Running Bernie Sanders Against Trump Would Be an Act of Insanity

Having watched the Virginia Republican Party self-destruct by moving ever towards more extreme right wing positions and ignoring the moderate middle bizarrely thinking this would increase its electoral chances (it did not), I now see the left of the Democrat Party on a national level doing the same thing as it appears, based on recent polls, to coalesce behind Bernie Sanders.  Like the Virginia GOP that increasing lived in a bubble detached from the moderate middle, the extreme left of the Democrats appear to be living in their own echo chamber, oblivious to the reality that in a Trump/Sanders contest, they are greatly enhancing the chances of  a Trump re-election and the continuation of policies anathema to what they claim to support.  A piece in New York Magazine lays out how running Sanders as the 2020 Democrat nominee would be an act of political insanity, a message Sanders' cult-like followers will not want to hear.  Here are highlights:

In the field of political forecasting, almost nothing is a matter of certainty, and almost everything is a matter of probability. If Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders — who currently leads the field in Iowa and New Hampshire, and appears to be consolidating support among the party’s progressive wing, while its moderates remain splintered — his prospects against Donald Trump in November would be far from hopeless.

That said, the totality of the evidence suggests Sanders is an extremely, perhaps uniquely, risky nominee. His vulnerabilities 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. To nominate Sanders would be insane.

Sanders has gleefully discarded the party’s conventional wisdom that it has to pick and choose where to push public opinion leftward, adopting a comprehensive left-wing agenda, some of which is popular, and some of which is decidedly not. Positions in the latter category include replacing all private health insurance with a government plan, banning fracking, letting prisoners vote, decriminalizing the border, giving free health care to undocumented immigrants, and eliminating ICE.

Not every one of these unpopular stances is unique to Sanders. Some have won the endorsement of rival candidates, and many of them have been endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, Sanders’s closest rival. . . . . Sanders probably wasn’t trying to undermine Warren by luring her into adopting all his policies, but it has worked out quite well for him, and poorly for her. But Warren at least tries to couch her positions in a framework of reforming and revitalizing capitalism that is intended to reassure ideologically skeptical voters. Sanders combines unpopular program specifics in the unpopular packaging of “socialism.” Compounding those vulnerabilities is a long history of radical associations. Sanders campaigned for the Socialist Workers’ Party and praised communist regimes. Obviously, Republicans call every Democratic nominee a “socialist.” But it’s one thing to have the label thrown at you by the opposition, another for it to be embraced willingly, and yet another thing altogether to have a web of creepy associations that make it child’s play for the opposition to paint your program as radical and dangerous. Viewing these attacks in isolation, and asking whether voters will care about Bernie’s views on the Cold War, misses the way they will be used as a stand-in to discredit his entire worldview. . . . . Vintage video of Bernie palling around with Soviet communists will make for an almost insultingly easy way for Republicans to communicate the idea that his plans to expand government are radical. Sanders has never faced an electorate where these vulnerabilities could be used against him.

Nor, for that matter, has he had to defend some of his bizarre youthful musings (such as his theory that sexual repression causes breast cancer) or the suspicious finances surrounding his wife’s college. Democrats are rightfully concerned about attacks on Hunter Biden’s nepotistic role at Burisma, but Sanders is going to have to defend equally questionable deals, like the $500,000 his wife’s university paid for a woodworking program run by his stepdaughter.

[P]olitical science has generally found that, all things being equal, the electorate tends to punish ideologically extreme candidates. You can peruse studies finding such a conclusion here, here, and here. Again, none of this says the more extreme candidate always loses, merely that extremism creates a handicap.

For obvious reasons, the Democratic Party’s left wing has always resisted this conclusion (as has the Republican Party’s right wing.) But Hillary Clinton’s surprising defeat created an opportunity for the party’s left to promote an alternative theory for how the party could and should compete.

Yet this theory has had two clear tests, and failed both of them spectacularly. Numerous activists and intellectuals in the Sanders orbit held up Jeremy Corbyn as proof of concept for his viability. Anticipating a Corbyn victory, they argued over and over that Corbyn was showing how socialism would attract and mobilize, not repel, voters. Corbyn is more extreme than Sanders, but Sanders enthusiasts themselves drew a connection between the two, and his massive defeat obviously casts serious doubt on the model he was supposed to vindicate.

A second example, closer to home, is even more relevant. In the months leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, the Democratic Party was the subject of bitter and widespread criticism from its left wing. The party’s strategy was to flip the House by recruiting moderate candidates who would avoid controversial left-wing positions and instead focus attention on Trump’s agenda, especially his effort to eliminate Obamacare. The left predicted the strategy would fail — only an inspiring progressive agenda could mobilize enough voters to win back the House.

