There's basically two schools of Democratic Party thought:
1. Trump is horrible for the country, and we need to oust him and go back to the Obama days.
2. Trump is horrible for the country, and we need to oust him but going back to the Obama days isn't enough. Not like wealthy inequality, healthcare implementation, etc weren't problems under Obama.
The moderates are for #1. If you're well off and you're someone that owns a house and has a robust 401K portfolio, you're fine with this. The S&P hit 770 in early 2009, and reached over 2,000 in 2017 when Obama left office. Unemployment went from close to 10% down to 4.5%. GDP growth rate fluctuated from 1.5-3%. Trump has improved these numbers but at the cost of tools (e.g. cutting interest rates) that can be used if a recession hits. Also, he's a terrible human being who is a national security risk, drums up hatred, and can cost the country for a generation (e.g. diplomatic issues, supreme court appointees, climate change). Overall though, if we just went back to 2013 or something, things are great!
Sanders is for #2. Even during the recovery since the recession, the wealth gap has continued to increase. Wages have been relatively stagnant. If you compare compensation for executives vs. average workers, in 1989, the average CEO (in top ~350 US firms) made 60x the average worker in those firms. It's now over 250x.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/22/heres-how-much-ceo-pay-has-increased-compared-to-yours-over-the-years.htmlIt didn't decrease since the financial crisis, that's for sure.
Another thing from 2012, just a few years after the recovery (right during the middle of Obama's presidency)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/04/3rd-quarter-corporate-profits-reach-record-high-worker-pay-hits-record-lowso-how-exactly-is-obama-the-anti-business-president/#561561f5364b"The numbers are in for Q3 and big business has $1.75 trillion worth of reasons to celebrate as these record-breaking results improved on last year’s numbers by a stunning 18.6 percent—the largest after-tax profit quarter in the nation’s history."
“A separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as early 2001.(emphasis added) But overall economic growth has greatly outpaced growth in hourly wages and job creation since the end of Great Recession, so workers' share of the economic pie has dropped steadily. That's despite the fact that modest hiring by employers lifted total wages to a record $6.88 trillion in the third quarter.”
"So, as we congratulate corporate America on their record-breaking profits, let’s be mindful of who is paying the price for their good fortune—the American worker and the small business owner who is being starved out of business due to the ever shrinking paychecks being delivered on payday."
So back to the #1 vs. #2. Many of the people that got hit during the recession (job losses, home losses, healthcare debts, etc) might've been able to find jobs again, but given wages and their other obligations, it is not necessarily the case that they were able to pad their stock portfolios and housing values, because they may not have them.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-proof-that-401k-plans-are-not-working-for-most-americans-can-you-guess-who-they-are-working-for-2019-12-12With almost half of all working-age families having ZERO in retirement savings, the fact that the median family had only $7,800 in these accounts shouldn’t come as a surprise. At the same time, the 90th percentile family had $320,000 and the top 1% of families (which isn’t shown on the chart) had $1,663,000 or more.
“These huge disparities reflect a growing gap between haves and have-nots since the Great Recession as accounts with smaller balances have stagnated while larger ones rebounded,” the EPI’s Monique Morrissey wrote.
So under Obama and Trump, if around 2009, you made it through the recession with 6 figures in your 401k and a nice house, you're in great shape. But if you ran into issues and with wages not growing at the rate the market is, a family can have serious trouble tapping into these growth areas. You may have a job, but that's it. And when the economy slows down, you're the first to get screwed. At least others have more savings to rely on (and a house that might be paid off).
And if you're a Millennial, student loans are big problem. When you have these loans, you're just trying to pay them off. You don't have the capacity to throw money at the stock market or to afford a house. So the good news with the ~3.5% unemployment rate, you have job opportunities. The bad news is you're not benefiting from the market or the housing market as much as the top 10, 5, or 1 percent.
Here's some housing statistics:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/63-percent-of-millennial-homebuyers-have-regrets-heres-why.htmlIt doesn’t help that cash-strapped millennials often struggle to afford just the down payment: Roughly 1 in 3 millennial homebuyers took on a second job to save up for it.
“When paying for things like mortgages and student loans, [millennials] don’t have much money to save for the hidden costs of owning a home,” Fairweather says.
Unfortunately, though, many millennial homeowners end up paying more than they wanted to or had budgeted for because there aren’t many homes available at the prices young people can comfortably pay.
“Millennials have seen their rents go up year after year, and may think that buying a home is more affordable, but the fact of the matter is housing has become unaffordable across the board,” Fairweather says.
"In many cities around the U.S., particularly in coastal areas, home prices are out of reach. Only 67 percent of homes available in 2018 located in metro areas tracked by Redfin were priced affordably for millennials — down from 71 percent of homes in 2017. In Los Angeles, only 19 percent of homes are in a price range that millennials can afford, based on their median incomes."
If you take a quick look at houses on Zillow in places like North Jersey, homes in nice areas were sold for under $400K in the late 90s, sold around the time of the financial crisis for double that, and now have only grown modestly in value since, mostly because the next generation of homeowners probably can't afford these places anyway! Boomers from that generation are probably thinking about selling that house at ~$900K, and moving south to buy a home at 1/2 to 2/3 of that price in a warmer climate. Houses in places like Charlotte, Austin, etc which are attractive for younger workers and older folks alike have also spiked, but they're well cheaper. The issue for younger workers is that centers like NY, SF, LA, Chicago, Seattle, etc have so many large companies/HQs that it provides opportunities to move around (best way to get promotions and wage increases is to take advantage of the breadth of companies that value your skills). But prices in those areas are completely insane. And if you work in sectors that don't pay as well in this country, you're completely beholden to finding cheap housing areas or commuting from further and further away. And that also leads to gentrification in some cases, where long-time local residents start being priced out.
Oh, and we don't have universal healthcare. And maternity/paternity leave policies are not nearly as generous.
So in the midst of one of the greatest economic booms in history, how many people are truly taking full advantage? If you're ultra wealthy, no worries. If you're doing really well (e.g. boomer who bought a house in the 90s and has a solid 401K), more of the same! But if the financial crisis took a chunk out of you, or you just recently graduated with student loans, the thing you're excited about are the jobs, but there's little else to get excited about. And if your finances are strained (which many households are), a recession could be severely damaging.
So in the Democratic Party, you have your field set. You have those who are doing pretty well who see Trump as terrible and would like to go back to the Obama years (the #1 option folks). You have others (especially young people) that see a change in the system is needed and that going back to 2012/13 isn't going to solve all their issues going forward.
The "Who's voting for who if x is the nominee" thing for some will just come down to self-interest. If there is an economic downturn on the horizon, then no matter who's elected, there could be trouble. Sanders' proposals, even if it goes through Congress (almost impossible), are meant as longterm solutions to fixing inequality in this country. A young person burdened by current/looming student loans or an middle-aged family with healthcare issues see this as hope. A 60-year old Trump-hating Democrat who's doing really well doesn't see the need for this systemic change or revolution or anything like that. Bloomberg isn't a good candidate but if he plays lip service to healthcare, climate change etc, rebuilds relationships with allies, keeps the economy ticking over or with a fast recovery, acts presidential, and nominates a moderate/center-left justice to replace RBG (depends on who controls the Senate) will be seen as a huge upgrade to Trump. If you're fighting systemic inequity in the system, Bloomberg does little.
The divide in the party is there for a reason. As for electability, it's also a bubble depending on who you are. If all you talked to were boomers taking their teenage kids to swim meets in a nice suburban neighborhood, you'd think that Trump would destroy Sanders. If all you talked to were college students or young professionals burdened by the thought of healthcare and housing affordability concerns, it would seem ludicrous that Sanders isn't the nominee.
And don't worry, no matter who the nominee is, the answer to the question of electability will ultimately be determined by ~100K people across 3/4 states. Isn't that a sobering thought?
