2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAdvantage: Sanders
Looking toward November, our choice is becoming clearer. Democrats can pick Bernie to run against Trump, or we can pick Hillary. Each candidate has shown differing areas of strength in the Democratic contests so far. The numbers vary from state to state, but overall Bernie has done better with male voters, with white voters, with young voters, with working class voters, with Independents, with strong progressives, and with voters outside of the South. Hillary has done better with minorities (African Americans in particular - Latinos somewhat less so), with older voters, with moderately liberal voters, with women, and with Southern voters.
Bernie always does better with voters under 30, but often he triumphs with all voters below 50. Plus he's held his own with women in some contests. The Southern blow outs for Hillary tend to skew the overall results somewhat when looking at general demographics - for example her overall strength among women is buttressed by massive support for her by African American women who voted for Clinton in southern states.
When it comes time to run against Trump, what are the implications for the trends that we've seen so far? It's simple: Sanders is the candidate best able to win demographic groups that Democrats need but can't reliably count on. And he does so in the sates that we must carry to win the electoral college, without losing the votes of typically reliable Democrats in the process.
With the voter groups where Hillary has an advantage so far, her support tends to be genuine and heartfelt - they are pro Clinton voters, and that reflects well on her. But there are few anti Sanders voters in those ranks. Sanders isn't overtly being rejected by Clinton voters, it is much more a matter of them just preferring Hillary. This is in stark contrast to what we find on the Republican side, where strong ideological disagreements and personal animosities divide them. By and large, outside of feverish activist enclaves, registered Democrats feel positively toward both of our candidates, and simply are more strongly drawn to one or the other as the case may be. Notably both Hillary and Bernie have strong platforms and voting records that resonate with minorities and women.
So let's look at the swing factors that will determine whether Donald Trump wins or loses to a Democrat come November. No matter who we run we can count on African Americans, and especially Latinos, tuning out in force to defeat Donald Trump. The same is true for women who understand that reproductive rights, to name just one major concern, are at stake in the fall election.
Young voters have a lot to lose if Republican win in the fall, and a case can easily be made that they should turn out in force regardless of which candidate Democrats run, except that history says otherwise. Repeatedly voters below 30 have been under represented in the electorate, often dramatically so. That was less true in 2008 than usual, when Barack Obama inspired a whole new generation of voters to participate. That type wave of enthusiasm is evident again during this election cycle, but only for one candidate; Bernie Sanders.
Progressives too should be counted on in force to vote Democratic against Donald Trump and I believe they will no matter who we nominate. But progressives traditionally have been among the most fervent grass roots activists and volunteers working in the trenches to elect Democrats during the heat of a campaign - in that sense we fight above our weight class. Progressives will vote Democratic in November regardless, but how much blood sweat and tears they invest in the struggle is partially a by product of enthusiasm. And the progressive base, as evidenced by Move On and Democracy for America endorsements among others, tends to be far more enthusiastic for Bernie Sanders.
When it comes to other demographics however, an overall Democratic advantage is far less assured in the coming fall campaign. Independents are a much larger voting block than either registered Democrats or Republicans. Two candidates have so far shown a consistent ability to attract excitement and interest from that critical mass of voters: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. If nothing else is clear this year one thing should be; establishment candidates like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Hillary Clinton have not been wining the Independent vote.
Donald Trump has already articulated his game plan for a victory in November, he will be going after (white) working class voters in the Mid West and North East. He will be trying to flip some blue states red while pulling purple ones like Ohio into his column also. He will specifically be appealing to male so called Reagan Democrats who have swung both ways in recent decades. Trump will campaign against Free Trade. Trump will campaign against adventurist wars. He counts on winning the Deep South no matter how impressive Hillary Clinton's primary wins were there.
Hillary Clinton is vulnerable to Trump's strategy in ways that Bernie Sanders is not. That truth has been bubbling up for weeks now, and with her loss in Michigan now it can no longer be ignored.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)its clear...bernie or trump. that is the choice.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Kick and rec
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)He will be a strong candidate in November, if we can get him to the convention.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Do you have any thoughts about the possibility that if Trump is the nominee but goes too far in his antics and/or his baggage (mob connections, etc.) finally gets focused coverage by the MSM that he could be totally discredited in the final days before the general election. I'm hoping that's the case. If Cruz manages to stay in with enough votes to be the alternative, or win the general, then it will be interesting to see how he would do against a Hillary or Bernie. I think he would be a disaster in every state except the deep Bible Belt South, Texas, maybe Florida, and a couple of Western states.
Mufaddal
(1,021 posts)And the reason he's barely had to spend money this cycle compared to other candidates is due to the hours and hours of free advertising he's gotten in the form of disproportionate coverage in the MSM. The only way they could help sink his campaign at this point would be to stop covering him. At least that's my 2¢.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Like it's already been said, it can be and has been used as a battle cry to rally his "troops". On the other hand the general electorate is a broader cross section than those voters who participate in Republican primaries. Some who are less wired to respond to his overt nationalist appeals but who were craving a major political change in course could still get turned off to Trump when more of his unsavory past is revealed.
I think were any solid competent Democrat to run against Trump who wasn't closely tied to "the Establishment" in voter eyes, Trump would lose, but I'm not certain about that. I think Hillary stacks up relatively poorly against Trump whereas Bernie stacks up exceptionally well.
I'm hoping that Trump will wear out his welcome in American living rooms over the course of a long campaign by being so persistently obnoxious, narcissistic, and mean spirited. In the end it may be his own performance that does him in - but if the craving for change is too strong and we run someone associated with the long standing status quo, maybe not.
I think a race against Cruz less scrambles all the scripts and we should be able to hold onto enough traditional Democratic presidential year support to defeat him. The wild card there would be if Clinton runs and she is kept off balance due to accusations of "scandals".
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Yes, the MSM may overkill him with kindness. It was fun for awhile (the shock effect) but, without substance, he becomes tiresome and people move on. He's actually a prime example of what wealth can buy. While claiming he's self funding his campaign, he gets free MSM advertising and his private plane allows him to swoop in wherever he needs to make an appearance while still "spending the night in his own bed" as some media pundits have said. So many advantages but he's going to work for the working man. Ha!
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Well reasoned OP - well done..
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Both Sanders and Clinton are much better candidates and supportive of the interests of minorities including AAs, Latinos, LGBT, as well as champions of women's rights than Trump or any Republican.
The differences between Sanders and Clinton in terms of policies and goals on racial/social/gender issues are non-existent or minor.
And either candidate will be running against the racist, sexist and homophobic GOP.
That' s just a fact. That's why I have continually railed against the divisive demographic marketing by Clinton, and the portrayal of Sanders as having a "problem with....(fill in the blanks)."
There are distinctive differences on issues of Wealth and Power, and their message and how they believe we should handle issues like healthcare, Wall St. regulation, trade....and generally who calls the shots on policies.
Those issues affect all demographics (except the ultra wealthy)
If Clinton had not tried to capitalize on "identity issues" the primary could be about which candidate has the best policies on THOSE issues.
IMO, Sanders has the best chance to EXPAND the Democratic voters. But either way, that's what this primary should be about.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)I don't hold it against her that she highlighted real support for her from whoever is backing her in whatever minority community. Some of those relationships she earned over time, but regardless, that is standard politics. But there has been IMO an ugly divisive edge to how she has played those cards at times. And yes, both Bernie and Hillary will support core Democratic racial and identity constituencies, so most of the attention in this race should be focused on areas where they have real differences.
Ford_Prefect
(7,921 posts)The DNC has made it very clear that there WILL be only one authorized candidate. The field instructions to misdirect or even block caucusing Democrats, leaving Bernie Sanders off the sample ballot, outright lying to primary voters, obstruction and electioneering at polling places. These are not merely politics as usual between parties, they are legally actionable interference in the right to vote. They are also a viscous and coordinated plan to eliminate the progressive wing of the party by denying them participation at the most basic level. If it were a Republican candidate that had done the same the Democratic leadership would be howling for blood, not suggesting that we politely get along.