As we now know, it was a good strategy to win the House. Democrats flipped 40 seats. Tellingly, while progressives managed to nominate several candidates in red districts — Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Richard Ojeda in West Virginia, and many others — any one of whose victory they would have cited as proof that left-wing candidates can win Trump districts, not a single one of them prevailed in November. Our Revolution went 0–22, Justice Democrats went 0–16, and Brand New Congress went 0–6.* The failed technocratic 26-year-old bourgeoise shills who were doing it wrong somehow accounted for 100 percent of the party’s House gains. At this point there is hardly any serious evidence to believe that the best strategy to defeat Trump is to mobilize voters with a radical economic agenda. Public satisfaction with the economy is now at its highest point since the peak of the dot-com boom two decades ago. Trump has serious weaknesses of issues like health care, corruption, taxes, and the environment, and a majority of the public disapproves of Trump’s performance, but he does enjoy broad approval of his economic management. Therefore, his reelection strategy revolves around painting his opponents as radical and dangerous. You may not like me, he will argue, but my opponents are going to turn over the apple cart. A Sanders campaign seems almost designed to play directly into Trump’s message.

Whatever evidence might have supported a Sanders-esque populist strategy for Democrats after the 2016 election, it has since collapsed. But in the ideological hothouse of the Sanders world, no setbacks have been acknowledged, no rethinking has taken place, and the skeptics are dismissed as elitist neoliberal corporate shills, as ever. The project moves forward even as the key tests of its viability have all failed.

For the socialist left, which has no other standard-bearer to choose from, Bernie is too big to fail. The question is whether the Democratic Party, the only political force standing between Donald Trump and his authoritarian ambitions, will risk failing with him.

Many in GOP would like Nothing More than Sanders as Democrat Nominee

Sometimes seeing who those on the opposing team see as must vulnerable ought to make one think twice about their own choice.  Rational people might pause and question their support when the opposing political party see your choice as the easiest one to defeat.  Most likely, such thoughts will not register with Bernie Sanders whose peevishness put Trump - a man diametrically opposed to what they claimed to espouse - in the White House in 2016.  Many Democrats fear a reprise of 2016.  As a piece in Politico reports, many Republicans are salivating at the prospect of Sanders winning the 2020 Democrat nomination.   I share their views of Sanders' potential liabilities, especially the risk of losing moderate and independent voters.  Note how Republicans also view a Sanders nomination as a boost to their effort to retain control of the U.S. Senate.  Here are article highlights:

Republicans like their chances of keeping the Senate in 2020. But there’s one thing they think would all but seal the deal: Bernie Sanders as the Democratic presidential nominee.

Some GOP incumbents are practically cheering him on, confident there’s no way a self-described democratic socialist could win a general election against President Donald Trump and that he’d drag other Democrats on the ballot with him.

“It would be good for us to have a nominee like that,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who is up for reelection next year and sounded downright giddy about the prospect of Sanders representing Democrats at the top of the ticket.

Trump and the Senate GOP have explicitly designed their 2020 strategy around Sanders, beating the anti-socialism drum incessantly and attempting to tether every Democrat on the ballot to what they call a creep away from capitalism and toward collectivism.

“A lot of people think that in that crowded field, he could break out,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.). He added: “If we can run a race against a person that’s an out-of-the-closet socialist and promoting socialist ideas, it’s a great contrast for us.”

The strategy shows Republicans are much more comfortable talking about Sanders and tying other Democrats to his brand of socialism than they are in defending this year's meager legislative agenda. But Republicans could be making the same mistake Democrats made four years ago, when Trump launched his presidential campaign and they began salivating over the prospect of a Senate sweep.

That misunderstanding of Trump’s appeal is now the subject of repeated examination by Democratic politicians and strategists.

“I would suggest they underestimate me at their own peril and I hope they do,” Sanders said in an interview. Republicans are unlikely to run on their own forward-leaning agenda, he added, “So they have to figure out some boogeyman that they think they can run against.”

Though Republicans will try to attach the socialist label to anyone who endorses sweeping expansions of government health care programs and climate change legislation, GOP lawmakers and Trump allies concede it would work much better against Sanders than it would against some of his rivals. Independent voters tired of Trump might hold their nose and back him again if Sanders were the alternative, the GOP logic goes, in turn lifting vulnerable Republican senators to victory. However, one Democrat working on Senate races said a Sanders nomination could help individual Democratic congressional candidates assert their independence from their party in key races.

Democrats have a clear but narrow path to the Senate majority that hinges largely on picking up seats in states like Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Arizona, and defending incumbents in Michigan, Alabama, New Hampshire and Virginia. Democrats need to net at least three Senate seats to win the chamber.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is urging at-risk Republicans to emphasize to voters that the GOP Senate is a “firewall against socialism in this country.” And apparently they're listening.

Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, perhaps the most endangered Republican up next year, is lacing into Sanders’ proposal to let prisoners vote as “not who America is” and the “antithesis [of] our values.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), up for reelection next year, said his fortunes will improve if he gets to run against Sanders because he can cast his race as "a referendum between free enterprise and socialism."

[S]ome Democratic senators said privately they agreed with Republicans that a Sanders nomination would be too easy for the GOP to demagogue. Some fretted about the down-ballot effect he would have on Senate and House races if he were to win the nomination. They declined to speak publicly because it's early in the race and they didn't want to exacerbate tensions within the party.

