Monday, November 7, 2016

Why I've Decided to Vote for Hillary Clinton Tomorrow

This election season has been long, stressful, and depressing for me. Eighteen months and a week ago today I was filled with an excitement that I have never felt before in politics when Bernie Sanders announced that he had decided to run for the Democratic Party's nomination as President. This man, the longest-serving Independent in congressional history, knew that in order to get a platform from which to push his progressive agenda, he needed to play within the two-party system that dominates our national politics.
I donated more money to Senator Sanders' primary campaign than all my previous political contributions combined, and I put more time into volunteering for his campaign (though admittedly I did not do much) than I have for any other political campaign in my life. I was genuinely optimistic about the possibilities for our country last summer, and it showed in the way I interacted with people, the quality of my work, and the organization I brought to my own personal life, as well.
When the debates began, I was hopeful that the favorable field the Democratic establishment had provided for Secretary Clinton would be ineffective at preventing the surge of hopeful populism that caught me up along with so many others. I was sure that her support in the South was overstated, and that young and disillusioned citizens would break out of their malaise and stop letting the old and middle-aged make all the decisions for them.
As winter turned into spring, I began to see that my hopes were unlikely to be satisfied. Although I remain suspicious of possible electronic machine rigging in certain precincts, especially in the South, I know that aside from an immeasurable and inestimable (and therefore not useful for consideration at this point) effect different results may have had on subsequent primaries, Clinton's lead in the states where that issue arose was such that she would have had a commanding lead regardless.
As Clinton's victory in the Democratic primary became more certain, my optimism bled away, with little improvement brought by the progressive party platform or Clinton's adoption of some of Senator Sanders' bolder domestic policy proposals. The truth is I was never significantly troubled by Clinton's domestic policy, so her moves to adopt more progressive policies, while welcome, did little to address my concerns with her potential Presidency.
I remain seriously concerned with the foreign policy that another Clinton Administration will pursue. Throughout the general election, Clinton and her surrogates have relentlessly and (in my view, irresponsibly) accused Russian of state-sponsored cyber warfare and the "weaponization of Wikileaks." Instead of addressing the contents of the released emails (which are, let's face it, very boring for the most part and hardly the "smoking gun" that Senator Sanders' most dissatisfied supporters paint them to be), they pretend they are irrelevant because they are the fruits of this supposed cyber warfare, rather than (correctly) asserting they are irrelevant because they don't tell us anything newsworthy that we didn't already know.
Clinton still supports a "No-Fly Zone" in eastern Syria, but refused to acknowledge, at the last debate, that enforcing such a policy would require American military personnel to fire upon Russian aircraft if those aircraft chose to violate the "No-Fly Zone." She was an instrumental force behind the Obama Administration's actions to depose Muammar Gaddafi, and she has stated unironically, "We came, we saw, he died." I think it's entirely possible that, once we elect Hillary Clinton, we will be engaged in full-scale war with Russia before the end of her first term. This terrifies me.
I'm voting for Hillary Clinton anyway.
I could go on for pages and pages about why Donald Trump shouldn't be elected President, but the truth of the matter is I never considered voting for him. Not even for a second. I never considered voting for Gary Johnson, either. I lived through his administration in New Mexico, and I wouldn't wish that upon America; nor do I want to have any part in helping the Libertarian Party achieve the threshold for accessing the Presidential Campaign Fund.

