arkansas is mostly white, but it's also clinton's actual home state (not new york, or illinois). so, it's a bad control.
tennessee is better - although note that it is gore's home state. although note that gore lost it in 2000.
texas is fucked, always has been. and virginia is more of a purple state, really.
if tennessee's numbers are (statistically) the same as the numbers in south carolina, georgia and the other southern states (including arkansas) then it can be safely concluded that the dominant factor in clinton's southern strategy is actually not race, and the media is totally out to lunch. something else will need to be pinpointed (conservative democrats vs liberal democrats).
you also want to look carefully at the numbers in atlanta, where there's a substantial intersection of black and liberal voters. i wish there was a state where the democratic base is both black and liberal - but there isn't. so it's hard to test. atlanta is the closest thing we have in the short term. in the long run, let's see what black voters in chicago and detroit and new york think.
actually, virginia is important to watch, too.
tennessee is your control for race....
but, if sanders does surprisingly well in virginia (which means roughly splitting the delegates), this ideological liberal/conservative split in the democratic party will no doubt become more obvious.
as i think that the split is going to be red/blue, rather than white/black, i'll put down what i think, more explicitly:
1) clinton wins the red states, often by large margins. these are texas, alabama, arkansas, tennessee, !oklahoma and georgia.
2) sanders wins the blue states, often by large margins. these are minnesota, massachusetts, vermont.
3) the purple states will split. these are colorado & virginia.
!polling in oklahoma seems to suggest that sanders is winning that state, which is surprising to me. i'm skeptical. but, keep in mind that oklahoma is so red that "moderates" may identify primarily as republicans, leaving behind a sort of a liberal rump that would benefit sanders. there will, of course, need to be some exceptions to the rule - it will be remarkable if every red state votes for clinton and every blue state votes for sanders.
there's black liberals in virginia, south of dc. keep an eye on them.
MegaMazury
These anti-racists are the same idiots like the racists
jessica +MegaMazury
if the kkk get their way, the result is violence directed at what is, in fact, today a majority of americans. it's beyond "unpopular speech". the counter-reaction consequently reduces to self-defense. it's a false equivalency.
if it's one klan member, discourse is preferable - albeit likely pointless. it's even preferable with two. but, as few as three klan members in the same place at the same time is enough of a threat to public safety that i would argue that violence is justified.
it just simply can't be tolerated - especially not with the political climate as it is.
jessica +Going Coastal
the issue with the kkk is not a speech issue. they're not gathering together to protest. they're trying to start a race war.
your argument is consequently disingenuous and should be treated that way.
it's one thing if somebody is writing a book, or doing a march, but, the kkk is raising an army to start a war. they have absolutely no intent to do anything other than kill people. so, there's just not any way to coherently make the argument you're making - you'd have to ignore what they're actually doing.
your choice with the kkk is actually quite simple.
1) you can wait for them to start killing people.
2) you can beat the shit out of them before they get the chance.
this middle point of de-escalation through discourse that freedom of expression is based around does not exist. there is no choice but violence, it's just a question of when the violence happens and upon what terms it happens.
===
ct92404 +Tim
They are incredibly annoying, self-righteous, and narcissistic...much like yourself. You can spot a Tumblr SJW freak from a while away - hair dyed a bright unnatural color, fake glasses, usually but not always fat, and they all talk exactly the same and say "literally" every other word. Misusing the word, I might add. They are also afraid of getting "triggered" by everything and demand "safe spaces" where no one can say anything at all that they don't like. Much like you, they don't believe in the Constitution.
jessica +ct92404
i know the kind of person that you're talking about, but that is not at all what is being represented on this thread. the people you're arguing with are good, old-fashioned anti-fascist punks. we're not afraid to offend people. and, we don't have any attachment to pacifism as a moral principle, either.
the argument is more along the lines of the one against appeasement. that doesn't work. you have to fight.
ct92404 +jessica
That was actually a separate argument that Tim guy and I were having. I was just making fun of him and calling him an SJW because he talks like them, saying "literally" every other word. Well, and also he does believe in the First Amendment.
But to get back on the topic, I completely understand people being angry, I hate the KKK too. I would be there right along with the people, cussing at them and holding a sign to protest them and let them know they are not wanted. BUT where I draw the line is physically assaulting them. They still have the right to free speech, even if we hate them.
jessica +ct92404
if you refuse to hit at them, you have no right to complain when they hit at you. all you've done is enabled them to facilitate violence, out of some naive liberal stupidity.
canada has a more modern constitution with more sophisticated language. we do not allow for absolute free speech (and, in fact, you don't, either). rather, we allow for freedom of expression within the limits of a free and democratic society.
an organization that would openly carry out acts of genocide if it were not for the violence of state coercion is not an organization that ought to be allowed to operate within the limits of a free and democratic society. the only thing that is stopping them from behaving violently is the threat of violence against them. the seriousness of that threat must be made clear, or they will resume their lynchings tomorrow.
you need to pick what side you're on. they are at a perpetual war against all. and, they won't return your naivety.
===
The Helghast Empire
worser...They beat up people...The racist would never...
jessica +The Helghast Empire
the kkk is a violent terrorist group that seeks the elimination of several ethnic groups through state-enforced genocide, and the forced slavery of others. yet, you claim they wouldn't beat people up?
your ignorance is astounding.
the reason people aren't able to see through the false equivalence is because they're basing their ideas on a concept of morality, rather than a concept of rational self-interest. i'm attacking them as naive liberals - and i'm right, on this particular point - but it's more of a broadly fundamental difference in the way that conservatives and liberals see the world.
a conservative would interpret racism as immoral, and a violent attack against it as also immoral. they would conclude that two wrongs don't make a right. they interpret the value of behaviour on whether it upholds these moral principles.
a liberal would argue that racism is irrational and that the only logical way to deal with it is through the use of extreme force. now, there's some caveats to that. you have to get to root causes, as well, or you're just perpetuating a cycle. but, when faced with violent racists a foot away from you? there's no morality in holding to some set of commandments. after all, liberals believe that moral principles are contrived nonsense that only exist in our heads. they're useful as a way to order society when they can be demonstrated using tools of deduction, but they have no intrinsic value unto themselves.
if you take a step back, you can see why the liberals are arguing for proactively taking them down and the conservatives are creating a false equivalency. as usual, the conservatives are wrong, here. but, that's the breakdown of thought, anyways.
i'm normally doing this routine for republican voters.
hillary supporters don't care about the military. like, at all. they care entirely about domestic issues. she can blow up as many countries in africa as she wants, it's not going to crater her at all. this is useless, as a tactic - unless you're trying to hold female identity voters to the republicans. but, you might want to focus on something else.
so, i know ahead of time that when i point out that it's disgusting that nobody talks about civilian casualties that i don't have an audience. that ought to be the issue, here. but, the republicans won't touch it because they know their base doesn't care. and, bernie's trying to beat her on domestic politics - which is actually probably the right choice.
the end result is that the real reason she should not be president is never going to get discussed.
she destroyed an entire country and set the world on the path to world war three in order to get a few headlines - and she didn't even get the press she wanted. and, nobody is even mentioning it.