Hillary wins South Carolina by “overwhelming” margins
All networks and the AP called it the second the polls closed. Exit polls show Hillary winning 84% of the African American voters, which makes up 67% of the primary vote in South Carolina. Hillary won across all age groups, young and old, though young voters (i.e voters under 30) made up only 13% of the vote in South Carolina, which is the lowest of all contests so far.
Update: Wow. Updated exit poll has Clinton up 87-13 among black voters, up 53-47 among white voters. Implies a 75-25 victory for Clinton.
The fact that defies explanation…
53-47 among white voters. iN SOUTH CAROLINA?????
I was expecting a white 65-35 split among whites for Hillary. Looks like white people everywhere are waking up.
LOL. Finally an attempt for some positive spin for Bernie Sanders out of this monumentally devastating loss by Sanders. Nice try.
If Hillary won white voters 65-35, the statewide margin in SC would be Hillary 90, Bernie 10.
@DD
But she only won 84% of the black vote… You cannot average 84% and 65% and somehow get 90%.
Updated exits show it being “only” 87% of the black vote. Only.
But you’re right, I pulled the 90-10 number out of thin air. Right now, she is winning 74-26. So if you add 12 points to her white vote share, which is a third of the vote in SC, by my horrible math that would get her up to 78-80%.
Sanders called it before exit polls .. from what I read, his campaign went to some ‘Super Tuesday’ states instead of spending time and resources in SC.
How many actual delegates to the Democratic Convention does SC have? Same as DE? Three?
Mrs. Clinton is being rewarded for WILLFULLY IGNORING our Nation’s *Epidemic of African American Child Abuse and Neglect* – and for not embarrassing or scolding her African American sisters for creating a horrific social condition ALL Americans should be ashamed of.
Peace.
Black *(Children’s)* Lives Matter; Take Pride In Parenting; *End Our National Epidemic of Child Abuse and Neglect*; End Community Violence, Police Fear & Educator’s Frustrations
So now no matter who wins the narrative is black vs. white. Ridiculous on its face when you consider the records of both candidates. Congratulations, Hillary has successfully divided Dems with a southern strategy.
I like how the Bernie supporter’s theme is that black Clinton voters don’t know what they are doing, that they have to be stupid to vote for Clinton.
Puck, Hillary won both the white and black vote in South Carolina.
How was the overall turnout? That’s the scary part.
Alos…I hate to say it but,SC Democratic primary voters learned that Trump is the GOP nominee this week and decided that Clinton is more competitive against him.
I don’t agree, but that is the dynamic.
I understand disappointment in the results. I understand saying the state your candidate lost wasn’t really important – Hello, New Hampshire in 2008! What I don’t understand are vile accusations.
The narrative is not “black vs white”. Hillary has NOT successfully divided Dems with a southern strategy. Why would you say such things? It’s like you’re pretending this is the first time conversations about voting blocks ever took place – like we’ve never discussed the black vote, white vote, Latino vote, women’s vote. As if we haven’t endlessly pointed out the GOP’s problem with the black and Latino vote, and how unless they win them they’ll never win the White House.
Sanders and Clinton both went after the black vote in South Carolina, but some people are painting one side’s motives as virtuous while painting the other side’s motives as dishonest.
Christ, people. This sort of stuff is beyond the pale. How is it possible to give Hillary absolutely zero credit for anything? How is it possible to hate this way? How is it possible to blame her for everything, as if she’s 100% responsible for Wall Street, the banks, the war in Iraq, “for WILLFULLY IGNORING our Nation’s *Epidemic of African American Child Abuse and Neglect* – and for not embarrassing or scolding her African American sisters for creating a horrific social condition”, for the crime bill she didn’t even vote for, for Monica Lewinsky, etc..
She’s running on Obama’s record, something we were furious with Al Gore for not doing. Suddenly that’s a bad thing? And some of you have been quite clear that your support of Sanders is linked to your disappointment, and even flat out dislike, of Obama’s Presidency. It’s one of Sanders’ points, as well. He’s gone after Obama too many times to discount what he says. If you agree with him on that, and given the comments on this blog many of you do, that’s fine, but you do not get to insist that everyone agrees with your position.
