Do Sanders Supporters Favor His Policies?

"It is very hard to point to differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders’s proposed policies that could plausibly account for such substantial cleavages. They are reflections of social identities, symbolic commitments and partisan loyalties."

It's not just proposed policies that matter. Observed character and conduct influence attentive voters. Bernie refuses to be bought. Hillary won't reveal what her millions of dollars of speaking fees and super-PAC payola have bought from her.

Bernie's non-interventionist approach to foreign policy contrasts with Hillary's proclivity for military intervention and foreign entanglements.

It may very well be the case that most voters do not have a firm grasp of policy or commitment to an ideology. However, voters who are aware of character and conduct may be numerous enough to save us from plutocracy and warmongering.

The NYT will print ANYTHING-- from any angle, with any take, left, right, up, down, traditional or iconoclastic-- to undermine Sanders. Today the Times summons the cynic quantifiers. I wonder who will be imported tomorrow for this ongoing effort?

I'm sure Hillary lines up well with most voters. She changes her positions to match whatever audience is in front of her. She has a political position to satisfy everyone.

Excellent and revealing information. I noticed this policy gulf on the gun control issue since polls show most young people want gun control, but Sanders deal with the NRA was lost on them. I views agreement as prime facie corruption, with 7 examples of "there, there" on NRA votes, yet he projected that corruption toward Secr. Clinton about Wall St without an iota of proof, just loud bellowing and plenty of finger pointing, and the press plastered it everywhere.
I am surprised at the degree of the delta in women's voting, since early on we were told Sanders is winning young women, and the story line never changed, though the numbers obviously did.
This has been the most poorly covered election in modern times, most of it being shocking statements and pandering policies, with zero push back to report the truthful reality or costs. More National Inquirer than Pulitzer Prize worthy. The US press needs a GOP style post mortem after their horrendous failure to inform the populous, their part of the bargain for special Constitutional protections, and let's hope they pay more attention to the resultant action steps They have humiliated themselves domestically and international with their sick sycophantic lust for two odd ball white males making the most ruckus., because they are mostly infantile white males themselves. They should all hang their heads in shame for a collectively dismal showing, especially this paper and its non-existent editors.

It is not policy differences between Clinton and Sanders that matters. It is trust and authenticity. She can improve her chances of getting elected as president by donating the money she earned from speeches to charities.

Another ivory tower, out-of-touch, overly-contrived analysis of the current election cycle. It's a lot more straightforward.

A lot of people are not happy with the increasingly obvious, institutionalized corruption and unfairness in our political and economic systems. That's what's motivating most Sanders supporters and at least some Trump supporters. Another segment of people want the government to do more to level the playing field via an expansion of some social and education-related programs, a la what Sanders is proposing. These people, not surprisingly, also support Sanders.

The current manifestation of our two-party system doesn't really accommodate people with these views. Hence, the growing divide between the political insiders within the Democratic Party with Sanders supporters and within the Republican Party with Trump supporters.

That's about all there is to it.

Sure, maybe the voters for both of these candidates were angry. But Sanders was so much more focused than Trump. I'd hazard that very many of Sanders voters, like myself, liked his message, a message that was front and center the whole campaign.

Sanders relentlessly pounded away on one fundamental issue, that of inequality of opportunity, wealth, and power. Trump was all over the map and even contradictory on individual issues . . . once again the NYT tries speciously to place these two gentlemen in the same box.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. I've spoken with those who "hate" Hillary based solely on the two-plus decades of "Hillary's Evil" Right Wing spin without knowing anything, ANYTHING, about what she's actually done for children, health care, woman's right, equality.

And I've spoke with Sanders supporters who, when pressed for specifics or some semblance of what he's achieved in his two-plus decades as a Senator, offer little but variations of his "Wealth is bad" stump speech railing against the 1%.

Oftentimes, people vote with their hearts or their rage, but rarely their minds. And that's how we end up with Trump.

