vox--2020-02-11--Mainstream Democrats shouldn’t fear Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s win in New Hampshire following his quasi-win in Iowa dashes the Democratic Party establishment ’ s big hope of the past four years — that he ’ d just fade away .
Alarm , clearly visible in a range of mainstream Democratic circles over the past several weeks , is now going to kick into overdrive .
But this frame of mind is fundamentally misguided .
For all the agita around his all-or-nothing rhetoric , his behavior as a longtime member of Congress ( and before that as a mayor ) suggests a much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the wilder “ political revolution ” rhetoric would suggest .
On the vast majority of issues , a Sanders administration would deliver pretty much the same policy outcomes as any other Democrat .
The two biggest exceptions to this , foreign policy and monetary policy , happen to be where Sanders takes issue with an entrenched conventional wisdom that is deeply problematic .
Some of the anti-Sanders sentiment is driven by pique at his followers ’ most obnoxious behavior .
But it would be better to bring these voters into the tent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders winning the popular vote in the Iowa caucuses is hardly the end of the 2020 Democratic primary .
Joe Biden remains a formidable contender ; there are many delegate-rich states with larger African American populations that should be more favorable to him , and it ’ s been known for a long time that the idiosyncrasies of the caucus structure give Sanders an edge he won ’ t have in future primaries .
And , obviously , nominating a 78-year-old self-described socialist is a risky move and not an outcome that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working in an electability lab .
But at this point , all the main contenders have some electability risks .
Sanders comes with a strong electoral track record in practice , and he brings some unique assets to the table as someone who appeals precisely to the most fractious elements of the anti-Trump coalition .
The specter of “ socialism ” hangs over the Sanders campaign , terrifying mainstream Democrats with the reality that when asked about it by pollsters , most Americans reject the idea .
Given that Sanders himself tends to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the New Deal , it seems as though everyone involved would be better off if he labeled himself a New Deal Democrat and let us revert to the normal pattern where Republicans call mainstream liberals “ socialists ” and liberals push back rather than accepting an unpopular label .
All that said , in current head-to-head polling matchups with Donald Trump , Sanders does well and is normally winning .
Skeptics worry whether that lead will hold up against the sure-to-come cavalcade of attack ads from Trump .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth underscoring that Sanders ’ s actual electoral track record in Vermont is strong .
Winning elections in Vermont is not , per se , incredibly impressive .
There are plenty of left-wing Democrats who win elections while underperforming simply because they run in such blue states ( Elizabeth Warren fits that mold ) , as well as plenty of moderate Democrats who overperform in tough races even while losing ( former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is a good example ) .
Sanders , however , overperforms in his easy races .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his home state , which suggests he knows how to overcome the “ socialist ” label , get people to vote for him despite some eccentricities , and even peel off some Republican votes .
He first got to Congress by winning a tough three-way race in 1990 , when Vermont was an only slightly blue-leaning state .
He went on to consistently run ahead of Democratic presidential campaigns as a candidate for Vermont ’ s at-large seat in the US House of Representatives .
• In 1992 , Sanders got 58 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent ( it was a strong state for presidential candidate Ross Perot , but Sanders also faced a “ third-party ” challenge from a Democrat ) .
• In 1996 , Sanders got 55 percent to Clinton ’ s 53 percent .
• In 2000 , he got 69 percent to Al Gore ’ s 51 percent .
• In 2004 , he got 67 percent to John Kerry ’ s 59 percent .
• Sanders got elected to the Senate in 2006 , so he wasn ’ t on the ballot in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he won 71 percent to Obama ’ s 67 percent .
This is not definitive proof of Sanders ’ s skills .
But it would have been easy for Vermonters who had doubts about Sanders to cast meaningless protest votes for his opponents .
Instead , Sanders appears to be able to make lemonade out of the whole “ not officially a Democrat ” thing by getting the votes of some non-Republicans who backed Perot in the 1990s and , more recently , other third-party candidates such as Jill Stein , Ralph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one noteworthy thing about Sanders is that in head-to-head polling matchups against Trump , he tends to do better than you ’ d expect simply by looking at his favorable ratings .
And , critically , Sanders ’ s popularity seems to be concentrated among certain blocks of persuadable voters ( likely those considering a third-party vote ) , while a chunk of those who disapprove of Sanders are hardcore partisan Democrats who don ’ t like his lack of party spirit but will vote for him anyway .
Sanders knows how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at times that Sanders would simply prove too extreme to get things done as president .
And , indeed , on occasion his campaign lapses into rhetoric that suggests an unreasonable aversion to compromise .
But it ’ s worth remembering that Sanders is a 30-year veteran of the US Congress , not a 20-something hardliner with a red rose on his Twitter bio .
We can evaluate his actual track record as a politician .
In that capacity , Sanders has sometimes staked out lonely , courageous stands ( against the Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which barred same-sex couples from enjoying the same federal benefits as married couples ) .
He ’ s also frequently cast meaningless protest votes against big bipartisan compromises that sail through with huge majorities .
But he ’ s never pulled a Freedom Caucus-type stunt and refused to cast a pragmatic vote in favor of half a loaf .
Sanders has always talked about his blue-sky political ideals as something he believed in passionately , but he separated that idealism from his practical legislative work , which was grounded in vote counts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Children ’ s Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill in 2009 , and again for the Affordable Care Act in 2010 .
He voted for the Dodd-Frank bill and every other contentious piece of Obama-era legislation .
Indeed , this has been somewhat forgotten in the wake of the 2016 primary campaign : While Obama was in the White House , it was Sen. Elizabeth Warren who attracted the ire of administration officials and congressional leaders by occasionally spiking executive branch nominees or blowing up bipartisan deals .
The policy area in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence is veterans-related issues , as he chaired the Senate Veterans ’ Affairs Committee for a two-year span , during which Congress enacted substantive reform to the veterans ’ health system .
Given the objective constellation of political forces at the time , this required bipartisan support , so Sanders ( working mainly with Republican Sen. John McCain ) produced a bipartisan bill that , in exchange for a substantial boost in funding , made some concessions to conservatives in creating “ private options ” for veterans to seek care outside of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s fine if you want to be annoyed that Sanders ’ s self-presentation as a revolutionary who will sweep all practical obstacles aside is at odds with his reality as an experienced legislator who does typical senator stuff in a typical way .
But there ’ s no reason to be worried that Sanders is a deluded radical who doesn ’ t understand how the government works .
One of the odd developments of the social media era is that the extremely online set — which is not most people but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , think tankers , activists , and other influential people — reacts as much to their perceptions of different candidates ’ support bases as to the candidates themselves .
