Envision Ukraine in 1932.
2
Socialists don't win national elections in the US.
4
Really? How’s bout we write about the good stuff for five minutes instead of just stirring it up!
2
Is anyone else tired on ‘pundicracy’?
I have this overwhelming urge to tell them to get a real job.
The people will decide. Wait for it.
6
Bernie Sanders President of the United States of America..!
Bernie Sanders will WIN Iowa as Predicted.....
Bernie Sanders is the Democratic Nominee.....
Bernie Sanders will BEAT Trump...
It is Incredible what the Democratic Party has done to
Sanders..
They will do Anything to "Sabotage and Victimize" Sanders
And they won't Stop....
Only WE the PEOPLE choose our Next President.....
Not the Political Corrupted Democratic Party.....
as for Hilary Clinton....can someone Please give this Woman
a Job as she is Still Obsessed & Jealous of Bernie ......
Hilary should scrub hospital floors with the Sisters of Mercy
in Calcutta to learn Real Humility....!!!!
Bernie Sanders President of the United States of America.!!!
God Bless America....
"Go Bernie Go...We Love you So.."!!!!
7
Bernie's Federal Jobs Guarantee is a trojan horse for communism. As soon as automation and AI take all of the jobs, the government will have "no choice" but to take over all means of production and employment. There is one candidate who can prevent this and that is Andrew Yang
4
I'm half-way through reading this. It sounds like many of the experts Thomas Edsall spook with have not changed their analysis since before Iowa. I also swear that I've read this sort of column from Edsall before (e.g. Bernie is too extreme and extreme candidates tend not to win). Um, does Edsall have anything new to say or is he just repeating himself? Slow news week? Seriously, what is the purpose of this column? Are you really this scared of the fact that I and others support Bernie Sanders and that he might win?
5
No matter who you support, how exactly will Democrats attacking each other and spreading conspiracy theories and disinformation help us defeat Trump?
5
Where? Down a black hole where it will implode.
Bernie, show us the math!
Just our National Debt alone is over 23 Trillion dollars. Now if you were to add in all of the unfunded liabilities - the promises our Government made to pay for but have never funded, then add in the costs for repairing infrastructure, we are well over 250 Trillion in debt.
Think about it, National Debt, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Highways, Interstates, Bridges, Water/Sewer, Electrical Grid, Government Retirement Benefits, Homeland Security, National Defense and more.
All of that costs money!
Our country doesn't have enough Millionaires and Billionaires to tax and pay for everything we already owe!
The Bayh-Dole Act and 28 U.S.C. 1498 “Section 1498” gives the federal government the power to use or manufacture any patented product, and only provide “reasonable” compensation to the patent holder.
So how about it Bernie?
Show us the math and start enforcing the laws already of the books... and while you're at it, start doing the same thing with the 30,000 plus gun laws already on the books!
Our country doesn't need your kind of political spin anymore.
We need leaders who who have ideas that would actually work and who are not afraid to fly in coach!
4
Take a good long look at Bernie's closest advisors. I need not say much about people who loved Cesar Chavez, love Maduro and love Socialist Venezuela. Oh, OK...David Sirota for one. What a paper trail of terrible politics he's left behind.
5
Quit the horse race analysis. The Democratic party is in crisis because every candidate in the race with any sense refuses to defend our American economic system for fear of offending Sanders supporters. Just stop! Leaders lead, and there are no leaders in this race.
Also, what if Sanders wins the nomination, again putting aside horse race hogwash? I want him to lose!! If it's Sanders vs. Trump, I'll take Trump! Sure, Trump's an offensive egomaniac, but you know what ... most of his policies aren't off the deep-end and the economy is good. If Sanders got even 10% of what he wants, he would SHATTER our economy. If he got all of what he wants (I know, not realistic, but still), he would ruin our country for generations.
Is anyone in the Democratic party going to actually challenge Sanders on this?! Bloomy???
2
Will you commit right now to supporting Bernie if he is the Democratic nominee? #VoteBlueNoMatterWho #Bernie2020
3
"Both Sanders and Buttigieg could be high-risk choices for the Democratic Party..."
Which is why more people need to learn more about Yang. Sanders supporters, in particular, seem to have blinders on, with unwavering support for Sanders, without any interest in learning about the relatively newer candidates such as Yang. Yang is far better than Bernie, for winning support from moderates and some former Trump supporters who may now be on-the-fence about who to vote for next time.
A Bernie supporter I know...when I told her I was for Yang, replied '...uh...you mean that tech guy?'. It was clear that she'd never likely seen any clips of Yang speaking (esp since she doesn't own a TV). And she's probably never sought to learn anything about Yang via his many videos on Youtube.
Bernie supporters, instead of being stubborn, should at least try to learn about some of the other lesser knowns, such as Yang. My sense is that most Bernie supporters fall into the ultra-PC crowd, whereby they are doing and supporting exactly who their own crowd tells them to (i.e., Bernie). Any dissent among their crowd is summarily squashed. If you're not for Bernie, you're not one of us. You're not welcome.
Whereas with Yang, it's quite the opposite. Heck, he even asked his townhall audience to applaud....yes, applaud...the few former Trump supporters who turned out to now support Yang. Now that's an example of a smart leader, and one who can Unite the nation.
2
One thing is sure, much to the consternation of the NYT's favorite globalist OP-ED writer, manufacturing jobs will be front and center in the discussion and rhetoric.
Balance of trade has real ramifications in terms of middle class jobs. So "we all" currently purchase imported consumer good and folks from other countries purchase real estate in NYC and SF as well as our bonds.
Insofar as the bonds go, someone will purchase those regardless of the balance of trade. Maybe real estate in NYC and SF will take a hit.
Unions will also be front and center in this discussion and that will make it all the more interesting.
Unionize Tesla in progressive thinking California, anyone? This is gonna be good.
Oh-oh, are those Russians lurking over there?
Hang on...
It will be doomsday for the failing demos. Trump 2020 & maybe 2024.
Oh, please. You can talk seriously about "demonizing" Bernie Sanders when Lucifer himself delivered the State of the Union Address last night?
Give Nancy Pelosi a copy of the NYT. I'd love to see her tear it in half.
5
As an outsider I think the top 5 in Iowa are the best potential candidates the Democratic Party has ever had. Any one of them has what it takes to win and be a celebrated president.
Those that aren't nominated will most likely be at the cabinet table or have a powerful position elsewhere in the government. My point being that party has a really deep level of talent who together will be running the country regardless of exactly who has what job title.
The nominee will move rightward for the election, and democratic congress and senate will further moderate policy proposals. Republican led houses of congress will obstruct anything regardless of who is president.
In Canada we already have all the things Bernie promises and more. No socialist hellhole yet.
2
NYT hit piece number 1 on Bernie since Iowa. Let's keep count of them the way we do Trump's lies.
3
We should all know that the national paranoia about Socialism springs from America's fifty plus years of cold war, with the communist,Soviet/Russia Union. The communists claim to be socialists. But communism is a political philosophy; socialism on the other hand is an economic model, like is capitalism.
There must be a reason why the few European countries with socialism applied economies, are always named as the places with the best quality of life. What gives socialism a bad name is when it is misapplied by corrupt governments.
2
I think Mr. Edsall and everyone else of his generation should recall the words and sentiment of Bob Dylan's song "the times they are a changing". Remember how you felt 50-60 years ago when you heard that song for the first time. Our generation - I'm 66 - should be listening to the young people today, who overwhelming support Bernie Sanders.
Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’ For the loser now will be later to win For the times they are a-changin’
Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’ It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin’
3
To answer in good faith the question posed in bad: If he wins he will pull the Dems from their rightward slide just in time to save them; if he loses the party will surely fracture into irreconcilable pieces and it will take a generation for a viable opposition to Trumpism to reemerge.
Anyone who tells you Medicare for All, strong climate action, rent control, taxing the rich (marginally! it's not a 100% tax-- treat your readers with at least little bit of respect!) are "extremist" or fringe positions is either lying to you or to themselves. Check your beloved polls, or just ask around. Most Americans want most of these things. These things are reasonable, moral and humane. The status quo is manifestly unsustainable. If what you want is more of the same, choose any candidate to the right of Bernie, or just admit you can live with Trump even though he grosses you out a bit. But if you want to live in a more reasonable, moral, humane, and sustainable (in every sense of the word) country, then Bernie is the sensible, pragmatic, realist choice.
4
If FDR was in the running today, there would be the same uninformed, alarmist reaction! FDR would be called a radical, how dare he transform the nation to be socialist, blah blah. Sanders and Warren are bold and want the best for this country, no hidden agendas, not beholden to corporate influences.
2
Bernie will destroy any semblance of cohesion of the Dems. They will control urban America, but will cede the Senate to the Trumpistas for the next generation.
3
Bernie appeals to the same anti-corrupt-establishment sentiment as Trump did. It worked for Trump. The difference is that Trump was a wolf in sheep's clothing, the very personification of the corrupt establishment. Bernie, on the other hand, will try to drain the swamp, instead of happily jumping in and paddling around in it. And everyone knows it.
I'm still a Warren supporter, but if she fails, I'm with Bernie.
2
Wasn’t Trump the extremist candidate in 2016? Didn’t he behave disgracefully at all times? Yet he won the nomination. Your pundits may be right about that kind of nomination sending some voters into the opposite camp. But then, having an electoral college with wacky rules must also be taken into account.
2
Thomas Edsall, you along with Egan and Stephens in this paper and a couple of center righters/conservatives over at the Washpost have convinced me to not vote for Warren or Bernie, even though he was my 2016 choice. The rest are almost conservatives.
I am going to cut to the chase, bypass Individual one, the Potemkin President and just vote for his handler Putin. Why bother with the middle men? At least with Putin, we'll get what we deserve, a true authoritarian who does not play golf but rides a horse bare chested, and salts away several tens of billion dollars for some rainy day and instead of threatening opponents and enemies he sends in the assassins. Nancy is giving him problems? handled. Besides he'll save us a ton on election spending...
Simply put to the far left and into defeat.
2
He will take the DEMOCRATIC PARTY exactly where it needs to go and that is the 21st Century.
4
Democrats might understand that even now it might be too late but Sanders, Butigieg, Yang, Bloomberg Steyer and Warren might take them into the 21st century.
Where will he take them?...to ruin and to the end of our Democracy. It's a plain as that.
1
We all know what Bernie will do. It is what he did when he did not get the nomination. Which is drop the Democratic Party and become and independent again.
Bernie is not a democrat, if he wins, he will not be a democrat. We will have an independent President. I saw how well that worked living in MN.
Both parties are fools that let nonparty members run for the highest office in the country.
2
If Bernie wins the nomination, Trump will rip him apart with the socialist tag—one which Bernie has in the past embraced. Ironic, given Trump’s relationship with Putin. Nevertheless, many voters react negatively and emotionally to the term, even if they may not be able to define it. If the great leader uses it pejoratively, it must be so.
Democrats should keep in mind that Trump’s Base requires someone to deride, to feel superior to. He knows how to feed into that. After all, he’s a TV personality. He will do the same to Biden, now that he’s been let off the hook. He’ll call him a coward for not coming forward to “testify.” What is he hiding about his “corruption” in Ukraine?
As for Pete, T. will fold his hands in prayer, wink at the “Evangelical” wing of the party, and you know the rest. Amy and Warren are, well, women. Macho men know what the proper role for them is. Certainly not the Presidency.
The only person he fears is Bloomberg. A proven billionaire who can dish it out as well as take it. Think about it.
1
If Edsall is right, then Trump's reelection is a foregone conclusion: if Sanders doesn't get the nomination, many of his supporters will stay home on election day. If he does get the nomination, many Democrats who favored a moderate candidate will stay home. Edsall himself -- like the Times's many other anti-Sanders columnists -- seems to be promoting this outcome.
I recall that in 1972 a relative of mine whose hatred of Nixon was so pronounced that it had the quality of an inherent characteristic, like the color of his eyes, astonished everyone by voting for Nixon. The astonishment was misplaced. He had simply realized that in relation to McGovern's mildly leftish candidacy he and Nixon were on the same side. Should Sanders win the nomination, a large number of "moderate" Democrats will, I think, discover their inner Republican and vote for Trump. "Better Hitler than Blum," as they said in France before the war.
Short answer, he will take it nowhere. It would be another Carter presidency... where NOTHING happens... breeding economic downturn and an inevitable GOP presidential follow up.
"Bernie" will take the Democratic Party = of which he is not even a member= right down the tube. They will lose the House and lose seats in the Senate. Please write this down and remember it on election nite!
2
"Now it may be that the country is ready to elect as president a 78-year-old angry democratic socialist calling for revolution. But if I were a partisan whose top priority was to bring the Trump presidency to an end, I would not bank on it."
A Bernie Sanders' progressive tax system is a corrective to the "winner take all" doctrine of the new millenia. If someone doesn't take a stand against the exploitation of a majority of Americans (in the form of reduced wages, limited health care benefits, and destructive environmental policies) the rich will continue to steal the future of the bottom 98%. Rather than trying to pick the winning horse in the form of a Democrat seeking the nomination, why not stand up for your own beliefs?
3
I will summarize this editorial in one sentence:
"Democrats need to run to the center, and nominate a moderate 'electable' candidate who can defeat the Republican challenger."
This strategy has failed for 20 straight years now. The last Democrat to win the presidency was Barack Obama. (He ran as a progressive agent of change, but governed as a moderate.)
The people want change. They want a positive vision of the future, which is better than the present or the past. They want a leader who will work for a better future, with opportunity for all Americans. We want to be inspired.
4
If Republican primary voters had wanted to nominate the most electable candidate in 2016, they would have voted for John Kasich. (As a lifelong Democrat, I would have given serious consideration to voting for Kasich, a reasonable and thoughtful moderate. I am not alone.)
Instead, the Republican voters chose to nominate Donald Trump, a polarizing and radical candidate. He managed to win three states (PA, MI, and WI) by a collective total of about 77,000 votes, and secure an electoral college victory. It was a fluke.
Why is it always the Democrats' job to run to the center, and find a moderate, "electable" candidate?
Bernie Sanders is not my first choice to be the Democratic nominee for president. But I wholeheartedly agree with the issues he has elevated (healthcare, climate change, income inequality, education) and the general direction in which he wants to take our country.
I voted for Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary. And then voted for Hillary in November.
Most hypothetical polls for the presidential election show Sanders doing as well as Mr. Biden and Mr. Bloomberg against Mr. Trump in November -- including in the key swing states.
- https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
- I will vote blue, no mater who, on November 3.
- I hope you will too.
- This includes any nominee, including Bernie Sanders.
The Republican Party truly jumped the shark with Mr. Trump. And I believe they will pay for it, up and down the ballot, on November 3.
4
1. And how did nominating a centrist work out last time? Does anyone remember?
2. And how does anyone come to the conclusion that we can move this country forward by looking back?
2
@Barbara Carlton The flat out reality is that none of the centrists can be trusted to do what they say. Every election they get up and say we need to fix the climate and inequality and then hand out drilling permits and tax breaks. On principle I agree with center left ideology. In reality if you want change you have to make a change because clearly centrists just don't deliver.
If millionaire Bernie wins nomination by chance, the white house will remain with Trump. That simple. Even though 30% of American will never vote for Trump. Why? because they think it is not smart to vote for Trump. When the time comes to vote and Trump has had another 50 rallies, he will blow the nominee of the Dem party so badly out of the water and provide a scary nightmare of what will happen if Bernie wins and Americans will be petrified to vote for Bernie in the general in Nov. 2020
2
My only concern about Sanders is the down-ballot effect. Were I running for Senate in Florida or North Carolina there is absolutely no question that I would prefer a Biden type at the top of the ticket. But you know what, that didn't stop Republicans with Trump. And it hasn't seem to hurt them much. Sure they lost the House but seemingly every president does so.
1
All votes are created equal.
The votes of members of one "race" are worth no more and no less than those of others.
1
In pieces such as this, the Bloomberg candidacy needs to be assessed along with the other candidates. Bernie, Buttigieg, Biden and Warren all have serious vulnerabilities in the general election. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Those who support the above four candidates need to take a look at Bloomberg and compare his ideology and electability to their favorite candidate. I think Bloomberg has the best chance to beat Trump.
6
First and foremost, with Bernie Sanders as POTUS, we will be filling the news cycle week after week with the fact that annual corporate tax revenue is at a record low 3%!
President Sanders will be calling on his Democratic friend, Tom Styers to immediately focus on framing all government agencies and departments around a Green New Deal, which will focus on the needs of the people and the health of our environment vs the $93 billion a year we are currently spending to subsidize and give tax breaks to multinational corporations.
And there will be a new Senate Majority Leader, and her name will be Elizabeth Warren!
5
Meanwhile, in more Democratic party unity news, the South Carolina press is reporting that upstate Republicans are already organizing to boost the vote for Bernie in the SC primary, in order to dilute the expected victory margin for Biden.
Look for similar "Republicans for Bernie" groups to organize in the various open primary states.
1
I think there will be no clear front runner with victories going to multiple candidates. It will end at the convention when Bloomberg is chosen in a back room.
We're all not realizing how powerful the super-rich have become. The billionaires don't want Sanders and don't want Warren, and they will get their way. Biden ia acceptable to them but his campaign and support have underwhelmed.
They doubt Biden can beat Sanders, Warren, or Trump--that is why Bloomberg jumped in. He can afford to buy the very very best political analysis on the planet, and he has. He can spend 2 or 3 or $4 billion and won't even notice it's gone.
@The Poet McTeagle
If the billionaires do not want Sanders or Warren, we may all end up with four more years of Trump. That, I believe, is one more reason to vote for Sander or Warren or - ideally - for both on the same ticket.
Bloomberg? No, thanks.
5
@Fran I don't get why Democrats would be willing to vote for a Republican in the Democratic primary. Do you all think that little of your ideology that you think you can't make a winning argument from the left? The party's been moving right for 40 years now. Are we at the point where people just say to heck with leftist politics, give up and pick between a Republican and an authoritarian? The prospect is just to weird and wrong.
We keep hearing Sanders can't win. There's an article like this in this paper every single day. I wouldn't underestimate the power of the MSM but Sanders just keeps going. Likely to win Iowa and probably the nomination. In spite of all the hate, lies, misinformation and all the money stacked up against him. Has it occurred to any of these people who think beating Trump is the most important thing that you probably shouldn't be shooting your strongest candidate in the foot? That beating trump will only help for 4 years until the Republicans nominate someone even worse than Trump because that's how their nominations have been going since Ike. A little worse each time. If you want to end the era of Trump like Republicans your going to need to make some serious changes to electoral policy, inequality, the tone of politics and the corruption common within the Democratic party. Iowa caucus anyone, DNC, Clinton's campaign in 2016, Menendez, Blagojevich, the revolving door between politics and the press and the iron triangle. Wake up people. You do things the same way your guaranteed to get the same result.
7
First Bernie cannot take the party anywhere unless Democrats flip the Senate. Dr. No means no. Second if the threat posed by Donald Trump does not inspire Democrats of all colors to vote then we suffer the consequences together. Not sure how the primary drama unfolds but Bernie has a one in five chance of gaining the nomination.
Bernie not in this for the party he is in this for the people and for the country. Bernie wants to solve problems such as homelessness,overwhelming student debt,income inequality,immigration,discrimination,etc...You know the problems that impact the regular people. The reason Trump won was because corporate money has contaminated politics and elections as such demoralizing the electorate. The democrats lost the moral compass of caring about and helping the working class. That is what has hollowed out the middle class. The ladder from working class to middle class has been kicked out and destroyed. Bernie wants to restore it. Bernie Sanders is the FDR for our time. Roosevelt saved America and gave us the notion and reality of middle class life. To this day FDR remains our most popular President because he helped so many. Bernie is cut from the same cloth. The Democratic Party and the country is blessed to have him.
3
I find it a bit silly that people are afraid of Bernie because he is asking for more (healthcare, education, opportunities, cleaner environments, etc.) This goes back to Negotiation 101. For my family's business, my work, the nonprofit I help lead, when I negotiate, I don't start out by compromising with the person or group across from me. Rather I ask for the best and the most and the cheapest and then work "down" from there. If you start out at an already lower level, it's impossible to get what you want.
11
Why worry? Did any one try to analyze, “If Trump Wins, where will he take the Republican Party?” So relax and let the candidates present their ideas and let the voters decide. We don’t want these so called Talking Heads to overanalyze every aspect of every candidate and present us their opinions. We want to form our own opinion. Talking Heads, PLEASE STOP. Also, Candidates, should STOP beating around the bush and STOP fighting each other. JUST present your PLANS and POLICIES. WE the people will decide who do we want. Who aligns best with our ideas, our morals, our priorities, our idea of what US of A should be.
3
I don't understand why the democrats in DC are coming down so hard on Bernie Sanders, isn't it obvious that people actually do like him and are voting for him. I keep seeing polls that put him ahead of trump so why is that that somehow those polls don't count. Personally, I think it's about time we had a Bernie Sanders. We need someone who really will help the average Joe. The most important thing that any Democrat can do at this point is commit to voting for any democrat (or independent in Bernies case) that wins the nomination. Frankly, I would vote for a piece of rotting wood instead of Trump.
6
We have over 10,000 nuclear weapons yet we spend trillions on the military while citizens fear a trip to the doctor can easily lead to bankruptcy. Maybe we should care less about killing others and more about saving ourselves. I'm an old man (82) but I can see that this nation needs some sense of humanity if it has any chance of saving itself. Labels are meaningless if they just serve to obscure the obvious.
5
Bernie won't be taking the Democratic Party anywhere. Between the moderate majority Democrats and the Republicans, he won't be getting anything through Congress.
5
Our, and their, great loss.
2
given that (t)Rumps electoral college strategy is likely to earn him re-election no matter who the democrats nominate, nominating sanders may be the sliver lining to a second (t)Rump term. sanders is certain to lose in a contest with (t)Rump, and his margin of defeat would hopefully be large enough to bury the left wing of the party for may election cycles to come.
1
Bernie Sanders has already won the Democratic party, whether he wins the nomination or not, as every Democrat running against him seems intent to either match him policy for crazy policy (Warren) or at least pledge fealty to his movement.
At least the Republicans had some lively debates against Trump while he was staging his hostile takeover, and his policies by and large weren't even that radical. The Democratic debates are snooze-fests. Not one candidate is staking an ideological position to the right of Sanders (except maybe Bloomberg who hasn't been in the debates yet, so we'll see), just differences by degrees.
Not one candidate has pointed out Sanders' and his economic advisers' support for Hugo Chavez, whose policies have absolutely devastated the poor of his country. Not one candidate has pointed out his support for Cuba, despite the horrible conditions of its vast poor compared to the US (but their healthcare is free!). Not one candidate has made any case for economic freedom. It is just a given in the party that government intervention in the economy is always a good thing and that when you take the wealth from the rich to fund your spending (a) the well will continue to replenish and (b) it will have no ill effects on the economy on which we ALL depend.
I don't know if Sanders will win the nomination, but he's already won the soul of the party ... and no one even put up a fight.
1
Where will Bernie take the party: back to FDR.
What does that mean?
See bit.ly/EPI-study graph#2 (alligator graph)
From 1945 to 72 GNP grew 100% (doubled) and the median (meaning everyone's) in lock step w/ it. Presumably that's when America was great.
Since 1972 GNP grew another 150% but the median wage stayed flat. 90% of those gains went to the <1%. Things are worse than that: since some wages went up (health/tech) & some in unions floated (7%), the vast majority of US's 160 million workers have suffered 48+ years of declining prospects in an economy that grew 150%.
Before 72 we had demand side economics that FDR bequeathed us.
After 72 we had supply side economics that Reagan bequeathed us.
Bernie will take us back to pre 1972, when America was indeed great (its the last time we landed on the moon).
The last thing on FDR's plate when he died was universal health insurance. It never got done. Now corps use it to charge us double and keep us chained like serfs to them for health insurance. It ain't slavery but it is a form of serfdome.
Because the US has a $22 trillion economy, what's at stack is tens of trillion that flow to a small handful of people each year. Bloomberg has just decided to spend a half trillion dollars on ads in a run for the presidency. How many people could make a gamble like that? Why? Because tens of trillions of dollars are at stake.
If Bernie gets elected it will be a miracle.
6
@Tim Kane
Post-WWII was the golden era of American manufacturing. The economy was rapidly expanding, and people spent their money on American made goods, and American made goods got better and less expansive through explosions in technology and productivity gains.
Both the government and big business also helped create a bit of a myth of the great American manufacturing job by giving everyone a gold-plated pension (and Social Security) to be funded by the next generation of workers.
Bernie Sanders is not going to bring that back by confiscating wealth from the millionaires and billionaires and jacking up taxes on the American corporations that employ most workers and still provide a lot of good manufacturing jobs (albeit not as good as they used to be).
Sanders, if he got what he wanted, might spur some short term growth by flooding the economy with new spending, but eventually (as with all Marxists) the money will run out, and the poorest and least connected will go homeless and hungry. And their "free" healthcare won't be worth the money they paid for it.
3
If Bernie wins the nomination and loses the general election, it's his fault. But here's what I love about Bernie Sanders: if he loses the nomination and someone else loses the general election, its also his fault.
Well, OK, that's a little extreme. Everything isn't just Bernie's fault. His supporters are also always to blame.
Thank goodness for Bernie Sanders. He really makes me feel good to be a moderate centrist who only supports corporate-funded candidates. With him around, my candidates are never to blame for anything. Neither are their supporters. Neither am I. That's what I call pragmatic realism, as opposed to Bernie's pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
Oh, and in all future elections, up-and-down the ticket, when Bernie isn't a candidate, or even alive anymore?
You got it. Whenever anything bad happens, it'll be his fault then, too. It's people like me that know how to take responsibility for our actions that get things done in this country.
3
@Chris he’s 78 and he just had a heart attack! I mean hubris much? Sheesh
Who will be his running mate? The odds are that is the person will be the one fulfilling presidential duties if he wins.
Hopefully Bernie will guide the electorate away from political parties.
2
From the article: "A January 22-23 Emerson College survey asked Democratic primary voters 'will you vote for the Democratic nominee even if it is not your candidate?' 87 percent of Joe Biden supporters said yes, as did 90 percent of those backing Elizabeth Warren and 86 percent of those aligned with Pete Buttigieg. 53 percent of Sanders supporters said yes, 16 percent said no, and 31 percent said they were undecided."
Honestly, as a Biden supporter, the above is the strongest argument that can be made for Sanders as the nominee. I don't like Sanders, and view him as a "left-wing Trump" in many ways. Particularly concerning to me is that he inspires a particular kind of dark fanaticism in a certain segment of his followers that he seems unable to control. That said, Sanders is very different from Trump in one extremely important way - he is a man of morals and integrity. Though I disagree strongly with many of his policy ideas, I have no doubt that his concern is truly with the people. As such, I will enthusiastically support him with my vote and my campaign contributions should he secure the nomination.
In the meantime though I will be pulling for Biden to once again prove the naysayers wrong, and rebound from Iowa.
2
Anyone who is still betting on Biden at this point should get out of the prediction business. It was pretty clear even before Iowa that there was virtually no passion for him. Now it's as clear as the blue sky. Or should be.
The establishment pundits have been shown to have their heads in the sand for the past four years. They didn't see Trump coming and they didn't see Sanders coming. Completely out of touch. Or maybe their true purpose isn't to see what's coming but to sway what's coming.
4
I voted for Bernie in 2016 and will vote for him in the general election if he gets nom. What I don’t understand tho is those who say they won’t vote for the nominee if Bernie (and t a lesser degree some of the other candidates) doesn’t get the nom. Defeating trump is literally an existential threat for the world.
6
@Mal Stone
Old Bernie's bleaters bleated the same thing here four years ago, and they kept their promises.
@Mal Stone
An anarchist is an anarchist whether they come from the radical right or radical left.
@Mal Stone Except you're never going to defeat Trump with a guy that wants to raise taxes give to give free health care to illegal immigrants and as of yesterday wants the Government to take over all of the electrical companies. That's reality, and we will only win if you take your heads out of the clouds and start dealing with what IS. Nominate this man and we will lose our entire Democracy. It's as simple as that.
If he does win will he remain a Democrat or will he switch back to Independent?
One f my adult children who lives in Texas and who like me is a centrist told me that even those moderate Republicans who don't like Trump would vote for Bernie.
5
@Peggysmomil I agree. People really like Bernie. The corrupt media and the billionaires do not like him as they are happy with the status quo.
2
@Valdemar I am sorry but I posted a correction. They would NOT vote for Bernie.
@Peggysmomil CORRECTION. would NOT vote for Bernie
if Bernie wins ?? if Bernie is nominated, we instantly get 4 more years of Trump ....
4
"If Bernie wins, where will he take the democratic party?"
To defeat.
6
To cataclysmic defeat.
4
The depiction that 'many' Sanders supporters voted for Trump in 2016 is misguided. There would be plenty to attack Biden on in a general election, too, and we all know that Trump will operate on a pre-school level in tearing any nominee down. Finally, I do believe that Democrats will unify behind any of these candidates, Sanders included. And if Sanders has the momentum and drives the passion, the DNC should not stand in his way again.
3
@Amy
The question is not whether Democrats will unify around their ultimate candidate. It's a question of whether the voters who are up for grabs in the battleground states will unify around their ultimate candidate.
I really respect Bernie. But he is not the candidate who is going to expand the Democratic coalition to win. He would, in fact, shrink it.
5
I think it's agreed that Sanders won't be able to push his new programs through Congress.
So the issue is, what's the fallback position? Nobody knows. Sanders has a political career of talking big but accepting the deals made by other people that can pass with minimal objections or amendment.
What happens when it's Sanders who is supposed to be making the deal? Does he hire some insider like Biden to schmooze in a way he can't? Does he hire a person who can think energetically and innovatively like Buttigieg or Warren?
What happens when Sanders has the veto power? Does he yell revolution and try to coerce congress? Does he accept it?
All I can say is, everything about Sanders predicts a one try for socialism and out presidency.
2
Many Times writers are so far out of touch with the innumerable inequalities and injustices the vast majority of people are subjected to.
Medicare for all, a livable wage, expanding social security, confronting climate change are really urgent, critical solutions for the vast majority of people, but yet again the Times runs pieces like this that are out of touch, tone deaf and frankly oblivious to the needs of their fellow human beings.
When Bernie transforms the Democratic Party this November it will be by attracting the millions of people the party has forgotten and despised since Reagan. It won’t be by studiously following the advice of establishment academics in their stats lab.
Bernie all the way!
4
@Matthew Rozyczko People who want all Americans (regardless of income level?!?) to have absurd things like livable wages and good health care are destroying this country's greatly great greatness.
Can't we talk about things that actually help improve American lives, like getting tough on Iran or cutting taxes on the rich?
Warren is my dream candidate, but I also dream of flying a unicorn to the moon. I respect Bernie, but I respect my grandfather too, and he's dead. Buttigieg is a bright young man, but so is the Eagle Scout next door. Biden is sweet, and would be brulee'd under Trump's blowtorch.
I want to win this thing. And once the White House is wrested from the monstrosity currently occupying it, I want a president who can be effective in just Getting. Things. Done. Practical, obvious things that we used to be able to do, like build highways and run elections.
The more I see Bloomberg, the more I see the answer. He could oust the current occupant, and move us forward in significant ways on the things where there is actually a lot of overlap between right and left: healthcare, guns, climate, cost of college and housing, a more fair tax code. He applies a conservative temperament to fairly liberal goals.
Bloomberg 2020! Bloomberg-Warren 2020!!!
3
@Livonian I wouldn't have thought I'd be here, too, but as this thing shapes up, I now think Bloomberg might be the only hope.
4
@Blair Yeah right, an Oligarch can help us. What are you people smoking. This guy is just buying his way into the process. Keep being serfs to these billionaires. Bloomberg will also give a huge tax cut to his buddies and will probably be worse than Trump. Btw he was a republican not a long time ago.
@Livonian
Bloomberg/Swalwell!
Bloomberg/Steele!
The President does not run the country alone. The senate majority leader of the same party runs it. Bernie (or any nominee) would only be what the senate empowered him to be.
2
So, what the Democratic Party needs is a moderate. This means that if elected then not too much is going to change. And this is after 40 years of conservative gains. So the moderate Democrat will tweak a few things and as a result the Republicans will retain most of their gains over that 40 year period. This means that even if the Republicans lose the presidential election they will still win (or retain) most of their gains over that 40 year period. This is what a true moderate will do. It is all relative. The Republicans have gone (over 40 years) so far right that a middle of the roader today is a mild conservative. If you want real change it means you have to push the envelope---not just a little bit but a lot.
2
As an outside but interested observer, 3 things are striking as one looks to & past the Democrat Convention.
First, the candidates for nomination will have chewed each other up in ways that will make it very difficult for them to rally around the eventual nominee. For example, there's good reason to expect that if Sanders wins, Buttigieg does well & Biden slumps further in next week's NH primary, then the Clintons & Kerrys of this world will attack Sanders without restraint & Sanders will respond in kind.
Second, the Democrats are a big tent Party, but the regional, ethnic, ideological & socio-economic divisions are wide & have been stoked as the nominee selection process lumbers along. These divisions have become almost tribal in nature.
Third, thus the Democrats' divisions at both the top & at the support level reinforce each other but all must pull together with a passion if they are to win at the Presidential & Congressional levels & govern coherently.
Obama & Bill Clinton may be able to provide leadership in the needed reconciliation process, but & it's not apparent who else of stature can add their weight or whether reconciliation is possible.
1
The biggest problem is that both Biden and Sanders are approaching 80 at their first inauguration - far too old to take on the complexities of running the nation and being a major player in world events.
1
simple : education for all, infrastructures, hospitals, energy transition; just common sense.
2
@P. Murray Nothing common about it. It has to be enacted by someone who can be elected, and take with them the entire Congress. Bernie is NOT that person. Try dealing with reality, for gods sake.
"Our country has moved so far to the right that people can't see that Bernie isn't that extreme. Hey, Nixon would be a moderate Democrat today."
Are there really intelligent people who believe this? "Splitting the difference" only works in mutual negotiation, not as an explanation of society-wide political alignment. The country HAS moved to the right, it's not 1969, and history doesn't respond to wish thinking. The moderate vote was a majority in Iowa, as it will be in the Rust Belt and rural Midwest. Bernie is not the candidate for the current landscape.
3
I'm a longtime Bernie supporter, but I'm trying to read this article sympathetically. My response is simply: who else then? Where is the candidate that a Bernie supporter can begrudgingly switch to in order to strengthen the Democrats' chance in November? The Biden campaign seems very weak, and they just tanked in Iowa. Buttigieg and Warren have near-zero support from black voters.
In short, I don't think it's my bias for Bernie that leads me to believe that he is the most electable against Trump, and will provide plenty of enthusiasm to get voters out and voting Democrat in down-ticket races.
What we need now, I firmly believe, is for the ordinary, centrist Democrats, like the editorial bent of this paper, to open up to Bernie on these pragmatic grounds. If there's anything that makes him seem unelectable, it's the failure of the media to present him in a more positive light.
His policies are not that radical. In France, even the best colleges cost about $200 per year, and healthcare is likewise affordable. Exit polls in Iowa showed support for Medicare for All was the #1 issue for caucus-goers. Readers of the Times would do well to reflect that they are perhaps more affluent than the average American, who would benefit a great deal from European-style social democracy. I wonder sometimes if you know what it would mean.
We've gotten some flak for being nasty online, but when my parents and some of my friends came over to Bernie, I was genuinely touched and grateful.
5
@Jamie With respect, it was moderate Dems winning in moderate districts that recaptured the House in '18. Last night in Iowa, the cumulative majority vote was for moderates, not progressives. How many objective examples does it take before feelings are overcome by reason?
2
@Blair I'm not sure that you can break down these elections so cleanly along ideological lines, and even so, it's very close, with about 46% of the vote for Bernie, Warren or Yang in the first alignment, and 46% again for Bernie or Warren in the final vote. That the majority of caucus-goers supported Medicare for All is objective evidence for the progressive stance. In any case, my point is that there isn't a single moderate who is looking particularly good in this presidential election. Bernie is objectively leading in the polls, and if we include Warren, progressives are certainly doing well enough to appeal to those who choose party viability over ideology.
@Jamie The Buttigieg-Klobuchar-Biden vote is greater than the Sanders-Warren vote, certainly in areas that gave Dems the House in '18. That the moderate vote is split now does not mean its strength diminishes later.
a vote for Bernie is a vote for Hugo Chavez.
things are now "fair" in Venezuela; all are tragically suffering, many are starving.
Bernie was a loud, vocal supporter of Hugo Chavez. Please study economic history, people.
4
I'm as liberal as they come--to the left of Sanders and I will not vote if he is the nominee.
Like Trump, he is an inept toxic narcissist. He has never accomplished anything in his life other than to convince millennials that they didn't get their fair share. Much like Trump has done with the baby boomers.
I have never missed an election since I have been able to vote. Nominate Sanders and I'll sit this out--I am in what is now considered a "swing" state.
2
What would FDR do?
1
@vishmael :"What would FDR do?"
FDR built alliances with racists, states rights advocates and others including liberal and progressive thinkers to get much of the New Deal passed.
Would this fly with the woke crew today?
Next question.
@vishmael Try to pack the USSC and get a sudden lesson in how conservative the country really is.
@vishmael
He would do what he did: invite Harry Truman to be his running mate.
Bloomberg/Swalwell 2020!
It is amazing to me that supposedly educated people believe Biden is the man to beat. He was trounced in Iowa and his prospects in New Hampshire appear dismal. His history as a presidential candidate is horrible. This year does not appear to offer him any chance of a better showing. He is old, out of touch and his judgment as demonstrated by the Ukraine debacle is flawed. Let's bring the curtain down on Joe and move on. He cannot beat Trump and can also not beat Sanders. Warren, Amy or Major Pete. The sooner his meager followers get behind someone else the better. Say it ain't so Joe!!
5
@John :" He is old, "
Right, an educated person would never vote for an old person.
Run "Major Pete" on the Democratic ticket - please do. You'll be on these boards the day after the election saying his lack of minority support was due to voter suppression.
What a completely naive and myopic narrative.
" beyond the possibility of losing to Trump again, raising the likelihood that the Senate will remain in Republican hands and threatening the re-election prospects of the 40+ Democrats who defeated Republicans in moderate districts in 2018."
...are you kidding me. This will be true with any democratic candidate. Have you been watching the impeachment trials, listened to Trump supporters. Suggesting that our game of checkers is going fine against the treasonous GOP gang is the true insanity.
Dems has lost the people they forgot to fight for in favor of some fictitious middle ground with shameless cheaters.
Enough half measures! Enough desire for unity with a party that seeks to subjugate the poor, POC and middle class using lies, racism and perversion of the basic tenets of our beloved nation.
Bernie will not be corrupted, Bernie will fight harder that even his last 40yrs once he is in office, Bernie will mobilize. WE will triumph.
Lastly, there is only one thing Republicans hate more that a socialist, and that is a Democrat.
4
This voter was Republican for 32 years. Why? The GOP’s were better at winning the Cold War. This same voter has voted Dem since 2000. Why? By watching staunch conservative “Values Voters”, Tea Party “Patriots”, the Age of Greed, Southern Strategy bigots, reckless Neoclowns; by realizing that the “less government” movement is the NO government selfishness of the 1%
America must stop Far - Right ugliness,, but not by bringing back Far - Left lunacy.
1
The Republican Party is leading America down the road toward a fascist state, but you-all are more worried about a candidate who wants to bring health care to all Americans at a fraction of what it's costing us now?
Look to the Scandinavian countries - life isn't so bad for their citizens.
3
@Middle of the road How is bringing affordable health care To Americans communism? And again, look to Canada or the Scandinavian counties. They are happy with their health care and lives. And you can still buy private insurance if you want to.
I doubt anybody’ll care, but a couple reality checkes.
1. St. Bernie is a democratic socialist. That means he wants a mixed economy, with some things done by government (like health insurance, obviously), but he also wants regulated private enterprise and markets—like in actual health care, for example.Good for him.
2. Unfortunately, St. B. has probs attracting women, African-Americans, Hispanics and Latins, LGBT folks, and similar “minority,” groups. Beyond his kind of naggy, shouty approach to everything, this stems from his having the old, “vulgar Marxist,” theoretical approach: for him, EVERYTHING boils down to an economic base. Which it doesn’t.
3. Every country in Europe DOES NOT HAVE Medicare for All. You ARE NOT going to get most union folks to support it. It is very difficult to see how you pay for it. It would be good to stop pretending otherwise.
4. Berniebros are a real thing. But it is doubtful that young folks are gonna vote in the numbers they claim.
5. It would be good to remember that shouted adjectives are not an analysis. Also good to consider that if you write something, and I can come along and change two wordsand it becomes indistinguishable from something Trump says...you gots a problem.
1
@Robert The German and Swiss systems are complicated, but they still make sure everyone gets covered in a way they can afford, and they render healthcare far less expensive than the US. I believe the compulsory private insurance plans in these countries are tightly regulated and largely not-for-profit. Most European countries do have something like Medicare for All, and this is why, I guess, we Bernie Bros like to mention Europe. It proves that the system is viable, because it works in so many other countries. Nobody's pretending that every country has Medicare for All, or that every union supports it, although some do.
In general, these moderate vs. progressive arguments are too black-and-white, too vitriolic on both sides. I support Bernie 100%, but I'll vote for whoever the democrat is. I just hope the so-called moderates will do the same. It isn't very moderate to let Trump win the election, just because your particular ideology/party subculture is less monolithic these days.
@Robert Last I checked, I was a middle-aged, Asian-American woman. Where are your stats saying he can't attract these groups?
" Much of his momentum, polling shows, owes to the support of nonwhite voters — particularly African-American and Hispanic Democrats."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/latest-democratic-polls.html
I just went canvassing recently and the canvassers as well as the people we met door-knocking were enthusiastic about his candidacy. These include women, Asian-Americans, immigrants, Latina women, etc. The guy who honked his horn appreciatively at us was an old, white guy as far as I can tell. We gave him a button. Bernie's supporters are quite diverse.
And please.....don't call him a "Marxist", etc. When people say that, I remind them my family and I lived under 2 Communist governments (in fact, we escaped to the US) and what Bernie proposes is far from that.
Except of course Sanders has no trouble “attracting ... Hispanics and Latins...”. He has more LatinX support then any other candidate. The rest of your claims similarly don’t stand up to scrutiny.
I’m surprise at the absence of vetting Sen. Sanders by the mainstream media, including this paper. There’s lots of had wringing but basic questions about communist and socialist principles are never asked. His record over a long history in the senate is scant. He gets through to people with his authentic nature but his ideas and policy agenda are horrible.
1
Bernie Sanders is no different than Trump. His supporters are holding the party hostage online by bullying anyone who disagrees with him. If he loses, whether marginally or substantially, it is a conspiracy against him by the DNC. His inability to resonate with non-white voters, particularly African Americans, is portrayed by him and his supporters as DNC brainwashing and not tthe truth. Establishment Democrats have their flaws, but have also spent years making inroads to minority communities. Sanders voters are mainly disenfranchised white voters longing for yesterday, and unable to accept that manufacturing and coal mining or jobs of yesterday. Sound familiar?
So basically a bunch of people living in the past examined elections whose rules no longer apply, discounted decisive factors (like the Democratic establishment supporting Nixon in ‘72), forgot about the internet, and we’ll use that to validate the theory that if we keep using the same failed strategy again and again, eventually we’ll win!
Did I get that right?
It’s amazing to see the claim made, in reference to an election against Donald a Trump, that voters punish extremist candidates. I mean the whole house of cards argument really collapses on that absurd contention.
Bernie is the only candidate who consistently beats Trump among independents. Know why? Because independents aren’t mostly soccer moms and union retirees; they’re young people of color who are totally disenfranchised by the Democrats and the political system.
This is Democratic politics at every level:
Dems: These young people gotta get involved.
Young people: We want these things.
Dems: BUT THE REPUBLICANS DON’T WANT THAT! YOU’RE NOT EVEN DEMOCRATS
Young people: *don’t vote*
Dems: *lose*
3
Fifty years of the Democratic Party selling its working class base down the river to special interest, yes Bernie can win.
5
Pretty well accepted (by anyone who’s bothered to look) that Bill Clinton’s deregulation of the financial services industry (rewriting Community Reinvestment Act, denying CFTC oversite over CDOs and swaps, trashing Glass-Steagal) set the table for the ‘07 financial crisis. Eight years later, with that crisis full force, President Obama appointed corporate defense atty Eric Holder Attorney General who predictably, given his background, failed to find a single figure or institution of note to indict. Not to be outdone, Tim Geithner’s treasury paid Goldman 100 cents on the dollar for (now worthless) AIG swaps the bank purchased betting against its own (poisonous by design) CDOs. Republicans may have oil & gas and guns, but just as surely Democrats have the financial services industry. What’s wrong with this picture? You tell me.
1
I became disaffected with the Democratic Party in the 1990s. Remember when Clinton changed welfare, broke down Glass-Steagall, and abandoned South Central LA after the Rodney King acquittal?
Sorry, can't even read your op-ed because I know if is speculation about the horrors of Bernie Sanders.
My children can barely afford to rent their own apartment. One of them lacks medical insurance. They have college debt.
Obama loaded up the Treasury with Citibank experts. He did nothing when he could have offered a fair deal to those facing foreclosure. This was a major disappointment.
People are fed up with "The New Politics of Inequality".... didn't you write the book on that?
5
I just found out that a friend—who served in the US military but not long enough to qualify for VA benefits—is facing medical bankruptcy. He is selling off everything of value and losing his home to foreclosure. He says he is grateful to be alive.
There but for the Grace of God go any of us.
We are paying twice as much as other developed countries for this system that has such cruelty in it. How about a less expensive system with better access, equity, and health outcomes? Please don’t insult me by calling that a radical idea.
Bernie/Warren 2020
164
@BamaGirl
Right on, sister!
"The consequences of nominating an extremist can be devastating."
How'd that work for the Democrats and Republicans in 2016?
Most Americans agree with Sanders' take on policies.
Who's the extremist??
20
@BamaGirl
Those situations are tough. But what are the circumstances that are putting your friend into bankruptcy? Affordable health insurance is available to everyone today regardless of pre-existing conditions, with subsidies for people with less means. And most high deductible plans have out of pocket maxes in the neighborhood of $5000 for in-network and about double that for out of network. Just curious how your friend is being forced into medical bankruptcy if he has insurance.
As for other countries with nationalized healthcare, it may be free (other than funding through taxes), but I read countless stories about poor service and long wait times, which is just about always the case when it comes to a system that operates with no competition.
9
@BamaGirl :"I just found out that a friend—who served in the US military but not long enough to qualify for VA benefits"
Since you're sharing his story, why didn't he stay in long enough?
4
I get this is an opinion piece but would it be too much to ask for some - any - evidence backing up the assertions made? And by “evidence” I don’t mean “citing someone making the assertion”.
This article points out one of the flaws in our political system; the inability of American political parties to actually control their own destiny. In a parliamentary system, the party controls the agenda, issuing a party manifesto and selecting it's leader through the votes of its party membership. Under this system, the voter selects the party of his or her choice, rather than than the party leader. Our political parties tie their fates to a popularly contested primary and general election, hoping that the 'people' made the right choice in the selection of their party candidate. If the Democratic and Republican parties could select their party leadership, there would be no concern for presenting so-called extreme candidates as their standard bearer. We might have been spared the presidency of Donald Trump, and most certainly, Mr. Sanders would not represent the Democratic party in November. The fact that Mr. Sanders is running for the presidency under the banner of a party of which he is not a member, validates my point
If Bernie wins the nomination, if fear he will have the same devastating effect on the party that Walter Mondale's and Michael Dukakis's nominations had-- the ushering in of their opponents' victory in a landslide.
Democrats have put forward centrists candidates for decades - Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton... all middle of the road candidates by any reasonable measure. The result has been a slow compromise of the country's values and policies to the right/far right which the GOP is now doubling down on. Time is to send a far left candidate (be it Bernie or Warren) to swing the pendulum back to the middle... otherwise all is truly lost.
4
I wonder if anyone is picking up on the chilling, way out statement made by Mr. Edsall:
"If Sanders wins New Hampshire, there will almost certainly be an establishment-led drive to block him from the nomination."
Many people, at least abroad, who watched the 2016 Republican primaries, were wondering when establishment Republicans were going to take control of the situation and disqualify Trump. He has always shown us who he is. There was no mystery there. His ties with the Russian mob had been well documented, that he lied and cheated in his business dealings, the way he mistreated women all his life, all those things were known. And yet, nobody acted on this information. Nobody tried to stop him from becoming the president. (As they say, Republicans don't fall in love, they fall in line.)
In contrast to all those unsavory details we all knew about Trump, and who was still allowed to ascend to the White House, here we have Bernie Sanders, a demonstratively uncorrupted senator who has been a public servant for five decades, and whose fight is to get people healthcare and free public college, regardless of their income or status. And he is the one that the establishment is going to take down.
Wow.
I would say, Americans, if that comes to pass, can take their "democracy" and do something with it.
2
Is this why they refuse to announce the other 38% of the votes?
Because if Sanders wins, panic, panic, panic.
That's okay. We'll wait. We've waited since 2016 for this moment and we've worked for it and I believe we have won it.
Show leading democrats and the democratic process some respect.
3
@Mel The reason Pete is ahead so far in the number of Delegates but not the vote count is because Pete paid a lot of attention to the rural voters who proportionally give the candidate more Delegates per vote then those on the city college campuses. Just like the popular vote and the Electoral College.
Bernie Sanders is not my cup of tea, though I do admire his tenaciousness in the face of almost universal opposition by the Democratic Party establishment. Nevertheless I am tired of hearing that a Bernie Sanders candidacy guarantees doom for the Democrats in November, a view voiced by many of the same pundits who predicted a similar dire outcome for Republicans if Trump won the nomination back in 2016. Why is it ok for Republicans to implement policy after policy to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, but Sanders (and Warren) get criticized for engaging in "class warfare" and are deemed "unelectable" for pointing out what is going on and proposing progressive solutions to the growing inequality in the United States? Whoever the Democrats nominate is going to be immediately branded a socialist by the Republicans anyway, so why not nominate a real one and see whether it will energize all those people who decided to sit out the election when Hillary was the Democratic nominee and was viewed as another centrist who promised much and delivered little.
2
To be perfectly blunt, Sanders would not survive the concerted onslaught of Republican and dark money attack ads. His would be a brutal experience in which opponents would throw out the "socialist" epithet as if it were a new form of the corona virus.
Worse, however, will be the attacks on Sanders' health and physical; stamina. Voters were hear more about the impact of heart attacks than they ever thought possible.
John Kerry is an honorable man and veteran, but his candidacy was sunk by the lies and false assertions of the Swift Boat assassins. Hillary's emails and Benghazi were completely false, made up controversies that cost her campaign millions of votes.
Does anyone think Trump will go easy on Sanders, show him a modicum of respect, even agree to debate him? Of course not.
The Dems are going to have to engage in real world realpolitik. The must choose the one candidate who isn't frightened of Trump and can outspend the GOP propaganda machine. Increasingly, that's looking like Bloomberg, paired with Warren or Klobuchar.
2
If Baby Boomers are the "ME" generation, then certainly the Millennials are the "YOU" generation. YOU meaning, YOU are to blame for my student loans, for the cost of college, for the environment, for my low paying job and basically for my lot in life. It's this ethos that Bernie Sanders has successfully tapped into, mobilized and made his own. If something is wrong in my life, it's not my fault, it's yours. Now give me all of my free stuff so that I can go back to protesting the inequality of life.
1
I wonder if anyone is picking up on the chilling, way out statement made by Mr. Edsall:
"If Sanders wins New Hampshire, there will almost certainly be an establishment-led drive to block him from the nomination."
Many people, at least abroad, who watched the 2016 Republican primaries, were wondering when establishment Republicans were going to take control of the situation and disqualify Trump. He has always shown us who he is. There was no mystery there. His ties with the Russian mob had been well documented, that he lied and cheated in his business dealings, the way he mistreated women all his life, all those things were known. And yet, nobody acted on this information. Nobody tried to stop him from becoming the president. (As they say, Republicans don't fall in love, they fall in line.)
In contrast to all those unsavory details we all knew about Trump, and who was still allowed to ascend to the White House, here we have Bernie Sanders, a demonstratively uncorrupted senator who has been a public servant for five decades, and whose fight is to get people healthcare and free public college, regardless of their income or status. And he is the one that the establishment is going to take down.
Wow.
I would say, Americans, if that comes to pass, can take their "democracy" and do something with it.
1
Where Bernie Sanders would take the Democratic Party: Back to being the party of Franklin Roosevelt. Because when you put what Sanders wants next to what FDR stood for, you see pretty much the same proposals, and arguably more importantly the same attitude.
FDR's main argument throughout the first part of his presidency was that big business had failed America in important ways, leading to an economic crash that cost millions of innocent people their livelihoods. Sound familiar?
FDR explicitly complained about how the big moneyed interests had too much control over politics and were doing everything in their power to stop him. Sound familiar?
FDR advocated for some sort of system of health care for everybody in America, regardless of their financial means. Sound familiar?
FDR advocated for policies that would help those who were born poor join an educated middle class. Sound familiar?
FDR talked repeatedly about the importance of an economy that worked for everybody, rather than just a privileged few. Sound familiar?
FDR supported unions at a time when that was a radical stance. Sound familiar?
Was FDR perfect? No, of course not. But by a lot of measures, he was one of the greatest presidents this country ever had, and we could do a lot worse than electing someone who is trying to emulate him.
4
Senator Sanders will take the party where it belongs—the last standing protector of the Constitutional Democratic Republic we call home and a future where our economy supports and rewards the common working family.
3
I enjoy reading the comments, I don't want Bernie to win because . . . he's Leon Trotsky lost grandson. Everything after the "because" seems a bit weak. There is one person below who doesn't want the US to become East Germany. Fair enough. We can all agree on that! And we certainly don't want the government to own our toothbrushes. That, of course, has nothing to do with Sanders or Warren or any other American progressive platform. My sense is that Sanders really wants to extend health care to the level of all those other "failed" G-20 governments and increase top-end tax rates to rates last seen during America's golden age (1945-1975). US health care costs are 18% of GDP --- the remaining G-20 nations are below 13%) and healthcare access and health outcomes stink. What's radical (and inexcusable) is NOT wanting to reform a failed system. It's not failing. It has failed.
2
@Sam
Healthcare outcomes in other G20 countries stink? Cite your statistics and Fox News doesn't count. I am a Canadian and live on average almost 3 years longer than the average American and if I have a chronic or major health issue, |I won't have to sell my house or declare bankruptcy because I can' t pay the medical bills.
1
I just don't get the hand wringing over Bernie Sanders. if Sanders wins the corporations will still be making huge profits, the rich will still be hugely rich. What will happen is both will be required to pay a higher, and fairer share of our taxes, indeed, a significant number may be paying tax for the first time. Cost burdens on our stagnated and underpaid middle class will have the chance to be significantly reduced. Our economy seriously needs a steady and sustained thrust by the middle class if we are to thrive in the future. Our international stature will benefit from a sustained middle class economic engine. Sanders programs are aimed at this outcome, even if they become somewhat watered down by the legislative process. Who do you believe should be the focus of national legislation, the middle and lower classes who provide the engine for upward mobility, or the corporations and the very rich who currently gather in more than the lion's share of benefits, and who do not share anything that might pump mobility? The corporations and the rich are not going to go away. By paying a fair share, they will be fueling a sustained and powerful engine.
3
I'm sitting here in a Café in Houston listening to a group of wealthy white men discuss how easy it will be to get around environmental regulation to develop a multi-million dollar multi plex down the street from me. Do you really think that a moderate Democrat is going to come in and stop that? I'm voting for Bernie.
6
@Jeremiah Crotser
You heard it first hand. The MSM and the establishment wants everyone to believe large corporations have the best interest of the public at heart so it is best to believe in the "status quo" and leave everything just as it is.
2
Where will Sanders take the Democratic Party? On the road to salvation after Trump has taken the Republican Party on the road to perdition.
4
The Third Way has been good to many European countries, who made their labor markets more flexible (e.g. for internet sales) and their economy more dynamic. Countries like Germany, the Netherlands and more recently Spain and Portugal have been doing really well. Some EU countries are still in the process (e.g. France) or haven't even started (e.g. Italy).
Free trade has cost the original members manufacturing jobs, but at least they moved largely within the EU (to Czech Republic, Slovakia, ...).
Moving right and embracing free trade with low wage countries has not been good for the US though. Manufacturing has moved in large part to Mexico, employer based healthcare is not a good fit with a flexible labor market, unions have all but disappeared resulting in enormous wage inequality between top and bottom of corporations, at will employment and barely enough holidays to see family. It has also concentrated all the wealth of the nation around the service economy in the metropolitan areas and left rural America behind. We need to correct course so all 50 states can prosper again.
2
So I’m super confused. According to this article we must not nominate Sanders because many centrists won’t vote for him. This is discussed as a natural process, akin to the tides. On the other hand it could happen that if the party power brokers force through a centrist at the convention, then some Sanders supporters won’t support said centrist - which is discussed as some kind of outrageous failing of the left. Hmmm.
2
@Christian Haesemeyer
It is the continuing(and outdated story) of corporate/establishment democrats, who, still unfortunately control the direction of the party who are constantly preaching unity must prevail and everyone must get behind the nominee BUT, only if that nominee is the one of their choosing.
If it is Bernie Sanders, they will have to think about it.
2
All an academic discussion. As long as there is a DNC, there will not be a Sanders nomination. Even if they have to burn the convention hall down. So it's perfectly safe to vote your heart for Saunders when you know that it's just a theoretical exercise.
1
We have seen some polling and analysis form Edsall about the what kind of Democrat can win over undecided voters in the battleground states. If Sanders does go on to continue winning a significant portion of delegates, what would be the impact of these fervent voters sat out again (like 2016) or go to a third party candidate (like 2016)? We know the Trumpers will vote for him no matter who the Democrats run. The Bernie supporters are as much in play as the undecideds if they hold large numbers in the battleground states.
1
Mr. Edsall's articles are increasingly focused on providing exposure for political scientists and other establishment voices who profess insight into who and how to win the 2020 election for Democrats: Political horse race handicapping.
I have, previously, been interested and attracted to Mr. Edsall's insights on numerous topics.
However, since this election season began, I am convinced by the content of his articles that he has no real interest in what the people of this nation actually need. Or at least, his articles are devoid of that focus.
We are in desperate need of sustained discourse on what our people and our children need to sustain their well-being and to participate with some enjoyment in life, instead of suffering the increasing inequality which is the greatest in human history.
2
The more opinion leaders in the mainstream media, establishment Democrats and Republicans try to scare people about Bernie Sanders, the more eyes will be opened to the forces working together to preserve the status quo that harms so many of us.
Most working Americans know that "the system is rigged" and that big corporations have too much control over our lives in so many ways and over our government. They know that the richest fraction at the tippy-top are getting still richer while we work longer and harder with less security and go into debt to maintain a middle-class life.
You can call it "socialism" if you want to, but it's nothing more than meeting the real, everyday needs of working people and restoring some balance to our economy. It's not about capitalism or socialism. It's about people.
4
The list of Sanders’ positions in this article should put an end to the lie that he is a Social Democrat who just wants the US to be like Norway. The state’s ownership of the means of production? 100 percent tax on the wealthy (also known as confiscation)? Even Corbyn who lost miserably in the UK did not come close to these demands. But of course, Bernie bros will continue to spread lies, disinformation and obfuscation, counting on the ignorance of Americans who think that socialism is the same as Social Security. At least have the courage of your convictions. Show us the gulags, the hungry children in Venezuela, the dissidents fleeing Cuba and say: this is what we want because it will enable us to stick it to the rich.
@Mor Sanders would be a boon to capitalism. He can't get everything done that he promises because of Congress, but if he got even ONE of his major reforms through, we would be so much better off than today. Forgiving college loan debt would stimulate the consumer economy like crazy as those young adults spend that money on cars, homes, technology, and everything else they now can't afford. Does that make you feel better?
3
@abigail49 maybe you should reread the article. How does the state’s ownership of the means of production sound to you? Does it make you feel better about the future of those college graduates who won’t have any jobs to buy food, let alone cars or homes? Check out the jobless rate for youth in France - 23 percent. And France is not a socialist country, the way Bernie wants the US to be.
Bernie Sanders is, by self declaration... NOT a Democrat.
Either party affiliation matters in the American republic, or it does not. Apparently it does not... nor is the majority block of voters (independents) allowed to form their own ticket and compete in any election, not just the general election for president.
Letting Bernie run in the Democratic primary, and if he wins run on the Democratic ticket, bothers me greatly because it make is look as though Bernie wants to have his cake and eat it too... which honestly is not very Democratic, nor socialist.
1
@Chuck Sanders works with Democrats in Congress and campaigned for Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, we need more independent representatives not sworn to toe the party line and punished if they don't. Just look at the Republicans.
2
Bernie Sanders is a great "idea man", but that alone does not make him a good candidate. I would love to see him in someone else's administration, even as VP.
1
@Pajama Sam
Agreed.
Ideas are important.. but you can have the very best of ideas and have little or no ability to actually administer them.
Sanders has a strong reputation for ideas, not so much in terms of administration... and make no mistake.. being in the top seat in the white house IS a job of administration. There is a reason that the white house is the seat of the "administration" in the US.
1
I have long since been a very by issue person. I think our country needs to face a few core issues about what technology has, is, and will do to change the landscape of politics, our workforce, our homes, our social interactions. We are not facing the rising issues. We are not changing how we allow people to be polled. We are not adapting to the times and we are more divided than ever. I don't want to have to choose right or left. I want logic tempered by compassion in our political representatives from all areas. Right now the candidates that have that mind set are not heard from enough. We need to move forward with humanity first. #yanggang #yang2020
1
The conclusion this subscriber reaches from this opinion piece is that Mike Bloomberg has already been written-off. Sanders with the longest and most consistant record of democratic progress (and as Mr Yglesias points out not the communist monster his detractors try to portray) is too real and finally, the democrats will be forced into bondage by their masters and do as they are signaled to do on election day.
