Matt Karp, an historian at Princeton, is rapidly becoming one of my go to sources on the dynamics of the current Democratic primary. Unlike Nate Silver, he’s been right. For example work over at Jacobin has been way ahead of the curve. Karp was right about Bernie having an appeal beyond liberals and the wealthy before the mainstream media caught wind. I want to direct you to his latest piece entitled, “Why Bernie Can Win” because it is well written, data driven, and has no BS.
In this piece he takes on the argument so eagerly pushed by the pundit class that Bernie is unelectable and Hillary Rodham Clinton is. He shows there is no factual evidence to support this assertion, and if anything the inverse is true. Karp takes care to dismantle the various pieces of “conventional wisdom” that is being floated to support the aura of Clinton inevitability. Being an historian, he does an excellent job dismantling the McGovern and Dukakis analogies, floated to undermine the popularity of Sanders’ proposals.
Here is just a taste
Generally, however, the “electability” argument skips past Clinton and concentrates on Sanders. And here the case against Sanders divides into three general paths — one, guided by historical analogy; another, driven by pundit fears and fantasies; and a third, oriented around voter ideology and demographics. None are persuasive.
Here is what may be my favorite passage: (Although his deliciously written comparison of the dynamics between Dukakis, Hart, and Jesse Jackson is a close second.) You’ll know it when you see it.
Leftists sometimes compare this election-year pitch to a species of blackmail. Vote for us, Democrats tell voters, not because we’ll do anything positive for you, but because if you don’t, the other guys will break your legs and take away your abortion rights.
This may not be an inspiring argument. But like most forms of blackmail, it has undeniable force. And so far, many Democrats seem to agree that Clinton, not Sanders, is the best bet to win in November: in both Iowa and New Hampshire, she claimed over 75 percent of the voters who put a premium on “electability.”
The last section I’m going to quote deals with the “inability” of Sanders to broaden his coalition to include African-Americans, or perhaps the loyalty of the African-America community to the Clinton campaign to this date.
Clinton’s strongest support in the primary campaign seems to come from the most loyal Democrats, including African-Americans. But in a bitter campaign against an ethnic nationalist like Trump or a right-wing Republican like Rubio, would loyal party voters refuse to turn out for the Democrats, just because Sanders rather than Clinton was the nominee? It doesn’t seem likely.
None of this is to suggest that Sanders should take loyal non-white Democratic votes for granted. That is exactly what Clinton-style New Democrats did when they pivoted to the center in the 1980s. In a general election campaign, Sanders would have to do the opposite, and build a populist coalition that depended on solidarity between black, Latino, Asian, and white working-class voters.
It is an excellent piece from an excellent magazine. It is worth your while to take your time to read it , and ponder his analysis.