Comes very close to fake science. All we know are votes and demographics, and then these witch doctors use a little voodoo to get why: sexism, racism, ageism, whatever. Could it be that voters liked the programs of the person they voted for?
2
well, all of that is pretty awful :(
2
I never lsiten to Mr Edsall. He represents a period of time in America that no longer exists
1
Re "The Sanders Coalition...," I'm reading this question, adjusted to mask "hostile sexism" to survey respondents: "asking “whether a person thinks that one of the ‘reasons’ that women are underrepresented in government is because ‘generally speaking, males make better leaders’.” My own answer to that question would be 'yes,' a response the survey's author would take as indicating bias on my part. But my 'yes' means to me that I think many people believe that 'generally speaking, males make better leaders,' and that this belief IS a reason for the underrepresentation of women in government. It does not at all reflect my own view. Is it possible that some surveys are written with the assumption that there is only one reason for any given answer? If so, that's a problem.
I don't know how many times I was asked during the Obama years if I was happy with the direction of the country. I almost always answered 'no' -- by which **I** meant that Obama hadn't gone nearly as far as I would have liked him to on certain issues. I **was** unhappy -- but not remotely in a way that could be resolved by trump's election.
I don't know many people whose perspective on things is as flat as this article seems to indicate. Survey writers, are you listening?
Hali Fieldman, Ph.D.
University of Missouri -- Kansas City
4
I enjoyed reading this well-organized analysis. I would like to read more opinion pieces that are longer than the usual NYT columns.Such detailed and thoughtful analysis always is welcomed.
4
Um, they are exactly what I thought. Cranks, Misogynists and spoiled frat Bros, with a political bent.
Where have YOU been ???
3
So Biden needs a Latino running mate because a woman would bring on these hostilities? Castro?
The big question is whether the Liberals will sell their soul to the one guy they attacked for years, or stay home.
Let's face it, Sanders is toast, the progressive movement is gone.
And so far a lot of those liberal/progressives are happily changing their colors from extreme left to centrists and lining up behind Biden.
Makes you wonder if it was all a mirage, or the fad of the moment. But a true revolution it was not.
The Trump/Biden campaign will be a no holds barred, no respect, rude, all out for blood disaster.
Good luck to the winner, he will have a hell of a hard time convincing the bruised and angry supporters of the opposite party to join in making this a great country again.
I do believe the Congress will turn a bright red if Biden wins, and it will block anything Biden puts out for 4 years.
Too bad, the chance for change is gone.
I'm sure How Biden's advisors are smart enough to think of this themselves, but I'll state it anyway, just top get it off my chest.
It was interesting to watch Sanders' "concession" speech this morning, where he explicitly stated all the questions he was going to confront Joe Biden with during the upcoming Debate on Sunday.
The most effective way to deal with all those "Joe, what are you going to do about..." questions is to turn them back on Sanders': "Bernie, what are YOU going to actually DO about all these problems, except to spout slogans, that, like Trump, you have no chance of actually implementing..."
You can not implement Universal Health Care with a "movement". It takes hard, serious and REAL policy making, and hard and real talks about funding to implement these things. You cannot pay for "Medicare for All" ("I wrote the damn thing...") by taxing the 1%; even they don't have enough. Universal Health Insurance requires a defined, steady, and predicable funding stream, not bits of taxes here and there, which would be subject to heated debates very budget cycle.
When Bernie supporters are interviewed, especially his core group, the young, and are asked what they especially like about him, they invariable list "free" health care and "free" college education. NONE OF THIS IS FREE.
I lived and worked in Germany under their mandatory health insurance scheme, and it is NOT free - it is funded trough a payroll-like tax, shared by employee and employer, and it works!!
5
'racially conservative whites'
what a cute term for white supremacists...
5
Sander's supporters need to know Joe Biden supports:
1. Better movie roles for transgender actors
2. Farm to table food for the homeless- prepared by celebrity chefs.
3. More LGBTQ owned electric car dealerships
4. Lifetime backstage passes to Coachella
5. Fee condos for undocumented immigrant workers
6. A vegan only state [possibly Connecticut]
7. Mandatory midnight holistic healing drum circles
8. Tye-die Thursdays
9. Service dogs allowed during open heart surgery
10. Free Weed!
Don't stay home and protest pout on election day! Get out there and VOTE for Uncle Joe!
Sander's biggest enemy has always been himself. To put it simply, "he doesn't play well with other kids."
5
Clinton contributed to the problem. I remember during a debate when she explicitly listed one group after another, Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asians, and then left out any mention of White people who are struggling. It was a major unforced error. You probably cringed too, if you saw it.
1
It's possible that Warren lost votes because of sexism. But I wouldn't say that either India or Pakistan was exactly free of sexism, and yet both of those counties have had female heads of state. Ya think there might be other reasons Warren lost traction. Personally, I didn't like that she said she was a minority to get an affirmative action job. I also disliked her fake feminist cheer leading, 'men, losers, women winners' rah, rah, rah'. I'm a real feminist & I found it yucky. I do think sexism played a role in why Klobachar lost to Biden. She was more to the center of the Democratic pack. & tho she's not especially likable, she does seem to have a good brain. & tho Sanders is my favorite candidate, I thought Klobachar may have had the best chance of beating Trump.
3
Wow! It takes of bunch of experts conducting studies and surveys to conclude that there is sexism in politics?
5
This is all very interesting, but if there is actually a county in the United States where 77% of the residents lack a college education, how can the country survive? College isn't for everybody but come on, somebody has to have more than high school. I'd worry about that, and the lives these people have to look forward to, before I'd worry about whether they trust muslims.
1
I wish more people read Thomas Paine and fewer packed a bible.
1
It’s not news to a lot of us that there are left-wing misogynists. We knew it 50 years ago.
4
I am so sick of hearing its all about who can beat Trump! Why can't it be about who would have been a great leader? Someone that our kids could admire? Who's hero is an elderly man that say's No Malarkey? If that is your grandfather or great grand-father great, but for the President? Against Putin? Against the world? We are competing against the world..At least nasty ole Trump told them they are ripping us off and was willing to do something about it. No one was talking about how much China was ripping us off before Trump! No one was doing anything but appeasing Iran. Sending cash to them?
Twitter isn't voting.
"In the 2020 primaries, as Sarah Longwell, director of Defending Democracy Together, showed in the Times a few days ago,..."
Okay, stop. This needs to be called out, among many other untruths in this piece. The person you're quoting as an "expert" is a Republican ideologue and the group she works for is run by Bill Kristol. The other group she works for, Center Action Now, was running Anti-Bernie Sanders ads in primary states. They are a NeverTrump/NeverSanders advocacy group, NOT a scientific polling organization.
This is not an honest actor, Thomas, and I think you know that. You got Biden. You won. It's time to take your foot off the pedal.
3
Bernie started to tank after defending Castro's policies. Right or wrong, people were terrified by that. Instead of building a card castle out of "racism" and "sexism," perhaps Edsall could keep it simple and use Mr. Occam's razor when researching his columns.
2
How are other countries able to elect women leaders? Are the people who like in Germany, Scotland, New Zealand, and so on far less sexist than Americans? It is worth noting that the only two US Presidential nominees to garner more than 65 million votes were a black man and a white woman.
1
I wish you’d give the sexism allegation a rest. We are talking about the democratic primary, where women comprised 57% of voters.
Despite being the only big name woman in the race on Super Tuesday—where Biden, Bernie, and Bloomberg, split the vote—she came in 3rd in her Massachusetts (which she represents) and 5th in Oklahoma (where she grew up).
How did all those women in Massachusetts turn out to be such hostile sexists?
Perhaps the answer lies elsewhere.
2
My politics are left-center. A woman won the nomination last time. This time she didn't because Democrats didn't prefer her. No sexism. End of story. We have much bigger fish to fry. Namely Blowfish No. 1 in the Oval Office.
1
I give this article (and other Thomas Edsall articles my highest praise:
I learned a lot from it.
He seems more interested in objectively finding out the truth about reality than starting with an ideology and cherry-picking facts. Great integration of theory and empirical evidence. Keep up the good work, and NYTimes, keep printing it.
2
It's a good evidence based piece. Edsall actually reads. It's also very depressing, partly because it's so convincing. I will continue to support Sanders, despite the disagreeable qualities of some of his supporters, but in November, this kind of information is starting to convince me that I will probably have to vote for Biden. What is further distressing is that Biden was certainly, in my view, not the best 'moderate' candidate. That would probably be Buttgieg. Biden has been around but he is not very capable. It's actually frightening to have someone who is not that bright in the White House, as we are experiencing
now. Let's start talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for 2024. One thing Sanders has done is arouse the latino vote, and that gives me some hope for the future.
1
"...voters, including Democrats, are not as liberal as some polls suggest and as many on the left assert."
Exactly.
As long as disagreement with liberal positions is presented as proof of moral failure, discrepancies between how liberal a voter presents himself to the public and pollsters, and how liberal he actually votes, will remain.
It's called peer pressure, followed by independent thought and action.
2
Well it looks as if Biden will ride the wave of "moderate" support that was terrified of Sanders, either of his policies or his perceived un-electability. or both. At least that's how it looks for now. The Bernie Apocalypse has been averted. But there's still another debate and who knows what will flow out of Joe's mouth, although given that most people have simply judged him as "the best candidate to beat Trump", I doubt anything he says will sway anyone from that belief.
I do think it's interesting that many of the voters who voted for Sanders in 2016 have since left the Dems and joined the Republicans. And that most of these were never going to vote for Hilary - a belief I expressed often in response to the meme that Bernie voters cost her the election.
But that highlights another aspect: a lot of the support that Sanders might receive in a match up against Trump isn't from Democrats, and therefore he's not able to tap their support in the primaries. Of course it was his decision to run as Democrat and it's up to him to convince Democratic voters to support him. So far he's not doing that as well as he he believed he could.
Finally, I think Bernie is right to be disappointed in the younger voters who seem to be holding true to form and not voting in the numbers they could. If that's the case, they have only themselves to blame for the results they get.
I was recently asked, why am I more interested having a female VP than I am interested in the VP’s race. I had said that I would be happy with Abrams, Klobuchar, Warren, Harris, or even Governor Lujon Grisham. Their race shouldn't matter. This article touches upon my reasoning.
My caring more than anything that the VP is a woman has to do with the fact that I really want to put another nail in the coffin of the "Southern Strategy" of Goldwater and Nixon that followed the Civil Rights movement. I wasn't around then, but I know it still impacts American politics today – it’s Trump’s strategy. And as this article shows, sexism is a deeply embedded cultural phenomena, irrespective of party affiliation.
But my party and my country has proven to me that it can elect a minority candidate to the highest office in the land. Obama's election was seismic and revolutionary for Dems, because Carter and Clinton were, after all, Southern white males. So I'm confident that we can elect a minority candidate again...and we will. But the Southern Strategists were also, amongst other things, against the Equal Rights Amendment (women should know their place). It was just 2 months ago that Virginia finally ratified the ERA bill of 1971! Think about that.
A great democratic leader cares about the little guy and the hometown gal. That and political experience are my litmus tests . A female black VP, a white VP, a Hispanic VP, or an Asian VP can do.
But, just no Hillary, please!
Thomas Edsall and his sources focus on one side of the question why Elizabeth Warren did so poorly in this campaign. And yes, there is no doubt that the US is less socially liberal than we might think or hope, particularly with respect to gender. But we should probably also remember that Americans are also less economically liberal than progressives might like. Remember that it was not so long ago (October) that Warren was the front-runner among Democrats. Then, goaded by her moderate rivals, she released her plan to pay for her ambitious program, and the response was either that it was unrealistic or too costly. Her political fortunes never recovered.
As Thomas Friedman reminded us yesterday, the Danes pay on average 48% of their income in all forms of taxation. Similar rates prevail elsewhere on the European continent. Over many years, when I ask my European friends about this, they point out that they regard this as a liberating system, since they are assured of healthcare, education, childcare, basic income, support in their older years, and many other things. Americans, by contrast, seem to think that they can somehow beat the system and keep more of their money while escaping the devastating expenses that have crushed so many of their neighbors. With each passing year, this fiction becomes harder and harder to maintain. We are not yet ready for a candidate that describes a robust social safety net and how to realistically pay for it.
4
Not disclosed by Edsall's article, is that Sanders is far more successful with voters 30 and under. They also favored Sanders over Clinton. Establishment Democrats seem to have trust issues for young voters.
@David MD yes they have trust issues because young voters don't vote.
1
Is is possible that the young voters for sanders is an unproven myth.
Even in Ann Arbor, MI, a county dominated by young voters, Sanders lost!
I have come to believe that in 2016, they were not voting for Sanders, but against
Hilary, a damaged good. But Sanders, being a egotist, took it as if he is leading a revolution!
What a farce! He had his chance in 2016, and he should have let someone else lead the progressive wing. if he was not running, Elizabeth Warren would have had a better chance at the nomination!
So you can blame Sanders for crowding out the progressive lane.
3
"About 10 to 12 percent of Sanders’s 2016 primary voters cast ballots for Trump in the general election, and another 12 percent either voted for third-party candidates or sat the election out."
This changed the outcome and elected Trump. Some people need to own this and learn from the mistake, because Clinton and Trump were not remotely the same thing. Trump told us before he was elected that he intended to appoint Federalist Society weirdo outliers to the courts. Some folks never understood what that meant or didn't take it seriously. Because ideological purity exceeded indifference to fascism for too many, we got an authoritarian who appoints judges who ensure that our children and grandchildren will be harmed for decades.
It's foolish to let differences of opinion about aspirational politics divide us again. Sanders' aspirations are pointless, in fact. Without 60 Democratic Senators, Sanders would do nothing.
Not one thing.
Because legislation requires a supermajority, neither Biden nor Sanders would govern one iota differently. They could issue executive orders in non-fiscal matters and pass the very few pieces of tax legislation that could get 50 Senators aboard and are able to go through reconciliation.
If the Democrats get a simple Senate majority, both Biden and Sanders would be able stem the Trump assault on the judiciary. If the Democrats don't get a simple Senate majority, the best that either can hope for is that he isn't Trump.
And that's enough.
3
Men have a long way to go to rid themselves of their anti-female bias. And, yes, women, have anti-male bias. The difference is, ours comes from living under your regime. Yours comes in the midst of perpetuating it and for what?
Look at the mess this world is in on your watch. Maybe take a back seat for a while, calm down, and compromise.
We'll end up with more Trump extremism, if you don't.
49
@Ames
Senator Warren was, according to all of the conventional metrics, the best candidate.
12
Bernie spoke today and is still in the race! He effectively says we old timers have to step aside and let the young take control because they are the leaders of the future. It's a flawed argument -- most of us change as we get older, typically towards more moderate or conservative approaches -- perhaps due to learning and wisdom or perhaps due to senility. Bernie apparently has not experienced this maturing and thinks all his supporters will remain fixed in time forever, as he apparently has.
4
@Lee Smith
There's nothing wise about voting as if you don't care what the future looks like, you just want what you want now. Wisdom is taking responsibility for the world you helped create and fixing it for the next generations.
If you're old, elections aren't about you anymore. Wise up.
1
Joe Biden's goal is to unite the country and getting to work on making the world a better place.
Bernie Sander's goal is also to unite the country and getting to work on making the world a better place.
My suggestion is for Joe Biden to begin to rapidly hire the Sander's organization and the workers for Warren's organization and begin the real tough work. The problems are difficult and the first act of leadership is for a total and real display of solidarity. Don't waste any more time debating but take time in describing the problems and the approach that the new America and new Congress will take in making the world a better place for all people.
I know Joe and Bernie. I am older and I offer this recommendation in the interest of all people on Earth.
3
That will never happen, because Bernie has a mountain high Ego.
1
So Mr. Edsall, you are saying that the old white men that voted for Sanders were voting against Clinton in the primaries and the Democrats have lost them to Trump never to get them back.
The only thing I see that is clearly defined is that Sanders would have easily beat Trump in the general election and a lot of those old, white males would have stayed Democrats.
The Democratic establishment ensured that the only candidate that could lose against Trump got the nomination by stacking the deck up front and undermining the Sanders campaign throughout the primaries. Instead of pivoting as they did with Obama's insurgency, they closed their eyes to the groundswell of resentment that carried Trump into office.
The the Democratic Party leadership at both the state and national level need to wake up stop undermining candidates that excite the public and have the best chance of winning an general election in favor of party insiders. In Massachusetts they lost Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat and the governorship by running the same party insider twice ("it was her turn"). They sabotaged the candidacy of a popular progressive state senator and successful businessman that was the GOP's worst nightmare so she could lose to another lackluster Republican candidate for governor. I've seen the same practice and same results in Pennsylvania.
The people deserve better
1
As today's "Bernie Broadside" indicates, Sanders is still going to sabotage the progressive movement as he exits. His "Seven Questions I'm Going to Ask Joe" aren't in the style of a dialog between friends and fellow travellers on the path of enlightened politics. They're meant as the script for an interrogation of the clear leader of a party that Bernie doesn't belong to, and has been trying to convert to his brand of social democracy. Sanders has every right to pursue his vision of what an enlightened society offers to itself--but he doesn't have the right to stand as The Grand Inquisitor, converting a 2-way platform into a 1-way grilling of his "friend."
I hope the DNC responds energetically to Bernie's attempt to take over the podium, and asserts a set of rules and decorum that will prevent the assassination of the candidate who is nearing victory in our most important presidential race.
5
First of all, Bernie was never a Democrat. He's an independent who caucuses with Democrats. If far left progressives are so enamored with Bernie Sander's then they can form their own party and field their candidate in 2024.
5
@Aaron Anybody can belong to a political party. What's the big deal about that? To stand alone and on your own two feet as Sanders has/does is maturity.
1
@Aaron
Bernie has been getting 30-40% of the votes. If you want to push a large number of those votes away, good luck to you. If that happens, you'll be long dead before we have another Democratic president. But in the meantime, that self-righteous indignation will sure feel good!
@Dennis Rice
Yes and no..
It's obvious the far-left wants something bigger and better and rather than them trying to force feed their agenda onto 60% of the Democrats who are "moderate" .. It's better they break off and form their own party.. "The Gender Neutral Green Utopian Everything is Free Party"
Thank you for writing this. I have been prattling on and on about it for what feels like an eternity.
Here, I believe, is an interesting side note. Those who self-identify as "very progressive" are 92% white. In 2016, the per capita average annual incomes of Sanders and Clinton voters were virtually the same. (The number for what's his name was $10,000 higher.) As reported here, Sanders voters are uniquely characterized among Democrats by the fact that on surveys or in studies they agree with the statement, "I would like to burn society to the ground." In short, though their incomes are not on average worse than the incomes of Biden voters, they are much more angry. My own hypothesis is that their anger is related to the specific set of expectations and assumptions that white people, including younger white people, still have pertaining to the ease and certainty of white attainments and success, however much those expectations and assumptions are based on an old and unfair system which benefitted white people, especially white male people, at the expense of un-white people or females.
4
@Robert
You have it backward. Your hypothesis fits old, white moderates to a tee. The anger of the young is related to the messed up world older people want to leave them, while at the same time denying them the ability to do anything about it because it might upset their own comfort and attainment. That's why we have Joe Biden, who is anything but the future. He might not even make it through a single term. Then what?
1
I am 82 years old. In a nut-shell, the Establishment (Republican or Democrat) is afraid Sanders, like Warren, would try to force corporations to pay taxes on their off-shore profits.
The Democratic leadership has caved-in to that. They might as well be Republicans.
Bernie Sanders name might as well be Hillary Clinton. Same movie.
Edsall has access to impressive hard data, not just mere opinion. He has been correct about the probable outcomes and the social attitudes that shape them at every step in this election.
These data, especially the ones showing the difference between Sanders-Trump vs. Sanders-Clinton voters show convincingly that Sanders taps into people who want "free stuff," but who really aren't concerned about the common person.
Sanders voters, in general, are not true liberals.
Extraordinary column, once again, Mr. Edsall.
2
In response to Friedman’s column, that has stopped taking comments:
The middle class and poor pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes and much of that money goes to welfare to wealthier Americans (such as bailouts, federal subsidies or even paying for their five-star meals). Meanwhile, the rest of us are told to work hard and pick ourselves up without the same resources that the wealthiest get handed to them. And let’s not forget jobs are created when more people have more spending power and when they’re not burdened with debts, such as healthcare bills and college loans.
