Bernie Sanders is the Best Hope for Winning in 2020: A Fact-Based Analysis

Me: “Non-Bernie Democratic friends out there, I’d been thinking of writing up a fully sourced and evidenced-based analysis on why I believe Sanders has the highest win chance in the coming General Election. If I wrote this, and it was entirely factual (with references), would you read it? It would be offered with the idea that while most of the GOP has gone fully over to factional tribalism and exists in ‘alternative reality’, we can on this side still remain open to new perspectives and positions if in possession of the right information. Would new information, or information shown in an as-of-yet unseen pattern, be able to change your mind?”

Them: “Yes. Show us.”

This writing is predicated on the notion that those of us on the left can acquire new information which may yet command a shift in personal perspective. It is written in the hopes of laying out the case in reality, with verifiable and sourced data derived from trusted sources. It is an overt effort to persuade in hopes of avoidance of mistakes of the recent past and with the intent to exploit a unique opportunity.

In this analysis, facts are laid out in detail with references linked directly. Derivations of sourced facts are arrived at in takeaways below each section, and opinion (where noteworthy or relevant) is specifically called out.

Critical Note: None of what is laid out here is to the ideal, or in the interest of fairness, or the correction of injustice through the casting of votes. Neither you nor I shape the reality of how others vote in the General based on how we vote in the Primary. This is most imperative of consideration where matters of identity or credentials are concerned — what is fair and should be is not what is, and one’s vote does not change the dynamic or system in place in the now, it simply changes the nominee. To arrive at a logical conclusion in candidate selection, this analysis will not explore an emotional, altruistic, or idealistic preference for nominee selection. It establishes which candidate has the highest probability to win, and why. If electoral victory is a tertiary consideration to casting your ballot in an effort to “send a message” or “right a wrong”, disregard this content.

Before diving in, it is critical to establish retrospective and understand what has transpired. We must avoid making critical errors in judgment and understandings of electioneering, and that’s only viable if we’ve learned from the immediate past.

Fact: Bernie did not cost Clinton the election.

• Fact: Sanders-to-Trump voters were new voters, or didn’t identify as Democrats in the first place.
• Fact: Sanders support bloc defection (11–12%) rates were lower than their historic counterparts and outperformed. For comparison, 34% of Kasich primary voters went to Clinton ’16, 25% of Hillary ’08 primary voters went to John McCain, 13% of McCain primary voters went to Obama. 13% of Obama 2012 voters voted for Trump in ’16.
• Fact: Bernie campaigned vigorously for Hillary after the primary (39 rallies for her in 13 states in 3 months), and told his supporters repeatedly not to vote third-party.

Then why’d Clinton lose?

• Fact: Hillary spent $1 billion dollars in 2016 and nearly all of it was on attack ads. Issues messaging was nominal at best. Before continuing on, please review the Wesleyan Media Project study. TL;DR — attack ads don’t work anymore, money over a certain amount spent on any ads has no effect.
• Fact: Polling is catastrophically wrong, and has been for a long time. In 2015, Gallup recognized what was occurring and exited primary polling. Long story extremely short — most current polling uses landlines for the lion’s share of its data, and people who own landlines are older and more conservative, AND polling is no longer capable of accounting for the dynamic effects of populism. This egregiously skewed expectations and campaign strategy — the campaign did not have a concession speech written, in that a loss was unimaginable due faulty polling.
• Fact: Americans were asked to choose between two record-breaking intensely disliked and untrusted candidates. They did not like this, and turnout was abysmal.
• Fact: Gary Johnson peeled away more voters from Trump (3.27%) than Jill Stein peeled away from Clinton (1.06%). Both third-parties received a surge in support due to historic dislike of both major party candidates.
• Fact: Self-identified conservatives voted for Trump at a lower rate (81%) than self-identified liberals voted for Clinton (84%).
• Opinion: James Comey, Russian interference, a tone deaf campaign messaging strategy bordering on malpractice, a byzantine campaign structure all led to defeat.

While there are many lessons to be learned, we need to bring a few of the most critical forward; that polling is broken excepting in rare cases (Bayesian accounted with cell phones as percent larger than landline/online), voters care about issues/ideas, do not like picking between two candidates they don’t like, and electioneering communications content matters.

Definitive reasons Bernie Sanders is positioned as optimal candidate to defeat Donald Trump in 2020

Fact: Sanders is not a Democrat.

