We’ve still got a long way to go to the nomination, but until recently I honestly didn’t think Sanders would be the front runner in any part of this nomination process. But he is doing a great job so far.
For at least one day, in one state, the long-promised political revolution of Mr. Sanders came to vivid life, a multiracial coalition of immigrants, college students, Latina mothers, younger black voters, white liberals and even some moderates who embraced his idea of radical change and lifted him to victory in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday.
With 60 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders has 46 percent of the votes. Joe Biden is way, way behind with less than 20 percent of the vote, followed by Pete Buttigieg at 15 percent and Liz Warren at 10 percent. I am disappointed that the highly annoying Buttigieg had a better result than Warren, but at least Buttigieg — who is now going all out to attack Sanders — isn’t second. He’d be claiming victory if he were second. He may be declaring victory anyway; I am tuning him out.
(Update: De Blasio to Buttigieg: “Try to Not be So Smug When You Just Got Your Ass Kicked.”)
We don’t have all the demographic breakdowns yet, but it appears Biden did better than Sanders with black voters. As of last night Biden claimed 39 percent of the African American vote in Nevada, while Sanders had 27 percent. Mayor Pete got a whopping 2 percent. Let’s see how you do in South Carolina, Pete.
The alarming thing about yesterday was that television coverage of the caucuses was dominated by Clinton surrogates and their media friends who were shrieking that Sanders must be stopped. On MSNBC, you’d think the assemblage of James Carville, Nicolle Wallace, Joy Reid, and Chris Matthews were discussing the Nazi occupation of France rather than the results of a bleeping state caucus. I had to turn it off. On CNN, Bill Clinton’s former press secretary Joe Lockhart declared that Mike Bloomberg had better take down Sanders immediately.
I say Democrats need to wake up and realize that they have to make a choice right now — they either get the clubs out and block Sanders from the nomination by any means, thereby alienating a whole lot of younger voters they desperately need now and in the future; or, they adjust their messaging to make it clear Sanders is not the enemy.
One more time: George McGovern didn’t lose in 1972 because he was a crazy leftie radical, because he wasn’t. He was ahead of his time a bit on some issues, such as amnesty for Vietnam draft dodgers, yes. But he lost primarily because Democrats abandoned him. Ed Kilgore:
The New Deal coalition he [McGovern] was alleged to have destroyed with his extremism was already kaput. The party abandoned his candidacy more than he abandoned the party. A second Nixon term seemed acceptable to a lot of Democrats, in part because he [Nixon] systematically tailored his policies and his political operation to expand his coalition.
Kilgore doesn’t mention race, but IMO race was at least part of the reason Democrats abandoned McGovern for Nixon. Nixon was running a racist campaign with code words about “law and order” and the evils of affirmative action. Labor unions, dominated then by old white men, preferred Nixon to McGovern, as did many white rank-and-file voters, for that reason.
It’s also the case that the McGovern general election campaign was a sloppy mess and made a lot of mistakes. My impression is that his team was left to fend for itself by the party elites, who considered him an interloper. Is history about to repeat itself? Former Clinton people certainly appear to be signalling they’d rather re-elect Trump than countenance a Bernie Sanders victory in November.
Ed Kilgore continues,
The residual question is whether Bernie Sanders will run a general election campaign anything like McGovern’s. Keep in mind that the South Dakotan’s primary campaign (run by future senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart) was then and later adjudged as quite good. But it’s as though the same people lost their minds once the nomination was in hand. It’s impossible to entirely separate cause from effect, but the abandonment of McGovern by Democrats was made easier by the perception that his campaign was bumbling and amateurish, and unsure about its own relationship to the party Establishment it had temporarily toppled.
I do think that if Sanders wins the nomination, his campaign needs to remember that it needs the DNC and its resources, like it or not. Sanders may well understand that, but I’m not sure all his supporters do.
