Home | About | Donate

Bernie Sanders Just Trounced Hillary Clinton in Three of the Ten Most Diverse States in America


Bernie Sanders Just Trounced Hillary Clinton in Three of the Ten Most Diverse States in America

Seth Abramson

The overwhelming majority of the voting data accumulated thus far in the Democratic primaries contradicts the media narrative suggesting Bernie Sanders doesn’t perform well in states with diverse populations.


" The specious media narrative about Bernie Sanders."

Folks, please do not listen to or believe the MSM narrative about Bernie's chances!

There is one reason and one reason only that the main stream media is always so negative about Bernie's chances: Bernie has not been selected!


A most needed analysis. Second excellent analysis I have read from this author.


"In two of her three wins in ultra-diverse states, Clinton won with relatively slim majorities: in Arizona she pulled 57.6% of the vote, and in Nevada, 52.6%."

I think it's fair to say that the limited access to voting and other anomalies put any win in Arizona into question. And wins in states like Florida that disallow anyone apart from registered Dems. (or Republicans) to vote also set up inaccurate results.

The nation should require UNIFORM standards. Either all persons with I.D. and of voting age get to vote, or they don't. The patchwork quilt nonsense gives incumbents and known names FAR too many advantages.

The system is so rigged... that it's truly miraculous to watch Mr. Sanders jump through as many hoops as he has... this quickly.

Imagine if the media gave FAIR air time to all viable candidates? Imagine how ahead Mr. Sanders would be then.

Imagine if for all the fake things said about him, he had the AIR TIME to refute those allegations by calmly stating the facts of his record. How many Black voters would still remain seduced by the Clinton Con team then?

And maybe some of Trump's supporters justifiably pissed off about the state of jobs in a skewed (for the rich) economy might learn something from listening to Sanders, something that Trump's pontificating on hate for other groups does not allow for!


This is why he's running as a Democrat. And it still is not enough.


You can be sure that the media will make sure that Professor Abramson's facts will never be allowed to get in the way of all the media's myths.


I realize the author is trying to make a point, and that point is probably related to one that needs to be made. But it seems to me to be not quite the point needed.

The racial make up of the countries in which Democrats abroad voted has nothing to do with anything. The racial make up of the people voting might, but we don’t have any idea what that is. Much more important is what people know about Sanders, and we know that the more they know the more likely they are to vote for him.

The real point is that women and people of color who are voting for Clinton—or anybody else running for president—over Sanders are mistaking past loyalty or identity or some other misapprehension for a rational choice in their own--and everyone else's--interests. No matter what their race, ethnicity, gender, or income, Sanders will look out for their interests far, far, far, far better than anyone else running.

The real point is not that Sanders does well in caucuses but that he does well in states without early voting—in states where people haven’t already voted by the time they find out who he is. And the point is that even with the media blackout, ridicule and constant harping on Sanders to ”please, please drop out before you embarrass yourself by winning this thing” word trickles out and the more people know about him the more they vote for him.

…which is where this article (a very good one, by the way) slightly misses the point. People in other countries get more accurate media accounts of our political process and the candidates’ stands on issues than people in the US—not surprising because if they get ANY stories on where candidates stand on issues that’s more than in the US. Corporate control of media in the US—even NPR—means that even the very few stories that appear on issues are completely dominated and confounded by conservative-generated frames that make no rational sense at all but twist every issue into a referendum on how alone every person is made to feel in childhood and life and in the media. (that aloneness is where conservatism comes from.)

Treating every non-white person and group as the same because, you know, white and not-white are the only important categories, is going to lead to skewed ideas in other ways.* Clinton has done well with African-Americans and OK with Hispanics, I’m told; obviously not so well with the racial mixes in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington. Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, Japanese-Americans, Chinese Americans and the rest of the ethnically diverse make up of those states are not overwhelmingly African-Americans or Hispanics. What might be more important is that they’re not southern and they didn’t vote early, (in both senses) like most of the states in which Clinton has done very well.

And no one—not a single person so far that I’ve read—has mentioned the racial make up of the superdelegates. I think their income and wealth are more important measures of their position as superdelegates, but hey, come to think of it, that somehow doesn’t seem unrelated to their race. So the main advantage Clinton has so far is among rich, connected White people, not Blacks, not Hispanics, certainly not Native Hawaiians or Alaskans.

Hmmm. Didn't we know that already?


  • When pundits talk about diverse, or non-white… what they mean is Black, because that’s the group that allows them to dismiss Sanders. And of course, more than that, they mean not only Southern Blacks, but early voting (in both senses—early primaries and voting in each state before campaigning has really started) and thus mostly older people and Southern Blacks.

PS the point about losing all those states to Repurlbicans for the next 4 general elections depends on the reaction to the rapidly increasing harm done by climate catastrophe, and how short people allow their memories to be on which party betrayed them and the rest of the world by delaying rational action to avoid that catastrophe. In 10 years we may not have any red states, only blue and green, or the charcoal gray of Corporatist Fascism.




I almost expected it to pop up in this commentary, but the sense I've gotten from the primary season is that Sanders has left every single state more popular than he entered it.
Am I mistaken? Has there been any state where Clinton exceeded her poll margins of, say, a week before the election? Anyone? Bueller?


"A Modest Proposal."

A way to get Bernie on the ballot in all 50 states if HRC, DWS, DNC, et. al. steal the nomination from him.

The Libertarian Party nominates Bernie for President and Gary Johnson for Vice President.

Progressives, Millennials, Independents disaffected Republicans, Libertarians and maybe even some Trump supporters etc

now have a way to change America for the better. ,


Oh, FOWL stands for Fat Old White Lutheranl


That's a great question. I haven't seen anything that said so, and I'm not sure how to search for it that wouldn't take days and depend mostly on luck. There are no states he's lost ground in that I'm aware of but that doesn't mean there weren't any. Certainly he was expected to lose all the Southern states that the Democrats will lose in November.

The closest I found was New Hampshire--S. up by 29 in polls at one point, then up by 15, then won by 22. Is that losing ground or gaining? It's hard to say what "entering the state" means, since there's no date in any polling window for most if not all states that includes that in any meaningful way. But of course the fact that NH happened early means that in the meta trend, it fits perfectly with the coming on strong the longer the campaign goes on. Of course there's a trend in every state but the larger trend is also for him to do better as time goes on, nationally and by states, as people all over the country get to know Sanders more.

This is happening despite an imbalance in media coverage--on ABC, for example, 81 minutes for Trump compared to 20 seconds for Sanders. 150 times more coverage for Bush than Sanders (did Jeb! get a single delegate before he dropped out?) and 150 times more for Biden, who was never even running. On cursory inspection the Tyndall report makes it seem less stark in general.) Clearly the media is working for the empire. Some imperial flack named Jeet Heer started talking about Clinton's path to victory before the full results in Nevada were even tabulated! (3rd contest, Feb. 20th, when 101 delegates had been awarded out of the 2383 needed for nomination.

Make a note: Change the purpose and loyalty of the media first thing in February.


Our "media integrity" problem is a more serious problem than the "money in politics problem", in my opinion. So called "news programming", (and newspapers), should not be allowed to tell blatant lies, ignore significant events, or adopt purposefully biased perspectives. Democracy depends on an informed electorate and good journalism is a necessity toward achieving that end. Some form of "fairness doctrine" needs to be reestablished, and "news programming", (and newspapers), must adhere to strict guidelines to assure the public that it is receiving accurate, unbiased information. The corporate news, which emphasizes entertainment and patriotic U.S. drivel, and terrorism, and pro corporate propaganda must be reformed. I would love to see Bernie tackle this issue when he is elected president.