Hillary Clinton had a big win last night. Even the professional Bernie Sanders-fluffers over at MSNBC had to admit it. It turns out that white men might as well have not showed up to vote! (And the younger ones didn’t. Is that why Sanders fans are so dismissive of Clinton voters and our preferences? Because we’re not white men?)
Hillary Clinton scored an overwhelming victory Saturday on the strength of nearly unified support from African-American and older voters in South Carolina, according to the NBC News Exit Poll. She captured nearly 90 percent among voters age 65 and older and about the same share of the black vote. She even narrowly beat Bernie Sanders among white voters. She ran up huge margins among all education and income groups, liberals, moderates and conservatives, late deciders and those who say they’ve long known who they were going to vote for.
She also ran very strongly among those who attend religious services at least weekly, and among the lowest income voters, both groups with large numbers of African-Americans. Clinton also ran better among women than men, but walloped Sanders among men as well. Only among white men did she fall short of a majority.
Given the thrashing Clinton administered Saturday, it’s hard to find a demographic group that Sanders won. As in earlier contests, Sanders showed some strength among young voters, winning a narrow majority of those under 30. He also edged Clinton among independents. Sanders received more than six in 10 among voters who said this was their first primary election, but this group was a very small share of the electorate (about one in 10). Not surprisingly, he won a majority among voters who want the next president to pursue more liberal policies than President Obama has.
The bottom line here is that Clinton is doing very well among people who actually show up to vote, even if they’re deeply uncool women, African Americans, old, or two or three for three. Oh, well: I think Clinton would rather be president than be considered cool in Williamsburg, Madison, or Austin.
I’ll file a report from Colorado’s (bullcrap, undemocratic) caucus on Tuesday night. I live in a neighborhood adjacent to a university, so I’m assuming that the Sanders supporters could well swamp the rest of us uncool older voters. Then again, it’s midterms, it might be cold, they may not know their way around north of 16th Street, and they probably have never been to the school where we’re caucusing.
Historiann 
I was so happy to wake up to this news.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leftwing blogs are hard to live with these season. They’re all about progressive, but they don’t think the first woman POTUS is a big deal. Maybe ANOTHER woman would be worth celebrating, but THIS woman is all establishment ‘n’ corporate ‘n’ inauthentic ‘n’ frontrunner. Also too, impure: she hasn’t exempted herself from the politician custom of raising funds and taking money.
LikeLike
LadyProf: I came across this article last night while monitoring the SC primary coverage: “America Loves Women Like Hillary Clinton – As Long As They’re Not Asking for a Promotion.” It offers a really helpful reminder of how popular and well-regarded she was as a Senator and as Secretary of State, and I think a hopeful view of her future presidency, by pointing out that it’s evidence of female ambition that seems to bring out the knives.
But it’s not surprising that even so-called Lefties have a problem with women, including some other women. That’s the story we should know by heart when it comes to the American social justice movements of the past 200 years: feminism is always the hapless frump, and women are never viewed as revolutionaries when fighting for women’s rights, which is always already unnecessary and dangerously radical at the same time.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, in other news, Trump seems fine with KKK support and more white men kill people (mostly women) on the crime pages. The patriarchy is dangerous.
LikeLike
Your posts are keeping me sane Historiann. Thank you! A political revolution would suggest actual voter turnout of enthusiastic supporters. That’s not happening.
LikeLike
It’s probably not all bad for Clinton that so many people and institutions are always rooting for her to lose. She’ll always beat the spread, right?
But, why should she be different from you, Victoria, or nicoleandmaggie, or LadyProf, or Theresa? Why should her competence and accomplishments be rated fairly, rather than minimized or credited to an accomplished man instead? (OK, bitter rant over!)
LikeLike
One marginally good thing about a contested primary is that plenty of people in the South are getting the chance to check out how their voting ability has changed since the changes in the VRA before the vote really matters. I know we had an interesting time of it given our current temporary out-of-state status (the state sent us both cards asking what to do since our address had changed, but mine got returned instead of delivered which suspended me and they “misread” DH’s response as him saying he was no longer a resident– we essentially had to both re-register after calling up and asking what to do).
LikeLike
I’m all for contested primaries! This blog has said nothing against Sanders or his campaign. (I have in fact pointed out that he only recently became a Democrat, though.)