When the richest Americans paid a higher percentage, America was a prosperous country with many freedoms. Free college in the past didn’t destroy our country either.
If Americans didn’t have to worry about what might happen to them without health insurance, more people could start businesses.
If the richest Americans weren’t destroying the planet and paying taxes and not taking so many government handouts while eliminating jobs, in self-consuming capitalism that prioritizes the short-term, and if they were willing to concede some rights to workers, maybe they wouldn’t be demonized.
3
How many of the Sanders-Trump voters were in crossover states, like Texas, where voters do not register by party and can vote in any primary they choose? That is, could some of the Sanders-Trump voters have just been Republicans who were trying sabotage the Democratic vote by electing a candidate they assumed would be easier for the Republican nominee to defeat in the general election -- i.e. Sanders.
2
As writing on Clinton continues to emerge, I found myself surprised to conclude how much the possibilities of health care reform owe to her earliest hard work. And to some extent, it seems also that slick healthcare reform is a ripoff message.
Women have to be more strategic. They have to build coalitions, and gain allies; not fight to bring about change. Men are impatient and taught not to compromise, which makes for more action, excitement, and bruising fights.
We're all tired of the fighting, but no one wants to try the more strategic approach, which is a long game requiring patience, good will, and fair play that women bring to the table.
As long as we have that instinct, women will be left out of leadership.
2
The first female president will be a Republican. The reason is that the Republicans don't have to support her because "it's time that we had a female POTUS". They are free to support her on her merits alone. Just like Obama, who didn't run on it's "his time". Whenever we say it's "her time" we are compromising our choice and our vote. That gets translated as sexism, but is it really?
1
A lot of talk very recently about how the Dem vp should be a woman. This article has me thinking twice about that now. Would the Dems gain more than they lose by nominating a female vp?
@Sullivan If it is a progressive woman like Liz, I think they would lose some middle ground votes. I think Amy would be more acceptable.
I think it comes down to the fact Twitter bots cannot vote, and the majority of anonymous donors contributing an average of $18 to Sander's campaign (below the $50 maximum for anonymous donations) can't vote in America.
2
Sometimes it's better the candidate you don't know. We know what Sanders and Warren wanted. Liz had a plan for it --- which made it easier to attack. Even Buttigieg and Klobuchar were coaxed to reveal what they planned for the presidency. Not Joe Biden. He cloaked himself in Obama and promised more of the same.
That left most of us progressives remembering how we learned to criticize Obama after holding such hope that a moderate really could be something other than a secret conservative. Obama, being black couldn't be criticized; Joe was a different matter as the Onion ran parody after parody on him.
Now, whether we like it or not, we're back to liberalism without liberals; insurance with a mandate to punish working people who can't afford ridiculous premiums; and promises without substantial gains against the oligarch that rule this country. Yes, we progressives will vote for Biden but the spirits gone. Biden will squeak out a victory. The "moderates" will tell their corporate donors that they have the "communists" under control . Jamie Dimon can sleep better. But, we won't go away. And, revolution is still possible. Don't Jamie: it's not over yet.
1
Another day, more pseudo-social science. This is just another libel against decent people dressed up as social science. Has anyone asked the "social scientists" how they vote?
I would wager that all those voters who turned their backs on Elizabeth Warren would have gladly voted for Margaret Thatcher. If I am right, the charge of "hostile sexism" is a phony.
Warren is doubtless extremely smart and conscientious. But she acted like she was running for chief policy wonk, not president. No one would mistake her for a leader, which Thatcher was in spades.
Even Warren's policy wonkery -- though its was an architectural achievement -- was on close examination just a grab bag of loony leftist nostrums from someone who should have known better.
Call it hostility against straight-A students who have never lived in the real world, then I won't charge this opinion piece as libel.
2
This is the first case of community spread in Ohio. I feel like I’m in a bad movie....David
What is the main goal for the Democrats ?
To make demagogue trump a one term President.
Now, after months of contest only two Candidates are left, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.
After last night`s Super Tuesday, the math does not add up for Mr. Sanders.
He knows that and his supporters knows that, so to make History Bernie Sanders should drop out and follow the example of all the youunger Candidates and support VP Joe Biden.
Yes, there will be a debate coming weekend, with no audiance, none of then are going to campaigh openly in this critical time.
2
Excellent column, it all makes sense and is supported by data. I hope Bernie reads it. And AOC, listen up please as well. Bernie needs to withdraw from the race, doing everything he can to bring his smaller true progressive liberal base into the Biden coalition. Would you like to see Ivanka Trump, hand picked to run in her dad’s place, as the first woman president in 2024, or 2028 if Trump gets a 3rd term? Don’t believe it can’t happen.
4
I wanted to vote for either Warren or Sanders so badly. Seems I won’t get that chance this time. Maybe ever.
It is painfully clear that, for now, the majority of this country is not aligned with progressive liberal values.
The worst part is - it rests squarely on the shoulders of fellow registered Democratic voters.
Last year reporter Jonah Goldberg wrote a piece demonstrating how Democratic African-American and Latino voters are no longer the most liberal faction of the party: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-02/democrats-blacks-latinos-white-liberals-biden
And just this year, Fact Tank wrote about how the growth of self-described liberal base of the Democratic Party has slowed in recent years, as well as how conservative nonwhite Democratic voters actually are: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/17/liberals-make-up-largest-share-of-democratic-voters/
We clearly need at least two more political parties - one for the reasonable Republicans of yore (Bush I, Bob Dole, John McCain) and one for leftward Dems (Warren, Sanders).
Our two-party system only results in gridlock and stasis while the elites do better and better and everyone else suffers and fights with each other and among themselves.
1
"Roughly one-quarter of Sanders’s support in Democratic primaries and caucuses in 2016 came from #NeverHillary voters: people who didn’t vote for Clinton in the 2016 general election and who had no intention of doing so."
One might almost say: "Nobody likes her."
You pretend that media coverage had little to do with election results. The Democratic primary race focused almost exclusively on two lily-white states, one very anti-intellectual. Media figures spent a year interviewing and polling folks who had the luxury of not committing to any candidate who didn't shake their hand in their local diners. You then crafted a narrative combining their feelings with leftovers from four years ago and worked to force the current candidates into that narrative.
You blew it. Warren was not Sanders Light and Bernie Bros. are real and brutally misogynistic, Buttigieg was embraced by Iowans because they were too clueless to realize he was gay and rejected by the Democratic base because he was closer to being a log-cabin Republican than a progressive.
You dismissed all women as unelectable. Booker and Castro suffered from being what you wanted to believe Biden was--extremely thoughtful, nice guys--but black and Hispanic. Yang was covered pretty fairly: he was not ready to be president, but his UBI deserved consideration.
You rightfully ignored most of the billionaires in the race, though you were willing to award the race to the highest bidder until Bloomberg publicly proved how unfit he was for office.
You thought that Sanders still captivated crowds of young voters, despite all evidence to the contrary. You thought that Biden's mental lapses were mere extensions of his previously poor articulation. These candidates are more your choice than ours.
I think the real takeaway from all this is just how disliked Hillary Clinton was, and what a poor decision it was to nominate her for the Presidency.
2
It is really much simpler than all that. Polling consistently shows that Democratic primary voters prefer Sanders on almost every issue. But they have been convinced by people like you that Biden is the safer bet to beat Trump. This election, and the NY Times opinion page in particular, has been an object lesson in Noam Chomsky's theory of manufactured consent. Let's hope that this year's "safe choice" does better than 2016s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
1
Interesting analysis.
I got distracted by phrases like: "Those conservative views on African-Americans" and "racially conservative whites"
Surely many of the minority of votes Trump got in 2016 were NeverHillary votes.
Which is why when Hillary is not on the ballot in 2020, Trump is going to get trounced.
It's pretty obvious.
1
Racism, sexism, and purposeful ignorance are inevitable factors in American culture (much like in the rest of the world), and have a strong effect on electoral politics. Those who desire progress must except this reality and deal with it, rather than throwing tantrums of purist rage. Progress comes far too slowly for people on the bottom of the heap, but progress as it comes is much better than regression.
Women and minorities are understandably dissatisfied with half a loaf. But half a loaf is better than starvation; starving people are at a great disadvantage in fomenting revolution. if the far left purists and disenchanted Bernie bros sit on their hands in this election, it will have been the last one that mattered.Yes, it can really be that bad.
Vote blue no matter who.
3
It is clear from the choice of the most moderate and publicly flawed of all candidates--Joe Biden--that the Democratic voters are unbearable risk-averse in this election. Can you blame them?
Just as Maslow told us--there is a pyramid of human need. And basic physical security is at the bottom. As a democracy, we need the basics and one of them is to know the nation is safe and not being run by a conman lunatic that will sell us to a dictator in exchange for visits to his golf courses and a position for Drumpf jr. So first is first.
Bernie knows it, and his knowledge was made public. For the same risk-averse reason he knew a woman would not be at the top of the Democratic ticket, (and offensively told Warren that) he somehow failed to see that we also would not put a socialist on the top of the ticket.
First things first--save the Republic. No risks, no women, no socialists.
Since many disaffected Americans went for the populist wave of 2016 and Trump was the only "solution" offered then. Bernie's populist attraction was countered by Hillary Clinton then. That populist wave is ebbing now since Trump has tried to distract them with his media magic re illegal immigrants and exaggerations..
If Bernie can win the nomination, he may be able to reawaken that populist impulse, but disaffected Americans have become worn out and leery of such solutions. Same is true for the short attention span of the young people. However, with older people more anxious about the Coronavirus, the young folks will be braver about showing up at public polling places, which may rejigger the calculus around who actually votes.
Toast one week, éclair the next week?
All sorts of variables in this electability race, but the bottom line is still 1991 delegate majority and neither Joe nor Bernie are near that nor really far ahead of the other. Early days still, so as exciting and overbearing as it might be, don't jump the gun!
1
Yes, you can slice these primary results six ways from Sunday. You will find that yes, there's misogyny in there (because all cultures, globally patriarchal and misogynist). The more disappointing realization for progressives (Sanders and Warren supporters) should be that most Americans are basically pretty mediocre. They can't connect the dots and see why neoliberal capitalism has made most of us wage slaves, and our politics captured by corporate interests. They have no real class consciousness. They can't understand the existential threat of global climate change and won't make any changes in their personal lives or demand action from their government. It doesn't have to be this way. Except it is, because most of our fellow citizens are too dull to see beyond their own two feet, let alone imagine a better world.
1
@Bennett. Perhaps the most important lesson progressives need to learn is that name-calling of Democrats who do not agree with every aspect of the party line is not an effective way to build a movement. Or win an election. We don’t need more divisive leadership, and Bernie and followers like you are just that.
2
@Amy Stephson
Only in a Biden universe is demanding what every other G7 country has be called "divisive".
Just like being "decent" means responding to voter questions by challenging them to fights and calling women lying dog-faces. That's Biden decency for you.
There are many Americans who would never vote for an armadillo. Does that make them speciasts, or did they rationally conclude that an armadillo couldn't possibly govern?
1
One of the very positive things that Bernie's campaign accomplished was a rethinking of the electorate. Bernie reached out to two groups, young voters and Latinx people, who even the most progressive campaigns just breeze past as an afterthought. Imagine being in a demographic who, based on some data spreadsheet predicting your probability ratios, doesn't really exist to Democrats. I know that Dems work for the interests of these groups in many instances, but they (the Dem establishment) typically barely registers them as part of the democratic election process. Here's to no longer cynically ignoring anyone in a progressive coalition. Here's the end of cynical spreadsheet forecasting politicking. Here's to building real coalitions of real people, all backgrounds, gender orientations and races.
1
Sexism doubtless played a large role my own distaste for Warren; I’m male, it’s America, I’m sure it’s in there somewhere. That said, my conscious distaste for Warren is she went at it like a college professor. She had a plan for everything, which for me only said she was clueless about what plans actually are. She had goals, not plans. A dozen goals equates to confusion.
i never thought I’d invoke Reagan, but he once said “a President should try to get one, maybe two things accomplished. Anything more only confuses things”.....or words to that effect. This outrages my young friends. They imagine the entire carnival can be remade and it’s just a matter of moving decimal points in a spreadsheet and directing the citizens on where to go and what to do. As sad as that may be, that’s not how the world works. I can only wish it were otherwise.
Neither Warren or Sanders had a chance in blue blazes of defeating Trump. The current primary blowout shows how wrong all the pundits and polls were that pointed to either of them. We only need to beat Trump at this point. If we accomplish that, it’ll be a full time job for the next couple administrations picking up the pieces of the mess Trump is leaving us. That’ll be enough right now.
199
@Kurt Mitenbuler
Right. Women are supposed to be warm and nurturing even when talking about the nuclear codes. If they are professional, fact-oriented and no nonsense, then they are strident and unelectable. Seems like a bit of a conundrum.
65
Kurt. You are spot on. Liz Warren. Nice lady. Smart. Would have been destroyed by Trump
7
@Kurt Mitenbuler
It is not sexist to reject a shrill, angry person who refuses to play by debate rules and interrupts and cuts off others.
I find Warren to be one of the most irritating people ever.
I am already preparing to support he opponent for 2024.
13
I strongly supported Elizabeth Warren and think that she would have made the best president of the many options available.
Now that she is out of the race, I am more inclined to support Joe Biden. Even though I favor more progressive policies, I think Bernie Sanders lacks the temperament to be elected, and the competence to be an effective president.
Now that race and gender have been taken out of the equation, it appears that a lot of air is leaking out of Bernie's revolution.
3
I expect that Mr. Edsall has studied turnout statistics among voters yesterday. Turnout among the older voters, including white voters without college degree increased, in direct contradiction to Mr. Edsall's hypothesis that the voters who had supported him in 2016 because they disliked Hilary have turned to trump. Exit poll and vote count yesterday indicate that they were turning out in greater numbers yesterday than in 2016, in support of Joe Biden. So, data support the proposition that there was a lot of sexist and misogynistic opposition to Hilary, but no there is no evidence that they turned to trump in any great numbers.
7
@Democrat
Don't know that I follow your logic here. The data from 2016 is indisputable and has been verified by credible studies. The Sanders voters who voted for Trump were motivated almost entirely by racial and gender resentment. How is that cast into doubt by the fact that Biden is turning out more white voters? Those white voters that Biden is turning out are almost certainly members of the set of reliable moderate swing voters who cannot abide Trump including his racism and sexism.
3
Excellent - if disheartening - piece but would the Sanders-Trump supporters have voted Democratic again if Sanders had won the nomination? I guess we’ll never know.
12
@James
I suspect not. If your big deciding factor is hostility to women and elites, you'll vote for the real thing in November.
8
@James It suggests not. His rhetoric in 2020 has veered left, in that he has embraced racial justice issues. He barely talked about those issues in 2016, and this analysis suggests that his reticence on race is one reason for his appeal among some working class whites. Now that he is the "liberal" candidate, and liberal = racial justice, and Trump is perfectly comfortably beating his racist drum, they won't vote for Sanders in the general.
10
Very interesting analysis. i note that today Trump blamed Elizabeth Warren for Bernie's losses (she didn't get out soon enough) which reinforces the conclusions in this article.
58
@Vicki Farrar
That is just Trump trying to stir up Sanders supporters into party rebellion.
Remember, Trumps great talent is pitting people against each other.. so he can move through them and onward.
15
@Vicki Farrar
Yeah, because Trump is an honest source who can be trusted to speak nothing but verifiable truth. If he said it, I believe it.
2
For years now, conservatives have seen Sanders as either anathema or a joke. Pundits don't get paid to state the obvious, I suppose, so we've had bags of pixels telling us the Bernie might be electable. As a result, a minority of increasingly shrill Bernie Bros were placated and bathed in the spotlight. Those of us who’ve been in the trenches for years, and have grown pachyderm skin, could see the incongruity of the Sanders policies assaulting the fortress of American conservatism. Democracy, like karma, is a heartless teacher.
3
@Des Johnson
"a minority of increasingly shrill Bernie Bros were placated and bathed in the spotlight"
Placated? You've got to be kidding. Who was placating Sanders people? All I've ever seen is an all out war on Sanders supporters using this made up Bernie Bros narrative. Bathed in the spotlight, yes - an extremely insulting and demeaning spotlight.
The Bernie Bros myth has been soundly debunked by serious academics who have studied it. But that never stopped some good poo flinging when it can be used to advance an agenda.
https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/
Political analysis that purports to identify white non-college educated voters who are prejudiced against blacks by asking "Do white people benefit from the race," is as fatally flawed as it is unfair and myopic.
Non-college educated voters generally have suffered a major decline in income and respect over the past 30 years in today's information-economy, and, those of them who
are white rightly and accurately do not feel that they enjoy a fount of benefits when asked this question by wealthy white sociologists, with little understanding of their "subjects".
Use of this criteria is a ma
Bottom line is that if the focus was on message instead of demographics the Democrats would win more.
Good article. Thank you. In trying to understand what went wrong with the campaigns of Clinton and Warren, both of whom I supported, I submit an hypothesis. They both come across the footlights as smart,articulate lawyers. You should have heard the ruckus in our household when one of my brothers wanted to go to law school! Not respectable. my son, a lawyer was recently told, 'People don't like lawyers'.
Biden comes across as gentle and kindly and mostly capable. He seems easy to like.
Sanders comes across as a smart, idealistic, cranky uncle: we all have one.
I am talking about archetypes, per Jungian thought.
What type do successful women politicians pull for? Angela Merkel is a gentle contained grandmother. Golda Mier was the mother of Isreal. Thatcher was a well dressed ordinary housewife. People could identify in a positive way with them.
I would like reactions to my ideas.
I liked Kobuchar as the girl next door. Minnesota nice.
2
I wish analysis would be a little more rigorous when comparing Biden and Hilary. Working class voters turned to Sanders from Clinton for various reasons. Mainly I’d guess because he addressed them and their concerns. Was there mysogeny and did Trump tap into it? You bet. But Trump didn’t tell Hilary to call his supporters deplorable.
I have many concerns about Biden. But he never said such a thing and he never thought such a thing.
1
Well I would have to be classified this time around as a Sanders to Biden voter. But as a member of the apparently minority progressive voter class next go around I will have to switch from Democrat to Independent. I do not feel at home in either party and do no feel welcome except at election time. So please Mr. Perez stop bombarding me with emails asking for donations to the DNC, you do not speak for me.
No, Mr. Edsall. Your assumptions and statements are incorrect. So are your sources at Tufts and UM.
I backed Senator Sanders, and I did vote for Ms. Clinton, albeit while holding my nose.
But I have not, and will never swing over to the criminal occupant's side. Not even if it's a cold day in Hell.
1
Bernie's sexist revolution. He mocked "identity voting" - while he fully benefitted from it. His camp said, "don't vote with your vagina" - they attacked Gloria Steinem for her correct analysis that women notice sexism more as they get older and become more radical. They attacked Albright for saying "special place in hell" for women who don't support women. How dare she! AOC said it was "insulting" to suggest she'd vote for a woman just b/c she's a woman - when she was asked about Warren! His campaign called Warren "a copy" and a back-stabber and a snake. In the end - Bernie got the anti-Hillary, anti-Warren -- the anti-woman vote. Stoking just that as he went on shows like Chapo Trap and Joe Rogan. And we who complained about his sexist supporters weren't taken seriously for 4 long years.
4
Sure I'll vote for Biden. He is a "decent" man. I view him as a bookmark in the progressive bible.A chance to calm down and take a deep breath.A chance to get away from Trump....if Biden can really win. But don't fool yourself. Sanders represents the future and his popularity with young voters confirms it. Getting "only" 40% of the vote is still 40% of the vote.... a harbinger of the future.Progressive stances on healthcare,climate change and income inequality will only grow in importance with the electorate over time. The Covid-19 pandemic is only a warmup for future crises and younger people instinctively realize it. Joe's OK for now but he is certainly not the future.
3
@Iamcynic1 But he is getting significantly less than 40% in this primary cycle, and one major reason is those young supporters don't vote. If they want to own the future they are going to have to get involved in the old fashioned way - not just voting, but getting involved in party institutions.
3
No. The outrage and suffering electorate is quite real. The grievances denounced by Sanders are too real. The problem is the messenger. He was never going to get elected, anymore than Bloomberg. The moral and economic deterioration of all working families, independent of education level continues. The moral decay under the August meritocratic bunch that usurp power continues.
