Bernie Sanders and ‘the American mainstream’

[n2doc]

By Jay Bookman

The headline at Politico is pointed and seemingly ominous:

“The Socialist surge: The rise of Bernie Sanders is proving awkward for the Democratic Party”

Certainly, Bernie Sanders is surging. In Iowa, Wisconsin and most recently in Maine, the Vermont senator is drawing the largest, most passionate crowds of the political season. Polling indicates that while he is still well behind Hillary Clinton, the gap is closing. He has also raised some $15 million, which may not sound like much in the post-Citizens United world. But unlike Clinton, Jeb Bush and others, Sanders is drawing most of his contributions from small donors, and $15 million is more than enough to sustain a modest campaign.

It’s interesting watching the political world try to account for it all. The Politico story, for example, cites Sanders’ statement that the economic crisis in Greece should not be resolved by cutting programs for “the poor, the children, the sick and the elderly.” Those comments, we are told, “are a reminder of just how far the second-place Democratic presidential candidate stands from the American mainstream on some issues, and the looming reckoning Democrats face with their party’s leftward drift.”

The story goes on to note that Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other liberals have pushed the Democrats leftward on issues such as same-sex marriage, equal pay and paid sick leave. The result is allegedly a party that is being drawn away from the American mainstream, with a “looming reckoning” ahead.

But there’s one very large problem with that argument:

When you poll people on same-sex marriage, equal pay for women, the minimum wage, paid sick leave for lower-income workers, and yes, higher taxes on the rich, the positions taken by Sanders almost always get majority and in some cases overwhelming public support.

As Sanders puts it, “I don’t believe it is a terribly radical idea to say that someone who works 40 hours a week should not be living in poverty.” And 78 percent of the American people agree with him. Go through the list of issues, and the story repeats itself...

more

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/07/07/bernie-sanders-and-the-american-mainstream/

[merrily]

1. Ahem. "Let's talk polls."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

[n2doc]

2. And as always, the big question is, why don't people vote based on those principles?

Because if they did, we would have a very different government. Instead, people seem to vote on name recognition, who the person at their church tells them to vote for, or who has the most ads on TV. Maybe things will be different this time.

[merrily]

5. Good question, but the answer deserves an essay or more, not only a post.

For one thing, note that my post specifies that the question must be asked without identifying the issue as Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. When you vote, you don't vote for issues, you vote Democratic or Republican.

For another thing, they do vote that way. Bernie's been running on that stuff for a long time and he's been elected again and again--and without the money or other benefits of either of the major parties.

A lot of people voted for Obama in 2008. He ran on some of the things in my post.

[n2doc]

6. Sanders wins in Vermont

Which is in my opinion the most liberal state in the nation. I hope he can carry that nationally, but have my doubts. If people are so supportive of liberal ideas, how come Chris Christie gets elected? Or Scott Walker, or Rick Scott? And re-elected after they clearly show what RW scumbags they are? Again my personal feeling is that many people may say they support these things when questioned, but they really aren't very important when it comes time to vote for a candidate who may be diametrically opposed, on the record, to such things.

There are clearly liberals everywhere who are starving for a progressive champion. We see that over and over. Will the rest of the non-brainwashed voters join them?

[merrily]

7. IOW, based on your personal feeling, you are going to disregard all the polls in my post.

I am not sure how to discuss anything with someone who does that. No matter what I say, your personal feeling is going to win the day with you.

Some of those polls were as high as 80%. No way that many people said what they said simply because they thought it was pc. BTW, judging by message boards, a lot on the right think it's more pc to say "stop picking on the rich," than it is to say, "raise taxes on the rich."

I also don't think Christie's election proves a thing. He ran against Korzine, whose campaign platform was basically, "how fat is my opponent, amirite?"

I don't know a lot about Rick Scott, except that Rick Scott, like Scott Brown, had a ton of Koch money and expertise behind him.

Lots of factors go into each election. You can't rightfully use this election or that to conclude all the polls in my post are wrong and people do not lean left on actual issues.

[n2doc]

8. I don't disregard them

I just don't think people vote based on those preferences. I just don't see it. Time and again people vote for the R over the D even though the R is significantly farther from those principles than the D.

Look at the Clintons. There is arguably no pair of politicians who follow polls to set their agendas more than them. And yet they do not go around saying that they will be super liberals.

Christie was re-elected even after he was proven to be a crook. The Dems didn't even bother to support their own candidate. That certainly is a major problem, but it doesn't explain the overall patterns, or why the senate is controlled by R's.

Anyway, peace, I don't mean to come across as attacking your post. I am just letting off some frustration.

[merrily]

9. Your prior post did disregard them. You said that people say things to pollsters they don't mean.

Look at the Clintons. There is arguably no pair of politicians who follow polls to set their agendas more than them. And yet they do not go around saying that they will be super liberals.

Hillary sure seems to be trying to appear that way now and her supporters are claiming she is.

Christie was re-elected even after he was proven to be a crook. The Dems didn't even bother to support their own candidate.

You answered your own question there, I think.

That certainly is a major problem, but it doesn't explain the overall patterns, or why the senate is controlled by R's.

If Obamacare had been Medicare for All and the reaction to the 2008 financial crisis had been more like the New Deal, who do you think would have retained control of both houses? Was it that January 2007-January 2011 was too liberal? Or not liberal enough? Which accounts for the dissatisfaction that led to throwing out those in control?

[n2doc]

10. They can mean things but not vote based on them n/t

[merrily]

11. People vote on what they think will improve the lives of their families. If they are promised that

and don't get it, they get pissed and throw out the incumbents. It's that simple. Also, they like to be able to trust what they hear from a candidate and they like a strong leader.

[on point]

3. Not the mainstream of the 1%, that's the problem

[Babel_17]

4. Not one for nibbling at the margins

I agree that we need to face all the issues comprehensively, clearly, and directly.

[LWolf]

12. This is all great except for the last paragraph.

Still, the point made is powerful.