After Bernie Sanders announced that he will make another run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, I spent some time watching the news coverage on MSNBC and CNN. I also skimmed through more than a dozen news articles at major newspapers. The impression I got, although anecdotal, is that there is a common wisdom on the center-left that Sanders is a spent force in American politics.
I’ve seen various narratives that make this point in different ways. Some say simply that he’s too old. Others say his own success in moving the party to the left will be his undoing, as he no longer offers a unique or distinct choice. Still others point to the hard feelings his 2016 campaign created, or argue that we’ve moved into a new political environment where women and/or minorities will have a natural advantage over white men.
Some, or even most, of these predictions may be accurate. But I think they’re too dismissive of the Vermont senator’s chances of winning the nomination. The day of his formal announcement, Sanders raised $5.9 million from his preexisting donor base, mostly in small donations that can be recurring every month. This dwarfs what any of the other candidates raised when they announced.
Money isn’t everything, but with so many candidates in the running it will be difficult for others to financially compete with Sanders. While others work to build up a loyal army of supporters who will do the grunt work on the campaign trail, Sanders will be able to focus on other tasks. He’s also going to bring a certain floor of support to every contest, and with so many candidates dividing up votes, that floor could be good for at least second place and a share of the delegates in many states.
Another strength people should consider is Sanders’s decision to hire Faiz Shakir as his campaign manager. Based on my limited experiences with Shakir, he should not be underestimated. I don’t know if his many skills in other areas will readily transfer to running a presidential campaign, but I would not bet against him. I expect he will do an excellent job.
Winning the nomination is a battle for delegates, not a popularity contest. I think it is very unlikely that Sanders will win many contests outright, at least initially, but I think he’s in a very strong position to bag delegates even when losing. Most candidates will come away completely empty-handed. He’ll have all the money he needs to stay in as long as he wants, so he could emerge from the early stages of the primaries in second-place with delegates, first-place in cash, and as the main alternative still standing against the frontrunner.
That might get him no further than he advanced in 2016, but it’s still a more formidable place than the center-left pundits are willing to predict.
I think you just did a great job of, first, outlining the corporate media sphere’s talking points on Bernie; and, second, demonstrating why he may defy their framing.
It’s as if they’re still operating with a pre-internet mindset, wherein their influence was so much stronger than it is now.
I donated $20 to Bernie yesterday. I’ll be looking forward to donating again and again and again and again….
Since we’re going with anecdotal evidence here, I’ll share that two people I know in BS’s age group who previously were strong and active BS supporters now think he’s too old. They are both actively looking at younger alternatives from among the strong field.
Belinda Carlisle(yes, that one!) certainly doesn’t think he’s too old.
Well, that opinion of Belinda’s is all well and good, but what does Jane Wiedlin think?
Thats a fair concern imo, its really my only concern about him. But I think those concerns about Biden are equally legitimate. Hell even Warren at 70 should demonstrate she has the energy. The campaign will likely demonstrate if they have enough in the tank.
Agree, she needs to keep up with the others. But there is a heck of a difference between an 80 year old and a 70 year old. Anecdotal only but I’ve seen it. And as BS gets in his 80s it will only accelerate. It is a risky bet, not impossible but tough.
Anecdotally, Warren seems to be plenty energetic.
And Bernie is too old. He really is. As a 70 something myself, I speak with great authority on this! Perhaps someone can explain to me why it is advantageous for Sanders to remain an Independent but choose to run as a Democrat, not once, but twice? Who is he loyal to? Seriously.
As far as I know, Georgia doesn’t either;doesn’t presuppose one’s ability to campaign under a party label, nor to designate oneself as a member/supporter. I believe the other Senator from Vermont calls himself a Democrat. So, this seems to be a choice on the part of Sanders, not a requirement.
. . . as a Democrat. To my knowledge, there is no other path available to me to become in any officially-recognized way a “member” of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is not a “membership” organization. (I suppose I could get involved in the county or state party orgs — such that I would have a vote in selecting a replacement for a Dem who died in office or as a nominee between the primary and the general election. But as far as I know, that would still confer on me only “membership” in those state/local units, not in “the Democratic Party” per se.)
Certainly, Bernie has been hesitant to fully and unequivocally self-identify as simply a “Democrat”. No full-throated cry of “I am a Democrat!” that I’m aware of.
But given that
. . . the “Bernie’s not a Dem and never has been” talking-point much-beloved by Bernie-haters (not claiming you’re one — I don’t know) seems beyond silly and petty to me. (You don’t see it thrown at, say, Angus King [I-ME], for example, who functions as a Dem similarly to Bernie.) Given this context, that talking-point always strikes me as not a substantive, meaningful, serious objection so much as something convenient to hang a grievance on in order to keep nursing a grudge.
A) I supported Sanders in the past primary. (Though switched fairly enthusiastically to Clinton, of course, during the general.)
B) I prefer Warren this time, and I regret that Sanders didn’t endorse her.
C) I find it curious, and a little alarming, that it’s commonly accepted in my party that Jews are not minorities. (Nothing against Boo; this is widespread to the point of ubiquity.)
Most American Jews are basically indistinguishable from white people and thats largely how we reckon race in the country for better or worse. So too I think the common prescence of Jews in media/elite positions also makes it easy to forget that as a group they are as vulnerable as any small group.
I think I’d also be remiss if I didnt bring up that the younger and more non-white the Democratic party becomes the more skeptical it will become of Israel.
Oh, I think I understand the rationales. I certainly know that I dread the consequences.
I’m a Jew who thinks it would be insane to consider us an oppressed minority in the United States today. Fifty years ago, it was another story. But heck, fifty years ago it was challenging to get elected to high office if one was Catholic. The world has changed. Jews today are hard to distinguish as a minority.
I’m not a Jew, and I don’t want to step on any toes here, but the current climate of antisemitism seems elevated and always accompanies fascist resurgence. The UK is arbitrarily stripping citizenship of controversial ISIS fighters rather than deal with it in a court of law. Seems like a precarious situation to me; the Nazis seem to know who is a Jew…
On the flip side, I do for the first time in my political life feel hope about the potential direction of the US relative to the world. Yes we need to look outward for certain solutions, but on the whole I am most hopeful of our version of “leftism” than Europe’s.
As I was saying:
A LT in the US Coast Guard was arrested this week on gun charges, targeted political hit list
. . . minority”.
Steggles asserted the former, not the latter.
As oaguabonita noted, I didn’t say ‘oppressed.’ Jews aren’t an oppressed minority in the US today, despite fairly widespread levels of antisemitism. I wouldn’t say that Asians are oppressed in the US today either, despite fairly widespread levels of racism, but they’re still a minority.
However, while I agree that we’re not an ‘oppressed’ minority, I do think we’re a ‘vulnerable’ one. Do you disagree?
I can’t speak for Jewish people, since I’m South Asian. But growing up in the South (Weatherford, TX [spit]) I never met a Jewish person (that I knew of) until I got to college (Rice) and didn’t really connect that they were Jewish, until I got to grad school (Cornell). Jewish people in the South really assimilate well. I’d say that that’s partially as “protective coloration”.
And I can speak to that myself (“protective coloration”). I’m just about the most “white on the inside” person you’ll ever meet. So it’s not a matter of “culture” or some such: I am as culturally American as any white person. As a South Asian, an “overrepresented minority”, am I oppressed? Well, for sure I’ll never live in the South, or any other Red State, and for sure I’ll never willingly set foot in those places. B/c I’m not rich enough to afford the private army I’d need to feel safe around those crackers. Yes, that comes from growing up around them. And I have stories …. so it’s not some vague and ill-defined fear, it’s very real.
People can be oppressed for many reasons. Just because someone is well-off, doesn’t mean that they’re not oppressed. And so returning to Jewish people: I think, esp. given the rampant anti-senitism going around, we need to reconsider the assumption that Jewish people aren’t oppressed in America today.
Don’t forget that both Rep. Welch and Senator Leahy have already publicly endorsed Sanders. Last time both backed Clinton.
I think he is too old. I know a few folks in their 80s (he will be 79 if elected) and they lack the energy and stamina. But maybe he can beat the odds. I also don’t much like his notion of giving up on addressing the filibuster. Money certainly buys him a seat at the table though.
Besides, at the moment, my universe is Warren, Brown or Harris. But too early to commit.
Can you explain what you mean by his notion of not addressing the filibuster? I haven’t heard of this and am curious what his position is because I’m squarely in the `abolish it’ camp.
Sanders said he is very weary of abolishing it. Whether he believes that or if he’s just saying that so the GOP won’t go apeshit is a different question. My guess is that none of the Senators will be publicly in favor of abolishing it because of the GOP freakout that would commence.
In a CBS interview, Bernie Sanders stated, “I’m not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster.”
Wow! That’s some serious congnitive dissonance for Bernie, there. Just how does he expect to enact ANYTHING in his platform under he filibuster? Maybe he is losing his grip.
Some, maybe most, are wedded to the idea of the filibuster. Me, not so much. It may be never if we insist on sixty votes for things we want like M4A or free college. And that is especially true when you consider there will always be some group of conservative Dems who will not vote for it. We saw it during the ACA debate. So when someone says he is not going to eliminate it, I tend to move on. Of course, there is never going to be a time I vote for Trump or his friends. There is that.
Not too sure about that; stating that you want to abolish the filibuster eighteen months before a presidential election seems like a high-risk, low-reward strategy.
The Republicans would do it without a second thought if they thought it would benefit Republicans. They don’t because, as Orin Hatch correctly observed, the filibuster has prevented the adoption of progressive/liberal legislation for decades. The filibuster benefits the side with unpopular ideas and policies.
I’m in the Bernie’s too old camp. At age 79, he’d have to be lucky to be capable of serving four, let alone eight years.
None of which undermines Martin’s analysis. I agree with his assessment of the strengths of the Sanders campaign. Knowing how dogged he is, I could see him creating trouble again. He could even get nominated, in which case I would support him to my last breath. I just hope it doesn’t happen because I could see him faltering and delivering another four years to Trump.
PredictIt, a betting site, has Sanders in between Harris and Biden, which sounds about right? I mean, nobody’s chances are above 23% and Biden and Beto collectively take 32% of the field, which artificially distorts everyone else’s numbers.
In terms of delegates, Bernie probably comes in 1st in either Iowa or New Hampshire, and doesn’t finish below 4th in South Carolina or Nevada. (I can’t find much state level primary polling, and the ones I can find list candidates who haven’t declared and don’t list candidates who have, so I’m spitballing here.) Even if he won both Iowa and New Hampshire, proportional allocation means that he may not have a majority of delegates. Biden appears to lead most polls, so he should be considered the frontrunner if he decides to run. I think it’s going to be chaotic and messy, but that might be good: the eventual winner will by necessity have a broad coalition.
Several states (including large states like Georgia and New York) haven’t set their primary dates yet. Candidates who are polling poorly (Delaney, Castro, Gabbard) haven’t dropped out. It’s still early.
There will likely be a fair amount of horse trading of delegates come time for the convention. How many of the delegates for the out-of-contention candidates will end up in the BS camp?
I’m no longer convinced Biden or O’Rourke are going to run. Where does that leave the people who want to support those candidates? Not in BS’s camp, that’s a certainty.
The path for Bernie is pretty straightforward: He needs a wide field where his name recognition keeps him above the others. He’ll have to run a different campaign than the last time, ironically something like the 2008 Clinton campaign (hopefully without scum like Mark Penn and his ilk).
I wouldn’t necessarily assume that just because Bernie is raising money that that means he’s popular. I’m a very strong Trump supporter who sends Bernie money. I did so in 2016 because I thought he would weaken Hillary and the Dems, and I’m doing the same thing again this time around. The more Dems are out there spouting off socialism and their other nonsense, the better off Trump is. Bernie doesn’t have a ghost of a prayer, but by being in the race he helps Trump a lot. A real lot.