The national
polls show a tightening race between Clinton and Sanders, with some surveys
demonstrating the latter with slight leads in Iowa and a large one in New
Hampshire. The Washington Post reports a recent collapse in Clinton’s support more
dramatic than in 2008. For some "plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose”; Clinton is repeating all of her mistakes in 2008 again in 2016 and
Sanders will do to her now what Obama did in 2008. Yet Clinton supporters rejoin and say that
this time it is different, offering a series of arguments to show that Clinton
is going to win no matter what and that the Sanders supporters should accept
that reality.
Political
Elitism
There is a powerful dose of elitism and
arrogance in this argument. It is an
argument made not just by Clinton supporters but also by the mainstream media
and party establishment (for the Republicans too) who have vested interests in
declaring winners and losers and in say that Trump, Cruz, and Sanders cannot
win. Claims about who can win are really
empirical not rhetorical assertions. By
that, simply declaring Clinton will win
does not make it so. Unless one assumes
elections are rigged in the US, the purpose of campaigns and elections is to decide
whether someone is electable. Yet
looking at the social media these days it is flooded with rhetorical claims
about Clinton and Sanders. Let’s take a
look at the case for Clinton.
The first rule of politics is that
about the power of s compelling narrative.
It is a story that starts with a candidate telling why he or she is
running for office and it includes their world view, what they hope to
accomplish if elected. The best
narratives are positive, optimistic, and future-orientated. Think of Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America”
commercial and Clinton’s use of the song “Don’t Stop Thinking about Tomorrow”
as two classic examples.
Clinton’s narrative is largely
negative. Yes she has articulated many
positions and policy stances, but so much of Clinton’s (or her supporters’ and
the mainstream media and political pundits) narrative for her candidacy is less
about why she should be elected than to showing why Sanders cannot win. There are several variations to argument.
Clinton
Inevitability and Sanders Can't Win
The first argument is the inevitability
claim that first surfaced in 2008. Maybe
she Clinton will lose Iowa, or maybe Iowa and New Hampshire, but it is
inevitable she will win. She has more
super delegates, or more people of color support her, or once we hit Super
Tuesday things will be different. Or
Iowa and New Hampshire are perfect states for Sanders and after that the cards
turn to favor Clinton. Maybe. There is no such thing as inevitable in
politics. Arguments on inevitability
have repeatedly shown that as political campaigns evolve so do the underlying
conditions that affect strategy and political support. Inevitable assumes people do not gather more
information, change their minds, or that campaigns make mistakes. Inevitable assumes the status quo is permanent.
Six months ago everyone thought Jeb Bush was inevitable. Six months ago no one
thought Sanders could win Iowa or New Hampshire (although back in May I said it
was entirely possible he could).
Inevitability claims are often made by front runners to ward off
challengers. Variations of the
inevitability argument are that Clinton has a fire wall with Super
Tuesday. Again, this assumes that early
victories do not change media attention, affect future attitudes, or fund
raising for example.
Still another more potent argument
used is that Sanders is unelectable, especially because he is a self-described
democratic socialist. First, this is an
empirical question that assumes that the past predicts the future. By that, because no socialist has ever been elected
president (and because of American hostility to socialism) Sanders cannot
win. This argument assumes that politics
has not changed; it ignores that perhaps political attitudes have changed with
a new electorate of Millennial voters
and disgruntled Democrats frustrated with a political-economic system that they
perceive as unfair. Saying Sanders
cannot win is an elitist argument that declares that there is no point having
elections and it rules out the possibility that he can win even before an election
is held, or at least without offering any empirical evidence from this year to
support that claim. If anything, recent polls suggest that Sanders is more
electable vis-a-vis other Republicans than Clinton.
Others will argue that if nominated
Sanders will be red-baited or that he will be destroyed because so far he has
not be well scrutinized, as has Clinton.
Some argue that the media has so well scrutinized Clinton that she
cannot be damaged anymore but that Sanders is untested and who knows what will
happen. First, all this assumes that the
attacks on Clinton will not persist or get worse. Second, being an unknown has an advantage–one
gets to mold or define one’s image.
Clinton is so well known that it is almost impossible for her to
redefine herself. Even independents know
who she is and largely have made up their mind about her. Sanders is a blank slate and has a the
potential to define himself to voters who do not know who he is.
Still another variation of the
Clinton inevitability or Sanders can win argument is that the former has a lock
on voters who are people of color.
Sanders can only win among whites.
Maybe. Yes for the last 30 or so
years identity politics has trumped class, but nothing says that this will
continue to be the case this year. Remember when Republicans could not win
working class whites and Reagan changed that? Nothing again says that people cannot change
their mind, that Sanders cannot reach out.
Again, declaring Sanders cannot win the votes of people of color is an
empirical question that only a campaign can answer.
Sanders'
Agenda is Unrealistic
Beyond the inevitability argument a
second basic thesis is that even if Sanders is elected his policy positions are
dead on arrival or that Sanders does not understand how American politics
works. Clinton’s rationale is that she
understands politics and has realistic proposals. Realistically, does anyone think that any
Democrat elected as president is going to move America beyond the current
gridlock? Obama did his best to appease
Republicans, even adopting the Affordable Care Act (which was essentially a GOP
idea), and where did that get him?
Obama was so appeasing that the point of compromise between him and the
Republicans took almost all progressive ideas off the table. Sanders would at least put progressive ideas
on the negotiating table, perhaps defining a new point a compromise, or at
least putting America in no worse of a position of gridlock that it currently
is in now or would be with a Clinton presidency.
Moreover, does anyone seriously
think that Clinton will have an easier time working with Republicans than
Sanders would? It is well known how
hated she is by the Republicans and while that animus is not an argument
against electing her, it should give one pause to think about how easy it will
be for her to get anything done.
Clinton’s claim to understanding
politics also could be questioned. She failed miserably in passing health care
reform in the 1990s and her Senate legislative record (bills that she actually
introduced herself and not simply signed on to) is thin. Conversely, Sanders in talking about the
power of corporate America and Wall Street may well have a better grasp on how
American politics works than many people give credit. Finally, Clinton was a Senator and Secretary
of State–wonderful accomplishments–but Sanders has been a mayor, member of the
House of Representatives, and the US Senate–also very important experiences.
The Polls are
Right and Wrong
Finally, the last argument is about
polls. Initially the argument was that
the polls showed Clinton with huge leads and therefore she was inevitable or
Sanders could not win. But now with
tight polls the argument is that they are not reliable for many reasons, part
of which may be that it is difficult to predict who will attend caucuses or
primaries, or because right now voters are not paying that much attention. All true, but as the Iowa and NH get closer
that argument is harder to make.
Moreover, polls today are snapshots of the present not predictors of the
future. Maybe Clinton is leading in
South Carolina today but in five weeks things could change. One cannot both
invoke the polls to show why one will win in a few weeks and discount them at
the present. Polls are suggestive, not
conclusive, and they should be understood as that.
Conclusion
So much political argument and
analysis is simply awful. The point here is not to say that either
Clinton or Sanders can or cannot win. Instead, the argument is that much of
what passes for political argument or analysis in 2016 is weak, logically
inconsistent, or empirically
deficient. The arguments make
assumptions about the world that may or may not be the case. They generalize improperly from past or
present to the future, often making claims that may not be true. Are either Clinton or Sanders electable? The simple answer is we shall see, and that
is the purpose of elections, to determine that.
One of my main concerns is - which of these two are more likely to bring in a Democratic Congress with their election victory. I think Clinton and wish she would emphasize that and work with good potential candidates.
ReplyDelete