Why does Hillary do so poorly in the mid-west and west?

[BainsBane]

77. Sanders does better in states with

overwhelming white populations,particularly in caucus states where turnout is low. His campaign announced a couple of moths ago that their strategy was to target those states. Clinton trounces him in states with high populations of color.

Region doesn't matter nearly as much as the racial composition of the voter turnout in a given state. (I expect we will see different results in Michigan and IL, also Midwestern.) This shouldn't be a mystery to anyone at this point. Electoral data is conclusive on the point.

Sanders message strikes a cord with white people who have seen their standard of living flatten or decline in the last couple of decades. For people who were poor and disenfranchised, and deprived of equal rights in the halcyon days of the white middle class, that message quite understandably doesn't have the same resonance.

As much as the right and some "progressives" like to pretend race doesn't matter, that is not the nature of the society we live in or its history--and history is evoked during this election.

Clinton doesn't have the same appeal among the white bourgeoisie that Sanders does because her campaign doesn't place their frustration at its center. It's not that Sanders seeks to exclude non-whites. He explicitly tries to include them. But his ideological framework is based on class exploitation as he experiences and understands it. Clinton instead takes the more typical Democratic approach of appealing to the party's key constituencies and as a result she does better with them.