No, Sanders supporters are not more liberal than Clinton’s

[Bill USA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/

Christopher Hare and Robert Lupton have challenged our claim that most commentators “greatly exaggerated” the role of policy preferences in explaining Bernie Sanders’s surprising success in this year’s Democratic nomination contest. How can Sanders’s supporters not be liberals, they ask, when roll call voting scores and campaign rhetoric put Sanders well to the left of his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton? Hare and Lupton attribute our “surprising findings” to a quirk in one of the surveys we analyzed, which asked Republican as well as Democrats and independents which Democratic candidate they preferred.

In fact, however, the difference between their interpretation of the evidence and ours is mostly due to misunderstandings of our analysis and to a slip in their re-analysis of the same data, which resulted in their double-counting “very liberal” Sanders supporters.

We argued that support for Sanders hinges on social identity more than ideology

The main point of our essay was that support for Sanders hinged less on ideology and issues, and more on social identities and group attachments, than common wisdom has suggested. In support of that point, we noted that exit polls of Democratic primary voters reveal much wider gaps in Sanders’s support between women and men, non-whites and whites, and Democrats and independents than between ideological liberals and moderates.

We also noted that data from a pilot survey conducted in January as part of the 2016 American National Election Study suggest that Sanders supporters were actually less likely than Clinton supporters to favor key policies Sanders has advocated on the campaign trail, 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,” we suggested, “to view these people as the vanguard of a new, social-democratic-trending Democratic Party.”
(more)

[John Poet]

1. But they are certainly less hawkish.

[BeyondGeography]

26. If you subtract "gun rights" from the equation

Lefty gunners sure do love them some Bernie.

[wildeyed]

35. FDR was a hawk.

LBJ was too. It was the conservatives who were anti-war before Vietnam.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-conservatives-hate-war/

[John Poet]

59. There's a difference between being a hawk to stop Germany & Japan from

taking over the world, and being a hawk because you want to invade Vietnam or Iraq....

Defending against aggressive war, vs. waging aggressive war.

[wildeyed]

61. Not according to anti-war people at the time.

FDR was moving behind the scenes to get into WW2 long before Pearl Harbor happened or France fell. No one fully understood the how evil the Nazis really were and on the heels of the horrors of WW1 many were trying to avoid a second conflict. Can you blame them, with the info they had at the time?

And there are many who think that war with Japan was avoidable and it was FDR's poor oversight of the diplomatic process that led to that. FDR probably violated the law with the Lend/Lease shenanigans he cooked up with Churchill long before the USA was officially involved in the conflict. He was a total hawk who had the luck of being on the right side of history.

Vietnam was wrong, but the reasons were complicated. Was it Kennedy's fault we ended up there, or LBJ's? I dunno but both are liberal icons. Iraq is Bush's war. He is a Republican, remember? So not sure what your point is there (I'm not having that stupid argument about Clinton's vs. Sanders' vote on that again).

FDR was a hawk and so was LBJ. It doesn't matter how you want to justify that. Off the top of my head, we have never had a great liberal president who wasn't a total hawk. It is what it is.

[Lance Bass esquire]

2. Batman can beat up Spider-Man n/t

[IADEMO2004]

54. Someone needed to say this.

[JRLeft]

3. Actually we are. Hillary's side used right wing rhetoric aka "free stuff".

[PowerToThePeople]

5. And don't appear concerned she supported Bush's war crimes.

[Buzz cook]

15. If Sanders had promised to appoint a special prosecutor

To investigate Buch Co. and the run up to the war he would have gotten more Hillary voters.

He didn't. That might be because it would divert attention from his blaming the war on Clinton.

[fasttense]

56. It's too late to prosecute the bushes. Obama had his chance...n/t

[Buzz cook]

63. Maybe

But not to late to investigate.

If we find they committed war crimes, which I believe they did, then it's not to late to prosecute either.

And yes Obama fucked up.

[fasttense]

65. I thought there was a statue of limitations on war crime.

If NOT, Then why is Kissinger walking around free?

