Tuesday, November 03, 2015

Bernie Sanders has no chance

Looking at the racial composition of his support, one could be forgiven for assuming Bernie Sanders to be a Republican rather than a Democrat. As the last couple Republican presidential candidates found out, that's scarcely enough to make it happen in the general election. It doesn't come close to cutting it on the left.

In 2008, through the course of the Democratic primary season, Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama 56.0%-44.0% among whites and 63.7%-36.3% among Hispanics. Because she got trounced 14.9%-85.1% among blacks, however, she lost the nomination. 


Sanders is losing to Clinton among blacks the same way Clinton lost to Obama among blacks in 2008 and he's losing among Hispanics the same way Obama lost to Clinton among Hispanics in 2008. NAMs comprise over 40% of the Democratic electorate, so a candidate who gets trounced by them has to turn the tables almost as severely among whites. Sanders isn't even winning there.

While a devious dissident might hope Sanders pulls that off, ripping the Fringe Coalition apart in the process, he isn't going to come close. His only real base of support exists among young white leftists, a cohort that constitutes about 15% of the Democratic electorate and less than 5% of the entire US adult population, and a cohort that is shrinking in significance by the day.

VP Bernie, then.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2010-2014), RACECEN1(1), AGE(18-29), POLVIEWS(1-3)


9 comments:

countenance said...

Sanders's problem in 2016 is much the same as Ron Paul's problem in 2012 and 2008 -- Banking too heavily on young ideologically charged white people.

Per the Willie Sutton Doctrine, robbers rob banks because that's where the money is, politicians appeal to 45+ because that's where the voters are.

Anonymous said...

It would be a misstep to give him the VP role. It would be really off-putting to moderate normal voters who swing close elections. Democrats have become so radicalized I could see them doing anything, but a socialist jew just a heartbeat away? That's a bridge too far for the general.

Anonymous said...

Sanders should break away from the Democratic party and start his own political party for SWPLS, Jews, and their Asian cohorts. America is not best served by a 2 party system. America is best served by a 3 party system: 1 for prole Whites, 1 for Blacks and Hispanics, and 1 for SWPLs/Asians/Jews.

Audacious Epigone said...

In some ways Sanders is similar to Paul (age and race distribution of his support).

In other ways, he's not--Ron Paul, for better or worse, is more purely principled than any other congress critter of the late 20th and 21st centuries. Sanders is not--he will get in line when the Democratic party needs him to. Paul would never have been considered for VP because he would've disagreed publicly with his presidential running mate anytime that running mate said something Paul disagreed with. Sanders will have no problem politically 'selling out' to Hillary Clinton and towing her line if he's offered the spot.

Anonymous said...

I'm predicting Hillary's VP will be a male minority, probably a hispanic especially if Trump gets the repub nom because she'll want that espanol vote and thinks it will be a clear contrast. A black guy outalphas her, an asian is underwhelming and weird, a woman steals her thunder, a white guy gives too much a patriarchal contrast unless he's a weak pussy like Bernie.... but a hispanic guy? Juuuuuust about right.

BTW, how many general population actually know Bernie is a jew? It's been very quiet. Sure, the alt-righters know, but most people see him as just an old white guy. Better for them that way, socialist jew... people might start asking questions.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Good points. While a white woman and a Jew are both putatively 'oppressed' groups in the US, they're on the bottom levels of the victimization building. That may not be Fringe enough for the 21st century Democratic party.

countenance said...

AE,

I think you're suffering from a slight problem with your methodology.

One could say with certainty that black voters heavily drive the Democrat Presidential nominee selection process, just by using the 2008 race breakdown numbers between HRC and Obama, if the whole country had one massive primary on one day and the nominee was the popular vote majority or plurality winner.

However, as we both know, there is one primary or caucus per state, and it's a state by state process.

While it is true that only 44% of whites voted for Obama in 2008 Dem primaries/caucuses, those 44% of whites exercised a very disproportionate out-sized influence in making Obama the nominee. The reason is something that Kyle Rogers at CofCC noticed at the time, back in 2008. Obama won the states whose racial demographics are, by American state standards, the most black or the least black, while HRC won the states whose black percentages are near the national average. The reason for that is Patterson's First Axiom ("Nothing cures the thirst for integration like a good dose of n*****s"). A state that is hardly black will have a lot of race pandering white liberals that just eat up magic negroes like Obama, but since it hardly has any blacks, it hardly has any white people that despise blacks out of racial reactionism. A state that is very black are states where Patterson's First Axiom clicks in big time, ergo, because the blacks are all Democrats, almost all whites in those states are Republican out of spite, ergo the Democrat only voting universe in those states are almost all black, so it's easy to see why Obama would win those states over HRC. The average-ish states are more tricky -- They have enough blacks to engender enough contempt for them among enough whites, but not enough blacks to mean that the state's two party politics are totally Mississippiized, whites Republican blacks Democrat, ergo there are plenty of white Democrats. In such states, enough white people are both Democrats and don't like blacks, and that was HRC's wheelhouse in 2008, especially with her coded anti-black attacks on Obama that season.

The 44% of whites that voted Obama were mostly centered in those "hardly black" states, they actually resulted in Obama winning those states and therefore winning those states' delegates.

Now apply this to HRC versus Bern in 2016 -- This is why HRC is doing the black race pandering hot and heavy, to make sure she wins heavily black state Democrat primaries, to hedge against any threat that Bern would mount in winning some of the lily white and dark blue states.

Audacious Epigone said...

Countenance,

Yes, I recall noting something similar (ran the numbers on every Democratic caucus and primary during the 2008 election), though the most important take-home point of the 2008 Democratic nomination is how black racial solidarity ruled the day.

If Obama didn't absolutely dominate the black vote, the fact that a large minority of whites voted for him would've been historically inconsequential, as will be the large minority of whites who end up voting for Sanders. Another issue is the caucus-vs-primary format. The Pauls, Obamas, and Sanders of the world do much better in caucuses than they do in primaries, and a lot of lilywhite states have caucuses.

Audacious Epigone said...

To be more concise, Hillary learned in 2008 that in the modern Democratic party if you lose among blacks--who are the most electorally monolithic racial/ethnic group in the country, and not just in the general but also in the primaries--winning among whites doesn't matter.

Contemporary white Democrats aren't going to go heavily against someone blacks overwhelmingly support--it just isn't going to happen. If it did, the Fringe Coalition will have been fatally torn asunder. So even if you win (modestly) among whites, if you lose among blacks (by default, lose big among blacks), you're out.

You don't win the Democratic nomination today without winning blacks.