Can Bernie Sanders Win the 2016 General Election?

Serious questions demand serious answers. To seriously answer the question of whether Bernie Sanders could win the November 2016 election, Sanders supporters must put aside our preferences and partisanship to soberly appraise the likely terrain of the 2016 Electoral College and how Sanders would fit into that context as the Democratic nominee.

Safe and Swing States and Sanders

In the past 6 consecutive presidential races, the Democratic nominee has won 18 states and the District of Colombia for a total of 242 votes in the Electoral College while the Republican nominee has won 13 states for a total of 102 electoral votes. States that vote reliably Democratic (blue states) or Republican (red states) are what’s known in American electoral jargon as “safe states” while the states that could vote in either direction are known as “swing states.”

states

What does this have to do with Bernie Sanders? It means that in all likelihood he will be able to take 242 electoral votes out of the 270 necessary to win the presidency largely for granted as the Democratic Party nominee.

In blue states, the GOP would have to gain (or conversely, the Democrats would have to lose) 5% or more of the electorate to make these states un-safe, to turn them into swing states. 5% may not sound like a lot in the abstract, but in practice we are talking about millions of voters shifting their political allegiances. For Sanders to lose the safety of safe Democratic states, either millions of new Republican voters would need to come out of the woodwork or millions of Democratic voters would have to defect to the GOP. Neither of these events is terribly likely given how the GOP’s radical-smearing and red-baiting of President Obama completely and utterly failed to either drive up Republican turnout or drive down Democratic turnout in either 2008 or 2012.

So it’s a safe, conservative assumption that Sanders would probably only need 28 electoral votes from swing states to get to 270 if he can win the Democratic nomination. In practice, that means — like Barack Obama before him — Sanders will be campaigning in a dozen states (or less) seeking only 28 electoral votes while the Republican would need to find 168 to get to 270.

swingstates

Sanders’ Cross-Partisan Appeal

No matter who the Democratic Party standard-bearer is, he or she will enjoy a massive advantage over whomever the Republican nominee is from the start. The ironic thing is that, for all the talk about Sanders being an un-electable long-shot candidate, the fact of the matter is that he would be a much better and more competitive candidate than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election.

Here’s why:

  • Hillary Clinton is — like it or not and perhaps through no fault of her own — a polarizing, partisan figure. 74% of Republican voters say there is “no chance” they would vote for her compared to 8% who say there is a “good chance” they would vote for her. The State Department email scandal that caused her favorability and trustworthiness ratings to dip below that of her GOP rivals among independent voters will surely be forgotten by election day 2016, but the fact that even minor bumps in the road for Clinton have a way of escalating into major blow-ups show what an inherently flawed candidate she actually is.
  • By contrast, Bernie Sanders — although his democratic socialist brand may seem radical and off-putting to independents and Republicans at first sight — has a proven record of not only winning statistically significant support from people who usually vote Republican but also of beating Republican candidates, incumbents and challengers alike. In his 1996 Congressional re-election campaign, Sanders surprised himself by winning the conservative ward in Burlington’s new north end and in Rutland County, usually the most Republican county in the state. In his 1994 re-election, he gained the support of traditionally Republican small towns and rural areas. To get to Congress in the first place, he had to defeat Republican incumbent Peter Smith who ran vicious attack ads on television featuring Bernie Sanders and Fidel Castro side-by-side. More recently, polls in Vermont show Sanders beating Clinton in the state’s primary among independent and Republican voters (who can vote in the Democratic primary thanks to the state’s open primary system) and among the traditionally conservative south of the state.

primary

Yes We Can… Maybe

None of this is to suggest that Bernie Sanders would have an easy time winning the White House as the Democratic nominee — just the opposite. All the GOP/Fox News dirty tricks that Obama faced would probably be amped up by a factor of 10 or 100 with an actual socialist with an actual chance of becoming president. But Sanders has persevered in the face of such ugly, vicious attacks before and in the end gained victory. His entire political career has been about fighting the good fight and beating what conventional political analysts considered to be insurmountable odds.

favorability

The real difficulty for Sanders won’t be the 2016 general election but the primary contest with Clinton. In that fight, Sanders’ advantage over Clinton among independents and Republicans will be all but eliminated and he will be fighting on her turf — the Democratic Party. How that fight might shape up and how it will compare to the Obama-Clinton clash in 2007-2008 will be explored in a future post.

