So it looks like Bernie could perhaps win a plurality of delegates, and yet lose the nomination. Reading between the lines, the other candidates would be happy to facilitate this. This would cause a huge rift within the party. Whether Bernie runs third party or not, Trump would be handed a significant advantage against the eventual Democratic nominee.
So why is such a potentially catastrophic option being considered? Senator Sanders is not particularly outside of the party mainstream. His position on healthcare has been setting the pace for other candidates. Then why has his candidacy inspired such an extreme response? If Senator Warren were in his position, I don’t think anyone would be talking about stopping her on a second vote.
My own hunch is that party leaders know Bernie would govern as a more uncompromising progressive than a President Warren. He would threaten financial interests that party leadership would like to protect. And perhaps more personally, the careers of many party leaders would be threatened by a Bernie nomination. No doubt Bernie’s diehard supporters would paint a more sinister picture.
Ironically, this establishment opposition to Bernie can only bolster the public’s sense of his integrity. People strongly distrust the leadership class in Washington. Yet they have largely decided that Bernie is honest and well-intentioned. So people see slights against his character (such as Warren’s allegations at the January debate) as contrived smears (in that case, his polling numbers went UP).
So what do people think? Why is party leadership prepared to self-destruct over Bernie? Why is stopping Bernie more important than unseating Trump?
SomervilleTom says
I’m not a pundit. I’m not an expert. I’m not a political strategist or campaign operative.
I think the answer you offer in your third paragraph is a shopworn stereotype that’s been trotted out over and over again by polarizing candidates who build a following at least in part by alienation. It’s often used by right-leaning candidates complaining about a “Liberal establishment”. It’s the same shtick whatever the orientation of the candidate.
Gene McCarthy was this way in 1968. Ralph Nader was this way. Ed King and John Silber were this way locally. Barry Goldwater did this in 1964. It NEVER EVER works, at least in the short term.
I see grass-roots opposition to Mr. Sanders as much or more than “establishment” (whatever that is). For crying out loud, in 2020 Bernie Sanders IS the Democratic establishment.
I agree that the supporters of Mr. Sanders “strongly distrust the leadership class in Washington” and have “largely decided that Bernie is honest and well-intentioned.”. Those supporters therefore whine that legitimate criticisms are “contrived smears”. Running against Washington is another tired trope — even more so than running against Wall Street — that never works. It most often fails because, as the current administration demonstrates, running against Washington doesn’t say anything about what the candidate is FOR.
Observing that there’s a large hole in his budget numbers is not a contrived smear. Observing that he and his supporters alienate significant numbers of grassroots voters is not a contrived smear.
My read of grassroots Democrats — and more significantly, grassroots Americans — is that they view Mr. Sanders as a cranky opportunistic sixties-style radical from a fringe state who has never managed to accomplish much beyond blowing his own horn. I’m describing, not defending, that perspective. I remind you that a significant number of Americans also believe that Donald Trump has been raised up by God to save America, that climate change is a liberal hoax, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old. What I’ve described is how Mr. Sanders is perceived by those outside his followers. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders consistently chooses to pander to his followers rather than reach out to those who are not on-board.
An example is describing Ms. Warren’s criticisms as “contrived smears” rather than calmly presenting how he proposes to fill the hole in his proposal. That description makes supporters of Mr. Sanders stand, clap, and cheer. It makes everybody else wince.
I think that one of the things Joe Biden gets correctly is that the Democratic Party — and especially its “grassroots activists” — has become enthralled with positions and a candidate that is FAR outside the mainstream of America in 2020. I want to push back on the claim that we Democrats have become the party of the “establishment neoliberals”. What I see is an enormous number of earnest young activists who are brand new to politics, come from families wealthy enough to fund their 20-something children so that they have time to be door-knocking during what is a workweek for most Americans, and who earnestly assert that America’s long-term sustainability can ONLY result from buying locally-produced food at five to ten times the grocery store price.
Wealth concentration is the single most acute short-term disorder plaguing America. Only one candidate is making that the center of the 2020 campaign. Only one candidate is finding support for that position across the board from Republican and Democratic voters alike.
That candidate is not Bernie Sanders,
doubleman says
Who is it? You’re saying it’s NOT the person who talks about inequality and corporate influence for literally 90% of the words that come out of his mouth, who has won the most votes in the first two primary states, who polls the best with (and wins) independents, who won voters who rank inequality as their top concern by double digits in NH, who won voters earning less than $50K in NH by 26 points, and who has the broadest wealth tax plan?
SomervilleTom says
Mr. Sanders talks primarily about INCOME tax changes. The closest he comes to taxing wealth is a stock transfer tax and an increase in the capital gains tax, Neither of those goes nearly as far as Ms. Warren’s wealth tax. Neither of those generates as much new revenue.
