The real split in the Dem. party (and who actually agrees w/ Sanders on it?)?

[Mr. Morden]

Here is Jonathan Chait’s column from a year ago “What Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Understand About American Politics”:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/what-sanders-doesnt-understand-about-politics.html

Read the whole thing, but the basic premise is this: There’s a fundamental difference between Sanders and “establishment Democrats” like Clinton in terms of how they understand the motivations of people on the right:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sanders defines opposition to his proposals as “protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful”.  That is, he’s not counting corruption in the form of campaign contributions from wealthy donors as just an important factor motivating both Republicans and Democrats who are to the right of him on economic issues, but that it’s the entirety of it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chait is obviously more sympathetic to the Clinton worldview of what drives Republicans (and moderate Democrats!) than he is to the Sanders worldview, and that colors the writing in the column.  But even if you agree more with Sanders on this, would you agree that there’s something to this distinction?

And as regards to 2020 implications, I’m curious as to whether people think that potential 2020 candidates commonly placed in the “insurgent progressive” camp like Warren and Brown likewise agree with Sanders on this fault line, or are they just Democratic politicians who happen to agree with him on inequality and financial regulation, without buying into the “corruption” angle in the same way?

And further, is Sanders fixating on the economic angle (and treating xenophobia and nationalism as simply an outgrowth of that) with regards to Trump-ism something that may have held him back among minority voters in the 2016 primaries, and could someone like Warren who largely agrees with him on economic inequality and financial regulation overcome that by taking a different tack?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

This is the old, "Bernie is class before race, ergo the Left is class before race and is just a bunch of white failsons" chestnut repackaged because Chait can't write anything original or thoughtful.

I think everyone wishes Bernie had talked more substantively about race during the early part of the primary. I will note that he improved dramatically, and that by the end the vote split in the primary (that I guess we're re litigating) was almost exclusively on the basis of age; young voters of color liked Bernie.

However.
Whether or not this is how Bernie actually thinks about any of this, his rhetoric on the Right's racism and climate denialism has this basic piece of political wisdom going for it: you never blame voters.

Blaming the greed of GOP pols and their backers on these issues, and focusing on economic anxiety as a root of xenophobia allows him to A) attack the disastrous policies but B ) leave people who are perhaps not perfect on every issue open to supporting him. He is not calling anyone other than the millionaires in congress deplorable, but he is just as resolute on issues of justice.

As a work of message discipline alone, I think that needs to be applauded.

[JustinTimeCuber]

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

^ also that.

Seriously, if you're citing Jonathan Chait as an authority you're doing something wrong.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The sky is blue.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

In other news, Trump is incapable of talking about the economy other than in terms of foreigners taking our jobs, job-killing regulations, and Federal income tax rates (note: he didn't use to be so narrow-minded). What else is new?

Social issues are THE main reason people vote Republican; foreign policy has always been a non-issue with the electorate (possible exceptions: 2006, 1940).

I still don't understand why income was such a weak predictor of candidate preference in the 2016 Dem primary. Detroit (and Lake County) went for HRC; East Grand Rapids, though the least pro-Bernie part of Kent County due to its wealth, still went for Bernie.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

The sky is blue.

If this is a Beatles reference, I can type "It's beautiful / and so are you..." and we can have a fun time referencing pop culture together.

If you're treating a sheltered columnist's opinion of what's REALLY going on in politics as an unassailable fact worthy of a four word affirmation in the form of stating a basic fact about reality, you're deluded.

[Tintrlvr]

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[Beet]

Of course Chait is correct, but the answer wouldn't have been to browbeat Bernie into talking more about "race" in the primaries. Democrats should have been talking about "race" less, not more. In his blindness, Bernie inadvertently took the middle position.

The only thing 'wrong' with Bernie Sanders' campaign, in retrospect, is that he advertised himself as far to the left, when in reality he was the centrist in the Democratic primary. This was evident in his vote totals in places like Oklahoma, the Florida panhandle, Washington state, and even Wisconsin. I am more convinced than ever, that his best path to winning the primary would have been to openly declare himself a centrist on cultural issues, a populist on economic issues, and hammer Clinton on her elect-ability. That would have been an argument that had a chance among establishment types and cautious minorities who didn't want to take a risk by voting for a candidate perceived as extreme or "far out", but who cared a lot about winning.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Of course Chait is correct, but the answer wouldn't have been to browbeat Bernie into talking more about "race" in the primaries. Democrats should have been talking about "race" less, not more. In his blindness, Bernie inadvertently took the middle position.

The only thing 'wrong' with Bernie Sanders' campaign, in retrospect, is that he advertised himself as far to the left, when in reality he was the centrist in the Democratic primary. This was evident in his vote totals in places like Oklahoma, the Florida panhandle, Washington state, and even Wisconsin. I am more convinced than ever, that his best path to winning the primary would have been to openly declare himself a centrist on cultural issues, a populist on economic issues, and hammer Clinton on her elect-ability. That would have been an argument that had a chance among establishment types and cautious minorities who didn't want to take a risk by voting for a candidate perceived as extreme or "far out", but who cared a lot about winning.

Wisconsin (and Michigan) were some of McGovern's better states. WI elected the first lesbian Senator. There's nothing centrist about Washington State. Oklahoma and the FL panhandle were obvious protest votes by people who'd never vote Bernie in a general election.

Yes, Bernie should have hammered HRC on electability.

[Beet]

Bernie Sanders isn't a Hillary Clinton or a George H.W. Bush, though. Part of his appeal was in that he very clearly was not the kind of politician who purposefully "reinvents" himself along poll-tested, focus-grouped lines every time he or she faces a new electorate. And how do you go from being a self-declared socialist who endorsed Jesse Jackson in 1988 and mused about the upside of a leftward primary challenge to Obama in 2012 to being a "centrist" populist, anyway?

Because it would be in many ways an accurate self-portrayal (his record was to the right of her on guns, immigration, xenophobia, or her dubious claim that being a woman represented substantive change in itself). He mused about challenging Obama due to Obama's lack of populism, not due to Obama's insufficient social liberalism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They're still trying to paint Bernie as a one issue candidate? Sad! He's pretty far removed from a one issue candidate.

Bernie Sanders isn't a Hillary Clinton or a George H.W. Bush, though. Part of his appeal was in that he very clearly was not the kind of politician who purposefully "reinvents" himself along poll-tested, focus-grouped lines every time he or she faces a new electorate. And how do you go from being a self-declared socialist who endorsed Jesse Jackson in 1988 and mused about the upside of a leftward primary challenge to Obama in 2012 to being a "centrist" populist, anyway?

Because it would be in many ways an accurate self-portrayal (his record was to the right of her on guns, immigration, xenophobia, or her dubious claim that being a woman represented substantive change in itself). He mused about challenging Obama due to Obama's lack of populism, not due to Obama's insufficient social liberalism.

Immigration and xenophobia? Nope.  Hillary voted for the Wall, Bernie voted against it. Hillary supported deporting the child refugees from Central America, Bernie opposed it.

[RINO Tom]

In other news, Trump is incapable of talking about the economy other than in terms of foreigners taking our jobs, job-killing regulations, and Federal income tax rates (note: he didn't use to be so narrow-minded). What else is new?

Social issues are THE main reason people vote Republican; foreign policy has always been a non-issue with the electorate (possible exceptions: 2006, 1940).

I still don't understand why income was such a weak predictor of candidate preference in the 2016 Dem primary. Detroit (and Lake County) went for HRC; East Grand Rapids, though the least pro-Bernie part of Kent County due to its wealth, still went for Bernie.

Maybe because the wealthiest people in East Grand Rapids were voting in a different primary.

[SCNCmod]

There is some truth to the class before race type argument (need to focus on economic issues which affect all races, etc)... however, it ignores that there are some issues that are largely race specific.

[Shadows]

This article is a piece of shi* & is written by a hack. Absolutely should be deleted !

[Beet]

Bernie Sanders isn't a Hillary Clinton or a George H.W. Bush, though. Part of his appeal was in that he very clearly was not the kind of politician who purposefully "reinvents" himself along poll-tested, focus-grouped lines every time he or she faces a new electorate. And how do you go from being a self-declared socialist who endorsed Jesse Jackson in 1988 and mused about the upside of a leftward primary challenge to Obama in 2012 to being a "centrist" populist, anyway?

Because it would be in many ways an accurate self-portrayal (his record was to the right of her on guns, immigration, xenophobia, or her dubious claim that being a woman represented substantive change in itself). He mused about challenging Obama due to Obama's lack of populism, not due to Obama's insufficient social liberalism.

Guns and immigration, yes. I am not sure what you mean by "xenophobia."

Sanders did have the "Chinar/Mexico taken errr jobs" thing going on. He wasn't as one-note about it as Trump obviously, but it was a part of his package, and arguably the reason he won the Michigan primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not as if he's never been moderate on these issues. He voted for the infamous Clinton crime bill, and he only opposed DOMA on states' rights grounds. And had room- where were the progressives going to go? Clinton? The ultra-social liberals are not nearly as big of a voting bloc as some think.

[Beet]

I don't think he's anything close to a white supremacist, but I do think there was an aspect of his message that resonated that had virtually nothing to do with social liberalism. Webb and Chafee didn't have the records or temperament to tap into it, but Sanders did. Had he held onto that aspect of his message, and swung to Hillary's right on social issues while hammering her over electability, I think he could have won over a lot more moderate voters and even some more establishment support, while the left would have ultimately still stuck with him over Hillary.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

In other news, Trump is incapable of talking about the economy other than in terms of foreigners taking our jobs, job-killing regulations, and Federal income tax rates (note: he didn't use to be so narrow-minded). What else is new?

Social issues are THE main reason people vote Republican; foreign policy has always been a non-issue with the electorate (possible exceptions: 2006, 1940).

I still don't understand why income was such a weak predictor of candidate preference in the 2016 Dem primary. Detroit (and Lake County) went for HRC; East Grand Rapids, though the least pro-Bernie part of Kent County due to its wealth, still went for Bernie.

Maybe because the wealthiest people in East Grand Rapids were voting in a different primary.

-Same can be said of Massachusetts, where Clinton won the primary.

[RINO Tom]

In other news, Trump is incapable of talking about the economy other than in terms of foreigners taking our jobs, job-killing regulations, and Federal income tax rates (note: he didn't use to be so narrow-minded). What else is new?

Social issues are THE main reason people vote Republican; foreign policy has always been a non-issue with the electorate (possible exceptions: 2006, 1940).

I still don't understand why income was such a weak predictor of candidate preference in the 2016 Dem primary. Detroit (and Lake County) went for HRC; East Grand Rapids, though the least pro-Bernie part of Kent County due to its wealth, still went for Bernie.

Maybe because the wealthiest people in East Grand Rapids were voting in a different primary.

-Same can be said of Massachusetts, where Clinton won the primary.

Not sure about Massachusetts (and obviously my original claim was only about East Grand Rapids), but here are the Michigan income breakdowns in the exit polls:

DEMOCRATIC
4% More than $200k
20% $100k-$200k
31% $50k-$100k
22% $30k-$50k
23% Less than $30k

REPUBLICAN
7% More than $200k
23% $100k-$200k
33% $50k-$100k
23% $30k-$50k
14% Less than $30k

While not a staggering difference, Republican primary voters in Michigan were clearly more affluent on average, and there was both a significantly larger "rich" (more than $200k) voting bloc and a significantly smaller "poor" (less than $30k) voting bloc.  So, when looking at "wealthy areas" and how they voted, it's pretty important to remember that every voter only gets to vote in one primary, of his or her choosing.

EDIT: Including Massachusetts numbers below.

DEMOCRATIC
7% More than $200k
30% $100k-$200k
33% $50k-$100k
18% $30k-$50k
13% Less than $30k

REPUBLICAN
11% More than $200k
35% $100k-$200k
34% $50k-$100k
12% $30k-$50k
8% Less than $30k

So, a similar pattern in Massachusetts, too.  Although Massachusetts is a relatively wealthy state that went for Bernie, it appears its wealthier voters did tend to favor voting in a Republican primary (where, coincidentally, they voted for Trump).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

RINO, the wealthiest voters in MA tended to vote for Rubio and Kasich, not Trump. Trump did best among the upper middle class. Also, Bernie didn't win Massachusetts.

[RINO Tom]

RINO, the wealthiest voters in MA tended to vote for Rubio and Kasich, not Trump. Trump did best among the upper middle class. Also, Bernie didn't win Massachusetts.

1) From the exit polls, we can't really tell that ... Trump won all income brackets and all college degree levels that were polled.  Maybe you can tell somthing else by looking at the county or town results, though.

2) I'm not even saying he won the wealthiest Republicans, all I said is that Republican voters in MA tended to be more affluent than Democratic voters in MA and they preferred Trump over the other Republicans running.  Wasn't really trying to make a point.  Surely you're not suggesting that no rich Republicans voted for Trump in the primaries, because that's ridiculous.

[Blackacre]

RINO, the wealthiest voters in MA tended to vote for Rubio and Kasich, not Trump. Trump did best among the upper middle class. Also, Bernie didn't win Massachusetts.

1) From the exit polls, we can't really tell that ... Trump won all income brackets and all college degree levels that were polled.  Maybe you can tell somthing else by looking at the county or town results, though.

Were there income brackets and college degree levels that Trump won more narrowly than others? That'll give you something to work with

[RINO Tom]

RINO, the wealthiest voters in MA tended to vote for Rubio and Kasich, not Trump. Trump did best among the upper middle class. Also, Bernie didn't win Massachusetts.

1) From the exit polls, we can't really tell that ... Trump won all income brackets and all college degree levels that were polled.  Maybe you can tell somthing else by looking at the county or town results, though.

Were there income brackets and college degree levels that Trump won more narrowly than others? That'll give you something to work with

Data isn't the best for income, honestly.  For some reason, they only give results for the middle two brackets, and Trump does 2% worse (49% to 47%) as you get higher, while Kasich does do 6% better (17% to 23%) and Rubio does 1% better (18% to 19%).  As far as education, there is certainly a divide, but the point still stands that Trump won both college graduates and non-college graduates.

[Mr. Morden]

RINO, the wealthiest voters in MA tended to vote for Rubio and Kasich, not Trump. Trump did best among the upper middle class. Also, Bernie didn't win Massachusetts.

1) From the exit polls, we can't really tell that ... Trump won all income brackets and all college degree levels that were polled.  Maybe you can tell somthing else by looking at the county or town results, though.

Were there income brackets and college degree levels that Trump won more narrowly than others? That'll give you something to work with

Data isn't the best for income, honestly.  For some reason, they only give results for the middle two brackets, and Trump does 2% worse (49% to 47%) as you get higher, while Kasich does do 6% better (17% to 23%) and Rubio does 1% better (18% to 19%).  As far as education, there is certainly a divide, but the point still stands that Trump won both college graduates and non-college graduates.

Unless you really care about the over $200,000 group, you can just use the data for three income categories: under $50k, $50-100k, and over $100k.  You can use algebra to figure out how many of a candidate's voters came from each of those groups, and even compare across parties, because we know how many voters there were in each party's primary.

But I've lost track of what is even being discussed here.  What point, exactly, are you guys debating?

[RINO Tom]

RINO, the wealthiest voters in MA tended to vote for Rubio and Kasich, not Trump. Trump did best among the upper middle class. Also, Bernie didn't win Massachusetts.

1) From the exit polls, we can't really tell that ... Trump won all income brackets and all college degree levels that were polled.  Maybe you can tell somthing else by looking at the county or town results, though.

Were there income brackets and college degree levels that Trump won more narrowly than others? That'll give you something to work with

Data isn't the best for income, honestly.  For some reason, they only give results for the middle two brackets, and Trump does 2% worse (49% to 47%) as you get higher, while Kasich does do 6% better (17% to 23%) and Rubio does 1% better (18% to 19%).  As far as education, there is certainly a divide, but the point still stands that Trump won both college graduates and non-college graduates.

Unless you really care about the over $200,000 group, you can just use the data for three income categories: under $50k, $50-100k, and over $100k.  You can use algebra to figure out how many of a candidate's voters came from each of those groups, and even compare across parties, because we know how many voters there were in each party's primary.

But I've lost track of what is even being discussed here.  What point, exactly, are you guys debating

No real point being debated anymore.  Originally, when Eharding mentioned that East Grand Rapids supported Sanders (I think insinuating that there wasn't that much of an income correlation between Sanders and Clinton support, as East Grand Rapids is wealthy), I mentioned that if the wealthiest voters in East Grand Rapids were voting in GOP primaries anyway, we might not be able to draw any conclusions.  (For example, wealthy voters, if forced to choose, might pick Clinton over Sanders, but the choice they're actually making was in the Republican primary.)