it's currently at 95% reporting:
clinton: 50.3%
sanders: 48.5%
you can't truly call that. especially not with the last precincts coming from the most populated areas around boston (and everybody being aware of that).
but, they call it early to get the headlines before everybody goes to bed. and it's this reinforcing thing, right.
people just have to be able to see it for what it is. it's the only way to deal with it.
the delegate count, btw, is 45/43. given that the three precincts still to report are known to be heavily populated boston area precincts, it's actually likely that he'll win the delegate count. barely.
if i understand right, it's not strictly proportional but based on who wins what precinct. that happened to clinton in 2008. she won the popular vote but lost the delegate count because she got beaten in the urban cores.
anyways. it's 1:00, now. it'll close down within a few hours, no doubt. we'll see how that works out. but, it's just a good example of how this works.
i'm going to need to wait until some more data comes in to do a closer analysis and debunk the race theory. but, considering that i caveated oklahoma (which seems to have finished voting very quickly, indicating low turnout - and a small base of exaggeratedly liberal voters, as i hypothesized. oklahoma is just so overwhelmingly republican. all the businesses are republican. all the social advancement is republican. you don't bother joining the democratic party unless you're ideologically aligned with it. you'll probably see the same thing in places like nebraska and wyoming. very red states, sure. but the ten people that bother showing up to vote are going to be doing so purely out of conviction. i mean, i understood this, i was just a little skeptical about it.), we're just waiting on a winner in massachusetts.
--
again, i need data. but, combining 2008 race data with 2016 numbers...
arkansas: 80% white. 66% clinton.
tennessee: 67% white. 66% clinton.
texas: 46% white. 66% clinton.
virginia: 61% white. 64% clinton.
so, we can see that race is fluctuating all over the place, while support for clinton is remaining pretty stable.
it's not enough to point out that high numbers of southern minorities are voting for clinton. clearly, high numbers of southern whites are, too.
it's clearly something else about the south rather than race, isn't it?
--
the other two southern states are:
alabama: 51% black. 78% clinton.
georgia: 51% black. 71% clinton.
i suspect you will see that the number of clinton supporters was higher amongst both whites and blacks, when you compare these states to the other four - indicating that it wasn't just that more blacks were voting for clinton, but that more whites were, too.
--
but, this is what the media does, right.
if you don't support the establishment candidate, you must be white trash racist scum.
--
i was hoping he could keep her under 60 in virginia.
i do still suspect you'll see a higher number of black liberals supporting sanders, particularly around dc. i have to wait for data...