This is a terrible article. Comparing the Gini coefficient to a "Bernie coefficient" is a comparison between apples and oranges. There are a number of structural factors that influence volunteerism across congressional districts and its just not a great indicator. But, I would be genuinely interested in an objective take on this approach: how does Sanders' coefficient compare to the other candidates from either party? Unfortunately, beyond being a poor comparison, the numbers used aren't contextualized in a comparison with other candidates. We are left with a poor analysis from a writer intent on slamming Sanders' from the beginning. This is lazy coverage. The NYT should be embarrassed for publishing such a narrow and poorly thought out political analysis.
51
Nate Cohn must be an avid fan of Hillary Clinton. Or is he just trying to please his employer, the New York Times? Obviously this early in the presidential race Bernie Sanders is far behind Hillary Clinton in states where most people haven't even heard of him! As he continues to campaign in more states, and his message gets out, his support will grow. Hillary Clinton has been famous for years, and everyone in the US knows who she is. This is not true of Bernie Sanders. It really looks like the NY Times as well as much of the rest of the media is doing their best go make sure as few potential voters as possible hear what Bernie Sanders has to say. Sadly, it seems like we really don't have a free press anymore in this country.
38
What is wrong with this sentence? "Most Democrats, for instance, do not share the assumption that Mrs. Clinton is a tool of Wall Street, something that supporters of Mr. Sanders took for granted long before he entered the race." If a candidate's husband did away with Glass-Steagall which the candidate supported, the candidate does not support Glass Steagall and her biggest donors include Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citibank why one would have to be wearing blinders to not think she was a tool of Wall Street. You keep quoting Democrats, but you are ignoring the fact that the majority of voters are NOT Democrats. The majority of voters are Independents and though many Independents will register as Democratsto vote for Bernie Sanders, they will not remain Democrats should he not be the candidate. It is doubtful that people who support Bernie Sanders will change their entire philosophy and vote for Hillary Clinton. I think guess at what could happen, what might happen, which voters are more important than other voters is a foolish game. No one knows what any of this means util the fat lady sings.
27
Little support in Alabama or Georgia? Really?
18
So many media outlets spend so much time telling us that Bernie cannot win. WE, as voters, control who wins, not the media. If we say he wins, that's all it takes.
Mr. Cohn, why - in the face of an electorate whose greatest weakness is disillusionment, are you trying to further propagate the myth of ineffectuality? The only thing you can accomplish with your message is further disillusionment of the American voter, which only helps the established oligarchy.
Is that really what you want? Be honest with yourself here.
Mr. Cohn, why - in the face of an electorate whose greatest weakness is disillusionment, are you trying to further propagate the myth of ineffectuality? The only thing you can accomplish with your message is further disillusionment of the American voter, which only helps the established oligarchy.
Is that really what you want? Be honest with yourself here.
32
It's not that Mr. Cohn is beginning to represent himself as a cross between Nate Silver and William Safire. What the comments below demonstrate is that it is the arrogance he displays in the first three paragraphs, for example, that make people wonder if he's grownup enough to be a NY Times columnist for a game that has changed more dramatically than at any time in American history. Cohn doesn't wonder why a large segment of the population is drawn to Trump and Sanders as a lot of people didn't wonder why Jimmy Carter was beginning to do well in early '75 or why the senior Bush was losing badly to Clinton, when he had just won a war. Cohn seems to not see the intangibles in modern American politics, especially today's politics, and seems to give Sanders a chance in various areas only grudgingly. I agree with Mr. Netliner and LNW below. Maybe it's time for The Times to give a more experienced political reporter The Upshot just in case, you know, Bernie Sanders is actually for real, people begin to see him as less a Socialist and more a chance to take our country back. Because in case people haven't noticed, we're losing it.
27
How about this: why doesn't Nate Cohn write about Sanders' program, and let the readers decide his electability. After all, this column is not an opinion piece, and so it should report while leaving an opinion to the readers.
22
Somehow I think he doth protest too much.
Your contempt for the American electorate is showing, Mr. Cohn.
Perhaps if the Times and other national news outlets covered these political campaigns on the actual issues (and dug deep to find out where candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush get their support), we might have a whole let less "low-information voters" out there.
Instead we are treated to a Daily Racing Form-like overview of the horses in the race, based on the contestants' past runs and supporters. Too clever by half, I fear, and certainly not at all helpful if a person reads the Times political coverage to learn more about which candidate he or she should support.
Your contempt for the American electorate is showing, Mr. Cohn.
Perhaps if the Times and other national news outlets covered these political campaigns on the actual issues (and dug deep to find out where candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush get their support), we might have a whole let less "low-information voters" out there.
Instead we are treated to a Daily Racing Form-like overview of the horses in the race, based on the contestants' past runs and supporters. Too clever by half, I fear, and certainly not at all helpful if a person reads the Times political coverage to learn more about which candidate he or she should support.
27
This is becoming more than passing strange. Why is Nate Cohn devoting so many of his columns to telling us why Bernie Sanders cannot win? Perhaps he is right, perhaps not, but his arguments and analogies are getting more and more convoluted and far afield. I get it Nate. Sanders' support is a mirage, a charade, and he will wither with the frosts of autumn. Maybe...we shall see what the voters have to say about it. My experience in following politics for 40 + years is that the conventional wisdom is generally wrong, and has counted out everyone from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, so I am highly skeptical of the CW that it will be HRC versus JB in 14 months.
24
The very title of this piece seeks to de-legitimize Bernie Sander's campaign - it implies his campain in unequal, undemocratic and hypocritical by comparing the gini coeficient (a measure of income inequality) to where people _choose_ to support Bernie - it could alternately be phrased as Bernie has a lot of support in liberal strongholds - nothing undemocratic or hypocritical about that, liberals like him others are free not to - not cool NYT
17
Steady drumbeat of "Bernie can't win" from the Time sine March 2015. Meanwhile the guy packs venues week after week w 20,000 people. I think I need to cut another check to Bernie.
31
Wow, palpable negative bias in nearly every sentence. Bernie must be hitting a nerve or two.
23
The New York Times seems determined to marginalize a politician who represents those who have been marginalized.
27
In order to have a balanced article, I believe the author should have included Sec Clintons "Gini coefficient' to compare against Sen. Sanders. Or some of the Republicans. To not include it implies to me that the author is trying to skew the article that Sen. Sanders is unelectable, which at this point of the primary season is yet to be determined. Sec Clinton has name recognition (both good and bad) and has had time in the national spotlight for some time (again both good and bad). Sen. Sanders is just getting out there. And I take note that Sen. Sanders crowds are not there because he is a media darling, or will put on a good show. These are not measurable statistical events.
17
Just wait until the first debate. He is going to slaughter Hillary. It's not even going to be close. He will be on the front page of every newspaper. Everyone will know who Sanders is, if not they will want to know. Bernie is all over the internet. He is out campaigning everyone, but Trump is getting all the coverage, and Hillary's e-mails are.
18
Bernie is on the road. Bernie is attracting more supporters every day. Bernie may beat Hillary. I surely hope so.
Hillary may be way ahead of Bernie in Georgia, but if Hillary is the nominee she won't get one electoral vote from Georgia.
Hillary may be way ahead of Bernie in Georgia, but if Hillary is the nominee she won't get one electoral vote from Georgia.
16
How does this compare with Hilaru's stats? What about Obama '07? Clinton '91?
Completely meaningless analysis without meaningful benchmarks.
Completely meaningless analysis without meaningful benchmarks.
23
Perhaps part of the problem is that the so-called 'legitimate' media doesn't at this point cover Sanders' campaign substantively, but instead just offers up sporadic negative perspectives on why he isn't "all that." Its understandable, considering that the media is invested in keeping things just as they are--which benefits their 1% stockholders--but there is coming a time in the not-distant future when Hillary will have to face Bernie Sanders, and the general public will hear the sense he is making, and then, corporate media, your problems plugging the dike will be many-fold!
15
As a number of commentators have pointed out, one of the good things about the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary is that the states are small enough for candidates to register with the voters, even though the candidates don't have big bucks backing them. The article is premature. Wait until the voting takes place in both states. And, yes, I'm well aware that the winners of these primaries do not always become the candidates of their parties.
9
Don't you worry. He'll do just fine.
10
Bernie Sanders in 2016's Ralph Nader. He'll pull votes from real candidate(s) and ensure GOP Victory in 2016!
Go Bernie, GO!
Go Bernie, GO!
3
When the debates are over and Bernie has performed better than anyone in the history of US political debates and somehow manages to win the nomination to be the Dem's candidate for the '16 Presidential election he still will be lucky to win 60 Electoral votes at best...
Mondale got 13, his home state of MN and DC. Bernie gets a few more but not much...
Mr. Speaker the President of the United States...
As President Trump makes his way to the podium for his 1st State of the Union the camera naturally pans the assembled to see the Senator from Vermont's reaction...
My reaction:
God Help us...
Mondale got 13, his home state of MN and DC. Bernie gets a few more but not much...
Mr. Speaker the President of the United States...
As President Trump makes his way to the podium for his 1st State of the Union the camera naturally pans the assembled to see the Senator from Vermont's reaction...
My reaction:
God Help us...
5
It's time we stopped caring what moderate, older, Southern and nonwhite Democrats think and steamroll over them and elect candidates that care more about the welfare of our country than about personal power and glory. After all, they are the dimwits that gave us Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama.
And I'm saying this as a moderate Democrat who voted for Clinton and Obama and who now realizes how wrong, wrong, wrong these people have been for our country. (Sorry.)
And I'm saying this as a moderate Democrat who voted for Clinton and Obama and who now realizes how wrong, wrong, wrong these people have been for our country. (Sorry.)
15
As politicians across the spectrum have repeatedly shown, you can ignore large sectors of the population and still win office. the only thing that matters is who turns out to vote and in the case of presidential elections, how many electoral votes you get. you can thumb your nose at a big part of the country and get elected president.
5
Your graph of Bernie's support shows very clearly that the better people know Bernie, the more they support him. Time is on his side.
27
In the case of income inequality, the rich would do everything to preserve a high Gini coefficient (maintaining their relative wealth), whereas in this case, the supporters of Sanders will do everything to spread the word and flatten the power-law distribution. So the narrowness of Sanders' current political support has little predictive power.
Readers should not be misled by the seeming objectivity of the author's analogy. His argument is bogus.
Readers should not be misled by the seeming objectivity of the author's analogy. His argument is bogus.
72
Mr. Cohn's argument is absurd. To distort data in a way that Sanders is pictured as the candidate of inequality and/or the candidate of the rich/upper middle class is the apex of technocracy/orwellianism.
What data from many pools suggest is that poor people in the USA don't prefer Sanders over Clinton simply because they don't know he exists. When the percentage of people that know mr. Sanders rises over time, the tendency clearly shown is that they tend to vote for him over Clinton - hence he hasn't peaked yet. Low black people support for Sanders has the same cause: since he is from a historically white region of the USA, chances are the percentage of black people that doesn't know him is greater than the percentage of white people that know him; hence the greater white preference.
What data from many pools suggest is that poor people in the USA don't prefer Sanders over Clinton simply because they don't know he exists. When the percentage of people that know mr. Sanders rises over time, the tendency clearly shown is that they tend to vote for him over Clinton - hence he hasn't peaked yet. Low black people support for Sanders has the same cause: since he is from a historically white region of the USA, chances are the percentage of black people that doesn't know him is greater than the percentage of white people that know him; hence the greater white preference.
65
Sanders never had a chance at the presidency because he is as repulsive to conservatives as Trump is to liberals. Sanders is a self-avowed socialist, running for president in a country that is definitely NOT socialist. His belief that successful people should be forced to pay to support unsuccessful people is anathema to most Americans. Our country was founded on the tenants of self reliance and personal responsibility, not nanny-statehood.
Sanders would probably be electable in Scandinavia, but he isn't in America.
Sanders would probably be electable in Scandinavia, but he isn't in America.
5
The so-called very successful people are rigging the game, Jack. Some examples of how absurd the situation is right now:
Millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than nurses and firemen and many large corporations that earn billions in profit and pay little or no taxes.
More than $100 billion is lost each year because corporations and wealthy individuals offshore their money in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.
About $60 billion is lost annually because corporations that send jobs overseas receive tax breaks.
More than $11 billion is lost each year because profitable oil, gas and coal companies receive tax breaks and subsidies.
The military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Big Agra, and other industries receive billions in subsidies and corporate welfare.
Hedge fund managers and private equity managers benefit from the carried interest loophole.
Taxpayers subsidize Walmart and other corporations by providing their employees with Medicaid, food stamps, and other government assistance because workers are paid starvation wages.
There is no reason why we cannot enact a modest financial transaction tax, when we tax goods and services at 6, 7, 8 percent.
Millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than nurses and firemen and many large corporations that earn billions in profit and pay little or no taxes.
More than $100 billion is lost each year because corporations and wealthy individuals offshore their money in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.
About $60 billion is lost annually because corporations that send jobs overseas receive tax breaks.
More than $11 billion is lost each year because profitable oil, gas and coal companies receive tax breaks and subsidies.
The military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Big Agra, and other industries receive billions in subsidies and corporate welfare.
Hedge fund managers and private equity managers benefit from the carried interest loophole.
Taxpayers subsidize Walmart and other corporations by providing their employees with Medicaid, food stamps, and other government assistance because workers are paid starvation wages.
There is no reason why we cannot enact a modest financial transaction tax, when we tax goods and services at 6, 7, 8 percent.
60
Jack 45% of Americans see themselves as independents. Sanders has a huge chance.
6
You clearly haven't been following very closely because Sanders has quite a bit of republican support. This country actually has a mixed economy, part socialist and part capitalist so wrong again. Americans actually overwhelmingly believe in a safety net, so again wrong.
2
The media is focusing to much on who can win the election and not who should. Analysis of Bernie's policies would be much more productive than an analyses of his support. Furthermore, comparing the economic inequality Bernie talks about so much to the inequality in his voter distribution is a pointless, contrite, jab at a perfectly reasonable presidential candidate.
49
I'm voting my conscience in the Democratic primary, and my conscience tells me I am sick and tired of centrist Democrats who look the other way when evil members of the GOP want to, for example, cut the Social Security benefits of the disabled. That issue is virtually hidden now from the American People, and only Bernie made it a major issue, This is just one example, for me, of why Bernie is right for America.
Another example consists of the attendees and passengers on US 1 to Nelson Mandela's funeral. While many, including I, may think Jimmy Carter was an incredibly weak president, he has been a leading voice of the conscience of America since he left the White House. Was he aboard US! to an from South Africa for the memorial. No. The guests the Obamas chose to take were the Clintons, which is fine, but also George W, Bush, which is not fine. George W. should have been serving part of his life sentence for crimes against humanity instead of showing pictures of his paintings to Hillary before what I am sure was a delicious US1 gourmet meal.
When I saw who was socializing on that flight, i felt nauseous. Maybe Hillary, Bill, Michele and Barack were able to forget the piles of corpses directly attributable to Bush while they looked at his tired art; but I was not, and Bernie Sanders would not have been able to either,
Another example consists of the attendees and passengers on US 1 to Nelson Mandela's funeral. While many, including I, may think Jimmy Carter was an incredibly weak president, he has been a leading voice of the conscience of America since he left the White House. Was he aboard US! to an from South Africa for the memorial. No. The guests the Obamas chose to take were the Clintons, which is fine, but also George W, Bush, which is not fine. George W. should have been serving part of his life sentence for crimes against humanity instead of showing pictures of his paintings to Hillary before what I am sure was a delicious US1 gourmet meal.
When I saw who was socializing on that flight, i felt nauseous. Maybe Hillary, Bill, Michele and Barack were able to forget the piles of corpses directly attributable to Bush while they looked at his tired art; but I was not, and Bernie Sanders would not have been able to either,
37
Bernie gives the "no GMO's in my maple syrup" crowd something to do.
5
Yes, he does--like participate in democracy. Try it sometime!
6
The point of a campaign is to get a candidate known. Sanders is better known and has broader support than many of the Republican candidates who get a lot more space in the newspapers and time on television.
Every article I read about Sanders includes a statement like "He has no chance for the Democratic nomination." People at first said the same thing about Barack Obama. And at first they said "no chance for the Republican nomination" about Donald Trump.
Cover the man's speeches and take him seriously as a candidate -- at least as seriously as you take Jeb Bush.
Every article I read about Sanders includes a statement like "He has no chance for the Democratic nomination." People at first said the same thing about Barack Obama. And at first they said "no chance for the Republican nomination" about Donald Trump.
Cover the man's speeches and take him seriously as a candidate -- at least as seriously as you take Jeb Bush.
71
"Most Democrats, for instance, do not share the assumption that Mrs. Clinton is a tool of Wall Street..."
Mrs. Clinton is funded by Wall Street and she will represent the interests of those who pay for her election. That's not an assumption; it's a fact. Hopefully "most Democrats" will learn something during the campaign.
Mrs. Clinton is funded by Wall Street and she will represent the interests of those who pay for her election. That's not an assumption; it's a fact. Hopefully "most Democrats" will learn something during the campaign.
48
Give me a break. Are you #feelingthebern or not. That's the question.
People DON'T want Bushes or Clintons anymore!
People DON'T want Bushes or Clintons anymore!
39
I often disagree with the approach this paper takes in many political situations and am quick to criticize bias. Nevertheless, I am, as usual, impressed by Mr. Cohen's objective and highly analytical discussion of this matter. Mr. Sanders indeed faces a very steep uphill battle to secure the party's nomination, let alone the presidency. Mr. Sander's appeal is primarily to white, very educated voters in concentrated locations. The facts are the facts, and it serves no purpose to rail against them.
Why then, do some readers personally attack Mr. Cohen for bringing a message they don't like to hear? I find that all too often many of those who disagree with an opinion become very personal in their attacks. That suggests they have no other way of rebutting the analysis, so they personally attack the author. Having been the object of many vicious personal attacks because of my expressed opinions, I know this type of response all too well.
If a critical comment is to be accorded respect, it must objectively deal with the facts of the issue, rather than the emotions of the person making the comment.
Why then, do some readers personally attack Mr. Cohen for bringing a message they don't like to hear? I find that all too often many of those who disagree with an opinion become very personal in their attacks. That suggests they have no other way of rebutting the analysis, so they personally attack the author. Having been the object of many vicious personal attacks because of my expressed opinions, I know this type of response all too well.
If a critical comment is to be accorded respect, it must objectively deal with the facts of the issue, rather than the emotions of the person making the comment.
14
It's August 2015; the election is November 2016. The purpose of a political campaign is to introduce candidates to voters, not annoint the party's preferred candidate. Sanders has a long way to go, but also a long time to do it. Reminds me... Time to send him another $500.
7
As someone who was critical of the post - bias comes in many forms. Just because a post is "highly analytical" does not mean that it is not biased. Tons of research papers are highly analytical but contain biases (conscious and unconscious). For example, the author looks at one measure, but ignores others (e.g., one can look at momentum, measured as number of new volunteers, etc. or movement up in specific polls or change in number of donors; one can look at comparative measures, etc.). It's possible some of these measures are hard to compute: the data is not readily available or trustworthy, etc. But looking at one measure
(without explaining why the value in Aug. 2015 is predictive of success in 2016 primaries) is not enough, regardless of whether you sprinkle statistical terms throughout your column. And this comes from someone who absolutely thinks the Sanders team should do a better job reaching out to minorities, etc. But that's separate from the way I am seeing folks embrace any analysis which has "stats!" in it .. any statistician, data scientist, quantitative analyst, etc. will tell you that's not enough.
(without explaining why the value in Aug. 2015 is predictive of success in 2016 primaries) is not enough, regardless of whether you sprinkle statistical terms throughout your column. And this comes from someone who absolutely thinks the Sanders team should do a better job reaching out to minorities, etc. But that's separate from the way I am seeing folks embrace any analysis which has "stats!" in it .. any statistician, data scientist, quantitative analyst, etc. will tell you that's not enough.
1
Nate, here’s the upshot without all your fancy numbers mumbo-jumbo:
Bernie is NOT going away.
What explains the explosive rise of Bernie and Trump?
Why are we seeing such extremism and polarization this election season?
Americans are finally ready for aggressive action in their socio-economic interests - not the toxic, exploitative status quo that keeps ####ing them over.
We’ve come to a national tipping point - the scales must be re-balanced or it all starts falling apart.
The smug Power Elite - gazing down from their ivory towers - keep ignoring the very clear, very loud, very aggrieved voices of the masses.
They can ignore the deep, festering wounds for only so long.
Time, history and political science is not on the Power Elites’ side.
Bernie is NOT going away.
What explains the explosive rise of Bernie and Trump?
Why are we seeing such extremism and polarization this election season?
Americans are finally ready for aggressive action in their socio-economic interests - not the toxic, exploitative status quo that keeps ####ing them over.
We’ve come to a national tipping point - the scales must be re-balanced or it all starts falling apart.
The smug Power Elite - gazing down from their ivory towers - keep ignoring the very clear, very loud, very aggrieved voices of the masses.
They can ignore the deep, festering wounds for only so long.
Time, history and political science is not on the Power Elites’ side.
36
If Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee so many people who are now too disillusioned by our politics and economics to vote will turn out that a new record for the modern era will be set. He will win with north of 400 electoral votes. You heard it here first.
36
Very nice. Throws cold water on my hopes, but I needed that. I'm a pragmatist in essence ( a basically scientific education will do that) but still a member of homo sapiens, an irrational creature in many ways. One that started out in Africa and kept hopefully on, crossing land bridges etc., etc. ... But still, if we made it to Australia and breaking the atom into still breakable parts, there's still hope for Bernie. There it is - that irrational hope. It's all we've got when
you get down to it.
you get down to it.
12
I'm actually starting to get offended by all of these journalists that assert that Bernie Sanders only appeals to white males. I'm a brown female and a staunch Bernie supporter. When I volunteered in LA, at least half of the volunteers were minorities and women. He has huge support among young Latinos in my area.
122
To follow up my previous comment, this an interesting point: "Most Democrats, for instance, do not share the assumption that Mrs. Clinton is a tool of Wall St.". Leaving aside the fact that I don't know this is true or not (e.g. maybe they think she is, but they don't care ? etc.), that strikes me as something a paper of record might be interested in investigating. Is Mrs. Clinton a "tool" of Wall St. for some definition of tool, or not ? Are Mr. Bush or Mr. Trump ? Literally anything would be more worthwhile than fun graphs which really highlight very little which is not obvious.
22
I think Nate Cohen has performed a valuable service for the Bernie Sanders' campaign. He has provided a very useful snapshot of reality and identified a weakness of the current campaign. This information, albeit a snapshot, provides for valuable insight into how the weakness can be mitigated and turned into a strength.
The numbers speak for themselves: the majority of support comes from a minority of congressional districts. Reality strikes. But how to change current reality into one you want?
One course of action for the Sanders' campaign and those who support him is to broaden support for Sanders into the weaker areas. Focus on those areas right now, forget about preaching to the choir in those areas where support is saturated.
I saw this happen in the Obama GOTV campaign in 2012. Instead of going to "Obama choir practice" in San Diego every week before the election, I and a bunch of other Obama supporters got in our cars, drove to Las Vegas and canvassed house-to-house to increase voter support. This was organized by the GOTV effort. It worked. And, it took a lot of time, hard work and, most important, physical presence.
If the Sanders support apologists really want to make Nate eat his words, you will have to come to your senses, use his analysis of reality to target your energies where it will be of most value and taken action on the ground ... not just with your checkbook.
Good luck ... as derived from preparation, hard work and passion to succeed.
The numbers speak for themselves: the majority of support comes from a minority of congressional districts. Reality strikes. But how to change current reality into one you want?
