13% Black voters in the caucus; 13% Black voters in the 2012 election. 15% of eligible voters are Hispanic in Nevada; 10% in the U.S. overall. 17% Hispanic turnout in the caucus.
Yeah, moderately diverse. A bit less White and a bit more Hispanic than the U.S. overall but not dramatically so.
Whew.
I now feel pretty sanguine that the erstwhile danger to our fair republic has been averted. I got goosebumps hearing this passage from Hillary’s victory speech:
Yeah… resistance is futile!!
You aren’t going to give a counter cite?
The report I read (and now I can’t find it) said Hillary won all of the majority black districts and Bernie won a majority of the Latino vote, though how many districts that is, it didn’t say.
Source for the 15% Nevada Hispanic 10% United States average for elgible voters.
Again by entrance polls today and in the past: 65 percent white, 13 percent African American, 17 percent Latino, 5 percent other.
I’d call that moderately diverse compared to the country overall.
By state rank is silly as that gives as much import to Utah, Idaho, and Montana with tiny populations as to Texas and California and New York. And total population minority share is less relevant than is eligible voter share.
Well it’s not silly but I suppose it’s more useful here to say “moderately diverse voter turnout”.
I haven’t seen exit polling yet, but the entrance polling showed a 76-22 Hillary margin among blacks and a 53-47 margin for Hispanics among Bernie, so representing it as “Hillary won the blacks but Bernie won the Hispanics” isn’t telling the right story. Bernie slightly won the Hispanic voters and was annihilated among the blacks.
“HRC Beats BS in Nevada.”
Cite:
According to CNN, Dem caucus turnout was only 60% white, btw
It’s not surprising it wasn’t 65%–that number is from 2008’s exit polls, and people were using it before new exit polls were available. It’s expected that most states are becoming less white over time.
I still wonder whether Sanders is secretly relieved he didn’t win Nevada. I suspect he went into this whole thing in an effort to shift the Overton Window, and he’s succeeded dramatically in this regard; I hope the window stays shifted to the left even in the general election. Of course I would have loved a Sanders presidency, but never counted on getting one.
My biggest fear at this point is that one of Clinton’s many scandals actually sticks, and of these, the email thing worries me the most. I worry it’ll rise to the level of Sandy Berger; if Clinton’s under an active FBI investigation, to say the least it’s gonna be distracting from her campaign.
Since at this point it looks like she’s our best hope for not having President Trump, I’m really really hoping my worries are misplaced.
The best thing about Clinton from electability is she’s probably in the worst possible position in terms of “general election” polling as she’ll ever be right now.
Why? Because, the Republicans are already attacking her, and not just in the debates–Karl Rove’s Super PAC ran ads against her in Nevada. Meanwhile she can’t really strike back because the Republicans have no candidate, and she’s busy with a primary of her own. It’s a situation in politics where one side basically is shooting at someone who can’t shoot back. But it’s also true that it’s being done at a time that really doesn’t matter in re the general election. The election starts after the convention, that much is true. We already know that Hillary’s support isn’t going to dip into “unelectable” levels from any of her current “issues” (other than possibly the email scandal) because that just hasn’t happened. She’s already getting hit on those issues as much as she will in the general.
Plus, at least some of her general election polling weakness is from angry Bernie supporters responding to his rhetoric about her association with Wall Street and the “BernieBros” and other Twitterverse figures who have blasted her for working as a paid speaker. When Bernie eventually concedes and becomes a full throat, massive supporter of Hillary a lot of that will go away, especially once these people get a look at their other option.
All of the Republican candidates other than Trump are in almost the opposite boat–their favorability nationally has a lot of room to fall because widespread negative advertising hasn’t been focused on any one of them to a huge degree yet. Trump is in a different situation in that he’s already created such a negative perception of himself with voters at large that he’s going to have to go into some form of “rehab mode” the moment after he locks up the nomination (if he does–I feel much more confident in saying Hillary is more likely to win her nomination at this point than I do Trump.)
I agree with all of your analysis–assuming that the email thing doesn’t blow up. I believe it’s still under investigation, and much as I don’t want it to happen to Clinton, I do want public officials to face very serious investigation from law enforcement for violations of ethical standards. (That might sound like concern-trolling, given my support for Sanders; I hope you’ll believe me when I say I genuinely want Clinton to win the presidency if she’s the nominee).
If there’s an active FBI investigation of Clinton during the general election, I have a hard time seeing a path to victory for her. This ain’t Louisiana.
Hillary’s problem is she tends to fight a losing battle against time. Obama’s polling went up, Trump goes up, Sanders goes up, Hillary stagnates and declines the more she puts herself out there. Not a good fit for America’s ridiculously long campaigns.
She’s a rare candidate that was already at nearly 100% name recognition before she announced she was running. Most of her negatives are already baked in.
