Bernie Sanders has indeed done a pretty good job campaigning for a guy who just joined the party and encouraged a primary challenge to a sitting Democratic President for 2012. He’s polling well in the Iowa (tho nearly always behind), and doing very well in New Hampshire. He’s going against a well known political juggernaut, the Clintons.
Bernie’s message resonated with progressives because it preached things that everyone just wants to make happen: single-payer healthcare, free college education, an end to offshoring, etc. He’s also done well with a lot of progressives because he has a single, easy-to-remember name: Democratic Socialism.
People who’ve read my diaries know what I think. I think some of his ideas, like universal health care, higher wages, and easier access to education are great. I’d love to see offshoring end. However, in politics, as in life, you can’t just wish for things to happen: you need a game plan. One important part of that game plan with respect to the Presidential race is getting elected. Afterwards, you must have a way to sell it to the American people so the pressure on the elected representatives comes to bear and helps to result in ‘yay’ votes.
Bernie also sells himself as an “honest politician,” and uses the media caricature of Hillary Clinton to bolster this idea. Nevermind the Roman saying “amicus omnibus amicus nemini,” meaning “a friend to all is a friend to none.” A national politician has to win hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions of votes to win office. Some of those people who vote will have conflicting interests or ideas with other people who vote. Hence, the idea of “a truly honest politician like Bernie” is really a fantasy.
At a recent town-hall event, Bernie Sanders was asked how he would fulfill his plans.
Anyone remember this:
You don’t wanna remember (of if you’re too young, you’d be disheartened to learn about it.) That was another honesty/integrity candidate in the field of politics, openly talking about raising taxes. Mondale did not differentiate between raising them on the rich vs. middle-class/working-class, and neither does Sanders. Winners like Clinton/Obama talked middle-class tax-cuts, unlike the two above. Here was the response to Mondale from the GOP:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Another reason a lot of people are skeptical of Bernie Sanders is his embrace of a label, “socialism,” that is highly unpopular across the broader American electorate. One can see here how much so it is.
Gallup: “Between now and the 2016 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [ITEMS A-K READ IN ORDER], would you vote for that person?”
GROUP |
Y |
N |
CATHOLIC (+87) |
93 |
6 |
WOMAN (+84) |
92 |
8 |
BLACK (+85) |
92 |
7 |
HISPANIC (+83) |
91 |
8 |
JEW (+84) |
91 |
7 |
MORMON (+63) |
81 |
18 |
GAY OR LESBIAN (+50) |
74 |
24 |
EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN (+48) |
73 |
25 |
MUSLIM (+22) |
60 |
38 |
ATHEIST (+18) |
58 |
40 |
SOCIALIST (-3)
|
47
|
50
|
|
McClatchy/Marist: “Not thinking about any specific candidates, please tell me if a candidate for president with each of the following characteristics is someone you would definitely vote for, would vote for but with reservations, or is someone you would definitely not vote for: A socialist.”
GROUP |
DEFINITELY WOULD VOTE FOR |
WOULD VOTE WITH RESERVATION |
DEFINITELY NOT VOTE FOR |
UNSURE |
NATIONALLY
|
18%
|
29%
|
50%***
|
3%
|
DEMOCRATS |
32% |
35% |
28% |
5% |
INDPENDENTS |
15% |
32% |
50% |
3% |
REPUBLICANS |
5% |
16% |
77% |
2% |
(BY RACE) |
|
|
|
|
WHITE |
18% |
26% |
53% |
3% |
BLACK |
26% |
33% |
34% |
7% |
HISPANIC |
16% |
32% |
48% |
4% |
(BY INCOME) |
|
|
|
|
< $50,000 PER YEAR |
15% |
30% |
49% |
6% |
> $50,000 PER YEAR |
21% |
27% |
51% |
1% |
Hispanic voters, like the general electorate are a hard to sell on a socialist, let alone a self-avowed one, even though Hispanics skew to the left nationally. White voters, who the Dem party badly needs to increase with, also aren’t going for it. While black voters are OK with a socialist, clearly, they’re not warming to the present self-described socialist in the campaign, Bernie Sanders.
