Last summer I would not have guessed that the race for the nomination would come down to a contest between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Yet here we are.
The nerds at Five Thirty Eight have either Biden or Sanders winning all of the Super Tuesday states with the exception of Minnesota, which is expected to go to Amy Klobuchar. (Sanders is polling second in Minnesota.) The Super Tuesday states represent 40 percent of the U.S. population, I have read. Note that all of these states divide up delegates proportionately, so that second- and third- and sometimes fourth-place winners can pick up some delegates. Just not as many.
It’s interesting, though, that Sanders is winning in blue states and Biden in red ones, with a couple of exceptions. Who is ahead in the Super Tuesday polling (other than Minnesota) —
Sanders is currently polling ahead of Biden in these states (or territory):
- American Samoa (caucus)
- California
- Colorado
- Maine
- Massachusetts (Warren polling second)
- Texas (but within the margin of error; this one is a coin toss)
- Utah (Warren polling second)
- Vermont (Buttigieg and Warren are close to a tie for second)
Biden is currently polling ahead of Sanders in these states:
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- North Carolina
- Oklahoma (Bloomberg polling second)
- Tennessee
- Virginia
If the voting matches the polls, Sanders still will be ahead in delegates after Super Tuesday. There will be several more primaries on May 10, and the polling follows the same pattern — Sanders is ahead in bluer states; Biden in redder ones; no one else looks to be a major factor.
Side notes: Bloomberg was counting on winning some Super Tuesday states to make a claim for the nomination, and it doesn’t appear he will win any of them. He may pick up only a handful of delegates.
Indiana doesn’t vote until May, but poor Pete Buttigieg currently is trailing both Sanders (in first place) and Biden (in second) in his own state. Buttigieg is not doing well anywhere, as far as I can see. He may pick up one delegate in California this week. It occurs to me that Buttigieg has been running to appeal to older voters with policy ideas that are barely distinguishable from Biden’s. But the old folks are much less likely to vote for a young, gay man than younger ones. He might have done a lot better with much more progressive positions.
(Update: Buttigieg just announced he is ending his presidential bid.)
Back to Biden-Sanders: The most notable thing about a Biden-Sanders contest is that it amounts to a contest between generations, even though the candidates themselves are both septuagenarians. I wrote last November about the Democratic voter generation gap that put Biden way ahead with voters over 45 and Sanders way ahead with voters under 45. That hasn’t changed. Perry Bacon of FiveThirtyEight wrote last week that “In fact, age might be the most important fault line in the 2020 Democratic primary.” In Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, the percentage of under-45 voters who voted for Biden was in single digits. But in Iowa and Nevada, at least, Biden came in first among over-45 voters. Sanders did slightly better with the old folks than Biden did with the young ones, but he slaughtered the rest of the field with under-45 voters.
Bacon continues,
Indeed, the Democratic Party appears to be in the midst of a generational fight that started in 2016 and is continuing now. For example, the left-leaning but gray-haired commentators on MSNBC have been deeply frustrated by the rise of Sanders. Conversely, it’s hard to find much Biden support on Twitter, which tends to be used by younger people and more liberal Democrats. Buttigieg and Warren, while not as liberal or as anti-establishment as Sanders, are also to the left of Biden, which in part explains why the ex-vice president isn’t the clear second-favorite of younger Democrats either.
It’s significant to me that Biden isn’t even trying to win younger voters:
In 2019, the former vice president and his team seemed to deeply internalize the conventional wisdom among many establishment and center-left figures: that “Twitter is not real life” and that Democrats should not be too “woke.” Biden has seemed very frustrated at times with young liberal activists who have confronted him at rallies and argued that he was too conservative on some issues. He was fairly dismissive of criticisms of his handling of the Clarence Thomas hearings and his touching of women in ways that some of them considered inappropriate. He suggested the views of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t represent those of many other Democrats. His campaign aides downplayed the power of “Pod Save America” and did little to court the “black left.”
This all looked fairly savvy (or at least somewhat harmless) … until voting started. And you wonder now whether the Biden campaign could have at least competed for young voters by taking a different approach.
This is the same kind of tunnel vision that killed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2016. She, and now Biden, are weirdly blind and deaf to younger voters and can’t address their concerns without sounding condescending. And it’s also the case, Bacon continues, that younger voters are not at all interested in a replay of the Obama Administration, so Biden’s appeal to Obama nostalgia just doesn’t work with them.
My sympathies are with the young folks, who are facing obstacles us geezers didn’t have to deal with. The “revolution” they seek is not a violent one, but one in which the resources and priorities of government are significantly realigned. They want major changes to long-standing policies — on climate change, health care, student loans, economic inequality, the cost of housing. Most of the people running for the nominations have instead brushed off the possibility of big change with the usual platitudes about practicality and what’s “do-able” and real solutions to real problems. The exceptions are Sanders and Warren, and for some reason the young voters appear to have abandoned Warren and are standing with Sanders. I am not sure why that happened, but there it is.
And of course, as soon as Joe Biden won the South Carolina primary, he was all over television talk shows with the line “I think people aren’t looking for revolution. They’re looking for results.” And we all know that “results” mean “tweaks to the status quo so minor you may not even notice them.”
For older Americans, for whom the old status quo worked reasonably well, big change may seem frightening. For younger people, it’s the status quo that is frightening. Because it’s not working for them.
But that status quo is awfully entrenched. And it really, really wants Biden to win the nomination.
To date I’ve yet to see a persuasive case for why Sanders is certain to have less of a chance of winning than an uninspiring “moderate” candidate like former vice president Joe Biden or former New York Mike Bloomberg, both of whom have shown themselves to be weak campaigners of the kind who have lost presidential elections many times before.
The idea that establishment Democrats are horrified about a Sanders nomination solely because of their concerns about the outcome on November 3 is awfully hard to swallow. What seems more likely is that Sanders challenges, disparages and dismisses the entire political structure of which they are a part. …
… So when either a Never Trumper or an establishment Democrat considers the world Sanders would make, they aren’t sure what their place in it would be. And that may be what has them really scared.
This is turning into a contest between the past versus the future.
It seems clear to me that the old political order that emerged from the chaos of the 1960s has run its course and is not sustainable. It is time for it to give way to something new. Only the Democratic Party in a position to lean into that change and benefit from it, while the Republicans have painted themselves into a corrupt, backward, xenophobic corner. The Democratic Party rejected change in 2016, and lost. Will it do so again?
Oh, and young folks? Please vote. Biden won big in South Carolina because two-thirds of the people who showed up to vote were over 45. If you stay home from primaries, don’t gripe because the geezer who gets the nomination isn’t the one you wanted.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Elise Amendola/AP/Shutterstock (10551224k)
Former Vice President Joe Biden, left, embraces Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., during a Democratic presidential primary debate, hosted by ABC News, Apple News, and WMUR-TV at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H
Election 2020 Debate, Manchester, USA – 07 Feb 2020
I think the only thing we can really be thankful for is Tom Steyer's decision to exit the contest. I just read that Mayor Pete is next to quit (I'm glad he gained some experience). The only thing that makes sense right now is to vote, hunker down and wait for the dust to settle after Super Tuesday. Drag yourself through this awful process that I fear will be a massive failure paving the way for Trump 2020.
You say:
<<
And we all know that “results” mean “tweaks to the status quo so minor you may not even notice them.”
>>
So 'results' are precisely what have no results. Just as 'electable' means unelectable, and 'conservative' means radically destructive.
I'm voting in Texas this Tuesday, and I'll vote for Sanders. I really want to vote for Warren, but I don't see a path for her to win in Texas and I would rather have Sanders over Biden.
Note, this isn't about "electability". I think Warren would trounce Trump in the general election, especially if he were dumb enough to agree to a debate.
I went through a similar thought process. I preferred Warren but don't think she's going anywhere. My top goal is getting rid of Trump, and I thought Warren was one of the better candidates for doing this, but the numbers just aren't there.
A cynic might say the future is full-blown fascism and the Republicans are leaning into that. They started forty years ago and they're almost there. But let's hope the godawful conservative movement is finally getting over the hill.
The metrics back up the argument that this is a generational struggle, but there are philosophical fractures behind the split. I'm over 60 and the truth for my generation out of high school was that with hard work, you would prosper. (Definition of prosperity: middle-class decent life – own home, two cars, vacation every year, job security) That truism is no longer true, but many (most) my age cling to it as if it's an immutable law of nature.
Young people face job and income insecurity, even with a college degree, even with hard work. Homeownership is much more difficult. They can SEE the system works very well for people with money and kids with family connections but for them (as a group) the societal promises their parents think are carved in tablets from God – are empty lies. Ability counts for very little – it's not what you know. It's who you know.
In the same country at the same time, they live in different worlds than their parents/grandparents. I think (opinion) that my generation is conditioned to equate integrity with wealth. A person is honorable who has wealth – a person is assumed to have character flaws who isn't well-off or stiving to become well-off according to the "rules" of the older generation. This is also reflected in the conditional acceptance of minorities by conservatives who aren't 'prejudiced." You can be black and be accepted but you have to act like you are white with white middle-class values. Different subject.
As a gross generalization, young people want the system to work for everybody because they also want the system to work for them individually. They've figured this much out – they stand a better chance under a system of real equality than they do under the rigged system which serves the rich.
OT – I live on the border of two counties near Tampa, Hillsborough and Manatee. Last night they posted to new Trump Flu cases in FL. One in Hillsborough and one in Manatee counties. This is getting real close to home.
Here in Washington State, we have had 2 deaths from coronavirus, both from the western side of the state and both of which had no explainable exposures. It is speculated that the virus has been circulating in that area for about 2 weeks. I live in Walla Walla on the eastern side of the state and which is also a tourist destination for people who want to visit the wineries. I am hibernating in my apartment going out only for necessities. I tend to be a loner anyway so it is not difficult to avoid the other tenants. I agree it is important not to panic but as my mother used to say: It's better to be safe than sorry. Sooo, when I do have to interact with other of my species, I avoid personal touching and wash my hands often. It's also a good idea to carry hand sanitizers and use them. The masks for sale in the stores are useless as they do not filter out viruses.
Chalenging GULAG's record for consecutive posts.. if we're all semi-quarantined for the duration of the outbreak, we all have more time to read Maha's book. 🙂
I'd say that Sanders actually represents the ideological past (FDR) and future (GND) or the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party has always been a looser coalition than the GOP – consisting of more diverse ethnic, religious, and ideological groups – and therefore it's less agile. The sub-groups wind up squabbling about priorities, often acrimoniously. Few good leaders have the patience for that; even worse, loyal but less competent people get promoted inside the party. With no over-arching philosophy, leaders who are popular with one segment of the party have trouble appealing to other parts of the coalition.
Sanders is attempting to break through this, with an explanatory framework (economic class) which supports policies that would be good for all parts of the coalition – except for party leaders and donors.
The departures of both Steyer and Buttigieg give me a feeling a lot like getting a stone out of my shoe. Both had some good issues, but weren't the right messengers and were just taking up space. The most interesting question is to whom Buttigieg's votes will go. He had overlap with both Biden and Warren.
It's still surprising Warren hasn't caught on. However, major changes in message haven't helped, and Charles Pierce's description "Senator Professor Warren" has something to it.
Despite all the noise about Biden winning a primary he still faces hurdles, and the picture of a 76 year old man taking on hurdles is not pretty. He's low on money, ads and GOTV programs, and while a lot has been made of his popularity with black voters, Latinos prefer Bernie by wide margins. Bloomberg will probably peel off some of Joe's votes too.
About one of those "gray-haired commentators on MSNBC": Chris Matthews set a new record for wretched hyperbole when he compared Bernie's win in Nevada to the Nazi occupation of France. He's also in hot water for asking columnist Laura Bassett why he hadn't fallen in love with her yet. He probably meant it as a compliment, but he's officially joined the out-of-touch rich old white guy's club.
I'm actually not that surprised that Warren didn't catch on. I learned the hard way, over decades that the brainy types I relate to generally don't catch on. The only exception was Obama – who I would call the smartest guy in the room – the kid the less gifted would always hate.
Obama's advantage was knowing how to rein it in. He also seemed like a real force for progress, and in some ways he was.
I'm another reader who thinks there is a lot to the age division thing. I was born in 1951 and have two kids in their late 30's. I agree that the status quo is not working for them and it shouldn't be expected to. Time passes, things change. We live in a different world than the one I was born into.
I agree with much of what is said above, and I'd like to share something I heard on NPR yesterday that is interesting and potentially relevant. I don't remember the name of the researcher being interviewed but he was talking about "swing voters", specifically voters who voted for Obama and then Trump.
We wring our hands a lot about trying to win back those voters. The interviewee said that research indicates that 70% of those Obama-Trump voters are never going to switch away from Trump (I may have the number wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was bigger than 50%). So we shouldn't waste time on them. They are republican-ish voters who crossed over for Obama. They ain't leaving the Trump camp.
There are others in a larger group of "swing voters" who we SHOULD be courting: those who disliked Hillary enough to stay home or to vote third party. Those voters we CAN get back. And those are the types of voters we SHOULD be focusing on. I don't have the answer to this, but what is going to inspire those voters to come out and vote for the Democratic Party nominee?
As for those who are skeptical that a new wave of young voters will save our bacon, I tend to agree with that point of view. I'm sure we can greatly goose the number of young D voters, but I fear they will just bump up the popular vote count in states already likely to go blue. That doesn't solve the problem.
It is possible that it is less important which primary candidate becomes the D candidate, and more important that we have a very smart and thorough general campaign that figures out a winning path (which states) and knows how to work today's environment (social media and combating foreign and domestic disinformation techniques).
Thoughts?
OT: My daughter just informed me that there are 2 cases of coronavirus at our local hospital. This is a small town 35-40,000 so……….I'm crawling under my bed with the dustbunnies.
How do know it isn't transmitted through dustbunnies? Better be careful.
You should make the dust bunnies wear masks.
DystRumpic paranoia is rampant in the USA and I agree with Krugman, much more sinister and frightening that Cofefe-19 virus. The Tease below is to a great column. Age issues and division must be bridged to fight this debilitating mass psychopathological epidemic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/opinion/coronavirus-trump.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Dustbunnies are my friends. I have lived with them for decades. They wouldn't allow any harm to come to me for fear that I would get rid of them.