Bernie Sanders at a campaign stop at the Pinkerton Academy Stockbridge  
Theatre on Monday in Derry, N.H.  
John Minchillo / AP


 
 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/south-carolina-has-a-shot-at-beating-uconn-but-first-it-has-to-make-some/)
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    *   






 
 
_2016 Election_ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/2016-election/)   8:16 PM 
Feb 8, 2016  
Why Young Democrats Love Bernie Sanders 
Part I: They have a lot in common with Ron Paul  supporters.
By _Nate  Silver_ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/contributors/nate-silver/) 







 
 
MERRIMACK, N.H. — Perhaps the most eye-popping statistic to come out of 
last  week’s Iowa caucuses was Bernie Sanders’s overwhelming advantage among 
young  voters. According to the Iowa_  entrance poll_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/01/us/elections/iowa-democrat-poll.html?_r=0)
 , Sanders 
beat Hillary Clinton 84 percent to 14 percent among  Democrats aged 17_1_ 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/#
fn-1)   to 29. He also won voters aged 30 to 44 by a 21 percentage point 
margin. But  Clinton easily won among voters aged 45 and older, allowing her 
to essentially  tie with him in the state._  Pre-election polls_ 
(http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-republi
can/#polls-only)  in New Hampshire suggest that the age divisions in the  
Democratic electorate could be at least as dramatic here.    AGE SANDERS 
CLINTON   17-29 84 14  30-44 58 37  45-64 35 58  65+ 26 69 Sanders won Iowa’s 
youth vote overwhelmingly 
Edison Research Iowa Entrance Poll 
These differences are really something. In 2008, Barack Obama_  performed 
better than Clinton among younger Democrats_ 
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080929150114/http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4328)
 , but not by 
nearly the  margin that Sanders won them in Iowa. And although generational 
affinity might  have explained some of Obama’s success with young voters — 
Obama was 46 years  old at the time of the 2008 primaries — it doesn’t work 
for the 74-year-old  Sanders, who is six years older than Clinton. 
When you see a demographic trend this striking, it usually has multiple  
explanations. In this article, I’ll focus on how younger Americans view  
political labels like “socialist” and “libertarian” differently than older 
ones,  and how that might be helping Sanders. I’ll explore several alternative  
explanations for Sanders’s support among young Americans in a follow-up 
article  next week._2_ 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/#fn-2)
  
Young voters have a more favorable view of socialism
Bernie Sanders proudly describes himself as a “socialist” (or more 
commonly,  as a “democratic socialist”). To Americans of a certain age, this is 
a 
potential  liability. I’m just old enough (38) to have grown up during the 
Cold War, a time  when “socialist” did not just mean “far left” but also 
implied something vaguely  un-American. If you’re older than me, you may have 
even more _acutely negative associations  with “socialism”_ 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare)  and may see it as a step on the road 
to 
communism. If  you’re a few years younger than me, however, you may instead 
associate  “socialism” with the social democracies of Northern Europe, which 
have 
high  taxes and large welfare states. Sweden may not be your cup of tea, but 
it isn’t  scary in the way the USSR was to people a generation ago. 
Indeed, views of socialism are highly correlated with a voter’s age.  
According to a May 2015_  YouGov_ 
(http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/3csd07d2dd/tabs_OPI_socialism_20150508.pdf)
  poll, conducted just before 
Sanders launched his campaign, a  plurality of voters aged 18 to 29 had a 
favorable view of socialism. But among  voters 65 and older, just 15 percent 
viewed socialism favorably, to 70 percent  unfavorably.  
Young voters don’t necessarily back socialist economics
That doesn’t mean America is undergoing a leftist or revolutionary 
awakening,  however. The biennial_ General Social Survey_ 
(http://gss.norc.org/)   
has a long-standing question about wealth redistribution, asking Americans  
whether the “government in Washington ought to reduce the income differences  
between the rich and the poor … perhaps by raising the taxes of wealthy 
families  or by giving income assistance to the poor.” While no one question 
can summarize  Sanders’s left-of-center economic program in a sentence, this 
is probably about  as close as you’re going to get; his plan _would  raise 
marginal tax rates to as high as 77 percent_ 
(http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates)  on the very 
richest  Americans to pay for a 
host of social programs. 
The General Social Survey question asks respondents to place themselves on 
a  7-point scale ranging from favoring government efforts at redistribution 
to  opposing them. To make things a little more intuitive, I’ve translated 
those  responses to a 100-point scale, where 0 represents the most  
conservative/right-wing position (no redistribution!), and 100 the most  
liberal/left-wing position (hell yes, redistribution!). The chart below  
summarizes how 
both Americans overall and Americans aged 18-29 have responded to  the 
question over time.  
Americans end up pretty much in the middle of the road._3_ 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/#fn-3)
   
