He just announced this week… So, where does everyone put Bernie’s chances in the Primary? General?
While his age is a significant issue, I think he is a much stronger candidate than is generally appreciated.
Primary Bernie has moved the party to the left on domestic issues. While that may dilute his message, it also makes him more authentic and trusted than candidates who just follow the political winds. Bernie has been saying the same thing for a LONG time. He also has a unique opportunity to distinguish himself on foreign policy. This is an area where the establishment candidates can not follow. (Tulsi Gabbard being an exception here.) And if they do, they will look as inauthentic as Hillary, when she changed her stance on trade. Bernie also benefits from a hugely enthusiastic base of support — reflected in much higher initial fundraising totals than Elizabeth Warren, for example (although his fundraising list from 2016 is no doubt a big part of this). His support is also diehard — even a string of bad press may not cause his fundraising to dry up, for example.
General The conventional wisdom is that Democrats win by running to the center. This will be a particularly attractive move in 2020, since much of the establishment can’t stand Trump. I think that would be a huge mistake. It gives Trump the opportunity to frame the entire election as Trump vs. The Establishment. With Bernie, that does not happen. Once Bernie starts getting close to the White House, the establishment will turn on him in a very obvious and very big way. When it does that, the establishment will cancel itself out, giving voters the space to look at the issues and candidates. But the corporate beltway establishment is so unpopular right now, you can bet Trump would love nothing more than to run against it.
Socialist This will no doubt be the biggest issue used against Bernie in the general — that he is an admitted socialist. It is a charge that’s going to fall very flat. Give voters a chance to see the actual model for Bernie’s “socialism” — Scandinavian countries — and that changes how people view the label. Even libertarians have to admit, Sweden is a pretty awesome place to live — so good, they want economic freedom to take the credit. And let’s not forget, we only consider social democracy something foreign because the left lost its Rooseveltian vision for society. Obama’s neoliberal compromise is just a watered-down social democracy that costs more because corporations and the National Security State want their cut. Sanders’ “socialism” consists of providing Americans with necessary services, while refusing to give the special interests their cut (which is why the establishment is guaranteed to turn on Bernie in a very big way).
Personal Trust Bernie and Trump do have one thing in common — neither particularly expected their campaign to catch on. But the similarities end there… Trump ran as a publicity stunt, an ego thing. Bernie ran to get his message out there and to promote the progressive movement. His lack of personal ambition distinguishes him from conventional politicians. Based on what we already know about him, voters have every reason to trust Bernie. In politics, that counts for a lot.
Christopher says
I think he will just be one of the crowd and won’t have Hillary as a foil. I wish he had left his lane to Sen. Warren this time who IMO is a better messenger on these things. I suspect the NH primary will serve to sort out which of their neighboring Senators will get to advance.
jack says
I think Sanders pretty much kills Warren’s candidacy. He will be the candidate of the left. Many democrats will look to rally around a more centrist candidate to stop him. That may well work. Look to Harris to move more to the middle. She has an obvious primary advantage.
johntmay says
Isn’t it interesting that politicians running for office in 2020 who promote the ideological lines of FDR, JBJ, and Truman are being portrayed as leftist extremists, even by some members of the Democratic Party?
Christopher says
I don’t know where you get that idea. I would predict Warren over Sanders this time. Plus Warren has decided to be the candidate of specific proposals which she even knows how to pay for.
SomervilleTom says
I think Bernie Sanders is yesterday’s next-big-thing. He’s not new and fresh anymore.
I’ve already wasted more words and time on Mr. Sanders than he’s worth. I’m going to try not to waste any more.
scott12mass says
Great video about Sweden and he does have the “trustworthy” locked up. If he endorsed congressional term limits he’d win as big as Reagan.
Christopher says
If he endorsed Congressional term limits that would be a check in the negative column for me.
petr says
Don’t be ridiculous. Trump is an angry fascist and Bernie is an angry socialist. In both instances the adjective is doing to the bulk of the work and results in riling the entitlement of the respective acolytes…
Anger is not a political position.
couves says
I strongly disagree. Yes, Bernie does have a grumpy old man vibe, but he has never politicized anger like Trump has (unless you want to count taxing the super-rich).
The whole point of Bernie’s campaign was to give voice to the progressive perspective on the issues. If all candidates focused on the issues as much as Bernie, it would greatly elevate political discourse in this country.