I did seriously consider voting for Jill Stein, however. She has been unfairly attacked by supporters of Hillary Clinton who are worried about splitting the progressive vote and allowing Trump to win. I voted for her in 2012, and I support a huge swath of the Green Party's platform. I want them to be a serious national party; they aren't one, though. They have only about 100 members in elected office anywhere in the country, the vast majority in California, and none of their members are in state legislatures, state-level executive positions, or any federal elected positions. They're not going to become a serious national party this year, either. Stein's polling average has been hovering around 2% for months, and third-party candidates basically never outperform their polls.
Another reason I seriously considered voting for Jill Stein is because I wanted to send a message to the Democratic Party that they need to take progressive issues seriously. Fortunately, I live in New York, a state that allows me to do just that. It hasn't always been the case that third parties were as shut out of the political process as they are today. Before 1888, elections nationwide allowed without restriction a system called fusion, which permitted multiple political parties to nominate the same candidate for a particular office. This is one part of the system that contributed to the robust participation of multiple parties in the early part of our nation's history.
The system was not without its problems, of course. Because the parties printed their own ballots for voters to put in the ballot box, there was substantial room for voter intimidation and ballot stuffing. Avoiding these problems was one of the primary reasons the United States switched to the Australian ballot in 1888. An added benefit of adopting the Australian ballot, though, was the (at the time) unprecedented power it gave to the government to control who was eligible for office. Starting with Republicans in the North who commanded a plurality of support but were vulnerable to a fusion ticket of Democrats and Populists or other third parties, states began to forbid political parties from nominating people outside their party for particular offices. Now 43 states and the District of Columbia make fusion practically impossible. Some states allow open ticket voting for President, but without fusion for lower offices, the effect of that policy is minimal.
In seven states - Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont - fusion tickets are possible, not only for the President but for all partisan offices. In New York, a major progressive party exists that actually has a substantial effect on state politics: the Working Families Party. They endorsed Senator Sanders in the Democratic Primary, and they work tirelessly to support progressive causes like increased minimum wages and paid sick leave. This year for President they have endorsed Hillary Clinton.
This means I can contribute to Clinton's popular vote lead over Donald Trump without voting for the Democratic Party. It also means that I can vote for a third party that has a meaningful chance of effecting political change, even if only at the local level. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton on the Working Families Party line.
If you live in Connecticut or New York, I encourage you to do the same. If you live in Delaware, Idaho, Missisippi, South Carolina, or Vermont, and you plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, please vote for her on the line of a party other than the Democratic Party. If you live in any of the other 43 states or the District of Columbia, vote your conscience, but starting Wednesday, push your state legislators to legalize fusion voting, to enact ranked-choice voting, to reduce ballot-access requirements, and to take any other actions that are necessary and effective to encourage higher voter turnout and more robust political involvement and debate.
For more information on fusion voting, check out this article from the Brennan Center (PDF).

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Up Next: New York!

We're coming up on a major showdown in the Democratic primary. On Tuesday, New York will be holding its primary. Only three of the ten largest states have not yet held their contests, and New York is right in the middle of those three, offering up 247 delegates. If by some voodoo magic Sanders were to shut Clinton out so she received no delegates from New York, he would overtake her in the pledged delegate race. In order to completely shut Clinton out, Sanders would have to win more than 85% of the vote in each of New York's 27 Congressional Districts, so it is unlikely that this will happen. It is more likely that we're looking at a change in Clinton's delegate lead of somewhere between 0 and 25 delegates (in either direction).

Clinton and Sanders both have some claim to the state as their home turf. The Clintons bought a house in Chappaqua, NY in 2000 while Bill's second term was finishing up, and Hillary ran for a seat in the U.S. Senate that became vacant that year. She won handily against her Republican opponent and was re-elected without much contest in 2006. She served as the junior Senator from New York until January 2009 when she resigned to accept her position as Secretary of State.

Sanders, on the other hand, was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. He went to the same high school as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Charles Schumer, and lived in Brooklyn until he left for college. He never moved back to New York, but he still speaks with a Brooklyn accent, and he speaks often about his pride in being a New Yorker.

The two are set to debate tonight from a venue just down the street from my office, at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The last time both Sanders and Clinton were on stage at a debate together was March 9, before Super Tuesday and before Clinton's delegate lead reached its peak on March 15. Since the last debate, Clinton has won more pledged delegates than Sanders in five contests, fewer than Sanders in six contests, and tied with Sanders in two contests. Sanders' six victories since the last debate have given him as many net delegates over Clinton as her five victories since then have given her.

In other words, the gap between the candidates (in raw pledged delegates) is the same tonight as it was at the last debate, but now Clinton is on the decline, whereas she was on the rise going into Miami. Still, there are fewer delegates now outstanding than there were then, and Sanders has not managed to reduce the percentage of pledged delegates he needs between now and June 14 in order to get a majority, although he has held steady to his targets.

