NYT: The Democratic coalition ≠ True Leftists and coastal liberal elites

[Gallium]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/upshot/the-problem-for-bernie-sanders-the-narrow-lane-to-hillary-clintons-left.html

Nate Cohn explains why Sanders and Warren would struggle to win the Democratic nomination, even without Clinton in the race. Fairly obvious stuff, but often forgotten by internet leftists and professional progressives in the NYC/DC media who have an outsized voice in shaping the narrative:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He then goes on to explain why Obama bucked the trend in 2008 and reiterates that Hillary is in fact a liberal who is more popular with liberal democrats than moderate ones:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[King]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

[Beet]

lolololol cue heads exploding

[freepcrusher]

i doubt Warren would do that well in a dem primary among affluent private-sector democrats. Clinton seems more of a new dem and a better fit for those type of voters.

[Gallium]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

The NYT does this kind of analysis everytime a candidate announces. But I think this had to be said considering how much it's falling on deaf ears in the comments section.

It was hilarious to read this HuffPo article yesterday by a writer who doesn't even realize he's living in a bubble:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Sumner 1868]

lolololol cue heads exploding

The word "liberal" is so negatively viewed that it shouldn't be surprising that people won't use it.

[King]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

The NYT does this kind of analysis everytime a candidate announces. But I think this had to be said considering how much it's falling on deaf ears in the comments section.

It was hilarious to read this HuffPo article yesterday by a writer who doesn't even realize he's living in a bubble:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's definitely a lot of Pauline Kael Syndrome radiating out of Manhattan and Hollywood behind these articles.

[Beet]

It's both hilarious and sad how the ideological group (liberals/progressives/whatever) claim to support the working class, the poor, and minorities, yet when a journalist writes an article actually pointing out that those groups might not have the same views as said NYT reading liberals, the latter group accuses him of being out of touch. Ultimately, they prioritize their own class viewpoint over those they claim to champion.

Our conception of "liberal" or "progressive", like many ideological terms, is social construction that the more educated and wealthy have greater access to, just as they have greater access to most conventional cultural symbols.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The True Leftists online are already turning on Sanders anyway.

[King]

The True Leftists online are already turning on Sanders anyway.

Only neoliberals run for President. Ugh, so mainstream. HP.

[IceSpear]

Ironic coming from the NYT, considering how many "Hillary not inevitable!", "Hillary vulnerable!", "Democrats uneasy about Hillary!", "Democrats desperate for Hillary alternative!", etc. etc. stories they've published.

[IceSpear]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

His chances are obviously extremely slim regardless, but he'd have a better shot at winning as a Democrat than an independent. If he somehow managed to win the nomination, he'd at least start with 40-45% of the vote. As an independent he'd be lucky to crack 5%.

[King]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

His chances are obviously extremely slim regardless, but he'd have a better shot at winning as a Democrat than an independent. If he somehow managed to win the nomination, he'd at least start with 40-45% of the vote. As an independent he'd be lucky to crack 5%.

I'd say his slim chances are higher as independent. The intrigue of a serious independent candidacy brings out high turnout from people who normally check out of the political process. 1992 was a huge year.

He'd have an easier time convincing 30% of Democrats, 30% of Independents, and 10% of Republicans in a general than 51% of Democrats to roll the dice on him being able to win. Both impossible scenarios, but one slightly less so.

[Beet]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

His chances are obviously extremely slim regardless, but he'd have a better shot at winning as a Democrat than an independent. If he somehow managed to win the nomination, he'd at least start with 40-45% of the vote. As an independent he'd be lucky to crack 5%.

I'd say his slim chances are higher as independent. The intrigue of a serious independent candidacy brings out high turnout from people who normally check out of the political process. 1992 was a huge year.

He'd have an easier time convincing 30% of Democrats, 30% of Independents, and 10% of Republicans in a general than 51% of Democrats to roll the dice on him being able to win. Both impossible scenarios, but one slightly less so.

The Republican candidate wins in that case, since they keep 90% of the Republican vote and most of the remaining 70% of independents.

[IceSpear]

Pointless article. Sanders isn't the race to win and he knows this, otherwise he would have run as an Independent. He wants to debate Clinton on national TV.

His chances are obviously extremely slim regardless, but he'd have a better shot at winning as a Democrat than an independent. If he somehow managed to win the nomination, he'd at least start with 40-45% of the vote. As an independent he'd be lucky to crack 5%.

I'd say his slim chances are higher as independent. The intrigue of a serious independent candidacy brings out high turnout from people who normally check out of the political process. 1992 was a huge year.

He'd have an easier time convincing 30% of Democrats, 30% of Independents, and 10% of Republicans in a general than 51% of Democrats to roll the dice on him being able to win. Both impossible scenarios, but one slightly less so.

Assuming a similar partisan breakdown to '12, that would only give him 24%. There's also the problem that even if he won a plurality, the electoral college would probably shut him out, with the GOP House electing the Republican anyway.

[King]

All true. He'd probably have to win a majority of Democrats in that scenario, too. But I would say it would be easier to convince in a general campaign rather than just asking Democrats to roll the dice on Bernie Sanders being able to beat Scott Walker 1-on-1.

[Mr. Illini]

Everyone knew this, even the people like myself living in precincts that gave Obama 90% in the primary

[Thunderbird is the word]

I think that to conflate "true leftists" with "cultural elites" is kind of silly. When I think of the stereotype of a New York Times reader from an upper middle class suburb I don't think liberal do much as a fiscal moderate+social liberal who would in an earlier generation have been a Rockefeller Republican. On a lot of issues like expanding social security, raising the minimum wage etc I think that if you asked a lot of people they'd probably lean left on all of them, it's just that liberal has a negative cultural connotation. I bet that on fiscal issues plenty of working class white people are to the left of the suburban yuppie/whole foods stereotype.

[Averroës Nix]

Maybe the intended audience for this article is the Times' own editorial staff? Or people who read Times articles like this one unironically? They would undoubtedly be relieved to learn that they have never been Sanders' target demographic.

Universities aside, there's not much reason to conflate "affluent, secular, [and] well-educated" with "liberal activist" or "left-wing." In any case, there are good reasons to look at attempts to measure ideology with skepticism; most voters aren't self-aware enough to know how to classify themselves and have well-developed opinions on only a few issues at most. It's extremely difficult to design survey instruments that work around these tendency.

The more useful headline is that Sanders will probably have weak support among older voters, women, and minorities. Will he do as poorly among white non-professionals as this piece implies? That's more difficult to say. Some political journalists equate Sanders with the brand of anti-war liberalism that was dominant during the Iraq War, but Sanders is not Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, or, God forbid, Mike Gravel, and we're living in a political landscape in which other issues - the economy, corruption, etc. - have become far more salient than foreign policy to most voters.

[King of Kensington]

I think that to conflate "true leftists" with "cultural elites" is kind of silly. When I think of the stereotype of a New York Times reader from an upper middle class suburb I don't think liberal do much as a fiscal moderate+social liberal who would in an earlier generation have been a Rockefeller Republican. On a lot of issues like expanding social security, raising the minimum wage etc I think that if you asked a lot of people they'd probably lean left on all of them, it's just that liberal has a negative cultural connotation. I bet that on fiscal issues plenty of working class white people are to the left of the suburban yuppie/whole foods stereotype.

Yes, thank you.  So-called coastal elites are socially liberal but are not "left-wing."  In the UK, many of these people would vote Tory and in Canada their party of choice would be the centrist Liberal Party not the social democratic NDP. 

Keep in mind that the very elite sections of the Upper East Side did not vote for De Blasio. 

[King of Kensington]

lolololol cue heads exploding

Why is that at all surprising?  Upper middle class Democrats are more consistent because they're not voting their pocketbook.  

[Mr. Illini]

I think that to conflate "true leftists" with "cultural elites" is kind of silly. When I think of the stereotype of a New York Times reader from an upper middle class suburb I don't think liberal do much as a fiscal moderate+social liberal who would in an earlier generation have been a Rockefeller Republican. On a lot of issues like expanding social security, raising the minimum wage etc I think that if you asked a lot of people they'd probably lean left on all of them, it's just that liberal has a negative cultural connotation. I bet that on fiscal issues plenty of working class white people are to the left of the suburban yuppie/whole foods stereotype.

Your stereotype exists among suburban liberal elitists, but when I think of wealthy urban elitists, I think of morally-driven progressives.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Which is why Sanders is explicitly trying to appeal to working-class voters?

[traininthedistance]

I think that to conflate "true leftists" with "cultural elites" is kind of silly. When I think of the stereotype of a New York Times reader from an upper middle class suburb I don't think liberal do much as a fiscal moderate+social liberal who would in an earlier generation have been a Rockefeller Republican. On a lot of issues like expanding social security, raising the minimum wage etc I think that if you asked a lot of people they'd probably lean left on all of them, it's just that liberal has a negative cultural connotation. I bet that on fiscal issues plenty of working class white people are to the left of the suburban yuppie/whole foods stereotype.

Yes, thank you.  So-called coastal elites are socially liberal but are not "left-wing."  In the UK, many of these people would vote Tory and in Canada their party of choice would be the centrist Liberal Party not the social democratic NDP. 

Keep in mind that the very elite sections of the Upper East Side did not vote for De Blasio. 

It's not like Park Slope (which obviously did vote for de Blasio) is any sort of salt-of-the-earth working-class bastion, though.

[King of Kensington]

It's not like Park Slope (which obviously did vote for de Blasio) is any sort of salt-of-the-earth working-class bastion, though.

No, but "limousine liberal" or "champagne socialist" districts - like Park Slope or London's Hampstead, or Toronto's Annex district - are hardly representative of the elite as a whole.