We’ve seen this before and I don’t really find it all that concerning. I don’t think it’s likely to have enough impact to distort the Democratic nominating process.
When voters cast their ballots on Feb. 29 in the South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders may find himself getting votes from Republican activists.
In an effort to disrupt the Democratic nominating contest — and push state leaders to close political primaries, which would limit those contests only to voters who register by party — some Upstate GOP activists are encouraging Republicans to participate in the First in the South Democratic Primary and vote for Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist.
The plan was first reported by the (Charleston) Post and Courier. But on Wednesday, another effort called “Operation Chaos 2020” emerged, too. That effort echoes one pushed by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in 2008 when he encouraged Republican voters to vote for Hillary Clinton to prolong the Democratic primary race against Barack Obama.
But it does give me occasion to express something that has been bugging me. It’s hard to avoid all the evidence out there that a big section of the Democratic Party is in something close to a panic that Bernie Sanders will win the nomination. A sizable but smaller contingent feels the same way about Elizabeth Warren. Yet, it doesn’t seem to phase Sanders’ supporters that they’ll have little hope of uniting the left for a run against Trump.
They come up with pie-in-the-sky theories about mobilizing folks who don’t normally vote or winning over MAGA voters or energizing the youth vote to such a degree that they don’t need a unified left. Perhaps on firmer ground, they also offer counterarguments that more moderate candidates won’t excite people and boost turnout.
It just seems to me that progressive vs. moderate isn’t overly important provided that the candidate has the ability to draw people together. Sanders simply cannot do that. I think Warren might be able to do it.
In any case, I don’t think the Republicans are wrong to want to boost Sanders. It’s not necessarily any particular policy Sanders is pushing that is the problem. It’s much more about the lasting fallout from the 2016 campaign and Sanders’ personality and lack of friendships within the Democratic establishment.
There’s just a lot of people on the left, including hordes of elected officials, who want no part of a Sanders candidacy.
I assume I’ll get the response that a lot of Sanders supporters won’t vote for anyone but Sanders, as if the rest of us should respond positively to blackmail. The truth is, that is basically a wash. Outside of Sanders and his supporters, pretty much everyone else will be capable of uniting the party, including the moderates.
It’s stunning to me that folks are ready to seriously consider Sanders despite the clear writing on the wall that he’d cause a crack-up within the party. And then there is the heart attack, which is way more of a problem than people want to admit.
Personally, I think the candidate who is acceptable to the biggest slice of Democrats is going to be the strongest, but we don’t necessarily need the strongest. What we should avoid is the weakest, and Sanders looks incredibly weak to me no matter what the polls might say.
I sure wish this site wouldn’t make me log in EVERY TIME to read prime posts.
Agreed! And on mobile, it is incredibly slow.
How to stick the login:
1. Logout
2. Leave username and password blank, and click the Login button
3. In the form that appears, check the Remember Me box
4. Then enter username and password and login
It won’t last forever, but it will last for a while.
that works quite well.
That needs to be fixed. It’s annoying.
Had a flashback today to All the President’s Men when Deep Throat tells Woodward, “You’re missing the overall. The people behind all of this…wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against.”
So, there’s definitely a scenario where Sanders wins the nomination, is unable to unite the party, and Trump wins re-election, perhaps even with a solid plurality of the popular vote. In that case (or something like it), we’re going to face a major challenge: what are the institutions whose leaders can call small ‘d’ democrats to take action to preserve the republic and have their call answered effectively?
I don’t know the answer. Worst case scenario? Our institutions and relationships are so weakened that the answer is: nobody.
A worse—or at least, more immediate—scenario is what if the election is close and Trump either refuses to leave or blatantly attempts to steal the election? Then the question of whether and how mass mobilization in defense of the republic takes place is one we’d have to answer nine months from now.
Deep in our hearts, we know how this could play out if/when the Democratic nominee wins, especially by a landslide. He will declare a state of emergency, state the vote was hacked by a foreign government (take your pick of which), and will investigate immediately. Until the findings are published, he will remain in office. That “investigation” never occurs, or the results cannot be published because “national security”.
The answer is a general strike. Like the UAW did to GM, shut the whole thing down.
Wow, I pray it doesn’t come to that…
Will see what happens. Sanders was supposed to run away with Iowa, and didn’t. Am going to go out on a limb and suggest a recanvassing of the votes (a good idea, given that the caucus was a complete cluster) won’t change the fundamentals. His selling point was registering and turning out young adult voters. In Iowa, anyway, they were nowhere to be found. In a sense, this is a bit of a parallel to Corbyn (soon to be former leader of Labour). Sanders is narrowly ahead in what is closer to home turf. Not exactly impressive. Will young adults show up there for the primary? Hard to say. Where the rubber meets the road is in Nevada & South Carolina and then Super Tuesday. Guessing that we’re headed to a brokered convention and one where Sanders is not the nominee. Just a hunch, honestly. Could be wrong. Not sure who gets the nod. Honestly would not write off Bloomberg at this point.
Note: I went from being a Sanders enthusiast in 2015/early 2016 to vocal opponent. Initially due to his problematic supporters (I’ve been ripped numerous new ones for daring to vote, etc., for HRC – here & elsewhere, and I neither forgave nor forgot), and later to accepting that his problematic supporters were merely following his own lead.
I said I would go with the winner and I still will but Bernie does have some negatives. I think many of his supporters are a negative truth be told. Anyway I will wait and see. I suppose for me the backup is Warren but she is not a particularly exciting candidate. I find myself warming up to Bloomberg.
In NH, don’t forget Warren is also from a neighboring New England state. One that probably has a bigger media influence on NH than VT does. Going to be interesting, for sure.
I have my Bernie sign from 2016, but this time around it’s hard to support him with Warren also running and quietly racking up support. Similar policies in a person who has a much better chance of enacting them if elected? And whose most vocal supporters are generally polite?
Still, vote blue no matter who in November.