The Electorate Is More Volatile Than People Suspect

It’s not just the Democratic primary voter whose support is up for grabs.

There is a general consensus, bolstered by the steadiness of President Trump’s approval numbers throughout his entire tenure in office, that the country is mostly locked in and entrenched, with few undecided voters. This might be true if we’re talking only about the red/blue divide, but it certainly hasn’t been true in the Democratic primaries.

The massive swing to Joe Biden after his victory in South Carolina and subsequent endorsements by Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke was stronger than even the most optimistic Biden partisan was willing to predict. In fact, the safest observation right now about the Democratic electorate is that they are uncertain about what they want and who they should support. On the fringes of the party, it’s hard to even be confident that they’re totally committed to voting against Trump or voting at all.

As for true independents, the Democratic Party establishment certainly believes that a lot can hinge on whether the nominee is Biden or Sanders. Particularly with respect to affluent suburbanites who have supported both Bush and Obama or both Romney and Clinton, there’s a belief that Biden will snatch them up while Sanders will drive them away. Likewise, among Sanders’ supporters, it’s an article of faith that the youth vote will not turn out for Biden and he’ll have trouble exciting the base.

I believe these are safer assumptions, on both sides, than the idea that the country is locked in an immutable partisan standoff. I truly believe that the November election is not only up for grabs but that the result could be decided by a late and possibly dramatic swing in either direction.

For this reason, I don’t put a lot of faith in polls. I probably wouldn’t anyway after witnessing Trump’s stunning and unpredicted victory in 2016, but it’s not the inherent unreliability of polls that informs me here, but rather the example of what we just witnessed with Biden prior to Super Tuesday.

Having said that, the Democrats look like they’re currently in a pretty good position. An example from today is provided by Public Policy Polling which just found the party leading in the Senate races in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Maine. They also found both Biden and Sanders ahead in Maine by 10 points, and Biden leading in Arizona by one, while Sanders trails by one.

For context, Arizona has 11 Electoral College votes while Wisconsin only has 10, so picking up Arizona could more than compensate for a second loss in the Badger State. Meanwhile, if the Democrats really do carry those four Senate races and capture the presidency, they’ll have 50-50 control of the Senate even if they lose Sen. Doug Jones’s Alabama seat. This is because the sitting vice-president breaks ties in the Senate.

Of course, one thing that’s notable about these PPP polls is that there’s virtually no difference in how Biden and Sanders perform against Trump. One can conjecture in two directions on this. Either it makes no difference who the Democrats’ nominate and this election will be a pure referendum on Trump, or Biden and Sanders will assemble vastly different coalitions that are somehow almost exactly equivalent in how many votes they can produce.

I have trouble subscribing to either of those theories, however, and I suspect that my initial theory is more accurate. I think this election will be more volatile than people expect, and that it has the potential to break hard in one direction or the other, possibly at the last moment.

Does Sanders Still Have a Chance?

A look at the calendar says, “Yes, but not much of one.”

I’ve created a visual aid to understanding the remainder of the Democratic presidential nominating process. Below you can see the calendar. I’ve indicated whether each contest is a caucus or a primary and given you the winner in 2016 along with the percentages. You’ll also notice that there are seven states that held caucuses in 2016 that are now holding primaries.

On this last point, you’ll notice that Sanders won all seven of the former caucus states in 2016 by numbers ranging from 57-43 in Nebraska to 83-17 in Alaska. Perhaps one useful thing to look at is the distinction between the 2016 results in North and South Dakota. These are pretty similar states, but Clinton won the South Dakota primary by two points while losing the North Dakota caucus by 28 points. Admittedly, the two contests fell far apart in 2016, but it’s a demonstration of how much better Sanders performed in caucuses. That advantage is now almost eliminated. Outside of the territories, Wyoming is the only caucus left, and it has very few delegates.

There is no guarantee that Sanders will win all the states he won in 2016 or fail to win all the states he lost. Already in 2020, Sanders has won in Nevada (where he lost in 2016) and lost in Oklahoma and Minnesota (where he won in 2016).

But this is still a pretty good roadmap.

Right away on March 10, you can see some potential for Sanders. He won Michigan four years ago and came extremely close to winning Missouri. He also won three caucus states, and although it will be more challenging to win them again in primaries, it certainly seems possible.

March 10
Idaho (Primary) Sanders 78-21 (was a caucus in 2016)
Michigan (Primary) Sanders 50-48
Mississippi (Primary) Clinton 83-17
Missouri (Primary) Clinton 50-49
North Dakota (Primary) Sanders 64-36 (was a caucus in 2016)
Washington (Primary) Sanders 73-27 (was a caucus in 2016)

March 14
Northern Mariana (Caucus) Clinton 54-34

Here is where things begin to look bleak. Maybe Sanders can ride Latinx support in Arizona to victory, and maybe he can get over the hump in Illinois. That might be enough to offset a near certain loss in Florida and a probable one in Ohio.  But things will turn rough again a week later in Georgia and Puerto Rico.

