Hillary Clinton’s not very good at math.
The truth is, we aren’t a single-issue country. We need more than a plan for the big banks. The middle class needs a raise.
— Hillary Clinton, last night in her Nevada-caucuses victory speech
We’re not a single-issue country? Who knew? That’s a peculiar message on which to hang her campaign—as she has been doing for the last two or three weeks, since the previous tack proved ineffective—given that that previous tack was that, for women, there actually is only a single issue: breaking the glass ceiling for women presidential candidates.
But every time Clinton makes this baldly false claim about Sanders’ campaign, Sanders should refer her to, perhaps, a mathematician. Or to a Feb. 16 article by John Wagner, the Washington Post’s lead reporter on the Sanders campaign (and my favorite reporter covering that campaign; he’s just really straightforward in his reporting, very much like reporters of yore), titled “Post Politics ‘Single-issue’ candidate Bernie Sanders touches on 20 issues during a Michigan campaign stop.”
Wagner, unlike Clinton, can count. All the way up to 20.
Not incidentally, the campaign stop that Wagner was reporting on was at Eastern Michigan University’s huge Convocation Hall in Ypsilanti, a largely African-American city that borders on Ann Arbor, home to the University of Michigan. It also is near many metro-Detroit blue-collar suburbs. The rally gained media attention for its huge crowd and very long waiting lines that began forming several hours before the event, in very cold weather. And also for the crowd’s raucous enthusiasm—a crowd, it was clear from the videos and photos, that truly did look like America. Or a large segment of Democratic and other non-Tea Party America. Except that metro Detroit does not have a large Latino population.
But Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and California do. And in Nevada, which also does, Sanders won the Latino vote by eight points, according to entrance polls.
In other words, Sanders no longer has a racial-minorities problem. He has an African-American problem, and possibly mainly one that does not extend to rustbelt states. Latinos apparently have no longstanding emotional tie to the Clintons, and African Americans in the rust belt may not have an unbreakable emotional tie to this couple.
Colorado, whose primary is on Mar. 1, not only has a large Latino population and (like Nevada) a relatively small African American population; it also has, I read a few months ago, the youngest population in the country. And it is home to one of the country’s most liberal college towns, one with a population of nearly 100,000 and a student body of about 30,000, and also another state university with a good-size student body (27,000) in a city of more than 150,000.
The state also has a very large information-tech industry and a relatively huge number of environmentalists. While the state itself is split politically about evenly between Democrats and Republicans and their respective leaners, its Democrats skew much more progressive than Nevada’s.
But Clinton may very well be wrong that she has a winning campaign soundbite even in the rust belt with “The truth is, we aren’t a single-issue country. We need more than a plan for the big banks. The middle class needs a raise.” Partly, that’s because she doesn’t seem to have a plan for the big banks. And partly, because Sanders’ policies would result in larger raises than hers for the middle class and for those who make minimum wage and therefore are not in the middle class.
And partly because it is likely, I would think, that the information contained in a February 19 Politico Magazine article by William D. Cohan, titled “Too-Big-to-Fail Comes Back to Haunt Hillary,” will begin to gain real attention.
The article details Clinton’s ongoing close personal ties with top players in the banking and investment banking industries, and the number of banks and investment firms in addition to Goldman Sachs that paid her more than $200,000 for anodyne speeches at which the guests included top executives at firms that are major clients of these banks and hedge funds. That, according to Cohan, was the purpose of these events: introductions between Clinton and these clients.
I’m guessing that eventually someone will juxtapose this information with Clinton’s statement at a debate last month that, by definition, she can’t be a member of the establishment because she is running to the first woman president. (This, of course, was still during the height of her multi-issue “Elect me because I’m a woman” campaign phase, the multi issues being “I” and “am” and “a” and “woman”.) It’s a safe bet that if the person who employs the juxtaposition isn’t Bernie Sanders it will be Donald Trump. If Clinton and Trump win the nomination of their respective parties. Or maybe before that.
I read that during the caucuses yesterday Clinton tweeted that “We can’t let a Republican win the election in November,” or something close to that. I couldn’t agree more.
____
UPDATE: Apparently the entrance polls regarding Latino voters yesterday are looking wrong. In a Politico article by Bill Scher, who mentions this, Scher also says that Clinton won African-American voters by pushing a line last week in Nevada that economic issues of the sort Sanders’ campaign has focused on don’t address what matters most to Blacks: systemic racism, particularly its effect of Black wealth. But apparently Clinton has not offered any clue to how she plans to erase it. Mainly she just wants African-Americans to know she knows about this and cares about it.
Unlike Sanders, who has no clue about this, or does know but doesn’t care.
Added 2/21 at 2:21 p.m.
____
Two additional points: One is this by Bruce Webb in the Comments thread:
Bruce Webb
February 21, 2016 3:32 pm
The Latino numbers may not be wrong. The ‘corrective’ was taken by measuring Latino neighborhoods without considering the possibility that these might skew older (and so more Hillary) even as younger Latinos are more dispersed.
Which is typical of ethnic neighborhoods everywhere once outright discrimination starts melting away.