With apologies to Mr S. Clemons, "there's lies, damned lies and there's [political science]".
1
"But many studies show that in general elections, the nomination of more extreme candidates has alienated moderates and driven up voting for the opposition"
Oh yeah? How did that work out in 2016 when the Republicans ran a more extreme candidate like Trump?
2
@grusilag
Trump competed against 17 other so-called establishment moderate Republicans. How did that turn out|?
The Democrats have spent the last 40 years moving to the right. It is time that they moved back to the left. Nixon and Eisenhower look like leftists when you compare them to the Democratic "establishment". Even Winston Churchill, a hero of conservatives, accepted the extensive British welfare state and was sympathetic to the working an middle class. The radicals are not Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The radicals are the Goldwater inspired Republicans that have taken over the party since Reagan. Sensible government provided or subsidized medical care is not radical. It has not been a radical position in the developed world for 50 years. Other ideas that aren't radical are income redistribution, strong unions, government provided college education, and subsidized daycare. All of these ideas are in place in nearly every other developed country in the world. All of these are sensible additions to a capitalist democracy and have proven records in other very successful democratic nations. All of these are what Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders stand for versus a capitalism that let's the winners take all and leaves the rest of us one illness or accident from disaster.
4
Where? Back to FDR democracy. I'm for that.
4
I would encourage the Trump campaign to be careful what they wish for.
If they get Bernie as an opponent they may be unpleasantly surprised.
Obama was elected to “change Washington”. Trump was also elected to “change Washington”. As Trump gets a bit swampy, it creates an opening for Bernie to become the latest candidate to “change Washington”.
Many Republicans held their noses and voted for Trump in 2016, despite an organized “Never Trump” movement. Something similar could happen for Sanders and Democratic voters in 2020.
If Trump’s campaign takes even a single vote for granted, they’ll be in trouble…even against Bernie.
(I offer this caution as a strong Trump supporter.)
5
What the Democratic establishment has been willing to do to Trump, they will do to Bernie. He won't win.
2
The media are trying to do to Bernie what they did in 2016.
People want healthcare for all, one that doesnt bankrupt them. Affordable medications.
They want gun control
They want to get out from under crushing student debt and want to fight climate change.
Bernie's message has never changed. It is simple and straightforward.
We dont need more middle of the road. We had that in 2016 and lost. Popular vote, electoral...we know. The bottom line is the same. Hillary is not in the White House.
I wish the NY Times and the media would stop bashing Bernie.
6
@Teddi P
I'm always suspicious of people who speak in plural terms just to make a point.
Granted. We may all want gun control, but not everyone is saying "We don't need more middle of the road".
Another thing.
Not openly supporting Berne Sanders is not the same as "bashing" him.
Let the voters decide for themselves.
And grow up.
Corporate/establishment democrats and their non-policies is what got Donald Trump elected in the first place. I believe it was Harry Truman who said, "if you want to vote for a Republican, you might as well vote for the "real one".
4
An Establishment intervention against Sanders will do more to radicalize young and poor people (an outcome I intensely desire) than even a Sanders presidency itself.
Make no mistake about it, we (the Sanders wing) want to take control of the Democratic Party from the neoliberals in power now. We will never surrender. We will be at your throats every single chance we get, even after Bernie’s eventual death. He will become a martyr-like figure to his followers, and even if he doesn’t win, you will never escape his ghost.
4
Bernie guarantees Trump's re-election with solid Republican landslides in both houses and sweeping down ballot to state legislatures and dog catchers. And Mayor Pete and Lizzy the same. Biden, Amy or, ("God forgive me") Bloomberg knock off Trump, whittle down the GOP Senate majority and increase Nancy's majority in the House. Bernie, Lizzy and Mayor Pete can not win the voters (or gin up a counter vote to overcome them) who gave Trump Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Florida. Worse they can lose New Jersey, Mass, and other cornerstone Democratic states.
1
Notice the subtle bias, the double standard.
When a Sanders supporter won't commit to supporting Biden or Bloomberg if they get the nomination, this is written as a deficiency of the voter. The voter is disloyal, the voter refuses to see the big picture and commit to defeating Trump.
But when another voter refuses to get behind Bernie if he is the nominee, we are told this is because Bernie has driven them away. It is then the fault of the candidate, his policies differing from the voter.
Bernie voters are not allowed to let their policy beliefs hold them back from voting for a moderate (or in the case of Bloomberg, a Republican), but moderates are justified in letting their policies hold them back from casting a vote for Bernie.
Biden can literally tell people at his rally that they should vote for someone else, multiple times, dismissively, and yet there is no talk of him alienating voters. Klobuchar can call the sincere policy goals of progressives "unicorn dreams", essentially calling those voters foolish for wanting a healthcare system akin to that of the rest of the developed world, and yet never do we hear that she's pushing voters away.
6
I generally respect edsall for his reliance on political science, but he is dead wrong here. Biden has the most liabilities of any candidate, as he is associated with an establishment that the American people loathe. Why is it so difficult for older establishment journalists to understand this?
5
The glaring omission of this article is that Trump himself is an extremist, and he won. Furthermore, the Democratic party has already run a moderate establishment figure against Trump, and lost. If there was ever a time to analyse whether the old formulas still apply, its now. They clearly didn't have much meaning four years ago. The Republican party has been a party of extremists for decades now, and they have also held onto power and defeated Democrats when it mattered. Is there no lesson in that?
4
Bernie's an extremist? Shame on Thomas Edsall for helping to further this narrative. Such a perception could only be held in a country already extremist -- from the Right. In fact, the US is an extremist right-wing duopoly that only shows its true face when a viable candidate like Sanders, who would be considered a moderate in most Western nations, appears on the scene. As for the argument that nominating an "extremist" will backfire due to mobilization of the opposition -- it's already been debunked with the election of Donald Trump. America's view of itself is gross distortion of reality.
6
All the crystal ball pundits were wrong in 2016 and surprised in 2018. Since none of you are worth a darn at forecasting, why not switch to researching and commenting on the candidates, their histories, their platforms and positions, and the importance of those platforms and positions to the country. Then how about you let us folks make up our own minds instead of telling us what to think and how the voting will go.
3
Misleading title ...."If Bernie Wins, Where Will He Take the Democratic Party?" This article seems almost entirely focused on the question can Bernie win and mostly describes why he can't. Where is the discussion about "where he will take the Democratic Party?"
3
"If Bernie Wins, Where Will He Take the Democratic Party?"
Back to the Democratic Party of FDR, HST, JFK & LBJ? One can only hope...
5
@HapinOregon
None of those real Democrats would want Old Bernie anywhere near them.
Partisanship appears in the folds. Sanders' ideas are called "whacky" or other similar adjectives while they are not challenged for their merits. Bernie supporters are implied to be treacherous, if not infidels, because they might not wholeheartedly give support to another candidate. And finally, Bernie is called "angry" and compated to Trump with nonchalance. But his rallies are exhude hope tolerance and optimism for a better future. None if the hate and violence implied here. It would be nice if the nytimes opinionists tried discussing without prejudice, arguing rationally for their opinions rather than like Hannity on Fox news. Otherwise they will do nothing but help, set up, morally unscathed, the reelection of Trump, ready to blame - guess who- Bernie, whether he gets the nomination or not. Enough with this nonsense!
4
Where would Bernie Sanders take the Democratic Party? Over the edge of a cliff.
2
Giant Meteor Hitting The Earth polled at 13% in 2016 versus Clinton and Trump. That is an indication of how disliked both candidates were and of how many people were unwilling to pull the lever for another Clinton/Obama democrat. Eight years of B. Clinton and Obama (with 8 of Bush between them) turning their backs on working people to fondle Wall Street created the income inequality (The Problem) that, together with principled liberals refusing to vote for four to eight more years of the same, gave us Trump the Symptom. So explain to me, Mr. Edsall, how a candidate who wants every American to have the opportunity to receive an education, medical care and a living wage, is characterized as an extremist?
4
I can’t speak for Edsall, but I just go by these sorts of silly hyperbolic tirades.
The thing is that the Democrats seem blind and deaf to what they are seeing in Iowa. People want the republicans to lose, and are willing to cast a vote that is a shade bluer. They are hinting bigly at centrists. And anyone but Biden. I have no clue why these pundits from big universities seem to have lost the public narrative. Are they so walled off from mainstream America, they are clueless about what ordinary people are reaching out for?
66
@Meena wrote: They are hinting bigly at centrists.
Centrists do not represent a strong base for Sanders. He is to blue for most... including me.
5
@Chuck
The feeling I got was Sanders got hard core fan votes. Buttigieg is the really interesting data point. He represents getting votes from Democrats who vote, but probably also from those hesitant voters who don’t get out to vote and are seriously centrist. So his getting the lead, is far more informative than Sanders predictable followers voting for him. Personally I think we are going to see this happen in all the primaries, but who knows. I plan to vote blue regardless of the nominee.
7
@Meena It's really more of an issue of the way Iowa's caucuses work. Biden didn't make the 15% cut in a lot of places, and those votes walked over to Pete and of course not Bernie, because those were centrist votes not progressive votes. In a primary that wouldn't happen. Sanders won the popular vote in the first stage, which means he would have won a primary.
4
The Democratic Party is not, nor has it ever been, a unified, monolithic party like the Republicans. So you worry about what direction Sanders will take the country, but the question should be how far will the Democrats in the House and Senate allow Sanders (or Warren) to go? I suggest, not that far.
After all, Will Rogers said it best and it's true to this day:
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Count on it.
2
Berine hopes to take us to Venzuela or the Soviet Union.
He's been a vocal supporter of Hugo Chavez policies since the beginning and straight through. From prosperity to starvation. Where is Bernie's remorse?
He's been a vocal admirer of Soviet Russia's system for decades. Decades. No expression of regret or re-thinking. A proud Socialist, despite the clear economic history of the policies he wants to implement.
Truly scary. I don't wish to live in Soviet Russia, nor in socialist/dictatorship Venezuela. No thanks.
Please study economic history.
Please study Bernie's words over the last several decades.
2
@Yes to Progress
Interesting contortion there. Who is the one in Russia's pocket and embracing a decidedly Chavez-style of leadership? Trump, but of course you won't see it.
3
The people making these predictions and pronouncements are completely out of touch! These are the same people who predicted Hillary would be our next president and Donald Trump had zero chance of becoming president!
Both parties have and continue to drift right. The Democratic Party desperately needs the far left counterweight a candidate like Bernie provides to stop the creep right and pull the entire democratic party back to its moderate positions of the past.
3
My worry is if Bernie wins, where will he take the country? I dont want a socialist America. Look at socialist Europe. Look at Cuba. Remember the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic? All disasters, proven in history. Is that where we want to go? To repeat those disasters here in America? If that's where you want to go, then move yourself there and leave America a capitalist, democratic republic. The greatest country on the planet.
72
@bored critic
good point... we don't need an extremist from either side of the spectrum leading the country. No to both Trump AND Bernie. I hope we can nominate a Democratic candidate who will be able to appeal to at least a part of both spectrums. And if not work with the Republicans, at least not be openly hostile to the IDEA of working with them. A hard ideologue like Sanders is not what the situation calls for.
16
@Richard Ralph
" Look at socialist Europe."
I'm looking and their healthcare system is infinitely preferable to our own.
"The greatest country on the planet."
Is this based on our military might or our tax cuts for the rich that allow our 0.1% to continue to horde all the resources while your average American cannot afford a visit to a primary care physician, leading to a spike in the number of ER visits and medical bankruptcies that are killing the middle class in our great nation?
153
@bored critic
I lived in the GDR (albeit in West-Berlin).
And between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, it's possible to see where they want to take this country, and both of them scare me.
12
Sanders is the American Jeremy Corbyn. Outside of New York City and the west side of the I-5 corridor this country is not culturally hard left. If Sander's wins the nomination it will be a replay of 1972. I predict Trump carrying somewhere around 40 states.
1
Biden is the scariest candidate of all for Democrats looking for a winner. Not only is he the male version of the one Trump beat, he has too many visible mental/emotional lapses and just reeks of "old school" thinking and tired incremental solutions. He seems not to understand that there is no "getting along" with this generation of Republicans. None of them are his "friends." There is only go to the mat and make 'em squeal. And to succeed at that, he would need the fired-up, loyal base of activists that Bernie has working through his term. Trump has that and any Democrat that succeeds him would need that also.
5
Give me one example where anyone could walk into a prospective employer yelling about what they need to do to change their business BUT they’ve never had a job there or ANY job prior.
The result would be you’d be asked to leave.
Sanders seems nice but out of control.
Can progressives listen to someone with real results please??
Go Mike!
3
Was Mike the President of the US? I don't remember that. So, why his experience is more relevant than Bernie, who managed to be not only a mayor but a Senator as well.
3
@T
If you haven't noticed, since there is a certain, authoritarian, myopic, "my way or the highway" approach to conducting their affairs, a so-called BILLIONAIRE businessman is hardly Presidential material and Bloomberg is no exception.
1
"Sander’s vulnerabilities, Chait writes, are enormous and untested. No party nomination, with the possible exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964, has put forth a presidential nominee with the level of downside risk exposure as a Sanders-led ticket would bring."
Correction: No party nomination except Donald Trump just four years ago. That pundits and many Democrats make this argument
is terrifying. It means nothing has been learned from Trump's nomination and consequent election. This argument has been killed and buried in 2016.
7
I am a lifelong Democrat, and I will vote for Trump if Sanders is the nominee - and I am not alone in saying that. His quasi-Communist/Socialist views on nationalizing basic industries, a national rent control law (!), and tax policies would be welcome news and endorsed by his Comrades, but it will destroy (as it should) the Democrat Party.
45
@Romeo Salta Bernie will beat donald at his own game; appealing to blue collar, and middle class voters who are being trounced by the wealthy elite, banks and Wall St.
26
@Romeo Salta
So clearly, if Trump is re-elected then you have no problem at all of him emptying the treasury to give MORE tax cuts to his wealthy friends and then when he gives the excuse the deficit is too high and social security, medicare and medicaid are cut, you will be OK with that? You elect him, that will definitely happen, he has already indicated that. In addition, since he took office, 3 MILLION more Americans no longer have health insurance. It is now approaching 30 MILLION and counting. You are also OK with that?
31
@Romeo Salta I come from a family that has lived under 2 Communist governments and had our 100-employee family business taken away by them. My parents had to go to re-education camp. I have friend who come from Cuba, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. We are landlords now as well.
Though I don't agree with Bernie on every policy (which is true of every candidate for me as well), overall, his plan makes sense for me and my family. I find that many people who link Bernie with Communism have no idea what Communism actually is nor have actually lived under a such a regime. Bernie is not asking the state to take over small businesses, nor send people to camps, nor suppressing free speech, nor overturning the rule of law. My parents have visited Scandinavia and they remarked, well aware those countries are Democratic Socialist governments, how great they are.
46
The fix is in. Don't ask me how I know. The Clinton veterans that wrote the Iowa app purposely slowed the results. Look at the code. Sander's people had their own app. DNC now knows, the rest of you should soon. It was in real time, showed 75% of results. If Biden loses in four more contests, he will throw his support to Buttigieg preserving the party (DNC). Watch for this before Super Tuesday.
4
Commenters miss the point when they worry about the consequences of the Sanders/Warren agenda. In the unlikely event that they would be elected, their agenda would never become law because such radical change does not occur in America, let alone in the currently polarized political climate.
Does that mean that it doesn't matter if either one of them would be the Democrat's candidate? Wrong. It matters very much because this country will not elect anyone calling themselves a socialist nor someone like Warren whose agenda is described in the same terms. Democrats cannot win without a large segment of independent voters. Independent voters are now the largest segment of registered voters in America. Few of them are likely to vote for Sanders or Warren.
Most independent voters aren't eligible to vote in the primaries. Their wishes are not being expressed in the primaries and registered Democrats do not seem to be taking them into consideration.
2
@Yellow Dog
What exactly are independent voter wishes and in any case poll after poll now and in 2016 confirmed Sanders won more independents than anyone else including HC.
They must stand for something.
3
@Deus
Too bad polls aren't votes.
I call horse pucky. Example. Did the current winner of the white house appeal to his base or to moderate voters? Horse Pucky.
4
For once this op-Ed writer makes room for competing analysis of electability, which in itself is a very speculative topic.
However, the article lags in one major point: there is no analysis of whether populist-style candidates can bring back more Obama to Trump voters than so-called “moderates”. That is the one point at the core of Sanders (or Warren to a lesser extent) candidacy.
I have heard it all myself: in New York you get to meet a lot of never Trumpers and never Sanders too. But apparently in Michigan or Wisconsin you meet a lot of never Biden and never Clinton, who would however come back for Sanders.
3
We believe Donald Trump wants to run against Bernie Sanders why exactly? Because Donald Trump says so? Seriously? Did it ever occur to those who write articles like this that the reason he says so is precisely to trigger articles like this.
Why not focus on issues instead of personalities? Do we want true universal healthcare with lower per capita costs or a public option which cannot exist without Obamacare which in turn is in imminent danger of being repealed in full. Do we want real reform or a moderate who will be too timid to reverse the damage Donald Trump has done for fear of being blamed if the economy falters?
7
A word of caution—elections are won not on policies but on narratives about the candidate. Can your opponent be framed as a greater danger to voters? Fear drives people to the polls more effectively than any other emotion.
Democrats always make the mistake of putting the cart before the horse because they think reason and logic drive voters. Instead of boxing yourself into specific policies that may be political poison in swing districts, keep it short and vague—Hope and Change, Morning in America, even Make America Great Again. Give the opposition nothing to work with.
There’s also a belief among some Democrats that there is a hidden iceberg of progressive young voters in swing states. This is wishful thinking. In 2018 Democrats won the House by being absolutely cold-eyed about who could win swing districts, which are a great deal more conservative than California or Massachusetts. We nominated and elected centrists, and it worked. Every candidate in swing districts supported by Our Revolution lost, which tells you all you need to know about that imaginary hidden iceberg.
Any Democrat who gets to the WH will sign the legislation that a Democratic Congress passes.
I would like to see Sanders drop out of his Senate race if he’s serious about the presidency. He prevents any other Democrat from running, and his seat would be filled by the Republican governor of Vermont, ensuring GOP control of the Senate, in which case nothing gets done.
Have we learned nothing from 2016? All these pundits and all this analysis means nothing in the end. The entire media universe got it wrong in 2016. So why would the pundits be correct this time? People don’t like being put into ‘categories.’ If the 2016 election taught us anything, it’s that anything can happen.
6
@Mike L
Yes, and especially with the bogus issue of "electability" and who decided who was and wasn't "electable".
I guess it must be repeated, the last two Presidents deemed "not electable" by the so-called "pundits" were Donald Trump and Barack Obama. Also of note, before these primaries even started, the two candidates predicted as coming out of the primaries with the best chance of winning the nomination were Kamala Harris and Beto O'Roarke.
Yep, the "beat goes on", month after month and year after year of election predictions that were wrong and yet, despite all that has happened, some voters still believe there is credibility in these prognostications.
2
I echo the thoughst of Nzema Kotoko below. I am growing increasingly tired of the Conventional Wisdom views (and inside-the-Beltway analysis) of the NY Times Op-Ed writers. Trump was deemed the candidate of Hillary Clinton's dreams back then and the Times (as well as Hillary, sadly) thought she had the election in the bag. The problem is that a Democrat who cannot stand up to Wall Street and the Big Banks is not really a Democrat. Half the country lost its wealth because of a Ponzi Scheme run by the entire financial sector, which got bailed out and pardoned, and then made even more money for itself, while it got massive tax cuts. Meanwhile, our payroll taxes, which are supposed to be used only for Social Security and any excess invested in marketable securities for the future needs of the Social Security fund, now fund over 35% of the federal government and there is no fund of securities to pay future needs. So Trump and mainstream Democrats are talking about cutting Social Security to save it rather than force the uber-wealthy and big corporations and financial institutions to repay what they stole from the vast majority of US citizens. Only Sanders is talking about these issues---and if he wins the nomination, he will talk issues that Trump cannot even grasp. There is a reason why Sanders is consistently outpolling Trump---because he is a better candidate. If the NYT wants to say he has no chance, do so with objective data, not "Conventional Wisdom"
6
@PalestraJon
Thank you!
1
In all the years he has been in the Senate what has Sanders accomplished? Absolutely nothing.
4
He must done something good, otherwise why was he re-elected?
3
Ridiculous.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislative-landmarks
Compare that to Biden:
Biden voted for the Iraq war, supported all regime change wars, promulgated the drug war, promoted his 'Crime bill' that helped build the incarceration state, backed up bailing out Wall Street and not 'main street,' supported getting rid of Glass-Steagall and backed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which led to the 2008 meltdown, loves the 'droneabombers,' once supported segregation and opposed busing, liked NAFTA, likes the death penalty, protected credit card companies, bungled the Anita Hill hearing, loves the Patriot Act and the NSA, is against "Medicare for All," free college and the $15 minimum wage.
1
What did Biden achieve? The crime bill and the Iraq war.
This was the same argument made against Obama in favor of Hillary. How'd that go?
1
As was the case in 2016, it is a good bet that at least half of the professed Sanders "supporters" on this comment board are not bonafide Sanders supporters at all, but are GOP and foreign trolls using Sanders as a wedge to divide the Democratic party.
Even Trump himself enjoys playing the Bernie game, trolling Democrats with his constant "Bernie is being robbed by the DNC" tweets.
Trump has to be greatly enjoying this spectacle.
1
It is not Reps, it is the moderate Dems who are dividing party by openly trying to block Sanders nomination, despite the significant support of Bernie inside of party.
3
Interesting article. There is a segment of the Democratic base that has not been polled. That is, the over 60 as myself who still hold Sanders in part responsible for Hillary's defeat. I have never voted Republican in my life and never will. I would rather stay home in November than voting for Sanders if he is the nominee. And if Trump wins again, so be it!
3
In this case you can not blame Bernie's supporters for Trump. Why should they vote for Hillary, if you are not willing vote for Sanders?
3
@Dr. Jaime S. Huertas Otero
Hillary and the DNC were the reasons why they couldn't beat the candidate with the worst approval rating in history, not Sanders and that baseless argument and constant "state of denial" of what really happened and why is getting tiresome.
@Dr. Jaime S. Huertas Otero If you do, it's because you aren't concerned with the facts. Bernie did rallies for her, and was the good soldier despite the fact that the DNC rigged the system to ensure her nomination despite her obvious political weaknesses. Hillary lost the election by campaign malpractice---thinking she had it in the bag rather than campaigning in the Blue Wall states where the polls showed she was weakening. Obama went to places where his image was hanged in effigy and won some votes. Had Hillary done that, she would have won easily.
So some 7 million voters went for third party candidates, more than enough to make Clinton president. What makes you so certain that they would have voted for her? The number of voters that went for the Libertarian was three times the number that voted for the Green party candidate.
Stein’s supporters would have mostly either voted for Clinton or not voted at all if she were not on the ballot, but I think the same could be said for Johnson’s supporters, except that it would have been Trump who would have been the beneficiary.
1
Bernie is not a Democrat, he is an Independent running as a Democrat. This is an important distinction because he is not about the corporate donors and games that run rampant in both the DNC and RNC and their establishment "frontrunners". It's not about where he will take the party. The voters on the left are already overwhelmingly interested in major change. It's the media and the establishment that are scared of that change. He's about America and Americans and getting us an equitable future.
4
Most of the African Americans I know, unless they are gay, are extremely homophobic. It’s based for the most part on their religious upbringing. Pete will not do well with them and South Carolina show that.
1
Sad to say, down the loo.
1
Extremist nominees do poorly in general elections? What would you call Trump? Establishment nominees are also vulnerable, and Biden’s liabilities may be as great as Sanders’s (you can be sure that the right-wing propaganda machine will savage whoever the Democrats nominate).
6
Sanders absolutely can't win in November. Not only is he waaaaay too extreme for mainstream America but he's also too old for this demanding job and not in good health. If the Democrats nominate him, it will be a complete disaster! Every vote for Sanders is really a vote to re-elect Trump.
2
I know Americans are challenged with math and analytical skills, but can you not read polling data?
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own FACTS.
3
Dems tried the moderate candidate in 2016, they lost everything to the guy who was 'too extreme for Americans'.
3
@yulia
The MSM, DNC and HC said over and over, because he is a terrible person and so are his supporters, there was no way he was going to be elected.
Where will Sanders "take the Democratic Party?" He will take them to a big, Jeremy Corbyn-style loss in November, that's where. And for the same reasons. Corbyn was ahead in polls early but in the end lost huge because, despite general dislike for Boris and strong anti-BREXIT sentiment, most rational people don't vote for Socialism when the chips are down. Right now, only 1/2 of Dems support the Socialistic-wing of the Dems. Just think how few Independents will!!!!
1
Where were the moderates in the last UK election? nowhere to be found. Apparently, the moderates are destined to die out.
2
Apples and oranges.
Corbyn was brought down by the rabid Zionist lobby and their smear campaign against him.
2
@Roy P
Apples and oranges. For one thing the labor party in the UK has been around for decades and there is always ups and downs in parties political fortunes.
There has never been anything resembling a real left of center party in America so the UK comparison is irrelevant. For one thing, it could just be, America has the lowest voter turnout of any of the western industrialized nations simply because the voter really doesn't have much of a choice.
1
You can rest easy, Bernie will not win.
Even if he had the majority he still would not win. Even if there was no one else but him and Biden, we would still lose.
The DNC will never allow a Bernie win. My guess is they let him run in hopes they could then sweep up his people as Warren gained momentum. Warren already deflated when she lied about the whole sexism scandal, and the Bernie people are still miffed over Hillary, and are watching in horror as the DNC does a repeat of 2016.
He's not the pet of the DNC, that one is Biden. Therefore they will never allow him to win.
2
Sanders is supposed to be radical. Since when is Medicare radical? Do you know of any old people that turned it down when they became eligible? I thought not. FDR created Social Security and Trump wants to damage SS and damage Medicare along with it so he can give more tax breaks to the most well off, himself included. Should older people be terrified of Bernie and vote for Trump? Well, they got a big dose of McCarthy years ago but if Republicans attack Sanders as a Socialist or Commie he can counter with the Trump-Putin bromance at Helsinki, for example.
The scaremongerers on Sanders are Establishment Democrats who turned right under Bill Clinton and got comfortable with corporatism and were in charge as the money started flowing upward. Sanders and his rejection of PACs and Big Donors and his passion for Medicare for All (originally championed by Dean when he was running the DNC) contradicts Clintonomics (neoliberalism). Sanders got cheered at a Fox Town Hall for his presentation of Medicare for All - why? He courts angry voters by offering specific help while Trump courts them by offering to trash to those who despise them. Establishment Dems should practice what they preach and do moderation and centrism with Bernie instead of Trump.
10
The Democratic Party is corrupt.
As a private organization, they can name whomever they like as their nominee, regardless of who gets the most votes.
But if the party rejects Bernie yet again after he proves himself to be the strongest candidate against Trump, with the most ability to build a broad coalition of the general electorate, the party will shatter.
It will lose two generations, and even ring false to party loyalists who’ve been told for four years that nothing is more important than getting Trump out of office.
One way or the other, the Democratic Party will be transformed, and Bernie is pretty honest and open about the Party needing to drastically change.
The same centrist/corporate Democratic hacks who've been warning us for three years that Russia aims to undermine confidence in our elections have done just that in one night in Iowa.
So a Buttigieg supporter gets an opinion poll pulled showing he was coming third. PeteTheCheat gives a speech declaring victory with zero precincts reported, gives another declaring victory with 62% reported and you say people shouldn't get cynical?
I guess so long as the DNC aren't all wearing their Grand Wizard insignia openly, everything must be fine.
When a criminal party, running corporate-stooge neocon war mongers, has a history of blatantly sabotaging certain other candidates supposedly running under its banner, in favor of its chosen, viciously corrupt losers, its not voter cynicism that is in play.
It’s common sense.
7
@Chris
One has to wonder who is the REAL threat to democrats and democracy in America? I am beginning to think that as much as Trump and the Republicans are a large part of that threat, one cannot ignore the very real fact that in "ganging up" on Sanders with attack ads against him hardly before the primaries even started, it is the corporate/establishment wing of the party that does not take a back seat at all to ignoring the will of their own voters and democracy itself, all implemented for the sole purpose of maintaining the "status quo". The bogus argument that he is too old and cannot beat Trump is just a smokescreen for the REAL reason of them terrified that he CAN actually beat Trump.
If one is a real democrat and regardless of who you support, you must realize that a party that engages in such activity even against it own candidates, cannot continue to exist, it must be changed or it will implode.
5
First it is was Obama, which was, presumably, a bit earlier than what America was ready for, so we get Donald Trump as an extreme opposite in the next presidency.
Now, you seriously want to elect Bernie Sanders, an outright socialist, who day-dream about the "amazing old days" of the Soviet Union!!!
You know what, I am not worried of getting him winning the nomination or even the election, the congress will go to the Republicans the next day and he won't stand a chance to pass any legislative agenda.
I am worried of who will be the next republican president after him, I can't imagine someone who is more extreme than both Sanders and Trump combined!!
2
@Tamer Labib Which of these 75 do you wish to get rid of? https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America
Black voters in the South will be useless to the Democratic Party in November's election — unless they can swing NC and FL. They probably can't.
So the important black voters for Democrats are in the Midwest. There are 45 million black people in the US and they don't all think alike.
It's a nuance, but a very important one.
Black voters in the South and Black voters in the Midwestern Swing states have big cultural differences and differences in their political views and perspectives on the nation's politics.
Country people and City People understand power and it's repercussions on their lives differently.
The voters the Democrats need to turn out in droves are in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland etc.
Time for all of the Democratic candidates to have an urban policy. Also time to stop pretending that delegates from red states matter a whole lot. Sorry but they don't now. Maybe in the future when the President is elected by popular vote, but not now.
2
@Arthur
First of all, no voter is "useless", regardless of whatever state they're in.
And after everything Blacks have had to go through to gain that right, and often still have to go through --their vote matters.
It is so sad, this future demonization of Sanders that will make him a mere footnote in history. Funny thing, though. Sanders has been running as a socialist in 2016 and now. It is almost as though he is quite open about the issues that Edsall quakes about. Funny, too, that Edsell doesn't mention what Sanders is running against - the decimation of obamacare and medicare, promised by Trump. But why report on that when the obvious thing is: Sanders is a demon!
I'm definitely enjoying the New York Times opinion page worldview being knocked askew. About time for a little disruption.
3
From this article:
"If Sanders wins New Hampshire, there will almost certainly be an establishment-led drive to block him from the nomination."
Agreed, and I'm glad a respected NY Times journalist clearly said so. Is it still paranoia if they really are trying to get you?
3
I wouldn't vote for Sanders under any circumstances. Nor Trump. This is appalling.
