You don’t need a firewall unless there’s a fire, and a fire is precisely what the candidacy of Bernie Sanders has set off among disaffected Democrats.
His message is clear and resonant — that we must rein in big business and stop their unfair practices, embrace some common-sense measures as universal rights — like access to health care, paid family leave and free public college to all — curtail the corruptive influence of big money on government, and reverse the trend of income inequality.
It is hard for liberals to argue with this as a statement of principle. The only question is, “How?” For some, the answers are unsatisfactory, particularly when considering the political realities of an intransigent Congress that has attempted to block the current president at every turn.
But saying to people who believe in Sanders’s vision that it is a mirage is injurious to their sense of wonder and determinism. It says: Stop believing that the impossible is possible. That lands like a wet blanket. It’s antithetical to the American ethos. This country’s lore and its image of its own greatness is rooted in doing what had never been done, what no one thought could be done.
So, Sanders continues to pick up steam as voters, particularly young ones, say, “Why not?” Especially if the Republicans can believe in the preposterous boasts of their front-runner, why can’t Democrats believe in the wondrous wishfulness of its underdog?
That belief has allowed Sanders to finish in a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton in Iowa and trounce her in New Hampshire. It has also allowed him to raise millions of dollars and fuel a growing feeling that his candidacy isn’t all unicorns, rainbows and fairy dust, but could produce a real victory.
But now that we have moved away from Iowa and New Hampshire, where the geography and demography favored Sanders, the fire is about to meet the wall in South Carolina.
There most factors favor Clinton.
According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll taken last month in South Carolina: “Among likely Democratic primary voters including those who are undecided yet leaning toward a candidate, Clinton, 64 percent, outpaces Sanders, 27 percent, by more than two-to-one.”
One of the biggest reasons for this is the one that most people point to: African-American voters.
In that poll, Clinton’s lead rose to 74 percent to 17 percent among likely black voters in South Carolina, according to The New York Times.
While the percentage of Iowa’s black caucusgoers this year was just 3 percent and New Hampshire’s primary voters was just 2 percent, in 2008, the last time South Carolina held a competitive Democratic primary, black voters made up a whopping 55 percent of the voters.
Furthermore, there are other compounding factors that make the state harder for Sanders to win.
The percentage of younger voters in South Carolina is likely to be smaller than the percentage in Iowa and New Hampshire has been. In 2008 and this year, the percentage of Iowa Democratic caucusgoers under 30 years old was 22 percent and 18 percent respectively. In New Hampshire, the percentage for primary voters under 30 was 18 percent and 19 percent, respectively. The number of voters under 30 in South Carolina in 2008 was 14 percent.
South Carolina also has slightly more women voters. While Democratic primaries and caucuses generally tend to have more female than male participants, South Carolina is one of the most female primaries. In 2008, only 39 percent of the people participating in the Democratic primary in that state were men. That was compared to 43 percent men in both Iowa and New Hampshire. This year Iowa was again 43 percent male, but New Hampshire grew to 45 percent male.
Clinton won the female support in Iowa, and although she lost it in New Hampshire, she lost it by a smaller margin than she lost the male vote by.
Now Sanders, the clarity candidate, has to do a nuanced dance around his criticisms of Obama, of whom these black voters are likely to be protective and to whom they are likely to have allegiance.
In last week’s debate, a testy, abrasive and often flat-out rude Sanders tried to navigate this terrain, and failed. When Clinton attacked him for his criticism, an attack Sanders called a “low blow,” Sanders responded: “Last I heard we lived in a democratic society. Last I heard, a United States senator had the right to disagree with the president, including a president who has done such an extraordinary job. So I have voiced criticisms. You’re right. Maybe you haven’t. I have.”
All true, but unfortunately in today’s politics, nuance loses. Hillary loses in her nuanced argument about practicality, and Sanders loses in his nuanced argument about criticizing the president.
For all these reasons, Clinton’s margin in South Carolina seems to me too wide to hold to the current degree, but sadly for Sanders it’s also one that seems too wide to completely close. And on the horizon are many more states that look more like South Carolina than Iowa and New Hampshire.
<
CHARLES M. BLOW>
댓글 안에 당신의 성숙함도 담아 주세요.
'오늘의 한마디'는 기사에 대하여 자신의 생각을 말하고 남의 생각을 들으며 서로 다양한 의견을 나누는 공간입니다. 그러나 간혹 불건전한 내용을 올리시는 분들이 계셔서 건전한 인터넷문화 정착을 위해 아래와 같은 운영원칙을 적용합니다.
자체 모니터링을 통해 아래에 해당하는 내용이 포함된 댓글이 발견되면 예고없이 삭제 조치를 하겠습니다.
불건전한 댓글을 올리거나, 이름에 비속어 및 상대방의 불쾌감을 주는 단어를 사용, 유명인 또는 특정 일반인을 사칭하는 경우 이용에 대한 차단 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 차단될 경우, 일주일간 댓글을 달수 없게 됩니다.
명예훼손, 개인정보 유출, 욕설 등 법률에 위반되는 댓글은 관계 법령에 의거 민형사상 처벌을 받을 수 있으니 이용에 주의를 부탁드립니다.
Close
x