SomervilleTom says
I think my head really will explode if we spend the next two years arguing about Bernie Sanders.
Surely everything that can possibly be said for or against has already been said, here at BMG, dozens of times already.
Christopher says
For the sake of your sanity you probably should not hang out at Daily Kos then.
johntmay says
I fully supported Bernie in 2016 as our best chance of winning. I still think he would have beaten Trump and was not surprised that we lost, given the deeply flawed candidate that we ran.
Today?
I’m not backing Bernie today. My top three reasons:
1. His candidacy opens up the old wounds between the Clinton loyalists and the rest of us.
2. He’ll be 80 years old by 2020. (and an old white male, can’t escape the optics that many will see as a negative)
3. There are other people running that I feel can beat Trump and my current endorsement goes to Elizabeth Warren.
couves says
Warren speaks with authenticity on kitchen table issues. Like Bernie, she can potentially appeal to voters who have lost all trust in the establishment. Unlike Bernie, she would probably also be a unifying figure within the party. Having said all that, I think her personality is ill-suited to the role and her political instincts are poor. Definitely big potential, but my gut is telling me “no..”
SomervilleTom says
I like both Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand for similar reasons.
I’ll wait until the first few debate rounds before getting too worked up about any given candidate. In the 2016 campaign, I was disappointed by the debate performance of both of the candidates I had been enthusiastic about early on (Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley).
I really REALLY want us to put forward a new candidate. I’m profoundly weary of (in alphabetical order) Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.
couves says
I’ve been following Cory Booker for a bit. He’s been getting strangely wound-up in public appearances lately. Perhaps he recognizes that there’s a growing “mad-as-hell” element on the left, but he thinks you appeal to them by just talking louder..
jack says
Sander’s pitch will be that he can win in Midwestern states – Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where other democrats cannot. Pretty much, whoever our final nominee winds up being, he or she will need to win these states to win the election. We could win without the Midwest if we win Florida. But any calculation that bets on Florida against the Midwest is a mistake, in my opinion. Harris has an obvious primary advantage. I don’t think she will be able to appeal to Midwest voters as much as Sanders, or others Maybe, she can drive African American turnout enough to win the Midwestern states. But, completely unproven as yet.
SomervilleTom says
Ms. Clinton destroyed Mr. Sanders in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Mr. Sanders won a squeaker in Michigan. I see no evidence to support the claim that Mr. Sanders can win in the cited Midwestern states.
Later in the primary season, when the slate settles down, I think there will be several candidates who can drive African-American turnout enough to win those states.
jack says
That’s a reasonable argument. Clinton beat Sanders solidly in Ohio and Pennsylvania. However, her primary wins in those states were largely based on African American turnout in urban areas – Cleveland, Columbus, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc. Sanders easily carried the white working class and rural vote in all of the Midwestern states. It was painful to many of us to see Clinton win among African American voters so overwhelmingly. Yet, she did not inspire African American turnout enough to carry any of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. You may well be correct, that Sanders would be unlikely to carry the Midwestern states in a general election – let alone the primaries. If that’s true, there is no rationale for his nomination.
Presumably, either Harris or Boker would drive African American turnout enough to help win a general election. However, just because Obama was able to do that, does not mean either of them can.
couves says
Hillary under-performed with both black and white voters (compared with Obama). For the Democratic establishment, fixing the issue with black voter turnout is perhaps seen as easier (which would explain why Kamala Harris is the establishment darling right now). I don’t know if that is a correct assumption. But it’s a lot easier to just pick a black woman, than to find someone who matches Bernie’s credibility with an increasingly cynical electorate.
SomervilleTom says
Why would we attempt to match “Bernie’s credibility”? He lost!
If we’re looking for a baseline, doesn’t it make more sense to seek someone with Barack Obama’s credibility? We know that he did cause black voters to turn out.
couves says
Obama’s “change” message is still relevant, possibly even more so today. He represented something different – not just because of his race, but because he was right on the Iraq war (which the political establishment got catastrophically wrong).
Bernie, Tulsi and Warren are the most convincing change candidates I see right now. Tulsi is the closest to having something like the ‘Obama spark.’ She is not just a woman, she represents a younger generation (the generation that fought in Iraq). She has both physical and moral courage. She represents our higher aspirations as Americans. The party establishment sees Tulsi as a threat – the cold hard truth is that they are more interested in preserving the status quo than in beating Trump.
