vox--2020-02-28--Trump lashes out at Fox News for new poll showing him losing to all the Democratic candidates

President Donald Trump lashed out on Friday at the network that normally covers him so favorably over a new national poll that shows him losing hypothetical head-to-head popular vote matchups against all six of the top Democratic presidential candidates .
“ Worst Polls , just like in 2016 when they were so far off the mark , are the @ FoxNews Polls , ” Trump tweeted on Friday morning .
That tweet came 37 minutes after Fox News displayed a graphic on the air highlighting the results of a new network poll that shows Joe Biden , Bernie Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Elizabeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg , and Amy Klobuchar leading him by spreads that are within the margin of error .
As is the case with most everything Fox News broadcasts , Trump was apparently watching .
And he apparently didn ’ t appreciate the reminder about it not in fact being the case that a majority of the country loves him .
His attack on Fox News serves as a reminder that despite a rough-and-tumble and still-uncertain Democratic primary , he ’ s eminently beatable in November .
While it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he did in 2016 and win the election even if he loses the popular vote , there ’ s almost no chance of him losing the popular vote by a deficit of this magnitude against Biden , Sanders , or Bloomberg and still prevailing in the Electoral College .
( Some other polls have been more favorable to Trump ’ s odds . )
And considering the poll was conducted during the early part of a week that saw a historic stock market slide amid concerns about the coronavirus pandemic and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it , there ’ s reason to believe the president ’ s standing isn ’ t improving anytime soon .
Of course , we ’ re still months from the general election , and it ’ s worth remembering that Hillary Clinton also had a healthy lead over Trump at this point in the 2016 election cycle .
Still , the poll is mostly bad news for Trump .
But instead of doing some self-reflection , he ’ s doing what he ’ s in the habit of doing and attacking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you believe , Fox News polls are reliable While Fox News ’ s on-air programming is known for its occasionally absurd pro-Trump spin , its polling is as reputable as it gets .
Trump , however , hasn ’ t been shy about indicating that he thinks the network should be rigging polls to make him look better .
Trump ’ s suggestion that Fox News polling shouldn ’ t be taken seriously because they were off in 2016 is a mistaken one .
The network ’ s final 2016 poll found Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 48 percent to 44 percent ) that was quite close to Clinton ’ s ultimately margin of victory in the popular vote ( 48 percent to 46 percent ) .
This election cycle , Fox News has consistently found Trump trailing the top candidates vying for the Democratic nomination .
Who that nominee will be remains an open question .
Fox News ’ s new poll is its first this election cycle that shows Biden slipping out of the national frontrunner spot , with Sanders taking the lead .
While the poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top Democratic candidates , it also shows that voters believe Trump will win a second term .
Fifty-six percent of respondents said they think Trump will be reelected — a 12 percent increase from last October .
But what voters think will happen is less important than how they plan to vote .
And while Trump may not want to believe it — especially coming as it does from a network from which he expects blind loyalty — the reality is that Fox News finds that a majority of registered voters ( 52 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve either definitely ( 45 percent ) or probably ( 7 percent ) made up their minds to vote for someone else .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

President Donald Trump lashed out on Friday at the network that normally covers him so favorably over a new national poll that shows him losing hypothetical head-to-head popular vote matchups against all six of the top Democratic presidential candidates.
“Worst Polls, just like in 2016 when they were so far off the mark, are the @FoxNews Polls,” Trump tweeted on Friday morning.
Worst Polls, just like in 2016 when they were so far off the mark, are the @FoxNews Polls. Why doesn’t Fox finally get a competent Polling Company? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2020
That tweet came 37 minutes after Fox News displayed a graphic on the air highlighting the results of a new network poll that shows Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Mike Bloomberg beating him handily, with Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar leading him by spreads that are within the margin of error.
As is the case with most everything Fox News broadcasts, Trump was apparently watching. And he apparently didn’t appreciate the reminder about it not in fact being the case that a majority of the country loves him.
...And they say you can add 7% to 10% to all Trump numbers! Who knows? https://t.co/Ta09xrAqUd — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2020
His attack on Fox News serves as a reminder that despite a rough-and-tumble and still-uncertain Democratic primary, he’s eminently beatable in November.
While it’s obviously possible for Trump to repeat what he did in 2016 and win the election even if he loses the popular vote, there’s almost no chance of him losing the popular vote by a deficit of this magnitude against Biden, Sanders, or Bloomberg and still prevailing in the Electoral College. (Some other polls have been more favorable to Trump’s odds.)
And considering the poll was conducted during the early part of a week that saw a historic stock market slide amid concerns about the coronavirus pandemic and the Trump administration’s capacity for dealing with it, there’s reason to believe the president’s standing isn’t improving anytime soon. Of course, we’re still months from the general election, and it’s worth remembering that Hillary Clinton also had a healthy lead over Trump at this point in the 2016 election cycle.
Still, the poll is mostly bad news for Trump. But instead of doing some self-reflection, he’s doing what he’s in the habit of doing and attacking the messenger.
Despite what Trump would have you believe, Fox News polls are reliable
While Fox News’s on-air programming is known for its occasionally absurd pro-Trump spin, its polling is as reputable as it gets. Trump, however, hasn’t been shy about indicating that he thinks the network should be rigging polls to make him look better.
The @foxnewPolls, always inaccurate, are heavily weighted toward Dems. So ridiculous - same thing happened in 2016. They got it all wrong. Get a new pollster! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 15, 2019
Trump’s suggestion that Fox News polling shouldn’t be taken seriously because they were off in 2016 is a mistaken one. The network’s final 2016 poll found Hillary Clinton leading Trump by a 4-point spread (48 percent to 44 percent) that was quite close to Clinton’s ultimately margin of victory in the popular vote (48 percent to 46 percent). This election cycle, Fox News has consistently found Trump trailing the top candidates vying for the Democratic nomination.
Who that nominee will be remains an open question. Fox News’s new poll is its first this election cycle that shows Biden slipping out of the national frontrunner spot, with Sanders taking the lead.
While the poll shows Trump lagging behind each of the top Democratic candidates, it also shows that voters believe Trump will win a second term. Fifty-six percent of respondents said they think Trump will be reelected — a 12 percent increase from last October.
But what voters think will happen is less important than how they plan to vote. And while Trump may not want to believe it — especially coming as it does from a network from which he expects blind loyalty — the reality is that Fox News finds that a majority of registered voters (52 percent) are already saying they’ve either definitely (45 percent) or probably (7 percent) made up their minds to vote for someone else.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-03-01--Biden got nearly two-thirds of the black vote in South Carolina

Throughout his campaign for South Carolina , former Vice President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that his appeal among black voters meant he would win that primary .
Exit poll data from Saturday ’ s contest now shows his confidence to be justified .
Biden won the South Carolina primary handily , with almost half of all votes .
And he led by even more among African American voters , winning 61 percent of the black vote , placing him 44 percentage points ahead of his competitors for that key demographic , according to an exit poll from the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , Sen. Bernie Sanders , received just 17 percent of that vote .
Biden , of course , had some advantages Sanders does not .
He was boosted by being a known quantity , particularly to older black voters , thanks to a long career in the senate and his role as vice president to Barack Obama .
He also clinched a key endorsement from Rep. Jim Clyburn , a prominent black Democrat and South Carolina kingmaker , in the final days of the primary race .
But even outside of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest among black voters , and pointed to that support as evidence of why , despite poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire , his campaign would bounce back once the race reached states with diverse populations .
“ I want you all to think of a number : 99.9 percent , ” he told supporters in South Carolina as his fifth-place finish in New Hampshire was unfolding .
“ That ’ s the percentage of African American voters who have not yet had a chance to vote in America.
” And indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire with a second-place finish in Nevada , powered in part by the fact that he won among black voters in that state .
And that result set the stage for his significant win in South Carolina , a state where the Democratic electorate is more than 60 percent black .
But , of course , black voters are not a monolith , and one group of black voters in particular turned to a different candidate .
The South Carolina primary ’ s second-place finisher , Sanders , picked up just 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post ’ s polling , but , notably won — albeit by 2 percentage points — among black voters under 30 , according to an NBC News exit poll .
Some young black activists have pointed to Biden ’ s support for the 1994 crime bill and recent bumbling moments about forced busing as reasons for not supporting him .
As Vox ’ s Li Zhou has reported : Younger black voters who spoke with Vox have emphasized that they are interested in more ambitious policies than the ones Biden has championed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s work alongside former President Barack Obama as a major asset , though younger voters did not weigh these efforts as strongly .
“ I think there ’ s a generational gap between younger African Americans and older African Americans , ” South Carolina state Rep. Kambrell Garvin , a Warren surrogate , previously told Vox .
“ Younger African Americans like Joe Biden , but a lot of us aren ’ t supportive of Joe Biden , because we want a change in policies .
We aren ’ t looking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former South Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar have both struggled to make any inroads among black voters , a difficulty exemplified first in Nevada , and again in South Carolina .
Candidates who consistently rate poorly among black voters — a group that comprises 20 percent of the national Democratic electorate — are going to struggle to achieve the kind of coalition needed to compete nationally .
That ’ s especially significant going into Super Tuesday , when more diverse states , including California , Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast their ballots .
As Zhou wrote , “ South Carolina is the first big test of the amount of backing candidates can rally from black voters.
” Biden has passed that test , as he ’ d said he would .
Other candidates , however , would appear to have cause for concern .

