Bernie’s Revolution — what is to be done?

Thoughts on what’s next as the primary concludes

After traveling to several caucus and primary states, knocking on hundreds of doors, phonebanking (despite its dubious impact), convincing friends and family to #feelthebern, and donating [too much] money, it’s disorienting to think Iowa was only four months ago. If you support an underdog like Bernie, the campaign induces a tunnel vision where everything — every state, poll, debate, and media report — is must-win. You feel that the smallest setback can bring the whole campaign edifice crashing down. But we’ve won 20 of 43 contests, 46 percent of the pledged delegates awarded thus far, and 10.2 million votes (44 percent of those who have voted).

And then there’s this:

Democratic Primary Polling Avg. (2/1/15-present) Source: Huffpost Pollster

Which is even more amazing than this:

Now, I want Bernie to finish all of the primaries, ending with D.C. on June 14. But I also think it’s time for the movement Bernie has sparked to take stock and plan its next move. Specifically, the next move if we assume Hillary Clinton will win the nomination and face Donald Trump in the general election.

Below, I outline a proposed strategy for the Bernie movement following the conclusion of the Democratic Primary. First, I provide an analysis of the ‘state of play’ for the 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election, as of May 2016. Second, I list the options available to the Bernie movement in the event Sanders is not the Democratic Nominee. Third, I explain the details of an alternative Bernie movement strategy and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed strategy.

Relatively little state-by-state polling is available for a Clinton vs. Trump match-up. Still, it is already clear that Clinton and Trump will enter the general election as two of the most disliked nominees in recent U.S. history. Assuming the high ‘negatives’ of each candidate cancel each other out, the best guide for a likely result are the 2008 and 2012 elections. Here is a map with the 2012 outcome, which Obama won with 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206:

Indeed, most political analysts are predicting a similar result in a hypothetical Clinton vs. Trump match-up (with Clinton winning 347 electoral votes to Trump’s 191):

The difference between the two outcomes is that the 2016 scenario has Clinton winning North Carolina, which Obama lost in 2012. Clinton could arguably take Arizona as well, given the high number of Latino voters in that state.

Importantly, there are nine ‘lean Democrat’ territories — collectively awarding 100 electoral votes — while the only ‘lean Republican’ territory up for grabs is the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska, with 1 vote (Maine and Nebraska award Electoral College votes by Congressional District, while the rest of the states award them on a winner-take-all basis). 75 of the ‘lean Democrat’ electoral votes come from just four states: Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia. But even if Trump stole those four states, Clinton would still emerge victorious with 272 electoral votes to Trump’s 266. Trump could win with those four big-ticket ‘lean Democrat’ states + any other ‘lean Democrat’ state. Here is how those states (electoral votes #) voted in 2012, shown as Obama / Romney:

· FL (29): 50.01% / 49.13%

· OH (18): 50.67% / 47.69%

· NC (15): 48.35% / 50.39%

· VA (13): 51.16% / 47.28%

· CO (9): 51.49% / 46.13%

· IA (6): 51.99% / 46.18%

· NH (4): 51.98% / 46.40%

To these eight ‘lean Democratic’ states, I would add Pennsylvania (currently coded as ‘likely Democrat’), which has 20 electoral votes. In 2012, Obama beat Romney 51.97% to 46.59%. It is worth noting that, assuming the accuracy of the state coding, Trump has only a few paths to victory (bold text scenarios limited to ‘lean Democrat’ states):

· FL (29) + OH (18) + NC (15) + VA (13) + any other lean D

· FL (29) + OH (18) + CO (9) + IA (6) + NH (4) either + NC (15) or VA (13)

· PA (20) + OH (18) + NC (15) + VA (13) + CO (9) + any other lean D

· FL (29) + PA (20) + OH (18) + either NC (15) or VA (13)

· FL (29) + PA (20) + NC (15) + VA (13) + any other lean D

· FL (29) + PA (20) + OH (18) + CO (9) + any other lean D

Thus, in the ‘lean’ only scenarios, Trump has to win both Florida and Ohio plus 3 or 4 other lean states, including at least North Carolina and/or Virginia. Even adding Pennsylvania doesn’t help his chances much: he still has to win at least Pennsylvania and Ohio or Florida. Here are the results of those states from this year’s Republican Primary, showing Trump vs. next-highest or highest vote-winner:

· FL: Trump — 45.72% / Rubio — 27.04%

· PA: Trump — 56.61% / Cruz — 21.67%

· OH: Kasich — 46.95% / Trump — 35.87%

· NC: Trump — 40.23% / Cruz — 36.76%

· VA: Trump — 34.80% / Rubio — 31.98%

Although results from a fluid race like a primary are not directly applicable to a fixed general election, they give some indication of Trump’s strength in those states. Thus, Florida and Pennsylvania seem to lean more heavily Trump, while Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina are tougher for him. Clinton’s victory margin in those states: FL (+31%), PA (+12%), OH (+13%), NC (+14%), and VA (+29%). So Clinton’s strongest states are Florida and Virginia. In light of each candidate’s strength there, it looks like the 2016 General Election will come down to Florida. Again. Florida’s crucial role makes sense: Trump’s only non-Florida route to victory requires him to win six ‘lean Democrat’ states, an unlikely feat.

