HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Some interesting statisti...

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 03:07 AM

Some interesting statistics

Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation; Real Clear Politics

1) Sanders has won 3 primaries as opposed to 5 caucuses. There is a certain irony here, as many of his supporters were screaming about the caucus process after Iowa and Nevada. Nevertheless, it has seemed to favor him. Note that this total includes his home state of Vermont.

2) Clinton has won 9 primaries and 2 caucuses. Note that this total includes what could be considered her home state of Arkansas. She has links to Arkansas, New York, and Illinois -- so it's hard to say.

3) Delegates: Clinton 658 Sanders 471; Super Delegates Clinton 458 Sanders 22; Total Delegates Clinton 1130 Sanders 499

4) Sanders has not done well in states with high African American/Black populations. Sanders' eight victories have come in states with an average (mean) (per Kaiser Family Foundation statistics) of 3.75%, with a range high of 7% (OK) and low of 1% (several states). Clinton states have an average African American/Black population of 18.09%, with a range high of 31% (two states) and a range low of 3% (Iowa). If this proves to be a statistically accurate indicator, it would tend to predict Clinton victories in the upcoming primaries in Mississippi, Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri. Why this has been happening is an interesting question that I suspect Political Scientists will study for a decade.

e.t.a. With the identical caveats, the data would tend to predict that Clinton will lose every state west of the Missouri River that she has not already lost (including California). Again, with the identical caveats, it would also tend to suggest that Clinton would win New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware.

18 replies, 1053 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Some interesting statistics (Original post)
Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 OP
earthshine Mar 2016 #1
Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 #2
earthshine Mar 2016 #3
Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 #4
earthshine Mar 2016 #6
Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 #7
earthshine Mar 2016 #8
Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 #9
earthshine Mar 2016 #13
Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 #15
stonecutter357 Mar 2016 #11
Garrett78 Mar 2016 #5
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #14
Algernon Moncrieff Mar 2016 #16
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #18
auntpurl Mar 2016 #17
stonecutter357 Mar 2016 #10
bigwillq Mar 2016 #12

Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 04:12 AM

1. Very condescending.

 

many of his supporters were screaming about


Makes your opinions and interpretation of this data quite irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthshine (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 04:18 AM

2. No, not really

It simply means you don't like them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 04:19 AM

3. Since your bias is "screamingly" clear, I don't trust your analysis -- period.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthshine (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 04:27 AM

4. The numbers are what the numbers are.

Sanders has won 5 caucuses and 3 primaries. Fact.

Those 8 states have a low percentage of African American voters, ranging from 1-7%. Fact according to the KFF. If you don't like their stats, take it up with them.

The numbers are what the numbers are. To this point, Hillary Clinton has done well in states ranging from 3% (IA) to 31% (GA & SC) AA population. Three of the states won by Sanders (including his home state of Vermont, as well as Maine and New Hampshire) have AA populations of 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 04:33 AM

6. Yeah. So what?

 

This is very trite. It's a given fact that Hillary does better with POC than Bernie.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthshine (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 10:00 AM

7. The "so what" is that Sanders most recent wins...

...are in states (KS, NE, ME) that lack significant racial diversity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:43 AM

8. You merely state the obvious. What is it about the word "trite" that you don't understand?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthshine (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:58 AM

9. Well, I don't understand why you'd use it in connection to events that happened in the past week

I don't understand the "so what?" attitude. If my candidate were only winning states with 7% of less African American population, I'd think maybe we were on the wrong track.

Again - I can't help that you don't like math. What I quoted was the math. The math works for Bernie Sanders in many states, but (with caveats mentioned upthread) doesn't appear to work for him in the next 10 days or so.

..and there was opposition in the Bernie Sanders group (which won't ban me, despite my repeated requests) to caucuses after Iowa and Nevada (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280122409). Now that the process is working in is favor, I'm not seeing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:12 PM

13. The words "condescending," "trite", and "obvious" apply to the use of language in your posts.

 

and there was opposition in the Bernie Sanders group (which won't ban me, despite my repeated requests)


The Bernie Sanders group doesn't take you seriously. Neither do I.

Despite the fact that I have written that what you say is "obvious," you seem to have a further need to be right, as well as to be "condescending."

I think you have some personal issues that need addressing. I suggest you ask yourself why you made the OP to begin with.

I will appease your desire for self-justified righteousness by giving you the last word. Come and get it if you want.

I will not respond to you further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthshine (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:21 PM

15. Wow - now I have personal issues

Here's what I don't get - if you don't take any of this seriously -- why respond at all? Ask yourself that...also, if you could put in a word with the Bernie Sanders group to ban me, I'd appreciate it. I consider their banned list a group of DUers I'd like to stand with.

..and seriously -- who at DU doesn't "need to be right"?

I made to OP to indicate where the candidates strengths and weaknesses lay. Based on current trends, Sanders will win a bunch of caucuses in the West, while Hillary looks likely to win the remaining Southern primaries, as well as those in the Industrial Midwest and Mid-Atlantic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:06 PM

11. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 04:33 AM

5. And as I pointed out elsewhere...

18% black more closely resembles the overall Democratic electorate than 3.75% black.

As for California (and Arizona and New Mexico), I wouldn't count on a Sanders victory. In Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and the like, sure. Oregon and Washington are also strong possibilities. But, with the exception of Washington, those states have relatively few delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:15 PM

14. The flaw in the seminal poster's logic is that HRC will lose CA because it lacks...

The flaw in the seminal poster's logic is that HRC will lose CA because it lacks a certain threshold percentage of African Americans. The flaw is the Democratic electorate in California is heavily Hispanic and that is a demographic Hillary Clinton does quite well in, spurious statistics from the Nevada caucus notwithstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:23 PM

16. You may well be right. For this purpose, I only looked at the AA vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:35 PM

18. Hillary won CA in 08 by mitigating her losses among African Americans by winning..

Hillary won CA in 08 by mitigating her losses among African Americans by winning large majorities of Asians and Hispanics:


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM


She will win comfortably this time because she will win the African American vote with ease.

As to AZ and NM I haven't really thought that about those states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:24 PM

17. I agree. I think Hillary will win California.

It seems to be minorities across the board who are voting for Hillary, not just African Americans. She's also got the support of the farm unions, to which many Californian Latinos belong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:09 PM

12. It looks like Hillary will be the DEM nominee

 

But I still think Bernie is doing fairly well. There's many folks who want an alternative to the perceived establishment candidate. Sanders' base is limited, though, which will likely prevent him from winning the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread