In today’s WashingtonPost this article offers some material from the interview being broadcast today of Meet the Press:
WILMINGTON, Del. — White House hopeful Bernie Sanders said Saturday that many of his losses to Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries were because “poor people don’t vote.”
The senator from Vermont, who has made fighting income inequality the rallying cry of his campaign, was asked during a taping of NBC’s “Meet the Press” why Clinton had prevailed in 16 of 17 states so far with the highest levels of income inequalilty.
“Well, because poor people don't vote,” Sanders told host Chuck Todd. “I mean, that's just a fact. That's a sad reality of American society.”
I wanted to provide the full context in which those remarks were offered. Sanders goes on to note that 80% of poor people did not vote in 2014, and that if we could get overall voting rates up to 75% “this country would be radically transformed.”
I am afraid that I cannot help but see the Senator offering yet another excuse for his failure to win that is not true.
Let’s back up. Before Sanders has argued that he got into a deep hole because Secretary Clinton clobbered him in “the Deep South” which he described as the most conservative part of the nation. It is true that he lost the Deep South badly, which consists of LA, AL, GA, SC, and MS. Oh by the way, in each of those states a majority of the Democratic vote was African-American, and oh by the way as a population, while there are thank God an increasing percentage of African-Americans who are now middle class or above, there are still large numbers of poor African-Americans, especially in the South. I will come back to that in a moment.
Sanders had argued that he did better in the North. Maybe. But let’s consider the following.
Among the states that Sanders won with margins varying from relatively narrow) OK) to fairly wide (UT) are also states like KS, WY, ID and NE. All of these are states that tend to be very conservative, heavily Republican, and are unlikely for a Democratic candidate to carry in November.
Meanwhile among the states that Sanders lost heavily that are Southern but not “Deep South” are Florida, NC, and Virginia. Obama carried NC in 2008, and carried FL and VA both times. Those are two of the most important swing states presidentially, the other being northern OH, where Sanders was defeated by 14 points.
Sticking with those three Southern swing states, the difference in the primary in each was that Sanders substantially lost the African-American vote, which in general is less well off than the White vote. None is truly a very conservative state, despite some of what we have seen in state legislatures. Of greater importance, in my state of residence of Virginia, not only was the African-American vote responsible for Obama’s two victories, but in 2013 we saw all three statewide races go to Democrats, with the heavy proportion of the African-American vote more than providing the margin.
Returning to the immediate issue, that of poor people, the data simply does not support the contention of Senator Sanders. Allow me to again quote from the relevant New York Times article:
Sanders has lost Democratic voters with household incomes below $50,000 by 55 percent to 44 percent to Clinton across primaries where network exit polls have been conducted. (He has lost by a wider 21 percentage-point margin among voters with incomes above $100,000, and by 9 points among middle income voters.)
According to the polling data, Sanders actually does best among those with middle class incomes, who perhaps are feeling squeezed.
Let’s take a look at the first early “Deep South” and “very conservative” state that Sanders lost, South Carolina. Remember that all the major media organizations depend upon the same company to do the exit polling. For this I am using the CBS News website.
Clinton won men 68-32 over Sanders, and women 79-21. The sample was 61-39 female.
19% were 65 or older, and Clinton won them 88-11.
65% of the voters were Black. Clinton won them 86-14, while winning Whites 54-46.
37% percent of the voters were Black women, and Clinton won them 89-11.
23% had an education of High school or less, and Clinton won those 86-14. Education usually correlates very well with income, especially among those in the age range 30-65.
Among non-Whites, CLinton won college graduates by a slightly wider margin than she did non-College graduates, 89 to 83.
But since Sanders was implying — or maybe even asserting — that if poor people voted more heavily he would have won, lets consider all the details on income.
Under $30,000 (33%) 81%-19%
$30,000 - $49,999 (28%) 71%-29%
$50,000 - $99,999 (24%) 66%-33%
$100,000 - $199,999 (13%) 70%-30%
In other words, in the key early state of SC, Sanders lost badly among poor voters.
Who were those poor voters? I have not seen the full crosstabs, but I am quite sure in that groups what will be overrepresented is African-American women over 65.
Similar patterns could be found in other Deep South and border states:
MS: Under $30,000 (39%) 85%-14%
AL: Under $30,000 (31%) 84%-12%-3%
NC: Under $30,000 (19%) 54%-43%-3%
VA: Under $30,000 (12%) 57%-43% (for 30K-49999 Clinton wins 62-38)
We can go further North. How about these states:
OH: Under $30,000 (21%) 59% -38%
NY: Under $30,000 (19%) 60% -40%
Yes, there are a few states that Sanders lost where he (narrowly) won poor votes, for example MA.
But then let’s look at his most important primary wins outside of New England, which was his narrow win in MI. I will give TWO breakouts, because it is instructive:
Under $30,000 (23%) 51% -48%
$30,000 - $49,999 (22%) 44% -54% -2%
Even in this notable win, Sanders lost the truly poor, albeit narrowly, but did win those making less than average but not desperately poor.
In short, the argument Sanders presented on Meet the Press as an excuse for his losing is no more accurate than the one he made about the “Deep South” and “very conservative” states.
Sanders is losing because he is failing to persuade the voters.
It is not because of tilting by the DNC.
It is not because of voter fraud.
It is not because of obstacles to voting.
Remember these facts.
1. The only states with exit polls where Sanders has won among self-identified Democrats were his home state of VT and the neighboring state of NH, that by only 4%.
2. Sanders is losing among women, who make up a large majority of those who vote in Democratic primaries.
3. Sanders is losing badly among African-Americans, the most heavily Democratic “race” division among the electorate.
4. Sanders is losing usually pretty badly among voters over 65, who tend to vote at a much higher percentage of their age cohort, certainly than do young people.
5. Regardless of how “poor” the turnout is among the truly poor, Sanders is losing among them.
In fact, if you take a poor, African-American woman over 65, Sanders gets slaughtered.
There are no excuses.
There is an explanation.
Despite often outspending Clinton 2-1, despite the size of his crowds, Sanders has failed to make his case to those who are voting in Democratic primaries.
Perhaps rather than blaming outside forces or other things, Sanders and his campaign should perhaps look in the mirror and be honest with themselves.