4
We can see what a "great" job republicans did through years, fooling their voters. they managed to spread the "red scare" among many of socialism, communism, etc...
Their propaganda was against countries like Russia,( they love Russia now) Venezuela, China, Turkey, North Korea, Zimbabwe any country that was proclaimed Socialistic or else...
Well the truth is none of them are, these types of countries all ruled by Dictators, Authoritarians, Tyrants, Despots.
They called Oligarchies!!!
I came from Soviet Union, it had nothing to do with socialism, it was and is blatant criminal plutocracy.
"Plutocracy means ‘rule by the wealthy.’ It’s when a small group consisting of the wealthiest people in a society rule by virtue of their wealth.
Plutocracy is a self-reinforcing system. That is, once a group of wealthy people are in charge, they can use their wealth and political power to change the rules (laws and systems) to make sure that they only get more wealth and power, never less." Sounds familiar.
Have you heard any complaints from Denmark, Norway, Finland, etc...
Is what they have is so radical and extreme?
Not in my view considering how expensive life in US.
They all pay higher taxes, they are proud to support this clearly more just and humane way of life.
BTW, South Korea was rated as the fourth most efficient healthcare system by Bloomberg.
Let's learn from all of them!
5
Will you refuse to vote if your preferred candidate doesn't become our nominee?
Oh, so you're good with His Royal Malignancy, then.
Because that's what we'll have if we don't unite behind whoever wins the primaries.
This is not the year to stomp your lil foot and stick out your lower lip and refuse to vote for the one candidate who can stop this nightmare--whoever that candidate may be.
Given that the overwhelming majority of Bernie primary voters in 2016 went on to vote for Hillary--including our household--it is insulting to paint all Bernie voters as "Bernie Bros."
Moreover, Hillary's recent attempt to undermine Sanders was ugly and damaging; she and other establishment Dems need to stifle themselves and let the process play out or risk backlash.
Both factions will need to be gracious if their preferred candidate does not get the majority.
Or do you prefer to be like Turnip, who will accept the results of the vote only if he wins?
4
"but in the past he has also argued for nationalization of the energy industry, [aso.]"
Would it have killed Mr. Edsall to have written
"but more than fifty years ago he also argued for nationalization of the energy industry, [aso.]" ?
Probably not, but it might have kicked the legs out from under his argument.
1
Not one mention of Mike Bloomberg in this entire piece--which renders any points here either irrelevant or woefully uninformed. Any evaluation of the democratic ticket and direction of the party must address Bloomberg.
2
Since the Times is committed to running Thomas Edsall's pieces scaring people about candidates who doesn't express fealty to the rich and powerful, it really ought give regular, equal time to an opinonista to explain that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren aren't radicals, they simply want the primary focus of our government to be on how to make life better for ALL its citizens, not just the rich and powerful.
171
@Hal Beck
Exactly, just the same as when Hillary was running. The answer to the question of this article: anywhere is better than where we are right now, the party can't even count votes! The party wants to eliminate Sanders/Warren, and will try to do the same with AOC/Abrams when their time comes; they still think that the "center" will takes us to a better shore, and that is why they are pushing "mayor Pete"; they think that the mayor will calm the rich wing of the party. They will use all their weapons, including Hillary, I hope that some day H could/would understand that she was a bad candidate and that she will not be president, and move on. In the meantime we will have 4 more years of trump. Lots of work to do.
9
@Hal Beck
If anyone seems "scared" it's you and all those who can't bear the fact that many voters just don't want to vote for Sanders or like myself, are still undecided.
And just because one may not be "for" Sanders -- that doesn't mean one is necessarily "against" him.
Let the voters decide for themselves!
9
@Hal Beck
You've shared nothing more than the same tired tropes coming out of the progressive left ever since people in and out of the Democratic party started pushing back. Please explain how the other Democratic candidates have expressed fealty to the rich and powerful? If you read the Times every day you'd know that there have been plenty of op-eds in support of Sanders and Warren.
The only thing you prove with this post is that Sanders supporters are just as reactionary, fearful and angry as Trump supporters.
12
I am a lifelong democrat, and I have never approved of Bernie Sanders, a socialist independent, being allowed to run on the democratic presidential ticket. This is a mistake on the part of the party that should have been rectified after his throwing a monkey wrench into the 2016 election. As far as I'm concerned, any attempts the DNC make to get him off the ticket are fine. He and his cranky supporters can form their own party.
3
@Jack
I am wondering as to who you believe are REAL democrats, I always assumed they were NOT republicans.
Joe Manchin(D. W. Virginia)was the only democrat who supported Brett Cavanaugh for the SC, and stated if Sanders was the nominee he would vote for Trump, is he a real democrat?
Jeff VanDrew left the democrats and immediately went to join DT strictly because he did not like the fact the party was attempting to impeach Trump,was he a real democrat?
Henry Cuellar(d. Cal.)has voted for over 80% of Trump's initiatives so is he a real democrat?
If that is the case, give me the guy with real old style "democratic" policies with the (I) behind his name any day over the ones listed above.
2
@Deus There was nothing 'socialist' about the old style democratic policies. They were moderate. A real democrat works with the national party on strategy and on getting out the vote, not on splitting it. A real democrat cooperates with fellow democrats and reaches consensus. Any of that sound like Sanders?
2
The best thing the DNC can do is sit back and let this play out without stirring the pot like they did in 2016.
Have you seen #BernieOrBurnItDown? This hashtag is spreading like wildfire on social media and obviously by the likes of Bernie's supporters. With that said, if the DNC decides to intercede, this threat may just hand Trump his second term.
51
@OM2017 The DNC is already stirring the pot: rule changes for Bloomberg, fuzzying Iowa results. They're just getting warmed up.
Do nothing and Bernie rises and Trump wins. Do something and then Bernie falls, the Dem candidate loses BernieBot votes and Trump wins.
5
@OM2017 No one stirred the pot in 2016 except for the intruder, Bernie. With his withering attacks on Hillary, he soured enough people on her so they they refused to vote for her. It was plenty to change the minds of the 80,000 people in three Northwestern States and hand the election to a criminal.
2
@OM2017
I would urge caution in believing anything you see on social media. It is a cesspool of disinformation. What you attribute to Sanders supporters may be Russians or Republicans trying to promote division within the Democratic ranks. Both are actively attempting to do so.
Believing what you see online is folly. Either do not go on social media or go only with the intent of using critical thinking skills.
Ask yourself if the source is credible.
Ask if you truly know who is doing the posting.
Ask what groups might have an interest in promoting division.
Ask if you are somehow playing into that narrative.
Ask if you have checked out the claims using the best available information.
Ask if you are biased and could someone weaponize that against us all.
Ask if you have gone to the candidate's site to read their statements and make your own choices.
If this is too much to ask, just stop believing and visiting online sites. You are every bit as likely to be mislead as not.
3
While Sanders and Warren offer very attractive alternatives to rapacious Republicans, I fear that Bernie would do for the Democratic Party what Jeremy Corbyn has done for the British Labor Party.
3
I tire of the weak talking point that "a good share of Bernie voters went for Trump in 2016"--in fact, it was 16%, compared to the 23% of 2008 Clinton primary voters that went for McCain. Historically, 16% is a "low-flip" percentage--and those voters were just as likely Republican voters dipping into the Dem primary to challenge Clinton as they were "Bernie diehards"--perhaps even more likely. Left usually votes as left as "viably possible." His proposals, especially once compromised through congress, simply won't be that "radical," and I fail to understand why Warren is seen as a more mainstream candidate despite the fact that nearly all of her policies are the same or similar. All of the elections aside in my adult life (since 2000) aside from Obama had the Democrats running an uninspiring establishment candidate that never seems to "bring it home." Can't we try something different for 4 years?
5
It's a weak talking point because it's all they have. They cannot rely on telling us why their candidate is best because they don't have a best candidate.
The thing about Clinton voters who refused to vote for Obama is -- OBAMA WON ANYWAY.
It can be done.
2
Sanders is not as far left as the Green Party. I would say politically he is closer to the Democratic than to the Green Party although I believe many of his supporters are closer to the Green Party in their views. The man danger with Sanders is that if he wins the party will keep moving toward the extreme left in the way the Republicans have gradually moved to the extreme right. On both the left and right status is gained by taking extreme positions and status is lost by being willing to compromise. There is already a move among progressive Democrats to run candidates in primaries against any Democrat who can't pass their litmus tests. If things kept going left we could wind up with a Democratic Party that wants to have the means of production controlled by the government or workers.
1
@Bob
Litmus tests? What kind of litmus test?
You mean we want our candidates to represent our interests? Heck yes.
4
When Sanders wins the presidency, he will take the Democratic Party where is should have been since it betrayed the people in favor of Wall Street and multinational corporations.
12
A Sanders presidency would force moderates and centrists to retake the Republican party from the authoritarian right.
I think that would make a better America-- to have a competition between Social Democracy and Liberalism that tacts a bit to the left. That's better than to have a competition between Neo-Liberalism and an authoritarian Right that ultimately explodes into Fascism because that combination of forces cannot solve anything democratically.
6
@Michael Milligan
Finally many democrats are getting tired of only having the "lesser of two evils" as their option. It has been a losing proposition anyway.
2
Bernie did very well in Iowa while Biden did poorly. Bernie is likely to win New Hampshire and to do well in South Carolina. Political consultants call this momentum.
Many Biden supporters are giving up on him and turning to Mike Bloomberg, a brilliant, billionaire technocrat. Right after the results came out in Iowa, he said he would double the vast amount of money he has already committed to his campaign. Biden won't drop out, so the conservative Democratic vote will be split between him and Bloomberg. If Warren doesn't do well in New Hampshire, she may drop out and throw her support to Bernie.
Polls have shown that in a free and fair election (fingers crossed) any Democrat could beat Trump. But even if Bernie should lose, his movement will continue. If conditions become worse in America, it will grow. His policies are ahead of our time, but over the next 5-10 years, the country will catch up.
7
What is being implied by so many trying to run down Sanders and Warren is that those people and the DEM establishment are opposed to what the rank and file Democrats want.
And that is because they are no wealthy like the republicans whom have bought and conned them into thinking republican economic ideas are good.
3
@magicisnotreal
That should sah "now wealthy" not no wealthy
It is not possible to know in advance who is capable of beating Donald Trump. Studying past voting trends and making predictions is analogous to looking at a stocks past performance and stating that you can predict how it will perform next year. I urge the DNC to keep in mind that Donald Trump has several considerable advantages over each of the potential candidates seeking the nomination. 1) His "base" no elaboration needed. 2) Experience. He can now claim 4 years of experience at the highest levels of government. 3) Courage. He can now claim he stood up to and survived what he refers to as the outrageous behavior of the "Dems".
The only way to beat Trump is to make sure every registered Democrat votes on Election day. Sanders, Mayor Peter, Klobuchar, Warren, Biden, Yang, Bloomberg, etc are all worthy candidates. The DNC has no business consulting the oracles and thinking they can pick a winner. The mere attempt to do so will only tilt the election toward Donald Trump
3
@Victor Parker
I believe it is also important to realize that the Trump of 2016 is not the Trump of 2020. He now has a record and baggage. and although his base will continue to support him , no matter what, for starters, all the democratic nominee would have to do is refer to Robert Reisch's list of 30 promises that Trump never kept.
As a European I think it is very interesting to see a FDR democrat run. I hope the American people, after all these years of economic anxiety, can enjoy the benefits of one of the most succesful post-war government programs. People have needs and it is up to the government to meet those demands. The US would be one step closer to government by the people, for the people.
7
As a European I think it is very interesting to see a FDR democrat run. I hope the American people, after all these years of economic anxiety, can enjoy the benefits of one of the most succesful post-war government programs. People have needs and it is up to the government to meet those demands. The US would be one step closer to government by the people, for the people.
1
Why do I get the feeling that all this analyzing of past elections is simply missing the biggest truth out there - that Trumps election in 2016 represents a new era in politics.
Whether it's Trump or Bernie, there is a frustration out there that the traditional "centrist" candidates no longer can alleviate. This country is at an inflection point where we have to fundamentally & structurally change our way of doing business if we are to move forward. The political pendulum swings approximately every 40 years and it's in the process of swinging again. The moneyed status quo is doing it's best to hang on to the last era of corporate interests first with politicians that talk a good game but walk to the Wall Street (and Silicon Valley) beat.
The bottom 80% in this country realize that they are rarely considered in policy agendas anymore and are screaming to heard. Trump was a desperate grasp at change, which is the lasting tragedy of this era because he used that desperation for his own selfish ends.
Bottom line, Bernie has tapped into that energy for something fundamentally different from the moneyed status quo. This new era is here whether the DNC likes it or not. They may stifle Bernie again, but the change is underway regardless...
6
@Bill
Well said-- I agree. So much of politics is knowing where we are in history.
We may very well get sacked with another 4 years of Trump because there is so much corruption in the DNC.
3
@Mel
Unfortunately, a party that became too obsessed with prioritizing the collection of money over winning elections.
2
Also, please note that (with the results we have so far) the three leading moderate/liberal candidates (Pete, Klobuchar, Biden) had around 55% while Sanders & Warren had around 45% (and Warren is attractive to a lot of us who like many progressive ideas but also want to win the Electoral College this time). This isn't a "plot" by "the establishment" - it's voters indicating what they want.
4
@Baxter Jones
What is your point? Each candidate has their own specific pros and cons otherwise there would only be one centrist candidate and the reality is, only ONE can be the nominee and if we were to carry your analogy forward, if Sanders were the only progressive nominee, he would be running away in the lead in the polls and ultimately most of the primaries. Donald Trump faced 17 other candidates ALL establishment types whom he eventually defeated and who fell by the wayside in the primaries.
You forget that, unlike the others you name, neither Sanders nor Warren accept campaign donations from super pacs and lobbyists, yet, they are continually at or near the top in total donations. Ultimately, no matter the candidate, they will win or lose on their policies, not labels.
1
Where will he take it? Exactly where he has said he will for his entire adult life. Bernie is many things, including an absolute straight shooter, honest, and transparent.
Is there really any question about what he intends? Why? He's been crystal clear about this beliefs and policies, ones our nation would benefit greatly from.
Is he perfect? No, of course not. None of us are (which is why we need to do away with the insane purity tests) but even the points I disagree with him on I can know because he's been honest about them (like his lack of leadership on gun control).
At this point, having someone who speaks the truth and bases his statements on fact and logic would be such a welcome relief that it would be intoxicating. I could weep for the relief of hearing grammatically correct sentences that actually mean something real and truthful.
-----------
To be clear, I have not yet chosen a candidate, but would welcome any of those running.
6
Seems to me Sanders can win only if the economy tanks or Trump does something to push away moderate Republicans and/or independent centrists who might well vote for Bloomberg or Kolochbarer or evan Biden if the election was held today.
1
Where was any of this criticism in 2016. NYTimes didn’t care. No one cared. Too much time and fun trashing Hillary Clinton. The great and totally cathartic blood sport of destroying Clinton. Why is this always diverted st Democrats?
4
@BillC
In 2016, imho, the NYT was busy trying to be fair, trying to pretend Trump and Hillary were equal.
Why aren't women being given their props here?
Liz is everything that Bernie is and so much more..... and Amy is far stronger than Joe....
But nominating a cranky, nose-picking, socialist loner is just effn dumb. If he were, by some bizarre twist, to get elected, he would accomplish nothing.
And Pete? Please...…
I see misogyny at work here....
I get that Liz has a few minor negatives. But AMY ???? What's not to love ?
2
I love watching folks (including everyone at the NY Times) froth at the mouth at the prospect of President Sanders.
7
@Sherif
You have to hand it to Sanders and in so many ways he reminds us of FDR although a man of means himself, when attempting to implement his New Deal and Republicans and the establishment were attacking him from all sides, he stated quite unequivocally, "I welcome their hatred".
Sanders has carried that one step further in implementing his "long and distinguished anti-donors" list, a list of those people and institutions whom, if nothing else, confirm they only care about themselves and not America.
2
OMG, when will the Times stop venting these nonsense tirades from hand-wringing corporate dems? I'm not even a Sanders supporter and it comes off as a hachet job.
9
I smell a repeat of the NYT’s 2016 hatchet job on Bernie. I’d hoped everyone, including the editors of this paper would have learned their lesson last time around. Let the voters decide who the candidate should be, and encourage every eligible voter to vote for whomever runs against the disgrace currently in the White House.
7
@Dave Alexander
In 2016,the corporate/establishment media tried to hide the obvious notion about their inherent bias in their reporting and who they did and did not support. What is startling is this time around in in 2019/2020, they are STILL blind to their bias but, they are also blind to the fact that a lot of people are now "on to them'.
2
You don't think that perverting foreign policy to persecute innocent Americans so that you can personally benefit doesn't rise to the level of "high crime"? If that's your argument, your career should die defending it.
First
1
Golly gee, another NYTimes article calling Sanders an extremist. Because he's proposing Canadian style health care, less money wasted on Defense contractors, higher wages for the poor and higher taxes on the wealthy.
I have zero respect left for the Times. You are nothing but a bullhorn for the 1%.
11
Forward.
1
Regardless of who between Buttigieg and Sanders "won" Iowa, the big lesson from this first poll is the following: Biden. Not only he didn't win as all polls indicated that we would, but he is trailing far behind.
I am not here to give an explanation, but in my opinion this would be a good thing if Biden could fade away rapidly. By failing to address the alledged corruption regarding his son, he is beyond being damaged good for the general election. He would be pounded to oblivion about it.
The DNC will probably realize this after NH if Biden doesnt do well, and put all his chips behind Buttigieg, Klobuchar or Bloomberg.
Anything not to scare away the big donnors.
3
@thomasbw
Agree. He is frail and wan. Looks worse every day. Should step aside. His wife should see to that.
3
Bernie is a Dead-End.
2
Look, today's smack talk about Bernie, and the comment picks include a reader who's sure he'll turn the United States into Cuba. What newspaper is this?
8
Anyone else notice the tremendous LACK of overlap between the Reader Picks and the NYT Picks?
There is a huge disconnect between the NY Times and its readers when it comes to Bernie Sanders.
Why is the NYT so anti-Sanders?
5
@Eddie
Why? Ownership of media/Oligarchs.
The road to hell ,as has often been said, is paved with good intentions. Trump and his supporters are the best evidence of the truth of that aphorism.
The dimocrats are already in the sewer so Bernie can hardly do any more harm
I've been a Tom Edsall fan for well over a decade. I've read his work for many years more than that. After reading his column today, that's no longer true. (Jonathan Chait as a primary reference in an Edsall column? Seriously?) I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I've worked professionally in 25+ campaigns, from White House to New York City Council races. I could go on ad infinitum about this, but I won't.
I'm stating this after watching 24 hours of hype about Pete Buttigieg on CNN, and we don't know who won the election in Iowa yet! Bernie Sanders' biggest threat isn't Donald Trump. In fact, it's not even the Democratic Party (although they're close second). It's the mainstream media.
Bernie Sanders with Liz Warren serving as both Vice President and Treasury Secretary, concurrently, would be the most powerful liberal Democratic ticket in U.S. presidential history.
What the hell has happened to the media in this county?
9
@Robert Swern Why is Chait so compromised? Is he off base in his analysis of the 2018 results? He comes off as someone who would Sanders if he thought Sanders could win.
1
@Mike How long have you followed Chait's work? For well over a decade, he's been a third-rate poster boy for the status quo/centrist and center-right media wing(s) of the Democratic Party. Chait's batting record is impeccable in this regard.
1
I despise Bernie Bros. They're unreliable, egotists, intolerant of others, elite in their own sad minds, and it is a statistical reality they gave us Donald Trump: their perfect tantrum
(In the three states "unexpectedly" going for Trump, The Bros registered spite votes for Trump totaling over double his margin of victory. It wasn't that Hillary's campaign sucked (which it did), it was that The Bros sucked. Thanks, Bros.)
I'm not thrilled with Bern for the same reason. As a candidate, he sucks.
You have the same problem, Thomas. You think the issue is Democrat centrists (we call them Republicans) who ran our party into the ground through what they pretended was an abundance of caution but was really abhorrence for liberal politics.
The issue is not Bernie's politics or AOCs steamin' hot Tokyo Rosiness for the Communists, I mean Socialists, or them damn furinners they let into our gubment.
The problem is Bernie: despite championing policies that address and relieve every major bitch from those who languish in what they themselves style flyover country (its good to be neglected by those you hate), he cannot bring himself to simmer down, can the resentment, talk to people like they matter more than their position in his theory of the USA.
Bernie has it all, but he's the suckiest candidate since, oh, Hillary.
What we can't do is return to mealy-mouthed centrism that cost us the White House to begin with.
That, and no black candidates...or women...or black women.
2
Students should take great care in following Edsall's standard approach in this piece. Much as students can admire his long email list and the willingness of so many political scientists to fill his inbox with answers to his topics, there's not much depth in this piece. Students would do well to follow Edsall's leads to get to the original source material. There's just too much chop in this ocean of thought. Edsall asks an important question, but students must do their own exploring if they're to reach the top of the class.
1
Richard North Patterson seems far sharper in his view that Sanders would be the Democrats waking nightmare than Vox's naive Yglesias' opinion that Sanders has been an effective legislator. I cannot imagine any scenario where I could support Sanders anymore than I can envision ever voting for Trump. I suspect most Democrats feel this way.
1
Corporate Democrats effort to defeat Warren are reasons of the Sander's surge. Their efforts to elevate their candidates Biden,or Buttigieg unacceptable to non-white voters, or a lackluster Klobuchar by attacking her elevated Buttigieg and Sanders. However what is clear is that Biden is unacceptable to the voters under 40, the future of the party.
If Democrats believe Sanders is unacceptable and Buttigiege is unelectable, they must coalesce around Warren. If not, they will fragment the party and lose the election. Warren has shown that she is more flexible than Bernie yet she will keep many her principles that is acceptable to his voters.
Warren's current problem is that she is not homing in on why she wants to the president, yet I believe she has the best message for America of both the right and left, some which Trump used to win. Which is the revolving door of politicians and lobbyists means no equitable policy can ever be implemented against their wishes examples the fight to kill Obamacare, or fight global warming, etc.
She can point out that Trump's acquittal is because GOP donors, having tax cuts, deregulation etc. don't want him to go. Unfortunately, her camp is bungling her main message which is to fix this rigged system which will resonate to even GOP voter. Forget Medicare for all, or student loans, etc. and say any proposal is useless without curtailing corporate money with her initial policy proposal. Mainstream democrats needs to help her in messaging.
1
Another fancy way of saying, "Don't go too far left." There have been a litany of these op-eds by opinion-makers this year, even while our climate is in crisis (something that Sanders' policies would actually fix, unlike those of centrist candidates), and even as a majority of Americans say that they support Medicare for All. Please understood that Sanders is a co-frontrunner for the Democratic nomination because we, ordinary working class Americans outside of the Acela corridor, like the policy agenda that he is offering.
2
Here is a cherry-picking of opinions of some academics and democratic establishment elites who do not like Sanders mainly because of his anti-corporate and anti-elite agenda. This includes the news media, which,despite its superficial objectivity, is after all corporate owned.
Now, how do the experts cited here, explain that Sanders beats Trump in national polls. These are the only polls that everyone is looking at . No one has any other crystal ball.
Also, Was not Trump at fringe candidate in 2016. Republican establishment was against him. He was also an extreme candidate, in a sense similar to Sanders. but with an agenda with enough popular appeal to give him a win.
To defeat Trump Dems need a strongest possible Anti-Trump with a popular appeal to neutralize Trump's appeal and expose the fraud he is. Is Biden or Warren or any other such a candidate? No.
All depends on how Sanders take the fight with Trump when on the stump. Answer a brick with two, No niceties of any kind will work against Trump,
3
Where would Bernie take the Democratic Party? I won't matter because his nomination will mean the re-election of Donald J Trump. Sanders is not a Democrat, but an Independent who sides with Democrats on legislation. To say he is a Democrat Socialist is a misnomer. He is a socialist in whatever way you define it, an extreme faction of a mainstream party much like the Tea Party is in the Republican Party.
This country seems hellbent on going with either extreme meaning nothing will get accomplished. Compromise means meeting in the middle to accomplish anything unless you have one-party rule. Personally, I don't want Sanders in the White House any more than I do Trump, or any Republican for that matter. Unlike Nicolle Wallace, of MSNBC, I am not sure I could vote for Sanders in a battle with Trump.
If Sanders prevails, let's see him get anything through Congress as long as the GOP maintains its grip on the Senate. It will be total obstruction as it was with Obama. People, as well as the media, seem to be forgetting that minor detail. A president who is a Democrat, without total party control of Congress, will get nothing done outside of executive orders. Is that how we want things done these days? No other recourse when confronted with the 'my way or the highway' Republicans. Good luck with that.
2
Where will the Democratic Party go if Bernie wins? Back to where it was prior to the money interests buying legislation that benefits the already rich and powerful at the expense of working people. Where will the party go? Back where it should be: promoting for the general welfare and not just the extremely wealthy. Go Bernie!
6
@Sue Salvesen May the spirit of George McGovern live!
Too extreme? Many pundits said that about Trump.
I suspect the author is out of touch with ordinary working people.
9
When are these centrists going to come out of their comfortable bubbles, leave the dark ages? And enough spreading fears about so called Bernie extremism!! Leave that to Trump, the ex KGB Putin and Russian oligarch lover (money laundering), who is calling Bernie a Communist! Most of Bernie's positions are not anymore extremist than those of Angela Merkel; a member of the German CONSERVATIVE Christian Democratic Union. The centrist Dem. leadership is not just illiberal,it is a regressive force that got their party to kiss up to Wall Street, abandon workers and labor unions. Bill Clinton could have easily been labeled a Republican. Obama never delivered any radical change! These "don't rock the boat Dems" fans of Goldman Sachs is what got us Trump in the first place! Why? The Dems have been, and still are, misreading the minds of Americans who are tired of the status quo! We need affordable healthcare, subsidized daycare, affordable college education. For the moment, it is a good thing there are lots of jobs because it takes middle class people two or three of them to support their families! It is also time to get people earning over 200K+ a year to pay their fair share of taxes. To have relatively wealthy people who already contribute less tax revenue to the economy than fast food workers is unconscionable! We have had centrism since the seventies and it has not worked well!! Time to evolve! Evolving is not a form of extremism!
3
If Bernie wins the nomination, we're looking at 4 more years of Trump.
5
Interesting...an entire article about sanders, but hardly a mention of how the Bloomberg candidacy can upset the apple cart of this linear narrative.
3
@Ag
Yes! Bloomberg for President!
Good running mates: Eric Swalwell; Michael Steele; Steve Schmidt.
He should invite all other Democratic candidates to join his cabinet. Now. Today. Ask them to choose the positions they would like and to outline their plans for hitting the ground running.
Trump said at a recent interview (Super Bowl? I cannot watch him and would switch channel whenever I see him. So I skipped the last three State of Union speeches) that Bernie wedded at the Red Square and honeymooned in Moscow? I knew Bernie said a lot of good things about Castro and Cuba, but his Moscow honeymoon story is new to me.
Is this true? I do not believe Trump given how many lies he has told. Since there are a lot of Bernie people here, can you guys confirm this story? Thanks.
If true, do you guys honestly believe that Bernie can win in November? Do not play fire.
3
@RM
Trump attended a party where underaged girls were being trafficked, and yet he was elected. A Moscow honeymoon pales in comparison.
6
Unless he becomes trump 2, he’ll just be forced right of left to get anything done.
It’s time this columnist and his peers get over their panic about Sanders. His proposed policies are hardly radical. They are what many (most?) Americans want.
4
“If Bernie Wins, Where Will He Take the Democratic Party?” DOWN. Sanders is more blow than accomplishment. Hillary Clinton knows about Sanders and she has been warning the voters in the past few weeks. His record of performance as a Senator is very thin.
4
@NOTATE REDMOND
Yep HC is a real winner. Two times the "annointed one" two time loser.
It is fair to say that Trump comes across as a strong adversary. We also know that his reputation and image are built on lies. When one has an enemy one should focus on his vulnerabilities and weaknesses. Trump's biggest lie is that he is a billionaire. Now ask yourself which candidate is better equipped to hit him at the core of this false image. For me the answer is Bloomberg. Let alone that Bloomberg can get the many disenchanted republicans to vote for him.
3
I agree. Bloomberg plays Trump like a fiddle. And, already, Trump has insulted Bloomberg because of his hight. This could work in Bloomberg’s favor. “Shorties for Little Mike!” “Little Mike with the Big Ideas!”
The simple reality is the DNC really would rather hand the election to Trump than risk the election of someone who might take on entrenched corporate interests. Heck, the DNC is itself an entrenched corporate interest.
My bet is that the DNC will win, cram a corporatist down the throat of the party again, and then Trump will roll to easy victory.
5
Question for the Boomers who keep talking about McGovern: Do you realize that not all Boomers were eligible to vote yet in 1972? Do you realize that if your large generation had continued to vote for progressive candidates, you would have eventually won?
The Silent Generation is conservative, but they are only 9% of the electorate today. The liberal Gen X, Millennial and Gen Z cavalry is here. We represent over 60% of the electorate. Join us, please.
1
@Zep With all due respect, overgeneralizing is a cognitive distortion that results in some pretty significant errors in thinking. I'm a Boomer, know lots of Boomers, belong to groups filled with Boomers and guess what? We're progressive democrats who have voted for 50 years and have marched and worked hard as volunteers. Also, the silent generation is not as conservative as you think. Vote Blue!
1
As Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party, why should he "take the Party" anywhere?
1
Amazing! All these experts and not one mentions Bloomberg. Mayor Mike, like Mayor Pete, might not get a huge Afircan-American turnout, but, on his record alone, he will be able to convert a lot of Trump voters.
4
Sanders is not my first choice, but the scare mongering that compares him to Cuba and East Germany just shows a lack of critical thinking skills among many Americans.
But, that's also why Trump is in the White House.
5
...and the hatchet jobs just keep on coming.
In 2016, the Dems and their candidate, who had bought her candidacy outright, rendered themselves totally insignificant to the governance of this country. It is they who are to blame for our present embarrassment in chief.
It's hard for me to tell where Dem leaderships' heads are. Pure expediency? Nihilistic cynicism? Do they really believe that any of these people can beat Trump and the republicans' entrenched dirty tricks machine? Or is there a realist in the room, who's convinced them that the fascists are unbeatable, and they just need to go through the motions of running a candidate while focusing on the midterms?
The Dems and their benefactrix sold us out to fascists, and I, for one, have not forgotten it. They will not get another pity vote out of me, as I've learned the truth of the matter: my vote doesn't count.
1
Maybe if you guys in the news business would use the appropriate adjective for t rump, which is fascist, the idea of a democratic socialist wouldn't look so scary.
The most radical candidate ever for the presidency was, and is, t rump.
If Sanders wins the election his most extreme positions will be held in check by the Congress, even a Democratic Congress.
Bernie Sanders is not the second coming of Lenin, but he might be the second coming of FDR.
The African/American community has seen what t rump has done, what he has destroyed, how he has demonized them and other groups of color for 3 years now. I don't see them sitting this one out, whether it's Buttigieg or Sanders.