70+ year old voting for Sanders in CA. Do I agree
with ALL of his policies? Of course not but more than
those of Clinton whose policy positions change every
month. Bringing Bill into the mix in the White House is
a real turn off. Clinton wants to continue the Obama
legacy which will eventually include all of his pressure
to support the TPP which will give more American jobs
to Vietnam. Haven't we had enough of loss of jobs here
with B. Clinton and NAFTA?
I support Bernie because he is clearly against TPP.
I don't trust H.Clinton not to change her mind on this
and sell out the American workers to wall street interests.
Bringing Bill in just makes this worry greater.

This is a strange argument based on questionable methodology. A YouGov internet poll that gives points with monetary value for answering? A 37 page questionaire that most respondents probably didn´t finish because they fell asleep at the terminal. There are no questions about her vote for the Iraq war, nor her enthusiasm in the bombing of Qaddaffi´s Libya, both of which are major swathes of daylight between her and Obama. No question about the nature of American support for Israel, or even about single-payer medical care. This looks like a trivial study designed to look for patterns of identity voting instead of looking at the issues driving the two candidates´ campaigns. Typical of the Times´opinions and analyses trivializing the Sanders campaign.

Mr. Achen and Mr. Bartels need to step down from their Ivory Towers and actually get involved in a political campaign. True, loyalty to Hillary is a huge factor in her success, but that has been earned over the last 25 years. However, dismissing Bernie, as everyone seems wont to do, as an anti-Hillary or simply a protest outlet misses the big picture. You point to "the angry white male" Those voters and many Bernie supports seek answers and solutions to the problems of the poor and working class that they don't find or find comfort in the extremism and crudeness of Trump or the complacency or indifference of Hillary.

Your premise is also insulting to voters; that we don't pay attention to issues or candidates positions but vote only from a unconscious tribalism. One can't use "inherited partisan loyalties, social identities and symbolic attachments" to explain why millions of Americans, including young people, support a 74 yr old Jewish Socialist with a thick old-style Brooklyn accent.

Sorry professors, I don't accept any of it. I really wish social scientists would stop trying to convert every subjective study and data point into scientific law and empirical truth. Social science is not physics, and you will never find an absolute truth like f =ma. Your hypotheses and conclusions would be different if you just spent a few days knocking on doors and handing out flyers.

I don't fully favor Sanders' platform, but I did vote for him, and this is why. I think in politics as in all negotiation, you need to start much farther out to achieve the goals you actually want. Do I believe in getting free tuition? No, I think each student needs some skin in the game to graduate on time. But if you ask for what Clinton does - free community college - you will not get that. You will not get anything. Be audacious. Ask for free tuition for the best college or program a student qualifies for, show what it would cost, and you could achieve free community college or retraining in a trade program for qualified students. And this holds for arresting banksters, tempering our foreign policy, creating good paying jobs, abortion rights, everything. Having worked for a congressional agency (OTA) for 3 years, I had ample opportunity to see this philosophy in action.

Hillary has been on both sides of many policy positions ie. Universal health care, TPP, Keystone, Gay Marriage etc. Hillary is a politician; Bernie has conviction, passion and integrity which Hillary lacks all. Buy a clue of course people want Bernie because of his policies and principles. We don't care about the Title Democrat we care about democracy #ExitPollGate

So a couple of academics publish a book about the "folk theory" of democracy, and now they're using Sanders's "surprising" success as an example that supposedly proves their theory? Confirmation bias, anyone?

It's true, as the authors state, that Sanders isn't doing surprisingly well because people have carefully thought out how their own positions on important issues of policy coincide with the candidate's. But I rather doubt that has ever been the case in the television era of politics.

Instead, the truth of the matter is that Sanders supporters are coalescing around the core problem with our democracy, and that is the concentration of wealth and the concentration of political power that goes with it. Sanders is the only candidate that has shown a commitment to getting the greed out of Washington.

It's much more fundamental than health care, the minimum wage, or some of the other "left-leaning" policy issues raised by the authors in order to support their pet theory.

Oh, and the fact that this op-ed included a link to page where one could order the authors' book is telling of both their agenda and that of the Times.

Yes, they do. And this is a long-winded attempt to salve the egos of the pundit class, who are-once again-wrong about this election.