Throughout his campaign for South Carolina, former Vice President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that his appeal among black voters meant he would win that primary.
Exit poll data from Saturday’s contest now shows his confidence to be justified.
Biden won the South Carolina primary handily, with almost half of all votes. And he led by even more among African American voters, winning 61 percent of the black vote, placing him 44 percentage points ahead of his competitors for that key demographic, according to an exit poll from the Washington Post. His closest competitor among black voters, Sen. Bernie Sanders, received just 17 percent of that vote.
Biden, of course, had some advantages Sanders does not. He was boosted by being a known quantity, particularly to older black voters, thanks to a long career in the senate and his role as vice president to Barack Obama. He also clinched a key endorsement from Rep. Jim Clyburn, a prominent black Democrat and South Carolina kingmaker, in the final days of the primary race.
But even outside of the state, Biden has consistently polled the highest among black voters, and pointed to that support as evidence of why, despite poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, his campaign would bounce back once the race reached states with diverse populations.
“I want you all to think of a number: 99.9 percent,” he told supporters in South Carolina as his fifth-place finish in New Hampshire was unfolding. “That’s the percentage of African American voters who have not yet had a chance to vote in America.”
And indeed, he followed up that loss in New Hampshire with a second-place finish in Nevada, powered in part by the fact that he won among black voters in that state. And that result set the stage for his significant win in South Carolina, a state where the Democratic electorate is more than 60 percent black.
But, of course, black voters are not a monolith, and one group of black voters in particular turned to a different candidate. The South Carolina primary’s second-place finisher, Sanders, picked up just 17 percent of black voters according to the Post’s polling, but, notably won — albeit by 2 percentage points — among black voters under 30, according to an NBC News exit poll.
Some young black activists have pointed to Biden’s support for the 1994 crime bill and recent bumbling moments about forced busing as reasons for not supporting him. As Vox’s Li Zhou has reported:
Younger black voters who spoke with Vox have emphasized that they are interested in more ambitious policies than the ones Biden has championed. Many older black voters also cited Biden’s work alongside former President Barack Obama as a major asset, though younger voters did not weigh these efforts as strongly. “I think there’s a generational gap between younger African Americans and older African Americans,” South Carolina state Rep. Kambrell Garvin, a Warren surrogate, previously told Vox. “Younger African Americans like Joe Biden, but a lot of us aren’t supportive of Joe Biden, because we want a change in policies. We aren’t looking to tinker around the edges.”
Meanwhile, former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar have both struggled to make any inroads among black voters, a difficulty exemplified first in Nevada, and again in South Carolina.
Candidates who consistently rate poorly among black voters — a group that comprises 20 percent of the national Democratic electorate — are going to struggle to achieve the kind of coalition needed to compete nationally. That’s especially significant going into Super Tuesday, when more diverse states, including California, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia, will cast their ballots.
As Zhou wrote, “South Carolina is the first big test of the amount of backing candidates can rally from black voters.” Biden has passed that test, as he’d said he would. Other candidates, however, would appear to have cause for concern.


vox--2020-03-01--The 2020 election calendar

The 2020 election calendar

The Democratic presidential primary has been going on for months .
But 2020 — the election year — is finally here , and it ’ s an understatement to say that it will be a busy year in US politics .
February brought the first four early-state Democratic caucuses and primaries , starting in Iowa on February 3 and continuing through New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina .
As the year continues , there are many important dates : including Super Tuesday ( March 3 ) , the Republican and Democratic conventions ( in July and August ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November 3 .
That ’ s where this calendar comes in .
Here are the most important events of the 2020 election cycle .
Bookmark this page to refer back to , add it to your Google Calendar by clicking the plus sign on the bottom right of this page , or subscribe through a calendar app of your choice .
This page and the calendar subscriptions will be updated if dates change or new debates are announced .
Read all of our coverage from the June debates here .
Read all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Read all of our coverage of the September debate here .
• Second town hall on climate change on MSNBC Read all of our coverage from the October debate here .
Read all of our coverage from the November debate here .
Read all of our coverage from the December debate here .
Read all of our coverage from the Iowa caucuses here .
Read all of our coverage from the New Hampshire primaries here .
Read all of our coverage from the South Carolina primary here .

Share All sharing options for: The 2020 election calendar
Vox answers your biggest questions about the 2020 US presidential election .
This story is part of a group of stories called
The 2020 presidential election is ramping into high gear.
Joe Biden announced his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, and Democrats and Republicans held their first virtual conventions this summer. Biden and President Donald Trump accepted their parties’ official nominations for president, and the fall campaign season is upon us.
The presidential debates began September 29 and run through October, including the vice presidential debate on October 7. The second presidential debate, scheduled for October 15, was canceled after Trump tested positive for Covid-19, then refused to agree to debate virtually. One more debate is scheduled for October 22.
Election Day itself, of course, will fall on Tuesday, November 3.
Read on for the important events of the 2020 election cycle and bookmark this page to refer back to. You can also add it to your Google Calendar by clicking the plus sign on the bottom right of this page, or subscribe through a calendar app of your choice. This page and the calendar subscriptions will be updated as dates and information change.
And check out our guides on how to vote early and by mail.
September 2020
September 29
Presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, at the Case Western Reserve/Cleveland Clinic joint campus
October 2020
October 7
Vice presidential debate in Salt Lake City at the University of Utah
October 22
Presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, at Belmont University
November 2020
November 3
Election Day
Past 2020 election coverage
June 2019
June 26-27
Read all of our coverage from the June debates here.
July 2019
July 30-31
Read all of our coverage from the July debates here.
September 2019
September 4
September 12
Read all of our coverage of the September debate here.
September 19-20
October 2019
October 15
Read all of our coverage from the October debate here.
November 2019
November 20
Read all of our coverage from the November debate here.
December 2019
December 19
Read all of our coverage from the December debate here.
January 2020
January 14
February 2020
February 3
Iowa caucuses
Read all of our coverage from the Iowa caucuses here.
February 7
February 11
New Hampshire primaries
Read all of our coverage from the New Hampshire primaries here.
February 19
February 22
Nevada caucuses
February 25
February 29
South Carolina primary
Read all of our coverage from the South Carolina primary here.
March 2020
March 3 (Super Tuesday)
Alabama primaries (D, R)
American Samoa caucuses (D)
Arkansas primaries (D, R)
California primaries (D, R)
Colorado primaries (D, R)
Maine primaries (D, R)
Massachusetts primaries (D, R)
Minnesota primaries (D, R)
North Carolina primaries (D, R)
Oklahoma primaries (D, R)
Tennessee primaries (D, R)
Texas primaries (D, R)
Utah primaries (D, R)
Vermont primaries (D, R)
Virginia primary (D)
Democrats Abroad primary (through March 10)
Read all of our coverage from Super Tuesday here.
March 10
Idaho primaries (D, R)
Michigan primaries (D, R)
Mississippi primaries (D, R)
Missouri primaries (D, R)
North Dakota caucuses (D)
Washington primaries (D, R)
Read all of our coverage from the March 10 primaries here.
March 12
Virgin Islands caucuses
March 14
Guam caucuses (R)
Northern Marianas convention (D)
March 15
March 17
Arizona primary (D)
Florida primaries (D, R)
Illinois primaries (D, R)
Northern Marianas convention (R)
Read all of our coverage from the March 17 primaries here.
March 24
American Samoa caucuses (R)
April 2020
April 7
Wisconsin primaries (D, R; April 7 is the election date and mail-in vote postmark deadline following court rulings, as of 8 pm ET on April 6)
April 10
Alaska primary (D; vote-by-mail only; results will be available no later than 11:59 pm on April 11)
April 17
Wyoming caucuses (D; vote-by-mail only)
April 28
Ohio primaries (D, R; vote-by-mail only)
May 2020
May 2
Kansas primary (D)
Guam caucuses (D)
May 7-9
Wyoming state convention (R)
May 12
Nebraska primaries (D, R)
May 19
Oregon primaries (D, R)
June 2020
June 2
Delaware primaries (D, R)
District of Columbia primaries (D, R)
Indiana primaries (D, R)
Maryland primaries (D, R)
Montana primaries (D, R)
New Mexico primaries (D, R)
Pennsylvania primaries (D, R)
Rhode Island primaries (D, R)
South Dakota primaries (D, R)
June 6
Virgin Islands caucuses (D)
June 7
Puerto Rico primary (R)
June 9
Georgia primaries (D, R)
West Virginia primaries (D, R)
June 23
Kentucky primaries (D, R)
New York primaries (D, R)
July 2020
July 7
New Jersey primaries (D, R)
July 11
Louisiana primaries (D, R)
August 2020
August 11
Connecticut primaries (D, R)
August 17-20
Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Read our coverage of the Democratic convention here.
August 24-27
Republican National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina
Read our coverage of the Republican convention here.


