Bernie’s Odds. 3/23 edition
This table is an update on our prior 3/15 post. In our first post on 3/10 we reviewed the model presented by fivethirtyeight on how Bernie could win the nomination and the additional information this table adds. Bernie still needs to improve on their projection by 7% in every remaining contest. The table column “path +7%” plots this out. The Recent Polling column allows you to compare polling and path.
The 3/10 analysis started with Hillary’s strengths, so let’s flip that around and start with Bernie. There’s already analysis at the Nation “The Fight for Bernie’s Political Revolution Is Not Over” and statements of the campaign itself “Why Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Is Pushing Ahead” you may have read. In brief: Blue state support for Bernie equal to what Hillary has received in conservative states can still deliver a Bernie win; the campaign can help unite elements of the Left that are disengaged from elections, withdrawing now would put most media attention on the Republican primary messaging, and withdrawing would put the full brunt of the Republican noise machine on Hillary. Below are points that have not received enough attention.
The Bernie campaign is reacquainting America with the language of social democracy and the progressive vision of FDR. For a long time the dominant regressive frame is that government is the problem, not a solution. Self-centered tax breaks, even those advanced by Democrats, concede to this message. When everyone is looking for tax breaks, we have a culture of people pricipally looking out for themselves. This makes it less likely that people will elect candidates calling on us to invest in one another through our government.
No campaign in recent history has done a better job of advancing the language of the “a more perfect union” than the Bernie campaign. It is distinguished in asking the Middle Class, and especially the Upper Class, to invest strongly in public college, health, and infrastructure. The campaign argues that international trade should be fair even if the Poor and Middle class must pay more for imported goods . They advocate that corporations pay a $15 minimum living wage. These differences motivate Bernie supporters to give Democrats nationwide a chance to vote on a new platform through the primary process.
By contrast, Hillary supporters argue that Obama has already shown the best path to winning a majority power coalition. That path is to the Left of 2008 Hillary, but more moderate than Bernie’s platform. The core of Hillary’s supporters are experienced party organizers behind the 62+ million votes and $3.5 billion donations to Democratic candidates in 2012. They can argue that Obama’s accomplishments and approach compare very favorably to that of any other candidate in modern history. They don’t believe the country will elect a President or Congressional majority on Bernie’s proposals.
What is odd is that many of these Hillary supporters are also the ones who chose the bolder policy proposals of Obama over the more moderate positions of Hillary in 2008. Most Democratic voters trust Bernie a great deal more than they trust Hillary. They also agree with Bernie’s proposals. Bernie supporters are advancing a theory that what we need to bring about radical change is an authentic champion, because this is what inspires the organizing and resources needed to win. This primary is a historic test of that theory.
Hillary has conceded that she does not have the charisma of Obama or Bernie. In a stark contrast to Bernie’s “are you Ready for a Radical Idea” approach, Hillary has positioned her campaign to defend and continue Obama’s work. Some have dismissed Hillary’s wins until this point as irrelevant, because they mostly occurred in conservative states that will not factor much in a Democratic path to a Presidential or Congressional majority. However, that does not account for her broad support among leaders of key progressive institutions, especially Black political leaders. It also does not account for Illinois. If polling of Hillary supporters shows they think Bernie is more trustworthy and they agree with his policy goals, then why have many of the people who rejected Hillary in 2008 now sided with her?
Perhaps the answer can be better understood in polling among Democrats of Obama and in how much Hillary supporters have invested in his accomplishments. Hillary is positioning herself as a reaffirmation of the path Obama supporters forged in 2008 and 2012 between ideals and pragmatism. Of course Hillary’s own experience drawing millions to support her in 2008, as Secretary of State, and with the Clinton Global Initiative are also factors. But the narrative that stopped her fall in polling in January is that you were right to invest in Obama; the best way forward is to continue on the path you’ve been fighting for all these years. Hillary is taking the identity people have built with Obama, the greatest legislative successes since LBJ, and making her campaign the vehicle for Obama supporters to continue what they’ve already agreed to in 2008 and 2012.
Contrast Hillary and Bernie with the dangerous politics of the Right and it’s easy to appreciate why 62 million people voted for Obama and invested in the Democratic Party as a coalition. In our 3/10 analysis we argued that democracy, not superdelegates should decide the election of Party leadership. Loyalty to democratic process also requires progressives be self-critical. The recent poll indicating 33% of Bernie supporters will not support Hillary, if she wins, should trouble everyone who believes in democratic community power building.
Democracy is a process of instilling legitimacy on government through majority agreement. This means that we agree to continue supporting our nation, even when a majority elects a leader like George W Bush. It is obviously wrong for some to become citizens of this nation to manipulate our elections, if they intend to renounce that citizenship unless the nation submits to their leader. It is deeply immoral to treat people this way. Such a blatant disregard for the vote of others should be denounced as putting personal ideology before fair democratic power building. If we only care about others if they submit to our leaders, then we should be marginalized and don’t deserve to govern.
The US economy has a 16.7 trillion GDP, employs 142 million, and concentrates wealth that is well served by the Republican Party. In 2012 regressives drew the support of 60+ million voters and over $3.5 billion in donations to their candidates. They are expected to raise over $5 billion in 2016. Dismissing the real threat this represents, especially to oppressed communities, unndermines alliance building. Progressives are not people who demand that their spouse, family, or friends submit or we walk. For that same reason, we cannot hope to build strong faith, civic, and grassroots coalitions, if each group requires that the others submit to their leader or they walk. We should not be silent when we see democracy undermined this way, because such threats corrupt progressive space with regressive self-centeredness.
Sometimes there must be seperation, but this should not be done because we lose an election of the people. Progressives value staying together, community, and really listening. There is a respect and dignaty that bonds us together profoundly when we commit to not to moving forward unless a majority agrees. Progressives must be as ready to defend this value as we are making pricipaled stands, because the former has more to do with lasting union than the latter.
