In the wake of Bernie Sanders’ victories in the Nebraska and Kansas caucuses, Vox’s David Roberts took to Twitter with this Voxian insight:

“The states where Sanders wins seem to have something in common.”

Anyone familiar with the current Democratic establishment narrative regarding Sanders got his point immediately: the states where Bernie Sanders wins have typically been large majority white states.

Now, put aside whether or not it’s smart for liberals to be snide about Sanders’ appeal to whites when the Democratic Party is hemorrhaging white voters like a sliced artery. Is Bernie Sanders’ appeal really restricted to white voters, as this narrative would suggest?

True, Sanders is getting crushed in the South, particularly among Southern Black voters. But I would argue that this is due more to Hillary Clinton’s strengths in the region than Sanders’ weakness among minorities. Clinton won the non-white vote in Massachusetts 59–41, a much smaller margin than her 85–14 non-white win in South Carolina. Clinton also won white voters in South Carolina 54–46, indicating that Sanders’ appeal does not apply to all whites universally. Clinton has won by similar margins in every other southern state.

In addition to Clinton’s enormous margins in the South, Sanders’ performance in the early Western state caucuses complicate the narrative of his white-centric appeal. Sanders has performed much better in the West than in the South, losing Nevada by only 5 points and winning Colorado by 18.7 points. This performance is impossible in these states without at least a solid showing with Latino voters. The exit polls in Nevada would confirm this, as well as Sanders’ victory in heavily-Latino counties in Colorado. Sanders has also performed well in counties with high Native American populations in Oklahoma and Kansas.

If the narrative of Sanders’ appeal being limited to white voters is questionable at best and condescending at worst, the question remains: What do states that Bernie Sanders wins have in common?

TURNOUT

Turnout in most Democratic primaries and caucuses this year has been much lower than 2008. This is to be expected, to a degree, since 2008 was a historic election and Obama was a unique candidate (it probably didn’t hurt that the media treated him like a serious candidate from the start of his campaign). However, the drop in turnout on the Democratic side has been enormous so far, and this should scare any Democrats watching the historic turnout for the Republican primaries.

Looking at the turnout data for the recent primaries, a trend emerges: states with higher turnout tend to favor Sanders.

Every state that has seen higher turnout than 2008 has gone to Sanders. Of the 10 states that have seen a less than 25% drop than 2008, Sanders wins 8. Clinton wins every state with a turnout drop larger than 25%.

This trend should give serious pause to any Democrats motivated by “electability.” If Clinton victories belie low voter enthusiasm, how will her campaign present a credible challenge to a likely GOP nominee who has massive appeal to independents and even converts some Democrats? Snide remarks about the relative whiteness of states where Sanders wins will be irrelevant in the general election. Voter enthusiasm is the key to winning the general, and relying on the electorate’s aversion to Trump to boost turnout is too big of a risk to take.