It is official- Hillary Clinton will now have at least one primary opponent standing as an obstacle between her and the Democratic nomination this time around. This time, however, her opponent is not a young, charismatic, rising star within the party, but a gruff, elder senator who is not actually a Democrat: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Few believe he is actually going to win, but can he? Does he have an actual shot? If not, what will be the magnitude of his effect on the presidential races next year? As we have done with Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and Clinton, we will look at Bernie's strengths and weaknesses and try to answer some of these questions.
Strengths
Bernie Sanders' main strength is his economic populism (ie: his explicit, expressed support for Socialism) that is gaining strength among certain branches of the Democratic Party. Sanders is a strong alternative for Democrats who perceive Hilary to be too far to the right/center on fiscal issues and have been calling for Elizabeth Warren to launch a primary challenge against Clinton. Sanders, in other words, certainly fills a niche that is gradually becoming more powerful. He will be able to strongly contrast himself to Clinton, who is at least perceptually tied to the free market Democrats of the 90's (Al From, James Carville, etc...) who were instrumental in getting her husband into the White House. True socialists within the Democratic Party now have someone to vote for in the primaries.
Along those same lines, Sanders does carry a powerful message that will resonate with his target audiences. His crusades against money in politics have, ironically, earned him a lot of money in his campaign's short lifespan, so far. Whether or not it will be enough money to help him defeat Clinton is another question, altogether, but he has raised an admittedly impressive amount of money. This is reminiscent of Obama in 2008 and Ron Paul in 2012, and will make him an influential player in next year's primary season.
Finally, Sanders is, as he reminds us, an oft-underestimated campaigner and politician. Granted, ultra-liberal Vermont is his home turf (despite being from Brooklyn), but he has had an unconventional, yet successful, political career that aspiring pointy-headed academics, like myself, would not normally predict. Although he will run as a Democrat next year, he has successfully won competitive elections as an Independent (Democratic Socialist) and become the most popular political figure in his home state. It would not surprise me at all to see Sanders win a few contests next year in Vermont, Massachusetts, and other New England states, and maybe even some contests in the Upper Midwest (Minnesota, Iowa, maybe Wisconsin), as well as some West Coast states. Hillary made the mistake of underestimating Obama in 2008, she should not repeat that mistake with Sanders- he is a seasoned campaigner who will capitalize on the mistakes of his opponents.
Weaknesses
Sanders, like any other Democrat challenging Hillary, will face long odds in the primary, to say the least. Between her quest to break down the White House gender barrier (a quest that is widely supported among Americans) and her plethora of support from the party insiders, Clinton will probably too formidable of a foe for anyone to defeat- certainly a gruff, unlikable old man from Vermont running to her left. To defeat Clinton, Sanders must win in Iowa and New Hampshire and hope that his victories are duly noted by the press and begin to convince people that he can actually win (see Bartels' piece on Gary Hart in 1984). His insistence on not running a negative campaign will put him at even more of a disadvantage, as he will be throwing away his most powerful weapon: Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote. Sanders may have a powerful message that resonates with a lot of Democratic primary voters, but I do not think it will be enough to overcome all of the advantages Clinton has (although I would have said that in 2007 about Obama, as well).
As far as the general election is concerned, Sanders is way too far to the left for most Americans. If he somehow managed to capture the Democratic nomination, the Republican nominee would paint the map red like it was 1972 or 1984. He has had political success in Vermont, but this is analogous to noting how Ted Cruz had success winning in Texas. Vermont is as blue as a state can be and is thus not remotely representative of mainstream America. Socialism will not win him Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina in a general election. Moreover, Bernie being Bernie probably means that he would not pick a fiscally conservative Democrat (like Joe Manchin) as his running mate, as it would sully the purity of his socialist message. A Bernie Sanders/Liz Warren ticket, for example, would be a disaster of historical proportions, as long as the Republicans had a ticket that was at least somewhat moderate. I do not see how Bernie Sanders has a plausible path to convincing a majority of Americans that socialism is the answer.
Conclusion: What Effect will Bernie Have on the Race?
If you have not yet guessed, I do not believe that Bernie Sanders will be either the Democratic nominee for 2016 or the next President of the United States. Hillary Clinton appears invincible at the moment in her quest for the nomination and Sanders is a fringe favorite who is old and can rally a few to his cause, but not enough to seriously challenge the frontrunner (think a lefty version of Ron Paul). Even if he pulls off the unthinkable upset, he would be the underdog in the general election as his unrepentant socialism scares away moderate and conservative Democrats, as well as independents, and unites the Republican Party against him. The end result would be a landslide victory for the GOP.
This does not mean, however, that Sanders will not make a difference in the race. To the contrary, he has the potential to drastically shape next year's general election. With so few Democrats willing to challenge Clinton, Sanders will get a larger portion of the stage in debates and campaign events than he probably should. This means that he will force Clinton to address more positions from a far-left perspective than she is probably comfortable talking about. He will, for example, force Clinton to denounce economic freedom in the name of closing the gap of income inequality, a position that could alienate independents and business-oriented moderates. He will, in short, drag Hillary Clinton to the left during the primary season, which will put her in a precarious position for the general election. As we saw with Romney in 2012, moving away from the middle for the sake of doing well in the primaries will hurt you in the general election. This is simple spatial politics game theory, which posits that voters will vote for the candidate who is closest to them on an ideological plane, and most American general election voters are centrists, while primary voters are located on the ends of the ideological spectrum. Thus, if Sanders pulls her too far to the left, a relatively moderate Republican (like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or even Jeb Bush) could fill the void and become the more attractive candidate to the average voter. A more-successful-than-expected campaign from Sanders could, ironically, result in a conservative victory next year. If he does not pull her too far to the left (or her glass ceiling breaking quest overshadows the issue), Sanders can still be satisfied that his campaign pulled America farther to the left than it would have been if he had not done so. In closing, I think Bernie Sanders is seizing an opportunity to advance his ideology and will see some measure of success, even though he is not going to be the Democrat's nominee next year, and certainly not the next occupant of the White House.
Strengths
Bernie Sanders' main strength is his economic populism (ie: his explicit, expressed support for Socialism) that is gaining strength among certain branches of the Democratic Party. Sanders is a strong alternative for Democrats who perceive Hilary to be too far to the right/center on fiscal issues and have been calling for Elizabeth Warren to launch a primary challenge against Clinton. Sanders, in other words, certainly fills a niche that is gradually becoming more powerful. He will be able to strongly contrast himself to Clinton, who is at least perceptually tied to the free market Democrats of the 90's (Al From, James Carville, etc...) who were instrumental in getting her husband into the White House. True socialists within the Democratic Party now have someone to vote for in the primaries.
Along those same lines, Sanders does carry a powerful message that will resonate with his target audiences. His crusades against money in politics have, ironically, earned him a lot of money in his campaign's short lifespan, so far. Whether or not it will be enough money to help him defeat Clinton is another question, altogether, but he has raised an admittedly impressive amount of money. This is reminiscent of Obama in 2008 and Ron Paul in 2012, and will make him an influential player in next year's primary season.
Finally, Sanders is, as he reminds us, an oft-underestimated campaigner and politician. Granted, ultra-liberal Vermont is his home turf (despite being from Brooklyn), but he has had an unconventional, yet successful, political career that aspiring pointy-headed academics, like myself, would not normally predict. Although he will run as a Democrat next year, he has successfully won competitive elections as an Independent (Democratic Socialist) and become the most popular political figure in his home state. It would not surprise me at all to see Sanders win a few contests next year in Vermont, Massachusetts, and other New England states, and maybe even some contests in the Upper Midwest (Minnesota, Iowa, maybe Wisconsin), as well as some West Coast states. Hillary made the mistake of underestimating Obama in 2008, she should not repeat that mistake with Sanders- he is a seasoned campaigner who will capitalize on the mistakes of his opponents.