While this is most often offered as a discounting factor and reason to vote against him in the primary, it serves as a massive advantage in the General Election. Sander’s biggest appeal is that he is not a Democrat technically, as others have laid out. The historic average for the Democratic Party image overall is ~10 points lower than Bernie’s favorability. Four in ten Americans are independent (Pew), and feel more negatively inclined towards parties and political party candidates. In Vermont, Sanders has won Independents by 50% over competitors — because he does exceptionally well by virtue of perceived distance from the distrusted and abused two-party system.

Independents deeply disdain parties according to many recent studies. This has prompted independent and non-party affiliated voters to explode in population in the recent decade with self-identification as Republican or Democrat at historic lows of 26% and 29% respectively.

(As a reminder, this analysis does not presume addressing the issue of partisan disaffection or distrust of political parties through a campaign — it operates within the boundaries of what is.)

Opinion: You don’t want a Democrat in the General, because it triggers the tribalism of the right and the auto-immune apathy response of the exhausted non-partisan bloc. Bernie operates with impunity in being able to doff or don the Democratic or Independent Outsider mantles as needed.

Takeaway: Sanders is the candidate who can maximize capitalization on partisan disaffection in a General.

Fact: Sanders’ banner issues are popularly held and mainstream.

Despite media-driven narrative of radicalism, Sanders’ positions on his top issues are widely popular among the American electorate. Polling, where available and not discounting for landline conservative skew, is taken with a grain of salt, but Sanders’ core issues are in possession of supermajority public support:

• Addressing Income Inequality: 63% of Americans agree that the current distribution of wealth is unfair and 52% believe it should be adjusted with heavy taxes on the rich, which includes 29% of Republicans and 32% of conservatives.
• Get Money out of Politics: 61% of Americans oppose Citizens United solidly.
• Free College: 58% of voters support tuition-free college and eliminating all student debt. 58% of those were Independents.
• Medicare for All: 70% of Americans support Medicare for All single-payer healthcare. That includes 52% of Republicans.
• Green New Deal: 63% of Americans think the Green New Deal climate proposal is a good idea, with 64% of Independents favoring it, with even 26% of Republicans supporting the position.

The list continues, but each issue position carries a similar vein — broad popular support that encompasses the bulk of the American populace and crosses party lines. Notably, Sanders is considered the progenitor of several of these issues positions, most prominently Medicare for All and Addressing Income Inequality that now serve as planks in the Democratic Party platform.

Takeaway: Sanders has an exhaustive list of core issues of intensely broad appeal and an extensive history of standing for them. Any single one of these widely popular issues is capable of serving as the impetus for voter switching.

Fact: Sanders is persuasive even to the opposition.

While this may seem opinion, an objective analysis of his appearances establishes the veracity of the matter. Please review Sanders’ presence on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast and during Fox News Town Halls. Even the harshest and most partisan critics proffer kudos and respect for showing up and charismatically presenting the case to audiences that have classically been sheltered from perspective outside of their bubbles.

As of this writing, there are no studies laying out the persuasive qualities of Sanders’ appearances in traditionally red states, or in conservative venues. However, it is encouraged that you watch the two referenced appearances above in their entirety and observe the reactions and responses from conservatives listening to him. If you don’t have a couple of hours to watch Sanders effectively persuade portions of an audience otherwise hostile to the very notion of a Democratic candidate, instead review one brief snippet of an encounter Senator Sanders had during a rally in Charles City in November 2019. Skip to 1:09:54.

Watch the entire encounter. Sanders brings over a confrontational individual who has shown up to challenge him on his positions. The end result of the interaction from what began as a hostile engagement? “Good enough!” To date, no candidate in the Democratic presidential primary nor Trump has acquired this form of response from opposition. (The closest approximation is a Buttigieg speech to the Tea Party in 2010, but does not provide verbal affirmation of effective persuasion.)

Because of this persuasion power, Bernie brings out the non-voters. “Sandersism” is “a bold anti-Establishment message focused narrowly on health care and inequality is the best bet for reaching nonvoting Democrats and swing voters alike.” His fellow Democratic primary candidates do not possess or foment that kind of aggressive populism or appeal beyond their immediate support blocs on the left.

Takeaway: Sanders changes the dynamic of Democrats on defensive, and puts conservatives and Republicans on defense as he seeks to convert them. The persuasion techniques employed by his methods cut across tribal/factional divides and appeal to emotive, populist sentiment. He acts as a Blade-style Daywalker in this regard when coupled with technical non-partisan independent status. Put him in a room with Independents and Republicans and he will slowly convert them. That is not currently the case of other candidates.

Fact: Bernie Sanders is the most liked politician in America.

Sanders has the highest favorability of any politician in the United States of America. The United States conducts democratic elections where popular vote in individual states determines electoral college votes, of which 270 are needed for victory. American presidential elections are a popularity contest — albeit operating under awkward rules of the electoral college. Sanders has very high ratings with Democrats and Independents, but surprisingly, 26% of Republicans view him favorably.

Polling, where available and in accounting for skew for landline and non-Bayesian inference, shows that Bernie Sanders has the highest net favorability of any of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. This, in taken with prior polling by Gallup, has remained consistent for the past 4 years.

As of the latest polls, Bernie Sanders wins by a larger margin in polling matchups against Donald Trump by +2 points. Disclaimer: THESE NUMBERS ARE SOFT, THIS WILL OSCILLATE OVER TIME.

Takeaway: This is an item that does not require exhaustive dissertation or analysis. Elections are popularity contests conducted in individual states. If we’d like to win, we should consider picking the person who is the most popular.

Fact: Sanders has People and Money.

In campaigning, viability is established primarily through raised dollar amounts. Quickly explained, the objective in electioneering is to reach as many people as possible through the most impactful means available. In local elections, this means the candidate goes door-to-door introducing themselves. A voter must be reached a number of times before they are persuaded to vote for the candidate, whether it be direct contact, mail, phone call, or advertisement. There are ultimately three resources in campaigns — People, Money, and Time (the last being the only thing you can’t get more of).

At a massive 4 million individual donations, Sanders demonstrates he has a vast amount of both people and money. Apart from Steyer and Bloomberg’s self-funding, Sanders has more campaign cash than any other candidate in the Democratic primary by a sizable amount. Sanders’ individual donations dwarf that of other Democratic candidates, even to the point of producing embarrassing data for Trump. As an example, Bernie Sanders has received more donations from members of the US military than Trump, Biden, and Buttigieg combined.

A donor engagement study by Fidelity Charitable found that 75% of people who donate are likely to volunteer, or already have. Provided Sanders only kept what he currently has, Sanders would operate a volunteer organization of activists constituting 1.3% of the total voting population of the country, fielding an army of volunteers roughly 3 million strong. That is at current. At the height of the Obama campaign, operations claimed 2.2 million volunteers nationally. In other words, not even counting for continued growth and acceleration post-primary, Sanders can currently field nearly a million more volunteers than President Obama did during the height of the General Election campaign season.

Sanders rallies shatter records for turn-out, packing stadiums to overflow even in red states. There is additional analysis on crowd size by various news outlets, but Sanders brings out intense interest and attendance where he travels. His rallies are the largest of any in the Democratic primary, and dwarf Trump rallies.

There are at least a few people at rallies for Bernie Sanders.

Opinion: There are emotive components to attendance at a Bernie rally that cannot be conveyed through text, imagery, or video. The atmosphere isn’t something that carries itself well into words. I’ve attended rallies for all major Democratic candidates, as well previous Republican candidates for President, and Bernie rallies are -different-. It is strongly recommended you experience this for yourself if there is one taking place near you. Go and see.

Kyle Moore conducted a comprehensive chronology of Bernie Sanders rallies and crowd size. Sanders breaks records and overflows even the overflow areas at venues. Performance is particularly notable in red states that have been previously ceded as non-competitive for Democratic candidates that many other campaigns forego.

Takeaway: Sanders fields the largest activist core and raises the most money of any candidate able to challenge Trump. He does so without requiring the aid of billionaires or SuperPACs, providing additional electioneering communications points that can be leveraged with Independents and disaffected Republicans. Elections are about “dollars and doors (field ops)”, and Bernie brings the most of both.

Fact: Victory in 2020 is About Turnout and Sanders commands the Youth Vote

It fact that Bernie Sanders turned out more voters under the age of 30 in the 2016 primary than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump did, combined.

Not only this, but he turned out more than double their combined number. Turnout of younger voters increases phenomenally when Bernie Sanders is on the ballot. After Sanders’ ’16 primary defeat, millennials had the lowest voter turnout of any demographic in the General Election.

Any electoral college map displaying results of youth-only voting is awash with blue and clocks in over 500 electoral votes for the Democratic candidate, as youth prefer the Democrat by a margin of +35% over the Republican.

Studies have been performed as to why it is that young people strongly prefer Bernie Sanders, with the consensus mostly circling around matters of principle and millennial disinterest in what is viewed as insincere or disingenuous politicians. The Harvard Public Opinion Project noted that 82% of millennial respondents believe it is more important for a candidate to share one’s political views than to be an electable politician, and strongly favor principle.

