I have been applauding Bernie Sanders’ and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s huge rallies. Really glad they’re standing up to Trump and loudly taking their fight to the American public. Until I spotted this, which gave me pause... :
. BERNIE’s BAD IDEA: "The Left Should Leave the Democratic Party"
"At a time when plenty of people have advice for u…
I have been applauding Bernie Sanders’ and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s huge rallies. Really glad they’re standing up to Trump and loudly taking their fight to the American public. Until I spotted this, which gave me pause... :
. BERNIE’s BAD IDEA: "The Left Should Leave the Democratic Party"
"At a time when plenty of people have advice for unhappy progressive Democrats, one of their heroes, Bernie Sanders, had a succinct message: Don't love the party, leave it.
"In an interview with the New York Times, he previewed a barnstorming tour he has undertaken with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but made it clear he wouldn't be asking audiences to rally 'round the Democratic Party. "One of the aspects of this tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party," Sanders said."
EDIT: Just to be clear, my aim is NOT to attack either Bernie or AOC, but to express concern about the *elections consequence* of this – if the reporting and the NYT interview with Bernie are accurate. I think those consequences are worth discussing here on The Downballot.
Well, he's always been an independent or member of a third party. Yet when push comes to shove, he's never run as a third-party candidate in a presidential race. And he's sided with the Senate Democratic caucus.
IMHO, Bernie could make an even bigger contribution to the fight against Trump and autocracy by JOINING the Democratic Party and encouraging others, especially young voters, to join the party. If Bernie and AOC really wanted to do a huge service, they could lead a strong voter registration and Dem Party registration drive, making this a prominent feature at each of the well-attended rallies on their Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
(The very last thing America needs is Ralph Naderesque / Jill Steinish spoilers!)
Not to mention they can actually encourage people to vote Democratic and vote progressive down ballot. If they really mean "not me, us", back it up with similarly minded candidates. The problem is that's precisely what they are NOT doing.
If the country wanted Bernie Sanders style policy and politicians, he would be President right now and politicians like him would be the rule and not the exception. For once separate your personal politics from those of the nation's.
When one party loses repeatedly to another, the losing party's politics tend to move toward those of the winning party. This is, like, Poli Sci 101 stuff.
If that were so, we wouldn't have had Ronald Reagan elected president. But move to the right. Just don't complain when a lot of voters don't go with you.
Reagan didn't arise from repeated Republican defeats. Nixon won in 1968 and 1972, and Carter was elected only narrowly in 1976.
I'm not defending it, and I certainly don't want to see the Democratic Party move to the right. I'm just saying that the way to shift the Overton Window left is to defeat *Republicans* consistently and repeatedly.
And don't forget Eisenhower before Nixon. Biden was actually fairly left wing a President. If no Clinton nor Obama before him, he's not as left wing a President as he is.
Nixon domestically was more left than most of the presidents who followed him. Wage and price controls, the EPA, OSHA, SSI. And you're only looking at it on the presidential level.
Republicans won 1968 and 1972, and narrowly lost 1976. And 1976's narrow loss was after one of the most damaging political scandals in our nation's history.
That's exactly the kind of recipe to see their party move to the right. They won 2/3 of the preceding elections and the only one they lost was barely lost despite a huge handicap.
And it's not as if Jimmy Carter was a liberal darling. He sucked up to George Wallace to win the Presidential election. Not to mention his Playboy interview was done to appeal liberals who thought he was too RIGHT wing.
It's more complicated than that. Every time in my lifetime that the GOP has had a big election, it's done so by moving still further to the right. 1980....1994....2010....2024. It's been the same pattern. Moving further to the right is a political winner for Republicans.
The Poli Sci 101 lesson here is that the calculus doesn't work in the other direction, or at least hasn't since the 1960s. When Democrats try moving to the left, it doesn't generate the same response among voters as it does when the Republicans move right.
Let's not forget, though, that the dynamics of presidential and midterm elections are very, very different. Republicans haven't been shut out of the White House three consecutive times since FDR/Truman (and even in that instance, the response was the nomination of Dwight Eisenhower, whose politics were so vague that he was courted by BOTH parties!).