Clinton’s Guaranteed Wins/Losses

Next, let’s look at the top five (by voting population in 2012) states that Clinton will almost certainly win (based on Obama’s win margin), and the top five where she will lose (based on Romney’s win margin).

Wins

· CA (Obama +23.12% / 3 million votes)

· NY (Obama +28.18% / 2 million votes)

· IL (Obama +16.87% / 884,296 votes)

· NJ (Obama +17.79% / 647,533 votes)

· MA (Obama +23.14% / 732,976 votes)

Losses

· TX (Romney +15.8% / 1.26 million votes)

· TN (Romney +20.4% / 304,861 votes)

· AL (Romney +22.2% / 460,229 votes)

· LA (Romney +17.2% / 343,121 votes)

· KY (Romney +22.7% / 407,820 votes)

For the guaranteed ‘wins’, Clinton could lose half of Obama’s vote share and still comfortably or very comfortably win those states. For ‘losses’, Clinton could run the greatest campaign America has ever witnessed, and still would not come close to stealing those states from Trump.

Third Party States

Here is a ranking of the five largest states by third-party interest, based on total vote share and votes going to the Green Party in 2000 (the last real third-party challenge):

· CA (Nader 3.82% / 418,707 votes)

· NY (Nader 3.58% / 244,030 votes)

· MA (Nader 6.42% / 173,564 votes)

· TX (Nader 2.15% / 137,994 votes)

· MN (Nader 5.2% / 126,696 votes)

Notably, votes for Nader did not ‘flip’ any of the strong Democrat states above, nor did he upset Gore’s potential to ‘flip’ Texas from Bush. Moreover, even if Nader had doubled his vote share in the strong Democrat states above Gore still would have won with healthy margins in all. Nader needed 5.28 million votes to meet his stated goal of reaching 5 percent and securing federal matching funds for the Green Party. Instead, he got 2.88 million votes. A doubling in his vote share in the strong Democrat states above would have left him 1.43 million votes shy of 5 percent. A similar doubling of vote share in smaller strong Democrat states would have pushed him over the top. In other words, it is possible for a strong, progressive third-party candidate to get 5 percent of the popular vote without ‘spoiling’ the election for the Democrat candidate. The ‘no spoiler’ case is even more persuasive in states where the Democrat will lose.

Bernie Movement Post-Primary Options

The Bernie movement has a few options following a Democratic Primary in which Sanders does not turn out to be the nominee:

· Full Clinton — Bernie supporters could coalesce behind Clinton, most likely following an endorsement by Sanders. The benefits of this approach are that the movement would avoid any perception that it is ‘responsible’ for Trump winning the presidency, however unlikely that may be, and the movement would arguably retain a modicum of influence over the Democratic Party and Clinton White House. The weaknesses of the plan could include the disintegration of the movement itself through demoralization, and further disenchantment if promises of ‘change’ from the Democratic Party establishment do not materialize. The movement would likely disintegrate because a large number — around 30–40 percent — of Sanders supporters have indicated they will not support Clinton under any circumstances.

· Full Sanders / Full Third Party — the next option is for Bernie supporters to vote Sanders in November, regardless of their state’s particular electoral significance. Most likely, this would come about via a third party (likely Green), perhaps with Sanders as the candidate. A more remote scenario is a Bernie write-in campaign. The strengths of this approach include retaining the cohesiveness of the movement and funneling the movement into a party more in line with Bernie movement’s views, resulting in federal funding for said party. The weaknesses include a Trump Presidency and, as in the Full Clinton scenario, a disintegration of the movement. Disintegration is possible here as it is certain that a significant portion of Sanders voters — at least 60–70 percent per most polls — already plan to vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee.

Both scenarios would likely play out simultaneously, taking with them varying proportions of the Bernie movement (based on what Sanders himself does). In other words, the debate over ‘unity’ vs. ‘#bernieorbust’ represents a drawing of battle lines within the movement itself, which lead to depressing if not disastrous results for both the movement and the country.

So what is to be done?