Sadly, none of the candidates is proposing the most important tax increase of all — restoring the top gift/estate tax rate to 78%, where it was from 1945 to 1975. Today, that top rate is 40% and applies to tiny handful of estates.
The largest estates today are not subject to any estate or gift tax at all because they are comprised of “unrealized capital gains”. That means that the ultra-wealthy owner has taken advantage of tax laws to park his or her wealth in instruments that are not even valued, never mind taxed.
I agree that Mr. Sanders has been talking about this at least since 2016. I also agree that many people in his audience are persuaded by his rhetoric.
Sadly, there simply is not substance behind the rhetoric. Mr. Sanders does not demonstrate a deep understanding of our financial, legal, or tax systems in comparison to Ms. Warren. He has not published papers still cited after twenty years explaining what happened to the middle class and what to do about it. He did not create the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. I don’t recall him grilling key players in industry and government about their role in the collapse of 2008 and what we do about it now.
People who are both knowledgeable and passionate about actually DOING something about wealth concentration support Ms. Warren’s proposals even if not her candidacy.
johntmay says
Which explains, in my humble opinion, why Wall Street is terrified of her as are Democrats with vacation mansions on Martha’s Vineyard.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with you about this.
doubleman says
You’re saying he doesn’t have plans or understanding, and yet . . .
The Sanders Wealth Tax Plan:
Warren’s is 2% on wealth $50M-$1B and 6% on wealth over $1B.
Bernie’s estate tax plan:
A 77 percent rate on wealth over $1 billion
A 55 percent bracket on wealth from $50 million to $1 billion
A 50 percent bracket from $10 million to $50 million
A 45 percent bracket from $3.5 million to $10 million
SomervilleTom says
I appreciate you sharing this link, I wasn’t aware of that plan until now.
I wish that Mr. Sanders would say rather more about that plan in his many public appearances.
doubleman says
I think Sanders’s plans are better than Warren’s pretty much across the board, but she gets more credit as the smart person with plans because that is her campaign’s raison d’etre. She has a plan for that!
Sanders wants to fight injustice with conflict and struggle and clear moral goals, seizing power. Warren wants to regulate. That’s why he speaks about goals and she speaks more about plans.
I think both are valid, but one problem I see is that Warren’s supporters will see her election as the end of the job – likely akin to what we saw with Obama – “oh. she’s got this now.” Sanders is clear and direct that a movement is what matters, and it has to continue.
As far as the political piece, time and again we have overwhelming evidence that voters don’t care about policy specifics. That’s a reason why I think Sanders is the one with a better chance to win.
Christopher says
Maybe that’s the answer to the underlying question. The party is not interested in movements or revolutions, just winning elections.
jotaemei says
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/wealth-tax-splits-sanders-and-warren-from-the-rest-of-the-democrats/2019/10/16/5e81e388-efa6-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html
“Bernie Sanders’s wealth tax proposal, explained:
Sanders’s proposal is estimated to raise $1.6 trillion more in revenue than Warren’s plan over 10 years.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/24/20880941/bernie-sanders-wealth-tax-warren-2020
And on and on….
Warren and Sanders have relied on, as advisors, the same two top proponents of the wealth tax: Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez: http://gabriel-zucman.eu/policy-debates/
SomervilleTom says
I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren would spend their respective debate time in a constructive back-and-forth over what the net worth thresholds and tax rates should be and what some blend of the two approaches would mean for typical Americans.
We’ve spent endless hours on the same stupid and content free exchanges about medicare for all while really important aspects of each candidate go unmentioned.
How many Americans know what is in the Lancet study that was briefly mentioned in the debate? Why are the major mainstream news outlets saying essentially NOTHING about the results of that study?
Why are Democrats arguing about “new taxes” for the various alternatives when current hard data shows that the savings from doing either M4A plan dwarf the additional taxes?
If a private farm owner was paying twenty thousand dollars a year to maintain a private road from the highway to the nearest field, and the local government proposed to take over that maintenance in exchange for a property tax increase of ten thousand a year, would any rational farm owner hesitate?
We’ve now had NINE debates repeating the same distorted “questions” from moderators that primarily serve to reinforce the misperception of the audience that M4A would increase costs to the consumer.
It’s a lie and the networks know its a lie.
jconway says
Honestly I think they are both pretty similar candidates with similar philosophies. The reasons I ended up preferring Warren proved not to be true. She ended up not uniting the center with the left as I had hoped and she has not consistently fought for her own candidacy the way I would like.
