Was Trade the Secret Sauce in Bernie Sanders’ Michigan Win?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

From the Washington Post on Bernie Sanders’ win in Michigan last night:

Senator’s win fueled by his opposition to ‘disastrous’ trade deals

Sanders’s come-from-behind victory was fueled by a relentless focus on his opposition to “disastrous” trade deals that have battered the manufacturing sector in Michigan. He will carry the same message to Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois and Missouri next week.

….Sanders campaigned hard in Michigan, holding large rallies across the state over the past week and hammering Clinton for what he called her record of failure on trade and job protection — an appealing message in a state that has lost manufacturing jobs. “While others waffle, Bernie is fighting hundreds of thousands in new job losses,” said the narrator of a Sanders television ad in heavy rotation in the state.

Maybe. But here are a few exit poll results from Michigan:

  • Sanders won union households 49-47 percent.
  • Clinton won voters who think the economy is the most important issue by 51-48 percent.
  • Among voters who think trade with other countries takes away US jobs, Sanders won 58-41 percent.
  • Among voters worried about the economy, Clinton won 50-48 percent.

There’s clearly some evidence for the trade theory, since Sanders won a convincing victory among voters who think trade takes away US jobs. But more generally, voters concerned about the economy broke pretty evenly.

The bigger story, perhaps, is that Sanders won a whopping 83 percent of voters under 30. That’s a fifth of the electorate. He also won a respectable 31 percent of the black vote. In both cases, this is better than he usually does.

Maybe trade really was the key margin of victory for Sanders in Michigan. But the evidence is a little thin, and it seems as though age and race breakdowns can explain things pretty well too. I’d be careful about drawing too firm a conclusion from Michigan about trade being an especially potent issue.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate