The Impotence of "Stop Sanders" Democrats

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

But the comparisons to Donald Trump’s insurgent 2016 campaign are limited at best and facile at worst. Sanders’s most vocal opponents in the party are an assemblage of establishmentarians and familiar Beltway hands, none of whom speak for a political constituency of any size or significance. Moreover, far from hurting Sanders, this impotent assault is self-defeating, fueling the narrative that party gatekeepers want, at all costs, to keep a political revolution from taking over the Democratic Party.

There is undoubtedly an ideological component of the anti-Sanders wing of the party that is often framed in practical terms. Attacks on Sanders (and other high-profile Democrats like Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez) often contend that left-wing goals like socialized medicine will be an electoral albatross, dooming the party to failure in battleground states. These arguments are rarely presented in policy terms, but it’s easy to draw a line between an opposition to Sanders rooted in the Democratic Party’s donor class and Sanders’s high-tax proposals and class-war rhetoric.

(snip)

This is a rather strange line of attack nearly ten months out from the first Democratic primary. There is no reason to worry about Bernie Sanders staying in the 2020 race for too long at this point. But it is nevertheless a telling obsession, one that points to the lingering resentment felt toward Sanders among Clinton allies over the perception that the insurgent candidate didn’t concede the 2016 nomination quickly enough—a choice some believe weakened Clinton’s chances in the general election. (It’s worth noting, however, that more voters went from Clinton to John McCain in 2008 than did from Sanders to Trump in 2016.)

(snip)

There’s another possible, if unintended, effect of the growing challenges to Sanders from Democratic establishment circles, however. Trump’s best chance at victory doesn’t come from a democratic socialist claiming the nomination, but from a third-party candidate splitting the vote. Claims from Democratic stalwarts that Sanders can’t unseat the president are fool’s gold to self-funding candidates like Howard Schultz, who argues that a majority of voters are clamoring for a centrist, corporate candidate. If anyone is splitting the party and undercutting Democrats’ chances, if anyone is paving the way for a second Trump term, it isn’t Sanders—it’s his most obstinate and obstreperous opponents.


https://newrepublic.com/article/153605/impotence-stop-sanders-democrats

I believe this to be a sound analysis.

[tiredtoo]

1. This quote is of utmost importance

&quot It’s worth noting, however, that more voters went from Clinton to John McCain in 2008 than did from Sanders to Trump in 2016.) "

[thesquanderer]

6. More 08 Obama-disloyal Hillary voters than 2016 Hillary-disloyal Sanders voters?

Sounds like something that could make a few heads explode around here. But it does put the Sanders-voters-as-disloyal meme in some more perspective. And then add the fact that a lot of Sanders voters were independents (not Dems) to begin with--presumably more so than Clinton voters in 2008--and the accusation becomes even more hypocritical.

[lapucelle]

27. ...

[thesquanderer]

30. Wow. So it really looks like, if our candidate had been Bernie, we would have won those three states

and so we would probably have won the election.

[lapucelle]

33. No. He would have had to win he primary first. N/T

[thesquanderer]

37. Well of course, he couldn't beat Trump without getting on the ballot!

But to the extent that some people may have voted against him in the primary thinking he'd have been the weaker choice in the general, those numbers indicate otherwise, more concretely than anything else I'd seen.

[lapucelle]

39. Yes, but he didn't. Either his voters id not show up or there weren't enough of them. N/T

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. NO QUESTION!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[SMC22307]

24. So more Clinton voters went for McCain and batshit crazy Sarah Palin...

than Bernie voters for Drumpf. LOL Classic. Seriously, McCain with Yukon Barbie next in line. Jesus.

[lapucelle]

28. Yes, but in 2016 those voters put Trump in the White House.

[SMC22307]

31. Tweets from people I've never heard of?

Black voter turnout fell in 2016.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

There are many reasons why Fat Nixon is sitting in the White House and it *ain't'* all Bernie supporters.

[lapucelle]

38. It doesn't surprise me that you've never heard of these two scholars.

Brian Frederick Schaffner is a political scientist. He is the Newhouse Professor of Civic Studies at Tufts University and a faculty associate at Harvard University's Institute for Quantitative Social Science.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=s13IQeUAAAAJ

G. Elliot Morris
Elliot Morris is a journalist on the data team, writing quantitatively-driven pieces for The Economist on a wide range of subjects. His specialities include US politics, elections, and public opinion. He previously worked for an elections returns start-up and the Pew Research Center and has contributed articles to the New York Times Upshot. He graduated from The University of Texas at Austin with degrees in political science and history, and also studied computer science.

