Hillary Clinton barely beats Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin. Should she worry?

If you look closer, the Wisconsin results don’t really say anything about Sen. Bernie Sanders’s national prospects – or even how he'd do in Wisconsin.

|
Jim Cole/AP/File
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks in Hampton, N.H., earlier this year.

It’s true – Bernie Sanders nearly beat Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin over the weekend. The wild-haired, self-proclaimed socialist took 41 percent of the vote in a straw poll at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention, while the former secretary of State drew 49 percent – winning, but barely. Time to crank up the media Wurlitzer! It’s a race, folks. Mrs. Clinton’s still the favorite, but Sanders is coming up on her left.

That’s the way some people in the progressive wing of the party are choosing to interpret the results, in any case. Enthused by the size of Senator Sanders’s crowds, they see the Wisconsin vote as vindication for their ideals and proof that Clinton is vulnerable to a liberal challenge.

“Remaining clear-eyed about hurdles but WI straw poll shows strength of Sanders’ insurgent campaign,” tweeted Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the left-leaning magazine The Nation, on Monday.

Um, really? Look, we’d be thrilled if the Democratic nomination race turned competitive, since that would generate lots more interest, and thus readers, for our stuff. Journalists are almost always biased in favor of conflict. It’s more dramatic than writing yet again about Clinton’s ginormous polling lead.

But the Wisconsin results don’t say anything about Sanders’s national prospects. They don’t really measure how he’d do in Wisconsin. It’s quite possible they’re not really indicative of the state Democratic convention itself.

That’s because straw polls are actual polls with the rigor removed. They’re semi-random, not representative or complete. At the Wisconsin Democratic convention only about one-third of the 1,600 attendees actually participated in the survey, according to a report from WisPolitics.com. Gee, do you think it’s possible that motivated Sanders fans made an effort to participate, while Clinton backers didn’t bother? Or that committed liberals are more likely to attend an off-year Democratic convention in the first place?

Let’s ask ex-GOP nominee Michele Bachmann, who won the Ames Straw Poll in 2011 ... oh yeah, right.

Nor is Wisconsin a key state in the march to the nomination. Its primary isn’t until April, long after the winnowing of trailing candidates has begun. Plus, left-leaning Democratic voters seem pretty satisfied with Clinton. Self-described liberals are just as likely to support her as self-described Democratic moderates or conservatives, according to (actual) polls.

That said, the straw poll results do at least provide a general picture of something – the rest of the field, at the moment, is nowhere. Sanders got a total of 208 votes. Martin O’Malley got 18. And Wisconsin, in the end, might be a good state for Sanders actually. The state has a long liberal history. The last socialist to serve as mayor of a big American city was Frank Zeidler, who ran Milwaukee from 1948 to 1960.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Hillary Clinton barely beats Bernie Sanders in Wisconsin. Should she worry?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0608/Hillary-Clinton-barely-beats-Bernie-Sanders-in-Wisconsin.-Should-she-worry
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe