Biden is the heavy favorite in South Carolina

By artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 7:28am |

Biden is a heavy favorite in South Carolina, with polls showing a major shift back toward him in the closing days. In the only three fully *post-debate* polls, which also reflect the Clyburn endorsement, he led Sanders by 17, 21 and 28 points.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 29, 2020

URL:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1233728727424675841

9959 reads

Comments

more thoughts from Nate:

Some polls from earlier in the week showed a closer race—and some didn't. A lot of polls in the mix in SC have strong house effects, i.e. they tend to consistently be good/bad for certain candidates. e.g. Change Research has a very strong pro-Sanders & anti-Biden house effect.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 29, 2020

Once you account for those, the range of Biden leads seems to span from the low teens into the low/mid 20s, with the bigger leads tending to come in the most recent polling. Our model wind up pegging Biden's lead at 19 points, but a fair bit of uncertainty here.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 29, 2020

While there *have* been polling errors this large in primaries past—think Michigan 2016!—a Sanders win would be a big-time upset. On the flip side Biden could run up the score. In 2008 (Obama) and 2016 (Clinton) the SC winner won by a much BIGGER margin than poll averages showed.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 29, 2020

by artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 7:31am

39% say health care #1 issue. But only 50% support Medicare for all, 44% against it!

SC EXIT POLL:

Health care is most important issue for SC Dem voters today (39%). Then income inequality (21%), race relations (18%), climate (14%).

Views are more divided in SC on Medicare for all (50% support, 44% oppose) than in IA, NH, NV.

(Via Jen De Pinto, @CBSNews)
— Cara Korte (@CaraKorte) February 29, 2020

by artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 5:22pm

Apart from the obvious difference of a majority-black electorate, the ideological difference between SC and the rest of the early states is striking. https://t.co/4RbexQuTkM

Via our Exit Poll desk --> pic.twitter.com/vDznlNDhzP
— Carrie Dann (@CarrieNBCNews) February 29, 2020

by artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 5:34pm

Jim Clyburn tells CNN that Biden needs to "retool" his "mishandled" campaign

Wow. @WhipClyburn to CNN’s @AnaCabrera today on @JoeBiden’s campaign: “I did not feel free to speak about it or to even deal with it inside because I had not committed to his candidacy... I'm all in and I’m not going to sit back idly and watch people mishandle this campaign.” pic.twitter.com/Y6AefxwxPI
— Sarah Mucha (@sarahmucha) February 29, 2020

by artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 5:46pm

Apparently, Biden has only one office in California. Other candidates have multiple offices in the state.

by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 6:57pm

It's a little late to affect as much about California as in there might have been in the past as they have major changes in their system. The have early voting More than 2.7 million of 20.6 million registered voters had returned ballots in early voting as of Thursday, Secretary of State Alex Padilla said.

Also other major changes such as The transition to vote centers is huge, says Orange County Registrar Neal Kelley, and he worries he'll get calls from irate voters on Tuesday: “I’m standing in front of the garage I’ve voted at for the last 20 years — why is it not open?”

The results of competitive races, such as the presidential primary, likely won't be known Tuesday.

by artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 10:42pm

PS everyone. Biden won with white voters in SC, too. By nearly double digits.

Time to add to the race discussion... consideration of region.

(It would be easier for Dems if these divides were binary or simple. But they're not. Hence v diff results in v diff states.)
— Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) March 1, 2020

by artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 10:29pm

Striking to me that the above synchs with the difference in the amount of conservatism shown in the green and yellow bar graph slightly upthread @ Sat, 02/29/2020 - 5:34pm. SC voters self-described as 51% liberal to 49% moderate/conservative, while in NV, IA and NH the percentage of liberals was much higher and the moderates/conservatives much lower. Southeast just more conservative! Doesn't cotton as much to liberal cultural and/or social warring except in hipster-fied urban areas, and a lot of it is rural.

by artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 10:53pm

Same kind of conservatism/traditionalism exhibited in this discussion about which would be a better ticket, Biden/Stacey Abrams or Biden/Kamala Harris. As to the southeast:

One advantage Harris has in the veepstakes is that black Washington are real traditionalists and one response you get to Abrams among this crowd is "What Has She Ever Won?" https://t.co/kiNgmxLES6
— Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) March 1, 2020

Basically millenial style "progressivism" is seen as a bug, not a feature? Which also brings up the significant generational differences we have all been seeing in all kinds of polls that separate out "black voters". Dissecting voting habits by race makes less and less sense, and region and age and ideology more and more.

by artappraiser on Sat, 02/29/2020 - 11:12pm

MSNBC emphasized the generational differences of black voters in SC. Dissecting is important. In SC, the majority of Democrats are black. The majority of Republicans are white. Why hide the facts? Dissecting brings out the truth.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 8:47am

Huh? Because they're talking about the Democratic race right now.

