trade, the environment, immigration and charter schools. It’s tempting to blame Bernie Sanders’ now-failed candidacy on Clinton’s “establishment” advantage, but that would ignore the history how the Clintons rose into the establishment in th…roughly 2–1, and are closer to her on free trade, the environment, immigration and charter schools. It’s tempting to blame Bernie Sanders’ now-failed candidacy on Clinton’s “establishment” advantage, but that would ignore the history how the Clintons rose into the establishment in the first place …
Given the email scandal over the weekend, and the need for party unity now, I have to ask why you would write this uneven and unfocused article in the first place.
The click-bait title probably infuriated a lot more Sanders supporters. Was this your goal, in the hope of helping Trump win?
Sanders totally dominated the 18–24 vote (82% in Hillary’s home state of New York). Just about everyone in college or about to enter college supported Sanders.
The split in voters was primarily age-based, gender based, and income based.
Clinton’s winning percentage among people with some college education (6.8%) or a college degree (7.8%) was far more competitive than any of the other categories.
Talking about college educated voters includes old boomers, as well as the New Democrats you wrote about. Clinton won 63.3% of voters with high school or less education, so why aren’t you writing that low information voters preferred Clinton?
The survey question about the Keystone Pipeline was a ridiculous example; the State Department expects the project would only result in a few permanent jobs that last past construction, but coming at a high environmental risk. Clearly, the Sanders supporters are showing more concern for the environment.
The argument about union support waning is flawed given the decrease in union members since Reagan crushed the air controllers union in the 80’s. Of course the unions have less power in the party — only 11.1% of workers were union members in 2015, compared to 35% during the mid-1950s. If you are going to assign causality associated with the decrease in union jobs, you might as well write about the tremendous increase in income inequality and the death of the American Dream for people born after 1970.
Finally, you completely ignored Clinton’s overwhelming support by African Americans, who represent 22% of Democratic voters. She won 75% of the African-American vote, which is what pushed her over the top.
The only thing you wrote that has any relevance with regard to uniting the party were the last three paragraphs that give hope to Sanders supporters that Clinton will make good on the party platform to make college more affordable.
I have appreciated some of your other articles, but this one was a miss.