Down-Ballot Democrats Distance Themselves from Sanders

With Bernie Sanders' strong showing in Nevada, it seems Democrats are poised to do what Virginia Republicans did for years and which left them completely out of power in Virginia: they nominated candidates that were the darlings of the extremists of the party base but who were viewed as toxic by mainstream voters.  If Bernie Sanders turns out to be the Democrat nominee, I fear that another four years of the nightmare of Donald Trump is virtually guaranteed.  Worse yet, Sanders may drag down many down ballot candidates and cause Democrats to lose seats both in Congress and also in countless state races across the country. While Sanders supporters - who strike me as being just as fanatical as Trump's MAGA supporters  - are blind to this reality, many down-ballot Democrats are seeing the hand writing on the wall and trying to distance themselves from Sanders as vigorously as possible. As for Sanders himself, the man strikes me as just as filled with egomania and a "my way or the highway" mindset as Trump.  He is a catastrophe who will do incalculable damage to the Democrat Party. A piece in the Washington Post looks at these totally justified efforts. Here are article highlights: 

Former astronaut Mark Kelly, the Democratic Party’s hope for flipping a U.S. Senate seat in Arizona, tried to do no harm this month when he was asked about Sen. Bernie Sanders. “I will ultimately support who the nominee is of the Democratic Party,” he said.

That was enough for Kelly’s Republican rival, Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), who is trailing him in early polls, to go on the attack. The television spot she debuted days later spent nearly as much time talking about plans by the democratic socialist from Vermont to raise taxes and award new benefits to undocumented immigrants as it did about Kelly.

As Sanders builds what could eventually be an insurmountable delegate lead, many Democratic House and Senate candidates are approaching a dramatic shift in their campaigns, as they recalibrate to include praise of capitalism and distance themselves from the national party. Top campaign strategists from both parties view Sanders’s success as a potentially tectonic event, which could narrow the party’s already slim hopes of retaking the Senate majority and fuel GOP dreams of reclaiming the House, which it lost amid a Democratic romp in 2018.

“Donald Trump is going to offer the American people this choice: Do you want to continue building the economy or do you want to lurch toward socialism? And that is a real powerful argument in the Democratic districts that Trump won in 2016.”

With an emphatic victory in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, Sanders has won two of the first three contests, and lost the third — the Iowa caucuses — in a squeaker.

Because of Democratic rules that give no delegates to candidates who scores less than 15 percent of the vote in a state or congressional district, Sanders could build a delegate lead far greater than his advantage in the popular vote.

If Democrats are awakening to a recognition that Sanders could pull away from the rest of the field, there is far less consensus about whether his nomination will help President Trump win reelection. Sanders’s power to turn out young and blue-collar voters or suburbanites is not fully tested, the ceiling of Trump’s support is poorly defined in a two-way race and the senator from Vermont has not yet been subjected to a negative paid advertising effort.

But there is far less flexibility for candidates in smaller districts. That has prompted Republicans to celebrate as they look to reclaim ground they lost in 2018 when largely affluent suburbs rebelled against the GOP in a protest of Trump.

“The Democrats’ embrace of socialism is going to cost them their majority — I mean, it’s as simple as that,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Bernie is about as good a contrast as we could have ever hoped for.” Democrats, particularly those representing swing districts, agree.

“We flipped those seats [in 2018] because of Donald Trump,” said one House Democrat who represents a suburban district, speaking on the condition of anonymity to reflect internal discussions. “And if Democrats want to hand most of those back, put Bernie at the top of the ticket. And that’s how many of us feel.”

The House member added: “Our overarching priority [is] to replace the president, but to do so with someone who is going to be equally divisive does not serve the country’s interests, and I think that’s at the core of what is making so many so uncomfortable.”

Several of Sanders’s rivals have begun to warn about a potential down-ballot rout. They have raised particular concern about Sanders’s support for a Medicare-for-all plan, which would effectively eliminate private health insurance in the United States.

The leading Democratic candidates running for the four most vulnerable Republican Senate seats — in Arizona, North Carolina, Maine and Colorado — have all come out against Sanders’s signature health care plan, as have many House candidates.

