I was inspired to write this diary after reading an article about Bernie Sanders' campaign's plans to defeat Hillary Clinton. The article is quite enlightening as Bernie's campaign brain trust list their plans for the way forward. Reading it though, I was struck by how much Bernie's team apparently believes the 2016 campaign will be like the 2008 democratic primary. I disagree and I'll explain below the fold.
Here's my understanding of the Sanders' campaign plan from reading that article.
- Win Iowa by expanding the electorate with younger voters.
- Win New Hampshire.
- Win South Carolina by getting at least 30% of the black vote.
- Outraise Hillary on the backs of those wins, causing her campaign to financially drain its coffers.
- Ride that momentum to establish a solid delegate lead through the Super Tuesday, and mini Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses in March.
- Hold off Hillary, like Barack did in 2008, in the pledged delegate race in the remaining contests.
Putting aside my disagreement about their thoughts about how effective attacking Hillary would be (at this point, what could they possibly say about Hillary that hasn't been said already?), let's look where I disagree and I'll conclude with the most important reason why 2015 is different from 2008.
Iowa polls aren't as similar to 2007 as they seem
As that article's author, John Heileman, correctly notes
According to the most recent Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, Sanders is 7 points behind Clinton—almost precisely the same position that Obama occupied eight years ago.
This is absolutely right. The latest Selzer poll has Clinton leading Sanders by 7 points, while the Selzer poll from October 2007 had Clinton leading by 6 points. However, this superficial similarity misses a significant difference. In October 2007, the race was essentially a three way race, and Hillary only had 29% of the vote. In October 2015, in essentially a two way race, Hillary has 48% of the vote.
It is a lot easier to get to a win when you're at 48% of the vote in a two way race than when you're at 29% in a three way race.
Bernie's Campaign Still Hasn't Figured Out How to Reach Black Voters
Bernie's chief strategist, Tad Devine (a seasoned democratic operative of the Dukakis, Gore and Kerry campaigns) states
You know, Bernie because of his life story has the potential to appeal to African-Americans. I know he hasn't been there, he hasn't really done it, but the truth is we come in with 10,000 points on TV about his life and his story and his programs. You know, living wage, health insurance for all, free college from kids, testimonials from African-Americans, interesting African-American leaders who have been for him. We start to reassure people about his connection to them. And we don't have to win 50 percent of the African-American vote in South Carolina to win. Probably only need to win 30 percent.
Where to start with this? This statement is telling "I know he hasn't been there, he hasn't really done it". This is absolutely how you reach black voters,
you be there. Your campaign reaches out to them in barber shops, you go to church with them, you speak out on issues that affect them in such a way that shows you understand what it means to be a minority in America. And I give Bernie credit, he has come a long way in talking about racial justice (his racial justice platform is impressive), but Devine is simply wrong here - you don't reach black voters by flooding the airwaves. You need good old fashioned flesh pressing retail politics.
I did the math on Devine's statement that Bernie only needs to win 30% of the black vote in South Carolina to win. And the math doesn't add up. In 2008 the black vote was 55% of the electorate. If the black vote is 55% again, and Bernie gets 30% of it, he'd need about 75% of the white vote. Now, 2008 had historically high black turn out because then Senator Obama was on the ballot. But what about 2004? The 2004 primary had 47% of the electorate being black. If Bernie got 30% of the black vote under that scenario, he'd need almost 70% of the white vote. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I have difficulty seeing a democratic socialist from Vermont getting almost 70% of the white southern vote vote against Hillary, who was First Lady of a southern state for over a decade.
Bernie's Campaign is Counting on Hillary's Campaign Being Driven Bankrupt
Devine offers
If we have early success in Iowa and New Hampshire, a few days after we could bring in $40 or $50 million cash, new money, out of this thing that we built. And then they're all tapped out. They're trying to squeeze for dough. Because the thing will have been close in Iowa and New Hampshire. They've already placed a purchase of $14 million in television buys in just Iowa and New Hampshire, and I think they'll be at $20 or $25 million by then because they'll feel so much pressure to win, they'll just be dumping millions into this thing. We'll come out of that with a huge flush of cash like Obama did and then we will start to move systematically in the states that follow with massive media buys. And unless the Clintons are willing to give up $20 or $30 million of their own money, they're just not going to be able to compete with us in cash. The dynamic of that campaign is something I don't think they fully appreciate.
That last line startles me. "The dynamic of that campaign is something I don't think they fully appreciate." Devine is expecting the exact same dynamic as 2008, but thinking that Hillary won't appreciate it? After having experienced it in 2008? And even then, Hillary was able to vigorously campaign all the way to the end, loaning her campaign
at least $13m when necessary. Why does Devine expect Hillary to be unprepared financially a second time and also be unwilling to spend her own money when she did in 2008?
Hillary's campaign has made a concerted effort to be frugal this time, in order not to be strapped for resources later in the campaign. While Bernie's small donor based campaign is a significant advantage, to expect Hillary to be unable to compete financially is fool hardy. Especially since her campaign has been laying the ground work for Super Tuesday states for months now.
Hillary is Likely to Have a Delegate Lead This Time
As I detailed in an earlier diary, the contests through March offer an advantage to Hillary Clinton in their demographic makeup. Unlike 2008, Hillary, and not her challenger is the one likely to get to an early pledged delegate lead.
Change
Which leads me to the main reason why 2016 is different from 2008 for democrats. The 2008 campaign was about change. Barack Obama's campaign made it their slogan, because they wisely recognized that the democratic electorate was hungry for change after 8 years of Bush-Cheney. At the
Nov 2007 Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner, Hillary Clinton tamely tried to get ahead of the electorate's desire for change by stating
But, you know what? Change, change is just a word if you do not have the strength and experience to make it happen.
Those words then, as they do now, ring hollow, because Clinton could not represent change more than the young Senator with a funny sounding name who spoke out against the Iraq War, when Clinton voted to authorize it.
In 2015, the Iraq war is no longer the pressing issue it once was for the democratic electorate. And instead of having a President that is almost universally disliked among democrats, well over 80% of democrats approve of the current president. In fact, if President Obama were able to run for a third term , he probably would be able to win the democratic nomination and the general election. Which is why Hillary has made it a point to emphasize that Obama chose her to be in his cabinet and to praise Obama whenever she can. Incidentally, Bernie makes it a point to praise Obama whenever he can too, because he recognizes the fact that President Obama is popular among democrats. However, just like how Hillary's words about change couldn't match her opponent's in 2007, Bernie's praise of Obama in 2016 doesn't ring as effectively as Hillary's and his campaign knows it.
In 2008, the underlying desire of the democratic electorate for change was too much for Hillary Clinton to overcome. In 2016, that electorate's underlying approval of their party's leader may sweep his former Secretary of State to the nomination.
Disclaimer: I prefer Hillary Clinton to be the 2016 nominee, but will happily support and volunteer for Bernie Sanders should he win the nomination