Published Writing
Feb. 19, 2019 » For The Economist on Voter ID Laws and Turnout
Feb. 19, 2019 » For The Economist on the 2020 Democratic Primary Candidates
Feb. 07, 2019 » For The Economist on the Price of Bitcoin and Energy Usage
Feb. 06, 2019 » For The Economist on Word Usage in State of the Union Addresses
Jan. 30, 2019 » For The Economist on Why Third-Party Candidates Fail to Win Presidential Elections

Projects
Feb. 12, 2019 » A Guide to Analyzing (American) Political Data in R » I am writing a guide about using data science tools in R to analyze data about politics.
Feb. 06, 2019 » The politicaldata Package for Analyzing Political Data in R » I’ve written a R package for acquiring and analyzing political data. It’s now easier to explore polling, election results, demographic data and more.
Jan. 03, 2019 » Weekly Posts About Data Science for Political Analysis » In 2019, I’m writing weekly posts about how we use techniques of data science to answer questions about politics.

Research
May. 05, 2018 » Policy Preferences and Mass Belief Systems
Oct. 04, 2017 » Dynamics of (National) Electoral Preferences in the 2016 US Presidential Race

[SMC22307]

40. "Scolars," eh? LOL

Where's their data on the impact of lower black turnout on PA, WI, and MI? Let's do a comparison.

[lapucelle]

44. There's no data in your link concerning the impact in those or in any states.

The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012

[SMC22307]

46. Right. I'd like to see tweets from the scholars...

illustrating the impact on PA, WI and MI. All sorts of data need to be compared.

[lapucelle]

41. 2016 was the first presidential election after the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. N/T

There are myriad reasons why DT is in the White House.

The stakes were very high, and we needed all hands on deck.

[SMC22307]

45. "Basket of deplorables."

Hillary acknowledged it was a factor in her loss. Yep, myriad reasons.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

64. The irony is that despite the truth of what Hillary said, it may have cost her the presidency

as she herself has admitted.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[SMC22307]

83. Yep, but let's all blame Bernie.

It's so lazy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

84. IKR! Could think of another word to describe their Bernie bashin, but I'll just leave it at divisive

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[pangaia]

85. I could not believe it when she said that.

My first thought was... "uh,oh!"

[SMC22307]

86. Yeah, that sure as hell didn't end well for us.

It's not a good idea to insult potential voters.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. Another inconvenient truth!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Hortensis]

25. But they were the same people in the same percentages

who refused to vote Democrat in both elections.

Roughly a quarter of both Sanders' and Hillary's supporters behaved very similarly in a shockingly hostile and antagonistic way toward the other candidate during the primary. So badly that it drew a good amount of press attention.

And the same percentage in both elections then refused to vote Democrat in the general when their candidate didn't win, decamping spitefully for either the Republican or third party candidate.

I can see nothing Hillary did to draw people who would behave so contemptibly in 2008, only that she was running against Obama in that other binary, either-or election.

Think about what it would take that someone COULD claim to have progressive, inclusive principles but vote Republican in this era to smash them all, against progressive government, against regulating capitalism, against civil rights, for persecuting minorities.

And polls say the same percentages are now promising to refuse to vote Democrat in a third election if Sanders isn't the candidate. Which he won't be, of course, and many undoubtedly already know Russia and the Republicans will fail to make it possible for them. So the kind of unprincipled whackos we're talking about won't vote Democrat. Again.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Nancy Pelosi, quoting Louis Brandeis at her swearing in.

[murielm99]

2. I don't believe Sanders will win the nomination.

When he loses, he will do the same things he did last time. He won't concede soon enough and he won't restrain his overzealous followers. Bernie is a divider.

[MH1]

3. THIS

IMO, Sanders has good policy ideas. But he's not a team player and doesn't seem to care if he ends up "burning the village down to save it". A totally abhorrent position to me, and I hope to never be in a position that I feel I have to vote for someone who is okay with that attitude.

[Uncle Joe]

5. You make two presumptions based on no evidence.

Your first projection runs counter to current polling and your second argument against historical voting facts as listed in the OP.

I suppose your last sentence does have an element of truth if you consider fighting for the 99% over agency for the 1% to be "divisive."

[NurseJackie]

15. What's divisive is saying that there's "no difference" between Democrats and the GOP...

... it's also divisive to say that the Democratic party is "an absolute failure" and that the Democrats are "corrupt" and "ideologically bankrupt".

