The question is what’s going on with those 1 in 6 Sanders voters who aren’t willing to vote for another Democrat. Are they sore losers, ready to stomp their feet and go home? Or are they alienated voters who voted for Trump as an outsider last time but would vote for Sanders as an outsider this time?
I don’t know. I’m suggesting that the establishment interpretation–that they’re sulky foot-stompers–may not be accurate, and I’m interested in reading more on the subject.
Nice! Bernie Sanders’ ‘no’ percentage in that poll is 16%. Andrew Yang’s ‘no’ percentage in that same poll is 42%.
Yang’s total percentage for that national Emerson poll is 8%.
Having watched the Yang Gang for a long while now, there are a lot of trump supporters and disengaged voters (some in their 40’s and 50’s) who will not be voting for a Democrat if Yang doesn’t make it. I’ve only been watching anecdotal evidence of people changing their voter registration and people posting that this is their first time voting or donating and only because it’s Yang. That poll number gives some evidence that at least for this poll, people are saying the same on the phone as well as online.
This NPR article may be a good place to start, if you believe looking at Sanders-Trump voters in 2016 might give insight.
So this huge survey demonstrated that Sanders-Trump voters existed, in numbers enough to have mattered, but fewer of them than there had been Clinton primary-McCain general or even McCain primary-Obama general voters! They mostly were non-Democrats (not even D leaners) voting in the D primary (some possibly because the R side was already pretty decided) who did not like Obama and who may have been turned off by Clinton’s support of Black justice issues. (And I do not think that Sanders campaigning for her earlier and harder would have had any impact on them.) The number of those who voted Sanders primary and Trump general was not out of step with past elections; conversely Clinton’s keeping nearly all her primary supporters into the general was.
Jon Chait has a bleak analysis of Bernie’s general election chances. I wouldn’t put it quite as strongly as he does but the overall point stands. Bernie has a lot of unpopular positions which would be perfect grist for a right-wing attack ad campaign:
One under-appreciated fact about 2020 is that Trump will have a lot more money than in 2016. He will buy a lot of attack ads for which Bernie would be the perfect target.
I think it’s noteworthy that Bernie has a lot of unpopular positions on immigration. He sometimes has an image of someone who is quite left on economic issues but relatively moderate on social issues. On immigration at least this is not true. Once the right-wing attack machine is done with him, he will lose a lot of low-information white working-class voters on immigration in addition to losing a lot of suburban moderates because of Medicare for All.
To me, the important part of that article was this:
If Clinton was able to attract those Trump voters that Bernie had attracted and if they would have voted for her instead of Trump or even stayed home, Hillary would have won the 2016 election.
That’s why it’s important in this election to win over Trump supporters. Without them, even if the Dem candidate keeps all of their voters, Trump will win again.
F**k off, Bernie Brats! At this point, if Bernie gets Trump re-elected I’m ready to say “Serves you right.” Maybe the cockroaches will do a better job of ruling the planet when they rise up 50 million years from now.
That’s a silly article, but there are nutty and obnoxious supporters of every candidate. Any anger or rage you feel should be laser-focused in the right direction – against Trump. Shifting some of that to Bernie or any other Democrat right now just helps Trump.
I’m looking forward to seeing a solid Bernie win in Iowa and New Hampshire, and seeing how the DNC and all other Democratic candidates respond (along with face expressions).
You really are cherry picking the bits that comport with the story you want to believe when you key in on that and ignore the rest.
That said - it IS important to win over Trump supporters that can be won over. More of them were previous Obama voters than were Sanders-Trump voters though, and not much overlap. Very likely many of Yang or nothing people are the same. They not an insignificant number (Yang ones fewer in absolute numbers even if a higher percent - math!) but they are LESS significant that Obama-Trump ones.
And it is ALSO important to maximize turnout of “real” Democrats, all of them (not just younger more progressive voters).
Chasing a significant but the least significant segment, would be very foolish.
Absolutely, if that segment is chased at the net expense of other segments. If, however, Biden lacks supporters who would otherwise be Trump supporters or stay-at-homers, but Sanders has such supporters, that’s a reason to vote for Sanders.
At this point I’m skeptical of anyone on either side who claims to know. And I read stuff that Velocity is writing about what he looks forward too, and I’m reminded of nothing so much as Democrats in 2016 who watched Trump’s primary wins with glee.
