In my prior diary, I got near enough to the correct new voter number that Sanders needed in SC — 220,000 — and that it would be a difficult task to accomplish that, but the numbers and reasoning I used to get there were less than stellar and that led me to seriously underestimate the difficulty of the task which should have been labeled impossible. So, I get no analytical brownie points on this one. However, those who like to engage in analyzing all sorts of things also enjoy analyzing what tripped them up and why. (An inclination that is especially lacking in politicians, banksters, etc. — and that’s when they actually admit they made a mistake which is rare.)
The first thing I failed to note was that the ’04 SC primary was semi-new. The SC DEM party held caucuses in 1996 and 2000 and primaries from 1980 to 1992. Second the political parties and not the state of SC ran and paid for their primaries and caucuses. That was changed in 2007 by the state legislature (which also had to override the Appalachian trail hiker’s veto. Now the state pays but the parties still run the primaries. In 2012 the SC DEM party magnanimously skipped a primary to save the state money. Thus, while a primary/caucus voter base could be identified from the 2004 numbers in IA and NH, it was flawed in SC because the tradition wasn’t well established.
The SC primary base appears to be approximately 320,000 and not the 290,000 that I used from the ’04 primary. The shortfall was, if not exclusively, primarily among AAs. Had that “base” shown up in ’04, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. Edwards would still have won. But after his showing in NH, it seemed reasonable to project that he couldn’t go the distance, and therefore, the establishment (and SC AA) preference, Kerry, would secure the nomination.
The second major problem with my projections was that I neglected to find the ’08 SC breakdown by ethnicity. Here they are:
Turnout: 530 thousand
AA T/O: 307 thousand (58%)
Other: T/O: 223 thousand (32%)
A 60:40 AA:white Democratic party voters is a reasonably accurate reflection of the DEM party population in SC. (The SC SOS doesn’t provide a statewide breakdown of registrations by party much less a breakdown by ethnicity. The SOS does report that registration for voting age population (VAP) is 75%. Back of the envelope calculations suggest that its closer to 80% for whites and closer to 70% for AAs (but the SCOTUS doesn’t care). That estimate conforms with stats on general election turnout by party and ethnicity with white DEMs punching above their weight and AAs DEMs punching below theirs. Even with the phenomenal ’08 turnout, AAs were still slightly underrepresented.
Of more relevance to this diary is the breakdown of those ’08 votes:
AA: Obama 193 thousand; Clinton 107 thousand; Edwards 6 thousand
Other: Obama 97 thousand; Clinton 34 thousand; Edwards 82 thousand
In 2016 AAs participated at close to or slightly above their proportion in the SC DEM party (about time IMHO).
Turnout: 367 thousand (69% of ’08 T/O)
AA: 227 thousand (74% of ’08 T/O)
Other: 139 thousand (62% of ’08 T/O)
That reduction from ’08 T/O is less than in IA, more than in NH and similar to NV (71%).* A difference from ’08 is that while the establishment had its thumb on the scale for Clinton, the DNC under Howard Dean didn’t play favorites. And there were three leading candidates that were pushing for increased voter participation. Only Obama did much better on that than the other two. Clinton undoubtedly excited many women, but Obama excited a broader demographic of first time primary voters (not to be confused with newly eligible voters). 13% of ’16 SC primary voters were new. A much smaller percentage than in IA but similar to the 16% in NH.
Now the breakdown of the ’16 SC voters:
AA: Clinton 195 thousand; Sanders 29 thousand
Other: Clinton 76 thousand; Sanders 67 thousand
(Sanders did get 63% of the new voters, but there weren’t many of them.)
Clinton obtained 66% of the combined number of AA votes for Obama and Clinton in ’08. On other than AA, she garnered 56% of her and Obama’s combined votes in ’08.
Three takeaways from this. The DEM Party machine in SC did deliver for Clinton in ’08. It just got overwhelmed by the late stage breakaways that felt more affinity with Obama plus the new AA voters that felt the same. Second, Obama was more popular with non-AA voters in SC than Clinton was in either ’08 or ’16. As in IA and NH, Clinton and the machines contributed very little to the new voter pool.
Overall SC was a mix of the IA and NH results. Massive Clinton advantage with the DEM primary base in IA and SC. Low new voter participation as in NH. (A note about NH — the DEM primary base to VAP is much higher than it is in IA and SC. So, it’s entirely reasonable not to project large numbers of new voters in DEM NH primaries.)
What I did get right:
The significant increase in the ’08 voter participation in SC would disappear in ’16. That Sanders needed 220,000 new voters.
