Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalSeriously, enough of this "Dixie" meme.
It doesn't matter that Louisiana has more Republicans than Democrats when we're talking about a Democratic primary. Which state's Democratic electorate do you think is more representative of the overall/nationwide Democratic electorate, Louisiana or Nebraska? What about North Carolina or Kansas? Mississippi or Minnesota? Florida or Maine?
Do you really think the Democratic electorate in, say, Georgia is drastically different from the Democratic electorate in, say, Illinois?
Over time, it's likely that it will be Sanders who accumulates most of his delegates in red or purple states (OK, NE, KS, CO, etc.). And Clinton who accumulates more delegates in blue states. So, this "Clinton is relying on red/southern/Dixie/confederate states" meme (and that victories in red state primaries somehow translates to a general election loss) really ought to be put to rest. It's out of touch with reality and demonstrates a failure to grasp demographics.
The meaninglessness of pointing out that the Deep South is solidly 'red'
Of course the Democratic Party nominee isn't going to win Mississippi in the general election. Or Georgia. Or Alabama. And so on. Or Idaho or Wyoming while we're at it. But why does that matter? It's not as though there aren't many solidly blue states where Clinton will beat Sanders (and would beat the Republican nominee), and it's not as though the Democrats in those southern states are drastically different (on the whole) from the Democrats in non-southern states (it's just that there are fewer Democrats in some of those southern states than there are in some of the non-southern states). You can't compare the overall electorate in Mississippi with the overall electorate in, say, New York. Not when we're talking about Democratic primaries/caucuses.
Even if one wishes to argue that Clinton can't win the general election (in spite of her being a heavy favorite according to the oddsmakers), it makes no difference in terms of her nomination prospects. Her margin of victory in southern states is devastating to Sanders, because delegates are allocated proportionally. Since Democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries/caucuses, Sanders has to somehow win by equally large margins in numerous non-southern states in order to have a chance. Outside of Vermont, which only has 26 delegates as I recall, Sanders isn't winning by margins comparable to Clinton's in those southern states. And, again, many solidly blue states (with a relatively high number of delegates) that are Clinton-friendly have yet to vote.
So, I really don't understand the point folks are trying to make when they point out that the Democratic nominee will not do well in the Deep South come November (duh!).
*Note: I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I am a fan of logic and I'm reading a disturbingly high number of irrational (or just plain meaningless) comments.
Oh my, the delusion is off the charts tonight.
It's as if people are forgetting all about IL, MO, MI, OH, PA, NY, NJ, MD, LA, MS, FL, NC, HI, CA and Washington DC. And that even in the states where Sanders might win, Clinton will still win a proportion of the delegates.
Sanders "won" Super Tuesday? Seriously? Folks, get a grip. It's all about the delegate count, and Sanders is now in a big hole...a hole that's going to get deeper in the coming weeks.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
