Here's what worries me about Bernie Sanders

Until the November election is over, I'm going to be in a perpetual state of political anxiety. Dumping Trump is super-important for lots of reasons, preserving our democracy from authoritarian rule being high on the list.

So obviously it's vital that the Democrats nominate someone who is well suited to defeat Trump. And that means winning the Electoral College, not just running up the score in the popular vote, because we saw how that worked for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. 

In short, not well.

Which is why I worry most about Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate.

Yes, polls show him besting Trump nationally. But the election will be won, or lost, not on the basis of national popularity, but on how Trump and whoever the Dems choose does in a handful of swing states -- which means appealing to moderate voters.

Yet Sanders isn't even a Democrat.

He has said that he will govern as a Democrat if he becomes president, but he calls himself a democratic socialist and remains an independent. This is problematic. It seems to me that anyone who wants to be the Democratic presidential nominee should be proud about being a Democrat.

A recent poll found that 53% of Americans said they wouldn't vote for a socialist, while 45% said they would. This is bad news for Sanders, though it must bring a smile to Trump's face as he envisions running against an avowed socialist.

But according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday, Americans overwhelmingly are just fine with voting for a woman, as well as a black, Hispanic or (to a somewhat lesser extent) gay candidate. The sort of candidate a majority of Americans reject?

Socialist.

The category was the only one which had a majority of Americans, 53%, declaring they would not cast a ballot for a candidate so described (45% say they would vote for a well-qualified socialist).

Then there's the fact that based on Iowa and New Hampshire, Sanders isn't expanding the base of his support. Turnout was lackluster in both states, which diminishes the argument that nominating Sanders will energize young people and those who sat out the 2016 presidential election. 

Jennifer Rubin talks about this in a Washington Post opinion piece, "Bernie Sanders has some problems."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won the New Hampshire primary in such an underwhelming fashion — the second less-than-impressive outing in what should have been two of his easiest states — that it bears consideration as to whether he is actually best positioned to win the race.

Turnout in New Hampshire did not significantly increase from 2016 to 2020, even though there was no competitive Republican primary to draw independent voters. Sanders has twice now failed to produce a promised wave of voters. Without such an influx of voters, his electability argument crumbles.

He must either appeal to a greater share of Democrats and independents than other candidates (which currently is not remotely the case), or he must bring in a flood of new voters (which also is not happening). In short, his ceiling is still stuck around 25 percent, just as it has been from the onset of the race.

Also worrisome is that at 53%, Sanders supporters are the least likely to say they will support the eventual Democratic presidential nominee even if it is not their favored candidate. (Yang supporters were even less, at 50%, but Yang has dropped out of the race.)

Sanders needs to do a better job of telling his supporters that they absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt have to vote for whoever the Dems nominate, because the alternative is another four years of Trump.

This points to the rigidity and fanaticism of much of Sanders' base, the so-called "Bernie Bros."

They've been attacking the Nevada Culinary Union after the union pointed out that Sanders' Medicare for All proposal threatened the private heath insurance plan that union members currently have and like.

Argüello-Kline added: “Workers should have the right to choose to keep the health care Culinary Union members have built, sacrificed for, and went on strike for 6 years, 4 months and 10 days to protect.”

“It’s disappointing that Senator Sanders’ supporters have viciously attacked the Culinary Union and working families in Nevada simply because our union has provided facts on what certain health care proposals might do to take away the system of care we have built over eight decades,” she said, noting that Sanders had participated in Culinary town halls and toured the union’s facilities.

Lastly, I'm dubious that what American voters are looking for is a different old, angry-sounding, white guy to replace the current old, angry-sounding, white guy who inhabits the White House.

(If Sanders ends up becoming president, naturally I'll be pleased to take back those words and admit I was wrong.)

Comments

[tucson]

"If Sanders ends up becoming president, naturally I'll be pleased"

-- You hate Trump so much you'd prefer to send the economy down the tubes and have a civil war?
Corona virus is a problem but in this country TDS is the more dangerous epidemic.

[Skyline]

Remember Brother Brian,
When the polls are closed in November; "You People" re-elected President Trump.
Thank you in advance!

[Spence Tepper]

I recall Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan's re- elections with horror, so will not be surprised by Trump's. Even today horrible events, creating millions of mentally ill homeless overnight, causing the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill and disabled Americans, all at the hands of cuts initiated by Reagan, who ignorantly exclaimed, "Today I feel like I've won the lottery!" has been swept under the rug. History is written by the victors. History is always a work of fiction. His Story.

Even the founding fathers knew that Democracies were fragile and capricious things.

So they built a little of the imperial into our system, and it has been a constant struggle.

Many people want a king and don't want to be bothered making decisions for themselves. Indeed they find such freedom intimidating and chaotic. What we call humanity is an overstatement.

They like a monster, a beast. A sub-human who will bite the neighbors' children, who licks himself, who needs a thick leather leash, so they can smile and say apologetically, "Oops, I'm so sorry that Fang destroyed your roses, bit your kids and ate your dog!" Smiling, filled with pride and a false sense of total security and safety because they own the beast. Each criminal act becomes a source of greater power and pride in the owner. But the Beast has a nasty habit of turning on those who think they are in control. Most handguns kill members of the owner's family.

Thinking to the past, what we call liberal today was considered conservative by Eisenhower standards.

I don't think Sanders has any illusions about winning. His role is to educate about the practical reality of socialism. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "We all must hang together or we shall surely be hung separately."

This isn't a lesson America has ever learned well. And with each fresh generation, what was once understood is lost about the Commonwealth, social welfare and public education free of religious prejudice, all values of our founding fathers.

At best Sanders' candidacy will have a moderating effect on Trump's second term.

But the truth is, we are further from Democracy now than ever before and moving at some speed and momentum further in the wrong direction.

These re-elections do not reflect on any party. They reflect the simple fact that Democracy has failed, and repeatedly. It's basic assumptions about an informed and intelligent electorate have proved unachievable, and based on assumptions about humanity that are grossly unrealistic

[Jack Holloway]

Sorry, Brian – can't go along with you on all of the above. Had Hillary managed to sink her claws into the presidency, there's a good chance that the earth would by this time be covered with a layer of glowing, radioactive ash. It's almost impossible to think of anyone who would be a worse president than Trump, but at least, unlike Hillary, he's not going to (knowingly) provoke a shooting war with Russia.

[Tiger Lily]

Yet another hit piece against Sanders, presumably from a person who would be satisfied with anyone except Sanders. Never mind that Sanders gets most of his donations from people of modest means, such as teachers, post office workers, and retail workers.
If you take a look at the crowds that cheer at Bernie rallies, you might notice many women of all demographics there. Bernie has many female supporters, including myself. We are not bros or bullies as you claim. Just women who are concerned for the future and worry that big business will trash our lives.
What worries me is that if a middle-of-the-road/conservative Democrat is elected, that will pave the way for another Trump, or worse.

[Benjamin]

"Sanders needs to do a better job of telling his supporters that they absolutely, positively, without-a-doubt have to vote for whoever the Dems nominate, because the alternative is another four years of Trump."

Sorry (not sorry), but I won't. Just like I didn't in 2016. I'm supporting Sanders, not a Democrat. The Democrats need to offer me someone who is worth a damn. If they sabotage Sanders again, that leaves them with either some flavor of photogenic but empty neoliberal, or freaking Mike Bloomberg.

In fact I would prefer another four years of Trump over either of those options, just as I preferred him to Clinton in 2016 (no, I didn't vote for him, but I happily didn't vote for her either). When you can offer me is two different flavors of evil, I'd prefer the more incompetent one to win.

Maybe it'll take another of your godawful 'moderate' Republican-lites losing to the most ludicrous candidate in US history for the second time in a row to finally beat it into your skulls that what we need is an actual progressive platform.

Bring back the party of FDR. If you won't do that, than let this desiccated carcass of a party just finally die a final death.

[George E, Porgie]

Here's what worries me about bloggers like yourself:

"“The repeated cowardice of the liberal class, which backs a Democratic Party that in Europe would be considered a far-right party, saw it squander its credibility. Its rhetoric proved empty. Its moral posturing was a farce. It fought for nothing. In assault after assault on the working class it was complicit. If liberals — supposedly backers of parties and institutions that defend the interests of the working class — had abandoned the Democratic Party after President Bill Clinton pushed through the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Trump would not be in the White House. Why didn’t liberals walk out of the Democratic Party when Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership, including Biden, passed NAFTA? Why didn’t they walk out when the Clinton administration gutted welfare? Why didn’t they walk out when Clinton pushed through the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, which abolished the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, designed to prevent the kind of banking crisis that trashed the global economy in 2008? Why didn’t they walk out when year after year the Democratic Party funded and expanded our endless wars? Why didn’t they walk out when the Democrats agreed to undercut due process and habeas corpus? Why didn’t they walk out when the Democrats helped approve the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of American citizens? Why didn’t the liberals walk out when the party leadership refused to impose sanctions on Israel for its war crimes, enact serious environmental and health care reform or regulate Wall Street? At what point will liberals say “Enough”? At what point will they fight back?

By surrendering every election cycle to the least worst, liberals proved they have no breaking point. There never has been a line in the sand. They have stood for nothing.”

Chris Hedges on the failure of liberalism:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-new-rules-of-the-game/