Sunday, September 03, 2017

I Doubt Bernie Primary Voters Who Backed Trump (12%) Will Vote For Status Quo Democrats


After the Wasserman Schultz primaries and the post-Wasserman Schultz convention most Bernie supporters I know did exactly what Bernie urged them to do-- they voted for Hillary Clinton. And the ones I know who didn't, voted for Jill Stein. Polling bears my observation out on the first fact-- close to 80% of Bernie supporters cast their ballots for Hillary in the general. But 12% of Bernie voters got the idea that they would rather vote for Trump-- who was spouting "change"-- than vote for the status quo (or incrementalist) candidate. And, according to University of Massachusetts political science professor Brian Schaffner in several key states-- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan-- the number of Sanders to Trump defectors were greater than Trump’s margin of victory-- 51,000 in Wisconsin (where the Trumpanzee margin of victory was 22,000); 47,000 in Michigan (where the Trumpanzee margin of victory was just 10,000); and 116,000 in Pennsylvania (where the Trumpanzee margin of victory was 44,000). There's no "Hillary Would Have Won" song on YouTube like the one up top, is there?

Schaffner also noted that in 2008, more Hillary primary supporters went over to McCain (instead of Obama) in the general than Bernie voters who voted for Trump. Jeff Stein at Vox:
[G]iven Democrats’ interest in winning back the Rust Belt, it’s worth digging into exactly who this population of voters is. Schaffner found some demographic characteristics that might align with what you’d expect-- Bernie-Trump voters were older and whiter than the average Democratic primary voter, for instance.

Perhaps surprisingly, however, these defectors did not turn out to have views on trade policy that marked them as significantly more opposed to free trade than the average Democrat. That may fly against the expectation that Sanders’ views on trade were unique to his appeal, but some political scientists were making that case as early as April 2016.

Also of note: the Bernie-Trump voter also proved much more likely to consider himself or herself “somewhat conservative” or “very conservative” than the average Democrat. Sanders, of course, ran on a policy platform well to Clinton’s left-- but was able to do so in a way that allowed him to win over voters that disdain the “liberal” label.

...[Schaffner:] The thing that really stood out to me is that a lot of these people who voted for Sanders-- and then Trump-- don't look like modern day Democrats. So you saw a lot fewer of them actually identify as Democrats than your normal Sanders voter; and, even more striking, they seem to have views on racial issues that are far more conservative than your typical Democrat.

It's not clear to me this necessarily if this is a Hillary Clinton problem specifically, or if this was Bernie Sanders having a special appeal to bring people into Democratic Party primaries, who would otherwise be inclined to be Republicans.

...[T]hey were also older and whiter [than the average Bernie voter in the primary], and also less liberal.

Of the ones that switched to Trump, only about 25 percent also voted for a Democratic candidate for Congress. And we do have a little bit about what they did in 2012-- it looks like they were split roughly evenly, 50-50, between Obama and Romney. So these appear to be people who are trending out of the Democratic Party.

Of those Bernie voters who supported Trump in the general election, the average age was 52. Those who stuck with Clinton were an average age of 45, and of those who broke for a third party, the average age was 44. Of those that didn’t vote, their average age was 35-- these were the ones that got activated by Bernie, and then dropped back out when he didn't win. It’s worth noting that very few of the primary voters stayed home. People who vote in primaries are highly engaged in politics-- they’re not people who come in and out of the electorate.

I also looked at how the Bernie-Trump voters identify themselves on the ideological scale, and very few say that they're liberal. Only about 17 to 18 percent say that they're liberal, in any kind of way, shape, or form, though they voted for Sanders.

By contrast, about 45 percent of these Bernie-Trump voters say they're ‘middle of the road’-- basically, a lot of them see themselves as “moderates.” Meanwhile, another 35 percent of them are claiming to be either somewhat conservative or very conservative.