The only way Hillary Clinton can win presidency now is if Trump completely self-destructs (possible, but not likely), or if she takes a deep breadth and picks Bernie as the VP !!

Otherwise, it is back to high-priced lecture circuit for Hillary !

I don't think Sander's supporters know what they favor other than just thinking being against Hillary is the right thing......basically clueless!

No. This is the vomit moment for the body politic. After nearly three decades of neoliberal power, Americans of all stripes are disgusted with Democrats who promise that "I'll fight for you," and never do, and conservatives who say, "I'll put God back into politics," and then turn back to the corporations after they get elected.

Americans of every political stripe now have honest grievances with the way things have been going. They may disagree about why, but they do believe that things are getting worse. And candidates who promise a shinier, slightly tweaked version of the last 30 years are being rejected.

I could have pursued an academic career in political science; I was encouraged to. But I've come to see, in this column and elsewhere, that much of what passes for scholarship in this realm is personal or political opinion backed with a few buzz words and convenient references.

Madison Avenue Marketing Drivel masquerading as academic theory. NYT, where do you get this stuff?

Has there ever been a candidate whose supporters embrace all their policies? When looking at Sanders (or Clinton) much of what they want is unrealistic given the stranglehold that the Republicans and special interests have on our system. Does Hilary really think she'll have any success with gun control when 9 out of 10 members of Congress are in the pocket of the NRA? What many people are looking for is someone who can lead and effectively use the presidency as the bully pulpit it is. As Paul Krugman notes in today's column, the power of the President to do much about the economy is limited. Many people realize this and support candidates less for their specific policies than for leadership skills. Unfortunately Hilary appears to lack those skills, as demonstrated by her mediocre performance as Secretary of State.

The analysis seems apt: people vote with their hearts, not their minds. But why single out Sanders? Clinton too, and all candidates for that matter, are popular to the extent they push irrational buttons. This may cast a dim light on democracy in general — we're easily swayed by bread and circuses — but it offers no clear choice among our options.

"Do Sanders Supporters Favor His Policies?"
Yes! That is EXACTLY the point.

Polls have long shown that the majority of Americans (across party lines) support the positions held by Sen. Sanders (higher minimum wage, no entitlement cuts, a public option for health care, a less "adventurous" foreign policy, increased infrastructure spending) - he just had the novel idea of actually running on them.

A more interesting question, which the authors leave un-examined, is whether Hillary Clinton's supporters support her policies, if they even know what those are. Or if Hillary Clinton supports Hillary Clinton's policies - or if she instead supports Sen. Sanders' policies, or Bill Clinton's policies, or Barack Obama's policies? I have no idea.

The distinguished authors of this article "Do Sanders Supporters Favor His Policies?" seem to be at bit confused. Obviously, Sander supports enthusiastically agree with his ideas or they won't turn out in large numbers to his rallies. As to whether those ideas are going to become a reality, he needs to be elected first to find out. The only unease out there are the people that see Sanders as a threat to their way of life. This especially includes business monopolies and the wealth that pay a disproportional small amount in taxes. To be fair, the NYT should spend its efforts educating the public about the economic inequality in this country and why the Sander's movement has become a populous movement for those that feel disenfranchised by the economic system. Obviously, the NYT is failing to readership when they ignore the root causes of today's economic "unease' by the working poor of this country.

Another opinion piece that aims to denigrate not only Bernie Sanders,but also his supporters. I have been to Bernie rallies and just attended the Left Forum here in New York, and have spoken to many Bernie supporters, men, women, black, white, etc. and almost all of them are left leaning Dems or Independents who are very very knowledgeable about the issues and his stance on them. Yes, we are angry - not just white men, but black, Hispanic, Asian, men and women. We are angry at injustice and inequity and the militaristic and corporate arm of the Democratic party. It seems clear that the authors of this piece have failed to do real research, and instead look only at polls. Why don't you try speaking to Sanders' supporters for a change? You may actually learn something!!

I'm starting a pool on what percent of comments will have nothing to do with the topic but will be all about how "Hillary is deeply flawed" and "HIllary is untrustworthy and dishonest" and any number of other standard rote phrases the kids have memorized.

Any takers?