2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis Primary Season, Clinton Won States With Highest Income Inequality
Earlier this year, we noticed a pattern in which states were voting for Hillary Clinton and which were voting for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic nominating contests. Sanders tended to win the states that had the highest income equality (as measured by the Gini index, a widely used measure of inequality), and Clinton tended to win states that were the most unequal.
Now that the primaries are over, we decided to look again. The trend held relatively well, as it turns out: With her win in the District of Columbia primary on Tuesday, Clinton won the most-unequal place in the nation, according to the Gini index. Sanders, meanwhile, tended to dominate among the more-equal states.
All of which is surprising, given that Sanders built his campaign message around battling inequality. Here's a look at our chart this time with D.C. added on. The Washington, D.C., bar is the one on the far right of the chart.
Chart and analysis at the link NPR.com
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Socialism and a more equitable society would really screw up the perfectly acceptable status quo.
Oh, yeah, and
Response to BootinUp (Original post)
Sheepshank This message was self-deleted by its author.
jamese777
(546 posts)People of Color suffer under the greatest income equality and People of Color preferred Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Whites, as a whole, tend to experience less income inequality.
"Eight years ago, exit polls showed Hillary Clinton with comfortable margins over President Barack Obama among whites and Latinos during the Democratic primary season.
This year, exit polls of Democratic voters showed whites narrowly preferred Bernie Sanders. Yet, Clinton is the presumptive 2016 Democratic nominee.
The key difference: African-Americans sided overwhelmingly with Clinton, with black voters across the South and in heavily Democratic cities fueling her wins and her delegate advantages.
And for any Democrats eyeing future White House bids, it serves notice that the presidential demand for a diverse voting coalition isnt just a general election concern for Republicans who are too dependent on whites; it actually begins in the Democratic primaries.
You just cant have a limited strategy focused on Iowa and New Hampshire, two of the whitest states in the country, said Atlanta-based Democratic consultant Tharon Johnson, who worked for Obamas 2008 campaign, arguing that Sanders and Clinton, in her first campaign, made that mistake.
South Carolina Democratic Chairman Jaime Harrison, whose early voting state offered the first primary contest with a large contingent of black voters, singled out black women. They almost single-handedly gave the nomination to Secretary Clinton, he said, after doing that for Sen. Obama in 2008."
Black women often suffer under double income inequality, being women and being black.
"The 2008 & 2016 campaigns bear strikingly similar trajectories. Each time, the top two contenders split Iowa and New Hampshire before a competitive finish in Nevada. But Obama then trounced Clinton in South Carolina by a 2-to-1 margin. Blacks made up about 55 percent of the electorate, and Obama won about four of five of them, according to exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks.
This year, Clinton won South Carolina 3-to-1, with exit polling reflected a 86-14 advantage for Clinton over Sanders among blacks, who accounted for an estimated 61 percent of primary ballots."
That pattern was repeated across the South and in states with major metropolitan areas.
http://lubbockonline.com/election/2016-06-13/clinton-obama-prove-democratic-dependence-nonwhites#.V2Qv54B-yrV
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)make a mandatory change to $15 minimum wage...who will lose their job first?
Those who already have the highest unemployment rate and the lowest wages...minorities
demand free college...
minorities would like to start to have good elementary, middle and high schools.
Without better elementary education, college remains beyond the reach.
And its already clear that many states are already cheating minorities out of a good elementary education.
Which groups are least able to absorb economic shocks a la revolution...the groups which have always been struggling.
Its easy to crave revolution from the position of white middle class privilege.
Its terribly dangerous from the perspective of one who is barely hanging on.
and so on
At least that is a small piece of what I think is going on.
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Even her most ardent sycophants don't buy into that being a bedrock problem.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
Social and institutional constructs of towns, counties, states and regions drive the perceptions.
Sections of LA & MS, with a per capita income under $7K a year, no health, limited social services will constantly vote Republican and vote against the very social programs that will help their communities. They are sold on the idea that certain social benefits are a negativism, including medical services, food and housing.
It isn't so much as a Stockholm Syndrome as mentioned by someone above, but societal and institutional norms that they have grown up with for generations. Many are in right leaning states, and the narrative of what is Democratic becomes skewed, leading to the need to elect Blue Dogs to office, since conservative Democrats are what is palatable.
The strong GOP influence, with the aid of Blue Dogs is what helps to drive income inequality.
.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Rather than stupid and ignorant, watching the transformation is a truly inspiring example of doublethink.
glennward
(989 posts)Blacks preferred Hillary because they still remember they and/or their families did much better economically under Bill Clinton. The rough ride began for them under Bush, peaked and plateaued under him and has only begun to lessen under Obama.
And apparently blacks heard a different message when and envisioned a different future from Bernie's promises. And most importantly, they really do not appreciate the person whom they perceive as being condescending and derogatory against the first black President.