The major exception being the African American community because some very explicit discrimination is likely NEVER to go away. But otherwise you can go to your standard Little Korea or Chinatown or Little Italy and all you find is old people and immigrants. Your third generation native English speakers are out and about in your hipster enclaves and suburbs alike.
So wait for the actual crosstabs before giving this one up.
The other is this: That a huge part of Clinton’s campaign modus operandi consists of misrepresentation of one or another thing about Sanders’ campaign, including the nature or specifics of his policy proposals—er, proposal. (There’s only one, after all.) That he is a single-issue candidate is just the latest. I wish someone would ask her why she’s so reliant as a candidate on misrepresenting her opponent’s campaign—but this has been absolutely the case since she began to realize last fall that Sanders is an actual threat to her candidacy.
It’s hard to see how this helps a candidate who many voters, including many Democrats, believe is less-than-honest. And yet that apparently doesn’t occur to her.
Added 2/21 at 5:35 p.m.
The Latino numbers may not be wrong. The ‘corrective’ was taken by measuring Latino neighborhoods without considering the possibility that these might skew older (and so more Hillary) even as younger Latinos are more dispersed.
Which is typical of ethnic neighborhoods everywhere once outright discrimination starts melting away.
The major exception being the African American community because some very explicit discrimination is likely NEVER to go away. But otherwise you can go to your standard Little Korea or Chinatown or Little Italy and all you find is old people and immigrants. Your third generation native English speakers are out and about in your hipster enclaves and suburbs alike.
So wait for the actual crosstabs before giving this one up.
Ah. Bruce, you’re so right. Thanks for pointing this out.
Wouldn’t the actual votes be more useful than “entrance polls”? If they’re not available under the Nevada system, let’s wait for some primaries where the votes are reported.
HRC wants to hide issues: her long term links to the Kagans, her no momentum for the 99%, etc….
I learned last night that PNAC Robert Kagan (wife an assist Sec of State running the war on Russia) is on the Department’s ‘senior board’.
Kagan’s wife was assistant to Strobe Talbot for most of Wm Clinton’s term.
No more W PNAC regimes!
“One of Saturday’s biggest election surprises was the entrance and exit polling measuring Hispanic voters in the Nevada caucus. It found that Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton by eight percentage points among Hispanic voters, overturning months of conventional wisdom about Mrs. Clinton’s strength among nonwhites.
But there are a lot of reasons to question the findings from the polls. They have a small sample of precincts and voters, and they simply were not devised to provide precise estimates of the Hispanic vote.
The actual election returns in Las Vegas’s Clark County hint at a different story. Analyzed neighborhood by neighborhood, they suggest that Mrs. Clinton might have won the Hispanic vote by a comfortable margin. She won about 60 percent of delegates in heavily Hispanic areas, a result that calls the finding of the polling into question.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
The 2016 Race: Trump Now Faces True Test; Clinton’s Win Suggests National Edge
There is not much evidence, though, that Mrs. Clinton won Hispanic voters by the sort of landslide margin that she did eight years ago. That’s a good sign for Mr. Sanders, who needs to make up for the huge swing among black voters, who have gone from uniformly for President Obama to uniformly for Mrs. Clinton…..
Precinct data isn’t perfect. But I would take it over this entrance/exit poll.
In general, entrance/exit polls are not well suited to measure the Hispanic vote. This one is particularly problematic.
Over all, the poll included just 1,024 respondents — and just 213 Hispanic respondents. In a normal poll, that would imply a margin of error of plus or minus six percentage points.
But these types of polls are not normal. The margin of error is even higher, at 7 percent, and the true error can easily be much higher.
That’s because an entrance-exit poll isn’t a random sample of the population like a normal poll. It’s a random sample of precincts, usually between 15 and 60 in a state exit poll. This one had just 25 precincts. Race is not usually used as a criteria for selecting precincts.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/upshot/why-clinton-not-sanders-probably-won-the-hispanic-vote-in-nevada.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
I cannot imagine why there would be any value in a poll that contained a grand total of 213 respondents.
National treasure Charles Pearce of Esquire explains Bernies challenge here: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42341/bernie-sanders-populism-race/
Money quote:
“In truth, Bernie Sanders’ record on civil rights is unimpeachable. It spans seven decades. It began with open housing protests in Chicago, the nut even Dr. King couldn’t crack. It is a straight line from those protests to his support of marriage equality today. It is consistent and it is admirable. And it somehow hasn’t been enough.”
Turning an unimpeachable record into “not enough”. Rove must be so proud.
There is some interesting reporting at U.S. Uncut regarding the past caucus. http://usuncut.com/
AS,
You need to read your link as many times as needed to figure out that it is not an attack on Sanders.
I didn’t say it was an attack brother. I used the word challenge. It clearly states his challenge. Steady up.
Senator Sanders has already overcome multiple challenges in this historic campaign. I genuinely believe this one is within his capacities. We shall see.
“Turning an unimpeachable record into “not enough”. Rove must be so proud.”
This is why even Sanders supporters like myself hate bernie bros.
Hate all you want. It reflects something informative. Good luck with it.
You’re the one that implied I wasn’t reading carefully enough while… not reading carefully. Okay then.
geez
Accepting Hillary as the presumptive necessary nominee reminds me of the joke about the two fish:
“Hey, the water is nice today eh?”
“What the hell is water?”