DAN SAVAGE: So, Rich, you’re new here, I don’t think we’ve actually met, and you’re writing about the 2016 presidential election. Eight years ago, when Obama was running against Hillary, Slog was a war zone—Hillary supporters duking it out with Obama supporters. Now Hillary is running again, and Bernie is the insurgent who could, Obama-style, knock the nomination out of her hands. But no one has much to say about Bernie vs. Hillary. I don’t hear people talking about the Dem side of the race in the office, and I don’t see much of anything going up on Slog about it. Why do you think that is?
RICH SMITH: People’s visual cortexes / emotional heartplaces aren’t stimulated because Bernie is not a handsome young man with a velvet voice who’s talking about hope. He’s an irascible but charming uncle who’s talking about money and jobs (which are the same nouns the Republicans use). From the perspective of image culture, it looks like Hillary is running against her brother.
Also, I don’t think the dukers see much of a fight yet. In their early stump speeches, Bernie and Hillary both snub Wall Street, both more or less stand strong on social justice issues, and both want to grow income for the middle class. Until the speeches start getting more substantive, and until policies are debated, I think it’s hard to separate the two in a meaningful way.
I’ve overheard a lot of people expressing warm feelings about Bernie, but I always detect a little note of hesitation in their voice. If the general election happened tomorrow, would they rather have Bernie or Hillary up against Jeb(!)? I think most people don’t trust the middle of the country enough in order to vote with their heart in that scenario.
Bernie’s also been fighting the sheepdog narrative, which adds to this sense of trepidation on the left. Since he says he won’t run as an independent if the nomination goes to Hillary, people think he’s just riling up progressives to get them interested in the political process again. When Bernie inevitably drops out in April due to his shoddy political machinery, they’ll have no choice but to vote for Hillary. This narrative appeals to the left’s cynicism, and keeps the far left from getting too excited.
SAVAGE: How shoddy is his machinery? He’s raising good money—not Jeb! money, but not embarrassing money—and he’s drawing larger crowds than anyone else who’s running for president in either party. He’s doing something right.
I was into the idea of Bernie getting into the race. I believe I wrote a couple of posts for Slog that were titled “Run, Bernie, Run!” But now that he’s actually running… I’m a little spooked, I guess.
I wanted him to get in the race to pull Clinton to the left. But she didn’t have to be pulled. Her speeches on income inequality, immigration, Wall Street, LGBT rights—she’s basically saying everything that the left wanted to hear. She was so busy trying to out-Warren Warren, who never got in the race, that maybe we didn’t need Bernie to get in. But he’s in now and he’s drawing huge crowds and pulling to within striking distance in the polls in New Hampshire and Iowa.
I don’t think he has the political machinery, as you say, to translate wins (or near-wins) in those states into a viable national campaign. But wins (or near-wins) could really damage Clinton. And if Clinton is going to be the nominee… we don’t want her damaged, do we?
SMITH: No no no, damage is goooood for the Clinton clan. Hillary’s trying to avoid the coronation narrative. The longer Bernie’s in the race, the easier it will be for her to argue against those on the left and the right who are shouting dynasty! Dynasty!
That said, I’ve noticed that in her speeches she hasn’t been shy about linking herself to that other Clinton’s presidency. She winks a little when she mentions how well the economy was doing under her husband’s tenure. That she gets to have it both ways reinforces the idea that all is going according to H’s plan.
Back to Bernie for a second: People are definitely “feeling the Bern,” but that phrase just makes me want to call a doctor. If he’s going to break through on the power of his message alone, I think he needs to tap into left’s idealism rather than rely on its cynicism. Right now his campaign has a split premise. He’s calling for a political revolution and he’s also calling for practical solutions to fix the current system. When it comes to implementing practical solutions, I’ll take Hillary’s political leverage over Bernie’s political passion. Guh, but here I am, another lefty with his fingers crossed for slow, incremental change. I feel like I have some books to return to the People’s Library.
SAVAGE: Did you see Wednesday’s poll about Clinton trailing in swing states against “leading GOP hopefuls?” Given this news, can we still afford to #feelthebern?
SMITH: Yes. When I read this I audibly said “Ack!” in a quiet room. That article makes me hope that the sheepdog narrative is true. Hillary can’t win alone, but Hillary + Bernie supporters forced to vote for her when he drops out = Obama, who won all those states in 2008 and 2012. A frantic search for national numbers revealed that Hillary’s maintaining a comfortable lead in general, so that calmed me down a bit.
That said, would Bernie trounce anybody in Colorado, Iowa, or Virginia? He does a little better than Clinton vs. Bush in Colorado, but otherwise he loses in all three swing states, too, which bring me back to the national numbers.
When this was Hillary vs. Obama, I had strong feelings for Obama, but I wouldn’t have thrown up my hands if Hillary grabbed the nomination. Both seemed infinitely electable; Hillary because of her organization and history, and Obama because of his momentum and message.
Why doesn’t Bernie inspire the same confidence? The look through the “Obama model” lens is bleak. Bernie’s polling at 9 percent to Hillary’s 61 percent among non-white voters. Black voters made a huge difference in the recent gubernatorial election in Virginia, and he’s having a shaky start there. He’s only recently started to court Latinos. The youth vote is up in the air. Now let’s see, where did I put my Chillary Clinton Koozie?
But my initial reaction to all this says something, right? My wariness (ok, fear) of a republican president/senate/house overrides my Berning feelings. Do you feel like I do, or is my cynicism revolting?
SAVAGE: I don’t detect cynicism. I’m #FeelingTheRealism.
Oh, and hey—according to Barney Frank, Rich, your wariness is merited, and perhaps the radio silence here on Slog is justified. Frank had a piece on Politico yesterday warning progressives that we shouldn’t support Bernie Sanders because “wishful thinking is no way to win the presidency.” The only way to win the presidency is for liberals and progressives to line up behind Hillary 3.0—or is it 4.0?
But with Trump’s lead widening—yet again—in the wake of his visit to the border this week, and despite his comments about McCain (who is less popular with GOP voters than Trump is!), Trump’s lead continues to grow, not shrink. Makes you think we could nominate anybody—even that pile of used condoms in Cal Anderson Park that the SECB thinks would make a better city council member than Jean Godden—and still win the White House. So could it hurt to flirt with Bernie?
Oh, right: Because there’s no guarantee Trump will win the nomination, right? I mean, that is not going to happen… is it?
SMITH: Show me the god to whom I might pray for such a gift and I will kneel at her golden foot.