Proposed Post-Primary Strategy

The only way to preserve the Bernie movement is to synthesize the Full Hillary and Full Bernie approaches. Not only would the movement ensure that it does not play ‘spoiler’ and help elect Trump, but also throw enough support behind a progressive third party — the Green Party — to jumpstart its growth as a viable challenger in American electoral politics. Here’s how it would work:

· Limited Endorsement of Clinton — Sanders endorses Clinton, highlighting the many differences between Clinton/himself and Trump/GOP. But, Sanders adds a caveat that there remain critical differences between himself/supporters and Clinton/DNC.

· Transition to Green Party — Sanders declares his intention to endorse Green Party candidate or become its nominee at the Green Party Convention in Houston. But, the Green Party campaign — at least for Bernie movement — will limit itself to strong Democrat and strong Republican states, with the express purpose of obtaining 5 percent of the popular vote. Sanders can express a willingness to coordinate with the Clinton campaign to ensure there is no risk of flipping a state to Trump.

· Organizing Campaign — instead of campaigning on television or with big rallies, a Sanders Green Party campaign would focus on organizing, both in an electoral campaign and community sense. The goal would be to cultivate the critical core of the movement. Strengthening this grassroots core would ensure Green Party success in state and local campaigns and on issue-based advocacy.

· Forego Debates/Media — a Sanders Green Party campaign would continue to criticize the absence of alternative voices in general election debates and media coverage, but would not make debate/media access a focus of this election. Such efforts are destined to fail and would undermine the effort to ensure Trump is not elected.

· Open Door for Pro-Democrat Campaigning — under this strategy, Sanders could still support the several ‘Berniecrats’ running for Congress this cycle, including Tim Canova and Lucy Flores. Sanders could even deploy to the key states — Florida and Pennsylvania — to explain his strategy to his supporters there. As everyone who has seen him in person knows, Bernie’s far better live than on television (although I would take his wagging finger over Clinton’s bemused smirk any day of the week). Sanders could hit college towns and rural areas where his support was greatest with a persuasive message in favor of voting for Clinton: “Yes, she’s awful on campaign finance, foreign policy, and [now] inexplicably healthcare. But I have a plan to hold her accountable — all of you. Yes, voting for her is a nausea-inducing, physically painful act. But an ongoing, united movement that ensures her victory sends a message — you owe us, and if you ignore us we can end your reelection hopes.” Or something more diplomatic along those lines.

This strategy has several strengths:

· Continuity of Movement — it keeps the movement — the revolution — alive but in a form that does not create a rift in light of differing opinions on whether blocking Trump is worth the cost of a Clinton presidency. Bernie supporters in toss-up states could vote Clinton without abandoning the movement; those in strong Democrat and Republican states would have the option to vote for Bernie without the feeling that they are contributing to a Trump presidency.

· REAL Influence — you earn influence, you don’t receive it as a gift. We are unlikely to succeed if we ask the Democrat Establishment for token concessions. If the system is rigged, who rigged it? The same Democratic Establishment from which we now expect change; will they voluntarily un-rig it? The way we earn influence is by retaining our independence while not making mortal enemies out of people with whom we, admittedly, share a lot in common.

· Bernie’s Promise — as Bernie says, ‘not me, us’. That said, it is important that Bernie retains his popularity and credibility with hardcore Democrats. If he reversed his earlier promise to support Clinton if she became the nominee, it would hurt this cause. This strategy enables him to fulfill his promise while building his movement outside of the Democratic Party.

Weaknesses? Aside from not working, I can’t think of many. And if it doesn’t work, well then we default back to the same scenario of Full Clinton/Full Sanders. As I see it, Bernie’s run has taught us a key lesson — the Democratic Party would rather face the unimaginable shame of losing to Trump than nominate someone who would attack their corrupt spoils system. Still, the Democrats were nice enough to give us a free platform to build our movement in warp speed. Instead of trying to ‘remake’ the party in our image, or pursue a ‘hostile takeover’ of the entire apparatus, the Bernie movement now has an incredible opportunity to pivot away from the election and to the movement itself. The strategy outlined above would make the Democratic Party more reliant on us than we are on it.

Despite #notmeus, we need to face facts: many in our movement are political noobs precisely because a candidate like Sanders has not been so successful in either of the two major parties since before we were alive. And though we all have a vague sense of what comes next, I get the impression that Sanders will need to articulate a clear approach if the movement is going to survive.

Sanders should stay until the end of the race — and possibly the convention — but we cannot go into Philadelphia with a list of demands that sound like something a sleep-deprived junior staffer wrote on a redeye to LA. And who knows, maybe Clinton suffers some tragic bad luck and Bernie walks into the convention like a boss. But after a lot of thought, I have to admit that the idea of Sanders being the Democratic nominee is more depressing than him ‘losing’ a corrupt organization’s popularity contest. C’mon Bernie, let’s build something new.