Much is at stake in November. If enough people do not show up to vote for the Democratic nominee, a Republican will be elected as president, and the GOP may very well control all three branches of government. In addition, the next president will likely have a rare opportunity to swing the court dramatically to the left or to the right for the next several decades. Republicans are offering a slate of presidential candidates that is especially horrific; much of the world visibly cringes at the thought of the current front-runner, Donald Trump, being sworn into office. To avoid many nightmares, the Democratic nominee simply must win the presidential election. The alternative is unthinkable.

Here’s the thing: I do not believe Hillary Clinton will win in the general election; those who are doing their best to see her become the Democratic nominee may very well win that battle but lose the war. Clinton voters and Sanders voters want VERY different things. Their largest area of disagreement is about Clinton’s character: 70% of Sanders voters (about 4.5 million people , or one third of everyone who has already voted so far in the Democratic primaries) answers NO to the following question, according to exit poll results:

“Is Clinton Honest and Trustworthy?”

And because they do not trust Clinton, and most politicians in general, many Sanders supporters are resolved to no longer play what they have come to see as a highly rigged game. Those who are more enlightened will still vote on down-ticket races, but others will simply stay home. Therefore, my recommendation is that those who truly care about SCOTUS do everything they can to ensure that Bernie Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee. Democrats have a choice in this election: we can either harness and leverage the excited energy and passion that Sanders has been unleashing around the country, or we can choose to swim upstream against it. Heaven help us if we collectively choose door number two.

What Evidence do I Have for this Absurd Claim? Have I Simply Quantified What Many of Us Have Been Thinking? Summary of Key Findings Conclusions / Reflections Project Details / Description

1) What Evidence do I Have for this Absurd Claim?

About a month ago I read a diary: “[Daily Kos] Folks, we've got a turnout problem.“ A noticeable pattern was emerging after the first three primaries/caucuses: turnout at Democratic ones has generally been down from levels in 2008, while turnout for Republican ones has generally been up [note: for the remainder of this document, the word primary will be used to reference both primaries and caucuses]. I began an investigation to better understand how these trends might impact results in November because they concerned me; I also sought to investigate what was then merely an instinct: that when all the counting was done, Hillary will lose. Seth Abraham describes the situation well in his piece, The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing a 10-Point Plan to Lose the 2016 Presidential Election.

2. Nominate the only person who can reunite the Republican Party once Trump failing to get the nomination has fractured it beyond repair. Nothing unites Republicans quite like hatred of the Clintons. If Trump’s supporters are denied seeing their favored candidate win the nomination despite his lead in delegates earned through primaries and caucuses — and make no mistake, they will be so denied — their impulse to bolt the Republican Party completely will (and can) only be stopped by a Clinton candidacy. [...] 3. Fracture the Democratic Party by broadly supporting the Clinton camp’s attempts to smear Bernie Sanders and his supporters. [...] 5. Fail to nominate their most popular candidate, in particular the one with the best chance of beating Ted Cruz or John Kasich in the fall. [...] 8. Do nothing whatsoever to address outstanding concerns about the character, integrity, and judgment of the Party’s front-runner. Clinton has refused to release her Wall Street speeches when she could easily do so, making it look like she has something to hide. Clinton has refused to clearly articulate any mistakes she might have made with respect to her private email server, making it look like she exercises bad judgment and then has no ability or willingness to self-analyze or admit error — precisely the quality so many people find unnerving in Donald Trump. [...] 10. Ignore the youth vote.

I wanted to investigate my hunch, find quantifiable data to prove or disprove my concerns. I think I found it: one third of everyone who has already voted so far in the Democratic primaries is not convinced that Clinton is honest and trustworthy. And to many people, this concern is a really big fucking deal.

PROJECT GOAL:

Find quantifiable data related to possible voter turnout issues in the general election.

PLAN:

Analyze voting turnout results and exit polling statistics for the primaries that have already been conducted.

KEY SOURCES:

2) Have I Simply Quantified What Many of Us Have Been Thinking?

Will Hillary win the general election if she becomes the Democratic nominee? Will enough people show up to vote for her? Isn’t this question the “elephant in the room,” the question on most everyone’s minds but rarely acknowledged directly? I see it as the core concern behind the question asked in so many diaries: “Will you support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination?”

What factors play into this concern? We know that Hillary and Bill are deeply disliked by many on the right … we can predict that these folks will come out in large numbers in order to vote against her. We also know that voters on both sides of the aisle have raised issues about Clinton’s “character, integrity, and judgment,” as Abraham puts it; a partial list includes

the appearance of impropriety of many kinds (industry lobbyists and ex-financial regulators hosting expensive fundraisers for Clinton’s presidential campaign, the timing of donations to the Clinton Foundation (including those by the fossil fuel industry) and corresponding actions taken by the State Department (which HRC headed at the time), the infamous highly-paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, etc.)

(industry lobbyists and ex-financial regulators hosting expensive fundraisers for Clinton’s presidential campaign, the timing of donations to the Clinton Foundation (including those by the fossil fuel industry) and corresponding actions taken by the State Department (which HRC headed at the time), the infamous highly-paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, etc.) “ The Clintons have simultaneously depended on black voters and thrown black voters under the bus for years now” — Alicia Garza, co-founder of BLM; similar but slightly less strident remarks have also been made by Michelle Alexander (who quotes John Lewis) and others.

and thrown black voters under the bus for years now” — Alicia Garza, co-founder of BLM; similar but slightly less strident remarks have also been made by Michelle Alexander (who quotes John Lewis) and others. an ongoing FBI investigation over “use of a private email server during her time as secretary of State” and also "the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed";

over “use of a private email server during her time as secretary of State” and also "the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed"; concerns that Clinton may be getting preferential treatment in that investigation.

President Obama has stated, “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case,” but little else has been done to address the above concerns, other than the Clinton campaign rebuking Sanders for attempting to impugn her integrity.

Will offensive remarks made by campaign surrogates to younger voters be forgotten? Is it even possible to forget feminist icon Gloria Steinem insinuating that today’s young feminists are sex maniacs (“Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie”) or Madeleine Albright’s attempts to shame them (“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”) Older women argue that young ones are voting against their own best interests if they support Sanders, that they are too immature and naive to understand the reality of glass ceilings. People of color have described the disrespect they feel when others judge them as voting against their interests by supporting Clinton … why would young women not feel similar disrespect when others judge them in the same way because their support for Sanders? Could it be that young voters actually care more about other issues, such as being able to find a job and pay off debts after having forked over not-so-small fortunes to pay for a college education, or whether they will experience an eco-disaster in their own lifetime? Is it possible that when they carefully weigh the pros and cons, breaking glass ceilings ranks almost indulgently high on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in comparison to lower-order ones that are much more pressing?

The biggest issue is that even my guy friends can't support themselves, find a job, or even think about having a family while all these executives, BOTH men AND women, are paid hundreds of times what their employees are and they are telling me why my opinion isn’t informed.

How much allegiance do young voters have to the Democratic Party, anyway? Will they fall into line to vote for Hillary? After they have watched Bernie expressing their hopes and dreams, and seen those dreams crushed by indifferent elders whose “financial situation is more or less OK”? And what about another critical demographic: independents. Did you know that their number is now at record highs?

“An average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, establishing a new high in Gallup telephone poll trends back to 1988.”

How often do we hear Clinton supporters complaining that “Sanders is not a real Democrat”, and now even Hillary herself seems to be fanning those flames. WTF? Are independents listening? Will they remember these taunts come November? If independents are not considered real Democrats during primary season, where does the expectation come from that they will compliantly vote according to the demands of their tormentors in the general? Abraham writes:

By freezing Sanders and his platform out of the Democratic Party altogether, it ensures that not only will Clinton lose many Sanders supporters — which will already happen pursuant to step #5 of the Democrats plan to lose the White House — but also that she will lose most or all of the independent voters that Sanders has thus far been winning over her by 30 to 40 points. Indeed, Clinton has done everything she can do to signal that neither Sanders’ views nor his supporters will have any place in her Administration should she win the White House — which callous disregard of the Democratic base substantially decreases her chances of ever occupying that building.

3) Summary of Key Findings

TOP THREE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN CLINTON AND SANDERS VOTERS

Clinton Voters Sanders Voters Is clinton honest and trustworthy? Yes 86% (7,584,448) No 71% (4,598,955) Satisfied if clinton wins the nomination? Yes 98% * (7,198,685) No 51% * (2,502,316) Candidate quality that matters most Has the right experience 46% (4,043,386) Honest and Trustworthy 46% (3,024,886) TOTAL NUMBER OF PRIMARY VOTERS: 8,858,380 6,510,190

* See section “2.2 Exit Polling in Moderate States” for more information

The largest area of disagreement between Clinton and Sanders voters relates to Clinton’s character: 70% of Sanders voters (about 4.5 million people, or one third of everyone who has already voted so far in the Democratic primaries) answered NO to the following question on exit polls:

“Is Clinton Honest and Trustworthy?”

On the other side of the spectrum, 86% of Clinton folks (about 7.5 million people) answered YES.

Compounding the impact of this difference of opinion is the third largest area of disagreement between the two groups: “candidate quality that matters most”. Intriguingly, the attribute “Honest and Trustworthy” is simultaneously rated the MOST important attribute by Sanders voters and the LEAST important attribute by Clinton voters. In other words, Clinton fails the most important test that most Sanders voters have for a presidential candidate , while Clinton voters collectively view those concerns as badly placed and/or unimportant.

The second largest area of disagreement between the groups relates to satisfaction if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

98% of Clinton voters would be satisfied, but

51% of all Sanders voters would not be satisfied.

Will sufficient numbers of people who believe that Clinton fails the most important test that they have for a presidential candidate actually vote for her in the general election? Note that whether or not she actually is honest and trustworthy is beside the point here — as the saying goes, perception is reality. Please think for a moment of a babysitter. Would you hire one to watch over your kids if you believe they lacked the single most important attribute that you want them to have? No f**king way, right? Would you force someone to hire a babysitter that did not meet the standards of that person?

The results of my research shows that there are millions of Sanders voters who do not trust HRC: 4,598,955 of them so far. And yet, those who support Clinton insist / demand that these folks vote for a person that they do not trust to be president if she becomes the Democratic nominee. I sincerely believe that many Clinton folks do not realize that their requests are heard in this way by Sanders folks; the Clinton folks would not be asking if they themselves did not admire and trust Clinton greatly, but they seem to find it difficult to comprehend that others simply do not perceive Clinton in the same way that they do. It is one thing to vote for a candidate that you simply think is “second best.” It is quite another thing to vote for a candidate that you think does not have the stuff that is necessary for the job.

Furthermore, the nomination process itself has been plagued with issues (huge lines and long waits, insufficient ballots, possible tampering with voter registration data, etc.). These issues have led many Sanders supporters to suspect that the election process itself may not / is not being conducted fairly, which further exacerbates the entire situation.

4) Conclusions / Reflections

I’m afraid my fears have been confirmed with this project. I believe that significant numbers of Sanders supporters, the ones who do not find her to be honest and trustworthy, will not vote for her in the general election. As a result, Democrats are taking a huge risk with SCOTUS if Clinton becomes the nominee. We may not approve, but “Bernie or Bust” is a very real trend. I believe that for those who are attracted to this movement, Clinton fails the most important test that they have for a presidential candidate.

The good news is that there is a solution to this dilemma, a solution that seems painfully obvious. Those who truly care about SCOTUS should nominate Bernie Sanders for the very simple reason that Sanders will attract more votes than Hillary Clinton in the general election. All the world — even the Pope, for goodness sake — has taken notice that Bernie Sanders is drawing enormous and excited crowds, by advocating the same ideals in 2016 that he has been consistently advocating for decades. Hot off the press is news that according to a new AP/Gfk poll,

[Sanders] has one clear advantage over his Democratic and Republican presidential rivals — a lot of people actually like him. By 48 percent to 39 percent, more Americans have a favorable than an unfavorable opinion of Sanders, giving him the best net-positive rating in the field, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. Unlike the other candidates, Sanders also is doing better as more Americans get to know him: His favorable rating is up from an earlier AP-GfK poll.

Furthermore, unlike Clinton, Sanders also consistently beats ALL leading Republican candidates, in general election polling. And he also consistently beats conservative opponents by wider margins than Clinton.

Independents and millennials are highly attracted to Bernie, and Republicans even seem to have a thing for him too (link, link, link, link). In fact, Crossovers for Bernie is a group on Daily Kos that has been established better keep track of them.





Figure 1. Image found on the"Republicans for Bernie Sanders" facebook site.





When I am asked

Q. “Will you support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination?”

my answer now is

A. "Hillary will not win in November, which is why I am doing everything that I can now to help Bernie win the nomination. I recommend that you do the same, that is, if you truly care about SCOTUS."

5) Project Details / Description

I went down many false paths before I found the kind of data I was looking for, but here I will describe only the best ones as I explain my project results. One key step was to divide all of the states into three general categories based on their past voting behavior: progressive, conservative, and moderate. I examined presidential election records back through 1992, the year Bill Clinton first became president. More specifically, I identified which presidential candidate won each state in each election. Frankly, the results surprised me, because I was not aware that certain states voted along party lines with significant regularity.





“Progressive” States

A number of states share a remarkable pattern of consistently voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election:

2012 2008 2004 2000 1996 1992 Electoral Votes Massachusetts Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 11 Illinois Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 20 Hawaii Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 4 Maine Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 4 Vermont Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 3 Minnesota Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 10 Wisconsin Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 10 Michigan Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 16 Washington Obama Obama Kerry Gore Clinton Clinton 12

* states that have not yet voted in a primary are not listed

Note I am using the word “progressive” in a very specific and hopefully non-controversial way: any and all states that have this particular voting pattern qualify for this category. My original working assumption is that the Democratic nominee, be it Clinton or Sanders, will once again win these states in 2016. The total combined number of electoral votes for the above states is 90.

Information about 2016 voter turnout for the primaries in these states will be provided in a companion diary to be published soon.



“Conservative” States

My definition of “conservative” is defined in a similar fashion. These states share a pattern of consistently voting for the Republican nominee in every presidential election (Georgia varies slightly, but I made a judgment call to include it in this group anyway).

2012 2008 2004 2000 1996 1992 Electoral Votes Georgia Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole Clinton 16 Mississippi Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 6 Texas Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 38 South Carolina Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 9 Alabama Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 9 Oklahoma Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 7 Kansas Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 6 Alaska Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 3 Utah Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 6 Idaho Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 4 Nebraska Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 5

* states that have not yet voted in a primary are not listed

My original working assumption is that the Republican nominee, whoever that person may be, will win these states in 2016. The total combined number of electoral votes for the above states is 109.

Information about 2016 voter turnout for the primaries in these states will be provided in a companion diary to be published soon.



“Moderate” States

My definition of “moderate” consists of all states that do not meet either of the two previous definitions. These states have more of a mixed record of backing both Democratic and Republican candidates.

2012 2008 2004 2000 1996 1992 Electoral Votes Nevada Obama Obama W. Bush W. Bush Clinton Clinton 6 Louisiana Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Clinton Clinton 8 North Carolina Romney Obama W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 15 Iowa Obama Obama W. Bush W. Bush Clinton Clinton 6 Arizona Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Clinton H.W. Bush 11 Virginia Obama Obama W. Bush W. Bush Dole H.W. Bush 13 Florida Obama Obama W. Bush W. Bush Clinton H.W. Bush 29 Missouri Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Clinton Clinton 10 Ohio Obama Obama W. Bush W. Bush Clinton Clinton 18 Arkansas Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Clinton Clinton 6 Tennessee Romney McCain W. Bush W. Bush Clinton Clinton 11 New Hampshire Obama Obama Kerry W. Bush Clinton Clinton 4 Colorado Obama Obama W. Bush W. Bush Dole Clinton 9

* states that have not yet voted in a primary are not listed

The behavior of voters in these“moderate” states is less predictable than the behavior of voters in the other states, and so I decided I needed to pay special attention to them. The total combined number of electoral votes for the above states is 140.

Notes:

Total number of electoral votes for all states that have completed their primaries to date:

90 + 109 + 140 = 339

90 + 109 + 140 = Total number of electoral votes for all remaining states: 199

Total possible number of electoral votes: 339 + 199 = 538

Number of electoral votes required to win the presidency of the United States: 270 (a little more than half of the total available).

Information about 2016 voter turnout for the primaries in these states will be provided in a companion diary to be published soon.

5.1 Voter Turnout in Moderate States

At the end of the day, the most important numbers in any election boil down to

how many people come out to vote for your candidate? how many people come out to vote for each of their opponents?

As a starting point for the project, I examined voter turnout in the primaries that have been held to date. Of special interest is turnout numbers from both sides of the aisle in the states that will likely be the most competitive in the general election: the moderate states.

More information on this topic will be provided in a companion diary to be published soon.

5.2 Exit Polling in Moderate States

TOP THREE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN CLINTON AND SANDERS VOTERS

Q1- Is Clinton honest and trustworthy?

Q2- Satisfied if Clinton wins the nomination?

Q3- Candidate quality that matters most?

Now that you understand the definitions being used for progressive, conservative, and moderate, you are ready for the really good stuff: the exit polling results. Due to the length of this diary, I will only share the results for three questions, the most important ones because they are the ones on which Clinton and Sanders voters disagree the most strongly.

