Greg Sargent’s “The Plum Line Opinion: A Sanders endorsement of Clinton could still make a big difference” reports that a new battleground state poll from Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg’s Democracy Corps finds that “among likely voters in nine key battleground states, Clinton leads Donald Trump by eight points, 49-41.” Further,
…Trump’s Rust Belt strategy may be failing: In the aggregate of five of the states — Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire — Clinton leads by eight, 44-36. A second is that Clinton may be able to expand the map because she’s also doing well in the more diverse remaining states: In the aggregate of North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida, Clinton also leads by eight, 47-39.
In addition, Sargent concludes that ” Sanders’ endorsement [of Clinton] could, in fact, still have a real impact, meaning he may still have some genuine leverage to try to win more concessions designed to continue pushing the party’s agenda in a more progressive direction.”
Sargent notes that, while 89 percent of Democrats in the nine states are already supporting Clinton,
…Peek below the toplines, and it’s clear there’s plenty of room for a Sanders endorsement to help Clinton. This becomes clear when you look at the breakdown of numbers among not just Clinton and Trump, but also with libertarian Gary Johnson factored in, because apparently, a lot of Sanders supporters are now going for Johnson.
The poll finds that among voters who supported Sanders in the primary in the nine battlegrounds polled, 69 percent support Clinton, while six percent back Trump and another 17 percent support Johnson. What’s more, among millennials, it’s even more stark: 46 percent support Clinton, 24 percent back Trump, and 22 percent support Johnson.
Sargent quotes Greenberg, who adds
“It’s quite possible that many Sanders voters and millennials may be identifying as independents…Millennials, and white millennials in particular, are still out there and have not consolidated behind her.”
“Of his vote, there’s still a significant bloc voting for the Libertarian Party,” Greenberg continues. “Ninety percent of Sanders voters should be voting for Hillary.” If Sanders were to succeed in consolidating his voters and millennials behind Clinton, Greenberg adds, “it could kick her lead into double digits.”
And a double-digit victory for Clinton in November, some political observers believe, would result in a wave election that would likely provide Democratic majorities in both houses of congress and many state legislatures now controlled by Repubicans.
A strong endorsement by Sanders, who has already stated he will vote for Clinton, could well make the difference between a Clinton victory checked by continued Republican obstruction in congress, and a Democratic landslide which launches a new era of progressive change that improves the lives of millions of Americans. Providing the leadership needed to achieve the latter result would make Sen. Sanders one of the most influential political figures of our times.
Bernie couldn’t care less than that. His concern is his great “revolution”, his cult of personality (such as it is), and maintaining the naive purity of his unworkable ideas (on which he has done no homework in almost 30 years in both Houses of Congress, to the extent that during the campaign he never could answer a basic, fair question about what he intended to do, beyond his campaign slogans) in the face of political realities. I was delighted to see him booed by Democrats in the Senate today. Lots more of that in store, and then, loss of committee seats and everything else that makes him valuable to the voters of his home state, who put him there.
And I say this as a Vermonter who has voted for him as congressman and senator every time he has stood for election.
But never again.