What if black voters really don’t like Bernie Sanders?

 Let me start with the odd statement that I disagree with the premise of this post. over on James Nicoll’s blog, a fellow named David Wilford took issue with Bernie Sanders’ ability to get black voters to come to the polls. I think that’s wrong: Scott Walker angers blacks like you would not believe and there would be a long time for the Sanders campaign to learn and mobilize.

But what if he’s right?  

Let’s start with black turnout in the past few election cycles:

 

Voting turnout has been on an upward secular trend even in off-elections. So it is certainly plausible that something other than having Barack Obama on the ballot is going on.

Let’s dig a little further. In 2004, 60.0% of black citizens voted. In 2008, that ratio rose to 64.7%. In 2012, it rose again to 66.2%.

So let’s imagine that voting rates fall all the way back to 2004 levels. That would take the black share of the vote to 11.8% instead of the projected 13%. How much of a vote swing would the GOP candidate to generate in order to win?

	EVs	Sanders EVs	White vote swing needed for GOP victory
Nevada	6	207	9%
Florida	29	236	6%
Colorado	9	245	5%
Virginia	13	258	5%
Wisconsin	10	268	3%
Michigan	16	284	3%
Pennsylvania	20	304	2%
Ohio	18	322	1%
North Carolina	15	337	0%

Now, these numbers assume that the Republican candidate cannot build on Mitt Romney’s numbers among Latino and Asian-American voters. For Scott Walker, that’s a given. For Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, not so much.

A Sanders victory against Walker, however, does not rely on energized black voters. It becomes harder without them, obviously, but not impossible. He needs to hold the Republican to a 3-point swing among white voters; call it a half-Reagan. Right now, Sanders leads polls against Walker, so I cannot see why this would be impossible even in an atmosphere of depressed black turnout.

Map created at 270toWin.com

But  let me repeat: Scott Walker is such an energizing figure among black Americans that I would bet on any Democrat replicating Barack Obama’s numbers if Walker is the candidate. And thus, I continue to maintain that Sanders would lose against Bush or Rubio, albeit less than a landslide, and win against Scott Walker.

Comments

[Will Baird]

What about some of the other Republic candidates? How does Saunders fair? You're doing a good job of demonstrating why Walker is a bad idea against Saunders, but the others?

[Noel Maurer]

Here's the reason:

Sanders likely loses against Rubio, Bush or Kasich. If I'm bored, I might take out the hour to run that scenario. Basically, it's one where the Republican candidate gets back up to McCain's numbers among non-whites. In that world, the swing needed to beat Sanders is quite doable; almost easy.

Against the other plausible Republican candidates Sanders is even stronger than against Walker. None of them will attract nonwhite voters. Senator Paul might think he has a chance with his laudable stances on criminal justice, but he doesn't for three reasons. First, his former stance on the Civil Rights Act. Second, his dodgy associations. And third, the Democrats are busy matching him on that issue: he won't be running against Bill Clinton's stances from 1996.

So those scenarios are uninteresting.

Some of the implausible candidates might be interesting. How would Fiorina do against Sanders? I have absolutely no idea. What about Christie? God only knows. But for Fiorina to be matched up against Sanders in the general involves so many sixes being throw that I can't rouse myself to analyze it.

[Will Baird]

I know you're largely in the "Veep pix don't really matter" camp, but much influence would picking Fiorina (for women) and Carson or Jindal (minorities) have - if any! - on the votes.