Will Bernie Sanders Split the Democratic Party in 2020?

[crazytown]

New York Intelligencer, March 20, 2019.

Will Bernie Sanders Split the Democratic Party in 2020?

Bernie Sanders has tried to assure Democrats he does not intend to run a factional splinter campaign in 2020. To that end, he has promised to endorse the nominee, and pledged he will not run a negative campaign, and to date has followed through on the latter promise. But then yesterday, his campaign announced two high-profile hires: speechwriter David Sirota and press secretary Briahna Joy Gray.

Sirota and Gray, both very smart left-wing journalists, share a commitment to exactly the sort of left-wing factionalism that frightens Democrats. Sirota has savaged mainstream Democrats as tools of big-money interests, often in what appear to be intentionally misleading ways. In 2016, Gray dismissed reports that Russia hacked Democratic emails — which fervent Sanders supporters believed distracted from the scandals the emails revealed — and wound up voting for Jill Stein. Like Sirota, she has remained alienated from the party.

The schism reflected in their politics does not really map onto the Democratic Party’s electorate as a whole. The Democratic Party is divided between moderates and liberals. But support for Sanders among voters is not especially ideological. A significant minority of his 2016 vote came from the most conservative voters in the primary (who had supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 for the same reason). Liberal and moderate voters support Sanders and Joe Biden in roughly equal measure.



Among the intelligentsia, it is a completely different story. Progressive intellectuals are divided not between moderates and liberals, but between liberals and leftists. And leftists themselves are divided between those who fundamentally differentiate the Democratic Party from the Republican Party, and those who see the Democratic Party as essentially corrupt, capitalist, and generally unworthy of support.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/will-bernie-sanders-split-the-democratic-party-in-2020.html

Despite the hires of Nina Turner, David Sirota and Briahna Joy Gray who see the Democratic Party as ‘generally unworthy of support’ the article concludes by saying - Whether the Saunders campaign augments or fractures Democratic support is ultimately up to Bernie and “for the moment, Sanders’s decision has yet to be revealed”.

It’s a thoughtful article. Worth reading.

[beachbum bob]

1. if bernie and his suporters want another GOP'er in the Whitehouse, sure

[NastyRiffraff]

47. Sadly, that's not an argument a lot of them care about

The fact that we ended up with Trump, and there's a chance that we will again if Bernie and his supporters continue to trash the Democratic party and all Democrats running, is of no concern to them. A certain Sanders surrogate once even said that Trump may have been the better choice!

I'm not talking about honest criticism, or vigorous campaigning, or debate. But calling the Democratic Party inherently corrupt, accusing good Democrats of dishonest fundraising weakens us all, just to prop up Bernie Sanders.

[Freddie]

2. Does a bear sh*t in the woods?

[bobbieinok]

3. Maybe not. BUT Russian and GOP trolls will use him and his supporters to disrupt dem primary proces

[SFnomad]

35. And BS shows no signs of caring that this will happen, again n/t

[handmade34]

4. yes

Bernie should be ostracized asap!

[louis c]

5. The answer is "yes"...

...However, Biden appeals to the middle of the political spectrum that can far offset the defections.

[TwilightZone]

6. I don't think he has enough support to split the party or to take it over.

The latter is really the goal, if you review the intent of organizations like the DSA.

There's always going to be an anti-Dem faction on the left. There isn't a lot of evidence that they're going to be able to take over the party or form a meaningful third-party or influential split-Dem group.

If that was going to happen, 2016 would have likely been the time. Instead, the Dem party is probably more cohesive and focused than it's been in a long time, the media reports (and Sanders supporter claims) to the contrary notwithstanding.

[dalton99a]

7. Recent hires clearly demonstrate hostile intent

[Tipperary]

63. Yep.

Spot on.

[Mr Tibbs]

65. I hope he brings all the greens into the party

And many white working class. This is how you win.

[Cha]

66. He has 3rd party "attack dogs" on staff..

"greens" like jill stein are what helped get us trump.

The Atlantic: Bernie Sanders Just Hired His Twitter Attack Dog

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=30717

[Mr Tibbs]

67. We need to bring in Greens, White working-class,

Disgruntled Trump supporters and anyone else who wants to join us under the big tent.

Trying to read between the lines and find evil in Sanders Staffing his campaign is ridiculous

[Cha]

68. BS is too divisive to be the candidate.

[Mr Tibbs]

70. BS isn't divisive

His opponents, particularly the ones that can't let go of 2016, are divisive.

[Cha]

71. BS is way too divisive.. look around

[Amimnoch]

72. Exactly.

Numerous articles about it.
Plenty of evidence here to support it.
Anyone who reads comment sections in any news source posted on him can see it clear as day.

[Cha]

81. Exactly. One only has to read

to see how Divisive he is.

Denying it doesn't make it so.

[Mr Tibbs]

80. People who are pro-establishment are scared of him

And just about everyone else loves him

[BlueFlorida]

75. He brings ZERO greens to the party

proof -- Jill Stein's poll numbers remained the same throughout the primaries in 2016 all the way until the middle of October when Susan Sarandon, David Sirota, Nina Turner et al went to drive people TOWARDS the greens. THAT is when Jill Stein's poll numbers increased.

If a bunch of greens were supporting Bernie, Jill Stein's numbers would have remained anemic until Bernie lost - that did not happen.

The white working class is the same story -- they have always been reliable Democratic voters and they didin't defect until Hillary was painted as a corrupt politician in the pocket of wall street.

I'll give you one guess name who painted Hillary that way.

[Perrenial Voter]

79. I guess he should have hired David Brock instead -- he's a real uniter

[crazytown]

12. I did (I think) by mistake

:stupid: :embarrassed:

[MrsCoffee]

14. You can't alert your own threads or posts.

[crazytown]

15. Good. OK.

I’m a proper idiot

[MrsCoffee]

16. No way!

It's all good.

[crazytown]

19. Thank you

[CreekDog]

28. no worries and sounds like you didn't anyway

[Cha]

10. We'll see won't? Remember this question

when it gets closer to D Day.

"Bernie Sanders has tried to assure Democrats he does not intend to run a factional splinter campaign in 2020. To that end, he has promised to endorse the nominee, and pledged he will not run a negative campaign"..

Uh huh.. he says a lot things... and then he hires dividers and stupid attackers like Sirota and BJG.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Screenshots taken before the mass Twitter deletion preserve the role that Sirota was playing to his 125,000 followers, trying to turn the early online conversation about the 2020 primary race against other candidates, all while unofficially advising Sanders.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/sanders-promised-civility-hired-twitter-attack-dog/585259/

Link to tweet

A couple of tweets, Sirota Deleted..

David Sirota on Twitter: "It's interesting that the Dem establishment ...

Link to tweet

?lang=en
David Sirota on Twitter: "If you are going to blame Trump's election ...

Link to tweet

Wonder what they said?.. lol

[Gothmog]

26. Great post Cha

[Kahuna7]

31. Liar liar pants on fire. Not that I ever believed him. If anybody has any doubts

about what mainstream "establishment" , Democrats have been saying about how the last election ended, let there be no more doubts.

[Tipperary]

64. Wow.

Revealing.

[zipplewrath]

13. Will he be able to

I think that is the more accurate question. Last time around he was able to leverage the image (that had a bit of substance) that the "democratic establishment" as well as DWS and the DNC were "in the bag" for Clinton from early on. That created an "anyone but Clinton" option for a particular voter. To some degree, in some states and caucuses, that also allowed the participation of the independents that were of a similar inclination. This time around however, it isn't apparent that he'll be able to leverage such sentiments. There are plenty of options, even if one wants to paint Biden as taking over HRC's "establishment" role. Further, Bernie is in essence, the front runner this time and it will be hard to generate that "poor underdog" reputation.

He may behave the same way this time around, but it isn't clear he'll generate the support for it that he was able to the first time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. According to his acolytes everybody but him is part of the establishment

[dalton99a]

20. The Revolution is against Democrats

as further evidenced by the recent hires

[Kahuna7]

33. There's no more doubts. You can't claim it isn't so anymore. nt

[Kahuna7]

21. You have trump bleating about the "establishment" on the right and Bernie on the left..

We need some establishment right now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. We need a moral center.

[Amimnoch]

18. Well.. he'll try.

Notice all friction is between him and everyone else??

Not hard to see.

NO BS 2020.

[NurseJackie]

22. I believe that's the intention. By sabotaging and undermining the Democratic party...

I believe that's the intention. By sabotaging and undermining the Democratic party... and by dividing and weakening the party... there is a certain element of groups and individuals who proudly proclaim their philosophy that the the Democratic party must be "destroyed" in order to be "rebuilt". --- Basically, they want to turn it into a socialist party.

To that end, he has promised to endorse the nominee, and pledged he will not run a negative campaign,

Yeah... not so much. We've heard that before. Looking at recent events and announcements, that "promise" leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion.

[crazytown]

36. @We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Vietnam 1968

[Demsrule86]

43. If Trump wins, there will be nothing left to rebuild.

It won't even matter who you vote for as the courts will be owned by the far right for a generation.

[MineralMan]

24. It's hard to say this early, really.

If the competition for the nomination ends up being primarily between Biden and Sanders, as looks likely, you can count on the Sanders camp to attack Biden hard, since he starts off with a lead in the crowded field. Sanders, himself, will probably not lead the attack, though. And that's just normal campaigning.

There is likely to be a separate campaign by some to hurt Biden's chances. It will be less visible in terms of being connected to one campaign or another, but it will certainly happen. What the rest of the field does is another matter. If there's a clear leader or leaders, the others will have to choose sides, since their path is to the VP nomination, rather than the presidential one.

What the underdog candidates do will play a large role in who ends up with the nomination, since their supporters are likely to follow their lead, in the end game. It's way too early to guess how this will all work out. It's also too early for the candidates to choose a side. We're just going to have to wait and see. Things will be clearer in the last quarter of 2019.

In any case, the actual campaign organizations will probably not engage in direct attacks on other candidates. Instead, those will seem to come from individuals and pundits who are not directly connected to a campaign. No doubt, we'll be able to follow the battle here, since we have members who "represent" all sides.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Good analysis

Candidates do not announce for President with the intention of losing, except those who are secretly hoping to become Vice President. Even the latter do not want to be embarrassed by a particularly poor showing, and at some point most in this camp have to choose a side among those who have a real chance to win (or at least be careful not to throw punches at the wrong person) in order to win favor with the ultimate nominee.

That means opposition research gets done during primaries, and that means someone will use that opposition research. Better for it to be funneled to a political reporter in a plain manila envelope swiped for fingerprints and marked with an untraceable return address whenever possible. It's built into the process whether it's George H.W. Bush dissing Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" (before going on to be Reagan's VP) or Hillary putting out that 3:00 AM phone call ad during her race against Obama (before going on to be Obama's Secretary of State).

[Gothmog]

25. If look at the people sanders hired like Sirota and the press secretary, sanders will be divisive

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. He will try. It is up to us to stop him.

[rampartc]

29. no

it takes 2 to split.

bernie is not an enemy, and does not want trump reelected.

[PubliusEnigma]

30. That's the point.

[aikoaiko]

32. Bernie is a United. He kept me in the Democratic Party

Thank you, Bernie Sanders.

[Kurt V.]

34. is the democratic party divided between moderates and liberals?

that doesn't seem right. off to google

[Politicub]

37. I doubt he will be the nominee

He and his communications staff will be formidable opponents during the primary. They will damage the front runner’s reputation ruthlessly.

But we will be okay. The democratic coalition will hold together. And dem turnout will be like nothing we’ve seen before.