Also, that most who identify as black also identify as Democrat applies to the whole country, is generally known. Not mentioning that all the time, it's called not treating your audience like absolute dummies?

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 9:53am

Huh?

You are the one who thinks of blacks as a tribe. Looking at the data on the black vote in SC shows that there were differences in the political priorities. Biden got a big lift from Clyburn. Sanders had his core of supporters. Actually listening to what black voters are saying is not the arena of dummies. In the past, Democratic candidates talked at black voters. That was dumb. This time, candidates are listening to black voters. Voter turnout for the SC primary reached historic levels.

There is a Republican attempt to suppress the black vote. Democratic candidates have to send a message to the black community that they understand this attack and will deploy countermeasures as President. Race is extremely important in 2020.

Ignoring race is stupid.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 10:30am

Uh, if Biden got a big lift from black voters because of a black leader throwing him his endorsement, that's pretty "tribal", dontchathink? In the future, candidates should just talk to Clyburn - will save them a lot of trouble.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 10:32am

About 25% of all South Carolina primary voters said the endorsement was important. A third of black voters said the endorsement was important most of the "tribe" was not moved.

South Carolina Democratic Rep. James Clyburn's late endorsement of Biden was a critical factor for about a quarter of South Carolina's Democratic primary voters, while a similar share said his announcement of support for the former vice president did not matter to their vote at all. Among black voters, the share calling it the most important factor in their vote rises to about a third.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/politics/south-carolina-exit-polls/index.html

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 11:29am

Jesus, 1/3 of all black voters is a helluva lot. I wasn't saying this was Germany 1937.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:21pm

You weren't saying much at all.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:51pm

I refuse to be totally misrepresented should any lurker be reading this thread some day.

It is YOU who consistently argues blacks are a tribe and should remain tribal for political benefit and practice identity politics.

And nearly everything I post on this site basically goes FOR THE OPPOSITE: that that is changing and that this country is becoming interracial and that in urban areas subcultures of people of color are actually shown preference, while the country's suburban areas and even rural areas are becoming more mixed racially. But not black vs. white, those simplistic divisions are breaking down. In the near future pollsters will not even be able to do polls and demographics like this as people more and more consider themselves mixed race and do not answer as black or white to pollsters nor census takers.

Not only that, you have shown a clear marked interest in the SC primary race. This suggests you have a lot invested in keeping to old timey paradigms where the country is stuck in old 20th century conservative divisions. They are becoming fewer and far between, but in states like SC, they remain. I dare say, SC is the outlier now, very old fashioned. It speaks less for the country than NH, IA and NV do. It's not at all like the huge west, or FL for example. Better than Mississippi, but not by much, mostly because of the influence of the growth of NC via snowbirds and international business development, and trying to keep up with NC, with which it shares a huge urban sprawl area on the border.

Case in point: GA is far more advanced, not so backward. And surprise, an endorsement of Bloomberg there by a major "black" politician.

Meanwhile, I do think it is of extreme import and interest that young people who currently still identify as "black" are beginning to show that they vote differently from their elders in socially and culturally conservative areas. To me that is further proof of the beginning of the end for identity politics as to race. And the sooner, the better, mho. Skin color has no business being a sign of anything except genetic heritage. That reinforces racism.

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 11:17am

Voter suppression is not an old-time issue. Talking about race remains important, even though it seems uncomfortable for you.

I'm interested in the SC primary because it may have changed the trajectory for the Biden campaign.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 11:35am

p.s. I realize you have a lot invested in racism and racial tribalism. But if you keep thinking about keeping people with black skin united against the world, you are going to fade into just another old timer who doesn't get it: Voters are more complex now. Times are a changing. Unless you are like, a Hasid or Amish, devoted to living in the past, which includes voting as a bloc as the leader tells ya to. But even there, nearly everyone learns to read and write and use the internet these days and your vote is kept secret for a reason.

