vox--2020-02-22--3 winners and 2 losers from the Nevada caucuses

Bernie Sanders won the 2020 Nevada caucuses , and in more ways than one .
His signature issue , Medicare-for-all , won in a face-off with the state ’ s most powerful union .
And the race for second through fifth place was muddled , a recurring theme in this primary season , in which no clear center-left alternative to Sanders has emerged .
Sanders rode into Nevada with two popular-vote wins in Iowa and New Hampshire and a near tie in the delegate count with Pete Buttigieg .
Nevada was his chance to break away from the pack in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer .
A candidate needs a majority to win the nomination .
The Vermont senator was always looking like the favorite , having led the polls in Nevada ahead of the caucuses .
The rest of the story was going to be who came in second .
Buttigieg shined in Iowa and New Hampshire , two overwhelmingly white states , but needed to prove he could contend in places with more Hispanic and black voters .
Joe Biden has struggled in the first two states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electorate in Nevada ( and , looking ahead , in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states ) will fuel a comeback .
Elizabeth Warren also failed to make a splash in the first two states before a commanding debate performance Wednesday .
And Amy Klobuchar was trying to build off her strong showing in Iowa and especially New Hampshire , where she relied on support from white voters for a surprise third-place finish , to show she can attract voters of color .
( Mike Bloomberg is technically on the Nevada ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big bet on Super Tuesday , March 3 , when nearly one-fourth of the DNC delegates are up for grabs . )
So coming out of Nevada , Sanders looks by far like the strongest candidate in the Democratic field , and the rest of the candidates still haven ’ t distinguished themselves as the best bet to topple him .
Those were the stakes headed into Saturday afternoon in Nevada .
Here ’ s who won and who lost .
He got the most votes and the most delegates .
He won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decisive victory he ’ d been lacking after effectively tying in Iowa and New Hampshire .
His margin of victory over the other five candidates who see themselves as viable threats to the nomination was substantial .
And it comes in a state that has moved up the primary calendar because party leaders think it has the kind of voters — young , diverse — Democrats will need going forward .
( Well , and because former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid played an outsize role getting Nevada third on the schedule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distance between himself and Buttigieg .
Going by numbers from earlier in the day in the FiveThirtyEight forecast , he is at this point really the only Democratic candidate with a good chance ( 39 percent ) of winning a majority of DNC delegates and the nomination .
But he trails “ no one ” at this point , raising the possibility of a contested convention if nobody wins the nomination in the primary elections .
For Sanders , as a party outsider , accumulating as many delegates as possible and making his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outright majority or not — is incredibly important .
He ’ s gained some ground in that race , thanks to this strong win in Nevada .
Loser : The race for second place With everybody anticipating a Sanders win , a lot of the pre-caucus speculation was about who would come in second .
Would Buttigieg solidify his place as the Sanders alternative ?
Could Biden rebound ahead of South Carolina , his must-win state ?
What if Warren parlayed a strong debate into a surprise second-place finish ?
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders is running away with the nomination and there is little clarity about the strongest opponent to challenge him .
Even before the caucuses , FiveThirtyEight gave Sanders 4-in-10 odds of winning the primary ; Bloomberg , barely a blip in Nevada , was second at 1 in 12 on the strength of his national polling and a focus on the delegate-rich Super Tuesday states .
A Biden nomination is considered a little less likely than Bloomberg ’ s .
Nobody else had better than a 1-in-100 chance .
As the Republican establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t just play for second against an insurgent frontrunner .
Democrats are starting to learn the same lesson the hard way .
For the first time , Nevada let people “ vote early ” in the caucuses .
What that actually meant ( because of the way caucuses are run in real life ; read more from Andrew Prokop ) is those early voters used a ranked-choice ballot .
It looked a lot like ranked-choice voting in Maine ( the first state to authorize it in all elections ) , and several other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upcoming primaries .
This year , Nevadans could go to an early-voting site and fill out a ballot with their preferences for the Democratic nominee , ranked first through fifth .
It mirrors the caucus experience , where voters first congregate with their favorite candidate .
But then for candidates who fail to clear 15 percent on that first vote , their supporters must move to a more viable camp .
The new wrinkle seems to have increased turnout in Nevada ; upward of 75,000 early ballots were cast , nearly matching the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The only question is whether that decreases turnout on caucus day , but it seems assured overall turnout will be up from the last election .
For Nevada , ranked-choice voting was a way to replicate the caucus experience in absentia .
In general , the argument for ranked choice is , in short , that it ’ s more democratic than relying on a plurality of support or a top-two runoff to declare a winner .
As Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen previously explained : And we haven ’ t seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic contest : Alaska , Hawaii , Kansas , and Wyoming will use it for their 2020 primary elections .
The powerful labor union , which represents 60,000 people in Nevada ’ s hospitality industry , didn ’ t technically endorse any candidate , and so it technically did not back a loser .
But the union ’ s leaders made their displeasure with Sanders ’ s Medicare-for-all plan — and his most zealous supporters — known .
Their Nevada workers benefit from high-level health care , including their own clinic , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are worried about losing that health care if their insurance plan is eliminated .
( Overall , union members are more mixed on Medicare-for-all than Democrats generally . )
Workers who caucused for Sanders said they liked their union insurance plan , according to BuzzFeed News .
But they worried about relatives and friends who could lose their jobs : The way the union blasted Sanders ’ s plan while softening their language when describing Elizabeth Warren ’ s Medicare-for-all plan made pretty clear which way it wanted the primary to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fight with Sanders quite publicly , with the news of their anti-M4A literature breaking on the night of Sanders ’ s New Hampshire win .
But Sanders won the state handily .
Moreover , exit polls found that Democratic caucus-goers overwhelmingly support a single-payer program that eliminates private insurance : about 6 in 10 , according to the Washington Post .
It looked like Sanders was beating union leadership on their own turf .
Again , 6 in 10 Nevada caucus-goers told pollsters they supported eliminating private insurance for good and replacing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidate who has married his brand to Medicare-for-all was winning caucuses in casinos with union workers , after that union ’ s leaders made their opposition to the plan abundantly clear .
It ’ s still an open question how Sanders , and Medicare-for-all , would fare in a general election against President Trump or how “ electable ” the candidate and his plan ultimately are .
But the issue is not slowing Sanders down at all among Democratic primary voters .

Bernie Sanders won the 2020 Nevada caucuses, in more ways than one.
His signature issue, Medicare-for-all, won in a face-off with the state’s most powerful union. And the race for second through fifth place was muddled, a recurring theme in this primary season, in which no clear center-left alternative to Sanders has emerged.
Sanders rode into Nevada with two popular-vote wins in Iowa and New Hampshire and a near tie in the delegate count with Pete Buttigieg. Nevada was his chance to break away from the pack in the only metric that actually matters: delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer. A candidate needs a majority to win the nomination.
The Vermont senator was always looking like the favorite, having led the polls in Nevada ahead of the caucuses. The rest of the story was going to be who came in second.
Buttigieg shined in Iowa and New Hampshire, two overwhelmingly white states, but needed to prove he could contend in places with more Hispanic and black voters. Joe Biden has struggled in the first two states, but his campaign hoped a more diverse electorate in Nevada (and, looking ahead, in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states) will fuel a comeback.
Elizabeth Warren also failed to make a splash in the first two states before a commanding debate performance Wednesday. And Amy Klobuchar was trying to build off her strong showing in Iowa and especially New Hampshire, where she relied on support from white voters for a surprise third-place finish, to show she can attract voters of color. (Mike Bloomberg is technically on the Nevada ballot, but he’s making his big bet on Super Tuesday, March 3, when nearly one-fourth of the DNC delegates are up for grabs.)
So coming out of Nevada, Sanders looks by far like the strongest candidate in the Democratic field, and the rest of the candidates still haven’t distinguished themselves as the best bet to topple him.
Those were the stakes headed into Saturday afternoon in Nevada. Here’s who won and who lost.
Winner: Bernie Sanders
He got the most votes and the most delegates. He won.
In Nevada, Sanders finally got the decisive victory he’d been lacking after effectively tying in Iowa and New Hampshire. His margin of victory over the other five candidates who see themselves as viable threats to the nomination was substantial.
And it comes in a state that has moved up the primary calendar because party leaders think it has the kind of voters — young, diverse — Democrats will need going forward. (Well, and because former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid played an outsize role in getting Nevada third on the schedule.)
Sanders finally put a little distance between himself and Buttigieg. Going by numbers from earlier in the day in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, he is at this point really the only Democratic candidate with a good chance (39 percent) of winning a majority of DNC delegates and the nomination.
But he trails “no one” at this point, raising the possibility of a contested convention if nobody wins the nomination in the primary elections. For Sanders, as a party outsider, accumulating as many delegates as possible and making his nomination seem inevitable — whether he wins an outright majority or not — is incredibly important.
He’s gained some ground in that race, thanks to this strong win in Nevada.
Loser: The race for second place
With everybody anticipating a Sanders win, a lot of the pre-caucus speculation was about who would come in second. Would Buttigieg solidify his place as the Sanders alternative? Could Biden rebound ahead of South Carolina, his must-win state? What if Warren parlayed a strong debate into a surprise second-place finish?
