Why Hillary! Is Winning And Where It Might Go Bad for Dems
[guest post by JVW]
It appears to be pretty clear after last night’s results that Hillary! Rodham Clinton is now almost a cinch (barring her indictment) to capture the Democrat nomination for President. Her curious loss last week in Michigan’s primary to the socialist Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont tricked many of us into believing that Clinton could be beaten in the key midwestern states of Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri, but by sweeping those states (albeit narrowly) she has seemingly put to rest any notion that the party’s superdelegates would abandon her and turn this farce from a coronation into a competitive contest.
So in figuring out how an unlikable candidate who is as nails-on-chalkboard grating and as lesbian-performance-art pretentious yet dull as Mrs./Senator/Secretary Clinton could so easily navigate her way to the nomination, I looked into the reported numbers from the Democrat primaries. We all know that Hillary! is generally supported by women and the elderly while Sanders’ appeal is more closely tied to men and the young, but there is one key factor in Hillary!’s win that is impossible to miss:
Hillary! has won sixteen of the seventeen contested states thus far which had the highest concentration of African-American residents, with Sanders’ narrow win in Michigan last week being the one outlier. By contrast, Sanders has won the eight states with the lowest concentration of African-American residents contested thus far. Is it any stretch at all to declare that black voters have made Her Clintonic Majesty the party nominee? (Note: I didn’t include the exit poll numbers for the percentage of the black vote that Hillary! has won in each primary, but she regularly captures between 65-80% of the African-American vote.)
And that leads me to a very interesting opinion piece I read today in — brace yourselves — the New York Times. Tom Edsall is a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism and weekly columnist for the NYT. His wikipedia biography paints a picture of a pretty typical academic/media lefty, but he dares to ask the question of what will become of Democrats if blacks ever get tired of being taken for granted:
Beginning with the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, African-American voters have provided Democrats with their margin of victory in elections at every level across the nation, year after year.
How have African-American voters been faring over all? Badly. The Democratic debt to black voters is immense, and the party has not paid up.
He goes on to discuss the theory of “toxic social environments” where children are continually exposed to concentrated poverty and ongoing violence in their neighborhoods, and research which shows that children growing up in these areas disproportionately suffer from social pathologies, even when the family is relatively stable and prosperous. He quotes a sociologist at NYU whose research claims that black children in families with annual incomes of $100,000 per year are more likely to live in a bad neighborhood than white children in families with annual incomes of $30,000 per year, and concludes that “neighborhood poverty alone accounts for a greater portion of the black-white downward mobility gap than the effects of parental education, occupation, labor force participation, and a range of other family characteristics combined.”
After providing more statistics on the effects of toxic neighborhoods and their increase since the first dot.com bubble burst, Edsall turns his attention to the lack of affordable housing in cities in which the political landscape is dominated by liberal Democrats:
Public officials — and the Democratic Party — have, in point of fact, failed to deliver housing, employment or education programs that convincingly remediate the problems of poor black families.
[. . .]
The Democratic Party cannot continue to reap the electoral rewards of the black vote — or embark on a comprehensive revaluation of life at the bottom of the economic scale — without fundamentally reconceiving how it deals with the neighborhoods where many of its voters live.
He also recounts some past campaigns where affluent white liberals have been less than welcoming to lower-income blacks:
Even in super-liberal, very Democratic Amherst, Mass. — Obama 12,316, Romney 1,872 in 2012 — residents fought bitterly against a proposal to build 26 units of moderate income housing. Their decade-long, ultimately futile battle involved “court cases, appeals, and $150,000 worth of legal costs, despite pro bono legal assistance,” The Atlantic reported in June 2015.
In another liberal city, Seattle — Obama 279,000, Romney 46,000 — Mayor Ed Murray announced a major affordable housing initiative on July 13 last year that included a mandatory requirement that all new development include affordable housing.
Then, on July 29, Murray did an about face. “I will no longer pursue changes,” he announced, “that allow more types of housing” in single-family zones. . . .