2024 was a disaster of an election, but does it qualify as "big" in this context? It has big consequences but republicans won it on the margins.
They won the tipping point state (PA) by 1.7 points and have the narrowest house majority since WW1! Change three seats in the house and the speaker changes. They did well in the senate but two of their pickups (WV, MT) were effectively guaranteed by the map, and the third (OH) wasn't that far off. Only PA was an impressive senate win for them.
The election has some of the biggest consequences in modern US history, but I would call it among the narrowest of wins in our history. Far, far, far from being lumped in with 1980, 1994, or 2010.
That's a reasonable distinction. And while you're correct, David Shor's analysis paints a picture of a country where Trump's dominance was less "on the margins" than the actual 2024 electorate indicated.
There's a lot more to it than a conventional left-right argument. It's less left-right than "risk versus security". People want security and were conned into believing "MAGA" would give that to them. MAGA promised cultural security and economic security, a hybrid of social policy from the right and some configuration of the New Deal consensus and Japanese-style protectionism more reflective of the left.
MAGA successfully portrayed the Democrats as the party of turbocharged cultural change without hesitation, apology, or respect for those uncomfortable with turbocharged cultural change.....and they won over the "security voters" en masse. The Democrats' prospects of realigning the electorate depends upon being the party of security again for these voters, who won't be any more bothered by fear of leftism than they were in 1932 if they feel insecure. Musk is making that task easier for the Democrats to sell, but if the party remains either supportive or indifferent about turbocharged cultural change and the majority of voters who despise it, then it won't matter if they move left or right. They won't win.
Yes but to your point the current U.S. left wing is full-steam ahead on the "cultural change"/risk train track re: LGBTQ, crime/criminal justice, and immigration . .so not sure how a pivot to the right doesn't occur in tandem with being seen as the security blanket voters can run home to.
The best things the Democrats have going for them is that events are likely to change the conversation now that the other team is in power and doing unpopular things that will undermine voters' feelings of security.
In terms of tangibles, recognizing that the overwhelming majority of the country sees a distinction between illegal border crossings and legal immigration is at the top of the list. Beyond that, we need to appreciate that policies that were broadly unpopular in the past will likely be just as unpopular when repackaged for contemporary times. This puts us in a precarious position in having to distance ourselves from policies that have long been progressive goals, but when we see the alternative that is the 2025 reality following an election when our worldviews were soundly rejected, it's hard to say that eliminating cash bail was worth the right battle to choose, as one example.
And more broadly, creating new "risk" in a nation whose people are pleading for security is incredibly bad politics, and it really put Democratic elected officials on a collision course with their base in many ways in the last several years. Voters don't enjoy the anxiety that comes with feeling that their entire lives are gonna be judged based on a Halloween costume they wore in the 80s. Rationally or not, that's the kind of anxiety that leads people into the arms of MAGA.
Just do better and be more inspirational. The whole debate over being too right or too left is stupid bc the average American doesn’t understand the complexity of policy. Just look and sound good. Trump is orange for a reason.
He underperformed Harris in Vermont in 2024 and he barely got a majority in his 2020 primary run for President in Vermont. He's not as popular as he once was.
Sanders' approach to in/not in the party is IMO the wrong approach for his goals. AOC's approach has it right.
If the problem with democrats is that there aren't enough people like him in it, then him refusing to join is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have no illusions that he will change his mind on this, but I do think he'd accomplish more for his goals if he went from a democratic-aligned independent to an official democrat.
Or rather his stated goals. His refusal to work with people is a demonstration of how unserious he actually is about governing and passing progressive policy. Keep in mind that this is the ONLY stable career the man has ever had. He became a politician to line his (and his family's) pockets. Nothing more.
I'm not the biggest Sanders fan despite being really quite far on the left, but I would contend none of that is fair. People who want to get rich don't become politicians, and those that do don't spend a decade as mayor of Burlington, and they certainly don't keep running for office after multiple defeats long before the age of grifter-candidates. I don't have anything against someone being a career politician.
People can be truly dedicated to their goals while they are also not the most efficacious worker towards those goals. That doesn't mean the person is not genuine.
This is well put. Like you, I am not president of the Sanders fan club and yes, like all politicians, he has a healthy ego, but I don't doubt that he is fighting for what he believes is best for the country and to imply that he is in it for the money is silly....