vox--2020-03-01--Near-record turnout in South Carolina sets stage for Super Tuesday battles

Almost all results are in from Saturday ’ s South Carolina Democratic primary , and former Vice President Joe Biden has picked up his first win in the race .
For South Carolina , there was another milestone : a near-record primary turnout .
With 94 percent of precincts reporting , and the final 6 percent nearly finished with their tallies , South Carolina ’ s Election Commission has found 524,000 voters cast ballots in Saturday ’ s primary .
That total would appear to put the state on track to nearly match — or perhaps surpass — the turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first presidential race in 2008 , when 532,000 voters participated , according to pollster and political analyst John Couvillon .
The precincts that are still reporting include Richland and Charleston counties , home to Columbia and Charleston , the most populous cities in the state .
Their results could bump turnout into record-making territory .
Biden received almost half of all ballots cast on Saturday , more than 256,000 .
His closest rival for vote numbers , Vermont ’ s Sen. Bernie Sanders , has received 104,000 votes , or just under 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg , and Sens .
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts earned , between them , fewer than 100,000 votes .
Billionaire Tom Steyer , who dropped out on Saturday night after his all-in-for-South-Carolina strategy failed to yield the results he had hoped for , picked up just under 60,000 votes .
That was almost four percentage points shy of the 15 percent needed for him to leave the state with any delegates .
The size of the electorate this year in South Carolina should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following disappointing turnouts in Iowa ’ s caucuses .
Although some Democrats were wringing their hands about Iowa turnout , turnout has been strong — in fact , increasingly so — in each contest since .
In New Hampshire , a total of 300,622 ballots were cast , besting the previous record of 288,672 votes in 2008 .
And in the Nevada caucuses , the early turnout alone nearly beat the total turnout for 2016 ; all told , almost 100,000 people caucused .
This suggests a significant investment from Democratic voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push that was somewhat foretold during the 2018 midterm season , which saw record turnout for non-presidential-year voting .
These turnout numbers also set the stage for a robust Super Tuesday fight , when the country ’ s most populous states — Texas and California — will be among the 14 states to cast ballots .

Almost all results are in from Saturday’s South Carolina Democratic primary, and former Vice President Joe Biden has picked up his first win in the race. For South Carolina, there was another milestone: a near-record primary turnout.
With 94 percent of precincts reporting, and the final 6 percent nearly finished with their tallies, South Carolina’s Election Commission has found 524,000 voters cast ballots in Saturday’s primary.
That total would appear to put the state on track to nearly match — or perhaps surpass — the turnout record set during Barack Obama’s first presidential race in 2008, when 532,000 voters participated, according to pollster and political analyst John Couvillon.
SC RESULTS THREAD:
30% reporting
165300 total turnout
555400 proj turnout
532000 was previous record Dem turnout from 2008
371000 was 2016 turnout (second highest #) — John Couvillon (@WinWithJMC) March 1, 2020
The precincts that are still reporting include Richland and Charleston counties, home to Columbia and Charleston, the most populous cities in the state. Their results could bump turnout into record-making territory.
Biden received almost half of all ballots cast on Saturday, more than 256,000. His closest rival for vote numbers, Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, has received 104,000 votes, or just under 20 percent of all ballots. Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts earned, between them, fewer than 100,000 votes.
Billionaire Tom Steyer, who dropped out on Saturday night after his all-in-for-South-Carolina strategy failed to yield the results he had hoped for, picked up just under 60,000 votes. That was almost four percentage points shy of the 15 percent needed for him to leave the state with any delegates.
The size of the electorate this year in South Carolina should allay early concerns about turnout among Democrats following disappointing turnouts in Iowa’s caucuses. Although some Democrats were wringing their hands about Iowa turnout, turnout has been strong — in fact, increasingly so — in each contest since.
Related Live results for the South Carolina Democratic primary
In New Hampshire, a total of 300,622 ballots were cast, besting the previous record of 288,672 votes in 2008. And in the Nevada caucuses, the early turnout alone nearly beat the total turnout for 2016; all told, almost 100,000 people caucused.
This suggests a significant investment from Democratic voters in this year’s election, a push that was somewhat foretold during the 2018 midterm season, which saw record turnout for non-presidential-year voting.
These turnout numbers also set the stage for a robust Super Tuesday fight, when the country’s most populous states — Texas and California — will be among the 14 states to cast ballots.


vox--2020-03-01--Bernie Sanders posts a record $46.5 million February fundraising haul

Despite coming in second in Saturday ’ s South Carolina primary , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) is still putting up monster fundraising numbers .
Sanders ’ s campaign announced they ’ ve raised $ 46.5 million in February , the largest monthly sum any Democratic candidate has raised so far this cycle .
It will ensure Sanders stays competitive as the campaign shifts from the early states to a national primary — a change that calls for substantial money to reach voters in multiple states with ads .
In addition to the ads the Sanders campaign is already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money will help fuel a large Sanders ad buy in states beyond next Tuesday ’ s contests : The campaign has announced ad buys in five states voting on March 10 , as well as four large states voting March 17 : Arizona , Florida , Illinois , and Ohio .
Fueled by an army of grassroots supporters , Sanders has consistently been the top fundraiser of the 2020 cycle , but he ’ s not the only competitive candidate .
The campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) raised $ 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance in Nevada .
And after decisively winning the South Carolina primary on Saturday night , former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s campaign announced it raised $ 5 million in a single day .
But despite this impressive fundraising , Sanders has a monetary advantage that other candidates seem unable to match .
As the New York Times ’ Shane Goldmacher tweeted , Sanders ’ s haul in the first two months of 2020 dwarfed Biden ’ s fundraising in the previous year .
Being flush with campaign cash is critical during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the moment the Democratic primary will shift from revolving around the small , retail-style politics of the early states to a so-called “ tarmac campaign ” where candidates are flying to multiple states to do big rallies , and must rely on ads to get their messages to voters .
This is the phase of the campaign where winning enough races to get delegates is the main thing that matters .
Reaching voters takes money , and a number of the most important Super Tuesday states , like California and Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markets .
“ It ’ s a virtual national primary because there are so many states , ” longtime California Democratic consultant Bill Carrick told Vox in a recent interview .
“ The math itself changes , and every network has some sort of chart showing the projected delegate count.
” Sanders and billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have a definite cash advantage going into Super Tuesday , thanks to Sanders ’ s seemingly unstoppable grassroots fundraising and Bloomberg ’ s vast cash reserves .
How that advantage translates into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen , but both candidates have seen strong national polling in recent weeks as Sanders picked up victories in early states and Bloomberg ’ s advertising spending topped $ 500 million .
And the strong fundraising hauls from other candidates are a reminder the race is not over yet — Biden and Warren ( and other candidates like former South Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg ) are signaling they ’ re competitive enough to stay in the race longer .

Despite coming in second in Saturday’s South Carolina primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is still putting up monster fundraising numbers.
Sanders’s campaign announced they’ve raised $46.5 million in February, the largest monthly sum any Democratic candidate has raised so far this cycle. It will ensure Sanders stays competitive as the campaign shifts from the early states to a national primary — a change that calls for substantial money to reach voters in multiple states with ads.
In addition to the ads the Sanders campaign is already running in Super Tuesday states, the money will help fuel a large Sanders ad buy in states beyond next Tuesday’s contests: The campaign has announced ad buys in five states voting on March 10, as well as four large states voting March 17: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio.
Fueled by an army of grassroots supporters, Sanders has consistently been the top fundraiser of the 2020 cycle, but he’s not the only competitive candidate. The campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) raised $29 million in February after her rousing debate performance in Nevada. And after decisively winning the South Carolina primary on Saturday night, former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign announced it raised $5 million in a single day.
But despite this impressive fundraising, Sanders has a monetary advantage that other candidates seem unable to match. As the New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher tweeted, Sanders’s haul in the first two months of 2020 dwarfed Biden’s fundraising in the previous year.
Another way to look at this: Bernie Sanders raised more in January and February 2020 than Joe Biden raised in all of 2019, plus January 2020 https://t.co/ie295NJccI — Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) March 1, 2020
Being flush with campaign cash is critical during this stretch of the primary; it’s the moment the Democratic primary will shift from revolving around the small, retail-style politics of the early states to a so-called “tarmac campaign” where candidates are flying to multiple states to do big rallies, and must rely on ads to get their messages to voters.
This is the phase of the campaign where winning enough races to get delegates is the main thing that matters. Reaching voters takes money, and a number of the most important Super Tuesday states, like California and Texas, have very large and expensive media markets.
“It’s a virtual national primary because there are so many states,” longtime California Democratic consultant Bill Carrick told Vox in a recent interview. “The math itself changes, and every network has some sort of chart showing the projected delegate count.”
Sanders and billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have a definite cash advantage going into Super Tuesday, thanks to Sanders’s seemingly unstoppable grassroots fundraising and Bloomberg’s vast cash reserves. How that advantage translates into vote totals and delegate math remains to be seen, but both candidates have seen strong national polling in recent weeks as Sanders picked up victories in early states and Bloomberg’s advertising spending topped $500 million.
And the strong fundraising hauls from other candidates are a reminder the race is not over yet — Biden and Warren (and other candidates like former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg) are signaling they’re competitive enough to stay in the race longer.