Oh me too. Still we know what we know: there were NOT any more Sanders-Trump voters than there had been other primary one side-general other side voters in other elections. We do NOT know how many Sanders primary supporters would have voted for Trump if Sanders had been the nominee - just as big of a number of McCain primary voters voted for Obama. Again, most of the time that seems to happen; almost all staying with Clinton from primary to general was atypical. I’d suspect the number would be bigger among those who support a candidate in the primary but who do not lean to the party.
The “if” you have is a very questionable “if”. The bigger cohorts of those “supporters who would otherwise be Trump supporters or stay-at-homers” are Obama-Trump voters and those Black voters who came out for Obama but not for Clinton. “If” Sanders lacks support with those cohorts that Biden has more of, that’s a reason to support Biden …
In neither case do we KNOW though.
So, which count are we going by tonight?
One of the three “official” counts:
Or, since the Iowa Delegate Selection Plan says that both of the raw voter counts as well as the SDEs will be available at both statewide and Congressional district level:
4. Number of calculated Democratic National Convention pledged delegates (based on SDEs, but a candidate needs 15% of them in that district/statewide to get any of that district’s/any of the 14 “statewide” delegates)
5. Number of calculated Democratic National Convention pledged delegates had it been based on the second alignment votes (which is pretty much how Nevada distributes its delegates, although in Nevada, if your candidate doesn’t get 15% in the first alignment, you either have to switch to one that did or leave the caucus)
6. Number of calculated Democratic National Convention pledged delegates had it been based on the first alignment votes
For those of you playing at home, districts 1 and 2 each get 7 national delegates, district 3 gets 8, and district 4 gets 5.
Warning. Septimus, you need to control yourself.
Relevant bit from a Guardian article today:
Full article here:
Democrats ignore black, working class Midwesterners at their peril
My theory is that they didn’t feel “ignored,” but they assumed, like the rest of us, Clinton was going to win easily. Complacency hopefully won’t be a problem this year.
Got any research to cite supporting your theory?
I’ve got a different theory, with equally good support, alas. Just from bits and pieces I’ve picked up all along.
Basically, African-Americans overwhelmingly realize the GOP is horrible. But the flip side is that a widespread attitude toward the Democratic Party among lower-income AA’s in particular is one of resignation and low expectations: they’ve gotten used to Dems disappointing them by failing to improve their lives much. The Great Recession caused many of them to lose their homes, and most of them to lose what savings they had. And their pay still sucks.
I think those that didn’t vote in 2016 will largely show up in 2020 because the GOP is freshly horrible. But if the Dems win in 2020 and don’t do much to change their lives, they’ll be missing in 2022.
I think you’re not wrong, RTF, but I think there’s an extension we should keep in mind.
That set of low expectations doesn’t only apply to African-American voters. Yes, the Democratic Party hasn’t come through in ameliorating their economic fears, but no one has.
And the same thing applies to lower income whites in America. They have honest and real sets of economic anxieties - declining income security, the loss of working class jobs and manufacturing, small town decay and the flight of their children from family locales. They get pandered to, sure, but no one - Democratic or Republican - actually does much that allows for the easing of those fears. Instead of being actually helped, they’ve had 50 years or worries that aren’t getting better.
So along comes Trump. He openly mentions their fears. He panders to them. And he suggests - as demogogues often do - that he has a simple, straightforward solution. Blame democrats. Blame immigrants. And he promises to do something about it. What is always sort of vague - he’s a vague promises kinda guy - but he’s saying - in a way they haven’t heard out loud before - that he’s with them and he’ll fix it.
He won’t, of course. Absent wholesale changes to the American economic and financial system it can’t be changed. But he’s saying it in a new way that appeals. That brought him votes in 2016 and will undoubtedly do so in 2020.
The difference that you’re defining - check me if I’m wrong, RTF - is that African-American voters don’t have anywhere else to go. They KNOW the Republican Party isn’t on their side and therefore their options are vote D or stay home.
Nope. Except Hillary didn’t ”ignore” working people or the upper Midwest.
I’ve got a theory. African Americans turned out more in 2012 because of Obama and Clinton isn’t Obama. End of theory.
AA voting has steadily increased over the last decades but 2012 & 2008 popped higher above even that trend. Clinton should never have expected comparable numbers.