Running as a Leftie independent may have worked for Bernie in Vermont, but it's not going to fly in the rest of the country. It is really terrible advice. Going to AOC route has a much higher chance of success, even without the concern about spoilers. Third party runs just do not attract the same amount of money or institutional support needed to win. And the primary system advantages insurgent campaigns. You need to convince a much smaller subset of the electorate and those you do need tend to be more tuned into what's going on politically.
I saw this at a small scale in the 26th Middlesex State Rep district (East Cambridge and East Somerville). The current rep, Mike Connolly, first ran for office as a leftie Independent against the long time Rep, Tim Toomey. He lost decisively. He came back 4 years later and won the Democratic primary, also against Toomey, and has served ever since. He actually got more votes (4,010 vs 2,938) in his first campaign, but the electorate was much larger, so that translated to 25% vs 54%.
I hate to point Sinema as an example bc she absolutely fucking sucks. But, they all learn their lesson and come crawling back at some point.
I saw Blue Rev on Fbook make an “Indy ?” type of post and if is this where the conversation is headed, then we need to do better. I’m a Democrat bc of the ideals and morals, not bc of the name. Get it the fuck together literally everyone.
It might have been real in 2016, when Clinton was the opponent, and Trump was bashing her with NAFTA and the prospect of additional "trade" agreements, but it's dissipated since then.
There's no wonder. They are both populists and stress the need of ONE person to make all the changes. The reason why left populism is harder to implement than right populism is because for it to be electorally successful, it requires "punching down." It requires Democratic politicians to have SOME cultural conservative elements to them. This does not sit well with base Democrats. At all. Particularly women.
One person to make all the changes? What crap. And since the voters have not been presented with economic populism as an alternative on the presidential general level in decades, "we" don't know whether "culturally conservative elements" are required.
Um, Orange Men stresses "only I can make change." And while Sanders can say all he wants "not me, us", he has a long history of refusing to encourage down ballot support. So yes, it is all about one person to them. As for economic populism, it only appeals to people if so called "social norms" are maintained. This goes back to the days of Andrew Jackson when expanding the electorate to all white men was a radical liberal idea. It only worked because women and African Americans were ignored and we have this thing called the "Trail of Tears." So yes, "punching down" was very much a part of it.
How is not encouraging down ballot support, not all that surprising since he's run and been elected as an independent, equivalent to authoritarianism, or a "strongman." Particularly, since he's never said that. But has run on issues, not personalities.
Because if he were serious about addressing issues, he would have spent his political career working to get such policy passed into law. The fact that no state - not even Vermont - has single payer healthcare shows how limited an appeal it is. You need more to actually win election and govern than just shouting and saying cutesy words. That's all he has brought to the table.
Bernie's political instincts leave a lot to be desired, frankly. Let's not forget that in 2022 he urged Democrats to run on how great the economy was (in a year when inflation hit 9%!) rather than on preserving democracy and individual rights. Had such advice been taken, we would have been utterly destroyed.
The American people voted in a fucking chaos agent felon in spite of having the best economy in the world! Considering that campaigning on "yes, but" in regard to the economy didn't work, I think you might be more humble about what might have happened if the Democrats had extolled the Biden economy at every turn. Maybe they would have convinced enough people to support it!
When huge numbers of people—rightly or wrongly!—think that the economy sucks (as polling clearly showed throughout the Biden presidency), no amount of educating or slick messaging is going to change that. That stuff only works when it resonates with how people already feel.
The chaos agent felon won because America wanted a return to 2019.
People don't arrive at this completely independently. The media cried "recession" over and over again while the economy grew every month. With the same economy, Trump would have said it was the greatest in history! And he would have convinced a lot of people, including some media people.
I don't think you can fault his efforts to pass universal healthcare. He has tried hard for a long time, and was also very helpful in getting the ACA passed and including money for community health centers in it - which was his idea.
Add to that the simple fact that Bernie and Trump both have significant bases of support among people who don't care about policy much (or at all), but simply want to "burn it all down."