This one is not up to the Democratic Party. It is up to We the People.
If people really don't care what this country will look like in 5 years then it will look a lot worse.
3
@Bob Laughlin
Among those who don't like Old Bernie: FDR.
1
Bernie won’t win as the majority of Americans don’t want an angry, finger pointing ineffective old Senator in the WH. Bloomberg has the best chance of eliminating the monster currently residing there.
7
@Cold Liberal
Yes, nothing like an Oligarch Billionaire running America pretending the 50% of those that couldn't come up with $500 for an emergency don't exist.
2
Trump's campaign is going to be (1) the economy is good, and (2) the democrats are socialists who are going to raise your taxes and give the money to illegal immigrants.
If the Democrats nominate an ancient, disheveled Socialist then he will lose to Trump. It doesn't matter where Sanders will take the Democratic Party because Trump will be president for 4 more years.
Tip to Democrats: nominate a moderate with strong liberal views. Amy Klobuchar? Amy will wipe the floor with Trump.
Were I able to vote and were Sanders the nominee, would I vote for him? Sure. Would I feel good about it? No. This guy is not just destined to lose a general election; he is destined to get thrashed. Put aside all of the poisonous positions for a minute and just consider this; he honeymooned in the Soviet Union. Get real. He is a dartboard ...
2
Whoever wins the nomination, he or she would be wise to choose Andrew Yang as a running mate as well target Asian voters. This is likely the best Hail Mary play the Democrats have in an uphill battle to defeat Trump.
1
Let's elect him and then we'll see!
3
The same craven, clueless members of the corporate media who thought Trump could never win now claim Sanders can never win. Wrong then, and wrong now.
3
There are more Democratic voters than Republican voters. I think that what will bring them out is a candidate who can get them excited about swinging us to the left after so many years of being dragged to a dishonest right, not someone who merely holds out the prospect of attracting “swing voters.” My choice is Elizabeth, and nothing would deflate my enthusiasm faster (take note DNC) than a “moderate” like Buttigieg OR Biden who promises little more than the same old thing, just a little less far right.
But regardless of who the nominee is, I, at least, will #VoteBlueNoMatterWho. The risk is that with a moderate nominee, many Democratic voters won’t even bother to come out.
2
Please no. To all Bernie folks, there’s no plan in place to fund what he’s promising. Bernie said it “doesn’t matter” when asked the cost. He’s never had a job and never created one.
Please think logically and let’s get someone that can get things done.
3
@Ny’er
Oh please! No Money for Social Needs, but all the money for war, and private contractors, Tax Breaks for the Rich, Amazon paying NO TAXES, Exxon Paying NO TAXES, and the ONLY This we skimp on are the Social Programs for the lower 50% of the population and the needs of the Common Person.
There is No Money for YOUR needs, says the Plutocratic Oligarch as s/he drives their Bentley filled with cash to deposit it in the Bank.
1
Nowhere. He is no Democrat.
2
OK Boomer
1
There are reality checks of different orders. Yes, on the first order the conventional wisdom that Bernie is “too extreme” holds sway. But anybody who takes a step back can see that compared to what most Americans say they want and say they need, Bernie is no extremist at all. In fact he is the most mainstream!
A step further back would arguable reveal that Sanders is most accurately described as a traditional New Deal Democrat, and the fact that he looks “extreme” is evidence of how far conventional opinion has been shifted to the right due to concerted right wing efforts funded by the billionaire class (the idiot elite 0.1%) whose policies continue to make society worse for everybody while fattening their (ultimately) worthless portfolios.
The best weapon wielded against Bernie so far is the insecurity about healthcare tickled by his promise to do away with private for profit health insurance. If Bernie is wise, he will keep on explaining there will be a transition that will be fair for everybody. And if the media is responsible to society and our future (instead of just to their corporate ownership), they will make sure Bernie has a chance to be truly heard.
3
@Joseph F. Panzica Very nice to read such a well thought out analysis!
Bernie will take the Democratic back to its roots -- it will be the party of FDR and Harry Truman.
Sadly, this newspaper is doing the right wing's dirty work once again and repeating right wing propaganda about Bernie Sanders' "radical"agenda.
What if every article presented Bernie Sanders as being the next FDR? What if the NY Times refused to do anything but characterize Bernie's policies as "a return to FDR and Truman's policies to make government help the middle class instead of the rich"?
Can you imagine? I can't since this newspaper has simply devolved into printing the dishonest statements of Trump and the Republicans as if they are just as truthful as the "partisan Democrats" who "disagree".
5
What a travesty! If Sanders gets the nomination, the American public will have a choice between two different candidates.
2
Who are the "Democratic establishment", and how do we get rid of them? They seem incapable of learning. Look what they wrought in 2016. Now they want to do it again. If they somehow stick us with Biden as the candidate, we can look forward to another 2016. Trump was perceived as a "radical" incapable of winning by his party establishment. And even as dumb, incompetent, corrupt, and degenerate as he is, he was elected, and has managed to a huge amount of harm. Please, please don't do this to us again. Let the people choose the candidate.
3
All this ignorant, elitist talk from political scientists about how Sanders is too extreme to win the general election makes me want to vote for him. Lower classes (mostly correctly) perceive that our society lacks fairness or reciprocity, as the 1% (and the 5, 10, and 20 percent) greedily gobble up all the economy's production. Extreme socioeconomic inequality naturally breeds two basic political orientations (for the 80+%): socialism (which is a rational response) and fascism (which is not but explainable). Both are forms of class revenge. Class elites fail to understand the powerful rational policy appeal Sanders has and, at the same time, the equally powerful (irrational) cultural appeal that Trump has. So the unwashed masses are too sexist to elect a woman but enlightened enough to elect a gay man (shhhh!)? So free universal health care and college are policy losers?
What really boggles class elites is that the strongest possible general election candidate would likely be a cultural right-wing Trump-type (generally sexist, homophobic, racist, anti-immigrant, etc) who nevertheless advocates left-wing economic policies (universal health care, free college, increased social security, levelling tax policy, etc). That is in fact partly how Trump presented himself as a candidate in 2016, though he hasn't governed that way. Given current conditions, I think such a candidate would sweep the field and realign U.S. politics.
4
Why not listen to Bernie and judge for yourself.
Response to State if the Union
https://youtu.be/6IahRHztsRE
2
How many hit pieces will the NYT and the mainstream media (NOT MSM as vilified by Trump) run against Sanders before you guys realize you are ENGINEERING the kind of opposition to his candidacy that you are predicting? How many times will you call him unelectable before you are responsible for his not getting elected? I cannot help but wonder if anyone at the times still has two brain cells to rub together. Especially after that laughably childish sitdown with the candidates where you endorsed two who will almost certainly lose out in the primaries.
3
Edsall still has no idea why Trump one, and wants to re-run a Hillary clone like Buttigieg, which will guarantee a Trump win.
3
To the left, to victory, and to the barricades to actually fight -- in real life, not app-world -- real and really existential threats: climate change, emergent diseases, nuclear arms, burgeoning fascism and information ecosystem pollution.
The hacks that have destroyed the Democratic Party for my entire adult life can go back into their little holes in GSax and McKinsey and such places and avoid paying taxes.
We'll take it from here; thanks.
2
- "If Sanders wins New Hampshire, there will almost certainly be an establishment-led drive to block him from the nomination." - The real obstacle to Bernie is not the voters. Confirmation in your own hand.
- "...seven most recent national head-to-head surveys shows Sanders ahead of Trump by 3.7 points, 49.0 to 45.3." - Higher than any other candidate - and basically even with Biden, who is of course fully immune to GOP oppo. (roll eyes)
- "Sanders stands out among the leading Democratic presidential candidates in that none of the others have accumulated as many potentially debilitating liabilities as he has over 50 active years in politics." Old news. Crickets on Biden's more glaring deficiencies... and The current POTUS was a bag of 'liabilities' wasn't he?
- Painting Sanders as an extremist based on his dalliances 40 years past is journalistic malpractice. He is center Left and a New Deal Dem by any rational measurement.
- Jonathan Chait has a terrible track record.
- "their belief that in 2016 the Democratic National Committee backed Hillary Clinton"... You have not seen the reports of how they DID? Really?
Fact is, the NYT is against Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, Universal K-16, Social Security, and Sanders' other popular ideas... The NYT sides with the elites. (Big Surprise) If Sanders goes into the nomination with the most delegates and they broker a different nominee, it could be taps for the DEM party. If so, they, and you, will have earned it.
1
Bernie's slogan will be "I am not a Communist!"
NYTimes is placing its fear in the wrong place ... rather than fear Bernie's policy proposals, fear 4 more years of Trump!
No Bernie please. Thank you!
2
The Times Columnists continue to line up casting doubt and shaking their heads over Bernie Sanders. The paper of record can't stand the record.
2
Hahaha.
Wonderful to see all crabby old white people complaining about the unelectability of Bernie. Cements my view that if the Republican party represents the extreme right wing, the NY Times represents the moderate right wing. Times are a changin' and the Edsal's of the world are about as relevant as Joe Biden's computer programming skills.
2
Another speedbump in the road eh Mr. Edsall?
Sorry, pedal to the medal and were flying over your nonsense.
Nothing new to offer but fear and loathing.
That's all you've got?
Enjoy your pockets full of silver Mr. Edsall, and step aside, we've got a world to save. You obviously aren't putting a shoulder to the wheel, so get out of the way.
1
“I’ll stay home if Bernie isn’t the nominee”? We who live in the DMZ (the District, Maryland, and Virginia) hear a lot of that, from people who regard politics as a sport or a form of entertainment that has to be cool and exciting before they participate. Some evidently believe that nearly everybody in the Democratic party is impure, if not hopelessly corrupt. We inhabitants of the DMZ wish they would pay more attention to common sense and maybe read Politico (local authoritative political website) for a change.
Please—if you want excitement, entertainment, and gratification of all your wishes, play a video game. You can have as many do-overs as you want. In the 2020 election, we only get one shot. And if Trump wins and you didn’t vote, you own a part of it.
2
Elizabeth Warren is my first choice--this is a woman who understands institutions and wants to reform them to make our government infrastructure work better for more people; a decent, smart, serious person. Understanding that institutions governing our financial world had gone awry, Warren jettisoned an accomplished, satisfying position in the wake of the 2008 crisis to step up and try to make it better. We need institutions that work better. We need to eliminate corruption, legal and illegal, in our system. Warren is best-poised to do that.
Bernie is a man of character and integrity who has all my respect. Enough of the fear-mongering surrounding him. He has been consistent over decades about what he stands for. That he gets traction now in a way he did not 30 years ago is a result of rising in inequality and the increase in financial precarity among too many Americans--things that threaten the very fabric of a system that has on sum, worked well. I may not agree with all his positions, but I am persuaded (by his record) that Bernie as president would not be a dictator. (Once upon a time it went without saying that the president was subject to checks and balances. Scary times.) Bernie respects that the (working) system is based upon compromise. What is my point? Spare me the fear-mongering about Bernie. He'd steer the ship fine.
5
Now is the time to empower a new generation of leadership in the Democratic Party and to purge it of the old-guard DNC dominated so-called centrists who cater to Wall Street and the wealthy donor class. It's been awhile since the Democratic Party strongly has supported organized labor and the interests of the working class. The Sanders campaign can put fighting for economic justice and working peoples' rights back at the top of the party's agenda.
3
Remember when Bobby Jindal called Republicans, "the stupid party". They learnt a lesson and look where they are - fair or not. Now it is the turn of Democrats. After Iowa disaster and strong showing by the leftmost candidates, we can get ready for the march to oblivion. I hope Michael Bloomberg can come to the rescue. He is not perfect but far more electable than the socialists. We need common sense policies. Open borders, free college, Medicare for all and other such promises will never win us the electoral college. Democrats need a new slogan: "It is all about Electoral College stupid"!
4
If Bernie wins, he will take the Democratic Party in a great direction. The Dems will not be considered the party of corporate interests but the party of helping: teachers, public education, climate change concerned citizens, union members, people needing healthcare, people needing higher education who can't afford it, fairness in our justice system, students drowning in school debt, and truly good and sane foreign policy.
The Democratic Party needs another FDR and Bernie is that Candidate. Bernie2020!
2
I will vote for Bernie. I will not support him. He will finish the job Trump started. Essentially being the other side of the America First argument with wealth redistribution and socialism. Nationalism is where it's at. Bernie will promise it and wake up he is promising his version of America First. Our politicians are corrupt and Bernie will not play well with them. This DINO-Democrat in name only will not disappoint. I can count on shorting the market with Bernie, the pending housing and jobs crash will create new opportunities for those with money to buy low and reap the gain when Bernie is gone. Go Bernie Go.
2
The climate catastrophe is already upon us and Trump is stepping on the fossil fuel accelerator. If Bernie Sanders and the Green New Deal aren't launched in January 2021 it probably doesn't matter who else is in office. We've already wasted 30 years under Democratic and Republican administrations and I see no sign current Dems are willing to challenge the status quo. For Pelosi it is the "Green New Dream," just a cute joke.
The establishment Dems have wasted precious time on the Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate fiascos instead of challenging him on climate change, endless wars, and inequality. Iowa simply placed an exclamation point on their incompetence--if not corruption. Now they've managed to make Trump more popular, according to Gallup.
1
Funny how everyone says that the midterm gains by the Dems prove that a moderate presidential candidate is essential. But Consider the disaster that Hillary wrought on these same districts two years earlier, and Obama before her.
2
Sanders will definitely win over the progressives on Twitter while Trump will win the White House. But at the end of the day, that is what Sanders supporters want. Winning Twitter is all that matters.
5
Gallup poll now says 75% of Americans are satisfied with the economy. There is ZERO CHANCE, not even 1% chance, that Americans will opt for socialism at a time like this. ZERO.
4
@Sasha Stone What did Trump do to boost the economy?
NAFTA? It's not ratified yet and not in effect.
The US economy has been rising steadily from 2014.
He is successful in misleading the uninformed by exaggerating the fact.
Look his campaign rallys. His supporters come to be entertained. Not for the issues. And the media loves it to sell the news.
The party establishment needs to broker a deal with the progressive wing. A lot of the anger comes from the lack of a 3rd party alternative in this country. Sanders supporters are not seen as an important political barometer in the centrist liberal media--MSNBC, CNN, the Times--despite our numbers and despite the economic conditions that created his huge base. We see no job security, no hopes of advancement, crippling debt, medical emergency fears, no day care, and money in politics as critical issues that will not go away if we elect a centrist.
1
Other developed countries have universal healthcare, lower drug prices, modern infrastructure, modern public transportation, faster internet, paid vacation, paid family leave, paid sick days and paid holidays.
What Sanders is advocating is standard throughout the rest of the developed world.
4
Bernie is so 20th century. Socialism reached its heyday then in response to all the problems that unfettered capitalism had unleashed in the 19th century, ranging from the USSR to more benign forms.
The essence of capitalism is that competitive systems can, under the right circumstances, coordinate the activities of many individuals and groups - the Invisible Hand. When the circumstances are not right, bad things happen.
The essence of socialism is that bureaucracies can coordinate individual and group activities. But history has shown that government control through bureaucratic hierarchies causes problems too.
Now, in the 21st century, it has become clear that you cannot rely on either capitalism or socialism in its pure form. You have to use both, intertwining them delicately to enhance the virtues and control the dysfunctions of each. That means, for example, regulation of markets by bureaucracies. To work, this require constant attention and fine-tuning. Instead, congress has gradually crippled the regulatory systems that have been in place for decades. We are paying for it now; our socioeconomic system is out of whack.
As Edsall shows, Bernie always turns to bureaucracy and 20th century socialism to solve current problems. It makes me cringe.
So in addition to the political problems Bernies's "socialism" stirs up, I add a practical problem - history has shown that it just doesn't work very well. As Andrew Yang says, Not right, not left - we need to go forward.
2
There are limits to this analysis. First, political scientists are a very conservative bunch of academic folks none of whom predicted Trump and thus this argument that "extremists" can't win has already been proven dead wrong. Second, if Biden is so galvanized, then why did his Iowa candidacy fall flat on its face? Third, Sanders is apparently eroding into Biden's support among older persons and a key bloc of the African American population. So a lot of what these so-called "experts" have to say seems motivated by an anti-Sanders aesthetic, with little empirical data to back it up. If moderates are so likely to win, what happened to Gore, Kerry and Hillary Clinton? They all lost. This data is ignored because of the Democrats' success around healthcare in the 2018 Congressional elections. A May 2019 article by Carl M. Cannon shows healthcare being the top election priority with Medicare for All support high. Sanders has high approval ratings and wins points for healthcare. The idea that Biden and Sanders's opponents don't have potential negatives, which the article does not consider, is also a problem. Also, the idea that "mud slinging" will demolish Sanders must face two counter-factuals: a) There are thousands of tons of mud to be thrown at Trump; b) Conversely mud does not always stick, i.e. look at Trump. Finally, the Democrats need a strong counter-puncher to win. Sanders is the best of the lot on that score.
3
There are always bumps along the road when you start a movement to wrestle influence away from the greedy and the powerful. They will and have been doing everything possible to smear and stop Bernie, including misrepresenting his reasonable progressive agenda, labeling it radical, unrealistic, etc. No one knows this more than Sanders, who has planted the seeds and changed the collective consiousness of a whole new generation who deserve better. They can can now envision a world where the quality of their existence if far better than what the world they inherited. Bernie knows this may not even be achieved in his lifetime. The man is amazing. Respect.
6
It's a mistake to think that the only people who will vote for Sanders are people who are ideologically aligned with him. Sanders' appeal isn't just ideological, he's also honest and kind, which is a rare combination for any politician. People like myself who like his politics will vote for him because of that, but still others will vote for him because he's willing to speak frankly and truthfully about difficult issues.
7
Any discerning observer to the past months' Democrat candidacy race and Congressional impeachment hearings and 'trial', sees the only way to turn back from the wreckless tunnel we are in is for the Democrats to become strategic and pragmatic: close ranks around the toughest, tightest and most solid President and Vice President pairing that will beat Trump in both the popular vote and Electoral College. Pairing must bring broad demographic appeal, moral and ethical authority, unrivaled competency to lead and manage, and loud commitment to unifying us both domestically and by restoring our global alliances and trustworthiness. In addition, the ticket's policy priorities must include addressing climate change, our collapsing infrastructure, healthcare for all, universal minimum wage of $17 an hour, Congressional term limits to begin reversal of the killing impact of big money on our legislation, jobs, jobs, jobs via government works projects (opportunities abound), and higher pay and accountability standards for our teachers - raise standards and pay them! There's more but, these are a start and we - USA - can walk and chew gum at the same time. I suggest for President, Bloomberg & for VP, Deval Patrick, Kamala Harris, or Mitch Landrieu. Please, suggest other pairings and ditch the pitch Bloomberg is buying the election; every candidate runs on Big money - with Bloomberg, his run makes him accountable only to us. Let's get Busy!
4
Bernie Sanders has the problem with not so much his policies, but his characters. US people never elected president based on his policies. People voted for the president based on whether he or she can identify with the candidate.
Bernie is more like Jeremy Corbyn of UK. The labor just went through historic election debacle under Corbyn. I hate to see the same debacle happening here in US.
1
@NN
Two totally different scenarios. A left-leaning party has NEVER existed in America and Corbyn lost the election because of several other issues unrelated to his political ideology. The Labor Party in the UK will eventually rise again. There is always an ebb and flow to the political landscape.
2
If a Democrat, hopefully, is elected to office, I’m doubtful that there will be a substantial difference in the accomplishments of any of the current viable candidates. Sure, Sanders would be less likely to use military strikes than say Biden, and Warren may be the most effective in financial industry oversight. But at the end of the day, confirmed judges and cabinet appointments, enacted health care legislation, leadership on the world stage, and the rollback of Trump’s disastrous executive orders would be similar. Given current political demographics and disproportional representation, the contrast of the last two administrations shows that the President can wield awesome destructive power but has limited ability to advance progressive policies.
I lean toward agnosticism with respect to electability. However, I am concerned about risk to reward ratio. If I’m correct that the practical upside of any Democratic nominee win would be unremarkably similar, why risk alienating moderate voters with a fanciful belief that revolution is at hand.
Bernie is a BIG problem for Democrats. If he wins the nomination Trump wins in a Dukakis-like landslide. If the Democrat party leaders finagle a way to make Bernie lose, then he runs as third-party candidate.
He stepped aside for Hilary in 2016 and it brought him no love from his party. There's no reason for him to toe the party line in 2020. This is his last shot.
Bernie is going to be on the ballot either way.
2
It isn’t his party. He freeloaded on the party’s ticket.
1
If the party had paid more attention to its own ideals over the last 40 years or so, we wouldn't be in this mess that we're in right now. We all know that most Democratic leaders are deep-down pretty progressive but by the time they run for president, they've learned to distrust their own instincts with something approaching self-hatred. Rhetoric matters, and for too long the Democratic party has been a party that is just clearly defined by focus groups and calculated hedging. Bernie is a lot of things, but he isn't dishonest and that's why he appeals to people.
6
@Jeremiah Crotser
Ultimately, it was the Bill Clinton era that in order to get on to the never ending bandwagon of collecting lobbyists money, many of whom also donated to republicans, he turned the party to the right and ultimately left those behind that once were the bulwark of the party, working people, hence, the rise of someone like Trump who told them what they wanted to hear because no one else in Washington was listening.
We know Republicans represent the wealthy, while the democrats ONCE represented the REAL America and the majority. We can clearly see now the corporate/establishment within the democratic party have still never learned that lesson and refuse to look outside the "Washington Bubble" for the real answers and especially why someone like Trump could get elected in the first place.
2
I agree, "I would not bank on it." It is hard not to like Sanders but his tendency toward extremes is not what I personally seek in my choice for President. Trump's claims in his State of the Union speech were nearly an insult to intelligent people. He is far, far away from being the political savior he would have us believe.
1
@Steve
I think the time for "tinkering around the edges" of policy is over and despite the rhetoric from those that believe the "status quo" is OK, the majority of Americans do not.
3
To a place where people of all backgrounds can live a better life. The status-quo defenders will not defeat this social-change movement.
Bernie 2020
4
@Zareen
Here's something that you seem to forget.
You won't win converts by vilifying them.
Stop with the labeling.
We must all row together in order to get anywhere.
2
People are confusing their opinions with the electorate. Many left leaning voters are not going to support Sanders. People can believe that or not- but reality happens whether we agree or not. Edsall is telling us what the data says. He is not picking a side or attacking Bernie (neither am I so please don't target me or my family). If Trump wins again it will be because of the Democrats position on immigration. The Democratic Party seems more inclined to answer to the needs of illegal immigrants than the needs of citizens. Bernie has my vote for President of the World.
3
At the very least, Bernie should become a Democrat, and at least increase the number of democratic senators from 47 to 48. Angus King should do the same. It's not enough to caucus with the dems. We need the actual number of democratic senators to get closer to a majority.
@dba
It is the total votes, not whether or not he is an official member of the party. Joe Manchin is supposed to be a democrat, yet, he was the lone democrat that chose to confirm Brett Cavanaugh for the SC. Jeff Van Drew chose to change to the Republican Party only because he wasn't in favor of impeachment. Henry Cuellar in California has voted for almost 80% of Trump initiatives. I am wondering who are the real democrats here?
If that is the case give me the one with the "I" behind his name. it seems labels aren't that important, it is policy.
"If Sanders wins New Hampshire, there will almost certainly be an establishment-led drive to block him from the nomination."
What do you mean "will almost certainly be"? It's been ongoing since he decided to challenge the Establishment in 2015 when they successfully derailed him with their subterfuge and the help of the MSM, especially the NYT. Now again we're seeing the same thing play out, including columns like this one, purporting to give a reasoned analysis, but actually arguing against Sanders while doing so.
Yes, Sanders is a risk because he is going against the deeply entrenched Establishment that owns or controls the MSM, and has gargantuan power. But that is precisely the reason we need to elect him (or possibly Warren) to finally begin taking back our country from this virtual oligarchy. Many voters are fearful of doing this, but if they truly despise Trump as they say, then why are they cowering like his Republican toadies do? Freedom and democracy don't come cheaply. It's time for these "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots" to show some backbone and vote for REAL change.
And one other thing to consider: While some say that running Goldwater was a big mistake, it was his defeat that actually provided the impetus for conservatives to really mobilize, and lead to their ascendancy. Sometimes "losing" means winning in the long run. Sanders lost to Hilary, but has moved the Dems farther to the left than she ever would have.
Vote for the change we need-Bernie!
4
Again I was under the impression that HRC did win the most votes in the primaries irrespective of the superdelegates. Twice HRC won the popular vote and twice the supporters of Trump and Sanders seem to discount that fact with allegations of rigging.
2
@Kingfish52
Unfortunately, that is what life in the NY/Washington Bubble gets you, the inability to understand the reality of what is going on in the rest of the country, hence, that is why someone like Donald Trump got elected, yet, they still don't understand why?
When one has reaped the vast majority of benefits in America, that top 10% or so have no desire to change things. The other 90% believe otherwise and considering the way the progressive movement has grown just in the last four or five years, just between Sanders and Warren, it is clear the freight train is going to become unstoppable whether the MSM and corporate/establishment like it or not.
2
Bottom line, HRC lost the election.
The Iowa fiasco with selective reporting of results apparently tilted against Sanders, and continuing anti-Sanders bias in corporate U.S. media, point to a strange conclusion:
Democrats, once again, look poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It seems the party leadership would rather nominate someone acceptable to wealthy donors and lose to Mr. Trump, than win with Mr. Sanders on the ticket.
5
Based on the current status quo I am not sure any of the Democratic candidates can win against Trump. To an Independent or even moderate Democrat (I am one) yesterday's State of the Union sounded pretty compelling. On the other side the disarray in Iowa, the extreme left wing policy positions by the the front runners of the field (Sanders and Warren) makes the Democratic Party less and less attractive for centrists like us. Finally I agree with the basic tenets of this article: If Sanders is the nominee it won't be just Repbublicans who will be animated to prevent a socialist presidency. Centrists and moderates like myself will be joining the fight.
3
@Robert
I don't want Sanders either. However, yesterday's State of the Union was compelling propaganda, distortions, lies, and misinformation. Sadly, that will be enough to gloss over Trump's war on the Constitution and democratic institutions. And by the way, where is Trump's beautiful health care? Republicans controlled all branches of government the first two years. He also couldn't get money for his useless wall when Republicans were in charge.
2
@dba
His "beautiful wall' is also collapsing while we speak.
The most terrifying parts of the column:
- 16% of Sanders supporters say the definitely won't vote for a Democratic nominee that isn't Sanders
- another 31% aren't sure
- and many disappointed Sanders supporters supported Trump in 2016. (Maybe this explains why Trump and Sanders supporters have a disproportionate number of trolls?)
Yes, Trump defied expectations in 2016, but he had the unanimous support of the conservative news media. Sanders won't have anything equivalent because the moderate to liberal media isn't as monolithic in its views and is more likely to air dissenting opinions.
1
We all need to understand here that the apparent abundance of Bernie supporters here is illusory and not reflective of the voting population at large. The Sanders machine monitors any and all mentions of him in the press and social media. If something comes up, alerts are sent out on Twitter and other social media platforms. The aim is to produce an overwhelming scorched earth response. And here we are again: another Sandersswarm in the comments section. How about that!
@TMS
No, if one is observant at all, it is clear, that because of the democratic party fiasco of 2016, there are a considerable number of Americans who are no longer interested in the "lesser of two evils".
It is reliving those mistake again in 2020 that will definitely give Trump another four years, not committed, passionate politicians whom unencumbered by bribery, will be able to put forth policies that if initiated years ago would have probably negated someone like Trump emerging in the first place.
Corporate/establishment democrats prioritized money over winning elections and because of it, look who is sitting in the WH?
I'm an independent who has generally voted for Democratic candidates. Just as I can't possibly imagine voting for Trump, I feel pretty much the same about Sanders and Warren (note that I'm from Massachusetts). I'm not interested in trading one extreme for another. I don't agree with many of their positions, but more importantly I believe they will spend all their time feuding with Republicans and nothing will get done.
3
I’m voting for Bernie because my family needs Medicare for All, free community college or vocational education, paid family leave, and action on climate change
4
Jonathan Chait is not neutral and should not be presented as neutral. He is ideologically opposed to the left. He not only opposes Sanders, but the left's policy agenda, regardless of 'electability.'
There is a general assumption that the left is captive. If individuals like Chait do not want it, though, it will eventually leave. Because younger cohorts are further to the left than in the past, the so-called center will be unelectable without them. If the Democrats want to permanently be in the opposition, so be it.
1
@Sean
Chait also has a habit of misrepresenting facts and figures and has online been overwhelmingly blasted for doing so. The problem with the elites in the MSM is they figure they can say or write anything they want without being accountable. Gone are the days of responsible and accurate reporting.
However, when being criticized for it all, they get they get their back up and indulge in the usual Republican response of "playing the victim".
Everybody can be forgiven for overthinking a state of quantum uncertainty. I think everybody loves Joe, but deep down don't think he's up to the job. They know Pete is capable and like him, but worry whether he can win. Basic competence is important in a candidate, on light of Trump. So, I think that the more Pete demonstrates an ability to win in these early stages, the greater the chance his campaign goes from rolling snowball to avalanche. I think the concerns about Joe are so deep, the trigger for the shift will be quick.
1
Not that Biden, Warren, etc or any of these others are great, but for months Sanders supporters have claimed that Sanders has the ability to excite people, drive turnout, and drive new voting blocs to the polls.
Well the first test of that theory is in from Iowa, a closely contested primary state where Sanders had a real chance of winning. The results? Turnout is on track to be an absolute disaster for the Democrats, below or at 2016 levels which were abysmal, and many Iowa voting chairs are saying they are stunned. Turnout is on track to be ~170k versus 240k in 2008.
Where's the turnout? Where are the new voting blocs?
The Democratic party is in disarray not because of tech issues but because of marketing and messaging issues.
4
@JA
Exactly. Look back at the first debate. It was a disaster, especially because it had record viewership, probably because people were looking to wee whether democrats are offering a viable alternative to Trump. Well, perhaps they didn't like what they heard: free health care for illegals, decriminalizing border crossings, free college tuition, medicare for all that will take away private insurance (even if you don't like it, you want choice), confiscating guns, and on and on. All the RNC has to do is run clips from the debate.
I am choosing not to be concerned if Bernie is nominated. He will be trounced by Trump (Dukakis anyone) and the Dems will lick their wounds and ask themselves the same questions they have been asking since 2016. How? Why? As a lifelong registered Dem, my only dilemma will be how to vote. No way will I vote for Trump, even if he was all that stood between life and death, but I disagree with nearly everything Sanders preaches and stands for. I’ll give him credit for being clear, at least. I suspect I am not alone. So the Dems may polarize their own base as a winning strategy? Huh?