You must live in one of those bad states that are trying to make it more difficult to vote. As if voter turnout isn’t low enough! Don’t get me started about our duma$$ caucuses, but at least we can vote by mail for the rest of the polling. I think the last time I showed up at a precinct to vote was in 2004, and then I went to a “vote center” in 2008. I gave up the civic ceremony of voting in person after that.
LikeLike
Looks like we may have a quieter primary season here in Pennsylvania than the famous “War at the Store” back in April of ’08, although it may be too early to assume that. Downticket there’s some work to do, including getting ready to turn Senator Clubforgrowth (R-Pa) back into the pasture on K Street after the harvest in November. Katie McGinty looks like maybe the best bet for that particular bit of roping and hog-tying, although we’re just beginning to focus on that subject. Trump, meanwhile, reportedly got a highly recommend from Marie le Pen. Hard to get much weirder than that.
LikeLike
I think you mean Jean-Marie LePen, Indyanna–that’s the father of Marine LePen, who’s assumed his leadership of the French Revanchists. As nicoleandmaggie notes above, the KKK has also endorsed Trump, and he has refused to disavow that endorsement.
Every election year I think the Republicans can’t get any meaner, lower, or dumber, but then I’m always surprised. There’s no depths to which they will not sink.
LikeLike
Um, yeah, that’s correct, thank you.. Should be a wild one in Cleveland, like the year the river caught fire! More fun in Fluffya, though.
LikeLike
I spoke to a Republican whom I very much respect this morning (there are a few; it’s one of the nice features of belonging to a church with a mix of people; of course by now most of the Republicans I know — who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate and generally pragmatic — are feeling deeply alienated from the party. In fact I suspect a good many of them voted for Obama, at least the second time, though not this one, I’m pretty sure — though, as a retired military man turned Bush 1 appointee, he would very happily have voted for Colin Powell had Powell run for president, so race is decidedly not a factor). He’s bemused, and more than a bit distressed, to find himself placing his hopes in Marco Rubio (whom he sees as sharing some key weaknesses with Obama, mostly insufficient experience). He also thinks that Trump will probably be the Republican nominee, and that Trump could win if Hillary Clinton is indicted as part of the investigation into her emails in early fall (i.e. between the nominating convention and the general election). He’d find a Trump administration more palatable if Christie were involved (maybe as VP or attorney general), but he’s clearly deeply distressed by the prospect.
What he didn’t say is that he’d vote for Trump if Trump were nominated. Especially because he has considerable foreign policy interest/expertise, I think he’ll have a real struggle if it’s a Trump vs. Clinton race (especially if Clinton isn’t indicted; that might give him the excuse/reason not to vote for her he’s looking for). His party loyalty runs deep, but he also respects experience and expertise and general capability (and has no problem with women in leadership). Also, I think his wife (and/or his daughters) might talk him into doing the sensible thing (i.e. voting for Hillary) if Trump is the Republican candidate. It’s also possible that he’d simply abstain.
I’m not sure how many of him there are out there, but we can only hope.
LikeLike
It’s OK–my dad is a Republican! (Or at least he was until he voted for Obama in 2008 and in 2012.) If Trump is the nominee, I think I can guarantee that he’ll vote for Clinton.
As for this right-wing fond hope that Clinton will be indicted for emails/Benghazi/Whitewater/Vince Foster: the real world awaits your medicated re-entry. It’s not going to happen. In fact, I think Trump being deposed in the fraud trial for Trump University is much likelier to happen in the next 8 months.
LikeLike
Hilary’s excellent at her job, listens to people, gets things done, and big swaths of the American public–the ones who don’t froth with rage at the thought of her– are still saying, “Yeah, well, maybe, I guess I could vote for her.” What is wrong with them? I’ll bet that even the Republicans of yore (Nelson Rockefeller, remember him?) would vote for her.
LikeLike
As I sat with my mother on Saturday night I told her about the South Carolina result, and she said, “I trust Hillary in negotiating with Putin.” And I thought of you!
LikeLike
HAhahaha! Funny thing is, I’m sure Bill Kristol and Donald Rumsfeld probably agree with that, if the choice is Clinton v. Donald Drumpf.
LikeLike