So says Charles M. Blow in this column in today’s New York Times, whose title I have borrowed for this post.
He begins by observing the attempt of Trump to appeal to Sanders voters, and rhetoric of Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski that the Trump campaign
is ready to bring into the fold anyone in the ‘feel the Bern’ movement who is not inclined to support Clinton in the general election.”
To which Blow responds
This is a fascinating political ploy, but rife with folly.
He acknowledges the common source of the populism of both campaigns:
white working- and middle-class voters’ fear, anger, anxiety and disappointment over what they see as a broken political system, beholden to moneyed interests and oblivious to their pain, suffering and rage.
But he says the data enables us to deconstruct in a way that undermines the assertions of Trump and Lewandowski.
Take the following question from a Pew Research Center of registered voters conducted March 17-17:
Compared to 50 years ago, life for people like you in America is worse
and consider the answer by Demographics, of those answering in the affirmative:
Among all 45%, with 45% of Males and 46% of women.
But consider this:
By Race: White 54%, Black 17%, Hispanic 34%
By Age: 18-29 37%, 30-39 44%, 40-64 53%, 65+ 55%
By ideology: Rep/lean Rep 68%, Conserv Rep 70%, Mod/Lib Rep 58%
Dem/lean Dem 28%, Conserv/Mod Dem 35%, Lib Dem 20%
Before returning to Blow, what struck me about that data is how much some politicians have been able to generate resentment for a broad based problem by blaming it on our as yet incomplete attempts to overcome our long-standing inequity based on race and gender, and how this has been particularly effective on the other side of the political divide. Rather than seeing how we can grow the economy on behalf of all, people are persuaded that what is available for those not at the top is limited so that more for those of color or women somehow means less for White men, when the real problem is the greed of those at the top who are keeping the benefits of growth for themselves while undercutting those things that had been making a difference across demographic divides: unions, public services, pensions, etc.
Blow sees several factors at play. First, the concern is, as noted in the date, largely one of Whites, while minorities are more optimistic, and
It is these more optimistic minorities who have formed the bedrock of Clinton’s support and pushed her within striking distance of securing the nomination.
which in part explains the relative performance of Sanders and Clinton among minority voters in the Democratic primary.
Trump and Sanders voters are more likely on each side of the divide to believe focus on the economic inequity, to be isolationist, and to be angry at the government.
And lastly, there is an implicit, or even explicit, critique of President Obama present in both camps, which seem to see him as a disappointment: either as feckless or fainthearted, either because he went too far or not far enough, either because he was not tough enough with our international adversaries or not tough enough with his congressional opponents.
Here, although Blow does not say so, there is a clear distinction between Trump voters and Sanders voters, with the former thinking the President weak in his international actions — a point repeatedly hammered on by Trump — and Sanders voters who think the President could have been much tougher on the Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress in achieving his domestic agenda (and perhaps on things like shutting down Guantanamo).
Blow sees Obama as actually being fairly successful, and very much true to himself, although not necessarily to the image which many had projected upon him. He is a deliberative, center-left pragmatist and always has been. Blow writes:
Indeed, according to PolitiFact, Obama has kept twice as many promises as he has broken.
He was never a superhero, but some of the hurt feelings come from him allowing people to believe that he was. As Obama wrote in the prologue to “The Audacity of Hope”: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” The thing is, he did not become what some people projected. He remained himself.
It is well worth following the link to Politifact, since it provides a more complete picture of the Obama presidency than usually is assumed in discussions on both sides of the political divides, both that between R and D, and that between supporters of the two Democrats still in the race.
The second link is to a column Blow write some 5 years ago, and is also worth reading now, but that’s up to you.
There is a three paragraph stretch of the column that is well worth pondering. Blow sees Trump supporters as focusing on a country in decline and a government out of control and incompetent, all this compounded by immigrants (again, note the tendency to blame one’s own sense of falling behind on someone “other”), while Sanders supporters are more focused on what they believe is an increasing move towards oligarchy and a falling behind other nations on social structure issues.
Blow then writes
These are not crowds that are likely to lie down together. Indeed, I would imagine that Trump’s brand of xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia, misogyny and fascism would not go down easily with the faction of left progressives that swell the ranks of Sanders’s supporters.
This is demonstrated by recent polling data, which makes clear that among Sanders supporters, the view of Trump was only 13% favorable and 86% unfavorable.
Blow therefore rightly concludes
If these numbers are correct, any substantial Trump-Sanders coalition is a nonstarter.
It is possible that some percentage of Sanders supporters might stay home, but it is unlikely that a significant percentage would support Trump. And I would argue that both groups would be more than offset by the percentage of Republicans who either did not vote for President, or chose to support Clinton over Trump. Trump’s continued anti-female rhetoric, his sexist dismissal of the achievements of Secretary Clinton, and his stated intention of trying to tar her with whatever misdeeds her husband (who had an approval rating of over 60% when he left office despite impeachment) may have done are likely to increase the number of Republican and Republican-leaning independent women willing to support Clinton.
Read the column.
It is worth the time.