There is this common justification floating about, which states that Sanders should continue fighting till the last vote is cast in the DC primary. Many including myself felt Sanders helped to refocus the progressive message early on, but the idea that his leverage increases with each passing primary is absolutely false.
Campaigns cost lots of money, whether you use the traditional model or the small dollar model. Not only do they cost money, but they also cost resources. Every state that copes with a swollen primary turnout must drain the state party coffers to do so. That money comes out of down ticket races, which aren’t covered at our level of political discussion. We don’t think about judges and city councils, but they are central to Democratic politics.
So there should be a reason we are moving forward. The list of reasons would be pretty small at this late date.
- Sanders thinks he can win the Democratic nomination
- Sanders wants to keep his supporters involved throughout the primary
- Sanders wants to deliver a strong message to the Democratic Party at the convention
The first possibility is obviously limited to people in denial. Sanders’ path to the nomination has been closed for quite some time now. Barring any major change, he was out of it in March. Obviously some will not accept this, regardless of the outcomes of each passing primary.
The second and third possibility is where I think people are mistaken. The idea that Sanders’ die hard supporters are going to be more accepting of the results after Sanders perhaps wins California by 3 points violates the patterns established in this cycle. Regardless of our opinions of them, they have their candidate, and they will hang with him until the lights are turned out. Whether or not they will follow his lead or disengage from the process entirely is as big a question mark now as it will be in July.
As for the platform, let me act in full disclosure. I don’t want to see Sanders have a huge impact on the Democratic Platform. Bernie’s agenda is not feasible, and Hillary should not have to make promises her administration has no chance of keeping. If a group of legislators or a PAC wants to start laying the ground work for single payer or free public universities, great. But as a party we can’t promise the electorate something they know won’t pass. It is irresponsible.
But I don’t control the platform. Whether I like it or not, Bernie has built a movement, which has considerable leverage at the moment. I have always said that political parties are based on coalitions not ideology. Bernie can bring a very important coalition to the table. However, that influence is waning. If he is swept on Tuesday, his campaign will be seen as increasingly hostile to Democratic unity. Pressure on Hillary to appease him will be lessened as more and more Democrats come to see his campaign as destructive.
Whether he even has the ability to strike a deal is also an open question. He may say the right things, but if his supporters aren’t willing to vote, volunteer or donate for the fall campaign, he is offering almost nothing.
Unless the Sanders campaign can lay out a convincing strategy for winding this thing down in a way that helps the Democratic Party both now and in the future, I think we should seriously consider how big of a role he really needs to have. It is Clinton’s convention. Harriet Tubman has to share the $20 dollar bill with a man. Does the first female president really have to share her convention with one too?