One argument for Sanders (among many) has highlighted the support he has drawn in polls from relatively poor and marginalized voters as evidence of a bottom-up movement of the powerless against the powerful. I have never been fond of this argument, simply because in the United States, the powerless are pretty disengaged from electoral politics — to say nothing of party primaries. And while the Sanders campaign has fought mightily to overcome this widespread pacification, I don’t think this is the sort of trend one reverses in an election or two.

For this reason, I think the “movement” argument has always been suspect. The difference in the Sanders campaign is to be found, first, in his ideological suspicion of capitalism (to be contrasted with Warren’s faith in markets); second, in the policy that emerges from that ideology (for example, in his unique approach to climate change); and third, in his adversarial relationship with the rich and powerful (who remain much more hostile towards him than Warren).

On that last note: one set of numbers that has not significantly changed for Sanders is his opposition among the wealthy. Consider for example three recent national polls, which some have pointed to as evidence of Sanders’s changing coalition: in all three, Sanders still trails significantly behind Biden and Warren among wealthier voters:

I suspect that this divide is unlikely to change anytime soon.