NYT: "Do Sanders Supporters Favor His Policies? Wishing does not make it so..."

[Surya Gayatri]

Mr. Sanders’s support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men.

But the premise animating that battle — that Mr. Sanders’s surprising success in the primary race is because of his liberal policy positions — may be familiar and comforting, but it is greatly exaggerated.

Bernie Sanders supporters in Carson, Calif. Credit Monica Almeida/The New York Times
...

When candidates surpass expectations, observers caught up in the folk theory believe that they have tapped some newly potent political issue or ideology. Thus, many analysts have argued that Mr. Sanders’s surprising support signals a momentous shift to the left among Democrats.

But wishing does not make it so. Decades of social-scientific evidence show that voting behavior is primarily a product of inherited partisan loyalties, social identities and symbolic attachments. Over time, engaged citizens may construct policy preferences and ideologies that rationalize their choices, but those issues are seldom fundamental.
...

Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, is a sort of anti-Clinton — a political maverick from lily-white Vermont whose main claim to fame has been his insistence on calling himself an independent, a socialist, anything but a Democrat. That history has made him a convenient vessel for antipathy to Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic establishment and some of the party’s key constituencies.But it is a mistake to assume that voters who support Mr. Sanders because he is not Mrs. Clinton necessarily favor his left-leaning policy views.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?src=me&_r=0

_________________________________

Exhaustive and revealing analysis of where the Bern's real "base" lies.

[YouDig]

1. They don't care about policies very much. They just want to be "rebels".

[think]

3. Single payer, a living wage, family leave, against death penalty, FAIR trade, free public college

Yes. Sanders supporters care about real issues.

How about you? what issues are YOU passionate about?

[YouDig]

5. Not according to the data. Did you read the article?

Clinton supporters care more about those issues, and are more supportive of government spending to remedy them, then Bernie supporters.


From the article:

More detailed evidence casts further doubt on the notion that support for Mr. Sanders reflects a shift to the left in the policy preferences of Democrats. In a survey conducted for the American National Election Studies in late January, supporters of Mr. Sanders were more pessimistic than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters about “opportunity in America today for the average person to get ahead” and more likely to say that economic inequality had increased.

However, they were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered as remedies for these ills, including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes. It is quite a stretch to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party.

[think]

7. LOL. Hillary doesn't even support single payer nor a living wage and she supports the death penalty!

Give it a rest...

[YouDig]

8. Did you read the article? Look at the data.

[think]

10. It's an editorial based on a study that he provides no figures from. What issues are YOU passionate

about?

[YouDig]

14. They linked to the study. Do you think they are lying about it?

Why is it so hard for you to accept data that contradicts your prejudices. Everything's not a conspiracy against Bernie, you know. Sometimes facts are just facts, even though you don't like them.

[think]

18. I went to the links. There was no data in any of the links. Did you go to the links?

[YouDig]

20. I did. So you think they are lying about the data. Strange world you live in.

Professors are Princeton and Vanderbilt are part of the conspiracy, putting their academic careers at risk. Nice one.

[think]

22. The editorial has no statistical data in it and the links do not go to statistical data. How can

one accurately understand the opinion of the author without looking at the data?

The author can post whatever he likes and make any claims he likes but if there is statistical data to back it up he hasn't linked to it.

[YouDig]

23. The article has a summary of statistical data, that came from a study.

Unless the scholars who wrote it are outright lying, then Sanders supporters care less about policy than Hillary supporters.

Here's the link. I don't know where the raw data is, but I'll take their word for it, because I don't believe that the whole world is in an evil conspiracy against Bernie.
http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/anes_pilot_2016/anes_pilot_2016.htm

[think]

24. It's an EDITORIAL and there is NO DATA at your link. There is no way to tell what the "summary" is

based on. It's strictly the authors' opinion which he doesn't provide a single statistic to show how many people think about the issues.

How many people were polled? How many people supported what issues? These are the questions statistics answer.

The authors saying the study shows Clinton supporters care about issues more is their opinion. They also call Vermont "lilly white". This is an editorial obviously based more on the authors opinion than any true statistical data or he would have included the statistics in his EDITORIAL.


So have fun understanding their opinion. But there isn't a single piece of data to know to what extent what they are saying is accurate.

[YouDig]

25. It's an editorial based on studies. You think the studies were faked? OK then.

The fact that Clinton voters care more about issues is a fact based on data. Unless you think they are conspiring against you.

[think]

28. Where did I say the studies were fake? I said they didn't link to data which they didn't

The data would show the degree to which their claims are made on.

