Don't Kid Yourselves, Bernie-Or-Bust Activists Aren't Democrats

A nightmare has broken out at the Democratic National Convention. Bernie Sanders delegates have staged a mass walkout after Hillary Clinton had officially clinched the Democratic nomination. While anti-Clinton protests have been staged outside the Wells Fargo arena before the start of the convention, this is the most direct revolt against Clinton and the Democrats as a whole. If Ted Cruz and the Never-Trump crew made the RNC a laughing stock, Bernie-or-Bust are just shy of erupting into a circus. 

This is the DNC’s worst fears come to life, feeding to the media’s narrative that the Democratic Party remains divided and in peril. The protest certainly won’t quell establishment Democrats anxieties that the divisiveness will undoubtedly help Trump secure the presidency. Certainly the Clinton campaign would hope to capture as many votes from Sanders supporters as possible, but maybe some of those participating in the protests were never really Democrats to begin with. 

As Harry Enten, legendary “whiz-kid” at FiveThirtyEight, surmised from polling data, only 41% of Sanders’ supporters have consistently voted Democrat in past elections. Closer to 60% of likely Clinton voters have stuck to party lines, and more had participated in both 2012 and 2014 elections. With this type of quantitative data in hand, the narrative of protesters showcasing party mutiny becomes slightly less credulous. 

Another factor to consider is that Sanders’ popularity is mostly made up by millennials, many participating in their first primary and presidential election. They never had any particular loyalty with the Democratic party, only becoming involved once Sanders’ started mentioning universal healthcare and debt-free college. Therefore the protests at the convention is not necessarily a revolt by card-carrying Democrats but of disenchanted youngsters that have become recently acquainted with the United States election system. 

For comparison, Enten found the complete opposite on the GOP side, as over 60% of Cruz supporters have been adamant Republican voters in the past. Their uprising against Trump were conservative loyalists trying to take back their party from a RINO. Cruz was originally to be the true outsider candidate in the Republican primary, a Texas Senator never afraid to stand up to the establishment and uses the fear of god to ramp support for his ultra-conservative views. He was actually attempting to take his rightful place at the convention that Trump had stolen from him. 

Here lies the clearest distinction between Never-Trump and Never-Hillary activists, the former is actually a part of the party while the latter are majority newcomers or independents. Cruz's fellow Never-Trump supporters are passionate Republicans that are greatly dissatisfied with their party and presumptive leader. This further renders the claim of divisiveness within the Democratic party as tenuous compared to the lack of Republican elites and filled seats found at the RNC.  

It will still be a difficult task for Clinton to actually convert these fickle voters, especially those that have vowed not to vote for either major party candidate. But if we dismiss these "nonpartisan" voters and focus on the traditional Democratic voter, they are arguably a slightly larger voting majority in the electorate in general elections than Republicans. And with the threat of a Trump presidency growing with each passing day, more and more undecided voters are warming up to Clinton. At least for the sake of great caution.

Get Serious Green Party, Stein is Unqualified

It’s happening. Senator Bernie Sanders has wholeheartedly endorsed Secretary Hillary Clinton for President of the United States at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. One of the first in a long line of speeches by the heavy-hitters of the Democratic Party, Sanders is also one of the most important voices at the convention as he attempts to assuage his disappointed followers to do what they can to prevent Donald Trump from winning the election.

While the left’s presidential nomination is basically all sealed up, there is still spry old Dr. Jill Stein, presidential nominee and the new face of the Green Party, trying her very best to finagle Sanders supporters to vote for her. Through the use of social media and multiple media appearances, Stein has repeatedly tried to present herself as the only alternative candidate available to voters that are still not sure if they are with her – her being Clinton. Despite her complete lack of experience in public office or any real chance of becoming President, more than a few of those currently disenchanted with the Democrats have embraced the Green Party candidate for her leftist views, specifically concerning the environment.

Dr. Stein has garnered 4% support in national polls that include third-party candidates including Libertarian Party nominee former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. This is both Stein and Johnson’s second presidential run, but Johnson seems to be gaining traction with the electorate, faring much better than both he and Stein had done in the previous election. If Johnson ramps up enough support to register 15% of support in polls, he would be eligible to appear in the debates, leaving Stein offstage in her continuing pursuit to be heard.

The rise of Johnson reveals the weakness in Jill Stein as a candidate and the Green Party as a whole. As previously mentioned, Stein does not have any experience in holding public office, despite having run in multiple elections. This is not entirely shocking as not one single candidate from the Green Party has won a major election. What is actually shocking is a party can hardly find any traction in a country with more tree-hugging environmentalists and nature lovers than other countries with actual elected Green Party officials. A grassroots movement that can muster up enough support to halt the Keystone pipeline or bans on fracking, but can’t find any other candidate to run for office besides a doctor.

Stein is well aware that the she and the Green Party are not making the strides they need to actually become a viable option for the presidency. Once it was all certain that Clinton would be clinching the Democratic nomination, Stein offered Sanders the top spot on the Green Party ticket. He respectfully declined, instead choosing to endorse Clinton in a last-ditch effort to stop Trump, therefore prompting Stein to chastise the Democratic candidate for not adamantly sticking to his convictions. She at least managed to cajole Cornell West to her side, one of the most passionate and controversial of Sanders supporters.