[Buzz cook]

66. No investigation

And as they say, ugly buildings, whores, and politicians, become respectable with age.

[wildeyed]

31. Not all of us.

That's a very broad brush you are painting with. Plenty of Sanders supporters use RW talking points and sources to attack Clinton, even her on the DU. But not all.

[BootinUp]

4. bingo.

[athena]

6. I am a liberal and a pacifist, and I support Hillary.

This idea that Hillary supporters are centrists or more hawkish has been nothing but a lie and an insult from the very beginning. Some people think that supporting Bernie gives them some sort of left-wing street cred. The reality is much more nuanced.

[AgingAmerican]

8. Hillary calls herself a "moderate"

Whatever that is...

[athena]

9. This thread is about Hillary's and Bernie's supporters

not about what the candidates themselves choose to call themselves.

[AgingAmerican]

10. I am replying to what you said

Perhaps you should take your own advise?

[athena]

11. Try reading again.

And try, for once, to make a point using logic rather than personal attacks, insults, and ridicule.

I'm not sure what makes Bernie supporters think that nastiness makes them look good.

[AgingAmerican]

14. I made my point, you didn't like it

So you played the "Hall Monitor" card!

[Herman4747]

55. Actually, it depends on her mood at the time...

Or more precisely whom she is talking to:

[rhett o rick]

18. LOL. Hillary couldn't wait to help George Bush invade and kill a million Iraqi's. You, as a

pacifist support that decision? As a supposed liberal, do you support her efforts to imprison millions of AA to make the Prisons For Profits make more money? As a liberal do you support her stand on fracking? The TPP? Medical marijuana ban?

[athena]

24. As a pacifist,

I realize that currently it is politically impossible to elect a pacifist to the presidency.

I am not a single-issue voter. I would prefer Hillary to be less hawkish, but I also understand that it is difficult for a woman to be seen as a dove. Democratic presidential candidates have had a problem with being seen as less "strong on terror" for a long time. Hillary may have decided that she can't be seen as a dove and win the presidency.

In the end, what matters is to have a smart president. A smart president is much less likely to get into stupid wars than a stupid or weak president (weak meaning not strong enough to stand up to hawkish advisers).

[rhett o rick]

27. " A smart president is much less likely to get into stupid wars than a stupid or weak president "

You do realize that she has failed this test more than just Iraq. Between Sanders and Clinton you chose the more hawkish.

[athena]

36. You mean Hillary Clinton was previously president of the United States?

Being president is very different from being a cabinet member or a senator.

[rhett o rick]

44. If she was willing to help the Republicons go to war, the worst foreign policy decision

in a century, she proved that she has poor judgement. Tell me it wasn't poor judgement.

[athena]

25. By the way, next time, try to make your point without insults.

Bernie supporters seem to have a problem with that. They don't seem to understand that insults, ridicule, and nasty attacks indicate an inability to discuss things with reason and civility.

[rhett o rick]

28. There were no insults in my post.

[athena]

37. In my book, calling someone a "supposed liberal",

when they already self-identified as a liberal, is an insult. It's the same as calling them a liar.

[rhett o rick]

41. You are going a long way to find a fight.

By the way, if you support the corporate big money domination of our government, you ain't liberal.

[athena]

43. Your post is a perfect example of incivility.

It's funny that you accuse me of looking for a fight and insult me in the very same breath. I'm not the one who responded to a perfectly civil post with "LOL" and insults.

But go ahead. If fighting is what floats your boat, I'm sure you'll find plenty of it here. But not with me. As of now, you've earned a well-deserved position in my ignore list.

[Exilednight]

30. Honest queatioñ here.

Why would you support a candidate who sent troops to Iraq when she admitted to not reading the intelligence brief? Every Senator that read, which admittedly was not many, voted against it because they said the evidence was too thin.

[athena]

40. Hillary did not send troops to Iraq. Hillary was not president. GWB was.

She voted to authorize the war, thinking that GWB would use the decision as leverage in negotiating with Iraq. I personally know people who believed the same thing. I thought back then that the decision was a bad one. But many intelligent people took GWB at his word.

As for the intelligence brief, she read the unclassified version. She did not read the longer, classified version, most of which had been whited-out. In retrospect, it was a mistake. I assume that you, being so critical of HRC, never make mistakes. Or do you simply hold HRC to a higher standard than you hold yourself or anyone else?

[Exilednight]

46. I served 8 years I. the military in various command capacities, the one

Thing you never ever do is send soldiers into a situation where you haven't been fully briefed.

Yes, I hold elected officials to a higher standard. I want people who are smarter and wiser than myself to make important decisions such as Iraq. I would hope that everyone votes for someone they hold to a higher standard, otherwise we are bound to keep making the same mistakes.

[AgingAmerican]

7. Lolz

Actually he is vastly so

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Sure she's liberal...if you exclude her blood soaked "foreign policy experience" and coziness

with the capitalists, the lobbyists, the NSA, her ruthless ambition, her sheer incompetence, and just about all the other contents of her baggage car.

[That Guy 888]

13. "No, Sanders voters aren’t more conservative than Clinton voters. Here’s the data."

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

... That means that in analyzing this group of Sanders “supporters,” Achen and Bartels were examining a group that may well have been farther to the right than actual Sanders voters. We don’t believe that the ANES Republican respondents were actually Sanders backers. We think it’s far more likely that they just strongly dislike Hillary Clinton.

Here’s how we tested our hypothesis

We tested this hypothesis using the study’s “feeling thermometers,” which ask respondents to rate how warmly they feel about a series of political figures using a 100-point scale. A rating of 0 is a very cold or unfavorable feeling; a 100 rating is a very warm or favorable feeling.

Republicans who said that they preferred Sanders over all the other Democratic candidates didn’t actually like him. They gave him very lukewarm ratings, an average of 53 degrees. But they really, really disliked Hillary Clinton, rating her at a very cold 15 degrees. By contrast, Democrats and independents who preferred Sanders over the other Democratic candidates rated him, on average, at 84 degrees.

In other words, to find out what policies Sanders voters support, we’ll do better if we leave out Republicans’ beliefs entirely. Analyzing only the beliefs of the Democrats and independents who support Sanders will give us a more accurate picture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/31/no-sanders-voters-arent-more-conservative-than-clinton-voters-heres-the-data/

[99Forever]

16. Bwahahahahahahahhaha.....

... funny shit, Bill.

[Juicy_Bellows]

17. Ahh exit polls are cited. I thought they were "notoriously unreliable "

What a pantload.

[rhett o rick]

19. Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq. That ain't liberal.

[eastwestdem]

20. Totally true, it has everything to do with social identity. The kids just want to fit in.

My kids were all afraid to admit they were for Hillary at school, because of the bullying Sanders supporters. (Middle school and college!)

[AgingAmerican]

21. Cool story bro!

[Live and Learn]

23. Wait, wait, wait a sec. Did you just say that the kids just wanted to fit in by supporting the

candidate least likely to win??? Another bad theory. Keep trying.

[Exilednight]

32. yeah, because middle schoolers are really paying attention.

Two of my closest friends teach middle school social studies. Both are teaching the election, but they're amazed by the lack of interest these kids have.

[azurnoir]

38. says the supporter of a politician that won by shamelessly playing identity politics

pitting race and gender against each other - making white males the ultimate bad guys -unless they voted for her of course

[Live and Learn]

22. Umm, yes we are. And more progressive too. nt

[uponit7771]

67. Giving corporations lawsuit immunity and being a gumper is now "progressive"!?!? Really?! Fuck that

... it's about identity.

Sanders campaign OPENLY admits not competing in "southern states" were a lot of PoC vote... now he's whining about him boo boo

[gollygee]

29. I imagine people vote for each candidate for different reasons

I personally voted for Bernie because I'm more liberal, but that doesn't mean all Bernie supporters chose him for the same reason.