One course of action for the Sanders' campaign and those who support him is to broaden support for Sanders into the weaker areas. Focus on those areas right now, forget about preaching to the choir in those areas where support is saturated.
I saw this happen in the Obama GOTV campaign in 2012. Instead of going to "Obama choir practice" in San Diego every week before the election, I and a bunch of other Obama supporters got in our cars, drove to Las Vegas and canvassed house-to-house to increase voter support. This was organized by the GOTV effort. It worked. And, it took a lot of time, hard work and, most important, physical presence.
If the Sanders support apologists really want to make Nate eat his words, you will have to come to your senses, use his analysis of reality to target your energies where it will be of most value and taken action on the ground ... not just with your checkbook.
Good luck ... as derived from preparation, hard work and passion to succeed.
20
Of course, with commentary like this, Bernie doesn't stand a chance. For this writer, the election is all about the horse race and zilch about the issues in contention.
He asserts that Sanders has scant support among critical democratic voting blocs. But even a cursory glance at history shows that progressive candidates can prevail once the poor and marginalized know what's going on. For example, in 1972, George Mc Govern at first had scant support among blacks and latinos. Very simply, they did not know who he was. Of course, after the convention all that changed and Mc Govern got more that 90 percent of the black vote. (As if there were any possibility that blacks would have voted for Nixon.)
As for the author's contention that Sanders would be wiped out in various Southern and Western States, I must remind him that at a dem convention delegates are awarded, to States, with the greatest number of Dem votes in the last presidential election. Bernie can afford to bomb in Alabama and Georgia and quite a few other places.
He asserts that Sanders has scant support among critical democratic voting blocs. But even a cursory glance at history shows that progressive candidates can prevail once the poor and marginalized know what's going on. For example, in 1972, George Mc Govern at first had scant support among blacks and latinos. Very simply, they did not know who he was. Of course, after the convention all that changed and Mc Govern got more that 90 percent of the black vote. (As if there were any possibility that blacks would have voted for Nixon.)
As for the author's contention that Sanders would be wiped out in various Southern and Western States, I must remind him that at a dem convention delegates are awarded, to States, with the greatest number of Dem votes in the last presidential election. Bernie can afford to bomb in Alabama and Georgia and quite a few other places.
30
The fact that you used George McGovern as a comparison for Bernie says it all. The man who lost every state except Massachusetts? And thereby ushered in a second term, Watergate, and near-impeachment for Nixon? Not my idea of a pragmatic candidate. And speaking of pragmatics, he. is. too. old. No More Dangling Chads. Do Not Risk this election by petulant insistence on making the perfect the victim of the possible.
2
Well I'm certainly glad Sen McGovern was able to expand his base like that. It probably was of great value to him in the general election.
How many terms did President McGovern serve?
He was a war hero and from the Dakota's (read Midwest)
But he was no where near as left wing as Bernie
And he got trounced by Tricky Dick!
How many terms did President McGovern serve?
He was a war hero and from the Dakota's (read Midwest)
But he was no where near as left wing as Bernie
And he got trounced by Tricky Dick!
1
Of course for Nate Cohen it is about the numbers. Facts be facts and the conversation here isn't a wet blanket over the Sanders campaign it's whether a message that resonates in progressive environments can trickle down to the rest of the country. Without hand-to-hand combat and boots on the ground in Detroit or Charleston (pardon the war analogies) Sanders' message should and will ring as hollow as the aloof Obama message of hope turned out to be seven years later.
Bernie has started to use the 'revolution' word. The first American revolution succeeded against all odds with roughly 1/3 support of the population with 1/3 remaining loyalists and 1/3 sitting the fence. With the public in such a foul mood after so much lying and squandering of our wealth by the political class of both parties, we are seeing Bernie with 35% support, The Donald with 35%, and the HP bankruptcy queen with 15% support. These are revolutionary numbers. It will be an interesting political year. Be sure to vote.
22
You are quite correct about the American Revolution, Kirk.
It did not start out a populist war.
From the time of the Crown’s first egregious offenses till the first shot of the war was about 14 years.
Americans were not keen on taking on the world’s superpower.
Only concerted education and effective persuasion with facts, benefits and consequences [yay, Thomas Paine!] convinced most colonists it was in their very best interest to throw off the royals bleeding them.
It did not start out a populist war.
From the time of the Crown’s first egregious offenses till the first shot of the war was about 14 years.
Americans were not keen on taking on the world’s superpower.
Only concerted education and effective persuasion with facts, benefits and consequences [yay, Thomas Paine!] convinced most colonists it was in their very best interest to throw off the royals bleeding them.
1
Nate Cohn is an embarrassment as a quantitative analyst on political matters. I'm stunned that the New York Times hasn't found a better choice.
A reasonable thesis is that Bernie Sanders, despite his recent momentum, will be unable to capture the Democratic presidential nomination without widening his base. But Cohn undercuts himself with the misuse of data and by assuming that Sanders cannot gain ground.
Cohn's analytic lapses include these, and others will no doubt be able to identify more:
-Sanders did not have a house party in 12 Congressional districts. (No mention of the fact that a 2 month old presidential campaign relying solely on small donations held house parties in 423 Congressional districts.)
-Focus on Sanders' lack of support in highly Republican areas in the Deep South. (The Democrats will not carry these areas regardless.)
Yes, Sanders must win minority support and diversify his base in order to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders, his campaign and his supporters recognize this. But it is very different to suggest that Sanders needs to widen his base (reasonable) than to suggest Sanders cannot widen his base (unsupported by the data.)
The silver lining is that Cohn's columns on Sanders can be used in statistics and quantitative analysis classrooms as a lesson on the misuse of aggregate data. What's unfortunate is that the readers of the Times aren't being offered something better.
A reasonable thesis is that Bernie Sanders, despite his recent momentum, will be unable to capture the Democratic presidential nomination without widening his base. But Cohn undercuts himself with the misuse of data and by assuming that Sanders cannot gain ground.
Cohn's analytic lapses include these, and others will no doubt be able to identify more:
-Sanders did not have a house party in 12 Congressional districts. (No mention of the fact that a 2 month old presidential campaign relying solely on small donations held house parties in 423 Congressional districts.)
-Focus on Sanders' lack of support in highly Republican areas in the Deep South. (The Democrats will not carry these areas regardless.)
Yes, Sanders must win minority support and diversify his base in order to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders, his campaign and his supporters recognize this. But it is very different to suggest that Sanders needs to widen his base (reasonable) than to suggest Sanders cannot widen his base (unsupported by the data.)
The silver lining is that Cohn's columns on Sanders can be used in statistics and quantitative analysis classrooms as a lesson on the misuse of aggregate data. What's unfortunate is that the readers of the Times aren't being offered something better.
93
The NYT has been my daily newspaper for nearly 50 years and for the first time I find myself questioning the integrity of this paper. The Times is consistently failing to provide adequate levels of objective, explanatory reporting of Sanders' positions on issues that the Times has been covering, in detail, for years and decades. The amount and type of coverage given to Sanders, compared to Clinton, Trump and other candidates, is inexplicable when evaluated by the high standards that the Times has followed for such a long time. Can't help but think of Sherlock Holmes' comment about the curious incident of the dog that didn't bark in the night.
107
This very newspaper ran an article the other day detailing the fact that despite Clinton outspending Sanders by a 6:1 ratio, Sanders continues to gain ground in early primary states, with a lead in at least one, New Hampshire.
Why would Sanders spend money to gain ground in states far down Primary Road? Why would Mr. Cohn think he should? And why doesn't Mr. Cohn address the name recognition that Mrs. Clinton's 20+ years of national media exposure have on her early polling numbers?
As Mr. Sanders gains exposure, he gains supporters. We will see, Mr. Cohn, if six months from now you aren't whistling a different tune.
Why would Sanders spend money to gain ground in states far down Primary Road? Why would Mr. Cohn think he should? And why doesn't Mr. Cohn address the name recognition that Mrs. Clinton's 20+ years of national media exposure have on her early polling numbers?
As Mr. Sanders gains exposure, he gains supporters. We will see, Mr. Cohn, if six months from now you aren't whistling a different tune.
51
Another post that appears to confuse a static form of statistics for the reality of political momentum.
Based on the actual momentum and enthusiasm being developed by current candidates, only Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have any chance of moving ahead. Many of the other candidates evoke a large and bored sigh from almost every American (Bush, Rubio, Chafee, O'Malley, Christie, Fiorina, Jindal, Graham, Paul) and more than a few of them (Ms. Clinton, Mr. Walker, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Huckabee) evoke serious antipathy, even in their own party base. The election is a long way off----The most consistent message I have heard from thinking voters is somehow not visible in the statistics: I regularly hear folks tell me that they hope to never again see a Bush or Clinton in the White House.
Based on the actual momentum and enthusiasm being developed by current candidates, only Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have any chance of moving ahead. Many of the other candidates evoke a large and bored sigh from almost every American (Bush, Rubio, Chafee, O'Malley, Christie, Fiorina, Jindal, Graham, Paul) and more than a few of them (Ms. Clinton, Mr. Walker, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Huckabee) evoke serious antipathy, even in their own party base. The election is a long way off----The most consistent message I have heard from thinking voters is somehow not visible in the statistics: I regularly hear folks tell me that they hope to never again see a Bush or Clinton in the White House.
36
I was going to say it seems unnecessary to hammer away at the obvious and let his supporters have their moment but after reading letter after letter that feels about facts and data the same way the Republican base feels about global warming maybe it needs to be repeated a little more.
The NY times is reporting the news like it's supposed to, too many people here want it to be an advocacy group for Mr. Sanders. Maybe a lot of America just does't feel the same way about the issues many people here do... or not.
Feel free to keep selling, maybe a lot of others will buy in, but that's not this newspaper's job.
The NY times is reporting the news like it's supposed to, too many people here want it to be an advocacy group for Mr. Sanders. Maybe a lot of America just does't feel the same way about the issues many people here do... or not.
Feel free to keep selling, maybe a lot of others will buy in, but that's not this newspaper's job.
13
You are wrong.
The Times has been covering the Republican field, but it has been largely ignoring Sanders (and O'Malley, Chafee and Webb). The Times' Sanders coverage has been largely skewed toward "why Sanders can't win" pieces and fluff (Sanders has drawn some elderly people to his events; a Times Magazine Q&A which devoted substantial space to Clinton's hair.)
The capstone was when the Times failed to cover Sanders' West Coast rallies, which attracted some 70,000 people in the space of 3 days.
Times' readers don't want the Times to become a mouthpiece for Sanders. They just want fair, balanced coverage.
The Times has been covering the Republican field, but it has been largely ignoring Sanders (and O'Malley, Chafee and Webb). The Times' Sanders coverage has been largely skewed toward "why Sanders can't win" pieces and fluff (Sanders has drawn some elderly people to his events; a Times Magazine Q&A which devoted substantial space to Clinton's hair.)
The capstone was when the Times failed to cover Sanders' West Coast rallies, which attracted some 70,000 people in the space of 3 days.
Times' readers don't want the Times to become a mouthpiece for Sanders. They just want fair, balanced coverage.
58
I agree. And even when they did have a story on O'Malley, it was about his comment that Hillary Clinton's email server was a distraction, rather than that O'Malley was standing there, in Las Vegas, supporting union workers at one of Trump's hotels. Seems like that _could_ have been a good opportunity to look at O'Malley and his positions, but instead the story focused on Clinton.
I hope everyone has contacted the Times's public editor. That office has done analyses of specific coverage in the past. Of course, every candidate and his/her supporters believe they aren't being treated fairly. But in this case, I think it is fairly blatant that they aren't.
I hope everyone has contacted the Times's public editor. That office has done analyses of specific coverage in the past. Of course, every candidate and his/her supporters believe they aren't being treated fairly. But in this case, I think it is fairly blatant that they aren't.
2
Much like Hillary should obviously have handled the email thing better, Bernie should have had better minority outreach from the get-go if he had any true aspiration for the nomination.
Hindsight is a bitter friend.
Hindsight is a bitter friend.
4
"If he had any true aspiration for the nomination?" Really? You think what his doing is just child's play?
2
Peter, it's still August 2015. This IS the get-go.
2
Bernie Sanders will gain more support from minority communities in the next few months as details of his economic plan emerge, and how these policies will benefit the working poor such as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and free public college for all Americans.
Civil rights activist, Dr. Cornel West has endorsed Sanders and recently tweeted, “I endorse Brother Bernie Sanders because he is a long-distance runner with integrity in the struggle for justice for over 50 years. Now is the time for his prophetic voice to be heard across our crisis-ridden country.”
Civil rights activist, Dr. Cornel West has endorsed Sanders and recently tweeted, “I endorse Brother Bernie Sanders because he is a long-distance runner with integrity in the struggle for justice for over 50 years. Now is the time for his prophetic voice to be heard across our crisis-ridden country.”
55
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ I think the author needs some additional sources. Here's some polling from Alabama showing Sanders training by only 23 points as of this week, and clearly showing either Clinton or Sanders beating both bush and/or Trump.
18
Counting the number of people at a Sanders event, like taking your cues on the national political mood from the NYTimes posts, is like proclaiming well-being when you see a full parking lot at a polo match...those folks must really love horses. How nice.
Small sample. Wholly unrepresentative of the nation or reality.
But all good entertainment. A good book end, if a little more serious, to the Trump charade.
Small sample. Wholly unrepresentative of the nation or reality.
But all good entertainment. A good book end, if a little more serious, to the Trump charade.
4
Yeah, right. And, all the other candidates have universal support across the spectrum of voters, right?
Such utter hogwash. Think about the following scenarios:
The General Election is either Trump v. Hillary or Trump v. Sanders. In the first scenario, how many fence sitters are going to poll and saying, "Oh, what the heck, I guess I'll take a shot on Hillary?" Zero. The manufactured hatred against her is not reversible at this point. I don't think any Rep. can beat Trump at this point, and I think the only Dem who can beat him is Sanders. He's still being completely shut out of the media. If he's the nominee, they can't do that anymore. So, his message will get out. And, he has a 30 yr record that matches his message.
Such utter hogwash. Think about the following scenarios:
The General Election is either Trump v. Hillary or Trump v. Sanders. In the first scenario, how many fence sitters are going to poll and saying, "Oh, what the heck, I guess I'll take a shot on Hillary?" Zero. The manufactured hatred against her is not reversible at this point. I don't think any Rep. can beat Trump at this point, and I think the only Dem who can beat him is Sanders. He's still being completely shut out of the media. If he's the nominee, they can't do that anymore. So, his message will get out. And, he has a 30 yr record that matches his message.
34
Yeah, but a 30 year record with what exact accomplishments?
1
I do not have a sophisticated education in political science or statistics, but wouldn't a critical factor in this analysis be the response rates of "never heard of the candidate?" Wouldn't a factor be the percentage of airtime and column inches each candidate has received? Clinton is one of the most famous women in the country, and the press has been pathologically covering Trump, while Sanders is still little known in areas of the country. Obviously, his campaign has work cut out -- but the press is heavy on marginalizing Sanders, only covering him as a slim chance, but meanwhile he is the only candidate to have articulated and released a serious platform. Look at the video of his Iowa press conference. He explains the folly of a press that only covers horse races and soap operas and never the issues. Hear the crowd cheer.
38
Right. In fact, their lack of coverage is a direct reflection of his potential power as a candidate. Never mind Bernie the man--gem that he is (check his record)--his ideas will galvanize a great many of the 99%, well into the margin for a popular victory, and the entrenched 1% know this. So does Bernie and his crew. Its a long way to go, and only Bernie has the green light as far as I make it. Trump is well on the road to self-incineration. His own people are getting ready to take care of that.
11
Nate is a prisoner of his age and education. He has little experience with supernormal phenomenon. He sees the little chunk of ice he stands on but doesn't know all that could be under the water around him. It is typical of youth to be so sure, but we geezers know that anything can happen -- and that's why they play the game. And here's a game changing fact: Bernie has taken zero super pac money -- anybody north or south, black or white can get the fact THEN that he represents them not money. And that fact could spread like a wild fire. I look forward to a new Nate mug shot next year, where he has torn his hair out and his glasses are teared up, showing me that he has learned a new lesson: that even if you do the math well, you can be very wrong. You timesers need to listen to Dylan's Times They Are A Changin' and
tell people what the candidates messages are without editorial tampering.
Stop blocking up the hall... I suspect that among Times workers, Bernie leads all candidates and that you are just overcompensating to not appear biased. No worry, just be biased to Truth. That's what we are paying you to do.
tell people what the candidates messages are without editorial tampering.
Stop blocking up the hall... I suspect that among Times workers, Bernie leads all candidates and that you are just overcompensating to not appear biased. No worry, just be biased to Truth. That's what we are paying you to do.
28
I could describe all of the poor, working class people I've talked to who are for Bernie because, well, he represents their interests. But it really doesn't matter what we say, what the polls show in WV, nationally, or wherever, or how far from the election it is, does it. You can disparage him and his supporters as much as you want, these opinion peaces really only reflect poorly on YOU (i.e. Nytimes and their funding sources).
Bernie's rising and Hillary's tanking and we'll see what the end result is in February/March 2016.
Bernie's rising and Hillary's tanking and we'll see what the end result is in February/March 2016.
32
The more people know about Bernie the more they like him.
33
I'm not sure what we're supposed to get out of a comparison of Sanders' volunteer Gini and the Gini of U.S. and Connecticut incomes. What are the volunteer coefficients of the other candidates in the race?
16
Nate’s latest Bernie hit piece is cleverly disguised as comparative “data analysis” - as if that is a legitimate sphere not only to judge the totality of one candidate and campaign but summarily dispose of it without further question even before the race has heated up.
Problem is, elections and the electorate play by their own very unpredictable rules - they do not lend themselves to neat boxes, cold calculations or number crunching.
» » » (Did Nate or anyone predict Screaming Orange Machine Trump barreling down the primrose path? Did Nate or anyone predict Bernie barreling down that same primrose path from the opposite direction? LOL)
Bernie-slamming is just more proof that 1%-owned MSM is no longer interested in sound, unbiased journalism in favor of a fully-informed public - especially not investigative journalism (too many dangerous questions). MSM is morphing into propaganda central, in service of the already rich and powerful. It has an inherent, self-serving bias to aggressively suppress any political and ideological opposition, any real or perceived threat to its power and wealth.
How does such a compromised, skewed press represent a democratic, constitutional republic?
It doesn’t.
This is the same press (and only named industry) given First Amendment protections that now fully abdicates its duties to citizens by unilaterally suppressing those voices, platforms and truths it doesn’t like.
Problem is, elections and the electorate play by their own very unpredictable rules - they do not lend themselves to neat boxes, cold calculations or number crunching.
» » » (Did Nate or anyone predict Screaming Orange Machine Trump barreling down the primrose path? Did Nate or anyone predict Bernie barreling down that same primrose path from the opposite direction? LOL)
Bernie-slamming is just more proof that 1%-owned MSM is no longer interested in sound, unbiased journalism in favor of a fully-informed public - especially not investigative journalism (too many dangerous questions). MSM is morphing into propaganda central, in service of the already rich and powerful. It has an inherent, self-serving bias to aggressively suppress any political and ideological opposition, any real or perceived threat to its power and wealth.
How does such a compromised, skewed press represent a democratic, constitutional republic?
It doesn’t.
This is the same press (and only named industry) given First Amendment protections that now fully abdicates its duties to citizens by unilaterally suppressing those voices, platforms and truths it doesn’t like.
41
"But that is the real test of his campaign. He needs to compete outside his strongholds. Whether he’s doing so — not whether he has great crowds — is the real measure of his success, just as the real measure of the economy is the success of the average worker, not the opulence of the 1 percent."
WHOA, almost blew the fast ball by us there. Others in this space have effectively rebutted that Bernie isn't attempting to compete virtually everywhere. But I want to talk about the second part of this construction. Bernie favors returning taxes on the top 1% to historical levels [first part of sentence] to benefit the middle and working classes [second part of sentence]. So his goal somehow isn't benefitting most Americans just because he wants to increase taxes on a small portion of Americans?!? This is logic?
WHOA, almost blew the fast ball by us there. Others in this space have effectively rebutted that Bernie isn't attempting to compete virtually everywhere. But I want to talk about the second part of this construction. Bernie favors returning taxes on the top 1% to historical levels [first part of sentence] to benefit the middle and working classes [second part of sentence]. So his goal somehow isn't benefitting most Americans just because he wants to increase taxes on a small portion of Americans?!? This is logic?
11
The election is over 14 months away; the few Democrats that are paying attention to the election at this point are enthusiastic about Bernie. There's no visible enthusiasm for Hillary, but uninterested Democrats assume that she's next in line for the job and aren't aware of any reason to look elsewhere. Yet.
What about this is bad for Bernie? As people get interested, they are going to learn what he's about and what she's about. Bernie has a populist message that should register with any Democrat; that gov't can and should do better by everyday Americans.
What about this is bad for Bernie? As people get interested, they are going to learn what he's about and what she's about. Bernie has a populist message that should register with any Democrat; that gov't can and should do better by everyday Americans.
24
I see the NYT's has joined all the other major media by consistently leveling the snark cannon at Bernie whenever the opportunity presents itself. He must be a serious concern and all the more reason to support him. This is the quant snark angle.
The overarching reality is that it is way too soon to predict any candidate. The correlation between anyone leading at this point and their nomination and eventual election is almost nil. This article mentions this no where. Nor does it mention momentum (measured as rate of increase of support/time) which actually is correlated with winning elections. It doesn't even project out the numbers that are presented, which is a tacit acknowledgement of their (lack of) value.
The underlying message is, "Bernie Sanders can't win, so don't bother listening to him. Please. Love, Hillary"
The overarching reality is that it is way too soon to predict any candidate. The correlation between anyone leading at this point and their nomination and eventual election is almost nil. This article mentions this no where. Nor does it mention momentum (measured as rate of increase of support/time) which actually is correlated with winning elections. It doesn't even project out the numbers that are presented, which is a tacit acknowledgement of their (lack of) value.
The underlying message is, "Bernie Sanders can't win, so don't bother listening to him. Please. Love, Hillary"
22
Using the distribution of house parties for Bernie as a measure of anything - well, it measures where he's been heard. The press is doing a good job smothering his message. But as the campaign season rolls on far more will hear him. His message is concise, and compelling.
23
Great article! It brings to mind a comment attributed to the late & great film critic for the New Yorker -Pauline Kael. She is alleged to have said in the aftermath of Nixon's landslide victory in 1972 - 49 states - I can't understand it, I don't know anyone who voted for him. She lived on the Upper West Side.
17
The New York Times is revealing it's bias against Bernie once again with another misleading article trying to convince folks he doesn't have a chance, even though every new poll that comes out has him gaining ground on Hillary, and he has gained 10 points in the last month.
Unlike Hillary who has been in the public spotlight for 25 years, Bernie is relatively unknown outside of people that are politically literate. He's just some old white guy who they've heard is a "socialist"... or something. That's specifically why the Clinton-leaning DNC scheduled so few debates and is making everyone wait until Mid-October for the first one, to deny Bernie a stage where people can get to know him. By this time in 2007, there had already been 10 Democratic debates.
Once people get to know Bernie and read up on his issues stances (http://feelthebern.org/), they realize they agree with most of what he is saying. It's not a coincidence that he is drawing by far the largest crowds of any candidate (and doesn't have to lie about his attendance numbers like Trump), it is because his brave message of bold reforms is resonating with ordinary people.
