while I like Elizabeth Warren, do not think she is the savior of the party or the nation. She's another good progressive Democrat. Her voice is important. As for Machin, I wouldn't vote for him anywhere.

Culture? What culture is that? While my roots are in South Carolina, and I might like grits and hush puppies, and black-eyed peas, those facts have nothing to do with my political beliefs. My Democratic beliefs are a result of my upbringing, my education, my compassion and my soul. If you are going to use these broad brushes regarding culture, then please explain the culture of the people across this country who are backing Donald Trump.

The South is not different. The perceived difference lies in those who continue to hold prejudices against the Southern states.

[Attorney in Texas]

78. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't James Clyburn and John Lewis represent congressional districts

within a state rather than statewide office?

Have either ever held a statewide elected office?

Do you believe either could ever win a statewide office?

[CherokeeDem]

133. yes...

You are correct they do hold congressional seats... limited in voting area.

And yes, I do believe they could win statewide.

Now.. we have your opinion and we have mine... and I still find your argument lacking.

This is what is wrong... you want to categorize an entire section of the country without recognizing that these situations occur in other red states outside of the South. The south is not the only 'conservative' area of the country. Simply wanting to place labels on the Southern US do not make those labels correct.

I do hope you are including Texas in you broad statement about the South. Perhaps you could explain the culture in your state and how it has affected your political views.

[Attorney in Texas]

137. Yes, I include Texas; for example, I doubt TX-25 Rep. Henry Cuellar would qualify as a Democrat in

most of the US outside of the South.

There are several Republicans from the Northeast and the West Coast who are more liberal and progressive than Cuellar.

I (obviously) am not arguing that Texas Democrats (like myself and Cuellar) should not get a voice in picking a Democratic nominee, but I am arguing that the consensus among Texas Democrats (along with other Democrats from the Deep South) would pick a much less progressive candidate than the nominee who would be chosen by a consensus of Democrats from the other 37 states.

We agree on this point, don't we?

[bornskeptic]

122. You consider West Virginia part of the Deep South?

"Likewise, would Sen. Joe Manchin get elected as a Democrat in any state outside of the Deep South? I am not criticizing Sen. Manchin -- I'm saying he would lose a Democratic primary in almost every state outside of the Deep South on grounds that he is too conservative for Democrats outside of the Deep South."

[Attorney in Texas]

128. Before the Civil War, Virginia and West Virginia were a single state, and that united Virginia was a

Confederate state.

Obviously, West Virginia broke from the rest of Virginia and joined the Union after a couple of years as a Confederate state. Historically, I would put West Virginia in the same camp as Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky.

In terms of West Virginia embrace of progressivism, I put it in the camp with the Deep South (let's say "progressive skeptical&quot . Wouldn't you?

[obamanut2012]

131. cosign

From a SOFL liberal.

[Gore1FL]

83. Here is a link that explains it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

[msanthrope]

89. No--actually, it's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Relegating the Black vote as lesser is nothing new in America.....

democraticunderground.com/12511391558

So many Sander's supporters are able to speak without using racially charged language. The OP should try it.

[Gore1FL]

142. 3/5 isn't a vote count. It was for representation in the congress. It is immaterial to the topic.

There are African Americans across the country who support Bernie. There are African Americans across the country who support Clinton. For that matter, there are African Americans across the country who support Bernie.

The same can be said for Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans, et al.

You are simply being hyperbolic and bombastic to score points. It didn't work.

[brooklynite]

19. NEWSFLASH - So is Hillary

Take a look at Michigan, Illinois, Ohio...

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Because this was alterted on, I'm going to add a comment about the turnout in the Clinton Super Tues

Southern Sweep. It's down from 08. In the States, counties and districts in which the claim has been extreme dedication to and excitement about Hillary she won with turnout drastically lower than 08 turnout. Texas turnout down 50% and four of the other Southern States it was down at least 25%. Obviously she was much more popular there than Bernie, but also not a ballot box draw, the motivation to vote at all was way down.

It's not been huge turnout in any State so far, and that bothers me with both candidates and both sets of supporters. Primary 08 saw voter registrations clime and participation grow. By comparison this is dreadful so far, and the South was particularly so.
Each State a candidate wins, their cohort rejoices. But thus far the Party is not winning and that grown and motivation element needs to be addressed all around.