4
In my opinion, Trump's smear against Joe Biden worked. Ukraine didn't execute the strategy, so Trump's defense team put Biden on trial during the impeachment. Before the trial, Biden was tied with Sanders in virtually every poll, with Buttigieg and Klobuchar trailing far behind. When Trump raised concerns about Biden, many moderate voters abandoned him, moving to Buttigieg and Klobuchar, who outperformed expectations.
It's very likely that they would have fled to Bloomberg, another moderate, if he was on the ballot in Iowa. But he wasn't. We won't know until Super Tuesday, when Bloomberg is an option, but he's likely to be the standard bearer for moderates. Buttigieg has a future in the party, but his experience is being the mayor of a college town with 100,000 inhabitants. Bloomberg was the mayor of New York City, which has 9,000,000 residents, and his philanthropy is legendary, particular on core Democratic issues like healthcare, gun control and climate change.
2
@David
Exactly. This was one of the reasons I opposed impeachment. Dems should have conducted oversight hearings and let the courts play out. This only allowed the republicans to amplify the smear campaign.
As an independent myself, all of the razzing that Sanders takes for "not being a real Democrat" is music to my ears. If nominated and elected, I hope that Sanders does not take the condition of the Democratic party as his responsibility. His responsibility would be to the people of this nation, the same as he has shown for many years.
We see easily enough what happens when party loyalty is more important than loyalty to the nation.
4
I'm a Bernie supporter because many of his policies harken back to the days of FDR, the best Democratic President my opinion to ever to hold office. That was the Democratic party that really cared about working people, before Clinton moved the party to the center and took money from Wall Street and other corporations. I hope Bernie wins because he genuinely cares about working people and has been consistent for 40+- years in what he believes. And I think head to head, he will go into Trump country, convert enough people, and beat Trump. I'm very concerned the DNC will get in the way again like in 2016, will block Bernie, and help Bloomberg get the nomination. If the DNC interferes in the democratic process again, it's going to turn off a lot of voters, especially young ones, and many will just stay home, just like in 2016. I hope the DNC just let's this process play out and doesn't pick favorites again. That didn't turn out so well the last time.
4
Sanders would be President, right now, if the wealthy who own the democratic national committee had not rigged the primary in 2016 for Hillary Clinton. They are trying to do it to Sanders again. Mr. Edsall and other are proving that with columns like this.
4
I was under the impression that HRC did win the most votes in the primaries irrespective of the superdelegates.
1
@Christian
She also LOST the election in key swing states that Sanders beat her in the primary.
I'm not team Bernie, but if is the candidate, I will gladly vote for him. Warren is the best choice, overall, although American misogyny is front and center in opposition.
Bernie proudly serves as an Independent in the Senate. He called himself a Democrat in 2016 only for electoral convenience's sake, then recast himself as an Independent and now, wow, calls himself a Democrat once again. Bernie has such a long "paper trail" depicting his love of the old Soviet Union. There is no way Team Trump would not be running these items 24/7. What a disaster he would be, which is directly where he would take the Democratic Party, disaster. Off the cliff.
1
If Bernie wins we will be trading one extremist president for another. (Minus the criminality, of course)
If Bernie wins, the tug of war being played with our country, by extremists on the right and on the left, will permanently RIP our beloved Nation apart.
Extremism is never the answer. Extremism is a simplistic, atavistic throwback, a fear and anger fueled response to complex problems.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Clearly, time and again so many so-called "centrist/moderate" democrats forget the debacle of 2016 when the "annointed one" lost to the candidate with the worst approval rating in the history of Presidential elections, yet, despite the baseless hand wringing and poll after poll confirming that Sanders has the best chance of beating Trump and by the widest margin of ANY candidate, the narrative of the MSM and the corporate/establishment STILL honestly believe this same failed strategy will beat Trump. It will NOT. The Joe Biden experiment is already over. You can't just say Trump is a "bad guy" and expect to win, yet, that is what Biden is doing.
Sanders is really the only candidate that will appeal to the same working people that voted for Trump because they felt that the system has been rigged and Washington was not listening and hasn't for some time. Trump fooled them into believing he was going to help them, he did not and if he is re-elected, social security, medicare and medicaid will disappear. Sanders will actually deal with these same issues.
It is time for Americans to realize the system, especially within the corporate/democratic wing of the party who are just Republicans in disguise, is over. More and more Americans want politicians to answer to them, NOT their corporate donors.
5
The Democratic race represents a shifting demographic of young voters vs. older voters. Young voters don't want the same old thing and they see new ideas that appeal to them, strangely, in a 78 year-old Bernie Sanders. It is no longer the world of the baby boomers - they are a dying breed. The establishment ranks within the party will change whether people want it to or not.
4
@Middle of the road, my comment was about what I am observing within the party, and nothing about my candidate preferences. That said though, I disagree wholeheartedly with everything you just stated.
@Chris
Ultimately, it his policies and ideas that attract younger voters who are not interested in the "status quo" and the "lesser of two evils", not Bernie's age, there will be others emerging behind him. Since 2016, the progressive movement in the democratic party has grown and as younger voters and citizens get involved in the process, the party will be quite different in the next few years and it is long overdue for change.
The inability and/or unwillingness on the part of corporate/establishment democrats to recognize what is happening in the rest of the country and their own party is what got Donald Trump elected in the first place.
1
Despite all the punditry, no one knows what will happen. If Trump can be elected, anyone can.
Instead of predictions, compare the character, intelligence and record of any candidate compared to Trump. This is what voters must do.
3
I stopped reading when the author defined Bernie Sanders as "far left." At that point, his centrist bias became the theme of the article. There is nothing far left about Bernie. His policies are mainstream in Europe and most of the developed world, and younger Americans prefer his politics by a wide margin.
9
@Middle of the road -The so-called middle doesn't exist because it's dependent on who is defining the parameters. There is no there there. In our case, the right wing has defined where the "center" is, not the left. Far left would be communist and no one is running on that platform in the U.S. Democratic socialism is not far left; it's considered center left in Europe and by most people under 50 in the U.S. I haven't met any Europeans who want to live in the U.S., and I go there frequently. They pity us with our lack of social programs, debt-ridden college grads, unaffordable healthcare (especially if you get sick), and our plethora of homeless in every major city in the U.S. The majority of people live better in Europe than the U.S., and that has changed over my lifetime.
Thomas Edsall’s thinking is conventional at best. It does not take at all into account that many analysts argue that we are in an era of American politics as transformative as 1860.
He should read, in particular, Thomas Piketty’s book that carefully analyzed - with over 100 pages of DATA to support his argument - that the mainstream parties of both the left and the right have been captured by the elites, the largest voting block are those who, lacking representation, don’t vote, or vote for populists.
4
He will follow in the footsteps of George McGovern. It will be a debacle.
10
Bernie Sanders the socialist, who loved the labor movement, Cuba, the old Soviet Union and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, we knew about. Bernie the millionaire, who knew?
Actually, why is anyone surprised that Bernie is now part of the 1%? He owns three homes, including one on the "Vermont Riviera," the shore of Lake Champlain, that cost a bundle.
Clearly Bernie has become accustomed to the upscale lifestyle he has long made a career of eschewing and excoriating. Now that he is in a higher tax bracket he is surely getting schooled on tax avoidance and sheltering income, lessons that plutocrats learn at their fathers' knees. And I wonder how much of his considerable income he is willing to redistribute. And his wife does their taxes? Right.
I guess Bernie will have to stop ranting and raving against millionaires and spend more time explaining to voters 1) why he is not a hypocrite and 2) how socialism will benefit them while he is taking advantage of good old capitalism.
As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
As for policies, Sanders' espousal of free everything for everyone, not to mention allowing felons to vote from prison, can only guarantee Trump's re-election if Bernie is the Democratic candidate in 2020.
12
One problem is that neo-liberal Dems don't have any good policy proposals that mitigate 30 years of stagnant or declining standards of living in the US. Obama voters for Trump....and all that. This is not a good time for technocrats.
4
I believe this is the real problem with our voting system in 2020. We just has our first Dem primary in Iowa. So far a total vote count of 125,000 has been counted which is out of 200 million voters in the US and we are counting some out and some in for November. Really nuts. And just look at Iowa, Its no where near a cross section of America. Come on people, peter and Burnie can not win in November.
3
No Republican expected Trump to win, not even Trump himself – they just wanted to go down swinging. No Democrat believes we should lose this election – why throw it away just for the satisfaction of throwing a punch (which won't land)?
If Bernie wins the primary, we'll hear nothing but the word socialism right up until the moment we lose on November 3, 2020.
9
@MAW
When seniors rise up and demand that Social Security and Medicare be abolished, I will believe they are sincere about the dangers of socialism.
8
@MAW
The only problem with your argument is that is does not coincide with the facts. Several polls have confirmed that Sanders, despite his so-called "socialist" label would have the best of defeating Trump and by the widest margin of any of the candidates.
It is too bad one never sees this type of poll in the MSM. I wonder why?
@Deus
And I wonder why you don't include a link to substantiate this claim.
Another piece on why Sanders can't win? In the New York Times? Gambling? In Casablanca? This is the exact same argument made by Clinton supporters in 2016 (though with the added slander that Sanders voters were mere misogynists.)
There's a reason Sanders supporter will not vote for Biden and his ilk and it's not "purity vs. pragmatism."
For years we have seen the accelerated decline of the working class, the near destruction of the middle-class, an endless commitment to savage warfare, the support of authoritarian and apartheid regimes, mass-incarceration, the protection of lawless corporate conduct, the rise of crippling personal debt and the failure of the tepid health care reforms leaving multiple millions desperately uninsured.
The answer of the "moderates" is simple: don't worry work about any of this, Trump is the problem. Many Sanders supporter disagree. Trump is a problem, but so is the DNC, so is "lunch-bucket Joe." Biden is how we got here and represents exactly the same constituency, wealthy and corporate, as Clinton did. Why is he in a better position to win than Clinton? Let Sanders and his army of idealistic youth have their chance. Then at least we'll know where we really stand.
9
Quick note to Democrats:
I was a Republican until the antics of the Tea Party pushed me out in 2013, and since then, independent. Because our current president is corrupt, I might also be called a "never-Trumper."
However, I will never be a member of the Democratic Party because of its tendency to add to the administrative state as the answer to every social ill, calling it a "safety net" rather than what appears to me to be self-serving bureaucracies that foster long-term dependency to justify and sustain their own operations; worse, corrupting their "clients" will to accept responsibility for their own behavior. I am not cruel, but I would rather see the safety net as protection against personal catastrophe (even if the result of one's own error or stupidity), rather than as a way of providing for the routine needs of the day-to-day.
Commenters, don't argue with my description of my politics. That is not my point. Just understand that there are lots of independents who think similarly. We do not look for revolutionary change, and we hold our views in good faith, so don't insult us. You don't have to agree. Just listen!
My point is this! People like me, in states like Florida, are the voters who will decide the 2020 elections. Personally, I could vote for any of the three "B's," Biden, Bloomberg, or Buttigieg or for Klobuchar, though all are to the left of me. All are of generally good character, as is needed now.
But please don't push me into a corner with Sanders!
15
@D I Shaw
For decades now both republicans and democrats have created a massive "social welfare" set-up for the wealthy and corporations, i.e. Trumps TRILLION AND A HALF DOLLAR tax cut 83% of which went to the top 1%, BILLIONS in subsidies to several corporations like the fossil fuel industry and Boeing and a record $768 BILLION DOLLAR handout to the Pentagon to fight never ending wars around the world. No American that I have ever met agrees to this waste of taxpayer dollars.
Sanders is the ONLY candidate that will change that situation so some of that money will be re-directed towards those that really need it. Those candidates you refer to above, will do nothing to correct that problem.
Some of us feared Trump may be a puppet of Putin
Yet, Bernie’s life has been trying to bring the Soviet system here. That is far more disturbing.
5
If Bernie wins, he’ll destroy the Democratic Party just like Trump destroyed the Republican Party. Bernie is another Trump but at least better.
3
This is shallow, but I can't bear the thought of exchanging a Queens accent for a Brooklyn accent. New York, we need a break. Signed, The Country.
3
@Blair
You're right. It's shallow.
It's so impossible that he wins. How can the Dems not see that?
Besides, he is not even Dem party, I always wondered why they tolerate him? If he's so good and powerful, let him walk his own line, be an independent, why is he not that?
5
Comments from Old Bernie's bleaters about how he's NOT a communist, etc. are fatuous. He's also NOT a Democrat.
His political notions are NOT the problem. It's his personal issues: his anger, his finger jabbing, his wife, his talking over women and interrupting them, his red face, his age, his heart attack, his yelling, his treatment of the Democratic Party and its candidate in 2016, etc., etc., etc.
I don't want to be yelled at for the next four years. I don't want to be treated as an object of contempt.
7
@Pecan
I hear you, but all these things are important parts of his appeal to his most ardent supporters.
They are not that different from Trump voters. They are attracted by anger.
1
@Sarah
Agree. Two sides of the same coin, imho.
"If Sanders wins New Hampshire, there will almost certainly be an establishment-led drive to block him from the nomination."
An in-your-face drive to subvert the will of the voters, because the establishments wants the status quo, will guarantee this country four more years of Trump. A lot of voters simply won't vote. Some will render a protest vote for Trump. And yet even if the DNC's shenanigans yield that result, they won't learn, they won't change until their corrupt standard bearers age out or die off.
1
Watching Iowa, Party decisions to publicize exactly 62% of the votes showing Buttigieg (barely) in the lead and freezing it there reeks of the ongoing DNC effort to promote a centrist candidate and deny Senator Sanders. Then, of course, the MSM gave us hours of promoting Mayor Pete as the “winner” and underscoring a “disappointing” (CNN) performance by Sanders.
And then columns like this Follow and further disparage the so called “angry” Senator from Vermont. Geez.
Extract the name Sanders and focus on his platform and you find positions that large parts of the working class and young adults prefer. These voters are organizing and may well overcome the Dem Elites and bring the nomination to Bernie.
Sanders beats Trump.
2
It's curious that these numbers weren't mentioned in the article.
Non-white Iowa caucus vote percentages:
Sanders 43%
Buttigieg: 15%
Biden: 13%
Yang: 12%
8
Universal and free healthcare is not a radical idea - it is a human right. #votebernie
9
@Jesper Jack
He is not proposing universal free healthcare. No one but the republicans who refuse to let us have even basic normal healthcare has free healthcare.
Bernie's proposal is for Universal Coverage. That means A Single Insurer, the federal Gov, and our premiums will be paid in our taxes just like all other countries with universal coverage. .
1
@Middle of the road
Your post is a bit weird since well what sort of medical situation is it meant to mimic?
Medicare is the best and most well liked insurance in the country. The VA is DOD not "the government". That is the for profit branch of the GOP who always mismanage anything they run because bad management and corruption is more lucrative than doing the right thing. Which is what got us here to begin with.
If we had universal coverage the Civil Servants running it would not be trying to make a profit. Costs which are more than twice what they should be because of the for profit system being gamed and de-regulation, will be lower.
The same kinds of problems posed by Sanders will erupt in the event Buttigieg is nominated. His sexuality will be exploited ad nauseam by a Republican Party positively slavering to distract the American people from serious problems facing the country and the Trump presidency. Those who find this reality distasteful to face will do well to consider this fact: millions of Americans who oppose hatred for or discrimination against homosexuality may find it difficult to accept its positive promotion in a presidential candidate. I have encountered this distinction in liberal Churches intensely conflicted by the issue of gay ordination, and if this conflict exists there it will surface elsewhere in the population. The Democratic Party like the liberal Churches will do well to be careful about what it wants.
3
@David A. Lee
As a gay man, I couldn't agree more. Pete can't win.
I just don't understand the American punditry's (left and right and everyone in-between) fixation on socialism - or rather how they define and/or view socialism. And it is consistently wrong. Socialism, as they see it, is and was embodied by the former USSR and its satellites. What they fail to consider is that the USSR was anything but - it was a police state, an authoritarian regime ruled by kleptocrats. There was almost nothing socialist about the USSR except the language of socialism used as a facade to terrorize, subjugate, and control a demoralized citizenry.
For real world examples of socialism (social democracies) at work may I suggest Canada, UK, France, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland, Denmark, etc. . . .
2
Seems many political analysts are so rooted in the past that they can't imagine a better future nor recognize that the future is threatened. Negative predictions aside, what kind of country do we want to live in today? A populist oligarchy built on lies, a neoliberal continuation of corporate largess or one that seeks parity and equity for all people, valuing human rights and environmentalism over corporate greed. Can we continue with this farce of a sick body politic that sickens the people and the planet to the point of catastrophe? Why aren't these existential issues ever a part of the political calculations made by political consultants and analysts?
Maybe Sanders and Warren are too radically democratic for the Democratic party, maybe the party is over. I'm willing to take on the risk simply for the sake of my personal ethics and morality, even if it costs me in the end I know this is the right path, the only path. To compromise now all but ensures extinction.
3
Why was the Iowa turnout so much lower than expected? And these are supposed to be the motivated voters. If Sanders’ base can’t be bothered to show up, why do they think he’s the One to beat Trump? Buttigieg’s strong showing despite the polls is more indicative of what the voters want.
3
@Jolton "Buttigieg’s strong showing despite the polls is more indicative of what the voters want."
More accurately, the Buttigieg numbers reflect what a narrow segment of the Democratic Party primary voters want.
Don't believe for one minute that Iowa is telling you what "the voters" of the United States want.
Please.
@Raconteur The same can be said of Sanders.
Tom I take issue with your characterization of Sanders on the "far left" as his proposals are in line with our peers and allies in the "civilized" world. Sanders is not advocating for anything now existing in the UK, France, Germany, etc. nations governed by self-described conservatives.
1
The structural symmetry argument--that Trump and Sanders are both extreme populists, so that proves Sanders can win nationally--is not logical. Crafting an Electoral College win means consolidating moderate Dems and disaffected Trump voters: moderates won back the House in '18, not liberals. I well believe Sanders will continue to energize and win college towns. All while Trump re-focuses on the Rust Belt. The Electoral College has not gone away since 2016.
4
When push comes to shove, most Democrats will vote for whomever is the nominee. A small percentage of “undecideds” and independents may as well, and a smattering of disaffected Republicans - but not enough to really offset the bandwagon Trump effect in conservative districts.
It’s not productive to try to psych out the electorate with the most wishy-washy moderate candidate, trying to regain Trump voters; we are already too polarized for that.
Trump is dynamic and a showboat if nothing else. Only a strong, aggressive candidate who can also excite major Democratic blocks, such as African Americans, stand a chance - and not by enlisting Trump converts, but by exciting a big Democratic turnout.
My opinion is that’s a Bernie/Stacy Abrams ticket, even though I have trepidation’s about running a Jewish candidate. It’s all in the numbers - of electors.
1
@Blair Agree. And centrists will go for a right-wing populist, not a left-wing populist. (Despite Trump not really being one.)
This article firmly elucidates the old saw that "Democrats fall in love with their candidate, and Republicans fall in line."
The "fall in line" thinking must be adopted by all who wish Trump gone. The Democrat establishment must be prepared to fall in line behind Bernie, and the Bernie Bros must be prepared to fall in line behind Joe or Pete or Amy or Liz. And both sides must make it clear that they will do so.
The "I won't vote for anybody but my candidate" nonsense is exactly what Republicans want to hear. If you are one of these people, then you are actually a Trump supporter.
5
@Jason Kendall If you keep calling Bernie supporters "Bernie Bros," you are alienating them. Many are not Democrats and if they're bullied, they'll fall out, not in line.
I can keep this short--a Sanders nomination leads to four more years of Donald Trump.
8
Sanders will be abandoned by large swathes of Democrats. Old and middle income. The kind that votes. He loses in a landslide.
7
I would vote for a ham sandwich over Trump, but Sanders is not electable as a President. He is almost as polarizing as Trump, and would not be able to unify the Democratic Party. AOC made a prescient observation when she said that in a viable multiparty democracy she would not be a Democrat. The same is true for Sanders. The only place Sanders will lead the Ds is where they are leading themselves, into further dysfunction.
9
Suppose, as has happened twice since 1999, the Democrats win the popular vote, but loose in the EC, and that the Democrat is Sanders. What would it say in terms of last night's speech if a majority of Americans vote for a Socialist but are defeated by Trump again?
Will the false trope Trump said this week that Socialist = Communist continue to confuse American discourse, despite the generally Socialist governance of most of Western Europe and much of the world? Isn't a century of that lie about enough, or are we still in the Tea Party delusion of "Stop Socialism and don't touch my Medicare and Social Security!"?
2
No on Sanders for the nomination. Job #1 is to beat Trump.
1- Sanders can't win Florida, where 25% of the population is Hispanic and would never vote for a democratic socialist
2- Trump loses if Florida goes blue in Nov
3- Sanders as the dem. nominee means Trump is far more likely to win the general election.
This is not a comment on policies, likes or dislikes, it's solely to remind everyone to vote strategically. Dump Trump.
1
Where did FDR & his VP Henry Wallace take us? To new heights in retrospect via Big Ideas and The People loved them while The Oligarchs hated them.
3
@Samuel Owen FDR was extremely careful not to threaten white supremacy with the New Deal, which was largely pushed through by powerful racist Southern politicians. Republicans get that votg bloc now.
On FDR's solid support in the Deep South:
"Remarkable in his reelection of 1936 was the degree of support he (FDR) secured across the Deep South. Roosevelt's reelection was endorsed by 87% of voters in Alabama, Georgia and Texas, 89% in Louisiana, and an astonishing 97% in Mississippi and 99% in South Carolina, where some counties reported not one Republican vote."
from "Fear Itself", FDR and the New Deal by Katznelson
1
@Samuel Owen
But who is OUR FDR?
1
@cheryl
Bernie or Warren is fine by me!
1
Here is my contribution to my Democratic leaders in the hopes a long term crime sees justice;
Here's the scoop on the Trump Wall st tax cuts.......
Trump is talking about more tax cuts.....
I figured out the Tax cuts strategy over decades;
For decades, when Republicans are in power, they cut taxes harming the budget. When the Democrats win, they have to raise taxes to repair the harm from Republican tax cuts. Then the next cycle, Republicans scorn the increase of taxes by Democrats to win an election and power after which time, they cut taxes again. The cycle has repeated for decades.
It's a reputation thing. The Democrats get a bad rap for raising taxes then the Republicans win again shaming the increase of taxes that they were the original cause of. It happens over years and that's why no one figured it out.
First Reagan cut taxes, then Clinton raised taxes, then Bush cut taxes, then Obama raised taxes, then Trump cut taxes as he and all the Congressional Republicans are preening themselves again.
We are all Trump Chumps. That my fellow victims is what's up with Republican strategy. Republicans are robbing the nation.
1
The Democratic party is feckless and incompetent, weighed down by an insistence on prioritizing seniority over effectiveness, insiders over the electorate. I don’t see how there’s more danger in changing course with Bernie than in continuing down the path that has led us to where we currently stand.
2
The Democrat Party leadership will never accept a Socialist candidate. They will try every dirty trick possible in order to defeat him, no matter what his support from the Party's rank and file. Considering the historically high mortality rates for American progressive poltical candidates, having an election stolen from the people via software snafus rather than assassination actually represents a kind of progress. Socialism or barbarism? The choice is ours.
Here we go again. If, God forbid, Trump wins on 11/03/20, it won't matter who his opponent was - s/he will get blamed for it, and the supporters of all the other possible candidates will put forward the claim that their person would have won.
Eventually the terrible labyrinth of American politics will swallow us all. Just about EVERYTHING now depends on a Democratic victory 272 days from now.
Nothing like this has occurred in modern times anywhere on the planet, except in Germany in the 1930s - the democratic election of a dictator who is backed by millions of automata .
4
The Bernie cannot win is more a hope of the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democrats than an uncontroverted fact. Clinton was a corporatist neo con and engendered little enthusiasm in the face of a true extremist in Trump. It was a historic flop equal to the defeat of Dewey by Truman in 1948. Now in 2020 the Democratic establishment wants a neo cold war establishment candidate. Trump is not a strong candidate he is going to commit numerous ridicules gaffes on the way to November. There are so many issues that work against Trump. And as was stated Democrats will go to Sanders if he is the candidate because defeating Trump is the main issue. The issues will sort themselves out and compromises will be made because Sanders is a reasonable person. Unlike the person who holds the country in thrall on the weak thread that making the rich richer is a winning issue. Trump's narcissism is repellant to most voters. Even GOP senators held their noses in supporting Trump in the impeachment trial debacle.
@c harris
Here's the story.
The majority of Democrats are not Sanders supporters. Period.
And that much was made clear in 2016.
Want to know something else?
The majority of those who aren't Sanders supporters also aren't "corporatist neo-cons", but hard-working Americans who don't fit into his scheme, or that of the Republicans.
And after three years of Trump they don't want to take any more chances of his winning yet another term.
So forget the tropes -- and stick with the facts.
Why even bother thinking about it? If he steals the nomination of a party that he’s not a member of, my party, the Democratic Party, he’ll win as many electoral college votes as McGovern and Mondale. He’ll get annihilated.
6
Whom ever ends up as the Democrat candidate, they need to develop valuable skills mastered by Trump. Americans apparently like their president to constantly lie and never apologize when confronted by “facts”. A president needs to insult and threaten their opponents, being able to label critics with childish names in an instant. A president needs to find a way to equally split their time between work and golf. Maybe getting impeached would help as well. As President, he or she must have policies that infuriates half of the nation. These apparent negatives are entertaining, and quickly dismissed with they come with a tax cut. Trump’s approval rating has slowly but consistently risen as a result of these and other divisive attributes.
I imagine Bernie is very unpopular in several red states. He should carry blue states. But if he wins the swing states, we could have my dream outcome. He loses the popular vote by 5 million and wins the Presidency. That will kill the electoral college.
I don't particularly care for Bernie Sanders but I'm getting tired of all this 'extremist' talk when no one can point to any single position that Bernie has to the left of FDR, JFK or LBJ. If those Presidents were to the left of Bernie what were they? Ultra-Communists?
Give me a break.
3
I understand why the GOP/Trump voters don't
want Bernie as their President, as he would really spoil their party. but what are so-called moderate Democrats worried about?
Do they think he is a thief or a scoundrel or suffers from delusions of grandeur? Or that he would try to overwhelm Congress and the SCOTUS by exercising executive power unconstitutionally?
Hey, been there, doing that.
Sure, he would try to raise taxes on the rich, stop political corruption, propose serious measures to limit climate change, avoid foreign wars, make sure all citizens get good, affordable healthcare, etcetera. He's been fighting this battle for decades, but there isn't an undemocratic bone in his body.
He will get nothing done at all without support from our duly elected representatives, who will control any radical impulses he might have that are at odds with the will of the American people.
And that will be a breath of fresh air called democracy.
Bernie can't take the Democrats any place that's worse than where they are now. Which is nowhere. But he can take them back to being something resembling a party of the working class. Oh ... and he can also beat Trump.
2
Why does the media continue to allow Trump off the hook when it comes to the wild and absurd claims he makes concerning the US economy?
2008 was the meltdown. In the interim there was the re-stabilization of the financial system (largely on the backs of those who lost their homes), the end of the economic drain of oil imports (due to the fracking revolution), and the GM bailout. None of that was done on Trump's watch. Outside of the deregulation that is undermining both the American environment and the health of its citizens, Trump engaged in the great tax giveaway to the super rich. That's the real Trump economic legacy - policies of short term enrichment and long term disaster.
Trump's claims that this is a blue collar economy and that he is its author are the purest nonsense... yet very few in the media are willing to speak truth to power. Why?
That's the major challenge confronting Bernie Sanders. If the truth is ignored or suppressed, the liars are emboldened and free to play their schemes on the disadvantaged and ignorant.
When it comes to democracy, truth is its wellspring and lies are its poison. Sanders represents the former and Trump embodies the latter. The media must find its democratic voice, contradict the lies and just speak the facts - plain and simple.
1
I will never forgive Sanders and the misogynistic Bernie Bros for what they did to Hillary. If Sanders is the nominee I’ll simply stay home.
2
What is most interesting is that those to the right of center, and more inclined to vote Republican, are much more tolerant than the progressives. They recognize that everyone has flaws, and Trump has an incredible number of flaws, but they're willing to support him anyway. Democratic pundits try to portray the GOP as a bunch of Trump stooges, but the reality is that once Trump is gone they'll try to reorganize around people and policies that are less offensive and more effective. Civic virtue, biding one's time, waiting your turn, going along to get along - these concepts are may be incompatible with fierce ideological fervor, but they are effective in actual politics.
Meanwhile, over among the Democrats, it's my way or the highway. True believers abound, but unfortunately they don't all believe in the same thing. Ridiculous demands for physical diversity and ideological purity create a fence so high no candidate can scale it....yeah, Buttigieg is gay, but he's a white man! He was the mayor of a town where the police actually arrested criminals! We can't have this! With voters like that, it's enough to make one consider a revival of Rockefeller republicanism, which is pretty much what Bloomberg is trying to do.
2
As a lifelong Dem voter, the biggest positive I see from Bernie is this:
If he wins, he will instantly blow up Trump's GOP. Then over four years his failures will blow up the Dems.
End result: The two party system will be in ashes. Maybe a multi-party Democracy version 2.0 will be a better system.
Just a reminder to all those people comparing Bernie Sanders to FDR -- FDR was very wealthy.
Wealth, obviously, doesn't preclude someone from being a great President.
Wealth also shouldn't preclude someone from being the Democratic Nominee.
2
"I’m still betting on Biden. Ultimately, Sanders has a ceiling of around 30 percent, says Charles Stewart." Does anyone think that makes sense? Where do Elizabeth Warren's voters go?
1
Sanders and Warren together poll at roughly 44%. Sanders can expand his support, but only inside this bucket. It's hard to see how he could actually push vigorously to the 55/60% support he will need to receive a mandate to defeat Trump.
If Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar don't gain decisive traction, it seems more plausible for their voters to coalesce around Warren, who is at Sanders' right, and more and palatable to the moderate suburban voters the dems need to beat Trump.
1
A candidate espousing the virtues of the old Soviet Union against one embracing the new Russian Kleptocracy.
The Russian influence on our countries politics continues...
2
Iowas is barely the pulse of the country but even with that, the vote totals for 3 candidates NOT for Medicare for all = 62K and vote totals for 2 candidates for Medicare for all= 57K
Don't ignore moderate dems who don't want Medicare for all. This is the single most divisive issue within the Dem party right now.
Bernie will never win because the democratic party will not let him. Fill in the dots from yesterday at Iowa - The democrats effectively interfered in the election by hacking it. I am expecting the same in other caucus votes. Bernie's only chance is to run as a third party candidate in the general election. Hopefully he, and his followers, realize that soon
1
The Iowa Caucus scenario was a disaster and set us out on a very poor footing. I'm open to hear why not Bloomberg. This isn't the time for a candidate like Bernie with extreme left views - his ideas will not sell to centrist Democrats or centrist non-Democrats and other sensible people. I believe that people want to make their own choice in health care , and not be forced into medicare for all at this time. By the way, Bernie is not a Democrat and his ideas walk right into trump socialism scare tactics. We don't need that now.
3
"Sanders’s positioning on the far left" Really? Sanders policies are center left at the most. I guess places like Canada, and most of western Europe are basically communist according to Mr. Edsall.
