The Sanders dilemma
For the Sanders supporters who frequent the site, this may be a disconcerting diary, You see, I am committed to voting for Bernie if he is my party’s nominee, but I am asking him to do a bit of self-reflection. The results of the South Carolina primary are reverberating among all Democrats, Independents, and disaffected Republicans. Today, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar announce their decision to forego the Super Tuesday and drop out of the race for president, the impact of Biden’s unexpected blowout is becoming clear. In a state that has a more diverse electorate that the previous three primaries/caucuses, the Sanders campaign faltered badly. While the endorsement of James Clyburn was decisive, there was no reason to suspect that Clyburn would not weigh in on the side of Joe Biden This was always a foregone conclusion. What remains inexplicable, is the size of the Biden victory. To assume that the Biden’s victory was tainted by collusion between Clyburn, mainstream Democrats, and an anti-Bernie campaign denies the fact that the African American vote represents about 60% of the electorate and that Biden won across all demographics and in all districts. It was a sweeping victory that was not suggested by polls that were taken right up until the election. What went wrong?
Let’s consider a few possibilities. If the order of the early elections and caucuses had been different, one could argue that expectations would have been different. If the South Carolina primary had been first, however, and if the results were similar to those we are faced with today, the arguments for candidates other than Sanders and Biden would also be quite different. Tom Steyer, for example, would be a viable candidate and Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar would be scrambling.
The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the South Carolina results is that the race must go on and that the candidate that best mirrors the diversity and political views of democrats will probably win. Bernie’s followers should embrace the process because the early process favored a candidate like Sanders who had a built-in advantage owing to his 2016 race and his fundraising platform. His “progressive wing” included just himself and Elizabeth Warren as viable options, while the “moderate wing” had a glut of viable choices. The ineffectiveness of Biden’s early campaign certainly didn’t hurt, either. Yet, Bernie actually underperformed in both Iowa and New Hampshire, as Mayor Pete exposed his vulnerabilities. Fully exposed was Sanders’ inability to attract larger turnouts and new voters to the fray. This was supposed to be the core of the Sanders allure as “Trump killer”. Bernie proved to be a candidate who inspired white middle-class voters. Nothing wrong with that, except that at some point, he would have to expand his appeal to voters of color and to moderates and independents whose loss cost Hillary Clinton her victory in 2016 by voting for Trump. These were Obama voters and Bernie is doing his best to exclude them. South Carolina was an opportunity for Sanders to demonstrate his electability and wide appeal.
By acting as if he has been somehow mistreated by the Democratic “elite” Bernie is playing into the Republican’s hands. The truth is the Democrats rallying around a moderate candidate was partly a response to Sanders’ seeming inflexibility and lack of discipline. His 60 Minutes endorsement of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s regime was a self-inflicted and totally unnecessary wound:
A more disciplined candidate would have avoided this controversy especially when he knew it would air within a week of the primary. The literacy test that Castro passed on the Sanders exam left Sanders with a gaping hole in his Electoral College race against Trump. Florida with its large anti-Castro Latino population was a gift to the sitting president, an unforced error. Further, It precluded Sanders from choosing a battleground state nominee as VP like Andrew Gillum, who could be an attractive choice-even if he were just under consideration for the position. Bernie’s needless self-promotion as a “democratic socialist” was both short-sighted and a political unforced error of major magnitude. The mistake flaunts the small “d” democrat label that Sanders has nurtured even as he chooses to be a registered Independent seeking the Democratic nod for president.
Sanders listed the Democratic Party as his party affiliation in hisWhen asked if he would officially join the party on April 30, 2015, when he announced his candidacy, Sanderssaid, “No, I am an independent who is going to be working with the -” cutting himself off mid-sentence.statement of candidacy. At the start of his campaign, he still seemed uncomfortable self-identifying as a Democrat.
Wanting a place on the team but refusing to wear the uniform is not a strong position to assume. It exposes Bernie to Republican claims that he is an iconoclast who is unwilling to compromise. Playing to a particular wing of the party and a single segment of the democratic electorate is simply a mistake. Sanders’ strategy is one that does — and should- make those who want to rid us of Donald Trump nervous. Bernie supporters may feel that this approach demonstrates Bernie’s fervor for the Progressive agenda but they fail to realize that it presages its failure. Governing is not about purity tests or manifestos on issues that are at best open to debate. Even as Bernie promises to “bring us together” he makes it difficult for those of us who agree with him in principle to back him because his implacable positions preclude agreement — -and for those of us who resent the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue implacability, it reminds us of the discomfort of being told what we must do before being asked what we think.
It saddens me because this is the presidential race of my lifetime — and I am in the older demographic. I have experienced the same history as Bernie, Elizabeth, Joe, and Mike. I truly believed that the political high-point of my life was the election of Barack Obama. I lived through times that would seem to have made that improbable-if not impossible- in my lifetime. Those of us who supported his candidacy did so because he was the best alternative — not a gesture or a token to a cause. Bernie and his followers should consider spending the rest of this nominating season convincing all of us that he is not just electable, but the best of all the alternatives in the race, dedicated to representing all of us. He could begin by facing the critical question facing his campaign, will he bring in a Democratic Senate and House in numbers large enough to fulfill his agenda. At this moment, I have serious doubts that he will retain enough discipline to get himself elected. The others left in the race for the Democratic nomination have questions to answer but, in my opinion, each of them has a campaign that seems more inclusive and far less polarizing. I am committed to voting for an imperfect man or woman who has the character to try to do better.
I wanted to post this before the Super Tuesday results. I am aligned with much of the Sanders agenda-I am a Democratic liberal and have been for all of my 71 years. If Bernie wants the nomination of my party he might think about his reluctance to give his full support to the last two Democratic candidates for president. He might rethink his position of Cuban literacy programs and openly and honestly discuss his own plans to fund the programs that he proposes. He also may try to act like the frontrunner he is at the moment instead of a victim of the party he chose not to join but whose approval and abject loyalty he seems to demand.
Originally published at https://www.dailykos.com on March 2, 2020.