I think what this starts to suggest to me is that these are old holdovers from the Democratic Party that are conservative on race issues. And while Bernie wasn't campaigning on that kind of thing, Clinton was much more forthright about courting the votes of minorities-- and maybe that offended them, and then eventually pushed them out and toward Trump.
Goal ThermometerRandy Bryce, the progressive Democrat running for the congressional seat in southeast Wisconsin currently held by Paul Ryan, is an interesting antidote to Hillary. He was a Bernie surrogate during the primaries and helped Bernie win the Wisconsin primaries 567,936 (56.6%) to 432,767 (43.1%). It's worth noting that on that same day, Trump won just 386,370 votes in Wisconsin, coming in second to Ted Cruz (whose 531,129 votes were also fewer than Bernie's). In the heart of Ryan's congressional district, Bernie beat Hillary in Racine Co. and beat Trump, 14,651 to 11,756; Bernie beat Hillary I'm Kenosha Co. and beat Trump, 14,612 to 11,139; Bernie beat Hillary in Walworth Co. and beat Trump, 8,405 to 7,534; and Bernie beat Hillary in Rock County (where Ryan lives) and beat Trump, 17,337 to 10,264.

After the convention, Bryce became a Clinton backer and was selected by her campaign to serve as one of her Electoral College electors. He's working to unite Wisconsin Democrats and independents-- as well as the district's Republicans sickened by Trump-- around a Wisconsin version of the People's Platform, which is centered around 8 bills:
John Conyers' Medicare For All Act (H.R. 676)
Pramila Jayapal's College For All Act (H.R. 1880)
Bobby Scott's Raise The Wage Act (H.R. 13)
Barbara Lee's Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (H.R. 771)
David Cicilline's Automatic Voter Registration Act (H.R. 2840)
Raul Grijalva's Justice Is Not For Sale Act (H.R. 3227)
Keith Ellison's Inclusive Prosperity (H.R. 1144)
Jared Huffman's Keep It In the Ground Act (H.R. 2242)

Labels: , , , ,


At 6:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting. Can someone be a leftist but be neither liberal nor progressive?
Perhaps this indicates that both parties are so far to the right that someone who is racist can consider voting democrap.

This is borne out by the democraps' official tolerance for misogyny and their de facto tolerance of racism against blacks and latinos (obamanation did jack shit about BLM issues as unarmed blacks continue to be killed by the state; obamanation deported more undoc'd than everyone before him).

Maybe the democraps' official embrace of misogyny is an appeal to that 12%.

So... we'll have 2 parties competing for the hate voters... only in America.
Germany only had one party of hate, as I recall? I guess we're worse than that now.

DWT, still hacking for democraps? WTF, DWT??

At 6:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would add that mentioning that Bryce became a $hillbillary worker and elector makes me rethink his bona fides. (as elector, did he cast his vote for $he or for Bernie?)
ANYONE who would support that corrupt lying cheating neocon neolib whore loses my support almost immediately.

At 6:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haven't kept up with Bryce.

If hes not already on it, someone better get him some talking points about the deal to bring a Foxcomm to Ryan's district ... along with both jobs to run the robots.

John Puma

At 7:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I voted for Bernie in the primary, only to see the Party steal the votes. I refused to vote for Hillary. I voted for Stein.

I voted against a corporatist DINO in my district. The DINO lost.

I voted for Kamala Harris ONLY to keep a worse corporatist -Loretta Sanchez- out of the seat. I saw this as kicking the can down the road, for I can't promise Harris that she gets a second vote from me.

My point: With the exception of Harris, I don't vote lesser of two evils. I've left votes blank rather than choose the lesser of DINO Dianne Feinstein or what corporatist RINO is opposing her.

This is what the Democratic Party has reduced my choices to with the jungle primary system they pushed on us here in CA. They can repeal that any time and come up with a much better plan anytime they want to.

At 7:47 AM, Blogger Skeptical Partisan said...

"...Democratic Party has reduced my choices..."

Both parties have sold out to corporate America. This has not only limited our political options but also the Overton window of publicly acceptable discourse. To a large extent, even academic debate which should have no restraints is limited by funding; this is particularly true in the field of economics.

