Mahalo Kit!

But adding up the numbers there gives 33.1% of the people claiming native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander as at least one of their races (23.1% claim with another race, 10% claim it alone.)

were Caucasian kids signing up to register Dem on that day and I can guess who they voted for.

Hawaii has a big Asian population, I know that.

Whatever makes you feel better.

Hawaii.
Mahalo, Cha.

Hawaii, big Bernie state.

Are you ignoring your state's diversity?
Or, are you just making stuff up?

There are no alternatives.

My best to you.


On edit: or just maybe Hillary Clinton's campaign is playing both sides of a race card and her patsies are being played like a cheap accordion. Like the "no debates because of Bernie's 'tone'" simultaneously with her campaign's suggestion that Bernie somehow abuses Jane. Now I would call that really bad campaign tone. And it came from David Brock, a scurrilous cur who happens to be prominent in her campaign, notably her PACs, of which Bernie has none.

And laughs in your face. How right you are.

DC is going with Hillary!

If you paid attention it showed clearly that he won the states that are the most multi-racial: (with heritage from not only Africa and Latin-America, but all the minorities that constitute this great immigrant nation).

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/multiple-race-population-percentage#chart

Thanks for catching that.

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Hawaii 10%
Alaska 1.2%
Utah 1%
Nevada 0.7%
Washington 0.7%

Asian Alone
Hawaii 37.7%
California 14.1%
New Jersey 9.2%
Nevada 8.1%
Washington 7.9%

Bold =Sanders, italics=have not voted, underlined= Clinton

Hawaii. Now, I don't know what overlap there is for those who claimed two races and the percentage of Native Hawaiian and PI, but Hawaii has the highest population of non-whites.

However, Sanders supporters claimed the top 4 most diverse states went for Sanders, and that claim is wrong. Not only because states like New Mexico (47% black, 10% American Native) haven't voted yet, but because states with high percentages of African Americans don't count! The latter is smacking a bit of a dismissal of African Americans again - considering how society views Black people, it's not surprising so many of them choose not to identify as of mixed race. After all, just look at our President - he's half African, half White American, but I doubt that he's ever been seen as anything but Black.

"However, Sanders supporters claimed the top 4 most diverse states went for Sanders, and that claim is wrong"

I have only seen one poster claiming that, and I had this to say:

We are sensitive when it comes to Sanders supporters casually dismissing states with large minority populations (read African Americans) if they voted for Clinton. After the Stockholm syndrome/master&slave-mentality/Confederacy posts, we aren't going to let them keep dismissing the African American Democrats in states that voted for Clinton.

And interestingly enough, I just did the math on the two territories that have had their caucuses, American Samoa and Northern Marianas, and they have a large population of Pacific Islanders, Asians, and Indigenous people, just as Hawai'i, yet were won by Clinton. It is a horrible shame that American citizens in the territories and D.C. are disenfranchised in federal elections (and I would say that even if Sanders won every delegate from all of them.)

"Yes, the most diverse state went for Sanders"

I'm gonna need to buy the program for this show ...

At the 2010 U.S. census, the racial makeup of the population was:

59.1% White American (58.0% non-Hispanic white, 1.1% White Hispanic)
37.0% African American or Black
0.5% American Indian and Alaska Native
0.9% Asian American
1.1% Multiracial American
1.4% Other

derp

Wow.

the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.
the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization

So if say diverse then the sate with the most different race make up is diverse. A State with just 2 different race in significant number can not be considered largely diverse.

Are you lumping Latinos in with white Americans? I'm not sure how census data breaks that out.

Thanks and Bern on.

Why did you leave that one off, doesn't fit the narrative?

Unless you don't count those minorities in Hawaii which is offensive as hell.

Why am I not surprised?

I've also pointed out that American Samoa and especially Northern Marianas are even more diverse than Hawai'i - both were won by Hillary.

I find it offensive to those that claim that African Americans don't make a state diverse - why aren't you going after those posters? Or those who dismiss states with large African American populations that voted for Hillary? Are there now two standards - only minorities that vote for Bernie count?

This is really pathetic, it's just a game to you, using minorities as sport.

If you're taking it literally, DC isn't very diverse at all (there's mostly white people and black people, at about 50% and 40% respectively).