March 17
Arizona (Primary) Clinton 57-41
Florida (Primary) Clinton 64-33
Illinois (Primary) Clinton 51-49
Ohio (Primary) Clinton 57-43

March 24
Georgia (Primary) Clinton 71-28

March 29
Puerto Rico (Primary) Clinton 59-38

Early April is the most promising part of the calendar for Sanders. If he can repeat his 2016 victories, he’ll get the better of the delegate battle even if he gets slaughtered in Louisiana, as is likely.  But, again, two of these contests were caucuses in 2016 and he should not expect to win them this time by the same margins. After Wisconsin, he’ll have to wait until early May to find a favorable stretch again.

April 4
Alaska (Primary) Sanders 82-18 (was a caucus in 2016)
Hawaii (Primary) Sanders 72-28 (was a caucus in 2016)
Louisiana (Primary) Clinton 71-23
Wyoming (Caucus) Sanders 56-44

April 7
Wisconsin (Primary) Sanders 57-43

The April 28 contests are extremely unfavorable to Sanders and they have a ton of delegates. This is possibly that the last point at which he can plausibly say he has a shot at the nomination. If he doesn’t improve on his 2016 results by a lot, he’ll be done.

April 28
Connecticut (Primary) Clinton 52-47
Delaware (Primary) Clinton 60-39
Maryland (Primary) Clinton 63-33
New York (Primary) Clinton 58-42
Pennsylvania (Primary) Clinton 56-44
Rhode Island (Primary) Sanders 55-43

There aren’t a lot of delegates available in May but Sanders has a shot at winning the majority of them. They could keep him mathematically alive by denying Biden a majority.

May 2
Guam (Caucus) Clinton 60-40
Kansas (Primary) Sanders 68-32 (was a caucus in 2016)

May 5
Indiana (Primary) Sanders 53-47

May 12
Nebraska (Primary) Sanders 57-43 (was a caucus in 2016)
West Virginia (Primary) Sanders 51-36

May 19
Kentucky (Primary) Clinton 47-46
Oregon (Primary) Sanders 56-43

If things are still in doubt at this point, it looks pretty unlikely that June 2 will help Sanders.

June 2
District of Columbia (Primary) Clinton 79-21
Montana (Primary) Sanders 51-45
New Jersey (Primary) Clinton 63-27
New Mexico (Primary) Clinton 52-48
South Dakota (Primary) Clinton 51-49

June 6
Virgin Islands (Caucus) Clinton 87-13

Overall, there’s not much hope I can find for Sanders in this calendar. Because he won’t be able to rack up big wins in caucus states, it’s a rougher road than he faced in 2016, and he was doomed then well before he started reeling off a string of big victories.

I also don’t think Biden is as unpopular as the Clintons were in the prairie and Mountain West, so I doubt Sanders will get as much of a protest vote as he enjoyed four years ago. On the other hand, Biden doesn’t arouse as much excitement as Clinton did, so that cuts the other way.

Sanders has a chance, but it’s not a chance with good odds.

The Youth Vote Emerges as a Problem for the Democrats

Young voters preferred Sanders on Super Tuesday, but they didn’t turn out at the same rate as older citizens.

Super Tuesday voting concluded only a few hours ago, but political archeologists are already turning over the rubble. An early narrative focuses on the failure of young voters to turn out. According to the exit polls, youth turnout did not increase in a single Super Tuesday state. In fact, the profile of the electorate skewed much older than in recent primary elections. German Lopez of Vox explains:

Consider Texas: According to NBC News’s exit polls, the Democratic electorate actually skewed older in Tuesday’s primary compared to past primaries. In 2008 and 2016, 13 and 18 percent of the electorate, respectively, was 65 and older. In 2020, it was 24 percent.

Texas is getting older, but not at a rapid enough rate for that increase to be tied solely to state demographic trends. In fact, the share of the population that’s 65 and older is just 12.6 percent. Given Biden’s strength with this group of Texas voters — 46 percent support Biden, while just 16 percent support Sanders — that surge in older voters helps explain Biden’s narrow victory in the state.

Many commentators are questioning how Bernie Sanders expects to sell people on his revolution if he can’t even mobilize the kids to cast their votes. It’s a reasonable question, but Sanders did at least accomplish half of his goal. For example, among California voters age 18-29, Sanders beat Biden by a staggering 72 percent to 5 percent. In Texas, the margin was 65 percent to 11 percent.

