Interesting mix of history, irony and the politics of purity in TPM Reader FH’s take …
After many years of listening in on the lively exchange between fellow (passionate) TPM readers, this is my first time writing in. I was a strong Obama supporter in ’08 and decided early on that I would vote for Hillary this time around.
In response to SF’s comments about the system being “rigged” against Bernie: I don’t buy it. Sanders began with deficits, but these were in part his own making. He entered the race late and, by many accounts, didn’t take seriously his chances of winning until early in 2016. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t pull things together sooner, but that’s a far cry from the primary process being “rigged.” If anything, the process worked exactly as it was supposed to. From Bernie’s razor-thin loss in Iowa to his National Press Club speech on Sunday, though, Bernie and his supporters have pinned all their hopes on anticipated future successes (his momentum, the prospect for razzle-dazzle victories in upcoming states, none of which ever seems to materialize in quite the way they’ve projected) rather than on earned victories. It’s hard to square this point of view with reality.
By contrast, the Hillary Clinton of 2016 has rebutted the failures of her 2008 campaign with a competent, deliberate game plan. (Take that, Mark Penn.) Though Bernie supporters may not like that she got started early, Hillary’s current advantages stem in part from the shadow campaign that she began some time ago. I recall NY Times pieces as far back as 2014 describing how her surrogates had already begun to shore up Iowa precinct captains’ support. (And really, all the way back in 2009, did anyone really think she wasn’t going to run this year?) A lot of the backing she has now—from supporters, from party operatives, and yes, from superdelegates—is simply a product of hard work and the wise decision not to treat this campaign as a done deal. As any good candidate should, Hillary has rallied the party apparatus to her side to help her cross the finish line. Can we really fault her for that, especially after the ’08 debacle where she was supposed to win?
This last point is key, because it speaks at least in part to the cynical view that reader MS takes towards Sanders in the here and now. Hillary has worked within the system, and now her opponents are crying foul because they’re losing. SF can call it what he wants, but Bernie’s cry of injustice smacks of claiming entitlement to something he didn’t rightly earn—precisely the same critique that was so easy to pin on Hillary back in 2008. As an aside, it’s notable (and maybe even one of the least appreciated stories of this campaign cycle) that Hillary’s ’16 campaign has behaved with impressive discipline and, with the exception of a few minor missteps, quietly stayed the course of their own strategy. I’ve always appreciated Hillary’s nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic, but this time around, I have really enjoyed watching how she has organized, put in the effort, and played by the rules in a complex primary season.
Sanders will not be the nominee. And as that becomes more evident, pundits are making a lot of noise about when and how he is going to line up behind Hillary. That horse-race analysis is fine, but it’s a reductive endgame for a candidate whose campaign has exceeded all expectations. Despite my cynical view of Bernie the candidate (and increasingly, Bernie the man), I am still amazed at his ability to energize huge crowds of young people, maybe even more passionately than Obama did in 2008. Now that he’s got them listening, what’s he going to say?
With all the authority vested in me as an armchair political operative, I’ll state that I would love to see Bernie Sanders use this opportunity to inspire his younger followers’ commitment to local grassroots politics. Sanders himself began his own journey as an elected official in city government; how great would it be for him to provide training and support for a couple thousand Millennials to run for city councils and school boards (and superdelegates) in future years? I’m not talking about something like the cockamamie Brand New Congress idea recently floated by laid-off Sanders campaign staffers, but a real, honest-to-goodness commitment to growing a grassroots progressive political movement for the next generation. As you noted last week, Josh, the new Harvard Institute of Politics study shows that progressives currently hold a huge advantage among young voters. This would seem to present an ideal opportunity to hand Democrats another presidential victory in this coming election and to energize young people about organized progressive politics in the years to come. We need candidates and voters. Maybe I’m being pollyannaish about this, but the eventual outcome of such an agenda would go far, I think, to winning back two key advantages that Republicans currently hold over Democrats—overwhelming dominance in state and local politics and better organization in off-year elections. To my mind, if Sanders could champion this cause for the rest of his career, his lasting political legacy could be at least as great as President Hillary Clinton’s.
