We were asked to comment on this, which has been a key part of our analysis for some years. Those who would dismiss Sanders dismiss the anger that brought Trump to power as entirely one-sided, far right, or bigoted. It's not.
Those who would dismiss Sanders as a particular disease of fantasist Democrat kids also ignore the social and economic forces that are driving populist movements of all stripes around the world. They believe we can "revert to the mean," as it were.
As I have argued for four years and more, as distasteful as it may be to you, the Trump-Sanders voter is likely the only one left in play, and probably just numerous enough in key states to matter.
In '72 the people saw a steady hand on the tiller. They were coming out of bad years. There is an element of that now. The economy is at least superficially good. But people are still afraid for the future. That's a lot of what elected Trump. It's also an opening for Sanders.
Trump's opponent, whoever it is, gets 47% by having a heartbeat. The rest will come by how hard people are motivated to bang the drum.
That is to say Chris Matthews, who makes so much over writing those terrible history books, seems not to know or care that there are concrete historical reasons why McGovern lost like he did. Few if any directly apply.
No presidential candidate will win 49 states or anything close perhaps ever again.
This isn't an endorsement of anybody. It's to say if you want a hope in hell of winning anything you have to see the world as it is.