MSNBC host Joy Reid , for example , is a frequent Bernieworld antagonist and over the weekend posted a poll showing that Sanders fans were much less likely than Biden or Warren supporters to commit to backing the eventual nominee come what may .
Her followers , in turn , reacted by castigating Sanders voters as “ useless ” and “ a cult-like following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks bad for Sanders.
” John Weaver , one of the leading Never Trump ex-Republican personalities , sniffed , “ one of them isn ’ t a Democrat.
” It is all well and good to be annoyed by people who will not commit to voting Trump out of office regardless of the identity of the Democratic Party nominee .
But if you are a person who worries about electability , which many highly partisan Democrats are , then you are by definition a person who worries about courting the votes of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of office regardless of the identity of the Democratic Party nominee .
The fact that Sanders has unusually strong support among people like that is a strength of his campaign , not a weakness .
Whenever I make this point , mainstream Democrats get grouchy and start grumbling about how you don ’ t negotiate with terrorists or give in to your toddler when he ’ s throwing a fit .
Those are funny analogies , but any effort to court swing voters has that same basic structure .
Party loyalists are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people who are not loyalists , precisely because the non-loyalists ’ irresponsibility and flightiness gives them more objective leverage .
But if you pull it off successfully , what party loyalists get in exchange is partisan electoral victories — exactly the thing that , by definition , is most important to party loyalists .
If you ’ re a loyalist , it ’ s natural to feel grumpy about the non-loyalists who love Sanders , but if you ’ re trying to win the election you need to get the votes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you ’ re annoyed by Sanders ’ s Twitter ’ s attacks on mainstream Democrats , you ’ ll start finding them a lot less annoying if he gets the nomination and they start directing that energy against Trump and the GOP .
Last but by no means least , some of Sanders ’ s out-of-the-mainstream ideas are good and correct .
Some of his ideas are not so good , but it ’ s important to understand that on the vast majority of topics , the policy outputs of a Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different from those of a Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg administration .
Whether a new president promises continuity with Obama or a break with neoliberalism , the constraints will realistically come from Congress , where the median member is all but certain to be more conservative than anyone in the Democratic field .
On foreign policy , by contrast , the president is less constrained , and Sanders ’ s real desire to challenge aspects of the bipartisan foreign policy consensus makes a difference .
He ’ s much more critical of Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s a leading critic of the alliance with Saudi Arabia , and he ’ s generally skeptical of America ’ s expansive military posture .
These ideas are coded as “ extreme ” in Washington , where there ’ s significant bipartisan investment in the status quo .
But polls show that most voters question the narratives of American exceptionalism , favor a reduced global military footprint and less defense spending , and are skeptical of the merits of profligate arms sales .
In practice , essentially every president ends up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric suggested ( Trump hasn ’ t broken up NATO ; Obama never sat down with the leadership of Iran ) , so the differences are likely to be more modest than the rhetorical ones .
But differences are welcome and needed .
The misbegotten invasion of Iraq should have , but largely didn ’ t , shake up the establishment “ blob ” that ’ s obsessed with pursuing US military hegemony and endless entanglements in the Middle East .
Recent reporting by the Washington Post revealed that military and political leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public about the course of the war in Afghanistan — and it barely made a dent in domestic politics .
Nobody should have illusions about Sanders somehow unilaterally ushering in a bold new era of world peace , but he is by far the most likely person in the race to push back against expansive militarism — and that ’ s worth considering .
Foreign policy isn ’ t the only hidebound institution he is poised to shake up , either .
Monetary policy attracts even less attention in the primary than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post surveyed the candidates ’ views on interest rates when it asked whether the Federal Reserve ’ s current rates are too high .
The results were fascinating .
Buttigieg , Biden , and Warren all demurred , citing the dogma that the Federal Reserve should stay independent of politics ( though Warren , to her credit , made a strong statement in a subsequent speech on the economy about the need to emphasize full employment ) .
Sanders , by contrast , offered a clear statement , saying he “ disagreed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest rates in 2015-2018 ” because “ raising rates should be done as a last resort , not to fight phantom inflation.
” Sens .
Cory Booker and Michael Bennet , two minor candidates who aren ’ t really seen as Sanders ’ s fellow travelers when it comes to ideology , had somewhat similar things to say .
“ Historically , the Federal Reserve raises interest rates when the economy has reached full employment , ” Booker said , adding that “ our economy ’ s not there yet.
” Bennet nodded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ has often fallen short of its full employment mandate , which has harmed workers , especially those trying to make ends meet.
” He also said that his appointees to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors “ will prioritize the employment mandate and consider every tool available to meet that mandate.
” Unfortunately , this is a niche issue many people don ’ t care about .
Almost everyone does and should care about “ the economy , ” though , and the main government institution responsible for the state of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s more , this is a particularly important issue precisely because it ’ s a little bit obscure .
Any Democratic president ’ s Environmental Protection Agency director will come from the universe of “ people the main environmental groups like and for whom moderate senators are willing to vote , ” because that ’ s how politics works .
But there are no strong interest groups that lobby around monetary policy .
A president who wants to install well-qualified people inclined to side with Sanders/Bennet/Booker will probably be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t care ( like Obama ) will probably end up appointing people whose views are all over the map ( which is indeed what happened with Obama ) .
These aren ’ t the only two issues in America that matter , but they ’ re the main ones in which different nominees are likely to lead to different results .
Almost everything that ’ s currently being debated , by contrast , is mostly pointless .
At the end of the day , Sanders ’ s record is not nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His “ revolution ” rhetoric doesn ’ t make sense to me , but he ’ s been an effective legislator for a long time , and he knows how to get things done — and how hard it is to get them done .
Some of his big ideas are not so hot on the merits , but it ’ s not worth worrying about them because the political revolution is so unrealistic .
And on a couple of issues where the next president will probably have a fair amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in good ways .
He ’ s perhaps not an ideal electability choice , but his track record on winning elections is solid and his early polling is pretty good .
There ’ s no particular reason to think he ’ d be weaker than the other three top contenders , and at least some reason to think he ’ d be stronger .
A Sanders presidency should generate an emphasis on full employment , a tendency to shy away from launching wars , an executive branch that actually tries to enforce environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a situation in which bills that both progressives and moderates can agree on get to become law .
That ’ s a formula the vast majority of mainstream Democrats should be able to embrace .
Lots of moderate Democrats nonetheless find it annoying that Sanders and some of his followers are so committed to painting mainstream Democrats in such dark hues .
