A Revolution? Statistically, not yet.

[1StrongBlackMan]

The Sanders theory of change is that by capturing marginalized non-voters he will create a wave election which will change the composition and nature of the legislature, and make these impossible policy plans (free college, single payer health care, etc) politically possible. The theory is by taking a moderate tack Obama reduced turnout, which did not give him the level of change he needed in the legislature to implement his agenda.

By tacking unabashedly left, the theory goes, turnout will improve to such an extent that we will no longer need to deal with intransigent Republicans that only fear primaries and not general elections. We’ll have more Democrats and more Republicans that fear the Democratic revolution.

That seems to be an accurate theory of the case; but ... well ... read:

A good stastistician, then, should ask what the fingerprint of such a revolution would look like in the poll numbers. The answer is pretty simple: regardless of the Clinton/Sanders split we should see new voters in the pool. The sum of Clinton and Sanders votes should be greater than the sum of Democratic votes in 2008.

http://rainystreets.wikity.cc/a-revolution-statistically-not-yet/

[virtualobserver]

1. Bernie needs to campaign in all of the states

Then we will see.

[cali]

2. Statistically, he's broken the big money fundraising status quo.

That right there is revolutionary.

[JonLeibowitz]

3. At the end of the day, for all of us, it is a choice.

Ask yourself: could Clinton come closer to delivering the turnout of 2008? If not, why not? If not, how should that impact your vote?

[Thinkingabout]

4. So far Sanders is not producing the votes Obama was able to get.

[The Polack MSgt]

5. Kicked, recced.

I worry that the GOP is bringing new voters to the polls and all the infighting among us is suppressing Democratic turn out in the primaries so far.

Now, if Trump derails will the drooling horde subside?

Once we pick a candidate will there be the will to GOTV in the National?

Stay tuned

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Bingo ...

I worry that the GOP is bringing new voters to the polls and all the infighting among us is suppressing Democratic turn out in the primaries so far.

But none care that the theory of the case is failing ... miserably. At least in the two test markets.

Now, if Trump derails will the drooling horde subside?

This is my bright spot ... as the trump train picks up speed, the track is stressing. I hope he sticks to his "So long I am treated fairly" pledge still stands, because he is making noises that he doesn't feel that he is being treated fairly ... IOWs, he is starting to falter, and of course, in his world, it couldn't possibly be because of him, so it must be some dirty trick!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. NO WE CAN'T!

[noretreatnosurrender]

7. Key Words

Thanks for the post and thanks for those key words - Not yet. This is true. The fight has just begun but so far it's heading in the right direction. I'm very optimistic.

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Iowa and N.H., suggest differently ...

Democratic voter totals were down ... significantly. And this with open primaries/caucuses and same day registration.

[tk2kewl]

8. fair assessment at this point, but with an asterisk from my point of view

i think Bernie will keep the pedal to floor doing a better job of continuing to rally grassroots support into and throughout his presidency. at least that is my hope

[AgingAmerican]

11. Tacking left gave us the congress from 1955-1980s

Since we tacked right, we have not been able to control it. It ain't rocket science and the process of doing so is decidedly mainstream. Wont happen with a right wing DNC. Won't happen with a corporate controlled Democratic party.

It won't happen with 'moderation' which is just another way to say conservatism. It will only happen with liberalism, the policies of which are decidedly mainstream and poll widely popular.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. "Moderation" only means "conservatism" to the "far left" ...

just like "moderation" mean "liberal" to the "far right" ... To the rest of the world, "moderation" mean "moderate."

[beedle]

14. The rest of the world?

To the rest of the world America doesn't have a "moderate" wing. Except for a notable few, America has a few center right and everything goes rightward from there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Okay, rest of the world is a bit hyperbolic ...

edit that to see:

"Moderation" only means "conservatism" to the "far left" ... just like "moderation" mean "liberal" to the "far right" ... To the rest of the American electorate, "moderation" mean "moderate."

[AgingAmerican]

20. Conservative means, satisfied with the status quo

Moderates are satisfied with the status quo.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. No ... Well, maybe that's what ...

Moderate means in far left speak; but, not in standard English.

[thesquanderer]

16. No doubt he is the underdog for the nomination.

Your link is one of many that show just how hard it will be for him to get the nomination.

Though that's not the same as electability in the general, if he actually manages to pull it off. There, there are many reasons to believe he is more "electable" than Hillary. The trick will be getting that far.

[thesquanderer]

15. Some points...

* So far, we have just a single data point, NH, which is a little minimal for spotting a trend. (AFAIK, actual voter turnout at the Iowa caucuses have not been reported; though even then you'd only have two data points.)

* Comparing the turnouts for NH between 2008 and 2016 is naturally skewed because we had only two candidates vying for the nomination this time, also meaning fewer campaigns motivating voters and committing resources to GOTV. That differential should diminish as the contests go on, and we can compare to contests that had only 3 and then 2 candidates in the race in 2008.

* Extrapolating from a single primary to the general election seems ridiculous not just for the sparsity of data, but also for the lack of being able to account for all the possible variables between now and election day. For example, could a VP Warren be more vote-motivating than a VP Biden was? Will the Republicans put up someone more polarizing than a McCain or a Romney?

* The "revolution" does not happen to happen entirely in one election. If Sanders can continue to keep his base motivated, there is further opportunity to flip seats in 2018 (and possibly 2020 and 2022).

* Lastly, I'd point out that Obama actually picked up, I believe, 21 House seats and 6 Senate seats in 2008... something comparable to that would at least be a good start. Unfortunately, Obama had the misfortune to be elected under the new "Black President" rule, which required 60 votes for the Senate to do anything, instead of 50+VP. (It is unclear as to whether that rule will be at all eased for "Woman President" or "Jewish President." Or heck, just "Dem President.&quot Though it was the 2010 midterms that really killed it for him. (Losing Ted Kennedy didn't help, either.) But yeah, Sanders keeping/building his motivated base for the subsequent midterm could make all the difference.

[uponit7771]

17. +1, the marginalized are going heavy for HRC

[bigtree]

18. and that should be worrying for Sanders

...who once stated that he would only consider running for office if he came to believe the numbers were there to support a political 'revolution.'

He's invested in winning now, but he's likely to be disappointed in the turnout numbers which are the only substantive basis for his 'revolution' outside of an 'establishment' fight which seems improbably focused on the demise and dismantling of Hillary.

[wildeyed]

22. Coalition politics is the revolution.

Bernie Sanders wants to lead the revolution, he has to prove he can unite Obama's coalition. It's all in the math and the demographics. Obama knew. So does the GOP. And so far I am not seeing it with this one.

[mcar]

23. K&R