vox--2020-03-01--Rep. Jim Clyburn’s endorsement gave Biden some serious momentum in South Carolina

A last-second endorsement from South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn , the third-ranking Democrat in the House , appears to have given former Vice President Joe Biden a substantial boost in his decisive victory in South Carolina ’ s presidential primary on Saturday .
According to exit polls conducted by Edison Research , 61 percent of Democratic voters said Clyburn ’ s endorsement was an important factor in their decision .
And 27 percent of voters said the endorsement was “ the most important factor ” in their candidate choice .
The impact of Clyburn ’ s coveted endorsement on voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which party elites have declining influence over primaries , a respected politician can still have sway over voters .
Clyburn has represented South Carolina for nearly three decades , and is the highest-ranking African American politician in Congress .
He ’ s widely considered a kingmaker in South Carolina , and his quadrennial “ World Famous Fish Fry ” is an iconic institution on the Democratic presidential campaign trail .
The timing of Clyburn ’ s endorsement for Biden , which came three days before the primary , was crucial — perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of undecided voters in the state just days ahead of voting .
A Monmouth University poll released one day before Clyburn ’ s endorsement , for instance , found 15 percent of likely primary voters were undecided .
According to a Washington Post exit poll , an even greater number of voters — 37 percent — decided on their candidate in the last few days before the primary ; 48 percent of those late-deciding voters went to Biden .
Biden ’ s victory , in which he beat national frontrunner Sanders by nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a campaign that has underperformed in early state contests and struggled to gain traction .
And the candidate made it clear who he believed was responsible for the win in his victory speech Saturday night , saying , “ My buddy Jim Clyburn , you brought me back !
” This is the first primary of the 2020 season Biden has won — and the first primary in three presidential runs that he ’ s ever won — and it is a particularly important one : South Carolina is a crucial bellwether for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that other Southern states with similar demographics ( like Alabama and North Carolina ) could go the same way .

A last-second endorsement from South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, appears to have given former Vice President Joe Biden a substantial boost in his decisive victory in South Carolina’s presidential primary on Saturday.
According to exit polls conducted by Edison Research, 61 percent of Democratic voters said Clyburn’s endorsement was an important factor in their decision. And 27 percent of voters said the endorsement was “the most important factor” in their candidate choice.
The impact of Clyburn’s coveted endorsement on voter thinking underscores how even in an era in which party elites have declining influence over primaries, a respected politician can still have sway over voters.
Clyburn has represented South Carolina for nearly three decades, and is the highest-ranking African American politician in Congress. He’s widely considered a kingmaker in South Carolina, and his quadrennial “World Famous Fish Fry” is an iconic institution on the Democratic presidential campaign trail.
Related 4 winners and 3 losers in the South Carolina Democratic primary
The timing of Clyburn’s endorsement for Biden, which came three days before the primary, was crucial — perhaps even more so because of the number of undecided voters in the state just days ahead of voting. A Monmouth University poll released one day before Clyburn’s endorsement, for instance, found 15 percent of likely primary voters were undecided.
According to a Washington Post exit poll, an even greater number of voters — 37 percent — decided on their candidate in the last few days before the primary; 48 percent of those late-deciding voters went to Biden.
Biden’s victory, in which he beat national frontrunner Sanders by nearly 30 percentage points, could potentially revive a campaign that has underperformed in early state contests and struggled to gain traction.
And the candidate made it clear who he believed was responsible for the win in his victory speech Saturday night, saying, “My buddy Jim Clyburn, you brought me back!”
This is the first primary of the 2020 season Biden has won — and the first primary in three presidential runs that he’s ever won — and it is a particularly important one: South Carolina is a crucial bellwether for the South, and it’s possible that other Southern states with similar demographics (like Alabama and North Carolina) could go the same way.


vox--2020-03-01--Trump’s push for South Carolina Republicans to vote for Sanders went unheeded

Despite President Donald Trump urging South Carolina Republicans to turn out in Saturday ’ s open Democratic primary to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , the Washington Post ’ s exit poll shows very few did .
Trump has openly encouraged Republicans in other states with open primaries — primaries in which state residents of any party affiliation can participate — to attempt to skew the vote in past 2020 primary contests .
He did so again during a Friday rally in North Charleston , South Carolina , taking an informal audience poll on which Democratic candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easiest to defeat ( Sanders “ won ” by drawing the loudest cheers from Trump ’ s audience ) .
“ Are you ready ?
You ready ?
” Trump asked his South Carolina crowd .
“ Let ’ s do it together — I assume this is okay from a campaign finance standpoint , I assume .
First we have to figure out who would be the weakest candidate against President Trump.
” Sanders — a self-declared democratic socialist — was declared the easiest candidate to beat come November 2020 , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily bear that idea out .
Despite Trump ’ s urging , an exit poll from the Washington Post showed just 5 percent of registered Republicans actually voted in the primary , a number too small for pollsters to give details on which Democratic candidate received the most votes from that group .
Registered Democrats made up 70 percent of everyone who voted in the primary , while independent voters accounted for 26 percent , according to that poll .
Both South Carolina Democrats and independents voted for former Vice President Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats voted for Biden compared to 18 percent who voted for Sanders , and 35 percent of independents voted for Biden , compared to 23 percent who voted for Sanders .
South Carolina Republicans have already consolidated their support around Trump , and chose not to hold a Republican primary on Saturday .
Trump has a 12 percentage point net approval rating in the state , and remains overwhelmingly popular among Republicans , with Morning Consult ’ s tracking poll showing 88 percent of GOP voters approve of him .
But that support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s theory was that he could get his supporters to juice Sanders ’ s South Carolina numbers enough to change the outcome of the Democratic primary , he was wrong .
Biden ’ s South Carolina victory was decisive , especially among black voters , who made up over half of the voters on Saturday .
Overall , the former vice president received nearly 50 percent of the vote .
So while Trump remains an overwhelmingly popular and influential figure in South Carolina politics , the Democratic primary also served as a reminder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can convince his Republican supporters to do .

Despite President Donald Trump urging South Carolina Republicans to turn out in Saturday’s open Democratic primary to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the Washington Post’s exit poll shows very few did.
Trump has openly encouraged Republicans in other states with open primaries — primaries in which state residents of any party affiliation can participate — to attempt to skew the vote in past 2020 primary contests. He did so again during a Friday rally in North Charleston, South Carolina, taking an informal audience poll on which Democratic candidate his South Carolina supporters felt would be easiest to defeat (Sanders “won” by drawing the loudest cheers from Trump’s audience).
“Are you ready? You ready?” Trump asked his South Carolina crowd. “Let’s do it together — I assume this is okay from a campaign finance standpoint, I assume. First we have to figure out who would be the weakest candidate against President Trump.”
Related Live results for the South Carolina Democratic primary
Sanders — a self-declared democratic socialist — was declared the easiest candidate to beat come November 2020, even though head-to-head matchup polls don’t necessarily bear that idea out.
Despite Trump’s urging, an exit poll from the Washington Post showed just 5 percent of registered Republicans actually voted in the primary, a number too small for pollsters to give details on which Democratic candidate received the most votes from that group. Registered Democrats made up 70 percent of everyone who voted in the primary, while independent voters accounted for 26 percent, according to that poll.
Both South Carolina Democrats and independents voted for former Vice President Joe Biden over Sanders; 54 percent of registered Democrats voted for Biden compared to 18 percent who voted for Sanders, and 35 percent of independents voted for Biden, compared to 23 percent who voted for Sanders.
South Carolina Republicans have already consolidated their support around Trump, and chose not to hold a Republican primary on Saturday. Trump has a 12 percentage point net approval rating in the state, and remains overwhelmingly popular among Republicans, with Morning Consult’s tracking poll showing 88 percent of GOP voters approve of him.
But that support apparently has limits. If Trump’s theory was that he could get his supporters to juice Sanders’s South Carolina numbers enough to change the outcome of the Democratic primary, he was wrong. Biden’s South Carolina victory was decisive, especially among black voters, who made up over half of the voters on Saturday. Overall, the former vice president received nearly 50 percent of the vote.
So while Trump remains an overwhelmingly popular and influential figure in South Carolina politics, the Democratic primary also served as a reminder that there are limits to what Trump can convince his Republican supporters to do.