Unlike Hillary who has been in the public spotlight for 25 years, Bernie is relatively unknown outside of people that are politically literate. He's just some old white guy who they've heard is a "socialist"... or something. That's specifically why the Clinton-leaning DNC scheduled so few debates and is making everyone wait until Mid-October for the first one, to deny Bernie a stage where people can get to know him. By this time in 2007, there had already been 10 Democratic debates.
Once people get to know Bernie and read up on his issues stances (http://feelthebern.org/), they realize they agree with most of what he is saying. It's not a coincidence that he is drawing by far the largest crowds of any candidate (and doesn't have to lie about his attendance numbers like Trump), it is because his brave message of bold reforms is resonating with ordinary people.
37
I didn't know that about the 2007 debates and I bet a lot of other people didn't either.
According to Wikipedia, the first one was held in April 2007, with 2 in June, 2 in July, 4 in August, and 4 in Sept. before the others starting in Oct.
This information needs to be much more widespread. Thanks for writing about it.
According to Wikipedia, the first one was held in April 2007, with 2 in June, 2 in July, 4 in August, and 4 in Sept. before the others starting in Oct.
This information needs to be much more widespread. Thanks for writing about it.
7
Nate Cohn is a 26 year old kid who too often hides behind cherry picked data and misleading metaphors. It's unfortunate that he seems to lack a sense of the big picture. If he was working for the NYT in 2007, we'd likely be seeing a similar piece against Obama using this same misguided logic. Bernie is battling the corporate controlled media who would like to either silence him, or spin and pervert his authentic progressive agenda into something for low informed voters to fear. I expect better from you NYT.
43
Ah, Nate. Nice try, but going into statistics explanations about inequality is exactly what will turn off those who think Bernie Sanders is the new secular political god of the left. Six months ago, it was Elizabeth Warren, who wasn't even running. Now, these dreaming, delusional leftists want us all to "feel the Bern".
Fat chance. This guy is somewhere on the Asperger's syndrome spectrum. Just seeing how he presents himself at his news conferences is enough to make any public relations strategist cringe. I'm amazed he keeps getting reelected to the Senate. He's a hopeless idealist, a small-c communist who must have had his last incarnation during the Progressive era. Who is this guy's strategist, Noam Chomsky? Oh, well, the idealists show us what we are striving for, not what we are currently.
3
Thus spake Carolina.
1
Mr. Robin P Little, your lack of faith is disturbing. What is more disturbing, however, is your use of communist, a totally different thing from what Mr. Sanders is calling himself, which is a 'Democratic Socialist', and I must admit, I like the ring to it, but it is socialism, you know, the same thing that many European governments have, and voted for, not forced upon, and they have many things that are great, like free healthcare, free education, etc. Now, look at Communist China, yes, they are starting to lose ground on their growth! They used to be the fastest growing nation in the world at something like 20%, but now they are STILL the fastest growing nation in the world at 7%. Wait....what? Yes, even with China, the most communist of all nations, is becoming more powerful than the US everyday, and they are COMMUNIST! Doesn't so bad, does it? Also, Noam Chomsky has been the largest supporter of the smartest scientists in the world. You know, the guys who get degrees, and spend their entire lives devoted to a single passion? Yea, if you insult Noam Chomsky's intelligence, you should probably question your own.
1
It's adorable to see the Upshot use "math!" to quantify just how narrow the support of Bernie Sanders supposedly is. I am a data scientist and I know exactly how one can use various types of measures to show what one wants to show. I am not a Bernie fanatic - frankly, I am one of the few Biden fans if anything - but from the NYT I expect actual analysis of the issues and fair coverage of the candidates. Perhaps the Upshot could follow up by tracking just how much coverage Sanders is getting consistently versus Hillary or Donald Trump (in the NYT and elsewhere) and checking whether constant media exposure could potentially be correlated with popularity. Btw, calling someone "socialist", if you're the NYT, should be followed by an actual analysis of whether Sanders' policies have in fact anything to do with socialism (even if he adopts that moniker for whatever reason). But that'd require more than just quick "data analysis" so I am not holding my breath. Shallow "data journalism" is useless at best and harmful at worst.
48
Bravo. Well said!
4
Bernie must really love having his "Stand With Bernie" message described as "trickle-down campaigning".
Somebody put the paddles on me!
Somebody put the paddles on me!
4
Nate, you keep saying Sanders supporters are made up of the educated elite, you are dead wrong: judging by their wildly dismissive comments of your statistical analyses, they are anything but mathematically literate.
Or they are deluded.
Or both.
Or they are deluded.
Or both.
2
Cohn's "statistical analysis" relies heavily on cherry-picked data and misleading comparisons. His columns on Sanders are good examples on how to lie with statistics.
7
Keep up the marvelously nuanced and sophisticated analysis, Nate!
We're counting on you and the other serious political writers to maintain this high level of logic and astute observation. While other candidates, Republican and Democratic, have not yet created a widespread precinct-level operations or dispersed state-party apparatus across the country, Sanders organized a unified nation-wide neighborhood house-party gathering that drew over 100,000 people 15 months before the election, and 6 months before the first primary.
Nate Cohen's priceless conclusion at the end of his passage on these house parties: "in 12 congressional districts, there were no Sanders events at all." Gosh! That might even mean that Sanders could lose 12 congressional districts--and as we all know, that would be the end of all hopes for election. After all, there are only 435 districts in the country.
We're counting on you and the other serious political writers to maintain this high level of logic and astute observation. While other candidates, Republican and Democratic, have not yet created a widespread precinct-level operations or dispersed state-party apparatus across the country, Sanders organized a unified nation-wide neighborhood house-party gathering that drew over 100,000 people 15 months before the election, and 6 months before the first primary.
Nate Cohen's priceless conclusion at the end of his passage on these house parties: "in 12 congressional districts, there were no Sanders events at all." Gosh! That might even mean that Sanders could lose 12 congressional districts--and as we all know, that would be the end of all hopes for election. After all, there are only 435 districts in the country.
30
I like Bernie and I agree with him on the unfair distribution of wealth. He's intelligent and principled - and he's right on that issue, I believe. But Bernie is a one-issue candidate. He seems to me quixotic and naive. Corporations, Wall Street and all the money interests in the US own the Republicans. Does he think a right-thinking President can simply come into office and reform Wall Street and the tax code without opposition? Look at the way the Republicans have shut down Pres. Obama at almost every turn, although he's very moderate.
4
When the debates begin and people see Sanders on the same stage as his opponents, Sanders will come across as the patriotic, wizened, caring, experienced and extraordinarily disciplined leader that he is.
very little of the chatter matters until he is genuinely introduced to America.
He will split voters on the genitalia and abortion issues but his economic ideals are supported by a majority of voters and that will carry him to The White House. God willing.
very little of the chatter matters until he is genuinely introduced to America.
He will split voters on the genitalia and abortion issues but his economic ideals are supported by a majority of voters and that will carry him to The White House. God willing.
18
This column plays with numbers like my cat plays with her toy mouse.
It's not just a question of hearing about someone. It's approval.
And among minority voters who have heard of Sanders, his approval rating is around 70%.
It's not just a question of hearing about someone. It's approval.
And among minority voters who have heard of Sanders, his approval rating is around 70%.
30
But it is a question of hearing about someone. It's in the end about votes. If most minority voters have never heard of him, they certainly won't vote for him when time comes.
What's really key is getting people out to vote at all.
What's really key is getting people out to vote at all.
1
It is more than the Hillary being a handmaiden for Wall Street. It is even more than Hillary having served on the Board of Walmart while it paid poverty wages to millions of workers.
Last year, the Clintons made over $28 million dollars, much of it thru speeches and appearances. To be perfectly blunt, People and institutions do not shell out $200,000 for two hours of her time without expecting something in return. In essence, Hillary has used public office for grotesque private gain. Such Putinesque behavior sits poorly with millions Americans.
Bernie is honest , passionate, and engaged. Politicians like him must be nurtured and supported
Last year, the Clintons made over $28 million dollars, much of it thru speeches and appearances. To be perfectly blunt, People and institutions do not shell out $200,000 for two hours of her time without expecting something in return. In essence, Hillary has used public office for grotesque private gain. Such Putinesque behavior sits poorly with millions Americans.
Bernie is honest , passionate, and engaged. Politicians like him must be nurtured and supported
52
The author of this doesn't understand primary politics. It starts small in hopes of getting traction in the buildup to Super Tuesday, after which the nomination for the leader is a near fait accompli. And Sanders is a surprise in the same way Obama was in 08. Obama too was the choice of white liberals. Even black voters supported Clinton early on. But as Obama seemed a serious contender, things trended in his direction, including lots of online contributions .... and an organization was built to support the campaign. Sanders can do the same, and he elicits the same furvor amongst his early supporters. That's very different from the GOP side, which seems a Romney redux. Jeb is the less than ideal but eventual winner, and doubts will engender a flurry of alternatives of the month as we saw during Romney's steady march to nomination, with the buffoonery of Trump merely being the first to have his month of attention from the press and poll responders. Clinton is still the establishment candidate and should win unless she once again seems void of a clear policy agenda and plays the part of heir apparent / entitled. The middle class wants and needs real solutions, which one candidate is unambiguous in his support of with a clear plan for fixing it: Saunders. The more he's heard the more he's adored. And Clinton needs to see that Bernie Sanders ideas need to become her ideas. They're touching at the core of Democratic voters' wants. Simple as that.
24
The last thing we need in the middle class is Sanders. He'd finish us off once and for all with his socialist policies. In socialism, there are only two classes, the super rich and the super poor. I don't mind being part of either, except that I'd like the option to choose and earn either way with freedom instead of having the government choose for me.
1
Obama was always a more natural ally for black voters than Sanders. For one, he is black, and built an influential network of black allies and acquaintences in Chicago. All he had to do is prove his viability on the national stage and a broadening of appeal.
Sanders is proving his appeal and in the process of making a case for viability - one that hinges on minority outreach.
Sanders is proving his appeal and in the process of making a case for viability - one that hinges on minority outreach.
2
Pablo, you comment couldn't be more opposite from the truth. Or country has a massive gap between rich and middle, and an ever shrinking middle class that is becoming poor. Our current system is certainly not the one to use if you are worried about inequality!
The government Sanders supports is not one that will choose where your fortunes go. It's one that will attempt to enforces rules and situations that will make freedom fair for everyone.
This isn't the socialism of Marx or Mao, this is the socialism of Germany, Sweden, and many other countries where people are free, happy, and have more opportunity at a good life than the average person born in our nation.
The government Sanders supports is not one that will choose where your fortunes go. It's one that will attempt to enforces rules and situations that will make freedom fair for everyone.
This isn't the socialism of Marx or Mao, this is the socialism of Germany, Sweden, and many other countries where people are free, happy, and have more opportunity at a good life than the average person born in our nation.
8
Elizabeth Warren she'd probably make a great President. If she ran and won the Democratic nomination I'd most likely vote for her over just about any Republican candidate now running.
I think the amount of money that the big corps would throw against her would be a record for years to come. I don't believe she could win, but I'd vote for her as I absolutely love her commitment to the average consumer and that's saying something as I'm a conservative.
Lets play Jeopardy...
I take Democratic Standard Bearers for $400 Alex
Answer: Bernie Sanders
Question:
Who is quite possible the only individual in America who could get Donald Trump elected President.
Seriously, the left wing thinks a 74 year old socialist could be elected in this country?
In the event the Dem's make that mistake Trump's victory could rival Reagan's '84 win for total electoral votes won in a Presidential election.
I think the amount of money that the big corps would throw against her would be a record for years to come. I don't believe she could win, but I'd vote for her as I absolutely love her commitment to the average consumer and that's saying something as I'm a conservative.
Lets play Jeopardy...
I take Democratic Standard Bearers for $400 Alex
Answer: Bernie Sanders
Question:
Who is quite possible the only individual in America who could get Donald Trump elected President.
Seriously, the left wing thinks a 74 year old socialist could be elected in this country?
In the event the Dem's make that mistake Trump's victory could rival Reagan's '84 win for total electoral votes won in a Presidential election.
3
Hillary Clinton is trailing Bernie Sanders by 25 points among voters age 18-45 in New Hampshire.
Isn't that one of her key constituencies? Young voters?
And isn't NH is critical state?
We never hear about any of that here. Just endless reasons why anyone other than Hillary Clinton is a fool to even try for the Democratic ticket.
It's not the NYT's business to tell us who has a chance of winning, and who shouldn't bother to run. That's up to the voters to decide.
It's especially not your business given, as Howard Dean said last week, your obvious favoritism for HC.
Isn't that one of her key constituencies? Young voters?
And isn't NH is critical state?
We never hear about any of that here. Just endless reasons why anyone other than Hillary Clinton is a fool to even try for the Democratic ticket.
It's not the NYT's business to tell us who has a chance of winning, and who shouldn't bother to run. That's up to the voters to decide.
It's especially not your business given, as Howard Dean said last week, your obvious favoritism for HC.
49
Siobhan:
A small reminder about the New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP) primary: Clinton won the NHDP primary in 2008, but Obama is President of the United States.
Clinton won the NHDP primary because she carried the NHDP base, but Obama won Independents albeit not enough votes to win the NHDP primary. Then Obama goes own to win the South Caroline Democratic Party (SCDP) primary by a wide margin. Obama won 55.4% of the SCDP primary vote whereas Clinton won 26.5% of the vote. The rest is history.
Although I'm a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, I realize he will not be the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2016 unless 40-50% of non-white and moderate Democrats vote for him. The progressive base of the Democratic Party cannot alone make him the nominee. If Bernie want the DP nomination, then he needs to start working hard in South Carolina and states other than Iowa and New Hampshire. African-American and Hispanic-American voters, having major concerns that demand immediate attention, could be hard sales for Mr. Sanders but he must try.
He needs to begin working with African-American, Hispanic-American, moderate Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters now, now, now.
A small reminder about the New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP) primary: Clinton won the NHDP primary in 2008, but Obama is President of the United States.
Clinton won the NHDP primary because she carried the NHDP base, but Obama won Independents albeit not enough votes to win the NHDP primary. Then Obama goes own to win the South Caroline Democratic Party (SCDP) primary by a wide margin. Obama won 55.4% of the SCDP primary vote whereas Clinton won 26.5% of the vote. The rest is history.
Although I'm a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, I realize he will not be the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2016 unless 40-50% of non-white and moderate Democrats vote for him. The progressive base of the Democratic Party cannot alone make him the nominee. If Bernie want the DP nomination, then he needs to start working hard in South Carolina and states other than Iowa and New Hampshire. African-American and Hispanic-American voters, having major concerns that demand immediate attention, could be hard sales for Mr. Sanders but he must try.
He needs to begin working with African-American, Hispanic-American, moderate Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters now, now, now.
1
Chris from New York wrote, “As time passes and we get closer to the election, barring an indictment, the Democrats will very likely coalesce around Hillary Clinton because eventually they will realize Sanders will get trounced in any general election.”
I strongly disagree.
How many conservative votes will Clinton get? None. Sanders will garner some conservative support.
In past elections, there were yard signs in Vermont supporting Bush/Bernie and Romney/Bernie. Can you imagine a similar situation with Hillary? No.
There are 'Republicans for Bernie' groups springing up across the country on Facebook and other social media. Can you imagine the same for Hillary? No
Why does Bernie have the ability to attract a wider swath of the electorate? As a commenter to Sanders’ speech at The Brookings Institution said, Sanders is: “Pure awesome in politics, humanity, journey, integrity, background, citizenship, smarts, experience, etc., etc.”
The Brookings speech:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/of-the-billionaires
I strongly disagree.
How many conservative votes will Clinton get? None. Sanders will garner some conservative support.
In past elections, there were yard signs in Vermont supporting Bush/Bernie and Romney/Bernie. Can you imagine a similar situation with Hillary? No.
There are 'Republicans for Bernie' groups springing up across the country on Facebook and other social media. Can you imagine the same for Hillary? No
Why does Bernie have the ability to attract a wider swath of the electorate? As a commenter to Sanders’ speech at The Brookings Institution said, Sanders is: “Pure awesome in politics, humanity, journey, integrity, background, citizenship, smarts, experience, etc., etc.”
The Brookings speech:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/of-the-billionaires
36
I left out an important point.
How many people will stay home or vote third party if Clinton is the nominee? A significant number. Sanders will not have that problem.
How many people will stay home or vote third party if Clinton is the nominee? A significant number. Sanders will not have that problem.
19
How many voters will stay home if they've never heard of the senator from Vermont? More than Hillary can mobilize.
Don't underestimate name recognition, branding, and super package money.
Don't underestimate name recognition, branding, and super package money.
Interesting, if unusual analysis, though I would disagree on two fundamental points
1. "He’s down by 68 points in Alabama, 78 to 10. He has 11 percent support in Georgia. In rural Georgia, he has 6 percent." - No effective Democratic strategist would spend a cent here in the general election, so this does not really represent an ideological weakness for Sanders.
2. "Many moderate and less educated voters do not pay much attention to politics, and usually end up siding with well-known establishment figures against reformist candidates." - First, I am not sure I'd put "moderate" and "less educated" as part of a 100% overlap. But more importantly, how then does one explain Donald Trump, who is essentially running on a populist anti-establishment ticket? Certainly well known, but with an atypical brand of "reform."
1. "He’s down by 68 points in Alabama, 78 to 10. He has 11 percent support in Georgia. In rural Georgia, he has 6 percent." - No effective Democratic strategist would spend a cent here in the general election, so this does not really represent an ideological weakness for Sanders.
2. "Many moderate and less educated voters do not pay much attention to politics, and usually end up siding with well-known establishment figures against reformist candidates." - First, I am not sure I'd put "moderate" and "less educated" as part of a 100% overlap. But more importantly, how then does one explain Donald Trump, who is essentially running on a populist anti-establishment ticket? Certainly well known, but with an atypical brand of "reform."
4
I don't know how far Sanders is going to take his campaign and neither, quite frankly, does Mr. Cohn.
38
Thank you, Mr. Cohn, for injecting at least a modicum of sense into this debate. It ain't pretty for some to hear, but politics isn't always nest and clean and ideal.
1
Well, according to this chart someone has heard of him:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democrati...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democrati...
25
Thank you for posting the polling data that show Sanders gaining and Clinton falling in support. Cohn, of course, ignores the polling data. But Sanders didn't have house parties in 12 Congressional districts!
2
Reformers like Elizabeth & Bernie haven't a chance w/an electorate pickled in Ayn-Randology & Bible-pounding wrectitude, so prep for a plunge back to pre-Obama desuetude, dysequity & despair...the Smiley-Ron Uplands of Delusion scintillate still for the 1/100th of 1%....the carriage of the rest awaits without.
Sophie L wrote, “[Obama] had three things that Bernie does not have: Party Love, Historic presidency, [and] MONEY, and lots of it, from the BIG banks.”
Sophie, numbers 1 and 3 tell me that Obama was going to be another corporatist and president for the 1%. Although I didn’t want to believe it at the time, he was.
Sanders, on the other hand, has authenticity and consistency. He tells the TRUTH and has a 35-year record to back up what he says. He says he won’t appoint people from Wall Street or corporate America if he is elected president. He doesn’t take money from corporations. He doesn’t have a super PAC. Sanders says that the only way to have a successful presidency is through a political revolution. He says:
“One of the first things that I would do as president, and what I am doing right now in this campaign, is to put together a strong, unprecedented grassroots movement which tells Congress that they’ve got to start representing ordinary people, and not just the people on top.”
Sanders has said he will help to elect new candidates to Congress if he is elected president.
This is the approach Sanders took as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. He transformed the city to one of the most livable small cities in the country.
Sophie, numbers 1 and 3 tell me that Obama was going to be another corporatist and president for the 1%. Although I didn’t want to believe it at the time, he was.
Sanders, on the other hand, has authenticity and consistency. He tells the TRUTH and has a 35-year record to back up what he says. He says he won’t appoint people from Wall Street or corporate America if he is elected president. He doesn’t take money from corporations. He doesn’t have a super PAC. Sanders says that the only way to have a successful presidency is through a political revolution. He says:
“One of the first things that I would do as president, and what I am doing right now in this campaign, is to put together a strong, unprecedented grassroots movement which tells Congress that they’ve got to start representing ordinary people, and not just the people on top.”
Sanders has said he will help to elect new candidates to Congress if he is elected president.
This is the approach Sanders took as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. He transformed the city to one of the most livable small cities in the country.
38
Nu? A Jew from Brooklyn in the White House isn't historic?
1
What concerns me about the direction of the mass media, that is beholden to Clinton and Trump, to sell their product, is that if, in fact, should one of those celebrities gain the Oval Office, this country will likely experience one scandalized mess after another. Real people will really be hurt by economic decline. Struggling people will fall completely off the radar. Vets will fail to be well provided for. The dirtiest of oil will be dug up, processed, and sent via the XL pipeline(s). The Oligarchy will put the final nail in the coffin, for a long time. This country will falter. And, the media will not assume an iota of responsibility for it.
Bernie Sanders is this countries hope, right now. Lets get Warren to endorse him, and turn this country in new direction, once and for all.
Bernie Sanders is this countries hope, right now. Lets get Warren to endorse him, and turn this country in new direction, once and for all.
34
It would be interesting to know how Bernie's support in various communities varies with the Gini coefficient of those communities. It seems from the anecdotal evidence in this article that a strong negative correlation might be expected. Perhaps most of the support for lessening income inequality is coming from those who don't realize how well off they are. Forget the 1% vs the 99, the real divide in this country is between those who regard their expenditure on espresso based drinks as trivial and those who have a few dollars for their main meal. There is no party of the poor in the US.
10
Look at Bernie's voting record, and what he's running on now. He is for helping the working class.
5
Nate,
Nice try, but many of Bernie's supporters (mostly coastal, mostly non-southern,mostly white, mostly upper middle class, mostly college educated whether they admit these things or not) are fueled by hope and ideas, and not data.
And at this point 6 months before a ballot is cast, that is not an entirely irrational belief on their part.
Nice try, but many of Bernie's supporters (mostly coastal, mostly non-southern,mostly white, mostly upper middle class, mostly college educated whether they admit these things or not) are fueled by hope and ideas, and not data.
And at this point 6 months before a ballot is cast, that is not an entirely irrational belief on their part.
19
OK. Come clean Nate and NYTimes. Why really are you so afraid to show any support for Sanders? It doesn't have anything to do with money and power and who owns media organizations does it? Why can't you do an informative article that clearly lays out why Sanders support keeps growing and the differences between Bernie and Hillary instead of one more "Bernie will never make it article"? I'm not even strongly for one or the other candidate but this inequality makes me lean strongly towards Sanders. He must be doing something right.
118
Ponder this one, Nate: if you did the same calculation for the efforts of the Democratic Party - call it the Demi coefficient - it would probably come out worse than your Berni coefficient. That's thanks to the party's establishment throwing Howard Dean's 50-state strategy overboard. Whoever turns out to be the Democratic nominee - and I would not rule Bernie out - his or her task will be much harder because of that in both the presidential and congressional contests. Thanks to the misguided current strategy, the Dems have abandoned any chance of winning in even moderately red states. The Republicans don't abandon competing in any blue areas. If the GOP loses, it will be because of their bad message, not their strategy.
And however the media label Bernie, his message can count for enough to overcome your Berni number. That is what's so lousy about horse race political journalism like yours - you leave out what really matters.
And however the media label Bernie, his message can count for enough to overcome your Berni number. That is what's so lousy about horse race political journalism like yours - you leave out what really matters.
39
I have seen this same article written 2 different ways in the past half an hour. Poor taste Mr. Cohn, people deserve to know about politicians not about their chances. People want to know about politicians stances and they would know if the news ever talked about that.
And what are you talking about "He needs to compete outside of his stronghold"?? Maybe you didn't hear how he is the first democrat in decades to tour Republican voting states.
His uphill battle is right here in this article. The established news that is already speaking to everyone telling them to stop supporting Bernie Sanders. And just why are you writing this article? What is the purpose? It sounds like you are mad that people are excited and talking loudly about a Presidential candidate and you want to stop that. America's political apathy is a HUGE problem so why on Earth did you feel the need to publish YET ANOTHER stop supporting this candidate he doesn't have a chance article? These articles are not good for America and its not news.
And what are you talking about "He needs to compete outside of his stronghold"?? Maybe you didn't hear how he is the first democrat in decades to tour Republican voting states.
His uphill battle is right here in this article. The established news that is already speaking to everyone telling them to stop supporting Bernie Sanders. And just why are you writing this article? What is the purpose? It sounds like you are mad that people are excited and talking loudly about a Presidential candidate and you want to stop that. America's political apathy is a HUGE problem so why on Earth did you feel the need to publish YET ANOTHER stop supporting this candidate he doesn't have a chance article? These articles are not good for America and its not news.
64
This is horrible journalism: a confusing, probably-fully-worthless metric followed by vague and unsupported speculations. As far as the metric - are we saying that more people volunteer for Bernie in big cities than in small towns? Is that what we are saying? Might that have to do the fact that big cities have...more people? I feel stupider for even trying to figure out if these stats are completely without merit or just a boring-yet-creative attempt to talk about anything other than the political revolution surfacing around Bernie Sanders.
53
What if Sanders was getting the wall-to-wall press coverage that Trump is getting? Trump poses no threat because he divides working and middle class interests with racial rhetoric; the same method the Republican Party has always used to maintain class hegemony. Sanders economic message has the potential to unite the working and middle class across cultural barriers.
Politics can be mapped with just two variables - wealth and tolerance of uncertainty. When an individual accumulates a certain amount of wealth their orientation shifts from seeking change to benefit themselves to seeking security to protect what they have accumulated. That point varies from person to person depending on their individual tolerance for uncertainty. Those who have wealth and have a low tolerance for uncertainty want to maintain the status quo. The only candidate running now who threatens the status quo, who proposes real change to benefit those who are working more and are falling behind, is Bernie Sanders.
Politics can be mapped with just two variables - wealth and tolerance of uncertainty. When an individual accumulates a certain amount of wealth their orientation shifts from seeking change to benefit themselves to seeking security to protect what they have accumulated. That point varies from person to person depending on their individual tolerance for uncertainty. Those who have wealth and have a low tolerance for uncertainty want to maintain the status quo. The only candidate running now who threatens the status quo, who proposes real change to benefit those who are working more and are falling behind, is Bernie Sanders.
46
I don't think Senator Sanders can win the nomination either. But I do think we, as a nation, would be poorer if he didn't try...
“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”
Robert Browning "Andrea del Sarto"
“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”
Robert Browning "Andrea del Sarto"
6
Breaking News! Apparently a Northeastern democratic socialist gets low support in a part of the country where 80% of the electorate believes god put dinosaurs and humans together 6000 years ago. Since the Upshot is cherry picking the most damning data to prove a weak point, it should also be noted that Donald Trump polls very low in the West Village. I guess no one is paying attention to him either.
50
Nate,
I really like the idea of the Bernie coefficient, I thought that was cool and informative. I can't say that I've seen anyone apply the Gini coefficient like that. Otherwise, I think your article took too many words to hammer home a point that Nate Silver and Co. have been making for weeks.
I really like the idea of the Bernie coefficient, I thought that was cool and informative. I can't say that I've seen anyone apply the Gini coefficient like that. Otherwise, I think your article took too many words to hammer home a point that Nate Silver and Co. have been making for weeks.
1
its good to know where the Establishment New York Times stands. The Sulzberger's need any demands that the rich pay more taxes be quickly squelched.
We know whom the Grey Lady serves - and its not the middle class.
We know whom the Grey Lady serves - and its not the middle class.
40
Mr. Cohn seems to believe that statistics matter more than what a candidate is saying. The media, including Mr. Cohn, seem to be trying their very best to write and talk about everything that Mr. Sanders is saying. Bernie Sanders has done incredibly well because he is against corruption and most of the people in the country believes, with good cause, that corruption reigns in the United States. When people learn what Mr. Sanders is saying, they become excited about his candidacy. And the media will ultimately be forced to discuss his platform before, during and after the debates. When his platform becomes available to the country at large, the polls will change--and fast. It is just possible that Mr. Cohn's methods of analysis are out of date and almost irrelevant.
25
My goodness. Sander's biggest critics complain he's too wordy and wonky. He's a day at Disneyland compared to this editorial.
19
Wait until the "Enough is Enough" march on Washington and rally at the Mall now being organized on Facebook if it comes off. That might change the conversation
14
Mr. Cohn, I think you're forgetting an important fact: social media. Earlier this week, the Sanders campaign announced a march on Washington to be held sometime in October. They were hoping for 100,000 RSVPs. Within a very short time, they already had over 87,000. And the numbers are rising. Obviously, not all the people who say they will attend the rally actually will, but you've got to admire the fervor in this man's quest to try to change the awful system the 99% lives under today. He has my vote.
With regard to Hillary, please don't try to tell us that "some people think she's a tool of Wall Street". We know she is and for corporations as well. Why else will she not render an opinion on the Keystone Pipeline until "after she's elected."
Maybe I'm just preaching to the choir here, but please give us a little credit for doing our own research and not waiting for the Times to tell us how Sen. Sanders can never win. #feelthebern #bernie2016
With regard to Hillary, please don't try to tell us that "some people think she's a tool of Wall Street". We know she is and for corporations as well. Why else will she not render an opinion on the Keystone Pipeline until "after she's elected."
Maybe I'm just preaching to the choir here, but please give us a little credit for doing our own research and not waiting for the Times to tell us how Sen. Sanders can never win. #feelthebern #bernie2016
43
A rew corrections and additions:
1. The rally is being promoted by an independent group, "Bernie Sanders Enough is Enough Rally" on Facebook, founded by a gentleman from Madison, Wisconsin named Charlie Ryan, and there is as yet no official agreement from the Sanders campaign to go ahead. Negotiations are currently underway between Ryan and the Campaign, and a decision is expected by next week.
2. Originally proposed for mid-October, the most likely date, according to posts on the Facebook page, will be early November.
3. As of now, 6:19 PM Eastern Thursday 8/27, there are 107,567 RSVPs, and the group is currently shooting for 200 thousand.
4. Interest has been expressed from all part of the country, and some groups are planning "caravans" from as far away as California.
5. For the latest information on the rally, go to
https://www.facebook.com/events/1636611586577118/
1. The rally is being promoted by an independent group, "Bernie Sanders Enough is Enough Rally" on Facebook, founded by a gentleman from Madison, Wisconsin named Charlie Ryan, and there is as yet no official agreement from the Sanders campaign to go ahead. Negotiations are currently underway between Ryan and the Campaign, and a decision is expected by next week.
2. Originally proposed for mid-October, the most likely date, according to posts on the Facebook page, will be early November.
3. As of now, 6:19 PM Eastern Thursday 8/27, there are 107,567 RSVPs, and the group is currently shooting for 200 thousand.
4. Interest has been expressed from all part of the country, and some groups are planning "caravans" from as far away as California.
5. For the latest information on the rally, go to
https://www.facebook.com/events/1636611586577118/
Well if you take into account how far he HAS gotten with his message and the time left before the first primary, things maybe different. They discount his consistent message and consistent record. They only believe in the show. And what Bernie does best is listen and respond. He learns from his rally's as much as people learn from him. Wait until January. See where he is after all the major upcoming rally's. The possibility of a 100k people march on Washington. The foot steps getting louder behind Hillary. The uptick in media attention as the Don starts to upset all media outlets with his angry racist message as more and more gravitate, no matter what politics they hold dear. The losing of the 'independent" vote as they realize the only vote in their best interest is Bernie. We as a people know the issue. Anyone with a super pac cannot be elected and needs to be sent back to their home state. the message has to be the majority of this country are not getting what they deserve. So the mandate and path can be established. I know Polly Anna much? But you know I'm right...And so is Bernie!! Go Bernie Go!!
19
It's August 2015. What were Obama's number in August 2007? My friends told me then he had no chance against Tyrannosaurus Hillasaurus.
16
He had three things that Bernie does not have:
Party Love
Historic presidency
MONEY, and lots of it, from the BIG banks
And a fourth for free: his speeches were actually kind on the ears.
Party Love
Historic presidency
MONEY, and lots of it, from the BIG banks
And a fourth for free: his speeches were actually kind on the ears.
2
OMG, 12 out of the 435 congressional districts had no Sanders events at all! He only had events in 97.25% of all the congressional districts! Let's wave the white flag and surrender NOW!
"He needs to compete outside his strongholds. Whether he’s doing so — not whether he has great crowds — is the real measure of his success, just as the real measure of the economy is the success of the average worker, not the opulence of the 1 percent." As someone who actually attended his event in Greenville, SC last Friday I can tell you that he IS competing outside of his strongholds. SC, as you may know, is hardly a bastion of liberal America so getting a crowd of 2,800 was pretty impressive. Yes, he needs to be more effective out outreach to black voters as well as to other minorities but he is finally receiving endorsements from folks such as Cornell West and the recent changes to his stump speech to address racial inequality as well as economic inequality seems to be resonating with his audiences.
BTW, does the NYTimes ever plan to actually start reporting on Senator Sanders' positions on issues rather than talking exclusively about the "horserace" aspects of the campaign? Doing so would be a service to your readers.
"He needs to compete outside his strongholds. Whether he’s doing so — not whether he has great crowds — is the real measure of his success, just as the real measure of the economy is the success of the average worker, not the opulence of the 1 percent." As someone who actually attended his event in Greenville, SC last Friday I can tell you that he IS competing outside of his strongholds. SC, as you may know, is hardly a bastion of liberal America so getting a crowd of 2,800 was pretty impressive. Yes, he needs to be more effective out outreach to black voters as well as to other minorities but he is finally receiving endorsements from folks such as Cornell West and the recent changes to his stump speech to address racial inequality as well as economic inequality seems to be resonating with his audiences.
BTW, does the NYTimes ever plan to actually start reporting on Senator Sanders' positions on issues rather than talking exclusively about the "horserace" aspects of the campaign? Doing so would be a service to your readers.
48
Boy, the Sanders people commented en masse for this. Next year, Biden might be the front runner, and O'Malley may drop out. Why Sanders people feel compelled to insult HRC is beyond me-if Bernie is so far superior,why waste time throwing mud at Hillary and any writer who is not nuts for Bernie?
2
So much for "everyone loves the underdog". Sanders is hated by the media -- they want a known name, a handsome face, a conventional candidate that plays the two-party masquerade.
Hillary voted FOR the war in Iraq, you think that's not something to throw mud at? Just because she WANTS to become president doesn't translate into actual votes. Once people realize that there is a choice (no thanks to the media who refuse to be anything but dismissive of Sanders), they will probably vote for Bernie.
Hillary voted FOR the war in Iraq, you think that's not something to throw mud at? Just because she WANTS to become president doesn't translate into actual votes. Once people realize that there is a choice (no thanks to the media who refuse to be anything but dismissive of Sanders), they will probably vote for Bernie.
4
That oughtta tell you something. Sanders authenticity blows every other candidate out of the water, and his supporters are passionate about reform. I haven't seen real Hillary bashing here; her own record is enough to lynch her!
As time passes and we get closer to the election, barring an indictment, the Democrats will very likely coalesce around Hillary Clinton because eventually they will realize Sanders will get trounced in any general election.
It doesn't matter if he wins Oregon, or Minnesota, or California, or Vermont. Any Democrat will.
What matters is there is no scenario in which Sanders can win Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, or any other swing state the Democrats will need to win to prevail.
It doesn't matter if he wins Oregon, or Minnesota, or California, or Vermont. Any Democrat will.
What matters is there is no scenario in which Sanders can win Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, or any other swing state the Democrats will need to win to prevail.
4
Hillary is BORING and lacks conviction. She swings whichever way the winds blow. We wanted WARREN because she actually stood for something, and now we want Sanders because he stands for even more. Unless Hillary can actually stand up for what's right and become a real champion (highly unlikely), she will certainly lose the general election. The only thing she has going for her is the historic nature of her possible candidacy as the first woman president.
2
The Times was clueless about the strength and meaning of the Trump insurgency and is even more clueless about the Bernie crusade. Nate, get out of the Beltway and say hello to reality. Also, try and get some pointers from Nate Silver.
7
The problem with Cohn's analysis is that he ignores (or sidesteps with marginal notice) the reaon for Bernie's narrow support at the moment, which is name recognition. The more that working- and stressed middle-class voters hear his message and get to know him, the more support he'll have. Right now the only politicians the voters know is Hillary. Southern poorer whites and blacks are a natural constituency for him. He just needs for them to get to know him. That will take time. If he succeeds in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, that will up his name recognition considerably.
12
NYT you need to fix the scroll mechanism to "Read More"
12
So that's why when I tap READ MORE it takes me back to where I started!
Thanks W. !
Thanks W. !
1
The whole purpose of the primary process is to determine which candidate will emerge with the party's nomination. What, then, is the purpose of constant “reminders” like this that a particular candidate doesn't have a “reasonable” chance of winning the primary if not to affect the primary process to that end?
14
The fact of the matter is every single policy from the democratic party is trickle down economics. From the idea that federal interest rates will trickle down through big banks, to the idea that health care costs can be made available to everyone.
Yet, we don't see the underside to this. Instead we are spoon fed each crisis as if they are an anomaly in an otherwise perfect system. Even though more people are poor, and poorer than they were before, we watch two families exchange power as if they represented something wholly different. Maybe a third choice ain't such a bad thing.
Yet, we don't see the underside to this. Instead we are spoon fed each crisis as if they are an anomaly in an otherwise perfect system. Even though more people are poor, and poorer than they were before, we watch two families exchange power as if they represented something wholly different. Maybe a third choice ain't such a bad thing.
2
When the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media start to cover Bernie Sanders the way they do Hillary, Donald and all the other candidates, then you can preach to me who can and cannot win. Until then, I don't consider anything you say about Bernie to be relevant.
24
The New York Times just will not quit bashing Bernie's success. The man began his candidacy in late May people. The race is a marathon, not a sprint. Using a microscope of time Mr Cohn extrapolates seemingly valid stats to declare hopelessness to the Sanders campaign at this moment. Personally, I see things differently. Given time, the debates, canvassing, and promotion over the next several months I can see absolutely no reason Senator Sanders can't overtake Mrs Clinton. My strongest point to back this up? How about the ignored phenomenal rate at which he is reeling her in? Stay tuned America, I've watched a lot of presidential elections and primaries. This one isn't even close to being over as Mr Cohn would like you to believe. Keep the faith, Sanders fans.
24
I can't help but wonder if what Sanders is actually saying were to receive a bit of coverage in the media might he be favored by more of the electorate? Sadly, it appears we will never know. All the items I read, depressingly even in NYT, are concerned primarily with defining how narrow his support is at present, reporting that he is a self-described Socialist (which term most Americans could not accurately define if their lives depended on it), what a curmudgeon he is, etc. I can't help but conclude that his candidacy is seen as a very real threat to vested interests (which of course is its power), and all efforts are thus being expended to marginalize his campaign at the outset.
24
Nate,
How about an informative analysis of the campaign going on that is under the radar.
Social media is where the real campaign action happening.
Sanders is winning on social media.
The largest voting block will be the 18 - 35 in 2016.
They do not get their news from MSM or the NYT et al. And they love sanders the way they loved Obama....but they love Bernie more.
Why? Authenticity and seriousness!!
Social media will impact the election of 2016 just as TV changed the course of the Kennedy /Nixon race.
We have shifted into not just into a new paradigm but an entirely new epoch where past rules and logic no longer are valid.
How about an informative analysis of the campaign going on that is under the radar.
Social media is where the real campaign action happening.
Sanders is winning on social media.
The largest voting block will be the 18 - 35 in 2016.
They do not get their news from MSM or the NYT et al. And they love sanders the way they loved Obama....but they love Bernie more.
Why? Authenticity and seriousness!!
Social media will impact the election of 2016 just as TV changed the course of the Kennedy /Nixon race.
We have shifted into not just into a new paradigm but an entirely new epoch where past rules and logic no longer are valid.
14
The distribution of number of supporters across congressional districts, is more unequal than income across american workers? What does that comparison have to do with anything at all? Maybe you could compare this to the geographical distribution of supporters for other campaigns if you could get that data but still self reported data like that would have all sorts of comparability problems.
The way the title is written makes it seem like he is supported by people whose income is unequal which is not what is going on here at all. This article seems intentionally deceptive, especially the click bait title.
I am generally a fan of the the upshot, and I don't care one way or another about Bernie Sanders but this is disgusting mathematical journalism. I hope I am misinterpreting this.
The way the title is written makes it seem like he is supported by people whose income is unequal which is not what is going on here at all. This article seems intentionally deceptive, especially the click bait title.
I am generally a fan of the the upshot, and I don't care one way or another about Bernie Sanders but this is disgusting mathematical journalism. I hope I am misinterpreting this.
13
He's just trying to be cute with his condescending metaphor.
1
Just as the Times was clueless about the strength of the Trump insurgency, so is it missing the strength and meaning of the Sanders insurgency.
The NYT needs to escape its Beltway establishment box beginning with Mr. Cohn,.
The NYT needs to escape its Beltway establishment box beginning with Mr. Cohn,.
12
Wow....the guy points out that Sanders has a significantly uneven level of support as you travel around the country and commenters see that as an unfair criticism? Really? To me you can criticize the author for stating the obvious but to argue with his thesis is to contend that Sanders has widespread and evenly distributed support, which is simply false.
Bill, you just answered your own question. Unevenness is a natural part of politics. If we found out that "Sanders has widespread and evenly distributed support" then it would be a fraudulent election, pure and simple. That's just not how politics works. On the other hand, to contend that "uneven support" is a serious problem for his campaign, and therefore he's unlikely to win, that claim would be spurious at best, especially without any point of reference -- for example, where is Hillary on this metric? Where is Trump? Where was Obama?
So this analysis is more or less meaningless without any context.
So this analysis is more or less meaningless without any context.
1
We keep reading about Trump; we keep hearing about the non-issue of Hilary's emails, etc. I remember how the press (and the Democrats) marginalized Ralph Nader in 2000, and then had the gall to blame him for Gore's loss (when we should have blamed Jeb Bush, for his shenanigans in messing with Florida's polling rules). That experience turned me into an Independent voter.
We are seeing the same thing happen to Sanders, and no wonder citizens don't trust the press; the press, we forget at our peril, is a *business*, and we are little more than eyeballs that the press wants to sell to its advertisers.
I respect Nate Cohn, but I'm tired about hearing why Sanders can't win, instead of hearing more about Sanders' message.
We are seeing the same thing happen to Sanders, and no wonder citizens don't trust the press; the press, we forget at our peril, is a *business*, and we are little more than eyeballs that the press wants to sell to its advertisers.
I respect Nate Cohn, but I'm tired about hearing why Sanders can't win, instead of hearing more about Sanders' message.
14
I think the Upshot has no place in the NYT and would display its true character by being an official organ of the American Enterprise Institute or the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Virginia.
That aside the Bernie support is totally unsurprising to those of us who understand that the political and social pendulum has swung way too far to the right and now is not the time for the second coming of Robert Walpole. The fact that those who read and support Bernie also realize that America is the least upwardly mobile country in the OECD.
Mrs. Clinton (Hillary Rodham here in Quebec) is a candidate in search of a status quo modus vivendi in a chaotic world. The Wall Street Casino needs a code of conduct and reduced hours of operation in a digital universe that functions at the speed of light. Bernie Sanders understands we are human beings and that roller coaster rides lose their charm and charisma rather quickly. Bernie greatest promise is less interesting times and any increase personal security and welfare means a lessened search for the magic elixir or the purveyors of snake oil.
That aside the Bernie support is totally unsurprising to those of us who understand that the political and social pendulum has swung way too far to the right and now is not the time for the second coming of Robert Walpole. The fact that those who read and support Bernie also realize that America is the least upwardly mobile country in the OECD.
Mrs. Clinton (Hillary Rodham here in Quebec) is a candidate in search of a status quo modus vivendi in a chaotic world. The Wall Street Casino needs a code of conduct and reduced hours of operation in a digital universe that functions at the speed of light. Bernie Sanders understands we are human beings and that roller coaster rides lose their charm and charisma rather quickly. Bernie greatest promise is less interesting times and any increase personal security and welfare means a lessened search for the magic elixir or the purveyors of snake oil.
10
This is analysis run amok. I know the Times is trying to outdo Nate Silver but may I remind the paper that we are still one year and three months away from the election. It's all pretty meaningless right now.
7
If the MSM informed the public on the issues as they are supposed to do, Americans would know that in Scandinavia and other countries life is simply better than it is in America for almost everyone.
Social Democracy Is 100% American
http://billmoyers.com/2015/07/03/social-democracy-is-100-american/
“Social democracy is 100% American. We may be latecomers to recognizing a universal right to health care. But we were first in creating a universal right to public education, in endowing ourselves with ownership of national parks, and in conferring voting rights on males without property and abolishing religious tests for holding national office.
“Aren’t we, as the talking heads tell us, a center-right nation?
“Well, no, we are emphatically not. And it is regrettable that by swallowing this myth, the present leadership of the Democratic Party, embodied in the DNC has, in election after election, shrunk from some of the party’s best traditions in order to keep up in the race for campaign cash, even to the extent of marginalizing and openly scorning what is described as its ‘left wing.’
“That Sanders, given his background, is garnering huge crowds who shout his name with an enthusiasm reminiscent of the heyday of the People’s Party in the 1890s, radiates a special glow. Americans may once again be remembering who they are and what they need to do to recapture a government now in thrall to the Money Power. And that ain’t extreme. It’s fundamentally American.”
Social Democracy Is 100% American
http://billmoyers.com/2015/07/03/social-democracy-is-100-american/
“Social democracy is 100% American. We may be latecomers to recognizing a universal right to health care. But we were first in creating a universal right to public education, in endowing ourselves with ownership of national parks, and in conferring voting rights on males without property and abolishing religious tests for holding national office.
“Aren’t we, as the talking heads tell us, a center-right nation?
“Well, no, we are emphatically not. And it is regrettable that by swallowing this myth, the present leadership of the Democratic Party, embodied in the DNC has, in election after election, shrunk from some of the party’s best traditions in order to keep up in the race for campaign cash, even to the extent of marginalizing and openly scorning what is described as its ‘left wing.’
“That Sanders, given his background, is garnering huge crowds who shout his name with an enthusiasm reminiscent of the heyday of the People’s Party in the 1890s, radiates a special glow. Americans may once again be remembering who they are and what they need to do to recapture a government now in thrall to the Money Power. And that ain’t extreme. It’s fundamentally American.”
18
It's good to know where Uncle Bernie stands. You, however, fail to address the fact that the support Bernie is gaining is entirely without any media attention. If Media were to give him equal attention as they have give to Hillary and the entire GOP hopefuls, I bet the numbers would be very different. If we want a true debate, let's be fair to all hopefuls in spite of their ideology.
19
The attention the media give Hillary? You jest. That attention has been almost without exception negative, biased, and focused on emails rather than the issues. You can't scathing opinion pieces by Maureen Dowd! Please, take Hillary's media coverage!
2
When you say media attention equal to Hillary, you realize that the media is smearing her with lies and you probably don't want that for Bernie because he couldn't handle it.
