2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum1st numbers in from SC point to overwhelmingly good news for Clinton in SC
South Carolina has been posting twice daily demographics on absentee voting submissions. And, boy, do those demographics point to good news for Clinton on the strength of the massive advantage she has with African American voters.
Through this morning, 36,890 absentee ballots have been submitted. Of those ballots 26,448 are from African Americans--a whopping 72%.
http://www.scvotes.org/2010/05/13/fact_sheets
-------
And if you don't understand why that is pointing to a monumental night for Hillary on the 27th, well, I'll let Harry Enten of 538 explain it in one Tweet with regards to the numbers:
This is called organization and the Clinton folks have it in South Carolina
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/702923948435054592
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)State Education Ranking Shows Vermont #1, South Carolina Last
Vermont is going 75 - 15 for Sanders
I think I will stand with the ones that have a better education.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Educational rankings don't mean squat when it comes to common sense.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)ok
DCBob
(24,689 posts)which I believe the good folks in SC have plenty of which is why they are supporting Hillary Clinton.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Common sense, defined as "sound judgment derived from experience rather than study," is one of the most revered qualities in America. It evokes images of early and simpler times in which industrious men and women built our country into what it is today. People with common sense are seen as reasonable, down to earth, reliable, and practical.
But here's the catch. Common sense is neither common nor sense. There's not a whole of sound judgment going on these days (though whether it is worse than in the past, I can't be sure), so it's not common. If common sense was common, then most people wouldn't make the kinds of decisions they do every day. People wouldn't buy stuff they can't afford. They wouldn't smoke cigarettes or eat junk food. They wouldn't gamble. And if you want to get really specific and timely, politicians wouldn't be tweeting pictures of their private parts to strangers. In other words, people wouldn't do the multitude of things that are clearly not good for them.
And common sense isn't real sense, if we define sense as being sound judgment, because relying on experience alone doesn't usually offer enough information to draw reliable conclusions. Heck, I think common sense is a contradiction in terms. Real sense can rarely be derived from experience alone because most people's experiences are limited.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense
DCBob
(24,689 posts)... and voting for Hillary is plainly obvious to most South Carolinians.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)only thinks about simple things
DCBob
(24,689 posts)You are full of them today. I am done with you. Ciao.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Common sense says things like that need to be defined by science.
Voting for Hillary on the other hand is "common sense".
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to bring to the surface,looks like you're starting early. Good luck with that.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I look at the big picture
It is all about the swing states
JI7
(89,281 posts)That's the significance of south carolina .
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)...
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)What does that even mean? Ohio, Florida, North Carolina? It would be easier, for sure.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)enjoy
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I know that much. So, really, SC doesn't matter all that much for the race that really matter.
Congrats Hillary, you won a state you will get exactly zero electoral votes from.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)as,3/5th of a democratic voter. Obviously they're inferior to better schooled Sanders supporters.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Perhaps if you actually discussed what I REALLY said rather than construct a silly strawman, we could get somewhere.
I'm not even talking about this primary season. Don't you think it's silly that we let the following make a HUGE difference in who the nominee is going to be:
1. small states that have very little impact, followed by,
2. states that Dems will win a very small number of electoral votes from.
Shouldn't we rotate the primary states based on swing states, states that normally give their electoral votes to Democrats? That seems like it should be the first places we look to decide who to nominate.
But that would make sense.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)And is even more undemocratic than system we already have.
Also, what do you mean by "swing state"? Because it appears that you misunderstand the term.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Put possible swing states (so we know who might give us a chance to win there) AND strongly Dem states first.
I see where the confusion was--the comma worked in my mind but probably not elsewhere.
Why does it make zero sense? The primary should be about picking the candidate that has the most chance of winning the Electoral College. How does Iowa and NH followed by states we aren't going to win make sense? Why don't we just start with ND, SD, Montana, and Alaska first and let that weed out candidates, because if we actually won all four of those we'd get a whopping 12 electoral votes (and we ain't going to win all those).
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)We won, remember?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And I'm not making this argument just because of this year. I've thought it for a while. I also hate caucuses, but that's a different thing all together.
The states we put first don't make sense. It seems like the order was picked before the "you're dead in the water after the first five primaries" mindset came about. And the need for money to keep going. If we are going to use the first handful or two of primaries to weed everyone out, we need to make those first 5-10 states that will really matter in this election as best we can tell.
obamanut2012
(26,165 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I meant for those to be two different criteria by which we choose which states have primaries first:
1. Those strongly democratic
2. Those that are swing states so we know which candidate would be most attractive to hopefully win that state.
Totally understand how I didn't make that clear.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)with lots of African-Americans. African-Americans have long been discriminated against educationally as well. But you go ahead and insult them. This is why Bernie is not doing better in minority communities--too many limousine liberals who support him who think they are better.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)then you get racist
Do you think about the facts presented?
Hope you did not get hurt making that huge leap.
Journeyman
(15,042 posts)by a supporter who called out to him: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" during one of his campaign stops.
Without breaking stride, Stevenson shot back: "That's not enough, madam. We need a majority!"
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)...
Andy823
(11,495 posts)75 for Bernie and 25 for Hillary you would be saying the same thing, right? Some how I kind of doubt it.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)no spin
obamanut2012
(26,165 posts)Maybe a few others?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Who can win the swing states?
I want to win - I think Sanders has a better chance to win the swing states.
I will not be up late on election night waiting for the results from SC
The supreme court will not be called on to give Alabama to the republicans
mythology
(9,527 posts)That if only they were better educated they would vote for your candidate is a good idea why? That seems a bit counter productive.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)I was talking about the white redneck fuckups
I lived much of my early years in the south - lots of stupid - and the dems were not like Oregon dems.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)She's not getting those numbers with young people. In fact, it is the reverse.
That being said, there are not enough young people to overcome the old folks.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)You do know that Millennials outnumber Boomers, right? And Bernie does better with Gen Xers, too.
So, I don't think your conclusion really holds much water.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)and I don't care who is casting them at least they bother to vote.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Clinton has a huge overall lead in South Carolina, 60 to 32 percent, according to the poll. Sanders has a slight advantage among voters under age 45: 49 percent to 43 percent, while Clinton leads 69 to 23 among older Democrats.
But the two candidates being nearly at parity among voters under age 45 would be a huge coup for Clinton. In Iowa and New Hampshire, young voters overwhelmingly favored Sanders. He won more than 80 percent of Democratic voters under age 30 in both states, and more than 55 percent of those between ages 30 and 44....
...The South Carolina survey showed that among blacks under age 45, Clinton had 52 percent support, Sanders 35 percent, with 13 percent undecided.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/south-carolina-poll-younger-blacks-lean-toward-clinton-not-sanders-n521091
However, I still think that most absentee voters are old folks. And old folks generally can be depended on to vote in greater percentages of their range.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and is vital to success.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)#berniemath
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Those count too.