#1 rule of political real estate: demographics, demographics, demographics

[Garrett78]

I keep reading posts in which references are made to the number of states each Democratic candidate has won. Or posts referring to the likelihood that Sanders will win a majority of the states going forward, absent any useful context. I also see people posting a map that has Clinton-won states in one color and Sanders-won states in another color (used either to suggest one candidate is only popular in a certain area or to suggest that the race is closer than it is). And then there's the still-popular meme about "Dixieland/Confederacy/Evangelical South." Finally, there's the posts stating that not being able to win certain states in the primary means the candidate won't be able to win those states in the general election.

Such posts have become so pervasive that I felt compelled to start a thread. Without even getting into the delegate math and which candidate is most likely to win the nomination (there's plenty of that discussion elsewhere), I just want to address the aforementioned types of posts. Some will think I'm a Clinton supporter, but I'm not. I just don't like seeing so many people being illogical.

I've addressed the Dixie-Clinton meme before in a couple of threads, but I'm going to touch on it one more time and then move on. Demographically-speaking, each of the states of the Deep South are more reflective of the overall Democratic electorate than each of the states Sanders has won (with the exception of Michigan). As I wrote following the Michigan primary, Michigan represents the first diverse, populous "blue" state primary of this campaign. Some are claiming that Michigan proves Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South, but the sample size is way too small. And it's important to not conflate the Democratic electorate of the Deep South with the overall electorate of the Deep South. Time will tell how much Clinton struggles outside of the Deep South. Just as time will tell how successful Sanders can be outside of New England and small caucus states that lack diversity. For now, we have one -- ONE -- data point (Michigan) where the candidates were separated by a mere 18,400 votes (out of more than 1.1 million ballots), so we can't make any determinations one way or another (especially given that it was an open primary). We aren't going to learn much from Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Delaware, etc. But March 15 (Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina) and Arizona on the 22nd will offer more data points. In April, there's New York, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Those are the states that will determine which narrative is true (Clinton can't win outside of the Deep South vs. Sanders can't win delegate-rich states that are relatively diverse).

I would like to think most folks understand the obvious flaw in simply tallying the number of states won, yet numerous posters seem to think that's a perfectly valid form of comparison. Likewise, suggesting that Sanders being likely to win a majority of the remaining 29 states (a prediction that I think has merit) equates to him being likely to win the nomination is rather foolish. I shouldn't even have to point out that some states have *way* more people/delegates than other states--so, no, not all states are equal. Again, I'm not wanting in this thread to engage in a discussion about who is most likely to win the nomination. I'm just pointing out that one of the arguments I keep coming across is terribly flawed.

Lastly, I want to address the simplistic electoral map I've seen posted more than once. I don't think simplistic, black and white thinking is something to promote or aspire to. I vividly recall a map that was quite popular among Bush supporters following the 2000 election. It showed a map of the US in which each *county* was red or blue depending on which candidate (Bush or Gore) had won a majority (or plurality) of that county's votes. The map, of course, was overwhelmingly red. Hopefully you all can immediately understand the enormous flaw with this perspective. Counties with more cows than people are given the same weight as every other county, including Los Angeles County and Cook County (the 2 most populous counties in the US). Also, it treats a 0.1% margin of victory the same as a 40% margin of victory. This is why there are a variety of cartograms. Wikipedia defines a cartogram as "a map in which some thematic mapping variable – such as travel time, population, or Gross National Product – is substituted for land area or distance. The geometry or space of the map is distorted in order to convey the information of this alternate variable." In the case of the 2016 Democratic primaries, some states that have voted so far would be made much smaller and others would be made much bigger. And instead of showing a state in a single solid color, it would show the state in various shades/mixes of the 2 candidate colors. You can view some examples below. The map in the lower right is likely the most accurate representation of the 2004 presidential election results, but I suspect many are put off by the unfamiliarity of it ("That's not what the US looks like.&quot .

" target="_blank">

As for candidates losing states in the primary and then winning them in the general election, it happens frequently. If Clinton is the nominee, I don't have much doubt that she'll win the New England states, for instance. Anyway, regardless of which candidate one supports, it would be nice if logic and critical thought prevailed.

[Garrett78]

2. Why am I not surprised that the very first comment has nothing to do with the thread topic...

...and is precisely what I said I'm not wanting to get into? Oh well.

[Garrett78]

6. Did you even read my OP?

It doesn't have anything to do with delegate math or who is most likely to win the nomination. In fact, I made a point to say I have no interest in discussing those matters in this thread. There's plenty of discussion about that elsewhere.

