US Politics - Primary Numbers

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think the Corbyn --> Sanders comparison can be useful at the elemental level, but once you consider all the differences - institutionally and otherwise - the whole thing breaks down to apples to hamburgers.  Pundits will be inclined to overestimate the similarities, but Jeremy Corbyn to the UK is as Bernie Sanders to the US is not a good SAT or AP exam question.

Politico has an article comparing them today. 

Quote

With cultural issues supplanting economic issues in salience during the 21st century and the former sense of economic solidarity giving way, the old center-left parties had trouble pleasing all of their supporters, or even most of them.

“As social democratic parties declined due to the weight of structural changes,” Mounk continued, “a new crop of left-wing politicians argued that their troubles were owed to the embrace of a more moderate (or ‘neoliberal’) set of policies. What was truly needed to recover these parties’ former standing, they claimed, was a return to the slogans and policies of an earlier period of left-wing politics: an unabashed emphasis on the economic interests of the working class, coupled with the full-throated promise of social revolution.”

Sound familiar? Sanders bears the closest resemblance to his equally aged, gruff and disheveled ideological cousin from the United Kingdom, Jeremy Corbyn who stamped out neoliberalism in his party (before also extinguishing its electoral hopes)

Corbyn crashed the gates of the Labour Party as, essentially, an outsider. He rose on the strength of a left-wing grassroots movement and won Labor’s leadership contest in 2015 thanks to newcomers who could vote in such a contest for the first time after latitudinarian changes in the rules. An unlikely icon for younger voters, he drew enormous crowds and, unavoidably himself and inarguably sincere, had a distinctive charm for his supporters.

He also, like Sanders, had a history of sympathy for left-wing thugs, a hostility to Western power, a motley collection of kooky allies and an utterly fantastical domestic program.

Yeah, there are differences, of course.  Corbyn's Brexit policy was incoherent and cowardly, and that was a big problem for him.  But the similarities are worrisome to say the least. 

[mormont]

54 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I get that there are obvious parallels, but wasn’t the huge problem Corbyn didn’t take a strong stand on Brexit combined with the UK public wanting the issue to be done with?

That was a huge factor, obviously, and IMO aggravated by Labour's attempts to make the election about other issues. Arguably they had to do that to distract from the muddled policy on Brexit: but then again, that muddled policy was in the first place a result of the fact that Corbyn refused to adopt a strong stance on Brexit either way, precisely because other policies were more important to him. Which is another trap for Sanders: if voters treat this election as a referendum on Trump, but Sanders keeps trying to make it about the other things he wants to talk about, I think he might lose out.

However, while I agree with DMC that Sanders = Corbyn is too easy a parallel, as both the men and the system they exist within are very different, I do believe there are some valid lessons to draw, including those above. Expanding the electorate is a risky strategy and a big ask, and getting the youth vote in your own party isn't enough to show it can make the difference in an election. Unifying your party behind you is important, so if you're a divisive figure internally, you need to build bridges, not demand that people fall into line. And just because people should, or even do, like your policies, doesn't mean they'll vote for you. 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

Unifying your party behind you is important, so if you're a divisive figure internally, you need to build bridges, not demand that people fall into line.

Democrats need to build bridges and coalitions.  Republicans can be relied upon to fall in line. 

Normally I shy away from generalizations like that, but if Trump has taught us anything, it is this. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, mormont said:

That was a huge factor, obviously, and IMO aggravated by Labour's attempts to make the election about other issues. Arguably they had to do that to distract from the muddled policy on Brexit: but then again, that muddled policy was in the first place a result of the fact that Corbyn refused to adopt a strong stance on Brexit either way, precisely because other policies were more important to him. Which is another trap for Sanders: if voters treat this election as a referendum on Trump, but Sanders keeps trying to make it about the other things he wants to talk about, I think he might lose out.

However, while I agree with DMC that Sanders = Corbyn is too easy a parallel, as both the men and the system they exist within are very different, I do believe there are some valid lessons to draw, including those above. Expanding the electorate is a risky strategy and a big ask, and getting the youth vote in your own party isn't enough to show it can make the difference in an election. Unifying your party behind you is important, so if you're a divisive figure internally, you need to build bridges, not demand that people fall into line. And just because people should, or even do, like your policies, doesn't mean they'll vote for you. 

This is all valid, but the bolded is the key. This is supposed to be a referendum on Trump. Sanders very well could make it a referendum on himself, and if that’s the case, he’ll probably lose. The economy is too strong for the average voter to agree with flipping the game board up and see what happens.

[Larry of the Lawn]

As far as Sanders being a divisive figure goes, and how the eventual nominee will need to unite the party, that morning consult site that DMC linked in the last thread shows that he has the highest favorability rating among likely Dem primary voters.  Just a statistic, but we keep hearing about how divisive he is.  If he's so divisive, wouldn't any of the other candidates be just as divisive, since they are seen even less favorably?  