So, Sanders really does have the overwhelming support of young voters and it’s undeniable that he’s produced some excitement among them, but somewhere this formula broke down. To get a clue of what happened, we might want to look at Virginia.

Turnout in Virginia’s Democratic primary surged to more than 1.3 million voters, from about 783,000 in 2016 and 986,000 in 2008. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who won the state decisively, said Tuesday night that “the turnout turned out for us” in Virginia, and “there is some evidence he is correct,” The Washington Post reports. “Of the voters who sat out the 2016 primary and cast ballots in 2020, Biden won nearly 60 percent, according to a Washington Post statistical model.”

The surge in turnout was fueled in suburban areas, particularly in Northern Virginia. It looks like suburbanites were chomping at the bit to race to the polls. When they got there, they opted for Biden, and this swamped Sanders’s advantage with young voters. It also drove down young voters as a percentage of the electorate, making them appear apathetic.

But if they were apathetic by comparison to their parents and grandparents, they were also emphatic that they want more change than Biden is promising. What else can you say when only 1 in 20 Californians under 30 voted for the former vice president? I think there are some major warning signs in that number. The youth vote is one of the Democratic Party’s strongest demographics, and that means every slight uptick in their participation pays off in a major way.

Biden showed that the suburban strategy can dominate in Democratic primaries, but he’s going to need young voters to both support him in November and to turn out in big numbers. There’s nothing in the exit polls from Super Tuesday to suggest that he’s on track in this respect. If even Sanders struggles to get them to vote at their punching weight, what hope will Biden have?

There’s a lot of piling on of Sanders and mockery of his promise of revolution, but youth turnout is now a clear challenge that must be solved. Sanders’ supporters have a point when they warn against ignoring the strong consensus of people under 30, as they represent the future of the country. I expect them to emphasize this point in the next phase of the campaign.

Having said that, Biden just annihilated Sanders even while being slaughtered with the youth vote, and Sanders clearly didn’t deliver on his effort to reshape the electorate in his favor. Anyone who preferred Biden because they want the Democrats to protect and expand their suburban-based House majority was completely vindicated.

What the Democrats need is to pull these two parts of the party together, and that’s something Sanders will never be able to do. If Biden can’t win over more young voters, the convention might want to find a third option.

Midweek Cafe and Lounge, Vol. 152

Welcome to another midweek cafe and lounge. It’s been a long week, for sure.

Normally I keep these light, and have some music and whatnot. Back when Neon Vincent was still a regular, we had some really cool beverage recipes. Probably wouldn’t hurt about now.

But this time I want to give you all something a bit more informative in hopes that it at least adds to some straight talk and keeps things in perspective as we come to grips with what is potentially a serious pandemic: Coronavirus COVID-19. First, I want you all to bookmark this map hosted by Johns Hopkins. It appears to be about the most up-to-date map of the number of cases per country, and also keeps record of deaths and recoveries. I also recommended last time this link from the Axios website – Coronavirus: The Big Picture. Axios is useful for its brief capsule summaries for those of us who may be on the go. The Axios global map is okay, but seems to be a little behind the other map. Finally, if you go to the Guardian, you will find daily live blogs of the progress of COVID-19 that provide a global perspective (including what is happening in the US).

At the end of the day, I think it is crucial that we have straight talk about what’s going on, rather than the sort of faux happy talk that 45 wants to spin or the bizarre conspiracy theories spread by folks on social media or even by otherwise supposedly responsible politicians (looking at you, Tom Cotton). Straight talk may not be necessarily pleasant, but it will keep you informed and hopefully safe. That’s what matters.

Cheers.

Your Super Tuesday Preview

If it’s going to be a big night for Sanders, we’ll know it soon after the polls close at 7pm in Virginia.

In preparation for a big Super Tuesday night, you should probably review Daily Kos Elections’ preview. Keep in mind, though, that David Jarman mades those excellent projections prior to seeing the latest polls from Data for Progress which are very bullish on Biden’s Joementum.

To see why Sanders could be headed for a tough night, I am going to pair up those polls and Jarman’s analysis with the timeline for poll closings.

The first results we should see today will ironically come from the furthest west time zone. American Samoa will begin its caucus at 3pm eastern and we’ll probably get the results not too long after that. No one has polled Samoans, so there’s not much to go on. Traditionally, the caucus system has favored Sanders, and he might get an early win here. It would be helpful because things could take a bad turn for him at the beginning of the night.