“I believe the only way to truly deliver any of the progressive changes we care about is to be a nominee who actually gives a damn about the effect you are having, from the top of the ticket, on those crucial, front-line House and Senate Democrats running to win, who we need to win, to make sure our agenda is more than just words on a page,” former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg said Saturday in Las Vegas.

The moderate think tank Third Way has urged the presidential candidates to train their fire on Sanders at Tuesday’s South Carolina debate, issuing a memo that cites a recent Gallup survey that found 51 percent of independents would not vote for a self-described socialist for president.

“The suburbs are not looking for a revolution,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way. “They want change, for sure. Many of them loathe Trump with a burning passion, but they do not want somebody who is proposing to double the size of the federal government. They do not want somebody who is proposing to take away the health care of 180 million people.”

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll this week found that Sanders had the worst standing against Trump among college-educated white women, the group most responsible for powering Democrats to their 2018 House majority. Sanders had a statistically insignificant two percentage-point edge over Trump among white women voters with college degrees in the poll, compared with Buttigieg, Biden, Bloomberg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who all beat Trump by 10 points or more among that the same group.

Dan Conston, executive director of the Congressional Leadership Fund, the largest GOP super PAC focused on House races, said Sanders’s presence lends instant credibility to the GOP’s long-standing efforts to tie any Democrat to the far left.

“It feels like we are moving to almost a parliamentary system where voters are voting straight ticket,” said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who has found in recent polling that Trump is significantly more popular than Sanders in competitive House races. “Sitting back and watching the Democrats and their primary is an extraordinary experience, and I am glad it’s not us.”

I am in horror of what is happening and all I can do is play Cassandra and donate to opposing candidates - something I urge others to do as well starting right now.  Sanders must be stopped if a disaster is to be averted.

Is Joe Biden's Campaign Approaching a Free Fall?

As numerous posts have indicated, I have never seen Joe Biden as the Democrats' best bet for defeating Donald Trump in November.  Indeed, as noted, he reminds me of Bob Dole who lost badly in his presidential contest.  Both men have remarkable resumes and credentials, yet lack that ability to inspire enthusiasm and excitement - something that will be needed to save America from the nightmare of a Trump second term. Bernie Sanders inspires excitement in his cult-like followers but seems to have little ability to push beyond his 25% level of support and inspires dread in the other 75% of Democrats who see his nomination as a guarantee that Trump will be reelected.  The seeming beneficiary of this state of play is Michael Bloomberg as noted in a column in the New York Times here and a piece in Politico that looks at Biden's sinking prospects and the beginning of the flight of black supporters from Biden's sinking ship.  Here are highlights from Politico:  

Moderate Democrats on Capitol Hill have begun to confront a future without Joe Biden — and are scrambling to find a centrist alternative who can topple both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

And a growing number of Capitol Hill Democrats say they’re turning to billionaire Mike Bloomberg, a former New York mayor who became a trusted ally after his personal fortune helped Democrats recapture the House in 2018.

Publicly, moderate Democrats insist there’s plenty of time until Super Tuesday, when Biden or Bloomberg could emerge as the frontrunner. But anxiety is rising on both sides of the Capitol that a Sanders ticket could cost the party not just the race for the White House but also of control of Congress — while exposing raw ideological tensions within the party ahead of November.

The soul-searching within the establishment wing of the Democratic Party comes after Sanders solidified his frontrunner status in Iowa and New Hampshire, which produced a pair of cringeworthy finishes for Biden. The former vice president did so poorly in New Hampshire that he ditched his own election night watch party to head to South Carolina, possibly giving an opening to Bloomberg, who skipped the first four contests.

“I’m feeling a momentum shift to Bloomberg right now,” said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.), who endorsed Biden in the summer and plans to stick with him.

One of the most glaring examples of the change in tide on Capitol Hill is a trio of Bloomberg endorsements from the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday — a not-so-subtle show of force against Biden, who remains the favored candidate among black voters nationally.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the CBC who endorsed Bloomberg on Wednesday, declined to say whether he thinks Sanders could beat Trump and added he would fully support the eventual nominee. But Meeks — who fought Bloomberg over his stop-and-frisk policies as mayor — said the trajectory of the race is what persuaded him to weigh in now.