[donkeypoofed]

38. If he stays in too long like last time ...... maybe

[Power 2 the People]

40. No. He'll unite his supporters to vote for the nominee like he did in 2016.

Only 12% of Bernie Supporters voted for Trump in 2016. Of the 12%, more than 6% were Republicans who would have never voted for Hillary anyway. So yeah,unfortunately 6% of Bernie's Democratic supporters were stupid in 2016.

Just as in 2016 there will be no splintering of the party from Bernie supporters.

Don't be so pessimistic guys!!

[Demsrule86]

41. Sen. Sanders said during the general that it was up to Clinton to get the support of his voters.

I found his support lukewarm at best. And I actually voted for Sen. Sanders in 16 in Ohio. At the time I like both candidates. However, I will never get over 16. I will not support Sen. Sanders in the 2020 primary...I would vote for him in a general but I doubt he will win the primary. And his recent hires all Democrat haters, many who voted for the green slime that is Stein, hate Democrats do not instill confidence in terms of causing divisiveness in our party. However, this time enough people realize that Trump must go so I think in the end, we will be ok when the nominee is not Sen. Sanders.

[Mr Tibbs]

48. We need to bring Stein voters into our fold

We need all the help we can get in our big tent.

[Demsrule86]

50. Fuck Stein voters...the not so Green party can pound sand. They elected Trump. And can never

be counted on to do the right thing...they hate Democrats and were willing to a allow racist piece of shit to get elected rather than vote for the Democratic nominee...such as the measure of their hatred of towards Democrats. Three time these folks have ruined it for Democrats....2000,2004 and of course 2016. Most of them wanted a primary opponent in 12 too...no use for the Green rabble.

[Mr Tibbs]

52. And if we get them on our side, they won't ruin things anymore!

[ehrnst]

53. Many Stein voters hate the Democratic party.

So do republicans.

You think that we should choose a candidate based on their appeal to haters of the Democratic party?

And you think that candidate is Bernie.

Interesting.

[Demsrule86]

54. They will never be on our side. They don't want to win. They want to destroy the Democratic Party.

[namahage]

55. Yeah! They'll fight hard to get Democrats in,

Like how Stein raised a bunch of money from Hillary supporters for recount efforts for Hillary in 2016!

That’s where the money went...right?

[RobertDevereaux]

42. Precisely. Thank you.

[thesquanderer]

45. Error in your math?

Your post seems to say that 6% of Bernie supporters were Republicans, so the other 6% of Bernie supporters who voted for Trump must have been Dems, but that wouldn't be the case, because the biggest chunk of general election voters are not affiliated with either party. So rather than 6%, it could easily have been less than 3% of Bernie's Dem supporters who crossed and voted for Trump. (And I imagine some Republican Kasich and Rubio supporters crossed and voted for Clinton, too.)

[Power 2 the People]

46. I was being conservative and didn't want to get into the minutia of the breakdown of the non-Dem 6%

But you are correct that it could have easily been less than 3%.

[Awsi Dooger]

44. I'm not looking forward to a primary season with Bernie Sanders involved

I stayed away completely in 2016 and now I appreciate that decision even more. I think I'll do the same thing again. I love litmus tests and the David Sirota hiring is the closest thing I have ever seen to a disqualifying litmus test on the Democratic side.

Besides, my material and perspective simply fit best on the sports sites and speculative sites as opposed to here during a primary. The mathematical angles and situational angles are valued on those sites but not here. There was a lengthy thread here today mocking the electability argument. Meanwhile, the very first supposed example in that thread was George Bush in 1992. Give me a break. George Bush was trying to win a 4th consecutive term for his party. That is the opposite of electable. Even when he owned the sky high approval ratings in 1991 post-Desert Storm I remember several discussions with fellow gamblers in Las Vegas regarding the situational deficit Bush faced in 1992, and that there could be immense value in opposing him. Voters simply get tired of the same party. I started following political math closely in 1992 specifically because that was such a vulnerable spot for the Republicans. It wasn't Reagan trying to defend a 4th term. It was non-charismatic George Bush. If Hillary had been elected in 2016 she would have faced the same predicament in 2020 and been a situational underdog.