Instead, the story out of Nevada is that Sanders is running away with the nomination and there is little clarity about the strongest opponent to challenge him.
Even before the caucuses, FiveThirtyEight gave Sanders 4-in-10 odds of winning the primary; Bloomberg, barely a blip in Nevada, was second at 1 in 12 on the strength of his national polling and a focus on the delegate-rich Super Tuesday states. A Biden nomination is considered a little less likely than Bloomberg’s. Nobody else had better than a 1-in-100 chance.
As the Republican establishment learned in 2016, you can’t just play for second against an insurgent frontrunner. Democrats are starting to learn the same lesson the hard way.
Winner: Ranked-choice voting
For the first time, Nevada let people “vote early” in the caucuses. What that actually meant (because of the way caucuses are run in real life; read more from Andrew Prokop) is those early voters used a ranked-choice ballot. It looked a lot like ranked-choice voting in Maine (the first state to authorize it in all elections), and several other states will use ranked-choice ballots in their upcoming primaries.
This year, Nevadans could go to an early-voting site and fill out a ballot with their preferences for the Democratic nominee, ranked first through fifth. It mirrors the caucus experience, where voters first congregate with their favorite candidate. But then for candidates who fail to clear 15 percent on that first vote, their supporters must move to a more viable camp.
The new wrinkle seems to have increased turnout in Nevada; upward of 75,000 early ballots were cast, nearly matching the total turnout at the 2016 Nevada caucuses. The only question is whether that decreases turnout on caucus day, but it seems assured overall turnout will be up from the last election.
For Nevada, ranked-choice voting was a way to replicate the caucus experience in absentia. In general, the argument for ranked choice is, in short, that it’s more democratic than relying on a plurality of support or a top-two runoff to declare a winner. As Vox’s Ella Nilsen previously explained:
Ranked-choice advocates say this is simply a more democratic system and less expensive than runoff elections, which have to be held separately and typically have very low turnout (case in point: the Texas runoff). “We think compared to those other two, it means voters have more say and more reliable outcomes versus plurality,” said Rob Richie, executive director of the nonprofit organization FairVote. “We feel quite comfortable saying it works.”
And we haven’t seen the last of ranked-choice voting in the Democratic contest: Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming will use it for their 2020 primary elections.
Loser: Culinary Union Local 226
The powerful labor union, which represents 60,000 people in Nevada’s hospitality industry, didn’t technically endorse any candidate, and so it technically did not back a loser.
But the union’s leaders made their displeasure with Sanders’s Medicare-for-all plan — and his most zealous supporters — known. Their Nevada workers benefit from high-level health care, including their own clinic, and numerous reporters have talked to union members who are worried about losing that health care if their insurance plan is eliminated. (Overall, union members are more mixed on Medicare-for-all than Democrats generally.)
Workers who caucused for Sanders said they liked their union insurance plan, according to BuzzFeed News. But they worried about relatives and friends who could lose their jobs:
Some workers who spoke to BuzzFeed News said they support Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal, even though they appreciate the union health care they have, because they have friends and relatives who don’t have union health care and worry about what would happen if they lost their jobs.
The way the union blasted Sanders’s plan while softening its language when describing Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare-for-all plan made pretty clear which way it wanted the primary to go. The union’s leaders picked the fight with Sanders quite publicly, with the news of their anti-Medicare-for-all literature breaking on the night of Sanders’s New Hampshire win.
But Sanders won the state handily. Moreover, exit polls found that Democratic caucus-goers overwhelmingly support a single-payer program that eliminates private insurance: about 6 in 10, according to the Washington Post. It looked like Sanders was beating union leadership on their own turf.
Damn: Now looks like Bernie has won caucuses at Bellagio, Mandalay, Park MFM, Rio, and Wynn, tied at Harrah’s and lost Paris. He is the Culinary workers’ candidate! — Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 22, 2020
Winner: Medicare-for-all
Again, 6 in 10 Nevada caucus-goers told pollsters they supported eliminating private insurance for good and replacing it with government health insurance. And the candidate who has married his brand to Medicare-for-all was winning caucuses in casinos with union workers, after that union’s leaders made their opposition to the plan abundantly clear.
It’s still an open question how Sanders and Medicare-for-all would fare in a general election against President Trump or how “electable” the candidate and his plan ultimately are. But the issue is not slowing Sanders down at all among Democratic primary voters.


vox--2020-02-22--Mainstream Democrats shouldn’t fear Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s win in Nevada following his New Hampshire victory marks the Vermont senator as the clear frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination .
Alarm , clearly visible in a range of mainstream Democratic circles over the past several weeks , is now going to kick into overdrive .
But this frame of mind is fundamentally misguided .
For all the agita around Sanders ’ s all-or-nothing rhetoric , his behavior as a longtime member of Congress ( and before that as a mayor ) suggests a much more pragmatic approach to actual legislating than some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would suggest .
On the vast majority of issues , a Sanders administration would deliver pretty much the same policy outcomes as any other Democrat .
The two biggest exceptions to this , foreign policy and monetary policy , happen to be where Sanders takes issue with an entrenched conventional wisdom that is deeply problematic .
Some of the anti-Sanders sentiment is driven by pique at his followers ’ most obnoxious behavior .
But it would be better to bring these voters into the tent than leave them outside attacking inward .
Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 2020 Democratic primary .
Joe Biden remains a contender ; there are many delegate-rich states with large African American populations that may be more favorable to him , and it ’ s been known for a long time that the idiosyncrasies of the caucus structure give Sanders an edge he won ’ t have in future primaries .
And , obviously , nominating a 78-year-old self-described socialist is a risky move and not an outcome that would have been cooked up by political scientists working in an electability lab .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contenders have some electability risks .
Sanders comes with a strong electoral track record in practice , and he brings some unique assets to the table as someone who appeals precisely to the most fractious elements of the anti-Trump coalition .
The specter of “ socialism ” hangs over the Sanders campaign , terrifying mainstream Democrats with the reality that , when asked about it by pollsters , most Americans reject the idea .
Given that Sanders tends to anchor his politics in Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off if he labeled himself a New Deal Democrat and let us revert to the normal pattern where Republicans call mainstream liberals “ socialists ” and liberals push back rather than accepting an unpopular label .
All that said , in current head-to-head polling matchups with Donald Trump , Sanders does well and is normally winning .
Skeptics worry whether that lead will hold up against the sure-to-come cavalcade of attack ads from Trump .
It ’ s a reasonable concern .
But it ’ s worth underscoring that Sanders ’ s electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winning elections in Vermont is not , per se , incredibly impressive .
There are plenty of left-wing Democrats who win elections while underperforming simply because they run in such blue states ( Elizabeth Warren fits that mold ) , as well as plenty of moderate Democrats who overperform in tough races even while losing ( former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is a good example ) .
Sanders , however , overperforms in his easy races .
He consistently runs ahead of Democratic presidential nominees in his home state , which suggests he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” label , get people to vote for him despite some eccentricities , and even peel off some Republican votes .
He first got to Congress by winning a tough three-way race in 1990 , when Vermont was an only slightly blue-leaning state .
He went on to consistently run ahead of Democratic presidential campaigns as a candidate for Vermont ’ s at-large seat in the US House of Representatives .
• In 1992 , Sanders got 58 percent to Bill Clinton ’ s 46 percent ( it was a strong state for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also faced a “ third-party ” challenge from a Democrat ) .
• In 1996 , Sanders got 55 percent to Clinton ’ s 53 percent .
• In 2000 , he got 69 percent to Al Gore ’ s 51 percent .
• In 2004 , he got 67 percent to John Kerry ’ s 59 percent .
• Sanders got elected to the Senate in 2006 , so he wasn ’ t on the ballot in 2008 or 2016 .
But in 2012 , he won 71 percent to Obama ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitive proof of Sanders ’ s skills .
But it would have been easy for Vermonters who had doubts about Sanders to cast meaningless protest votes for his opponents .
Instead , Sanders appears able to make lemonade out of the whole “ not officially a Democrat ” thing by getting the votes of some non-Republicans who backed Perot in the 1990s and , more recently , other third-party candidates such as Jill Stein , Ralph Nader , and Gary Johnson .
Indeed , one noteworthy thing about Sanders is that in head-to-head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do better than you ’ d expect simply by looking at his favorable ratings .
And , critically , Sanders ’ s popularity seems to be concentrated among certain blocs of persuadable voters ( likely those considering a third-party vote ) , while a chunk of those who disapprove of Sanders are hardcore partisan Democrats who don ’ t like his lack of party spirit but will vote for him anyway .
Sanders knows how to govern effectively Mainstream Democrats also worry at times that Sanders would simply prove too extreme to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , indeed , on occasion his campaign lapses into rhetoric that suggests an unreasonable aversion to compromise .
But it ’ s worth remembering that Sanders is a 30-year veteran of the US Congress , not a 20-something hardliner with a red rose on his Twitter bio .
We can evaluate his actual track record as a politician .
In that capacity , Sanders has sometimes staked out lonely , courageous stands ( against the Iraq War or the Defense of Marriage Act , which barred same-sex couples from enjoying the same federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also frequently cast meaningless protest votes against big bipartisan compromises that sail through with huge majorities .
But he ’ s never pulled a Freedom Caucus-type stunt and refused to cast a pragmatic vote in favor of half a loaf .
Sanders has always talked about his blue-sky political ideals as something he believed in passionately , but he separated that idealism from his practical legislative work , which was grounded in vote counts .
He voted for President Barack Obama ’ s Children ’ s Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affordable Care Act in 2010 .
He voted for the Dodd-Frank bill and every other contentious piece of Obama-era legislation .
Indeed , this has been somewhat forgotten in the wake of the 2016 primary campaign : While Obama was in the White House , it was Sen. Elizabeth Warren who attracted the ire of administration officials and congressional leaders by occasionally spiking executive branch nominees or blowing up bipartisan deals .
The policy area in which Sanders has had the most practical influence is veterans-related issues , as he chaired the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ span , during which Congress enacted substantive reform to the veterans ’ health system .
Given the objective constellation of political forces at the time , this required bipartisan support , so Sanders ( working mainly with Republican Sen. John McCain ) produced a bipartisan bill that , in exchange for a substantial boost in funding , made some concessions to conservatives in creating “ private options ” for veterans to seek care outside of the publicly run Department of Veterans Affairs .
It ’ s fine if you want to be annoyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolutionary who will sweep all practical obstacles aside is at odds with his reality as an experienced legislator who does typical senator stuff in a typical way .
But there ’ s no reason to be worried that Sanders is a deluded radical who doesn ’ t understand how the government works .
One of the odd developments of the social media era is that the extremely online set — which is not most people but does include a huge number of journalists , think-tankers , activists , and other influential people — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different candidates ’ support bases as to the candidates themselves .
MSNBC host Joy Reid , for example , is a frequent Bernieworld antagonist and earlier this month posted a poll showing that Sanders fans were much less likely than Biden or Warren supporters to commit to backing the eventual nominee come what may .
Her followers , in turn , reacted by castigating Sanders voters as “ useless ” and “ a cult-like following , ” while one observed this “ looks bad for Sanders.
” John Weaver , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ one of them isn ’ t a Democrat.
” It is all well and good to be annoyed by people who will not commit to voting Trump out of office regardless of the identity of the Democratic Party nominee .
But if you are a person who worries about electability , which many highly partisan Democrats are , then you are by definition a person who worries about courting the votes of people who will not commit to voting Trump out of office regardless of the identity of the Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusually strong support among people like that is a strength of his campaign , not a weakness .
Whenever I make this point , mainstream Democrats get grouchy and start grumbling about how you don ’ t negotiate with terrorists or give in to your toddler when he ’ s throwing a fit .
Those are funny analogies , but any effort to court swing voters has that same basic structure .
Party loyalists are asked to make concessions to the views of people who are not loyalists , precisely because the non-loyalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective leverage .
But if you pull it off successfully , what party loyalists get in exchange is partisan electoral victories — exactly the thing that , by definition , is most important to party loyalists .
If you ’ re a loyalist , it ’ s natural to feel grumpy about the non-loyalists who love Sanders , but if you ’ re trying to win the election , you need to get the votes of non-loyalists .
By the same token , if you ’ re annoyed by Sanders ’ s Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ll start finding them a lot less annoying if he gets the nomination and they start directing that energy against Trump and the GOP .
Last but by no means least , some of Sanders ’ s out-of-the-mainstream ideas are good .
Some of his ideas are not so good , but it ’ s important to understand that on the vast majority of topics , the policy outputs of a Sanders administration just wouldn ’ t be that different from those of a Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama or a break with neoliberalism , the constraints will realistically come from Congress , where the median member is all but certain to be more conservative than anyone in the Democratic field .
On foreign policy , by contrast , the president is less constrained , and Sanders ’ s real desire to challenge aspects of the bipartisan foreign policy consensus makes a difference .
He ’ s much more critical of Israel than most people in national politics , he ’ s a leading critic of the alliance with Saudi Arabia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America ’ s expansive military posture .
These ideas are coded as “ extreme ” in Washington , where there ’ s significant bipartisan investment in the status quo .
But polls show that most voters question the narratives of American exceptionalism , favor a reduced global military footprint and less defense spending , and are skeptical of the merits of profligate arms sales .
In practice , essentially every president ends up governing with more continuity than his campaign rhetoric suggested ( Trump hasn ’ t broken up NATO ; Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran ) , so the differences are likely to be more modest than the rhetorical ones .
But differences are welcome and needed .
The misbegotten invasion of Iraq should have , but largely didn ’ t , shake up the establishment “ blob ” that ’ s obsessed with pursuing US military hegemony and endless entanglements in the Middle East .
Recent reporting by the Washington Post revealed that military and political leaders across three administrations have been lying to the public about the course of the war in Afghanistan — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics .
Nobody should have illusions about Sanders somehow unilaterally ushering in a bold new era of world peace , but he is by far the most likely person in the race to push back against expansive militarism — and that ’ s worth considering .
Foreign policy isn ’ t the only hidebound institution he is poised to shake up , either .
Monetary policy attracts even less attention in the primary than foreign policy .
But the Washington Post surveyed the candidates ’ views on interest rates when it asked whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are too high , and the results were fascinating .
Buttigieg , Biden , and Warren all demurred , citing the dogma that the Federal Reserve should stay independent of politics ( though Warren , to her credit , made a strong statement in a subsequent speech on the economy about the need to emphasize full employment ) .
Sanders , by contrast , offered a clear statement , saying he “ disagreed with the Fed ’ s decision to raise interest rates in 2015-2018 ” because “ raising rates should be done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight phantom inflation.
” Sens .
Cory Booker and Michael Bennet , two minor then-candidates who weren ’ t really seen as Sanders ’ s fellow travelers when it comes to ideology , had somewhat similar things to say .
“ Historically , the Federal Reserve raises interest rates when the economy has reached full employment , ” Booker said , adding that “ our economy ’ s not there yet.
” Bennet nodded toward independence before saying that the Fed “ has often fallen short of its full employment mandate , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make ends meet.
” He also said that his appointees to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors “ will prioritize the employment mandate and consider every tool available to meet that mandate.
” Unfortunately , this is a niche issue many people don ’ t care about .
Almost everyone does and should care about “ the economy , ” though , and the main government institution responsible for the state of “ the economy ” is the Fed .
What ’ s more , this is a particularly important issue precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obscure .
Any Democratic president ’ s Environmental Protection Agency director will come from the universe of “ people the main environmental groups like and for whom moderate senators are willing to vote , ” because that ’ s how politics works .
But there are no strong interest groups that lobby around monetary policy .
A president who wants to install well-qualified people inclined to side with Sanders/Bennet/Booker will probably be able to do so , but a president who doesn ’ t care ( like Obama ) will probably end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the map ( which is indeed what happened with Obama ) .
These aren ’ t the only two issues in America that matter , but they ’ re the main ones in which different nominees are likely to lead to different results .
Almost everything that ’ s currently being debated , by contrast , is mostly pointless .
At the end of the day , Sanders ’ s record is not nearly as scary as many establishment Democrats fear .
His “ revolution ” rhetoric doesn ’ t make sense to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effective legislator for a long time , and he knows how to get things done — and how hard it is to get them done .
Some of his big ideas are not so hot on the merits , but it ’ s not worth worrying about them because the political revolution is so unrealistic .
And on a couple of issues where the next president will probably have a fair amount of latitude , Sanders breaks from the pack in good ways .
He ’ s perhaps not an ideal electability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning elections is solid and his early polling is pretty good .
There ’ s no particular reason to think he ’ d be weaker than the other three top contenders , and at least some reason to think he ’ d be stronger .
A Sanders presidency should generate an emphasis on full employment , a tendency to shy away from launching wars , an executive branch that actually tries to enforce environmental protection and civil rights laws , and a situation in which bills that both progressives and moderates can agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a formula the vast majority of mainstream Democrats should be able to embrace .
Lots of moderate Democrats nonetheless find it annoying that Sanders and some of his followers are so committed to painting mainstream Democrats in such dark hues .
But annoying people won ’ t stop being annoying if he loses the nomination .
If anything , they will be more annoying than ever as some refuse to get enthusiastic about the prospect of beating Trump .
But if Sanders wins , partisan Democrats who just want to beat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annoying — the causes will be aligned , and the vast majority of people who want Trump out of the White House can collaborate in peace .
That leaves us where we started .
The president really does have a good deal of latitude in conducting national security policy .
If it ’ s very important to you that the US maintain a hawkish military posture in the Middle East , that ’ s a good reason to worry a lot about Sanders .
But most likely , a Sanders presidency will simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sullen and dyspeptic about the incremental policy gains that would result from any Democrat occupying the presidency .
It ’ ll also mean a foreign policy that errs a bit more on the side of restraint compared with what you ’ d get from anyone else in the field , as well as an approach to monetary policy that errs a bit more on the side of full employment .
That ’ s a pretty good deal , and you don ’ t need to be a socialist to see it .

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s win in Nevada following his New Hampshire victory marks the Vermont senator as the clear frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination.
Alarm, clearly visible in a range of mainstream Democratic circles over the past several weeks, is now going to kick into overdrive.
But this frame of mind is fundamentally misguided. For all the agita around Sanders’s all-or-nothing rhetoric, his behavior as a longtime member of Congress (and before that as a mayor) suggests a much more pragmatic approach to actual legislating than some of the wilder “political revolution” rhetoric would suggest.
On the vast majority of issues, a Sanders administration would deliver pretty much the same policy outcomes as any other Democrat. The two biggest exceptions to this, foreign policy and monetary policy, happen to be where Sanders takes issue with an entrenched conventional wisdom that is deeply problematic.
Some of the anti-Sanders sentiment is driven by pique at his followers’ most obnoxious behavior. But it would be better to bring these voters into the tent than leave them outside attacking inward.
Sanders’s wins are hardly the end of the 2020 Democratic primary. Joe Biden remains a contender; there are many delegate-rich states with large African American populations that may be more favorable to him, and it’s been known for a long time that the idiosyncrasies of the caucus structure give Sanders an edge he won’t have in future primaries.
And, obviously, nominating a 78-year-old self-described socialist is a risky move and not an outcome that would have been cooked up by political scientists working in an electability lab. But at this point, all the main contenders have some electability risks. Sanders comes with a strong electoral track record in practice, and he brings some unique assets to the table as someone who appeals precisely to the most fractious elements of the anti-Trump coalition.
Sanders has a strong electoral track record
The specter of “socialism” hangs over the Sanders campaign, terrifying mainstream Democrats with the reality that, when asked about it by pollsters, most Americans reject the idea. Given that Sanders tends to anchor his politics in Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal, it seems as though everyone involved would be better off if he labeled himself a New Deal Democrat and let us revert to the normal pattern where Republicans call mainstream liberals “socialists” and liberals push back rather than accepting an unpopular label.
All that said, in current head-to-head polling matchups with Donald Trump, Sanders does well and is normally winning. Skeptics worry whether that lead will hold up against the sure-to-come cavalcade of attack ads from Trump. It’s a reasonable concern.
But it’s worth underscoring that Sanders’s electoral track record in Vermont is strong. Winning elections in Vermont is not, per se, incredibly impressive. There are plenty of left-wing Democrats who win elections while underperforming simply because they run in such blue states (Elizabeth Warren fits that mold), as well as plenty of moderate Democrats who overperform in tough races even while losing (former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is a good example).
Sanders, however, overperforms in his easy races. He consistently runs ahead of Democratic presidential nominees in his home state, which suggests he knows how to overcome the “socialist” label, get people to vote for him despite some eccentricities, and even peel off some Republican votes.
He first got to Congress by winning a tough three-way race in 1990, when Vermont was an only slightly blue-leaning state. He went on to consistently run ahead of Democratic presidential campaigns as a candidate for Vermont’s at-large seat in the US House of Representatives:
In 1992, Sanders got 58 percent to Bill Clinton’s 46 percent (it was a strong state for presidential candidate Ross Perot, but Sanders also faced a “third-party” challenge from a Democrat).
In 1996, Sanders got 55 percent to Clinton’s 53 percent.
In 2000, he got 69 percent to Al Gore’s 51 percent.
In 2004, he got 67 percent to John Kerry’s 59 percent.
Sanders got elected to the Senate in 2006, so he wasn’t on the ballot in 2008 or 2016. But in 2012, he won 71 percent to Obama’s 67 percent.
This is not definitive proof of Sanders’s skills. But it would have been easy for Vermonters who had doubts about Sanders to cast meaningless protest votes for his opponents.
Instead, Sanders appears able to make lemonade out of the whole “not officially a Democrat” thing by getting the votes of some non-Republicans who backed Perot in the 1990s and, more recently, other third-party candidates such as Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, and Gary Johnson. Indeed, one noteworthy thing about Sanders is that in head-to-head polling matchups against Trump, he tends to do better than you’d expect simply by looking at his favorable ratings.
And, critically, Sanders’s popularity seems to be concentrated among certain blocs of persuadable voters (likely those considering a third-party vote), while a chunk of those who disapprove of Sanders are hardcore partisan Democrats who don’t like his lack of party spirit but will vote for him anyway.
Sanders knows how to govern effectively
Mainstream Democrats also worry at times that Sanders would simply prove too extreme to get things done as president. And, indeed, on occasion his campaign lapses into rhetoric that suggests an unreasonable aversion to compromise.
There is no “middle ground” when it comes to climate policy. If we don't commit to fully transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels, we will doom future generations. Fighting climate change must be our priority, whether fossil fuel billionaires like it or not. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 10, 2019
But it’s worth remembering that Sanders is a 30-year veteran of the US Congress, not a 20-something hardliner with a red rose on his Twitter bio. We can evaluate his actual track record as a politician.
In that capacity, Sanders has sometimes staked out lonely, courageous stands (against the Iraq War or the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred same-sex couples from enjoying the same federal benefits as married couples). He’s also frequently cast meaningless protest votes against big bipartisan compromises that sail through with huge majorities. But he’s never pulled a Freedom Caucus-type stunt and refused to cast a pragmatic vote in favor of half a loaf.
Sanders has always talked about his blue-sky political ideals as something he believed in passionately, but he separated that idealism from his practical legislative work, which was grounded in vote counts. He voted for President Barack Obama’s Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill in 2009, and again for the Affordable Care Act in 2010. He voted for the Dodd-Frank bill and every other contentious piece of Obama-era legislation.
Indeed, this has been somewhat forgotten in the wake of the 2016 primary campaign: While Obama was in the White House, it was Sen. Elizabeth Warren who attracted the ire of administration officials and congressional leaders by occasionally spiking executive branch nominees or blowing up bipartisan deals.
The policy area in which Sanders has had the most practical influence is veterans-related issues, as he chaired the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs for a two-year span, during which Congress enacted substantive reform to the veterans’ health system.
Given the objective constellation of political forces at the time, this required bipartisan support, so Sanders (working mainly with Republican Sen. John McCain) produced a bipartisan bill that, in exchange for a substantial boost in funding, made some concessions to conservatives in creating “private options” for veterans to seek care outside of the publicly run Department of Veterans Affairs.
It’s fine if you want to be annoyed that Sanders’s self-presentation as a revolutionary who will sweep all practical obstacles aside is at odds with his reality as an experienced legislator who does typical senator stuff in a typical way. But there’s no reason to be worried that Sanders is a deluded radical who doesn’t understand how the government works.
Sanders’s annoying fans count in his favor
One of the odd developments of the social media era is that the extremely online set — which is not most people, but does include a huge number of journalists, think-tankers, activists, and other influential people — reacts as much to their perceptions of different candidates’ support bases as to the candidates themselves.
MSNBC host Joy Reid, for example, is a frequent Bernieworld antagonist and earlier this month posted a poll showing that Sanders fans were much less likely than Biden or Warren supporters to commit to backing the eventual nominee come what may.
Poll: Will you support the Democratic nominee even if it is not your candidate? #AMJoy pic.twitter.com/Cb1IwxadLT — AM Joy w/Joy Reid (@amjoyshow) February 1, 2020
Her followers, in turn, reacted by castigating Sanders voters as “useless” and “a cult-like following,” while one observed this “looks bad for Sanders.”
John Weaver, one of the leading Never Trump ex-Republican personalities, sniffed that “one of them isn’t a Democrat.”
One of them isn't a Democrat — John Weaver (@jwgop) February 2, 2020
It is all well and good to be annoyed by people who will not commit to voting Trump out of office regardless of the identity of the Democratic Party nominee. But if you are a person who worries about electability, which many highly partisan Democrats are, then you are by definition a person who worries about courting the votes of people who will not commit to voting Trump out of office no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. The fact that Sanders has unusually strong support among people like that is a strength of his campaign, not a weakness.
Whenever I make this point, mainstream Democrats get grouchy and start grumbling about how you don’t negotiate with terrorists or give in to your toddler when he’s throwing a fit.
Those are funny analogies, but any effort to court swing voters has that same basic structure. Party loyalists are asked to make concessions to the views of people who are not loyalists, precisely because the non-loyalists’ irresponsibility and flightiness gives them more objective leverage. But if you pull it off successfully, what party loyalists get in exchange is partisan electoral victories — exactly the thing that, by definition, is most important to party loyalists.
If you’re a loyalist, it’s natural to feel grumpy about the non-loyalists who love Sanders, but if you’re trying to win the election, you need to get the votes of non-loyalists. By the same token, if you’re annoyed by Sanders’s Twitter attacks on mainstream Democrats, you’ll start finding them a lot less annoying if he gets the nomination and they start directing that energy against Trump and the GOP.
Sanders has some good ideas
Last but by no means least, some of Sanders’s out-of-the-mainstream ideas are good.
Some of his ideas are not so good, but it’s important to understand that on the vast majority of topics, the policy output of a Sanders administration just wouldn’t be that different from those of a Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg administration. Whether a new president promises continuity with Obama or a break with neoliberalism, the constraints will realistically come from Congress, where the median member is all but certain to be more conservative than anyone in the Democratic field.
On foreign policy, by contrast, the president is less constrained, and Sanders’s real desire to challenge aspects of the bipartisan foreign policy consensus makes a difference. He’s much more critical of Israel than most people in national politics, he’s a leading critic of the alliance with Saudi Arabia, and he’s generally skeptical of America’s expansive military posture.
These ideas are coded as “extreme” in Washington, where there’s significant bipartisan investment in the status quo. But polls show that most voters question the narratives of American exceptionalism, favor a reduced global military footprint and less defense spending, and are skeptical of the merits of profligate arms sales.
Related Bernie Sanders can unify Democrats and beat Trump in 2020
In practice, essentially every president ends up governing with more continuity than his campaign rhetoric suggested (Trump hasn’t broken up NATO; Obama never sat down with the leadership of Iran), so the differences are likely to be more modest than the rhetorical ones.
But differences are welcome and needed. The misbegotten invasion of Iraq should have, but largely didn’t, shake up the establishment “blob” that’s obsessed with pursuing US military hegemony and endless entanglements in the Middle East. Recent reporting by the Washington Post revealed that military and political leaders across three administrations have been lying to the public about the course of the war in Afghanistan — and it barely made a dent in domestic politics.
Nobody should have illusions about Sanders somehow unilaterally ushering in a bold new era of world peace, but he is by far the most likely person in the race to push back against expansive militarism — and that’s worth considering.
Foreign policy isn’t the only hidebound institution he is poised to shake up, either.
Pro-worker monetary policy could make a real difference
Monetary policy attracts even less attention in the primary than foreign policy. But the Washington Post surveyed the candidates’ views on interest rates when it asked whether the Federal Reserve’s current rates are too high, and the results were fascinating.
Buttigieg, Biden, and Warren all demurred, citing the dogma that the Federal Reserve should stay independent of politics (though Warren, to her credit, made a strong statement in a subsequent speech on the economy about the need to emphasize full employment).
Sanders, by contrast, offered a clear statement, saying he “disagreed with the Fed’s decision to raise interest rates in 2015-2018” because “raising rates should be done as a last resort, not to fight phantom inflation.”
Sens. Cory Booker and Michael Bennet, two minor then-candidates who weren’t really seen as Sanders’s fellow travelers when it comes to ideology, had somewhat similar things to say. “Historically, the Federal Reserve raises interest rates when the economy has reached full employment,” Booker said, adding that “our economy’s not there yet.”
Bennet nodded toward independence before saying that the Fed “has often fallen short of its full employment mandate, which has harmed workers, especially those trying to make ends meet.” He also said that his appointees to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors “will prioritize the employment mandate and consider every tool available to meet that mandate.”
Unfortunately, this is a niche issue many people don’t care about. Almost everyone does and should care about “the economy,” though, and the main government institution responsible for the state of “the economy” is the Fed.
What’s more, this is a particularly important issue precisely because it’s a little bit obscure. Any Democratic president’s Environmental Protection Agency director will come from the universe of “people the main environmental groups like and for whom moderate senators are willing to vote,” because that’s how politics works. But there are no strong interest groups that lobby around monetary policy.
A president who wants to install well-qualified people inclined to side with Sanders/Bennet/Booker will probably be able to do so, but a president who doesn’t care (like Obama) will probably end up appointing people whose views are all over the map (which is indeed what happened with Obama).
These aren’t the only two issues in America that matter, but they’re the main ones in which different nominees are likely to lead to different results. Almost everything that’s currently being debated, by contrast, is mostly pointless.
Stop freaking out
At the end of the day, Sanders’s record is not nearly as scary as many establishment Democrats fear. His “revolution” rhetoric doesn’t make sense to me, but he’s been an effective legislator for a long time, and he knows how to get things done — and how hard it is to get them done.
Some of his big ideas are not so hot on the merits, but it’s not worth worrying about them because the political revolution is so unrealistic. And on a couple of issues where the next president will probably have a fair amount of latitude, Sanders breaks from the pack in good ways. He’s perhaps not an ideal electability choice, but his track record on winning elections is solid and his early polling is pretty good. There’s no particular reason to think he’d be weaker than the other three top contenders, and at least some reason to think he’d be stronger.
A Sanders presidency should generate an emphasis on full employment, a tendency to shy away from launching wars, an executive branch that actually tries to enforce environmental protection and civil rights laws, and a situation in which bills that both progressives and moderates can agree on get to become law.
That’s a formula the vast majority of mainstream Democrats should be able to embrace.
Lots of moderate Democrats nonetheless find it annoying that Sanders and some of his followers are so committed to painting mainstream Democrats in such dark hues. But annoying people won’t stop being annoying if he loses the nomination. If anything, they will be more annoying than ever as some refuse to get enthusiastic about the prospect of beating Trump. But if Sanders wins, partisan Democrats who just want to beat Trump will magically stop finding Sanders superfans annoying — the causes will be aligned, and the vast majority of people who want Trump out of the White House can collaborate in peace.
That leaves us where we started. The president really does have a good deal of latitude in conducting national security policy. If it’s very important to you that the US maintain a hawkish military posture in the Middle East, that’s a good reason to worry a lot about Sanders.
But most likely, a Sanders presidency will simply mean that young progressive activists are less sullen and dyspeptic about the incremental policy gains that would result from any Democrat occupying the presidency. It’ll also mean a foreign policy that errs a bit more on the side of restraint compared with what you’d get from anyone else in the field, as well as an approach to monetary policy that errs a bit more on the side of full employment. That’s a pretty good deal, and you don’t need to be a socialist to see it.


vox--2020-02-22--Latinos were Bernie Sanders’s key to victory in Nevada

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders seems to have swept Latino voters in the Saturday ’ s Nevada caucuses , an affirmation of his months-long investments in outreach that could presage his success in primaries still to come in heavily Latino states .
Sanders is counting on Latino voters , the largest nonwhite contingent of voters in 2020 , to carry him to the Democratic nomination .
In Nevada , where Latinos make up about 19 percent of eligible voters , they helped hand him a big victory .
Entrance polls showed Saturday evening that just over half of Latino voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times as many as supported former Vice President Joe Biden .
The rest of the candidates earned less than 10 percent of Latino support .
( Historically , some entrance polls have undercounted Latino voters , which could skew the results . )
Sanders is trying to appeal to Latino voters with a progressive policy platform that speaks to their core interests : health care , jobs , and , for some , immigration .
Starting last summer , he has invested heavily in spreading his message , in both Spanish and English @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hired Latino staff from the grassroots advocacy community and integrated them into every facet of his campaign .
It ’ s a marked change from his strategy in 2016 , when he lost to Hillary Clinton in 10 of 11 states where Latinos made up a large share of eligible voters , including Nevada by a thin margin .
Before Saturday ’ s caucuses , Sanders swept the four Spanish-language caucus sites in Iowa and won 40 percent of the Latino vote in New Hampshire .
But since Latinos make up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those states , it ’ s hard to draw firm conclusions from his performance among Latinos there .
The Nevada caucuses on Saturday were the first real test of not only Sanders ’ s support among Latinos but also his ability to inspire turnout .
It ’ s not clear at this point whether Latinos have turned out in the numbers that Sanders was hoping for , but they have backed him overwhelmingly , suggesting that his coalition-building efforts have paid off .
Sanders is now eyeing other heavily Latino states — California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will cast their ballots on Super Tuesday , which is March 3 .
By the time the Nevada caucuses had started , he had already moved on to Texas .
The Nevada primary electorate is still majority white , but Sanders appears to have carried Latinos so overwhelmingly that it could secure him a sizable margin of victory .
He also appears to be leading among whites with 30 percent support , but the race is among them is much closer .
It ’ s a remarkable shift for a candidate who just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton among Latinos .
Now , young Latinos know him as “ Tío Bernie , ” Spanish for “ Uncle Bernie ” — including New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
“ I call him Tío Bernie .
Maybe to my goddaughter he ’ s abuelo , but he ’ s my Tío Bernie Sanders , ” she told the crowd at a rally in Queens in October when she announced she was endorsing him for the Democratic nomination .
Sanders has leaned into the moniker .
His campaign has since organized soccer matches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tamales for Tío Bernie.
” His Latino support is grounded in policies that appeal to Latino voters : immigration , health care , and the economy .
His immigration plan , which he has framed in the context of his signature issue of worker solidarity , is arguably the most progressive of the Democratic field .
Sanders ’ s plan acknowledges that unauthorized immigrants are particularly vulnerable to abuse at the hands of employers because they might fear retaliation that could put them at risk of deportation .
He consequently suggests redirecting funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding their employers accountable for labor law violations .
( The plan does not mention whether that will include preventing employers from hiring unauthorized workers in the first place . )
He suggests offering immigrant workers whistleblower protections if they speak up about workplace abuses and improving labor standards for farmworkers , domestic workers , gig economy workers , and those employed in other underregulated industries .
He would also allow them to participate in Medicare-for-all and College for All , his bill to make public colleges and universities tuition- and debt-free .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has made the issue personal , speaking at rallies about his father , a Polish immigrant who came to the US as a teenager impoverished and unable to speak English .
“ As the son of an immigrant ...
I will not tolerate the continued demonization of the undocumented in this country , ” Sanders said in Reno , Nevada , on Tuesday .
It ’ s earned him endorsements from the prominent immigrant rights group Make the Road Action and the Latino mobilization group Mijente .
Daniel Altschuler , managing director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the organization has been impressed by Sanders ’ s willingness to listen and learn from the grassroots advocacy community in putting together an immigration platform that reflects their priorities , including placing a moratorium on deportations and dismantling the immigration enforcement agencies .
But while immigration ranks high in terms of importance to Latinos , it historically hasn ’ t been their top priority overall , ranking behind health care and the economy .
That ’ s held true this election cycle : Only 11 percent of Latino voters said that protecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing the community , according to a February 18 Univision poll .
And according to a 2018 Pew Research study , the majority of US-born Latinos say they aren ’ t concerned that a close family member could be deported .
That might be because only about a third of Latinos in the US are immigrants , a share that has steadily declined since 2010 .
Latinos who are voting are , by definition , citizens , meaning that they don ’ t necessarily have a personal stake in US immigration policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t relied on his immigration policy to appeal to Latino voters .
The Univision poll also reported that a quarter of Latinos nationwide see lowering health care costs was the most importance issue facing their community , and 83 percent support Medicare-for-all , one of the cornerstones of Sanders ’ s platform .
It ’ s no surprise that health care is top of mind for Latinos : Only about half of them are covered through private health insurance policies , the lowest of any census group , and 20 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uninsured .
Erika Márquez , a Nevada resident and DREAMer who came to the US without papers from Mexico as a child , said that Sanders ’ s fight for better wages and his health care plan signal that he will fight for Latinos : “ There ’ s something about him that conveys trust , ” she said .
Not all Latinos are backing Medicare-for-all : The Culinary Workers Union , which is Nevada ’ s largest union and represents thousands of Latino workers , had disseminated flyers opposing the plan as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ union health care .
But that didn ’ t seem to affect the results , with many union members appearing to defect from their leaders , as my colleague Sean Collins writes .
Creating more jobs and improving incomes were the top priorities for 19 and 12 percent of Latinos , respectively , in that same Univision poll .
Sanders has promised to raise the minimum wage to $ 15 and would offer college debt forgiveness and tuition-free public university , which could be important for first- and second-generation immigrants in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been able to accumulate wealth .
It ’ s these kinds of bread-and-butter issues that Sanders hopes can inspire Latino turnout .
“ Bernie will bring people of all backgrounds together around a progressive agenda that guarantees fundamental economic and civil rights to all , including universal health care , a good job with a living wage , affordable housing , a healthy environment , and a secure retirement , ” Belén Sisa , a spokesperson for the Sanders campaign , said .
But Sanders ’ s performance among Latinos in Nevada — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexican heritage — might not be predictive of his performance in other contests to come .
Nevada is more heavily Mexican compared to the rest of the nation , where the Latino population is only 59 percent Mexican .
Latinos of different national origins might view him differently .
For example , some Latinos might be alienated by Sanders ’ s identity as a democratic socialist .
Sergio Garcia-Rios , a professor at Cornell University who studies Latino political participation , said that Latino immigrants from Cuba , Venezuela , and Nicaragua who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a socialist country might be wary of endorsing a candidate who espouses a similar political ideology .
But Sanders is nevertheless polling well among Cubans — his favorability rating among Cubans is 47 percent favorable to 42 percent unfavorable , according to the recent Univision poll .
By comparison , 67 percent of Mexicans rated Sanders favorably .
But more important than Sanders ’ s platform is his investments in outreach at the local level long before other campaigns showed up .
His bilingual advertisements showed up at their doorsteps , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and online starting as early as June 2019 .
“ You can be the perfect messenger and have the perfect message that Latinos care about , but if you never spend the money to go tell the Latinos out there , it doesn ’ t matter what your positions are , ” Chuck Rocha , a senior adviser to Sanders ’ s campaign who also worked on his 2016 run , said .
The campaign spent millions on outreach in Nevada alone .
The first advertisement they put out in Nevada was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in the heavily Latino neighborhood of East Las Vegas ( they now have 13 throughout the state ) .
Sanders is also focusing on California , Arizona , Colorado , and Texas .
He has hired Latino staff , who number more than 200 nationwide , including 76 stationed in Nevada .
The campaign set out to hire people from nonprofits and social justice movements in particular and , at the state level , hired primarily from within the state to ensure that outreach was conducted through a “ lens of cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or people of color hold senior positions across every department , from national political director Analilia Mejia to national deputy director of states Neidi Dominguez .
“ We wanted to break the status quo of the wrong way we think campaigns have been run forever where Latinos had been used as window dressing , given no authority , and being siloed off in departments where they only talk to each other and not the rest of the campaign , ” Rocha said .
“ There ’ s no Latino outreach department .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the campaign.
” Still , galvanizing turnout among Latinos will be key to the success of Sanders ’ s strategy , and it remains to be seen whether that will come to fruition .
In the 2018 midterm elections , there was a 50 percent increase in turnout among Latino voters , and if that trend continues , it could play in Sanders ’ s favor in both the primary and the general election if he wins the nomination .
He acknowledged that turnout in Iowa , which was about on par @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as high as he had hoped it would be .
But Democrats are already predicting record-breaking turnout among Latinos in Nevada — and based on entrance polls at Saturday ’ s caucuses , he ’ s leading them by 36 percent .
“ There will definitely be more Latinos than have ever caucused before , ” Rocha said .

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders seems to have swept Latino voters in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, an affirmation of his months-long investments in outreach that could presage his success in primaries still to come in heavily Latino states.
Sanders is counting on Latino voters, the largest nonwhite contingent of voters in 2020, to carry him to the Democratic nomination. In Nevada, where Latinos make up about 19 percent of eligible voters, they helped hand him a big victory.
Entrance polls showed Saturday evening that just over half of Latino voters in Nevada had backed him, roughly four times as many as supported former Vice President Joe Biden. The rest of the candidates earned less than 10 percent of Latino support. (Historically, some entrance polls have undercounted Latino voters, which could skew the results.)
Sanders is trying to appeal to Latino voters with a progressive policy platform that speaks to their core interests: health care, jobs, and, for some, immigration. Starting last summer, he has invested heavily in spreading his message, in both Spanish and English, to Latino communities. And he’s hired Latino staff from the grassroots advocacy community and integrated them into every facet of his campaign.
It’s a marked change from his strategy in 2016, when he lost to Hillary Clinton in 10 of 11 states where Latinos made up a large share of eligible voters, including Nevada by a thin margin.
Before Saturday’s caucuses, Sanders swept the four Spanish-language caucus sites in Iowa and won 40 percent of the Latino vote in New Hampshire. But since Latinos make up only a small minority of voters in those states, it’s hard to draw firm conclusions from his performance among Latinos there.
The Nevada caucuses on Saturday were the first real test of not only Sanders’s support among Latinos but also his ability to inspire turnout. It’s not clear at this point whether Latinos have turned out in the numbers that Sanders was hoping for, but they have backed him overwhelmingly, suggesting that his coalition-building efforts have paid off.
Sanders is now eyeing other heavily Latino states — California, Texas, and Colorado — which will cast their ballots on Super Tuesday, which is March 3. By the time the Nevada caucuses had started, he had already moved on to Texas.
Why Sanders appeals to Latinos
The Nevada primary electorate is still majority white, but Sanders appears to have carried Latinos so overwhelmingly that it could secure him a sizable margin of victory. He also appears to be leading among whites with 30 percent support, but the race among them is much closer.
It’s a remarkable shift for a candidate who just four years ago was consistently bested by Clinton among Latinos. Now, young Latinos know him as “Tío Bernie,” Spanish for “Uncle Bernie” — including New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
“I call him Tío Bernie. Maybe to my goddaughter he’s abuelo, but he’s my Tío Bernie Sanders,” she told the crowd at a rally in Queens in October when she announced she was endorsing him for the Democratic nomination.
Sanders has leaned into the moniker. His campaign has since organized soccer matches and house parties that it calls “Tamales for Tío Bernie.”
His Latino support is grounded in policies that appeal to Latino voters: immigration, health care, and the economy. His immigration plan, which he has framed in the context of his signature issue of worker solidarity, is arguably the most progressive of the Democratic field.
Sanders’s plan acknowledges that unauthorized immigrants are particularly vulnerable to abuse at the hands of employers because they might fear retaliation that could put them at risk of deportation. He consequently suggests redirecting funding from enforcing immigration laws against workers to holding their employers accountable for labor law violations. (The plan does not mention whether that will include preventing employers from hiring unauthorized workers in the first place.)
He suggests offering immigrant workers whistleblower protections if they speak up about workplace abuses and improving labor standards for farmworkers, domestic workers, gig economy workers, and those employed in other underregulated industries. He would also allow them to participate in Medicare-for-all and College for All, his bill to make public colleges and universities tuition- and debt-free.
To communicate that plan to voters, he has made the issue personal, speaking at rallies about his father, a Polish immigrant who came to the US as a teenager impoverished and unable to speak English.
“As the son of an immigrant ... I will not tolerate the continued demonization of the undocumented in this country,” Sanders said in Reno, Nevada, on Tuesday.
It’s earned him endorsements from the prominent immigrant rights group Make the Road Action and the Latino mobilization group Mijente. Daniel Altschuler, managing director of Make the Road Action, said that the organization has been impressed by Sanders’s willingness to listen and learn from the grassroots advocacy community in putting together an immigration platform that reflects their priorities, including placing a moratorium on deportations and dismantling the immigration enforcement agencies.
But while immigration ranks high in terms of importance to Latinos, it historically hasn’t been their top priority overall, ranking behind health care and the economy. That’s held true this election cycle: Only 11 percent of Latino voters said that protecting immigrant rights is the most important issue facing the community, according to a February 18 Univision poll. And according to a 2018 Pew Research study, the majority of US-born Latinos say they aren’t concerned that a close family member could be deported.
That might be because only about a third of Latinos in the US are immigrants, a share that has steadily declined since 2010. Latinos who are voting are, by definition, citizens, meaning that they don’t necessarily have a personal stake in US immigration policy.
With that in mind, Sanders hasn’t relied on his immigration policy to appeal to Latino voters.
The Univision poll also reported that a quarter of Latinos nationwide see lowering health care costs was the most importance issue facing their community, and 83 percent support Medicare-for-all, one of the cornerstones of Sanders’s platform. It’s no surprise that health care is top of mind for Latinos: Only about half of them are covered through private health insurance policies, the lowest of any census group, and 20 percent of Latinos under the age of 65 are uninsured.
Erika Márquez, a Nevada resident and DREAMer who came to the US without papers from Mexico as a child, said that Sanders’s fight for better wages and his health care plan signal that he will fight for Latinos: “There’s something about him that conveys trust,” she said.
Not all Latinos are backing Medicare-for-all: The Culinary Workers Union, which is Nevada’s largest union and represents thousands of Latino workers, had disseminated flyers opposing the plan as one that would take away its members’ union health care. But that didn’t seem to affect the results, with many union members appearing to defect from their leaders, as my colleague Sean Collins writes.
Creating more jobs and improving incomes were the top priorities for 19 and 12 percent of Latinos, respectively, in that same Univision poll. Sanders has promised to raise the minimum wage to $15 and would offer college debt forgiveness and tuition-free public university, which could be important for first- and second-generation immigrants in the Latino community who haven’t yet been able to accumulate wealth.
It’s these kinds of bread-and-butter issues that Sanders hopes can inspire Latino turnout.
“Bernie will bring people of all backgrounds together around a progressive agenda that guarantees fundamental economic and civil rights to all, including universal health care, a good job with a living wage, affordable housing, a healthy environment, and a secure retirement,” Belén Sisa, a spokesperson for the Sanders campaign, said.
But Sanders’s performance among Latinos in Nevada — of which about 70 percent are of Mexican heritage — might not be predictive of his performance in other contests to come. Nevada is more heavily Mexican compared to the rest of the nation, where the Latino population is only 59 percent Mexican. Latinos of different national origins might view him differently.
For example, some Latinos might be alienated by Sanders’s identity as a democratic socialist. Sergio Garcia-Rios, a professor at Cornell University who studies Latino political participation, said that Latino immigrants from Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua who remember what it is like to live in a socialist country might be wary of endorsing a candidate who espouses a similar political ideology.
But Sanders is nevertheless polling well among Cubans — his favorability rating among Cubans is 47 percent favorable to 42 percent unfavorable, according to the recent Univision poll. By comparison, 67 percent of Mexicans rated Sanders favorably.
Sanders’s Latino outreach strategy
But more important than Sanders’s platform is his investments in outreach at the local level long before other campaigns showed up. His bilingual advertisements showed up at their doorsteps, on the radio, at their workplaces, and online starting as early as June 2019.
“You can be the perfect messenger and have the perfect message that Latinos care about, but if you never spend the money to go tell the Latinos out there, it doesn’t matter what your positions are,” Chuck Rocha, a senior adviser to Sanders’s campaign who also worked on his 2016 run, said.
The campaign spent millions on outreach in Nevada alone. The first advertisement they put out in Nevada was in Spanish and the first office they opened was in the heavily Latino neighborhood of East Las Vegas (they now have 13 throughout the state). Sanders is also focusing on California, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas.
Related The best argument for each of the 2020 Democratic frontrunners
He has hired Latino staff, who number more than 200 nationwide, including 76 stationed in Nevada. The campaign set out to hire people from nonprofits and social justice movements in particular and, at the state level, hired primarily from within the state to ensure that outreach was conducted through a “lens of cultural competency,” Rocha said. Latinos or people of color hold senior positions across every department, from national political director Analilia Mejia to national deputy director of states Neidi Dominguez.
“We wanted to break the status quo of the wrong way we think campaigns have been run forever where Latinos had been used as window dressing, given no authority, and being siloed off in departments where they only talk to each other and not the rest of the campaign,” Rocha said. “There’s no Latino outreach department. It’s literally integrated in every part of the campaign.”
Still, galvanizing turnout among Latinos will be key to the success of Sanders’s strategy, and it remains to be seen whether that will come to fruition. In the 2018 midterm elections, there was a 50 percent increase in turnout among Latino voters, and if that trend continues, it could play in Sanders’s favor in both the primary and the general election if he wins the nomination.
He acknowledged that turnout in Iowa, which was about on par with 2016 levels, wasn’t as high as he had hoped it would be. But Democrats are already predicting record-breaking turnout among Latinos in Nevada — and based on entrance polls at Saturday’s caucuses, he’s leading them by 36 percent.
“There will definitely be more Latinos than have ever caucused before,” Rocha said.


vox--2020-02-22--Bernie Sanders just won the Nevada caucuses

The independent senator from Vermont cruised to victory in Saturday ’ s caucuses in Nevada , where his campaign has been building Latino support for months .
As of 7:30 pm Eastern , our partners at Decision Desk are projecting Sanders as the winner .
So far , Decision Desk estimates Sanders has added nine more delegates to his count , putting him in first place in the delegate race .
“ In Nevada , we have just put together a multigenerational , multiracial coalition , which is not only going to win Nevada , it ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his victory speech , addressing a large crowd in San Antonio , Texas .
“ No campaign has a grassroots movement like we do , which is another reason we ’ re going to win this election.
” A win in Nevada helps solidify Sanders ’ s frontrunner status ; this is his second outright win in an early state after New Hampshire .
Sanders also won the popular vote in the Iowa caucuses , and as of the latest recanvass of those caucuses ’ convoluted results , he was effectively tied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Buttigieg in Iowa state delegates — separated by 0.004 percentage points .
Still , the race for delegates between Sanders and Buttigieg has been closer ; they won an equal number of delegates in New Hampshire , and Buttigieg currently has 23 delegates , compared to 21 for Sanders .
Nevada ’ s win only bolsters his position as he heads into South Carolina and Super Tuesday .
Southern states will test Sanders ’ s strength with black voters , a group he did poorly with in 2016 and one that initially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden in 2020 .
Biden ’ s once-formidable lead in South Carolina has been shrinking , and there are signs Sanders is eating into Biden ’ s support among black voters ; a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of black Democratic primary voters found 31 percent of supporting Biden and 29 percent supporting Sanders .
Sanders ’ s win in Nevada could also be a good sign for him as we barrel toward Super Tuesday on March 3 , when a massive chunk of delegates will be allotted .
His campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigning in California , a state with more than 400 delegates .
“ He ’ s done very well with Latino voters , ” said Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-CA ) , a national co-chair of the Sanders campaign .
“ He ’ s very strong in the Bay Area and Los Angeles .
He ’ s strong in rural California .
he ’ s campaigned and gone to place like Chico and Fresno and paid attention to the needs of central California , rural California.
” How Sanders pulled off his win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning the Nevada caucuses than anyone thought possible .
Four years later , he retained much of that support .
“ He started with a nice little base , ” said longtime Nevada Democratic strategist Billy Vassiliadis .
“ He carried over most of those average supporters he had four years ago .
Those folks stayed active , they stayed loyal , they ’ re Bernie folks.
” Sanders ’ s campaign didn ’ t take their 2016 advantage for granted this year .
Even though Nevada is historically overlooked , Sanders started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 months ago .
By Friday , his campaign had knocked on 500,000 doors across the state ’ s 17 counties .
“ We canvass all day long ... we canvass , text , and call at all hours because we know people are home at different hours , ” Sanders Nevada state director Sarah Michelsen told me recently .
“ I ’ m very confident in our program .
We ’ re not taking anything for granted , and we ’ re not leaving anything on the field.
” In a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built a turnout machine that will propel us to victory here in Nevada.
” Sanders ’ s momentum out of New Hampshire also helped boost this large Nevada campaign operation attempting to turn out a diverse slate of voters .
State and national polls show Sanders doing very well among Latino voters ; a February Morning Consult national poll showed his support among these voters growing as Biden ’ s fell .
One potential setback for Sanders was the powerful Culinary Union , a politically powerful hospitality workers union , which issued something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicare-for-all plan , which they feared would mean the end of their union insurance .
But early reports from Nevada on caucus night suggested Culinary Union members broke with leadership and caucused in wide numbers for Sen. Bernie Sanders , according to Nevada Independent editor Jon Ralston .
Even though it made its distaste for Sanders ’ s plans clear , the union also didn ’ t take the extra step of endorsing one of his competitors .
It stayed neutral in the race , especially after Biden ’ s lackluster performances in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts told Vox .
“ If the Culinary were really really mad at Bernie , they would have endorsed Biden and gone all out for Biden , ” Ralston told Vox in a recent interview .
“ Even if they had done that , I ’ m not sure they would have been able to stop Bernie.
” Going into 2020 , the persistent questions dogging Sanders campaign was whether he could build a more diverse coalition and expand on his 2016 base of young voters and progressives .
The Latino vote was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latino voters are a natural fit for Sanders ; they tend to be younger and more progressive , and have ties to organized labor .
The idea of young Latinos flocking to a 78-year-old white man from the rural state of Vermont can seem a bit odd .
But many of Sanders ’ s Latino supports have an affinity for the gruff politician who hasn ’ t changed his progressive stances for the past 30 years ; the ’ ve nicknamed Sanders “ Tio Bernie.
” Familiarity is also a key component .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself to Latino voters ; now he ’ s a known entity .
“ Harry Reid unlocked this system in Nevada where you have a young population , you have a population that is integrated into labor unions , and Reid uses particularly labor unions to get Latinos out to vote , ” Stephen Nuño-Perez , senior analyst for the Latino polling firm Latino Decisions , told me in a recent interview .
“ This is the playbook , and it ’ s a natural fit for Sanders ’ s style of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Univision analysis showing Latino turnout doubling in the 2018 midterms in eight states — including Nevada , California , Texas , Florida , and New York — Latinos are a fast-growing portion of the American electorate .
But community leaders have also long complained about the Democratic Party and candidates failing to engage with them .
Chuck Rocha , a senior adviser for the Sanders campaign who oversees Latino outreach , says he ’ s ensuring Sanders won ’ t make that mistake .
“ As a chief adviser , I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns do through generations of being taken advantage of , ” Rocha told me .
“ We went to the community , listened to the community , hired the community , and we ... invested early in that community.
” With the South Carolina primary looming , Sanders has to focus on shoring up support among black voters in the South .
Still , building on his Latino support in states like California , Colorado , and Texas will be just as critical on Super Tuesday .

Bernie Sanders is on a roll.
The independent senator from Vermont cruised to victory in Saturday’s caucuses in Nevada, where his campaign has been building Latino support for months. As of 7:30 pm Eastern, our partners at Decision Desk are projecting Sanders as the winner. So far, Decision Desk estimates Sanders has added nine more delegates to his count, putting him in first place in the delegate race.
“In Nevada, we have just put together a multigenerational, multiracial coalition, which is not only going to win Nevada, it’s going to sweep this country,” Sanders said in his victory speech, addressing a large crowd in San Antonio, Texas. “No campaign has a grassroots movement like we do, which is another reason we’re going to win this election.”
A win in Nevada helps solidify Sanders’s frontrunner status; this is his second outright win in an early state after New Hampshire. Sanders also won the popular vote in the Iowa caucuses, and as of the latest recanvass of those caucuses’ convoluted results, he was effectively tied with former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg in Iowa state delegates — separated by 0.004 percentage points.
Still, the race for delegates between Sanders and Buttigieg has been closer; they won an equal number of delegates in New Hampshire, and Buttigieg currently has 23 delegates, compared to 21 for Sanders.
Nevada’s win only bolsters his position as he heads into South Carolina and Super Tuesday. Southern states will test Sanders’s strength with black voters, a group he did poorly with in 2016 and one that initially seemed eager to back former Vice President Joe Biden in 2020. Biden’s once-formidable lead in South Carolina has been shrinking, and there are signs Sanders is eating into Biden’s support among black voters; a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of black Democratic primary voters found 31 percent supporting Biden and 29 percent supporting Sanders.
Sanders’s win in Nevada could also be a good sign for him as we barrel toward Super Tuesday on March 3, when a massive chunk of delegates will be allotted. His campaign has put significant resources and energy into campaigning in California, a state with more than 400 delegates.
“He’s done very well with Latino voters,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a national co-chair of the Sanders campaign. “He’s very strong in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. He’s strong in rural California. he’s campaigned and gone to place like Chico and Fresno and paid attention to the needs of central California, rural California.”
How Sanders pulled off his win
In 2016, Sanders came closer to winning the Nevada caucuses than anyone thought possible. Four years later, he retained much of that support.
“He started with a nice little base,” said longtime Nevada Democratic strategist Billy Vassiliadis. “He carried over most of those average supporters he had four years ago. Those folks stayed active, they stayed loyal, they’re Bernie folks.”
Sanders’s campaign didn’t take their 2016 advantage for granted this year. Even though Nevada is historically overlooked, Sanders started building an organizational machine in the state 10 months ago. By Friday, his campaign had knocked on 500,000 doors across the state’s 17 counties.
“We canvass all day long. ... We canvass, text, and call at all hours because we know people are home at different hours,” Sanders Nevada state director Sarah Michelsen told me recently. “I’m very confident in our program. We’re not taking anything for granted, and we’re not leaving anything on the field.”
In a statement, Michelsen said the campaign has “built a turnout machine that will propel us to victory here in Nevada.”
Sanders’s momentum out of New Hampshire also helped boost this large Nevada campaign operation attempting to turn out a diverse slate of voters. State and national polls show Sanders doing very well among Latino voters; a February Morning Consult national poll showed his support among these voters growing as Biden’s fell.
One potential setback for Sanders was the powerful Culinary Union, a politically powerful hospitality workers union. It issued something of an anti-endorsement of Sanders’s Medicare-for-all plan, which its leaders feared would mean the end of their union insurance.
But early reports from Nevada on caucus night suggested Culinary Union members broke with leadership and caucused in wide numbers for Sen. Bernie Sanders, according to Nevada Independent editor Jon Ralston.
Damn: Now looks like Bernie has won caucuses at Bellagio, Mandalay, Park MFM, Rio, and Wynn, tied at Harrah’s and lost Paris. He is the Culinary workers’ candidate! — Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 22, 2020
Even though it made its distaste for Sanders’s plans clear, the union also didn’t take the extra step of endorsing one of his competitors. It stayed neutral in the race, especially after Biden’s lackluster performances in Iowa and New Hampshire, Nevada politics experts told Vox.
“If the Culinary were really really mad at Bernie, they would have endorsed Biden and gone all out for Biden,” Ralston told Vox in a recent interview. “Even if they had done that, I’m not sure they would have been able to stop Bernie.”
A Nevada win solidifies a key part of Sanders’s national strategy
Going into 2020, the persistent questions dogging Sanders campaign was whether he could build a more diverse coalition and expand on his 2016 base of young voters and progressives.
The Latino vote was a key part of that expansion. Latino voters are a natural fit for Sanders; they tend to be younger and more progressive and have ties to organized labor. The idea of young Latinos flocking to a 78-year-old white man from the rural state of Vermont can seem a bit odd. But many of Sanders’s Latino supports have an affinity for the gruff politician who hasn’t changed his progressive stances for the past 30 years; they’ve nicknamed Sanders “Tio Bernie.”
Familiarity is also a key component. In 2016, Sanders was just introducing himself to Latino voters; now he’s a known entity.
“Harry Reid unlocked this system in Nevada where you have a young population, you have a population that is integrated into labor unions, and Reid uses particularly labor unions to get Latinos out to vote,” Stephen Nuño-Perez, senior analyst for the Latino polling firm Latino Decisions, told me in a recent interview. “This is the playbook, and it’s a natural fit for Sanders’s style of how he envisions politics.”
With a recent Univision analysis showing Latino turnout doubling in the 2018 midterms in eight states — including Nevada, California, Texas, Florida, and New York — Latinos are a fast-growing portion of the American electorate. But community leaders have also long complained about the Democratic Party and candidates failing to engage with them. Chuck Rocha, a senior adviser for the Sanders campaign who oversees Latino outreach, says he’s ensuring Sanders won’t make that mistake.
“As a chief adviser, I’m going to do what we have demanded campaigns do through generations of being taken advantage of,” Rocha told me. “We went to the community, listened to the community, hired the community, and we ... invested early in that community.”
With the South Carolina primary looming, Sanders has to focus on shoring up support among black voters in the South. Still, building on his Latino support in states like California, Colorado, and Texas will be just as critical on Super Tuesday.