At the moment, establishment media (Fox News = Republican Party; MSNBC = Democratic Party) covers issues from the very constrained party defined limits of conservative-to-liberal positions. Superpartisan RW media (Breitbart) are well into fascist territory. Is 'left wing' media adding to the public debate by covering lefty territory? Would alternative media better serve the greater good by covering all other positions? If the goal of the left is the well being of all people, they need to consider all means of achieving their goals and not just those espoused by one partisan ideology.

At 10:49 AM, Blogger Thomas Ten Bears said...

Better than leaving it blank, anon, write in None of the Above. Make them count it as None of the Above.

That's what I was left with, with extremely critical votes to be made in Oregon. A handful of unacceptable candidates at the top of the page and an equal number of unacceptables to be voted against running throughout the ballot. Somebody had to look at that ballot, had to write it down.

At 12:12 PM, Blogger Mf Lehman said...

I doubt race and racial politics is the only important thing to most people who hold racist opinions. I'll bet a whole lot of racism can be overcome by providing material benefits – like a good job and a good free education – to people who need them. We're supposed to be winning elections, not saving souls.

At 6:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I can't write anything on a CA jungle ballot. It spoils all of my votes. Under the Jungle Primary law, I only get to choose the two top vote getters from the primary, or mark nothing at all.

I have written in NOTA when that was still an option, and I'd love the right to be able to do so again.

At 8:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to MFL, is the true end the winning of elections? Or is it service to constituencies... making lives better... protecting the powerless against the predations of the powerful?

Since money and hate seem to be paramount, I suppose winning elections is the true goal. All actions from there exist only to serve the re-election. Service and all that shit doesn't matter.

Makes sense. Been seein' that for nearly 40 years now.

At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my conversations with white lower income (Urban) Trump voters race was not the primary issue although it might be lumped together with their other grievances against the Democratic Party as represented by the Clintons. I think immigration and its perceived unfairness was a bigger issue. They perceive undocumented immigrants as unfairly competing for jobs and apartments thereby driving up the rent and lowering wages. For rural low income voters, I suspect the gun control and social issues figure into the equation also. The voters I spoke to feel that the Democrats have done little for them and give them little or no credit for the social programs like social security and Medicare and other new deal programs that benefit them. They are low information voters and like most Americans do not follow politics except what they read in the newspaper headlines, local news, radio, or word of mouth. They view politicians as corrupt and not acting in their interest. I suspect that those that those voted for Bernie did so because his message about a corrupt system, income inequality, college tuition and trade and some voted out of antipathy to Clinton's perceived elitism and stance on immigration, gun control, social issues, and race. Race was only one issue for these voters and it was not the biggest. I don't think the Democrats realize how much the immigration issue cuts with low income voters. Most of the Trump voters I spoke with told me that while they liked Bernie and his economic program they could not vote for him because of his stance on immigrtation.

At 5:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saying race was not primary but that immigration was is self-repudiating. But irony is not strong with these assholes.

These are the STUPID demographic more than the racist demographic, I have no doubt.

Low-info voters are stupid. Whether they are lacking in potential or just too fucking lazy to find out... doesn't matter any more. They're totally devoted to their wrongness and won't be fixed.

$hillbillary WAS and IS the goldman-sachs bitch and no matter what $he did, $he could not alter that legacy. But these morons also didn't bother to find out her relationship with what happened to hapless peoples in Honduras, Ukraine et al bwo her policies (shared with or directed by obamanation) as sec state. These same shitstains COULD have done just a little looking into what/who drumpf truly is too... but couldn't be bothered. Fuck them all.

The DNC ratfucked Bernie and, in doing so, ratfucked a hapless and nearly sub-sentient electorate who really needed a break, since they are incapable and unwilling to make their own.

As we keep finding out, race **IS** a yoooooge issue with most of the devotees of American naziism and drumpf.


Post a Comment

<< Home