Two moderate Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana, both acknowledged that the GOP’s strategy of painting the entire Democratic Party as in lockstep with Sanders could work in a national election. But Tester, who won reelection in deep red Montana last year, said Republicans are merely deflecting, given their own heartburn over Trump.

A Democrat Recipe for Political Suicide

Democrat circular firing squad.

From my days years ago as a Republican activist I know one thing for certain: the GOP understands something liberal Democrats are oblivious to, namely, that you have to win elections in order to accomplish goals.  And to win elections, you do not embrace an agenda that will hand you opponents something they can use to bludgeon your candidates with and that has the potential to drive voters into the arms of the competing political party. Lose the moderates and you lose the election. Forget that whites still make up a majority of the electorate, you lose the election. 

The far left in the Democrat Party is clueless about these realities.  Politics involves winning elections so you can implement change. At a time when the Democrats have a perfect opportunity to win back the White House and to take control of the General Assembly here in Virginia, some House Democrats are pushing the issue of "reparations" for African-Americans, a theme which I readily see the GOP using to outrage the very working class whites that Democrats need to win back to win in 2020.  Do things need to be done to assist blacks in achieving the so-called American Dream? Most certainly, but using the term "reparations" is absolute idiocy! Can't you hear Trump and his minions and Fox News talking heads bellowing how Democrats want to take money from some and write checks to others?  Add this to the Democrats' ridiculous "purity" police efforts and the whining of some about the "whiteness" of the current top three presidential nomination contenders in the polls and the Trump and the GOP must be smiling broadly  Democrats are their own worse enemy.  A piece in Politico looks at this issue which may prove radioactive to Democrat election efforts:

Democrats have sidestepped the debate over reparations for African-Americans for decades. But now the issue is bubbling up in the House, and the new majority is wrestling with how to tackle it ahead of the 2020 campaign.

Sparked in part by the support of several presidential contenders, the topic has been discussed multiple times by top House Democrats, including at their retreat in the exurbs of Virginia earlier this month.

But the issue is likely to divide the party — not just by race, but by generation. The Congressional Black Caucus is notably split, with some younger African-American lawmakers clamoring to force the conversation into the open while more senior members worry about alienating moderate voters.

A discussion over reparations isn’t without risk, however, according to Clyburn and some other senior lawmakers and aides. Forcing the issue would likely open Democrats up to attacks from Republicans during the 2020 race.

But avoiding it — especially with Democrats controlling the House with the most diverse caucus in history — could also turn off voters of color who think it’s an important conversation to have, especially with President Donald Trump in the White House and white nationalism on the rise.

“As this administration has seemed to be forcing certain issues, I think that everybody wants to have an honest discussion about everybody who is in this country,” Clyburn said.

That Democrats are seriously entertaining such a response to the bitter legacy of slavery and discrimination against African-Americans underscores how quickly the party has shifted in recent years. While Barack Obama opposed reparations as a presidential candidate, White House hopefuls like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and former HUD Secretary Julián Castro have warmed to it.

While some Democrats worry even the word “reparations” is too controversial because it could conjure the notion of direct payments to descendants of slaves, supporters note that they’re talking about something potentially much broader.

Some Democrats, including Clyburn, said they support doing the study but note the process would take years to complete — if the bill was ever passed by the GOP-controlled Senate and signed by Trump — and that there are more immediate ways to help African-Americans and other underserved communities right now.

With that in mind, Democrats are expected to use the appropriations process in the coming months to steer more federal dollars toward programs that directly benefit minority communities. Some examples include programs that aim to increase the number of doctors and nurses in minority communities, address food deserts in underserved neighborhoods and pump more money into preserving historically black colleges and universities.

“I’m all for repairing the faults that exist in the country rather than waiting on somebody to do a study and then making recommendations,” Clyburn said.

The issue came up at least twice during Democrats’ retreat in Leesburg, Va., at which the party celebrated 100 days in power and discussed the next pieces of their agenda. But right now, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Cheri Bustos said she doesn’t see it becoming a prominent part of the campaign and the issue hasn’t been raised by voters in DCCC polling.

Other lawmakers said the public isn’t paying attention to the debate.

Rep. Joe Cunningham, a Democrat who flipped a heavily Republican Charleston-area district in South Carolina that is 19 percent African-American, said reparations didn’t come up during his campaign last year.

“It’s not something that came up in our election,” Cunningham said. “Certain things come up for presidential elections and come up every cycle — you know this stuff about the Electoral College — but from the day-to-day stuff I think the people are talking about other issues like the cost of their health care.”

Cunningham hit the nail on the head: talk about things that will win support of a majority of voters of all races, like health care and pocket book items.   No doubt some will call me a racist based on this post, but if your team doesn't win the election, NONE of your agenda gets accomplished.  Far left Democrats, especially from liberal states and cities forget this reality time and time again.