That said-at the end of the day Warren is probably the most honest person running for President right now. Her plans may have put the cart before the horse-you govern with well thought out policy you don’t win campaigns that way-but at least we know what she will do and how she will pay for it. She is someone who does her homework, brings in experts when she does not know something, and works within the party to ensure down-ballot success that allow her to govern. So she’s still the best prepared to govern on day 1. It’s why she gets my primary vote in all likelihood.
That said-I an reconciled to Bernie as the nominee and do not think it will be the disaster everyone here says it is. Remember, the Republican establishment said that about Trump and then rallied around him in the end. He won the vote of 90% of Republicans. I think Bernie will win the popular vote, I am less confident he or any Democrat has a plan to win the electoral college. What’s more bothersome than their minor differences on policy is their similar indifference to the electoral college.
Trickle up says
Warren wants to save capitalism from itself. Sanders wants to save us from capitalism.
On a policy level, that may often boil down to the same thing, but those are not similar philosophies.
doubleman says
Absolutely. That is a big issue for me, and you see how it plays out in their approaches.
It is so disheartening to see Warren readily answer yes when asked if she is a capitalist. Or have her jump up for a standing ovation (along with everyone in the room except one person) during 2018’s State of the Union when Trump said that the United States will never be a socialist country. I get it, it’s likely fear that it is a third rail of politics (or is it???).
It seems like Bernie is one of the only people in government who doesn’t equate capitalism as just being about markets and competition. It’s about worker exploitation. Saying you don’t love capitalism doesn’t mean that you don’t want people to be able to start businesses, what you want is for workers to have some democratic say in what happens in the jobs that they give their blood, sweat, tears, and time to.
Warren’s campaign used to sell merch that said “Capitalism without rules is theft.”
They got it wrong. Should be “Theft with rules is capitalism.”
It’s interesting that in a campaign aimed at “big, structural change,” they won’t touch the true underlying structure of so many ills and instead just want to focus on the one symptom of corruption.
SomervilleTom says
This comment did more to drive me away from Mr. Sanders than all of the exchanges in the primary season so far.
I agree that the US economy since Mr. Reagan took office in 1980 has been a disaster for all but the very wealthy. I don’t agree that the answer is to embrace European-style socialism.
Women are FAR better off in the US today than they are in Germany today, especially professional women. It is absurd to cite the economy of Denmark as a model for the US to emulate — it is like arguing that the engine that drives a very comfortable boat on Lake Winnipesaukee should be used as a model for how to power an ocean liner.
I’m not ready to sign up for the revolution proposed by Mr. Saunders and his supporters.
doubleman says
So, you’re against workers having a say in their jobs?
That’s a weird position for someone so focused on inequality.
SomervilleTom says
@So, you’re against workers having a say in their jobs?:
Of course I’m’ not against workers having a say in their jobs. Have you ever worked in Europe? Has anybody in your family ever worked there?
A revolution like you’re proposing is most certainly NOT equivalent to giving workers a say in their jobs.
doubleman says
Yes. Some stayed their permanently because of the child care, education, and health care options.
jotaemei says
Don’t worry. You’d still have access to this site during your mandatory minimum of 4 weeks per year of paid vacation.
SomervilleTom says
@You’d still have access …:
Not if you’re over 50 or female — the ageism and sexism in European hiring is far more pronounced than in the US.
Americans can learn all sorts of lessons from Europeans. Attempting to rebuild the US economy using Denmark as a model is canonical cargo-culting.
It is a prescription for disaster.
Christopher says
FDR was the former and he didn’t turn out too badly.
doubleman says
I wish they wouldn’t. Very detailed specifics of plans are not helpful because no plan survives as proposed. I think discussions of commitments and values and general approaches are better. Sanders and Warren has wealth taxes, the other candidates don’t approach that issue I believe. The rates and budget estimates aren’t as important as the commitment. The contours of Medicare for All versus a Public Option are important, and reflect major differences in approach. Those who want Medicare for All may be able to get a strong public option and price controls putting us on a path to Medicare for All in the nearish future. Those who want a public option will likely end up with slightly better subsidies in the exchanges. I’d like to see a debate on some legislative strategy around that as well. For example “If all of you are likely to get 40-60% of your proposed plans, then why are some of you starting from really weak positions? Or do you think you can definitely get 80-100% of your proposed plan?”
I wish they would spend more time in the debates on climate, foreign policy, immigration, criminal justice reform, poverty, housing, and education. Better yet, have individual debates on each.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with your final paragraph.
My point about the endless M4A debates is that the network moderators ask the same loaded question over and over, and the candidates give the same stump-speech answer over and over.
The net result of the exchange is that the audience takes away the impression that all the Democrats want to increase the cost of health care and that they argue among themselves about by how much.
