Early last month, Matt Yglesias wrote an article in Vox called
The Bernie/Hillary Twitter wars tell us basically nothing about the real primary. The rise of Twitter, he wrote, "gives journalists like me quick and easy access to something it used to take hard legwork to get — direct and unmediated takes on the campaign from rank-and-file voters". It's great, you'd think: "We have constant, direct access to passionate supporters of candidates who aren't full-time professional political pundits, campaign operatives, or interest group leaders. It's a window into what voters really think."
Except that, he warned, it's all bunk:
Quote:This turns out to be one of those scenarios where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Twitter is not all that popular with the American people as a whole, and most people who use Twitter don't tweet much. Surveys show that most Americans don't talk about politics online at all. There is no reason to believe that the people who do argue about politics on Twitter are in any way a representative subset of people as a whole, and a mountain of evidence to suggest the opposite.
The overall result is that pundits watching their mentions are mainlining a deeply misleading view of the Democratic primary — one that features a passionate and bitter race that simply doesn't exist in the real world, complete with starkly polarized views on issues that don't exist among actual voters.
I think this is pretty much true for any online discussion of politics. It's definitely true for Daily Kos, where I come a lot because I love the wonky, detailed run-downs of downballot details in the Daily Kos Elections Live Digests. The rest of the site is basically a shitshow, full of primary pie fights that would make you believe that Bernie and Hillary supporters are pitted in the bitterest fight in a century and hate each other's guts, and that voters are outraged and passionate about things like a convention fight in Nevada or the latest offensive thing Jeff Weaver or Debbie Wasserman Schultz has said.
Yglesias cited a bunch of polling that showed that Sanders and Clinton supporters have fundamentally similar views about the main policy issues of the day and that their feelings about the other camp's candidate are at worst just kind of meh. But that polling is now almost two months old, and the fight's only gotten more bitter, right? Except that a new NY Times/CBS poll that was published
just two days ago still showed that, at the very least, Democratic voters are much less divided than the Republican ones. A little less than half of Democrats feel their party is divided; 50% feel that it's united. Among Republicans, the feelings about their party are 84% divided, 14% united. When asked about the future of their party, a massive 80% of Democrats feels (mostly) hopeful, while just 17% feels (mostly) discouraged. Among Republicans the equivalent numbers are 55% an 43%.
Of Bernie supporters, 72% is saying that they would vote for Clinton in November - a number that will likely grow once the general election campaign heats up. If it nevertheless still sounds pretty weak, the Times reminds us that back in May 2008, a similar polling question "found that only 60 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters said they would vote for Barack Obama in the general election". Of all Democrats, the
further detail of the poll's data reveals, 83% is planning to support Clinton in November if she's the nominee, whether enthusiastically (44%), with reservations (23%) or begrudgingly (16%). The numbers for Sanders are very similar: 52% + 20% + 16% makes for 88% of all Democrats who would support him if he were the nominee. (In the Republican race, the total share of voters who is saying they will support Trump in the general election is similar as well, but the share of those who will do so enthusiastically is lower, at 37%, than for either Democratic candidate.)
There's more! According to the poll, 83% of Democrats think that Clinton will be able to unite the Democratic party if she's the nominee. (Compare that to the 68% who thinks the same of Sanders and the 64% of Republicans who think Trump will be able to unite the GOP). Two-thirds of Democrats think the process for selecting a Democratic nominee this year has been fair. Asked whether "the long race for the nomination" will help or hurt the Democrats in November, 59% of Democrats said it will help them, while 34% said it will hurt. That's a fairly stark contrast with the 2008 primary fight, when a majority of Democratic voters, at around this time in the race, said the long nomination fight would hurt the Democrats.
I've been tracking the exit poll data that might show the extent of distrust and resentment within the primary, and comparing it with the equivalent data from the 2008 primary between Clinton and Obama. There were no exit polls in Kentucky and Oregon last week (and apparently there will be
no more exit polls in the rest of the race either), but at least up through the Indiana primary, they confirmed: the fallout this year has been much less. That's probably something for another post (or a follow-up comment) though, this is long enough as it is.