Nicholas Christos ’20
*As published on Smerconish.com
As the general election nears, Former Vice President Joe Biden’s command in key states points to his strength: a broad coalition of moderates, suburban women, older voters, and African Americans, while Sanders dominates among the young and very liberal.
In the 2016 Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton had a similar coalition as Biden, likely due to the fact that they are somewhat similar candidates.
Both are white, in their 70s, somewhat moderate in ideology, Obama administration officials, and have been in politics for decades. They both are considered “establishment” candidates, with broad endorsements from party elites.
However, Biden’s performance in the 2020 Democratic primary elections thus far portrays a shocking difference between the two. Clinton and Biden both faced off against Sanders in their respective elections, yet in almost every state so far Biden has done dramatically better as the establishment opposition to him than Clinton did.
In the Washington primary in 2016, Sanders defeated Clinton by 45 points. In 2020, when Sanders faced Biden, he lost by 2 points.
The difference is extremely striking: in 2016, Sanders was supported by 72.7% of the electorate, but in 2020 he only had the support of 36.5% of those who voted. Biden was able to cut his support in half over the course of just four years.
The reasoning behind this massive Sanders exodus is unknown. It may be the weakness of Sanders’ earlier performances, his decline in health, or his evolved policy stances, or it may be that this time around he will be tasked with denying President Trump a second term. However, the one thing that changed for certain was which establishment candidate he was up against, and when it was Biden he faced, his support stunningly waned.
The Michigan primary shows a similar reality. In 2016, Sanders shockingly defeated Clinton in Michigan narrowly. But against Biden, Sanders was not able to win a single county in Michigan, losing by 17 points.
The pattern of Sanders’ weakness against Biden was increasingly clear in other primaries as well. In Illinois Clinton was able to hold Sanders off by a tight two points, while Biden was able to defeat him by 23 points, winning every county but one.
Additionally, Sanders was defeated by Biden in Maine, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Minnesota, all states where he was able to outdo Clinton in 2016. In Minnesota, Sanders beat Clinton by 24 points, a landslide, only to lose to Biden by nearly 10 points four years later.
Furthemore, the Idaho primaries show Biden’s dominance. In 2016, Mr. Sanders was able to win the state by 57 points. But, against a different establishment challenger, Biden, he lost by six points. In Oklahoma, Sanders won all but two counties in 2016, but did not win a single county in 2020.
Missouri continues the pattern. Clinton was able to defeat Sanders narrowly 49.6% to 49.4%, only 1,500 votes. Sanders competed again in Missouri, but this time against Biden, and lost by 170,000 votes, unable to win a single county.
Finally, Sanders’ performance in his home state of Vermont in 2016 versus 2020 points to how weak Clinton was and how strong Biden is, or possibly a decline in Sanders’ support due to his evolved policy stances, health, or positioning against Trump in a general election.
In 2016, Sanders had the support of 86% of Vermont’s voters, but in 2020 he was only backed by about 50% of them, a massive decrease in backing from his home state.
Clinton was not even able to break the viability threshold of 15% in 2016, so Sanders took all of the state’s 16 delegates. In 2020, Biden took five of those.
The margins are striking: Biden has, without question, performed extraordinarily better than Clinton against the same opponent in the same states. Many factors likely contribute to this variation. One possibility is that it is Sanders’ decline in popularity in 2020 compared to 2016 that allows Biden to be outdoing Clinton.
Another possibility is that many see Biden much more appealingly to Sanders this time around because blocking Trump from a second term is the priority, and Sanders just comes with too much risk for many voters.
However, the disparity may be due to a difference between Biden and Clinton. As mentioned earlier, the two share somewhat similar political pedigrees.
The major difference is that Clinton faced major issues of likability and trust. Many voters, fearing her history with the email server or the Benghazi embassy attack, found her untrustworthy, according to exit polling. Additionally, data suggests that her likeability sagged throughout her candidacy.
Biden does not seem to face the same issues, and the reasoning behind that may point to the significance of one more difference between Biden and Clinton: Biden is a man and Clinton is a woman. This may indicate why Biden is more trusted and widely liked than Clinton, who is constantly scrutinized and deemed dishonest.
Whatever the reason, Biden is clearly doing dramatically better than Clinton did in the primary process against Sanders.
Biden is winning states that Clinton lost to Sanders by landslides. This show of robust force should be reassuring to Democrats should Biden become the party’s nominee and points to his potential to defeat Trump come November.
But whatever the outcome, Democrats who by and large believe themselves to be less sexist than Republicans, need to take a long hard look at the significance of Biden’s rise and Clinton’s fall.