Sorry you can't comprehend that....

[YouDig]

30. Looks like you need to register to get the data. It's a conspiracy!

http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/download/registration_form.php

[think]

41. Again. Without the data it's impossible to gage the authors' claims as to their

Degree and magnitude.

Trying to understand how many people support what issues is not a conspiracy.

You told me to look at the data at the very beginning of the discussion But there isn't any data to look at is there.

After I repeatedly point out there is no data you make false claims that I think the studies are fake and condescendingly retort that I'm creating a conspiracy theory.

I don't doubt there is data somewhere to make a comparison to the figures and the claims on but you and the authors haven't provided that data.

[YouDig]

43. If you think they're conspiring against you, feel free to register and get the data.

[pmorlan1]

38. Lilly White Vermont

was a dead giveaway. No statistics to back up their theory and they're trying to promote their book.

[think]

44. Exactly. :)

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. Race, gender, religion. "How can they divide us? Let us count the ways (apologies to Liz Browning)."

Left-handed vs right handed... hair vs eye color... innies vs outies... is there a politically correct term for pigeon-toed?

[pmorlan1]

83. Unitended Consequences

I must say this has been the most divisive campaign I've ever participated in. And the sad part is that it wasn't natural divides but deliberately done as a campaign tactic. I have zero respect for those that use this tactic. They've been playing with fire this entire campaign and we all know how unpredictable fire can be. Sometimes the arsonists get destroyed by it.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. Exactly, the excitement of "sticking it to the man..."

Thus has it always been, and thus shall it ever be among the young.

[YouDig]

12. I love sticking it to the man! In college once we spiked the coffee at a department coffee break.

Then I grew up.

[Surya Gayatri]

15. As we all do eventually...well, most of us anyway. LOL! Some of the

latter-day anarchists posting on DU do lead one to wonder...

[frylock]

67. You're admitting to doctoring someone's drink?

Wow.

[kaleckim]

53. The young of today are screwed though

They are screwed because of the environment, infrastructure and the economy. Utterly screwed. Unlike their parents and grandparents (people that inherited infrastructure, an economy and an environment in much better condition than the ones they handed over), they will not likely be better off than the previous generation. People seem to think that people get more conservative politically over time, but that is often the case when the system benefits them. People support a system if it benefits them, and the system has been benefiting fewer and fewer people, not enough that people want to maintain it as is. People seem to think that young people will grow older and be entirely supportive of a system that works against them. It's naive in the extreme. Also, young people go to other sources for their information. If you look at the average age of a CNN or Fox viewer, they're old. Younger people go to other sources for information, so they actually know something about the TPP, global warming, the record of NAFTA, student loan debt, etc. These are things the corporate media can't be bothered to mention, forget critique. The corporate media has spent more time broadcasting advertisements by the fossil fuel industries than discussion of global warming in recent years. In my experience, the older people in my life don't know tons about the actual issues and have their heads filled with nonsense, largely because of where they get their information from. Not the case with young people. Them fighting the system is entirely logical and necessary, if they want to have good lives, cause their parents and grandparents have handed over a country in far worse shape than the one they inherited, and the country is on a very bad trajectory.

[Surya Gayatri]

55. Paragraphs are your friend. I get a headache trying to read dense blocs of text. Sorry.

[kaleckim]

57. Nonsense

and you know it. Head back in the sand with ya, per usual. Crappy article.

[Surya Gayatri]

59. Hope you're not in one of the caring professions. Your "bedside" manners leave much to be desired.

[kaleckim]

60. Why bother typing

when you say nothing? What's the point?

[Surya Gayatri]

61. Exactly my reaction to your paragraph-free, run-on rant.

What's the point, indeed?

[kaleckim]

62. LOL!

Yeah, you didn't read a post, on a blog like this, because my post was one paragraph and not two...again, nonsense. Somehow the words become hard to read. Grow up.

[Surya Gayatri]

65. "Somehow the words become hard to read." Why bother?

Not worth the strain to tired eyes with blatant BS.

[kaleckim]

68. Sorry

your post had too many words, too hard to read. Can you state your ideas in two word sound bites? Given the crap you're saying, shouldn't be a problem.

"Not worth the strain to tired eyes with blatant BS."

Translation: I don't want to address what was said.

[fasttense]

71. But according to the post they are the man.

It's all about how only white males vote for Bernie. White males run the world. They make up 90% of the oligarchy. So these Bernie supporters claim to hate the white males like themselves.

Spinning that just wont work. You can't have it both ways.