The New York primary may very well end up being the single most important primary of the season. Even though Florida and Texas are larger than New York, because the Democrats assign their delegates in proportion to the Democratic turnout over previous years, New York has more delegates than any state that has voted so far this season: only California has more delegates at all. Clinton hopes to use a clear victory here to break Sanders' momentum as part of a "three-part strategy before the New York primary on April 19: Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later."

There are significant reasons to believe her efforts may be successful, but they have nothing to do with whether she is able to "disqualify" him. New York is probably the most establishment-friendly jurisdiction in the primary season. Some states have open primaries where any registered voter (in some jurisdiction, even someone who registers on election day) can participate in the selection of a party's nominee. Other states have semi-open primaries where you can participate if you aren't a member of another major party. Other states have closed primaries, where you have to be registered for the party in order to vote in the primary. New York takes closed primaries to a whole new level that I call a hermetically-sealed primary.

In case you didn't follow the link, here's a brief overview. New York only processes requests to change party once a year. If you are already registered to vote, you have to change your party registration at least 30 days before the general election. New York has a general election every year: sometimes there are U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, and Presidential candidates on the general election ballot, and sometimes it's just state and local officials like judges and school boards. The general election is always in November. For this election, the deadline for registered voters to change their party registration was October 9, 2015.

That was six months and ten days before the primary election. It was a week before the first Democratic debate when Clinton and Sanders shared the stage with three other candidates. It was five months and a day before the first primary poll in New York was conducted. It was three months and 23 days before the Iowa caucuses. It was 60 days before the Working Families Party endorsed Sanders for the Democratic nomination. Sanders was polling at 25% nationally at that point and everyone thought that Clinton would secure the nomination before the end of February.

Clinton's supporters recently leaked a suggestion that this race may be closer than the polling suggests, citing a phenomenon called "Clinton exhaustion." But this is just typical political managing of expectations. By claiming that they are concerned about the race being close, they will be able to market a slight victory as a major accomplishment. But don't be fooled: 40 of New York's 44 super delegates, including the governor, both Senators, and every Democratic U.S. representative, have endorsed Hillary Clinton. The RealClearPolitics polling average gives Clinton a 13.3 point lead, and her lead has never dropped into single digits. Indeed, FiveThirtyEight's primary projections (on either measure) give Clinton a 98% chance of winning New York.

Still, record numbers of new voter registrations came in just before the deadline before the primary, Sanders has been attracting enormous crowds at rallies throughout the state, and Sanders was successful in shaming Clinton into agreeing to a debate in Brooklyn before the primary. She's clearly on the defensive, and his star is rising. If he wins in New York, it wouldn't be the first time he pulled off a dramatic upset when far behind a week ahead of the election this year.

But with all the structural advantages New York's primary gives Clinton, if she doesn't win by a landslide, she's going to have a lot of explaining to do.

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Democratic Primary: Week 10

Last night, Wisconsin voters went to the polls to voice their preferences for the Republican and Democratic presidential contests. I'm not really following the Republican race, so that's all I'll say about them, but Senator Sanders pulled off another double-digit victory against Secretary Clinton, pulling in 56.6% of the vote and 57.1% of the delegates. That's either basically the same as or slightly better than the result Sanders needed to stay on his path to getting 58% of the delegates since March 15.

This wasn't the only development since my last entry, however. Last weekend, Nevada held its county conventions. These conventions are used to elect delegates to the state convention where Nevada's delegates to the national convention will actually be elected. The initial precinct-level caucuses in February were used to elect the delegates to these county conventions, and the delegate split between Sanders and Clinton was estimated based on the results of the precinct-level caucuses.

At several county conventions, most importantly Clark County, which holds Las Vegas, many delegates elected in February either failed to register for the conventions or changed their presidential preferences between February and April 2. Alternate delegates were able to take the place of delegates who did not register for the conventions on a first-come, first-served basis. The net result of all these changes (or, if you ask the Clinton campaign, of these machinations) was substantially favorable for Senator Sanders.

