Will Bernie Sanders’ Michigan victory translate to success in New York?

On the heels of our latest New York Slant podcast episode – where Gerson Borrero and I quizzed Basil Smikle and Jeanne Zaino on the trends emerging in the presidential primaries as they pertain to New York’s April primary – I want to dive further on that topic in the wake of Bernie Sanders’ stunning upset victory in Michigan on Tuesday.

Nearly every poll leading up to the Michigan primary had Hillary Clinton with a sizable lead over Sanders. FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten called the Sanders victory “one of the greatest upsets in modern political history,” and the results were unique in that Sanders had a much broader coalition of support, including more black voters, wealthy white Democrats and independents – exactly the types of voters he would need to attract in the looming northeastern primaries like New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

I posed a few questions to City & State’s Editorial Director Michael Johnson about Sanders’ upset and what, if anything, we can glean from his triumph in a state that has some demographic similarities to the Empire State.

Here’s our exchange:

NP: As political reporters, we often fall into the habit of treating polling numbers as gospel, particularly during campaign seasons. So in the context of Bernie Sanders’ huge upset victory in the Michigan primary – where polls had him down as much as 20 points – should we view the recent Siena College poll on the New York primary – where Hillary Clinton leads him by 21 points – differently?

MJ: I am not sure I would say the Siena College poll is off. The thing to remember is pollsters have to make a lot of subjective decisions when they are trying to figure out who is going to turn out to vote. It’s not as simple as calling 1,000 people and seeing what they think. You have to see if they have voted in the past, if they are motivated to vote this year for some reason. Also, you want that pool of 1,000 people to be reflective of the demographic makeup of the party. Polls in Michigan may have overvalued certain groups because they traditionally voted in higher numbers and underestimated other groups.

One thing I would definitely point out in comparing Michigan to New York is that Michigan is an open primary, where independents can vote in the Democratic primary. This is not the case in New York. I think for that reason alone it is easier to poll New York’s voters than Michigan. If you look at Siena’s poll, the favorable/unfavorable rating for Bernie Sanders is far better than Hillary Clinton among independents and others. Sanders is at 53 to 41. Clinton is 39 to 58. But they can’t vote in a Democratic primary. 

NP: A huge part of Sanders’ victory in Michigan was that his messaging started to resonate with black voters. Hillary still won the majority of black voters in the state, but Sanders closed the gap (3 out of 10 black voters supported him, I believe). Is it fair to say that the black vote in New York is less homogenous than in the southern states that Hillary dominated? Bernie opposing free trade and fighting for the working class struck a unique chord in Michigan, where the Flint water crisis and the death of industry is prevalent. I wonder if that messaging would serve him well in New York.

MJ: I think it would be foolish to assume that the black vote is monolithic and not shaped by the regional or local experiences of the voters. In the South, black voters have had a long history of little power or support from elected officials with power. In those communities they are likely to continue to support people who have fought for them even if they have been ineffective to deliver for them in the past because they don’t necessarily expect much from their elected officials. They know that the odds or demographics are stacked against those who fight for them, so they don’t get frustrated if people who show the effort to fight for them fail to deliver.

In purple states, black voters expect more from politicians than they do in red states. They have seen their collective power get people elected and then seen them deliver for their communities in many cases, so they are more inclined to support the person they think will deliver for them in the future. 

Hillary Clinton has a long track record of fighting for the black community and has specific examples she can point to detailing how she has delivered for these communities, especially in New York. So, there is a case to be made that she will slightly out-perform her results in Michigan because of familiarity.

BUT, the signature issue of Bernie Sanders’ campaign is income inequality and Wall Street greed, which resonates strongly in New York more than other states. If you couple that with a similar disdain for trade imbalance in upstate communities — many of which saw manufacturing flee after the passage of NAFTA — you can make the case that Sanders will be able to mount a serious challenge to Clinton on ideological issues. Right now, African-Americans favor Hillary Clinton 68 to 30 in the Siena Poll. There is easily a case to be made that that gap would shrink a little if people get to know more about Sanders.

NP:  To your point about voter familiarity – do you think Clinton’s vast coalition of surrogates in New York makes any difference? Virtually the entire New York Democratic establishment has endorsed her campaign, and presumably they will be out in full force whipping up support for Clinton if Sanders remains competitive entering the April 19 primary.

MJ: New York is not known for making it easy for people to vote or find their polling sites, so history suggests Clinton supporters will be able to turn out their voters better than the Sanders campaign. They will tap into local Democrats’ personal networks of voters to drive people to the polls, encouraging them to vote for Clinton. That said, passion often beats organization in elections. Though, I am not convinced Sanders is trouncing Clinton in the passion battle in New York, or even winning it, while it’s pretty obvious that Clinton will have better organization than Sanders – no matter how hard the Sanders campaign works.