One of the common comments Bernie Sanders supporters use to defend his attacks against the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton is that the attacks from Donald Trump will be worse, and if Clinton might lose to Trump based on the attacks from Sanders then she is too weak a candidate to be the nominee. I find this line or reasoning disheartening. With all due apologies to Abraham Lincoln, “A Party divided against itself cannot stand.”
Donald Trump and the Republican Party will attack Clinton incessantly. Everyone expects that behavior, and to a large extent those attacks are discounted. But “persuadable voters” — the ones who generally decide the election — are much more persuaded by attacks from people who would otherwise be an ally. So an attack from Sanders is never the same as an attack from Trump — even if the attack arguably is milder, it still has a more lasting and damaging effect.
A recent diary asks, “Why All of the Anti-Bernie Harshness?” Some of the harshness probably is borne of frustration and annoyance at the apparent hypocrisy coming from Sanders — such as asserting that super-delegates should vote for Sanders even if Clinton ends the primary with significantly more votes and more important significantly more pledged delegates than Sanders. Earlier in the election season, Sanders and his campaign seemed to argue that such an action from the super-delegates would not be legitimate. And imagine the vitriol that the Sanders people would be throwing at Clinton supporters if the situation were the reverse and Sanders had the most votes and pledged delegates but Clinton wanted the super-delegates to throw the nomination to her instead.
And the analogy to using Super PACs while wanting to get rid of Super PACs is inapt. No hypocrisy is involved in stating that the law should be changed (e.g., overturn Citizens United) but until that time no one should “unilaterally disarm” and thus the use of Super PACs is necessary until the law is changed. On the other hand, suggesting early in the campaign that super-delegates should not reverse the results of the primary/caucus season, but then later urging them to do so is the height of hypocrisy.
Moveon.org — a staunch Sanders supporter — put out a petition in February to try to get super-delegates to commit to supporting the winner of the primary/caucus voting season. Once it became clear that this approach would only benefit Clinton, Moveon.org changed to a petition calling the process corrupt and calling Clinton untrustworthy and insisting that the super-delegates swing the nomination to Sanders. While Moveon.org is not Sanders himself, they are representative of the attitude coming from Sanders and his campaign.
Personally, I have no problem with Sanders staying in the race until the last primary is held. I am not a person who has ever called for Sanders to withdraw. But what bothers me — why I think the “harshness” is deserved — are the suggestions from Sanders that the process is not legitimate and a “messy” convention might happen. While I have issues with the process — the biggest problem are the voter-suppression caucuses, which favor Sanders. And I have been against the caucus system for decades — so my opposition has nothing to do with the Sanders caucus victories. But Sanders never criticizes the caucuses. He criticizes the Democratic Party and fuels the suggestion that the process has been unfair to him.
Sanders is wrong. The process has not been unfair to him. As Kos and others have pointed out, the early states were more white than the country and the caucuses are less democratic than primaries. Both of those elements have favored Sanders. He got more delegates proportionally than his share of the votes. The process arguably favored him.
The only issue I will concede is that the debate schedule seemed designed to help Clinton. But that attempt back-fired. Does anyone really think that a different schedule and more debates would have mattered meaningfully?
The biggest complaint seems to be that super-delegates declared their support early. So what? The same situations occurred eight years ago and Pres. Obama overcame and won the nomination. But of course party insiders are going to express their preference. I want party insiders to express their preference. Their views matter to me. I will not determine my vote solely based on the views of party insiders, but it is a factor — a legitimate factor.
But some argue that the press report these preferences as if they are “set in stone” giving a false impression of a Clinton lead. The press has been reporting super-delegate preferences this way since the advent of super-delegates — it was not a conspiracy to hurt Sanders. And, as noted above, the same situation happened eight years ago and Pres. Obama got the nomination in any event. And most people do not pay that close attention to those press reports. And even if they do, the results of the primaries and caucuses demonstrate that most people are not affected much by those reports. “Momentum” is overrated — demographic advantages were much more significant factors than a perception of who was ahead at any point in time.
In other words, the vast majority of the complaints from Sanders and his supporters are bogus.
But the main reason I object to Sanders’s behavior is that I think it could make Clinton less likely to win in November. If Sanders convinces people that the system is not fair or legitimate, they are less likely to vote. That action hurts Clinton’s chances.
Most important, if Sanders appears not to be fully supportive of Clinton at the convention, Clinton’s chances in November are reduced. The “persuadable voters” are influenced by internal attacks and dissension — if the party itself is not entirely supportive of Clinton, these voters are mote likely to believe they have reason not to support Clinton. Many argue that past “messy” conventions hurt the nominee — such as McCathy’s actions hurting Humphrey in ‘68, Reagan’s actions hurting Ford in ‘76, Kennedy’s actions in ‘80 hurting Carter and Jackson’s actions in ‘88 hurting Dukakis.
So Sanders should stay in the race through the end of the primaries and continue to support his issues. But Sanders should not attack Clinton or the Democratic Party or the system. Sanders should not threaten a “messy” convention or argue that “concessions” need to be made to obtain his support.
The party needs to be unified. When Sanders takes actions that threaten this unity, Clinton supporters are not going to remain mute. Sanders supporters may argue that Clinton supporters are then the ones threatening unity, but Clinton supporters will not sit by idly while allowing these unwarranted attacks to go unanswered.
As long as Sanders endorses Clinton enthusiastically and avoids any controversy at the convention, I believe none of his actions to date are irreparable. But some of his suggestions (such as the “messy” convention) that could have lasting damage through November, if he carries them out, would be unforgivable.