The polls all show Bernie doing much better against Trump than Clinton. If only the Democratic electorate were rational, but then, if that were so, we would already have socialism!
Here is the updated spreadsheet.
| State | Delegates | Likely Trump | Actual Trump | Trump Vote % | Cumulative Difference |
| New Hampshire | 20 | 7 | 11 | 35 | plus 4 |
| South Carolina | 50 | 36 | 50 | 32.5 | plus 18 |
| Alabama | 47 | 32 | 36 | 43 | plus 22 |
| Arkansas | 37 | 14 | 16 | 33 | plus 24 |
| Georgia | 76 | 40 | 40 | 39 | plus 24 |
| Massachusetts | 39 | 14 | 22 | 49 | plus 32 |
| Okalahoma | 40 | 20 | 12 | 28 | plus 24 |
| Tennessee | 55 | 28 | 33 | 34 | plus 29 |
| Texas | 152 | 86 | 33 | 27 | minus 24 |
| Vermont | 16 | 6 | 6 | 35 | minus 24 |
| Virginia | 46 | 17 | 17 | 33 | minus 24 |
| Louisiana | 44 | 16 | |||
| Idaho | 29 | 10 | |||
| Mississippi | 37 | 14 | |||
| Michigan | 56 | 21 | |||
| Puero Rico | 20 | 7 | |||
| Ohio | 63 | 63 | |||
| Florida | 99 | 99 | |||
| Illinois | 66 | 25 | |||
| Missouri | 49 | 34 | |||
| North Carolina | 72 | 25 | |||
| Arizona | 58 | 58 | |||
| Wisconsin | 42 | 30 | |||
| New York | 92 | 52 | |||
| Connecticut | 25 | 14 | |||
| Delaware | 16 | 16 | |||
| Maryland | 38 | 29 | |||
| Pennsylvania | 68 | 14 | |||
| Rhode Island | 16 | 6 | |||
| Indiana | 54 | 45 | |||
| West Virginia | 31 | 18 | |||
| Oregon | 25 | 9 | |||
| California | 169 | 145 | |||
| Montana | 24 | 24 | |||
| New Jersey | 48 | 48 | |||
| New Mexico | 21 | 8 | |||
| South Dakota | 26 | 26 | |||
| Nebraska | 33 | 33 | |||
| Washington | 41 | 14 | |||
| 1940 | 1203 | ||||
| Caucus States | |||||
| Iowa | 30 | 7 | |||
| Nevada | 30 | 14 | |||
| Alaska | 25 | 11 | |||
| Colorado | 34 | ||||
| Minnesota | 35 | 10 | |||
| North Dakota | 25 | ||||
| Wyoming | 26 | ||||
| Kansas | 40 | ||||
| Kentucky | 42 | ||||
| Maine | 20 | ||||
| Hawaii | 16 | ||||
| District of Columbia | 19 | ||||
| Northern Mariana Islands | 6 | ||||
| Virgin Islands | 6 | ||||
| Utah | 40 | ||||
| 394 | |||||
| Territorial Convention | |||||
| Guam | 6 | ||||
| American Samoa | 6 | ||||
| 12 | |||||
| Trump Total | 318 | plus 18 | |||
| Needed to Win | 1237 | ||||
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the democratic electorate, one wonders why Sanders can't pull off what Trump is pulling off, since both are tapping into the frustrations of vulnerable voters, or voters who see themselves as vulnerable. The awkward but inescapable question here is this: why can't Sanders get enough African Americans and maybe Latinos to vote for him? Prof. Wolff suggested earlier that African Americans are simply more fiscally conservative than Sanders. I'm not convinced, as a lot of the data I've seen to support that claim is from exit polls (in which voters typically rationalise post-hoc) and the questions were of the form "Would you prefer to continue Obama's economic policies?" -- hardly a cut and dry political economy question, given the racist othering Obama has been subjected to for eight years. So why do non-whites tend to line up behind the Democratic Establishment?
ReplyDeleteWrong question maybe. We need to ask it just about voting non-whites. My guess is that the poorest blacks didn't vote for Clinton either. They are so disaffected and despondent that they aren't even bothering to turn up at the primaries. But then the Clintons know they won't vote in the general either. The neoliberal Establishment of both parties seeks to disenfranchise inconvenient sections of the population by convincing them that there is no hope for them. Both Trump and Bernie have partly broken through this, but sadly Bernie hasn't succeeded enough because of the entrenched identity politics obstacles, and because of the longstanding marginalisation of poor nonwhites. Trump had more of a ready audience because his core constituency of poor (racist, misogynistic) whites hasn't been marginal and alienated from politics for as long as the poorest nonwhites have been. In fact the turnout at the D primaries was much lower than at the R ones in the Southern states, which again suggests that we need to ask which strata of the non-white population are turning out for Clinton, and which ones are completely alienated.
I realise it's difficult to make this sort of point without dismissing important racial (or gender) concerns, so I'm now thinking we need to distinguish between minorities' egalitarian struggle for recognition on the one hand, and identity politics as the cultural nationalism of an upwardly mobile petite bourgeoisie on the other hand.
P.S. For clarification: Identity politics as cultural nationalism of formerly privileged groups whose privilege is being eroded (think "war on Christmas") is a further variety of bad identity politics, but a better understood one and one that's easier to discuss without playing into the hands of racists.
ReplyDeleteI think what Enzo said is right, with the additional factor that the Democratic Party machinery has been slacking off on registering younger voters this season (i.e., cutting back on funding campus registration efforts) and this has a strong effect across racial lines (think historically black colleges). Those kind of registration efforts are independent of individual candidate funding and it would be hard for Sanders to compensate for it.
ReplyDeleteCould people follow up on what Enzo speculates on, why African-Americans don't vote for Sanders in mass?
ReplyDeleteI don't live in the U.S., but I'm puzzled and would appreciate more background on this phenomenon.
S. Wallerstein, there certainly are name recognition issues as well. But I think they can also be explained along the lines I suggest.
ReplyDeleteThe punditry's explanation of Trumpismo so far has focused solely on Trump's demagoguery. But I think it's more attributable to sneering liberals who bemoan Trump supporters' lack of college degrees - it wouldn't be the first time liberal elites have enabled a proto-fascist.
ReplyDeleteAlas, there is much truth in what you write.
ReplyDelete