Advertisements

9 responses to “Can Bernie Sanders Win the 2016 General Election?

  1. Pingback: Sanders’ Campaign: Shell Game to Save the Two-Party System or Third Party Breeding Ground? | Revolutionary Democratic Socialism

  2. Pingback: Sanders Can Win the Democratic Presidential Primary — Here’s How | Revolutionary Democratic Socialism

  3. This article is now irrelevant to understanding how things now stand between the two contenders. It only reflects the status of data prior to the contenders’ announcing their presidential candidacies. This reported data captures none of the surging popularity and resonance of Sanders’s actual campaign a mere two weeks after announcing his candidacy.

    If anything, this article shows only a “before” snapshot (a status quo ante view) of where things stood before the announcements. We now need to have an “after” view of where things now stand.

    Like

    • True. Sanders’ chances in the general election compared to Hillary Clinton’s are much better now than they were a month ago.

      Like

  4. Sanders will continue to gain popularity and acquire wider name recognition. It is still too early to call, in my opinion.

    Like

  5. Pingback: John Kerry v. the World! | The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

  6. I still have my doubts that Sanders will win in 2016. And for good reason: Sanders lacks something that Hillary already has and that’s an established base of voters OUTSIDE the rural communities of Vermont. Sanders will also have to compete on a more larger scale in order to beat Hillary at every turn.

    The other thing, is that Sanders is running on a 1950s campaign platform that is publicly funded but very well coordinated on a national level. He would have to outmatch Clinton financially in the months leading up to the nomination. I’ve never heard of a campaign like his that could possibly compete without a few Super PACs in tow.

    In fact, I think that;s going to cripple his campaign in the long run. Big money is a MAJOR player in these elections and many candidates seek out the most donors for their buck.

    A grassroots campaign that only gets its money from the PEOPLE doesn’t stand much of a chance of success because of the fact that Sanders’ base is so small from the onset.

    All this talk that he’s “sweeping the nation” with his message isn’t stacking up with reality. I’ve been talking to a lot of people who are Bernie supporters in their own states–red states especially–and they admit that Bernie doesn’t have much of a presence in those states or even campaign offices. Because too many people don’t want to vote for a “socialist” like Sanders. And they won’t change their minds for nobody.

    The other thing that will hinder the man in the long run is the fact that he isn’t all that well known outside of Congress. Sure, you have the internet and you can look everyone up easily, but Bernie Sanders doesn’t command that much name recognition.

    Hillary does because she’s been a public figure for the past 40 years now. Sanders was not. And only recently got into politics in the 1980s.

    So if you’re suggesting that Sanders can win it all, don’t realize how much of a fallacy that really is. Your post is based on the idea that he can win a national election when in fact, he’s not even close to winning over the whole country.

    By and large, he’ll only garner a token amount of followers and fans from across the nation, but not enough in terms of numbers and support to be a viable Presidential candidate.

    Not against the likes of Hillary Clinton who can both outspend and out raise him by a 7-1 margin.

    This isn’t an issue of wishful thinking by the Bernbots, but REALITY.

    Something that many of his supporters refuse to acknowledge because they lack reasoning and logistical thinking skills. They aren’t dealing with reality as well as the rest of us.

    You want to know who else thinks this way and believes the same way as Bernie Sanders’ supporters and fans do? Ron Paul and Rand Paul’s base.

    For the past decade, they too thought they could win the Presidency. Stacked the votes just like Sanders’s supporters did in the first Democratic debate. But in the end, both candidates failed to gain traction or even enough of the electoral vote to even matter.

    And the reason for that is because their support base wasn’t as strong as they once thought. Because their ideas and proposals didn’t resonate with the majority.

    As much as Bernie Sanders has the right idea, his execution and methods are virtually impractical to carry out in today’s world.

    And such lofty goals will only be met with failure because of two things: One, they have insurmountable barriers to overcome and two, he has to convince the Koch-bought and owned GOP Congress that they are viable.

    Because otherwise, Sanders will find himself on the short end of the stick and quite possibly a one-term President to boot…once reality sets in.