[uponit7771]

80. +1, and in this case "the man" seems to be PoC and women and poor people and LGBT and

... all the other "others"

[Surya Gayatri]

81. The Bros are like spoiled, entitled adolescents who will NOT

accept the word "NO".

[uponit7771]

79. +1

[Yurovsky]

2. Um, yes...

Trying to paint us as ignorant or naive isn't going to get any of us to consider holding our noses and voting for Wall Street's preferred Democrat.

[fun n serious]

4. So don't.

NO MORE THREATS! Do what you want. Do NOT try to silenece us with dumb threats. It's over.

[kaleckim]

64. Yeah!

Asking things of candidates other than being less bad than Donald freaking Trump. We're done with this! If you're on the left you vote for Clinton, or you're an ignorant child. Period!

[think]

6. You choose to showcase the statement "disaffected white men" & the picture shows mostly women

[Surya Gayatri]

11. That first quote is right from the piece...take it up with Lupica.

I couldn't post the whole OP-ED. Against TOS.

[think]

13. You are the one who put it up front and center on your post are you not?

[Surya Gayatri]

17. Indeed, it was one of the most salient bits...

[think]

19. LOL. OK

[JonLeibowitz]

26. And in fact the only man in the photo is Latino!

[CrowCityDem]

16. It is interesting, and very possible, since Bernie talks most in platitudes, not policies.

[samsingh]

32. That is true.

[Eric J in MN]

87. In Sanders stump speech

...he says:

We're going to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

We're going to make public colleges tuition-free.

We're going to remove marijuana from the federally controlled substances act.

[Eric J in MN]

21. It's absurd to say that

...since the majority of Clinton's voters are women, we should view them as all women.

It's absurd to say that since the majority of Sanders' voters are men, we should view them as all men.

About 43% of Clinton's voters are men and about 43% of Sanders' voters are women. Millions of people in both cases.

[tazkcmo]

27. More unity efforts.

Good job.

[kaleckim]

29. What a crappy article and what horrible logic

Notice that the article doesn't bring up polling on the actual issues. It focuses on the ideological component (as if polling doesn't show a pretty sharp turn to the left ideologically, which it does). I am on the left, and would never call myself a liberal, in part since I haven't a clue what the hell the word means in modern America. So, would that article then say I opposed Sanders or wasn't in agreement with him? When you poll people on the actual issues, they are where Sanders is. Doesn't matter if they call themselves, liberals, socialists, conservatives, or Swisscheesists. Fascinating that the article is on his policies but includes no facts, data, polls on the actual issues and his stances on the issues. Fluff, from a corporate rag that brought you NAFTA, the war in Iraq, Judith Miller, attacks the left in Latin America in horribly dishonest ways (do some research on how the NYT covered, for example, the situation with RCTV in Venezuela and then research the actual situation), etc.

[Surya Gayatri]

34. CHRISTOPHER H. ACHEN and LARRY M. BARTELSMAY,

would, I'm sure, be interested in your opinion of their work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?src=me&_r=0

[procon]

40. If voters were really "where Sanders is", he would be winning.

He not, yeah?

So go ahead and console yourself with soothing fictions about mass conspiracies and gigantic plots involving thousands of separate groups and millions of people all colluding together just to pick on your poor, saintly Sanders... is that pretty much the gist of your entire hypothesis?

So much for "logic", either real or imaginary.

[kaleckim]

49. Your logic is shallow as a kiddie pool

She has more votes within a highly restricted Democratic Party. As you probably know, if the primaries were open to independents, she'd be toast, and why would you want a bunch of young people joining your party in order to vote for him? He does much better than she does in the general election (polls have shown this for months), since he does much, much better with independents (much better than she or Trump with independents) and Republicans. Republicans are more likely to vote for the leader of the Church of Satan than Clinton, and many of their reasons are absurd, but the situation is what it is. The fact, which every damn poll has shown for months now, is that the most progressive candidate in the race (Sanders) does much better with the general public than the "progressive" Democratic Party. The Democratic Party went with the corrupt, center-right war hawk that isn't liked or trusted.

If you want to argue otherwise, provide some evidence, some polls to back your argument up. Since you have none, I expect crickets.

My point isn't a hypothesis, it's objective reality. Prove otherwise.

[procon]

72. Why would you expect to vote in a Democratic Party primary as an Independent?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Democrats want to elect Democrats, not Independents or Socialists. Those are other political parties with their own interests. Sanders has made a big campaign issue that he is not running as a Democrat, and he should be taken at his word, he is not a Democrat.

