Not sure about CA. Was it the Latinx vote? Because he did lost to Hillary in 2016.

That 47% number refers to county convention delegates, which -- while it determines the "winner" of the state -- implies greater support than he actually had. I believe he only received ~40% on the final vote, and then that 40% of the final vote resulted in him netting 47% of the county convention delegates.

Moral of the story: the undemocratic nature of caucuses and their peculiar machinations, combined with Nevada's calculating of county convention delegates, resulted in what appeared to be much more significant support for Sanders in that state than he actually had. It was just smoke and mirrors, with the reason why his support among Hispanics seemed to be so high was because he was getting his usual higher support from young people, many of which happened to be Hispanics in those states. People conflated his winning (young) Hispanics as winning Hispanics, and when states with older Hispanic populations (e.g., Arizona, Florida, etc.) voted, it didn't show the same sort of support.

both caucuses emphasizes your point.

Oh, and have we ever found the results of the Iowa Caucus?

Not all black Americans were so ready to feel good about Democrats in 1965. We have to earn these things. Part of being liberal.

were both before the Biden Bounce, and I suspect that LatinX voters, like everyone else, were really waiting for the field to clear. With the field narrowed down to Biden and Sanders, the two are pretty much tied, and given everything else, will likely start shifting clearly to Biden in states like New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming.

California had a large number of early voters. By primary day the race was much closer among Latinos. And after Super Tuesday Biden picked up more support as Democrats coalesced around him. That new support came from all voters of all races.

plus it was pre SC and a larger field.


‘Tío Bernie’ Is Courting the Latino Votes He Needs to Win

Bernie Sanders has raised more money from Latino donors than any of his Democratic rivals and he leads the field with Latino support in a new poll.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/bernie-sanders-latino-voters.html

BS has an exceptional CAUCUS staff.

When it comes to primaries, not so much. Latinx did NOT increase their vote for BS to any significant degree in Texas, for instance. He barely got 800 more votes in Hidalgo county than he did in 2016, and that increase comes more from population growth than anything else. And Hidalgo county has been a monster of population growth, since the early 1990s.

To further emphasize that his Latinx vote "enthusiasm" is an illusion, BS won only two counties by an outright majority: Sterling and Hansford. Guess how many votes they cast in the D primary? Sterling: 24. Hansford: 23. That's it. In every other county he "won," he didn't get a majority, and in nearly all of them, the combination of Bloomberg + Biden votes swamped his numbers. I know there were a couple of instances where BS did win the county, even if he didn't win the majority. But they were few and far between.

In the vast majority of those he "won," he would have lost if Bloomberg hadn't been on the ballot. And not by a little. By a lot. Even in the fake liberal oasis of Austin, Biden + Bloomberg got more votes than BS: 102,465 to 83,803, and percentage-wise: 45.9% to 37.5%. And that's AUSTIN, where if BS could run away with a county, then Travis would have been it. But he didn't run away with it. He barely won it, thanks to vote splitting. San Antonio/Bexar? Same dang thing, only worse for this claim of a Latinx pivot to BS, because San Antonio/Bexar has a far--FAR--higher Hispanic population than Austin. Their numbers? Biden + Bloomberg: 74594, 43.8%, and BS: 56793, 33.2%

In every border or heavily Hispanic county that BS "won," this Biden + Bloomberg > BS plays out over and over and over again.

The Latinx being BS fans in 2020 is thus so much BULLSHIT.

I am not a Bernie fangirl, go argue with one of them, you seem to be up for some serious argy bargy gauging by your outrage.

cheers

“fake liberal oasis”? I’ve been to Austin several times and have had friends from Austin. They don’t seem like “fake liberals” to me. I think that’s very insulting.

hope it's all spot on. I've always wanted to see them vote their power, even knowing that overall most of their demos lean pretty conservative.

Why does Colorado vote differently from its neighbors, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming? Because different states have different populations with different concerns, interests and outlooks.

With Nevada, a big reason for the difference is that they use the caucus system, not a primary. Primaries are open to anyone who registers to vote, you go vote as your state/county determine--not the party, you get out, that's all that's expected of you as a citizen.

Caucuses are completely different. They're private events held by the political parties themselves. You have to get together with your neighbors in your precinct and you form groups based on your preferred candidate to sort out who you want to give delegates to at the state convention. You can debate other caucus participants about the merits of candidates, try to persuade them to join up with you and all of that. Some of them have the option to come in, vote for who you want, and get out, but most of them require you to show up on a certain day at a certain time and spend however long it takes choosing delegates.

It's a complicated, drawn-out process that can be quite tedious, but also prone to some of the worst of human nature: highly insular, prone to group think, and sometimes even bullying from dominating participants. It's also not a coincidence that the caucus system is favored in states with, shall we say, not the most diverse populations, like Iowa, Kentucky, North Dakota and Wyoming. Only Nevada is the exception to this.

Whatever it's pluses or minuses, BS consistently does well in the caucus ecosystem. He did well in Iowa, and won North Dakota outright. My guess is that he gets an edge in a caucus because he's familiar with a similar political animal, the New England town meeting, still popular in places like Vermont. He knows how to use that type of small-group, community-driven process to his advantage--from experience. Most politicians from outside New England don't know how to use that to their advantage.