I have always found that mindset incredibly reckless—and incredibly, cluelessly, callously privileged. Sure, the status quo always leaves a lot to be desired, but there's *never* a guarantee that something better would rise from its ashes.
Why is "punching down" electorally necessary? I don’t follow your logic. Also, it seems you are tying populism to authoritarianism in a way that surprises me. Could you explain and expand these two points?
Because in order to appeal to hardline socially conservatives, so called "social norms" have to be upheld. The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example. Nonwhites were locked out of MANY of the programs. Today's equivalent would be standing against transgender women playing in women's sports.
And sadly populism and authoritarianism often DO go together. As I've mentioned several times, the welfare state in South Africa started under the National Party which was pro Afrikaners, pro apartheid, and anti British. They were absolutely happy to implement social programs.......so long as poor Afrikaners got the benefits of them.
"The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example."
More garbage. Yes, programs like social security, unemployment compensation, farm income supports, were only popular because they didn't disturb segregation in the south.
These programs upheld "social norms." Women could only qualify for Social Security throughout their husbands and children. Also I notice you deliberately left out the FHA, which VERY MUCH locked out African Americans.
I didn't say ALL programs were segregated. I said MANY. Reading comprehension is a good thing.
I suspect that the real answer is that those programs would never have been implemented if they also attacked segregation. They were popular because they were good programs. I also suspect that the real reason we didn't get national healthcare in the 50's like Canada and most of Europe is because it would have been difficult to implement a national healthcare system that was for whites only and any system that spent tax dollars on non-whites would have been DOA with Southern conservatives.
That's exactly my point. Most people regardless of their actual political ideology or party actually LIKE social programs. The issue is that many don't like those programs going to people they don't like.
The Bernie to Trump pipeline has two main paths. The first are anti-vaxxers who left the Democratic Party over Covid-19 vaccine policy. (think Joe Rogan) The second pathway are the tankie crowd who supported Russia in the Ukraine war and who opposed the Biden administration on that issue we aren't supposed to mention. (think Tulsi Gabbard).
I don't think Bernie was advocating a new, progressive third party nationally--he must know at least that such an endeavour would likely result in more Republican rule with less than majorities. One thing he may have had in mind is people running as independents in states and districts that won't usually vote Dem but are open to hearing a non-Republican message--which doesn't always necessarily mean a progressive one. Not for the first time, though, he could perhaps have phrased things better, and the headlines are a bit off-base.
AOC shows potential of how to rally frustrated or indifferent voters who are open to a Democratic or progressive pitch while firmly staying in the party, though I'd be wary of knighting her (or anyone else) as the Democratic saviour who knows the one path forward. (And some of the Bernie-related discussion here may justify David's rule against presidential primary discussion; imagine having this argument nonstop almost every day in 2015-16 and 2019-20.)
The idea of running independents in hostile and/or idiosyncratic states is interesting to me (I wonder what might have happened if, say, McMullin vs. Lee and Osborn vs. Fischer had taken place in a Dem-leaning midterm). Getting to 50%+1 is still a major hurdle, though.
It's something I've thought about before. Creating a "sister party" to democrats that could have a chance in states like Missouri or Tennessee. Something that is more distinct than the name change that DFL represents.
Whenever I mull it over in my head I get stuck on the problem that with the way congress works they would ultimately need to caucus with us or with republicans, at which point they de facto join either party in practice — voters know they're voting for a centrist democrat when they vote for Angus King, even though he officially isn't a democrat. It's hard to separate from a party while also joining their caucus in congress. If we had a more formalized coalition system it would be easier to make work.
I have been applauding Bernie Sanders’ and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s huge rallies. Really glad they’re standing up to Trump and loudly taking their fight to the American public. Until I spotted this, which gave me pause... :
. BERNIE’s BAD IDEA: "The Left Should Leave the Democratic Party"
"At a time when plenty of people have advice for unhappy progressive Democrats, one of their heroes, Bernie Sanders, had a succinct message: Don't love the party, leave it.
"In an interview with the New York Times, he previewed a barnstorming tour he has undertaken with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but made it clear he wouldn't be asking audiences to rally 'round the Democratic Party. "One of the aspects of this tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party," Sanders said."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-independents.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/bernie-sanderss-bad-idea-left-should-quit-democratic-party.html
Thoughts, anyone?