vox--2020-03-01--Why liberals are bad at politics

Why liberals are bad at politics

If you spend a lot of time consuming news , there ’ s a good chance you ’ re doing politics wrong .
And you ’ re not only doing it wrong , you probably also think you ’ re doing it right , which means you ’ re almost certainly making things worse .
This is the thesis of a new book called Politics Is for Power by Eitan Hersh , a political scientist at Tufts University .
His book is half lament , half rallying cry .
A self-identified liberal , Hersh tries to understand why the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics more and more like a spectator sport .
He coins the term “ political hobbyism ” to capture the problem .
“ We participate in politics by obsessive news-following and online slacktivism , by feeling the need to offer a hot take for each daily political flare-up , by emoting and arguing and debating , almost all of this from behind screens , ” Hersh says .
Many of us think we ’ re politically active — but in fact , we ’ re doing little more than signaling who we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotionally invested in politics , but we ’ re not actually committed to solving problems .
I spoke to Hersh about how politics became mere sport for so many people , why it ’ s particularly a problem on the left , and what he thinks people should do if they really want to organize and change the world around them .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
What is politics actually about for you ?
For me , politics is about working with other people to influence the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by convincing people who they should vote for , or by interacting with politicians and lobbying them ; in either case , you are getting these other people , whether they ’ re politicians or citizens , to take some action they wouldn ’ t otherwise take .
The problem is that this just doesn ’ t describe how most people engage in politics .
This is sort of the starting point of the book .
Well , you go even further than that .
You argue that liberals , in particular , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the people who spend the most time consuming news and arguing online are disproportionately college-educated white people , and right now that demographic is predominantly Democratic .
This isn ’ t to say that this sort of behavior doesn ’ t happen on both sides , but it ’ s mostly on the left .
In a lot of ways I ’ m liberal , but the message of the book is conservative in the sense that it ’ s prioritizing local engagement over national engagement .
I think we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example .
Some people see that as a conservative message , whereas I just think that ’ s what building power requires .
The issue here is something you call “ political hobbyism , ” an approach to politics that has become dominant .
Explain what that is .
Political hobbyist is a catchall term for the person who spends a lot of time consuming news or signing online petitions or engaging online with people about this or that issue .
They mistake this for actual politics , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to power-building .
When you ’ re a hobbyist , you ’ re learning the wrong information and practicing the wrong skills .
You are typically learning about big national news items , and oftentimes it ’ s just drama .
So a hobbyist might learn all the details of the Mueller report and feel that ’ s important to know and will spend hours and hours on it .
But then if you asked him how he could get involved on some issues of importance in his local community or in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in his community to influence government , he has no idea .
He ’ s just caught up in the national news cycle and he ’ s not actually improving anything .
The hobbyist is also learning the wrong political skills .
Online politics is all about provocation and signaling outrage .
But changing people ’ s minds , turning your vote into many votes , requires empathy and face-to-face engagement .
Not only are you not doing this online or when watching cable news , you ’ re learning exactly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , college-educated liberals most likely to engage in political hobbyism ?
There are a few reasons .
College-educated white people are likely to be in a social setting where they feel it ’ s a civic duty to participate in politics and to stay informed .
They might find learning political facts to be intellectually gratifying .
At the same time , the status quo for white , college-educated Americans is pretty good .
They have good jobs .
They aren ’ t being conscripted into military service like past generations .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or despise this or that politician , they aren ’ t willing to roll up their sleeves and build political power .
It ’ s only if you don ’ t need more power than you already have that you could possibly conceive of politics as an at-home leisure activity .
No one is spending more time learning facts and consuming news than college-educated white men .
But research on real engagement — volunteering for groups and campaigns — shows it ’ s overwhelmingly women and disproportionately blacks and Latinos who are doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the status quo among college-educated whites , especially men , seems like the most likely explanation .
As to why this is more of a liberal problem than a conservative one , right now the white college-educated population is much more Democratic than Republican .
Of course , there ’ s plenty of hobbyism on both sides , but right now this group tends to lean Democratic .
But there are examples of genuine activism on the left , like Black Lives Matter protests or the Women ’ s March or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban .
Are these just exceptions to the rule , or do you not consider them politically impactful ?
Those are all , in their own ways , very useful and meaningful protests .
Sometimes protests are strategic , and sometimes they ’ re cathartic .
The cathartic ones are organized quickly , and the goal is mostly to let off steam .
But other times , protests really are strategic in terms of recruitment or raising awareness of an issue .
I think of BLM protests as strategic in terms of raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a first step .
The long-term goals of that movement require people to actually engage in conversations with police departments about what those police departments are doing and how they ’ re doing it .
And it requires working on the ground wherever you live to push the right buttons .
I want the political hobbyist to struggle with this question , as I did while writing it : If they attended a protest or a march , what was it for them ?
Was it cathartic , or was it the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
If it was the former , then it was just hobbyism .
If it was the latter , then great .
What do political hobbyists get out of this kind of superficial engagement with politics ?
Emotional satisfaction ?
Is it about signaling who we are to other people ?
It ’ s a shortcut to engagement .
You get to feel connected to a sense of community and a sense of mission without doing any heavy lifting , which is partly why online engagement is emotion-driven .
If you feel angry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel somehow connected to it , even if you haven ’ t done anything .
You ’ re preaching boots-on-the-ground activism and face-to-face interaction , especially with people on the other side .
What do you say to people who are cynical about the possibilities of persuasion , who feel like the chasm is so deep that it ’ s no longer possible to engage with political opponents ?
I guess I would say that they ’ re wrong .
Most of the people you engage with in real life are not at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or online .
Most of the people you ’ ll encounter in your neighborhood or in a community group aren ’ t raving Alex Jones followers .
In reality , most people simply aren ’ t that invested and don ’ t have deeply held positions , and they ’ re open to persuasion if you ’ re open to being kind to them .
I ’ m curious why you think political hobbyism has become so common .
What changes in the culture or political media ecosystem have pushed in this direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot about changes in media technology , and I think that has definitely made it easier to engage more shallowly .
It ’ s not any harder to go to a community meeting once a week today than it was 30 years ago , but it feels harder relative to the alternative .
I also think that deliberate decisions by the political parties and by the federal and state governments have taken power away from local groups , have taken money away from grassroots organizing , and have favored consultant-driven activism that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hobbyism .
And look , I think a lot of people just don ’ t have the energy or time to do real political work , which is hard and demanding .
And plenty of people don ’ t necessarily make a deliberate decision to not get involved ; they just don ’ t see any pathways to meaningful participation .
That ’ s very much part of the problem .
The right seems to understand power better than the left , or perhaps there ’ s something about the nature of conservatism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics you ’ re advocating .
I think you ’ re onto something there .
A bottom-up approach to political change that focuses on the local stuff or the local institutions , like churches or gun clubs , is just more common on the right .
We used to think more about grassroots organizing focused on unions , for example , but unions have collapsed while churches have gotten disproportionately Republican .
Again , some of the key demographics of the left , like college-educated white people , don ’ t attend any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people on the right , and so there ’ s less community engagement .
And some of the paramount issues for the left , like race or climate change , feel like non-local problems , and that itself is a deterrent .
I think it ’ s important to say that some of the decline in organizing on the left is the result of conservatives actively destroying mediating institutions like labor unions , which helped organize working-class voters in this country for decades .
You ’ re right that unions have been undermined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting the government to not favor organized labor .
But no one is stopping liberals from forming their own aid associations or from forming churches that speak to them , or by building community organizations .
Whenever I talk about political hobbyism , people squirm to find reasons why it ’ s someone else ’ s fault .
One of the reasons I did this uncomfortable thing for a political scientist , which is talk about my own political engagement , is so that I could tell the reader I know all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all myself .
What ’ s your advice for people who want to get involved and help build political power ?
I think they get started by building a cell of friends to do it with them locally , and they should be thinking about how they can dedicate at least one night a week to this , or a certain number of hours .
The mindset is not “ How can I influence the next election ?
” The mindset has to be “ I ’ m entitled to my own vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence ?
” I profile lots of people in the book who are taking this kind of approach and accomplishing amazing things .
They ’ re showing that if you can get 100 or 200 or 1,000 people to share your values and to cast a ballot or show up to an advocacy meeting , you really can make a huge difference .