The first polls to close are in Vermont and Virginia at 7pm. Sanders is looking very, very strong in his home state and he’ll be declared the winner there immediately. However, if this is paired with a fifteen point win for Biden in Virginia, the former vice-president will be off to the better start. As for the delegate count, much will depend on whether anyone other than Sanders reaches 15 percent in Vermont. This is where having Klobuchar and Buttigieg drop out and endorse Biden could yield its first dividend.  If Bernie carries all 16 votes there it could match or exceed any deficit he gets from Virginia’s 99 delegates. If Bernie has to share some of Vermont’s delegates, he’ll be behind in the most important metric of the night.

At 7:30, the polls close in North Carolina. If Biden is really ahead by nine, they might be able to call this race fairly quickly, and Biden will be up two states to one, and certainly in the delegate lead.

At 8pm, there are six poll closings: Maine, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Alabama, Oklahoma and (most of) Texas. If Data for Progress has these races pegged correctly, the first thing we’ll see is an announcement that Biden is the winner in Alabama and Sanders is the winner in Maine (the tweet doesn’t include Maine, but Sanders leads Biden there 34-25). Again, this works more favorably for Biden because Alabama has more than twice as many delegates as Maine, and Biden is poised to win there by 25 points.

It will probably be a while before the other states are called. Texas won’t be fully finished until 9pm and, like Massachusetts, it looks like a nail biter in any case. Biden’s lead in Tennessee and Oklahoma is only seven points so they may get the “Too Early to Call” designation.

At this point, Sanders could be looking at having won only Vermont and Maine, possibly by disappointing margins that don’t yield him as many delegates as he had hoped. Warren could be in holding a narrow lead on him Massachusetts, and Biden could already be the declared winner in North Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama, with clear leads in Tennessee and Oklahoma.

That’s not going to be a good look. And it won’t get better if the polls close in Texas and Sanders isn’t immediately declared the winner. He’s been favored there, but Data for Progress sees him losing. On the other hand, 9pm should bring him some good news when he is announced as the winner in Colorado. In Minnesota, he should be showing in first place even if he isn’t immediately awarded the win.

The tide will continue to turn his way after 10pm when the results from Utah begin to come in. However, if he’s really only leading there by 6 percent, that race won’t be called right away and it could be perceived as another disappointment.

Finally, at 11pm, the polls will close in California. Most likely, Sanders will be declared the immediate winner, but it will be weeks before the counting is done and people know how the delegates will be split. This means that the night’s most consequential contest will play little role in how the overall results from Super Tuesday are perceived.

I don’t think Biden can realistically hope for a better result than this, and it’s probably too much to ask. I think these Data for Progress polls are very pessimistic about Sanders performance, and I’ll be surprised if they’re accurate. For one thing, some of Biden’s late momentum should be blunted by a poorer performance in the early voting.

It’s conceivable that Sanders will win many of the states that are in Biden’s column above.

Obviously, we’ll also want to see how Michael Bloomberg and Elizabeth Warren are doing and how frequently they’re reaching the fifteen percent threshold for delegates. Data for Progress thinks Bloomberg will reach viability in every state excepting Vermont. David Jarman gives Bloomberg the best chance at getting a win in Oklahoma, with Arkansas having some potential for him as well. Data for Progress has Warren winning her home state and at the 15 percent mark in every state except Alabama and North Carolina. That would be a great night for her, although she’d still have no hope of winning the nomination outright.

If it’s going to be a great night for Sanders, we should know pretty quickly. If he’s leading in Virginia, he’s probably going to win almost everywhere.

I’ll see you at 7pm and we can watch the first results come in together.

 

Zombie Nomination of John Ratcliffe for DNI Back on Track

The Texas congressman withdrew his name in August but he’s now on track to be confirmed.

Let’s go back in time to August 2019 to get a little refresher on why Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas was not confirmed to be the Director of National Intelligence.

President Donald Trump just announced that Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe, his pick to become the next director of national intelligence, won’t seek the nomination after all.

It’s a stunning reversal. The president announced his selection on Sunday—just five days ago—when he also noted that America’s current top spy, Daniel Coats, was resigning. But Ratcliffe has had a tough week, with report after report showing that he exaggerated his qualifications and background.

Ratcliffe also lacked much experience for the job, which is why Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr asked President Trump not to nominate him in the first place.

Senator Burr is now singing a different tune:

Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN Monday that he will back the nomination of President Donald Trump’s controversial pick to be the country’s next intelligence chief.

He consulted with the White House before Trump announced his intent to renominate Rep. John Ratcliffe as the next director of national intelligence, according to two people familiar with the dynamic.

“I’m supportive of John Ratcliffe. That’s what the statement said. Period,” Burr said, pushing back on suggestions that the statement he released Friday after Trump’s announcement was unclear.