Whereas 50 would represent an exactly centrist position, the average score 
among  
all Americans in 2014 (the most recent edition of the survey) was 54. 
Americans  aged 18-29 scored a 60, just slightly further to the left. But these 
are really  modest differences, and they haven’t changed much over time. In 
1996, 20 years  ago, the average response among all Americans was a 54, and 
the average among  Americans aged 18-29 was a 59, almost exactly the same as 
now. It’s possible  that Sanders will trigger a shift toward more support for 
economic  redistribution in the future, but there hasn’t been one yet. 
What socialists and libertarians have in common
Just as “socialism” is becoming more popular with young Americans, so is  
another label that implies a highly different set of economic policies.  
Americans aged 18-29 are_  much more likely_ 
(http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/)
  than 
older generations to have a favorable view of the term  “libertarian,” 
referring to a philosophy that favors free markets and small  government. 
Indeed, 
the demographics of Sanders’s support now and Ron Paul’s  support four years 
ago are _not  all that different_ 
(http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa/exit-polls) : Both 
candidates got much more support from 
younger  voters than from older ones, from men than from women, from white 
voters than  from nonwhite ones, and from secular voters than from religious 
ones. Like  Sanders, Paul drew more support from poorer voters than from 
wealthier ones in  2012, although that’s not true of libertarianism more 
generally._4_ 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/#fn-4)
  
If both “socialism” and “libertarianism” are popular among young voters,  
could it be that younger voters have a wider spread of opinions on economic 
 redistribution, with more responses on both the “0” and “100” ends of 
the scale?  It could be, but that’s not what the data shows. In fact, on the 
General Social  Survey question I mentioned earlier, younger Americans were 
more likely than  older ones to be concentrated toward the center and not 
toward the extremes on  the redistribution issue._5_ 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/#fn-5)
  
The cynical interpretation of this is that the appeal of both “socialism” 
and  “libertarianism” to younger Americans is more a matter of the labels 
than the  policy substance. Relatedly, it’s hard to find all that much of a 
disagreement  over core issues between Clinton and Sanders, who voted 
together _93  percent of the time_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html)
  when they 
were both in the Senate from 2007 to 2009. 
But terms such as “liberal” and “conservative” are fairly cynical also, 
at  least in the way they’re applied in contemporary American politics. 
Rather than  reflecting their _original_ 
(http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/liberalism_essay/the_rise1.html) ,  
_philosophical  meanings_ 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/abc-republican-debate-presidential-election-2016/?#livepre
ss-update-15237280) , they instead tend to be used as euphemisms for the 
policy  positions of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. 
Those parties’  platforms are not all that philosophically coherent, nor do 
they 
reflect the  relatively _diverse  and multidimensional_ 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/there-are-few-libertarians-but-many-americans-have-libertari
an-views/)  political views of individual Americans. Instead, the  major 
American political parties are best understood as _coalitions  of interest 
groups_ 
(http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-may-be-failing/)  
that work together to further one another’s agendas. 
What’s distinctive about both the Sanders and Ron Paul coalitions is that  
they consist mostly of people who do not feel fully at home in the two-party 
 system but are not part of historically underprivileged groups. On the 
whole,  young voters lack political influence. But a young black voter might 
feel more  comfortable within the Democratic coalition, which black political 
leaders have  embraced, while a young evangelical voter might see herself as 
part of a wave of  religious conservatives who long ago found a place 
within the GOP. 
A young, secular white voter might not have a natural partisan identity,  
however, while surrounded by relatively successful peers. In part, then, the  
“revolutions” that both Sanders and Paul speak of are _revolutions  of 
rising expectations_ 
(http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Bernie-Sanders-and-the-revolution-of-rising-expectations.html)
 . We’ll explore this theme 
more fully in Part II of  the series, and consider some alternative 
explanations for Sanders’s  success.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to