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.