Want to talk about being divisive? How about when someone says that Democrats "don't care about climate change" or that the Democrats are the "party of the elite" and the "party of the one percent"... is that divisive?

It certainly causes division when anyone claims that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity and it creates distrust when anyone claims that people "aren't racists" just because they refuse to vote for someone because of their skin color. It harmful and divisive for anyone to falsely claim that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

That type of hate-speech serves no good purpose. Showing such open contempt and hostility for the Democratic party is a GIFT to the GOP. It does nothing but create hostility, distrust, resentment and division. It serve no good purpose at all.

All I'm trying to say is, when anyone repeatedly smears the Democratic party with that type of negativity it generates apathy. When you have apathy, that discourages voter turnout. When you have low voter turnout that gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

[Uncle Joe]

16. If ALL Trump voters are racist, why did some of them particularly in the rust belt states

vote for President Obama twice before casting votes for the orange shit-gibbon?

A link or links to the quotes you cited would also be helpful.

[SMC22307]

23. The always leave that part out. ALWAYS.

They voted for a black man twice then suddenly they're all racist.

[JI7]

29. voting for Obama doesn't mean one can't be racist. the economy was a mess at the time

and Obama lost a number of white supporters after the whole professor gates incident which he never got back.

[Uncle Joe]

32. If ALL Trump voters had been racist, they wouldn't have voted for Candidate Obama

over war hero McCain no matter how bad the economy was doing.

Racism breeds mindless hatred and that kind of emotion is not overcome by logic.

?t=6

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/25/17782572/john-mccain-barack-obama-statement-2008-video

[JI7]

35. no, all racists are not kkk , no nazi types. many are nice to a black mailman

even enjoy black music and other entertainment .

[Uncle Joe]

36. Not all racists have to be members of the KKK, they still wouldn't vote for a black man

to the highest and most powerful office in the land if they were racists.

[JI7]

42. yes they would and they have. racists include people who claim not to be racist

but are in denial of racism.

this is why people laugh at those who use "my best friend is........." as evidence that baby m can't beer bigoted.

[Skya Rhen]

49. Yes, the racism was dormant in many of them and Trump was the figure head

that constantly demonstrated to them (thereby convincing them) that it was ok for them to bring out their sleeping, inner racism. He did this by stoking fear, hatred and resentment, on a regular basis - they became emboldened and voted for the candidate that they had a newly-found common bond with.

[Uncle Joe]

50. "My best friend" and voting for a President with immense power over their lives

are astronomically two different things.

[JI7]

51. not always. just look at Reagan Bush and many other Republican fools many people

have voted for.

[Uncle Joe]

52. Racism is about power, for a racist to vote for a black man to obtain ultimate power

in our society is illogical at its's base.

What would be the purpose?

[JI7]

53. they don't think they are racist. they are the type that would say Obamas is one of the

good ones. and similar racist shit.

[Uncle Joe]

56. So you're saying that almost 63 million Trump voters are ALL racists

either knowingly or un-knowingly, no other critical issues ie; stagnant wages, a crumbling infrastructure, the hollowing out of the middle class could possibly be a consideration?

[JI7]

58. the fact they continue to support him after his treatment of Puerto Rico

says it all.

[Uncle Joe]

60. That's a pretty large blanket statement, do you know for a fact that ALL of them did?

[JI7]

61. if they don't then they should have no problem admitting they were wrong

[Uncle Joe]

65. Trump's poll ratings dropped 20 points after Maria hit Puerto Rico and his non-response, why would

that happen if they were ALL racist?

WASHINGTON (CNN)President Donald Trump's approval rating for handling the federal government's response to recent hurricanes has dropped 20 points in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

In mid-September, 64% of Americans said they approved of Trump's handling of the US hurricane response. That finding followed his administration's handling of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which hit the US mainland in late-August and September. Now, as many Puerto Ricans remain without access to clean water or electricity nearly a month after Maria hit, just 44% say they approve.

(snip)

The poll found Trump's numbers on this score have dipped across party lines. His ratings are down 9 points among Republicans, 22 points among independents and 25 points among Democrats.

(snip)

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/politics/cnn-poll-trump-hurricanes/index.html

[JI7]

67. those include people that didn't vote for him

and as I said, if they really aren't racist they should have no problem with criticism and people thinking they were racist for voting for him.

[BlueFlorida]

87. Applause

[artislife]

43. Love this response

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. So what else is new?!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[brooklynite]

92. "Counter to current polling....."

Walker 2016!