Economically, not even the economically downscale are going for it. Hell, wealthier might want a socialist more than the poor! While those numbers are statistically the same because of sampling error, you would expect the poor to want a socialist more than the rich, right?
or in a picture:
This danger is not lost on the people who know how the political system works from experience. Here was the Vice President’s take:
Senator Claire McCaskill, how should be a hero to progressives for her defeat of Todd Akin, and to Obama 2008 primary voters for endorsing the senator, also agrees:
saying:
"I think it would be absolutely impossible for a self-declared socialist to win states like Missouri," McCaskill said Wednesday, echoing comments she made that were printed earlier in the New York Times. "And you've got to win states like Missouri if you want to win the presidency. States like Indiana, states like Ohio, states like Pennsylvania. It is very hard I think for most Americans to see how socialism would cure the problems that we are facing right now."
and
“The Republicans won’t touch him because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle,” said Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s.
Given the data above, they’re not “red-baiting,” they’re merely truth “baiting.” And while yes, Bernie is a “democratic” socialist, think about this:
How did Walter Mondale’s tax-hike explanation do? Or John Kerry’s “global test” explanation do? Or Barry Goldwater’s “tactical nukes, not strategic nukes” do? VOTERS DON’T WANT LENGTHY EXPLANATIONS.
Some cite the GOP allegations at Obama being a “socialist.” However, Obama never embraced the label. Things stick much easier when they’re embraced rather than fought.
Especially given Bernie’s overt stances in global conflicts that date to when Reagan ruined Mondale. Stances storied actual Democrats like both Al Gore and Bill Bradley opposed (neither supported the Sandinistas).
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Another thing to think about, going back to Mondale. It took a lot of hard work to give Democrats the “blue wall” in the electoral college that exists. It did not appear out of thin air; it has a long and important history. If Bernie Sanders is nominated, not only is this general election in serious jeopardy, but so will be presidential elections in the future, post a Bernie nomination.
Sure, some of his supporters claim he’s “electable,” but it has dubious bases. The kind of bases that said Carter should’ve beaten Reagan, given polling in early Jan 1980.
“Not only is Bernie Sanders electable in the general election,” insisted Sanders senior adviser Tad Devine, “he’s a stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton in the general election.”
Indeed, public pollsters who’ve conducted surveys in both Iowa and New Hampshire caution that the Sanders team might be misreading the data the campaign is relying on to make its case that Sanders would broaden the Democratic electorate and make more states competitive by luring young, more independently minded voters.
Patrick Murray, who runs the Monmouth University Polling Institute in New Jersey, said the independent voters who are backing Sandersin the primary are more liberal in orientation and would be likely to vote for the Democrat in November anyway.
…
National polls of general-election matchups are unreliable measures at this stage of the campaign, and they render an inconclusive verdict on which Democrat is more electable. Estimations by the website HuffPollster show both candidates running similarly against the three top GOP candidates: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Nate Silver’s 538 has also debunked this.
________________________________________________________________________________________
There’s a reason so many public servants, who know how the system works, have made their choice in this contest.
As have so many unions, advocacy groups, and others who fight for better access to healthcare, education, a cleaner and greener environment, have endorsed Hillary Clinton. She’s both knowledgable, experienced, tested, and unlike Bernie Sanders, is actually ELECTABLE.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A “pyrrhic victory” is a victory that cost so much its tantamount to defeat. Sure, some would love to win the war of ideas about how to fix certain problems, by nominating far-left Bernie Sanders, instead of a more centrist yet still progressive Hillary Clinton. If that happens, electoral defeat, and the election of Donald J Trump (or Rafael Cruz) would be likely. Trump (or Cruz) would repeal (or gut if repeal weren’t possible) Obamacare, expel 12 million hardworking people who do the jobs Americans won’t and are merely seeking a better life along with their US citizen children, appoint anti-choice SCOTUS justices, and ruin our economy, thus worsening inequality. The LGBT rights, especially workplace protections and marriage equality, would be in big trouble.
Thus, the phyrric victory over the evil “DLCers” who accept the reality of our political system, would lead to phyrric defeat in November and resound for years, if not potentially a generation for our party as George HW Bush’s 1992 defeat led to a quarter century of presidential losses for his party.
That occurred because of lost suburban votes that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton worked hard to gain for our party and have stuck with us since. Bernie’s “democratic socialism” is to 2016 what Quayle’s Murphy Brown tirade and Pat Buchanan’s “Culture War” speech were to 1992: the segway to Presidential wilderness. From 1993-2017, Dems will have had the White House for 16 out of 24 years. I don’t wanna see the reverse from 2017-2041.
Vote with your head, not just your hearts tomorrow, Iowans.
Now is the time for all good Iowa Democrats to come to the aid of the party and caucus for Hillary Rodham Clinton.