And it is annoying !
But annoying people won ’ t stop being annoying if he loses the nomination .
If anything , they will be more annoying than ever as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospect of beating Trump .
But if Sanders wins , partisan Democrats who just want to beat Trump will magically stop finding Sanders superfans annoying — the causes will be aligned , and the vast majority of people who want Trump out of the White House can collaborate in peace .
That leaves us where we started .
The president really does have a good deal of latitude in conducting national security policy .
If it ’ s very important to you that the US maintain a hawkish military posture in the Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to worry a lot about Sanders .
But most likely , a Sanders presidency will simply mean that young progressive activists are less sullen and dyspeptic about the incremental policy gains that would result from any Democrat occupying the presidency .
It ’ ll also mean a foreign policy that errs a bit more on the side of restraint compared with what you ’ d get from anyone else in the field , as well as an approach to monetary policy that errs a bit more on the side of full employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal , and you don ’ t need to be a socialist to see it .

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s win in New Hampshire following his quasi-win in Iowa dashes the Democratic Party establishment’s big hope of the past four years — that he’d just fade away.
Alarm, clearly visible in a range of mainstream Democratic circles over the past several weeks, is now going to kick into overdrive.
But this frame of mind is fundamentally misguided. For all the agita around his all-or-nothing rhetoric, his behavior as a longtime member of Congress (and before that as a mayor) suggests a much more pragmatic approach to actual legislating than some of the wilder “political revolution” rhetoric would suggest.
On the vast majority of issues, a Sanders administration would deliver pretty much the same policy outcomes as any other Democrat. The two biggest exceptions to this, foreign policy and monetary policy, happen to be where Sanders takes issue with an entrenched conventional wisdom that is deeply problematic.
Some of the anti-Sanders sentiment is driven by pique at his followers’ most obnoxious behavior. But it would be better to bring these voters into the tent than leave them outside attacking inward.
Sanders winning the popular vote in the Iowa caucuses is hardly the end of the 2020 Democratic primary. Joe Biden remains a formidable contender; there are many delegate-rich states with larger African American populations that should be more favorable to him, and it’s been known for a long time that the idiosyncrasies of the caucus structure give Sanders an edge he won’t have in future primaries.
And, obviously, nominating a 78-year-old self-described socialist is a risky move and not an outcome that would have been cooked up by political scientists working in an electability lab. But at this point, all the main contenders have some electability risks. Sanders comes with a strong electoral track record in practice, and he brings some unique assets to the table as someone who appeals precisely to the most fractious elements of the anti-Trump coalition.
Sanders has a strong electoral track record
The specter of “socialism” hangs over the Sanders campaign, terrifying mainstream Democrats with the reality that when asked about it by pollsters, most Americans reject the idea. Given that Sanders himself tends to anchor his politics in Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal, it seems as though everyone involved would be better off if he labeled himself a New Deal Democrat and let us revert to the normal pattern where Republicans call mainstream liberals “socialists” and liberals push back rather than accepting an unpopular label.
All that said, in current head-to-head polling matchups with Donald Trump, Sanders does well and is normally winning. Skeptics worry whether that lead will hold up against the sure-to-come cavalcade of attack ads from Trump. It’s a reasonable concern.
But it’s worth underscoring that Sanders’s actual electoral track record in Vermont is strong. Winning elections in Vermont is not, per se, incredibly impressive. There are plenty of left-wing Democrats who win elections while underperforming simply because they run in such blue states (Elizabeth Warren fits that mold), as well as plenty of moderate Democrats who overperform in tough races even while losing (former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is a good example).
Sanders, however, overperforms in his easy races. He consistently runs ahead of Democratic presidential nominees in his home state, which suggests he knows how to overcome the “socialist” label, get people to vote for him despite some eccentricities, and even peel off some Republican votes.
He first got to Congress by winning a tough three-way race in 1990, when Vermont was an only slightly blue-leaning state. He went on to consistently run ahead of Democratic presidential campaigns as a candidate for Vermont’s at-large seat in the US House of Representatives.
In 1992, Sanders got 58 percent to Bill Clinton’s 46 percent (it was a strong state for presidential candidate Ross Perot, but Sanders also faced a “third-party” challenge from a Democrat).
In 1996, Sanders got 55 percent to Clinton’s 53 percent.
In 2000, he got 69 percent to Al Gore’s 51 percent.
In 2004, he got 67 percent to John Kerry’s 59 percent.
Sanders got elected to the Senate in 2006, so he wasn’t on the ballot in 2008 or 2016. But in 2012, he won 71 percent to Obama’s 67 percent.
This is not definitive proof of Sanders’s skills. But it would have been easy for Vermonters who had doubts about Sanders to cast meaningless protest votes for his opponents.
Instead, Sanders appears to be able to make lemonade out of the whole “not officially a Democrat” thing by getting the votes of some non-Republicans who backed Perot in the 1990s and, more recently, other third-party candidates such as Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, and Gary Johnson. Indeed, one noteworthy thing about Sanders is that in head-to-head polling matchups against Trump, he tends to do better than you’d expect simply by looking at his favorable ratings.
And, critically, Sanders’s popularity seems to be concentrated among certain blocks of persuadable voters (likely those considering a third-party vote), while a chunk of those who disapprove of Sanders are hardcore partisan Democrats who don’t like his lack of party spirit but will vote for him anyway.
Sanders knows how to govern effectively
Mainstream Democrats also worry at times that Sanders would simply prove too extreme to get things done as president. And, indeed, on occasion his campaign lapses into rhetoric that suggests an unreasonable aversion to compromise.
There is no “middle ground” when it comes to climate policy. If we don't commit to fully transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels, we will doom future generations. Fighting climate change must be our priority, whether fossil fuel billionaires like it or not. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 10, 2019
But it’s worth remembering that Sanders is a 30-year veteran of the US Congress, not a 20-something hardliner with a red rose on his Twitter bio. We can evaluate his actual track record as a politician.
In that capacity, Sanders has sometimes staked out lonely, courageous stands (against the Iraq War or the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred same-sex couples from enjoying the same federal benefits as married couples). He’s also frequently cast meaningless protest votes against big bipartisan compromises that sail through with huge majorities. But he’s never pulled a Freedom Caucus-type stunt and refused to cast a pragmatic vote in favor of half a loaf.
Sanders has always talked about his blue-sky political ideals as something he believed in passionately, but he separated that idealism from his practical legislative work, which was grounded in vote counts. He voted for President Barack Obama’s Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill in 2009, and again for the Affordable Care Act in 2010. He voted for the Dodd-Frank bill and every other contentious piece of Obama-era legislation.