Asked what changed from last year when Ratcliffe was first nominated and GOP senators had concerns then, Burr said: “There was a different pathway in the Senate. I don’t think anybody has changed their opinion of John Ratcliffe. What changed is the pathway to get somebody confirmed. If Democrats want to vote against him and have (Richard) Grenell stay on as acting is fine with me.”

In other words, Burr thinks he can get Ratcliffe confirmed because people are even more appalled about the prospect of Richard Grenell remaining in the position of DNI in an acting capacity. To understand why Burr might be right about that, you can look at how Grenell has been received in Europe in his current fully-confirmed job as ambassador to Germany.

Because the ambassador was unwilling to grant an interview, DER SPIEGEL focused its reporting on conversations with more than 30 sources who have come into contact with Grenell. These include numerous American and German diplomats, cabinet members, lawmakers, high-ranking officials, lobbyists and think tank experts. They were all willing to speak openly but did not want to be quoted by name.

Almost all of these sources paint an unflattering portrait of the ambassador, one remarkably similar to Donald Trump, the man who sent him to Berlin. A majority of them describe Grenell as a vain, narcissistic person who dishes out aggressively, but can barely handle criticism. His brash demeanor, some claim, hides a deep insecurity, and they say he thirsts for the approval of others. After one of his appearances, we were told, he asked almost shyly how he had done.

They also say Grenell knows little about Germany and Europe, that he ignores most of the dossiers his colleagues at the embassy write for him, and that his knowledge of the subject matter is superficial. “Ric only scratches the surface,” said one person who regularly interacts with him.

If that doesn’t sound like a good profile for someone who is responsible for coordinating all of America’s intelligence agencies, then you’ll see why perhaps John Ratcliffe looks attractive by comparison.

I Don’t Enjoy Being the Bearer of Bad News

There is nothing that should be shocking about the resistance to Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

It can be pretty isolating to do what I do for a living, particularly the way in which I choose to do it. A lot of people who don’t know me personally, peg me for a moderate Democrat because I spend a lot of time hammering on progressives. But, I believe the only time I’ve ever opted for the moderate Democrat in my life is when I went for John Kerry over Howard Dean in 2004. That was a very difficult decision, and I could have gone either way. I don’t regret my decision at all, but I also don’t see that it was obviously the correct one. In every other case, going all the way back to 1988, I’ve aligned myself with candidates who I felt were more progressive. Only in 2008 did this pay off with victory.

If I could wave a magic wand, I’d enact a lot of Bernie Sanders’ agenda, and if I thought he’d meaningfully advance things in that direction, I’d support him. But I could not be more pessimistic about the character of this country and the universe of the possible. Even a Democratic House and Senate would reject most of Sanders’ plans, both now and for the foreseeable future. I can envision a different kind of progressive leader who might be more promising in bringing the Democratic Party to heel, but Sanders isn’t that guy.

Today brought a lot of fresh evidence of this. I’ve spent a lot of time browsing my networks on social media, and it’s remarkable to see how shocked Sanders’ supporters are to see things happen that were completely obvious to me. I’ve seen progressives say they are stunned that Buttigieg didn’t endorse Warren and call Beto O’Rourke an “asshole” for endorsing Biden. It’s like they simply wouldn’t listen when I told them that Sanders doesn’t do well at building relationships and doesn’t build alliances.

I’ve already talked about how the pundits totally mischaracterize Biden and Sanders’ true bases of support. But this is equally true for a lot of white progressive college-educated Sanders supporters. They actually think college-educated women will leap from Warren to Sanders, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

I’ve talked incessantly about the Democrats’ suburban strategy. At first, I lamented it because I knew it was a death knell for progressivism. But once the Democrats won the House using that strategy, I had to accept that this is where the party is, and anyone who wants to lead it has to respect that the majority is built on the support of white suburban college-educated professionals, including especially women. It’s not built on the white working man anymore and that’s not where Biden is getting most of his support.

This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone. If you’ve spent two seconds around labor union meetings, you’ll know they’re about the most socialist-friendly places in the country. The traditional Farmer-Labor segment of the party has always been built on populism and depicting the Republicans as the representatives of bosses and coastal elites. Bernie Sanders does a decent job of winning some of these voters back, and that’s one of the most admirable parts of his campaign. But it comes at a cost.

Sanders underperforms with white professionals in the suburbs, and he gets precious little black support. I think he’s improved in this area since 2016 and he’s doing well with the Latinx vote, particularly with his health care message. Overall, though, the shape of his vote is a poor fit for the Democratic majority as it presently exists, and this was so obvious that I’ve spent two years talking about why it’s a problem and why it will prevent him from getting the backing of elected and party officials as both a candidate and a potential president. When you add in Bernie’s poor interpersonal skills, there was never much chance that he’d win endorsements from his major competitors regardless of where they lie on the ideological spectrum.

I’m not saying I have a happy message. I know the opposite is true. I hear it when Sanders’ supporters mock the centrists for saying nothing is possible. I realize that this is not an inspiring message. I get that we have problems that won’t wait, including climate change. I’d love to be able to tell you that we can make big changes and enact sweeping reforms in the next Congress. But it’s not going to happen, and you should make decisions based on that knowledge.

The country is divided and Congress is broken. The Supreme Court is in extremely conservative hands and will possibly remain so for decades. Even legislative filibuster reform (a proposal opposed by Sanders, by the way) would not enable the Democrats to pass most of Bernie’s agenda. There might be five votes in the entire Senate for his Medicare-for-All plan. He’s probably about 45 votes shy of getting that through the upper chamber, but it doesn’t matter because it would never pass through Pelosi’s House. Even if it did, the Roberts Court is currently considering whether or not to rule the entirety of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. They aren’t going to shelve that to approve Medicare-for-All.

You can lament this but you can’t ignore it. And it’s very difficult for me to understand why so many folks think that Bernie Sanders has the potential to take this Democratic Party and this Supreme Court by the scruff of the neck and make them go along with his plans. Where is the evidence for this?

A lot of Sanders’ supporters are feeling besieged and betrayed right now, but the fault for this lies partially with their candidate. A different person might have won over a Beto O’Rourke or a Pete Buttigieg. They might have convinced more elected Democrats from competitive districts that he’s going to help rather than hurt their reelection bids. He hasn’t done it, and that’s also something that was so predictable that I’ve predicted it for two presidential election cycles in a row.

Now, I’ve endured all the enthusiasm people have had for other candidates like Kamala Harris and Julian Castro and Beto and Cory and Amy and Pete. But I told you beginning eleven months ago that this was almost certainly going to come down to Sanders vs. Biden. Even a heart attack and an impeachment haven’t changed that trajectory, which really exemplifies the solidity of my analysis.

This isn’t about the DNC or the establishment putting their fingers on the scale. This is about two candidates having more appeal and more strength, each for their own unique reasons, than any of the others. This was always going to be a battle between the Obama-Biden loyalists and the Sanders insurgents. The eleventy billion other candidates and their supporters were kidding themselves thinking otherwise.

In that battle, the outcome has never been certain and I cannot tell you who will prevail in Milwaukee. But I can tell you that both candidates have huge glaring weaknesses. And I can tell you that the party will struggle mightily to unite around either of them. However, you can see for yourselves that Biden has more support from elected officials. This is because he’s running on a strategy that carries less obvious risk for them.

For the same reason, Biden would have an easier time leading the party and getting Congress behind his platform.

Now, it may be that the best solution here is for the convention delegates to choose neither of these men and instead find a compromise candidate. I’m open to that solution and it could produce the optimal outcome. It’s actually their assigned job to do this if no one has a majority of the delegates.

Now, I told you ahead of time what was going to happen and why, but from here on out nothing is certain or predictable. Sanders could muscle home a win or convince the convention to nominate him in a brokered convention. Sanders could collapse for some unforeseen reason, or because of a recurrence of his health problems, and Biden could win an outright majority. Biden might win a brokered convention on the backs of uncommitteds and superdelegates. Or, the convention could go in another direction entirely.

What’s clear is that Sanders is going to have a hell of a time trying to rally the party to his side. And that’s always been foreseeable and one of the main reasons why this progressive has been unwilling to get on his bandwagon.

Having said this, I’ve also seen people accuse Sanders of never getting anything done. But he’s helped make a lot of formerly fringe progressive issues go mainstream in the party. That’s what a message candidate is supposed to do. If he were strictly a message candidate like H. Ross Perot on the deficit or John McCain on campaign finance reform, he’d have to be considered a major success. But he’s not a message candidate. He’s the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. And what progressives have to weigh is whether he’s a good fit for that kind of job.

I’ve concluded that he is not. I hoped that maybe Elizabeth Warren might be that person, but I was correct to be deeply skeptical that Democrats would be willing to risk running another woman against Trump. I think women have been the most resistant to trying that experiment, and it’s doomed all the women who ran in this contest.

Finally, I can’t end this without talking at least a little about Sanders’ online supporters. They aren’t helping their candidate by condemning everyone who isn’t backing him. He needs to add to his coalition but all the effort seems to be directed at trashing other Democrats. This, too, was predictable because it’s a pattern that was established in 2016. It’s just one more reason why no one should be shocked or think it’s some conspiracy that people are lining up against Bernie.

He and they need to own some of their self-imposed limitations, and ideally they’d recognize that some progressives simply don’t believe they can deliver on their promises and there’s nothing nefarious about this judgment.

Everything the Pundits Tell You Is Wrong

Biden runs strongest with white liberals and Sanders runs best with the working class.

In the Democratic Party’s South Carolina primary, about 120,000 people–18.4% of the total voters–turned out to vote for either Tom Steyer, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg. All three of those candidates have dropped out since Saturday. Another 38,000, or 7.1 percent, voted for Elizabeth Warren who still remains in the race.

This isn’t really such a big number, as it amounts to about one in four voters who opted for someone other than Biden, Sanders or (mysteriously) Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard. Yet, it matters a great deal how voters like this will break in future states now that their choices are essentially down to Biden, Sanders, and Bloomberg.

Whether Warren stays in or gets out, she’s going to lose support to the others as they appear more viable. Word is that Buttigieg and Klobuchar will officially endorse Biden, and some of Sanders’ supporters are calling on Warren to drop out and endorse Sanders to balance things out. I’m not sure she’d actually prefer Sanders to Biden, but based on the South Carolina exit polls, it’s unlikely that Sanders would benefit form Warren’s withdrawal from the race. She did best with white women, and white women did not support Sanders in South Carolina.

Among non-college educated white women, Sanders and Biden basically split the vote, meaning that this demographic looks like a wash. Among women with college degrees, however, Biden crushed Sanders 40 percent to 15 percent. I think it’s safe to assume that white women who voted for Warren in South Carolina would have broken for Biden over Sanders if she had not been an option. I also see no reason to think this is peculiar to South Carolina.

More than Sanders supporters want to admit, this election is really a pro- vs. anti-Sanders contest, and Sanders is fairly close to being maxed out. But I think he honestly should expect to pull more votes from Buttigieg than from Warren. The reason is basically that young voters who liked Buttigieg’s freshness and youth will probably opt for Sanders over Biden since that is where most of their peers have been from the beginning.

Ideology explains almost nothing in this campaign. Biden did worst in South Carolina with non-college educated voters and that’s where Bernie had his biggest strength. Sanders pulls from Trump’s base more than from liberal-minded progressives, and Biden wins the white professional vote more than the hardhat one. You’d never expect this if you listened to the pundits on your teevee, but it’s true.

Voter Suppression is a Key Part of the GOP’s Electoral Strategy

Republicans are closing polling stations in areas of high minority population growth.

Ask yourself a simple question. McLennan County, Texas, grew by an estimated 15,000 people between 2012 and 2018, “with more than two-thirds of that growth coming from Black and Latinx residents.” It’s the home of Waco and Baylor University.

Considering that population boom, why do you think the state closed 44 percent of the county’s polling places in that same time period?

The answer is obvious. Fewer polling places means longer travel times for voters and longer lines once they get there. This means fewer people in McLennan County will decide to go the polls and that more of them will grow impatient with the wait and leave without casting a ballot. It’s targeted voter suppression.

Overall, this is a very conservative part of the country, but with a large student population and growing number of blacks and Latinx voters, the Republican Party does not want high turnout in McLennan County.

The Guardian has investigated poll closures in Texas, and they’ve found a clear pattern:

Some counties closed enough polling locations to violate Texas state law. Brazoria county, south of Houston, closed almost 60% of its polling locations between 2012 and 2018, causing it to fall below the statutory minimum, along with another county. In a statement, Brazoria county clerk Joyce Hudman said the closures were inadvertent, and that this would not happen again in 2020.

A Guardian analysis based on that report confirms what many activists have suspected: the places where the black and Latinx population is growing by the largest numbers have experienced the vast majority of the state’s poll site closures.

This is absolutely not an accident. I’d like to believe that even most Republicans don’t think this is a defensible practice, but I think that’s probably untrue. The country is so polarized that Republicans tend to justify anything they think will help them win. The initial defense is to argue that these things aren’t happening, but if the reality of this kind of targeted voter suppression is granted, the available defenses are extremely limited and obviously racist. What can you really say?

Those who are willing to articulate a defense are forced to explain things either in terms of raw undemocratic power (“if it helps us win, I’m for it”) or by blaming the victims (“if they can’t even wait in line, then they’re not very committed to voting.”) A third option is to raise questions about the genetic fitness of minorities (“why should uneducated and uninformed people vote in the first place?”).

The idea that every citizen is inherently equal and that they have the right to vote is totally lost. Similar arguments are used to justify other targeted voter suppression efforts like photo ID requirements, felon lists, and voter roll purges.