Weaknesses
Sanders, like any other Democrat challenging Hillary, will face long odds in the primary, to say the least. Between her quest to break down the White House gender barrier (a quest that is widely supported among Americans) and her plethora of support from the party insiders, Clinton will probably too formidable of a foe for anyone to defeat- certainly a gruff, unlikable old man from Vermont running to her left. To defeat Clinton, Sanders must win in Iowa and New Hampshire and hope that his victories are duly noted by the press and begin to convince people that he can actually win (see Bartels' piece on Gary Hart in 1984). His insistence on not running a negative campaign will put him at even more of a disadvantage, as he will be throwing away his most powerful weapon: Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote. Sanders may have a powerful message that resonates with a lot of Democratic primary voters, but I do not think it will be enough to overcome all of the advantages Clinton has (although I would have said that in 2007 about Obama, as well).
As far as the general election is concerned, Sanders is way too far to the left for most Americans. If he somehow managed to capture the Democratic nomination, the Republican nominee would paint the map red like it was 1972 or 1984. He has had political success in Vermont, but this is analogous to noting how Ted Cruz had success winning in Texas. Vermont is as blue as a state can be and is thus not remotely representative of mainstream America. Socialism will not win him Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina in a general election. Moreover, Bernie being Bernie probably means that he would not pick a fiscally conservative Democrat (like Joe Manchin) as his running mate, as it would sully the purity of his socialist message. A Bernie Sanders/Liz Warren ticket, for example, would be a disaster of historical proportions, as long as the Republicans had a ticket that was at least somewhat moderate. I do not see how Bernie Sanders has a plausible path to convincing a majority of Americans that socialism is the answer.
Conclusion: What Effect will Bernie Have on the Race?
If you have not yet guessed, I do not believe that Bernie Sanders will be either the Democratic nominee for 2016 or the next President of the United States. Hillary Clinton appears invincible at the moment in her quest for the nomination and Sanders is a fringe favorite who is old and can rally a few to his cause, but not enough to seriously challenge the frontrunner (think a lefty version of Ron Paul). Even if he pulls off the unthinkable upset, he would be the underdog in the general election as his unrepentant socialism scares away moderate and conservative Democrats, as well as independents, and unites the Republican Party against him. The end result would be a landslide victory for the GOP.
This does not mean, however, that Sanders will not make a difference in the race. To the contrary, he has the potential to drastically shape next year's general election. With so few Democrats willing to challenge Clinton, Sanders will get a larger portion of the stage in debates and campaign events than he probably should. This means that he will force Clinton to address more positions from a far-left perspective than she is probably comfortable talking about. He will, for example, force Clinton to denounce economic freedom in the name of closing the gap of income inequality, a position that could alienate independents and business-oriented moderates. He will, in short, drag Hillary Clinton to the left during the primary season, which will put her in a precarious position for the general election. As we saw with Romney in 2012, moving away from the middle for the sake of doing well in the primaries will hurt you in the general election. This is simple spatial politics game theory, which posits that voters will vote for the candidate who is closest to them on an ideological plane, and most American general election voters are centrists, while primary voters are located on the ends of the ideological spectrum. Thus, if Sanders pulls her too far to the left, a relatively moderate Republican (like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or even Jeb Bush) could fill the void and become the more attractive candidate to the average voter. A more-successful-than-expected campaign from Sanders could, ironically, result in a conservative victory next year. If he does not pull her too far to the left (or her glass ceiling breaking quest overshadows the issue), Sanders can still be satisfied that his campaign pulled America farther to the left than it would have been if he had not done so. In closing, I think Bernie Sanders is seizing an opportunity to advance his ideology and will see some measure of success, even though he is not going to be the Democrat's nominee next year, and certainly not the next occupant of the White House.
RSS Feed