I don't think pointing out and wanting to discuss flawed arguments constitutes hectoring. And I can't imagine what's "infantile" about pointing out that some of the states that have voted thus far are, demographically-speaking, more representative than others of the overall Democratic electorate (precisely those states that some wish to dismiss).

[Garrett78]

9. I'm not asserting any such thing.

If you wish to address the points raised in my OP, feel free. But I'm not interested in your vendetta and have no clue what you mean by "it goes into the context of the past couple of days of your posts."

[Garrett78]

14. In response to the post you self-deleted...

You've misunderstood and misrepresented me. Intentionally or otherwise.

First of all, while numerous folks have written about the delegate targets, I am not one of them. I know what you're talking about; the posts about how 538 says Clinton is at 115% (or whatever) of her target and Sanders is at 85% (or whatever) of his target. I have not made a single comment about those--not one. My commentary on the math has had primarily to do with the fact that every Democratic contest is proportional, and that sizable leads are difficult to overcome without either winning small states by massive margins fairly consistently or by winning some delegate-rich states. But that is not what this thread is about. This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with "the math."

Secondly, I have not expressed a belief that the demographics "automatically means that the voting patterns are going to be predictable on that basis alone." You've invented that. It's an inaccurate interpretation. Being accused of doing something doesn't make it so. I've simply pointed out that the demographics in states such as Georgia and South Carolina are more reflective of the overall/national Democratic electorate demographics than in states such as Nebraska and Vermont (easily verified by census data found online), which is why I say the Clinton-Dixie meme is taking reality and flipping it on its head (in fact, one poster even said that Sanders's victories have all been in "blue" states--never mind, I guess, that some of his victories have come in states that are "redder" than states in the Deep South).

The irony of your accusation (and that of others) is that it has come from people doing precisely what you're accusing me of, which is stereotyping an entire region by conflating the Democratic electorate with the non-Democratic electorate in said region. People on DU have repeatedly used coded terms like "Dixie" and "Confederacy" and "Evangelical" and, perhaps the most egregious of all, "Strom Thurmond country." So, once again, your accusation is both a misrepresentation of my argument and also stunningly hypocritical. Bravo.

[snot]

4. Sorry, but can you boil this down further?

Again, sfsas (sorry for short attn span).

[Garrett78]

11. I can try to summarize.

1) 2-tone maps (the kind that show Clinton-won states in one color and Sanders-won states in another color) are simplistic and misleading, which is why different types of cartograms are important. Not all states are equal and not all margins of victory are equal.

2) Each of the Deep South states is actually more representative of the overall Democratic electorate than virtually all of the non-southern states that have voted thus far, demographically-speaking (which is why the Clinton-Dixie meme is turning reality on its head).

3) Losing states in the primary doesn't mean the candidate will lose those states in the general.

4) I'm not looking to discuss the delegate math or which candidate is most likely to win the nomination (not surprisingly, though, the first comment I received dealt with those things). I merely wanted to address some flawed arguments that I see being repeated over and over and over again.

Hope that helps.

[aidbo]

5. I always kind of wondered what this image from the opening of "Southland Tales" was.

Weird what can jog memories

[Garrett78]

7. That's funny.

I'm not familiar with "Southland Tales." I'll have to look it up.

[aidbo]

10. A comedically surreal mid-2000s take on American culture and the surveillance state.

it didn't do well in the box office but I enjoy it.

[Garrett78]

12. Thanks.

I'll check it out.

[yardwork]

15. Kicking for visibility as these are excellent points.

A number of posters here don't seem to understand that most (or all? - I'm not certain) Democratic primaries assign delegates by proportion of the win, not "winner take all."

Therefore, winning a particular state is not nearly as important as the margin of victory. For instance, Iowa and Missouri were essentially ties, so no matter which candidate was declared the "winner," the number of delegates awarded was practically the same. Bernie and Hillary walked away from Iowa and Missouri with essentially the same number of delegates.

The number of delegates in each state varies, too. States with larger populations and states that deliver Democratic victories get more delegates to hand out. Therefore, a victory by a large margin in a state with a large population that often votes Democratic means that the winning candidate is awarded more delegates than the victor of a small state. So adding up numbers of states won and lost is not particularly relevant in the delegate count.

It's all about the delegates. It's different from the General Election, and I think that a number of U.S. citizens are woefully uninformed about their party's primary system.

[yardwork]

16. Weird. This doesn't seem to be showing up on GD-P