A Bernie Nomination Could Destroy the Left

[question everything]

Bernie Sanders’s emergence as the Democratic presidential front-runner is an amazing accomplishment for a socialist. But what if he wins the nomination and loses to Donald Trump ? Mr. Trump will be a formidable adversary. He’s an incumbent. He presides over a strong stock market and low unemployment, a rare period of mutual satisfaction on Wall Street and Main Street. He’s effectively unopposed for his party’s nomination and has a talent for getting under his opponents’ skin.

Progressives believe Mr. Sanders has the best chance of winning in November. So do some Republicans. “I think Sanders beats Trump,” Tony Fabrizio, the president’s pollster, said in 2017 about the previous year’s election. “I think Sanders would have had the ability to reach a lot of the less than college-educated, low-income white voters.” The president himself told reporters recently that he would “rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie Sanders.”

The business wing of the GOP is sanguine. “The overwhelming consensus on Wall Street these days is that should Sanders wind up as the Democratic nominee—sliding past a handful of moderates also at the top of the field—he would get demolished by President Donald Trump in the general election,” observes Politico’s Ben White. They thought Mr. Trump didn’t stand a chance either.

(snip)

If Mr. Sanders loses in November, there will be a replay of the vicious struggle for control that followed the 1972 defeat of George McGovern. Corporate centrists will argue, as they did then, that progressives produced defeat. All the misfortunes that befell the left after 1972—the “Third Way,” “triangulation,” Democratic Leadership Council centrism—emerged from that devastating loss to Richard Nixon. The possibility that Mr. Sanders will become the first unreconstructed leftist to claim the presidential nomination of a major party in nearly half a century is as thrilling as a game of high-stakes poker. And it’s just as dangerous.

(snip)

Either Bernie wins the White House or progressivism faces another devastating political setback.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-bernie-nomination-could-destroy-the-left-11581962615 (subscription)

Ted Rall is a political cartoonist and the author of “Francis: The People’s Pope,” the latest in a series of graphic-novel biographies.

[juxtaposed]

1. an Amy could also destroy the world?

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. I'd still take my chances with Sanders over Bloomberg. Nt

[jcmaine72]

10. I'll go one step further...

I'd rather take my chances with ANY of the other candidates, including Tom Steyer, whom I've never heard of and wouldn't be able to pick out in a crowd if someone threatened me with a Coronavirus-laden hankie and ordered me to, over Bloomberg.

[Moderateguy]

31. whwt If Bloomberg picked Warren for VP

[uponit7771]

13. +1, Bloomberg is Trump Light and appealed to Trump for decades.

[gldstwmn]

25. The gun control candidate is

Trump light? We need to get a hold of ourselves here.

[customerserviceguy]

36. Bloomie may have

different views, but it looks like he uses many of the same tactics as the orange anus.

[Lordquinton]

38. The stop and frisk candidate

yeah..

[stlstdg]

4. A bit of perspective lest we get ahead of ourselves...

Sanders is the "front" runner in only the technical sense.
Yes, he's ahead in the most current polling. Everyone
cites the new poll that has him in the neighborhood
of 29% preference.

That's not particularly impressive for a guy leading a new "mass
movement." Over 70% of democratic primary voters prefer someone
else. Even less so, in that he "won" New Hampshire by a margin
of barely 2%. New Hampshire is his backyard, where he was
generally expected to clean up.

He's currently not nearly at the pace necessary to win enough delegates
to win the nomination on the first ballot.

That said, no one is. The race is wide open; it's far too early to assume
that anyone has it sewn up.

I agree that Sanders would get crushed in the general if he does end up
being the nominee. But IMHO, he's very unlikely to win the nomination
because a lot of folks--including the voters in the 48 states that
haven't even had the opportunity to vote yet feel the same way.

[uponit7771]

12. 30% can take the plurality and that can take primaries when the practical left is split with

... Bloomberg.

[Lordquinton]

39. That's a lot of twisting and streching there

Why do you think he would get crushed? There is absolutely nothing to back up that claim.

[Historic NY]

5. He go back to being an independant and expect Democrats to work with him

then he'll head over to see Mitch and his boys. He won't make a second term if he has one, or if his close advisor as a VP he won't win at all.

[democratisphere]

6. More like destroy the country permanently.

[duforsure]

7. Claiming Bernie would be worse then trump

What if he loses could be claimed for every Democrat running, would he be worse than trump , hell no, and every Democrat candidate would be better than trump by a mile, and whoever wins the primaries deserves everyone's vote to make sure trump is ousted, or else we all are in trouble in this country , and corruption will rule over us all, and just like putin has done it in russia.

[Voltaire2]

8. Odd how defeat never destroys the center.

[wyldwolf]

15. The center has never suffered a landslide defeat

[Voltaire2]

16. Dukakis v Bush Mondale v Reagan Carter v Reagan

Guess they were all far left

[question everything]

20. Remnants of the McGovern fiasco

[Voltaire2]

21. Oh that's convenient.

Lulzd.

[David__77]

26. Jesse Jackson was a good progressive candidate in 1988.

If there was such a thing as this site in 1988, the commentary would be interesting.

[question everything]

35. In my suburban Iowa caucus in 1988, we had a tie between Jackson and

Bruce Babbitt. We flipped a coin and Babbit won...

Did not made a difference. Dick Gephardt from neighboring Missouri won Iowa. Dole from neighboring Kansas won in the Republican caucus. Neither was the nominee.

[David__77]

37. Sounds interesting as an experience.

...

[HarlanPepper]

28. LOL Dukakis was no moderate.

Nice try though.