“There’s a number of [candidates] who are ideologically where I am. But I also had to add to that electability,” Meeks said. “And that’s a tremendous consideration we’ll have to make because you can have the best ideology but if you’re not electable, then where are we? We’ve got to win.”

When asked whether Biden’s faltering was a factor, Meeks didn’t deny it: “To say that it was zero factor would not be the truth,” he said. “It was one of many factors because you’ve got to be able to pull it together, you’ve got to make sure that one has the ability to win.”

Several other CBC members said privately that they expected other black lawmakers who previously supported Biden to soon come out for Bloomberg.

But there are some concerns that Bloomberg, who has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the race so far, remains untested heading into Super Tuesday on March 3: He hasn’t gone head-to-head at a single debate this cycle, though he is expected to qualify for Nevada next week.

Some Democrats also fear a potential drip-drip of controversies, like a 2015 audio tape that surfaced this week on which Bloomberg defends his stop-and-frisk policies in language that have prompted accusations of racism.

For many Democrats, there is a real fear about Biden’s staying power, especially if Senate Republicans make good on their threat to investigate Hunter Biden’s role at a Ukrainian gas company now that Trump’s impeachment trial is over.

Two self-described moderate Democrats did finish strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, led by former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. But Democrats said privately they’re desperate for a candidate with the cash and name recognition to beat Trump — something they don’t know if Buttigieg or Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who finished a strong third in New Hampshire, can deliver — without exposing them to ceaseless GOP attacks on socialism.

"There's a lot of people right now on the fence," said Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), a prominent supporter of Klobuchar. Asked about Klobuchar's surge, Phillips said: "She is being elevated in more and more conversations every day. That said, so is Michael Bloomberg."

The most intense fears are among the 30 Democrats sitting in districts that Trump won in 2016, who fear they can’t compete in 2020 if Sanders becomes the nominee and spurs months of “Medicare for All” attacks from GOP groups in their districts.

Some of the most endangered incumbents, like Rep. Anthony Brindisi of New York, have acknowledged they wouldn’t be able to support Sanders if he does become the nominee, hoping at best that voters split their ticket with Trump in November.

[S]ome Senate Democrats have expressed concern about the effect Sanders could have on Democratic challengers in swing-state races. While Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Wednesday Democrats would coalesce around whoever the nominee is, others are not so sure.

“Sen. Sanders’ argument is that his candidacy will inspire and mobilize a whole new sector of our country that doesn’t typically vote,” added Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a Biden backer.

But Coons argued that he has yet to see evidence of that based on voter turnout in Iowa, which was lower than expected. New Hampshire turnout, however, did set a new record on Tuesday. “He may make it harder rather than easier for us to take back the Senate,” Coons said.

“If Biden announced today that he was going to drop out, you’d have an avalanche of African Americans around the country going to Bloomberg,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), who endorsed Biden last September and plans to stick with him.

“It would be foolish for anyone to say what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire is not going to have an impact, it will,” Cleaver said of Biden’s performance in the past 10 days. “There’s no question Nevada is extremely important.”

The Illusions of Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz

Yet another op-ed in the Boston Globe looks at Bernie Sanders' 2014 tax return and posits some on point questions (Sanders made more that we did, but paid quite a bit less in taxes - should we fire our CPA?).  The piece also looks at the dysfunction on the Republican side of the aisle in the personage of Ted Cruz, one of the most loathsome politicians in America today, yet who has "friends" only because Donald Trump is more widely feared/hated among the self-destructing GOP establishment.  First these highlights on Sanders:

So much of our politics is based on illusion. Something can look or feel a certain way but, on closer inspection, turns out to be untrue. Two examples, one from the Democrats and another from the Republicans, show the ways in which false assumptions and beliefs can mislead us.

Bernie Sanders is the socialist candidate for president, although he prefers the term “Democratic-Socialist,” since it makes it easier for him to sell Marxist social and economic theory to a nation brought up on free markets and rugged individualism. Sanders is a working-class champion fighting for tax fairness and against income inequality, or so we are led to believe.

Sanders waited until late in the day on Friday to release his 2014 tax returns, obviously hoping voters would overlook the news that he and his wife, Jane, paid an effective tax rate of 13.5 percent, or $27,653 in federal taxes on an adjusted gross income of $205,271.