What was wrong:
Clinton’s second place with 27% in SC ’08 was very different from her third place with 29% IA ’08. Had no idea that 76% of her ’08 votes came from AAs. That should have predicted that she would do at least as well with non-first time voters in SC as she did in IA which was 78%.
The SC primary voter base. 320 thousand. Even with near four times the DEM VAP of NH, new voters would be difficult to obtain. And those that did materialize would break even less in favor of Sanders than they had in NH.
Thus, a projection of 78% of the SC base vote wasn’t conservative and would have meant that she was starting with 256 thousand votes and could be expected to add a small number of first time voters. At best, Sanders began with a paltry 74 thousand of the base vote.
Actual: Clinton 254 thousand base plus 18 thousand new. Nothing short of a never before seen tidal wave gave Sanders a chance in SC and the equation is probably not that much different in states with a powerful DEM base machine.
If these trends continue, it bodes well for Clinton winning the nomination but is an ill wind for her to win the general election. She is not capturing Obama’s so-called coalition, regardless of racial identity. Hope is an easier sell than fear.
Did you see this? http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/1/1492717/-SC-Democratic-Primary-analysis-and-Super-Tuesday-p
review-Dems-not-just-Sanders-have-a-big-problem
Do you think white drop off is Trump related?
mino — I considered that, but rejected it.
(btw — did see that diary — lots of lots of numbers — but short on synthesis and getting to the point. No problem with the diarist’s work or conclusions; just his/her need to post such a long diary. I run lots and lots of numbers too, but that’s just sorting through the data in search of information. No need for me to post 99% of those numbers because they’re just the trees and a distraction from talking about the forest.)
Two reasons why I rejected a Trump factor in DEM turnout through SC. The major one is that there is a DEM presidential election primary base and it has turned out in all the states. Completely consistent with 2004 and 2008. Second, the GOP primary base was low in 2008 and 2012 in comparison with their registrations or statewide election results in open primary states. The anger has been simmering within GOP general election base factions for some time and now they finally can give a big FU to the party by voting for any of the candidates other than Rubio or Kasich at this point.
There was a similar but not as long-standing level of anger in the DEM faction in 2003, but the DEM establishment was able to quelch it when the actual voting began. And let’s face it, Dean barely qualified as not part of the establishment. The 2006 DEM congressional gains somewhat mollified the anger, but enough of the “not the establishment choice” carried forward into ’08 that Obama was able to get the nomination.
Today DEMs are boasting about how favorable Obama is with the DEM primary voter base and how effective thta base has been in squelching the malcontents. What they miss is that Obama couldn’t have won without the malcontents.
There is, however, a subtext that’s running through this election that could easily impact the general election and DEMs seem oblivious to it. I’ll leave it at that because to say more risks being completely misinterpreted and then I’ll be subjected to all sorts of unwarranted grief.
From “joe from lowell” (who I’m sure you remember posting here):
Saw that — but not from Joe’s post. But we’re not allowed to criticize Lewis bc he’s a civil rights hero. Wonder if he and several others understand what they have become? Such a sad and sorry spectacle. (I’m also not allowed to make such a comment bc I’m white.)
Wasn’t Joe the pain-in-the-ass conserv DEM when he was here? How the hell did he end up a rabid Sanders’ supporter?
I really wish Sanders numbers with AA could look like his Oklahoma numbers (70-30). It’d be making a huge difference.
Probably for similar reasons as I’ve been saying: stop trashing things we believe in for your political gain:
Where did you get the 70-30 split on the AA vote in OK? Assume that Clinton got the 70%. A couple of points, the OK AA population is only 7.4% and Native Americans are only slightly more at 8.6%. The population is also younger (25.9% <18 years old compare with SC 22.4% <18). Even more so than SC, the OK DEM party is a rump party. Tough to build and maintain a strong party machine given the above factors. Add history to that — populism did take root in OK and didn’t in SC.
I found the OK results instructive as it’s about as level playing field for DEM candidates as we’re likely to see in this election cycle. No home court advantage for anyone. Limited political machines in operation. Clinton still had all those other advantages — name ID and money — but Bernie was able to overcome that in this one small state. And unlike the other states so far, he didn’t get screwed on the delegates awarded.
On that last point, how the DEM party has constructed the whole delegate thing is an example of how they do everything. Make it all incredibly complex so that voters can’t easily understand what’s really going on. If nothing else the GOP keeps more things simple. That gives them an advantage with the electorate because the “GOP way” lends itself to soundbites; whereas DEMs have to drone on and on to make their points (had any politician used as many words as the Clintons do to say anything?). Pithy and truthful is what people prefer.
(Side note: Bill Clinton’s shenanigans in MA yesterday was the last straw for me. And I wouldn’t put it past the MA DEM machine not to have “stuffed ballot boxes.”)