[Gothmog]

95. Bernie is hoping for a brokered convention.

Link to tweet

[SidDithers]

7. +1...nt

Sid

[LongtimeAZDem]

8. Exactly

[Haggis for Breakfast]

79. Just like Nader.

[WeekiWater]

4. Then there is zero concern. Move on. NT

[David__77]

9. Thanks for posting.

...

[crazytown]

10. The problem is the messenger.

[Uncle Joe]

11. The solution is with the message and no one carries the message with greater authenticity

than the messenger.

[crazytown]

12. I personally do not think the electorate is looking for (another) angry man

The angst and tension is everywhere.

[Uncle Joe]

14. There is a significant and profound difference between anger and having righteous anger.

It was righteous anger that propelled the abolitionist, suffragist and civil rights movements.

Without that righteous anger, where would we as a nation be today?

[BlueFlorida]

13. Sanders supporters will have no such worries

He will not win the nomination.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

82. Agreed.

The time for old white men in the WH is OVER. Hallelujah.

Given the diversity of the current Democratic field of candidates, they represent the demographic face of the country. We have never had the wide-ranging choices now presented us, but one thing they all seem to have in common is the theme of uniting us. Sanders has never been a uniter. And if the last election was any indication, this pattern will continue with him in 2020.

I am glad that once this election cycle is played out, we will never have to suffer Sanders and the "selectivity" of his supporters again.

[corbettkroehler]

17. Finally! A Sober Analysis Which Bernie Bashers Can't Dismiss Out Of Hand! Thanks For Sharing! (n/t)

[Loki Liesmith]

26. I dismiss it out of hand

[Scurrilous]

66. LOL

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. No doubt they'll find a way.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Devil Child]

18. Excellent read and great analysis. Thank you for sharing Uncle Joe.

[Gothmog]

19. sanders thinks that he can be the nomiee with only 30% of the vote

From the Political Wire https://politicalwire.com/2019/04/18/how-bernie-sanders-thinks-hell-win-nomination/

The Atlantic: “He’s counting on winning Iowa and New Hampshire, where he was already surprisingly strong in 2016, and hoping that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris will split the black electorate in South Carolina and give him a path to slip through there, too. And then, Sanders aides believe, he’ll easily win enough delegates to put him into contention at the convention. They say they don’t need him to get more than 30 percent to make that happen.”

Even Mondale got more support than sanders

Link to tweet

[comradebillyboy]

21. Does Bernie's 30% strategy assume winner take all primaries?

It sounds like it does, but we don't have winner take all. In any event 30% of the delegates can't deliver the nomination and I doubt if any of the other candidates would release their delegates to BS.

[Gothmog]

89. Evidently

[Steven Maurer]

20. Well, I will be doing everything I can to get Sanders voters to see how toxic he is

So that Trump doesn't get reelected.

No matter how much Alex Shepard wants to pretend that the problem that Sanders has with 70% of the party, is 70% of the party being "corporate" ("so F.U. Democrats" ), that still won't win the general election.

Quite literally the only thing that would make me vote for a more moderate candidate than the one I presently like, is if a vote for the moderate would keep Sanders from ever disgracing the national Democratic platform as nominee.

[Autumn]

22. Very good article. I agree with the author on all points.

The Democratic party made the choice to allow him to run under their banner. To attempt to shut him down now is a really bad idea. Brock's idea that the responsibility to unite the Democratic Party’s rests on the shoulder of one candidate out of a field 17 is laughable.
Thanks for the post, Uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

34. I agree on all counts.

Thank you Autumn.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. Yes... hopefully, this article will get Bernie's opponents to see the error of their ways...

and finally stop with their divisiveness.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[SFnomad]

72. Yes, because saying those that don't bow down to the almighty BS have "impotence" isn't divisive n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. Guess not... nevermind.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[SFnomad]

75. If you don't want divisiveness ... don't put it in the OP. It's not rocket science n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. So, now it's divisive to point out divisiveness... okay, I get it, but then why so divisive?!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[SFnomad]

77. No ... it's divisive to call those that don't bow down to BS that they have ... "impotence"

Are you feigning ignorance? Or do you really believe the OP isn't divisive?

[RandySF]

48. I can't think of a better way to reach out to Sanders septics than to call them impotent.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. BOOOOOOM!!! Drop the mic!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[highplainsdem]

68. LOL! The Bernie supporters' version of painting "Surrender Dorothy" across ths sky.

Somehow I don't think Democrats who don't support Sanders are quaking in their boots, sure that they have to surrender to Bernie now in the face of such devastating analysis.