EDIT: Just to be clear, my aim is NOT to attack either Bernie or AOC, but to express concern about the *elections consequence* of this – if the reporting and the NYT interview with Bernie are accurate. I think those consequences are worth discussing here on The Downballot.
Well, he's always been an independent or member of a third party. Yet when push comes to shove, he's never run as a third-party candidate in a presidential race. And he's sided with the Senate Democratic caucus.
IMHO, Bernie could make an even bigger contribution to the fight against Trump and autocracy by JOINING the Democratic Party and encouraging others, especially young voters, to join the party. If Bernie and AOC really wanted to do a huge service, they could lead a strong voter registration and Dem Party registration drive, making this a prominent feature at each of the well-attended rallies on their Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
(The very last thing America needs is Ralph Naderesque / Jill Steinish spoilers!)
Not to mention they can actually encourage people to vote Democratic and vote progressive down ballot. If they really mean "not me, us", back it up with similarly minded candidates. The problem is that's precisely what they are NOT doing.
His ego will never let him do that.
Which only proves the point of detractors that "not me, us" is a lie.
There's a pervasive mindset among the Bernie crowd that repeated Democratic defeats will move the party to the left—which is utterly delusional.
Yes, well move to the right. I'm sure that will do the trick.
If the country wanted Bernie Sanders style policy and politicians, he would be President right now and politicians like him would be the rule and not the exception. For once separate your personal politics from those of the nation's.
When one party loses repeatedly to another, the losing party's politics tend to move toward those of the winning party. This is, like, Poli Sci 101 stuff.
If that were so, we wouldn't have had Ronald Reagan elected president. But move to the right. Just don't complain when a lot of voters don't go with you.
Reagan didn't arise from repeated Republican defeats. Nixon won in 1968 and 1972, and Carter was elected only narrowly in 1976.
I'm not defending it, and I certainly don't want to see the Democratic Party move to the right. I'm just saying that the way to shift the Overton Window left is to defeat *Republicans* consistently and repeatedly.
And don't forget Eisenhower before Nixon. Biden was actually fairly left wing a President. If no Clinton nor Obama before him, he's not as left wing a President as he is.
Nixon domestically was more left than most of the presidents who followed him. Wage and price controls, the EPA, OSHA, SSI. And you're only looking at it on the presidential level.
Republicans won 1968 and 1972, and narrowly lost 1976. And 1976's narrow loss was after one of the most damaging political scandals in our nation's history.
That's exactly the kind of recipe to see their party move to the right. They won 2/3 of the preceding elections and the only one they lost was barely lost despite a huge handicap.
And it's not as if Jimmy Carter was a liberal darling. He sucked up to George Wallace to win the Presidential election. Not to mention his Playboy interview was done to appeal liberals who thought he was too RIGHT wing.
It's more complicated than that. Every time in my lifetime that the GOP has had a big election, it's done so by moving still further to the right. 1980....1994....2010....2024. It's been the same pattern. Moving further to the right is a political winner for Republicans.
The Poli Sci 101 lesson here is that the calculus doesn't work in the other direction, or at least hasn't since the 1960s. When Democrats try moving to the left, it doesn't generate the same response among voters as it does when the Republicans move right.
Let's not forget, though, that the dynamics of presidential and midterm elections are very, very different. Republicans haven't been shut out of the White House three consecutive times since FDR/Truman (and even in that instance, the response was the nomination of Dwight Eisenhower, whose politics were so vague that he was courted by BOTH parties!).
2024 was a disaster of an election, but does it qualify as "big" in this context? It has big consequences but republicans won it on the margins.
They won the tipping point state (PA) by 1.7 points and have the narrowest house majority since WW1! Change three seats in the house and the speaker changes. They did well in the senate but two of their pickups (WV, MT) were effectively guaranteed by the map, and the third (OH) wasn't that far off. Only PA was an impressive senate win for them.
The election has some of the biggest consequences in modern US history, but I would call it among the narrowest of wins in our history. Far, far, far from being lumped in with 1980, 1994, or 2010.
That's a reasonable distinction. And while you're correct, David Shor's analysis paints a picture of a country where Trump's dominance was less "on the margins" than the actual 2024 electorate indicated.