Indeed, this has been somewhat forgotten in the wake of the 2016 primary campaign: While Obama was in the White House, it was Sen. Elizabeth Warren who attracted the ire of administration officials and congressional leaders by occasionally spiking executive branch nominees or blowing up bipartisan deals.
The policy area in which Sanders has had the most practical influence is veterans-related issues, as he chaired the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee for a two-year span, during which Congress enacted substantive reform to the veterans’ health system.
Given the objective constellation of political forces at the time, this required bipartisan support, so Sanders (working mainly with Republican Sen. John McCain) produced a bipartisan bill that, in exchange for a substantial boost in funding, made some concessions to conservatives in creating “private options” for veterans to seek care outside of the publicly run Department of Veterans Affairs.
It’s fine if you want to be annoyed that Sanders’s self-presentation as a revolutionary who will sweep all practical obstacles aside is at odds with his reality as an experienced legislator who does typical senator stuff in a typical way. But there’s no reason to be worried that Sanders is a deluded radical who doesn’t understand how the government works.
Sanders’s annoying fans count in his favor
One of the odd developments of the social media era is that the extremely online set — which is not most people but does include a huge number of journalists, think tankers, activists, and other influential people — reacts as much to their perceptions of different candidates’ support bases as to the candidates themselves.
MSNBC host Joy Reid, for example, is a frequent Bernieworld antagonist and over the weekend posted a poll showing that Sanders fans were much less likely than Biden or Warren supporters to commit to backing the eventual nominee come what may.
Poll: Will you support the Democratic nominee even if it is not your candidate? #AMJoy pic.twitter.com/Cb1IwxadLT — AM Joy w/Joy Reid (@amjoyshow) February 1, 2020
Her followers, in turn, reacted by castigating Sanders voters as “useless” and “a cult-like following,” while one observed this “looks bad for Sanders.”
John Weaver, one of the leading Never Trump ex-Republican personalities, sniffed, “one of them isn’t a Democrat.”
One of them isn't a Democrat — John Weaver (@jwgop) February 2, 2020
It is all well and good to be annoyed by people who will not commit to voting Trump out of office regardless of the identity of the Democratic Party nominee. But if you are a person who worries about electability, which many highly partisan Democrats are, then you are by definition a person who worries about courting the votes of people who will not commit to voting Trump out of office regardless of the identity of the Democratic Party nominee. The fact that Sanders has unusually strong support among people like that is a strength of his campaign, not a weakness.
Whenever I make this point, mainstream Democrats get grouchy and start grumbling about how you don’t negotiate with terrorists or give in to your toddler when he’s throwing a fit.
Those are funny analogies, but any effort to court swing voters has that same basic structure. Party loyalists are asked to make concessions to the views of people who are not loyalists, precisely because the non-loyalists’ irresponsibility and flightiness gives them more objective leverage. But if you pull it off successfully, what party loyalists get in exchange is partisan electoral victories — exactly the thing that, by definition, is most important to party loyalists.
If you’re a loyalist, it’s natural to feel grumpy about the non-loyalists who love Sanders, but if you’re trying to win the election you need to get the votes of non-loyalists. By the same token, if you’re annoyed by Sanders’s Twitter’s attacks on mainstream Democrats, you’ll start finding them a lot less annoying if he gets the nomination and they start directing that energy against Trump and the GOP.
Sanders has some good ideas
Last but by no means least, some of Sanders’s out-of-the-mainstream ideas are good and correct.
Some of his ideas are not so good, but it’s important to understand that on the vast majority of topics, the policy outputs of a Sanders administration just wouldn’t be that different from those of a Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg administration. Whether a new president promises continuity with Obama or a break with neoliberalism, the constraints will realistically come from Congress, where the median member is all but certain to be more conservative than anyone in the Democratic field.
On foreign policy, by contrast, the president is less constrained, and Sanders’s real desire to challenge aspects of the bipartisan foreign policy consensus makes a difference. He’s much more critical of Israel than most people in national politics, he’s a leading critic of the alliance with Saudi Arabia, and he’s generally skeptical of America’s expansive military posture.
These ideas are coded as “extreme” in Washington, where there’s significant bipartisan investment in the status quo. But polls show that most voters question the narratives of American exceptionalism, favor a reduced global military footprint and less defense spending, and are skeptical of the merits of profligate arms sales.
In practice, essentially every president ends up governing with more continuity than his campaign rhetoric suggested (Trump hasn’t broken up NATO; Obama never sat down with the leadership of Iran), so the differences are likely to be more modest than the rhetorical ones.
But differences are welcome and needed. The misbegotten invasion of Iraq should have, but largely didn’t, shake up the establishment “blob” that’s obsessed with pursuing US military hegemony and endless entanglements in the Middle East. Recent reporting by the Washington Post revealed that military and political leaders across three administrations have been lying to the public about the course of the war in Afghanistan — and it barely made a dent in domestic politics.
Nobody should have illusions about Sanders somehow unilaterally ushering in a bold new era of world peace, but he is by far the most likely person in the race to push back against expansive militarism — and that’s worth considering.
Foreign policy isn’t the only hidebound institution he is poised to shake up, either.
Pro-worker monetary policy could make a real difference
Monetary policy attracts even less attention in the primary than does foreign policy. But the Washington Post surveyed the candidates’ views on interest rates when it asked whether the Federal Reserve’s current rates are too high. The results were fascinating.
Buttigieg, Biden, and Warren all demurred, citing the dogma that the Federal Reserve should stay independent of politics (though Warren, to her credit, made a strong statement in a subsequent speech on the economy about the need to emphasize full employment).
Sanders, by contrast, offered a clear statement, saying he “disagreed with the Fed’s decision to raise interest rates in 2015-2018” because “raising rates should be done as a last resort, not to fight phantom inflation.”
Sens. Cory Booker and Michael Bennet, two minor candidates who aren’t really seen as Sanders’s fellow travelers when it comes to ideology, had somewhat similar things to say. “Historically, the Federal Reserve raises interest rates when the economy has reached full employment,” Booker said, adding that “our economy’s not there yet.”
Bennet nodded toward independence before saying that the Fed “has often fallen short of its full employment mandate, which has harmed workers, especially those trying to make ends meet.” He also said that his appointees to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors “will prioritize the employment mandate and consider every tool available to meet that mandate.”