Finally, please explain your comments. How has Hillary successfully divided Dems with a southern strategy? How has the narrative turned into black vs white?
I get being disappointed, but there’s a way to handle it.
Turn out has been one of my concerns too, Jason. I never expected 2008 numbers – we don’t have a candidate this year to inspire that sort of turn out.
People here and pundits in general need to stop comparing turnout to 2008. 2008 was a once in a lifetime year. Hatred of Bush, First Woman Candidate, First African American Candidate, Beginning of the Great Recession are all factors that skyrocketed turnout. Every Independent voter that could vote in the Dem race did. We will never see turnout at 2008 levels in a Democratic Primary again.
Instead, I’d rather see turnout comparisons to 2000, the last analogous year where we have a Democratic Primary after a two term successful Democratic President. That might tell us something.
The “vile accusation” is the one that accuses Bernie of being “late to the game” or somehow less supportive of racial justice than Hillary. Heard that one before?
The black/white narrative is one that I expect the media to gleefully adopt, although there are signs of it even now in headlines. Let’s go turn on the Sunday talk shows to see if I am correct.
1992: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
2016: “It’s the emotions, stupid!”
Pandora: WE don’t have a candidate to drive out turnout…but THEY just might have the candidate to drive out our turnout.
At least that’s my hope.
Sorry, but Bernie was the one who decided to run almost exclusively on income inequality. It was a conscious decision. In fact, you, Anonymous, mouse and others told me quite clearly that social issues weren’t important – a distraction that gave us corporatists Dems because they supported things like gay marriage, would have to wait to be addressed because they weren’t as important as what you guys deemed important, that BLM would alienate certain Bernie supporters, that you guys were disappointed in/disliked Obama, that when it came to social issues incrementalism was suddenly A-okay! So yeah, I’ve heard it before.
If there’s a narrative, you guys and Bernie created it. Sanders bet everything on this one issue. That’s fine, but now you’re upset because others didn’t agree with Sanders’ stated priority? That they found it lacking?
This is what’s called a self inflicted wound. He was late to the political game on this issue. He probably could have made it a non-issue, but when combined with his criticisms of Obama (and running away from Obama’s record) he sent a message. That’s politics.
And… if he couldn’t regroup and redefine this issue, turn it into a win that it should have been, then that’s a weakness of his candidacy.
One more thing… Bernie was throwing his fair share of racial crap at Clinton – the crime bill, super-predators, welfare reform, etc.. I have no problem with those attacks. Again, that’s politics.
“In fact, you, Anonymous, mouse and others told me quite clearly that social issues weren’t important”
Is that really your takeaway? Seriously?
The point is that Bernie and Hillary check the same boxes on social issues*. So if somebody perceives a difference, that’s emotion. And/or identity politics. Which is fair game in politics, and it is true we will need somebody who knows how to play that game in the general.
* (except for the gun thing; but I don’t think that was the motivation for SC Hillary voters).
Puck, you said to my statement which you quoted first:
Why wouldn’t that be my takeaway?
When you scan a candidate’s “issues” list, what’s the first thing you look for? I guess each person has their own answer.
For me, a politician has to support social justice issues, but if they are on the wrong side of certain economic issues I tend to see that as disqualifying.
But some Democrats are perfectly happy with politicians who are on the wrong side of economic issues, as long as they meet their personal litmus test (real or perceived) for social issues.
I don’t think Dems have ever had a clear-cut choice to sacrifice social justice for economic issues in recent memory. We don’t have candidates, for example, who are anti-choice but in favor of increasing taxes on the rich. So that is a false dichotomy. But we have obviously voted for a lot of Dems who are on the wrong side of economic issues. And we consider them Democrats why?
Fortunately, conservatives make it easy by being on the wrong side of everything.
People disagreeing on how to prioritize issues is why it’s important to build a diverse coalition.