2
@Fabian Agreed. Edsall writing in favor of the struggling establishment party line is disappointing. I always appreciated his structured argumentative approach but he seems to be picking quotes very one-sidedly here.
It’s relative to the other US Presidential candidates, not in comparison to any other countries.
Everyone thought that the 2016 Republican primaries were a mess and that the extremist candidate, Trump, had no chance at winning the general election.
1
If Barnie is the nominee it's another term for Trump.
1
While talk of the issues certainly makes the blood flow, I must remind our most passionate correspondents that this has happened before. Crooked president, his subservient partisans, divided electorate, idealist opponents seizing the moment: McGovern, 1972. Nixon won reelection by the largest margin in a presidential election up to that time.
Just sayin.’
1
Are voters registered as “no party preference” waking up to the role they have played in the death march of the Democratic Party? I have many friends who are registered as “no party preference” who have never voted for a Republican and aren’t likely to start doing do so now. In California they will have to take the initiative to get a Democratic primary ballot if they want to participate. (How likely are they to know they must do that, let alone actually do it?) But California is one of only 23 states that have open primaries that enable “no party preference” voters to participate in party primaries.
In other words “no party preference” voters have disenfranchised themselves in the primaries, which is one of the reasons why the Democratic Party is about to saddle itself with a candidate who cannot win in a country in which the word “socialist” is anathema.
Did “no party preference” voters know what they were doing? Would NYT please get out there and ask those people if they realized they have voluntarily disenfranchised themselves? It’s not too late for them to change their registration for Super Tuesday on March 6.
3
In 2018, well after Trump's election, two Stanford political scientists make the claim that "extremist" candidates drive voters to the opposing party? Clearly that isn't true for Republicans who seem not only to have voted for Trump, but for a party that becomes ever more devoted to his lies and demagoguery. So, the question seems to be - why are progressive Democrats unelectable extremists, but a racist, misogynistic, oligarchic demagogue is on the verge of acquittal and reelection?
1
Everyone is scared of Bernie. But he’d be easier for dems to work with than Trump. And they spent almost three years compromising with him... Can we stock the hand wringing?
Running up the score in Massachusetts or Manhattan is not going to be what wins the election.
4
Voters always punish extreme positions, until they don't. There is no substantive equivalence between Bernie's very soft liberal socialism and Trump's hard racism, Islamophobia, and his nightly nationalist hate nonsense medley. Yet Republicans came out and rewarded those extremes and Democratic voters punished Hilary for her centrist elitism. Political Scientists did not predict Trump's victory in 2016, they will miss a Bernie victory in 2020. Maybe the democratic electorate should learn to be citizens again rather than pundits in waiting.
2
If Bernie wins the nomination, he will take the party to a landslide defeat in november. Their only chance in nominating Bloomberg even though he is rich, white, and old.
1
"Finally, America still appears reluctant to elect a female president."
America is still shockingly sexist. I don't understand how, after all women have gone through in US history, that still seems to be the case in 2020. Add sexism to the list of serious problems America has with equality. It needs to be studied and fixed.
3
He'll produce an epic loss. The Democratic Party is really not the Communist-Socialist Party and most Democrats would not agree with Bernie's old position that Soviet Russia was an ideal society.
He's not even a Democrat for God's sake, a fact he has staunchly maintained for many years.
2
I do love the way the terms "extreme" and "extremist" (in themselves hardly accurate descriptions of Sanders' policy platform which is entirely in line with European social-democratic norms) are unhesitatingly applied to candidates of the left and never, apparently, to those of the right. So we are soberly informed that the nomination of "extremist" candidates prompts disaffection and absenteeism amongst party moderates and encourages reactive turnout in that party's opponents.
Oddly this analysis doesn't ever seem to apply across the aisle: the GOP did just fine nominating a white supremacist, nativist, authoritarian, misogynist demagogue of the far right. The closer Trump tilts towards outright fascism the more his base seems to like it, and the timorous "moderates" wring their hands and bank the tax breaks. Maybe the Dems should ignore the centrist bleatings and fight fire with ideological fire?
1
@Barry Langford the view from London is not the view of Americans living in flyover counties. If the Democrats fail to win those electoral votes, we will be facing 4 more years of trump. The albatross moniker of socialism will crush Sanders in these crucial voting areas. Bloomberg has a chance there, Bernie will lose . The Republicans will dig up all of Bernie's previous statements and blanket the TV ads with them. People in these area's are generally old and conservative. The young are leaving or have gone. Reality is stern taskmaster.
Personally I’m very enthusiastic for Pete and am delighted that he appears to have done well in Iowa. I believe he’s exactly the young, smart person we need NOW. He’s the first candidate I’ve financially supported in 65 years.
I am also disappointed that the big news media (yes I’m looking at you, NYT) seem eager to dismiss him. (Sanders? Really?!). But I’m rather encouraged by the opinions of your so-called pundits who have proved so obsolete in recent elections. If they, too, seem to dismiss Pete (with their spam robo-call polls) it’s probably a good sign!
1
If you are wondering what a "concerted effort by the establishment to thwart Sen. Sanders" looks like, just check in with the NYT OP-ed page. They have an endless parade of analyst who (despite having gotten it all wrong in 2016) will shamelessly offer well-worn alarmist tropes about Bernie.
I’ll get over blaming Sanders for Trump’s election when you get over blaming the NYT for Sanders’ Primary loss. Deal?
1
I continue to view Sanders as a spoiler. I wish he would retire so that his influence does not threaten Democrats.
4
"If Bernie Wins, Where Will He Take the Democratic Party?"
Back to the Democratic Party.
4
We should just start calling "anybody but Trump" Democrats "anybody but Bernie" Democrats as they seem to hate Bernie far more then Trump.
Sanders, seems to me, is not the outrageous character that many try to portray him. Whatever a Democratic Socialist might be he, if elected, is not a King but the leader of 1/3 of the government. If the electorate wants to see change if healthcare, education and the economy some fairly dramatic change in leadership is necessary. With hyper-partisanship little can be done in the old fashioned, even if preferable, way of negotiation. McConnell does not negotiate, Schumer has no ability to shape legislation or effect the choices of the Senate for the judiciary. This is my primary objection to Biden. At present there's no way of returning to political comity and rationality so Joe is out (for me).
1
Mainstream media including NYT made it clear that Trump was never going to win in 2016 because of his extreme views/policies and unconventional attitude and behavior. Trump's extreme views, bellicosity and belligerent and pugnacious attitude were cited by mainstream media including NYT as factors against his election but he went on to win and Trump has become even more extreme since. Should Sanders win, he will beat Trump and the Dems will win the Senate and the House as well. I am for Sanders!!!
217
@Nzema Kotoko
Wishful thinking. Reality speaks otherwise -- starting with the fact that in 2016, Sanders couldn't even win his hometown of NYC... but then again, neither could Trump.
17
@Nzema Kotoko
Another false equivalency. Trump bucked predictions and won a narrow, technical victory because his opponent was as or more deeply unpopular than he was. Swing voters forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, opted for Trump. The response from those swing voters was to then check him by voting in a Democratic House. Said another way, it is a fact that the Democrats won the House not because of progressive candidates, but because of moderate ones. This is indisputable.
So if Sanders is the nominee, Americans will once again have to choose between two candidates who don't have the support of a majority of Americans and who elicit very negative feelings outside of their base of support. Given this, it is highly unlikely that America will double down and give Sanders the ability to run his full playbook. The last time I checked America is not socialist and despite a whole lot of tweets and loud voices coming from his base, most of the country actually lives somewhere in the middle, which means moderation. Moderation does not equate to one party rule.
17
@Nzema Kotoko
I don't know about that. Who ever wins, it will be a very close race. The moderate Democrats will caused the Blue Wave will have to hold on to their seats, and the Democrats actually lost seats in 2018 rather than gaining.
In spite of the Squad, it was moderate Democrat who took the House of Rep to a majority. You may not care for them, but you cannot dismiss their importance to the party.
11
Bernie Sanders is not going to take the Democratic Party anywhere that FDR hasn't already taken it long ago. There was once room, plenty of room, for FDR in the Democratic Party. Why are we having so much trouble making room for Bernie today?
5
@Elizabeth Pike
We aren't. The 1% DEMs who make up the "establishment" of the party are.
@magicisnotreal Quite right.
Want to vote for Bernie? You guarantee Trump a 2nd term. Why? Purely the mechanics of electing any president. Independent voters determine who wins elections. They will vote Trump or stay home. Democrats who do not believe in his policy ideas- a sizable group moderates- see him as an extremist. Why is it he suggests programs that
sound lovely - healthcare for all- but no mention of costs? Some may vote for him but many will not.
In short, Trump wants to run against Bernie. He will beat him in a landslide. The worst outcome for our nation. Warren? He's already "played" her on DNA. She is his fallback.
And Bernie is no FDR
This seems so simple. Nobody during the primary thought Trump could win the election. Nobody. Even the NY TImes up until election night predicted Mrs. Clinton would win. Now, these same people are predicting Bernie Sanders can't win.
And giving the very same excuses for why Trump wouldn't win. (to extreme, not moderate enough, his background would come up! )
Bernie can win in 2020. Moderates,independents and the Democratic Party will unite under Mr. Sanders. We have seen enough and I say to all the naysayers watch and learn from recent history. Bernie will be our next president come November!
Peace!
3
Firstly, we must acknowledge that humanity is undergoing a colossal paradigm shift and we are confronting an existential threat - the Climate Crisis - that must be managed in a comprehensive manner; the young generation is fully committed to respond to this challenge while the older one isn't!
Secondly, the US system is rigged and the jungle capitalism is a predatory system. This can't go on! US must reshape itself to resemble more of The Nordic Model of Scandinavian countries practice, where things work.
Bernie is the one who the young generation of Americans can trust in ushering these much needed changes. They are the voters that can shape the future, not the older generation who are not responding quite well to the challenges the world and US face; because they are stuck in old party politics.
The Republicans had their own experiment with an extremist candidate in 1964 with Barry Goldwater's presidential run. Goldwater's nomination speech included the famous words "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," at which time Nelson Rockefeller (a moderate Republican) walked out of the convention.
The Republicans lost 44 states to LBJ.
Warren and Sanders do not have enough support in the (more moderate) battleground states, the rust belt, and among African Americans. Their nomination would lead to another dismal four years of Trump.
1
That Sanders is considered a radical shows how far to the right the Democratic Party has moved. Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, in the tradition of great Presidents like FDR who raised millions out of poverty. The push by Centrists to make Sanders seem like an outlier is a blatant attempt to undermine his campaign.
1
Hate to break it, but what looked like a rich field of candidates a few months ago turns out to be a disappointment. There is just no young Obama in there who inspires and unites all Democrats.
Biden is problematic with his struggle to finish sentences.
He just doesn't seem to be able to speak anymore like he did on McCain's funeral, for example. And there's the baggage.
Iowa turned him down, that's a bad sign. Klobuchar and Warren are good candidates but they just don't seem to gain any traction. Buttigieg did well in overwhelmingly white Iowa but remains a big risk with minority voters. He's articulate, but not in an Obama-way.
Bloomberg's $5 trillion tax raise on the rich is a shimmer of hope. At least he sees the vacuum in between the centrists and progressives. But I'm afraid he started too late. As a billionaire he's a very abstract candidate to the heartland to begin with. Not showing in the early rural states to humanize himself may end up costing him dearly in the general.
At this point I think going directly for the rural vote and hoping our coastal bastions hold, with Bernie, is the best option. He's the only candidate who's exciting (for better or worse) and that's what it's going to take to beat Trump.
1
@Anne
Frankly I've made the decision to pay as little attention as possible to these primaries and individual candidates. Doing so is just going to erode my resolve to "vote blue no matter who".
Comfort yourself with the notion that all policy changes are DOA with the Senate in Republican control, which is not expected to change. This election is just about damage control. As long as someone is "within the bounds of normal" for our laws and norms, they'll be fine. A ham sandwich, wet noodle, or buzz saw, it doesn't really matter.
2
@Anne
Too bad you conveniently forget that Sanders also remains a big risk with "minority voters".
And that's one group he can't afford to lose.
Talk to me after South Carolina.
Asked whether they would support the eventually democratic nominee, 87 percent of Joe Biden supporters said yes, as did 90 percent of those backing Elizabeth Warren and 86 percent of those aligned with Pete Buttigieg. 53 percent of Sanders supporters said yes.
I am no expert at math but this is precisely why we should nominate Bernie! All the other candidate's voters will support him, but if anyone else wins, we lose half of Bernie supporters and lose the election.
1
@Lukaslof
Perhaps, but I'm loathe to enable these people who are self-righteously demanding "stuff" with no regard for any wider consequences or reality. They are at the core not any different from Trump voters.
1
@Sarah with all due respect I don't really understand your argument. You would rather nominate a weaker candidate and possibly lose the election because don't want to "enable" his voters? What sort of political strategy is that?
You say they are "not any different from Trump voters" - according to 2016 data a decent chunk of them WERE Trump voters! And last I checked the point of the general election is to win over people from the other side! Bernie polls well with Independents and seems well positioned to win back some Trump voters. How is that possibly a bad thing? I'm no expert at politics but that seems like exactly the sort of candidate we need.
The thing about historical precedents is that they only apply until they don't. The question to ask is not whether Sanders could win in a typical election year, it is whether we have reached the point where people actually want more radical action. I think we're there. If you look at history through that lens, you will see that every 40 or 50 years people get fed up with the status quo and vote in someone who is dramatically different. This is Bernie's time. Don't be caught on the wrong side of history.
2
"A January 22-23 Emerson College survey asked Democratic primary voters “will you vote for the Democratic nominee even if it is not your candidate?” 87 percent of Joe Biden supporters said yes, as did 90 percent of those backing Elizabeth Warren and 86 percent of those aligned with Pete Buttigieg. 53 percent of Sanders supporters said yes, 16 percent said no, and 31 percent said they were undecided."
This summarizes the whole argument. Those who are hard in the Bernie camp are not about getting Trump out, they are about making America a socialist country. Very much a "all or nothing" group. Even most members of the Republican Tea Party recognized that if they could not get what they wanted that the next best thing was to make sure a Republican was in the WH.
This will be the downfall of the Dems if he gets the nomination and will not just keep Trump in office for 4 more years but embolden him to do even more that the Dems will hate.
Unabashed ideology never wins in politics unless the army is there to make sure you get what you want.
1
@DC What kind of argument is this? You seem to be saying that it is folly to support Sanders because of the nature of his supporters. Are you suggesting that those who vote for, or support, Sanders are *actually* supporting this particular group of Sanders supporters that you take to be worrisome and inflexible, or are you suggesting that readers who throw support behind Sanders to defeat Trump will find themselves magically transformed into inflexible "Bernie Bros"? Who cares if there is a "hard Bernie camp" that you dislike? If Sanders gains traction and appears to be the strongest candidate against Trump, then support for Sanders ought to expand dramatically, according to the very figures you just cited in order to trumpet the character of those who support centrist candidates. If it is fair to interpret such figures as you are interpreting them, then the composition of the "Bernie camp" would, under such circumstances, change over the course of the primary season. If shifting support to Sanders is too much for you and other centrists to stomach, even if it becomes evident to more and more people that he is the emerging as strongest bet to defeat Trump in a fair electoral process, well, then it sounds like those numbers may be misleading and that your interpretation of such numbers may be disingenuous.
So, you recognize that unabashed tribalism and toeing the party line contributed to Trump being president, and you think liberals should follow that example, should vote blue regardless of the quality of the candidate.
No, thanks. It's true that progressives dont view Trump as the source of everything bad in America. You know who else doesn't? All those people who elected Trump over your moderate "sane" choice Hillary.
Maybe you should try to understand why that happened, how Hillary and the DNC failed to understand or consider the worries and problems of all those working class Americans, instead of just blaming people who don't blindly fall in line with candidates that don't speak to them and their problems.
If Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee I will not be voting for president for the first time since 1956. Neither Donald Trump not Bernie Sanders is qualified for this office. My choice at this point is Michael Bloomburg who has the administrative experience to get us out of this mess. If he chose Amy Kobacher as his running mate, he might even begin to initiate a dialog in Congress and begin to get something done about serious issues like climate change.
2
In 2011, Bernie helped guide his state to a single payer healthcare reform. That is a fact which Democrat voters can count on and which Republican leaders can not deny!
In 2015, Bernie pointed out that: "We spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country."
In 2016, Bernie pointed out that: "Not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real."
It is a shame, that Democrats don't bother to look up what happened to the single payer healthcare reform in less than three years and to see if Bernie's many statements, of which two are quoted, are even close to the truth!
Our country needs fresh ideas that have a chance of actually working.
What our country doesn't need is the same old political spin.
I look at some of the current candidates while they talk about Climate Change while flying in their private jets or the multiple homes they own . I look at current and past candidates and think about 'An Inconvenient truth" and a $30,000 dollar annual gas/electric bill for the main house and pool house - back in 2005/2006!
What our country needs are leaders who walk the walk and talk the talk... no private jets, no heated swimming pools, no multiple homes, no private security while expecting everyone else to wing it.
We need leaders who won't become millionaires while in office or after leaving office - while claiming exorbitant speaking fees were hard earned and not payment for the political favors they gave!
2
Where will he take the Democratic party?
To defeat.
5
If Bernie wins we have 4 more years of Trump. This is why the Rs are trying so hard for Bernie to win in primaries. There is no way Bernie will survive a Trump campaign. The only one with a real shot at this point is Bloomberg. He can outspend Trump. He has more $$ than Trump and is willing to spend it. The only thing Trump worships is the almighty dollar and Bloomberg can eat him for lunch. I will vote blue for all the way down. But Bernie....no chance he will win.
5
@Andrea we the small people are funding Bernie. If we are a true democracy it’s gotta mean something, right?
1
@petey tonei
No, the election is determined by a small number of swing states, most importantly, Florida. Sanders can't win FL which is 25% Hispanic by population. Trump can't win without FL. Who can win FL? BBB&K
@petey tonei
It will only mean something if that funding translates into votes -- in the Electoral College!
Headline answer. To defeat!
4
let's just ignore calling Bernie Sanders ideas extreme for this:
An extremist can't win the presidency? Seems like you've been asleep since November 2016.
3
According to Mr. Edsall and other pro-establishment NYT journalists, Democrats should elect a status quo candidate who is acceptable to the republic party, would play by rules set by the ultra-rich, wouldn’t provoke Trump to say nasty things about him/her. Nice!
2
So we try to return to business as usual. The Corporate media speaks. That is how we wound up with the Orange Nightmare.
2
Come gather 'round people, wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimmin' or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'
Come writers and critics, who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide, the chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin' who that it’s namin'
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'
Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'
Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don’t criticize what you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get outta' the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'
8
Bernie is into the Hot Carl (ing) the Democratic leadership.
Nancy Pelosi, Schiff ,Nadler et al.. and into the mouth of the American people. everyone earns 15$ an hour while he and AOC rake in 175$ an hour to tell you why you arent getting your fair share.
Simple answer: off a cliff.
4
The fact is, Democrats and liberal minded people are moving further left. If you look at the divides in the Democratic party, the lines are clearly generational. The young want change, and as time moves forward, the young will inevitably inherit the government. Currently young Democrats are turning out to vote in historic numbers, and as such, Sanders stands a pretty good chance, both in the primaries and generals. My point is that traditional Democrats are freaking out over nothing.
1
Be very very afraid.
2
And right in the middle of the article is an ad for Bloomberg! He should be considered in any conversation about 2020! His ad...”End the chaos...” should be his constant drumbeat!
Bloomberg/Yang 2020!
1
We’ve heard it all before, Mr. Edsall, and frankly we’re unmoved. We’re winning this one and you and your ilk will be mercifully cast into the wilderness. Good riddance.
Bernie can win, and will win. It will be ok. He's is a Senator from Vermont - not V. Lenin.. At a certain point, one needs to ask why the left of center, socially well off academics are so freaked out? No, he's not coming for your IRA.. And yes, we do need some more social equity. Maybe the well off haven't noticed the relentless shift to the Right has just finished with a shove into the pit of Despotism. The way I see it, there is one who can eviscerate the Despot - and it's Bernie. So make a pot of Sleepytime and come on over. It 'll be fine... And will be nice.. to win!
3
After reading your article, I'm more convinced that not only can Bernie win, but he's actually our best chance.
4
@Keri
That's probably because you were well dispensed in his favor before reading it.
I, on the other hand, as an undecided voter still remain unconvinced.
And I'm probably not the only one.
On a much broader structural level, the Sanders dilemma for moderate Democrats and independents, combined with the conversion of the GOP into a Trump personality cult, illustrates the degree to which the two-party system of American governance has completely broken down.
Unlike in a parliamentary system, which has a larger number of more representative parties, the American system offers no structural alternative to the two major parties.
In a parliamentary system, of course, Sanders and his followers would have their own type of democratic socialist, Green Party, along European lines, while the Never-Trump Republicans would also have some type of right-center party.
Third parties are not realistic options in our political system, as they have no access to the ballot and fundraising. At best, they serve as spoilers, as we saw with Jill Stein in 2016 and Ralph Nader in 2000.
Of course, the sole "exception that proves the rule" to this two-party tyranny are the self-funded billionaires, such as Donald Trump (assuming for the sake of argument that he is indeed a billionaire), Mike Bloomberg and Ross Perot,all of whom can afford to throw away vast sums of money in an ego vanity project and enter a presidential race outside of the traditional rules.
It is difficult to see any way out of this structural dilemma. We are stuck with this system until we can figure out a way to have the parties more accurately represent the actual views of Americans.
3
So, if a victory for Senator Sander's in New Hampshire will result in "an establishment-led drive to block him from the nomination", why did the Democratic establishment let him get a toehold in the Democratic primaries to begin with? Just as the Republicans should have done with Mr. Trump in 2015/2016, the Democrats could have come up whatever political dirty tricks necessary to force the Senator out of the race and deny him a voice in the process. This would force him and his supporters into the nether regions of a third-party candidate, raging against the dying of the socialist light and unlikely to do the Democrats harm in the areas where they need to win this year. Didn't any politicians learn the lessons of 2016?
1
This is a lovely, data - driven analysis, but it fails a key test: when applied to recent elections, it is dead wrong.
This analysis in 2016 would have told the Dem party that Hillary Clinton is the right choice and told the GOP that Trump was the wrong choice. Reality showed that analysis false.
Apply it to 2016. Obama was the radical choice back then. He promised to overhaul healthcare, including a government-run option. Running a black candidate was untested, umknown, and Obama had little experienece, especially compared to the veteran, in both senses of the word, senator McCain.
Remind me who won that one.
You can't take data from 40 years ago and apply it to voters today. Today, a majority of people say the country is headed in the wrong direction. Disdain for sitting politicians is at all time high, and for good reason. People have voted over and over for change. Even the moderates who won seats in 2018, I think, were less about moderate policies (though their rejection of PAC and corporate money is chronically overlooked by pundits who want to paint them as the same as Claire Mccaskill et al.) and more about a change of blood in our Congress.
1
@Matt Semrad
Clinton was the right choice. Her margin of victory in the popular vote was larger than many elected presidents achieved.
3
Corporate-owned America, via its corporate-owned "Newspaper of Record" has here given Edsall plenty of room to launch into a full-throated call to fear Sanders—and to fear him so deeply that other fears (climate change, crumbling infrastructure, stagnant/declining wages, no healthcare, increasing deaths of despair) are to be completely forgotten.
(And never mind that Sanders is mobilizing a mass movement that aims to "take on the entire 1%" in order to tackle all of the parenthetical issues mentioned above.)
The primaries have now begun, and this "if Bernie wins" nightmare is tormenting Corporate America's private boardrooms not only across this nation, but also around the globe.
So these self-proclaimed "Global Titans" and "Masters of the Universe" have charged their corporate propaganda channels (popularly known as "mainstream media") with flooding the entire world with one overriding goal:
The people of the world must Fear Bernie Sanders more than they fear anything else.
In fact, what Corporate America is really saying here and everywhere in mainstream media:
The political mobilization of masses of people here and around the world is the greatest threat to continuing corporate control (and governance) of the U.S. and the world.
The only way to stop these masses of people from becoming agents of democracy is to stop Bernie Sanders, and thereby return the public to its spectator role—in front of a big screen TV, with plenty of chips and soda to help pacify them.
2
Judging from the ferocity of these pro-Bernie comments, it’s evident that his supporters live in a Manichaean universe: if Bernie wins an election, it is due ONLY to his, and his followers, Goodness. If he loses an election, on the other hand, he is blameless: it’s purely because of all the Evil forces arrayed against him. His supporters are immune from self-criticism, because they are Good.
The same mindset can be seen in Britain among hard-core Labour voters: do they acknowledge that perhaps their crushing defeat was their own fault? Do they acknowledge they lost because they abandoned the white working class? Not a chance.
It’s telling that none of the comments address the inconvenient FACT that the reason Democrats now control the House is because in swing districts NONE of the pro-socialist left wing candidates won. Moderates won.
But never fear, President Sanders and Prime Minister Corbyn will usher in a new People’s Golden Age.
6
Here is the question: Does nominating Bernie Sanders move the Democratic party in the right direction? Win this election or not, will his nomination set a goal for the future? In 1964, the Republicans put up a candidate that lost in one of the worst defeats in US presidential elections history, Barry Goldwater. I think if you look back at that election from 2020, you will see that even though he lost, his brand of conservatism became the guiding principle of the Republican party from 1980 onward. When Vietnam and Watergate made the old system of non-ideologically aligned parties obsolete, what was there to takes its place? Goldwater Republicanism incarnated in Ronald Reagan. What will be there as an alternative to Trump's version of Goldwater Republicanism? A centrist Democratic system to offers nothing new? A Clintonist republican-lite? I certainly hope note. The tracks have to be laid for a better system moving forward and I think that Bernie is the man to lay those tracks. If we live or die by the idea of elect-ability in one election, then we forsake the future. The Democratic Party needs a vision that goes beyond 2020 and you won't find vision in the center.
4
"We have found consistent evidence that extremist nominees do poorly in general elections in large part because they skew turnout in the general election away from their own party and in favor of the opposing party."
Well that really worked out last time.
3
Right, so nominating an "extremist" (whatever that is) alienates moderate voters and motivates the opposite camp. Though interestingly, Trump is President, i.e. theory seems to have failed in 2016. Shouldn't the fact that the "extremist" - Bernie - will be potentially running against the most racist, sectarian, inept, and nauseating president in the recent history of the US flip the argument on its head? What happens in a contest between two "extremes"?
4
@Tommaso
The pundits have the axis wrong here. It's not right-left anymore. It's been trending toward establishment - anti establishment for awhile now. Trump's election completed this shift.
Bernie and Trump will be competing for the same anti-establishment voters.
Bernie has a chance because Democrats are highly motivated to get rid of Trump and will "vote blue no matter who", and Trump voters will actually be split between the two anti-establishment candidates. They don't actually care about policy, they care about sticking it to the man.
Next to President Trump, the last thing I want to see President Bernie. But I really do think he has a solid chance to pick off the emotional Trump vote.
3
@Sarah Though I differ as to your opinion regarding a Sanders presidency, my comment sought to highlight precisely the points you make. The fact that mainstream pundits still believe that nominating a centrist candidate would be the best option to defeat Trump astounds me beyond comprehension.
1
@Tommaso
Well, those of us who are more establishment don't welcome the idea of the overall contest moving to anti-establishment terrain. But lying to yourself is never a good start toward getting what you want.
Establishment Republicans have co-opted their anti-establishment wing so they don't mind either way. Establishment Democrats don't have this and I'm not sure if they have the wherewithal (or moral bankruptcy, depending on who you ask) to do the same.
Sanders is all about free stuff and socialism. His philosophy is to give a man a fish to fill his belly for the day. A totally foreign concept for Sanders us that if you teach the man to fish he will be happy for a lifetime.
2
My first presidential ballot was cast for George McGovern. Lesson learned.
7
@David So your last one was for Trump? Or are there no lessons to be learned from 2016?
1
This nation is sick. Large numbers of people no longer have sustainable good paying jobs, health care is unaffordable & unavailable for many, college is ridiculously expensive, the infrastructure is failing & the environment is threatened.
Yet, Edsall is telling us that the status quo must be maintained.
If righting outrageous societal wrongs requires revolution, I'll take revolution.
3
Where will he take the party which I have been a member of longer than he has? Over a cliff into the socialist abyss, is where.
4
if you can't figure out why trump keeps rooting for sanders on twitter..
3
An old man now, I have espoused Sanders' philosophy my entire adult life. But, I fear he can not beat Trump.
Now, I'm thinking Buttegieg. This kid may be for real. He has not slipped yet, and seems able to appeal to a broader electorate. His speaking ability is truly phenomenal.
I was a Warren supporter - thinking personality was more important than sex. But she is not resonating as much as I'd hoped.
This election must not be lost.
4
Interesting that in the Lev-Parnas-provided Igor Fruman tape/video of the donor dinner with Trump —
Trump states that the one candidate he feared facing in the 2016 election was Bernie Sanders.
3
No one would be scared of Bernie if they remember what the president actually does. All the things these people are scared about are things congress does (you know, pass laws). Actually, if you are so terrified of Bernie passing a socialist agenda, you should be glad to get him out of the branch of government where he likely has more power to do that!
Unless you think he is going to bring a massive leftward sweep in congress with him, stop worrying and learn to enjoy the Bern.
2
Bernie is the road to ruin for the Democrats. Only Amy or Bloomberg can win the election, but the Democrats are once again suicidal.
3
Unfortunately, many of the people that Senator Sanders (and there are few in the Senate to whom I will give that title) don't vote. He will be better served doing his work in the Senate because the mob, coupled with the lies of Traitor Trump and his mob, that Bernie's a communist (i.e., Putin) will doom his campaign.
1
If Sanders is the nominee and loses he and his supporters will blame the liberal establishment, the moderate establishment and the media. But the truth of the matter is the incumbent has lost only twice since 1980 and in 1992 if Ross Perot is not in the race, Bill Clinton doesn’t win. 
It seems the Sanders supporters feel everyone is against their policies. Speaking for myself my heart would love Medicare for All, free college, elimination of student loan debt, decriminalization of borders, Medicare for undocumented immigrants, and jailing the Wall Street crooks.
But my head doesn’t think America will buy into this. So like someone on this board said, we need a pragmatic reformer.
I'm surprised that apparently none of your "experts" mentioned Mike Bloomberg. If his admittedly very unorthodox campaign strategy works, I believe he'll be a formidable presidential candidate.
4
Et tu, Mr. Edsall?
Why is everyone pretending to be an expert on how the general will go? Trump was an insane choice with no path to victory against Clinton, he won.
Let’s see who the people decide they want as their candidate.
The first failure of pushing Biden and Klobuchar on us should have been the Times’ first clue of being completely out of touch from the shiny New York City offices. Now please stop.
6
I wonder if he should bolt the party.
I voted Bernie in the primary & HRC in the general in ‘16. I think I’ll stick with him. The party? The Iowa thing lessens my trust in any shred of competence.