Unfortunately, this is a niche issue many people don’t care about. Almost everyone does and should care about “the economy,” though, and the main government institution responsible for the state of “the economy” is the Fed.
What’s more, this is a particularly important issue precisely because it’s a little bit obscure. Any Democratic president’s Environmental Protection Agency director will come from the universe of “people the main environmental groups like and for whom moderate senators are willing to vote,” because that’s how politics works. But there are no strong interest groups that lobby around monetary policy.
A president who wants to install well-qualified people inclined to side with Sanders/Bennet/Booker will probably be able to do so, but a president who doesn’t care (like Obama) will probably end up appointing people whose views are all over the map (which is indeed what happened with Obama).
These aren’t the only two issues in America that matter, but they’re the main ones in which different nominees are likely to lead to different results. Almost everything that’s currently being debated, by contrast, is mostly pointless.
Stop freaking out
At the end of the day, Sanders’s record is not nearly as scary as many establishment Democrats fear. His “revolution” rhetoric doesn’t make sense to me, but he’s been an effective legislator for a long time, and he knows how to get things done — and how hard it is to get them done.
Some of his big ideas are not so hot on the merits, but it’s not worth worrying about them because the political revolution is so unrealistic. And on a couple of issues where the next president will probably have a fair amount of latitude, Sanders breaks from the pack in good ways. He’s perhaps not an ideal electability choice, but his track record on winning elections is solid and his early polling is pretty good. There’s no particular reason to think he’d be weaker than the other three top contenders, and at least some reason to think he’d be stronger.
A Sanders presidency should generate an emphasis on full employment, a tendency to shy away from launching wars, an executive branch that actually tries to enforce environmental protection and civil rights laws, and a situation in which bills that both progressives and moderates can agree on get to become law.
That’s a formula the vast majority of mainstream Democrats should be able to embrace.
Lots of moderate Democrats nonetheless find it annoying that Sanders and some of his followers are so committed to painting mainstream Democrats in such dark hues. And it is annoying! But annoying people won’t stop being annoying if he loses the nomination. If anything, they will be more annoying than ever as some refuse to get enthusiastic about the prospect of beating Trump. But if Sanders wins, partisan Democrats who just want to beat Trump will magically stop finding Sanders superfans annoying — the causes will be aligned, and the vast majority of people who want Trump out of the White House can collaborate in peace.
That leaves us where we started. The president really does have a good deal of latitude in conducting national security policy. If it’s very important to you that the US maintain a hawkish military posture in the Middle East, that’s a good reason to worry a lot about Sanders.
But most likely, a Sanders presidency will simply mean that young progressive activists are less sullen and dyspeptic about the incremental policy gains that would result from any Democrat occupying the presidency. It’ll also mean a foreign policy that errs a bit more on the side of restraint compared with what you’d get from anyone else in the field, as well as an approach to monetary policy that errs a bit more on the side of full employment. That’s a pretty good deal, and you don’t need to be a socialist to see it.
Listen to Today, Explained
New Hampshire felt the Bern at the New Hampshire primary. Vox’s Ella Nilsen reports from Bernie Sanders’s victory party and Vox’s Matthew Yglesias makes the case for President Sanders.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and Stitcher.


vox--2020-02-11--Bernie Sanders just won the all-important New Hampshire primary

MANCHESTER , New Hampshire — Bernie Sanders finished what he started in New Hampshire four years ago .
Though the final vote might have been closer than he liked , Sanders is the projected winner of the New Hampshire primary , according to Decision Desk HQ .
Importantly , it looks like he and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg are tied in the delegate count .
Decision Desk HQ ’ s preliminary estimates show that Sanders and Buttigieg will both get 9 delegates ; Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar is estimated to get 6 .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent senator and progressive icon from Vermont momentum heading into Nevada and South Carolina .
He has a long way to go before securing the nomination , but claiming victories in Iowa and New Hampshire puts him in an enviable position moving forward .
“ Let me take the opportunity to thank the people of New Hampshire for a great victory tonight .
Let me say tonight this victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump , ” Sanders said at his victory speech at Southern New Hampshire University in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the People ” by John Lennon .
It ’ s another win here for Sanders , who shocked the Democratic political establishment in 2016 with a 22-point win over Hillary Clinton .
Over more than a month of covering the race here , I often heard him talk about his “ gratitude ” toward the state ’ s voters for uplifting and spreading his ideas nationwide in 2016 .
Sanders has been the favorite to win here for the past month , but there were doubts earlier this year whether he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive 7,500-person rally on Monday night at the University of New Hampshire with fellow progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) and the Strokes .
People holding red “ Take the Power Back ” signs stood behind American flag bunting , and the hockey stadium reverberated with roars from the crowd when Sanders talked about a Green New Deal to address climate change and income inequality .
What unites Sanders supporters is devotion to a man who hasn ’ t wavered on progressive issues in more than 30 years .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was mayor of Burlington , ” supporter and volunteer Susan Lawrence of Claremont told me recently .
“ We need 100 Bernies to save this country.
” Now he ’ s about to head into Nevada and South Carolina with momentum .
Though he suffered among voters of color in 2016 , his 2020 campaign has already put a lot of work into expanding their nonwhite voter base around the country .
He currently leads with Latino voters in the polls and is cutting into former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his New Hampshire election night party in favor of campaigning in South Carolina on Tuesday , and Buttigieg and newly ascendant former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg look poised to gain from Biden ’ s fall in the polls .
The Sanders campaign has had its ups and downs in New Hampshire this year .
But months of organizing and Tuesday ’ s win put him on a solid upward trajectory .
Among Sanders ’ s allies , there ’ s a sense that he ’ s never been so close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 was this insurgent candidate , this pie in the sky , this person , ” said former New Hampshire AFL-CIO president Mark MacKenzie .
“ He was coming up with stuff , $ 15-per-hour minimum wage , free college — people were saying , ‘ This guy ’ s nuts.
’ Now , I look at him , he looks like the president.
” Back in the summer , the Sanders New Hampshire campaign was in trouble .
Some high-profile Sanders supporters from 2016 had switched their support to fellow progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was evident in the state , and the media narrative was that she could successfully consolidate progressive voters — and possibly win the primary .
While some of Sanders ’ s 2016 supporters were shopping around for a new candidate , others were sounding the alarm to the national campaign : Something was going horribly wrong in a state where they felt Sanders should have an advantage .
“ My concern was Elizabeth Warren was out-organizing the Bernie Sanders campaign for the first three months of the campaign , ” said Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a well-known progressive operative in the state who initially signed on as a senior adviser to the New Hampshire operation in 2020 .
