Yes, you read that right. In a fascinating online chat with 538 Staffers. Nate Silver posed the question above and answered it in the affirmative. That sparked a lively discussion that could be a model of free debate and transparency. Evidently 538’s organizational structure embraces a culture of open dissent and disputation. Evidently no one is afraid to disagree with Boss and Silver doesn’t expect his employees to toe the line.
That only makes sense I suppose, since 538’s whole business is supposed to be the accurate analysis of data. You can’t really deliver on that if you rule out competing perspectives.
In the event, what followed Silvers’ assertion was a wide ranging discussion where he was called upon to argue his claim. In the process, not only are the pros and cons of a Sanders run 2020 given a thorough shaking out, we are also given a peek at what some folks who make their living from politics are looking at and finding significant when forming their opinions.
Here ‘s a small sampling:
natesilver: Resistance, schmazistance. Bernie got 13 million votes in 2016. Isn’t he next in line for the Democratic nomination? Like, let’s not be too cute by putting Eric Garcetti in the same boat as BERNIE SANDERS?
harry: Hold on a second there. That’s not what I’m saying at all. You were saying Sanders dictated other people in and out of the race — your definition of a “front-runner.” I’m saying he won’t be dictating most people, including folks like Garcetti or Kamala Harris.
clare.malone: Seconded. I think Sanders is still considered enough of an obstinate outsider by a lot of the party, so certain money people and thought-leader people are likely to back another horse.
harry: The elephant in the room who is polling at less than half of what he got in 2016.
perry: I’m going to concede Nate’s basic point: Sanders starts out with a lot of supporters, donors, popularity, etc. He won 13 million more votes than any of these other people we are talking about.
natesilver: Harry, I see Sanders consistently polling at 20 percent and everyone else in the single digits. Doesn’t that data prove my point?
harry: If you’re going to use Sanders’s prior support, then why is he polling at less than half of what he got in 2016? Doesn’t that suggest that a lot of that support was merely anti-Clinton and not pro-Bernie?
natesilver: Because they’re polling a ballot with 14 candidates, whereas it was a two-horse race in 2016. I dare you to look up Sanders’s favorability ratings with Democrats, Harry!
harry: I would say I think that Sanders does have room to grow. I think he could do very well with Latinos. He fought Clinton closely among them in some states.
perry: Yes, he can grow his support. I still think he will have trouble with upper-income and older liberals and blacks, which is why I think you will see lots of people seeing if they can fill those lanes.
clare.malone: I really don’t think we can discount the behind-the-scenes frustration at the Sanders campaign. I think there are a lot in the Dem establishment who want Bernie ideas in a non-Bernie package.
natesilver: That’s an interesting way to put it, Clare. Is that what Democratic voters want, though?
If that doesn’t whet your appetite it’s hard to say what would. The whole thing is well worth a read.
Silver prefaced the debate by referring to a piece that Matthew Yglesias posted to Vox entitled Bernie Sanders is the Democrat’s Real 2020 Front Runner . It seems this article was what provoked the debate at 538.
natesilver: One of Yglesias’s points is that “Bernie Sanders has a clear message” — everyone knows what he stands for. Do you agree that everyone knows what Sanders stands for? And how much of an advantage is that?
clare.malone: It’s certainly a big one, particularly since the only thing that most Democrats can seem to come up with is just to rant against Trump.
I must confess I didn’t notice the piece when it came out. Just now who the Democratic Candidate will be in 2020 isn’t foremost in my mind. Having read the article I must say that Yglesias presents a compelling case. His article too is worth a read,if only to place the discussion at 538 in context. I do disagree with one of his fundamental assumptions, though.
He’s doing exactly what a candidate who fell short needs to do to run a second time. He’s established a national political organization, he’s improved his ties with colleagues on Capitol Hill, he’s maintained a heavy presence in national media, and he’s traveling the country talking about issues.
Here I think Yglesias betrays a certain narrowness of perspective that is an occupational hazard in US politics. While it may be true that Sanders is doing exactly what a candidate needs to do, it doesn’t follow that it is the only possible reason for his doing so.
The basic problem with Yglesias take is that he, like the vast majority of our so-called pundit class, tends to view politics as essentially, if not solely, a matter of office seeking. It never seems to occur to some folks that Sanders’ goal might be something quite different. That whether campaigning for the Presidency or in defense ACA, he might actually be in pursuit of a much bigger prize: a fundamental transformation of US politics.
What I know is that if I were in Sanders’ shoes I’d be doing exactly the same things, whether or not I intended to run again. Because such a transformation would be my goal. I think it is also Sanders’ goal, as expressed in the call for a “Political Revolution”.
While Sanders is deepening his team in Washington, his national political organization Our Revolution is diligently working to get Sanders supporters elected to state and local offices. Critically, the list of Our Revolution winners — a group that includes House members, state legislators, state party chairs, and even city council members — is quite ethnically diverse. His camp is aware that 2016’s African-American outreach strategy was flawed in both concept and execution, and he’s setting himself up to be able to count on black and Latino elected officials from all regions of the country as surrogates while also courting national leaders like the NAACP’s William Barber.
In sum, I’m not as certain as Yglesias that Sanders is in the running for 2020. So all the horse race stuff seems to be putting the cart before the horse to me.
What does seem certain is that Sanders is positioning himself so that the issues he raised in 2016 and the politics he champions will be a factor in 2020.
The wheel’s still in spin.