There is a pretty powerful force that Bernie will have at his back as the Democratic nominee, a force whose might has never been seen before in this context: the Obamas.
Due to Gore's understandable reluctance to embrace WJC as a campaign surrogate in 2000, the 2016 context will mark the first time in my lifetime that a sitting Democratic president is able to actively campaign in earnest for the Democratic nominee.
This is a pretty big deal - let alone that the president is a tremendous speaker, great convener of crowds, generator of positive media attention, and incredibly inspirational American in his own right. Michelle Obama is also all these things, like no other first lady in recent history.
For the first time, Obama will be have the chance to be major voice in a presidential race in which he himself is not a candidate. And his influence could be enormous particularly with regards to promoting high turnout, articulating the stakes of the election, and helping bridge the gap between Bernie and segments of the electorate that may be unfamiliar with, or even skeptical of him.
Am I correct in thinking that this argument can, and should, be added to the list of points with which to confront Dems worried about how Bernie would fare in the general election? Despite some policy differences with Bernie, there is also some great synergy between them - far more so on an energetic level than I imagine there would be with HRC - and the stakes for Obama's legacy are also going to be extremely high.
Obama/the Obamas can, and will, be very effective operatives on behalf of whomever the Dem nominee is, especially with regard to voter turnout and fundraising.
This strikes me as a huge advantage for us, a weapon that a Democratic candidate for president has never before had in his or her arsenal, and one that will be quite powerful just as long as Obama's approval ratings don't completely fall off a cliff. The Obamas will be formidable, period.
Yes, Obama as hinted a little while back that though a primary endorsement is unlikely, if he were to endorse, it would go to HRC over Biden or Sanders. But as the popular surge for Sanders continues - a popular surge that bears so much in common with attributes of OFA - it may become much more difficult to squash that excitement instead of simply letting things play out. This especially becomes the case as the risks of going all-in on HRC - including an implosion based on some yet-to-break story or yet-to-be-released email, or simply a failure to improve poll numbers in head to head GOP match-ups - become increasingly tangible.
And it cannot be denied that with Sanders there won't be all the chatter about the 2008 race, the same potential for 'frenemie'-style underhandedess, let alone the likelihood of potential for awkward or embarrassing egoic clashes with WJC, and awkward statements about the Obama administration. I imagine Bernie would be direct and succinct about the things he would do differently, in a way that will deflate tension a la his appearance at Liberty University, making his divergence from Obama's governing strategy a nonstory, and certainly not the soap opera that could result from being a surrogate for the Clintons.
In addition, and perhaps most powerful, SFP is clearly continuing and absolutely extending the legacy of OFA, in terms of a new era of politics, technology, youth, decentralization, etc, in a way that I find extremely powerful and I think will be quite resonant with voters and the media. Obama was and is a heroic and transformative figure, and I'd like to think that perhaps one of the many valuable transformations he and his campaign brought about was warming up the country for the Sanders campaign, restoring the hope required for such a bold and necessary undertaking.
Thoughts? Shouldn't those still worried about the chances of Sanders' success in the general election be reminded of the massive advantage over the GOP provided by having Obamas on the campaign trail to keep the White House in the hands of the party?
