Here’s an excerpt from a New Yorker article following the Iowa caucuses (“Bernie Sanders Just Changed the Democratic Party” by John Cassidy).
Speaking on CNN as it got late, David Axelrod, President Obama’s former campaign manager, made an acute point. One of Hillary’s problems is that her campaign is largely about her—her experience, her electability, and her toughness. “I will keep doing what I have done my entire life,” she said in her non-victory speech. “I will keep standing up for you. I will keep fighting for you.” Sanders, on the other hand, rarely mentions himself in his speeches. His campaign is all about his message of taking America back from the billionaires. And, as Axelrod pointed out, it is often easier to inspire people, particularly young people, with an uplifting theme than with a résumé.
And the article highlights the significant age gap between the two candidates.
Sanders captures the under-40 voters by a large margin, while Clinton did far better than Sanders among voters over 40.
A Washington Post analysis points out that this exceeds the youth support claimed by President Obama in 2008 (“Bernie Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton by 70 points among young voters in Iowa“)
The most amazing stat coming out of the Iowa Democratic caucuses is this one: Among voters between the ages of 17 and 29, Bernie Sanders won 84 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 14 percent.
That’s astounding, even given the fact that we knew going into the caucuses that Sanders, a 74-year-old socialist, was clearly the choice of young people in the state. How astounding? Barack Obama won the 17-29 vote by “only” 43 points in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses. (Clinton finished third among young voters in Iowa in 2008; she got 11 percent of the vote.) Yes, Obama faced more — and more serious —opponents. But still.
If Iowa proved that Sanders is the candidate of Democratic youths, it also showed why young people aren’t likely to carry him to the nomination. Why? There just aren’t enough of them.
For the Democratic Party, this is a troubling and dangerous bifurcation between younger and older voters. Once a candidate is selected, the divide somehow has to be bridged if the party isn’t going to flounder in the general election.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As a life-long Democrat, I think in the end Hillary will win. We need her to stand against whatever deplorable Republican comes out of their mess to run for Prez. After watching most of her experience testifying in that 11-hour Benghazi Congressional committee inquisition, I think she has the smarts and the courage to do it.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/omalley-supporters-almost-won-iowa-for-sanders/
“The problem for Sanders is that he didn’t win and so didn’t receive what probably would have been a very favorable wave of media coverage. Sanders needed that press because Iowa’s Democratic caucus electorate, being very white and very liberal, is among the most Sanders-friendly electorate in the country (although New Hampshire is even friendlier): A tie in Iowa implies that he would lose in most other states.
“On the other hand, the Iowa caucuses are just the beginning of the process. Sanders will have opportunities to expand his base as the primary season goes forward.”
Ian, are you implying that if a voter supports Sanders in primary season but Clinton wins the nomination, that voter will likely stay home on election day?
That seems a stretch to me, considering – at least from my own perspective – the amazing level of awful-ness of every one of the Republican contenders.
@Johnson:
Younger voters who are excited and inspired by a candidate are are more enamoured with that particular personality, rather than the party. If their enthusiasm is dampened because their candidate is eliminated, younger voters tend not to bother voting, rather than be pragmatic and supporting the party. Remember, Sanders did not run for the Senate as a Democrat. He’s been independent up to this campaign. Those Sanders supporters who you imagine as loyally lining up to vote for Hillary in a general election just because she has a D next to her name may not materialize.
My take on the Iowa Caucus: The bad news for Hillary is her narrow win. The good news for Hillary is that she didn’t lose. Understand that one? My significant other does.
Hillary is awful, too.
What will the dems do if hillary is indicted? Not all dems will vote for a hard left socialist. Moderate dems will be looking for a moderate conservative. .
Steve, if Clinton is indicted, then the party convention this Summer will draft Joe Biden by acclamation. He would be the obvious 3rd term for Obama because he has so closely shadowed Obama for 8 years — he’s far more convincing than Clinton as Obama’s 3rd term. Biden is far more likable than Clinton, and Biden gets the sympathy vote because of the death of his son. Biden might also get some of the voters who support Trump, because Biden makes absurd, crazy statements sort of like Trump does; and nobody remembers or holds it against him.
IRT Judith: It amazes me that you overlooked the fact that Hilary told her daughter that the attack is terrorist, and then lie to the American people that it was caused by a video. She insults my intelligence.
Reading too much into the results from a small overwhelmingly white (91%) Midwestern state is a mistake.
I’m cautious about jumping to conclusions based on the Iowa results. Yet…I agree that often Clinton comes across as pragmatic instead of inspiring. Which is weird because she’s a trailblazer on so many fronts.
She’s spent 20 years in the public eye and maybe, just maybe we’re just kinda tired of her. (dammit, that sounds like a conclusion!)