It’s very useful to take a look at what Nate Silver has done to estimate the percentage of the electorate in each state that can be classified as “white liberal,” however I think it’s problematic to take that information and project that Bernie Sanders will only do well in states where the percentage of white liberals is extremely high.
The assumption is that Sanders will not do well with moderate or conservative voters because he’s a self-proclaimed socialist, and that he won’t do well with people of color because, well, he’s not doing well with them right now. There’s a solid basis for both assumptions, so I don’t think this is some kind of gross analytical error. I just think it’s lacking in imagination.
For starters, while it’s true that Vermont has the highest percentage of white liberals in the country, that doesn’t mean that Sanders is only popular in his home state among liberals. Go talk to the dairy farmers up there, because a lot of them love Bernie. More importantly, the entire point of Sanders’ campaign seems to me to be based on the idea that his ideas have a lot of appeal beyond the groups that are going to line up and vote for Hillary Clinton. Maybe he’s just wrong about that, but he isn’t going to win by taking the Madison, Wisconsin vote and losing everywhere else. He knows this.
If Sanders has a mission, it isn’t to convince the natural constituents of the Democratic Party that they ought to vote for a Democrat. So, if you’re projecting how he’s going to do, you need to evaluate what his prospects for success will be among people who are more conservative or moderate, or who are normally disengaged from the process. Like Barack Obama before him, part of his challenge will be proving the preconceived doubts about his electability are wrong, and so it’s important that he win early, particularly in the first contest in Iowa. If he does, a lot of people who are standing on the sidelines will jump on his bandwagon, including a lot of people of color. To win the overall contest, including the presidency, however, he is going to have to achieve a substantial crossover appeal. If he beats Hillary, he’s going to lose a portion of the Democratic coalition in the process, and he’ll have to make up for it with folks who we don’t normally think of as socialists or liberals.
Some of this deficit can be made up for simply by bringing people into the process who would otherwise have stayed home, but that alone will never be enough. If you think the electorate is so polarized that Bernie can’t change the voting behaviors of very many people, then there’s really not even a conceptual way that he could win. If, on the other hand, you’re willing to wait and see if he can appeal to a broader swath of the electorate like he has consistently done in his home state, then the “white liberal” vote isn’t quite as decisive.
Honestly, a lot of these potential Bernie voters are probably toying with Rand Paul right now. Most of them probably can’t imagine themselves voting for a socialist from Vermont. But substantial parts of his message are really almost tailor-made for these folks. They hate big money in politics, for example, and feel like everyone else has a lobbyist in Washington but them. They hate outsourcing and are suspicious of free trade agreements. They’ve lost faith in both parties and their leaders. They can’t pay their rent or afford college. Their kids are all screwed up on painkillers and are seemingly never going to move out of the house. They’re sick of investing in Afghanistan while American needs get ignored. And they want the blood of some Wall Street bankers.
Bernie Sanders is going to make a lot of sense to these folks, even if they think Hillary Clinton is the devil and are trained to despise liberals.
If George McGovern had one single insurmountable problem, it was that there were a lot of George Wallace voters out there who preferred Nixon to him when it came right down to it. Later on, we’d call these folks Reagan Democrats, but initially they were part of the backbone of the New Deal Democratic coalition. If you distract these folks with cultural issues, you can keep them from listening to Bernie Sanders. And that might be exactly what happens this time around.
But, it might not.
And how they react to his message will determine whether or not Sanders can win outside of his white liberal base.
I already mentioned him, but Rand Paul is in a similar position with the Republican Party and the electorate as a whole. He’ll never win if he doesn’t bring new voters into the process, but his real task is to catch on with voters who have been siding with the Democrats in recent years. He’ll need that crossover appeal to make up for some of his unorthodox positions which will lose him votes from the traditional Republican coalition. In a matchup against Hillary Clinton, the neocons would begin flocking back to the Democrats where they began. So, Paul would need to pick up some of the peacenik anti-drone vote, and some of the anti-War on Drugs vote, and some of the anti-mass incarceration vote. Getting the disengaged to engage is part of it, but by itself will not be enough.
So, as with Sanders, it’s not that helpful to look at exit polls from 2008 and try to determine which states have the highest percentage of libertarian-leaning dudebros. That’s key information, but it’s only a small piece of the puzzle.
Both Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders are betting that they can carve new dividing lines between the two parties that will benefit them. To assess their chances, we need to look at how they’re planning to carry out their plans.
I’d like to open a pool on whether Bernie loses the South Carolina primary by more, or by less, than Hillary did in 2008….
Why’d you pick South Carolina?
It’s the first state where the Democratic primary electorate looks like the national Democratic electorate.
Look at Nate’s chart.
South Carolina is fifth from the bottom in terms of being a white liberal state. This is partly because only North Carolina has a lower percentage of whites in their Democratic coalition and partly because only a small handful of states have fewer liberals of any color. White Democrats is South Carolina, I infer, as not calling themselves liberals.
This isn’t a typical state at all. To find a typical state, let’s look at positions 24, 25, and 26 on the list. Those would be, counterintuitively, Oklahoma, Indiana, and New Jersey.
All three states are made up of approximately 30% white liberals. Supposedly, Sanders will do better above this (Utah 46%) and worse below it (California 26%).
And, yes, it’s completely possible that Sanders will do much better against Hillary in Utah than in California, but things are not quite what they might seem, no? After all, you can’t create a less receptive audience for Washington-based socialism than Mormons, even liberal ones.
My argument, however, is that there are audiences that can be receptive to Bernie’s arguments that experts might not anticipate.
That’s a White-House-winning coalition right there — ask Arthur G. if you don’t believe me.
Well, if you are a Republican who has lost the warmongering vote, you need to pick up some of the antiwar vote. It’s not that the antiwar vote by itself put Obama in office, but he needed them. Let Bill Kristol and John McCain hold their noses and vote for Hillary, but if Paul can make up for the loss, it’s no skin off his teeth.
The whole point here is that unorthodox candidates should not be judged by the likelihood that they’ll win orthodox coalitions, but by their potential to craft new ones.
Which makes me wonder who that 40 some odd percent who don’t vote would vote for if they could be convinced to vote at all. Can an unorthodox candidate get them to the poles? Interesting post.
We answered this years ago. The reason why all those people don’t vote is that no sufficiently-left candidates are ever offered to them.
And as always I point out that I am in no way considered white, and am strong for Sanders.
You don’t exist. Only white liberals are for Sanders. Everyone says so.
“Honestly, a lot of these potential Bernie voters are probably toying with Rand Paul right now.”
No, they really aren’t. I have seen no evidence in the polling of this. None. Zero. Zilch.
I don’t buy the argument.
There is a broader, and interesting argument, to make against the assumption that Nate Silver and Chrystal Ball are making. If Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the argument goes, he won’t get anywhere because he has limited appeal among African Americans and Latinos. This MIGHT be true, but a study of the bounce a challenger gets when beating a front runner out of New Hampshire really doesn’t support this.
And how would you expect to find evidence in the current polls that many Rand Paul voters would moved to Sanders rather than Jeb or Hillary or even Walker?
The typical Rand Paul voter (outside of his father’s white power base) is not strongly aligned with a party but actually strongly aligned against parties. They will like the most anti-establishment candidate available, particularly if they agree with him on at least one major issue, like drones or marijuana or the gold standard or which Star Wars movie is the best or Citizens United or choice or gay marriage or climate change.
For many of these voters, they’re less ideological or ideologically consistent than they are dispositional. Give a Paul voter a choice between Jeb and Walker and Hillary and Bernie, and a lot of them are going to want to vote for Bernie.
In any case, there aren’t enough votes on Hillary’s left to beat her and there won’t be enough votes remaining on the left without her to beat a Republican. He has to expand his base and find crossover votes. Whether he can or not is the most relevant question.
This is akin to the George Wallace/ Robert Kennedy theory that was floated in 1968. The idea was the RFK support was anti-establishment in some vague way like support George Wallace was. A variant of the argument can be found in ’72 with Wallace and McGovern.
EJ Dionne demolished it in 1980 when he wrote for the New York Times.
I don’t think you are right here.
One reason your argument doesn’t fly is most primaries are closed primaries. I doubt there are very many anti-war voters who are registered Republicans, for example. So even if the voters you describe existed, and I doubt they do, they aren’t going to matter in a primary.
This is why, I think, Rand Paul has adopted positions less out of the GOP mainstream than his father did.
The exception is, of course, New Hampshire. There is some history of competition for independents in NH: Bradley and McCain did in 2000 for example. And you can argue both were anti-establishment candidates. In ’12 Paul did marginally better among moderates than those who called themselves “very conservative”, but the effect was not huge. He did best, and indeed won, among those who said he was a “true conservative”.
The way Sanders expanded his base in Vermont was simple: rank and file moderate Democrats voted for him. To beat Hillary he has to do three things simultaneously:
None of these groups will vote for Paul. It’s not where his target is, and it isn’t how he expanded in Vermont.
I’m talking about two distinct things in a not-very-distinct way.
One is how to beat Hillary and the other is how to win the presidency.
Neither is remotely likely, so let’s start there.
What you prescribe will never work in either case.
It’s not because it’s bad advice, but because the challenge is bigger than that.
Sanders WILL need people to crossover and vote in open primaries, and he’ll need new participants in caucuses, and he’ll need low-intensity registered Dems to turn out, and he’ll need registered Republicans to reregister in big numbers in closed primary states.
These are huge challenges, which is why it is widely assumed that he cannot win.
But the task here to figure how he could at least theoretically win. And it won’t be by using your formula.
Yougov comes out with a poll with over 100 pages of cross-tabs.
And provides you with some ammunition. Go to page 97:
Trial heat including Reg Dems AND Independents who would vote in a Dem primary:
Clinton 43
Sanders 25
Trial heat – Dems only:
Clinton 55
Sanders 24
Trial heat (small sub-sample – only 167, independents who would participate in a Dem primary)
Sanders 27
Clinton 25
Now that is pretty f’ing interesting. Take a step back. Where is Sanders closest: NH – where is about 10 down.
NH ALLOWS INDEPENDENTS TO VOTE.
This is similar if you go back to Bradley’s polling.
Funny thing: ideology isn’t all that relevant. Sanders trails 49-36 among liberals, and 39-18 among moderates.
This suggest this is an inside/outside establishment outsider fight rather than one on ideology.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ar54q9h39k/econTabReport.pdf
I agree with you. Also, does that argument say the AA voters will stay home? vote for O’Malley?
It’s been interesting over the last year or so to watch a lot of the young people who are in my social media stream evolve from being raging Paul-ista’s into jumping heavily onto the Bernie Sanders Bandwagon. They liked a lot of Paul’s message, even though they were looking at it on a very macro scale and not really understanding the insane ramifications of so much of his Libertarian philosophy. But they felt like Paul at least understood a lot of the concerns they have when it comes to civil liberties, civil rights, perpetual war, government over-reach and the corporatization of America.
Then along comes Bernie. And for many of them, with the exception of mainly those of the conspiracy theory ilk, Sanders has completely blown Paul off their radar screens. They are completely in tune with his message. A young nephew of mine, who has completely eschewed all politics since he came of voting age a few years ago; saying that he sees no one anywhere in any party who gives a shit about his problems or plight, has completely embraced the politics of Bernie. He is pumped about what Bernie has to say. And many of his friends are the same way. On Facebook earlier today he posted this, in response to Jeb Bush’s statement that “People need to work longer hours if we want to grow the economy”.
When I listen to these young people, they seem to be laser focused on things like the cost of living, a living wage, income inequality, the social safety net and equal opportunity. It is a viewpoint that has often been publicy summarized by President Obama when he says, “In our country, everyone should have an opportunity to succeed. If you work hard and play by the rules, then you should expect to be able to have a decent life”. In spite of the Thomas Friedman’s of the world, who think this is nothing more than a quaint and naive idea these days, these young people want to see someone who is willing to fight to try and make this a reality. And when they listen to Bernie Sanders, he connects with them in a way that no one else is going to right now.
For years I have been trying to encourage this nephew of mine that who we elect still does matter a very great deal. That what he sees as the conventional wisdom that “all politicians are crooks” and “both Party’s are equally crazy”, is a fatal fallacy if he chooses to believe it. And now, my completely apolitical young kin is plastering his feeds with all manner of political commentary and pro-Bernie Sanders narratives. And his friends are commenting on his information and shouting “AMEN” to the Bernie Sanders chorus. There is a slumbering giant out there that Bernie Sanders has awakened. And if it can be captured and held, it will change our political landscape for generations.
Great to read this. I’ve had conversations with one young Paul the elder supporter just as you describe, had no idea what the ramifications of the Gold Standard, for example.
Love your nephew’s comment about “work more hours”!
Unfortunately, Mike, I’ve seen it all before in 2004. Their hopes will be shattered. Big Money talks and Big Money controls what you hear.
I know. That’s my biggest fear. That he will become jaded by disappointment and a cynicism will be cemented which will be impossible to break. A piece of my advice to him was,
I recognize his young idealism. And I know it is going to have a head-on collision with reality very soon. Unfortunately, it is something we all have experienced.
Yeah, my middle grandson was gung ho about Obama. Now he’s turned his back on politics.
You wrote the following sentence:
I speed read quite a bit…it’s natural to me, not learned…and I initially read it as:
It made sense.
It still does.
The whole process has become increasingly…immoral…as corporate money has bought it. Many people don’t vote because they think that the whole thing is now primarily a dumbshow put on for the sheeple, and of course they are right as rain.
You know what I would like to see?
Oh!!!
Wouldn’t that be fun!!!
Later…
AG
Yeah..
You’re right.
I mean…jeez!!!
WHAT IF THEY WON!!!
Later…
AG
The assumption is that Sanders will not do well with moderate or conservative voters because he’s a self-proclaimed socialist, and that he won’t do well with people of color because, well, he’s not doing well with them right now.
Nate’s thinking is very flawed. Did he even go back and look at 2008 at all? Does he not remember that Obama wasn’t polling very well with non-whites for a long time? And that the tide turned when Obama won Iowa(or pretty close anyway)?
Nate Silver’s statistical models are best when there is a long history. His model cannot handle Sanders, nor BooMan argues, can they handle Rand Paul.
I think that’s correct because both are essentially internal third-party campaigns.
I’m not sure what dairy farmers have to do with it, but yes, Sanders has earned wide appeal in Vermont.
My impression is that a lot of it has to do with the fact that he’s straightforward and unapologetic about his political beliefs. He’s sorta like Chris Christie, but with far fewer anger-management issues, more respect for more people, and better ideas.
he’s like what Chris Christie pretends to be. Christie in reality is a petty thug
Paul is a legacy candidate — another punk like GWB.
Sanders is a DFH. Those folks that have been right for the past fifty years and always shunned in favor of Tricy Dicky, the senile gipper, etc.
I think that you are correct about how Bernie’s approach to the campaign is likely to confound current polling models.
I’m thinking that we really won’t know how Bernie’s message is going to break until he takes a Southern swing. But a lot of the Southern party establishment are not going to want Bernie in their turf. There are some sensitive negotiations that are going to have to go on just to get venue and turnout for the initial events.
Immigrants, muslims, and religious liberty (to discriminate) are going to be the potential distractions. Some deconstruction of what is going on and some direct confrontation of these issues and what is at stake by Bernie can possibly deal with them. Few politicians in over 60 years have tried that approach. The are you better off than you were in 1981 comparison might work in some areas.
I’m thinking that we really won’t know how Bernie’s message is going to break until he takes a Southern swing. But a lot of the Southern party establishment are not going to want Bernie in their turf. There are some sensitive negotiations that are going to have to go on just to get venue and turnout for the initial events.
He’s going to surprise people with the reception he gets in the South. Also, what party establishment? The Democratic state parties in the south, for the most part, can’t tie their own shoelaces, much less stop him from appearing anywhere.
I’m in the South; I have friends who live in the Carolinas and a daughter who lives in Alabama. And I have no clue right now what his reception will be. None at all. The first appearance will test two things: the receptivity of his message and his ability to organize venues and volunteers in the South.
At the moment the party establishment is a rock in the road. Having successfully defeated a Democratic resurgence in 2014, they are still around, still collecting lobbyists payments, and probably laying groundwork for Hillary’s campaign. Some are not doubt longtime Clinton friends from previous campaigns or from Hilton Head Renaissance wing-dings. It’s not that the parties can’t tie their own shoelaces, it’s that they won’t.
As for blocking Bernie’s efforts, there are two things they can do. (1) a whisper campaign about how and why Bernie is unacceptable and dangerous. (2) a back-channel effort to deny venues in political spaces and even select private spaces. Remember these are the folks who made McGovern irrelevant to Democratic voters. The position of these folks now is as co-dependents in a one-party state. There are individual elected officials who depart from this mold, but the professional party operatives seek to protect what little they have instead of wanting to expand the field. It is an old Southern lawyers’ trick to act dumber than you actually are and less competent so as to hide what you are actually doing. I don’t take the state establishment at face value.
I’m hoping for a surprise; it’s latent in the frustration of working people and the middle class in the South just like the rest of the country. And the native folks are descended from folks who voted four times for FDR on the basis of economic pain. But that was 83 years ago.
Let’s not overlook the fact that Clinton and Obama were unofficially in the race in 2006 and officially 1/22/07 for Clinton and 2/10/7 for Obama. Several months earlier in that election cycle than Sanders entry this time.
By August 2007, black voter support Clinton: 47% and Obama: 34%. And Oprah had endorsed Obama in 2006 and his campaign in May of 2007. iirc — Clinton had even more black support among superdelegates and local pols.
Here’s how the 2016 endorsements are stacking up so far. The list for Sanders is already surprisingly (to me) long. Interesting SC AFL-CIO endorsed Sanders.
So why do black Democrats hate Bernie? Because he’s white? Because he’s a Jew? Hillary is white and many claim she ran a racist campaign in 2008.
What percentage of black voters are even aware that a man named Bernie Sanders is running for President? Difficult to hate the unknown.
Although, black voters may hold this against Sanders:
Hold it against him?
In our “Looking Glass” political world, anything is possible.
Whoda thunk white working class slobs would embrace an alleged billionaire blowhard as a “man of the people?”
to go from not supporting to hating is an interesting jump you’re making
Well, Booman seems to think that there is no chance that Bernie can get their votes. But, you’re right. There is another explanation. Then the question would be “Why do blacks love Hillary?” I was under the impression that because of the 2008 campaign, many would never vote for her.
Because Obama told them to forgive and forget. Clinton didn’t in his heart ever really play whitey’s race card or throw any AA under the bus — even if he appeared to do so again and again — it was just politics. To elect a Clinton who once in office would do marvelous things for African-Americans.
are you serious?
Mostly no, but thought that should be obvious.
I doubt there are any mentally stable black Democrats who “hate” Bernie Sanders. They may not like him or relate to him or trust him or even know him, they might think he has no chance of becoming president. But there’s really no reason to hate Bernie Sanders unless you have a guilty conscience.
You impled it by saying that he has to rely on white liberals. Why “white” liberals? Why not just liberals?
probably because white liberals don’t always vote the same as other liberals
I’ve seen no evidence that black Democrats hate Bernie. I don’t think anyone knows where black voters stand in this primary yet. And at least in the South, few black voters are anti-Semitic; that is in part because Jewish mayors in places like Atlanta and Greenville SC moved policies that dealt with some of the lingering segregation in city employment.
In 2008, it wasn’t Hillary who uncorked a racist campaign, it was the Big Dog himself. And Hillary’s staff, such as it was, scrambled to shut him down and do damage control. It was in the South Carolina primary and likely cost a substantial number of white Democratic voters. And the stain still hasn’t washed out.
Jeb Bush’s mind-blowing fundraising haul in 1 chart
$114 million! First they forgot what a crappy President Poppy had been and cheered on his dim son. Will they now forget what a dreadful President dim son was and cheer on dimmer bro?
Dim Son:
Charlie on Dimmer Bro: Jeb(!) Bush’s Plan for America: We All Need to Work Longer Hours
Jeb(!) is gonna need another hundred million to deep six this statement.
Salon:
George W Bush Charged Veteran Charity $100,000 Speaking Fee For Fundraiser. More specifically, for Helping a Hero, a nonprofit group that aids “severely wounded veterans returning from service in the War on Terror, His WOT — that’s chutzpah squared. (btw — the “charity” also paid $20,000 to fly GWB from his home to the Houston speaking engagement.)
and this is really going to help both the clinton and bush campaigns, the two teams exchanging a few pleasantries before the polo match
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/07/09/bill-clinton-george-w-bush-on-
leadership/29921799/
Just what does Clinton or the Bushes know about leadership? Unless leadership can mean the art of screwing the people for the benefit of the oligarchs who call the shots. Yeah, just what the world needs, more politicians like Clinton and the Bushes.
(The participation of the LBJ Library Foundation in this scam must have him rolling over in his grave.)
Why don’t they invite the Nixon and Reagan Libraries to participate?
The Presidential libraries (monuments to men with crappy political legacies) have become another scam.
Jeb(!) wouldn’t be in the 2016 race if Hillary weren’t. On his own he couldn’t surmount the generalized objection to POTUS dynasties. Hillary totally blunts that objection. If I’d known then what I know now, I would have voted for GHWBush in 1992 and then wouldn’t have to relive that damn election over and over again. (Might have also precluded the Newt Revolution and that might have precluded passage of NAFTA, capital gains tax reduction, etc.)
that’s the point, the entire discussion is based on nothing real; it’s rulers of the universe talking among themselves and slapping each other on the back