While national leadership was focused on Biden and building up its California operation , Ehrenberg suddenly feared Sanders was going to get defeated in his own backyard come February .
The concern was if Sanders lost in the state that launched him in 2016 , it could irreparably damage the campaign .
“ I was talking about competing on the ground for the leadership of the progressive movement in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , ” Ehrenberg said .
The Sanders team had little presence at the New Hampshire Democratic Party convention in the summer , especially compared to the army of Warren supporters who showed up .
Basic organizational tools were lacking , and New Hampshire supporters who had helped usher in Sanders ’ s massive 2016 win felt the national campaign wasn ’ t seeking their advice .
The campaign switched things up in September , bringing on trusted 2016 staffer Shannon Jackson as the new New Hampshire state director .
Jackson is universally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ He turned so many things around , ” said Janice Kelble , a political organizer at the American Postal Workers Union in New Hampshire and a Sanders backer in 2016 and 2020 .
“ We took a step back for a while , it took some recovery time .
But I think Shannon has been really , really focused , and I think he ’ s 100 percent behind it .
That ’ s clear to me , it ’ s not just a job.
” The Sanders campaign has built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; Jackson told me the campaign knocked on upward of 475,000 doors before its final get-out-the-vote weekend ahead of Tuesday .
Last Saturday alone , volunteers knocked on 150,000 doors .
“ The best way [ Sanders ] feels to get our message out is person-to-person , ” Jackson told me Saturday at a canvass launch in Manchester , New Hampshire ’ s largest city .
“ And that ’ s why , again , any way we cut this campaign , it ’ s people-powered .
I think that ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those personal stories.
” Indeed , at the Manchester bar Jackson was in , volunteers literally ran out of nearby door-knocking turf by mid-afternoon because so many had gone out in the morning .
“ This race is much different than 2016 ; it ’ s because we have been able to build upon 2016 , ” Jackson said .
Sanders has a path to the Democratic nomination The most persistent question dogging Sanders in 2020 is whether he ’ d be able to expand on his 2016 base of young voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nationwide .
New Hampshire is a tough test case for whether the Vermont senator can appeal to nonwhite voters ; it ’ s 90 percent white .
However , the Sanders campaign here has been making a coordinated effort to appeal to the state ’ s refugee community in Nashua and Manchester , as well as its rural , economically depressed northern area .
“ We ’ ve done a lot of work in the New American communities , Manchester , Nashua specifically , ” Jackson said .
“ I love our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear about the stories on the doors , and there ’ s many , many times our organizers [ are ] saying , ‘ Here ’ s a story I ’ ve got about , we ’ ve never had our door knocked on.
’ ” Sanders ’ s theory of winning elections relies on expanding the electorate and getting traditionally neglected groups to turn out .
Time spent organizing satellite caucuses in mosques and among immigrant factory workers helped juice turnout for the senator in the Iowa caucuses .
This strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sanders is the leading 2020 candidate among Latino voters , which is boosting his profile in the February 22 Nevada caucuses and delegate-rich California , which votes on Super Tuesday .
Biden might have a big lead among black voters as a whole , but the senator from Vermont has made significant inroads with younger black voters ; a Morning Consult poll released Tuesday showed Sanders beating Biden among black voters ages 18 to 29 by 23 points , as well as a slim 2-point lead among black voters ages 30 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign had a reputation for attracting a disproportionately white coalition , that has changed in a big way this time around .
Younger voters and people of color may be the key to Sanders ’ s path to the nomination .
A New Hampshire victory only helps him get there .
“ If Sanders keeps winning , I could see Democrats in other states getting on board , ” said University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala .
“ I feel like we were saying the same thing about Trump four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The more you win , the better that argument becomes .
”

If you buy something from a Vox link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement .
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Bernie Sanders finished what he started in New Hampshire four years ago.
Though the final vote might have been closer than he liked, Sanders is the projected winner of the New Hampshire primary, according to Decision Desk HQ. Importantly, it looks like he and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg are tied in the delegate count. Decision Desk HQ’s preliminary estimates show that Sanders and Buttigieg will both get 9 delegates; Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar is estimated to get 6.
This is the second early state to give the independent senator and progressive icon from Vermont momentum heading into Nevada and South Carolina. He has a long way to go before securing the nomination, but claiming victories in Iowa and New Hampshire puts him in an enviable position moving forward.
“Let me take the opportunity to thank the people of New Hampshire for a great victory tonight. Let me say tonight this victory here is the beginning of the end for Donald Trump,” Sanders said at his victory speech at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, walking on to “Power to the People” by John Lennon.
It’s another win here for Sanders, who shocked the Democratic political establishment in 2016 with a 22-point win over Hillary Clinton. Over more than a month of covering the race here, I often heard him talk about his “gratitude” toward the state’s voters for uplifting and spreading his ideas nationwide in 2016. Sanders has been the favorite to win here for the past month, but there were doubts earlier this year whether he could pull it off.
Sanders headlined a massive 7,500-person rally on Monday night at the University of New Hampshire with fellow progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and the Strokes. People holding red “Take the Power Back” signs stood behind American flag bunting, and the hockey stadium reverberated with roars from the crowd when Sanders talked about a Green New Deal to address climate change and income inequality.
What unites Sanders supporters is devotion to a man who hasn’t wavered on progressive issues in more than 30 years. “I’ve been following Bernie since he was mayor of Burlington,” supporter and volunteer Susan Lawrence of Claremont told me recently. “We need 100 Bernies to save this country.”
Now he’s about to head into Nevada and South Carolina with momentum. Though he suffered among voters of color in 2016, his 2020 campaign has already put a lot of work into expanding their nonwhite voter base around the country. He currently leads with Latino voters in the polls and is cutting into former Vice President Joe Biden’s early lead with black voters.
Related Live results for the New Hampshire Democratic primary
Biden abandoned his New Hampshire election night party in favor of campaigning in South Carolina on Tuesday, and Buttigieg and newly ascendant former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg look poised to gain from Biden’s fall in the polls.
The Sanders campaign has had its ups and downs in New Hampshire this year. But months of organizing and Tuesday’s win put him on a solid upward trajectory. Among Sanders’s allies, there’s a sense that he’s never been so close to the nomination.
“I think Bernie in 2016 was this insurgent candidate, this pie in the sky, this person,” said former New Hampshire AFL-CIO president Mark MacKenzie. “He was coming up with stuff, $15-per-hour minimum wage, free college — people were saying, ‘This guy’s nuts.’ Now, I look at him, he looks like the president.”
How Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire
Back in the summer, the Sanders New Hampshire campaign was in trouble.
Some high-profile Sanders supporters from 2016 had switched their support to fellow progressive Elizabeth Warren. Warren’s momentum was evident in the state, and the media narrative was that she could successfully consolidate progressive voters — and possibly win the primary.
While some of Sanders’s 2016 supporters were shopping around for a new candidate, others were sounding the alarm to the national campaign: Something was going horribly wrong in a state where they felt Sanders should have an advantage.
“My concern was Elizabeth Warren was out-organizing the Bernie Sanders campaign for the first three months of the campaign,” said Sanders’s 2016 political director Kurt Ehrenberg, a well-known progressive operative in the state who initially signed on as a senior adviser to the New Hampshire operation in 2020. While national leadership was focused on Biden and building up its California operation, Ehrenberg suddenly feared Sanders was going to get defeated in his own backyard come February.
The concern was if Sanders lost in the state that launched him in 2016, it could irreparably damage the campaign.
“I was talking about competing on the ground for the leadership of the progressive movement in New Hampshire that Warren was taking away from us,” Ehrenberg said. The Sanders team had little presence at the New Hampshire Democratic Party convention in the summer, especially compared to the army of Warren supporters who showed up. Basic organizational tools were lacking, and New Hampshire supporters who had helped usher in Sanders’s massive 2016 win felt the national campaign wasn’t seeking their advice.
The campaign switched things up in September, bringing on trusted 2016 staffer Shannon Jackson as the new New Hampshire state director. Jackson is universally praised by Sanders allies in the state.
“He turned so many things around,” said Janice Kelble, a political organizer at the American Postal Workers Union in New Hampshire and a Sanders backer in 2016 and 2020. “We took a step back for a while, it took some recovery time. But I think Shannon has been really, really focused, and I think he’s 100 percent behind it. That’s clear to me, it’s not just a job.”
The Sanders campaign has built its campaign around voter contact and door-knocking; Jackson told me the campaign knocked on upward of 475,000 doors before its final get-out-the-vote weekend ahead of Tuesday. Last Saturday alone, volunteers knocked on 150,000 doors.
“The best way [Sanders] feels to get our message out is person-to-person,” Jackson told me Saturday at a canvass launch in Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest city. “And that’s why, again, any way we cut this campaign, it’s people-powered. I think that’s what really, really matters is those conversations and those personal stories.”
Indeed, at the Manchester bar Jackson was in, volunteers literally ran out of nearby door-knocking turf by mid-afternoon because so many had gone out in the morning.
“This race is much different than 2016; it’s because we have been able to build upon 2016,” Jackson said.
Sanders has a path to the Democratic nomination
The most persistent question dogging Sanders in 2020 is whether he’d be able to expand on his 2016 base of young voters and progressives, both in New Hampshire and nationwide.
New Hampshire is a tough test case for whether the Vermont senator can appeal to nonwhite voters; it’s 90 percent white. However, the Sanders campaign here has been making a coordinated effort to appeal to the state’s refugee community in Nashua and Manchester, as well as its rural, economically depressed northern area.
“We’ve done a lot of work in the New American communities, Manchester, Nashua specifically,” Jackson said. “I love our check-out calls every night where I get to hear about the stories on the doors, and there’s many, many times our organizers [are] saying, ‘Here’s a story I’ve got about, we’ve never had our door knocked on.’”
Sanders’s theory of winning elections relies on expanding the electorate and getting traditionally neglected groups to turn out. Time spent organizing satellite caucuses in mosques and among immigrant factory workers helped juice turnout for the senator in the Iowa caucuses.
This strategy goes far beyond the first two states. Sanders is the leading 2020 candidate among Latino voters, which is boosting his profile in the February 22 Nevada caucuses and delegate-rich California, which votes on Super Tuesday. Biden might have a big lead among black voters as a whole, but the senator from Vermont has made significant inroads with younger black voters; a Morning Consult poll released Tuesday showed Sanders beating Biden among black voters ages 18 to 29 by 23 points, as well as a slim 2-point lead among black voters ages 30 to 44.
Though Sanders’s 2016 campaign had a reputation for attracting a disproportionately white coalition, that has changed in a big way this time around. Younger voters and people of color may be the key to Sanders’s path to the nomination. A New Hampshire victory only helps him get there.
“If Sanders keeps winning, I could see Democrats in other states getting on board,” said University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala. “I feel like we were saying the same thing about Trump four years ago, there was a ceiling. The more you win, the better that argument becomes.”
Listen to Today, Explained
New Hampshire felt the Bern at the New Hampshire primary. Vox’s Ella Nilsen reports from Bernie Sanders’s victory party and Vox’s Matthew Yglesias makes the case for President Sanders.
Subscribe to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.


vox--2020-02-11--Why New Hampshire should not be the first primary, in one chart

Let ’ s give New Hampshire the tiniest bit of credit .
Unlike the Iowa Democratic Party , New Hampshire appears capable of counting votes in a fair and expeditious manner , and the rules more or less make sense .
No one involved in the New Hampshire primary ever needs to utter the words “ state delegate equivalent.
” But there is one way in which New Hampshire very closely resembles Iowa , which brings us to this chart : CNN ’ s exit polls were able to determine which candidates white voters in the Democratic primary preferred .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the network ’ s exit pollsters couldn ’ t even find enough black , Hispanic , or Asian voters to reach reasonable conclusions about those voters ’ candidate preferences — at least for much of the night , as CNN later updated with data for Hispanic voters and nonwhite voters as a whole .
New Hampshire is even whiter than Iowa : Just under 91 percent of Iowans are white , as compared to more than 93 percent of people from New Hampshire .
New Hampshire also bears little resemblance to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways .
There are no major cities in New Hampshire , for example .
The largest city in the state , Manchester , has a population of about 113,000 .
To put that number in perspective , there are more than 50 cities in California with more people than Manchester , New Hampshire — including such metropolises as Roseville , Thousand Oaks , and Visalia .
Iowa and New Hampshire ’ s special status , moreover , matters a great deal , as voters in early states are more likely to impact the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process .
According to a study by economists Brian Knight and Nathan Schiff , “ an Iowa or New Hampshire voter had the same impact as five Super Tuesday voters put together.
” The purpose of a Democratic presidential primary , of course , is to choose a Democratic candidate for president .
But the Democratic Party is increasingly a party of racial diversity and of urban voters .