After the February precinct-level caucuses, Secretary Clinton had 4,774 delegates who had pledged to support her candidacy, while Senator Sanders had 3,928, and 3 were either uncommitted or committed to another candidate, for a total of 8705 delegates to the county convention. At the Clark County convention on April 2, 2016, only 5,350 delegates showed up. Of those, 2,964 supported Senator Sanders and 2,386 supported Secretary Clinton. Clinton's margin of victory changed from 55%/45% to a Sanders margin of victory of 55/45. This reversal is huge (though not set in stone until the state convention in June), and essentially turned Nevada from a close but clear Clinton victory into a virtual tie.

So right now, based on the latest results, Senator Sanders has 1090 pledged delegates, and Secretary Clinton has 1300, bringing her pledged-delegate lead down to 210 from its March 16 peak of 314. In 20 days, Sanders has cut into Clinton's delegate lead by 104, or more than 33%, from her peak pledged-delegate lead. Contrast this with my hypothetical 2008 election, where the contests were held in the same order and on the same dates as they are being held this year, while retaining the outcomes as they happened in the real 2008.

Eight years ago today, Clinton was the underdog to Obama's commanding lead, which had been growing larger and larger every contest since March 9. She did not force Obama to reach his peak delegate lead until after Wyoming, when the next contest gave Clinton an 18-point win in her home state of New York, and pulled Obama's delegate lead down, beginning a slow process of reducing his lead as the convention approached, though she was never able to close the gap. In fact, recall that Clinton never held a pledged-delegate lead on Obama in 2008.

In 2008, Clinton justified her continued campaign, in part, because she felt that her supporters deserved the opportunity to vote for her in the primary. This even as she was falling further and further behind from February through April. Conversely, Sanders has been gaining ground on Clinton reliably since March 16. Don't his supporters deserve just as much the opportunity to vote for their chosen candidate in the primaries when he is gaining ground rapidly as Clinton's supporters did when she was falling further and further behind?

Right now the latest polls show Clinton with a ten-point lead on Sanders in New York, a state that both have some claim on as a home state, and which neither can definitively say without question is a home state, and time and time again Sanders has closed similar gaps within the two weeks leading up to a contest. And this time, New York is the only contest that is being truly contested between now and April 19. Clinton doesn't have a single event in Wyoming, which caucuses this weekend, and Sanders is expected to win.

Things are looking better and better for Senator Sanders, but there's still a long way to go. The week after New York is a huge, multi-state primary day with some states that are likely to be more favorable for Clinton, so Sanders needs to close the gap as much as possible between now and then so he can afford a slight downturn before we move into May.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Post "Western Saturday" Update

Yesterday was the contest CNN dubbed "Western Saturday," where Washington state and Alaska had Democratic caucuses, while Hawaii had a presidential preference poll, which is a weird combination of a primary and a caucus where the voters fill out secret ballots and then hang out while they are counted and announced. Unlike other states, the Hawaii Democratic Party did not release results until they had all been collected, so the mainstream media went to bed and played their pre recorded programming. Meanwhile, a student in Ithaca, NY collected precinct information from Twitter with the help of a dozen or so strangers on the Internet and posted it on a publicly available Google doc so people could get an idea of the outcome.

At the end of the day (by which I mean this morning), it was clear that Senator Sanders had handily won all three contests. His margin of victory ranged from 40-60, depending on the state, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that this was a landslide victory for him. Between the timing of these elections (today is Easter Sunday) and the appearance of a finch on Sanders' podium in Portland on Friday, it is difficult to resist the urge to wax poetic, but I will refrain for now.

A bird lands on Bernie Sanders’s podium as he speaks on Portland, Oregon Friday March 25, 2016.(Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images)

It has now become even more clear that the peak of Hillary Clinton's delegate lead occurred on March 15, and that she will be on the defensive from this point forward. The next multi-state election is a month away on April 26, which gives Sanders a lot of time to devote significant attention to each of the individual states coming up. Nine days from now, on April 5, Wisconsin will have its first election with its new controversial voter ID law. We have seen in the past that barriers to voting tend to disproportionately impact Sanders' likely voters, so this could be a problem for Sanders. But Wisconsin's primary is open to Independent voters, and he previously won two of the state's neighbors, Minnesota and Michigan, so this state is definitely in play. If you live in Wisconsin, and you are not sure whether you have the correct voter ID, contact VoteRiders for assistance.

Since March 15, 285 Democratic delegates have been pledged, and Sanders has earned 188 (66%) of them. This is well above his 58% target, and is enough to bring his new target down to 56%. He's gained substantial ground (in fact, if you go back to my hypothetical 2008 race from my last post, after adjusting for inflation of the number of delegates, Obama had a bigger lead over Clinton as of today than Clinton has over Sanders, by almost 30 delegates), and this race is far from over. Back in 2008, Obama beat Clinton about 60/40 in both Wisconsin and Wyoming, while this year Sanders is likely to win Wyoming by an even larger margin, and Wisconsin will probably be very competitive.

New York's closed primary on April 19 is the race to watch in the next few weeks, though. A lot of Sanders' biggest strengths will be poorly-matched to this state. He runs very strongly with new voters, and with independent voters, but New York's primaries are closed, so only registered Democrats can vote. The last day to register was this past Friday, and Sanders' official campaign office didn't open in New York until this weekend, so from here it's just a matter of making his case to those who are already registered as Democrats. Several volunteer groups have done tremendous work registering new voters over the past several months, but even those efforts were stymied by New York's labyrinthine electoral laws.

Voters who were previously registered to vote as independent, or under a party other than the Democratic or Republican Party, had to change their registration to Democrat at least 30 days before the last general election, which was held on November 3, 2015. This means that if you're a registered Independent, or registered as a member of the Working Families Party (a major party in New York with automatic ballot access in countless races, but whose candidates are often the same as the Democratic Party's candidates), the last day for you to change your registration to Democrat in order to participate in the primary election on April 19 was in October, before the first Democratic debate.

New York is going to be a hard primary for Sanders, and he will probably lose it because its process is so heavily weighted in favor of the longtime Democratic establishment. If it were only the barriers to entry, it would still be a problem, but it would not be a problem much different than other closed primaries in other states. But the Working Families Party, which is in a lot of respects the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, would likely be strong supporters of Sanders, were they able to vote in the primary. In fact, the Working Families Party has endorsed Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination. It is unfortunate that their endorsement came two months after the deadline to change parties.

In summary, after this weekend supporters of Senator Sanders have much to be pleased with, but the next month is going to be bumpy. Hold tight!

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Yesterday Was a Good Day

I know, I know, everyone is freaking out about Helen Purcell's indescribable incompetence, and some people are even suggesting that electronic votes were flipped between Sanders and Clinton (the Mayor of Phoenix has even called for a federal investigation). Really, though, even just going off the projections of delegates based of the reported precincts just before noon today from FiveThirtyEight, Sanders is on track to get the majority of pledged delegates by June 14.


As I mentioned in my last post, Clinton was likely to peak soon, probably at the latest on Saturday when Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington choose their delegates. It looks like she may, in fact, have peaked on March 15. This weekend Democrats Abroad announced the results of their primary contests, which were conducted in person at 56 locations worldwide, and also by mail and e-mail. Sanders received the majority of votes in 53 locations, with Clinton winning only Nigeria, Singapore, and the Dominican Republic. Sanders won the overall vote 69% to 31%, and took away 9 pledged delegates to Clinton's 4.

Yesterday Arizona and Utah had primary elections, and Idaho held a Democratic caucus. Between them, 132 delegates were at stake. With commanding leads in Utah and Idaho (79%/20% and 78%/21%), Sanders got 45 delegates to Clinton's 11. Arizona has been counted as a victory for Clinton (although, as I mentioned above, there are questions about that election's legitimacy), but even with that victory, Clinton could not make up for the huge drubbing she received in the more northerly states. Based on FiveThirtyEights's calculations (the AP actually gives Sanders one more delegate while leaving two undecided as I am writing this), Clinton got 46 delegates and Sanders got 29.