SomervilleTom says
Just as a point of order, I really wish we would use either a candidates full name (“Bernie Sanders”, “Tulsi Gabbard”, or “Elizabeth Warren”) or the appropriate Mr/Ms and the candidate’s last name (“Mr. Sanders, “Ms. Gabbard”, or “Ms. Warren”).
I am repelled by the tabloid over-familiarity of “Bernie”, “Tulsi”, or, in 2016, “Hillary”.
For decades, I have resolutely ignored ANY piece or publication that offers a headline with just a first name. These candidates are not my friend and they are not my family.
I believe that public figures deserve respect, and the above convention is, for me, an important way of showing respect. Language matters.
Christopher says
I’d probably use titles such as Senator as appropriate, though I will note that the people you name and others often invite familiarity by for example, signing only their first names.
jack says
Don’t think there is an establishment candidate just yet. Agree with Tom, in that Sanders unlikely to drive disproportional minority turnout, or draw blue collar voters away from Trump in a general election.
Trickle up says
I think anything could happen and it’s up for grabs.
Trickle up says
Let me be a little less quick and ask a thought-experiment sort of question.
Suppose there were a decent balloting system to select the nominee instead of the train wreck we are all gearing up for. My standards are not high; IRV would be good enough.
How do you think Bernie would fare under such a system? Who would likely prevail?
I think he would not do too badly in the first IRV round, would persist for a while s a second choice of the lesser candidates, but ultimately lose, probably to one of the unknown centrists.. He is just not great a campaigner–though i say that based on his 2016 effort, and he has probably learned a thing or too.
I pose this question not to start a philosophical discussion of what voting system is best. Rather to strip away all the strategic voting “spoiler” BS so that everyone can just vote for whom they really like the best.
It’s a way of asking, Whom do Democrats like best to run, rather than, Who is the best they think can will the nomination?
Christopher says
It has always been my policy to vote for the person I actually want to be President in the primary, and for our nominee in the general. Regarding IRV I’m not sure how that would work in a contest about allocating delegates, sometimes to those other than the winner.
Trickle up says
i actually enjoy such conversations, Christopher, which you seem ready to participate in. But I am really after something else, namely, whom would most Democrats pick unmediated by winner-take-all considerations and the patchwork of state primaries and caucuses?
You know, many losing candidates, or at least their supporters, like to claim that the process was “rigged” against them. I’m just asking us to imagine that the process was magically unrigged. How would Sanders and the others actually do? How about Warren?
I am not proposing a single national IRV primary. It’s a thought experiment
Christopher says
I can’t guarantee I’m not bringing my own biases into this one, but to answer your question I’m inclined to say Biden. My thinking is that lots of people might cast their first votes for someone who really excites them, but that will be all over the map, while those same people might come together on Biden as a steady hand for their second votes.
Trickle up says
This seems credible to me, though there might be another candidate who is a strong second choice. In which case the race could be decided on other factors (Biden too old, white, etc.).
But I think you are not far off locating the center of the party closer to him than to, say, Warren or Bernie.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t think that the electoral system was the problem in 2016.
I think the government of our most hostile adversary exploited the freedoms we hold dear to accomplish a takeover of an already corrupt and struggling political party and install a compromised agent at its head and in the Oval Office.
I think most Americans liked Hillary Clinton best in 2016. I think her primary win over Mr. Sanders correctly reflected the opinion of a compelling majority of Democrats nationwide that Ms. Clinton was better suited to be President than Mr. Sanders.
I’m weary of talking about Mr. Sanders. I think he was overrated as a “fresh” voice in 2016. I think he ran and lost. I think his shtick remains unchanged today, and I’m even more weary of him today than I was in 2016 (I feel the same about Mr. Biden and Ms. Clinton).
I’m not opposed to the age of any of these candidates — I will happily and enthusiastically vote for an incumbent President Nancy Pelosi if through some miracle our political system does the right thing and removes both Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence from office (Ms. Pelosi is currently 78).
When “Brown-Eyed Girl”, “Stairway to Heaven, and “Hotel California” first came out, I though each was a fabulous song. I thoroughly enjoyed each the first thousand times I heard each. I’m now sick to death of each.