In review of results, Harvard Political Review concluded that “what sets Sanders apart from other Democratic hopefuls in part is his ability to communicate his forward-thinking policy solutions,” and “overcoming the age gap with millennial voters by making concerted efforts at relatability. He speaks the language of tech-savvy millennials and understands the policy-driven content they want to see.”

Takeaway: A single digit percentage increase at <5% in the youth vote turnout in 2020 precipitates a landslide electoral victory, and Sanders executes that.

Fact: The Best Campaigner Wins, Not the Best Candidate, and Sanders is The Best Campaigner

A hard-learned lesson in campaign management is the truism that the best campaigner wins, not the best candidate. In 2016, it could not be argued that there was more consummate administrative and bureaucratic talent in the world than Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Objectively and purely in terms of résumé , she was the best candidate. The loss is attributable to this truism — she was not the best campaigner, rather, the disgusting Donald Trump was.

Opinion: As of this writing, the best candidate in the race for President in 2020 is Senator Elizabeth Warren. Weighed solely on the merits of ideas adopted, veracity of plan details, attention to the minor nuances of implementation and execution of legislative agenda, experience, and administrative acumen, Warren constitutes the best candidate in the Democratic primary — but this does not make her the best campaigner.

American politics operates on this principle, with the electorate selecting the motivational or inspirational candidate over the practical and pragmatic option and has since 1964. Campaigns are not won nor votes achieved predicated on voters casting their vote for the candidate most qualified and in possession of the strongest legislative slate of policies. The best campaigner wins, in that elections are popularity contests and not expressly job interviews or meritocratic competitions.

Fact: Warren fields substantially fewer individual donors, smaller rally crowd sizes, less favorability, and lower overall support in aggregate than Bernie — within the Democratic field as well as with Independents. Her most recent campaign for Senate demonstrated “in 2016 underperforming Clinton in 228 of Massachussets’s 351 towns in a blue wave year” and across a host of available concurrent metrics.

Fact: Warren demonstrated folly on the elections communications front with mishandling of the Native American smears from Trump early in 2019. Warren has not sustained any major direct attacks from opponents since the occurrence, and this presents liability. Trump attacked her, and she apologized.

Fact: Joe Biden presents a unique threat to losing 2020, in that roughly the same formula that prompted Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 equated. Biden is, by any measure, unhinged when compared to previous candidates and their engagements with audiences (watch this video of his interaction with a voter).

Fact: A large chunk of the primary election is founded on how conservative, older, and black primary voters will cast their ballots — and currently they lean towards Biden by double-digits in most polls utilizing more accurate methodologies. Primary voters are significantly more committed to casting their vote in the General, but this does not directly translate to more votes in the General by non-primary voters.

Fact: Hillary’s association to a President with a high trust rating by African Americans (Bill Clinton) can be ascribed to the same arc of support by black primary voters as Joe Biden’s association to President Obama, we know definitively that it does not translate at all into the General. Despite overwhelming victory in South Carolina and black voter populous-primary states in the South by Hillary in 2016, black voter turnout actually fell in 2016 even as a record number of Americans cast ballots. It fell a whopping 7% points. Familiarity does not correlate with support or motivation to turnout in the General Election. Empirically, and without assertion that the black vote is a “monolith”, 2016 proved that there is no cause-and-effect relationship to African American support in a Primary Election and African American turnout in a General Election.

Fact: Biden commits a record-number of gaffes, reiterates false stories as memories, and often comes off as confused or awkward as perceived by audiences. His primary support structure (to the exclusion of other demographics) is primarily voters over the age of 65. He does not motivate activism, is running a “relaxed campaign for president”, and has legislative, personal, and political baggage. It is easy to picture a Trump Attorney General waiting until October 2020 to come out with a report about an investigation into Hunter Biden’s dealings ala James Comey in re Clinton. (This should be expected no matter who the candidate is, but is most damaging with a non-populist where the allegations tend to stick and defense mechanisms are minimal.)

Opinion: Most Biden support that does not originate from pure familiarity and direct association with Obama comes from “paper napkin electoral math” done by smart political actors and a valence of consultancy and campaign professionals. The calculation is on behalf of selecting what is viewed as a more moderate candidate in order to seek appeal to people in the rural and heartland portions of the country. It is a conceit that discounts current angst against an economic and political system that has failed them, and does not square that Biden is an establishment selection whom is currently viewed that way by this target audience. Whereas Warren is possessed of flaws that could theoretically (but unlikely) be overcome to prosecute a challenge to a Trump re-election, Biden is a nearly assured loss.