At the same time, it may be that Dems are gnashing their teeth that the revolutionaries are taking over the party now and not in some other election. But the misdirections of the Democratic Party establishment are a big reason Trump was elected to begin with. The old elites need to understand that and allow change to take its natural course instead of blocking it. They are pretending its still 2008, or even 1992. It ain’t.
But Sanders hasn’t won the nomination yet. Right now, FiveThirtyEight has Biden slightly favored to win South Carolina, 23.4 to Sanders’s 21 percent. The Nevada win might give Sanders a bounce, of course. Next is Tom Steyer, of all people, at 15.7 percent, Bloomberg (not on the ballot, I don’t believe) is at 10 percent, and Buttigieg is at 9.5 percent. Warren trails behind, at 7 percent. A shame about Warren. Super Tuesday follows closely behind.
Yesterday at the Nevada Caucus.
A smart, independent, and original thinker! This is the best post I've seen here yet.
I would add a few points about McGovern's run. Most importantly, the spirit of the time was overwhelmingly dominated by the Vietnam War. Opposing it was widely considered unpatriotic and radically counter-culture. McGovern was branded the candidate of "amnesty, abortion and acid," which meant amnesty for draft dodgers, abortion on demand (which McGovern was not actually for) and LSD tripping.
Back then the accusations carried a lot of weight, because the party still included a lot of Dixiecrats and blue dog Democrats. McGovern lost a few primary battles to George Wallace, who most represented that crowd.
Also, McGovern's pick for Veep, Thomas Eagleton, had suffered depression and received shock therapy, which he hadn't revealed during his vetting. Mental illness of that type was viewed harshly back then, and Eagleton was probably the last straw.
The current environment is nothing like the early 1970s'. "Experts" who base their assumptions mainly on history are largely patting themselves on the back for being so knowledgeable. In the case of MSNBC it's worth keeping in mind their leading talking heads are all millionaires who don't have much skin in the state of the economy. It's easy to take Trump lightly with a multi-million dollar yearly contract.
Also, I just watched Biden on Face the Nation. He smiled while saying he just didn't know if the Bernie Bros were actually Russian trolls. It's not my job to know like it was his, and I know it. I'm beginning to see him as not so nice a guy.
I remember 1972 pretty well. I voted for George McGovern, in fact.
Yes, Vietnam was the big issue, but in complicated ways. By 1972 people wanted it to be over; the question was, how? And under what conditions? You might remember that 1972 was the year of the original October Surprise, when on October 26 Henry Kissinger declared that “peace is at hand.” North Vietnam had agreed to terms, he said. In November 1972, Gallup polls gave Nixon a 58 percent approval rate for his handling of the war, which was the highest rating he got for the war all year. But whoops! the talks broke down in December, so peace wasn’t at hand after all. Sorry. By January 1973 the approval had dropped to 43 percent.
Also, while most people were tired of the war and wanted it to stop, people hated the anti-war movement more than they were opposed to the war. It wasn’t that hard for Nixon to tie the dirty hippies to McGovern. So there’s that.
We're the same age and of course you're right on all counts. The difference might be that my backside was on the line to be shipped to the jungle, and the war was a lot less complicated to me personally.
I was a junior in high school when McGovern came to our town and gave a 5 pm stump speech in the main park, before heading off somewhere else. He embodied the idealism I was feeling at the time.
I couldn't understand, months later how he suffered a near total landslide loss.
I didn't know then that the liberal era he represented was waning, coming to an end. It's only this year that I read of all the blunders made by his campaign (Democrats never seem to learn).
The point is, he appeared near the end of a cycle; Sanders is at the front of one. I was impressed by AOC, speaking in Spanish, calling out to his supporters.
If he ends up being the nominee, of course I'm all in. I'm also writing checks to SenateMajority.com. I hope against hope that Bernie's health makes it, but am not optimistic. He needs to choose his VP well (paging Elizabeth Warren).