I think we need new candidates. I think we need to protect our political system from foreign adversaries who seek to use it to destroy or weaken America.
I think a new Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is more likely to emerge if we stop recycling the same old same old over and over again. I think that’s the best way to put a President we respect and admire back in the White House.
Trickle up says
Tom:
Right, However:
In terms of 2016, there were only two candidates in the primary so the “thought experiment” is irrelevant. Clinton already proved she was the first choice of Democrats. A majority of Democrats
It is entirely possible, and i think likely, that no one will be able to make that claim in 2020. The prolonged campaign gantlet will eventually cough up a winner, of course, from the huge and fragmented 2020 field,.
But it is entirely possible that this nominee will not have been the actual preference of most Democrats.
When I said earlier that anyone could win, I was referring to the randomness of the process. So remove the randomness, in this thought experiment, and answer the question, what kind of candidate does the majority of Democrats want?
I do not think they want a real progressive like Sanders or Warren, but will opt for the unknown centrist flavor of the month. Your comments equating this decision to popular music is exhibit A for that. More’s the pity, btw.
In the real world, a campaign is a marathon and anyone could win. Also, the two progressive candidates will have an opportunity to make their case and shift opinion (while at the same time being disadvantaged by having to split the progressive vote from day 1).
But what do Democrats really want?
SomervilleTom says
@”there were only two candidates in the primary”
The early field of Democratic candidates for 2016 was just as “huge and fragmented” as we see today.
In addition the major candidates, there were five candidates on the ballot of at least six states:
1,. Rocky De La Fuente
2. Willie Wilson
3. Keith Russell Judd
4. Michael Alan Steinberg
5. John Wolfe, Jr.
Six more were on the ballot of more than one state:
1. Star Locke
2. Steve burke
3. Henry Hews
4. Jon Adams
5. James Valentine
6. Mark Stewart Greenstein
Twenty one more were on the ballot of a single state.
There six more major declared candidates at the start of the primary season:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Lincoln Chafee
3. Lawrence Lessig
4. Martin O’Malley
5. Bernie Sanders
6. Jim Webb
By the time of the first nationally televised debate, that field was reduced to five after the withdrawal of Mr. Lessig.
By my count, that’s 38 candidates.
I’m not sure that the comparison to popular music is a “pity”. You’re asking “what do Democrats really want?”. I think that’s pretty much the same question as “what music do people like?”.
The processes certainly is flawed and even broken. It seems to be better than the alternatives we’ve tried. I think the following aspects demand attention more urgently than the voting system we use:
1. Responsible media coverage (such as re-imposing the fairness doctrine and equal-time constraints)
2. Shift from horse-race to issues coverage
3. Frame the process as civics and public service rather than sports (this might overlap with 2).
4. Reverse Citizens United
I do think that it’s dangerous to draw on the 2016 election for pretty much ANY guidance for the future because it was clearly manipulated by Russia and the GOP.
It is no accident that the first documented instance of actual voter fraud was done by a GOP campaign (in North Carolina, no less). The GOP has been manipulating voter rolls and vote counts for decades, going back at least as far as Florida in 2000.
Going back to the music industry metaphor, I think it’s pretty clear that the outcome of the 2016 election was determined by political payola.
I think we should fix that before worrying too much about how we cast and count votes (other than to dismantle the spurious voterID laws).
Trickle up says
The payola analogy is very good.
“More’s the pity” because the penchant for new and shiny is immature and easily manipulated by the payola artists.
What kind of candidate do you think would win the votes of most Democrats if you removed the BS?
SomervilleTom says
@What kind of candidate do you think would win the votes of most Democrats if you removed the BS?:
A young black man or woman from an urban area with a law degree, a solid background of community service, successful public service, and strong ties to local, state, and national political organizations (including the Democratic Party).
Trickle up says
This seems credible to me, especially since we’ve already seen it done.
It is telling, however, that the candidates goals and policies do not figure on your short list of qualifications.
Preferably this person should not have any specific message that reflects those qualities, since that would interfere in the phenomenon by which voters project their personal hopes, Rorschach-style, onto the unknown centrist of the month.
You can probably tell that I am not happy with this, but I agree that it does seem likely.
SomervilleTom says
In the interest of brevity, I presumed that every candidate we’re talking about shares our priorities and vision, and perhaps goals as well. I can’t think of any major presidential candidates that don’t, at least to some extent.