This is not new or news. It is exactly what happened to the Republican primary with Trump. With such a large number of moderate candidates the moderate vote was getting diluted and now that there are fewer in the field the reality of the numbers has come to roost. Unfortunately that didn't happen with Trump.... all this aside the country still needs to move a more progressive agenda. Fear of another 4 years of the conman has made many retreat to a "safe" and "familiar" face.
Perhaps we'll get lucky if Biden indeed is the candidate he may choose to lead for the people and push for a more progressive agenda that is if we take the Senate.
I don’t understand a community, a country, that doesn’t simply want to protect all its citizens, starting with the most vulnerable.
2
One of my frustrations with female candidates is their desire to run as “women”. My guide would be Barack Obama, who carefully avoided running as a black candidate who would make “history”.
Running as “women” diminishes focus on the accomplishments and policy proposals. It also triggers a reaction in some who feel like the candidate is not interested in their concerns or may be hostile to them. This limits their appeal to the general electorate.
If I were a female candidate, I’d emulate female business executives, who in my experience dealing with them, keep the focus on their companies and their business. Those who would vote for them because they are women will still turn out. The rest will not be turned off or distracted.
1
How about a GI Bill or WPA for anyone who wants "free" college or other training. Work for 3 years helping the elderly, working in childcare, building housing, etc. for $15/hour...or less if with room and board. Then free public college or other training for 4 years mostly at government expense, with some contribution from each student via part-time work-study and community service like jobs while in school. Eliminate half of current college debt for each person with such debt and the rest paid off over up to 30 years with zero interest. And mandate cutting half of college administrators to simultaneously significantly reduce costs and significantly increase productivity. And minimum wage for all college coaches except for intramural and club coaches who should get more.
2
I have not seen detailed analysis of the results based on geographic regions and immigration. Sanders won California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado with strong Hispanic electoral support. Sanders even swept Silicon Valley. The richest enclaves within Silicon Valley went for Bloomberg and Biden.
https://www.latimes.com/projects/2020-california-primaries-precincts-results/
Are these western states voters so different from the rest of the country?
Many immigrants' "old countries", Asian countries, Latin countries, have universal or quasi universal healthcare and cheaper higher education costs. Could this be a factor?
Plight of Sanders and why not even Biden will beat Trump?
The U.S. just doesn't seem very good at even its most intelligent, non-partisan efforts to devise a political economy. Much is made in the U.S. of having a capitalistic, free market, risk taking, entrepreneurial economy and avoiding socialism, but not even the best plans of the U.S. can provide for everyone, and in fact seem to benefit relatively few people.
Every time the subject of socialism comes up and comparison of the U.S. with successful social democracies such as the Scandinavian, you hear that yes perhaps Scandinavian countries have a better social safety net than the U.S. but they are first pretty capitalistic in their economies so the U.S. should not give up on capitalism and turn to socialism; but obviously the U.S. for all avoidance of socialism and staying the course on capitalism is not at all successful at creating anything like the safety nets in Scandinavia.
In short the U.S. is not delivering but Trump will benefit because people think the capitalism/republican course is the best way to go forward, that one day it will deliver on its trickle down promises. If I were to put the U.S. in an image it's like a bulldozer stuck trying to climb a hill and everybody who screams "more capitalism, more power!" wins. But of course the bulldozer is still not really climbing the hill.
The Scandinavian nations on the other hand seem to be doing both capitalism and socialism better than the U.S.
2
You are not reading the turnout numbers. Trumpism is going to be routed.
1
Countries which are not multicultural succeed in that direction....,
Not long ago, it was impossible to imagine a woman as President of the US. The basis for this prejudice that we're empty headed, emotional, and unfit for public office was cultural and served men's needs. A man must be head of his household. Interviews with the 80,000 or so evangelicals and orthodox believers in this country indicate both men AND women hold these prejudicial beliefs, reinforced by conservative and literal biblical interpretation. Any change in women's status has always come from the more modern, liberal political moderates. It's heartening to see women emerge from the shadows to challenge this status quo. It may take us a while, but we'll get there.
5
Bernie couldn't, or didn't, rein in the Bernie Bros, which in my opinion cost him the nomination, but the Democratic Party would be unwise to ignore the support for Bernie's policies. A Biden win does not remove the urgent demand by a vast majority of Democrats and a high number of Republicans on healthcare, student debt, minimum wage, etc. Biden/Obama's timidity on these issues, especially when they had a Democratic House and Senate, is what brought us Trump.
5
@annabellina
You're right on all this except one point. The Bernie Bros thing has been debunked several times. It was never a real thing, just a cynical invention by the Hillary Clinton team to hurt Sanders, just as they tried with the "Obama Boys". It's sad that it still persists.
https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/
2
Other countries have elected female leaders: Germany, the UK (twice), Canada (briefly). In each case, the party that nominated a woman was a right-of-center conservative party. this despite the fact that in each of these countries the center-left party is identified with women's issues, and that women's votes skew to the left in each case.
But perhaps that is entirely the reason. Voters do not want to elect a government that is intent on identity politics, rewarding positions based on sex, race, or religion. A left-wing party strong on 'wokeness' can't elect a woman leader without putting off centrist voters who fear a government of the woke, for the woke. Left-wing parties need to elect white male leaders to signal their seriousness. Nobody worries that right-wing parties will suddenly become overly woke. They can safely nominate a women secure that voters will see her first as a conservative, rather than a combatant in some culture war between the sexes.
The focus on identity and group entitlement has paradoxically made it impossible for left wing parties to nominate women or minority leaders and then win a national election. This is a real problem for the Democrats, together with Canada's Liberal party, Germany's Social Democrat and Green parties, and UK's Labour party.
3
@Tom Meadowcroft While I agree with your point about female leaders, how does Obama's election fit in with your assertion that it's impossible for liberals to nominate minority leaders?
2
What percentage of Sanders' voters in 2016 were really white men with "right of center" views on race gender and immigration? This is a statement I certainly have not seen documented anywhere. Yes there were probably white males and females who felt ignored by the establishments of both parties, some of whom voted for Sanders in the primaries and then for Trump in the general election. But how many of those voters now are happy with Trump?
1
One huge difference is that college-educated suburbanites, especially women, defected from the Trump-infested Republican party and now vote in Democratic primaries. These voters gave Pelosi the speakership in 2018, and now they are strongly favoring an electable moderate over an unelectable socialist.
8
An informative piece. It makes any effort by a woman to run for for the presidency Herculean.
Next question: Why so much “hostile sexism?”
I’d hypothesize same reason as “hostile immigration.” The sense of loss and feeling of vulnerability. A new “demographic” that’s upending the order.
3
The fact Bernie a communist has nothing to do with it? I vant to control the economy but not the corner bodega. How can a college educated people not see what Bernie is leading too.
Warren a good Senator but a scold, Klobuchar a decent governor was to nervous, Harris knew hand size. Gabard was a "Russian Asset". And of course Hillary won.
You don't need a degree in political science or advanced statistics to tell Bernie has a small following. The press built him up more than they tore him down. There's no conspiracy keeping him out of office only us dumb white working class voters keeping him out of office educated in a system run by progressives.
Can you predict the out come when AOC runs for president in 2024?
2
The reason Warren lost may have been partly due to sexism. But let's not forget an even more formidable barrier: the fear of sexism. The imperative of getting rid of Trump makes many worried that others might not vote for a female candidate. Given the disaster that another four years of Trump would bring, we can worry about breaking the glass ceiling next time.
3
Don't forget Trump's anti-abortion fans. They have masterly used this issue as an axe to attack women and women's rights, but disguised it as a defenseless kitten.
5
This analysis is bogus and typical of the classist worldview at the Times, which never misses an opportunity to slander working-class people in the middle of the country. Biden is winning by drawing out large numbers of Republican-leaning independents and disaffected working-class people. It doesn't take a grand analysis to see that millions of people did not like Hillary and voted for Bernie as a protest in 2016. They have no such problem voting for Biden and are bringing along many of their neighbors who didn't vote for Bernie last time. Hillary has baggage that Biden doesn't. He never got rich selling out Middle America like the Clintons did.
2
This article pretends Sanders supporters are conservatives. He's totally wrong about that. It's a manufactured position, and really a lie. Most Sanders supporters are environmentalists, disgusted with the inadequacy of both parties.
1
@Mark Battey He doesn't say that the majority of Sanders supporters are conservative. He's focusing on areas where Sanders lost significant support as compared to 2016.
2
@Mark Battey You are misrepresenting the data presented in this piece, and engaging in wishful thinking. Both reasons why the progressive left (of which I count myself) lose so much.
Voters in the US are not ready for a female president or even a female vice president because we are still a country of horrible stereotypes, sexism, and racism.
6
@Anthony
Yet, Hillary Clinton beat Trump for the popular vote by 3 million voters?! Yes, there is much bias alive and stinking in the USA. Yet, we elected a Black man for President in 2008 and 2012. Don’t surrender to pessimism and victimhood. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Drop the self-defeating negative talk! If a woman doesn’t win the Presidency in 2020. The Republicans will produce the first woman President in 2024, Governor Nikki Haley. That would be a kick in the pants type of be careful what you wish for fulfillment.
1
@ jh. Everyone who voted for these 2 Progressives or cares about the future of the Democratic Party and the U.S. I hope you are correct about Trump losing.
People lie to pollsters. The Bradley effect. That is what Trump is counting on again this time, but this time most of blue collar America may not come out for him. Lots of buyers' remorse out there, and hard to rationalize a vote for him unless you are willing to admit to yourself that you are more motivated by racism and misogyny than patriotism.
3
Not "anti-clinton" vote. Anti-women vote. Call it what it is, misogyny. Clear as day. And if Bernie was the "good" guy he claims to be, he would apologize to women everywhere for the gas-lighting about the role of misogyny in his success and for robbing us (due to the disgusting attacks of his followers and the protest voting) of our first female president, which would have been an enormous win for women's rights.
7
The recent primary results kill the myth that Sanders has strong appeal for working class and/or rural whites. Those "pro-Bernie" votes from 2016 are clearly just "anyone-but-Hillary" votes.
That this particular population would embrace an ultra-lefty socialist from the Northeast was always a canard.
4
So, just a word of advice, when you are a man writing an article about feminist issues and representation, maybe you should draw on academic papers that aren't also 100% published by men. I promise there are women researching this stuff and doing it just as well, with probably a bit of a different perspective.
3
"The Sanders Coalition Is Not Quite What We Thought It Was"
Who are the "We"?
If the NYT OP-ED writers would drop the pretense that voters reject someone the former identifies as "elitist" then a more honest assessment of voting patterns and trends can emerge.
So substitute the word "hypocrite" for "elitist" and you'll understand why many working class and blue collar voters vote they way they do.
Examples?
Hillary defended Bill during the Lewinsky scandal. These are actions she took and hence are fair game (or in-scope if you prefer) for discussion. You had a powerful chief executive playing games with an unpaid intern. I could use a stronger and more accurate description of Bill Clinton's role but then this post wouldn't make it past the censors. And afterwards Hillary is going to preach to the "deplorables" about sexism and misogyny?
Elizabeth Warren, living in a bubble within Cambridge is going to preach to anyone about privilege? We had a parent who made the effort and paid off his child's student loan. Would he see some relief? "Of course not." No empathy there from Warren. Then she brought up bogus analogies comparing Social Security (mostly inclusive program) with her proposed selective (exclusive) relief for folks who are not paying pack their student loans on time.
These things aren't lost on people - no matter how much Edsall cries "Sexism" and "Racism!"
Now back to hammering on the folks in flyover country.
This article demonstrates this paper’s problem...projecting its belief system onto realities and skewing the story. The reason for Bernies loss is clear to everyone....the majority of this country do not want a socialist leader, and want someone with a chance to beat Trump.
Making his loss about sexism is a far reach. You can pluck a paper from academia and make the loss about anything.
3
Poor Hillary. The big anti-HRC component of the 2016 Sanders vote is an ironic counterpoint to her recent comment that "no one likes Bernie". I knew in 2015 that Hillary was uniquely hated, but I thought my compatriots would be minimally rational in selecting for competence in a chief executive. Silly me.
Amy Klobuchar is looking pretty good as a VP pick this year, though, so there's that!
2
The couple of old white guys I know who are the biggest sexists (and closet racists) among my acquaintances are also the same guys who were Vietnam draft dodgers and inherited their jobs and a lot of their money. So they have a soul and background like Trump's, but admittedly are smarter and not overtly mentally ill like him, and should thus know better. I doubt there is any woman, even a Republican, they would ever vote for.
4
Yes, the hostility towards women and non-whites is obvious among less educated white voters to anyone who listens. But why? And how can we overcome it. This is the test of our times. Because these same people are killing themselves and the rest of us by rejecting progressive-ism. The Republican party has won them over with the lies and deceit of the old south's Bourbon s.
2
I've found Edsall's columns in general to be very well thought out and researched.
Now all we have to do is create a two-minute video for YouTube, and compress the writing to fit on Twitter, so this can be shared with the remaining Sanders supporters.
I'm being a little snarky, I know, but I've been trying for a long time to get people to pay attention to what actual science...social science, yes, but still rigorous... tells us about human behavior and the current situation.
What are called moderate Democrats aren't "against" social progress, but studying (and living) history, and having read this kind of research, has educated us that achieving it is a long hard slog.
Incremental progress is progressive; going backwards is just stupid.
This article describes well what the Democrats will face from trump in the fall— more toxic attacks that seem to be acceptable to his “racially conservative” supporters.
Interesting term - racially conservative — aren’t you either a racist or not?
3
Start a third party or drag out the primary. Bloody Biden as much as possible. Vote Green in the general.
@Rick - Yes, “progressives” should form their own party and stop using the Democratic Party for their own good. Most so-called progressives have been nothing but destructive to the Democratic Party since Day 1. And I happen to be very liberal and unafraid of socialism, but Bernie, his (unethical) cabinet, and many of his supporters scare me (when they’re not boring me with their whining, accusations, conspiracy-theorizing, and reiterating the same slogans).
1
@Rick you mean like Putin's other favorite, Jill Stein. Don't hear to much about the good doctor, these days. Still, I would like to know what she was doing at that dinner in Moscow.
1
Why is this staggering data showing the driving force of sexism in our politics buried in an Opinion piece?
3
You don't get it Edsall. It is everything we know it to be. Biden is ONLY "winning" because Amy, Pete, Kamala, Beto, and the other selfish (I want to be presidents next) cowards lined up behind limp Biden. The main stream press (including the NYT) have Bernie and have done everything they can to discount him. Good luck with your Democan't tRump, Joe Biden!
@US mentor Yeah, it's a big anti-Bern plot, you caught us...
1
This is a foolish argument. People vote because of issues. The very same voters the out-of-touch academics define as sexist are the same voters drawn to Gabbi Tulsard.
It shouldn't need to be said again, but the race-gender-immigration whinge is a shibboleth intentionally designed to suppress real discussion of issues that affect voters such as immigration's effect on wages and crime, the consequences of the demise of two-parent families, and the expensive and deadly dysfunctions afflicting the underclasses.
Academicians are nasty children playing state censor with other people's lives.
College-educated, comfortably retired, white male in his 7th decade voted for Bernie in 2016 Primary as a protest to the Clinton machine. Come November, I voted 3rd party in protest to the underhandedness of the DNC
Imagine if the DNC hadn't been strong armed by Clinton..... Joe might have run, won and we would not have had this 4 year nightmare!
I have a bad feeling the progressive side of the Democratic Party will burn down their party in spite; thus re-electing Donnie!
Imagine if you and others had done the sensible thing and voted for Hillary, we might not have had this four-year nightmare. Imagine that in your comfortable retirement!
1
Good riddance - the sexist, xenophobic DINOs (Democrats in name only). Now we can wage the 2020 political warfare without the burden of these insidious viruses.
However, the Democrats need to answer Bernie's small town, rural and young supporters.
What have you, the Democrats, done to advance my interests, and mitigate my pains?
Mr. Biden needs to join hands with Senators Sanders and Warren to seek and accommodate policy solutions, and thoroughly rout the Russian bot in the White House.
The war of liberation is underway.
1
@Zor The Democratic nominee, Mr. Biden, and all the Democratic candidates running for Congress in 2020 need to articulate practical policies and implementable solutions to a series of questions raised by Mr. Sanders.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/politics/bernie-sanders-press-conference-transcript.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
No more empty slogans: "Hope and Change", and "Change You Can Believe in".
Perhaps Biden could start by saying something nice about Castro? Just to break the ice?
Very small correction to the following sentence - "These de facto Never Trumpers also showed up in large quantities in the suburbs of Charleston, S.C., where 58 percent more people voted in the Democratic primary last Tuesday compared with 2016"
The SC primaries were on Saturday
How do they explain more White women voting for Trump over Hillary?
If it was up to white women, we would’ve had only two democratic presidents in the last 70 years: LBJ (1964) and Clinton (1996). Those are the only democrats who won a majority of their votes since 1948.
They largely vote like white men (their real allies).
I wondered what happened to Bernie's base and this explanation makes sense to me. I think you're underestimating Biden's republican support though. I think a lot of republicans will safely and happily cast a Biden vote to get Trump out of there based solely on Trump's personal, disgusting behavior.
3
In a democracy, people are entitled to their opinions, even if NYT columnists and editors disagree.
Yea ya don’t say? Lol too many journalists spending too much time on Twitter got them thinking that’s the real world.
Can you imagine being Thomas or one of the others working at the Times and having to pretend - at least at work - that the Dems have the merest chance of winning for ANOTHER eight months?
Those post-election vacations will be stretching to Thanksgiving this year.
There just aren't enough of the electorate drowning in Student Lawn Debt for Sanders to win. He may have tried to add the Latino vote, even dragging AOC with him during his latest primary run, but the votes just aren't there to supplant Biden's support.
I believe we're witnessing Sanders' 'swan song' as he runs for 'president'.
Sanders is just too old and his going to the 'Millennial well' failed once again, four years after his attempt to use the Millennial vote to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
He was desperately seen this past week trying to egg-on the not so reliable 'younger voters' to get off their butts and vote for him, with his most recent-all-in mega-attempt in Michigan failing and catastrophically.
Sanders sees the writing on the wall but won't read it, instead he'll try and 'bust out' a hole it it, but his version of the 'Battle of the Bulge' just can't end like the way he wants it too. It can't. Biden simply comes across as the candidate who can defeat Trump in 2020 because Sanders' Socialist status is too threeatening to mainstream America.
Trump will use it to threaten the America electorate, that "Sanders will crash the Markets and lose them their cherished 401K's if elected".
2
The president’s strategy is the media.
Media; Media; Media!!!!
He uses reversed psychology. He argues against the media to get you guys to talk about him every day.
He tweets nonsense daily, heck hourly, to get you guys to talk about him nonstop.
If you want to see him lose the next next election, stop being suckers for all of his ridiculous games.
Given he keeps calling you “fake media” take the camera off of him and cover him via print.
I promise you that would be his biggest nightmare.
2
"Racially conservative whites" is sure a nice euphemism for white racists. Are we going call them "race realists" next?
3
The author presents data from studies that show respondents show more bias when asked "Masked questions" than if they're asked more direct questions. This is not surprising in that people often think of themselves differently than others view them. It also may indicate biases they are not willing to admit.
But then the author goes on to say that the ideological balance of people in this country is right of center based on surveys where people self identify as left, right or center.
Didn't the author just establish that the way people self identify is not accurate?
I also don't think anyone can be labeled as left, right or center without indicating which specific issue you are referring. Most of us are conservative on some issues and liberal on others.
"...persistence of ‘hostile sexism’..."
The reason there are no women or POC at the top of the ticket, lies at the feet of Democrat primary voters. Think about that, every time you call Trump a racist and misogynist.
1
Mr. Edesall,
Do you not have to correct the second quote from Schaffner, MacWilliams and Nteta talking about support for less educated...leading to einning large margins among college-educated...
1
@Folksy - Yes. It should be “...losing large margins...).
Thanks for a great column!!!!!!
1
In summary, we are a nation, indeed, full of racists and bigots regardless of political affiliation, gender, and income class.
3
The columnists of the New York Times continue to exaggerate the impact of sexist and racist thought on the voting patterns of Americans. In my opinion, that is because they have conditioned themselves to view all things primarily through the lenses of gender and race.
2
Maybe, just maybe, Democrats don't support Sanders because HE ISN'T A DEMOCRAT!!!!