Mr. Cohn is writing about what the situation is right now, not what it could or will be 6 months from now. Perhaps he is incapable of seeing or understanding the dynamic as it is unfolding.
The problem lies in the fact that Hillary Clinton is well known to every American and has been for a long time. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders is a relative unknown for most people. But that will rapidly change as the momentum and juggernaut of his campaign develops. Those who are not paying attention right now will begin to understand his popular stands on the issues and the genuine nature of his person. It takes time for a relatively unknown person to become known.
The only real advantage that Clinton has over Sanders is that she is a woman. And some women will support her solely for that reason. But that is not likely to be enough to overcome the heavy negative baggage that she carries: supporting an illegal war in Iraq for a long period of time, her close ties to wall street, questions about her judgement, truthfulness, and willingness to stand for principle.
Once again, we see the nomination for Hillary slipping away to a candidate who is better and whose message resonates with the public.
The problem lies in the fact that Hillary Clinton is well known to every American and has been for a long time. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders is a relative unknown for most people. But that will rapidly change as the momentum and juggernaut of his campaign develops. Those who are not paying attention right now will begin to understand his popular stands on the issues and the genuine nature of his person. It takes time for a relatively unknown person to become known.
The only real advantage that Clinton has over Sanders is that she is a woman. And some women will support her solely for that reason. But that is not likely to be enough to overcome the heavy negative baggage that she carries: supporting an illegal war in Iraq for a long period of time, her close ties to wall street, questions about her judgement, truthfulness, and willingness to stand for principle.
Once again, we see the nomination for Hillary slipping away to a candidate who is better and whose message resonates with the public.
9
You Bernie bots are so scarily true believers. Bernie cannot win because he is too polarizing. He is not a saint, but a politician, and like all politicians his positions have changed (flip flopped) over time. His unfettered support for Israeli militarism, and his closeness to gun lovers, should put up red flags to liberals, but they are to focused on their own issues to care. And Bernie's support is monochrome and his campaigning has been just as bad. An irony because Bernie has a good record in race relations.
2
Vermont has a reputation for being crunchy and lefty, but it is actually packed with seriously conservative republicans. Sanders appeals to everyone, and last won with over 70% of the vote. He does not have "unfettered support of Israeli militarism." He believes in a 2-state solution, and that military action should only come when diplomacy has been completely exhausted. He supports the Iran deal. On guns, he has a very unfavorable NRA rating. He believes in strict universal background checks, an end to gun show purchases, and elimination of military weapons sales. His "closeness" to gun-lovers means he recognizes that hunting is a reasonable use of arms. In Vermont, low-income people hunt (greatly over-populated) deer to feed themselves over the winter. He has the strongest platform for racial equality of all candidates. He does not "flip-flop." He has been giving the exact same messages for close to 50 years. Look at the history of his campaign coverage. Identical now to 1981. This is the problem when the press doesn't cover issues.
3
It's funny that for so many Sanders supporters, a statistical analysis of his support is tantamount to a "hit piece" or "personal attack".
In that sense, they are just like their political opponents, who reject evolution and global warming; these liberals also think all scientific inquiry is suspect unless it tells them what they wanted to believe anyway. They don't want to see numbers, they just want to feel the love.
In that sense, they are just like their political opponents, who reject evolution and global warming; these liberals also think all scientific inquiry is suspect unless it tells them what they wanted to believe anyway. They don't want to see numbers, they just want to feel the love.
5
So the Reaganomics of the past 45 years has worked in a positive way for the average American?
This article is a hit piece, as it focus solely on Sanders electablity in a vacuum. No numbers comparison is given.
How about an article comparing the SNCC volunteer Sander's positions Goldwater Girl Clinton's positions [including those refusals to take a position such as TPP and its Atlantic twin, and XL Pipeline].
This article is a hit piece, as it focus solely on Sanders electablity in a vacuum. No numbers comparison is given.
How about an article comparing the SNCC volunteer Sander's positions Goldwater Girl Clinton's positions [including those refusals to take a position such as TPP and its Atlantic twin, and XL Pipeline].
2
A valid point, if you believe that horserace coverage of the Presidential race in The Upshot constitutes a form of scientific inquiry. Most scientists follow a higher calling.
1
A statistical analysis can be good or bad. Most of the time they are bad. This one is fancy, but not as meaningful as the author contends.
An aside: We're in desperate times, my friend. Our "democracy" is not a democracy anymore. Washington doesn't work for people anymore. It works for that revolving door.
An aside: We're in desperate times, my friend. Our "democracy" is not a democracy anymore. Washington doesn't work for people anymore. It works for that revolving door.
2
cohn - you seem to be on a personal crusade here. We get it, you don't think Sanders can win the nomination. You've made your point, now go write something else - maybe about the wonders of Trump?
17
Nate, if that is your real name ;), why not do a comparison between the IQ of Trump's supporters vs Bernie's supporters? That way we can see who the low info voters favor.
15
Nate Cohn and The Power of Negative Thinking
17
So your saying Bernie can't win in states that no Democrat will win.
36
It might be useful to make a Sanders/Reagan comparison. After all, Reagan was once the far-flung conservative wing's Sanders to Jerry Ford's establishment wing. Look what happened.
The debates will be crucial for Sanders. If he can convey an image of himself as being more than a flamethrower, if he eschews Goldwater-like heated rhetoric, appears presidential in a Reaganesque way, Sanders will have the capacity to really shake up the race. As did Reagan.
The debates will be crucial for Sanders. If he can convey an image of himself as being more than a flamethrower, if he eschews Goldwater-like heated rhetoric, appears presidential in a Reaganesque way, Sanders will have the capacity to really shake up the race. As did Reagan.
13
Reagan was far from being in the conservative wing. What are you talking about?
1
Politics is all about momentum. Conceding that Senator Sanders may well win in early contests like Iowa and New Hampshire, but not factoring the impact of early wins to later contests in Southern states, is like saying the early primaries don't matter much. But we all know they matter a great deal in shaping the perceptions of the electorate. Americans love a winner, and they really love an underdog. Should Sanders upset the Clinton juggernaut early on it will be an entirely different race.
11
Not targeting the author per se but what is the deal with the media trying to proclaim who can and cannot win at this stage of the game. The road is long. Three months ago HRC looked unstoppable and now she is even odds to a long shot in my opinion. She doesn't have my vote... Few Americans know who Sanders is yet. Is the media trying to push him out in favor of the Clinton monarchy because they think she has the best chance of winning? Let the game play out.
29
My point exactly. The media should do in-depth analysis of the policies, make the public more familiar with the candidates rather trying to predict the winner.
21
The Sanders campaign is the opposite of trickle-down, it's bottom up. Cohn quibbles about the distribution of Bernie organizing parties when the significance is the simultaneous appearance of organizing parties across the land.
As an analyst, Cohn misses the central point, things are in flux. But you wouldn't know it from the paper of "all the news that's fit to print." Two weekends ago Bernie had successive mass rallies on the West Coast, and the Times had no coverage. The Democrat establishment bias of the Times for Moneybags Hillary is getting in the way of its journalism.
As an analyst, Cohn misses the central point, things are in flux. But you wouldn't know it from the paper of "all the news that's fit to print." Two weekends ago Bernie had successive mass rallies on the West Coast, and the Times had no coverage. The Democrat establishment bias of the Times for Moneybags Hillary is getting in the way of its journalism.
28
How many of the people at the rallies are the West Coast can even vote?
NYT bias for Hillary? Are you delusional? the NYT has been hostile and people like Maureen Dowd have actively tried to assassinate Hillary's character due to personal animus. Like so many Sanders supporters you only see the world through rose coloured glasses. Just because you want it, you hope for it, and you wish it, Bernie will not win. Normally this level of self deception is associated with the likes of the Tea Party, but now it has spread to the left.
2
"the wealth of Greenwich doesn’t change the difficulties of a place like nearby Bridgeport, where 25 percent live in poverty. It’s the same thing for the Sanders campaign. In places like Seattle; Portland, Ore.; and Burlington, Vt., more than a thousand people showed up to house parties. But in 12 congressional districts, there were no Sanders events at all."
Please explain how "25 percent" is "the same thing" as 12/435 congressional districts, i.e., "in 2.7% congressional districts, there were no Sanders events at all."
Seems to me there's an order of magnitude difference in this comparison.
Please explain how "25 percent" is "the same thing" as 12/435 congressional districts, i.e., "in 2.7% congressional districts, there were no Sanders events at all."
Seems to me there's an order of magnitude difference in this comparison.
18
Has Mr. Cohn never followed a Presidential campaign before? I mean, is this his first? In 2008 for example Barack Obama was polling in single digits among BLACK VOTERS in South Carolina three or four weeks before the Iowa caucuses. It was only after his shocking win there that the possibility of a black candidate actually getting the nomination really hit home with a constituency that became his instant base.
Obviously Sanders does not appear to have a similar hidden base of support in any of the early primary states outside the first two—though you never know— but the dynamic of Democratic Presidential primaries nevertheless favors double winners in Iowa and New Hampshire big time. And it similarly disfavors losers, especially losers who are the ostensible the front runner. If Hillary loses to Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire, I still doubt that Bernie gets the nomination though he clearly could, but Hillary . . . is toast.
Obviously Sanders does not appear to have a similar hidden base of support in any of the early primary states outside the first two—though you never know— but the dynamic of Democratic Presidential primaries nevertheless favors double winners in Iowa and New Hampshire big time. And it similarly disfavors losers, especially losers who are the ostensible the front runner. If Hillary loses to Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire, I still doubt that Bernie gets the nomination though he clearly could, but Hillary . . . is toast.
9
Good point. And being from Richmond CA you are no doubt aware that it IS possible to defeat big money by telling the truth and getting out the vote!
1
The question, really is this: why is Mr. Cohn so intent on 'making the case' that Sanders can't win? Is this all about him (ie. Mr. Cohn). "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right". Not what I'm looking for in a newspaper. Doesn't appear he's trying to raise the bar for voters by informing them about Sanders stances, Clinton's stances or where they get their money. The next question is: is this 'reporting'? Or something else? Does Mr. Cohn want to convince vast swatches of readers to just accept his predictions and NOT vote? Or to vote for the candidate HE believes will win? I think the latter. Thanks but no thanks.
12
As a Bernie supporter, I appreciate your critique of Bernie Sanders weaknesses. No doubt, everything you are saying is currently true at this moment in time. But, that's the key part though, at THIS MOMENT IN TIME. Right now! As in, You are currently reading this sentence right now. But of course, now, is not that previous moment. That's all those polls are showing, is a moment in the past or someone's current weaknesses.
Again, you mention, at this current rate he can't recover. And well, if that were the number, yes then you would be right. But, you are assuming that rate is what it will be tomorrow. Nope, that's being an unscientific prognosticator and that is not the realm of science sir.
I am willing to bet that if you plugged Trump in, you might get similar disappointing numbers of groups that he would want as part of his political campaign. But I don't think you would get the same reception of your analysis.
Let's not lose face...if the election were tomorrow, yes, Bernie would fail, perhaps even Trump. But it's not tomorrow, and I am sorry but you are engaged in a fallacy with your entire argument. Why? Because there is still time in the game for the home team (establishment candidate) to fail. You are the guy that is calling it in and we aren't even in half time yet. Lol, its ridiculous!
It's not over, so go back to your armchair and have a beer. It's about to get real exciting!
Again, you mention, at this current rate he can't recover. And well, if that were the number, yes then you would be right. But, you are assuming that rate is what it will be tomorrow. Nope, that's being an unscientific prognosticator and that is not the realm of science sir.
I am willing to bet that if you plugged Trump in, you might get similar disappointing numbers of groups that he would want as part of his political campaign. But I don't think you would get the same reception of your analysis.
Let's not lose face...if the election were tomorrow, yes, Bernie would fail, perhaps even Trump. But it's not tomorrow, and I am sorry but you are engaged in a fallacy with your entire argument. Why? Because there is still time in the game for the home team (establishment candidate) to fail. You are the guy that is calling it in and we aren't even in half time yet. Lol, its ridiculous!
It's not over, so go back to your armchair and have a beer. It's about to get real exciting!
12
I'm curious about his numbers among women vs. Hillary. I support her because I know she will work to improve the lives of women, based on her past. I think Bernie would be similar to Obama on women's issues. They would not be a priority.
1
maybe do some research then? maybe this will help: https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-womens-rights/
3
You think? Actually his campaign promises much more for women than Hillary.
3
Guess you have not yet read his platform.
1
I would like to thank the NY Times for contributing to this disparity of support by their continued poor coverage of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Unbelievable.
20
Why does Bernie need to compete outside his liberal strongholds?
We've had thirty-plus years of conservatism running rampant throughout this country and its government, and it ultimately led us into a manufactured (and unending) war and into the (seemingly unending) Great Recession.
Yeah, Bernie, start pandering to the right-wingers and the so-called "moderates." Start pulling back on your progressive policies. Let's make room for people and ideas that are wrong about everything, from trickle down economics to an unregulated "free" market to tax cuts for the rich.
Yeah! That's the ticket! What this country needs is another Panderer in Chief who won't fight for anything other than giving more to the people and corporations who already have everything. Sounds good to me! Let's appease the wrong-headed and know-nothings and call it bipartisanship...
We've had thirty-plus years of conservatism running rampant throughout this country and its government, and it ultimately led us into a manufactured (and unending) war and into the (seemingly unending) Great Recession.
Yeah, Bernie, start pandering to the right-wingers and the so-called "moderates." Start pulling back on your progressive policies. Let's make room for people and ideas that are wrong about everything, from trickle down economics to an unregulated "free" market to tax cuts for the rich.
Yeah! That's the ticket! What this country needs is another Panderer in Chief who won't fight for anything other than giving more to the people and corporations who already have everything. Sounds good to me! Let's appease the wrong-headed and know-nothings and call it bipartisanship...
9
There is no way Sanders can win without support from Independents and that isn't going to happen. He is too far left for even a lot of Democrats and has little support from Blacks.
As a moderate Independent, I wouldn't vote for him or Clinton either. My husband and I don't really see any good candidates on either side right now.
I really like Jim Webb but don't think he has much chance of getting the nomination.
All the shoot the messenger and if people weren't so stupid they would support Sanders comments show just how out of touch with reality some of his supporters are.
As a moderate Independent, I wouldn't vote for him or Clinton either. My husband and I don't really see any good candidates on either side right now.
I really like Jim Webb but don't think he has much chance of getting the nomination.
All the shoot the messenger and if people weren't so stupid they would support Sanders comments show just how out of touch with reality some of his supporters are.
So his presence on the internet doesn't reach people in areas where he doesn't have a grass roots' presence? This isn't even discussed in your story.
10
As a Latino who likes Bernie more than Hillary, I will definitely agree that he needs to do better outreach, and fast. I grew up in an overwhelmingly Latino suburb of Washington DC that is as Democratic as it gets. And hardly anyone there knows of Bernie, but they definitely know Hillary. That has more to do with name recognition, obviously; it's a real problem this close to the nomination. This is looking more and more like Howard Dean in 2004--deja vu all over again and all that...
That being said, I would've appreciated if the author had included a similar chart for Hillary and not just one on Bernie. That would've been enlightening.
That being said, I would've appreciated if the author had included a similar chart for Hillary and not just one on Bernie. That would've been enlightening.
6
U.S. tax revenue as a per cent of gdp is the lowest in the OECD, i.e., the lowest of all democratic wealthy countries. Check OECD revenue statistics.
The U.S. has the lowest benefits for children and the highest child poverty rates in the OECD.
Taxes on income from wealth are the lowest in the OECD and persons with incomes of over a million a year pay lower taxes as a percent of income than nurses or teachers.
The U.S. leads the world in its privatized prison gulag which have restored effective slavery with uncompensated contracted prison labour.
These are all ugly facts of the U.S. today which Bernie wants to change.
Republicans rejoice in taking food aid from hungry families and school lunches from hungry kids. They are extremists while the Democratic party is centrist and by European standards Obama is a progressive conservative.
With the bottom 50 per cent receiving about 10 per cent of all income, the American economy is in a chronic malaise of low demand because the people who spend all their income have so little to spend.
The one per cent has 40 per cent of financial wealth. This is neofeudalism and the U.S. is losing from abusing its children and workers.
The U.S. has the lowest benefits for children and the highest child poverty rates in the OECD.
Taxes on income from wealth are the lowest in the OECD and persons with incomes of over a million a year pay lower taxes as a percent of income than nurses or teachers.
The U.S. leads the world in its privatized prison gulag which have restored effective slavery with uncompensated contracted prison labour.
These are all ugly facts of the U.S. today which Bernie wants to change.
Republicans rejoice in taking food aid from hungry families and school lunches from hungry kids. They are extremists while the Democratic party is centrist and by European standards Obama is a progressive conservative.
With the bottom 50 per cent receiving about 10 per cent of all income, the American economy is in a chronic malaise of low demand because the people who spend all their income have so little to spend.
The one per cent has 40 per cent of financial wealth. This is neofeudalism and the U.S. is losing from abusing its children and workers.
12
This statistic about paying less than nurses and teachers is simply not true. Please stop
1
20 per cent tax rate on capital gains, dividens, carried interest is lower than the 25 per cent marginal rate on teachers. But most income from wealth gets sourced in tax shelters. Learn something about your inhuman country.
So Bernie Sanders is polling poorly in Alabama... so what? The chances of any Democrat winning in a cesspool of ignorance are less than zero. However, Sanders lack of support in states that are at the tipping point such as North Carolina and Virginia is problematic. Both states need an enthusiastic outpouring of support to tip Democratic.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of Bernie Sanders, however when the nomination inevitably falls into Hillary's hands, I will march to the polls in complete confidence that whatever her policies may be, they will be infinitely better than life under the disastrous administration of a President Rafael Cruz or a hopeless Koch Brothers shill like Scott Walker.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of Bernie Sanders, however when the nomination inevitably falls into Hillary's hands, I will march to the polls in complete confidence that whatever her policies may be, they will be infinitely better than life under the disastrous administration of a President Rafael Cruz or a hopeless Koch Brothers shill like Scott Walker.
13
I absolutely can not vote for Hillary she is part of the past part of the problem
I for one will not be responsible for dragging the past into the future
just not going there
let republicans have it.....we are going to implode it is going to happen ...
and the quicker the better
....only then can we start digging our way back out of the abyss
and maybe just maybe......the revolution will succeed
but I am in the camp of optimism.....because failure is not an option
I for one will not be responsible for dragging the past into the future
just not going there
let republicans have it.....we are going to implode it is going to happen ...
and the quicker the better
....only then can we start digging our way back out of the abyss
and maybe just maybe......the revolution will succeed
but I am in the camp of optimism.....because failure is not an option
Sanders has no chance of winning in Virginia and Clinton isn't polling all that well either.
Calling Alabama a cesspool of ignorance is so typical of the far left. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid. That is just as bad as the far right and one of the main reasons my family are Independents.
You may have a Ph.D, but your comments are hateful, and if I may say so, ignorant.
Calling Alabama a cesspool of ignorance is so typical of the far left. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid. That is just as bad as the far right and one of the main reasons my family are Independents.
You may have a Ph.D, but your comments are hateful, and if I may say so, ignorant.
1
Fellow Bernie supporters: this keeps happening. Establishment media types tell us Bernie can't win due to X, and we respond that he can, due to Y. Then we question their character, agenda and financial interests. But it seems to me what the Bernie campaign needs from us more than our indignation is our informed effort. Cohn isn't dead wrong about existing polls. Bernie doesn't have the support we would want among various constituencies, including nonwhite, various regions, moderates. OK, so let's organize. Every time you read one of these articles, take it as a call to action to donate to Bernie and to engage in volunteer activities -- just go to his web site, plenty to do. Our job is not just to argue with folks like Cohn, but to put them in position to say after the election, "Well, back then the numbers seemed to indicate Sanders didn't have broad support, but that changed, so mea culpa." Let's get to work.
85
Agreed. Action beats anger any day of the week.
1
Frankjasper wrote, “How would you reverse climate change? How do you know it is a problem? Public funding of elections would be horrible. How would taxing the rich more help? Free college does not solve education issues.”
Frank, the climate change debate is over. The scientific community is nearly unanimous in stating that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, that we are already seeing its effects around the world, and that we have a small window of opportunity to reverse course by moving away from fossil fuels and to a clean energy economy (solar, wind, etc.).
As to your other questions, I won’t address them one by one. What I will say is that if we don’t address those issues, we will seal in place an oligarchy that not only controls most of the economy they will control the entire United States government. Of the people, by the people, for the people will be a thing of the past.
To the NYT: The replies to comments sometimes disappear. This problem needs to be fixed.
Frank, the climate change debate is over. The scientific community is nearly unanimous in stating that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, that we are already seeing its effects around the world, and that we have a small window of opportunity to reverse course by moving away from fossil fuels and to a clean energy economy (solar, wind, etc.).
As to your other questions, I won’t address them one by one. What I will say is that if we don’t address those issues, we will seal in place an oligarchy that not only controls most of the economy they will control the entire United States government. Of the people, by the people, for the people will be a thing of the past.
To the NYT: The replies to comments sometimes disappear. This problem needs to be fixed.
12
Fossil fuels are here to stay. Wind and solar per the eia combine for 4.8% of the united states electricity generation. They aren't players at all. And you would not be able to discern what effects are due to AGW at this time.
The debate is not over. the basic theory is fine but the models are not good. How man's contribution interacts with all the other factors is not fully understood at this time.
The debate is not over. the basic theory is fine but the models are not good. How man's contribution interacts with all the other factors is not fully understood at this time.
2
Solar is a boondoggle and wind will always be a small player. How are you discerning those effects now? What are they in comparison to? Fossil fuels are here to stay for the forseeable future
The solutions presented is pandering to the ignorant
The solutions presented is pandering to the ignorant
1
This southern Hispanic woman will be voting for Sanders. I hope he address gun control.
31
As will this 70 y/o man from Missouri.
3
I was a volunteer for Dennis Kucinich in 2004. With his dweebish air, he was not as appealing as Sanders, the Iraq War was only a year old, and the housing crisis had not yet happened, but he said many of the same things as Sanders.
He was also alternately ignored and ridiculed by The New York Times and our local media in Minnesota.
We volunteers used guerrilla marketing to get the word out and intense pressure (not always successful) to get the media to cover his appearances, not always successfully, despite the fact that his audiences were larger for each of his three appearances.
In the end, he received 17% of the Minnesota caucus vote after having won the county in Iowa that the Minnesota volunteers targeted.
He polled his usual 3% in such supposed leftist strongholds as Madison WI and Portland OR but polled double digits in states and cities where there was a determined group of guerrilla marketers.
Bernie Sanders is campaigning to much larger crowds in a greater variety of states and has guerrilla marketers all over the country. In addition, America is a different place than it was 11 years ago. The Mideast wars have dragged on and on, the housing crisis destroyed many people's hopes for the future, and too many people of all ages can't find anything but low-paying jobs. Unlike the near-fascists in the Republican Party or the yuppie Democrats, Bernie is talking about people's real concerns.
This will only help him in the coming months.
He was also alternately ignored and ridiculed by The New York Times and our local media in Minnesota.
We volunteers used guerrilla marketing to get the word out and intense pressure (not always successful) to get the media to cover his appearances, not always successfully, despite the fact that his audiences were larger for each of his three appearances.
In the end, he received 17% of the Minnesota caucus vote after having won the county in Iowa that the Minnesota volunteers targeted.
He polled his usual 3% in such supposed leftist strongholds as Madison WI and Portland OR but polled double digits in states and cities where there was a determined group of guerrilla marketers.
Bernie Sanders is campaigning to much larger crowds in a greater variety of states and has guerrilla marketers all over the country. In addition, America is a different place than it was 11 years ago. The Mideast wars have dragged on and on, the housing crisis destroyed many people's hopes for the future, and too many people of all ages can't find anything but low-paying jobs. Unlike the near-fascists in the Republican Party or the yuppie Democrats, Bernie is talking about people's real concerns.
This will only help him in the coming months.
32
Last time I checked, majoring in politics doesn't make you a statistician. Please, play your fantasy election football in the NY Times mess hall where it belongs and just report news, not opinions by someone who became interested in politics barely a decade ago.
32
Ok fine. Nate Silver the other day had Bernie at less than a 5% chance. What's your rebuttal to that?
2
The south is full of poor conservatives who routinely vote against their own self-interest due to their stand on social issues and ideology. Just whisper "socialist" within hearing distance of most of these people, and they'll take off running from Bernie.
4
Ignorance is the bain of modern America. Bernie is a democratic socialist a la certain Scandinavian countries. As far as I am aware, he does not support state ownership of the means of production. He merely supports state (ie., public) intervention in the economic life of a nation for the benefit of the majority of its citizens. Programs such as social security and Medicare typify this approach to governance. They are designed to temper the ruthlessness and greed which can emerge from unbridled capitalism while preserving the creative energy of capitalism. If only those who vote against their own financial interests better appreciated the nature of Bernie's brand of socialism and weren't so frightened by a word that the media never bothers to explain.
3
Your comment is on point about the therm "socialist." In relation to Sanders it is just a joke, not once has he called for nationalization, he supports Israel, our Orwell named defense department, and gun ownership. If he is a socialist, then the term includes that paragon of leftist thinking, disgraced President Richard Nixon, who set up the EPA, Presidents from Carter to Eisenhower to both Roosevelts.
He was a SNCC [Student Non-Violence Coordinating Committee] volunteer while Clinton was Goldwater Girl.
Why doesn't Nate compare their factual records so people can draw an informed conclusion instead of arguing he cannot be elected.
Uncap the $106,000 limit so Social Security goes all the way along with single payer heath care for all persons! These ideas work in Europe.
The NYT is disappointing me. Its Bernie or Jill Stein for me, not Jeb! lite H.
He was a SNCC [Student Non-Violence Coordinating Committee] volunteer while Clinton was Goldwater Girl.
Why doesn't Nate compare their factual records so people can draw an informed conclusion instead of arguing he cannot be elected.
Uncap the $106,000 limit so Social Security goes all the way along with single payer heath care for all persons! These ideas work in Europe.
The NYT is disappointing me. Its Bernie or Jill Stein for me, not Jeb! lite H.
1
Nate Cohn is essentially creating a catch-22, here. Like most of the mainstream media, he doesn't report on WHY people are getting behind Bernie's message, nor does he actually report on the democratic candidates in any objective manner.
The result? People are unaware of Bernie Sanders' proposals, and/or support Hillary Clinton because the media says Sanders isn't a strong enough candidate, or that he'd lose the general election due to being a "socialist", as Claire McCaskill (one of Clinton's attack dogs) puts it.
Therefore, the media creates a vacuum where they don't raise awareness, and subsequently say that Sanders is a weak candidate who nobody knows, or has confidence in. I'm sure Nate Cohn is a smart guy - he's not stupid by any means, if he's writing articles and opinion pieces for the NYT. But I'd question the wider agenda of himself, his superiors, or the newspaper in general.
The result? People are unaware of Bernie Sanders' proposals, and/or support Hillary Clinton because the media says Sanders isn't a strong enough candidate, or that he'd lose the general election due to being a "socialist", as Claire McCaskill (one of Clinton's attack dogs) puts it.
Therefore, the media creates a vacuum where they don't raise awareness, and subsequently say that Sanders is a weak candidate who nobody knows, or has confidence in. I'm sure Nate Cohn is a smart guy - he's not stupid by any means, if he's writing articles and opinion pieces for the NYT. But I'd question the wider agenda of himself, his superiors, or the newspaper in general.
65
Bernie is getting a higher proportion of NYT articles on his futility than the equivalent proportion of the GOP primary candidates. What is up with that?
193
let's do the same analysis on the Trump supporters. How narrow is HIS base?
23
A few days ago, this web site said, "Donald J. Trump ... is leading the polls in the Republican presidential race, and he does well with nearly every voter demographic".
I support many of Sander's ideas and principals. I do however find his incessant class warfare stance dangerous because it is even more strident than is usual for the Democratic party in the past. Obama used it to fuel his campaign and won, he was going to fix all that "disparage", not. Now we have race and class tension in this country the likes we haven't seen in a very long time. I think a smart person realizes that it isn't us against them. It is us against an intrenched 'political class' of 535 individuals that have brought us to the place we are today. Crumbling infrastructure, out of control regulation in every aspect of our lives, an educational system that has moved us to #35 in educational outcomes world wide and one that graduates students who functionally illiterate, , a top heavy over blown military budget with incomprehensible waste, and a healthcare system that heals no one and is bankrupting seniors and the middle class. So, his rhetoric that it 's the rich and sucessful that are to blame is the same old story. Point the finger at anyone but themselves. 535 people out of 350 million? Whose to blame again? The guy making $250 thousand a year? The new boogey man is the white upper class? Seems to me that another regime used that one a while back and it didn't work out too well for them? Does Bolshevik Russia ring a bell? It amazes me how nothing ever really changes, just the barkers at the fair.
2
Class warfare? Really? Sanders is center Democrat or moderate Republican like President Eisenhower for the 50s and 60s. It is not class warfare to point out the inequality. In fact the present set up is bad for business that deal in anything other than financial products, because the majority of Americans have no money to spend, thus, there is no market for products.
Even the great paragon of industry and fascism, Henry Ford recognize this fact, ensuring his own workers made enough to buy the cars and trucks they built. He did not pay at that level out of any principal of humanitarianism.
Please reconsider your position on class warfare.
Even the great paragon of industry and fascism, Henry Ford recognize this fact, ensuring his own workers made enough to buy the cars and trucks they built. He did not pay at that level out of any principal of humanitarianism.
Please reconsider your position on class warfare.
9
The class warfare you reference has been going on for at least 45 years as the middle class has been smashed by wealthy corporate owners more interested in investor dividends than the welfare of the country they live in.
3
The middle class is not smashed, it is not destroyed. Society is better across virtually every metric. please stop
1
Another hit piece I see. How do these distribution curves play out for other candidates? Hard to tell in the vacuum you created.
Your last two paragraphs demonstrate the effect of 50 years of propaganda:
"Most Democrats, for instance, do not share the assumption that Mrs. Clinton is a tool of Wall Street, something that supporters of Mr. Sanders took for granted long before he entered the race. Many moderate and less educated voters do not pay much attention to politics, and usually end up siding with well-known establishment figures against reformist candidates.
Mr. Sanders’s message might ultimately resonate with moderate, older, Southern and nonwhite Democrats (he is increasing his efforts to reach out to black voters, for example). But that is the real test of his campaign. He needs to compete outside his strongholds. Whether he’s doing so — not whether he has great crowds — is the real measure of his success, just as the real measure of the economy is the success of the average worker, not the opulence of the 1 percent."
Only in the propaganda land of the media is Clinton seen is a populist or an environmentalist. She is a tool of Wall Street and a threat to the average person. Her refusal to state her position on either TPP, or the Atlantic equivalent and the XL Pipeline, shouts she is Wall Street's girl.
Even Eisenhower supported single payer and social security, talk about Sander's policies and compare them, Sanders all the way.
Your last two paragraphs demonstrate the effect of 50 years of propaganda:
"Most Democrats, for instance, do not share the assumption that Mrs. Clinton is a tool of Wall Street, something that supporters of Mr. Sanders took for granted long before he entered the race. Many moderate and less educated voters do not pay much attention to politics, and usually end up siding with well-known establishment figures against reformist candidates.
Mr. Sanders’s message might ultimately resonate with moderate, older, Southern and nonwhite Democrats (he is increasing his efforts to reach out to black voters, for example). But that is the real test of his campaign. He needs to compete outside his strongholds. Whether he’s doing so — not whether he has great crowds — is the real measure of his success, just as the real measure of the economy is the success of the average worker, not the opulence of the 1 percent."
Only in the propaganda land of the media is Clinton seen is a populist or an environmentalist. She is a tool of Wall Street and a threat to the average person. Her refusal to state her position on either TPP, or the Atlantic equivalent and the XL Pipeline, shouts she is Wall Street's girl.
Even Eisenhower supported single payer and social security, talk about Sander's policies and compare them, Sanders all the way.
102
Interesting idea for analysis. But useless unless you directly compare to other candidates' (read: Hillary Clinton) Gini coefficients. My bet would be that they're not so different from Sanders'.
13
Glad to see someone else pointing out the missing Gini coefficients for other candidates.
It is WAY too early to be arguing that "Bernie can't win." Apart from his Gini coefficient measurement analysis, Cohn doesn't consider many other perspectives on the Sanders Campaign including: we're still far away from voting; momentum is a thing that can build slowly or come in fits and starts; name recognition cuts both ways; the debates, still to come, are often a big test of public/media enthusiasm. To predict Sanders' demise this early is not open minded.
Have you listened to Sanders? He's smart, thoughtful, articulate (in specific ways — not generic ways) and not least of all, he is AUTHENTIC, something severely lacking in almost every other candidate both GOP and Dem. As those outside his "narrow" coalition begin to hear him (debates will start soon), I believe you'll see more and more people turn out for Bernie.
One last thing: FOX has established a kind of media frenzy around the presidential debates. Although the Dems don't have a Donald Trump, Hillary has many people wondering. I suspect lots of people just may tune in to that first debate. And they may learn that Bernie Sanders isn't the person he's often portrayed as in the media.
Have you listened to Sanders? He's smart, thoughtful, articulate (in specific ways — not generic ways) and not least of all, he is AUTHENTIC, something severely lacking in almost every other candidate both GOP and Dem. As those outside his "narrow" coalition begin to hear him (debates will start soon), I believe you'll see more and more people turn out for Bernie.
One last thing: FOX has established a kind of media frenzy around the presidential debates. Although the Dems don't have a Donald Trump, Hillary has many people wondering. I suspect lots of people just may tune in to that first debate. And they may learn that Bernie Sanders isn't the person he's often portrayed as in the media.
22
There's another inequality that Mr. Cohen does not address in his article, namely the inequality of education and information among voters, which is more extreme among Americans than among citizens in any other country in the industrialized world, but surveys have shown that even citizens in Latin America are better informed on average about public affairs and government than the average US citizen. Governments in the US have shown little to no inclination to do anything about it, unlike those in Western Europe for example, and again surveys have shown that greater civic literacy is accompanied by greater support for progressive policies especially economic ones. One suspects that aside perhaps from holding the sentiment Tocqueville observed in US society that all political opinions are equally respectable no matter how poorly informed, so that they conclude that it would be patronizing to educate citizens to be better informed voters, many if not most US politicians and officials are aware of this. In the absence of education then, name recognition, media visibility, and especially money rather than policy platforms and records of governance are the prime determinants of voter support in the US as a whole, as well of course as the duopoly that the Democrats and Republicans have long worked through legal and institutional obstacles to maintain.
20
A challenge to author come out with a poll that says Sanders wont go beyond that point. And if he goes beyond it you will shut up about him.
17
It would be far more convincing if the NYT ran this same analysis based on the comments section of their own website, because you can read nearly any article pertaining to this race and see based on the reader response that a fairly large percentage of NYT readers are in fact, supporting Bernie, despite the Times' incessant desire to marginalize his support and chances of winning.
This is not unbiased media and the more I read it, the less I respect the Times. Clearly this is a perfect example of why Bernie's platform is correct in its mission to take the political power out of corporate America's hands, not only is he up against super PAC's but he is also up against a media which has already been bought and paid for by the same corporations and billionaires funding his competitors' campaigns.
This is not unbiased media and the more I read it, the less I respect the Times. Clearly this is a perfect example of why Bernie's platform is correct in its mission to take the political power out of corporate America's hands, not only is he up against super PAC's but he is also up against a media which has already been bought and paid for by the same corporations and billionaires funding his competitors' campaigns.
72
You are using comments in an article to gage support?
1
Please explain how reader comments in support of Bernie Sanders are not valid to gage support of Bernie Sanders.
I recall criticism about a candidate named Barack Obama ('who is he?') back a few years ago. He did ok for himself though.
24
One day, Nate Cohn might pleasantly surprise the readers by covering the ISSUES. Here's hoping.....
93
"Many moderate and less educated voters do not pay much attention to politics, and usually end up siding with well-known establishment figures against reformist candidates."
This sentence is just distasteful. Maybe we should spend more on education then Nate! As a self proclaimed "data journalist" this guy frequently uses words like most and many in this article to support his views. He says the success of the average worker is the measure of the economy, implying his cherry picked Gini coefficient is sufficient proof that the average worker is doing just fine. The article brings up some good points as to the demographics Bernie needs to focus on, but fails to take into account how early in the election season it is, and how people are just hearing about this man only because now the media is being forced to pay attention.
This sentence is just distasteful. Maybe we should spend more on education then Nate! As a self proclaimed "data journalist" this guy frequently uses words like most and many in this article to support his views. He says the success of the average worker is the measure of the economy, implying his cherry picked Gini coefficient is sufficient proof that the average worker is doing just fine. The article brings up some good points as to the demographics Bernie needs to focus on, but fails to take into account how early in the election season it is, and how people are just hearing about this man only because now the media is being forced to pay attention.
36
Nate, many readers are frustrated with your pieces on Bernie Sanders. Let me explain. This is not because these readers are all rabid Bernie Sanders supporters who will not listen to a word against him.
The fallacy that you are selling is that data can tell us anything substantive. The reality that experienced readers know is that we are six months away from the first election, and it's far too soon to definitively declare a winner. Politics does not run on data alone- it also runs on people, and people are unpredictable. At this point in 2007, a young man named Barack Obama had less support than Senator Sanders has now.
So instead of telling us how Sanders and Trump can't win, use your quantitative skills to tell us more interesting things. Tell us about the flow of money in politics, and investigate the cash going to candidates and SuperPACs. Tell us quantitatively, what the effect of each candidate's proposals would be on net student loan debt, on the climate, on the national debt, on the sustainability of Social Security.
On election night, every year, media networks have a policy. They will not project a candidate to be the winner until every state has finished voting. Never. Not even if it is mathematically impossible for the other candidate to win. This is because they respect the process of democracy, not the tyranny of technocracy. Nate, please follow their lead. Use numbers to sketch the story of policy, instead of pretending you have a crystal ball.
The fallacy that you are selling is that data can tell us anything substantive. The reality that experienced readers know is that we are six months away from the first election, and it's far too soon to definitively declare a winner. Politics does not run on data alone- it also runs on people, and people are unpredictable. At this point in 2007, a young man named Barack Obama had less support than Senator Sanders has now.
So instead of telling us how Sanders and Trump can't win, use your quantitative skills to tell us more interesting things. Tell us about the flow of money in politics, and investigate the cash going to candidates and SuperPACs. Tell us quantitatively, what the effect of each candidate's proposals would be on net student loan debt, on the climate, on the national debt, on the sustainability of Social Security.
On election night, every year, media networks have a policy. They will not project a candidate to be the winner until every state has finished voting. Never. Not even if it is mathematically impossible for the other candidate to win. This is because they respect the process of democracy, not the tyranny of technocracy. Nate, please follow their lead. Use numbers to sketch the story of policy, instead of pretending you have a crystal ball.
227
Frankjasper asks, “What about [Bernie Sanders’] message is populism?”
Actually, Sanders’ positions are mainstream, unlike those of Clinton and the Republican candidates. A majority of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, their effective tax rates are the lowest in decades. They are opposed to the disastrous Citizens United decision and support public funding of elections. They believe that college has become unaffordable for many young people. They believe that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and we need to reverse its effects.
Despite What Corporate Media Tells You, Bernie Sanders’ Positions Are Mainstream
http://billmoyers.com/2015/06/01/mainstream-bernie-sanders/
“Sanders’ positions are quite mainstream from the point of view of the stances of the American public. Of course, the 1%, for whom and by whom most MSM report, are appalled and would like to depict him as an outlier.
“On [Citizens United and public funding of elections], Sanders is the most mainstream of all the candidates. The others are in a part of the political spectrum that by the polling represents a tiny lunatic fringe, in opposing significant campaign finance reform.”
“When you hear Republican candidates say that there is no global warming or that it isn’t for sure human beings are causing it, and nothing needs to be done about it, they are not mainstream. Climate change deniers are kooks, and if we had an honest media, it would call them kooks.
Actually, Sanders’ positions are mainstream, unlike those of Clinton and the Republican candidates. A majority of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, their effective tax rates are the lowest in decades. They are opposed to the disastrous Citizens United decision and support public funding of elections. They believe that college has become unaffordable for many young people. They believe that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and we need to reverse its effects.
Despite What Corporate Media Tells You, Bernie Sanders’ Positions Are Mainstream
http://billmoyers.com/2015/06/01/mainstream-bernie-sanders/
“Sanders’ positions are quite mainstream from the point of view of the stances of the American public. Of course, the 1%, for whom and by whom most MSM report, are appalled and would like to depict him as an outlier.
“On [Citizens United and public funding of elections], Sanders is the most mainstream of all the candidates. The others are in a part of the political spectrum that by the polling represents a tiny lunatic fringe, in opposing significant campaign finance reform.”
“When you hear Republican candidates say that there is no global warming or that it isn’t for sure human beings are causing it, and nothing needs to be done about it, they are not mainstream. Climate change deniers are kooks, and if we had an honest media, it would call them kooks.
69
How would you reverse climate change? This would be climate change no? How do you know it is a problem? Public funding of elections would be horrible. How would taxing the rich nore help? Free college does not solve education issues
He is a demagogue with little grasp of reality
He is a demagogue with little grasp of reality
1
"their effective tax rates are the lowest in decades"
50% combined city, state, federal rates are the lowest in decades? Hardly. And you are arguing for more? Disgusting.
50% combined city, state, federal rates are the lowest in decades? Hardly. And you are arguing for more? Disgusting.
2
Let's say that this periodical has more than a little stake in maintaining the country's normative plutocracy model. Who better than Hillary to project that metric for them? But historical paradigm shifts, both social and political, happen when enough people are disenfranchised enough to find a way to collectively air their concerns. Grass roots activism is more American than any economic model which depends on keeping its citizens from having fiscal autonomy. Sanders is a better bet for that outcome.
43
What is this outcome based on?
1
When Americans hear the word 'socialist', they immediately recoil. I'd bet that a majority would be unable to give a definition of socialism. That unfortunately hurts Bernie Sanders.
12
Maybe older Cold War Americans. Those under 50 just think of European countries with better governments than ours.
9
Excellent points. If Sanders is a socialist, so was Eisenhower, with that paragon of leftist thinking, the disgraced ex-President Nixon, teetering on the edge of socialist practice.
1
There are political eons until the first primaries, plenty of time for the party to learn about the candidates and make a choice. As we get closer these kinds of biased reports are going to seem quaint and short-sighted and further compromise the NYT's reputation and its coverage of non-Hillary democrats.
16
Bernie Sanders supporters are up in arms that their candidate is being ignored and all the focus is being given to that narcissist with the horrible comb over, Donald Trump.
However, what they don't seem to understand is that Trump, for all his flaws, is doing a good job of keeping himself and his campaign on the front pages without spending a dime because he's GIVING the media ammunition to put him there. Trump engages the media. Trump engages the other Republican nominees.
Bernie Sanders does.....NOTHING.
He won't even engage his own competition in the primary, Hillary Clinton!
The fact is, Bernie Sanders is BORING. He gives the same monotonous speech all the time. Rich vs poor. Corporate greed. Banking rehabilitation, etc. While they are important issues, its nothing we haven't heard before.
If he doesn't do something to stimulate the general voting public to take an interest in his campaign, he's going to have to settle for a prime time speech at the Democratic convention as opposed to giving an acceptance speech his supporters long for.
Bernie Sanders needs to GIVE people a REASON to pay attention to him.
Right now, he's doing a pretty poor job.
However, what they don't seem to understand is that Trump, for all his flaws, is doing a good job of keeping himself and his campaign on the front pages without spending a dime because he's GIVING the media ammunition to put him there. Trump engages the media. Trump engages the other Republican nominees.
Bernie Sanders does.....NOTHING.
He won't even engage his own competition in the primary, Hillary Clinton!
The fact is, Bernie Sanders is BORING. He gives the same monotonous speech all the time. Rich vs poor. Corporate greed. Banking rehabilitation, etc. While they are important issues, its nothing we haven't heard before.
If he doesn't do something to stimulate the general voting public to take an interest in his campaign, he's going to have to settle for a prime time speech at the Democratic convention as opposed to giving an acceptance speech his supporters long for.
Bernie Sanders needs to GIVE people a REASON to pay attention to him.
Right now, he's doing a pretty poor job.
2
You've highlighted possibly the biggest political issue in the country: the uninformed electorate.
Bernie is talking about all the things that matter to the vast majority of Americans, whether GOP or Democrat, and he is offering a plan on how to do it. That Bernie Sanders can't get sufficient interest in his campaign - as you put it - has less to do with Bernie Sanders and almost everything to do with the corporate media (including this paper), who jump at every opportunity to cover Trump every time he says something stupid, or Clinton's email controversy. If you think about it, it's almost as if there are no other candidates running for either party. If Bernie had the same national coverage that Trump gets for every nasty quip, Bernie's support would surge.
Congrats to the mainstream US media for keeping it dumb.
Bernie is talking about all the things that matter to the vast majority of Americans, whether GOP or Democrat, and he is offering a plan on how to do it. That Bernie Sanders can't get sufficient interest in his campaign - as you put it - has less to do with Bernie Sanders and almost everything to do with the corporate media (including this paper), who jump at every opportunity to cover Trump every time he says something stupid, or Clinton's email controversy. If you think about it, it's almost as if there are no other candidates running for either party. If Bernie had the same national coverage that Trump gets for every nasty quip, Bernie's support would surge.
Congrats to the mainstream US media for keeping it dumb.
29
So you would be a horse race writer for the times then. Trump is great because he provides Roman spectacle, while providing health care to citizens is boring?
No wonder this country is in trouble today.
us army 1969-1971/california jd thanks to gi bill/public education
No wonder this country is in trouble today.
us army 1969-1971/california jd thanks to gi bill/public education
1
If the inequality that Nate is talking about were votes cast then he might be onto something. If Sanders got 0 votes in 12 congressional districts he would truly be a marginal candidate. But these are not votes. These are potential volunteers showing up 6 months before an election to see how they might help Bernie win. Of course Nate has the data to show how much more equally distributed attendance at organizing parties was for other candidates. What? No other candidate even tried to do something like this? You are saying that other candidates wouldn't dare do something like this because they would be embarrassed by poor turnout? If Nate were not so proud of the fact that he was able to compute a Gini coefficient from a Lorenz curve he might actually retract this post. Never lose the faith Nate: "You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you."
8
The Republicans didn't believe Nate and look at what happened. Although I can't vote, I like what Bernie says. However, I would be part of the white upper income, educated class that likes Bernie alot. But there are aren't enough votes. Nate is telling it like it is and the measure of Bernie will be how he responds to the challenge.
3
Perhaps the NYT would consider going deeper into the story of Hilary's relationship with Wall St and the banking industry. I'm particularly partial to the story, told by Elizabeth Warren in The Two Income Trap, of Hilary's betrayal of the middle class in helping to pass new bankruptcy legislation. Once again, banks got the gold mine, we got the shaft.
