By Jim Geraghty
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
In 2016, Bernie Sanders got 13.2 million people to vote
for him in the Democratic primary — good
for 43 percent. We can now surmise that a chunk of that total represented
Democrats who simply wanted a non–Hillary Clinton option.
In this cycle, about 4.5 million out of 15 million voters
in the Democratic primary voted for Sanders — just under 30 percent in a much
more crowded field.
As Sanders’s second bid for the presidency falls short —
once again against an elderly Washington figure who served in the Obama
administration — you will hear a lot of arguments that “Bernie Sanders failed”
and a lot of counterarguments that “even though he didn’t win, Bernie Sanders
transformed the Democratic Party.” Sanders illuminated both the powers and
limits of socialism in the internal debates among Democrats.
Sure, socialism carries much less of a stigma in
Democratic politics than it did a decade ago. Polling continually indicates
that America’s young people have a much more positive attitude toward socialism
than their parents and grandparents did. But that is a separate question from
whether an openly socialist candidate can win elections — though it is worth
noting that the two biggest Democratic Socialists of America victories in 2018
came from the wins of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib in the
Democratic primaries of deep-blue House districts.
The response of the rest of the party to Sanders’s rise
proved illuminating. Democrats feared that a 2020 cycle with Sanders atop the
ticket would risk their House majority, destroy them in swing states such as
Florida and Pennsylvania, and obliterate them in red states.
In theory, socialism is supposed to appeal to the working
class, including the white working class, which drifted toward Trump in 2016.
But on Super Tuesday, Joe Biden ran ahead of Sanders among white non–college
graduates in the states that Biden won, and the former vice president largely
kept it close among this demographic in the states that Sanders won.
In California, where Sanders won (and the final tally is
still being tabulated), exit polls indicated Sanders narrowly won white
non–college graduates, 36 percent to 30 percent. In Colorado, Sanders won this
demographic, 29 percent to Biden’s 17 percent.
In Virginia, Biden won white non–college graduates, 46–32
percent. In Massachusetts, Biden won white non–college graduates, 42–34. In
Oklahoma, Biden won white non–college graduates, 34–24.
In Minnesota, Biden won among this demographic, 44
percent to 32 percent. And that was with a wild disparity in campaign
resources: “Sanders held a large rally in St. Paul on the eve of the election
and had campaign staffers organizing in the state for months. Biden, by
contrast, never campaigned in Minnesota as a 2020 candidate and had a single
paid employee based in the state.”
In North Carolina, Sanders narrowly won among white
non–college graduates, 32 percent to 27 percent. The bad news is that Biden
crushed him among nonwhite non–college graduates, 56 percent to 22 percent. And
this points to the other glaring deficiency in Sanders’s appeal: Older and
middle-aged blacks just aren’t interested in what he is offering.
The Sanders campaign really, really tried
to win over black voters this cycle, and they can point to some growing
support among younger blacks. But looking at the results of this cycle so far,
Sanders and his team largely failed. Interestingly, African Americans are more
likely to have positive feelings about socialism than other demographics. But
in most states, they overwhelmingly gravitated to Biden instead of Sanders.
Either they didn’t like Sanders’s vision of a socialist America, or they simply
didn’t believe that Sanders could win the election in the first place.
In December, Ruby Cramer laid out what appeared to be a
slightly tweaked and refocused message of the Sanders 2020 campaign. Instead of
discussing abstract economic figures and the richest 1 percent, Sanders was
going to discuss inequality in more human terms, focusing on the hardships of
Americans who aren’t often discussed in national debates:
Bernie Sanders is sorry for your
troubles, but that’s not the reason he’s asking you to talk about them — which
he is, everywhere he goes. He wants you to talk about your medical bill — the
one you can’t pay. He wants you to talk about losing your house because you got
sick. He wants you to talk about the payday loans you took out to keep your kid
in school. About the six-figure student debt that’s always on your mind. About
living off credit cards, or losing your pension, or working multiple jobs for
wages that won’t be enough to support your family.
“Who wants to share their story?”
he’ll say. “Don’t be embarrassed. Millions of people are in your boat.”
Sanders’s argument to the electorate was that if you are
struggling economically, it is not your fault, it is the fault of an unjust
American system. This argument has the advantage of being less antagonistic
than merely demonizing the wealthy. Some people do fall down the economic
ladder or fail to rise because of factors they can’t control. Perhaps a more
relevant truth is that those who start life in challenging circumstances have
far less room for error. A middle-class or wealthy teen can skip school, smoke
marijuana, drink alcohol underage, go through a period of lousy grades, or
commit a small crime such as shoplifting, and nonetheless enter adulthood with
more or less minimal consequences. Those who grow up in poorer neighborhoods,
single-parent homes, fewer responsible adults around, fewer support networks,
etc., have a tougher time compensating for those early mistakes in life.
Americans can recognize injustice in their country, but
they aren’t quite willing to take that last step of believing that their
country is fundamentally unjust. And they probably aren’t convinced that a
dramatically more powerful and intrusive federal government is certain to
improve their situation in life.
It may simply be that a campaign built around mobilizing
struggling Americans hit two simultaneous roadblocks. The first is that this
demographic is particularly difficult to motivate and get to the polls. Early
last month, Chris Arnade, the author of Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row
America, wrote, “Non-voters are a big block & make up most of my book
& are very removed from political process which they don’t trust or care
about. Voting for them is about institutions that have failed them or screwed
them over. Courthouses, schools, town centers. Why sign your name to something
that is gonna maybe get you jury duty? And that cynicism is often justified,
especially for the poorest.”
The second question is whether there are enough
mobilizable voters in this demographic, compared with middle-class and
upper-class voters likely to oppose those policies, or at best greet them
warily. As David Frum summarized, “the Sanders campaign is a bet that the 2020
race can be won by mobilizing the Americans least committed to the political
process while alienating and even offending the Americans most committed to
it.”
Who fueled the Sanders victories in this cycle? Young
voters, very liberal voters, and Latinos. In the end, the Bernie Sanders
campaign became a movement heavily driven by white college students. Some would
argue that in America’s economic and social hierarchy, white college students
are much more privileged than they think they are. College students are largely
inexperienced in the workforce, less likely to be married, less likely to be
parents, much less likely to be homeowners, and because they have limited earnings,
carry less of a tax burden. If you believe that socialism works only in theory
and leads to disaster in practice — Sanders himself insisted that the Soviet
Union doesn’t count as an example of socialism — it is unsurprising that the
youngest and least experienced voters in the electorate would be the ones most
attracted to that system.
A movement of young voters, very liberal voters, and
Latinos can take a candidate pretty far in a Democratic primary; just not far
enough. That 20 to 30 percent of the Democratic electorate will look
indomitable in a crowded field but wither in a one-on-one race — and if
socialism can’t win a majority in a Democratic primary, it can’t win a general
election nationwide. It is conceivable that in future cycles, a younger or
nonwhite candidate could win more votes running as a socialist. Then again,
Sanders was no slouch at firing up a crowd, and even his opponents thought he
was honest about what he wanted and consistent in his beliefs.
The back-to-back close-but-no-cigar campaigns by Sanders
illuminate a thorny problem for Democrats: The party probably can’t win in 2020
with Sanders atop the ticket, but they can’t win without Sanders voters,
either.
No comments:
Post a Comment