3
Establishment efforts to block Sanders will ensure the reelection pf Trump. The “Onion” is a parodic newspaper, but their observation that the Democrats would try to nominate Trump himself if Bernie seemed to be closing in on the prize was not far off the mark.
5
In this Opinion, writer, Edsall, takes readers along on a round of college professors and political pundits with the question of where Bernie would take the Democratic Party. Not once was Michael Bloomberg's name mentioned. This Opinion will not not get you a hair closer to the answer of this question than you are right now and that is if you care.
The reason for Trump and Sanders is the State of the Union, which less face it, is not good. And that's why Sanders might have a chance. The main reason he'd probably fail is the DNC which is really the old DLC in drag. You establishment types have taken the corporate cool aide and gone along to get along which has profited you all very nicely indeed while the blue collar crowd (of whom I 'm one ) succumbed to Lumbaugh et al, wrapped in flags, carrying bibles, sprinkling racism and sowing misogyny. That's why I'll vote for Sanders. Not that it matters. Greta Thunberg is right.
3
Don1t be so sure Bernie would win, there is Mayor Pete chugging ahead .
American should be ready for a gay Candidate , the whole world is ahead of us, with lots of Women leaders, and Gay , Prime Misister in Ireland.
trump needs to be a one time President.
2
-If Bernie Wins, Where Will He Take the Democratic Party?-
Oh my...what if?
For the Democratic Party establishment, it's a nightmare come true.
If it comes down to President Trump's vision for the future of the United States, compared to the plans of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar et al...Democrats can't win that battle for U.S. voters.
The terror of the Democratic Party's establishment is palpable...because that may indeed be the choice the Democratic Party will be offering up in November.
2
I balance my NYTimes subscription with double the Times monthly amount to Mr. Sanders. This way I am assured I get the news, while keeping a balanced influence. The center of the Democratic party doesn't talk about embedded corruption. Corruption makes it impossible to act on behalf of majority Americans.
1
Edsall, generally citing his own former students and friends, continues Clintonism without Clinton. He continues visibly discredited 1950s voting theory in which there is massive middle ("median voters") that both parties must attract to win,a nd they do this, allegedly, by moving to "the center." This is not the game anymore, and the NYT should not rely on it in the endless efforts to undermine Sanders.
Only Sanders can win because only he can mobilize a victorious coalition of coastal progressive and Obama-Trump working class voters.
PS: which candidate is best friends with a KGB agent named Vladimir?
4
Here comes the fear mongering. Answer:we'll jump off that bridge when we come to it.
3
Sanders and Warren equal disaster.
It is magical thinking to believe the 2020 electorate--one that wants realignment to the center and an end to the chaos--will come out for and not against candidates openly embracing socialism, Sanders past support for centralized economic planning and ownership of major industries, their desire to take away employer provided health insurance, decriminalize illegal border crossings, empower other politicians such as AOC and the Squad, and on and on...
Simply not going to happen.
5
Political science has proven to be not a science at all. While reading all of these opinions might expand ones views on this nomination process, they really amount to nothing. Almost all of them were off in their 2016 prognostications. The NYT would provide a greater service by focusing more effort on helping us to better understand our candidates, not telling us why all of these experts think Sanders will lead to defeat.
6
@Joseph Ah yes, the pro science anti science post.
If Bernie is the nominee then many people will vote for a republican house and senate to ensure he gets nothing done. It will be a disaster for democrats.
I will vote blue no matter who but many of my friends in their fifty’s feel threatened by Bernie and Warren. These aren’t wealthy people. They are salaried working people who have voted blue their whole lives who see retirement around the corner.
160
@Deirdre - I am 81 and have been retired for 20 years. I was salaried my whole career. If your friends take the time to look at the facts, they will see that Bernie represents their best hope for a comfortable retirement.
It is difficult for me to cite why this is the case since you have not told me WHY your friends feel threatened, but if you do, I will.
120
@Deirdre
I agree with this 100%. The Democrats took back the House precisely as a check against Trump. Sanders scares a lot of people, including the all important moderates, who will undoubtedly cement Republican power in Congress if Sanders is elected. The result, more political civil war, nothing gets done and the cultural, social and economic divide increases instead of decreases. Sanders is not the answer.
29
The same people who vote in Bernie will then need to come out and vote blue in the House and Senate so we can make some progress on healthcare, living wage and climate crisis.
61
Bernie's campaign & to a lesser degree Warren, are trying to move the Democratic Party away from the Clinton model (the old Democratic LC). Essentially the Clinton model of supporting Wall Street, led by Bob Rubin and legislation that enabled the massive wealth inequality boom. The Democrats cannot win by being GOP-lite. Everyone seems to forget September 15, 2008. The day McCain lost his double digit lead to Obama. Lehman. Or Clinton. WO HRP, no victory. Demographics have changed.
4
Oh please, Trump as president shows that an actual extremist can be elected. Bernie will be no extremist in practice. He’ll certainly play by the rules and follow constitutional norms and respect the separation of powers. Enough triangulation and second guessing by some pundits and jaded scholars. Bernie will be a reasonable candidate and president.
5
@Phlogiston The argument of structural symmetry: Trump and Sanders are both populists, or Trump and Sanders are both extremists, so that proves Sanders can win. No, no it doesn't. The strategy for winning the Electoral College is different for each party. The appeal to urban, college-town, minority progressives is not a magic ticket to winning the Rust Belt. Four years on, and liberals still don't have a grasp on the Electoral College.
2
A choice for Bernie Sanders is a choice to lose voters in the deep blue states in favor of gaining heartland voters, probably resulting in a smaller popular vote tally but a better electoral college outcome.
It's too bad that all we read about in the Times is push back from writers and readers whose vote we frankly can afford to lose, but nothing from heartland voters who are considering a Bernie vote.
The polls suggest the Bernie strategy could work, we need a more balanced coverage.
3
I’m not a Bernie supporter, but it seems that most of these experts are ignoring the moment: that Sanders would be running against a Donald Trump who is ALREADY a president. It’s unprecedented. The never Trumpers will mobilize en masse, and young people and minority voters will likely see higher turnout. I don’t think looking at the outcomes for extreme candidates in the past applies here. We underestimate the hatred for our current president.
3
In my lifetime, Democrats have won 4 presidential elections and lost 4.
The winning Democrats: ran on a left-leaning message of hope and change and were called socialist by the right but won a resounding victory, or ran as moderates but eked out a popular vote plurality and electoral college majority thanks to a self-funded third-party candidate pulling in 20+% of the vote.
The losing Democrats: ran as centrists or pragmatists.
If only there was a message to take away from this...
4
RE: "the DNC is again likely to throw its weight against a truly progressive candidate"
Just like in 2016 when the corrupt organization promoted HRC over Sanders they will again ensure a Trump victory. The Third Way Clintonistas will not give credence to the will of the electorate.
5
@DC Entusiast The way Clinton and the columnists have been carping you'd start to think they prefer Trump over Bernie.
3
I don’t understand all the concern about a woman being electable as president. America already did elect a woman in 2016...by 3 million votes. A better question would be whether a woman can beat the electoral college.
3
"While a party’s base voters, especially those who turn out in primaries and caucuses “may prefer a more extreme nominee, the opposing party’s base voters dislike this extreme nominee more than the party’s base likes him or her,” if so then why did trump got elected.
The Democrats need to take a different path, the DNC insiders may want a milk toast moderate but what we are facing is war with Republicans.
2
Such a compelling argument against "extremest" candidates seems unassailable--until we see who is president.
1
Michael Bloomberg.
A pragmatic ex-Mayor of NYC, a self-made multibillionaire, and a man who has shown, time and time again, that he can get his agenda accomplished.
And Trump is very, very scared of him.
Bloomberg is everything Trump pretends to be. And he doesn’t care for a second what DJT may think of him.
Refreshing.
2
@It’s About Time
Trying to convince my fellow New Yorkers might be a hard sell -- especially after Bloomberg helped himself to an unprecedented third term, helped to make living here unaffordable and then, there's his "Stop & Frisk" policy.
So, Good Luck with that.
I lived through the doomed George McGovern candidacy, orchestrated in part by Richard Nixon's dirty tricks against Ed Muskie.
Now, we have the prospect of a doomed Bernie Sanders candidacy, orchestrated in part by Donald Trump's dirty tricks against Joe Biden.
Those who fail to learn from history are also doomed to repeat it.
3
America, you know who the most qualified candidate is. Save the world. With love from Paris.
hint : Warren !!!!
He’ll lose and take it nowhere.
4
The Democratic Party is like a ship with a hole in the bottom, leaking water. Bernie and his crew of socialist will get the ship pointed in the right direction.
1
@MoonShine
The problem is that this ship first has to get all hands on deck -- and so far, that isn't happening.
1
If the punditry really want to defeat Donald Trump like they say they do, they better start getting on board with what the people want. Or else shut up. We need all hands on deck.
1
The DNC Political Machine, much like its predecessor, Tammany Hall, is impossible to defeat. The DNC, the operator of the fabled "Deep State" , has too much influence, money, and power.
The Iowa Caucus is for show. The California Primary is for ALL the marbles. And California has become the home turf of the DNC and any number of its Silicon Valley Robber Baron money men.
Gavin Newsome is groomed to accept the mantle of "President"......the back room of the DNC has already arrived at this conclusion.
Let Bernie have his day.......by July......Newsome will already be the front runner and prepared to take all the California Delegates.
there is an achille's heel......Most Californians are NOT registered democrat and California rules dont apply to national elections. 45% dems....to 55% not dems.
...
2020 may be the year of another California Earthquake.....as Independents refuse to be hearded by the DNC into the Democrat Column and instead vote for Trump.
1
Perplexed. It looks like Buttigieg won in Iowa, but not a signal NYT headline. The media is focused on the voting glitch and Bernie? Voters seem to love him. The bias is pretty clear here.
2
@Cindy Brandeau
Iowa, you say? The rubber isn't going to hit the road in nearly all-white states like Iowa and New Hampshire for either Buttigieg or Sanders -- their true litmus teat has yet to come in states with more diverse populations.
That's when you'll know how many voters seem to love him or anyone else.
3
@Cindy Brandeau Funny how the Times always seems to back the losers, isn't it?
@Cindy Brandeau
Well we haven't seen this week's Buttigieg hit piece yet, so there's that!
Putting aside what it would mean to the nation, a Bernie win would be fantastic for the Democratic party. The inept and corrupt party hierarchy would be out on its keyster. You know, the folks who brought us the Iowa app debacle, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the half-hearted impeachment, and the undying fealty to the donor class. Democrats need new blood.
2
He will take us to a McGovern size disaster.
2
The Dems are in a completely pickled position. Their best shot to win, Biden, has lost all traction. He has been damaged by the impeachment process. The other candidates are non starters against Trump. Their ability to manipulate the candidate is limited after 2016 and now Iowa. Bernie will sandbag the DNC. They are a unruly bunch and do little to inspire confidence. More and more they appear irresponsible, hypocritical and incompetent.
1
Bernie will take you in the same direction that he and his friends have taken Vermont over his 40 years as an elected official. Down the road to an economically stagnant depopulating mess. Look at the despair and hopelessness of cities like Brattleboro, Rutland and St. Johnsbury. Is that what you want for America ?
A grizzled old lefty is fun to listen to when he holds court at the local tavern, but is NOT qualified to be the President of the United States.
5
Amen!
1
Many young people: We are in crisis, the planet is burning, our economic system is rotten, all I personally get out of it is student debt and gig jobs, Biden et al are no different from Trump. Bernie or bust. Many black people: We are in crisis, the dog whistles have turned to a howling shrieking wind, I personally fear for my children and grandchildren, if you think old white people who at best barely tolerate my community would vote for an economic revolution where have you been? Me: uh-oh. We just cannot afford a noble failure like Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern. Four more years of Policy by Personality Disorder? Heaven help us. Better yet let’s help ourselves and vote blue no matter who.
1
The most extreme candidates in the Democratic primary race are without a doubt Joseoh Biden and Michael Bloomberg. They both supported the criminal invasion of Iraq. Bernie doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands like they do. Shame on you for pretending these extremists are reasonable choices.
1
No where any Democrat I know will follow.
1
There is a wild card named Mike Bloomberg in this race. If he wins on Super Tuesday all bets are off. Everything that happened be fore that will be meaning less.
2
Bloomberg will end up being the nominee.
He biggest strength will be getting under DJTs skin, which brings some visceral pleasure to Democrats and others who can't stand Trump.
Trump largely won by the same method, throwing stones and making fun of just about everyone opposed to him.
Ok Boomer.
1
@EPN
No offense. But it's time to retire this ageist claptrap. Especially if you want any kind of party unity to take on Republicans and Trump.
1
@N. Smith
Got it, for how long have people been disparaging "milleneals"?
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Respect is earned and not just with age. Nobody owes you anything based on how many years you've been around.
In November if it's Trump Vs Bernie it will be like A young Mike Tyson Vs Bozo the Clown: At first a raucous noise- Then a flurry of knee and elbow flapping,clown wig snatching and smeared grease paint and then a sudden dive to the canvas...Entertaining, but no contest from the git go.
Well World, we can only hope.. Odds were on Hillary in 2016-Big Time. My take is that the Demos are and always have been their own worst enemies, and will (yes like they did with Mrs Clinton) split their vote or stay home and watch 'Friends' reruns. Unless someone steps forward with enough Cred or celebrity (Michelle are you listening?)..Just don't bet the Farm.
As in 2016, once again the Times (and the media generally, not to mention the stodgy status quo Dems, who are terrified of losing their power and their money -- just like the Republicans) seems intent on burying Sanders, even though he is backed by the generation that wants and needs him (and I am old, not a member of that generation) -- the generation that will inherit the mess we've made of this country -- and he is the only candidate with the guts to say, consistently, that the emperor has no clothes.
Uhh... the author is kinda missing the point. Bernie has already moved the party much futher left in the past few years, regardless of whether he wins the nomination or not.
Hillary didn't talk about medicare for all, getting rid of student debt, upping minimum wage or other things that are common and well supported by a majority of the population. Most people support a notion of "medicare for all", but have different ways of getting there.
The Democratic party would not have moved left, at all, if Bernie didn't run in 2016.
4
As usual, all the conservatives -Democratic or Republican- are scared to death that Bernie may be nominated and elected, as it would challenge the moneyed classes and actually provide healthcare and education for the poor and middle classes. They fail to see that even in the electoral period, the enthusiasm and the street power of Bernie can lead to an electoral victory, because it will lead people to vote who never had. For too long we have had only the option of choosing between cancer and poison -or, in the best of cases, the lesser of two evils. Now there is finally a democratic socialist candidate who is promising real economic change. Maybe he will get those who had given up to register and vote.
5
Topsy-turvy. Funny how Bernie's European policies are now considered radical even within the Democratic party and deemed unelectable, despite not having been tried since 1988 and centrist losses in 2000, 2004 and 2016.
Meanwhile, Europeans are looking at their wayward former American partner wondering why we have become so extreme.
6
Let's be realistic. If Sanders wins, the chances of getting his Socialist agenda through a Congress dominated by moderate Democrats (not to mention right-wing Republicans) are virtually nil. And do we want a continuation of government by executive action? This is not "progressive," it's delusional. Also noteworthy: the people in this article who say a Sanders victory should not be discounted are Republicans.
Bernie's supporters are convinced their candidate will bring massive numbers of new voters into the process. They may be right, but if those voters are already in blue districts, Trump gets a second term.
I remember the last time the party selected a candidate that appealed for social justice and an end to war. It was my first time to vote and I pulled the lever for George McGovern...
Today, it seems the basic difference between a Trump voter and a Bernie supporter is... the hat.
@John The whole point of going with Bernie is losing some centrist support in the coastal bastions, which we can afford, in favor of gaining new voters in the heartland, which we desperately need to win. All the polls suggest this trade-off can work.
3
@John Right, just the hat. Not a difference at all between people who see health care as a human right and those who want to deport all undocumented immigrants, no difference at all between those who want a $15/hour minimum wage and those who want tax cuts for the Kochs and Adelsons, no difference at all beyond the hat between people who want to take assertive action to address the challenge of a warming planet and those who want to pump more oil out. Very insightful comment, thanks.
The average American cannot afford a visit to a primary care physician, leading to a spike in the number of ER visits and medical bankruptcies that are slowly exsanguinating the middle class in our great nation.
So forgive me if I'm a little confused by some of these commenters worrying about what medicare for all could do to their health insurance or the nation as a whole. I know only a handful of people who are currently happy with their health insurance and they are all doctors, extremely wealth or both.
If that's not you, what is your objection?
Is it uncertainty about where we would get the money from?
We spend more on our military than EVERY OTHER NATION COMBINED. How about we start there? Then we can work on reversing Trump's tax cuts for the 0.1% who continue to horde all resources.
You can call me a socialist but I believe limiting CEO compensation to merely 50 times that of the workers and having a functioning, successful capitalist system are not mutually exclusive.
FDR agreed, and he ACTUALLY presided over the greatest economic boom in American history.
456
@Halboro
Please feel free to provide evidence that supports your claim that the average American can't afford to visit their primary care doctor. I'm sure we'd all like to avoid silly platitudes about how dire things are, in favor of an actual conversation rooted in facts.
So forgive me if I'm a little confused, but if the best you can do is say "everyone else does it" as the reason that we should have M4A, then I'm not convinced. What works in Sweden or Denmark may not automatically work here, and suggesting that people who do not support the kind of change you want are either morally depraved or simply ill informed is the height of arrogance.
Furthermore, as a person who is not a doctor or a billionaire, but is quite happy with my employer sponsored health insurance, I do not believe that the government taking away my right to choose the best option for me and my family is logical or right. That's why I and many others support M4A-Who-Want-It.
Lastly, regarding your comments on the military. Perhaps you believe that aggressive countries like Iran, Russia and China will simply act in the best interest of the world and not do things like invade the Ukraine, give financial support to terrorist organizations and steal intellectual property on a scale never seen before, as the pretext for reducing our defense spending. Or perhaps you really aren't thinking about those threats at all and will assume it will all just work out on its own.
3
@John
"regarding your comments on the military. Perhaps you believe that aggressive countries like Iran, Russia and China will simply act in the best interest of the world"
Fear mongering like this is the reason why the Pentagon has an unlimited budget. No one said we should cut the defense department entirely, but I feel confident we could cut our defense spending by two-thirds and still be perfectly safe.
In case you hadn't heard, the Pentagon racked up $35 TRILLION in accounting changes last year.
That total is larger than the entire U.S. economy.
50
@John "quite happy with my employer sponsored health insurance, I do not believe that the government taking away my right to choose the best option for me and my family is logical or right. That's why I and many others support M4A-Who-Want-It. "
John, medicare for all cannot be affordable unless it applies to every American.
It really comes down to your family receiving excellent care and millions suffering or...everyone receiving good care.
If that's socialism then sign me up.
10
I agree - Dems just aren't thinking hard enough about Republican voters. If they wanted to win, they'd nominate a reasonable moderate - someone like John Kerry or Al Gore.
The line about extremist candidates only serving to excite the opposition base is interesting in light of who is currently president.
4
A friendly reminder - virtually all of the developed world has some form of universal healthcare. Canada, France, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Italy, the UK, Iceland and Norway all have more left-leaning economies, and all enjoy a higher median wealth among citizens than the US. Nobody is talking about socializing all means of production.. Cut the faux fatalism pls.
5
What about the climate crisis and our out of control consumption of resources? We need a paradigm shift. Bernie supports a new green deal. Biden and Trump support banks, corporations, and the fossil fuel industry.
2
If a moderate wins where will they take the country. So many pitfalls they have taken us through that led to Trump.
1
Bernie Sanders will make George McGovern look like the most formidable Democratic presidential candidate in history. His nomination locks Trump's reelection and more significantly threatens a schism in the Democratic party that may deliver the White House to Republicans for generations to come.
2
I don't see much reason to believe Sanders can win the nomination. He didn't come that close in 2016 and he has the same views and is four years older, soon to be pushing 80. He doesn't do well with blacks and doesn't even do well in large metropolitan areas where both cities and suburbs tend to vote for center-left candidates. I won't vote for him in the primary but if he is the nominee I will certainly support him against the white supremacist autocrat the Republicans seem to want keep in office.
3
The Blue authority has once again blocked Sanders with a caucus blockade of popular majority. The Blues are just as guilty of voter suppression as the Reds. Not as successful. Sanders is the people's choice. Buttigieg is the beard, just like the Blues blamed Nader. People want democracy even if it is tarred with the socialist brush.
@Dave
You seem to forget that Bernie is parading like a "Blue" too.
1
Some of us are for a social democracy alright, where an unhinged capitalism must change for the better, shedding greed and embracing ethics, and allowing a healthy competition to break the current odious oligarchy and economic inequality...and it's closely held victim, politics, as the rich and powerful corporate world is able to buy elections with impunity. But whether Sanders can deliver for everybody's satisfaction, remains to be seen. It has been shown that those that want a revolution, may fail if the people become afraid of too big a change in their lifetime, rendering even the most ambitious plan to benefit the majority into becoming a reactionary move dying in it's noble purpose. To everybody's loss. Can't we see that this society wants gradual change, intolerant to any fast (and furious) move bereft of prudent brakes?
48
@manfred marcus "Can't we see that this society wants gradual change"
For change you need a vision. Sanders has a vision. The "moderates" like to hide their lack of ideas by demonizing Trump, Russia and whoever is the enemy of the day.
9
@manfred marcus
The US used to have a decent form of capitalism. It did not bother with what people thought or why. It used the simple common sense that where there is opportunity for it abuse will happen. And reduced the opportunities for it by regulation.
It also did not worry about ethics it simply required the corporations to spend on keeping people employed with living wages and benefits and creating new jobs. It required safe operations and that best practices be used.
No one has to worry about motivations or what someone else thinks, regulation that is directed at the known pitfalls of human beings with an eye on making sure our businesses focus on building the US first is enough.
2
@manfred marcus Thank you. Wise words. Wealth and power have overreached and created a firestorm of reaction, enabling Trump, who now largely embraces that same wealth and power. He probably can’t be stopped, because, as you write, we collectively and I myself are afraid of radical change and protracted conflict. I continue to hope for a wise and moderate, technocratic leader and cooperative Congress. Is this just the failed dream of an old man?
7
It took me too long to realize that nearly electoral "horserace" discussion is an ideological discussion in disguise.
Pundits marshal their facts claiming to prove that Sanders can't win, that he will be an electoral disaster, because they're against what Sanders stands for: universal health care, college for anyone who wants it regardless of their ability to pay, a strong safety net, and so on.
The liberal establishment is against Sanders. They fear for their own power. It's not hard to poll, to cite trends and statistics, proving that he would be a calamity. Just as easy as proving that Hillary Clinton was the best person in the horserace against Trump. It's just what they wanted to believe.
1
@Jim
I don’t think they are against what Sanders stands for. Rather, they are realistic. Sanders supporters like Trump supporters are in an emotional frenzy; they’re voting with their hearts not their heads. Revolution is from the heart. But the heart knows no reason.
3
"Both Sanders and Buttigieg could be high-risk choices for the Democratic Party."
They're all high-risk candidates. The Democrats are divided between the so-called socialists and the centerists. A strong centerist could make concessions to the left in the general election, but I doubt that Sanders or Warren could make enough concessions to the centerists to make them enthusiastic.
If Biden comes roaring back, he could team up with Sanders or Warren. Otherwise, they could end up with one of the billionaires: Bloomberg or Steyer.
If Sanders is the nominee Trump will call him a Communist. When this happens the media will have to call foul / misinformation. But it will work. It will cause confusion, which is exactly what Trump wants.
While the Sanders campaign is busy trying to explain to people the difference between Communism and (Democratic) Socialism they will have to say the words over and over which makes Trump happy. 
4
Again no mention of the climate crisis and our out of control use of limited natural resources. We need a paradigm shift. Bernie supports a new green deal. Biden supports banks, corporations and the fossil fuel industry.
Again no mention of the climate crisis and our out of control use of limited natural resources. We need a paradigm shift. Bernie supports a new green deal. Biden supports banks, corporations and the fossil fuel industry.
3
See? This is the problem with our media, including intelligent op-ed writers. They have *ONE* failed "election," something called a "caucus," and writers are beginning to what-if their horriblizing. Mr. Edsall, the results are not even in and you are wondering what Bernie will do if he wins.
He will not win. He cannot win, though there are many who will disagree with my opinion. But please! Let the process go before you completely ignore every other state primary and put all your eggs in the basket of the first mostly-white, largely rural, completely unreflective of the voting population in the other states.
1
I dislike Bernie Sanders and would find him really difficult to vote for in a general election, but polling shows him doing very well against Trump in head-to-head contests, with Joe Biden his only equal in a General Election face-off. Although the Republicans haven't launched their anti-Sanders campaign yet, nor has the media scrutinized Sanders' proposals and background, it is public knowledge that Bernie Sanders is very left wing and embraces the label "socialist." For many voters, it's enough that Bernie Sanders isn't Donald Trump.
Against a psychologically normal Republican president, who might have made some symbolic policy concessions to appeal to independents, Sanders would lose, but Donald Trump is so uniquely polarizing that I'd see Sanders as the favorite in a general election.
5
This conveniently ignores 20 years of presidential politics, where running a centrist candidate has failed every time for the democrats. Remember Gore, Kerry, and Clinton. The last democrat to win a presidential election did so by running to the left and promising institutional change.
Why then are Democrats so convinced that running a centrist for president is the solution, when they haven’t won in 20 years?
9
@Pierre The Democrats have not made up their minds yet. This is an opinion based on ONE 'caucus' in a process that so far has failed to count votes properly. I do not believe Sanders can win, but this opinion piece is part of the media's obsessive focus on "who won today" to the exclusion of all the tomorrows that are to come.
Oh. And Sanders is not a centrist candidate. He is also not a Democrat and would not be able to bring the two parties in Congress together in any way.
@Pierre
One of the most dangerous pitfalls facing this nation these days is our tendency to use names and labels to identity ourselves and everyone else -- only to vilify them.
That said, there are probably far more Democrats looking for peace and stability (after three years of Trump) than those willing to stage a "revolution", which is why the left progressive agenda isn't really catching on with folks who aren't part of the targeted demographic.
And face it.
At this point, the most important thing here is getting Trump out of the White House -- whether it's Sanders or not.
1
This article insists on the retrograde assumption that America is divided Right and Left. That is 20th century thinking.
A more significant division is opening up between Populist and Elitist politics, and I suspect that nearly every single expert cited has a vested in maintaining the dominance of Elitist political power.
There is a good reason why, in private conversation recorded by Lev Parnas, Trump admits that he sees Sanders as the biggest threat: because Sanders would deprive him of his most potent talking points: "my opponent is a shill for the finance industry, my opponent pushes bad trade deals, my opponent is a Washington insider..."
All of those lines would draw far more outrage than "my opponent is a Socialist..."
6
Are we back in the McCarthy era? Mr. Edsall is frightened and he promotes fear and hysteria with distortions.
There are too many dog whistles in his twisted account of Sanders positions to refute each one. He resorts to citing reports by others on obscure writings from over FIFTY years ago to claiming Sanders advocates policies he has absolutely, utterly, and clearly replaced long since, ages ago.
Mr. Edsall as you describe, writes about "inequality " - he relentlessly promotes it.
This is revealed in his choice of "experts" who are nearly all from the well-insulated halls of ossified institutions.
It is echoed in his assertion that, "... If Sanders wins New Hampshire, there will almost certainly be an establishment-led drive to block him from the nomination." So much for unity against Trump. So much for "Any Blue".
Like so many others, Mr. Edsall distorts when he says that Sanders wants to abolish private insurance. The truthful way to report this would be to say that Sanders wants to abolish profit making companies from extracting dollars from the access to health care industry. This is a defense not of health care but of the right to deny it for profit.
There are so many other examples ...
What Mr. Edsall does not do is to listen to the majority of people in the country who have had their futures sold to the financial "industry", their health sold to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies and their pathway forward sold to usurious student loan scams.
5
@jtcr
Your on the money analysis needs distribution to every single American, and should be republished daily right up to election day next November.
Edsall and his ilk will begin to exponentially ramp up their anti-Bernie campaign after he wins New Hampshire next week, but I and tens of millions of Americans, who are done with the status quo guardians, and the Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer Biden democrats, welcome their efforts, because every time they mount an offensive it almost immediately focusses attention on their fear, and increases support for Bernie Sanders.
Trump is just as terrified of Bernie; it will be really interesting to see the tactics they plan on using, begin.
Going to be one heck of an election year.
3
Thomas Edsall fails to see what he and his academic colleagues helped to foster: the Left lurch of the Democrat Party due to the indoctrination of multiple generations of gullible students on college campuses. Knowing that this leftist shift in academia was just pretend to acquire tenure as that was the required game, little did these elite professorial snobs realize that it would stick and communist ideology would flourish among the spoiled students expecting to maintain selfish life styles forever like on campus. With charlatan Bernie Sanders leading the presidium parade, the barn door has been breached and the Democrat Party fragmentation is underway.
4
Bernie Will win and turn the Democratic Party into a democratic party. It is currently a oligarchic party in case you did not notice.
9
@Blunt Yes, the Democratic Party needs to return to the Party of FDR so that it can address the needs of your average person,
3
Take America back to ... FDR for 2020? Could the "Old" New Deal survive scrutiny, be lauded, or bring out those who use scare tactics and immense political money to oppose it.
"The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of the nine presidential terms from 1933 to 1969) with its base in liberal ideas, the South, traditional Democrats, big city machines and the newly empowered labor unions and non-whites and ethnic whites." [Wikipedia]
[ed. social programs, welfare, protection from banking risk, provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly, direct hiring of unemployed for federal conservation programs, etc.]
2
Some of us fear that Trump is in some ways a puppet of Putin.
meanwhile, let's be honest...
Bernie wants to adopt the whole Russian system. That's far more scary.
5
Only David(Sanders) can beat the Goliath(Trump). After Trump Sanders should get a chance.
3
Not a Bernie fan this time around. Sorry Bernie but I've soured on you. However, if he's on the ballot, I will earnestly vote for him. Where will he take the Dem party? Far, far, away from the party of traitors, conmen, and corruption. And that's good enough for me.
4
Another Times columnist takes the time to explain why Clinton and her center-right moderation is clearly the best way to beat Trump.
Excuse me. I meant Biden.
Here’s the thing. America needs change. The American oligarchy is spiraling toward disaster, with a crumbling middle class, unaffordable healthcare, collapsing infrastructure, education only for the wealthy, never ending war, and out of control corporations. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible.
Give me a “moderate” Democrat whose strongest characteristic is that he’s “nice” (as Frank Bruni describes Biden- but ask Iraqis if they think he’s nice) and I’ll just Netflix and chill.
Sorry, I don’t like Trump either, but I’m done voting for the lesser evil.
3
@Objectively Subjective
How our world at war has changed for the worse when two equally unsuitable characters like Trump and Boris Johnson take their respective nations on a high speed joy ride with no idea of how much damage they are doing. No doubt the Germans have a long word for such calamities...when the people can only watch with horror?