[Voltaire2]

30. Lol yes he was.

There was a strong contender on the left, Dukakis was the sensible moderate alternative to Jackson. Of course by today’s standards he was indeed further left than Bloomberg for sure.

[Lordquinton]

40. 2016?

[wyldwolf]

9. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it

Ted Rall, however, is hardly the one we should look to as some sort of sage.

Our embarrassingly large loss to Richard Nixon (for a second time) in 1972 was the culmination of decades of the "progressive" movement trying to gain a foothold in the Democratic party or to outright burn it down.

* Huey Long's threat to primary FDR from the left or run third party in '36 to splinter the vote

* Roosevelt actually applauding Republicans defeating Philip La Follette in Wisconsin and Elmer Benson in Minnesota as they gained 81 seats in the House, 8 seats in the Senate, and 13 governorships in that midterm election. FDR said “We have on the positive side eliminated Phil La Follette and the Farmer-Labor people in the Northwest as a standing Third Party Threat.”

* Former VP Henry Wallace actually running as a third party candidate for the "progressive" party (and losing badly) in '48, leading to Harry Truman to call the left "crackpots." This was during a speech to the ADA, where Truman uttered the words "progressives" love to to take out of context in their quixotic battle with moderates: "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." Of course, as any actual historian will tell you, Truman was referring to Dixiecrats, not moderate Democrats. You never hear the other quote where this point is pounded further: "We astonished the pollsters and the sabotage press, and the opposition candidates--Republican, crackpot, and Dixiecrat." It goes without saying the "Republican" was Thomas Dewey, the "crackpot" was "progressive" Henry Wallace, and the Dixiecrat was the "Republican in Democratic clothing" Truman referred to earlier was Strom Thurmond.

Truman also said he was happy to have won without the left wing of the party's support.

* The left has a near universal disdain for JFK in '60 and wanted to draft Adlai E. Stevenson from the convention floor. And then "progressives" nearly revolted over Kennedy's selection of LBJ.

* "The New Left's" antics in '68, the left's refusal to support Hubert Humphrey, leading to Richard Nixon.

* The left's successful DNC delegate rule change that led to George McGovern's nomination and another embarrassing landslide loss to Richard Nixon.

Then...

* In 1980, Kennedy supporters openly harassing Carter's supporters on the convention floor with their "go home boll weevils" mantra. (a derogatory term for southern Democrats). This was as Kennedy tried to force a rules change to get delegates released from their voting commitment to Carter.

"Progressives" created their third-way nemesis by constantly undermining our party's nominees or losing badly. Since the "dreaded" third-way, Democrats have won the popular vote in six out of seven contests, and won the presidency outright in over half the elections.

A Bernie Sanders nomination would likely be a catastrophic general election loss. But "progressives" aren't actually trying to become prom king, they're just trying to get asked to the dance.

[uponit7771]

11. K&R, Sanders appeal is deep on the left none in the middle and don't think about the right while

... Biden is deep enough and broad.

I pray the super delegates say fuck it and make a wise decision

[Desert grandma]

29. THIS

[Lordquinton]

41. Super delagates overruling the will of the people

would absolutely destroy the party. They should not even exist.

[denem]

14. If Sanders loses in November,

Last edited Wed Feb 19, 2020, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)

after receiving all possible support from the Democratic Party, and Democratic supporters, he will be one of the most hated and reviled men in American history.

[Voltaire2]

17. Does that rule apply only to Sanders?

[denem]

18. Bloomberg would be a close second in infamy if he loses.

[Voltaire2]

19. Can't we just blame the Russians?

[uponit7771]

33. Yes seeing he had little to no swing state or deep cross over appeal

[Blue_Tires]

22. The myth that Sanders would have beaten

Trump in 2016 needs to fucking die... If he was that strong a candidate he wouldn't have gotten his ass whupped in the primary, right?

And no matter what they were saying in 2017, Trumpers *CLEARLY* prefer Sanders in the race this time around so make of that what you will...

[Blue_Tires]

23. The left was already destroyed when certain

high-profile prominent leftists floated the non-ironic notion that a Trump win would low-key be the best thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party because then this new crop of young liberal thought leaders and purity ideologues would sweep away the remnants of the old regime to build a glorious, perfect new party from the ashes, or something...

The most consequential election of our lifetimes, and household name liberal pundits were telling millions of followers on social media to "SEND A MESSAGE" by staying home, or vote Green because "Hillary and Trump are 100% alike! The party deserves to lose after nominating an imperialist establishment warmongering neocon money launderer with a secret e-mail server!" And when Trump won they had the unmitigated gall to celebrate(!)

It was THIS that destroyed the political left as we know it. I'd said not long after the race that we as a party would never move forward on a national level until we had a full reckoning with the traitors in our midst who helped enable this shitstorm nightmare. Only two or three of these pundits/writers/bloggers/activists actually crossed over to the GOP -- The rest are still being edgy cosplay leftists on Twitter in front of their hundreds of thousands of followers and some of their hot takes are still posted on DU pretty regularly... Maybe if they ratfuck us in another election and give four more years to Trump we'll finally get the message...

[uponit7771]

34. +1

[Vinca]

24. I don't think Bernie can win this time around and I thought he could in 2016.

2016 was an outsider year and this is a "we want normal" year. I'll vote for whoever the nominee is, but I'm really, really worried.

[Zolorp]

27. A Sanders nomination could destroy the planet

Trump will win for certain and a Trump completely unleashed with nuclear weapons is a terrifying thing.

[evertonfc]

32. it can destroy the party

He isn't a Democrat and may be our nominee. We are then Democratic socialists.