[DCBob]

24. There is no "rock star" candidate this year like in 2008.

Duh.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. And yet to win the GE we need to have some level of turnout better than that of the GOP

Duh all you like, both of our candidates are not drawing the voters I'd like to be seeing them draw, and in some cases that is true in their very strongest places. It has to be dealt with, for either candidate to win as nominee, it's not about them, the primary itself is not exciting people so far. Bernie has expected lots of new voters I have not seen enough of, Hillary has said she's got the Obama coalition but Tues shows us she has part of it because so many did not show up. Perhaps those are the voters who need that rock star, but if you claim them and they don't show because you are not exciting them, they are not your voters.

The Republicans on the other hand are seeing upturns. This makes our downturns twice the risk. We need people to vote. I'm not being candidate partisan here. If you say new voters will come and they don't, address that. If you say you are going to deliver huge results in some States and your results are a win in the context of voter apathy you need to address it. The Party in which both are running needs to address it. States in which voting has not yet happened could be addressing it now, and the candidates and Party in them.

Or not. But the 'low turnout is ok' argument is still not convincing me.
If it is a show, we close out of town with numbers like this. Make what you want of it. I'd like to win in November as well as in March.

[DCBob]

42. Hang tight... if Trump is their nominee this could be the biggest turnout in history.

[JaneyVee]

32. There were like 8 or 10 candidates in 08, which means...

8 or 10 campaigns holding GOTV drives, vs only 2 this year.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Right...Texas 08, for example, where a huge 1.73% of votes went to the other 4 candidates?

That explains the 50% drop in Texas turnout? That makes exactly no sense at all.

08 Hillary won Texas with 1,462,734 votes. Tues she won Texas with 935,080. In 2008 Obama was second with 1,362,476, Bernie was second with 475,561. 23,000 voted for other candidates this year....41,000 for other candidates in 2008.

[abelenkpe]

59. +1000 nt

[brush]

71. There is not "first time Black, history-making" candidate like there was in '08

In '08 more people wanted to be part of history and they turned out to vote for, and even against, the first Black guy.

[onenote]

147. 1988 -- Check your history

One party had a multi candidate race which drew over 22 million votes during the primaries. The other had basically a two person race that drew around 13 million voters.

Guess what happened in the general. The party with the big primary turnout (the Democrats) got their asses totally kicked by the party that had the limited turnout in a two person race (the Republicans).

[Dem2]

26. Analysis is a little bit over-simplified I think

Why Bernie Sanders won Oklahoma and lost Massachusetts
...

The difference is that affluent people made up a much bigger part of the Democratic electorate in Massachusetts than they did in Oklahoma. About half of the electorate in Oklahoma reported earning less than $50,000. That same lower-income group formed only about 30 percent of the electorate in Massachusetts.

This suggests more evidence that Sanders has built broad support with low-income white voters, even outside of liberal states like Iowa and New Hampshire. So far, that effort that has not proven successful with low-income nonwhite voters.

...

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/2/11144804/bernie-sanders-oklahoma

This implies a combination of income level and non-white voters, a bit more complex than just Dixie vs. "outside of the Deep Republican South."

[Godhumor]

34. Or, and stick with me here, he won states where black people make up less than 8% of the population

There are many, many ways to frame the state of the race.

And Clinton is about to clean sweep Michigan, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, New York--all of which have diverse populations. If Bernie wins KS, NE, ME, and gains nothing else until March 22, guess which statement, yours or mine, will still be true.

[Octafish]

37. Let's count all the votes, Tex!

Democrats like elections.

[stupidicus]

45. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/the-momentum-story-how-the-bernie-sanders-crowd-can-still-win/

.

[jalan48]

46. One primary day, no caucuses, no super delegates-one person one vote.

It will eliminate these issues.

[book_worm]

50. You always make me laugh

First Hillary also wins outside the South--which you discount and call it winning "dirty". Then you say she won by a narrower margin than she won in 2008 in Nevada as if that is some big deal especially since it wasn't much different. At the same time this discounts the fact that she has won by huge margins several states that Obama WON in 2008 such as SC, GA, AL, VA. You discount the South even though more people voted in the democratic primary in one state (such Alabama) than did in the caucuses in both Colorado and Minnesota. You always seem to discount the votes of African-Americans who make up a huge part of the Democratic electorate in the South and are not the ones who have "not historically embraced Northeastern Jewish civil rights activists" in the South.

Anyway, there are several states outside of the South coming up. I expect that, as usual, Bernie will do well in strongly white states like Maine and Kansas, but expect that Hillary will come out strongly in a diverse state like Michigan which has a lot more delegates.

[Chichiri]

51. Actually, they're saying the race is over because math. nt

[NurseJackie]

77. Math is like Glenn Close's character in "Fatal Attraction" ... it will NOT be ignored!

[Chichiri]

88. Except math doesn't carve up its own leg. nt

[NurseJackie]

90. Or make bunny stew. :-P

[DinahMoeHum]

58. PLUS: There are still 35 states to go in primaries. . .

. . .including the BIG ONES: Ohio, New York, California, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html

[Trust Buster]

65. March 15 cannot get here soon enough form me.

By March 15, Bernie supporters will receive another heaping helping of "facts" that they'll find hard to digest.

[Attorney in Texas]

67. The states from March 22 to April 9 cannot get here soon enough for me.

By April 9, Hillary supporters will have to adopt yet another amendment to their coronation strategy which they will find hard to digest.

[redstateblues]

91. Always add your little smear after you

Lose the argument. Nice

[Phlem]

120. How ironic since the Hillary supporters are all about smears.

[dpatbrown]

66. Crying shame

We here in California do not get to vote until June 7th, a crying shame. With over 500 delegates(winner take all) and probably the state that represents America best, WHY the Dems maintain this schedule (they want their moderate candidate) is a disservice to the entire country.

So everyone needs to be cognizant that over 500 delegates await Sanders. He will carry California big time.

[sweetloukillbot]

84. Except it isn't winner take all.

As has been said many times, all Democratic states are proportional.

[dpatbrown]

93. I stand corrected.

[NorthCarolina]

68. I'm pretty sure the establishment would like to force Bernie out before

states like IL, MI and CA cast their votes.

[SidDithers]

81. 538 has Hillary up 30 in MI...

and up 25 in IL.

Do you really think that Bernie is going to gain delegates in Michigan and Illinois, do you?

Sid

[NorthCarolina]

85. Actually,

yes, I do. I don't really assign much weight to numbers generated by an establishment "guru" for an establishment "candidate".

[KingFlorez]

98. Demographically, those are not good states for Sanders to pick up many delegates

Even if you think Nate Silver is faking numbers for Clinton, if you go by the actually demographics of those states, Sanders isn't going to win enough delegates there to take the pledged delegate lead.

[NorthCarolina]

100. Well, I guess the voters will tell us if your

assessment is correct or not. You are banking on the black vote as a monolith and I'm not so sure that will remain the case once the contest moves out of the bible belt. Guess we'll get an opportunity to see though.

[NewJeffCT]

74. Wasn't the same argument used against Obama in 2008?

he only won in the southern states, so had no chance beyond Super Tuesday and that it was a bad sign for the General Election that he was winning mostly in solidly red states...

[Faux pas]

80. Kicketty Kickin'

[jayschool]

86. Kentucky and Missouri

Kentucky and Missouri were not in the Confederacy. Slave states? Yes, but never openly rebelled by seceding from the United States.

[EDINKY]

92. Kentucky was not in the Confederacy

Although we may vote like it now, Kentucky was not a member of the Confederacy. Originally neutral we soon sided with the Union.

[riversedge]

97. Hillary has 3.38 million popular votes so far in the primary to only 2.2 million for Bernard! #ImWi

To start with...Hillary has 3.38 million popular votes so far in the primary to only 2.2 million for Bernard! #ImWithHer

[DrDan]

101. Kentucky was not a Confederacy state - and Missouri was also part of the Union

but as long as facts are being ignored, what's a few more.

[Orrex]

104. I will be interested to review this analysis again in a few weeks.

[Attorney in Texas]

108. Let's revisit in April 9.

[Orrex]

125. Then, too

One hopes that we'll all rally around the candidate.

[Attorney in Texas]

129. I hope we are all rallying around Sanders, but I'm voting for the Democratic nominee in November

regardless of who wins the nomination.

[Orrex]

130. :thumbsup:

I will happily and eagerly vote either Democratic candidate.

[snowy owl]

106. Nevada's win questionable to me

Reid called union bosses to get their people out. Since it is a caucus state, how much pressure from unions to support Hillary was there? Can caucuses reflect honest politics in states with large unions?

[Ferd Berfel]

114. MA: :Clinton won dirty by very narrow margin "

Loosing 600+ ballots is treason against democracy. Those people should be in jail for a long time.

[Raster]

126. Did anyone check Bill's bullhorn? You know, the one he used outside of four polling places to...

...openly and illegally campaign for his accomplice... er, I mean, wife.

[peacebird]

153. Or check the videos of him INsIDE the polling place during Super Tuesday....

[alarimer]

121. I just favor everyone getting a say in who the nominee is.

I hate that the primaries are so staggered. I wish they were all on the same day.

[Uncle Joe]

127. They made Bernie protesters move away (rightfully so) but then gave Bill Clinton a bullhorn.

Thanks for the thread, Attorney in Texas.

[Zorra]

132. The grapes of wrath.

The math already proves that Clinton cannot win the GE, and the odds of her winning the GE become slimmer with each passing day.

The Democratic party may want to consider renaming itself "The Third Way", because "Democratic" no longer accurately describes this co-opted New Democrat Frankenstein party' owned by oligarchs, that is making all the great Democrats and Democratic Presidents before Nixon roll over in their graves.

Dem turnout in the primaries is low. Republican turnout in the primaries is way up. Neither Democratic POTUS candidate, not Clinton, and not Bernie, can win the southern states, where an enormous chunk of Clinton's base resides. It just ain't gonna happen there. Hillary can win none of the other red states, and can win few, or none, of the swing states. Right independents don't trust her, and the newly registered Dem voters, millennials, and left independents that Bernie brought to the dance with him will not vote for Clinton in any significant numbers. Many long time progressive Dems are done with voting for the lesser of two evils, are totally disgusted a the complete lack of integrity within the Clinton campaign, will see Clinton's nomination as a grave insult to their intelligence and integrity, and will either stay home, or vote third party for POTUS, and vote Democratic in all other elections. Having no where else to go, the dispossessed Dem left will very possibly attempt to form a new left coalition party with the Greens and other independent left parties and individuals. Many traditional Dems will hold their noses and vote for Clinton, but there will be fewer of these voters than ever before in history.

Vote for Bernie. A Perfect Storm is coming if Clinton is nominated. Please, don't shoot the messenger. My contingency exit plans in the case of Clinton nomination, and the inevitable, subsequent President Trump emergency are already in place.

"....and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." ~ John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, Chapter 25

peace

[Beacool]

134. I'll give you some non-Dixie states where she's up in the polls and predicted to win

by the 538: MI, IL & OH. The Dixie states where she'll win, but I guess they don't count on DU Sanders' world, are: LA, MS, FL and NC.

[WillyT]

138. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Cobalt Violet]

150. K & R

[Triana]

154. Potential Problem...

. . . 55% of blacks still live in the South, the vast majority of black elected official still come from the South. “Writing off” Red States and specifically the South (including states Democrats can’t win statewide) means writing off the majority of black people.

Quote from here: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/3/1492931/-Why-black-voters-vote-the-way-they-do-and-advice-on-how-to-win-them

I'm a Bernie supporter obviously, and I know most if not all Southern states will NEVER vote for a Dem in the general election so there's that. However, inability to win at least one or two Southern states in primaries could indicate a problem. Hillary and Bill LIVE in one of them so they have that on their side too, to be fair.

It's just something to think about.

[Attorney in Texas]

159. I'm not for writing off any states. I'm against a candidate claiming victory based on support

localized to one region that is less progressive than other parts of the country.

[jsmirman]

165. This is bordering on unskewed polls territory

please stop.