I think sharing our priorities, vision, and goals is a requirement to become a major candidate. I don’t think that’s enough to become the nominee (for better or worse).
SomervilleTom says
Just to elaborate this a bit, I want to remind us of the following:
– Driven by conservative dogma about “freedom”, we dismantled federal oversight of the media beginning in the Carter administration.
– Fox News was created in the aftermath of Bill Clinton’s defeat of Robert Dole because the rabid-right wanted a bought-and-paid-for outlet for their extremist views.
– Bill Clinton briefly interrupted the decades-long GOP hold on the South, after the Democratic Party explicitly rejected racism and segregationists. The GOP welcomed them.
– The Tea Party movement was, from the beginning, driven by racism. It was created in response to the election of our first Black President. From the very beginning, its “policy” pronouncements were nothing more than an orchestra of racist dog-whistles smeared with lipstick to make them look dressed-up.
– The GOP and George W. Bush came within a literal hairs-breadth of destroying the world’s economy.
All this set the stage for an aggressive Russian opportunist (and former KGB official) to seize the moment.
sabutai says
Nah.
Sanders is a GREAT candidate for the mid-90s left. The economy-first, economy-last battle against the left’s “third way” compromise with neoliberalism. He could have done what Bill Bradley couldn’t.
But today? When we’re talking social equality as well as economic equality? An old guy who handwaves sexual harassment, and doesn’t see the problem with a gun culture because he thinks of hunting rather than urban environments isn’t going to cut it. Bernie’s time has passed. As Christopher said, “not Hillary” is not enough in 2020, especially when a few candidates have his economic program but can talk intelligently about social issues at the same time.
Unfortunately, I think Bernie will maintain enough backing to block leftists with a real chance at winning from advancing, but will lose the final showdown himself. He doesn’t have what it takes to win the primary, and does have what it takes to block any ideological kin from doing so.
couves says
Bernie has moved the party left on economic issues, like Medicare for all. But if you are suggesting that we have turned the page on neoliberalism, I think that is very far from a sure thing.
I think Bernie would like nothing more than to be eclipsed by a more electable progressive., who he could drop out and support. I have talked to Bernie supporters who are themselves thinking along these lines. They are weighing candidates like Warren and Gabbard, in terms of trust and electability. But until another progressive takes-off, Bernie’s candidacy ensures that progressives have a strong voice in the primary.
Edit: tweaked conclusion
Christopher says
But his presence in the primary robs others of oxygen. I’m surprised how low Warren’s poll numbers are, but I suspect they would go up if Sanders left the race and better yet endorsed her.
SomervilleTom says
@But his presence in the primary robs others of oxygen
Absolutely, and well said.
I see no evidence to support this, at all.
One my complaints about his “movement”, all along, is that he has been very explicit — at every opportunity — about it being “Bernie’s” movement. It literally is all about him. There were many times during the 2016 campaign and afterward when he could have said “This is not about me, it’s about YOU and YOU’RE future”. He didn’t.
I think if he actually cared about all this, he would step aside and work to promote a new generation of candidates.
couves says
Every opportunity? Well, I’m not going to re-watch every debate, but I just watched the intro/closing of one I chose at random (, and I did not see evidence of your claim. I just watched his 2020 announcement as well, and came to the same conclusion.
For some of his supporters, it was all about Bernie. But the cult of personality was inspired by Bernie, not actually promoted by him. And it was inspired precisely because he focused his campaign on the issues.. The initial intention of his candidacy was not to win, but just to raise these issues and to influence the debate. This is in stark contrast with people’s perceptions of most politicians (particularly of Hillary) who are thought to be willing to say anything to get into the White House.
My saying that Bernie would be eager to step aside is admittedly just an educated guess on my part.
SomervilleTom says
@ stepping aside:
Maybe I missed it. I’m not going to go through the entire debate again — can you offer a timestamp where he said something along the lines of what I’m talking about?
What I see is Mr. Sander’s talking about what HE is going to do — the fights HE will fight, with “our” campaign.
I agree with all the things he says in his announcement. I have always agreed with nearly everything he says.
He wants a grassroots movement, yes. But he has always wanted that grassroots campaign to support Bernie Sanders. I think his movement will be far powerful when he is explicit about forming a grassroots movement to support WHOEVER emerges as the best person to make the movement succeed.