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

But his supporters believe it's a revolution because he says it is. I know because my neighbor's boyfriend is an ardent Bernard supporter who loves condescending to Centrist Jacelyn about how all of his programmer friends also believe that if Bernard doesn't dissolve classism and fix the environment within the next 5 years (Don't ask them how he'll fix the environment just take it on faith) then it's pointless and they all might as well vote Trump.

These are people who say that incremental change at this point is literally worse than Trump because reasons. 

These people are very real. They are living among us. I had a batch of them in my apartment to fill out the Allies last week. And there were more left over to play a fun game called House on the Hill. The right does not have a monopoly on loudmouthed assholes who believe SO HARD that compromise between disparate coalitions is fucking anathema.

 

The trumpanistas scare me a whole frackin' lot more. 1) They are already a clear and present danger, committing crimes and torture and theft and murder and destroying the government and the environment, and are rapists.

They are here.  They are DOING IT.  It is not a potential threat.

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

[From the link, not Maith]  He also, like Sanders, had a history of sympathy for left-wing thugs, a hostility to Western power, a motley collection of kooky allies and an utterly fantastical domestic program.

Yeah, that's a pretty good summation of how the basic components are strikingly similar - in the negative or electorally "bad" sense.  But, if I was doing a case study on Sanders' campaign compared to Corbyn's, first and foremost Brexit looms large as a problem.  There's nothing like that in a US presidential (general) election, and that context is incredibly important.  Other big distinction - ignoring the obvious institutional, electoral system, and demographic differences - is the American public are more familiar with Bernard Sanders at this point compared to Corbyn.  That might not be the best way to characterize what I mean, Corbyn has been around for awhile...maybe the US electorate is (and has identifiably grown) more "comfortable" with Sanders than the UK electorate is/was with Corbyn?

So yeah, the voters Sanders needs to win have had a long time getting comfortable with him as the alternative to Trump.  Whereas I don't think that's really the case when trying to compare/apply that to Corbyn v. Johnson 2019.  Could be totally off on that, I'm no expert in UK politics, but my best poly sci friend still in Pittsburgh is a Mancunian and he didn't scoff when I expressed this point last time we drunkenly played pool together.  (Reading that over, "drunkenly playing pool" does sound pretty damn euphemistic.  Sorry to disappoint, but I do just literally mean shooting pool at a dive bar.)

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Which is another trap for Sanders: if voters treat this election as a referendum on Trump, but Sanders keeps trying to make it about the other things he wants to talk about, I think he might lose out.

Allow me to pile on after Ty that this is indeed the crucial factor.  Bernie is not going to change in a lot of the ways I am concerned about.  E.G., like you said, reliance on the youth vote is always fool's gold; and Sanders particularly has a problem uniting the Democratic party as an organization because a lot of the people you'd usually rely upon are pretty fed up with him.  But the quoted is something that's entirely up to him and his campaign, in terms of how to prime and frame his message. 

As the nominee, Bernie needs to adapt his rhetoric away from the "revolutionary" aspect he's made his career on and apparently still gets young people all wet invigorated (which still I don't get, but whatever), and instead focus on why Trump needs to be taken down and why Bernie's way is the better way for America.  With how close things are in potential tipping point states, we know after 2016 this somewhat minuscule change in emphasis (and attention) can lead to who will win the EC.

[Jace, Extat]

52 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The trumpanistas scare me a whole frackin' lot more. 1) They are already a clear and present danger, committing crimes and torture and theft and murder and destroying the government and the environment, and are rapists.

They are here.  They are DOING IT.  It is not a potential threat.

 

I agree with you. I wish more die hard Bernard supporters also agreed with you. Any Democrat is better than Trump.

[Paladin of Ice]

45 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

As far as Sanders being a divisive figure goes, and how the eventual nominee will need to unite the party, that morning consult site that DMC linked in the last thread shows that he has the highest favorability rating among likely Dem primary voters.  Just a statistic, but we keep hearing about how divisive he is.  If he's so divisive, wouldn't any of the other candidates be just as divisive, since they are seen even less favorably?  

Well, if the question is posed only to likely Democratic primary voters, that might be a big part of the answer right there. Someone who’s likely to vote in the primaries is generally among the more motivated, dedicated, and informed voters in their party, as there are literal hordes of voters that never show up except for the general election for president. You might also be excluding independents depending on whether the state has a closed primary or not. (And to not have to deal with that state by state variance, Morning Consult may have only stuck to questioning Democrats, someone with a chance to look at the methodology would be able to take a look at some of these questions.)

Or it could be that the fears are overblown. Or that most are resolved to vote against Trump and/or Republicans no matter what. Or that they’re not willing to say it, at least so far. Etc., etc.

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

As far as Sanders being a divisive figure goes, and how the eventual nominee will need to unite the party, that morning consult site that DMC linked in the last thread shows that he has the highest favorability rating among likely Dem primary voters.  Just a statistic, but we keep hearing about how divisive he is.  If he's so divisive, wouldn't any of the other candidates be just as divisive, since they are seen even less favorably?  