The same convention is used in all of the graphs:

progressive states are grouped to the left (MA, IL, VT ...)

conservative states are grouped in the middle (GA, MS, TX ...)

moderate states are grouped to the right (NV, NC, IA ...).

Note that only the states for which exit polling was performed are included in these graphs, for the simple reason that exit polling results are the source data from which the graphs are generated.

Within each group, states at the left have the lowest ratio of Republican/Democrat turnout results, states at the right have the highest ratios; so in each group, states at the left are relatively easier for Democrats to win (according to primary turnouts) and states at the right are more difficult.

Q1- Is Clinton honest and trustworthy?

All Voters Nationwide Totals (in millions) Yes 59% 9.203 No 37% 5.726 Not Asked 2% 0.256 Other 3% 0.440 TOTAL 100% 15.624

The above graph and table shows results when all voters who attended the Democratic primaries (about 15.6 million people) are viewed as a single population, based on exit polling results. Note that in Nevada and Iowa, this question was not asked on their state exit polls.

Clinton Voters Only Nationwide Totals (in millions) Yes 86% 7.584 No 10% 0.879 Not Asked 1% 0.130 Other 3% 0.265 TOTAL 100% 8.858

The above graph and table shows results when only the exit polls of those who voted for Hillary Clinton are examined (about 8.9 million people). Compared to the first graph, the blue bars are dramatically longer. Clinton voters as a group think that Clinton is honest and trustworthy much more than the average primary voter.

Sanders Voters Only Nationwide Totals (in millions) Yes 24% 1.553 No 71% 4.599 Not Asked 2% 0.125 Other 4% 0.233 TOTAL 100% 6.510

The above graph and table shows results when only the exit polls of those who voted for Bernie Sanders are examined (about 6.5 million people). Compared to the first graph, the red bars are dramatically longer. Sanders voters as a group think that Clinton is honest and trustworthy much less than the average primary voter. The pattern appears to be relatively consistent over all states; voters in progressive states possibly answer NO more frequently than those in the other groups.



Q2- Satisfied if Clinton wins the nomination?

All Voters Nationwide Totals (in millions) Yes 61%/76% 9.489 No 18%/23% 2.828 Not Asked 20% 3.156 Other 1% 0.151 TOTAL 100% 15.624

The above graph and table shows results when all voters who attended the Democratic primaries (about 15.6 million people) are viewed as a single population, based on exit polling results. Note that in all states that have yellow bars, this question was not asked on their state exit polls. Over the population of all voters, 61% answered YES and 18% answered NO. Note, however, that 20% of all voters were not given the opportunity to answer this question so the values 61% and 18% are misleading on the low side. To compensate, a second set of metrics was taken over only voters that had this question on their exit poll (15.624 - 3.156 = 12.469 million people). Over that population, 76% answered YES (9.489/12.469) and 23% answered NO (2.828/12.469)

Clinton Voters Only Nationwide Totals (in millions) Yes 81%/98% 7.199 No 1%/2% 0.133 Not Asked 17% 1.506 Other 0% 0.020 TOTAL 100% 8.858

The above graph and table shows results when only the exit polls of those who voted for Hillary Clinton are examined (about 8.9 million people). Compared to the first graph, the blue bars are dramatically longer. Over the population of Clinton voters only, 81% answered YES and 1% answered NO. These values are misleading and on the low side because 17% of this population was not given the opportunity to answer this question. To compensate, a second set of metrics was taken over only voters that had this question on their exit poll (8.858 - 1.508 = 7.352 million people). Over that population, 98% answered YES (7.199/7.352) and 2% answered NO (0.133/7.352). Clearly Clinton voters would be highly satisfied if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.

Sanders Voters Only Nationwide Totals (in millions) Yes 34%/45% 2.201 No 38%/51% 2.502 Not Asked 25% 1.606 Other 3% 0.201 TOTAL 100% 6.510

The above graph and table shows results when only the exit polls of those who voted for Bernie Sanders are examined (about 6.5 million people). Compared to the first graph, the red bars are much longer. Over the population of Sanders voters only, 34% answered YES and 38% answered NO. These values are misleading and on the low side because 25% of this population was not given the opportunity to answer this question. To compensate, a second set of metrics was taken over only voters that had this question on their exit poll (6.510 - 1.606 = 4.904 million people). Over that population, 45% answered YES (2.201/4.904 ) and 51% answered NO (2.502/4.904 ). The majority of Sanders voters will not be satisfied if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. The pattern appears to be consistent over all states, and even more pronounced in the progressive states.



Q3- Candidate quality that matters most?