2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Hillary Clinton's Nevada victory - what's different from 2008?" (HINT - Sanders outperformed Obama)
link; excerpt:In 2008, Hillary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses, beating then-Sen. Barack Obama 51 percent to 45 percent, and now, eight years later, she scored a repeat performance against her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, this time by a slightly narrower margin, 52 percent to 48 percent.
What's different eight years later, and what do those difference say about the the race ahead?
...
Potential trouble ahead for Clinton
Clinton may have done well with some key groups, but the data also show that there are some warning signs on the horizon for the Clinton campaign. Despite going to Nevada early and spending a good deal of time there in comparison to Sanders, Clinton didn't perform as well as she did eight years ago with a few demographic groups, in particular Hispanics, young people, and independents.
Hispanics
Sanders captured 53 percent of the Hispanic vote this year in contrast to Clinton's 45 percent. This represents a substantial decline in support for Clinton among Hispanics compared to eight years ago. In 2008, Clinton got 64 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared to Mr. Obama's 26 percent.
Young people
Clinton did not win young people in either 2008 or 2016. But eight years ago she captured 33 percent of those under the age of 30, compared with just 12 percent in Saturday's contest.
Independents
Nevada limits its caucus to registered Democrats, but same-day registration is available. Among those caucus goers who identify as independent, Sanders did well, capturing more than 70 percent of the vote, compared to Clinton's 23 percent. While Clinton lost independents to Obama in 2008, at that time she was able to capture 33 percent to his 47 percent. As in the case of Hispanics and young people, among this important constituency we see that Clinton's support has dipped.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Obama loss Nevada but he still did better than Sanders.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)You might want to check how Obama did in that department in the 2008 NV caucus.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)super delegate lead over Obama, but then super delegates flipped to Obama after Clinton fell behind Obama in the voter-assigned delegate count).
BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)she wins a majority of voter-assigned delegates but I suspect they will not disenfranchise the voters if Sanders goes into the convention with a voter-assigned delegate lead.
We won't know how that will play out until the convention.
I'm sure we agree on this: if Clinton gets fewer voter-assigned delegates, she will never be president regardless of whether she is awarded the nomination in an anti-democratic process or not.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)Obama didn't have the caucus fixed against him.
Obama won SC after nevada loss.Clinton will win SC.all MSM spin will be is bernie loser because clinton won 3 out of first 4
states.
Nevada may be sign of things to come is blacks and seniros are enough to defeat 18-45 year olds and latinos In south.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)with Oklahoma too close to call.
During the following week, Sanders looks strong in Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and Michigan.
But the game change looks like it will come in the stretch from March 22 to April 9. Eight states vote in this three week period:
Arizona, Idaho, Utah, then Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, then Wisconsin and then Wyoming. Sanders looks very strong in all eight of these states, where Sanders is either leading in a poll or the betting markets (many of these states have not been polled recently as so the bettering markets are the closest proxy in the absence of polling) or leading in the state-by-state cross-tabs in national polling.
By April 9, current projections suggest that Sanders is likely to have won at least 17 (or more, perhaps as many as 22) of the first 34 contests.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)they are both caucus states.
any states with caucus is fixed for clinton.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)Those caucus states are his best chance. What is your excuse going to be next week when Hillary wins South Carolina?
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)ahead in Colorado and he's ahead in cross tabs in Minnesota.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)bernie can't win in colorado and minnesota.if they were primarys he could unfortully they are not.
BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)after today:
While Clinton has won the first two caucuses in the Democratic race while losing New Hampshire, the only primary its possible that Bernie Sanders will win every state caucus from here on out.
Heres why I say that. The remaining Democratic states to hold caucuses are: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington and Wyoming. Other than Hawaii where Im not going to pretend we have any earthly idea whats going to happen those are a bunch of really white states that otherwise look favorable for Sanders and which he could win even if he slightly trails Clinton nationally.
Clinton is probably favored in the territorial caucuses in American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands, however, as territorial caucuses tend to heavily favor establishment candidates.
This is a prediction from an in-the-bag-for-Clinton polling analyst who is far from alone in this analysis.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)with more votes in Clark County (her best county) than the rest of the state. In 2008 She beat Obama by 5.7% so she basically is doing about as well as in 2008.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And yes, ran the story on RSD a while ago, but not wroth the tummy ache of posting it here