But, at any rate, until people publish a standard of what "more diverse" means, this is a silly argument.

Variety, and a great deal of it.

You're dismissing everyone except African Americans, then accusing everyone else of dismissing African Americans when they point that out.

But you're completely wrong, as I'm sure you know, because diversity isn't even about race exclusively. Before posting these ridiculous distortions, maybe you should do some research on what diversity actually is, because what you're claiming as diverse is quite the opposite.

The original claim was people who claimed two or more races. Why do a high number of people claiming two or more races make for diversity? Pretty much all African Americans could really claim two races (including the President!) but our society sees them solely as African Americans anyway. Why do you dismiss African Americans with mixed Black and White heritage, but accept Oklahomans with mixed heritage?

Many states and territories with diverse populations have either not voted or have gone for Clinton. If Sanders claims Hawai'i as a diverse state, why isn't American Samoa and Northern Marianas acknowledged? What about New Mexico (47% LatinX, 10% American Indian, 2% African American) which hasn't voted yet? Why is New Mexico less diverse than Alaska?

Demographics American Samoa:
Pacific Islander 91.6%, Asian 2.8%, white 1.1%, mixed 4.2%, other 0.3%

Hawaii Demographics:
Pacific Islander 10%; Asian 37.5%, white 24.7%, mixed 23%, black 2.5%, Latino/Hispanic 10%

Hawaii is diverse, American Samoa is not diverse. It's great, but not diverse. It's Samoan.

I think you guys use an interesting criteria for diverse. It's not enough to be different from the majority of the country - if a state has a large minority population, it's not enough if they aren't all from different groups. They can't be 50-50. So a group that is 50-50 men and women isn't diverse, I guess. Then it's not enough to have a multiracial background, you have to declare it too. So African Americans are out. I guess Latinx are out too, because they are often considered white on forms.

In that case, there aren't 4 diverse states in the Union, there's only one, and that is Hawai'i. All the rest of them don't count.

I am me, an individual so do not address me as a group.

Northern Marianas Demographics: Asian 50%, Pacific Islander, 34.9%, mixed 12.7, other 2.5%

So no statistically relevant black population, nor white, nor Latino, only two racial groups represented at all. Not diverse.

All of these demographics come from places like the Census, it's not stuff being made up on the spot. You could look this up and learn how not to be so exclusionary and dismissive of others. You should do that.

However, I must point out that he won Hawai'i, the most diverse state in the Union. Of course, Hillary won American Samoa and Northern Marianas, two territories that also have large Asian/indigenous populations (94.4% Pacific Islander/Asian and 72% Filipino/Chinese/Indigenous respectively.) They are not states, of course, but that does show that while Hawai'i isn't unique in having a very diverse population, of those that do have such a diverse population it is unique in voting for Sanders so far if we do not limit ourselves to only states.

grouped with Asians as you do. Two different groups of people. I posted the easily found demographics for both American Samoa and Hawaii upthread for you. Hawaii is diverse. American Samoa is not diverse.

Those definitely do not look like the rest of America.

Doesn't that tell you something? In the grand scheme of things, those wins make zero difference in November. Her problem in the general election is winning the states she lost to Bernie. Those voters do not trend right as southerners often do. I'm sure Hillary is planning a fast nosedive to the right if she wraps up the nomination and that would be the worst thing she could do.

Besides, should we then dismiss every blue state that Sanders wins? After all, they'll go blue in the election anyway. Should the primary only count Florida and Ohio? Those two states are the most important swing states.

As for the assertion that Hillary will do "a fast nosedive to the right" is groundless. Are you a mind reader, perhaps?

You should be worrying about why Democrats don't bother to vote in the general down south. You don't have to be a mind reader to know what Hillary is going to do in a general election. She's going to require moderate Republicans to win so it's highly unlikely she'll retract anything about her willingness to make concessions on abortion or anything like that. She'll probably talk glowingly about fracking and trade deals. Wait and see.

Because they support Bernie.

And I've also posted about American Samoa and Northern Marianas on other threads, even if they aren't states (yet).

but do you have any POLICY ISSUES Hillary has that you are proud to be associated with?