The remaining Democratic candidates are non-starters:

• Steyer and Bloomberg do not possess the grassroots support to do anything more than spend inordinate amounts of money on the race, and money no longer translates to votes.
• Yang does not operate a field organization large enough to reach critical requirement for primary state wins, let alone victory in the General.
• Booker and Klobuchar have not accrued any momentum or seen any positive changes in support since announcement. Booker may drop soon due money issues, but Klobuchar is backed by 21 billionaires, despite single-digit support in primary polling.
• Buttigieg support is tidal, but nearly half of primary voters still don’t know who he is, while many have already expressed firm preferences for other candidates.

Takeaway: There are disadvantages to Bernie Sanders, in that Sanders has baggage, and health concerns. By most metrics of expected campaign viability (laid out above in previous points), he yet presents as the most optimal path to victory in a General Election. His advantages are Individual Donors, Money Raised and from where, Volunteers/Activists, Organizing, Field Operations, Communications, Popularity (dimension of trustworthy, likeability, name recognition).

Primary Conclusions

If you want a win in 2020, consider voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. His candidacy presents a unique opportunity among the various options that provides the most reliable and certain path to victory over Trump.

Do not make the mistake of false pragmatism or the conceit of running a political calculus on behalf of a people commonly misunderstood in the American heartland. Do not err on the side of selecting a candidate based on their personal merits and biographical components rather than the realities of campaign operations and their impact on electoral outcomes. Resist the urge to embrace the folly of lending full support to whichever candidate is doing best in polls momentarily — the polls told untruths literally up to the day that Trump was elected. Do not predicate your choice based on identity, familiarity, momentum, media bias, or how you perceive thatothers perceive a candidate. Every one of these is a trap, provably and with considerable and recent evidence.

Rather, I encourage you to review the facts as they are laid out here and arrive at a shared conclusion: Bernie Sanders is our best hope for victory in 2020.

Support is, however, not an entirely logical matter. The brain does not prefer to be provided facts and then adjust based on assimilation of those facts — indeed, it operates directly counter to this paradigm, entering a limbic state when attempting to cogitate data that directly contradicts held positions. To account for that, let’s add one more piece to this conclusion set as an emotive component, and the only functional method of shifting what may be unavoidable tribal or factional affiliation.

Provided you began this article in support of another candidate for the Democratic nomination, do yourself a firm favor on the subject and switch to Bernie on a probationary period of two weeks. Whichever candidate you started with, try Bernie for 14 days. Not to belabor a hard sell, but as of this writing, we are still a considerable amount of time away from the first primaries. Switch on a very temporary, time-constrained basis with no direct loss of opinion or opportunity to yourself. To do so is quite simple; during this time, consider yourself as voting for Sanders in the primary. Grant yourself the permission (and privilege) of fluid allegiance to candidates, and you will experience a new perspective that you’d otherwise find inaccessible due to the way our human brains are naturally wired.

You don’t have to donate, or share on social media, or attend a rally — all you need to do is tell yourself that during the trial period, you support Bernie Sanders for the nomination. If not for two weeks, one week, or even a 72 hour period. You’ve nothing to lose by the try-out, and the probationary period will present additional information and experiences beyond those laid out here that will broaden your understanding about the candidate’s viability, as well as a dynamic that does not convey itself well to strict data. During, examine your thoughts and perceptions on news and information as it comes in through a slightly different lens.

By the end of the trial, if you don’t like what you’ve seen or the conclusions you’ve reached personally on support for Sanders, switch back, or to another altogether as your preference evolves! If you are flexible enough to do so, you will acquire a new perspective and insight as part of the process on your previous candidate.

Lastly, I greatly appreciate your time and the effort taken in reading this. Thank you deeply for your attention!

Additional Considerations

There are additional components to the case to be made for Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate for President in 2020. However, they are founded more in derived opinion and educated guesses rather than established fact and empirical study. A few of those, briefly.

• Bernie Sanders is a populist, and can deploy immunity to certain angles of electioneering communications attacks. “Bernie is a socialist!” the GOP attack might go. His response is a potential “…and?” followed by the galvanization of his support base. Sanders does not model traditional populism as egocentric demagoguery, but depersonalizes so that the halo effect extends to a movement associated with the candidate. “Not me, Us.” is his go-to core messaging in order to disarm the potential development of cult of personality. Very much like Trump (malignantly) and Obama (non-malignantly) before, he is vehicle by which the platform is delivered. It’s not about him, and that provides considerable latitude to act independent of a classically biographical campaign.
• Sanders’ motivation of non-voters prompts huge increases in voter registrations, and did in 2016. The biggest corollary to this was Obama’s primary in 2008. Sanders intensely motivates activity within the Democratic field and pushes heavy involvement by traditionally uninvolved contingents of the voting bloc.