2
@Gusting
A lot of people do support him. Those people are Democrats. Ignore them at your peril.
2
@Gusting Bernie Sanders is more dedicated to the ideals that the Democratic Party should be fighting for than anyone in the Democratic Party.
Standing up for healthcare as a human right: Bernie Sanders? Check. Biden? He'll veto the legislation.
Taking a stand against corporate corruption of our electoral system: Bernie Sanders? Absolutely. Biden? 60 billionaire donors and counting.
Taking a stand for free college tuition, as most developed countries enjoy: Sanders? You bet! Biden? Silence.
Support for the desperately needed Green New Deal to halt climate change: Sanders? World leader. Biden? Can't be bothered.
Maybe we progressive Democrats voted for Sanders because he's the real Democrat, and Biden is a Republican-lite phony.
1
@Gusting
Some people are very inflexible and tribal. There is only black and white, binary; no shades of gray? Your argument is niggling and juvenile.
FYI : Bernie will be the Democratic President. He is running as a Democrat. He has caucused as an Independent but always with the Democrats and for decades with an exemplary liberal record. Gee! I thought Mavericks like John McCain were still fashionable?! The Democrats need to win over millions of Independents; especially the disaffected poor, middle class, and minorities. Try to expand your thinking to become more welcoming and less stressed. Really, this argument is so minor and yet you appear incredulous that people aren’t blown away by this “OBVIOUS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE”!!!
Reality? Adulthood? So complex and infuriating?!!
Though I appreciate all the hard work these public intellectuals put in with their studies it didn't take rocket scientist to figure out why Liz Warren could not gain traction. Too smart, too prepared and most important, she is a woman. The homoboobus does not like smart people, especially if they are female. Until the sexist/bigoted underclass/undereducated white voters die off in droves this will repeat itself.
1
@Paul Warren was snubbed by Democrats. Same as Harris, Klobachar and Gillibrand.
Stop describing people as being racially conservative. This term sanitizes and obscures what they actually are. These people are white supremacists and racists, plain and simple. Please call a spade a spade.
1
Well, that must be it. Sexism reared its ugly head and Hillary lost, then Elizabeth. Because, of course, a woman should have won.
Reductionist logic at its best.
1
Biden, of whom I was for earlier, but floundered as he voiced himself as “Obama II” instead of selling himself, looks to be unstoppable now and NOW he’s going to do exactly that which Hillary Clinton did not do:
He’s going to build a bridge which he really needs to do right now. He’s going to build a European-Style Coalition and that coalition is what I have coined “The BB-Gun!” He will soon announce that Senator Bernie Sanders will be his running mate as a future VP because former VP Biden is smart and he knows what’s riding on this election and he’s not going to leave anything to chance! Not one thing!
Biden is proud of his ability to work together with both sides of the line for the good of the country and this will be his first test.
If he doesn’t do this, quite frankly, he’ll be a moron!
@William Perrigo (U.S. Citizen) - No, Biden will not pick Sanders as VP. Biden will pick a Democratic woman, maybe Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren (or someone else). Two elderly white men on one ticket won’t be enticing, and we need a younger VP, because of Biden’s age. And we have some amazing Democratic women! Lastly, Bernie isn’t a Democrat, isn’t liked by the majority of people, and the only reason to have him as VP is so that perhaps more young people will be more inclined to vote for Biden. But they aren’t reliable voters anyway.
I find it hard to believe that Trump came up with what amounted to a masterful psychological warfare plan on his own, e.g. calling Clinton a “nasty woman”. Who put it together for him? Putin? Bannon?
1
I’m surprised to see no mention of the fact that Sanders is Jewish. It’s hardly hidden: the guy looks and sounds just like the uncles I grew up with in the Bronx.
Those uneducated rural white guys who hate people of color and uppity women surely aren’t so crazy about Jews either. How could they ever have supported Sanders?
Trump provides a home for antisemites as well as racists and sexists, skillfully insulating himself with sycophantic support for Israel (which is really an appeal to Evangelicals, not Jews). It’s no surprise that the yahoos have taken their votes there.
3
‘hostile sexism’? Yeah, sure. Try an unfortunate lack of political skills, knowledge, and abilities from the female Democratic candidates. Really, informed voters count on much more than genitalia. Or is Edsall claiming that the hoi polloi of the Democratic Party are unwashed and uneducated?
Additionally, what's Edsall's narrative going to be when Nikki Haley takes the WH in 2024? Inquiring minds want to know..........
Looks like several people at that Sanders rally aren't even old enough to vote..that would explain part of it. and Trump is so obviously playing everybody in the media-and he is doing it successfully, even here at the left-wing New York Times. He is outsmarting the very people who think they are undermining him. I like someone who is that clever. and I've found out some very interesting inside information about Bill and Hillary inside the White House-she was a nasty, creepy bully with no respect for anyone but her own selfish attempt to rise to the top of the creep heap. Bill may have been a coke-snorting woman chaser, but Hillary was just nasty, mean and arrogant.
I would very much like to know why The New York Times believes it is OK for conservative pundits to lecture us Democrats?
1
Republicans do not pay a price for appealing to white racism because the Party is white.
Melania? Any comment... about anything?
It's over. Sanders isn't going to be the nominee. There's no progressive majority in America. Sanders was exposed as a paper tiger by a candidate whose campaign was on life support. Biden won in places where he did not even campaign. Humiliating. Time for Sanders to withdraw his presidential bid. He lost two weeks in a row & polls for next week are even more brutal. Sanders always had contempt for the Democratic establishment. He openly bragged about his intention to eviscerate them if ever elected. The DNC was never going to co-operate in their own demise. It's beyond delusional to think that a Biden administration will accommodate progressives. He owes them nothing. Since he announced they have been actively trying to undermine & sabotage his campaign. They will be marginalized on Day One. The biggest question raised but not answered by this piece how will Sanders supporters react to this. They say now they'll support whoever is the Democratic nominee but I doubt it. Many will stay home or vote for the Green party. The purists would rather reign in a GOP hell than serve in a moderate DNC heaven. OK so be it. We're at the point where I think progressives should leave the Democrats and form their own party. There's no way to keep them happy. We can win with or without progressives. We can't win without swing voters. This week's election proved that Sanders isn't the candidate that can attract these voters. But Biden can. Because of this, he has a good chance to win in 2020.
2
@Ed Davis - Thank you so much!
Is the sexism, racism, stupid. Didn’t take much deep analysis to know that on Nov. 10, 2016.
1
I'm a retired psychologist who has read some of the research Mr. Edsall cites. The measures of latent sexism among self described progressive voters--admirable research--do not surprise me. My preference this season vacillated between Warren and Klobuchar, but I gladly accept that Biden will be the Democratic nominee: a decent, straight, white male with fairly moderate positions. Too bad he's twenty years too old and given to verbal gaffs. The election this year is too serious to take risks with the choice of a candidate, and it hurts to say that. Maybe in future elections, when the fate of constitutional democracy is not at stake, we will tolerate more diversity in the process. Surely Bernie's too old to screw up another election cycle.
3
It seems as though Sanders' numbers were inflated by the fact he was running against a woman. That only works if sexism is also being practiced by women who are a majority of the electorate.
I see no mention of how effective Bloomberg's ads were at changing voters minds about Bernie and Warren for that matter.
HRC lost because of her utter contempt, visible and audible, for the common man. She didn't even bother to campaign in the rust belt states which she lost and that lost her the election. She still blames others. If anyone is just like Trump it is HRC.
1
I supported Warren, but in November I will contribute, work and vote for Biden. Attitudes towards sex likely did play a role in the demise of Warren's campaign, but it was not misogyny. On Super Tuesday, Biden handily won the suburban woman college educated vote.
3
Maybe the folks who say Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative are right.
1
@JSN - - - Just recall why the parties wanted to start in these tiny states.
You start out with a small budget BUT can spend a year in one or both of them, getting yourself into the local media and getting voters familiar with your name & face.
By winning one or both of these unrepresentative islands of old white folks, you look like a winner to the oligarchs on the coasts so that you can begin working on the Super Tuesday states with other people's money.
Ditch IA & NH and you reduce the field to the already-partnered (already bought?) people known by whom they are funded by.
@L osservatore
That was true before the McGovern rules. Since then it has become very costly and most of the money is wasted.
This primary season says nothing about the power of the Democratic Party's desire for progressive change. Biden has a strong career of progressive policies, as does the Obama/Biden presidency. Rather this primary season speaks volumes aout the support that Democrats have of the achievements of the Democratic Party, such as the Family Leave Act,Affordable Care Act, Doddd Frank and the like. That Democratic Party will crush Trump.
1
Tom, there are many things political that are not what we thought they were.
Here's my father's adjusted advice:
"Never trouble trouble if trouble troubles you."
2
"Sanders’s support ... has begun to evaporate. What happened?"
Trump happened. He is destroying a great nation. Defeating him is all that matters.
That's what happened.
2
my complaint about the underlying research that dr. edsall relies on is that it assumes political attitudes are traits, when most political and social attitudes are contextual. "people who think that ..." asserts that people always think that way.
for example: "voters will admit their hostility toward women leaders only when they do not realize that they are doing so."
surely, many trump supporters will affirm that lying, adultery, election fixing, conspiracy etc. are wrong (many are, after all, soi-disant christians), but they overlook scruples for some political reason: trump is a filthy hammer, but he still works on nails. we don't find those reasons in the analysis.
what causes voters to respond not according to the virtues that they believe they should hold, but according to less savory virtues that reflect a situated personal concern? this dynamical, situational and malleable voter attribute is not considered -- although it obviously would have high value as a political insight.
I continue to marvel at how clueless so much of the media establishment is about the real depth of sexism. They are so willing, way too willing, to exclaim "it's getting better." Or worse yet, "it's over and women are triumphant." So thank you for this article. Thank you for citing other articles on the stubborn, unrelenting forces of sexism. The next question to explore is 'Why?' Why has every society in the last 3,000 years been hostile to female people? What function does that serve? The exploration of that question will start to bring the true depth and cost of sexism up to the surface where it can be finally, really looked at.
9
Moat Democrats say they are voting because they want Trump out of the White House. This has meant, for most, that polls and sentiment about who can beat Trump are the most important consideration.
Hillary made many mistakes when running, but after she lost took no responsibility for any of them. She often said is was sexism or misogyny that beat her, instead recognizing what she could have done better, herself.
Given the most serious female candidate for President said she lost because of sexism, can you blame voters desperate for electability to be afraid to try again with a woman.
I guess I am the aberration. I wholeheartedly supported Hillary with money and votes but didn’t like Warren. I still like Kamala Harris and would vote for her. We are not all sexist. I will vote for Joe to get rid of Trump. He is not my first choice but he is now the best hope.
3
Amazing and disheartening to me the distaste that both women and men have for a smart, assertive, ambitious woman running for president. Strident?
strident (adjective): loud and harsh; grating. Presenting a point of view, especially a controversial one, in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way.
Tell me again who is loud, harsh, grating and excessively unpleasant and forceful.
And, what a pitiful state of affairs we are in when Trump is the alternative in the minds of so many.
3
I love to read “analysis” of an election that already occurred. If the author is so knowledgeable, why did’t he tell us the result and the causes before the election. Any rationalization given for a result after the event is over is meaningless whether it’s elections, sports, new products, advertising, etc.
2
@Shamrock Why is it meaningless?
For a certain slice of the population, sexism runs deeper than all other issues combined. Great analysis (as usual for Mr. Edsall!)
3
The most eye opening fact mentioned in here is that 8% of Democrats surveyed identify Bernie as conservative....
Can the Times follow up with these people and have them identify what a moderate or liberal candidate would look like and what positions they would take?
This would be a fantastic read as to how far the left wants to go.
1
@Norville T. Johnston I took this another way--they don't believe that Sanders is really 'revolutionary.' I look at this voting record and the slop that he wrote years ago (mind you, he was in his thirties) and I find him to be pretty traditional and yes, conservative in many ways. Just my two cents.
1
I learn from this article in two ways.
First, polls have concurrent but not predictive validity. Warren was winning against a Trump in every poll that mattered - maybe (just maybe) they explained the sentiment that day. The polls have no predictive power - she lost quite spectacularly in the primaries to my chagrin. Academic understanding of American politics is likely messed up if poll-data are factored into arguments.
Second, I am somewhat alarmed at the normalization of attitudes and behaviors that are becoming part of ordinary discourse. It likens 'academic' to 'bloodless.' Scholars are making the argument such as: "people who want slavery, and kill people at random that they do not like, are voting for this party, whereas those who are interested in living for free are voting for the other." This is a time - given the rapid deterioration of the American cultural fabric - to stop this kind of bloodless descriptive notions. Similarly, 'Warren lost because of sexism" may be true; but please explain "who" is sexist? Are all Americans equally sexist?
What I am suggesting is this; academic discussion is now bloodless, sans judgment. It seeks shelter in 'on the one hand this . . on the other hand that."
Please call it. There is something colossally wrong if half of America - driven by sexism, racism, Xenophobia, and desiring a white christian nation is described in bloodless terms.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered in Memphis as he was looking forward to the Poor People's campaign in Washington D. C.
Dr. King's last living hope was to unite the black and white working classes along common educational and socioeconomic lines. Instead of dividing them across color aka race, ethnic and national origin caste differences.
Richard Nixon's ' Southern and Crime in the Streets Strategies' along with the rise of George Wallace and urban rebellions and the American War in Vietnam ended that quest.
Dr. King's martyrdom was very costly to our divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states.
2
Fantastic analysis, as usual. It’s sad that our Republicans punish the rest of us by letting racism and sexism prevent the selection of the best candidates, HRC in 2016 and Warren in 2019.
So we leave millions uninsured, tolerate massive debt expansion to benefit corporations, wonder at the embarrassing and ongoing impeachable conduct of the President, and attack each other all in the name of Making America White Again.
1
Thank you for this. Unfortunately, none of this is new to some of us, but it's nice to see in black and white what was and is obvious but denied.
1
This election proves once and for all that America — including Democratic voters — suffer more from mysogyny than racism, homophobia, or ageism. That Sanders is losing by large margins to Biden, even with the latter’s potential cognitive issues while he was extremely competitive with Hillary, and Amy Klobuchar’s inability to be taken as seriously as Mayor Pete, indicates a confusing trend among the Democratic electorate. Democratic voters need to reflect on their proclivity to unconscious bias.
The strategy of many Democrats is to increase racial and gender divisiveness to increase the voter turnout of black Americans and women.
This backfires by alienating non-black Americans and men of both parties.
Compounding this is the alienation of some blacks and women who seek less divisiveness, not more.
1
I would contend that democrats hate smart people, and that is why they don't like Warren. I suppose some are sexist, but that is just a characteristic of a person who is without intelligence or the ability to discern truth based on facts.
People born before 1975 or so have been poisoned by lead from leaded gasoline and thus are quite a bit less intelligent than people born after 1975. I believe lead poisoning explains more about our politic than anything else. Old people are just really less intelligent because of lead poisoning. These impaired voters are easily fooled by guys like Biden and Trump who play characters on the stage but lack any real policies. It sure would explain Reagan democrats wouldn't it.
What??? As a Boomer feminist in her 70s with a doctorate, I cannot read this without laughing!
2
while all this data is fascinating, i think it is an error to assume that warren is the same as a generic white woman, or that biden is a generic white man. certainly there are pros and cons to their gender and race, but it seems that people tend to vote for someone they like. i would have voted for warren, but my wife "just doesn't like her". Sexist? maybe, but she does like biden. she doesn't vote based on policy, and she despises trump. she liked klobachar. it was all about her gut feelings. isnt that more likely warrens and even bernies problem.
1
So very good at telling us what we know and what happened. Like driving at 100 mph while gazing out the rear view mirror.
Let me guess - these selfsame experts were writing papers on the Sanders' coalition a couple of weeks ago with the expectation that he was on a 'long march' to the White House.
And what of the voters - unexplored here - that claimed they would vote for any of the six - yeah count 'em there were six - women.
Is that sexist or Misandry?
So prognosticate for us now - Biden/Trump - what is the model?
This strikes me as totally fanciful. Most Democrats want Trump gone. Many women I know who loved Hillary voted for Biden fearing that America would not elect a woman. Also calling men who who are not as liberal on race, gender etc is very nice. Another word for that is bigoted.
1
If Sanders supporter don't vote then they open the door for the stable genius. They are just cutting off their nose to spite their face. With Biden they get something they believe in, with the republican they get nothing or worse they will get retaliation.
Unfortunately, too many people get their information (and anger) from social media, therefore, much of their information is fueled by russia.
1
I really think all this is much more straight forward than many talking heads want you to believe, Hillary Clinton was a very bad candidate with way too much baggage who was pushed just over the edge by a scared FBI director, Comely. Warren, and Sanders, can not win a general election because of what they say, not their sex and voters see it. This is a strange election because many voters, including me, would vote for anyone to get rid of trump, its electability first!
1
"About 10 to 12 percent of Sanders’s 2016 primary voters cast ballots for Trump in the general election, and another 12 percent either voted for third-party candidates or sat the election out."
HRC won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes; she lost in 3 key states by 88,000 votes totaling 46 ECV, if she went to these states to politic a little more instead of 'assuming' she would win them outright.....the ECV would have given her the oval office.....88,000 votes in 3 states, all Bernie Sanders supporters????????????
One can analyze all the 'data' they want but she and her campaign blew it.
At least the studies and MSM won't be able to blame Sanders come November.
Most of Sanders’ support in 2016 was an anti-Hillary/woman thing. Those rural whites didn’t really care for him, they just hated Hillary more.
His movement had no sound legs... he was never that popular by himself.
It’s also telling that they voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, then Sanders over Hillary in 2016, and now Biden over Sanders.
Racism > sexism > socialism.
It’s very interesting that criminal justice reform has “historically been viewed in a negative light by white voters, most notably by racially conservative whites.”
Joe Biden’s political success has hinged on exploiting this sentiment in dem voters to compromise with segregationists for decades. Obama saw this as an asset because he also realized that these racist dems would reject him with Biden’s full embrace. A grim reality many Biden supporters now somehow give him credit for.
Another incisive and informative column by Edsall. Democrats better take off their rose-colored glasses about human nature and realize just how ugly and tribal it is or they will continue to have to battle to win elections which they should otherwise easily win based on their economic, health and educational policies. Being aggressively PC is dangerous if your goal is to achieve power in a world where those who get to choose who holds power are fear-filled and/or ignorant..
The studies mentioned seem to suggest that Biden must pick Cory Booker as his VP running mate.
While women comprise over half of the general US population, and most likely the pool of voters too, the country is not ready for a female president or vp who’ll succeed him in case of need.
Sarah Palin was in large part to blame for john mccain’s dismal performance when he ran for president (“I don’t want her in charge of the nuclear button if mccain became incapacitated or died while in office,” said a woman friend at the time.)
Hillary Clinton lost the party nomination in 2008 and the US presidency in 2016 despite being the better qualified candidate than both opponents.
Just last week a woman said to me, “Biden will lose the 2020 elections if he picks Hillary as his running mate as the media now suggests.” Why, I asked. She couldn’t articulate it but she is likely one of those who look up to a man as a better leader and also keeps a grudge on Bill’s high school sex while in office, etc etc.
As far as I’m concerned Bloomberg, Buttiegeg, Harris, Klobuchar, Yang and even Steyer can have a role in Biden’s White House; but he needs a man who is not white as his VP in order to nail it.
1
You write: "One source of the frustration felt by many Warren supporters lies in the fact that the Democratic Party is not as free of sexism as these voters hoped." Shouldn't that be ...the fact that Democrats are not as free of sexism...
1
Interesting that no one has connected the MeToo movement to the alienation of men. The women who did nothing when they were raped, then wait thirty years when their careers were over to accuse the man. Carlson, Kavanaugh, most of Weinstein’s accusers, the Trump rape in the elevator are a few examples. I know these late in life allegations have affected my thinking about sexism.
1
Fox News and right wing radio’s 30 year Hillary harassment campaign had a bigger effect on middle America than most democrats realized. They hate her- like really really hate her. I realized it for the first time on 2016 election eve. I was in Vegas and a women on the same business trip told me that she could never vote for Hillary because she didn’t leave Bill after Monica. That was ridiculous to me - Hillary was so accomplished but she hated her and it didn’t matter what Hillary was capable of - she was never going to get her vote - it was hate.
1
I really appreciate Mr. Edsall‘s regular efforts to compile analysis for us, but just because two academics use the phrase “conservative“ when they mean “bigoted“ doesn’t mean he should:
“Those conservative views on African-Americans...”
“Conservative“ does not mean bigoted. Rigorous language matters, especially as it pertains to our dark sides.
OK you got this theory you got that theory. My theory is that massive press attacks against Bernie are working this year. The main stream media New York Times and all the rest of them continue the press blitz against Bernie’s campaign because he’s a threat to the system. Just like they did in 2016. MSNBC l,Fox news are all against Bernie: if they didn’t write negative articles about him, they left out the fact that he was very popular and that he would actually finish very strong against Trump. But no, my theory is that the massive press attacks against Bernie in are working this year.
1
@Cliff Howell
Bernie has not directly addressed his health nor how he will pay for his proposed programs. It has nothing to do with the media. All you have to do is look at his website and think for yourself. Thankfully a lot of folks have done just that.
If lazy entitled millennials won’t do the same they can admire their participation trophies while living in their parents basements.
1
Sexism? Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, I repeat 3 million. And yes Clinton was widely disliked and the press and Comey were against her but still she got more votes. Women don't like Bernie, Blacks don't like Bernie. Bernie doesn't like many people! That's the problem with Bernie. He's divisive. He voted against gun control and to many of us this is a major issue. It kills way too many and mainly kids. Enough with anger. We need to unite the country and regain sanity.
2
Calling racism and sexism "right-of-center views" soft-pedals some serious deficits in the white working class. Trump can have these folks.
1
In the photographs I have seen in the media of young "Bernie" supporters, many of them look like they may be to young to vote. Teenagers love to go to rallies to meet other teenagers. In the photos I have seen in the NYT and on CNN and MSNBC, I have not seen many blacks and voters who look like they are of voting age.
I believe that in our American Culture we are all Racists and all Sexists at some level. This is an underlying low trait in our personalities. We have been conditioned to that by cultural lessons from tradition and our families. As a culture we have been trying to recondition ourselves with many cultural lessons and icons, with some success, so we don't like to be called "racist" or "Misogynist". Why, though? I believe that there are other cultural traits that we also hold high and these are High traits, like Honor, Fairness, Truthfulness and Loyalty, things that go on plaques and Motto's. There is a natural fight between our Reptilian reactive brains and our thoughtful, self-reflective brains. Nobody hates the good woman boss, or the black fellow soldier, but they vote on their lower reflex, modulated by messaging. What progress we may have made toward a fairer more honorable society has been reduced by fear and the message that "it is all right and good to insult them and listen to your gut, not your brain". Putin loves this as much as Trump, because it weakens us as nation and our strongest asset, our cultural honor and fairness is diminished.
1
Interesting headline, but at this point it looks like Biden and time to put the petal to the metal in beating Trump. Keep it simple on defeating Trump & recapturing the Senate and leave all this sexism, Hillary, 2016,... conversation in the briefcase.
1
What I find most discouraging is that it took such a large herd of political “scientists” to conclude that “the ideological balance of the country remained center-right” and that “Republicans remained committed to profiting from sexism and racism”. Duh.
If these concepts are true, then what good are ideas if race and sex are going to be the decisive factors in an election.?
A bigger issue concerns how well the winner of either party maximizes the sex/race equation. Does winning the race/sex contest determine the profile of the West Wing?
In the case of Trump (who won the race/sex fight), the intellectual limitations of his cabinet are obvious.
Does this mean that if our elections are finally determined on the basis of which candidate(s) can maximize racial and gender biases, the government will never be operated by the best and brightest?
I hope Edsall’s analysis represents Russian interference.
Nate Silver describes it perfectly. In many ways unfairly, HRC is as polarizing a figure as she is influential. Her presence allowed Trump to become president, and her absence will likely prevent his re-election. Never Hillary turned into Never Trump. Fascinating politics indeed!
This analysis is a distraction.
The Sanders campaign was the victim of a well-planned , well organized, and well-funded attack by a powerful group within the establishment.
Bloomberg was injected into the Democratic race for the sole purpose of dividing the Party and destroying the Sanders campaign. He built a band wagon, gathered enough voters to his side, and then loaded his bandwagon with his followers and it to the candidate considered the best bet to beat Sanders. The chosen recipient was Biden. Ready to act was another part of the team which got to work in the media (including Friedman, Stephens, Brooks, and Krugman in the NYT) which pushed the now Biden band wagon as hard as they could, dragging voters away from Sanders.
Today we see Sanders was left standing in the dust, victim of the establishment machine (for the second time).
The American people were taken for a ride (again).
5
Right comrade. Tell Putin hello for me.
Just like the MAGA crowd on the right, Sanders diehards can’t accept that a significant majority of Dems - including many Warren supporters - do not support Bernie Sanders and his narcissistic campaign for President, with its thinly-planned proposals for upending the American economy by adding mountains of debt and giveaways with nothing to support them on the growth side of the economy. I don’t particularly like the DNC and the people who are running it, and I’m sad that yet again many Americans are more impressed by a ranting “get off my lawn” old man than a smart, prepared woman with the ability to build consensus, but here we are. One can be a progressive and not a Sanders fan.
Sanders supporters need to stop deluding themselves that their candidate is the victim of some plot unless they acknowledge that the plot is actually the will of the majority of Democratic voters. Most of us recognize that Sanders is not - and has never been - a Democrat. He’s a self-proclaimed Socialist who’s taken every opportunity to attack the Democratic Party and stood by while some of his supporters launched misogynistic attacks on women like Warren and Clinton. And he’s now also a net millionaire with two homes in VT and a townhouse in D.C. thanks to his “I am the only one who can fix it,” Trump-like campaigns. He’s the Wizard of Oz and his supporters have fallen for it because he’s happy to promise them the world with no feasible plan for realizing those promises.
I wish that Sanders and his supporters would read this analysis, but much like the far right, subtleties and nuances are lost on the far left as much as it is on the far right. Much easier to just shout MAGA or M4A.
1
@Sipa111 clearly you don’t have children or grand children.
The article addresses attitudes toward CANDIDATE GENDER and self-identified IDEOLOGICAL LABELS. It doesn't address attitudes on ISSUES.
National polling indicates overwhelming support for universal healthcare (in any form); for elected employees on corporate boards; for reforms that enable employees to form unions; for paid sick leave available to all; for low cost community and four year college; and for legalization of marijuana.
Joe Biden, if elected, needs to move on these popular issues as soon as he takes office.
2
This article reinforces my long held opinion that sexism runs deeper than racism in this country and maybe in the world. And though the right-wing and religion industry profit from sexism most, the left wing has it too.
That said, lets not forget a big part of the Sanders movement is not sexist, not nasty, but sincerely devoted to trying to solve the problems of income inequality, climate change, and forever wars that the establishment has not been able to handle.
2
Bernie and Warren got bushwhacked by a coalition of special interest, the well ensconced traditional Democrats party leaders and sadly, a Democratic base that isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
You knew it was going south when a number of the Democratic candidates started disparaging Sander/Warren proposal as "socialist".
The big lie knowingly perpetrated by moderate Democratic leaders, Medicare for All is unfair, extreme and too expensive.
Whether you call it single-payer or Medicare for All, it isn’t some socialist pipe dream. It’s a sensible, efficient, and a cost effective way to guarantee excellent health insurance to everyone.
5
@guy veritas
And we’ll get there incrementally as the voters are demanding. Not with some pie in the sky revolution.
Do you balance your checkbook or run up credit cards every month?
A lot to unpack here - but I take away a hopeful nugget that educated Republican suburbanites do in fact want to come out and repudiate Trump. First time I’ve felt hopeful in awhile.
Second, the study on masked sexism is interesting. I believe it, and I think in the service of winning in this dire time, Biden should really just pick a male running mate - Cory Booker would be a youthful and welcome presence that at least doesn’t fully double down on both the white and male. Sure people would be disappointed, but I don’t think it’s a choice that would cause swing state and midwestern voters to stay home. That’s what matters right now.
Sanders and Trump both spoke for resentment - the white voters who felt left out and marginalized, on the left and on the right. On the right they also tend to fear minorities and immigrants, on the left they are younger gig-economy workers. Trump's base will stick with him through every scandal as the identification is tribal - us against them. Biden is bland enough, traditional enough, and sufficiently an old-school politician to appeal to most moderate, progressive, and conservative Democrats as well as to anti-Trump Republicans But the latter are relatively few, except in suburbs. Because of the peculiarities of the American electoral college system, the 2020 election will be decided, like the 2016 election, in a few states with disproportional national importance for their relatively small populations and large rural constituencies. The Trump/GOP/Russian tactic will be to convince enough potential Democratic voters to stay away by stirring the pot of scandals, invented, if need be, about Biden. Who knows whether they will succeed? Or if the cumulative effects of an economic downturn and the Trump administration's ineffectiveness in the face of Covid-19 will still bring down the GOP (Gang of Putin) hold on the presidency and senate...
1
Now that a man points to sexism in the party, will you finally believe it?
This country is not ready to elect a woman president. And before all the clamoring about Hillary and her "flaws" begins, try this thought experiment. Had Hillary been a man even with her "baggage" she would have garnered at least 65% of the votes. And had Donald Trump been a woman with all of his "baggage" he wouldn't have gotten 6,000 votes, much less 60 million.
We know that sexism played a role in Liz Warren's failure to become a Democratic front runner. In 2016 the purists denounced Hillary Clinton as "too centrist". But we had Liz Warren with undisputed progressive bona fides. And what did we hear from Democrats? She was too extreme, and we need to nominate a centrist like Biden. Are we to believe that all of a sudden Democratic purists became hardened pragmatists?
So let's take a look at both the progressives this year. Liz Warren is nearly a decade younger than Sanders. She is in excellent health. She didn't have a heart attack on the campaign trail. And she offered specific plans and programs, unlike Bernie's rants. So why didn't more Democratic voters support her? You tell me.
Women candidates are still judged by a "Goldilocks" standard - either too aggressive, or too weak, or too timid, or too "shrill". Men, on the other hand, may have all manner of "flaws".
I've been a proud Democrat all my life. I'm in my 60's. I am a lawyer, and a woman of color. And I know sexism when I see it.
19
@Orion Clemens
The country as a whole ain’t buying the far left agenda at the moment. Suck it up and vote blue. Kamala may be President in four years. You ok with that for starters? Beats Trump? You betcha.
I would have loved to have voted for Warren but she kept making major political mistakes. Taking positions similar to Bernie’s was one of them (and getting trapped into explaining how she would pay for some of them such as MFA). It would have been great if she had challenged Sanders and separated herself from him in the Progressive lane. What could have been!
3
The 'Times' opinion writers section certainly did not help. Support for centrist candidates whose policies are designed to address the pressing issues of 1996 was nearly unanimous.
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present."
Let us hope their support for Biden does not turn out as well as their nearly unanimous support for the second Iraq war....
Again, Edsall just gets to it. Unfortunately, there were a lot of anti-Hillary voters last time around that first went to Sanders, then Trump. There is still work to do to get some significant portion of Americans over their anti-female bias. This will likely come as older generations die off, and also as women are introduced into executive roles. A key part of the evolution will be to pick a female VP candidate, and get people comfortable with the notion that a female can lead this country. Social change always comes gradually, and this would be a very important step in normalizing women as executive leaders.
4
I'm not excited about Biden the way I was excited about Warren. I read her books before she was senator and have great respect for her intellect. I was ready to vote for her in the WA state primary, but she suspended her campaign and super Tuesday showed the up-welling support for Biden. If Biden is on the ballot in November, I will excitedly give him my vote to remove the orange embarrassment from office. If Sanders is on the ballot in November, I will excitedly give him my vote to remove the orange embarrassment form office.
5
Warren's biggest mistake may have been not confronting Bernie Sanders early on, in the way she did with Bloomberg. Has she done so, she would have differentiated herself from Sanders (and the others), highlighted his weaknesses and better positioned herself with more moderate voters.
3
Supporters of rather extreme Progressive politics have a rather messianic complex that makes them sure that the gods are on their side and once the Prophets Bernie or Elizabeth are seen, the waves of public support, particularly women, ethnic minorities, young people, etc will flood to their cause and sweep them to victory. Then there is dismay when the numbers don't turn out so instead of looking inward at themselves and their policies, they blame a conspiracy of others usually white working class people. Oddly the same thing happened in the UK when the rather narrow metropolitan elite of the "progressive" Labour Party suffered a historic defeat. Rather than accept that the policies were locked in the past (like Sanders and Warren) and Corbyn and co were despised, the blame was put on others, such as white working class voters of the North. Progressive politics which are based on failed ideologies of the left are just seen through by people faced with new problems, new technologies, globalisation and new realities that have little relationship to the 1930s or 1950s. In running against Biden, Trump will find the same obstacle derived from his narrow right wing base of Populism as Sanders/Warren on their left wing base of Progressivism. People do not want ideologies or isms in their leaders. No doubt the voices of the isms of the left and right are loud, but they speak for the few, not the many.
3
The academicians appear to be working overtime to blame racism and latent sexism for the failures of the Clinton campaign in 2016 and for female candidates generally, but that is not ever going to help women win elections. We also see that explicit appeals to racial and ethic minorities turn off white voters, but what does anyone expect? Every cohort of voters wants to see their issues addressed, and are bound to react with indifference when it is not. We shouldn't be surprised by this. Therein lies the danger in Democratic party politics today; all the pandering to specific identity groups may play in the inter-party conflicts, but are not as successful when taken to a general election. Their eventual nominee must tread a very narrow line on this to build a winning coalition.
1
@David Godinez
Correct. In politics it never helps to insult voters and then ask for their vote.
Unfortunately, media coverage of Sanders' campaign misses one of the most important obstacles to radical change at the political level in the United States. Historical experience shows that major ideological and political changes do not occur through the medium of elections. Elections are the outcome of such changes, not the cause. Although the Sanders campaign has done an admirable job of trying to mobilize people around a social democratic platform, its efforts have been no match for the pushback from the Eisenhower Republicans in charge of the Democratic Party. Successfully challenging them would require years of grassroots mobilization by a range of civil society organizations such as unions, churches and civic groups, who would then be in a position to take over the Democratic Party. Trying to mobilize people around a one-off event like a vote for the presidency is no substitute for that, and as long as social Democrats remain fixated on elections and blabbering on social media as a substitute for grassroots organization, we will continue to see a rightward drift in what counts as "progressive."
3
Unfortunately, many men refused to vote for a woman in 2016 and voted for Sanders and then Trump. Biden got their votes in 2020.
7
@Albanywala
Good to know that Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic nomination in 2016.
@Shamrock
I didn’t write that Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic nomination just that many men didn’t vote for her. So Sanders got more votes in the primaries of 2016 as compared to 2020. Moreover, such votes were sufficient for a Trump electoral college victory.
1
@Albanywala
Nearly all my men friends voted for HRC. Make that all. We saw the train wreck coming....
Another great column by Mr. Edsall. It is interesting that we are only now learning the true basis for much of Bernie's support in 2016. Still, ideology is not irrelevant, and contrary to Yeats' famous poem, in the Democratic party, "the center does hold". The Democratic Party is not the British Labor Party and hopefully, hopefully will not suffer the same outcome.
4
The great feature of democracy is not that the people have the opportunity to elect their leaders, but that they have the opportunity to vote against a candidate. Not just a protest vote but a concerted effort to elect anyone other that undesired candidate.
This election as well as the last will not be 'Who did vote for?' but 'Who did vote against?'. This doesn't bode well for Trump.
2
While Warren’s failure was due in part to misogyny, why doesn’t any commentator mention that a significant part of her problem was her unrealistic progressive program (sure sounded appealing but so would a fountain of youth ... she may have had a program for everything but not all of them survived scrutiny).
3
@Claude Vidal
Her program was the most carefully explained and analyzed, with top economists explaining her Medicare For All plan funding mechanism as feasible without middle-class tax hikes, for instance.
12
@Claude Vidal: The column isn't about the economic or political feasibility of any particular candidate's proposals and it is not intended as a complete analysis of what happened to Elizabeth Warren. If you want to ask about the feasibility of Warren's progressive program, why don't you also ask about the feasibility of Sanders' progressive program, or the attractiveness of any other candidate's positions? Couldn't we actually view your comment as an example of the sort of masked hostile sexism that the column does address?
5
There are plenty reasons that Bernie does not level support he had in 2016. Hillary was a flawed candidate with weak campaign and she was a woman.American voters are not ready for a woman president yet. Lot of the Democratic voters think Bernie was partly responsible for Trump's win . Lot of people think Putin is helping Bernie which worrisome. The main reason is that most of the voters are at the center. They do not like any clash against the successful rich people. They want fairness. Medicare for all is not a popular idea. I do not like loose my health insurance. The attitude of Bernie supporters is really repulsive. Some of them prefer Trump over Biden. Bernie never had any connection the African-American.
2
So much blame and hand-wringing as to why Sanders is ot doing as well this time around. Not enough consideration given to the working class and multi-racial coalitions that simply prefer Biden to Sanders (gasp!), and to the actual issues such as Medicare for All, which is popular with a subset of Sanders' supporters but scares many that would otherwise support him.
10
This discussion of hostile sexism accompanied by supporting data is extremely helpful. We need women's voices and concerns in leadership in all social domains and it appears we have a long way to go to achieve this.
6
This is an interesting column that presents challenging ideas. That is why I love Mr. Edsall's columns.
I'm a Democrat, an FDR Democrat and a Sanders Democrat, and after yesterday's primaries. I do dot see a path to the nomination for Bernie. So, I will vote for Biden just as I voted for Clinton.
Before I looked at this column, I went through the exit polls from yesterday's primaries. I found some good news there.
First, in my opinion, white women voters are a segment of the electorate that has rejected Democrats in favor of Republicans in recent elections and they have been the outcome determinative segment. White women broke decisively for Biden. If that carries over into the general election, Biden will win a decisive victory.
Second, the exit polls confirm Ezra Klein's observation that demographic change leads political change by about ten years. Biden won the older demographic and Sanders won the younger demographic. If Biden is elected, he has the opportunity to lead an administration that thrusts young Democrats into leadership roles. Those young Democrats will end forty years of Republican domination of American politics.
Bernie Sanders is a great American and we should recognize that he has awakened the Democratic Party from a forty year hibernation. Biden is just another Republican-Lite, but hopefully one who will become the 46th President.
11
Anyone else here suffering from whiplash this morning?
The numbers in Bernie's loss seem to indicate that he never really had the support in 2016 that he and we thought he had, but that people were simply voting against Clinton, or, more precisely, the female opponent.
This opposition to Clinton was partly personal and general sexism. Edsall cites some amazing polls about overt and masked sexism. There is a lot to unpack there.
My question is, why are we only learning about these polls now?
However, as far as sexism, someone should address the fact that despite that reality, Clinton won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. (Imagine by how much she would have won without sexism...) That she lost the electoral vote was a combination of strategic error (like not campaigning in Wisconsin?), election interference by trolls, voter suppression, etc., unrelated to sexism, I believe.
23
@Margaret
Maybe we are learning this now because the analysis took a bit of time.
1
It's not only phantom white voters and "persistent sexism" that doomed the Sanders campaign.
A questionably absent youth vote and a highly energized African-American turnout also played a crucial role.
And Sanders wasn't prepared for any of this.
Plus all the splintering and bickering between the progressive and moderate wings of the party estranged the only other candidate who carried the same torch as Sanders, which is why there's no guarantee that Elizabeth Warren or her supporters will come out for him.
None of this should be surprising, especially after seeing how he and some of his 'Bros' treated Clinton back in 2016, and how at the same time he's managed to alienate African-American voters who have been little more than a second thought in his entire campaign.
It's no wonder that he lost South Carolina (AGAIN!), even though they are an essential demographic to any election.
Sanders' biggest problem is that he never grew out his coalition, and the one he thought he had never fully materialized.
It looks like the Revolution will not be televised.
14
Aspects of this analysis unfairly demean Biden’s decades long relationship with working and middle class voters like myself. This relationship was not confined to New England, as Biden has ran for President 3x and served as Vice President. This type of national exposure cannot be replicated by Senators Sanders and Warren, who only recently stepped onto the national stage.
On top of that, Joe is warm, personal, and empathetic. He cries; he lost a son; and he has spent decades crafting legislation to help those trying to scrape by. Remember universal healthcare? That was Joe. The auto bailout? That was Joe. Congressman James Clyburn said so much with the succinct phrase, “Joe knows us.”
Biden is called Uncle Joe and Middle Class Joe for a reason.
316
@Mark I don't know what universal healthcare you are speaking of. The only health legislation I can think of is the so-called Affordable Care Act - hardly universal or affordable for many.
I get it, slow roll and all.
10
@Rose - Yes the ACA has problems BUT, it only passed by 1 or 2 votes. Do you really think Joe could have got MFA thru by just shouting and waving his arms more?
28
@Rose
I believe you wouldn't have any issues with the ACA that Obama envisioned had passed Congress. Nancy Pelosi did her best. You can thank all the lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industry and the GOP for preventing Universal Healthcare.
44
Millions and millions, legions of women have experienced the impact of "hostile sexism" at work and at home, often wondering why we didn't get that promotion, that raise, that opportunity, that mentor.
This analysis answers another question you probably should be asking. Why didn't more women support Elizabeth Warren? Because we knew about the extent of misogyny in US, on full display in 2016, and we need to win in 2020.
You know who else we liked? Amy Klobucher and Kamala Harris. Any one of these three women would have made a great president. But this year, we need all hands on deck to beat Trump and the Republicans. We are on the team and we are team players.
Let's win!
6
@laurel, I support Biden and originally thought Klobuchar for veep, but after reading about hostile sexism, i'm not sure the country will accept a woman a heartbeat away from the presidency. Cory booker could ably fill the spot, but if trump dumps pence for Nikki Haley, it would be a wash and Klobuchar would be teriffic,coming from a state with a democratic governor who could appoint al Franken to her Senate seat. he's good enough,he's smart enough, and doggone it people like him.
So essentially Sanders 2016 support was a mix of the most liberal progressive wing and the most conservative, anti elite/sexist wing of the Democratic party. This year without Clinton as a foil half that support falls away. It always explains why the progressive half is still as committed as ever. Lets just hope the Progressive wing comes back in the general against Trump
1
Not the moment to debate whether sexism brought down Warren (which, obviously, it did), or whether Sanders shot himself in the foot.
Biden is the more viable candidate when it comes to selecting the one most likely to defeat Trump. Now is the time to focus.
4
I engaged with some Bernie supporters the other night in the comments of some posts about whether Elizabeth Warren will endorse Bernie, and whether Bernie supporters should stay home in November. The gender based hostility I experienced would be impossible for me to describe here, because none of it can be expressed without unrepeatable language.
These "Bernie-or-Bust" voters claim to be 100% focused on policy, and use that as justification to say people who do NOT support Bernie aren't "real progressives." But in my hours of discussion with these people, not one of them brought up policy. They didn't ask me about my policy views, or advocate for their own.
Neither did policy come up a single time in their venomous attacks on Elizabeth Warren. All they had to say is that she is a traitor for not supporting Bernie, she's not a "real progressive" (i.e. not with Bernie), and she's a snake. The only specific complaint they had about Warren apart from her failure to endorse Bernie was their insistence that she makes everything about gender. They are literally obsessed with that time Warren said Bernie told her a woman couldn't beat Trump. Remember that? Neither did I. But they remember. Oh boy, do they remember.
So yeah, sexism is a huge part of this. Of course, any woman who isn't supporting Bernie already knew that. We experience it first hand.
412
@Revelwoodie I have no idea what group chat you were on, but my experience runs counter to yours. The men and women who preferred Sanders to Warren can clearly enunciate their political differences--and why he was a more effective advocate for progressive policies. And to state the obvious, Bernie received more votes from both women and men than Warren did.
19
@Revelwoodie
Cults don't have policies, they have beliefs and those who don't believe the way they do are infidels.
I've supported Warren in all her senate races and will do so again. I think she'd make a great president even though I don't agree with some of her policies. Sorry to see her drop out.
53
If it makes you feel any better, I waded into the Bernie or Bust cesspool for the first time last night. I pointed out some facts about Bernie under performing despite the higher turnout. I got called everything but a progressive, minus the toxic misogyny of course. And they all threatened not to vote for Biden should he win the nomination. What a bunch of petulant children.
69
The big question of this election is whether Black men in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania will show up to the polls in November. These folks showed up in huge numbers for Obama, and disproportionately stayed home when Hillary was on the ballot.
No one should be surprised about the sexist Sanders/Trump dynamic. Nor should male Democrats ever be given a pass for their own sexism, however hidden.
So the good news is that Biden has a stronger position against Trump than Hillary did. The horrible news is that women are still second class citizens.
4
This reminds me of a chilling observation I read some while ago: Men destroy their weak and women destroy their strong. It may very well be that women are unwittingly complicit in their own disenfranchisement due to subtle social conditioning. Combined with men's hard wired gender equality skeptism (insecurity?), we're apparently not as far along as I had hoped.
2
Sanders is selling canned, 100 year-old Socialism as fresh produce to an uninformed youth. His popularity was falsely amplified by the pervasive distain for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and by the Twitter echo chamber ever since. A true movement is upon us, and it is the Biden Blue Wave coming for Trump.
9
More importantly you could see a tremendous difference in how the press covered Sanders in 2016 and in 2019. None of his so called radical socialism was part of the discussion. But boy was it a problem now. Why? Sticking a knife in Clinton was the big blood sport of 2016.
I will say that Trump has done the world a great service. He has exposed the fraudulent nature of American democracy.
And the men are piling on.....not understanding the deep unconscious roots of their own sexism. Warren is not "likable", is "strident", "professorial" "lecturing", etc etc. There is no way for a woman to BE. There is no woman--even Repub women in their deepest core--who doesn't know all of this. It's not the only reason, but it is a HUGE part of the reason. Men are simply not scrutinized in the same way as women in our culture, by both men and women. To be male is the default, so backwards and in high heels, etc etc. I'm not whining, but it is simply not credible to say the female candidates were on completely equal footing.
5
America's working class, blacks, whites, women, men, lgbt, straight, Hispanics, basically everyone supported Biden.
In the next primaries this will be even more emphatic.
What we now see is that Bernie's pie in the sky program of everything free was a house of cards.
The American people are not fools.
We recognize a con when its salesmen knock on our doors with their Bernie costumes.
We want stability and decency, not the politics of fear and anger.
8
Studies have shown women hold sexist views against women. I thought there would be a “Hillary Hangover” but obviously could not have predicted that a Biden tsunami might develop to crush Bernie. Let Trump continue on with the sexism and racism. It will boomerang against him this time vis a vis Biden who must have low disapproval ratings as compared to Hillary or Trump. Trump’s attempts to exploit Hunter Biden and the Biden family history may also boomerang against him as voters will feel sorry for empathetic “Papa Joe”. 2020 ain’t 2016.
3
During 2016 race, I was always amazed that African Americans in the Dem party didn’t support Bernie. I thought their interests would match very well. Now in 2020, I see clearly why the support is lacking. Bernie just isn’t interested in African American voters.
1
You know who didn’t underestimate either the trumpian populist thrust or the c/overt misogyny of Sanders’ campaigns? Grown women. That’s who.
4
Warren built her name by talking about out of control costs of healthcare, housing and college.
It resonated with people.
Then she ran for president of Oberlin College instead of President of the USA.
Trans women of color are "the backbone of America", we need climate justice from climate violence, and she lied about everything from getting fired for being pregnant to sending her kids to public schools.
She ran a bad campaign and now is playing the victim card.
Hillary and Warren reaction to losing is the reason why the first woman president will be Republican who runs on strength and competence, not gender.
@Tim
The words Republican and competence should not be used in the same sentence. There has been no such thing in the Republican party for decades.
1
It’s exactly what we thought it was and so is the power of the Democratic Party establishment and its corporate backers. This country is filled with cowards who are too afraid to face the reality that Trump is not the problem, he is a symptom of the problem. Too much power rests in the hands of corporations and the politicians they elect, like Joe Biden. Good luck everyone. Life goes on, exactly as it has. Better for few, the same for many and worse for most.
Stay in the race Bernie, and Biden will make a slip that will doom his candidacy.
1
@Clayton Marlow
Did you see Joe speak last night? He was measured, poised and Presidential. He’s been in the Situation Room. He’s ready for the challenge. Sanders is making excuses, blaming the media. Bernie is toast and that’s the way it will be this year. Suck it up and vote for Biden/Harris/Klobuchar/Booker.
Sure, racism and sexism play a role in US politics -- and historically, these have been weaponized by ruling elites to divide and conquer disaffected workers -- especially in times of economic stress and uncertainty, like now. But the mainstream Democratic Party and its apologists in the media, like Edsall here, would prefer to ignore the economic issues that allow Trump and his ilk to weaponize race and gender, rather than focus on the deep anxiety of the working classes -- the yawning inequality and declining prospects that characterize American life in the 21st century.
Unless Democrats offer the working classes real relief from rising rents, growing debt, inadequate health care, increasing precariousness on the job, etc., Trump and his neo-fascists will keep pushing the snake oil of racism and sexism with depressingly predictable consequences. The professional-managerial class, with its economic privilege, can gloat all it wants over its vaunted freedom from racism and sexism, but it will continue to see the rise of Trump-like neo-fascists if nothing is done to reform our deeply predatory capitalist system.
Racism and sexism may be central to Trump’s election strategy, but the variable which I feel better explains his popularity is the degree of grievance he can exploit among his base. It is the same emotion that propelled Sanders’ early successes and continues to motivate people like AOC.
Until our faith in the functionality of government is restored and the two political Parties stop warring with one another, sizable portions of our electorate will continue to gravitate to the candidates who can hate the most, and shout the loudest.
101
The key takeaway of this article is that, ideologically, the United States remains majority right-wing. Time to move.
As the punditry slips into punditry mode maybe they could finally figure out that the last primary was not about Bernie Sanders and the last election was indeed about Hillary Clinton. And can we please ask that person, Hillary Clinton, to please return to walking in the woods and dreaming up another speech to give to Wall Street as she continues to blame Sanders, who ran 40 rallies for her campaign, for her and Robbie Mook's ineptitude at reading what the electorate actually wanted.
The American Dream of my generation was a house with a white picket fence in the suburbs. For the next generations it is to simply not be ruined by the cost of healthcare, student loan debt and to have a habitable planet in 50 years. Is Joe Biden up to that task? Does he care?
Will Biden and his campaign read the tea leaves? He has the old timers down pat. He needs to pivot away from the oldtimers and address the futures of the next generations.
Will the Democratic establishment run another loser campaign for the Democratic establishment's chosen savior at the expense of our democracy? Probably.
1
@MrMxzptlk
Biden is clearly up to the task. His speech last night was a touch of class. Class and Sanders don’t exist in the same sentence.
On one hand you have people saying that Trump is out of control just honestly blurting out what is on his mind with no self control, then you have people saying of the same exact outburst that he capitalized on what political scientists call role incongruity theory and he is some evil genius. Trump told you all that he is a stable genius. Maybe now some of you are starting to believe him, or maybe the perception is that those articles are not going to be as interesting as now saying that Trump is using social science to oppress minorities and women. There was another article today saying that the Trump administration is pressing cities to evict home owners from flood zones. It is actually the army corps of engineers trying to save people from future disasters. Gotta love the opinion section. At least you are allowing comments here.
@Mark
Mark,
Which article are you commenting on? It certainly is this one.
We have data to support what so many of us women already knew: subtle, implicit sexism (like that of the Democrats) is just as destructive as blatant, explicit sexism (like that of the Republicans). For over 4 years we’ve been saying that votes for Sanders and then Trump were rooted in sexism and misogyny, only to face more mansplaining about how HRC was a flawed candidate (because Sanders and Trump were not flawed?).
Thank you for this piece. We all need to confront the sexism in our lives and in our hearts.
4
Every cycle Democrats tell themselves that young people matter and every cycle, the don't come out to vote. The Press, twitter and clickbait would indicate the US has embraced Hugo Chavez and Marx. Instead, we find that the 41% of Americans who consider themselves independent matter, those over 50 matter, white suburban voters, black church-going voters and small business (capitalists) matter. The Sanders coalition never existed
3
There are structural issues that also intersect with 'hostile sexism' in novel ways. The Atlantic Monthly did an interesting article on why women leaders are more possible in parliamentary systems vs presidential. It helps illuminate why many Third World nations have women Prime Ministers despite being very traditional societies yet the US continues to debate female candidacy. The piece draws on research by Oklahoma professor Farida Jalalzai -https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/11/clinton-woman-leader-world/506945/
"Trump, according to the authors, deliberately put racism and sexism at the center of the campaign in order to make these issues salient and advantageous to his candidacy." You're going to wait for an academic paper to tell you that, or believe it more firmly after you get in Political Science Quarterly?
1
Sexism has its routes in jealousy men feel toward women who aspire and achieve in traditional men strong holds. Jealously is one of our little sides. We need to work on that
1
Do we really think that Trump will rely on "racist and sexist appeals," Hunter Biden, Putin's help, voter suppression tactics and actual policies to win this year? His poll numbers will be plummeting as coronavirus persists in the US -- due to his incompetence and that of his VP and Cabinet -- while the stock market continues its chaotic downward spiral and unemployment numbers rise sharply. What is Trump's best option at this point to stave off defeat in November? I would say invoking presidential emergency powers at some point this year. Trump has a broad array of powers at his disposal. That is how he can rig the election in his favor. Remember how Trump told us during the 2016 campaign that the system is rigged? Why did he say that? He said it because he projected onto the electorate that he rigs the system. That's what he does. We will be fools not to expect this obvious move from him. And we must do all we can to guard against it. There really is no time to lose.
@Blue Moon
Emergency powers are usually Trump throwing tax payer money-at folks in distress like he's done with the farmers, and now proposes to do with the hourly wage earners. All this to get votes. Alongside this our national debt rises. His payroll tax cut is projected to add one Billion to our national debt!! He will leave with his personal ill-gotten bag of gains and we will be left with a huge debt. The GOP who are supposed to be debt conscious are silently helping this monstrous debt!
@Blue Moon
I think he'll rely on all of that. The first are his go-tos, & we all know that if nothing else he's consistent in his abuse. The other, well, that was just a gift out of the blue. I don't know if the Senate would lest him go *that* far, but they surely have so far. Lord (or somebody) only knows....
Commentators underestimate the Primary voters, many like myself quite like Sanders, but we hate Trump more. So that’s the priority.
1
Interesting. The bottom line- conclusively proved this year across every state but Nevada, is that Bernie's support is about 30-35% when he is not running against Hillary Clinton.
Warren did not lose on misogny, however. She was soaring until she tried to explain how she would fund M4A.
As for the racist, woman-hating white guys who put Trump into office?
WE DO NOT NEED THEM ANY LONGER.
Massive black turnout plus white suburban women who are now the New Never Trumpers plus our traditional voters give us a clear path to victory in November. A lot does depend on the primary endgame, however, If Bernie goes down guns blazing and claiming he got defrauded so that the Progressives stay home? Then we are introuble, potentially.
3
Biden is winning where Hillary lost, because he is a white MAN. Those same voters wouldn’t vote for a woman. Bernie was right when he told Liz the country wasn’t ready to elect a woman president. It’s the saddest thing ever for my daughter my nieces their friends, they just have to wait for America to enter the 21st century.
158
@petey tonei
Unfortunately, it looks like they gonna be waiting a long time. In many respects, we ain't even in the 20th century.
26
@petey tonei
That fact that Bernie told Liz that the country isn't ready to elect a female president doesn't make it any more correct but rather it just makes Bernie wrong about one more thing.
The country will never be ready for a female president until we elect one. IT will happen but only when the right candidate runs. It's that simple
6
@petey tonei
America is in the 21st Century, Petey. Unfortunately it's been a regressive century, and not just here.
17
You are over analyzing. Democrats are flocking to Biden not because they favor his policies or passion. They correctly recognize that an avowed socialist (even though Bernie is not) is less likely to defeat Trump in today's racist, religiously driven, science denying, homophobic America. Biden will win. He will not have to deal with "I just can't bring myself to vote for Hillary" issue. He will attract moderate voters who voted for Trump rather than Hillary believing that Trump would not be as bad a president as he was a person (now having learned they were wrong). He will select a minority VP candidate, hopefully, to bring out the minority vote that did not vote for Hillary but did for Obama. While it is sad to make this observation, he is also a Christian. Many voters, particularly today, will not vote for a Jewish candidate. The Party simply realized that Biden has a greater chance to win than Sanders
3
So called sexism has been around for a long, long, long time. The physically stronger have always dominated. Always will. As a young male of smaller stature, I was physically picked on. Bullied. Cast aside. Sexism? No. Tribal instincts for survival? Yes. The strong take charge. They don’t ask for permission, and some don’t ask for forgiveness.
1
@Robert Black
Sorry, but a small man still doesn't hit the glass ceiling the way a woman will.
I know some people don't want to hear this, but this comes down to a question of privilege. People who look like me don't have to worry about being locked in a cage at the boarder (and yes, that's happened to US citizens, multiple times). Nor do we have to worry that the Justice Department will run defense for Cops who kill our children. I can go to sleep tonight, relatively safe from the immediate threats of this administration's actions. However scared I am for the future of the country I love, that threat is not immediate, merely ever present and looming.
The people who are under immediate threat have made their choice clear, they want a safe bet, someone who won't confront the sleeping demons of our nation's psyche, which includes anti-communist hysteria and no small dash of antisemitism. They want "Good ol' Joe" who can aw-shucks his way into the hearts of people who want to know why there isn't a White History Month and who would gladly vote for a woman, just not (insert name of any woman here).
In this instance, in spite of my own preferences (I'm a Warren wonk, and Biden couldn't plan his way out of a paper bag) I think we need to listen to them. It's our turn to buck up and take one for the team. A 2% wealth tax and Medicare for All will still be a good idea in four years time.
The rush to write Bernie's obituary is odious. Not long ago, this newspaper and the MSM were all casting doubt on Biden's mental acuity. It was obvious to anyone watching the early debates. We cringed whenever Biden spoke because he was obviously just a shell of the man who ran with Obama. You and everyone else out there knows this is true.
And yet, now, the MSM and establishment want to anoint Biden, to ignore all their prior misgivings and, for Pete's sake, get Bernie out of the race before Biden has to debate again. Now, sure, some are terrified (wrongly) of Bernie's running.
But whatever their motive, the MSM and establishment of the party are now plainly ignoring the valid concerns they once had about Biden’s cognitive decline. The new spin is dangerous. Want to see for yourself? Google Glenn Greenwald's piece, "Democrats and Their Media Allies Impugned Biden’s Cognitive Fitness. Now They Feign Outrage." Watch the video. See for yourself the about-face and ask yourself, honestly, is Biden really up for the task of President?
Ten years ago? You bet. But today? I have serious doubts. Perhaps we all should.
Thanks for all the work that went into producing this fine, informative column!
2
It’s complicated. The Democratic Party does not tend to do well when they choose someone who comes off as elite (John Kerry, for example). Elizabeth Warren was the smartest woman in the room, but was she disliked because she was smart or because she was a woman? Arguably, she did her homework too well, and confused us with the details.
You can look to black people to tell you where we’re at regarding racism. Young Black voters had the courage to vote for progressive policies. Older Black voters said, white people are not going to have your back on that.
When women are still denied leadership roles in many Evangelical (and Catholic) churches, can we expect even female evangelicals to be ready for female leaders? My experience was that they were the most fervent anti-Hillary people. “Save the babies.”
Joe Biden is still the one everybody would like to have a beer with. He was always gaffe prone and not “articulate”, but you know his heart is in the right place.
Now, can we ignore the misleading propaganda on Facebook until November?
2
It does look like Biden may be the best candidate to win over Trump. I personally would have liked someone younger, but still experienced, and someone more articulate. If Biden would choose Klobuchar for VP, I would feel that we are at least getting closer to having a female president someday. One of the most important qualities for being president is gravitas. Klobuchar is getting closer to that quality, as she becomes more self confident. With self confidence, she wouldn't need to be mean to her staff. Warren also suffered from lack of self confidence, and she ended up expressing that in her shrillness. She also made the same mistake as Hilary, wearing bright colors instead of somber executive tones. She hurt herself in her takedown of Bloomberg, becoming the lawer prosecuter instead of looking presidential. Bernie now needs to think about truly backing Biden which is the only way to achieving some of the goals he promoted. He needs to get back in the Senate and write bills on paper instead of air writing.
