According to The Hill:
“Entering the primary, the RealClearPolitics average of polls showed Clinton with a 21-point lead over Sanders in Michigan. There had not been one public survey released this cycle that showed Sanders in the lead there.”
I recently found an issue of Newsweek from the Summer of ’68, the cover of which posed the question: “Do polls matter?” That we’re still asking the same question 50 years later, I guess, offers a murky answer. “Sometimes. I suppose? In the right context, of course. With the right analysis. And when things are predictable enough? Even then, mostly. But then mostly not. It depends. Or something.”
Also of note from The Hill:
“Clinton had hoped to pivot to the general election, and had already begun training the bulk of her fire on Donald Trump.”
The Clinton campaign’s biggest fault, I think, is that it continues to believe itself an inevitability more than it acknowledges that there are a lot of people who see the Clinton v. Sanders contest as one meant to help define narrative and direction. With regard to what each candidate has on the line, the Sanders campaign has an advantage in that it has nothing to lose and so they can commit to keeping this exchange open. It is this exchange, by the way, that continues to bring new blood into the debate, which makes arguments that it is distracting from the general moot. Were the Clinton campaign to acknowledge that being president weren’t destiny, they would similarly be emboldened to speak to that exchange and make whatever their case may be.
Finally, I talked with a young farmer this weekend and she said that her father had considered switching from a Republican to a Democrat so that he could support Sanders but the window had passed. That said, he’d vote Sanders over the GOP candidates. This is something my mind returns to time and again when he’s derided as “unelectable.”
IMAGE CREDIT: Troy R. Bennett || BDN