Larry please stop using facts. They confuse me.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Well, if the question is posed only to likely Democratic primary voters, that might be a big part of the answer right there. Someone who’s likely to vote in the primaries is generally among the more motivated, dedicated, and informed voters in their party, as there are literal hordes of voters that never show up except for the general election for president. You might also be excluding independents depending on whether the state has a closed primary or not. (And to not have to deal with that state by state variance, Morning Consult may have only stuck to questioning Democrats, someone with a chance to look at the methodology would be able to take a look at some of these questions.)

Or it could be that the fears are overblown. Or that most are resolved to vote against Trump and/or Republicans no matter what. Or that they’re not willing to say it, at least so far. Etc., etc.

Absolutely, my point is just that we're hearing so much of "Sanders is too divisive", though in fact it seems he's the most favorably viewed primary candidate.  I'm just saying that these complaints seem kind of hollow if the idea is to beat Trump.  

If the argument is that Bloomberg or Klobuchar or Buttigieg is going to bring out more people in the general, fine.  I'd just be interested to see how the math works on that.

 

 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

You might also be excluding independents depending on whether the state has a closed primary or not. (And to not have to deal with that state by state variance, Morning Consult may have only stuck to questioning Democrats, someone with a chance to look at the methodology would be able to take a look at some of these questions.)

All those "second choice" numbers - not just Morning Consult - are going to be reported from likely Dem primary voters, yes.  That's just kinda SOP, but I agree is an important thing to acknowledge.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

As far as Sanders being a divisive figure goes, and how the eventual nominee will need to unite the party, that morning consult site that DMC linked in the last thread shows that he has the highest favorability rating among likely Dem primary voters.  Just a statistic, but we keep hearing about how divisive he is.  If he's so divisive, wouldn't any of the other candidates be just as divisive, since they are seen even less favorably?  

'Highest favourability rating' is still only 25%, and it tells us nothing about the strength and depth of the feeling against a candidate, which is more pertinent to my point. In any case, my point was about the party, not likely voters: I'm talking about having the party all pulling in the same direction. Candidates, workers, volunteers, all enthusiastically campaigning and backing the nominee in public. One of Corbyn's major problems was people in the party grumbling, which drowned out a lot of his campaign messages.

[Larry of the Lawn]

20 minutes ago, mormont said:

'Highest favourability rating' is still only 25%, and it tells us nothing about the strength and depth of the feeling against a candidate, which is more pertinent to my point. In any case, my point was about the party, not likely voters: I'm talking about having the party all pulling in the same direction. Candidates, workers, volunteers, all enthusiastically campaigning and backing the nominee in public. One of Corbyn's major problems was people in the party grumbling, which drowned out a lot of his campaign messages.

No, that's not the statistic I'm referring to. Scroll down and you'll see "Tracking Name Recognition and Favorability Among Dem Primary Voters" and you'll see

Sanders 74

Biden 68

Warren 63

Bloomberg 61

Etc.  

Sorry it's not the exact statistic you want, but it's also not the "first choice candidate" you seem to be making it out to be.  Yes, the party infrastructure is against him.  But please look at the link and see what I'm actually referring to.  

If you want someone the party won't grumble about but will leave a bunch of voters sitting at home come November, just pick Bloomberg.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

If you want someone the party won't grumble about but will leave a bunch of voters sitting at home come November, just pick Bloomberg.

Imagine the conversation if the roles were reversed and Bloomberg instead of Sanders was well positioned to win the nomination. Concerns about Sanders ability to unify the party are considered straightforwardly valid, but any conversation about Bloomberg's ability to do so (like Clinton's in 2016) would consist mostly of blistering criticism of the left-wing voters who resisted falling in line. 

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Imagine the conversation if the roles were reversed and Bloomberg instead of Sanders was well positioned to win the nomination. Concerns about Sanders ability to unify the party are considered straightforwardly valid, but any conversation about Bloomberg's ability to do so (like Clinton's in 2016) would consist mostly of blistering criticism of the left-wing voters who resisted falling in line. 

I disagree.  Sanders is the most left leaning candidate in the race, and Bloomberg is the most right leaning.  Both raise potential concerns amongst both Democratic voters and the party itself on whether these men are the best choices for a big tent party.  I'm sure there are portions of the party that would be quite comfortable with Bloomberg, but the same could be said of Sanders. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The Bloomberg angle is pretty straightforward. He’ll eat the middle and he’s the lesser of two evils for the left. If the middle and left can accept him, he’ll walk over Trump. That might be a big if though.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Bloomberg angle is pretty straightforward. He’ll eat the middle and he’s the lesser of two evils for the left. If the middle and left can accept him, he’ll walk over Trump. That might be a big if though.

How'd that lesser of two evils for the left work out last time?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

How'd that lesser of two evils for the left work out last time?

Accepting the lesser of two evils is a lot easier once you experience just how evil the greater evil is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AG Barr has directly criticized Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/barr-trump-twitter/index.html