As for policy issues? Yes, I am proud to be associated with many of Hillary's issues. You might not know it, but I live in Norway. Now, Sanders has used Denmark as his example of a Scandinavian country he wants the US to become more alike, but I'll use Norway as my example. After all, Norway has been ranked as the best country to live in several years running.

Let's take the two heaviest hitters - health care and education. In Norway, we have universal health care. That means that all individuals have health coverage, and insurance companies have no say in most medical decisions.I have used that system several times, and am very satisfied. How can I square that with Hillary's position, which is for defending ACA and gradually making it universal coverage and cracking down on drug prices? I do that because I realize that the Norwegian health care system cannot be implemented in the US over night. It cannot. That would mean the federal government buying all the hospitals and staffing them. It would mean lifting all political health care decisions to the federal level. Single payer is something Hillary fought for in the 90s, and I think that makes her a better judge on whether it is possible to get in the US today. In Vermont, it failed. Using the ACA as a basis is the way to go, because if you toss that out and try to implement a totally new system, it will create mayhem.

The same with education. In Norway, college is practically free, regardless where in the country you go. I am currently taking a 200-level class in Nordic literature (about half a semester's worth of credits) alongside work and it cost me less than $85. There are some private colleges, mostly for business school, but the state system has equally good alternatives for that. Hillary wants the same thing for public colleges. She wants to make in-state tuition free, and make out-state tuition dependent on family earnings. To get the Norwegian system, you have to raise college education to the federal level, and make all universities federally owned. That's isn't feasible.

Climate change? Norway is 100% self-supplied with clean energy in the form of hydroelectricity. However, since the electricity companies are independent companies, even though the state owns large parts of them, we end up using electricity from dirty coal, because the companies sell clean energy to Europe at a profit in peak seasons, and buy dirty energy from the UK in off-seasons. Not to mention the oil we sell - it's not clean, now is it. Yes, the profits go to the Norwegian people, but that's because the oil industry is nationalized. Do you think it is possible to nationalize all coal, oil, and fracking companies in the US? I don't, so I think Hillary's position of cutting emissions and investing in clean energy is smart.

A lot of what Sanders promises isn't possible to do in the time frame he promises simply because the US is divided into 50 states. Norway is like one state - Vermont is probably the state that is most similar to Norway. Small population, not very diverse, big advantages from that lack of diversity. When the US gets rid of states' rights, and the federal election system of first-past-the-post, then we can start talking. Until then, Bernie wants mostly the same things as Hillary, but Hillary has a more realistic approach to getting them.

All you guys seem to post are these "election" issues, the horse race crap.
Don't you care about how your candidate stands on POLICIES? And if so, why do you always avoid it at any cost? Just divert the conversation to crap like this.

Would that include fingers in the ears while screaming LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALA!

unionization, Hillary crushes. Everywhere else, she struggles. End of story.

Imposing a racial metastory on top of an ideologically based distinction is superfluous at best and racist at worst.

that whites vote for Bernie? Since their vote is not based on race issues (almost the opposite actually) then why is this issue presented (unspoken, but certainly pushed and implied as being that way) as though this were your typical 'southern strategy' type division?

My take on this division is that it's more a name recognition issue, with 'Clinton' being a known (if largely mythical) quantity.

Chinese-Americans, Iranian-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Turkish-Americans, Pacific island-Americans, Korean-Americans, etc., etc., etc.

Your reference to "Latinx" lumps extraordinary diverse groups of people with different values and various cultures into one pigmentation bucket, and includes groups that are not consistently supporting Hillary.

Read NPR's #BernieMadeMeWhite: No, Bernie Sanders Isn't Just Winning With White People.

That hashtag is perfect for the op but I don't think they can see that.

They've been trying to find a way to spin that loss and couldn't so now they're erasing and entire state.

US as a whole and when it has the largest percentage of Native Americans of any of the 50 contiguous States. They also say it is 'sparsely populated' when it ranks just about mid way in population size. Texas, much whiter than Oklahoma as well. Much.

It works for me however as the State with the most Native Americans in numbers is California. As in California, here we come.

Another one called Alaska a majority white state but when I reminded them that South Carolina has a higher percentage of whites and asked if it was also a majority white state I got crickets.

Minorities only count of they're the 'right' kind. The ones who support Bernie are being erased.