His message is not working, so don't blame Democratic voters for picking the Democratic candidate as their preferred choice. It probably feels totally unfair that your guy lost, and maybe it's cathartic to toss out your favorite talking points. I get it, it's a major frustration to lose, but this maudlin pique that you Sanders followers have embraced is not how your great and glorious revolution was advertised.

[kaleckim]

75. ?!

Those independents pay the taxes, which fund your damn primaries, and if you have a passing respect for democracy, why shouldn't someone that wants to take part in your party take part in your party? Seems like any democratic loving Democrat would be happy to let someone outside the party kick the tires. You can't say that independents should have no say in which candidate your party takes, but then rely on those same peoples' votes in the general election. They should be able to have a say in the choices that will be presented to them in the GE. Please pretend to support democracy and argue otherwise. Makes no logical sense. Beyond that, Sanders has massive amounts of young people backing him. You're out of your mind if you think it makes any sense to piss them away because they don't check a box that says D when they vote. What tribal thinking.

"His message is not working"

Once again, his message is working with the general public, far more than Clinton's. It just didn't convince enough people like yourself that live in a bubble. You close your party to independents, then elect someone the independents don't like. Makes no logical sense, given that independents are a larger share of the public than Democrats now are and your candidate will not win without strong support from them. Good luck in the GE with this mindset, you'll need it.

[Eric J in MN]

88. Exactly. Horrible logic.

A decent social scientist would test if Sanders voters agree with his policies with a scientific poll.

Ask people, are you a Sanders supporter?

If they say Yes, ask them if they want state universities be tuition-free, want Single Payer, etc.

Share the resulting numbers.

The social scientists who wrote the op-ed instead use the ambiguous self-label of "liberal" and an Internet poll with secret numbers.

[kaleckim]

89. Yep

in fact, when people are asked if they are "liberal" or "conservative", ask them to define the terms first. I'd bet that it would be all over the place and lots of people that call themselves "liberal", "conservative" and "moderate" would take stances on the issues that are usually associated with the left. The term "liberal" is useless.

[samsingh]

31. But the fact that so many are galvanized means that something is missing. We need to bring these

supporters in, encourage them, and give them what they want.

[Orsino]

33. "Blah blah blah Sanders supporters are just Clinton haters blah blah."

Buried in all the fact-free ranting is an essential fact: Sanders support may not equate to a huge Democratic step left. However, the author ignores the existence of a growing movement that predates Sanders' candidacy, and therefore thinks that whatever may be going on is just about Sanders.

Turns out the movement is real. The question the author doesn't think to ask is: will the Democratic Party choose to join it, ignore it, or oppose it?

[Surya Gayatri]

36. Your pin-pointing of the essential missing element would surely be of interest to the authors:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html?src=me&_r=0

See the comments section.

[Armstead]

35. One would have to be a complete moron not to know what his policies are....He repeats it endlessly

There is likely a subset of Sanders supporters who fall into that stupid stereotype.

But considering the fact that in every appearance and speech Bernie manages to work in his basic policies and agenda in very basic terms, it is almost impossible for anyone with an IQ over 50 to know basically what they are supporting when they support Sanders.

[Surya Gayatri]

39. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."

Lie-la-lie, lie-la-lie, lie-la-lie-la-la-lie-la-lie-la-la-lie-la-lie...

[Ned_Devine]

37. The hit pieces continue. Trying to "bring us to heel" are you?

[Surya Gayatri]

42. Like a herd of cats? LOL!

[Ned_Devine]

45. For you

[Surya Gayatri]

47. Like Bernie, in the proverbial Dem Party punch bowl.

[Ned_Devine]

48. Not so much

You just don't see it the way the rest of us do, that's all. I mean, even though it was proven and documented that no chairs were thrown at the Nevada convention, you're still running with the propaganda by posting a gif of the Macho Man throwing a chair on your sig line. The karma from all of this grave dancing you do will come back on you when Hillary loses in the GE.

[Surya Gayatri]

50. We'll see where that wheel stops when the time comes...LOL!

[Ned_Devine]

51. Lol's and rolling smiley faces? Are you an adult or am I debating a 3rd grader?

[Surya Gayatri]

52. Ned, Ned, humor is a proven boon to health. A good laugh can lower the blood pressure,

open up the bronchial tubes, and improve general cognition.

Try it!

[Ned_Devine]

54. I laugh all the time

And you and I would probably get along great in person. But right here and now, I want to talk about issues and not emoticons. You've got a cool name, by the way.

[Surya Gayatri]

58. And, the cosmic lady behind it is pretty cool, too!

Thanks!

