Commentary: Bernie Sanders, enough with your 'political revolution'

[BootinUp]

[url=https://flic.kr/p/HmmUky][img][/img]
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks during a rally in Santa Cruz, Calif., Tuesday, May 31, 2016. (Dan Coyro, The Santa Cruz Sentinel via AP)

By Stephen Stromberg
The Washington Post

June 1, 2016

This is the place where a policy-oriented Washington commentator like myself is supposed to offer Bernie Sanders supporters some sort of olive branch. For example, I could point out that he has highlighted some real issues. I am angry about money in politics, too. I believe that income inequality is a problem, too. I think the safety net needs strengthening, too. In other words, I am supposed to indicate that I get why Sanders has a movement.

But the truth is that Sanders does not deserve a movement, and his losing campaign does not deserve unusual deference and concessions. His tale about American oligarchy is simplistic, his policy proposals are shallow, his rejection of political reality is absurd, his self-righteousness and stubbornness are unbecoming. And, yes, he has lost. Here are some simple points worth repeating:

- Sanders' path to the Democratic presidential nomination is essentially nonexistent. His only hope rests on convincing Democratic "superdelegates," nearly all of whom back Hillary Clinton, to swing his way. They will not do that. It is incoherent for Sanders to ask them to do so, given that he has attacked superdelegates as non-democratic actors in the nominating process and that Clinton will almost certainly end the cycle with more votes and more pledged delegates. It is also staggeringly arrogant that Sanders would think that superdelegates, the Democratic "establishment" sorts that he has spent the whole campaign cartoonishly attacking as tools of Wall Street, would be open to his entreaties.

- It is politically reasonable for the superdelegates to stick with Clinton. The poll numbers Sanders cites to argue that he would be a stronger nominee do not reflect the impressions voters would have after the Republicans engaged in a sustained anti-Sanders assault — the sort of thing Clinton has endured for decades. Polling shows that Sanders does not, in fact, do unusually well among true independents and that many of these crucial swing voters have not formed an opinion of him.

Continued at the Chicago Tribune

[tonyt53]

1. These truths will hurt the Bernie-ites, and these are hard truths.

[seabeyond]

2. This is what is incredible to me with Sanders. Walks into NYC trashing wall street, demanding the

votes of all the employees and all those connected to wall street making their living. See, they do not see themselves as evil. Business and all the employees that make their money off the wallstreet industry. All the taxes and moneys paid into NYC being established there. NYC doesnt hate their wall street, it is part of their existence. To insist wall street is "evil" then demand the vote is such a fuckin hoot.

He spend decades dissing Democrats and the Democratic party. Insulting us all over the place, then demands our vote.

He puts aside the Democratic base, telling us it is the white middle class and men that have been harmed and need help, then demands our vote.


Beyond funny, I find it incredibly arrogant, and tone deaf.

[yodermon]

6. good grief, it's not like he's calling for the wholesale destruction of Wall St.

A transaction tax, tax them fairly, hold them responsible for the financial crisis they perpetuated.. is that really so frikkin left-wing radical? Hes is the candidate of Occupy wall st., he forced the media to cover these positions/gave them air time, and for that I applaud him.

"white middle class and men that have been harmed" yeah, that's his assertion, uh huh

[seabeyond]

7. Good lord, it is not like he moderates in speeches. They are evil, he wants to destroy them.

that is what he gives to get the people riled. There is a point in how we converse, hence me saying his rhetoric is not the sort to win votes, over those he diss.

[BootinUp]

10. If he couldn't sell it to Dems in sufficient numbers, how the bleep

was he going to sell it to the more conservative country at large? Get back to me when you figure that out.

[KPN]

3. Meaningless blather.

Firts they ignore you ...

[JRLeft]

4. Another establishment moron. None of these people ever talk about income inequality or poor people.

If it wasn't for Bernie, those words would have never been mentioned during this primary season and the moment Bernie is out I guarantee you, we won't hear them again.

[appal_jack]

9. Yes, exactly.

The Washington Post editorial in the OP is some of the most arrogant, entitled bullshit I have ever seen. How will this help Democrats or Americans? It's a screed on behalf of the 1%, pure & simple.

-app

[JRLeft]

11. Shut up about income inequality, you're waking the people up.

[davidlynch]

5. One way to know for sure would be for Bernie to shift to Green Party with Jill Stein...

There is no question that the DNC (and the entire system) have slanted the primary votes towards Hillary. There are institutional pressures at a lot of levels, primary eligibility, all the way down to voting mechanics. If you compare exit polls to actuals, it is certain (probability 1.0) that there is something shifting outcomes to Hillary way outside the margin of error (MOE).

If Bernie defects to Green party, you would have a three-way race that would be an objective test of Bernie's support amongst Democrats, independents and Repulicans too. Regardless of DU policies on this, I would welcome such a twist because it would be really interesting to watch a fair three-way race.

If under those circumstances, Hillary were to win the Presidency, I would find it much easier to get behind her policies because at that point it would be crystal clear that she won fair and square.

[BzaDem]

8. Bernie would never do that

because he understands what the consequences of doing that would be, unlike some of his supporters.