Edsall compares the potential of frustrated blacks leaving the Democrats to the current free-for-all playing out in the Republican party, and warns Democrats about basking in the GOP’s plight too much while ignoring the stirrings among their own base. The comments to the op-ed appear to be largely from Sanders supporters who criticize African-American Democrats for backing the “corporatist” candidate rather than the authentic wealth redistributor, oblivious to the sad fact that mean old Amherst which is so heavily against moderate income housing went for Sanders over Clinton by a 2:1 ratio in the Massachusetts primary held two weeks ago. With even younger African-American voters apparently preferring Clinton to Sanders, albeit by a far more narrow margin than their elders, could an eventual Hillary! nomination be the last gasp of the multi-racial Democrat coalition that has dominated that party since it was abandoned by working-class whites? Or will younger minorities eventually dismantle the traditional Democrat machine and work to create a more openly left-wing version of the party?
– JVW
Good post, JVW.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:05 pmI remember back in 2006, when Tom Edsall appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show and was shockingly candid. He told Hugh that he thinks that journalists in newsrooms are probably about 15 or 25 to 1 in favor of Democrats. He also admitted to Hugh that he thinks Bob Woodward has credibility issues. That’s the type of admission that only Hugh can carefully elicit from a longtime lefty journalist. Maybe Prager or Medved could, too.
But Edsall would never in a million years go on one of the screamer shows, such as Levin, or Limbaugh, or Hannity, or Savage.
rush has referred to edsall’s work, on more than one occasion, re their disdain of working class whites, of course they don’t mind that getting out it’s intended.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:09 pmfor example,
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/07/23/obama_campaign_strategy_poison_blue_collar_white_voters_against_romney
narciso (732bc0) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:11 pmif you want information and not regime talking points,
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/18/republicans_still_think_we_re_the_problem
red queen’s campaign is balanced precariously on one particular pillar, like chenga, in ahia they used strategisms like the extended vote to paper over the difference.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:16 pmThis is an interesting post, and I thank you for it, JVW. There’s much food for thought and discussion here.
But I confess to being glad that our host took the broom today to a particular commenter here who’s been presenting some pretty twisted and nasty racist stuff. I can’t imagine what mischief he’d make with this post and the comments thereto. Thank you, Patterico.
Beldar (fa637a) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:17 pmthe superdelegate firewall is as solid as the maginot line.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:22 pmWTF???
Liberal policies have made black society dysfunctional, practically eliminated intact families, and have made a great many blacks entirely or largely dependent on government. Consequently they vote for the party of government.
And Edsall thinks that’s something the Democrats want to fix? It’s the formula that created the goose that lays the golden egg, electorally speaking. They want to turn us all into dependent beggars.
Steve57 (08b8c6) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:32 pmit’s a very brechtian principle, dissolve the (quarrelsome) people, and elect (rear) another, he said this after the 1953 East Berlin riots.
narciso (732bc0) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:38 pmJVW – 2 random questions
1) how is she doing in comparison to last time?
JD (fc283b) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:41 pm2) how is she going compared to Obama did?
3) how does Dem and Rep turnouts compare to the last couple primaries?
#5,
I missed it. Which commenter was shown the door?
Dana (0ee61a) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:43 pmshe’s doing worse, then last time, and turnout figures are an inverse correlation,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/16/2016 @ 8:45 pm1) how is she doing in comparison to last time?
2) how is she going compared to Obama did?
3) how does Dem and Rep turnouts compare to the last couple primaries?
1) Good question. Hillary has swept the South this time around, unlike 2008 when she lost much of it to Obama. In 2008 she also won in the Southwest and in California, but got beat throughout the Mountain West and Pacific Northwest. It will be interesting to see if that remains the case this time around and if Sanders can make any headway into uber-liberal California.
2) Here’s a fun fact: it was exactly eight years and three days ago today that the Jeremiah Wright story first broke. That clearly halted Obama’s momentum and allowed Hillary! back into the race. She won 6 of the last 9 primaries, but it was too little too late.
3) As you’ve probably heard, Republican turnout as been way higher than Dem turn out this time around, a fact that even the self-satisfied left is taking notice of. Of course, none of us can predict what effect the eventual GOP nominee will have on turn-out, especially given the wildcard nature of the current primary leader.
JVW (9e3c77) — 3/16/2016 @ 9:03 pman interesting comparison,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
narciso (732bc0) — 3/16/2016 @ 9:12 pmR.I.P. Frank Sinatra Jr.