On a different site today there would have been 45 related replies before I ever saw that electability thread. Everyone would have been pointing out the absurdity of believing Bush was a cinch in 1992 while attempting a 4th consecutive term. There wasn't one related reply here and I found that astonishing, and a hint I need to detour elsewhere at least for a while. Daily ping pong subjectivity wears me out.

[R B Garr]

51. I agree the Sirota hire was disqualifying for Sanders,

as well as his other hires of Stein voters. Just wanted you to know I appreciate your statistical posts even though sometimes they are hard for me to follow/relate to.

[marylandblue]

59. Well I'm not entirely sure what happened on that other thread, but

I do think a President Hillary would be in a difficult position today. She would have been through two years of pointless investigations and obstruction in Congress while Trumpsters scream that the election was stolen.

[Hortensis]

49. No, he must have grown and repented, and I'm sure he'll throw

himself wholeheartedly into electing Democrats to office at all levels.

After all, he's living the dreadful consequences of his role in a right-wing authoritarian partial takeover, and another failure might genuinely mean the end of progressive democratic government for, well, possibly our lifetimes. Certainly his.

[NurseJackie]

57. The "kneecapping" of the party has already begun.

Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt".

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "feeble".

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "corrupt".

It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is an "absolute failure".

It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent".

It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite".

It's NOT TRUE that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans."

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "do-nothings".

It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change."

It's NOT TRUE that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity.

It's NOT TRUE that people who the refuse to vote for an African-American because of his skin color "aren't racists".

It's also NOT TRUE that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

These are the types of lies that only serve to divide and weaken Democrats. They are the type of lies that give voters NO REASON to come out and support Democrats.

[dalton99a]

61. +1

[Gothmog]

58. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[dalton99a]

60. The demolition crew works in serial fashion

Every Democratic candidate will get their turn - and after the primary, the Democratic nominee

[Gothmog]

62. What it means that Bernie Sanders is hiring people who think all the non-Bernie democrats are bad

Link to tweet

[bigtree]

69. this is right-wing drivel

...

from the article:

"He comes out of hard-core socialist politics and still uses at least vaguely Marxian concepts"

Right wing drivel used as a cudgel against a Democratic candidate. Any port in a storm., I guess.

[BlueFlorida]

73. I think it is all up to Bernie

If he loses (the most likely scenario) and drops out before the convention and asks his supporters to support the Democratic ticket, the party will unite.

If the angels directing Bernie have names like David Sirota, Nina Turner and Brihana Gray ... who knows?

[NurseJackie]

74. Based on what I've seen and the prevailing attitude toward the party, I have very low expectations.

And I'll just leave it at that, for obvious reasons.

[BlueFlorida]

76. I'm all in favor of pessimism on this issue

Like Myth Busters said, "Failure is ALWAYS an option."

[jrthin]

77. Yes, BS will. nt

[Perrenial Voter]

78. Bernie has been very clear in saying that within the political system as it currently exists, you

have to work within one of the major parties. He does not support third parties, since we don't have a European parliamentary system, where third parties can be part of a coalition government. Here in Maine, we initiated rank-choice voting to resolve the problem of that occurs when there are three viable candidates: the least popular one was governor for two terms (with 40% of the vote) because liberals split their vote. But, for now, we are stuck with a two party system in national elections. One problem with this is that primaries as they are currently conducted are necessarily structured to select the candidate who will compete best in the general election, because the voting cohorts in these elections are very different. My suggestion would be to 1) get rid of caucuses, which are inherently undemocratic. 2) Hold open primaries, so that at least independents can vote in them. 3) Use rank choice voting to select the candidate. The winner of the primary would be a candidate who at least most of the people who are likely to vote for a Democrat would at least find acceptable.

[Gothmog]

82. sanders and sirota are mad

Link to tweet