I have absolutely NO doubt about who's running the party and who they intend to nominate. I have seen them up close and personal. They do not consider the progressives to be Democrats. It's racism 101. I have no faith to offer them. They are nearly paranoid in their reaction to anything not 110% Hillary-centric. They cannot be reasoned with or even talked to. They are also nearly as immune to facts and history as those supporting Trump. I have more than merely a few polite words for what they are doing.
Well reasoned if you assume that the DNC will get behind Sanders when he wins...
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)I think the voters will regardless. With a major party nomination i hand, even if they try to they can not deprive Bernie of enough oxygen to get his message directly to voters.
Ford_Prefect
(7,921 posts)That will be difficult to overcome and has already divided states and precincts alike. The loyalty issues have already had a chilling effect on congressional and local candidates in terms of who is portrayed as a loyal Democrat. That kind of local taint is not easily overcome and has been just as effective as if the Republicans had done it.
I have no doubt that mainstream voters will chose to vote for the Nominee. I am concerned at the damage done to local candidates who will need enthusiastic support as much as campaign funds to appeal to voters "after the dust settles". At that level we have much to try and recover, especially in states like my own North Carolina.
The quote goes "Money doesn't talk, it swears". I do not expect the party machine to simply fall in line. they have goals of controlling more than the White House, and in their own image. DWS is not a fluke, nor are her acolytes.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)It is a real concern. I am at least as worried about what might happen to the future of our party if the candidate who is strongly embraced by voters under 40 ends up pushed aside.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)malthaussen
(17,217 posts)A little nod to DU there, eh?
-- Mal
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)On both sides we tend to get much more zealous than your average voter.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)great OP!
Kicked and recced
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)That along with HRC connections explains things like the endorsements and her support from traditional Dem constituencies (AA, Latino, women, etc.). However, one thing the Dem establishment will do is to get on board with the candidate once they are nominated.
That means that the organizational strengths of the traditional Dem constituencies will be available to work with an energized younger crowd if Bernie is that nominee. Add in his appeal to the white male demographic and much lower ingrained RW animus and there are too many positives to ignore going forward.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,023 posts)Commenting to read later
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)because he has no plan. for all I care doesn't even want it. I'm for Bernie but up against Trump the idiot is totally unpredictable he's a Runaway Train, either way his supporters are more the worry.. as they come from the Hey we're Fox we ain't responsible for what our supporters do crowd ie they sorta scare me but as a Christian not as much. They just concern me. and Donald will go negative, although I don't entirely see where in Bernie's past he can. If Donald goes negative without seeming to thats the problem. Hillary's already done that. And it may have backfired in MI. True Bernie can handle Trump. But the supporters are the concern.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)But we already know how he intends to exploit Clinton's weaknesses, both imagined and real. Look at the surge of opposition to the type of trade deals American Presidents have been entering into that Hillary gets linked to. That was apparent on both sides last night.
valerief
(53,235 posts)NoMoreRepugs
(9,470 posts)I hope that if and when the MSM turns on T-Rump they simply point out the idiotic things he says or has said and let the Donald stand on his own words versus adding commentary and spin - I know I am dreaming but I do think the man teeters on the edge of self-destruction constantly.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)I guess that is my take... in the long run.
cadaverdog
(228 posts)This thread is a perfect example of what is lacking in so much of today's formal education; learning to do critical thinking.
And "huzzahs" to all who have contributed well thought out comments, whether in support or critical of the author's position. Obviously there are a number of adults in this room.
Wayne Orr
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)Happy you shared them! Bookmarked.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)me b zola
(19,053 posts)Ron Green
(9,823 posts)Highly recommended.
PWPippin
(213 posts)I will forward this to a daughter who is on the fence. As an attorney, she will reach her own conclusion, but this may help her see the choices clearly.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---for sure.