IT'S GETTING HARDER TO WRITE OFF SANDERS' CHANCES AS THE NOMINEE OR AS PRESIDENT
November 9, 2015
By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNews.com
It’s time Democrats confront the reality that Bernie Sanders COULD win the 2016 general election. In fact, Sanders may well be the Democrats’ best hope for retaining the White House.
Until lately I’ve bought into the conventional wisdom that Sanders is performing a valuable service by raising issues that need to be raised, but that Sanders’ self-proclaimed “social Democrat” tag, his age, and the formidable Clinton machine were insurmountable obstacles to his winning either the primary or general election.
But that “wisdom” is looking very shaky in light of recent polls. The Democrats’ first TV debate in mid-October gave Clinton a surge of positive media. Yet the Quinnipiac poll taken weeks afterward continued to show her losing general election match-ups to Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Chris Christie. The margin of loss to Carson was 10 points, 50-40. What makes this ominous for Clinton is that she’s the best known candidate in either party. There isn’t a lot of elasticity in the Clinton numbers. Voters by and large have made up their minds about her, and the verdict isn’t good. She is viewed even less trustworthy than Donald Trump, the least trusted of any of the Republican candidates.
Ironically, Clinton is right back where she was in November 2007, with a long lead over her Democratic opponent, all the campaign money she needs, an experienced, well-tuned organization and a generally accepted inevitably that she will be the party’s choice.
But the voting environment of the campaign also is close to what it was in November 2007, fertile soil for an alternative campaign that recognizes voter frustration with Washington and the growing distance between the economic and political elites and the rest of America.
Read Ryan Lizza’s October 15 New Yorker magazine article for a real eye-opener about all of this. Lizza got access to a 2007 Obama campaign strategy memo focused on how to tie Hillary Clinton’s political weaknesses to voter disenchantment. Amazingly, most of those strategical factors are as current today as they were in November, 2007. The Clinton campaign of 2016 certainly learned from 2008 not to take Iowa or any of the caucus states for granted. Organizationally, expect a much better performance. But the angst that sank Clinton in 2008 is much deeper now, the anger much more intense, prospective remedies for attracting voter support and dealing with large scale issues much more radical.
Now consider how Bernie Sanders fits into all of this. He’s much more angry than Clinton on behalf of the poor and middle class. He’s proposing much more radical solutions. And he’s much more believable as a change agent. While his numbers against probable Republican opponents are no better than Clinton’s, they’re no worse. The difference is, the country barely knows Sanders (as they barely know Carson). There’s plenty of clean slate to write on to move those numbers.
That’s what makes so many Democrats nervous. They worry that once Republicans zero in on Sanders in the general election it would turn into a rout, another McGovern-type wipe-out. All the Republicans need do is say “socialist,” “socialist,” loudly enough and often enough and it would be like yelling “boo” in the graveyard.
At the October TV debate CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s first question to Sanders was “The Republican attack ad against you in a general election---it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you're not a capitalist……”
A tough attack to defense. Could a Sanders campaign overcome the opposition’s efforts to scare the daylights out of voters with spooky socialist stories? A few years ago, no question that would work. But in 2016, with so many voters looking for economic and political answers from a system they believe has failed them? The political soil seems more fertile than ever for a different crop of ideas. Go to the Sanders campaign web site and here’s what you find as his “radical” proposals:
A fairer, more progressive tax system, a $15 minimum wage, a major infrastructure rebuilding program, revised trade treaties, a youth jobs program, equal pay for women, universal education and health care and a strengthened social security system, guaranteed paid vacations, family and sick leave, more protections to help those who want to organize unions, breaking up the biggest banks, breaking the grasp of big money on politicians, more emphasis on racial equality, immigration reform, and accelerating the push for alternative energy.
The U.S. is the only nation in the developed western world where this agenda would be controversial. All those countries deployed similar policies decades ago and continue to have thriving democracies. Germany’s 2014 trade surplus was the world’s largest. Its workforce is highly unionized and by law is represented on all corporate boards. Innovation and the capitalist tradition remain strong. Business and political corruption is much less a problem than in the U.S.
Sanders remains a longshot to win the Democratic nomination. But those who want to see the Democrats win next November need to pay more serious attention to what the polls tell us, what Sanders’ million+ financial contributors mean, why Sanders is drawing larger crowds than any other candidate, and how closely the Sanders agenda (and the authenticity of his career) fits the change voters are demanding.
Hope might not be as high as it was in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama, but with all the support Sanders is attracting, voters may be telling us they will buy into Change beyond anything the U.S. has experienced in decades.
(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)
November 9, 2015
By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNews.com
It’s time Democrats confront the reality that Bernie Sanders COULD win the 2016 general election. In fact, Sanders may well be the Democrats’ best hope for retaining the White House.
Until lately I’ve bought into the conventional wisdom that Sanders is performing a valuable service by raising issues that need to be raised, but that Sanders’ self-proclaimed “social Democrat” tag, his age, and the formidable Clinton machine were insurmountable obstacles to his winning either the primary or general election.
But that “wisdom” is looking very shaky in light of recent polls. The Democrats’ first TV debate in mid-October gave Clinton a surge of positive media. Yet the Quinnipiac poll taken weeks afterward continued to show her losing general election match-ups to Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Chris Christie. The margin of loss to Carson was 10 points, 50-40. What makes this ominous for Clinton is that she’s the best known candidate in either party. There isn’t a lot of elasticity in the Clinton numbers. Voters by and large have made up their minds about her, and the verdict isn’t good. She is viewed even less trustworthy than Donald Trump, the least trusted of any of the Republican candidates.
Ironically, Clinton is right back where she was in November 2007, with a long lead over her Democratic opponent, all the campaign money she needs, an experienced, well-tuned organization and a generally accepted inevitably that she will be the party’s choice.
But the voting environment of the campaign also is close to what it was in November 2007, fertile soil for an alternative campaign that recognizes voter frustration with Washington and the growing distance between the economic and political elites and the rest of America.
Read Ryan Lizza’s October 15 New Yorker magazine article for a real eye-opener about all of this. Lizza got access to a 2007 Obama campaign strategy memo focused on how to tie Hillary Clinton’s political weaknesses to voter disenchantment. Amazingly, most of those strategical factors are as current today as they were in November, 2007. The Clinton campaign of 2016 certainly learned from 2008 not to take Iowa or any of the caucus states for granted. Organizationally, expect a much better performance. But the angst that sank Clinton in 2008 is much deeper now, the anger much more intense, prospective remedies for attracting voter support and dealing with large scale issues much more radical.
Now consider how Bernie Sanders fits into all of this. He’s much more angry than Clinton on behalf of the poor and middle class. He’s proposing much more radical solutions. And he’s much more believable as a change agent. While his numbers against probable Republican opponents are no better than Clinton’s, they’re no worse. The difference is, the country barely knows Sanders (as they barely know Carson). There’s plenty of clean slate to write on to move those numbers.
That’s what makes so many Democrats nervous. They worry that once Republicans zero in on Sanders in the general election it would turn into a rout, another McGovern-type wipe-out. All the Republicans need do is say “socialist,” “socialist,” loudly enough and often enough and it would be like yelling “boo” in the graveyard.
At the October TV debate CNN’s Anderson Cooper’s first question to Sanders was “The Republican attack ad against you in a general election---it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you're not a capitalist……”
A tough attack to defense. Could a Sanders campaign overcome the opposition’s efforts to scare the daylights out of voters with spooky socialist stories? A few years ago, no question that would work. But in 2016, with so many voters looking for economic and political answers from a system they believe has failed them? The political soil seems more fertile than ever for a different crop of ideas. Go to the Sanders campaign web site and here’s what you find as his “radical” proposals:
A fairer, more progressive tax system, a $15 minimum wage, a major infrastructure rebuilding program, revised trade treaties, a youth jobs program, equal pay for women, universal education and health care and a strengthened social security system, guaranteed paid vacations, family and sick leave, more protections to help those who want to organize unions, breaking up the biggest banks, breaking the grasp of big money on politicians, more emphasis on racial equality, immigration reform, and accelerating the push for alternative energy.
The U.S. is the only nation in the developed western world where this agenda would be controversial. All those countries deployed similar policies decades ago and continue to have thriving democracies. Germany’s 2014 trade surplus was the world’s largest. Its workforce is highly unionized and by law is represented on all corporate boards. Innovation and the capitalist tradition remain strong. Business and political corruption is much less a problem than in the U.S.
Sanders remains a longshot to win the Democratic nomination. But those who want to see the Democrats win next November need to pay more serious attention to what the polls tell us, what Sanders’ million+ financial contributors mean, why Sanders is drawing larger crowds than any other candidate, and how closely the Sanders agenda (and the authenticity of his career) fits the change voters are demanding.
Hope might not be as high as it was in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama, but with all the support Sanders is attracting, voters may be telling us they will buy into Change beyond anything the U.S. has experienced in decades.
(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)