If you spend a lot of time consuming news, there’s a good chance you’re doing politics wrong.
And you’re not only doing it wrong, you probably also think you’re doing it right, which means you’re almost certainly making things worse.
This is the thesis of a new book called Politics Is for Power by Eitan Hersh, a political scientist at Tufts University. His book is half lament, half rallying cry. A self-identified liberal, Hersh tries to understand why the left stopped pursuing power and instead started treating politics more and more like a spectator sport.
He coins the term “political hobbyism” to capture the problem. “We participate in politics by obsessive news-following and online slacktivism, by feeling the need to offer a hot take for each daily political flare-up, by emoting and arguing and debating, almost all of this from behind screens,” Hersh says. Many of us think we’re politically active — but in fact, we’re doing little more than signaling who we are to other people. We may be emotionally invested in politics, but we’re not actually committed to solving problems.
I spoke to Hersh about how politics became mere sport for so many people, why it’s particularly a problem on the left, and what he thinks people should do if they really want to organize and change the world around them.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
What is politics actually about for you?
Eitan Hersh
For me, politics is about working with other people to influence the government. And you can influence the government by convincing people who they should vote for, or by interacting with politicians and lobbying them; in either case, you are getting these other people, whether they’re politicians or citizens, to take some action they wouldn’t otherwise take.
The problem is that this just doesn’t describe how most people engage in politics. This is sort of the starting point of the book.
Sean Illing
Well, you go even further than that. You argue that liberals, in particular, are doing politics wrong.
Eitan Hersh
The reality is that the people who spend the most time consuming news and arguing online are disproportionately college-educated white people, and right now that demographic is predominantly Democratic. This isn’t to say that this sort of behavior doesn’t happen on both sides, but it’s mostly on the left.
In a lot of ways I’m liberal, but the message of the book is conservative in the sense that it’s prioritizing local engagement over national engagement. I think we need more institutional engagement with religious organizations, for example. Some people see that as a conservative message, whereas I just think that’s what building power requires.
Sean Illing
The issue here is something you call “political hobbyism,” an approach to politics that has become dominant. Explain what that is.
Eitan Hersh
Political hobbyist is a catchall term for the person who spends a lot of time consuming news or signing online petitions or engaging online with people about this or that issue. They mistake this for actual politics, but it’s not because it doesn’t contribute to power-building.
Sean Illing
Why not?
Eitan Hersh
When you’re a hobbyist, you’re learning the wrong information and practicing the wrong skills. You are typically learning about big national news items, and oftentimes it’s just drama. So a hobbyist might learn all the details of the Mueller report and feel that’s important to know and will spend hours and hours on it.
But then if you asked him how he could get involved on some issues of importance in his local community or in his state, or where the pressure points are in his community to influence government, he has no idea. He’s just caught up in the national news cycle and he’s not actually improving anything.
The hobbyist is also learning the wrong political skills. Online politics is all about provocation and signaling outrage. But changing people’s minds, turning your vote into many votes, requires empathy and face-to-face engagement. Not only are you not doing this online or when watching cable news, you’re learning exactly the wrong skill set.
Sean Illing
Why are white, college-educated liberals most likely to engage in political hobbyism?
Eitan Hersh
There are a few reasons. College-educated white people are likely to be in a social setting where they feel it’s a civic duty to participate in politics and to stay informed. They might find learning political facts to be intellectually gratifying. At the same time, the status quo for white, college-educated Americans is pretty good. They have good jobs. They aren’t being conscripted into military service like past generations.
So as much as they might lament polarization or despise this or that politician, they aren’t willing to roll up their sleeves and build political power. It’s only if you don’t need more power than you already have that you could possibly conceive of politics as an at-home leisure activity.
No one is spending more time learning facts and consuming news than college-educated white men. But research on real engagement — volunteering for groups and campaigns — shows it’s overwhelmingly women and disproportionately blacks and Latinos who are doing the real work of politics. Comfort with the status quo among college-educated whites, especially men, seems like the most likely explanation.
As to why this is more of a liberal problem than a conservative one, right now the white college-educated population is much more Democratic than Republican. Of course, there’s plenty of hobbyism on both sides, but right now this group tends to lean Democratic.
Sean Illing
But there are examples of genuine activism on the left, like Black Lives Matter protests or the Women’s March or the airport protests over Trump’s travel ban. Are these just exceptions to the rule, or do you not consider them politically impactful?
Eitan Hersh
Those are all, in their own ways, very useful and meaningful protests. Sometimes protests are strategic, and sometimes they’re cathartic. The cathartic ones are organized quickly, and the goal is mostly to let off steam. But other times, protests really are strategic in terms of recruitment or raising awareness of an issue.
I think of BLM protests as strategic in terms of raising awareness, but it’s also just a first step. The long-term goals of that movement require people to actually engage in conversations with police departments about what those police departments are doing and how they’re doing it. And it requires working on the ground wherever you live to push the right buttons.
I want the political hobbyist to struggle with this question, as I did while writing it: If they attended a protest or a march, what was it for them? Was it cathartic, or was it the beginning of a concrete plan of action? If it was the former, then it was just hobbyism. If it was the latter, then great.
Sean Illing
What do political hobbyists get out of this kind of superficial engagement with politics? Emotional satisfaction? Is it about signaling who we are to other people?
Eitan Hersh
It’s a shortcut to engagement. You get to feel connected to a sense of community and a sense of mission without doing any heavy lifting, which is partly why online engagement is emotion-driven. If you feel angry at something from your couch, you feel somehow connected to it, even if you haven’t done anything.
Sean Illing
You’re preaching boots-on-the-ground activism and face-to-face interaction, especially with people on the other side. What do you say to people who are cynical about the possibilities of persuasion, who feel like the chasm is so deep that it’s no longer possible to engage with political opponents?
Eitan Hersh
I guess I would say that they’re wrong. Most of the people you engage with in real life are not at all like the caricatures in your head or online. Most of the people you’ll encounter in your neighborhood or in a community group aren’t raving Alex Jones followers. In reality, most people simply aren’t that invested and don’t have deeply held positions, and they’re open to persuasion if you’re open to being kind to them.
Sean Illing
I’m curious why you think political hobbyism has become so common. What changes in the culture or political media ecosystem have pushed in this direction?
Eitan Hersh
I know you’ve written a lot about changes in media technology, and I think that has definitely made it easier to engage more shallowly. It’s not any harder to go to a community meeting once a week today than it was 30 years ago, but it feels harder relative to the alternative.
I also think that deliberate decisions by the political parties and by the federal and state governments have taken power away from local groups, have taken money away from grassroots organizing, and have favored consultant-driven activism that has probably created a scene that favors hobbyism.
And look, I think a lot of people just don’t have the energy or time to do real political work, which is hard and demanding. And plenty of people don’t necessarily make a deliberate decision to not get involved; they just don’t see any pathways to meaningful participation. That’s very much part of the problem.
Sean Illing
The right seems to understand power better than the left, or perhaps there’s something about the nature of conservatism that lends itself to the sort of politics you’re advocating.
Eitan Hersh
I think you’re onto something there. A bottom-up approach to political change that focuses on the local stuff or the local institutions, like churches or gun clubs, is just more common on the right. We used to think more about grassroots organizing focused on unions, for example, but unions have collapsed while churches have gotten disproportionately Republican.
Again, some of the key demographics of the left, like college-educated white people, don’t attend any religious services at the same rate of people on the right, and so there’s less community engagement. And some of the paramount issues for the left, like race or climate change, feel like non-local problems, and that itself is a deterrent.
Sean Illing
I think it’s important to say that some of the decline in organizing on the left is the result of conservatives actively destroying mediating institutions like labor unions, which helped organize working-class voters in this country for decades.
Eitan Hersh
You’re right that unions have been undermined. Conservatives have done a good job getting the government to not favor organized labor. But no one is stopping liberals from forming their own aid associations or from forming churches that speak to them, or by building community organizations.
Whenever I talk about political hobbyism, people squirm to find reasons why it’s someone else’s fault. One of the reasons I did this uncomfortable thing for a political scientist, which is talk about my own political engagement, is so that I could tell the reader I know all of their excuses, because I made them all myself.
Sean Illing
What’s your advice for people who want to get involved and help build political power?
Eitan Hersh
I think they get started by building a cell of friends to do it with them locally, and they should be thinking about how they can dedicate at least one night a week to this, or a certain number of hours. The mindset is not “How can I influence the next election?” The mindset has to be “I’m entitled to my own vote, but how many more can I influence?”
I profile lots of people in the book who are taking this kind of approach and accomplishing amazing things. They’re showing that if you can get 100 or 200 or 1,000 people to share your values and to cast a ballot or show up to an advocacy meeting, you really can make a huge difference.


vox--2020-02-29--Did Biden’s South Carolina win come just in time for Super Tuesday — or too late?

