Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Money And Ground Game Alone Can’t Explain Bernie Sanders’ Stunning Win In Michigan - Salon
Money and ground game alone can’t explain Bernie Sanders’ stunning win in Michigan. Could the ’93 passage of NAFTA have played a role?Since NAFTA took effect, under Bill Clinton, Michigan has lost thousands of jobs. No one has forgotten
Roger Kerson - Salon
Friday, Mar 11, 2016 04:57 AM PST
Bernie Sanders (Credit: AP/Charlie Neibergall)
...
...
...
Two days after annoying nearly every constituent group within the Democratic Party, Sanders (who is running as a Democrat for the first time in his long political career) proceeded to win a stunning upset in a high-profile Democratic primary.
What gives?
Debates and the gotcha games that follow are delicious fun for those of us who read (and write for) Salon, but probably not as important to most regular voters. As to how the polling got so screwed up, Carl Bialik at FiveThirtyEight.com gives pollsters a chance to explain themselves, concluding that the data failure in Michigan was “an outlier, a perfectly rotten combination of bad luck and bad timing.”
Which doesn’t answer the question: How come Bernie won Michigan?
Looking at so many polls that showed their candidate winning by large margins, Team Clinton likely underinvested in the state. According to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which tracks campaign spending, Sanders actually outspent Clinton by nearly a million dollars on television ads. The Sanders camp, reports veteran Michigan blogger Chris Savage, also had a superior voter turnout operation.
Money is nice when you’re running for office, and so is a good ground game. But message also matters. And it’s no surprise that Sanders’ full-throated populism connected so well with voters in a state where high economic anxiety has become an unpleasant fact of life.
An important thread of this story starts a long time ago, in a galaxy far away. In 1993, the first year of the first Clinton presidency, economist Jeff Faux sent a memo to senior administration staffers, which found its way to the pages of Harper’s magazine.
Bill Clinton’s push for NAFTA, Faux argued, “is clearly a political loser, big time,” that could hurt the president’s chances for reelection in 1996. If it passes, he wrote, “Bill Clinton will be blamed for every factory that closes down, whether NAFTA was the cause or not.”
Faux was off by about 20 years and exactly one chromosome. In 2016, it is Hillary Clinton who is paying the price for her husband’s hearty embrace of a bipartisan “free trade” agenda. NAFTA — and the lesser-known but even more damaging Clinton initiative to “normalize” trade relations with China — made it easier for capital and goods (but not people) to cross international borders. The result has been a social and economic disaster.
...
...
...
...
...
Two days after annoying nearly every constituent group within the Democratic Party, Sanders (who is running as a Democrat for the first time in his long political career) proceeded to win a stunning upset in a high-profile Democratic primary.
What gives?
Debates and the gotcha games that follow are delicious fun for those of us who read (and write for) Salon, but probably not as important to most regular voters. As to how the polling got so screwed up, Carl Bialik at FiveThirtyEight.com gives pollsters a chance to explain themselves, concluding that the data failure in Michigan was “an outlier, a perfectly rotten combination of bad luck and bad timing.”
Which doesn’t answer the question: How come Bernie won Michigan?
Looking at so many polls that showed their candidate winning by large margins, Team Clinton likely underinvested in the state. According to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which tracks campaign spending, Sanders actually outspent Clinton by nearly a million dollars on television ads. The Sanders camp, reports veteran Michigan blogger Chris Savage, also had a superior voter turnout operation.
Money is nice when you’re running for office, and so is a good ground game. But message also matters. And it’s no surprise that Sanders’ full-throated populism connected so well with voters in a state where high economic anxiety has become an unpleasant fact of life.
An important thread of this story starts a long time ago, in a galaxy far away. In 1993, the first year of the first Clinton presidency, economist Jeff Faux sent a memo to senior administration staffers, which found its way to the pages of Harper’s magazine.
Bill Clinton’s push for NAFTA, Faux argued, “is clearly a political loser, big time,” that could hurt the president’s chances for reelection in 1996. If it passes, he wrote, “Bill Clinton will be blamed for every factory that closes down, whether NAFTA was the cause or not.”
Faux was off by about 20 years and exactly one chromosome. In 2016, it is Hillary Clinton who is paying the price for her husband’s hearty embrace of a bipartisan “free trade” agenda. NAFTA — and the lesser-known but even more damaging Clinton initiative to “normalize” trade relations with China — made it easier for capital and goods (but not people) to cross international borders. The result has been a social and economic disaster.
...
...
...
More: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/money_and_ground_game_cant_explain_bernie_sanders_stunning_win_in_michigan_so_what_was_it_what_about_nafta/
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