But where he has far less success is in the more democratic and population-diverse primary system. Hillary shellacked him in the 2016 primaries, racking up nearly 4 million more votes. In 2016, BS won big in Washington, which was using the caucus system then. This year, they went to a primary system, and Biden beat him. Not by much, but still a win. He won New Hampshire, his own state of Vermont, and California in the primary ecosystem, but he's stumbled in all the other primary states. But don't be fooled by the NH and CA wins. Taking only Buttgieg and Klobuchar off the ticket would have given Biden the win, or made it dang close. Take off Bloomberg alone, and he wins for sure. Take off all three--Biden runs away with CA in particular. He also would have increased his advantage in Texas with them off the ticket, rather than eking out a smaller win.

With those three candidates off the ballots in those few states, it really would have been over for BS after Super Tuesday. Not that he has the grace or class to admit it.

In Texas' Rio Grande Valley, the counties Bernie won? Can you say splitting the vote?

Bloomberg siphoned off votes from Biden in nearly every single one of those counties. Hidalgo, for instance had Biden and Bloomberg splitting around 31,000 votes. Bernie beat Biden there by fewer than 1000 votes. Worse, Bernie didn't increase his voter appeal in Hidalgo by all that much. He got something like 15,900 votes there in the 2016 primary. In 2020? He gets 16700 votes. Population increase alone can account for that. You find the same thing all over the border.

If I have time, I could check CA's county-by-county numbers to see what the breakout is between BS votes and Biden + Bloomberg votes. I have a feeling they look close to the same. Maybe not exact, but not all that far off.

What delegates BS has are based on an illusion from ticket splitting. The more races that come down to Biden v BS, the more Biden kills him, time after time.

It should be that a caucus if very undemocratic and as different from a primary as a hotdog to an orange.

If Iowa wants to continue to go first they need a primary.

supporters among Hispanics here in New Mexico. In fact, as the only Anglo in my friend group, I’m the only one supporting Biden. The other four are Sanders people but they’ll vote Biden in the general. Of course, my experience is anecdotal.

AZ Latinos are smarter than NV or CA Latinos?

Seriously, it might just be that AZ is a little more conservative overall than NV is and a lot more reddish than CA and that Hispanics in these states are in part simply reflecting the overall political bent of the states they're in. They are not a homogeneous bloc any more than whites or blacks are. Plus a few other factors that folks have already mentioned.

Found this handy website a while back that helps get a good quick picture of the demographics of each state that some might find useful or interesting...

State Population By Race, Ethnicity Data

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/state-minority-population-data-estimates.html

Take Bloomberg out of the equation in CA and TX alone, and BS would have been done after Super Tuesday. Do the same with Buttgieg and Klobuchar, and it would have been even WORSE for BS.

BS has gotten lucky from vote splitting. It's how he "won" all those counties on the Texas border--and not by all that much. If you run the numbers between the votes he got in heavily Hispanic counties, he shows only a modest increase in voters between 2016 and 2020, and in the major population centers along the Rio Grande (El Paso, Laredo, McAllen, etc.), that can easily be explained by population growth. That whole border is exploding with new residents and high birth rates.

So don't believe the bullshit about BS having some kind of appeal to Latinx voters. He doesn't. Not when you know how to parse the numbers.

A while back I looked at each candidate's numbers from the various primaries and added up all the ones who were close to Biden's stance and then added all of Warren's % to Bernies' even though I knew not all of her voters would jump over to him. I even made a long post tabulating my data as if it were a head-to-head race for around 14 states or whatever it was at right after Super Tuesday.

It was vividly clear to me that if it came down to a mano-a-mano match Biden would have no problem whatsoever beating Sanders but at the time nobody had dropped out and it was driving me up the wall. A few days later it thankfully happened.

They saw Sanders blown out on Super Tuesday and Super Tuesday Junior and drew the same conclusions as everyone else.

They now see Biden as the only candidate with a path to the nomination and support is consolidating around him. People want to support the winner. It's not just Latinx voters, it's everyone.

Look at the polls from before the primary. Bernie was the leader who 2nd choice votes. However, once everyone else had dropped out, almost all of the loose support went to Biden. They didn't split it, Bernies share of the vote only increased slightly while Bidens skyrocketed. That's why he's now winning every state by 20-50 points. Remember that there were people who wanted to add Bernie and Warrens support together to compare to Biden poll numbers in November. That didn't play out, most of Warrens supporters ended up going to Biden when she dropped out.

is a progressive think tank that estimated about only 60% of Warren's support would go to Sanders if she folded.

Looks like it's even less than that.

It wasn't 0, but I never saw a noticeable increase in sanders support after Warren dropped out.

I kind of expect that based on my logic that if a Warren supporter was likely to support Bernie they would have already moved to him when it because clear in the weeks before that Warren wasn't going to be a viable candidate. The support that was left, I thought, would go to Biden since he was anti-Bernie option at that point and most supporters will with Warren would have some anti-Bernie leanings.

I seem to recall that Sanders’ chunk of the NV vote, while certainly a win, actually comprised something like 6% of Democratic voters in the state.

just a guess

We all live in AZ and voted early by mail. My niece, who is an undergraduate at ASU, really liked Bernie in 2016, but was leaning towards Warren (all of us were). She spoke to my mother sometime around South Carolina/Super Tuesday but before we'd sent in our ballots.

My mother asked her if she was going to "vote her heart" and vote for either Warren or Bernie. My niece may have lost her enchantment with Bernie since 2016, but for whatever reason she responded that she didn't want to "waste her vote" (her exact words) and would vote for Biden.

We're not Latinx, but I was wondering if that view was pervasive especially among Bernie's younger supporters.