Biden's margin with black voters probably won't yield the advantage it did for Hillary Clinton

[bluewater]

By Philip Bump July 25
[snip]

So, in the abstract, this would seem like good news for Biden: a big lead with black voters pushing him to the front of the pack, just as it did Clinton.

There are three problems Biden faces, however, that Clinton didn’t. (Even setting aside the essential, point-it-out-at-least-three-times caveat that the field is in so much flux.)

To illustrate the problem, we’ll look at polling conducted in early-voting states this month by CBS and YouGov. Across the polled states, Biden gets 41 percent of the vote from black voters, more than twice the next-closest candidate. Among white voters in those states, he trails Warren.

Notice the margins here, though. Clinton won the states identified above by an average of 69 points. Those are run-up-the-score margins in places with a lot of black voters. A 20-point advantage, like the one Biden has in the CBS-YouGov poll, isn’t bad — but it’s not dominant. That’s the first problem.

That poll used its results to project how the top Democratic candidates might do in delegate counting after the voting was over. Delegate tallies rely on complicated math that’s not worth getting into here (read up, if you wish), but the point is straightforward: Biden is projected to lead once delegates from California, Texas, New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina are counted.

Notice, though, that his margins are often subtle. South Carolina stands out as a big burst for Biden, a reflection of the numbers at the top of this article. In California, though, he gets only about 20 more delegates than Warren or that state’s senator Kamala D. Harris. In Texas, he fares a bit better, picking up 25 more delegates than Warren. The advantage in South Carolina is his largest, at 32.

This is only five states, though, including the megastate of California, which wasn’t in the mix in 2016. California essentially replaces Georgia on the Super Tuesday calendar — trading a heavily black state for a more diverse one. A more diverse one with way more delegates and a high-profile home-state candidate. That’s the second problem.

The third problem is already visible above. The breakdown of delegates in Texas, per that YouGov analysis, is as follows:

CANDIDATE DELEGATES
Biden 92
Warren 67
O’Rourke 48
Sanders 18
Harris 3

It’s not a head-to-head contest in 2020. It’s a head-to-head-to-head-to-(repeat 200 times)-head contest. That means that the delegate totals aren’t divvied up between Clinton and Sanders but, instead, between whichever candidates hit the required baseline in voting. It’s harder to pull away in part because the field is so big in the first place.

As we like to point out, leading the pack isn’t a bad place to be, certainly. But Biden’s position in polls shows both his strength and some ways in which his path forward might be trickier than Clinton’s was three years ago — and it’s not like her path to the nomination wasn’t without potholes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/25/bidens-margin-with-black-voters-likely-wont-yield-advantage-it-did-hillary-clinton/

[Reece2076]

1. This is a silly comparison

in 2016 there were only 2 candidates. The votes are split between 20 this time around.

[Princetonian]

2. ZING!

[bluewater]

6. What's silly is to think 20 candidates will be in the race past Iowa and New Hampshire.

The field inevitably narrows...

[Reece2076]

8. yes but the current polls are based on 20 candidates not just 2

[Butterflylady]

3. First of all let me state that I'm very familiar with

YouGov polls because a lot of them deal with brands. Now every once in a while they send me a what I what say is a poll that mainly asks you your views on policy and such. Well, the last gov poll I received was one on August 19 that contained things like who did I vote for, who would I vote for, what kind of democrat am, that sort of thing. It was filled all sort of what do I think of this and that policys. Im sure you get my drift. The funny thing was there no questions concerning any democratic candidates whatsoever. Just who would I be voting for in 2020. The fat bastard or the Democratic nominee. If any of you would like to earn points toward gift cards, YouGov is a great way to earn gift cards. So far I've gotten 50.00 from Michael's craft store an 30.00 from Amazon. Takes a while but well worth it.

Now I'm not saying they didn't put one like that, I'm just saying they probably would have sent me one because I'm always telling that they are my favorites. By the way, this last one took 20 minutes and I earned 1000 points. Sorry I dont do links because I don't know how. You know us old geezers aren't that swift at new fangled stuff (sarcasm.

[NYMinute]

4. Another thread about how Biden is failing

by some gleeful supporters of a certain messiah.

[elocs]

5. How did the black vote help Clinton here in Wisconsin

when she lost by about 23,000 votes (just less than Jill Stein received here) but in largely black Milwaukee county, 55,000 fewer people voted than did for Obama in 2012 and 2/3 of that number could have historically been expected to vote for the Democratic candidate.
But then Hillary couldn't be bothered to make a single campaign visit here in Wisconsin during the general election campaign. That decision didn't work out so well.

[StevieM]

10. Voting was down in Wisconsin largely because of voter suppression laws.

Eliminate them and she would have won.

I doubt holding some rallies there would have made a difference. And had Comey not interfered she would have easily won the state. Her big lead there is why she didn't schedule rallies.

Also, when Donald Trump finally thought he had a chance of winning, because of the Comey intervention, the first thing he did was cancel an appearance in Wisconsin.

The claim that HRC did worse with black voters than most other Democrats would have done is something that is said because her critics like to hear it. It makes them feel good to belittle her like that. But in truth, it was her support from black voters that got her the nomination.

It also isn't fair to have expected her to have the same turnout among African-Americans that Barack Obama had. The better question is how she did compared to John Kerry in 2004 in states that have not implemented voter suppression laws since then.

[karynnj]

7. The problem I see in his analysis is that it is projecting far in the future primaries/caucuses

as they are at this point in time. This ignores the fact that the dynamics of the race will change over time. I agree that this race is NOT likely to be like 2016 or 2008 where you had essentially a head to head race. (In 2008 of almost equally strong candidates and in 2016 where HRC was the stronger and the surprise was that Sanders got as high as he did.) It might be if, between then and now several candidates completely fade.

However, in other years, including 2004 and 1992, you had races where more than two candidates were still competitive as the primaries started. Those two show two very different races. In 2004, after winning Iowa and NH, Kerry won 5 of the 7 contests - SC, MO, OK, NM, AZ, DE and ND - that Dean essentially did not seriously fight saying they were less likely for a New Englander to win and he would concentrate on the next sets to conserve money. Dean's gamble might have worked had Edwards and Clark won most of those contests. The media did not call Kerry the defcato nominee for another couple of weeks as he continued winning everything, but they likely should have. That very well could be the pattern in 2020 if Biden (or someone else) wins Iowa and NH and then becomes the overwhelming favorite. In December 2003 most in the media questioned when Kerry would drop out -- no one predicted he would only lose 4 states - 2 to favorite sons after they were out of contention.

1992, was different. Harkin won his home state and Tsongas won NH. Bill Clinton was lucky because several southern states had their contests on the same day and he was the winner. Still, it took until mid June before he actually won enough delegates. This could happen if different candidates end up splitting wins and delegate counts. This is closer to his analysis. Under this scenario, if rather than a two way contest, if it is a three way contest, it is entirely possible that noone has the majority needed. Oddly, superdelegates likely voting for the one with the most might be needed to get someone over the top.

[MichMan]

9. No candidate in 2016 was going to garner the AA turnout that came out for Obama in 2012

[StevieM]

11. Don't tell that to the media, they love to ignore that fact so they can belittle HRC. (eom)