We are being lied to, and our candidates are inadvertently contributing to that lie.
Trickle up says
Well this is not helpful, but obviously the gotcha-seeking networks should not be moderating these debates. There are civic organizations that would do a much better job.
I don’t blame the candidates for that though. The party on the other hand….
johntmay says
Let’s consider this as well: Look at the amount of advertising revenue the media corporations receive each year from pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, insurance companies. With M4A, a lot of that goes away. The networks have a deep financial interest in keeping health care in the marketplace.
bob-gardner says
“What I see is an enormous number of earnest young activists who are brand new to politics, come from families wealthy enough to fund their 20-something children so that they have time to be door-knocking . . . ” and where do you see that, Tom?
Talk about “shopworn stereotypes”.
SomervilleTom says
I see it about once a month, when earnest young activists come knocking on my door to sign me up for various liberal/progressive causes — nearly all of which I already support.
I see it in the “revolutionary” activists of my twenty-something children in the Pioneer Valley and in the similar cadre of activists in the neighborhoods of Chicago where my older daughter lives.
If it’s “shopworn stereotypes” that we’re talking about, how about public financing for campaigns? That flag has been run up the pole by just about every fledgling “revolutionary” candidate that’s hit the street since the mid-1970s. It isn’t that it’s a bad idea, it’s that there is nothing new or revolutionary about it. Or how about ending the scourge of gun violence? Or how about eliminating sexism and racism in our society? There’s a relatively long list of other “shop-worn stereotypes” we could mention — “late-stage capitalism”, “heteronormal society”, “white supremacist culture”, “the patriarchy” or, for that matter, “the establishment”.
I’m guessing that the views of our own JamesConway about all this are quite a bit different than they were when he was, say, 21 or 22. There is more to political science and activism than simple — even if well-intentioned — passion. Much of that is only earned from experience, and I don’t mean experience knocking on doors.
The impact of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.is not limited to right-wing Trumpists.
bob-gardner says
As someone who used to knock on doors and who now does little except blog, I’ve got to say that I’m not proud of the change. I hope I never get so bloated with self-importance that I set myself above people who actually do the work.
And as far as this garbage is concerned “families wealthy enough to fund their 20-something children ” I never saw anyone during my active years who remotely fit that description.
SomervilleTom says
@I never saw anyone during my active years who remotely fit that description:
During your active years, was knocking on doors your full-time job? Or did you perhaps have some other source of income?
I ask because the economy of today is very different for young people than it was in the 1970s. The few jobs that exist for 20-something people today pretty much without exception demand long hours at low pay. There is precious little time or energy to walk neighborhoods and knock on doors in the middle of the morning or afternoon for anybody sustaining themselves.
Our economy has essentially destroyed the household formation rate for people in their 20s.
So perhaps you can share how you think those young people are sustaining themselves. I can tell you that the ones I know get much or all of their support from their families. Most of them eat and sleep in their parents homes (like a great many other young people today).
Christopher says
Plus people trying to sustain themselves aren’t likely to be home to answer the door mid-morning or afternoon either. Saturdays are best for that anyway.
SomervilleTom says
How many twenty-somethings who sustain themselves have Saturdays off (from whatever gigs keep their pots boiling)?
bob-gardner says
That’s the problem with relying on lazy stereotypes. You end up making up “facts” to justify them. Today’s economy is full of inadequate part-time jobs with irregular hours and few or no benefits. As has been widely reported for years..
.
SomervilleTom says
@lazy stereotypes:
It is hard to identify or respond to your assertions when they are obscured by the mountain of ad hominem attacks you embed them in.
Yes indeed — hence the pronounced burden on would-be door-knockers today. Unlike your “active years”, an activist in their twenties today who does NOT come from a privileged family is so burdened with working several jobs at low pay and few benefits that they have little or no time for mid-day door-knocking.
Perhaps if you were less intent on personally attacking me you might be more able to actually read what I write.
jconway says
Only speaking for myself, I’ve become a lot more progressive on economic and social questions. I’ve also become a lot
more agnostic about parties and candidates and realistic about what’s possible. I have a lot of empathy for office holders I did not have before. Particularly
local ones. I don’t think I’ll ever be as passionate for a candidate as I was for Barack Obama, and a lot of that has to do with being in my early 20’s and feeling part of a cause greater than oneself. That said, Bernie’s win in Nevada relit a fuse that campaign managing had burned out.
Christopher says
I think they are mostly afraid Sanders will lose to Trump.
Trickle up says
That’s OK. I’m afraid Biden will lose to Trump.
But NO WAY am I going to sabotage the entire election and make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So I hope these people will manage their fears in a mature and constructive way.