    Like

    • The case that Sanders would outperform Clinton in a general election is related to but separate and distinct from how Sanders will do against Clinton in the primary. You manage to conflate the two, declare a Sanders presidency impossible, and then speculated about him being a one-term president all in one comment — a pretty strong indicator that the counter-argument is not very coherent. But let’s unpack and pick apart your objections one by one.

      1. “He would have to outmatch Clinton financially in the months leading up to the nomination”

      Sanders has already achieved fund-raising parity with her in the second quarter, before the first national debate, almost purely on the basis of small donations. Clinton’s tens of millions come principally from donors who max out at $2,700 which means they won’t be able to give her money next quarter or the quarter after that.

      You claim Clinton can “Hillary Clinton who can both outspend and out raise him by a 7-1 margin” but she is already barely out-raising him while blowing through most of the money she does raise. And here I thought I was the one who wasn’t reality-based?

      2. “Sanders’ base is so small”

      Sanders has 650,000 donors who have made 1 million individual donations, the most of any candidate in U.S. history this early in the election cycle, beating Obama’s 2008 record by I think six months.

      3. “Bernie doesn’t have much of a presence in those states or even campaign offices”

      Obviously. The campaign plan is to build infrastructure in early voting states during the primary, use early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire to accumulate momentum and swing big numbers in South Carolina and Nevada, and prepare for Super Tuesday where Clinton is betting (mistakenly) on landing a knock-out blow. There aren’t Sanders offices in places like Kentucky or West Virginia because those states vote much later than Iowa and New Hampshire and it would be a really foolish waste of resources to prioritize the later voting states over the early voting states or to give them equal priority. Right now Sanders is building campaign infrastructure in the first four or five voting states and will expand into other states as the money continues to pour in and the campaign calendar moves along.

      4. “The other thing that will hinder the man in the long run is the fact that he isn’t all that well known outside of Congress. Sure, you have the internet and you can look everyone up easily, but Bernie Sanders doesn’t command that much name recognition. Hillary does because she’s been a public figure for the past 40 years now. Sanders was not. And only recently got into politics in the 1980s.”

      This is actually a huge advantage for Sanders over Clinton. She may be one of the most well-known people in politics but she is also one of the most hated (by roughly 30%-40% of the electorate). Her negatives are simply yuuj. Sanders is still an unknown and undefined quantity and stands a much better chance than she does of winning over Republicans and independents which is why you’ll never hear of groups like “Republicans for Hillary”:

      5. “You want to know who else thinks this way and believes the same way as Bernie Sanders’ supporters and fans do? Ron Paul and Rand Paul’s base.

      For the past decade, they too thought they could win the Presidency. Stacked the votes just like Sanders’s supporters did in the first Democratic debate. But in the end, both candidates failed to gain traction or even enough of the electoral vote to even matter.

      And the reason for that is because their support base wasn’t as strong as they once thought. Because their ideas and proposals didn’t resonate with the majority.”

      You’re dead wrong here on two counts: the Paultards were peddling libertarianism and isolationism in a party that is pro-big business and pro-war. That is the basic reason why they never got anywhere inside the GOP. More on that here. Secondly, if Sanders’ ideas and proposals don’t resonate with the majority, why is Clinton stealing all/most of them on TPP, income inequality, cracking down on the big banks, Keystone pipeline, debt-free college, etc. etc. all down the line? Seems she knows something you don’t. 🙂

      6. “he has to convince the Koch-bought and owned GOP Congress that they are viable.”

      No, he has to continue the unprecedented mass mobilization that is his campaign into the next 1-2 election cycles.

      If Clinton wins the presidency, it will be like a repeat of the Obama years except the Democrats will not take back the Senate (or make headway in the House because) because she will not enjoy historic voter turnout among Blacks and young people as in 2008, so the next 4-8 years in Washington will look a lot like the Benghazi committee hearing.

      If Sanders wins the presidency, the Democrats will take back the Senate because young and independent/non-voters will turn out to the polls in droves. The House Republicans will then have to make a choice: obstruct an enormously popular president with historic turnouts and risk the wrath of that turnout coming back to bite them in the ass in the midterms or try to find areas of compromise. Either way, they lose. 🙂

      So that’s the choice facing Democratic primary voters. Choose wisely.

      Like

  7. NC will will be turning BLUE i know because i live here, almost everyone i know #feelthebern young GOP people are even registering blue because they want a,voice to put Hillary off the ticket, lol

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s