Somewhere between Hillary’s evisceration
of his gun control position and her slam that we are “not Denmark,” Bernie Sanders
was probably wondering where it all went wrong. How a self-described democratic
socialist who had received fawning news coverage of his large campaign rallies
and appeared on the cover of TIME
magazine was being gutted like a fish.
Things did not go so well for the
Vermont Senator on Tuesday night. The after action reporting criticized his
lack of preparation and seeming unseriousness on any issue other than his
signature refrain about the evils of income inequality. Mrs. Clinton, on the other
hand, was lauded for her razor sharp responses and ability to incorporate the
populist anger Sanders channels, while underscoring her capacity for getting
things done. The other three candidates on the stage barely rated a mention,
but the consensus was that Sanders had exposed himself as
not-ready-for-prime-time, a relic of old lefty politics that the Democrats had
dropped in the dustbin of history after McGovern was blown out by more than 20
points in 1972 and Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984.
To be sure, there is something to be
said for Sanders’s earnestness. When he told Chuck Todd he does not consider
himself a capitalist, I do not doubt his sincerity. When he said we should look
to Scandinavian countries and how they provide social welfare to their
citizens, I know Bernie Sanders truly believes that. The only problem is that
verbalizing those ideas to an audience of 15 million people and more than 700
reporters covering the Presidential race is a complete non-starter for anyone
actually interested in becoming President.
It is one thing to preach to a choir of
300, 3,000 or even 30,000 supporters, as Sanders has done on the campaign
trail. But the United States of America is not just a college campus in
Madison, Wisconsin or Waterfront Park in Burlington, Vermont. What candidates
say is not just heard here in our country but around the world and whether you
are grasping for depth on foreign policy or suggesting that banks be broken up,
those words echo in ways they do not when you are merely one of 100 Senators in
Washington, D.C.
You see, for all of the superficial
similarities the media wants to point out between the Republican and Democratic
outsiders running for President, there is one key difference – Republican primary
voters clearly enjoy the clown car aspect of their nominating process. They are
okay with “truthiness” on a wide range of topics and are not punishing
candidates for saying stupid things. If anything, they are rewarding one offs
like Ben Carson’s comment that he would not support a Muslim becoming President,
Carly Fiorina’s easily debunked lies about Planned Parenthood or basically
anything that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth.
But Democrats have become far more
sophisticated in their nominating process. The Bill Bradleys and Howard Deans
of the world have had their moments in recent nominating contests and there
will always be a portion of the party that embraces Medicare-for-all and
massive tax hikes on the wealthy (this writer included!), but at the end of the
day, Democrats have embraced the idea of “electability” because we understand
that inhabiting the White House is far more important than any ideological
purity test.
My suspicion is that Sanders is
collecting some portion of the primary electorate that would have backed
Elizabeth Warren had she run, but there is a ceiling for that support. Indeed,
the idea that Hillary is unacceptable to the liberal base has always been a canard,
but what Tuesday night also showed was how commanding a presence she is when
the discussion turns to policy and, like it or not, how that conversation occurs
in our modern media age. It is easy to buy into your own hype when the coverage
is good, but unlike Sanders, who, but for a brief moment in the sun a few years
ago when he filibustered the extension of Bush-era tax cuts, has strictly been
a gadfly and cable TV presence, Clinton has decades on the national stage and
understands its rhythms far better than her erstwhile opponent. That, far more
than a clever hashtag or cheeky merchandise, is what helps win elections.
Follow me on Twitter - @scarylawyerguy
Yipes. Most of you said was true if a bit overstated. I find Hillary unacceptable although she will likely sail into the election. I still hold the hope that if Bernie picks a SERIOUS VP- someone with foreign policy experience acceptable to Independents, Republicans, etc (e.g. Colin Powell) then he remains a solid contender. Elizabeth Warren was way too smart to run for President. It's not where her heart is. She is a change agent. She wants a cabinet appointment- where the real power to shake things up IS.
ReplyDeleteI find Hillary acceptable, and look forward to seeing Bernie in future debates. I think Senator Sanders needs to have a better response describing the good features of capitalism while explaining the importance of competing within a framework of rules that serve the public interests. It is still early in the primary voting.
ReplyDelete