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 11:46am

All the Democratic candidates are making specific appeals to black voters. Even Bernie Sanders is reaching out.

On this night, for example, the senator from Vermont addressed issues like voter suppression and health care in front of a diverse crowd in the 300-person sanctuary. An overflow location held nearly 400 other people, organizers said.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/politics/south-carolina-exit-polls/index.html

You remain in a bubble.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:00pm

The one defining and uniting feature of your interest in news and other stories is that they are about people with black skin, but I am the one in a bubble. You are like the definition of news bubble, you are limited to the black skin beat. I remember someone once trying to get you to talk about something else, anything else you might be interested in, but that. It lasted a day when you talked about wine. Otherwise it's black skin topics day in day out, in every area of human endeavor and interest.

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:18pm

Nice diversion. Sanders talked about race and voter suppression.

I have posts up about Chris Mathews missing from MSNBC, Sanders NDA, and COVID-19.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:55pm

Your basic solution is that blacks become white. If they vote and act like whites, life would be perfect. Whites don't have to make any changes.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 9:23pm

Anyone can see I haven't said that anywhere.

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 10:16pm

You voice that opinion all the time. You decide what black protest is worthy of consideration. You dismissed the protest about Confederate statues because it was not personally offensive to you. Similar dismissal of policing black hair. You find the protests unworthy. Older blacks in South Carolina voted their conscience. Now the state is "backwards".

Your words:

Not only that, you have shown a clear marked interest in the SC primary race. This suggests you have a lot invested in keeping to old timey paradigms where the country is stuck in old 20th century conservative divisions. They are becoming fewer and far between, but in states like SC, they remain. I dare say, SC is the outlier now, very old fashioned. It speaks less for the country than NH, IA and NV do. It's not at all like the huge west, or FL for example. Better than Mississippi, but not by much, mostly because of the influence of the growth of NC via snowbirds and international business development, and trying to keep up with NC, with which it shares a huge urban sprawl area on the border.

Case in point: GA is far more advanced, not so backward. And surprise, an endorsement of Bloomberg there by a major "black" politician.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/south-carolina-senate-lindsey-graham-jaime-harrison/index.html

For your information, Jamie Harrison, a black Democratic candidate, is in a close race against Lindsey Graham for the Senate in South Carolina. Backwards? Hogwash. You find some objection to the vote of older blacks, call the state stuck in the past, and hope for the days without "race". Those days will be the same as the old days. "White" will be the default. Vote like "whites" and life will be great.

The truth is that blacks in South Carolina, especially those "old-timey" folks, are fighting for the future. You say that South Carolina is less worthy than Iowa and its disastrous caucus and heavily white New Hampshire. All because you didn't like the way older blacks voted?

Your posts suggest that you think that you can set the criteria for what is correct. That is simply not the case. Albert Camus and Franz Fanon would call you out.

In Georgia, the state that you say is better than South Carolina, the Republicans openly used voter suppression to steal the Governorship from Stacey Abrams.

BTW, Bloomberg is buying black politicians all over the country.

You want to decide what blacks should do. Every post reeks of that.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 11:13pm

Cut the bullshit, she didn't say any such thing. Grow up

Thread closed.

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/02/2020 - 1:16am

Wuh-wait, South Carolina's not woke?

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:22pm

Yes I have this prejudiced view: many older SC people probably not very woke.

Caveat to what I am going to post: As Nate Silver has noted, many SC polls were notoriously inaccurate. So exit polls may have similar errors. That said:

** Older African Americans were more likely to support Biden. The former vice president won 76% of black primary voters who were at least 60 years old.

** Younger black voters were largely split between Biden and Sanders. Among African Americans between 17 and 29, 37% said they voted for Biden while 37% said they voted for Sanders.

from Reuters

As to Clyburn's endorsement. He doesn't just have black skin. He's a powerful Congressperson, two-time Majority Whip, in the House 27 years. Ya think maybe his endorsement mattered to some Democratic party voters with other colors of skin? Do the pollsters ask? Nope.

Edit to add: I have begun to wonder on exit voting, who decides to put the respondent in the "black" category, the pollster or the respondent? Just because someone has dark skin, just sayin'....in which category does Egyptian-American go? How about Pakistani-American?....is Somali-American black?