What Stein, the Green Party and Sanders-or-bust supporters need to realize is that being right on issues like climate change or the value of a good, affordable education does not alone make for a viable option for a President. There are plenty of people in the world that believe in social justice or universal healthcare, that does not mean they would make a good president. At the very least, a presidential candidate should have some history in public office, perhaps know how to write legislation and have the leadership skills to make sure it passes. Otherwise, the candidate is nothing more than another Trump feeding off voter’s anger and bitterness towards the establishment.

It’s completely understandable that the left does not want Clinton as their nominee; if the convention is any indicator, many Democrats are becoming disgusted with their party. But choosing the next schlub that walks off the street as your representative because they sound nice and don’t like Hillary either is not a great way to pick a president. If the Green Party and the left want to be taken seriously, they need to start picking serious candidates that can actually win an election.

Elizabeth Warren is No Traitor

Let's be honest, Sanders supporters are a bit out there. To be fair, any politician has at least a few proponents that are arrogant in their support and at times show signs of bigotry. The Sanders crowd just managed to grow large and vocal enough to become a source of mockery for the campaign. Their latest target has turned towards Massachusetts Senator and rock-star of the Democratic Party Elizabeth Warren after a campaign appearance with Hillary Clinton in Ohio.

Sanders supporters have called her a sell-out, liar, traitor, most likely far worse than that if you've followed their comments towards Clinton and any journalist that give any hint of disapproval for the Vermont senator. They are an untoward rabid group of arrogant individuals that are rightfully fed up with a dysfunctional political process but naively believe that a politician is absolutely corrupt or absolutely principled, never any middle ground.

When we consider the influence and popularity that Warren has, it's understandable and fair for her not to sway public opinion towards one candidate or another. She was perhaps one of the most sought after endorsements during the primary, whether by fellow Clinton surrogates or petitions by Sanders supporters. She followed the same course as Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama, allowing the primary process to take its course before voicing their support.

Part of Sanders agenda in running was to allow a discourse to emerge about the future path of the Democratic party, which exactly happened but would have been hampered by a Warren endorsement. Her patience offers her a position of power to influence the Clinton campaign that Sanders had helped initiate. If Sanders' supporters are serious about fostering progressive policies in the near future, having a heavyweight in Clinton's corner would only help push that cause.

The true bottom line is that most Democrats, including Warren, are becoming increasingly frightened by the idea of Donald Trump as president. Combined with the latest populist revolt in the U.K. against the European Union, and one can slightly hear the alarm bells ringing in the halls of the DNC. Even Sanders has adjusted his message to make sure Trump does not win the election, his supporters must do the same. Attacking a progressive hero like Warren or Al Franken not only doesn't help but will tarnish future relationships necessary to bringing about progressive policies.

Krugman: No Single-Payer with this Congress

Coming off the heels of the final Democratic presidential debate, economist and NYT columnist Paul Krugman has weighed in on Senator Bernie Sanders single-payer healthcare proposal. Leaving off from one of the most contentious debates, preceded by a week of attacks by the Hillary Clinton campaign, Krugman believes Sanders’ proposal is essentially a nonstarter in the current political atmosphere. Of course the question for Krugman is: which policies, if any, would be viable to the Do-Nothing Congress?

Krugman’s first argument is that with a Republican-led Congress, there is very little chance for Sanders’ proposals to pass either chamber. While this may have some truth to it, overall it forgets that this will be the same scenario for any incoming Democratic president. Whether Sanders or Clinton wins the nomination and general election, they will be dealing with a Congress far more content on repealing Obamacare for the thousandth time than passing any meaningful legislation.

This certainly held true when Obama was campaigning for his second term in 2012; he (barely) still had the Senate in his pocket but John Boehner and the Tea Party had already taken over the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Therefore any policy Obama proposed would meet head-on with Krugman’s logic, “How can you pass a bill without a Democrat majority in either legislative chamber?” But that didn’t siphon off supporters or stop enough voters from electing Obama to office, because they aren’t voting for the candidate that could work with congress the best, they are voting for the person with the best ideas.

Still, it is a fair argument for Krugman to suggest that with this intransigent Congress, it would be an uphill battle to pass progressive policies. Except the timing of the article implies that Clinton will somehow fair better. Whether it’s because her proposals are more modest or because she wouldn’t even attempt to tackle the issues still plaguing the American healthcare system, for now he remains mum on that point.

The reason is certainly not because Clinton will have a better chance at implementing policies than Sanders or Obama. If anything, Clinton would have a tougher time passing legislation through a congress that ultimately distrusts and despises her, to say the least. With Sanders long track record of working across the aisle, being good friends with those in that aisle, and even garnering the support of Republican Tom Cotton, he arguably has a much better chance passing valuable legislation while Clinton will encounter government shutdowns over budget deals.

Perhaps to Krugman, it’s far better to do nothing and say “I tried but, you know, Congress,” than to actually attempt at passing legislation, whether it succeeds or fails.