1
The title of this opinion piece assumes a lack of fraud and no interference from the DNC. The DNC deliberately interfered with Bernie’s bid in 2016, and the courts ruled it legal. So now that interference with Bernie is legal it’s no longer happening?
Bernie lost support when it became clear that the Russians were using him, and hoped he would be the Democratic nominee, in order to get Trump re-elected. The stakes became clear to Democrats and the disaffected 2016 Trump voters. As good Americans they decided they would not be used as Russian tools.
4
In other words, the folks who voted for Sanders last time are folks who the supporters at his rallies would abhor.
The people that Sanders' core supporters imagine being pro-Bernie, on the other hand, voted for Biden in droves.
4
What was not indicated in the pre-election analysis is now post-election "insights". Can one put any faith in either?
1
There ought to be a ban on NYT Opinion columnists using the royal "we"--as in the title of this essay. The presumption is that everyone agreed with the prevailing analysis to begin with, which is not accurate--or useful to readers. You should own the platform you occupy.
Race and gender biases are universal, despite the prevailing propaganda pinning it all on white males. Millions of white males voted for Clinton in 2016; millions of women and people of color did not.
5
The superdelegates again shaped the race. Biden was and is a bad candidate, but the party elites backed him and people fell in line.
2
@Charles pack Unbelievable! "Bernie as victim" is so like "Trump as victim". Both turn my stomach!
1
It is this total disrespect for the majority of Democratic voters that has Sanders on the losing end of this election. The notion that these elections do not represent millions of individual heart felt decisions is ridiculous.
2
@Charles pack Superdelegates have a significantly diminished role this time. In fact, they don't even get to vote at the convention unless a candidate doesn't have a majority of pledged delegates.
Also, you are implying that the voters are too brainwashed to vote for the 'right' candidate - which happens to be the one you support. That's a little arrogant, don't you think?
2
Progressives/Sanders supporters need to keep one thing in mind when deciding whether to support Biden as the nominee.....The Supreme Court.
If Trumps picks RBG’s replacement, good luck with progressive issues and progress in general, way past the next 4 years. That rock solid conservative court will be that way for at least the next 3 or 4 presidential terms.
14
This is a marvelous analysis, really eye-opening. The Sanders voter bloc, as usually stereotyped, has previously not been presented to us as it really is and was four years ago. I look forward to the comprehensive learning experience so regularly provided to readers by Mr. Edsall.
17
Interesting analysis, but missing the real point, I believe. Sexism, racism, xenophobia, 2nd Amendment angst, Deep State rantings, and the rest of the panoply of ills seemingly upsetting the electorate... all are deeply rooted in irrational, but oh-so-very-"human", fear which in turn becomes anger directed at all our cherished institutions. We have become, on the left and right, a nation of churlish bomb-throwers, saboteurs, naysayers, and ideological know-nothings, whether manning the barricades or clinging to our AR-15s. Recent exit polls indicate that those who are "angry" go for the more radical candidate... those that are "dissatisfied" go for the more moderate one.
My sincere hope and Pollyanna-ish belief is that we will emerge from the current four-year disastrously polemic nightmare and enter a period in which rational, civil discourse and healthy debate become the norm and not some forgotten, arcane mode of political behavior.
5
@John Wilson
After chuckling at (and sharing) your Pollyanna-ish hopes for the future, I recall Mr. Edsall’s ending points. It is unlikely the Trump influence will dissipate in the GOP. As the aging and racially cloistered demographic of the GOP sees continued real and imagined threats to their political power, rational civil discourse and healthy debate will be only a memory. The dynamic of political contests has been forever coarsened and degraded to hurling sexist, racist invective by the Right for one simple reason: it worked.
Well said ! Thank you.
What on earth made anyone think the Democratic Party was free of sexism? The media? The Berners? Clinton's loss in 2016 was ascribed to anything but sexism, which actually was a form of sexism itself: a barrage of harsh criticism emboldened by hundreds of expert analyses attributing her loss to a multitude of "faults" ensued after the loss. How dare she, after all? Sexism was rarely addressed, or it was downplayed, except by the occasional female pundit. Even some of the comments here double down on the demonizing of this most knowledgeable, capable public servant. If we follow the logic in this article - sexism, however, played a huge role. It's to be expected from men, but to all the women who backed Warren, but turned their backs on Hillary Clinton, the most qualified candidate, I say "feel the Burn".
9
Make no mistake, the press (pushed on by the usual money forces) have shaped this election to what it is today.
First it was misogyny to eliminate the women candidates. Then it was racism to eliminate the minority candidates. Now it is the last roadblock to eliminate the Progressive candidate.
It is all designed to keep the status quo.
However, you the voter, can STILL shape the election and the future of your country. You can overwhelmingly vote in Progressive candidates to add to the house Democratic majority, and then you can vote in Democratic candidates to wrestle back the Senate. In 2 year, you can add to that for a super majority of 60 votes in the Senate.
THEN, you can have true Progressive policies and force the President to sign then into law. Up to you.
21
@FunkyIrishman
Voters were hoodwinked by the press to spurn progressive, female, and minority candidates, but FunkyIrishman will convince them to do the right thing.
Maybe voters actually preferred the candidates they voted for, and aren't the credulous sheep you describe.
I voted for Biden in the Democratic primary in California, not because he was my favorite candidate, but because I believe, along with a great many others, that he has the best chance of defeating Trump. That is far more important than the identity of any specific Democratic candidate. I would vote for ANY Democrat against Trump, and "progressives" who stay home and sulk instead of voting for Biden are Trump enablers.
If you think that the Democrats can increase their caucus in the Senate by 13 in the next two elections, you are almost certainly very mistaken.Which 13 seats do you think will be taken from the Republicans? Without Democrats losing any of their own seats? Alabama is almost surely lost this year.
The demographic that is the most "progressive" is also the demographic which turns out to vote in the lowest, most disgraceful numbers. Good luck in counting on them to win a super majority in the Senate.
9
@FunkyIrishman
It's common knowledge now that the Blue Tidal Wave in 2018 was moderate Democrats retaking red districts. Progressives didn't win one seat in that regard so it's hard to see how your prescription is going to happen.
4
@FunkyIrishman I think you are insulting the voters who did not vote for Sanders. Don't they have a right to their own opinion, or are they sheep in your opinion? This is an election we need to win - I believe that is the message, no pie in the sky from Sanders.
2
The large number of our fellow citizens who supported Trump screams verities about perceived vs. real social progress. However, such a conclusion can only be mitigated by the Democratic gang who couldn't shoot straight that, in the face of a 25-year media smear campaign painting Hillary Clinton as a worse choice than Barabbas, elevated her so invented a new way to lose to an grifting rageaholic.
Each time we as a society try to take what looks like a logical and evolutionary step toward equality and equanimity between the races and now the genders, the residue of early inculcation steeped in mythology and superstition poisons the process, and even those trying to be better people than their parents trained them to be can fall prey to their subconscious programmed biases.
I am a sorely disappointed Elizabeth Warren supporter. On paper no one better dealt with economic reality, and no one put forth more complete prescriptions that could be debated and perhaps modified. How do we know whether voters rejected this candidate because of her gender or because voters don't actually like concrete proposals that require thought, preferring vague praise for their being born in this portion of the Western Hemisphere, salt of the Earth, real Americans? Sexism or fear of thinking?
In ways far more subtle than those illustrated in the Bible, we pay for our cognitive laziness. This election, we can vote for a man who was ahead of his time in 1996 or the current occupant. Good going us.
16
@Jack Mahoney I believe the hard left (Sanders & Co) hurt her badly when she decided to "listen" to people's concerns about the extreme and uncompromising positions of Sanders. They came out against her in the most vile ways as she has told us, wanting her I suppose to continue her support for M4A, despite hers or others concerns, until Bernie wanted her to meekly step aside.
Big media did her no favors either. Instead of acknowledging her courage and independence for stepping away from Sanders' "my way or the highway" campaign, they spent all their time fretting about what this does to the progressive vote and how it affects the campaign that these "fight promoters" continuously put all their focus on.
Her smart solutions never got a chance.
3
The polling questions being asked here are deeper than the old polls that simply asked "who are you going to vote for" in that they ask "how do you feel . . . about certain candidates". However, I believe a truly accurate poll needs to go down a couple of more levels and ask "why do you feel this way" and "would you feel this way if . . . sexism, racism, etc. were eliminated from the equation altogether.
I believe most people have a deep rooted faith in fairness. Were this not the case, we would never have seen the rise of towns and cities and nations where people decided to align themselves to a group where they felt fairness would be honored. It's only when political organizations become so warped that fairness ceases to become important that people begin to rely on their bias to make decisions and this has always led to their downfall.
The Trumpsters have all but dumped the concept of fairness but they aren't facing platforms and programs that are believably rooted in fairness (except to themselves). Hillary didn't lose because she was a woman. She lost because she was seen as the purveyor of an establishment whose fairness was suspect in many quarters.
Few men would vote for someone if they knew that someone would likely treat their daughter unfairly. But the same is true for a political organization that experience has shown hasn't been fair.
The Democrats need to get down to basics. Whatever platform/programs they push must be clearly rooted in fairness for all.
2
Thank-you Tom for a very insightful (as usual) piece of analysis and commentary. What stands out to me is not so much the first order explanation for Bernie’s poorer performance today in contrast to 2016 - but what underlies it. The one key demographic explanatory variable for Bernie’s rise and fall is “non-college educated white men” and their preference for white male candidates. This points to an important long-term problem that this country has to face If we are ever to become a more egalitarian society.
Why should the fact of a college education makes such a difference? The answer is probably much more complex than we imagine. Does the college experience (both educationally and socially) temper biases of young people entering college? Is college a filter that selects for sociolo-economic groups less likely to possess implicit biases? Are primary and secondary schools failing to guide their young charges in developing greater tolerance of differences among people? On the latter point, the through-line of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education SCOTUS ruling was that segregation harms children and society by depriving them of the opportunity to learn in diverse communities.
Until we answer these and other questions, and seek solutions, we deprive future generations of the ability to fairly judge candidates for office on their merits and not on the their gender, race or ethnicity. This is the antidote against a future Trump.
5
@TimothyG - Excellent question, and I'll dare to suggest a potential answer: status security. A college degree confers a social standing and marketability that gives one a sense of security. Conversely those without it feel vulnerable, need to prove themselves, and under threat. Hence their greater insistence on traditional social hierarchies. It's a double edged sword though, because it also means they put a lot of pressure on themselves to be the provider and breadwinner. Coupled with economic decline in manufacturing areas, it's a recipe for despair and lashing out. I don't know what the answer is, but making sure non-college men have something productive to do is surely a crucial priority.
1
@Patrick R
Terrific comment, Patrick. Thanks for contributing to an important dialog!
Thought provoking article. I will suggest that if it is really the case that 1/3 (and even if it was lower, say 20%) of the party is willing to align with anti-women sentiments, then the media's grouping everyone not on the left into "moderates," is probably an unhelpful approach to thinking about voters and elections.
But, it's also not clear that these kind of bias analyses predict behavior. For example, Clinton didn't lose the one-third of the Dem voters who the researchers say are comfortable with ant-women sentiments. If that were true, there's no way she wins the popular vote. She may have lost some but she pretty clearly won a bunch.
8
Good observation. Clinton lost the electoral college by 70,000 or so votes in just a couple of states. Absent the EC, she would be president right now and these sorts of analyses would be interesting reading in the dusty stacks of university libraries across the country. Still, it’s helpful to think about these dynamics and to parse the workings - or not - of the American political mind. Thanks Tom Edsall for compiling the data for us!
1
To paraphrase Andrew Lang's observation, "Statistics are used by many as a drunken man uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination."
At the end of the day, regardless of all the political scientists' "research", the only polling data that matters are the results of elections.
So far in 2020, the Democratic primaries are showing that self-described and registered Democrats still live in that boring, plain vanilla space, The Center, where political ideals progress slowly, haltingly.
I'm sure that all the academic navel-gazing has its uses (other than tenure and grant-getting) but teasing peoples' deep seated motivations for voting the way they do strikes me a dubious undertaking, at best.
10
Sonje, I agree with your observation about the demographic trend. However, another demographic trend is the concentration of the population in 15 states which if I recall will result in 75% of the population residing in those states. This will give an extremely disproportionate power to the Senators of those remaining states as well as to the electoral college votes .
12
Sanders would have won a fair primary contest if Hillary Ckinton, despute her pretense at inevitability, had not rigged the superdelegates in 2016. And the vote for Bernie was as much a vote against Hillary as a vote for him.
This time, a vote for Bernie is just that. It is not a vote against Biden or Warren or anyone else.
A vote for Biden is a vote bringing America and Democrats back to the center. It is a candidacy that can attract Republicans weary of Trump's unpredictability. It us a candidacy that can win in November even if some are not thrilled on the left in the Democratic party.
The absolute rejection of Hillary in 2016 cannot be overstated. She manipulated the DNC to the detriment of party and country and handed Trump to America on a silver platter. She alone is to blame for where we ended up.
6
@Honey
In 2016, according to the New York Times on July 5, 2016, Clinton won 2,220 pledged delegates; Sanders won 1,831. It was Sanders who called on the unpledged super delegates to chose him over Clinton. Also in the 2016 primaries, according to Wikipedia, Clinton won 55.2% of the popular vote; Sanders won 43.1%.
BTW, I myself voted for Sanders in the 2016 Massachusetts primary. In 2020, I proudly supported Elizabeth Warren with my vote, by volunteering in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and by contributing. Although greatly disappointed by her lack of success, I've had no difficulty switching to Biden who, in my possibly fallible opinion, has a much better chance of defeating Trump than does Sanders.
13
@David A. Guberman Yeah it is a very fallible opinion IMHO. Biden will be a very weak and ineffective candidate against the bullieness of tRump. Anyway, in regards to the climate crisis Biden will only be little better than tRump. I mean his chief climate adviser is from the fossil fuel industry. We have less than 10 years now to cut our GHG emissions by 45%. The only
candidates who had the policies to address that were Sanders, Warren and Inslee.
1
@Honey Please, please stop with the false narrative about the 2016 primary. Hillary received more votes than Bernie without the involvement of superdelegates. The "establishment" is not involved in some tinhat conspiracy against Bernie--he just does not have enough support in the electorate.
1
In short, some Democrats harbor biases as snugly as the majority of Republicans -- and it'll be some time before we have a woman president, or another person of color in that office. People, to put it simplistically, aren't simple -- we're motivated by a multitude of values and perspectives, many of them not especially noble. Though we each think they're all justifiable. Such as some angry Bernie supporters not showing up in November to vote Trump out.
Trump's uncanny evil is appealing to the baser elements of a lot of people, and doing it with both public and subtle machinations. His smarts -- far from intellectual of course -- resemble the guy who runs out ahead of the mob, picks up the bullhorn, and demands the hanging of the latest victim in town. All other rules also be hanged.
It's likely a number of pro-Biden votes are not only anti-Trump, but also anti-Sanders. Let's hope that whatever the motive -- a whole lot of voters show up in November, for whatever the reason, to remove the autocrat with the bullhorn. And that in the meantime, he doesn't use his evil superpower to declare a coronavirus state of emergency and announce suspension of the election so he can guide us to a safe, healthy, and great America again. That's a viral apocalypse of a whole other order.
31
@SGK You hit the nail on the head; one way or another the bleating autocrat will declare a 'state of emergency' (to keep him in office for life), and the corona-virus offers an even better pretext than 'millions of illegal Mexican votes' or 'Ukrainian meddling' (his fallback strategy, if the virus wanes by November).
1
I have a very much simpler explanation.
The last 40+ months of Trump presidency has fatigued Americans to the point that a plain vanilla candidate is what they are looking for. And Biden provides that far better than Sanders, who has his own temper tantrums and is seen as a bit too off-putting.
In other words, they want a return to the No-Drama-Obama. And nobody can give that other than Biden. Simple as that.
109
@chickenlover
It isn't *always* "really is just that simple," but from evidence my feeling is that in *this* case it is. :)
5
@chickenlover
There is support for your thesis from Gary Kasparov. He commented on Soviet style disinformation campaigns and one of its purposes/effects.
Mr. Kasparov observed that the main goal was to create a chaos atmosphere such that critical thinking was difficult, if not suspended.
The Soviet style was/is more subtle, like wafting popcorn smell into the movie theater, where the Trump style is brazen and employs the rhetorical cousin of irony - apophasis.
Eg., he brings up a subject but then says well "I''m just saying Carly is horse faced, but that's not nice ... but I'm just saying."
4
@chickenlover
A wise commenter said on these very NYT comment pages:
People are worn out. Exhausted. They cannot take the thought of being whipsawed back and forth between Sanders and Trump.
Makes some sense. The problem is that it means four more years of corporations running (and ruining) the country. Or four more years of a tyrant running (and ruining) the country.
Wanting to take a four year vacation is an awful idea.
2
Sanders was a protest vote in 2016.
But we aren't protesting in 2020. We are trying to save the country.
185
@Will.
For some voting for Trump was revenge.
2
It's sad to see even women questioning a candidate's electability because of gender. I understand that many are just thinking pragmatically and being realistic about people's biases, but come on now, women make up the majority of the electorate, they should be telling us who is and is not electable!
7
@Mike B Until we (women) have financial equity and equality with males, this will persist. Most women are cautious about backlash that comes with financial hardships. And this includes married as well as single women. Women will mask their anxieties about this bias by "going along" with social norms attributed to male agendas.
10
There is no doubt Trump had a strong influence in this. As many have reported on US education declining, Americans are still very logical. They want the best candidate that can beat Trump and Sander just isn't one of them.
I am very happy that most Americans are able to see the overall picture, especially in today's day and age when many media sources likes to promotes or hype extreme ends of political ideals.
5
This is the sort of analysis that occupies pundits and media, playing into their preoccupation with identify politics, and which failed to predict the outcome of 2016. Sometimes simple is better - as voters got to know the candidates they made their own decisions in ways these models cannot predict. That said, if what the author posits is true, then Trump really is the genius he claims he is.
7
@LTJ Bingo.
While Mr. Edsall has some interesting observations, his using (as most do) percentages causes him to miss another dynamic.
Michigan, as Virginia and Texas, saw Sanders grow his vote totals over 2016. In Michigan, he is at roughly 575k with 70% reporting which projects to something like 720 - 750k. He got just under 600k in 2016. That is over a 20% increase in turnout on Sander's behalf. Similar results were seen in VA and TX. He lost all 3.
That is a lot of energy being demonstrated by the voters. If this can be sustained by bring all factions together and extended down ballot, 2020 can be a good year.
This will require more than telling those whose 1st choice candidate didn't get the nod to fall in line. They will require some courting to come in with enthusiasm. Without this an opportunity could be lost.
6
@JMM
Actually, I believe that at the time of that post, although the aggregate # of votes was pretty close to accurate, it was 99% of precincts reporting, not 70%. :)
That makes a rather significant difference in extrapolation, no? :)
2
@Bill Nichols
If it was 99% in MI that is true. VA and TX I think do stand. Not as strong an argument and the switch from caucuses to full primaries does reduce the base number of cases, so it is tough to extend the argument.
Good catch.
2
For those that support Sanders and may be frustrated or upset, I get it. My original choice of candidate left the race 2 months ago. My second choice did a few weeks later.
But please remember this November:
You're not just voting for President.
-You're voting for who replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
-You're voting for the next Secretary of Education.
-You're voting for Federal Judges.
-You're voting for saving national parks.
-You're voting for letting kids out of cages.
-You're voting for clean air and clean water.
-You're voting for scientists to be allowed to speak about climate change.
-You're voting for what the President says on Twitter.
-You're voting for housing rights.
-You're voting for LGBTQ+ people to be treated with dignity.
-You're voting for people of all faiths and belief systems.
-You're voting for Dreamers.
-You're voting so that someone else can have health insurance.
-You're voting to have a President who doesn't embarrass this country every time she or he attends an international meeting.
-And you're voting against allowing the USA to become yet another authoritarian regime.
No one is perfect. No matter who the nominee ends up being, he/she will not be perfect. They won't pass your purity test. And yet EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM will be better than four more years of Trump.
505
@history buff
Excellent summation -- we could all stand to be a little less single-issue. :)
38
Biden has a horrible record on every single one of these points. Save it. I’ll be staying home if he is the nominee.
10
@history buff Very well said. Your words should be Biden's closing statement in the Presidential debate(s). Who could possibly take issue with them? Who with principles and a conscience, anyway?