I do not believe he is the most effective person to make those things happen. That’s why I would like him to step aside.
couves says
I am not sure I follow. I think it’s reasonable to assume Bernie will endorse the Party’s nominee, if that’s what you mean.
As I said to Christopher, this is not the time to “fall in line.” This is the time to have an open and free-wheeling debate about the future of our country, with all voices included. A lot of people feel Bernie best represents their voice. If other candidates want to talk them out of that, then the debate gives them the opportunity to make that case.
SomervilleTom says
@I’m not sure I follow:
I’m not talking about stepping aside after a loss.
Mr. Sander’s claims to be building a “movement”. Successful movements are about ideas, not people.
What Mr. Sander’s calls a “movement” feels to me all too much like the same demagoguery that we see from Mr. Trump and, sadly, like dictators like Mussolini (who Mr. Trump appears to channel in his public appearances).
Bernie Sanders uses phrases like “Our movement” when what he really means is “My movement”. It leaves me feeling that it is all about himself, and nothing about his movement.
I get that a lot of people feel that Mr. Sanders best represents their voice. I’m reminding you and them that EVERY political campaign is ALWAYS about that.
It the constant harping about a “movement” that I find objectionable. It’s not a “movement”, it’s a run-of-the-mill campaign.
couves says
Sure, Bernie’s candidacy is similar to other candidacies. But Trump and Mussolini? That’s a jump.
Starting a movement is not an easy thing. If it were just a matter of changing what he says, Bernie would do that (even if his motives were selfish, his campaign would be stronger with a movement behind him). The campaign is only one element to starting a movement. The real question is what his supporters will do in the years to come.
couves says
I have been critical of the Party establishment, but one brilliant thing they have done is open up debate access to anyone who brings in a large number of small donations. So you can have Bernie as a first choice, but also donate to Warren, Gabbard and any other candidate you want to see included. This is not the time to “fall in line,” this is time to have an open and freewheeling debate about the future of our country. Maximizing the number of progressive candidates on the debate stage is absolutely the best way to advance the cause.
sabutai says
“I think Bernie would like nothing more than to be eclipsed by a more electable progressive., who he could drop out and support. ”
Well, here we disagree. I say this as someone who voted for Bernie, but I think he entirely believes his own hype a this point. While he may say he’d drop out for someone more electable, he’ll always find a way to believe they aren’t. Anything else, he’d have to admit that he’s not the savior his devoted fans have convinced him that he is.
Warren would take off, were it not for Bernie. (Tulsi, ugh, she’ll never go anywhere).
couves says
I would not assume that. Tulsi, not Warren, endorsed Bernie. (And the Party is making her pay for it, big time.) But I would not assume that Tulsi would take-off either.
couves says
I just wanted to amplify here, because it seems to be a common assumption that Bernie’s support is easily transferable to other candidates. But the likelihood of that happening is very questionable, even if he went all-in for one candidate..
As an example from the GOP, consider Ron Paul, who got 21% in the 2012 Iowa Caucus. When his son Rand Paul ran in 2016, he got only 5% and promptly withdrew from the race. By most metrics, Rand should have done as well or better than his father. But voters did not trust him like they trusted his father. Bernie likewise clicks with voters, to an unusual extent for someone so far left.
Christopher says
Why do you think that is? If the issue profile is the same then why not?
couves says
If you’re asking about Rand and Ron… Rand Paul did not have his father’s long career, to prove that he sticks to his principles. And in becoming a Senator, Rand was riding on his father’s coattails. To the extent that he took his own path, it was to compromise with the establishment. So it really looked like he was just watering-down his dad’s ideas, for the sake of winning a Senate seat and maybe the White House. Rand Paul’s apparent opportunism and political calculation turned people off. Whereas Ron Paul was just running for President to say what needed to be said, win or lose. (I am talking here about voter perceptions, not necessarily reality.)
Bernie is much like Ron Paul in how voters perceive him. Progressives generally trust Warren’s authenticity as well, although she may struggle outside the activist base. I think Tulsi could potentially gain voters’ trust and could have broad appeal. But because her potential is really obvious and because she royally ticked-off the establishment in 2016, there are lots of opinion leaders gunning for her right now (it’s almost amazing). That is very unlike Bernie, who initially got a fair hearing with the public, because no one saw him as enough of a threat.