Icy (2d8e34) — 3/16/2016 @ 9:34 pmI noticed that there were comments mentioned on the NYT story. Until a about a year ago, I could see the comments. But then something changed and the comments have disappeared. Do you have to be a subscriber or know the secret handshake to see the comments? It was always fun to see the SJWs getting all worked up.
dee (7f272f) — 3/16/2016 @ 9:35 pmI noticed that there were comments mentioned on the NYT story. Until a about a year ago, I could see the comments. But then something changed and the comments have disappeared
Odd, I’m seeing the same thing right now too with the comments no longer being available. It may be that once comments are closed on a story that they disappear until the story is moved to the archive, or perhaps it is just a matter of a glitch which has temporarily turned them off. Check back maybe tomorrow to see if they are available again.
JVW (9e3c77) — 3/16/2016 @ 9:45 pm1. Get their vote
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/16/2016 @ 9:55 pm2. F*ck ’em running
3. Rinse
4. Repeat
An odd historical reference given the fact that the Germans never hit the line head on, instead opting to circumvent the fortifications all together. So, in fact, the Maginot Line was never really tested. I don’t think Mr. Burns has the strategic planning nor the proper amount of ground forces to pull off a France invasion at the Democratic Convention.
Sean (221079) — 3/16/2016 @ 9:56 pmyou are distressing literal, sean,
narciso (732bc0) — 3/16/2016 @ 10:08 pmOne would assume that the Dem party pooh-bahs are war gaming how they will handle an indictment of Hillary! Clinton that comes on July 22, three days before the Democrat Convention opens in Philadelphia.
JVW (9e3c77) — 3/16/2016 @ 10:18 pm1. Get their vote
2. F*ck ’em running
3. Rinse
4. Repeat
And then be mystified when they turn to Trump.
James B. Shearer (0f56fb) — 3/16/2016 @ 10:29 pmI saw papertiger in another thread darkly insinuate that I might have banned a commenter for racism. The very thought! that I might want to keep rank racism out of this discussion forum!
But in fact, I had a far simpler reason for banning A.R.: he is Christoph, and as such has earned multiple bannings for multiple offenses over the years. He is a particularly nasty specimen of vermin, and I needn’t worry about whether I would ban simple white supremacist ideas just for the sake of banning them.
I might not, at least for a while — because I would have confidence in my commentariat to use those commenters for batting practice.
But then I probably would, once my regular commenters had hit a few out of the park. Because, after all, this is patterico.com, and not Stormfront.
Hi, Christoph!
Bye, Christoph!
You work here is done
Racists
Patterico (86c8ed) — 3/16/2016 @ 11:14 pmWell, that’s a relief.
Let’s try dueling trumpet solos this time.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 3/16/2016 @ 11:35 pmYears ago, so far back that Teddy Kennedy’s run for dem nomination was a matter of living memory, Edsall and Edsall wrote on the subject of liberal policies. As far as I could make out, they figured liberal policies needed better marketing.
Richard Aubrey (472a6f) — 3/17/2016 @ 4:01 amHowever, in one paragraph, they mentioned four items: A cop passed over for sergeant by a black cop with lower scores. A night shift nurse raped in the parking lot by an early-released violent felon, early commuters on the subway harassed by the deinstitutionalized demented, and a woman whose children are bused to distant and unfamiliar neighborhoods.
For these folks, said E&E, the promises of liberalism don’t seem to have materialized.
He missed two points: For these folks, the promises of liberalism were never an issue with libs. And these are the little people who don’t count. If the mother whose kids are across town complains about, say, distance, or that they’re getting off the bus in the dark in January, or that they’re being assaulted, she will be accused of racism by libs whose kids go to pricey private schools or who live in lily-white suburbs.
This is Christoph Dollis if anyone is curious about what a prime specimen of the master race looks like: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/598340861399699457/bu45wGe0.jpg
nk (dbc370) — 3/17/2016 @ 4:28 amBeldar, Hillary can’t beat Trump in a general election, not in 10 general elections, she’s got way too much ugly baggage and Trump has the balls to call her out on long standing scandals from trashing women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual abuse including rape, to Cattlegate, to WhiteWater, to Casa Grande, to Travelgate, to Filegate, to Waco, to the strange death of Vince Foster, and modern scandals like arming ISIS, and turning her back on brave Amtericans fighting for their lives in Benghazi, covering it up, and lying to the parents while standing over the coffins of their betrayed sons.
No, you can’t use that boogeyman to frighten low info voters away from Trump. He’s a winner, and the American people are behind him. So, go ahead, support your candidate, tell us about his virtues and explain why he’s the best man for the job. But don’t stoop to scare tactics.
All anyone has to do to beat Hillary is to shine a bright light on her and expose her true self.
ropelight (d93310) — 3/17/2016 @ 4:59 amI believe that to be quite true, ropelight however, I believe Ted Cruz to be the better man and candidate to deliver the light. I think Cruz can put forward a more succinct and meaningful argument against Clinton because he is a more rational person. Because in the long run the man has an actual plan to “make America great again”, not just a motto and knows how to implement it Constitutionally and in a conservative style. Mostly because I really don’t believe Trump to be either Constitutionally literate nor a real conservative.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (eb7063) — 3/17/2016 @ 5:34 amBTW, Fabio just became an American citizen and said: “This is the happiest day of my life and America is the greatest country in the world”. He sounds just like South American and Middle Eastern immigrants, no? No! Fabio earns millions per year and hires dozens of people. He pays high taxes, maintains property and works all year without asking for handouts. He did not come here to get on the dole, escape the law in his home country, run guns or drugs or participate in human trafficking. He came here legally, not illegally. But most importantly he came to become American not to force Americans to press two for English or convert to his religion or to plan terrorist acts against Americans. His first photo as an American was proudly waiving the flag. Betchya he’s for Cruz.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (eb7063) — 3/17/2016 @ 5:57 amShe’s winning because she’s a champion! https://youtu.be/gE4h6tOgVgc
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/17/2016 @ 5:58 amHe sounds just like all the Hispanic and Muslim immigrants I know. Some are doctors, some are lawyers, some are tobacconists, some are gas station owners.
nk (dbc370) — 3/17/2016 @ 6:06 amFunny cuz that chart right there explains why Trump could win a landslide.
GOP States ain’t going HRC. With or without huge black support for HRC. Simply won’t. Have not heard an argument why Trump will Lose Texas or the Southeast. Those states have high concentrations of minority votes.
DEM states that are mostly white have tons of white racist blue collar types who love Trump. Black voters are not coming put even in those states for HRC like they did Obola. So even if some Republicans disappear for Trump, he can take some of these states GOPers have failed at last few elections.
The mathematics are very different with a populist who has weak party affiliations on either side. The folks saying Trump can’t beat HRC are projecting future events, not current status. And no reason to think Trump will be any less astute moving on HRC.
Be nice to get a Conservative but a Populist to eviscerate the elitists of DC is not a bad consolation prize.
Rodney King's Spirit (a089dc) — 3/17/2016 @ 6:55 amI think Trump would have a better chance in Illinois than Cruz right now. But it’s a long time to November. Many rivers to drive into, as Ted Kennedy would say.
nk (dbc370) — 3/17/2016 @ 7:01 amYou’re a very lucky man, nk. But as usual, you injected a list of “legal” immigrants when That is not what I am referring to. Luckily you didn’t know Alton Nolan of Moore, OK who after trying to convert fellow workers to Islam beheaded a woman. Or Ali Muhammad Brown, who killed two men in Seattle and one in Jersey saying he was “just doing his small part”. Or perhaps moslem convert Daymond Agnew who “on a mission from Allah” stabbed an Ace Hardware employee 17 times to death. Then on 1/2016 an illegal from Mexico was sentenced for human trafficking while smuggling 6 in from Mexico. Two died. Sept. 2015, illegal Rodriquez Garcia sentenced to 4 life terms after the rape and sodomy of two little children in Alabama. Two Mexican illegals Sanchez and Perez were sentenced to 7 years in Portland for distribution of methamphetamines and heroin.