When it was revealed that former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney paid 14 percent of his income in taxes in 2011, the news was greeted with howls of protest from the left.

Sanders’ six-figure income puts him in the 28 percent bracket for married joint filers. He cut that rate by more than half by taking more than $64,000 in deductions — all perfectly legal, but no one expected the redistributionist to redistribute less, on a percentage basis, than a prominent member of the capitalist class.

Sanders is near the top 5 percent of all Americans in terms of income. The core of the Sanders campaign is getting the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. Such high-minded principles should also apply to socialists making more than $200,000 a year.

The column then directs its focus to the loathsome Ted Cruz:

No one seems to have more fake friends these days than Cruz. The Texas senator is the most unloved person in the US Senate. Yet, as the front man for the Stop Trump movement, he has become a vessel of hope for Republicans who think he is the less bad thing of a pair of bad things. No one better exemplifies this attitude than Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who famously compared the choice between Trump and Cruz to being shot or poisoned.

In Tuesday’s New York primary, Trump crushed Cruz. The math says it is now impossible for Cruz to accumulate the delegates he needs in the remaining contests to win on the first convention ballot. What a difference from two weeks ago, when on the night of his double digit win in Wisconsin, Cruz declared, “We’re winning because we’re uniting the Republican Party.” 

A winning campaign for the White House needs to be built on something more than the absence of Trump. It requires real friends, not fake ones.

The Myth of Bernie Sanders' November Advantage

As noted in a post yesterday, in my view, it increasingly appears that Bernie Sanders is putting his own ego ahead of keeping a Republican out of the White House in November.  Despite the delegate math stacked against him, he is vowing to fight all the way to the Democrat Party convention and is beginning to demand that delegates ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton has won more votes and more delegates.  Why?  Because he claims that he has the best chance to beat Donald Trump or whoever becomes the GOP nominee.  A piece in Mother Jones makes the case that this supposed advantage is a myth.  Here are excerpts:

Soon after Sen. Bernie Sanders was declared the loser in the New York Democratic presidential primary on Tuesday night, his campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, was on MSNBC explaining the path ahead for the independent socialist from Vermont. Weaver contended, optimistically, that Sanders could potentially win all the remaining contests. When pressed on what the campaign would do should Sanders end up second to Hillary Clinton in the delegate hunt, Weaver said the campaign would spend the weeks between the final primary in early June and the Democratic convention in late July trying to flip the superdelegates who have declared their loyalty to Clinton.

To some, this might seem fanciful. . . . Weaver justified this possible strategy by insisting that Sanders is the Democratic candidate better situated to win in the November general election. Sanders, he argued, has more appeal with independents and younger voters and generates more enthusiasm.

Any conversation with a Sanders supporter inevitably turns to the polls. And indeed the polls do say what Weaver suggested. According to Real Clear Politics' average of recent polls, Sanders performs better than Clinton in hypothetical general-election matchups. Against Donald Trump, Sanders leads by 15 points, Clinton by 9. Against Ted Cruz, Sanders wins by 11 points, Clinton by 2. Many Bernie-ites point to these numbers and confidently declare: Case closed!

Maybe not. There is one missing factor in these polls, and it might be huge. Sanders has yet to face a true negative ad campaign aimed at destroying his public image. Were he to be the Democratic nominee, he would be confronted with hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads designed to rip him apart. And everyone knows what that pummeling would focus on: He's a self-proclaimed socialist.

Clinton has taken a few pokes at Sanders, claiming his policy proposals are pie in the sky and his numbers don't add up. . . . But this is nothing compared with the onslaught that Sanders would be up against as the nominee. The ads write themselves: "Don't take our word for it, take his. He's a socialist!" Cut to a super-cut of Sanders proclaiming "I am a socialist" over and over.

Of course, almost all Americans are socialists to some extent. (You believe in Social Security and Medicare? Congratulations, you get your socialist card.) But the word still has the potential to frighten or put off voters in the crucial swing states. And there will be other lines of attack against Sanders: the usual tax-and-spend stuff Republicans always hurl at Democrats (but to a greater extent), the radical writings of his past, his unconventional personal life, and more. It's not difficult to imagine a veiled campaign that exploits the fact he's not a Christian.

