Sanders Presents a Unique Opportunity for Democratic Voters

When the Democratic primary began, the result seemed like a foregone conclusion. Hillary Clinton had every advantage a candidate could hope for, including the absence of a single opponent who we could even contemplate giving her a competitive race. In a year of grand political surprises, none have been bigger than Senator Bernie Sanders’ historic run toward the Democratic nomination. We find him to be the clear choice for our Democratic endorsement.

Sanders has clearly benefited from a nationwide frustration among voters toward institutional politics on both sides of the aisle. That being said, his ascent has been no fluke. He has skillfully communicated a message that seemed like it would be far too easy for opponents to obfuscate and attack. He has done this by speaking plainly, which is rare among politicians, and in simple terms, which seems particularly rare among Democrats.

People understand his assessment of the challenges we face as a country, as well as his ideas as for how to solve them. That is a surprisingly rare dynamic among politicians at this level. Those skills partly explain his success, while suggesting strong potential in a general election. The question of whether he could actually be elected, seems to be answered each time he gives a speech.

Who would have guessed that a 74 year-old Independent who has described himself as a Democratic Socialist could have rallied the long-dormant grassroots of the Democratic Party, brought legions of disenfranchised voters into the process, and rode a wave of unprecedented populist enthusiasm into a neck and neck battle with the most powerful political dynasty in the party’s history? Senator Sanders has done just that, an accomplishment that merits a very close look as to why.

Without resorting to vitriolic attacks or playing to fear, Sanders has tapped into a simmering populist vein and put clear words to many of the anxieties that vex our electorate. He has coherently articulated the flaws in a "rigged economy" that has benefited the very few at the expense of the many.

While some of his doubters get caught up on the "socialist" word, it is worth noting that Sanders has spoken very little of handouts or even safety nets. Rather, he has focused on increasing opportunity and societal equity for the growing ranks of our nation’s working poor, many of whom have been left behind by a globalized economy that has been promoted by the Democratic establishment for decades. While other candidates are offering rhetoric to the masses, he’s offering easy-to-understand ideas they can relate to, and it’s working.

It is true that he will face an uphill battle in passing many of his initiatives if elected President, but that is no justification to dismiss a persuasive leader, especially as our nation comes face to face with so many historic challenges. More importantly, Sanders’ impressive record of working with all parties and factions to quietly and pragmatically accomplish much through an endless number of small measures (mostly as minor amendments to large pieces of legislation) demonstrates a degree of patience and open-mindedness that has for far too long been in short supply in Washington.


In 2008, Clinton positioned herself as a hawkish moderate, boasting of her days as a "Goldwater Girl," claiming she’d campaigned for the Republican presidential nominee as he took on Lyndon Baines Johnson. Today, faced with an unexpected challenge from Sanders and the left wing of her party, Clinton is again verbally reinventing herself, this time as a "progressive who knows how to get things done," as though the only difference between her and Sanders is one of pragmatism.

This refusal to acknowledge herself as a consistent moderate–something we easily envision her pivoting back to in a general election if nominated–lends to the perception of being disingenuous that has continuously given her problems with many Democrats and has at least helped pave the way for Sanders’ rise.


Facing an opponent who has gained support through his promises to break up the banks deemed "too big to fail," Clinton also crafted a narrative over the past week that Wall Street is no longer happy with her because they are aware that she is ready to "take them on“ if elected President. She claimed they had not only stopped supporting her but that financial interests were uniting to take her down. Again, the facts do not bear this out as the Wall Street money continues to flow in, and it is now Clinton who has been discovered postponing banker-sponsored fundraising events, for what we can only imagine amounts to more spin-control.


Should Sanders continue to run a strong campaign through the primary, and should he win the nomination, we would expect to see more contributions from unions flow into his campaign. While not perfect, unions hold nowhere close to the power they once did in the U.S., and while we might expect the Senator to favor unions in many policy decisions–as one perhaps still ought to expect of a Democratic president–we do not see unions having an iron grip on his decision-making in matters related to their interests, as corporate America now has the pleasure of holding over so many political offices.


On the other hand, when discussing Senator Sanders, regardless of your take on his policy ideas or political ideology, it is difficult to describe him without speaking to his authenticity as a public servant over his 33 years as a mayor, a Congressman and a United States Senator. There is no doubt in our minds whatsoever that as President of the United States, Sanders would espouse the same values, character and integrity that have defined his career as a public servant.


Here again, Secretary Clinton loses points with us by blaming her vote on the information given to her and other members of Congress (including then Rep. Sanders) by the Bush Administration. However, there was a very loud contingent of dissenting views calling into question the so-called intelligence used to invade that country among progressives in her party, bureaucrats, defense experts, intelligence analysts and independent media outlets that echoed their strong case for why the intelligence was not only inaccurate but at times, downright laughable.

We do not doubt that then Senator Clinton heard these calls, nor do we doubt that she was intelligent enough to parse the data. We do, however, doubt that she cast her vote on the validity of the intelligence and the moral case for an invasion, rather than the political calculus of voting against the war in a post-9/11 political environment, and what that could mean for both her Senate career and the future presidential ambitions of a female candidate who would almost certainly face the question of whether she was tough enough to be commander in chief. Here again, we see a defining difference between the characters of the two candidates.