44
This is perhaps the most illogical 'Upshot' column yet. Why should my subscription dollars be used to pay the dolt who wrote this? Should I consider canceling?
37
What's the Clinton coefficient???
4
Lets do a Hillary Coefficient- based on where she is fundraising in August and see how it relates to the rest of the country in terms of inequality. Just looking at this list, I don't think we even need to run the stats- we can see whose supporters would have a higher coefficient. It would be great if Nate could run these numbers based on the congressional districts represented on the list below gathered from americarising.
http://freebeacon.com/blog/here-is-hillary-clintons-campaign-schedule-fo...
Manchester NH
Claremont NH
Keene NH
Clear Lake IA
Martha's Vineyard MA
Nantucket MA
Water MIll NY
Cleveland OH
Minneapolis MN
Wayzata MN
East Hampton NY
Southampton NY
Without a comparison of other candidates, this article has little value- For all we know, this could simply be a list of the most politically active congressional districts for all voters, or all democrats. It is interesting to see how the NYT is sticking to it's anti Sanders guns, when it's most dangerous competitor (Washington Post) consistently runs fair and accurate articles on all presidential candidates. Let's see if there is any response and comparison for Hillary Clinton's GINI coefficient before we continue.
http://freebeacon.com/blog/here-is-hillary-clintons-campaign-schedule-fo...
Manchester NH
Claremont NH
Keene NH
Clear Lake IA
Martha's Vineyard MA
Nantucket MA
Water MIll NY
Cleveland OH
Minneapolis MN
Wayzata MN
East Hampton NY
Southampton NY
Without a comparison of other candidates, this article has little value- For all we know, this could simply be a list of the most politically active congressional districts for all voters, or all democrats. It is interesting to see how the NYT is sticking to it's anti Sanders guns, when it's most dangerous competitor (Washington Post) consistently runs fair and accurate articles on all presidential candidates. Let's see if there is any response and comparison for Hillary Clinton's GINI coefficient before we continue.
24
Yeah OR his supporters are waiting until it gets closer to the election to volunteer and campaign (which is what my friends who are supporters are doing.... patiently waiting).
4
Sad to say but Bernie will lose the Yellow Dog Democrats for the single reason of his Jewish heritage. It is no secret that blacks and many white southerners just don't like Jews, be it their landlord, their banker or a candidate. I travel the south and there is a sometimes not-so-subtle Antisemitism that is prevalent throughout the middle and lower-middle classes. Bernie is from the 'hood alright, just not the right 'hood. The black vote that propelled Mr. Obama to the nomination will tilt for Hillary, whose husband still is remembered as a friend to the African-American community.
2
God bless him but Nate is still shilling for his corporate sponsors. This article might have some shred of legitimacy IF the election was this November.
21
"Many moderate and less educated voters do not pay much attention to politics, and usually end up siding with well-known establishment figures against reformist candidates."
Nate this "revelation" along with gerrymandering and lobbies like AIPAC mean that Congress and the WH elections are NOT a democratic process but rather mostly sham. Case in point ,the GOP candidate race with Trump driving the clown bus.
Will the electorate change and critically think through the issues ? The fact that in 8 separate Gallup polls over the last 27 years , on average, 45% of US adults said that the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old & that evolution didn`t happen , doesn`t auger well a change for the next few decades but maybe I-phones will educate the next homeschooled generation.
Nate this "revelation" along with gerrymandering and lobbies like AIPAC mean that Congress and the WH elections are NOT a democratic process but rather mostly sham. Case in point ,the GOP candidate race with Trump driving the clown bus.
Will the electorate change and critically think through the issues ? The fact that in 8 separate Gallup polls over the last 27 years , on average, 45% of US adults said that the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old & that evolution didn`t happen , doesn`t auger well a change for the next few decades but maybe I-phones will educate the next homeschooled generation.
3
That is what happens when the chairman of congressional committee on science and technology accepts the bible as a scientific source based on faith.
Only in America.
Only in America.
It seems to me that of all the groups you could have mentioned with regard to the breathtaking ignorance of too large a portion of the American public, particularly in its embrace of creationism and the literal interpretation of the Bible, AIPAC is the least problematic.
Nate, you're also not taking into the cowardly Hillary coefficient which has Hillary telling her cronies in the DNC to hold off debates. You're right many people haven't heard about Bernie, but that doesn't mean his message doesn't resonate with the vast majority of Americans who are sick of corporate pawns like the Republicans, and EVEN HILLARY. The second he is given a platform to showcase his intellect and compassionate nature juxtaposed against Hillary's stoic, robotic self, all of these people who haven't heard of Bernie will flock to him. Hillary is just a name and a woman, those are the only two things going for her, and while I would love to see a female president, it just isn't her time. Once a loser, always a loser, she lost already in 2008, why are Democrats reaching into the garbage for a candidate when we can pick one up at the organic farmer's market, namely Bernie Sanders.
11
It's funny how statistics can be manipulated to support any argument. Mr. Cohn uses the Gini coefficient measuring campaign volunteers as a metric of support, and he interprets Sanders' stat to mean that his support is narrowly concentrated in a few states. Notice, however, that Clinton's Gini coefficient is never reported. Is it significantly different from that of Sanders? Also, one has to question whether, at this point, volunteers are reflective of popular support. Mr. Cohn has not made a sufficient argument to suggest that is the case. This early on, it's likely that volunteers for any candidate are disproportionately distributed in states with early primaries. Finally, Mr. Cohn correctly points out that many voters are likely to side with establishment candidates that have name recognition, but Sanders' campaign is still relatively new. The first Democratic debate hasn't even taken place, so we'll have to wait and see what happens as he gets more publicity.
18
another piece from the past that has corporate media all over it
just recycled talking points ...why would we trust nate or the nyt when we continue to have to put up with this bought and paid for journalism
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Hillary_the_inevitable.html
Date: July 9, 2007
With two quarters of 2007 behind us and just 6 months to go until the Iowa caucuses it is a good time to see where Hillary stands and why.
The bottom line? Hillary’s electoral strength has grown in the last quarter and she is better positioned today than ever before to become the next President of the United Sates. Recent polls have her at or near 40% with leads of 15-20 points over her nearest competitors. Voters yearn for change and they say that Hillary has the strength and experience to actually bring about that change. Hillary’s message: that her strength and experience will bring real change that America needs, is resonating strongly with voters.
just recycled talking points ...why would we trust nate or the nyt when we continue to have to put up with this bought and paid for journalism
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Hillary_the_inevitable.html
Date: July 9, 2007
With two quarters of 2007 behind us and just 6 months to go until the Iowa caucuses it is a good time to see where Hillary stands and why.
The bottom line? Hillary’s electoral strength has grown in the last quarter and she is better positioned today than ever before to become the next President of the United Sates. Recent polls have her at or near 40% with leads of 15-20 points over her nearest competitors. Voters yearn for change and they say that Hillary has the strength and experience to actually bring about that change. Hillary’s message: that her strength and experience will bring real change that America needs, is resonating strongly with voters.
6
New Yok Times: is it still about the horse race, about the money raising, about the hair, about ANYTHING other than policy discussion.
Surely Bernie Sanders has enough support at this stage of the campaign to be considered a possible. Does not that mean that his policies, his agenda, his record deserve attention?
While Trump gets oceans of ink and air for his mistreatment of a journalist, old Bernie can only get stories about how quaint and unelectable he is.
Shame.
Surely Bernie Sanders has enough support at this stage of the campaign to be considered a possible. Does not that mean that his policies, his agenda, his record deserve attention?
While Trump gets oceans of ink and air for his mistreatment of a journalist, old Bernie can only get stories about how quaint and unelectable he is.
Shame.
25
Black/minority turnout will be low for Clinton, the salesman of the prison-industrial complex, and much less of a factor than 2008.
9
Nate's analysis makes sense, but he ignores a critical geographic error regarding the the general election. The election will be won/lost for the Dems. in the Middle West.
The Northeast & Pacific coasts will vote Democratic for either Bernie or Hillary. All the midwest states are toss ups and more moderate than the Coasts except IL-Dem. & IN-Rep. The South & Intermountain West will vote Rep. although CO, NV & NM have good chance of voting Dem.; both VA&FL are toss up.
Bernie can take big chunks of college towns in these states, but is unlikely to win statewide in either Primary or General elections, although some states that he notes are not relevant in General election.
The Northeast & Pacific coasts will vote Democratic for either Bernie or Hillary. All the midwest states are toss ups and more moderate than the Coasts except IL-Dem. & IN-Rep. The South & Intermountain West will vote Rep. although CO, NV & NM have good chance of voting Dem.; both VA&FL are toss up.
Bernie can take big chunks of college towns in these states, but is unlikely to win statewide in either Primary or General elections, although some states that he notes are not relevant in General election.
3
The media, political, and corporate establishment are threatened by Bernie Sanders’ populist message. That's why they push the narrative that Bernie Sanders can't win. The public would be better served if the MSM focused on the issues and not the horse race and political gossip.
The public would be better served if the DNC would hold more debates and start them sooner. There were 26 debates in 2007-08. They are holding six decades this election cycle, two of which will be held after the voting begins.
The Corporate Media Would Like You to Think Bernie Sanders Can’t Win
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/22/1386790/-The-Corporate-Media-Woul...
“Over the last 40 years, out of seven races in which the Democratic nomination was up for grabs—races, that is, when a sitting Democrat president wasn’t seeking reelection—underdogs have won the nomination either three or four times (depending on your definition of an underdog) and have gone on to win the presidency more often than favored candidates.
“Jimmy Carter wasn’t even on anyone’s radar at this point in the campaign and polled at 1 percent among Democratic voters. But he won because voters had had it up to here with insiders.
“If you don’t see a parallel to the present moment—a discontented time of Occupy, Moral Monday, Fight for $15, the People’s Climate March, Move to Amend, and other anti-establishmentarian agitation—you’re either asleep or a publisher."
The public would be better served if the DNC would hold more debates and start them sooner. There were 26 debates in 2007-08. They are holding six decades this election cycle, two of which will be held after the voting begins.
The Corporate Media Would Like You to Think Bernie Sanders Can’t Win
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/22/1386790/-The-Corporate-Media-Woul...
“Over the last 40 years, out of seven races in which the Democratic nomination was up for grabs—races, that is, when a sitting Democrat president wasn’t seeking reelection—underdogs have won the nomination either three or four times (depending on your definition of an underdog) and have gone on to win the presidency more often than favored candidates.
“Jimmy Carter wasn’t even on anyone’s radar at this point in the campaign and polled at 1 percent among Democratic voters. But he won because voters had had it up to here with insiders.
“If you don’t see a parallel to the present moment—a discontented time of Occupy, Moral Monday, Fight for $15, the People’s Climate March, Move to Amend, and other anti-establishmentarian agitation—you’re either asleep or a publisher."
90
What about his message is populism? Give the govt more power and money is like asking foxes to guard the hen house? He is a demagogue who is good at pandering to emotion.
Sanders supporters are basing their argument on emotion. The establishment boogeyman is not really paying attention because they look at reality. Dems want to win.
Sanders supporters are basing their argument on emotion. The establishment boogeyman is not really paying attention because they look at reality. Dems want to win.
1
At this point in the campaigns its not about win or lose. Its about building name recognition and building issue support that delineates the how the public feels on the issues. If Hillary wants Bernie's voters then she needs to respect and reflect the issues that are driving people to Bernie.
Its about the issues and which candidates best reflect and respect those issues.
Its about the issues and which candidates best reflect and respect those issues.
8
Nate is just doing what his corporate media, Hillary-loving bosses tell him to do. It's so sad. The important article about Bernie is the one written by Eric Lichtblau, which the Times is trying to bury underneath a pile of articles about Trump and even Biden. Enough is enough!
114
If it was three months before an election, or represented a stable trend, this would provide a decent analysis. But at this point in time, the distribution value here only reflects how just about any candidacy will look in its early stages, before the candidate's ideas and character have become known by the general populace. A candidate typically starts with strong support in regions where the candidate is already well-known, and builds from there. Gov. Kasich, for example, is also likely to have a distribution coefficient that looks like this. Gov. Christie almost certainly had this distribution of support when he started.
The Upshot should be a place for sophisticated evidence-based arguments. Instead we get horse-race style polling number-based prognostication masquerading as wisdom at a time when any such analysis is premature. The most frustrating thing about it is that "analysts" are more interested in making horse-race predictions than presenting or discussing what the candidates are proposing, which is what reporters should be doing. How many times have you seen polling numbers? How many times have you seen a story discuss what a candidate is proposing?
The trend seems to be: "We are going to report polling numbers about who is likely to win before and instead of the candidate's platform or proposals," which gets the analyst's job backwards.
The Upshot should be a place for sophisticated evidence-based arguments. Instead we get horse-race style polling number-based prognostication masquerading as wisdom at a time when any such analysis is premature. The most frustrating thing about it is that "analysts" are more interested in making horse-race predictions than presenting or discussing what the candidates are proposing, which is what reporters should be doing. How many times have you seen polling numbers? How many times have you seen a story discuss what a candidate is proposing?
The trend seems to be: "We are going to report polling numbers about who is likely to win before and instead of the candidate's platform or proposals," which gets the analyst's job backwards.
76
This writer needs to get outta the house more. He wouldn't believe how many people are wearing Bernie t-shirts here in NC. People in the 20s, 30s, 50s, 70s, white, black, male, female. And I'm not talking about liberal enclaves either. I was hoping the media would cover Bernie more; no more. Let them dwell on the lies and race baiting and ignorance and delusions of the headliners. Bernie is doing it without the media, and at this point, maybe that's better.
156
People wearing shirts is not compelling evidence
1
If you invest $15 in a shirt--and wear it in this conservative state--it's better evidence than answering the phone with a yes or no. Money is a commitment. When Obama ran the first time, most people hid it if they were for him; it took the very brave to even put the sticker on the car. And he won.
1
I support Bernie as the only real candidate that is for the people.The others are for the interests of their constituents,which are billionaires, Israeli war hawks, banking cartels,tax dodgers(hedge funds),the healthcare mafia,the military industrial complex,religious fanatics,the US prison industry , et al.It is time we had a real man for the people of this country.It is time for this place to take care and nurture its' own people and let them grow to fulfill their dreams.Vote Bernie Saunders.
21
Bernie supports the prison guard unions. The for profit is a small pct. But he wont tell you thst
As Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton's voting record was to the left of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden - a fact that is often ignored by Bernie Sanders supporters.
Many of her supporters, such as myself, are well educated, not poor, read the NYT and other papers, magazine, journals, blogs daily. Many of us respect Bernie Sanders and his supporters much more than they respect our opinions.
Originally,they wanted Elizabeth Warren to run. I have been amazed how many do not realized she was a Republican until the mid 1990s. Yet, I respect and even donated to her campaign though Emily's List.
I agree with your basic analyses, Mr. Cohn, but all should realize that some of us, who could be call educated liberals, politically involved, have chosen to support Hillary Clinton because we perceive her to be the most capable candidate to defeat any Republican, we have long admired her fortitude, and we believe, fervently, it is time for the U.S. to have a female president.
Many of her supporters, such as myself, are well educated, not poor, read the NYT and other papers, magazine, journals, blogs daily. Many of us respect Bernie Sanders and his supporters much more than they respect our opinions.
Originally,they wanted Elizabeth Warren to run. I have been amazed how many do not realized she was a Republican until the mid 1990s. Yet, I respect and even donated to her campaign though Emily's List.
I agree with your basic analyses, Mr. Cohn, but all should realize that some of us, who could be call educated liberals, politically involved, have chosen to support Hillary Clinton because we perceive her to be the most capable candidate to defeat any Republican, we have long admired her fortitude, and we believe, fervently, it is time for the U.S. to have a female president.
3
It is time for us to have a female president, but Hilary is not that person. She is still in the pockets of corporations, not the american people. She is out of touch with the working class (See her poor comment she made) and will be a poor choice. Would she win if they put her up more than likely, but she will still provide a disservice for the middle class. I feel bad for those who are going to vote for her simply because she is a female.
9
What was Senator Clinton's support or Senator OBamas support at the *same stage in their national recognition*
that is, to make an apples to apples, you have to go back to early 2006 or 2007 and ask where was support for B Obama
For Ms Clinton, the comparison is even harder: as former First lady, she is, as is well known, able to draw on the huge national base assembled by her husband
Here is a suggestion: why don't you take the actual enunciated positions of Senator Sanders, and the positions of other Dem and GOP candidates, and compare them to what the American people want, as expressed in polls
I bet you will find that on many issues, Senator Sanders is close to what the American people actually want
that is, to make an apples to apples, you have to go back to early 2006 or 2007 and ask where was support for B Obama
For Ms Clinton, the comparison is even harder: as former First lady, she is, as is well known, able to draw on the huge national base assembled by her husband
Here is a suggestion: why don't you take the actual enunciated positions of Senator Sanders, and the positions of other Dem and GOP candidates, and compare them to what the American people want, as expressed in polls
I bet you will find that on many issues, Senator Sanders is close to what the American people actually want
39
It is a sign of this writer's immaturity that he keeps harping on popularity ratings so early in the campaign. This is the time for evaluating the candidate's policy positions and character. Horse-race reporting is not journalism.
130
Overall this is a good argument as to why Sanders' chances are slim. The one false note in the argument is that, while wealthy people have little specific motivation to distribute their wealth among others, political supporters of Bernie Sanders have EVERY reason to want to "distribute" their enthusiasm.
If you assume that the distribution of such attributes is driven by universal, impartial forces, rather than deliberate action, then the two situations might operate similarly But there is little reason to make this assumption.
If you assume that the distribution of such attributes is driven by universal, impartial forces, rather than deliberate action, then the two situations might operate similarly But there is little reason to make this assumption.
2
Meh. Another nytimes article bashing Bernie. Yawn.
37
"Most Democrats do not share the assumption that Hillary Clinton is a tool of Wall Street." Here's my fantasy. One day I'll pick up the New York Times, and there will be a front page story explaining how Hillary's and Bernie's campaigns are funded. One day there will be a front page story about Citizens United and about how Bernie is the only candidate who will not be beholden to millionaires and oil companies. One day the NY Times will cover the rallies that have brought out thousands and thousands of people for Bernie in Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, South Carolina, etc. One day the New York Times will educate its readers, so they won't assume Hillary is a tool of Wall Street; they'll be absolutely sure she is.
384
Meanwhile, Trump defends the legitimacy of his comb-over. Corporate media is so mired in the slop, it might as well not exist.
Susan Smith, Great comment, Thank you, Thank you!
I'm a female New York voter, politically active, contributor to the Democratic party and have usually voted Democratic - but did not do so for Hillary's second Senate term. My wishful thinking about her principles ended early in her first Senate term, when she voted for the Iraq war. (and now my only Democratic contributions are to Sanders; I'm one of the modest thousands backing Bernie )
And the New York Times - awful - shameful bias for Clinton.
Your comment is SPOT ON.
I'm a female New York voter, politically active, contributor to the Democratic party and have usually voted Democratic - but did not do so for Hillary's second Senate term. My wishful thinking about her principles ended early in her first Senate term, when she voted for the Iraq war. (and now my only Democratic contributions are to Sanders; I'm one of the modest thousands backing Bernie )
And the New York Times - awful - shameful bias for Clinton.
Your comment is SPOT ON.
4
Nailed it!!!!
4
"Trickle-down economics" is a pejorative that belongs in the editorial section of a newspaper, not the news section.
5
He's not doing too badly considering that not very long ago, The Upshot was telling us that Hillary Clinton was unassailable, virtually guaranteed to win easily. Bernie Sanders wasn't even considered or mentioned as a possible threat. Now that he is a threat, Clinton's supporters have to pedal a little harder.
29
Everyone seems very determined about Sanders' supposed 'unelectability'. It reminds me of a similar situation a few years ago, when an African-American senator from Illinois was too young, too radical, and too black to be deemed electable by a vocal minority.
Not only did he win, but he was arguably the best thing that could have happened to America at that precise moment in time.
Not only did he win, but he was arguably the best thing that could have happened to America at that precise moment in time.
160
After Obama's win in Iowa, black Congressional leaders abandoned Hillary in droves and black voters began to belueve he could win. Add to that the perception generated that Hillary's remarks about MLK needing LBJ to make his vision a reality were racist - and hissupport among blacks plummeted. Obama swept SC, then cleaned house on Super Tuesday especially in states with a significant percentage of black voters. Do you really see Sanders pulling that off?
With respect, Sen Sanders is no Barak Obama.
With respect, Sen Sanders is no Barak Obama.
3
Obama was a centrist in his campaigns. He was young and also half black. Bernie sanders is a far left demagogue who sounds similar to trump...he is an old white male.
Big difference
Big difference
2
"he was...the best thing that could have happened to America at that precise moment in time"
lol, "at that precise moment in time" means "in retrospect, we sure made a mistake, what a big disappointment he turned out to be"
That same disappointment would reign if Sanders were to be elected, 4 years into an administration that would have accomplished nothing.
lol, "at that precise moment in time" means "in retrospect, we sure made a mistake, what a big disappointment he turned out to be"
That same disappointment would reign if Sanders were to be elected, 4 years into an administration that would have accomplished nothing.
1
Hillary Clinton may think that she has the black vote locked away but that may not be the case. If anything, right now the black vote it up for grabs and Bernie can make inroads to it if he continues to address criminal justice reform (and not just Black Lives Matters) and civil rights issues. Mrs. Clinton would do well not to take that segment for granted.
12
This is how the pundits sit in cubicals and waste everyone's time.
20
So what is the similar "Gini" coeffient on all other candidates. This article has little value - is it written to undermine Sander's candidacy ignoring all others?
NY Times seems to be showing its bias again.
NY Times seems to be showing its bias again.
205
This is just another article trying to discourage Sanders’ supporters. It is also insulting when Cohn writes:
"Most Democrats, for instance, do not share the assumption that Mrs. Clinton is a tool of Wall Street, something that supporters of Mr. Sanders took for granted long before he entered the race."
This characterizing of Sanders’ supporters as lacking in intelligence is itself a lack of acumen. You only need to read a few of the thousands of NY Times readers’ strongly pro-Sanders’ comments in response to other NY Times articles, to see how thoughtful and well-based their opinions are. In fact, how much these opinions are on based on the issues, rather than fancy rhetoric, shows the depth, width and strength of Sanders’ appeal.
It is not really known, whether the desire of the American people for an honest leader at this time will outweigh their desire for the usual suspects. However, I think that an accurate appreciation of the larger picture, showing how much Americans are very worried about jobs, income and just plain old economic justice, will have them finally choose Bernie Sanders over the insincere rhetoric of certain politicians. And many of us believe this will happen despite all the "authorities" persistent efforts to discourage it.
P.S. Eventually most Democrats will see that Mrs. Clinton, at least in effect, is just another "tool of Wall Street."
"Most Democrats, for instance, do not share the assumption that Mrs. Clinton is a tool of Wall Street, something that supporters of Mr. Sanders took for granted long before he entered the race."
This characterizing of Sanders’ supporters as lacking in intelligence is itself a lack of acumen. You only need to read a few of the thousands of NY Times readers’ strongly pro-Sanders’ comments in response to other NY Times articles, to see how thoughtful and well-based their opinions are. In fact, how much these opinions are on based on the issues, rather than fancy rhetoric, shows the depth, width and strength of Sanders’ appeal.
It is not really known, whether the desire of the American people for an honest leader at this time will outweigh their desire for the usual suspects. However, I think that an accurate appreciation of the larger picture, showing how much Americans are very worried about jobs, income and just plain old economic justice, will have them finally choose Bernie Sanders over the insincere rhetoric of certain politicians. And many of us believe this will happen despite all the "authorities" persistent efforts to discourage it.
P.S. Eventually most Democrats will see that Mrs. Clinton, at least in effect, is just another "tool of Wall Street."
153
So, I gather that Bernie does less well in areas that Dems can't win anyway.
18
I get the overall argument but I have trouble taking seriously the idea that being behind Clinton in Alabama and Georgia means much--the Democratic nominee is going to lose both of those states in the election. The importance of Sanders and/or Biden being in the race is that they make a race, which is an important tool for Hillary to shape an image and sharpen her skills. In that respect Sanders is doing Hillary and his party a big service come what may, and I'm sure he knows that...
6
When did Texas, Arizona, Louisiana and South Carolina become liberal strong holds? He is struggling because he is not well known and because the national media continues to back Clinton by only talking about Sanders in a dismissive kind of way.
26
Perhaps it is because they realize she has the best shot?
One of the reasons Trump is ahead is name recognition. I would argue the same here. Everyone everywhere knows Hillary not everyone knows Bernie.
It doesn't help that as Bernie was campaigning early on the media, including the Times ignored Bernie and declared Hillary the winner, which it still does to a very real extent. PB
It doesn't help that as Bernie was campaigning early on the media, including the Times ignored Bernie and declared Hillary the winner, which it still does to a very real extent. PB
23
By this logic, if he had just a single volunteer in each district, he'd be a lock for the presidency.
16
Considering we're still many months away from the primaries, Cohn might consider the trends of Sanders' polls and support. Sanders' numbers only get better. (And Clinton's only get worse.)
24
Mr. Cohn references the alleged theory of trickle-down economics. Actually, the term is attributed to the humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."
Will Rogers deserves credit for using a funny line to make people laugh. But Mr. Cohen should have made clear that so called "trickle-down economics" is not a field of study by any economist nor has it been. Rather, it is a red herring used to fool ignorant liberals to look down on conservative economic thought.
Will Rogers deserves credit for using a funny line to make people laugh. But Mr. Cohen should have made clear that so called "trickle-down economics" is not a field of study by any economist nor has it been. Rather, it is a red herring used to fool ignorant liberals to look down on conservative economic thought.
The NYT and other major media outlets have been belittling the Sanders campaign since it's start-up- all part of the Democratic party's machinations for their preferred candidate, Mrs Clinton. Of course Sanders has made some blunders, like his non-appeal to Black and Hispanic voters which may soon be rectified. But win or lose, Bernie Sanders has left a profound dent on the U.S. public- that a leftist, socialist message still has resonance in the United States, and that perhaps in the future a real third party candidate can emerge and beat the twiddle-dum and twiddle-dee of the Democratic and Republican organizations.
11
Good idea. Let's just write off a candidate that is talking about the issue that truly effects middle and lower income Americans and the future of this country. Oligarchy. Hopefully he'll run as an independent.
13
Nate Cohn in no Nate Sliver.
19
Agreed. Nate silver thinks bernie has less than a 5 pct chance
3
An interest idea to use the Gini coefficient as a measure, but you haven't calibrated the scale. Campaign volunteers may be skewed toward the young and educated for all candidates. How does the Sanders distribution compare, for instance, with Clinton's?
Further the assertion that name recognition can't explain most of Sanders lack of support in some states is made without evidence. I'd be interested in some more discussion of this.
Further the assertion that name recognition can't explain most of Sanders lack of support in some states is made without evidence. I'd be interested in some more discussion of this.
13
Well I see you made your mind up. The fact is people are fed up with Clinton's Name and fed up with a Bush name. The Fact is Biden is the same old news. if sanders does not get the nomination. People will vote for Trump. People are tired of the same old Potomac shuffle.
Bernies does have the black vote. Hillary is not loved by the black female vote.
Bernies does have the black vote. Hillary is not loved by the black female vote.
7
So what is your advise to the only candidate left not using lobbyists' money?
(Trump finally caved in and now is out begging for money like the rest of them)
(Trump finally caved in and now is out begging for money like the rest of them)
7
Sen. Sanders' candidacy is already dead, it's just that he and commentators are in denial about it. It died when he allowed protesters to take his microphone for 20 minutes, giving the GOP fodder for a perfect mortal ad campaign were Sanders somehow to be nominated by the Democrats. This is far worse than Mike Dukakis in a helmet in a tank....
3
Another perspective is to look at how Sanders's support is growing, and measure that against the ultimate deadline--the actual start of caucus and primary voting. In the Real Clear Politics running summary of national poll averages, two months ago Sanders was behind Clinton hy 57 points. One month ago he was behind her by 40 points. In the latest summary, he is behind by 21 points. And there is no statistical sign that the speed with which he is gaining is slowing down. At the present rate of change, Sanders and Clnton should be even in about a month. I have not read any good analysis about why he is doing so well, so can only extrapolate from myself. My big reasons for supporting Sanders are: 1) He is more authentically himself than any of the other candidates except for Trump (whom I could not possibly support for other reasons, 2) his views on the issues make the most sense (the working models for the directions he wants to go are the very successful Nordic countries) and 3) his record of support for those issues is consistent throughout his entire public life.
137
By this logic, the fact that most of Hillary Clinton's donations (in monetary terms) are coming from affluent liberals means she can't appeal to Joe-six-pack voters. And that might well turn out to be true: the numbers from NH (a relatively conservative state by New England standards) suggest she is actually appealing most to those earning >$100K/year, while Sanders appeals to everyone else. His support is strong even among moderates.
This article is basically just a variation on the same tautology used in an earlier article by the same author about Sanders' house parties. "Activist support for Bernie Sanders is limited to activists."
I have no illusions about Sanders' candidacy, but really this trope that he only appeals to the latte-Subaru set is as tiresome as it is premature. (He's currently only four points behind in West Virginia, for example, where Hillary cleaned Obama's clock.) The trope was used against Obama, it was malicious, and it was dead wrong.
This article is basically just a variation on the same tautology used in an earlier article by the same author about Sanders' house parties. "Activist support for Bernie Sanders is limited to activists."
I have no illusions about Sanders' candidacy, but really this trope that he only appeals to the latte-Subaru set is as tiresome as it is premature. (He's currently only four points behind in West Virginia, for example, where Hillary cleaned Obama's clock.) The trope was used against Obama, it was malicious, and it was dead wrong.
176
The core of political parties is to win. People come together for a winner. And they vote for whomever the party tells them to vote for. Usually known commodities.
The polls are reflecting the party's leadership will to get Hillary in the Oval Office. Most members of the Democratic Party, of all minority groups, simply are reflecting what the party is telling them to think; Hillary. The known commodity.
Bernie has been isolated in the congress for too long and he needs to get into the cities and make himself known in minority and poverty oppressed communities across America.
The polls are reflecting the party's leadership will to get Hillary in the Oval Office. Most members of the Democratic Party, of all minority groups, simply are reflecting what the party is telling them to think; Hillary. The known commodity.
Bernie has been isolated in the congress for too long and he needs to get into the cities and make himself known in minority and poverty oppressed communities across America.
9
I agree with the premise that the goal of the parties is to win. But I disagree with your "Hillary in the Oval office" concept. It that was the case, then she would be leaving the White House rather than Obama when this term is up.
5
A common (paternalistic) refrain from Sanderites is that, if only the poor and minorities heard Sanders message, understood his message, they would all flock to him, it is inconceivable that these proletariats would refuse socialism.
Truth is, there is nothing new about Sanders's socialist ideas; generations of Americans have already heard them, and most Americans overwhelmingly reject them.
It is the upwardly mobile middle class that wants redistribution of wealth as an entitlement, middle America still operates on the idea of hard work for fair share, and middle America doesn't blame the 1% or corporate America, as does the striving petite bourgeoisie, the heart of Sanders's support.
Truth is, there is nothing new about Sanders's socialist ideas; generations of Americans have already heard them, and most Americans overwhelmingly reject them.
It is the upwardly mobile middle class that wants redistribution of wealth as an entitlement, middle America still operates on the idea of hard work for fair share, and middle America doesn't blame the 1% or corporate America, as does the striving petite bourgeoisie, the heart of Sanders's support.
3
"middle America still operates on the idea of hard work for fair share, and middle America doesn't blame the 1% or corporate America"
Overwhelmingly, working people do not feel their efforts are being fairly rewarded. Maybe they do in old 1960s TV shows, but not in 21st century America.
Overwhelmingly, working people do not feel their efforts are being fairly rewarded. Maybe they do in old 1960s TV shows, but not in 21st century America.
13
Middle america has it pretty good and it is sad they want more handouts
1
Might I suggest another set of reasons: Sanders is virtually unknown among a lot of people. And that's not really the fault of the Sanders' campaign: If somebody had been reading the New York Times daily for the last 3 months, about all you'd know about him is: 1. He's an independent, self-declared "socialist" senator from Vermont. 2. He had a spat with BlackLivesMatter. 3. He has no SuperPAC, and a lot of small donors. 4. He's Clinton's top challenger but has no chance of winning, because all his support is well-meaning liberal white people.
The thing is, of those 4 things that you'd know, 1 of them is only half-true, and another is completely unproven. The issue with BlackLivesMatter was real, but what's also real is that at least some branches of BlackLivesMatter decided Sanders is a good ally, Sanders has very vocally supported the positions and proposals of BlackLivesMatter, and to the degree that there was a problem it seems to be solved on both sides. And as to whether he can win or not, I consider it very strange for so many media outlets to be in such a rush to declare a winner that they don't bother waiting until a single ballot has been cast by anybody.
I don't know if he can win. That's up to the voters. But the media needs to do its job and write an article explaining what Sanders is actually proposing, and why he's getting cheers from hundreds of thousands of people.
The thing is, of those 4 things that you'd know, 1 of them is only half-true, and another is completely unproven. The issue with BlackLivesMatter was real, but what's also real is that at least some branches of BlackLivesMatter decided Sanders is a good ally, Sanders has very vocally supported the positions and proposals of BlackLivesMatter, and to the degree that there was a problem it seems to be solved on both sides. And as to whether he can win or not, I consider it very strange for so many media outlets to be in such a rush to declare a winner that they don't bother waiting until a single ballot has been cast by anybody.
I don't know if he can win. That's up to the voters. But the media needs to do its job and write an article explaining what Sanders is actually proposing, and why he's getting cheers from hundreds of thousands of people.
403
In the last poll taken a couple of weeks ago, only 1/3 of African-Americans knew enough about Bernie Sanders to have an opinion, but 88% were able to offer an opinion about, you guessed it, Donald Trump.
Thank you, mainstream media.
Thank you, mainstream media.
14
Dave is right. Media coverage has been biased and in most cases "missing in action". Whether he succeeds in getting the nomination or not, his ability to attract people --many of whom have never been involved in a political campaign-needs to be noted and discussed. Many of us can't help believing that the NYT is bending over backwards to pretend he does not exist. He does exist and your job as journalists is to report the news. Bernie is news.
17
Agreed. The chances of the NYT and Nate Cohn, or any "corporate" news entity doing that, however, are probably slim to none. They're petrified of Bernie because they know he's talking about them, so they'll continue to try and marginalize, and give orders to their pet "journalists" like Cohn to do so.
4
If Biden runs and splits the centrist vote with Hilary Clinton, Sanders could wind up with the most votes at the Democratic convention. If he wins there (a big if, of course), in the general election I think most Democrats for whom he is not now the first choice would support him, and he might become the next president, although much would of course depend on who the Republican was against whom he would be running.
16
I don't think Biden will run. If he did Bernie will probably come in third and would get to influence the platform. If you were right and somehow Bernie got the convention support, I don't think he could count on the same voter turnout in key states that Hillary could get.
1
All the polling shows Biden splitting the Sanders vote, not the Clinton vote. You know the polling shows Hillary beating Sanders in the "very liberal" vote, right? Sanders is pulling a bunch of support from moderate/conservative dudes (and only dudes). When you add Biden to the polling, those moderate/conservative men supporting Sanders, shift to Biden.
Basically, the Sanders vote is largely the Anybody But Hillary vote. Specifically, it's largely the Anybody But (That Woman) Hillary vote. And that's on top of the fact that it's essentially entirely White.
Basically, the Sanders vote is largely the Anybody But Hillary vote. Specifically, it's largely the Anybody But (That Woman) Hillary vote. And that's on top of the fact that it's essentially entirely White.
1
I'm all for Sanders starting a discussion important issues like economic equality and reclaiming the word "socialist." However, it's folly to think that he could possibly win the presidency. He's not nearly as polished as President Obama was at this point eight years ago. Even if Sanders somehow manages to win, it is far from clear that he will be a good president. We will have a single-term presidency where nothing gets done. What we need is a bigger movement. We need to elect good politicians across the board, including at the State and local levels. As we've seen with the Obama presidency, replacing the president is not enough when every other level is dominated by Republicans.
Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate. Given the current situation, she would be a much more effective president than Bernie Sanders. I'm convinced that the groundswell of support for Bernie Sanders is motivated not by a well-informed public being fed up with the influence of money in politics but by something much simpler and much uglier: sexism.
Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate. Given the current situation, she would be a much more effective president than Bernie Sanders. I'm convinced that the groundswell of support for Bernie Sanders is motivated not by a well-informed public being fed up with the influence of money in politics but by something much simpler and much uglier: sexism.
9
While I am sure Hillary Clinton would make a good president, I have a question. What makes you believe she would a more effective president ? What laws did she manage to pass during her period in the senate ? Bernie Sanders is widely credited with the passing of the VA bill. A bipartisan bill in a time of unprecedented hostility between the two parties. It seems to me he can work just fine with Republicans and Democrats. While unfairly Hillary is not so well liked nor respected among many Republicans.
11
I've long thought that the antipathy toward female politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton was motivated by sexism. But I don't think young, liberal, academic-type Democrats are supporting Bernie Sanders because of sexism. Clinton is not that liberal, so many progressives align more with Sanders. I have a "Ready for Hillary" button and I would 100% vote for her (and I'm anticipating doing so) but I think we need more people like Bernie Sanders in office.
26
What is this about Hilary Clinton being such a strong candidate? It seems like a meme being pounded in our heads. She has had persistent problems running her campaigns, and has intrenched negative perceptions on both the left and right. She certainly has the strongest resume, but it is not at all clear how (if) she will use the experience she has. This is a problem for informed and thoughtful voters, and low-information voters have been programmed to dislike her. And outside the East Coast Intelligentsia/Establishment, Bernie Sanders has more support, and passionate support.
3
One of the reasons for Sander's low standing on the overall national scene is the monopolistic tendency of the two party system. The public is convinced that the only viable voting possibility with winning prospects are establishment candidates, owned and controlled by the monied elite.
The point raised in this article that most voters are not convinced that Hillary is not controlled by Wall street are badly misinformed. A point of fact they should mull over - has she ever mentioned regulation of wall street or such vast revenue raising possibilities such as stock transfer tax to support needed social and infrastructure programs? Has she ever denounced the enormous influence that corporations have over the political system? She has not and the reason should be more than obvious. Who owns Hillary?
The point raised in this article that most voters are not convinced that Hillary is not controlled by Wall street are badly misinformed. A point of fact they should mull over - has she ever mentioned regulation of wall street or such vast revenue raising possibilities such as stock transfer tax to support needed social and infrastructure programs? Has she ever denounced the enormous influence that corporations have over the political system? She has not and the reason should be more than obvious. Who owns Hillary?
151
If the media would cover his rallies, people would hear his message. If people hear his fiery speeches, with their All American moral outrage, they will like what they hear. To believe in Bernie's society with stronger social benefits, we have to stop hating government, and take government back. Did we ever truly control it? From what I understand from the time of Roosevelt to the time of Kennedy, there was some level of integrity in government. The new deal democrats. Young people who went to college and then went to Washington. Like my grandfather. I too have been alienated from government. Can government serve the people? It takes a vision like Bernie's to believe it can. And in some ways this invokes Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." It is this type of thinking, the thinking about the greater social good of lifting up our fellow citizens, emptying the prisons, taking on the bloated pharma sector. Helping workers to organize to defend their livelihoods. Ron Paul drew our attention to Madison. Jefferson and to an extent Payne. For me Sanders draws our attention to Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy.
231
Government can serve the people, but while it is serving corporations. We have had nearly forty years of Republican control, with short bursts of Democrat "lite" in control of Congress or the White House. The GOP governs very, very badly for the most part. It is a good servant of the rich and corporations. As I understand it, Reagan began dismantling of the core of competent civil servants and replaced them with incompetent political hacks. His party has continued this destruction. To get good governance again that serves the whole country, get rid of the GOP.
15
Sanders is a demagogue who panders to ignorant people. He has sound bites that sound nice but reality is a bit different. He is concerned about oligarchy but yet all his solutions give him more power and more money to move. He wants to be like scandinavia but never mentions the high taxes on the middle class, after tax income and lack of purchasing power. He wants single payer but leaves out the negative effects...costs, rationing, long wait times, crappier service. Free college will diminsh the value of college degree even further. The infrastructure is a hand out to unions.
His platform is great if you like fairy tales
His platform is great if you like fairy tales
3
Nora is regurgitating talking points she doesnt understand. It is weird to me so many want to go back to the 1950s when 2015 is better in pretty much every metric.
Since fdr took over (84 years)...the senate has been has been 62 years blue and 22 years red. House has 62 years blue and 22 years red. Pres is 46 years blue and 38 red.
Since 1975 the dems had the house 24 years and pubs 16 years. Dems had senate 24 years and pubs 16 years. Dems had 18 years potus and pubs 22 years
Fiction can be fun
Since fdr took over (84 years)...the senate has been has been 62 years blue and 22 years red. House has 62 years blue and 22 years red. Pres is 46 years blue and 38 red.
Since 1975 the dems had the house 24 years and pubs 16 years. Dems had senate 24 years and pubs 16 years. Dems had 18 years potus and pubs 22 years
Fiction can be fun
2
Good informative quantitative technical article. Looking at statistics and distribution spreads, there is no need to delve into media coverage and who owns the TV stations and newspapers - let alone who is going to be giving the media hundreds of millions of dollars for campaign ads.
I am old enough to have a grandfather who was born in the 1880s. He never got past the fifth grade because he had to go to work to help support his widowed mother and younger siblings. I learned a lot about working conditions and poor safety, poor wages and long hours. It was the Gilded Age of Robber Barons who used the cops to union bust unlike today where it is done by political contributions, gerrymandering and fear mongering.
They don't teach that stuff in school and it is not sexy or distracting enough for today's media. Some things you have to learn all over again the hard way.
I am old enough to have a grandfather who was born in the 1880s. He never got past the fifth grade because he had to go to work to help support his widowed mother and younger siblings. I learned a lot about working conditions and poor safety, poor wages and long hours. It was the Gilded Age of Robber Barons who used the cops to union bust unlike today where it is done by political contributions, gerrymandering and fear mongering.
They don't teach that stuff in school and it is not sexy or distracting enough for today's media. Some things you have to learn all over again the hard way.
181
Actually they do teach that in school. Unfortunately, the only people in school are children and their teachers. People who are old enough to vote are probably too old to remember what they "learned" in 8th-12th grades.
2
Nate seems to believe that moderate and conservative democrats actually show up to vote in the primaries. He's forgetting that the people who are least excited about Sanders tend to be the least likely to show up to vote anyway, which makes their preferences largely irrelevant. The votes most likely to show up to vote in a primary (liberal, engaged, college grads) are exactly the demographic that favors Sanders by a big margin.
Nate needs to stop confusing primary voters for general election voters.
Nate needs to stop confusing primary voters for general election voters.
166
Nate? Are you close friends or just being condescending?
Please, he can control for that.
excellent point, and he's not stupid so why does he conflate the two?
This kind of piece is why I love data journalism. One would think that downscale and minority voters, who have the most to gain from socialism, would embrace Sanders. The polling, the complexion of Sanders' crowds, and the distribution of his volunteers convincingly prove otherwise. In fact, Sanders supporters come from the most overtaxed class in the country, moderately affluent urban professionals who depend upon their salaries rather than passive income. Old style pieces that tried to divine the zeitgeist from talking to ten folks in coffee shops would never have picked up on this. Is Sanderd an expression of white liberal identity politics? Are minorities too shrewd to support an arguably unelectable candidate? How much The world is more complicated than my youthful intuitions ever admitted.
7
We over taxed urban professionals would very much like to see the extremely wealthy pay a fair share of taxes. The problem I think is that because Black Lives Matter, black votes matter. It's not either/or. It's very important that everyone votes. It matters. White, black and brown, everyone please vote.
6
What is the fair share consist of exactly and how would that help professionals who are supposedly over taxed? If bernie gets all these programs your taxes will go up. The 1 pct pays the highest effective rates already. Perhaps a solution if you dont like so much tax is to call for less govt programs????
1
Well, we overtaxed urban professionals would finally like to get something for all the taxes we pay, other than pointless wars and an $800 billion military.
11
Nice article. And there is one more aspect: I believe that Hillary Clinton is more progressive than some purity trolls think.
I know that I am turned off by Sanders supporters noisily announcing that Sen. Sanders has filed yet another bill that has zero chance of seeing the light of day.
Also, I like Clinton's stance on science (gmos) better.
I know that I am turned off by Sanders supporters noisily announcing that Sen. Sanders has filed yet another bill that has zero chance of seeing the light of day.
Also, I like Clinton's stance on science (gmos) better.
6
I agree. I'm sure that I concur with Sanders in most areas but I don't pay much attention. He is flat out unelectable and there are too many crucial decisions to be made---such as appointing new Supreme Court justices to replace old ones and holding off the Clown Car occupants' desire to impose a theocracy on us--to entertain a Socialist wannabe. Income equality is an important issue but you'd better believe it would get worse under any RWNJ theocracy.
6
What exactly makes Sanders "unelectable"? He polls well in swing states against Republican frontrunners (especially but not limited to Trump).
That suggests a really simple rule: If you like Clinton's proposals better, vote for her. If you like Sanders' proposals better, vote for him. Either way, the GOP is in trouble.
That suggests a really simple rule: If you like Clinton's proposals better, vote for her. If you like Sanders' proposals better, vote for him. Either way, the GOP is in trouble.
35
Anyone that can't see that Hillary is a Wall St. toady is blind. Hillary/Republican same thing.
2
In other words, Bernie Sanders appeals to the Stuff White People like demographic--urbane upper income white liberals who have the time to follow politics. He might win a couple of primaries and caucuses where such voters tend to congregate (as evidence in state polls where he is doing well), but in the end his campaign is the national equivalent of Zephyr Teachout, the law professor who ran against Andrew Cuomo in last year's NY state primary. Yes, she got a decent percentage of the vote, only because of low turn out and her appeal to the same demographic who is more likely to vote, but she had little impact/appeal to other core Democratic party constituencies.
8
"the national equivalent of Zephyr Teachout"
Ha! I think you hit on a perfect one-line summation.
Ha! I think you hit on a perfect one-line summation.
Teachout is a great example because, like Bernie, she was running against a financial behemoth and got a surprisingly high percentage of the vote given that she basically couldn't afford any advertising. Almost all of her support came from social media and through word-of-mouth. There's little doubt that given enough money to wage a serious campaign, she would have posed a much more serious challenge to Cuomo. Bernie is getting much stronger financial support than Teachout ever did and we're seeing it in his polling numbers--leading in New Hampshire, and after that, who knows?
5
If Teachout be Sanders and Cuomo be Hillary, just look at how well Cuomo turned out! Investigated by the US Attorney for interfering with an ethics committee, charged by the NY Attorney General for crippling his prosecutorial powers, accused by the Mayor of NYC of petty personal vendetta, sharing a political bed with Christie on the management of the Port Authority. A cautionary tale of how Hillary would turn out?
2