Once, Devine continued, people said don't vote for a black man because he cannot win the presidency; now some say don't vote for a socialist because he cannot win. His implication was that such talk is nothing more than a self-limiting scare tactic among progressives.

Perhaps. These are all lovely assumptions, and they could prove true. Maybe the socialist charge will not have much firepower. But the point is that until Sanders is tested under such battlefield conditions, polls that compare his performance against Trump to Clinton's are meaningless. As the Clinton people will say—and they're not wrong on this—she has withstood decades of attacks, some real and fact-based, some phony and underhanded.

Sanders would be virgin territory for the dirt-throwers of the right. A clean canvas.  This is not to say that Sanders and his populist crusade would not be able to prevail against a billion dollars in ads assailing him as a crazy socialist hell-bent on raising taxes and expanding government. But until he's the target of such a blitzkrieg, hypothetical comparisons have little currency. Any sophisticated political operative knows these particular poll numbers are no basis for picking a candidate. Nor are they a rationale for Sanders, should he finish in second place, to continue his campaign.

[L]ast year Gallup released a poll asking voters about their attitudes regarding political candidates of various races, religions, and beliefs. . . . The label that fared the worst in this survey was socialist. Forty-seven percent said they would be willing to support a socialist candidate; 50 percent said they would not. . . . The poll was conducted last June, and it may well be that Sanders' performance in the months since has altered public attitudes toward a socialist candidate. Yet the survey's results do suggest the socialist tag could be a problem for Sanders in a general election.

There are some positions that I support - most notably a single payer, universal heath care system.  But with so much a stack in this election - likely 3 Supreme Court appointments among other things - winning in November is crucial and pragmatism is required.  

Why Millennials Should Reconsider Hillary Clinton

Both last night and throughout the day to day - and likely until the South Carolina primary results are in - the bloviating pundit class has been tearing into Hillary Clinton's campaign and, in some cases, trying to draw parallels between Hillary's collapse in 2008 and today.  On the Democrat/liberal side, many are whining that Hillary is no progressive yet ignore the frightening policies that a Republican in the White House would usher in, especially for LGBT Americans and the working poor and the beleaguered middle class.  If things are bad now, they would only be worse under a Republican president who might get to appoint two more Antonin Scalias to the U.S. Supreme Court. A piece in Huffington Post makes the case as to why Millennials may want to rethink their support for Bernie Sanders.  Here are some excerpts:

So why Clinton, then?   If the claim is that Sanders isn't radical enough, why would it make any sense to cast your vote for a candidate that is decidedly less progressive? This is perhaps the most valid and difficult question of the 2016 Democratic Primary. Here are a few of my best guesses:

1. When you're this disenchanted about politics, there's an acknowledgement that you have to play the game a little to get things done.  Since many Americans have already grieved the political process as inherently corrupt and vile, the insistence that Democrats should place less emphasis on running a politically savvy campaign and more emphasis on running a "genuine" one seems kind of silly. When, just by virtue of the fact that someone is involved in politics, you consider every candidate to be an "establishment" candidate, you might as well vote for someone with reasonable, clear, and attainable goals that chip away at our biggest barriers to progress. Clinton is by no means a radical, and is arguably not even a progressive: but, as she has been quick to point out in recent days, neither are Obama, Biden, and many others revered by this party when held to the Sanders measuring stick. And while Jonathan Chait's piece making "A Case Against Bernie Sanders" didn't do enough to give Bernie credit for the work he's done for our country and the riveting campaign he's managed to run, it makes valid points about the limited role of the presidency. The likelihood of Bernie's ability to effect revolutionary change in the areas where he shines, which are not ones in which the president typically has much sway, seems slim.

2. There are still good reasons for a radical young person to vote for a less radical candidate.  ...particularly if that young person values honesty and transparency. If there's anything I'm more skeptical of than a politician, it's a politician that claims to be unlike the rest. Part of the appeal of Hillary Clinton is that, while definitely not a radical, she doesn't claim to be either. She acknowledges that she tends toward the moderate and effective and away from the radical and divisive. I've yet to hear her backpedal when asked about campaign support from corporate donors. Hillary is not a revolutionary, but ideological transparency still has some sway with me.