Even in the 1960s, it didn't work for us. Lest we forget that JFK ran against Nixon claiming we were facing a "missile gap."
We live in a center-right country . .how that isn't apparent right now is beyond me. Folks on the Left are literally delusional about this.
No, they're trying to change it. Not simply accept it and let the right move the Overton window further and further right.
Again, the ONLY thing that will move the Overton window to the left is to defeat Republicans, at every level of government, over and over and over.
There's a lot more to it than a conventional left-right argument. It's less left-right than "risk versus security". People want security and were conned into believing "MAGA" would give that to them. MAGA promised cultural security and economic security, a hybrid of social policy from the right and some configuration of the New Deal consensus and Japanese-style protectionism more reflective of the left.
MAGA successfully portrayed the Democrats as the party of turbocharged cultural change without hesitation, apology, or respect for those uncomfortable with turbocharged cultural change.....and they won over the "security voters" en masse. The Democrats' prospects of realigning the electorate depends upon being the party of security again for these voters, who won't be any more bothered by fear of leftism than they were in 1932 if they feel insecure. Musk is making that task easier for the Democrats to sell, but if the party remains either supportive or indifferent about turbocharged cultural change and the majority of voters who despise it, then it won't matter if they move left or right. They won't win.
That’s a very astute analysis!
Thank you.
Yes but to your point the current U.S. left wing is full-steam ahead on the "cultural change"/risk train track re: LGBTQ, crime/criminal justice, and immigration . .so not sure how a pivot to the right doesn't occur in tandem with being seen as the security blanket voters can run home to.
What kinds of specific suggestions do you have, other than stopping being the party of immigration?
The best things the Democrats have going for them is that events are likely to change the conversation now that the other team is in power and doing unpopular things that will undermine voters' feelings of security.
In terms of tangibles, recognizing that the overwhelming majority of the country sees a distinction between illegal border crossings and legal immigration is at the top of the list. Beyond that, we need to appreciate that policies that were broadly unpopular in the past will likely be just as unpopular when repackaged for contemporary times. This puts us in a precarious position in having to distance ourselves from policies that have long been progressive goals, but when we see the alternative that is the 2025 reality following an election when our worldviews were soundly rejected, it's hard to say that eliminating cash bail was worth the right battle to choose, as one example.
And more broadly, creating new "risk" in a nation whose people are pleading for security is incredibly bad politics, and it really put Democratic elected officials on a collision course with their base in many ways in the last several years. Voters don't enjoy the anxiety that comes with feeling that their entire lives are gonna be judged based on a Halloween costume they wore in the 80s. Rationally or not, that's the kind of anxiety that leads people into the arms of MAGA.
Just do better and be more inspirational. The whole debate over being too right or too left is stupid bc the average American doesn’t understand the complexity of policy. Just look and sound good. Trump is orange for a reason.
Ego? Right. If it was a matter of ego, he could have run as an independent the last three elections and collected millions of votes.
He'd get voted out in Vermont if he did that. He knows that. He's no fool.
LOL. I don't think so.
He underperformed Harris in Vermont in 2024 and he barely got a majority in his 2020 primary run for President in Vermont. He's not as popular as he once was.
Sanders' approach to in/not in the party is IMO the wrong approach for his goals. AOC's approach has it right.
If the problem with democrats is that there aren't enough people like him in it, then him refusing to join is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have no illusions that he will change his mind on this, but I do think he'd accomplish more for his goals if he went from a democratic-aligned independent to an official democrat.
Or rather his stated goals. His refusal to work with people is a demonstration of how unserious he actually is about governing and passing progressive policy. Keep in mind that this is the ONLY stable career the man has ever had. He became a politician to line his (and his family's) pockets. Nothing more.
I'm not the biggest Sanders fan despite being really quite far on the left, but I would contend none of that is fair. People who want to get rich don't become politicians, and those that do don't spend a decade as mayor of Burlington, and they certainly don't keep running for office after multiple defeats long before the age of grifter-candidates. I don't have anything against someone being a career politician.
People can be truly dedicated to their goals while they are also not the most efficacious worker towards those goals. That doesn't mean the person is not genuine.
