I wanted to mention some remarks made by Rahm Emanuel yesterday, presumably in reaction to Sanders’s ongoing strength, on ABC News This Week:
Well, here’s what I think is a real challenge for Democrats on the eve of Iowa. What is the bigger threat for our party? And I come to this point, which is, are we going to nominate somebody that can’t win? Or are we going to risk a rupture in the party that is irreparable? And the real question in front of us is those two questions. Now, in 1992, ’96, 2008, 2012, and in 2018, the Democrats showed a formula for winning nationally. And the question is, are we going to follow that formula, or throw the playbook out and try something different? And I’ll say one thing about Bernie Sanders. His playbook is no different than Donald Trump’s. Both rely on the fact that you don’t need fickle swing voters, that, if you just talk to your base and energize the people that should vote for you, you can win.
He returned to that point twice again. I think he’s fighting the last war—that’s yesterday’s news. Go back and take a look at the network graph I linked to last week. Sanders’s supports are not just a threat of a schism in the party. They are in fact a schism. When you have elected officials complaining that the Democratic Party is a rightwing party, as is the case now, there is clearly a problem.
The Democrats’ problem is that they may not be able to win without Sanders’s supporters, who in 2016 did not just swallow and pull the Democratic lever, and they may not be able to win with them.
The democrat party will figure something out between now and their convention. Changing rules or goal posts, if necessary, are certainly not uncommon practices for them, whether it pertains to elections or impeachments. Already there are multiple choice rumors going around of how Democrats might try to remedy and raise the odds of choosing a Trump-beating candidate. Reconfiguring debate-qualifying prerequisites just came into play recently. Another option being bantered around is tinkering with the placement of when their super delegates can vote.
I think the Democrats’ problem is graver than that, reflected in Rahm’s panic-tinged declamation. Why didn’t they just bar Sanders from running in the Democratic primary on the grounds he’s not a Democrat? Easy-peasy. I think the answer is that they want his supporters. They don’t want him—just his supporters.
The question now is whether they can get one without the other. I would add that I don’t think the only reasons for the DNC to reject Sanders are that he’s not a Democrat and that he is quite unlikely to win in the general election. As I have said before, he’s not a team player. If Biden, Warren, or Klobuchar is the candidate, any of them will bring in a coterie of the usual suspects to staff their administration. Who will Bernie bring along with him? Or Buttigieg or Yang for that matter? Probably not the usual suspects. Are they willing to take that risk?
The radicals who support Sanders are enough to maybe tilt a primary, but nowhere near enough to win a general. They represent maybe 15% of the party general election, but maybe twice that in a primary. I think they shouldnt panic since once we leave NH I think Sanders support drops. But hey, I thought Clinton was such a bad campaigner she would lose too so what do I know?
“Or Buttigieg or Yang for that matter?”
Dont know about Yang but Buttigieg was a McKinsey consultant. I think its a pretty safe bet that he will be as conventional as possible. At least we probably won’t see the petty crooks Trump put in office.
Steve
The “Sanders wins” hypothesis is predicated on Sanders winning the early caucuses (Iowa and Nevada) and primary (New Hampshire) outright and a panic setting in that evokes a flight from Biden. I think that’s far-fetched but Sen. Sanders has strong organizations in all 50 states and, will, no doubt continue to the bitter end (and it will be a bitter end). As the network graph I linked to showed, he’s an outlier. I don’t think his supporters will just dutifully support the eventual Democratic candidate.
Visited my son this weekend. Very angry 33 year old Bernie supporter. As I sorted through his conversation, what I think I heard is that “It’s all rigged, they’re all crooks, especially Trump, who’s evil and in it for personal financial gain”. I tried to explain that Sanders is as much of an outsider as Trump and none of his promises will come to fruition. My son said, “I hope Sanders blows the whole thing up!”
Bottom line is, the economy is not working for him, their all crooks, so fuck it.
The Democrats wanted so many pretenders in their candidate pool and demanded not only the proper polling percentages but the proper number of donors for two reasons: (1) to throw up as many potential policies against the barn wall to see which ones would stick and could thus be used in the general and (2) accumulate massive donor lists, which would be tapped again when the Presidential candidate was chosen. Bernie’s emergence as the front runner and the insertion of the self-funded Bloomberg to assist with funding down-ticket has thrown their plans into disarray. The Democrats may be faced with having to go into a smoke-filled room to choose their candidate, a situation last seen a century ago when Harding was chosen by the Republicans because no one else could get close to a majority. IMO their only chance of winning the 2020 election was removal of Trump prior to the election. Now that that seems unattainable, the immediate future of the Democrats seems dismal. Screw Bernie and lose catastrophically; anoint Bernie and lose catastrophically. The Democrats have sown and grown identitarianism to push their agenda; now they seem poised to reap the whirlwind. If the Democratic party splits like they did in 1948, especially if the AOC wing runs third party in down-ticket races, 2020 could be a slaughter for the true Grand Old Party.
“IMO their only chance of winning the 2020 election was removal of Trump prior to the election.”
The economy is doing OK so Trump should win, however, he just barely beat Hillary Clinton, the 2nd worst candidate in the modern era.
“the AOC wing ”
You guys do realize that AOC triggers ya’ll and she is good for right wing funding? That is why you read so much about her. Those of us who are not Trump supporters dont read that much about her, maybe just the Sanders supporters. Could still be a slaughter since recent votes have been so close and losing those 15% that like Sanders would be a big deal.
” Very angry 33 year old Bernie supporter”
Hmm, very angry seems to be one of the defining characteristics of a Trump voter. Lots of common ground there.
Steve
Yeah, and like you, Steve, giving way too much weight to Politicians.
Living in CA I can report that Bernie has a lot of sway here – environmentalists, students/struggling millennials, older 60’s hippies, anti- establishment folks, and fringe Antifa, Communist, self-identified socialists. It’s quite a swath of angry and disenchanted people who distrust capitalism, but also don’t really understand the ramifications of having a nanny state candidate win and impose their agenda on them. However, add them all up, and Bernie has a good chance of winning this state.
And, while I dearly love my own 33 year old son, he has a lot in common with Gray’s son. But, considering the social progressive environment of CA, and the public school education he grew up in here, his current ideology is just the by-product of what was academically propagated in his youth.