[snowy owl]

46. BS. Read book notes: voters choose out of loyalty. Above abridged got it wrong.

Smoke and mirrors against Bernie but the case is not made. They have not made the case Sander's voters do not vote issues. They have made the case the Clinton voters vote out of loyalty. More NYTimes claptrap. As I've seen and said on DU seems like Clinton = loyalty. Sanders = issues. People have to learn to read critically.

Democracy for Realists assails the romantic folk-theory at the heart of contemporary thinking about democratic politics and government, and offers a provocative alternative view grounded in the actual human nature of democratic citizens.

Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels deploy a wealth of social-scientific evidence, including ingenious original analyses of topics ranging from abortion politics and budget deficits to the Great Depression and shark attacks, to show that the familiar ideal of thoughtful citizens steering the ship of state from the voting booth is fundamentally misguided. They demonstrate that voters—even those who are well informed and politically engaged—mostly choose parties and candidates on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not political issues. They also show that voters adjust their policy views and even their perceptions of basic matters of fact to match those loyalties. When parties are roughly evenly matched, elections often turn on irrelevant or misleading considerations such as economic spurts or downturns beyond the incumbents' control; the outcomes are essentially random. Thus, voters do not control the course of public policy, even indirectly.

Achen and Bartels argue that democratic theory needs to be founded on identity groups and political parties, not on the preferences of individual voters. Democracy for Realists provides a powerful challenge to conventional thinking, pointing the way toward a fundamentally different understanding of the realities and potential of democratic government.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Hillary copies Sanders policies

Because they are so unpopular!

[aikoaiko]

63. Bernie supporters are not in perfect unison with Bernie.

It's a different type of coalition.

[frylock]

66. Look at all the disaffected white men in that photo.

[Starry Messenger]

69. I've been saying this for months.

[Surya Gayatri]

70. As evidenced by the "vigorous" Bern Bro blowback in this thread, this narrative does not suit them!

[Beacool]

73. They are obviously not thinking deeply when they rely on promises of a "political revolution"

to be able to pass any of Sanders' agenda. Please, give me a break. During one of the town halls the moderator asked him how did he intend to pass his agenda and Sanders responded that there would be a million people outside McConnell's window. Sanders must think he's in another country. In this one some folks can't even move out of their couch long enough to vote, let alone to mobilize a million people to protest Republicans.

[Surya Gayatri]

74. Typical later-day hippy-radical bombast...

"...there would be a million people outside McConnell's window."

"Hey dude, we don need to pass no stooopid legislation. We don need to buiiild no steeenking coalitions. We'll just roll up in front of the Congress, and presto-chango, magic will happen. 'Cause we said so."

[Beacool]

76. This is not from the town hall, but Sanders repeated the same sentiment.

First of all, it’s not that I can’t work with Mitch McConnell. I have worked with Mitch McConnell. In fact, last session of Congress, before the Democrats were defeated, as you may or may not know, I was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. Working with people like John McCain, who is a friend of mine. Working with people like Jeff Miller, who is the Republican chair in the House. We passed the most comprehensive VA healthcare legislation in the modern history of this country. It was one of the major pieces of legislation passed.

If you check my record going back to the House, there were many years where I passed more amendments on the floor with Republican support than any other member. So I know how to work with the Republicans.

But what I am suggesting to you, is that at the end of the day, the powers that exist in Washington — Wall Street, who has endless supplies of money, the wealthy campaign contributors — every day, the legislation that comes down is not the legislation that the American people want. It is often the exact opposite. Every poll that’s out there [says] raise the minimum wage. Republicans, many of them now want to abolish the concept of the minimum wage. Rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Republicans don’t want to spend any money on infrastructure. Expand Social Security. That’s what the American people want. What do Republicans want? Cut Social Security.

How do we win? How do we take them on? You take them on when you say, “Hey, Mitch, look out the window. There’s a million young people out there now. And they’re following politics in a way they didn’t before. If you want to vote against this legislation, go for it. But you and some of your friends will not have your seats next election.” That’s the way I do politics. And that is the way I believe we’re going to deal with our crises today.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bernie-sanders-editorial-board-20160323-snap-story.html

[Surya Gayatri]

77. Like somebody said several months ago, the Bern is stuck in a 1968 time warp.

Yeah, man...radical, man.

[Beacool]

78. Yep.......

[Matt_R]

84. I like the kittie picture on the dude on the right.

Also the dude on the left has a nice flower tattoo.

[Vattel]

85. I love junk science

[Eric J in MN]

86. Bingo. The secret numbers from an Internet poll

...done in January are the evidence. We can't examine the numbers because they're secret. Junk science.