3. The repercussions for many Americans in the event that we nominate Sanders and he loses are much greater for some than for others.  I do believe it's important to acknowledge that the fear that Sanders might not beat Cruz or Rubio is a very real fear, and that fear is substantiated by far more than Bernie's eccentrics or his religion (or lack thereof). It is much easier to vote for the candidate that most closely upholds your values when his likely loss in a general election wouldn't have palpable repercussions for you. Cruz is a disaster when it comes to women's issues, and Rubio has already threatened/promised to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would work to overturn same-sex marriage. We barely have to discuss the dreadful repercussions to many Americans if Trump somehow continues the charade. Undeniable sexism in this country aside and despite Sanders's own claims that have spurred media polls limited in scope, Clinton is a far more electable candidate, and playing it safe does matter to me: because I want access to healthcare, because I want employment rights and anti-discrimination laws upheld, because I want to be able to use the bathroom without paying a fine, because I don't want my friends or their families to get deported. The consequences of losing this election are real and would have a grave effect on many. Speaking of "electability"....

4. The "socialist" problem is, in fact, a problem.  It's unfair to say that politically moderate or independent voters are opposed to a self-described socialist in office because they are afraid of the word or have misconceptions about its meaning. While that may be true for some, those voters are unlikely to vote for a Democratic nominee to begin with. It's insulting to moderate or undecided voters to assume that their opposition to socialism in the White House is a result of fear or misinformation. The real reason that many people don't want socialism in the White House is that they aren't socialists. Most Americans simply aren't: a fact that seems surprising to many in my generation. And most Americans, myself included, want a revolution that honors and amends the principles of democracy and competitive markets. Believe it or not, there are many of us who still think that great change is possible, and that that change doesn't require a revolution of political ideology. Most Americans, even those who want or are waiting for a real revolution, want a revolution that is both truly new and truly American. A self-described socialist who repeatedly points to other countries as superior models of fair and effective governance simply rubs me the wrong way, and I lean way further left than your average voter. I may have lost hope for a genuine and incorruptible candidate long ago, but I have not lost faith in American ingenuity, competitiveness, and resolve.

5. We should actively consider whether Sanders' proposals address the root of inequality in this country.  We should consider whether an economy run on socialist principles actually addresses the issues that have led to such a devastating state of inequality. Most of Sanders' proposals involve a huge expansion of federal regulation and control. This would require citizens to have a substantial amount of trust in a few men and women in the White House to fairly, effectively, and equitably regulate certain industries to acceptable standards. And when you've never been treated fairly or equitably by your government before, why should it feel comfortable to give that government a much greater degree of control? I believe in democracy and free markets because I value my right to make choices, and I value that right because my government, historically, has not. If Sanders ever got free, universal healthcare for everyone to pass, why would anyone, in the context of our history and the systemic oppression of women and people of color that was largely endorsed and perpetrated by the federal government, trust that same government to ensure that my needs are met?

If you're a young Sanders supporter, ask yourself this: have you ever been to a public health clinic? If every doctor's office is to be a federally regulated clinic, the reality is we will need substantially more healthcare workers and they will be paid substantially less. This is also true of free public higher education: teachers, most of whom barely make a living to begin with, will be paid substantially less, and I've yet to hear Sanders' solution to that inevitability--in fact, I haven't even heard the question posed. We should consider valuing choices more than we value having everything for free. I want it to be possible for everyone in this country to make choices. And if that isn't the case now, which it isn't, the problems are much more significant than amending the Affordable Care Act or lowering the costs of education. First we have to identify the problem: systemic racism and sexism. Then, we have to address it. I am not confident that making healthcare or education completely free either addresses or solves these problems.

Where I stand apart from Sanders and his supporters is with regard to what a revolution in a democracy looks like. To me, it's about fixing deep-seated ethical and ideological problems that put marginalized populations at a fixed disadvantage in a competitive economy. I want my revolution to ensure that every American citizen can take part in our democracy and make their own choices, including demanding the best healthcare and the best education, which requires a competitive market. I don't support Sanders' brand of revolution because I haven't quite given up on American potential yet. My millennial friends might call that pie-eyed and unrealistic, but bear in mind that's the same thing everyone is saying about Sanders, and about you.