the pattern continues. for the most part obama wins states that hold caucuses and hellary wins primaries in larger states with big hispanic populations.
Yeh, who cares? Wyoming has a few thousand Dems total.
Texas is the best example of that, since the Dems have both a primary and a caucus, with the delegates evenly divided between them. Primaries: Clinton 51%, Obama 47%. Caucuses: Obama 56% Clinton 44% (last I checked... returns were still incoming).
Clinton netted only a handful of delegates from the primaries, and is going to lose a good deal more than that from the caucuses... in other words, primary results aside, Clinton lost Texas.
Obama will win Texas once the caucus votes are tallied.
You mean like Ohio, TN, Rhode Island, MA and NJ (where the "large hispanic population" is not large enough to swing elections yet).
Obama wins in states where the black population constitutes a near majority of the Dem vote (the South) or in state where the black population is too small to create "tension" with the whites (especially blue collar whites). Hillary wins where there are large swathes of blue collar whites, particularly white Catholics, and a history of "racial tension" (Ohio, NJ, NY, MA, etc.).
Hispanics were a factor in CA and TX, but not so much elsewhere. It was the lunchpail whites and elderly women who gave Hillary most of her votes. I look at my own state and NJ, and notice that while Obama won my county (home to Princeton University and the State Capitol), Hillary won overwhelmingly in the blue collar counties facing Philadelphia.