Can Sanders do this? I think DNC should stop the hysterical responses first, but Sanders relentless attacks are alienating people. And my experiences with Sanders partisans says he better start preparing them for working with Establishment democrats if he wants to have an effective presidency. He does not have coat tails unless he's got establishment infrastructure to support the down ticket races.
I'm volunteering for #PresidentWarren. And plan on doing so through Saint Patrick's day. I'm hoping she'll start winning Super Tuesday, and the delegate counts are about 1000, 800 for her and Sanders, with 600+ split between 4 other candidates after March 17. (800,700 and 900 split between 4 may be more likely). Our work between now and then will make a difference.
“…but Sanders relentless attacks are alienating people.” Which attacks would those be? On economic inequality? on a system that exploits the many to benefit the few? on Donald Trump? Who is being alienated?
If the blue dog lovers in the Democratic party want to elect a candidate, they better quit splitting their votes. Mike will not help, for he will steal no votes from Bernie, just weaken the opposition. If that is the direction you think is best you have but ten days to make your case. After super Tuesday all will probably be decided. Perhaps the leading moderates should just draw straws and choose one to endorse and continue. It may be their only chance.
Me?
I'm a Warren fan.
But if it's Bernie, then "BERN, BABY BERN!!!"
I'm actually an ABt voter:
Anyone!
But!!
tRUMP!!!
Me and just about everybody I know is a Warren fan. I guess there aren’t enough of us, though.
I think Biden is the safest pick. I’m going Biden in the primary. Warren is my favorite, though.
That said, if Bernie can win the primaries he can beat Trump. There are more Democrats than Republicans. And left-leaning independents won’t vote for Trump. Also, Bernie is the ONLY candidate, either party, with a fan base. Will depress turnout? Affect the down-ballot? Who knows?
Maybe Medicare for all needs tweaking. Fine. What’s worse than Trump’s kids in cages? It’s a forced choice and Trump is about as revolting as a person can be.
Any Blue will do. And any Blue can do it.
I wouldn't call it over for anyone but Sanders has the lead, the organization and the resources ($) to take it home. I read about the process where I can but what happens to the delegates for someone who drops out isn't clear. Can Amy 'give' her delegates to Bloomberg if she quits the race? In the first round? In the second round when superdelegates become a factor? Does the party dare to steal the election from Sanders if Sanders is the clear favorite?
In terms of objectives, consider this. BOTH parties will blacklist any from who represents a primary challenger against and incumbent. That means if you own Acme elections and an underdog wants to hire your firm to represent her in a primary run against the Democrat in office, the DNC will not allow anyone in the Democratic party to ever hire your firm. Incumbents are the face of the status quo – representing the donor class of the Democratic party.
If Bernie wins the nomination, the DNC will cease to exist in its current form – Bernie isn't going to protect corporate donors. If Trump wins the general, the Republic itself is at risk. How the party establishment will come down if Bernie takes 1991 (the magic number) I'm not sure. Until he has the nomination, they will try every dirty trick to derail his success.
“If Bernie wins the nomination, the DNC will cease to exist in its current form.” Another good argument for electing Bernie.
Doug, what is the form of the current DNC? I've been trying to figure that one out for years. Most evidence I get it is a fund raising machine that uses most funds to raise more funds. You seem to present them as an alt Oligarchy of pimps and preachers to reference the late great Hunter S. Thompson. I suspect you have a better view of the picture than I do. My view of the Democratic "establishment" was that if it existed at all it was not all that well established. We would hope not, as established implies inflexibility, the terminal disease of the Republicans. We do not need both parties coming down with the current political pandemic.
As Charlie Pierce would say, Jesus these people.
I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I'll vote for him in the general. As I've said before, if everyone who wants Trump out of the White House votes for the Democratic nominee, Trump will be out of the White House. If your support for the Dem nominee is conditional, you're saying there are things worse than a second Trump term. And there really aren't.
