I feel a need to reiterate my feelings about the Sanders campaign- I like Bernie Sanders, I mostly agree with his views on the world, I would vote for Sanders if he somehow did win the Democratic nomination, and would do so without a second thought, and finally I think he's run a very impressive campaign. I am not in the camp that is bothered by his support from men, white liberals, or really any other demographic, as some are. I'm not even really bothered that he was an independent all these years. I'm genuinely positive about Senator Sanders, and have been since I first started hearing about him on campus in political science courses back in 2002 (my professors were huge fans).
From the start of this campaign, I have believed Hillary Clinton would win. From the very beginning, I said the only thing to fear was a campaign that left the top challenger's supporters feeling as though they had been robbed. Before Bernie had emerged as that challenger, I have felt like the Democratic Party needed to make sure they treated the "other" candidate fairly, and we needed to leave the supporters with the impression that they had been given a chance. To the best possible ability, the Democratic Party has done that, despite what you may have heard. Senator Sanders has had a shot at winning this nomination. Yes, I did say "to the best possible ability," because every upstart challenger starts at some inherent level of disadvantage against the front-runner in any party primary. The front-runner has establishment support from the start, they have national committee members and rules committee members who support them, and literally pick the calendar and set the delegate rules. With Clinton, this advantage is somewhat exacerbated by the fact that she was First Lady, and therefore has a former President from the party as a spouse. It's multiplied by the fact that she ran in 2008, got second, and has a national network. So yes, I admit that Hillary Clinton had advantages that no other candidate has. With that said, I think the Democratic Party has been much more fair than it has been given credit for. It's not as though Senator Sanders has been blocked from competing. There are a few things I'd like to have seen done better, such as the handling of the voter file situation and the latest DC snag that put his ballot access in doubt. Even so, I think they've done better than they get credit for.
Let's be clear here on why I keep going back to the math on Sanders candidacy- the narrative coming out of his supporters, and even to a smaller degree his campaign, is lethal to the Democratic Party, the American left, and an eventual nominee Hillary Clinton. The narrative seems to want to plant the seeds of doubt about both Clinton herself, and the process by which she is leading the nomination. In short, there is a movement underway to say this nomination is being "taken" from Sanders. It wishes to plant the seed that he is the rightful winner, and that the process, the establishment, the Clinton machine, the corporate media, the DC elite, and any other buzzword has conspired to deny Bernie the nomination. The use of the boogeyman "super-delegates," the arguments about how to count the delegates up, suing the DNC over all kinds of odd details, the talk about the popular vote, the attacks on the process of apportioning delegates, and even the insisting on only using the elected delegate count, while also insisting there is a fictitious path forward right now, furthers the narrative of a race that is somehow corrupted. This narrative is not true.
Here's the truth- Hillary Clinton holds a 1,243-980 elected delegate lead, according to the AP, at this time- and those delegates are based on how people voted. That is a larger lead than President Obama held at any point in the 2008 contest. Hillary Clinton also has a 2.5 million vote lead in the popular vote, nationally. When we hear about the "will of the people," that seems to be the clearest way to measure that. That also is bigger than the leads her or President Obama ever had in 2008. Yes, she does hold a 469-31 super-delegate lead right now, which at some point became a dirty word, I guess. Don't forget, they have been involved in every convention since 1984. Before that, they just were the elected delegates. In modern times, they have not overturned the will of the people once. At no point in 2008 did Clinton have as many of these unpledged delegates as she has now. In other words, by every national metric, Clinton has a fair and clear lead. While we can argue over the shape of the calendar, the proportional delegate awarding system, or any other number of issues, the fact of the matter is that if Bernie is insisting on running the entire way through, those things aren't relevant to how this race turns out. Even after all the contests are done, it does not appear likely that Bernie can make up the difference. If he somehow does, the political pressures alone would actually flip many super-delegates. Frankly, if he does that, he deserves the nomination. I just don't see a way to get there. The party did not choose that. The corporate media did not choose that. Sure, both have some level of influence in the process. The truth is though, the voters chose this. It's their will.
"The process is rigged" narrative isn't good for anyone. First off, this narrative really doesn't change anything for Bernie either way. It doesn't move Clinton people over to his column (most find it tiring to hear), and it doesn't change his outcome. It doesn't help Clinton as nominee at all, as it makes it more likely that a higher percentage of Bernie voters either stay home or don't vote for her. This doesn't help the Democratic Party, because many of these folks who support Bernie will simply leave it if they feel they were done wrong. This doesn't help the broader left in American politics, as many of these people will leave politics altogether, or go the route of the Baby Boomer crowd. It's also bad for America as a whole- a President Trump or President Cruz is a nightmare. There's no good outcome of this narrative that Bernie is being "denied" the nomination. Everyone loses, in part because it's toxic, and in part because it's untrue.
Bernie did not have every advantage in this process, I do get that. I get that he didn't like the debate schedule, or the voter file situation, or this DC filing deadline situation. Don't pretend though that any of these had any measurable impact on the outcome, or that Bernie did not have an opportunity to win this race- based on the ground he has made up, he clearly had lots of chances. He's basically been done in by his weaknesses amongst key Democratic constituencies, and by a few key losses in states he had shots to win. To lash out and then attack the Democratic Party, or call Hillary Clinton some sort of corporate, conservative thief, that is taking their nomination from them, is silly. It's also dangerous and wrong. If Bernie wants to continue to run all the way to June, I have no issue with that. Try all you want. Those who support him should not disillusion people by saying things that are just not true. At the end of the process, we want everyone who supports either of them to support both.
I think that members of his campaign deciding to sue the DNC, and people who are supporters screaming about all the different ways they were done wrong are doing a disservice to everybody involved. Bernie Sanders is running for President. He's doing decently well. He's behind though. He's not behind because of super-delegates. He's not behind because of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. He's not behind because of money, he has more of it. Bernie's been given a pretty open crack at winning enough voters to be nominated. At this time, it doesn't look like it will happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment