Corporate media is very good at spinning the news of the day to fit their predetermined narrative. Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) won 3 of 4 democratic primary contests (Kansas, Nebraska and Maine) by wide margins, but all anyone heard from the pundits was how well Hillary Clinton did in the South and her "insurmountable" delegate lead. Trusted media outlets like the Washington Post coordinated a virtual smear campaign against Sanders, releasing 16 negative articles in 16 hours the day before the crucial Michigan primary. Trusted statistician Nate Silver, fivethirtyeight.com, released a report giving Sen. Sanders less than one-percent chance of carrying the state. Everyone in the establishment, including Sec. Clinton, was preparing to pivot out of the primary race and toward the general election. Needless to say, they all got it wrong.
Bernie Sanders crushed the polling projections which had him losing Michigan by more than 21 points only a few days ago. His shocking upset demonstrated that his message of growing income and wealth inequality, ending disastrous trade policies, and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure is resonating with working-class and middle-class voters of all stripes in the so-called Rust Belt of the Midwest. Upcoming primaries in Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Wisconsin, previously considered a lock for Sec. Clinton, now appear increasingly favorable to the Sanders campaign, and the path to the nomination only becomes more promising from there.
A surprising dynamic emerges when comparing the states won by each candidate. Hillary Clinton has so far posted wins in 12 states: Iowa (debatable), Nevada, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Bernie Sanders has won 9 states: New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine and now Michigan. It doesn't take a political science expert to understand that Clinton's current lead is near-completely comprised of wins in historically red states. In fact, three-quarters (9 of 12) of Hillary's primary victories are in states overwhelmingly considered lost causes for Democrats in the general election. By contrast, only a third (3 of 9) of Bernie's wins were in such states.
This deficit among blue states should be very disconcerting to Sec. Clinton's campaign, as well as her supporters, as the primaries move out of the South. A Democratic candidate that loses a majority of historically Democratic states is unequivocally not more electable. In a recent Salon article, former Clinton White House counselor Bill Curry echoed that sentiment with a scathing indictment of the former Secretary and the political establishment as a whole. In it, he called Clinton the "weakest candidate" on the Democratic side and said, "By Saturday, eight of the 11 states of the old Confederacy had voted. In them [Clinton] won 68 percent of the vote. Ten of 39 states outside the South had voted. In those states Sanders took 57 percent of the vote. On March 15, the Confederacy will be all done voting. The race begins then." While Hillary Clinton may have the support of the old Confederacy, Bernie Sanders, rather poetically, has the support of the Union. If history is any indication, the Union will prevail once more.