Overall I agree with your thoughts. But I can’t let the part I snipped above go unchallenged. IMO that’s wrong with a capital boldface W.
Given Sanders’ iconoclasm, I do not think he’s going to be doing any “full throated massive supporting” of HRC after the convention. Sure, he’ll be supportive, but everything will be hedged as if HRC was the consolation prize.
Likewise, I think in NV we are seeing further evidence that Sanders’ attractiveness is heavily concentrated in his groupies and doesn’t extend very far into ordinary D-land.
A corollary being that his groupies themselves don’t extend that much into D-land either. They are political newbies.
Imagine that in 2008 Obama had a good run at the nomination but faded in the stretch & Hillary was the D nominee. How many of the hopey changey young people and the weary wary 25-40 year old black working-class would have turned out for HRC then compared to how many actually did for Obama? Damn few IMO. Perhaps enough to have given 2004 to McCain.
Sanders’ baleful contribution to this election season may be him exciting a bunch of idealistic non-pragmatists who then simply tune out, publicly and pointedly turn their back, or worse yet start sniping incessantly from the online sidelines once HRC has won the nomination.
Sanders’ mission, should he choose to accept it, is to drag those newbies all the way to November for the good of the longer term progressive mission to stop the reactionary forces of radical R-ism.
But they’re mostly internet-era people with the attention span of a puppy. So it’ll be darn hard work, and deeply distasteful for an independent ideologue such as Sanders has sincerely shown himself to be.
My bet is he just phones it in & his revolutionaries mostly stay home. Which will make Nov much more scary than it needs to be.
That’s not really true though, Trump has been around the same level of support as he is currently for a long time now. Hillary started essentially unopposed–Bernie, Webb, O’Malley, none of whom were perceived as serious. Two dropped out and Bernie remained and caught fire, what happened is she stopped being unopposed and had a real challenge. But from what I can see she’s still far ahead in a lot of states that matter, the national polls don’t matter so much now versus the individual state polls. The national polling will show trends that will be reflected in the various states, but each state’s result’s matter too.
Like I’ve said before, Obama didn’t run an insurgent campaign. He came out and knocked Hillary to the canvas in round 1, Hillary got back up before the round was over and landed some blows of her own in the form of New Hampshire and Nevada, but Obama still was the strongest. He lost the popular vote in those states but tied in delegates with Hillary in New Hampshire and actually got more delegates than her in Nevada (showing that announcing the popular vote winner in the caucuses is somewhat stupid, but it’s what the media does.)
Obama never really got weaker, he took half of Super Tuesday and just kept grinding out small victories in delegate margins here and there until he won. It’s very different than what we’ve seen in this election.
The superdelegate situation is also a lot different in 2016 than in 2008. A lot of superdelegates at the very end went for Obama, cementing his nomination. But only a small number were actually prior Clinton endorsers who jumped sides–in 2008 much more of the superdelegates held off into later in the election cycle to announce who they were supporting.
So while we can’t yet know how they’ll behave, at least going off of 2008 as a guide, once they endorse someone superdelegates aren’t super prone to jumping sides, and a huge number have already endorsed someone this election. If you remember 2008 people were conspiracy theorying that all the superdelegates who had yet to endorse someone were imminently going to jump on the Hillary train and “steal” the nomination, which didn’t happen, but this time around a huge number are already on said train.
Wow, that would have been bad. 
Eh, in 2008 the black voters would’ve come out just as strong for Hillary in my opinion, the Clintons are deeply popular among black voters. Now, they aren’t so popular as to get support over the first potential black President, but I think after four years of Bush Clinton was going to get a ton of black voter turnout if Obama wasn’t in the picture.
The young “newbie” voters, who I will just call imbeciles, would have gone away. But she’d still have won, John McCain (a man I supported and admire) was simply a terrible Presidential candidate and HRC would’ve creamed him too. Not with quite as big a margin as Obama, but she still would’ve taken the White House.
If you look at the results from 2012 you see “Obama sans the imbeciles” who just started drooling and writhing orgasmically when he smiled and said “Hope!” “Change!” over and over again in 2008, it was still good for a solid popular vote and electoral college victory over Romney, who won historic support among the traditional electorate that determines elections–white voters. But Romney forgot to check the country’s demographics and realize that it now takes more than that to win.
If the Republican nominee is Trump I think his insane nativist rhetoric will get unprecedented turnout from Hispanics going to the polls to vote against him–I’ll almost be shocked if it doesn’t, any Democratic nominee will benefit from that.
Also keep in mind the raw number of “imbecile” voters who have come out drooling for Bernie from their mom’s basement and/or in between drinking PBRs and playing retro arcade games may not be that many. Primaries have stupid low voter turnout, so we aren’t actually sure how many general election voters they represent.