But that requires the support of a lot of people who aren't dyed-in-the-wool, hardcore progressives. Sanders' supporters need to understand that, and Sanders' detractors need to understand that hyperventilating about how Sanders winning Nevada is like the Nazis rolling into France is NOT making it easy for those voters to pull the lever for Sanders.
I don't expect a dope like Chris Matthews to understand or care about that, but people like Carville and Lockhart who call themselves Democrats &$@%ing well should. Otherwise, what are they really?
Off-Topic, but not completely. Bernie is under fire for staying vague about the cost of Medicare-for-All. (I like how Warren has handled that, but it's beside the point.) We're on the edge of a pandemic and the last people who will get checked if they have flu-like symptoms are people who have no insurance or can't afford the co-pay on their health care.
Potentially, that means lack of affordable health care might allow potential carriers to infect MANY more people before they are tested and quarantined. How conoravirus will play out in this country is unknown BUT a system that doesn't exclude a significant portion of the citizens can contain an epidemic better than a system that economically excludes a significant portion of the populace. This might be a decisive factor in the debates if the low-information voters are in a reactionary mode and scared that they are needlessly at risk because of the for-profit system.
The law prohibits an ER from turning away a patient and they would not want to if they suspect coronavirus. However, that does not mean that the patient would not be billed later. I feel sure anyone would seek help if they feel their life is in danger and worry about paying the bill later. Most hospitals allow someone to show they cannot pay a huge amount of money and it will be written off. It is in the interest of public health to see that anyone with coronavirus is isolated and treated to avoid a pandemic situation.
Bernie – I'm SO glad you asked!
A friend of mine ran against DWS in FL. He asked for info from the state Democratic Party and was told they wouldn't release voter info to him because he was running against an incumbent. Tim Canova is a law professor and backed them down, but they tried. If you do some research, you will find that both political parties try (and almost always succeed) to select who will run for an open seat (when somebody dies or retires.) Anyone who considers running against an incumbent who is a party loyalist is threatened by the party with permanent blacklisting of the challenger if they lose.
So here's the picture – 85% of House districts are a gimme for the party who has a clear majority. Sometimes this is gerrymandering – sometimes it's a natural result of demographics but either way, the party in control will own that seat and with few exceptions, the party selects the candidate, lines up the money for him/her and stomps on any upstart who dares a primary run without the party blessing. That's BOTH parties – the GOP apparatchik picks for red districts Democrats in the party machine pick in blue districts. Only 15% of US House districts are competitive.
Both parties select people who will follow orders – they are 'allowed' to dissent and vote against the party-decided outcome if the vote will go the party way and the dissent allows the incumbent to cover his a$$ locally. It's a public fact (reported in OpenSecrets.org) that both parties collect corporate donations, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars. IMO, corporate interests take care of 'retirement' for non-elected party executives who protect the donor class. That's an opinion because it's not reported.
Both parties require that candidates raise money (dialing for dollars) and the party takes a slice. (OSC told the DCCC to stuff it.) Thirty to fifty percent of a House member's workday is spent at a call center in a cubicle reading from a script as the system dials from a list of names of potential big $ donors developed by the party. That's WHY when you look at C-Span covering any committee meeting there's a SEA of expensive, upholstered, empty chairs. The party chair and the minority leader are there, and almost nobody else. (You might not be able to see this except at the beginning or end of a session when the camera pans out.) The chair and minority leader are selected by seniority – they ARE the party faithful. With all the committee members gone, huge power goes to those two in shaping legislation that members don't even read. Big political contributions go to those two – they don't need to do telephone time.
The result is that the donor class and the party machine can make damn near anything appear or disappear from legislation. House members vote often without reading the bill.
If you see it the way I do, you start to understand my obsession with big money in politics. Eliminate ALL corporate influence using big money and Congress is freed up to actually take an active interest in legislation, which is what we elected them to do. The result won't always be more liberal or more conservative, but it will reflect what legislators think will benefit us because that's the only way they get reelected.