Bernie Sanders Would Be a Fine President, If Only America Had Better Voters in November
If you gave me a magic wand with the oddly specific power to make Senator Bernie Sanders — and only Sanders — president tomorrow, I would use it without hesitating. Senator Sanders is one of the very few candidates left that would not just replace Trump, but seriously work toward solving the problems that led to Trump’s victory in 2016.
Unfortunately, presidents are not poofed into office by magic, they are selected by voters in elections. I’d trust Bernie to run the country, but I don’t trust the country to give him the chance.
I see two main weaknesses in the electorate that would prevent a Sanders win in the general election.
- Sanders Depends on Undependable Young Voters.
- Older Voters are Still Wrongly Triggered by the Word “Socialism.”
In a close election against an incumbent president those flaws would be enough to tip the victory to Trump. I hope the voters prove me wrong, but the data show both are still major problems.
Despite Gains in 2018, the Youth Vote is Still Too Weak
Unfortunately, the Sanders campaign is still relying heavily on his young voter base.
Young voters are getting more reliable, but they are not there yet. According to the Census Bureau report on the 2018 midterm:
Among 18- to 29-year-olds, voter turnout went from 20 percent in 2014 to 36 percent in 2018, the largest percentage point increase for any age group — a 79 percent jump.
This turnout jump is heralded, but the numbers show that the youth vote is still lagging behind the turnout of older voters, who also saw a jump in 2018.
The Sanders base in green is still eclipsed by the older vote in yellow. The movement was only effective enough to inspire just over a third of young people to show up to vote in 2018 to fight back against Trump.
Can a similar turnout bump in 2020 be enough to overcome the age gap? The 2018 election had an increase from 20% to 36%, so let’s run the numbers as both a 16-point increase and an 80% rate increase. I put together the estimate below using 2018 population figures and applied the given increases to turnout percentages reported in 2016.
The full table is here, and includes the breakdown for more swing states, including the “blue wall.” The “XXX” in the full table refers to when the calculation gives a turnout figure above the number of eligible voters. You’ll notice even where there’s that ridiculous result, the estimated youth vote still doesn’t surpass the older voters’ 2016 count.
Even if there is a surge in youth turnout in 2020 (versus 2016) similar to the one in 2018 (versus 2014), the numbers would not match the older voters total in 2016. That assumes there’s no increase in the older voters’ turnout — which did happen in 2018.
It’s a safe bet that young voter turnout is not going to equal older voters’ turnout (I’m daring you all to prove me wrong, if that helps) in 2020. This is going to be a big problem for the Sanders campaign that relies too heavily on the youth vote.
Unfortunately, I don’t see the Sanders campaign compensating for this by making a big turnaround with older Americans, because I don’t trust older voters not to be scared of the word “socialism.”
Too Many Older Voters Are Triggered by the Word “Socialism.”
The Trump Party is going to hammer away at this so much no matter who the Democratic nominee is, but the tactic is going to be significantly more sticky against Senator Sanders because he labels himself a “democratic socialist.” Recent polls indicate this is still going to be a big problem.
In a close election, having 51% of Independents and 26% of Democrats this uncomfortable with the word “socialism” is too risky. (The Trump Party also might try to hit Sanders with the atheist thing, too, but that’s less likely to stick than “socialist.”) We know now that we can’t count on youth turnout to make up the difference against their frightened elders.
Stepping back a second, I’ve been using the phrase “the word ‘socialism,’” because I believe the problem is not the policies but the labels. (Also, I believe the “Capitalism v. Socialism” debate is bunkum, but I’ll save that for another post.) People who like the word “socialism” can’t even agree what it means. Although, it likely does mean defeat in a very close American election.
What we have here is a branding issue. Like it or not, “capitalism” is the brand name of the traditional American economic system, and “socialism” is cast as its opposite, setting up a stupid false choice that too many on both sides are pushing. Older voters who remember the Cold War have been misleadingly taught that “socialism” is the good life tyrants promise you before they take away your freedom. To them, it might as well be Sharia Law, oppressive and un-American.
The struggle is against fear that giving into “socialism” is giving away American-ness and making changes as radical as adopting the barter system. You could point to other countries’ successful systems, but again it’s reason against fear. We’re dealing with imperfect human voters, not perfectly rational computers.
Another aggravating factor is Trump will be more formidable as an incumbent in 2020 than he was as a recordless newcomer in 2016. It’s easier now for Trump to tap into the ingrained fear of “socialism” among economically secure older voters: “You may not like me, but look at how your lives are going right now? My first term wasn’t so bad, huh? You are doing fine. You don’t need a socialist revolution; it won’t turn out good for you. Believe me!”
Fearmongering against you is much easier when you call yourself the Boogeyman. It’s absurd to believe Senator Sanders is going to wake up and denounce the word “socialism” or simply quit using it. He’s doing the best he can to explain his definition of “democratic socialism,” but he’s not going to get an honest hearing from older voters.
“But wait,” an astute, smart-ass reader asks, “aren’t you essentially fearmongering about fearmongering?” Not really, because the probability of Fear A (Sanders successfully implements “socialist” dystopian nightmare scenario) is extremely low. However, the probability of Fear B (Trump successfully using Fear A to persuade just enough voters to vote for him or stay home in a few key states) is much more likely.
Voters are busy, imperfect humans that go with their guts. Older guts have long feared anything called “socialism,” while younger folks don’t have the guts to show up to vote as often — which is too bad for Senator Sanders (and the country) because he would make a fine president.