The question is whether that win came just in time for Biden ’ s hopes on Super Tuesday , which is just three days away — or whether it came too late .
The former vice president had led national polls of the Democratic contest throughout 2019 and into January 2020 .
But after Biden ’ s poor showings in Iowa ( fourth place ) and New Hampshire ( fifth place ) , he saw that lead vanish .
Several problems arose for Biden .
Most notably , Sen. Bernie Sanders surged to first in national polls after essentially tying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victories in New Hampshire and Nevada .
But nearly as threateningly , former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg surged into third , apparently cutting into Biden ’ s support , since more voters were beginning to doubt whether Biden could win .
And the field barely winnowed , with Sen. Elizabeth Warren , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , and Sen. Amy Klobuchar all staying in .
( Billionaire activist Tom Steyer dropped out . )
Those first three states had a paltry number of delegates at stake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates — one-third of the total — were right around the corner , on March 3 , about to be allotted just as Biden had seriously weakened nationally .
Biden ’ s decline and the crowded field posed the risk that Sanders could jump out to a near-insurmountable delegate lead .
Biden ’ s South Carolina win could be just what he needs to regain at least some of his lost ground so he can perform well on Super Tuesday .
Theoretically , this victory will earn him lots of positive horse-race-focused media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remaining alternative to Sanders , and loom large with Super Tuesday late deciders .
( Nearly half of the delegates at stake in that day ’ s contests are from Southern states . )
Or it could not .
There are a few complications for Biden ’ s hopes of a speedy comeback .
First is early voting .
Millions of Super Tuesday voters in states like California , Texas , and North Carolina cast their ballots before South Carolina did .
So a large share of the vote on Super Tuesday is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be influenced by Biden ’ s Palmetto State win .
Team Biden ’ s hope is that voters who were on the fence and open to supporting the former vice president were more likely to wait to cast their ballots , rather than voting early for , say , Mike Bloomberg .
But it ’ s possible that whatever momentum Biden gains from South Carolina could be blunted somewhat by early voting .
Second is the news cycle .
Biden surely wants his win to become the major story dominating airtime and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the coronavirus outbreak has been the biggest national story in recent days .
President Donald Trump also tends to generate a fair amount of news — take his speech at an annual conservative conference Saturday , just as one example .
Biden ’ s big win might break through to enough voters who haven ’ t been paying attention ( or who have been seeing tons of Bloomberg ads ) , but it ’ s not a sure thing .
Finally , Biden ’ s campaign is cash-strapped and has barely been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
From a financial perspective , it would have been better for Biden to have his big comeback victory earlier , so more money would pour into his coffers that he could spend on Super Tuesday .
Team Biden ’ s likely hope is that the positive national news coverage he ’ ll get from his win will end up being more valuable than their own ads would have been .
But it ’ s not exactly an ideal situation for him .

South Carolina Democratic voters have finally delivered former frontrunner Joe Biden a win.
The question is whether that win came just in time for Biden’s hopes on Super Tuesday, which is just three days away — or whether it came too late.
The former vice president had led national polls of the Democratic contest throughout 2019 and into January 2020. But after Biden’s poor showings in Iowa (fourth place) and New Hampshire (fifth place), he saw that lead vanish.
Several problems arose for Biden. Most notably, Sen. Bernie Sanders surged to first in national polls after essentially tying for first in Iowa and winning outright victories in New Hampshire and Nevada. But nearly as threateningly, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg surged into third, apparently cutting into Biden’s support, since more voters were beginning to doubt whether Biden could win. And the field barely winnowed, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar all staying in. (Billionaire activist Tom Steyer dropped out.)
Those first three states had a paltry number of delegates at stake. But Super Tuesday and its 1,344 delegates — one-third of the total — were right around the corner, on March 3, about to be allotted just as Biden had seriously weakened nationally. Biden’s decline and the crowded field posed the risk that Sanders could jump out to a near-insurmountable delegate lead.
Related Live results for the South Carolina Democratic primary
Biden’s South Carolina win could be just what he needs to regain at least some of his lost ground so he can perform well on Super Tuesday. Theoretically, this victory will earn him lots of positive horse-race-focused media coverage, establish him as the clear remaining alternative to Sanders, and loom large with Super Tuesday late deciders. (Nearly half of the delegates at stake in that day’s contests are from Southern states.)
Or it could not.
Biden’s Super Tuesday problems
There are a few complications for Biden’s hopes of a speedy comeback.
First is early voting. Millions of Super Tuesday voters in states like California, Texas, and North Carolina cast their ballots before South Carolina did. So a large share of the vote on Super Tuesday is already locked in and obviously can’t be influenced by Biden’s Palmetto State win.
Team Biden’s hope is that voters who were on the fence and open to supporting the former vice president were more likely to wait to cast their ballots, rather than voting early for, say, Mike Bloomberg. But it’s possible that whatever momentum Biden gains from South Carolina could be blunted somewhat by early voting.
Second is the news cycle. Biden surely wants his win to become the major story dominating airtime and headlines over the next three days. But the coronavirus outbreak has been the biggest national story in recent days. President Donald Trump also tends to generate a fair amount of news — take his speech at an annual conservative conference Saturday, just as one example. Biden’s big win might break through to enough voters who haven’t been paying attention (or who have been seeing tons of Bloomberg ads), but it’s not a sure thing.
Finally, Biden’s campaign is cash-strapped and has barely been able to fund ads beyond South Carolina. From a financial perspective, it would have been better for Biden to have his big comeback victory earlier, so more money would pour into his coffers that he could spend on Super Tuesday. Team Biden’s likely hope is that the positive national news coverage he’ll get from his win will end up being more valuable than their own ads would have been. But it’s not exactly an ideal situation for him.


vox--2020-02-29--Tom Steyer drops out of the presidential race

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer dropped out of the Democratic presidential contest Saturday , after failing to gain significant traction in South Carolina and other early states despite spending over $ 100 million on his campaign .
Steyer had never run for public office before , but he ended up becoming a somewhat notable figure in the Democratic field for one main reason : He has money .
With that money , he bought himself tickets to most of the Democratic debates .
( He spent millions on online ads to solicit small-donor contributions , and millions more to boost his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also poured money into the early states , and began to see a poll boost in Nevada and South Carolina , where he hoped for a breakout victory .
That didn ’ t happen .
In Nevada , Steyer ended up in sixth place in first-preference votes ( with 9 percent ) .
In South Carolina , he didn ’ t crack the top two , according to projections as of 9:30 pm Saturday night .
He decided to withdraw from the race , campaign officials told multiple outlets that night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ peak of Steyer ’ s campaign was one humorous viral moment : that time he awkwardly walked into a tense exchange between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren after a debate .
Beyond that , all he proved was the limits of the ability of a billionaire ’ s money to buy votes .
Steyer became a billionaire after founding the San Francisco-based hedge fund Farallon Capital Management .
Then , after stepping back from the firm in 2012 , he became an increasingly prominent Democratic donor .
His top focus was climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate in 2013 , and he gained national prominence by supporting a campaign to get the Obama administration to block the proposed Keystone XL pipeline .
But he also poured money into voter registration , campaign ad spending , and ( starting in 2017 ) a push for Donald Trump ’ s impeachment .
Through all this time , it was an open secret that Steyer mused about one day running for political office himself .
He declined to run for senator or governor in California in recent years — and , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t run for president either .
However , last July , he changed his mind and announced he ’ d enter the race after all — and he let it be known that he ’ d spend $ 100 million of his own money , an enormous sum , on his campaign .
Steyer seems to have been frustrated with the shape of the Democratic race to that point , as Biden continued to hold a shaky-looking lead against a divided field .
He seemed to have the idea that , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outsider , positioning himself as against the system .
So in addition to fighting climate change , his platform emphasized structural political reforms such as term limits for members of Congress and creating a national referendum process .
The Steyer campaign never really took off The first step was getting onto the debate stage — no easy feat , given the DNC ’ s efforts to set qualification standards that would exclude much of the enormous field .
Beginning in September ( Steyer entered too late to qualify for the two earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twofold .
First , to qualify , a candidate had to pass a polling threshold .
Second , that candidate had to show they had grassroots support by raising money from at least 130,000 people .
Steyer basically gamed both requirements with money .
To meet the polling requirement , he bombarded the early states with campaign ads , and it paid off — his numbers began to rise , particularly in Nevada and South Carolina , where no other candidates were yet advertising .
Then , to meet the fundraising requirement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to solicit contributions — essentially buying small donors .
Steyer ended up falling short for the September debate , but he succeeded in qualifying in October , and for all but one subsequent debate after that .
The problem was that Steyer generally failed to impress on the debate stage .
Nothing he said or did there ever resulted in him getting a bounce in national polls or being taken particularly seriously as a top-tier candidate .
The most common reaction to Steyer ’ s presence seemed to be to wonder why he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November , when suddenly , Steyer was no longer the only billionaire in the race — former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg launched his own campaign .
Steyer had hoped that his enormous financial resources could power him to a national victory — at that point , he had spent more than the entire rest of the Democratic field combined in the early states , and he thought he could pull off a similar strategy nationally .
But Bloomberg — who is far richer than Steyer — changed that .
He soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the field , including Steyer , combined .
So the billionaire who surged to the top tier of candidates in national polls this year ended up being Bloomberg .
Yet Bloomberg ’ s decision to skip the four early states meant Steyer at least had the opportunity to break out there .
But he didn ’ t .
Steyer finished in seventh place in the Iowa caucuses , and in sixth place in the New Hampshire primary .
In Nevada , where he had higher hopes , he also ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote , and in fifth in the county convention delegate tally .
( He failed to win a single national delegate in any of these contests . )
Still , one hope for Steyer remained : South Carolina , where he was spending exorbitant sums — and had actually risen to third place in the polls .
“ His campaign has showered money across the state , especially among the African-American community , hiring black-owned vendors and minority staff members , ” the New York Times ’ Stephanie Saul and Kim Barker reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both public and private , that the Steyer campaign crossed ethical lines in its use of money by placing state lawmakers who endorsed him , or their family members , on his payroll.
” Yet in the end , it was Joe Biden who won big in South Carolina — and Steyer fell short .
So he announced he was dropping out of the race .
One billionaire down , one remains .

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer dropped out of the Democratic presidential contest Saturday, after failing to gain significant traction in South Carolina and other early states despite spending over $100 million on his campaign.
Steyer had never run for public office before, but he ended up becoming a somewhat notable figure in the Democratic field for one main reason: He has money. With that money, he bought himself tickets to most of the Democratic debates. (He spent millions on online ads to solicit small-donor contributions, and millions more to boost his poll performance in early states.) He also poured money into the early states, and began to see a poll boost in Nevada and South Carolina, where he hoped for a breakout victory.
That didn’t happen. In Nevada, Steyer ended up in sixth place in first-preference votes (with 9 percent). In South Carolina, he didn’t crack the top two, according to projections as of 9:30 pm Saturday night. He decided to withdraw from the race, campaign officials told multiple outlets that night.
In the end, then, the peak of Steyer’s campaign was one humorous viral moment: that time he awkwardly walked into a tense exchange between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren after a debate. Beyond that, all he proved was the limits of the ability of a billionaire’s money to buy votes.
Why did Tom Steyer run?
Steyer became a billionaire after founding the San Francisco-based hedge fund Farallon Capital Management. Then, after stepping back from the firm in 2012, he became an increasingly prominent Democratic donor. His top focus was climate change — he founded the nonprofit group NextGen Climate in 2013, and he gained national prominence by supporting a campaign to get the Obama administration to block the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. But he also poured money into voter registration, campaign ad spending, and (starting in 2017) a push for Donald Trump’s impeachment.
Through all this time, it was an open secret that Steyer mused about one day running for political office himself. He declined to run for senator or governor in California in recent years — and, in January 2019, he said he wouldn’t run for president either.
However, last July, he changed his mind and announced he’d enter the race after all — and he let it be known that he’d spend $100 million of his own money, an enormous sum, on his campaign.
Steyer seems to have been frustrated with the shape of the Democratic race to that point, as Biden continued to hold a shaky-looking lead against a divided field. He seemed to have the idea that, as a non-politician, he could run as an outsider, positioning himself as against the system. So in addition to fighting climate change, his platform emphasized structural political reforms such as term limits for members of Congress and creating a national referendum process.
The Steyer campaign never really took off
The first step was getting onto the debate stage — no easy feat, given the DNC’s efforts to set qualification standards that would exclude much of the enormous field.
Beginning in September (Steyer entered too late to qualify for the two earlier, 20-candidate debates) the challenge was twofold. First, to qualify, a candidate had to pass a polling threshold. Second, that candidate had to show they had grassroots support by raising money from at least 130,000 people.
Steyer basically gamed both requirements with money. To meet the polling requirement, he bombarded the early states with campaign ads, and it paid off — his numbers began to rise, particularly in Nevada and South Carolina, where no other candidates were yet advertising. Then, to meet the fundraising requirement, Steyer spent heavily on online ads meant to solicit contributions — essentially buying small donors.
Steyer ended up falling short for the September debate, but he succeeded in qualifying in October, and for all but one subsequent debate after that.
The problem was that Steyer generally failed to impress on the debate stage. Nothing he said or did there ever resulted in him getting a bounce in national polls or being taken particularly seriously as a top-tier candidate. The most common reaction to Steyer’s presence seemed to be to wonder why he was there.
Another problem arose in November, when suddenly, Steyer was no longer the only billionaire in the race — former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg launched his own campaign.
Steyer had hoped that his enormous financial resources could power him to a national victory — at that point, he had spent more than the entire rest of the Democratic field combined in the early states, and he thought he could pull off a similar strategy nationally. But Bloomberg — who is far richer than Steyer — changed that. He soon began spending more money on ads than the rest of the field, including Steyer, combined.
So the billionaire who surged to the top tier of candidates in national polls this year ended up being Bloomberg. Yet Bloomberg’s decision to skip the four early states meant Steyer at least had the opportunity to break out there.
But he didn’t. Steyer finished in seventh place in the Iowa caucuses, and in sixth place in the New Hampshire primary. In Nevada, where he had higher hopes, he also ended up in sixth place in the first-preference vote, and in fifth in the county convention delegate tally. (He failed to win a single national delegate in any of these contests.)
Still, one hope for Steyer remained: South Carolina, where he was spending exorbitant sums — and had actually risen to third place in the polls.
“His campaign has showered money across the state, especially among the African-American community, hiring black-owned vendors and minority staff members,” the New York Times’ Stephanie Saul and Kim Barker reported. “There have also been allegations, both public and private, that the Steyer campaign crossed ethical lines in its use of money by placing state lawmakers who endorsed him, or their family members, on his payroll.”
Yet in the end, it was Joe Biden who won big in South Carolina — and Steyer fell short. So he announced he was dropping out of the race. One billionaire down, one remains.


vox--2020-02-29--South Carolina exit polls show Buttigieg and Klobuchar lagging significantly with black voters

Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar ’ s campaigns have had a problem since the start .
And early South Carolina exit polls confirm it : Black voters don ’ t back them .
According to a survey from the Washington Post , Buttigieg and Klobuchar picked up little support from black voters in the state , who make up 60 percent of the South Carolina Democratic electorate .
The exit polls , which of course are not necessarily reflective of the entirety of the final results still trickling in , show former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Buttigieg with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 percent among white voters , and Sen. Klobuchar with 1 percent support among black voters and 6 percent support among white voters .
Warren , too , had a marked contrast in backing : 5 percent of black voters favored her , compared to 12 percent of white voters who did .
Their respective lack of support mean that all three are trailing Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders significantly in the state , coming in a likely distant fourth-place finish at best .
South Carolina is the first big test of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black voters — and it suggests that former Vice President Joe Biden still has strong support from this key Democratic constituency .
It also indicated that multiple candidates continue to struggle to connect with black voters , who make up 20 percent of the Democrats ’ electorate across the country and are among the party ’ s most loyal voters .
Buttigieg , Klobuchar , and Warren have all dealt , in part , with familiarity issues , which has led them to lag behind Sanders and Biden among black voters .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gotten significant questions about their records on race .
Buttigieg has faced scrutiny about his time as South Bend mayor : His decisions to dismiss the city ’ s first black police chief , and implement a community rehabilitation program that demolished abandoned homes , are among the actions he ’ s been pressed on .
Klobuchar has also been pushed on her record as a prosecutor in Minnesota , including a murder case involving a life sentence for a 16-year-old African American boy .
According to a national February Quinnipiac poll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , Klobuchar didn ’ t have enough to register , and Warren had 8 percent .
These numbers indicate that all three still need to build support among black voters — and fast — if they want to establish a broad-based coalition for the nomination , and perform better in a series of diverse states , moving forward .

Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar’s campaigns have had a problem since the start. And early South Carolina exit polls confirm it: Black voters don’t back them.
According to a survey from the Washington Post, Buttigieg and Klobuchar picked up little support from black voters in the state, who make up 60 percent of the South Carolina Democratic electorate.
The exit polls, which of course are not necessarily reflective of the entirety of the final results still trickling in, show former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Buttigieg with 3 percent support among black voters and 17 percent among white voters, and Sen. Klobuchar with 1 percent support among black voters and 6 percent support among white voters. Warren, too, had a marked contrast in backing: 5 percent of black voters favored her, compared to 12 percent of white voters who did.
Their respective lack of support mean that all three are trailing Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders significantly in the state, coming in a likely distant fourth-place finish at best.
South Carolina is the first big test of the amount of backing candidates can rally from black voters — and it suggests that former Vice President Joe Biden still has strong support from this key Democratic constituency. It also indicated that multiple candidates continue to struggle to connect with black voters, who make up 20 percent of the Democrats’ electorate across the country and are among the party’s most loyal voters.
Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Warren have all dealt, in part, with familiarity issues, which has led them to lag behind Sanders and Biden among black voters. But Buttigieg and Klobuchar, too, have gotten significant questions about their records on race.
Buttigieg has faced scrutiny about his time as South Bend mayor: His decisions to dismiss the city’s first black police chief, and implement a community rehabilitation program that demolished abandoned homes, are among the actions he’s been pressed on. Klobuchar has also been pushed on her record as a prosecutor in Minnesota, including a murder case involving a life sentence for a 16-year-old African American boy.
The initial numbers in South Carolina mirror a national trend.
According to a national February Quinnipiac poll, Buttigieg had 4 percent support among black voters, Klobuchar didn’t have enough to register, and Warren had 8 percent.
These numbers indicate that all three still need to build support among black voters — and fast — if they want to establish a broad-based coalition for the nomination, and perform better in a series of diverse states, moving forward.