This is well put. Like you, I am not president of the Sanders fan club and yes, like all politicians, he has a healthy ego, but I don't doubt that he is fighting for what he believes is best for the country and to imply that he is in it for the money is silly....
He's worked on legislation, sometimes with Senators way to his right.
Running as a Leftie independent may have worked for Bernie in Vermont, but it's not going to fly in the rest of the country. It is really terrible advice. Going to AOC route has a much higher chance of success, even without the concern about spoilers. Third party runs just do not attract the same amount of money or institutional support needed to win. And the primary system advantages insurgent campaigns. You need to convince a much smaller subset of the electorate and those you do need tend to be more tuned into what's going on politically.
I saw this at a small scale in the 26th Middlesex State Rep district (East Cambridge and East Somerville). The current rep, Mike Connolly, first ran for office as a leftie Independent against the long time Rep, Tim Toomey. He lost decisively. He came back 4 years later and won the Democratic primary, also against Toomey, and has served ever since. He actually got more votes (4,010 vs 2,938) in his first campaign, but the electorate was much larger, so that translated to 25% vs 54%.
I hate to point Sinema as an example bc she absolutely fucking sucks. But, they all learn their lesson and come crawling back at some point.
I saw Blue Rev on Fbook make an “Indy ?” type of post and if is this where the conversation is headed, then we need to do better. I’m a Democrat bc of the ideals and morals, not bc of the name. Get it the fuck together literally everyone.
Is it any wonder that the Bernie-to-Trump pipeline is real?
It might have been real in 2016, when Clinton was the opponent, and Trump was bashing her with NAFTA and the prospect of additional "trade" agreements, but it's dissipated since then.
There's no wonder. They are both populists and stress the need of ONE person to make all the changes. The reason why left populism is harder to implement than right populism is because for it to be electorally successful, it requires "punching down." It requires Democratic politicians to have SOME cultural conservative elements to them. This does not sit well with base Democrats. At all. Particularly women.
One person to make all the changes? What crap. And since the voters have not been presented with economic populism as an alternative on the presidential general level in decades, "we" don't know whether "culturally conservative elements" are required.
Um, Orange Men stresses "only I can make change." And while Sanders can say all he wants "not me, us", he has a long history of refusing to encourage down ballot support. So yes, it is all about one person to them. As for economic populism, it only appeals to people if so called "social norms" are maintained. This goes back to the days of Andrew Jackson when expanding the electorate to all white men was a radical liberal idea. It only worked because women and African Americans were ignored and we have this thing called the "Trail of Tears." So yes, "punching down" was very much a part of it.
How is not encouraging down ballot support, not all that surprising since he's run and been elected as an independent, equivalent to authoritarianism, or a "strongman." Particularly, since he's never said that. But has run on issues, not personalities.
Because if he were serious about addressing issues, he would have spent his political career working to get such policy passed into law. The fact that no state - not even Vermont - has single payer healthcare shows how limited an appeal it is. You need more to actually win election and govern than just shouting and saying cutesy words. That's all he has brought to the table.
Bernie's political instincts leave a lot to be desired, frankly. Let's not forget that in 2022 he urged Democrats to run on how great the economy was (in a year when inflation hit 9%!) rather than on preserving democracy and individual rights. Had such advice been taken, we would have been utterly destroyed.
The American people voted in a fucking chaos agent felon in spite of having the best economy in the world! Considering that campaigning on "yes, but" in regard to the economy didn't work, I think you might be more humble about what might have happened if the Democrats had extolled the Biden economy at every turn. Maybe they would have convinced enough people to support it!
When huge numbers of people—rightly or wrongly!—think that the economy sucks (as polling clearly showed throughout the Biden presidency), no amount of educating or slick messaging is going to change that. That stuff only works when it resonates with how people already feel.
The chaos agent felon won because America wanted a return to 2019.
People don't arrive at this completely independently. The media cried "recession" over and over again while the economy grew every month. With the same economy, Trump would have said it was the greatest in history! And he would have convinced a lot of people, including some media people.
I don't think you can fault his efforts to pass universal healthcare. He has tried hard for a long time, and was also very helpful in getting the ACA passed and including money for community health centers in it - which was his idea.