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 2:03pm

I used to hang out in Ethiopian-Somali eateries, and they had some distinct issues with the local black population, as one data point. No, it's not all homogenous.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 3:01pm

So young black SC voters are not "woke"?

Edit to add:

Biden only got 33% of the white primary vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/exit-polls-2020-south-carolina-primary/

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 4:47pm

the opposite! do you have any reading comprehension (old: not woke. young: more woke) or don't you even try to read and just jump to your imaginary strawman?

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 7:07pm

Young blacks voted for Biden in the same percentage as white voters supported Joe Biden. Everybody is "woke"

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 9:11pm

Why did Beto even run - losing to Ted Cruz is not a qualification. Much of the pack never made sense.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 3:04pm

Because so many people voted in South Carolina, and because it was such a huge margin for Biden, he had now received more actual votes than anyone else running - and would have cleared that bar off of his 255,000 in South Carolina alone pic.twitter.com/yqgUv7ClXo
— Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) March 1, 2020

With 100% of South Carolina precincts reporting, via @AP:

Biden, 48.4% (33 delegates)
Sanders, 19.9% (11 delegates)
Steyer, 11.3%
Buttigieg,8.2%
Warren, 7.1%
Klobuchar, 3.1%
Gabbard, 1.3%
— Gregory Korte (@gregorykorte) March 1, 2020

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:51am

Nate Silver to Josh Marshall on poll accuracy:

Nope, Starboard Communications got the result almost exactly right (Biden +28). Some of our competitors excluded it because it looked like an outlier which is why you should trust 538 and not sites that arbitrarily choose which polls to include. https://t.co/2ec9HD4QjK https://t.co/4Sxn2siZDL
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 1, 2020

Although some SC polls were pretty good, others conducted over the past few days underestimated Biden's performance in South Carolina by margins as large as 25 points. (The 25-point error was Change Research, if you're wondering.) There should be concerns about this.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 1, 2020

Edit to add, Nate's ranting on this, go to his feed for much more:

If you want to make polls better as a news consumer, you should give them grief when they're way off on the margin and not worry about the winner so much.

Biden +29 when the poll had Biden +4 is a HUGE fuck-up.

Sanders +1 when it showed Biden +4 is fine; within the MOE.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 1, 2020

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:48am

And that has a huge effect on our political conversation and queering the next outcome. And then there's the question how Warren fits into that noisy landscape.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 4:13am

I think Warren stays a major national figure now even if she quits the race. No going back. And when you see it that way, you see Klobuchar is not at the same level. Though both could do the presidential managerial job just fine, mho. Not talking about that, talking about inspirational power. Klobuchar doesn't have "it." Maybe that's why Warren's not winning, actually? She's becoming like a Ted Kennedy figure?...running has just made her more famous and verified her power. Can't be labeled so easy anymore, she's got her own brand, so to speak, just Elizabeth Warren, not just another snowflake.

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 10:23am

I think it was Nate Silver who deacribed how this works. You don't win by being #2 in multiple categories. You win by being #1 in at least one. Bernie's got the "break it up" vote, Biden's got the "safe old white dude/dudette". See how Bloomberg and Steyer gasped for air? If Warren had gunned for her own category, she might be ahead, though "competent qualified female who knows how to multitask and keep innovating and reforming" has its own set of hurdles historically. And America only accepts angry *white men*, and even that's limited.

PS - still happy to have Bloomberg involved, though think he and Steyer are more effective using their money and voice outside the ring. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/01/mike-bloomberg-tv-ad-cor...

PPS - flirting with the title "socialist" isn't terribly smart in US politics. Fine if you don't expect to win.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 12:31pm

heh

Happy 4 year anniversary to this tweet! https://t.co/POC5q66Ryb
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) March 1, 2020

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 5:55pm

Affluent suburbs were where the GOTV was:

Gains concentrated in the affluent suburbs — not Bernie territory https://t.co/pUdmFtPaOJ
— Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) March 1, 2020

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 6:15pm

Southern women Convo?

https://digbysblog.net/2020/03/breaking-away-from-the-cruelty-and-the-ra...

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 7:13pm

you betcha darlin honeychil

by artappraiser on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 7:21pm

Biden is the heavy favorite in South Carolina

Comments

Sections

Bloggers