New Yorker: What Hillary Clintons's Huge Win in SC Means

[ucrdem]

FEBRUARY 28, 2016
What Hillary Clinton’s Huge Win in South Carolina Means
BY JOHN CASSIDY

But the sheer scale of Clinton’s victory in South Carolina suggests that Sanders is now facing a monumental task. Almost certainly, she will sweep six of the seven Southern states that are set to vote in the so-called “S.E.C. primary,” on Tuesday: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. She may also win Oklahoma, where Sanders has been campaigning hard. And there are also questions about whether Sanders will be able to carry states he has targeted further north, such as Massachusetts and Minnesota.

As he has done elsewhere, in South Carolina Sanders did much better among white voters than among minority voters. But he didn’t win that population segment either. According to the exit polls, Clinton got fifty-four per cent of the white vote, and Sanders got forty-eight per cent. If Clinton can replicate elsewhere this pattern of splitting the white vote and doing extremely well with minority voters, she will eventually get all of the delegates she needs to earn the nomination.

In terms of strategy, the South Carolina result was a vindication of Clinton’s decision to concentrate on core Democratic voters, and to try and re-create the Obama coalition that swept the Democrats to victory in 2008 and 2012. A key part of that coalition, obviously, is black voters. Even before she had made her candidacy official, Clinton was cultivating black leaders, visiting black churches, and embracing issues that matter to black voters, such as the police shooting of black youths and the Black Lives Matter movement. In her victory speech, Clinton saluted five mothers—including the mothers of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner—who had accompanied her around South Carolina in recent days. She also appeared to invoke Obama’s legacy, saying, “When we stand together there is no barrier too big to break.”

(snip)

Black churches and pastors, one of whom Clinton cited in her speech, were also part of the story. According to the exit polls, fifty-seven per cent of the South Carolina voters attend church weekly. Evidently, not many of them warmed up to Sanders, at least not sufficiently to abandon Clinton for a left-wing insurgent from Vermont. Despite the fact that South Carolina is a poor state, and particularly so in areas where black people tend to live, his message didn’t resonate as much there as it has elsewhere. Just twenty per cent of the voters said that inequality was the most important issue to them, versus forty-three per cent who said that the economy and jobs were.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-hillary-clintons-huge-win-in-south-carolina-means
...........................
My word!

[Thinkingabout]

1. I think they liked Hillary's message and knew her qualifications.

[ucrdem]

2. Yes. I think they liked her last time too.

Last time was a tough call for some. Evidently this time wasn't.

[Lucinda]

3. KNR

[LAS14]

4. A piddly point....

Hillary got 54% of the white vote and Bernie 48%..... That 102%. ???? In the New Yorker????

[SidDithers]

5. DU rec...nt

Sid

[sheshe2]

6. The win in SC, is telling.

The sweep, the sheer numbers in the data have consequences.

As I see it, her momentum is growing.

I can't wait for tomorrow night, ucrdem.

[ucrdem]

8. I'm keeping my fingers crossed

but between you and me sheshe I think it's gonna be a blowout so I will allow myself one anticipatory woo hoo:





p.s.

[angrychair]

7. Less thsn exciting

"Only 367,491 people cast a ballot for either Clinton or Sanders on Saturday. That's down 16 percent from the 436,219 people who came out in 2008 for Clinton and Obama. Factor in the 93,522 people who voted for John Edwards back in the day, and you can see the scope of the problem. Democrats in 2016 are only getting about two-thirds of the primary votes that they received eight years ago."
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/democrat-turnout-south-carolina_us_56d2e392e4b03260bf77247f

I think the DNC is putting way to much effort and political capital to prop-up a horrible candidate.
Best case is she is indicted before the convention and we are stuck.
Worst case, she becomes the nominee and wind and we face potential impeachment proceedings.

[ucrdem]

9. She won't be indidcted.

And if he's smart Mr. Comey will polish up that resume and get out of Dodge before election day.

[angrychair]

10. That's the best case scenario

The worst is 4 years of endless committee hearings and endless accusations.
As someone that lived through that in the 90s, I'd rather be torn apart by a polar bear.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Hillary will never wage a war on greed.