Add to that the simple fact that Bernie and Trump both have significant bases of support among people who don't care about policy much (or at all), but simply want to "burn it all down."
I have always found that mindset incredibly reckless—and incredibly, cluelessly, callously privileged. Sure, the status quo always leaves a lot to be desired, but there's *never* a guarantee that something better would rise from its ashes.
Why is "punching down" electorally necessary? I don’t follow your logic. Also, it seems you are tying populism to authoritarianism in a way that surprises me. Could you explain and expand these two points?
Because in order to appeal to hardline socially conservatives, so called "social norms" have to be upheld. The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example. Nonwhites were locked out of MANY of the programs. Today's equivalent would be standing against transgender women playing in women's sports.
And sadly populism and authoritarianism often DO go together. As I've mentioned several times, the welfare state in South Africa started under the National Party which was pro Afrikaners, pro apartheid, and anti British. They were absolutely happy to implement social programs.......so long as poor Afrikaners got the benefits of them.
"The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example."
More garbage. Yes, programs like social security, unemployment compensation, farm income supports, were only popular because they didn't disturb segregation in the south.
These programs upheld "social norms." Women could only qualify for Social Security throughout their husbands and children. Also I notice you deliberately left out the FHA, which VERY MUCH locked out African Americans.
I didn't say ALL programs were segregated. I said MANY. Reading comprehension is a good thing.
No, this is what you said:
"The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example."
Recall is a good thing.
Locking African Americans out of programs like the FHA IS upholding segregation. Sorry you do not see it that way.
You didn't say simply that it upheld segregation. You said the New Deal only "sold" because it upheld segregation.
Next sentence: "Nonwhites were locked out of MANY of the programs."
You are arguing in bad faith. As usual.
I suspect that the real answer is that those programs would never have been implemented if they also attacked segregation. They were popular because they were good programs. I also suspect that the real reason we didn't get national healthcare in the 50's like Canada and most of Europe is because it would have been difficult to implement a national healthcare system that was for whites only and any system that spent tax dollars on non-whites would have been DOA with Southern conservatives.
That's exactly my point. Most people regardless of their actual political ideology or party actually LIKE social programs. The issue is that many don't like those programs going to people they don't like.
Shit like, "Reading comprehension is a good thing" doesn't fly here. Time for both of you to knock it off.
The Bernie to Trump pipeline has two main paths. The first are anti-vaxxers who left the Democratic Party over Covid-19 vaccine policy. (think Joe Rogan) The second pathway are the tankie crowd who supported Russia in the Ukraine war and who opposed the Biden administration on that issue we aren't supposed to mention. (think Tulsi Gabbard).
I don't think Bernie was advocating a new, progressive third party nationally--he must know at least that such an endeavour would likely result in more Republican rule with less than majorities. One thing he may have had in mind is people running as independents in states and districts that won't usually vote Dem but are open to hearing a non-Republican message--which doesn't always necessarily mean a progressive one. Not for the first time, though, he could perhaps have phrased things better, and the headlines are a bit off-base.
AOC shows potential of how to rally frustrated or indifferent voters who are open to a Democratic or progressive pitch while firmly staying in the party, though I'd be wary of knighting her (or anyone else) as the Democratic saviour who knows the one path forward. (And some of the Bernie-related discussion here may justify David's rule against presidential primary discussion; imagine having this argument nonstop almost every day in 2015-16 and 2019-20.)
The idea of running independents in hostile and/or idiosyncratic states is interesting to me (I wonder what might have happened if, say, McMullin vs. Lee and Osborn vs. Fischer had taken place in a Dem-leaning midterm). Getting to 50%+1 is still a major hurdle, though.
It's something I've thought about before. Creating a "sister party" to democrats that could have a chance in states like Missouri or Tennessee. Something that is more distinct than the name change that DFL represents.
Whenever I mull it over in my head I get stuck on the problem that with the way congress works they would ultimately need to caucus with us or with republicans, at which point they de facto join either party in practice — voters know they're voting for a centrist democrat when they vote for Angus King, even though he officially isn't a democrat. It's hard to separate from a party while also joining their caucus in congress. If we had a more formalized coalition system it would be easier to make work.