Corey Robin, a professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York published a piece earlier today at his blog entitled, “Super Tuesday: March Theses.” It is certainly worth a read. The essay has also appeared over at Salon and Jacobin. In this piece, Professor Robin examines five theses being advanced by pundits and partisans as they attempt to spin the results of the contests so far. The subjects he examines have been discussed both at this site and within various media outlets.
Corey Robin begins:
Super Tuesday: March Theses
I. Sanders won four states: Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont, and Colorado. Clinton won seven states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia. That means, altogether, that Sanders has five states (those four plus New Hampshire) and Clinton has ten states (those seven plus Nevada, Iowa, and South Carolina). But here’s the critical thing: the elections in Nevada, Iowa, and Massachusetts were either close or extraordinarily close. A little bit more time here, a little bit more organizing there, and they could easily have tipped his way. In other words, Sanders could very easily have eight states now to Clinton’s seven [Thanks, Mom, for catching my error!]. He doesn’t, and coulda shoulda woulda is just that. But what this does mean, going forward, is that we have the opportunity to turn potential into actual. We’ve got time, we’ve got organizing, we’ve got money: let’s make use of it all. Clinton’s strongest weapon is the aura of inevitability that she and her supporters and the media have concocted around her. Part of that is based on reality, part of it is based on super delegates (which I refuse to concede), and part of it is based on spin. Don’t accommodate the super delegates, don’t accommodate the spin.
II. The exit polls in Massachusetts, which Clinton won narrowly, are fascinating. Here are some highlights:
- Sanders got 41% of non-white voters (they don’t break down the category further). I want to come back to this.
- Sanders beat Clinton among voters making under $50k, and voters making between $50k and $100k. The only income group she won was voters making over $100k.
- Among first-time voters, Sanders got a whopping 71% of the vote.
- Among independents, Sanders got 65% of the votes.
- Sanders won among very liberal voters and moderate voters.
- Clinton did better among married women than she did among unmarried women.
Also, related to the gender question, in Oklahoma, Sanders nearly tied Clinton among women voters (48% for Clinton, 46% for Sanders).
(Emphasis mine.)
(Funny how no one wrings their hands over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s inability to win lower income groups.)
In the rest of the essay, he carefully examines the myth that Bernie Sanders is only strong among white males. He also wonders if Clinton’s strength among African-Americans might be more complicated that the current narrative being advanced. Perhaps, her support among African-American voters might evaporate north of the Mason-Dixon Line just like her support disappears among younger women. Read it for yourselves, his analysis is nuanced.
His piece is well done, and it contains some delicious lines especially in his fifth and final thesis.
By the way for those interested, check out a recent piece over at Jacobin by Doug Henwood entitled, “The New Republicans.”