And, remember, these tactics only come into play because more traditional methods are failing. The most familiar is gerrymandering, where districts are drawn to be uncompetitive. Politicians effectively choose their voters rather than having the voters choose them. When you add this to all the other advantages of incumbency, it’s no wonder that most Republicans are more worried about a primary from their right than a general election challenge from their left.

Democratic incumbents also benefit from gerrymandering, but as a whole the party is supportive of redistricting reform. They do not engage is systemic efforts to selectively discourage Republican voters from participating in our elections. It’s simply not true that the party would behave like Republicans if the shoe were on the other foot, and the proof is that there’s any effort to figure out ways to selectively target the Republican vote in places where that would benefit the Democrats.

A healthy party would respond to changing public opinion by evolving to meet the needs and desires of their constituents, but conservatives do not want to adjust so they spend more time figuring out how to keep people from voting than in learning how to better represent them.

I think if more people understood this, it would carry a heavier cost and hasten the point in time when the GOP has to give up on the conservative revolution and moderate their views.

Here’s What’s Going to Happen in the Democratic Primaries

There will most likely be a brokered convention with Bernie entering with the most delegates but the most resistance from the uncommitted.

On February 22, I wrote that Sanders was on the cusp of securing the nomination, and I followed that up on February 26, with a piece saying that the Biden-Sanders showdown I had long predicted was taking shape. Those weren’t contradictory things, even though they may have appeared so on their face.  In fact, both were true and the distinction hinged on the outcome of the South Carolina primary.

Now that Biden has secured his first primary victory in convincing fashion, FiveThirtyEight provides the following odds: there’s a 27 percent chance that Bernie Sanders will win the nomination outright, a 14 percent chance that Biden will do so, and a 59 percent chance that the nomination will be decided on a second ballot. They give Michael Bloomberg 0.5 percent chance of winning the nomination, and no one else has any odds at all.

These numbers will probably change a lot after we get the results from Super Tuesday, but it will be surprising if the brokered convention doesn’t remain they most likely outcome.

If you’re a supporter of Bernie Sanders, this should make you nervous. He has one huge thing going for him, which is that he’s favored to arrive in Milwaukee with the most delegates. That would give him a good starting position and a powerful argument in his favor. At the moment, Biden actually leads in the popular vote, although it’s uncertain if he can maintain that lead. If Sanders can claim the most votes and the most delegates, he will have a fighting chance. If he has won the most states, his case will be stronger still.

But, as I wrote on February 20, plurality winners have no automatic claim on the nomination. The way the process is set up is for the entire delegation to decide the nominee if no one has an initial majority, and that includes the superdelegates. Similar to the reason many states allow independents and Republicans to vote in the primaries, the idea is that the most partisan members do not necessarily pick an electable candidate. If someone can’t even secure a majority of Democratic delegates, there’s no particular reason to believe they’re in a good position to win the most votes in the Electoral College.

Unfortunately, for Sanders, most people who consider him a viable candidate are going to vote for him. Most of the people who don’t vote for him are worried about his viability and aren’t going to be easily convinced that he’s a safe bet.

It won’t be an easy choice to oppose him because the party will still need his support and can’t afford for his coalition to sit the election out in protest. This is why he could win a brokered convention even if he needs the votes of people who have serious misgivings. I can’t predict how it would shake out but I can say a couple of things even at this early date.

First, Sanders has plenty of time to work on reassuring the delegates, and anything that makes Trump look weaker will make him look like less of a risk. So, there are factors both within and outside of Sanders’ control that could help him. Second, every delegate is going to matter because it could wind up being a real nail-biter of a vote. Obviously, the closer Sanders gets to a majority, the better his odds. But this is not just because it gives him a better argument. It’s also because he’s going to have a tough sell on convincing superdelegates and delegates for the other candidates to take his side. Non-Sanders delegates are more firmly against him than Non-Biden delegates are against Biden, and that’s not going to change in terms of ideology or sentiment. He needs to get near the finish line on the first vote if he wants to cross it on the second one.

Biden is in the same position. If he arrives in second place, there is only so much of a deficit he can hope to make up. If he’s too weak, the delegates might start looking for a third alternative. Someone who is acceptable to both Sanders and Biden supporters could emerge, perhaps on a third or fourth ballot. That’s how Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg are trying to position themselves, but they honestly should drop out if they don’t win any states on Super Tuesday.

Bloomberg is still a wildcard in all of this. After Tuesday we’ll know if the hundreds of millions he’s spent has changed anything. Most likely, it will help Sanders build a bigger delegate lead over Biden and also put a nail in the coffin for the other also-ran candidates who won’t reach 15 percent viability in most states. This will hurt Biden initially, but help him in the long run.  Of course, if Bloomberg has a huge night and wins a bunch of states, then I’ll have to do a complete reexamination of the race.