22
The chart, halfway through the column is very misleading in that support among the respondents to the four questions is not equal. On the left hand side of the chart, the probability of support is very close to the probability of support among all Democrats. Because the vast majority of Democrats "Strongly Disagree" with the four questions. Very few Democrats answer the four questions as "Strongly agree" or even "Somewhat agree."
That 10% support for Warren on the right hand side of the chart represents less than 5% of the Democrats surveyed.
The chart is so misleading one can only assume that was the point of including it. There was another chart, in the original quoted article, showing that relative support for the four questions, "Sexism is probably one reason why Elizabeth Warred didn't do Better"
That chart should also have also been included.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/3/5/sexism-one-reason-why-warren-didnt-do-better
5
"The share of Democrats who identify as liberal or very liberal has grown steadily from 27 percent in 2000 to 47 percent in 2019, according to Pew, but self-identified moderates and conservatives stood at 49 percent in 2019" - I always find it bizarre how often I see these survey questions cited. Most people don't like to describe themselves a "very" anything, because you assume your views are reasonable, not extreme. What should someone who supports single payer healthcare but opposes gay marriage or, vice-versa, identify as? The left-right framework of politics is already imperfect, having people self-report on that spectrum seems so obviously flawed.
13
I much respect Mr. Edsall’s columns and the analyses he brings to the table. This one here as well is right on the money. It also explains why so many people were excited and behind the “lock her up” chant when so many of Clinton’s contemporaries did much worse and got away scot-free.
Looks like some of the so called progressives also need to see if they have subconscious gender bias when they keep in harping about anyone but Hillary.
44
@VS
Here, here. Edsall has some of the best think pieces on the electorate out there.
3
E pluribus unum. Nothing wrong with a president who unites instead of divides a country who recognizes the diversity of its strengths by sharing it, not punishing it. Seems a lot easier, faster and more effective to start in the middle rather than on the extreme right or left. This Democratic campaign season is a good example of how that process works best. It may not be pretty, but that's how the sausage is made.
37
Seriously? Biden was floundering, losing in 4th or 5th place. It took nearly all of the other candidates coming together for Biden to revive and without their collective support, his campaign would be over. Bernie has started a movement that is here to stay, regardless of whether Biden wins. Biden’s success has more to do with the luck and timing of 8 former candidates endorsing him within a few days... The DNC had better not forget that Bernies platform has led the way no matter what happens, and should adopt his ideas as they have been leading the way throughout the entire election.
15
@GO As many have stated, the first states were not representative of the Democratic electorate. Biden was always going to vault ahead.
16
@GO Those endorsements came after he won South Carolina and some other saw they had no path to victory. Most came AFTER "Super Tuesday" when Biden won Me., Ma and Minn as well as the whole south and Texas. And Biden did all that much money and without campaigning in a number of those states. So please stop with the "Establishment" conspiracy theory promoted by Trump and (sadly) by Bernie. It only plays into Trump's hands.
8
@GO No, Biden's success has more to do with black voter's overwhelming preference for him over Sanders. Without the black vote, Sanders never had a chance. White voters saw how Sanders got crushed in the South on Super Tuesday and realized he had no chance.
3
The questions on the hostile/benevolent sexism survey are interesting, but is it not transparent that sexism and racism are deeply rooted in culture? These pernicious sins against the dignity of human beings have tragic consequences: nevertheless, a woman won the election in 2016- an antiquated catch22 robbed her of her triumph. There are signs of hope amid the distress- consider the Congressional gains in 2018. It is a struggle, but as Anthony once wrote, “failure is impossible” over the long haul.
17
@Kate: "...deeply rooted in culture..." Yes! And it's time we accepted that the patriarchy and all forms of sexual predation have long genetic and cultural histories. Our response should no longer be simply to throw up our hands when another priest/boss/celebrity is unmasked: a major re-education process is needed.
1
Despite the seemingly substantive nature of the research upon which this column is based, I'm highly suspicious of any major political analysis that doesn't take into account class and material interests beyond identifying voters by whether or not they have a college degree. Apparently, what separated Sanders-to-Trump voters from Sanders-to-Clinton voters was completely identity based without regard for financial considerations. However, both Trump and Sanders ran on an economic populist platform, one deceptively from the right and the other from the left. Nevertheless, there was overlap in their agendas, for example, a strong criticism of prior trade deals.
I was a Sanders voter in 2016 who voted third party in New York and plan to do so again. What does that make me besides anecdotal? I am a progressive, middle-aged, black woman with a strong aversion to the well documented corruption of the Democratic establishment that privileges the interests of the wealthy and corporate donor class over those of the middle and working classes as well as the poor. I'm sure many feel as I do regardless of their views on identity politics. This identity-based view of voter behavior is primarily a shibboleth of establishment politics, designed to thwart a thoroughgoing confrontation over the realities of income inequality, resulting political inequality, and the need for economic justice.
As for this election, it is merely a referendum on fear of Trump, not political ideology or policy.
14
@ZA : "...fear of Trump." Why is that a bad thing? Do you view the demise of the Republic and of American democracy as a normal political development? Where I come from, a democratic republic is a product of "political ideology."
35
@ZA
ZA, the fact that you are "highly suspicious" isn't exactly a scientific rebuttal. I hear this stuff all the time from climate Denialists, and they never have real evidence to support their "suspicions"... just conspiracy ideation.
It isn't only what Edsall is citing, these findings have been consistent over time from various studies.
If the fact that elites and oligarchs *have always been successful* in using divisions like race and gender *within* economic classes to maintain their status doesn't convince you of which grouping is more powerful, what would???
20
@ZA there is no way to hide it, third party voters are complicit with Trump's reign.
6
this is a specious argument. as a public defender in New York City, my social views are as far from conservative as it is possible to get. nevertheless, I did not vote for Clinton, and I will not vote for Biden. I assure you, I am not alone in my commitments. what Edsall fails to grasp is that there is a mass of voters out there with left politics who see the democratic party as the primary barrier to transformative change of the sort that is so urgently needed. Edsall and most of his colleagues will not be around long enough to see the effects of their decisions on this planet, but we will, and we will keep fighting to undo the enormous damage they have wrought
18
@nonpersonage
I agree that your group exists. (I am almost in it myself, except I will vote for the lesser of two evils, Biden, rather than enable another Trump victory.) But I think Edsall's article points to another part of Sanders's 2016 coalition that also exists: people who voted for Sanders in 2016 not because they liked Sanders, but because they strongly disliked Clinton. A lot of these voters are only marginally Democratic and easily swing Republican. I suspect a lot also are anti-elite voters, which maybe makes them warm to Sanders, but also warm to Trump. Some maybe were Obama voters in 2008 because he represented change from the prior Bush regime and some may not have voted for Romney in 2012 because Romney almost defines the elite establishment.
The point is that the Sanders coalition is maybe not as homogenous or strong as it is sometimes portrayed. But that doesn't mean Sanders's strong supporters—young and progressive—don't exist. It's just that they aren't the entirety of Sanders's 2016 voters.
51
@nonpersonage
You "keep fighting" by capitulating to Trump? That sounds like a specious argument to me. If you cared about the things progressives claim to care about, you'd support Biden, whose difference from Sanders is only a matter of a degrees.
If not, then you must care more about something else, but it doesn't matter - you're in a safe blue state, so you have the privilege of wasting your vote. In Wisconsin, we don't.
29
@nonpersonage No one is saying that your group of voters does not exist. Rather, the analysis in this piece is intended to show that Sanders' voters in 2016 were made up of pro-Sanders voters (like you) as well as anti-Hillary voters and that 2020 results are showing that the anti-Hillary contingent may have been larger than previously thought.
14
As I’d always suspected. My favorite part was how cloaking questions about electing women and/or people of color to leadership roles in some version of “well, not many of them are in leadership roles so...” led people to own their racism and sexism, sort of. They’ll likely never believe it’s there but as these studies document, it pretty much kinda is.
I’m not surprised but I am feeling a little nauseous, particularly since another opinion writer today thinks Sanders lost in part to Coronavirus fears. Uh, no.
31
Edsall's analysis is unnecessarily technical and arcane.
Everyone understands why Biden has a good chance to defeat Trump.
Ninety percent of black Americans and two-thirds of Latinos will vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election.
But Biden can carry the crucial non-educated and suburban white vote as well, which is just another way of saying Biden can carry the electoral college.
35
So much about the 2016 election voting choices by demographics has been examined to explain a Trump victory. This is yet another exhaustive effort. The infrastructure of elections may be more useful to debate.
Despite all of her “failings”, Trump’s machinations, and the citizenry’s internal identity struggles, Hillary won the popular vote.
74
@Jackson
Nevertheless.... :)
1
@Bill Nichols
Meaning she could have been President---of California.
2
None of this surprises me. I supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 because of his stances on everything dear to me. However, I couldn't stand him and found large swaths of his supporters obnoxious and unlikeable. In 2020, I was elated, then crushed, by Sen. Warren's trajectory and eventual withdrawal. So, it's back to business as usual: hold my nose with my left hand, vote with the right. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.
77
@jim allen ahem... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8096203/Harvard-scientist-analyzes-6-8-million-tweets-finds-Bernie-Sanders-supporters-NOT-abusive.html
2
@jim allen
well said.
2
Thank you! This piece reaffirms some of my thoughts, but also explains the shifts and surprises in a way that broadens my knowledge and will allow me to explain to many of my younger friends and aggrieved fellow Vermonters, what the expert academic thinking is on the subject. (Giving credit where credit is due, of course.)
Trump's win was a disheartening event that many of us will never get over. It exposed fears and hatreds I, who consider myself slightly left of liberal, never knew existed. Now I know a bit more about the "why" as well as the how.
Go Joe!
62
The tragic thing about Bernie Sanders is that he believed his own hype. I'm sure it's thrilling to stand up in front of huge, cheering crowds, but it's easier to fill a stadium than win a state.
To learn that a significant chunk of his support was actually just a vote against Hillary... it doesn't surprise me, but it has to be a blow for Bernie, who hoped he had finally brought about the revolution.
He can still be an important part of the 2020 victory over Trump; we can only hope that he rises above disappointment and anger at Democratic voters, and puts his country first. I think he will, and he'll drop out before Sunday's debate.
167
@Patrick
As a Bernie supporter, I am saddened that his progressive plans will most likely not be a large part of the Party platform at the convention this summer. If Biden wins, fair enough. That said, I do think Bernie should absolutely stay in through the debate on Sunday for a couple of reasons. First, a strong performance is his only, albeit small, shot to win this primary. (And, frankly, I believe, along with many others, a Biden election campaign will be a trainwreck for the Democratic party.) Second, it is important to see how Biden handles a head to head debate. I know his detractors will try and smear him as being mentally shaky at this point, but honestly, it's a concern that he needs to put to rest now. This campaign will be ruthless and his son will probably be answering subpeonas throughout the summer. No doubt that will be taxing. The Democratic party needs this debate.
About your first point. I'm not sure Bernie believed the hype. Many of his supporters did. I think Bernie has a view of what's good about politics and our country and what's wrong and has made a case for his stance. Of course he wants to win and of course he is going to be positive about it. He's been in politics long enough to hold to his principles and still be realistic.
8
@Patrick
"that a significant chunk of his support was actually just a vote against Hillary... has to be a blow for Bernie" -- Agreed. "All I am is because you're mad at them? Gee, thanks...."
2
@Patrick There's nothing especially tragic about the Bernie Sanders campaign. His campaign has been positive, inspiring, and extremely well-organized. His platform actually speaks to the needs of working people. His populist messaging is appropriate for this time. The real tragedy is that so many voters are too dull, fearful, or self-interested to get on board.
4
It seems to me that the advertising world is having an inadvertent effect on our elections by portraying mixed race couples in every other commercial. I have a feeling that many people in rural America seeing these images daily on their TV screens are having negative reactions to these images.
This is only an observation on my part but it does seem like the producers of these commercials are shoving these trends down the throats of Americans.
Even as countries around the world experience intermarriage among couples, the deeply held racist views of many in America still have strong bonds within its electorate.
19
@Charles An astute observation... include in this depictions of same sex couples which it’s now okay to disapprove of under the guise of “religious freedom”.
2
@Charles Your observation makes me cringe. It's a sad statement of affairs in our country.
2
@Charles Funny... I grew up in a rural area in the South where there were plenty of mixed race marriages. My first grade class had four mixed race kids, so that's a little over 12%. People weren't always nice about mixed race marriages, but they existed in rural areas in the 70s and 80s and they exist now too. I also knew a number of families who adopted across racial lines, including one of the evangelical pastors in town.
Not all rural areas are alike, and there are plenty of rural areas where white people aren't a majority. When you mean "white conservative rural folks", just say that.
1
I can't help wondering whether Warren was hurt by her refusal to shake Bernie's hand after one of their debates (and before the coronavirus made hand shaking inadvisable). That was a powerful image that may have brought latent sexism to the fore.
And of course her equivocation about Medicare for All hurt her as well. When asked whether the plan would result in a tax increase she (and Bernie) should have said this: When your taxes go up $1 and your other costs go down $2, you win. When your taxes go down $1 and your other costs go up $2, you lose. If you prefer to have your taxes go down a little and your other costs go up a lot, vote Republican.
81
@Fred : Indeed!
My family is now spending more than 35% of our income in direct healthcare costs. I would gladly pay a 15% payroll tax for Medicare for All. It would be a steal. My family could take a vacation again, resume saving for retirement, and maybe stimulate the economy with a little disposable income.
32
@Fred
She lost me, a college-educated feminist, when she attacked Mayor Pete for holding a fundraiser in a wine cave.
Reminding her that she had done the same thing, he added, "This is the problem of issuing purity tests that you yourself cannot pass."
I've had enough in-your-face hypocrisy from Republicans to last a life time. I don't need it from Democrats.
12
@Adrienne
Adrienne,
Nobody will be perfect. Nobody. Including Mayor Pete.
So what now? You take your ball and go home, not voting because no candidate passed YOUR purity test?
6
Regarding Warren, she became too inflexible about Medicare for All and even sounded strident and preachy. I still love her ideas but she might have been ineffective with male audiences - she lost me. Of course for women, she remained a role model of sorts.
11
@Terry McKenna Aaah...yes. Elizabeth Warren was "strident." So was Hillary Clinton. Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar were also "strident." I'd be interested to hear what female candidates men don't think are "strident."
I find this especially hard to swallow, when Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders, three men who literally shout and pound on their podiums, are the candidates of choice.
If there are male voters who love Bernie Sanders, but don't like Elizabeth Warren because she is "strident," I suspect "strident" may mean something more than we like to pretend.
436
@Revelwoodie
Yes, Trump and Sanders are *far* more "shrill" and "strident" and "hectoring" than any of the women who ran for the Democratic nomination in this cycle.
Even more, Warren was/is improvisationally witty, unlike Trump or Sanders. I was not a Warren voter (I voted for Weld against Trump, to annoy the ego of the latter), but there was definitely sexism involved in the box she was being forced into compared to Sanders or Biden.
123
@Terry McKenna ...well that's ironic - 'inflexible', 'strident' and 'preachy' are terms which clearly apply to Sanders.
So where are the men lining up to criticize Sanders for these characteristics? To criticize his approach as opposed to his ideas?
Oh right, different standards for different genders. If a man does it, he's a passionate leader with a strong sense of his beliefs and that's great. If a woman does it, well that's 'ineffective' and we can pat her on the head and say she's a 'role model of sorts'.
127
Why would you assume that the effects of personality are less eminent among democratic voters than among Republicans? Mr.Sanders is for the left what Mr.Trump is for the right - a populist who is suffering quite a bit from narcissism too. Elisabeth Warren did not lose because of “sexism” but because she simply does not have the likability that is necessary to win political races these days. That was actually accepted as reason for Mike Bloomberg’s failure - so why shouldn’t that apply for a woman? I personally thought that Warren’s attacks on Bloomberg during the debate were uncivilized and that assessment was obviously shared by many.
61
Well said. I wish commenters realized how often people are drawn to charisma and warmth.
Sanders and Warren lack personal appeal.
12
@Thorsten Fleiter : I don't get what people are talking about when they say Warren lacked personal appeal. She was funny. She was warm and friendly (think of her hours of selfies!). She was empathetic. She spoke like she understood the real challenges of middle class and poor families, women, people of color.
And that moment in the debate where she stuck up for Klobuchar was amazing.
99
@Rose
I'd say "I don't get it" too, but this is a whole article pointing to the reasons. Warren was clever, quick with a quip, friendly, knew when to be serious and when not to be. If you transplanted her words into Biden's mouth, you wouldn't hear the complaints, and it's not because Biden is inherently more affable.
28
Sanders performance in 2016 was less an endorsement of his progressive policies and more of an expression of an anti-Hillary sentiment in the Democratic Party.
195
@John Yes, and it was a reflection of how much foolishness among some people who claim to be Democrats.
6
@John
From this article, it sounds like there was a not-insignificant part of his coalition that is sexist and racist. To which my reaction is, “Really? Quelle surprise!”
5
@John
I was starting to think the "I hate Hillary Clinton's guts" was a factor in Sanders support in 2016. And I don't think it had much to do with Hillary being a woman. More so to the fact that she is a contemptible fraud.
Was there some sexism? Sure---in both directions. Just as there is some racism---in both directions. Witness the number of women saying that women must vote for a female. Or the number of blacks demanding that all blacks should vote for the black candidate.
Then I started digging beneath the headlines. Sanders' support among young people in general and college towns in particular has dropped. Why? Getting young people to vote is notoriously tough. Even more so in primaries. In 2016 they voted overwhelmingly for Sanders. Those people were not voting against Hillary Clinton. They were voting for Bernie Sanders. In 2016. Not as much in 2020. Why?
Has despair set in? Do they feel their future has been taken away? I don't know the answer. But a disengaged younger class of (non) voters is very bad for democracy.
2
Who cares why Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren lose the Democratic primary? The only thing that matters is that Donald Trump will lose the US Presidential election.
219
@Jh
We care because the outcome is dependent on irrational voters. This was the entire point of the Edsall essay. Biden didn't rise from the dead because voters suddenly decided they liked his gaffes and age. Rather, they liked his perceived moderation, which was mostly a function of his gender traditionalism. Democrats can't wish this problem away: misogyny is real and we have to beat Trump. There is simply no way to reconcile this problem at this point in our social evolution.
6
@Jh
There are so many reasons why voting for a particular candidate is important.
Defeating Trump is crucial.
Let's please keep that foremost in mind.
7
@Jh My state, Michigan, went for Trump by 11,000 votes in 2016. My county, Washtenaw, voted for Clinton 2-1. Voter turnout was 191,000, 2/3 of those registered. Enough Democrats to shift the state to Clinton, just in my county, stayed home.
Yesterday in the county, Biden polled almost 49,000 to Sanders 46,000+.
Will too many Democrats stay home this November if, as is now likely, Sanders fails to obtain the nomination?
Biden's appeal will have be wider and deeper to bring out the Sanders supporters this fall. So Biden will have to know why he didn't obtain their votes in the primary if he expects them to see him as their champion.
Simply not being Trump will not be enough.
7
The US just need to keep it together for another 15 years or so. Demographic changes will pass a good proportion of this toxicity out of our system.
95
@Sonje But that will be too late for real climate action. The United Nations has reported that we, the human species, has just about a decade to address the climate crisis with any agency or we might as well give up. We need bold and fast climate action now. I'm in mourning for this country and the world. Goodbye koalas. Goodbye a livable planet for our children.
27
@Sonje I can't imagine what demographic shift you think is going to fix this problem. Age? The older a voter is, the more likely they were to support Clinton in the 2016 primary, while Sanders drew his strongest support from YOUNG voters. Is it race? As the article points out (emphasis mine):
"When asked the conventional question directly, Seltzer found, “minority respondents are slightly less likely than whites to say that male political leaders are superior when responding, but they are 10 points MORE likely than whites to exhibit pro-male bias on the masked measure.”
I don't think we can just sit back and expect sexism to fix itself.
33
@Sonje
I've been hearing that for at least 15 years, and I think you're underestimating the degree of alienation felt by young men.
Particularly after #metoo, which told young men that they no rights, and no reason to be believed, in a new, alternative, social media justice system - I think there's a growing electoral time bomb made of men who say the right thing in public, and to polls, but vote their anger in secret.
23