Similarly, people might have various reasons for voting for Hillary. I know some very, very progressive people who voted for her in our primary. Of course I also know very, very progressive people who voted for Bernie. The people I know who voted for Bernie (with me as an exception) are generally younger.

[redstateblues]

33. Best, most accurate post in the thread gollygee

[wildeyed]

42. Yep.

The biggest factor seems to be age and race. But I know many older blacks who voted for Sanders and wildly liberal young whites who chose Clinton. Many of my friends are politically active, so it is not surprising that they buck demographic trends and make their own choices. But it is true that among my personal friend group, the Sanders supporters are most definitely NOT more liberal or progressive or whatever you want to call it. Plenty of "establishment" Dems were for Sanders and a big chunk of my indy, activist friends prefer Clinton. I respect them all, plan to work with them on future projects and think they are capable of making their own political choices without my input.

A big chunk of libertarian-leaning young white male (and a few female) acquaintances who I consider non-political like Sanders big, huge bunches. This is a group that is generally either more conservative or completely clueless on policy issues. They might call themselves progressive, but they don't understand what that means, so I do my best to tune them out.

[Orsino]

34. Riiiiight. They just support and advocate for more liberal policies. n/t

[w4rma]

39. Hillary's support came from name recognition. Her own supporters have no idea what she wants to do.

I think that whatever she told those banks in her paid speeches is what she wants to do and her public speeches are just pablum.

[Maru Kitteh]

45. K&R

[ZombieHorde]

47. The part about most people picking a candidate

based on identity rather than policy is very interesting to me. Not just Sander's supporters, but most Americans who support anyone for President. I think this helps to explain why so many of us on DU, fb, etc., were so defensive and blatantly used fallacious logic.

This article helps to confirm my long held belief (bias) that identities cloud our judgement, contribute to our confusion between real and imaginary things, and hinder objective thought.

[Number23]

48. HA! So it was the white guys that were all about "identity politics??!!"""

When we simply excluded Republicans, as Hare and Lupton advocate, we still found Sanders supporters slightly to the right of Clinton supporters on each of the three key issues we considered: government services and spending, health-care spending, and raising the minimum wage.

“respondents who prefer Sanders held roughly the same positions as — or were more conservative than — Clinton voters, overall.”

Absolutely priceless.

[betsuni]

50. Oh, this is too good.

[uponit7771]

68. +1, but this is all facts and shit... they don't need no damn facts

[betsuni]

49. K&R

[B Calm]

51. Hillary wants to raise the minimum wage to $12 per hr, Bernie $15 per hr.

[Eric J in MN]

52. Garbage.

The writers of that article are using SECRET data from a "pilot study."

If we instead look at PUBLIC data, we find that among Michigan voters in the Democratic primary who want the next president to have more liberal policies, 72% voted for Sanders:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/Dem

[Vattel]

53. The article doesn't even support the headline.

[Ash_F]

57. Clinton thought 62 cents per hour was too much money for Haitian factory workers

And lobbied to knock it back down to 31 CENTS PER HOUR.

[uponit7771]

69. Sanders voted to give gun corps lawsuit immunity... again.. he can't throw stones no matter how much

... the Sanders camp wants to ignore that FACT

[Ash_F]

70. I would rather we ban these thirty round magazines.

[Vinca]

58. If Hillary's positions were the same as Bernie's, I would have supported her initially.

I would love to see a woman elected. But they weren't and they aren't and I'll be casting a vote against Trump.

[hobbit709]

60. I'm more liberal than Bernie so that makes me way more left compared to Hillary.

[dmosh42]

62. Being on the take for big money from lobbyists and corporations is not a liberal plus in my book!

[2banon]

64. LOL! This is really rich.. in CogDis-pretzel logic

Now it's time to "re-establish" HRC's "Liberal" creds in attempt to get everyone in line to fall in line, at the same time HRC has to prove her warhawk bona fides..

Wow. that's gonna be some hard work there.

[azurnoir]

71. No we're not more liberal we're more progressive