Seriously, the analysis in that piece is crap. Biden isn't leading Bernie in almost every poll merely because of support from "an assemblage of establishmentarians and familiar Beltway hands, none of whom speak for a political constituency of any size or significance." That's a fantasy in Bernie supporters' minds.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Crap?! Really?! You can keep dissing Bernie's supporters, sure, but youre only provin the OP's point

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[SFnomad]

81. I think the biggest fear for BS supports is that BS is at his ceiling, he won't do much better

Biden, on the other hand will expect to get an announcement bump, which should put some distance between them.

And BS's biggest problem is himself ... he is a very polarizing figure, I just don't see him attracting a significant portion of the uncommitted people at this point. Just look around here, he has fallen to 5th place in support. I never would have expected that when this started.

[betsuni]

88. +1

[qazplm135]

69. It's posts like this

That make me less likely to support Sanders

[highplainsdem]

70. Yep.

[SFnomad]

73. +1 n/t

[BooScout]

71. Pfffft...

[sheshe2]

80. Easter Sunday.

Not a church goer, use to be eons ago. What is that song they sing this holy day? He is Risen...Sing it out with joyfulness. Sorry may have gotten the text wrong.

[Gothmog]

90. I doubt that sanders will be the nominee

sanders lan to rely on less than 30% support ales no sense. The delegates for the other 70% will rally behind one candidate

[Blue_Tires]

91. Of course I've got a hundred other reasons to oppose St. Bern

but y'all keep telling yourselves it's his policy that I dislike... Makes it much easier to avoid any real discussion.

(Which is just as well because whenever I speak my true mind about Sanders the Alert Police come out in droves)

[Gothmog]

93. Nate Silver- Sanders Can Win, But He Isn't Polling Like A Favorite

Nate thinks that it is possible for sander to win the nomination but this is not likely. sanders is not going to be the nominee of the party. sanders thinks that getting 30% of the primary vote is sufficient which means taking the fight to the contested convention. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-can-win-but-he-isnt-polling-like-a-favorite/

Historically, though, candidates who are polling at only about 20 percent nationally despite the near-universal name recognition that Sanders enjoys don’t have a great track record. From our research on the history of past primary polls, I found 15 candidates from past nomination processes who, like Sanders, (i) polled at an average of between 15 percent and 25 percent4 in national polls in the first six months of the year before the Iowa caucuses5 and (ii) who had high or very high name recognition.6.....

Achieving a delegate majority could be hard for Sanders
You could also argue that the three winning candidates from the list — Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 — aren’t good comparisons for Sanders, especially from a “The Party Decides” standpoint where preferences among party insiders and activists are leading indicators of voter preferences. Romney, for instance, had the backing of the GOP party establishment as a potential consensus choice, whereas Sanders largely lacks it from Democrats. Obama was a rising star, rather than someone left over from a previous cycle, and gained a lot of momentum among party elites as the 2008 cycle wore on, even if they also liked Clinton. McCain, who ran against the party establishment in 2000 but was someone the party could live with in 2008, is in some ways the most favorable comparison for Sanders.

In many respects, however, Sanders is more similar to Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, George Wallace in 1972 and 1976 or Ron Paul in 2012, candidates who represented important constituencies within their respective parties but who didn’t have an obvious way to unite the rest of the party behind them or to win a delegate majority.

At times, Sanders’s strategists actually seem to be leaning into the strategy of being a factional candidate. The Sanders campaign may have all kinds of reasons to feel aggrieved by how the party establishment has treated it, especially when it reads articles like the one in The New York Times that suggest the establishment is out to get it again! Nonetheless, the campaign hasn’t sought to mend fences when conflicts have arisen this year. Instead, Sanders aides told The Atlantic’s Edward-Isaac Dovere that they think they can win the nomination with as little as a 30 percent plurality of delegates. That’s a risky strategy since it would necessarily entail a contested convention, where party insiders would play an outsized role. Nor would Sanders, a 77-year-old white man, reflect the various constituencies of the Democratic Party (and the demographics of the delegates themselves) as well as someone like Harris might.

sanders will not be the nominee if sanders only gets 30% of the primary vote. There are too many real democrats who have long memories and who will not forgive or forget. If this gets to a floor fight, the delegates for the other candidates will not support sanders and the super delegates will get to break any deadlocks after the first ballot.

[OhZone]

94. I keep reading this as "the importance." ha nt

[Gothmog]

96. Bernie is hoping for a brokered convention.

Link to tweet