Subject: Hillary Clinton relied heavily on white voters in 2008. In 2016, it’s reversed. - The Washington Post
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Alexander S. Mackler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:56:28 -0400

Hillary Clinton relied heavily on white voters in 2008. In 2016, it’s
reversed. - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/07/hillary-clinton-relied-heavily-on-white-voters-in-2008-in-2016-its-reversed/

Hillary Clinton relied heavily on white voters in 2008. In 2016, it’s
reversed.

There are a lot of reasons that Hillary Clinton lost in 2008. One of the
most prominent was that she was running against one of the most dynamic
candidates in recent memory at a time when people were eager for something
new. Another was that the dynamic candidate she was running against was
black.

The latter became more of a problem over the long term, as Obama racked up
primary victories in states with large black populations in the Deep South
and cut into Clinton's dominance elsewhere. In Iowa and New Hampshire, two
of the whitest states in the union, it played less of a role.

But now, weirdly, the whiteness of those early states might be something of
a problem for her. And she's actually doing better among non-whites.

The CNN/ORC poll released
<http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/30/trumpbushclinton.pdf> last
week reinforced that Clinton is doing much better in 2016 than any of her
opponents -- especially among non-white voters.

 She leads among white voters, too, of course -- and handily. But her lead
over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) among white voters is 34 points and
appears to be narrowing. Among non-white voters -- which we will emphasize
also includes Latinos -- it's 52 points.

If Sanders keeps closing the gap with white voters, that could be a problem
in Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton's big lead among non-white voters won't
be much of an advantage until South Carolina -- which, incidentally, she
lost by a wide margin in 2008.

 One question mark: What becomes of the support for Joe Biden if he finally
decides not to run? In CNN's polling, Biden ate up one-fifth of the
non-white support. If that support goes to Clinton, the dynamic above
becomes even more stark.

Remember, there is no reason at this point to think that Hillary Clinton
will not be the Democratic nominee. There is not much of a reason to think
that she will lose Iowa, and there's only a speculative idea that she might
lose New Hampshire.

But those two states might end up being much closer than we might once have
expected in part because they are awfully white -- a fact that might have
been one reason Clinton won New Hampshire in 2008 and was able to stay in
the race.

Eric D. Schwerin
[email-masked]

Sent from my iPhon