I could go on but I’m sure you get the point. We have enough home-grown American criminals we don’t need to be importing them from anywhere. Or do you think it’s a fair trade off for those two raped and sodomized girls for one Tobacconist, assuming you are saying he is an illegal?
I assume that medicine, law, retail and energy are now a part of “jobs Americans won’t do”? Or were these particular Hispanic and moslem immigrants legally brought here to specifically do those jobs? And when a moslem swears to Allah and the Koran then swears to America and the Constitution exactly which oath counts? And when South Americans break our laws to illegally enter how many more will they break to illegally stay?
I am not against immigration, nk. I am against illegal immigration and I am against allowing enemies of our country to immigrate because that’s just plain stupid.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (eb7063) — 3/17/2016 @ 7:11 amYou brought up Fabio. I’d say we need doctors, lawyers, tobacconists and gas station owners more than we need ladies’ soft-porn book cover models.
nk (dbc370) — 3/17/2016 @ 7:16 amI need to apologize nk, because I was really referring to illegal immigration but my example of Fabio was of a completely legal immigrant. I renounce myself for mixing it up.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (eb7063) — 3/17/2016 @ 7:16 amDamn, you beat me with #34 I was trying to show my contrition.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (eb7063) — 3/17/2016 @ 7:18 amPeace and love, Hoagie. I also think we need to screen every person who passes through our borders and that our immigration policies should be based strictly on our labor needs and our goals for economic growth.
nk (dbc370) — 3/17/2016 @ 7:20 am“Or will younger minorities eventually dismantle the traditional Democrat machine and work to create a more openly left-wing version of the party?”
Millenials are going for Sanders on the basis of promises for a higher level of subsidy than Clinton promises, why shouldn’t younger minorities follow suit? The bread crumb trail of promised subsidy always heads left but but it’s the promise of a bigger loaf rather than ideology which moves the crumb snatchers. Race is an easy marker of voting behavior but the per capita level of subsidy disbursement provides a better picture of the electoral preference and reliability of those who vote for a living.
This is a very interesting post, especially wrt to the fact Virginia, Ohio, Florida and Nevada all went to the Presidential candidate promising higher levels of subsidy in the past two elections (North Carolina only went once). The targeting and turnout operations used by Obama’s organ grinders in ’08 and ’12 appear to continue to function fairly well for Clinton’s organ grinders.
Rick Ballard (ba78e0) — 3/17/2016 @ 8:32 am38. But Trump is unique among GOP nominees in recent times in that he has professed to work directly and indirectly (illegal deportation dividend?) to at least preserve the baseline subsidy (Social Security and Medicare). Most including W’ Bush, Romney, Ryan, McCain have been vocal and sympathetic about privatizing Social Security, raising minimum ages, voucherization et al. – granted W. went on the expand Medicare which was a blatant “thanks” to Florida. Trump is conspicuously silent on entitlements.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 3/17/2016 @ 9:04 amI wanted Rand Paul and/Or Ted Cruz to win the nomination. However, this post proves that Trump will win the presidency easy over Hillary. Black voter turnout will be much lower than the last 2 elections. Coupled with the fact that I believe Trump will get alot of the black vote. Black and Hispanic communities do not get along well with each other. Look at the gang/school violence between these two groups. You cant tell me that blacks wont go into the booth thinking, if Trump builds a wall and deports all these hispanics who have come and taken over my neighborhood, then maybe I can have a predominately black neighborhood again. To pollsters they may say they will vote Hillary but in the booth I think it will be different, obviously not all but he doesn’t need that many and every one of those is a twofer vote, meaning -1 Hillary and +1 Trump.
TomK (760d73) — 3/17/2016 @ 9:20 amThose disinclined to have faith in the Trump Unicorn electorate should contrast the results achieved by Clinton in the non-battleground state of Michigan with her results in the battleground state of Ohio. Her organ grinders didn’t waste any money with GOTV in Michigan but the Ohio GOTV machine had a nice warm up for November.
Rick Ballard (ba78e0) — 3/17/2016 @ 10:46 amI have to admit that I find it fascinating (and heartening) that there is a perceptible pattern of correlation between higher percentage of African-Americans in the listed states and the GOP winning its electoral votes … (grin)
Alastor (2e7f9f) — 3/17/2016 @ 3:34 pm