All told, since the last Tuesday primary, Sanders has gained 83 delegates to Clinton's 61. He's pulled in 57% of the delegates that have come through since March 15 (this is still using FiveThirtyEight's delegate numbers which haven't been updated since 11:30 this morning and under report Sanders' delegates from yesterday according to the AP). As I said Friday, Sanders needed to win just over 58% of all the remaining delegates after March 15 in order to finish with a majority of pledged delegates after June 14. If the extra delegate the AP has for Sanders out of Arizona is accurate, then Sanders came in with 58.3% of the delegates that have been awarded since March 15.

This puts Sanders right on track to seize the lead pledged delegates on June 7, after California and five other states vote, and as long as he gets at least 4 of the District of Columbia's 20 delegates on June 14 (admittedly, if Clinton's lead among black voters from the Deep South shows up again in DC, it is possible that he might miss the 4-delegate mark), he would enter the convention with a majority of pledged delegates. Obviously, Clinton's lead among the super delegates represents a significant barrier for Sanders, at least in terms of the media narrative, but keep in mind that super delegates haven't voted yet, and no laws or rules require them to stay with the candidate they currently support.

Many of them are elected officials who will be running for reelection at some point. If they go against the will of their constituents, they may have to answer for that at the general election. If they go against the will of the people, they may have to answer for that at the general election. Super delegates will have about six weeks after DC's primary closes to make up their minds who they will vote for at the convention.

And that's assuming that Sanders only performs as well as he has performed on average since March 15 between now and June 14. If his performance improves (at is seems likely to do), then he may well secure a majority of pledged delegates after June 7, before DC even gets a chance to vote. It is almost impossible for Sanders to secure the majority of pledged delegates before June 7. In order to do so, he would need to win 94% of the pledged delegates between now and June 5 when Puerto Rico votes.

So keep that in mind. Even though (if) Clinton peaked on March 15, I can tell you with almost total certainty that she will not be defeated before June 7. This is going to be a long slog.

Friday, March 18, 2016

A Reality Check for my Fellow Bernie Sanders Supporters

I've been seeing a lot of memes going around talking about how Barack Obama was behind Hillary Clinton eight years ago, but he still secured the nomination. I know these memes are intended to encourage supporters of Bernie Sanders not to get discouraged by Clinton's current delegate lead, and I support that goal. Less than half the pledged delegates have been assigned to date, and there is still a lot of primary to go. But let us not lose sight of the fact that pulling off a victory at this point is going to be VERY VERY DIFFICULT. Confidence and passion are good, but cockiness is unwise.

Just so we're clear, there was never a point in the 2008 campaign when Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton in pledge delegates. Seriously, it NEVER happened. If you count the Florida and Michigan primaries as of the dates they occurred, rather than on the dates that the DNC finally decided to permit their delegates to be seated and vote, then there was a very brief period from January 29 until February 9 when Clinton had a slight lead in pledged delegates, but it's important to keep in mind that Florida and Michigan both held their primaries before Super Tuesday in violation of DNC rules, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

The smallest lead Obama ever had over Clinton was 1 delegate (after the Iowa caucuses, when Obama had 16, Clinton had 15, and Edwards had 14 - by the convention, Clinton had only 14 delegates from Iowa and Obama had 25). Thus far in the 2016 campaign, the smallest lead Clinton has had over Sanders has been -4 delegates (yes, that's negative four - Sanders led Clinton in pledged delegates from February 9 until February 20.

This year's primary election is not a complete repeat of 2008, obviously. If you want to draw a comparison, though, in terms of the electoral outcomes so far, Clinton is playing the role of Obama and Sanders is playing the role of Clinton. In 2008, Obama led Clinton in pledge delegates for the entire race, with Clinton playing catch-up. Obama's lead entered the triple-digits on February 12, after 38 of 55 contests had been held, and remained in the triple digits until the convention. His lead peaked at 151 on May 6, after 50 of 55 contests had been held.

There are about 20% more delegates this year than there were in 2008, so Obama's lead from 2008 translates to a lead of 180 delegates this year. Clinton's lead has exceeded that value since March 2, after 16 of 57 contests. As of today, 27 of 57 contests have concluded, and Clinton's pledged delegate lead, now 322, has not shown signs of having peaked.

But let's look at this race a little bit differently. Assume, if you will, the primary contests in 2008 were held in the same order they are being held this year, while also assuming the results stayed the same. If that were the case, Obama's lead on March 20 would have been 167 delegates (200 delegates if you adjust for the 20% more delegates this year). He would have peaked on April 10 with 231 delegates (276 adjusting for "inflation").

Clinton's lead as of now is more than 50% greater than Obama's was at this point in our hypothetical 2008 primary. But it's absurd to say that because Clinton wasn't able to catch up with Obama, Sanders won't be able to catch up with Clinton. Clinton spent the entire primary playing catch-up, never passing into the lead (unless you count delegates from primaries that violated DNC rules), while Sanders led in pledged delegates after New Hampshire this year. Clinton faced a Super Tuesday where 23 of the 55 contests were held, while there have barely been that many contests in total this year.

Sanders still has a path to the Presidency. Clinton's electoral coalition this year is different from Obama's in 2008, and Sanders' is different from Clinton's in 2008. This is a very different election, and we're going to see results that look very different.

The next half of the primary season, demographically, is favorable to Sanders, and we can expect him to start closing the gap soon. It may start as soon as this Tuesday, but it will certainly start by Saturday. The key to a Sanders victory this year is ensuring not only that Clinton's delegate-lead peak occur no later than March 22 (and preferably it has already occurred), but also an aggressive and swift reduction of that lead over the next three months.

If the rest of the country that hasn't voted votes more like Minnesota, Colorado, and New Hampshire, then Sanders can win. This is doable, but it will not be easy. Keep the passion, don't get discouraged, but don't get complacent, either.

Bernie Sanders is About So Much More Than "Free Stuff"

Market solutions are an excellent way of handling the production of goods and resources, but they do a lousy job of distributing them. Our economy has done a great job of increasing labor productivity, but a lousy job of returning the value of that increased productivity to the labor that produces it. There are lots of potentially-viable solutions for the economic problems we have. Increasing the minimum wage could do it. 

Minimum wage workers represent a very small fraction of the total labor force, and significant increases in the minimum wage have been shown in the past to have a smaller impact on consumer prices than they do on average wages. Higher average wages, in turn, lead to higher levels of consumption, which results in higher demand for production, which increases the demand for labor, creating (rather than destroying) jobs. Maybe the minimum wage is not the most effective means to accomplish the goal of increasing wages, though. It is, after all, a blunt tool.

Stronger protections for organized labor, however, would be a good replacement for minimum wage laws. Allowing workers to bargain collectively with their employers for higher wages and increased benefits evens the negotiating table, allowing all the parties with a stake in the success of a business to participate in determining the business's policies. This would allow for a more closely-tailored balance between the need of the workers and the profits of the owners, which is clearly a more surgical way of addressing depressed wages than a minimum wage increase.

Offering every citizen (or, perhaps, even every resident) with a guaranteed basic income and healthcare, designed to meet the minimal needs of everyday life, removes the need for people to accept a job simply because they need to afford food and shelter. This increases individual workers' ability to negotiate for better wages or working conditions, because the risk of unemployment isn't a one-way ticket to homelessness. This also removes some of the costs associated with supporting the subsistence of employees from the employers' hand, allowing them to price their salaries solely based on the value added to the business while society deliberately covers the externalities associated with those decisions.

The problem is that the Republican economic theory adopts none of these policies, and in fact opposes all three. The idea that individual unskilled workers who enter into wage agreements with sophisticated businesspersons do so on an equal basis and entirely voluntarily is a myth.


But support for Bernie Sanders, for me, at least, goes so much deeper than the economic woes of our society (woes which I, happily, have been largely shielded from by a privileged upbringing and higher education). Bernie Sanders is the only Presidential candidate seeking the nomination of a major party who opposes interventionist foreign policy. He is the only Presidential candidate seeking the nomination of a major party who supports publicly-funded election campaigns. He is the only Presidential candidate seeking the nomination of a major party who does not take money from billionaires to fund his campaign. All of these things mean something very meaningful to me, and none of these things have anything to do with wanting "free stuff."