It makes no sense for the party to begin its nominating process with two states that bear little resemblance to Democrats nationwide .

Let’s give New Hampshire the tiniest bit of credit. Unlike the Iowa Democratic Party, New Hampshire appears capable of counting votes in a fair and expeditious manner, and the rules more or less make sense. No one involved in the New Hampshire primary ever needs to utter the words “state delegate equivalent.”
But there is one way in which New Hampshire very closely resembles Iowa, which brings us to this chart:
This CNN NH Exit Poll table really says everything you need to know about NH demographics. https://t.co/bbkYmX8xFI pic.twitter.com/gvFUsNtDrf — Pippa Norris (@PippaN15) February 12, 2020
CNN’s exit polls were able to determine which candidates white voters in the Democratic primary preferred. But the state is so overwhelmingly white that the network’s exit pollsters couldn’t even find enough black, Hispanic, or Asian voters to reach reasonable conclusions about those voters’ candidate preferences — at least for much of the night, as CNN later updated with data for Hispanic voters and nonwhite voters as a whole.
New Hampshire is even whiter than Iowa: Just under 91 percent of Iowans are white, as compared to more than 93 percent of people from New Hampshire.
New Hampshire also bears little resemblance to the nation as a whole in other important ways. There are no major cities in New Hampshire, for example. The largest city in the state, Manchester, has a population of about 113,000.
To put that number in perspective, there are more than 50 cities in California with more people than Manchester, New Hampshire — including such metropolises as Roseville, Thousand Oaks, and Visalia.
Iowa and New Hampshire’s special status, moreover, matters a great deal, as voters in early states are more likely to impact the race than people who vote later in the process. According to a study by economists Brian Knight and Nathan Schiff, “an Iowa or New Hampshire voter had the same impact as five Super Tuesday voters put together.”
The purpose of a Democratic presidential primary, of course, is to choose a Democratic candidate for president. But the Democratic Party is increasingly a party of racial diversity and of urban voters. It makes no sense for the party to begin its nominating process with two states that bear little resemblance to Democrats nationwide.


vox--2020-02-11--The next Democratic debate is only 8 days away

Democratic debates are hitting rapid-fire as the 2020 primary unfolds .
Next up : Wednesday , February 19 , in Las Vegas .
And given how rapidly the race has shifted after voting in Iowa and New Hampshire , the stakes are going to be high .
The Democratic National Committee ’ s scheme for the debates in January and February is tied to the order of primary voting .
Ahead of the Iowa caucuses , there was a debate in Des Moines , and before the New Hampshire primaries , a debate in Manchester .
Now , we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada caucuses on Saturday , February 22 , and then a debate in Charleston , South Carolina , on Tuesday , February 25 , before the primaries in the state on Saturday , February 29 .
NBC News and MSNBC will host the Las Vegas debate , marking NBC ’ s third go at Democratic debates this election cycle .
The lead-up to the Las Vegas debate is already dramatic , due to the DNC ’ s decision to switch up qualifying rules around individual donations .
For prior contests , the committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of individual donors in order to make the stage .
This time around , they ’ re scrapping it , paving the way for self-funding billionaire Mike Bloomberg to make the stage .
Now , candidates have to hit either a delegate or polling threshold : They have to have landed at least one pledged delegate for the Democratic National Convention out of Iowa or New Hampshire , or they have to get either 10 percent or more support in at least four national , South Carolina , and/or Nevada polls , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls in South Carolina and/or Nevada .
Polls that take place between January 15 and February 18 will be considered .
Thus far , former Vice President Joe Biden , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , and Sens .
Amy Klobuchar , Bernie Sanders , and Elizabeth Warren have qualified .
But Bloomberg , who is not competing in Iowa or New Hampshire but who is rising in the polls , could get there soon .
As Vox ’ s Katelyn Burns pointed out , candidates on and off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the race — have raised some concerns about the DNC ’ s rule change that appears to benefit Bloomberg , especially given the committee ’ s refusal to alter its criteria in the past when candidates asked : “ To now change the rules in the middle of the game to accommodate Mike Bloomberg , who is trying to buy his way into the Democratic nomination , is wrong , ” Jeff Weaver , a senior adviser to Sanders , told the New York Times .
“ That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Yang — who has advocated for relaxing the requirements before , albeit to encourage diversity on the debate stage — made an even more pointed critique .
Yang accused the party of not only tailoring the debate criteria to include the billionaire , but suggested Bloomberg has tried to avoid the scrutiny debates can bring .
“ The truth is I don ’ t think Mike particularly wants to debate , ” he said in a tweet late Friday .
The other candidates who haven ’ t yet qualified for the Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tulsi Gabbard , Deval Patrick , and Tom Steyer .
If it feels like this is moving fast , it ’ s because it is As a political reporter who very much enjoys her nights and weekends — especially Friday nights and Saturdays — I feel confident saying that the debate and primary schedule this month is pretty intense .
( Though voting on weekends is good for democracy ! )
And it doesn ’ t slow down once February ends .
We ’ ve got Super Tuesday on March 3 and plenty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good chunk of delegates are up for grabs .
The contest isn ’ t just ramping up logistically — on the debate stage , on the campaign trail , and elsewhere , elbows are getting pretty sharp .
By the time the Las Vegas debate rolls around , we ’ ll have results from Iowa and New Hampshire , but there will still be a lot of the race to play out .
Bloomberg has essentially skipped the first four primary states , meaning we won ’ t really get a sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it ’ s still unclear how both top-tier and lower-tier candidates plan to fight this out .
But Las Vegas is a fun place , so at least there ’ s that .
Maybe it ’ ll bring a candidate or two some luck .

Democratic debates are hitting rapid-fire as the 2020 primary unfolds. Next up: Wednesday, February 19, in Las Vegas. And given how rapidly the race has shifted after voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, the stakes are going to be high.
The Democratic National Committee’s scheme for the debates in January and February is tied to the order of primary voting. Ahead of the Iowa caucuses, there was a debate in Des Moines, and before the New Hampshire primaries, a debate in Manchester. Now, we have the Wednesday Las Vegas debate and the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, February 22, and then a debate in Charleston, South Carolina, on Tuesday, February 25, before the primaries in the state on Saturday, February 29.
NBC News and MSNBC will host the Las Vegas debate, marking NBC’s third go at Democratic debates this election cycle.
The lead-up to the Las Vegas debate is already dramatic, due to the DNC’s decision to switch up qualifying rules around individual donations. For prior contests, the committee required that candidates surpass a specific number of individual donors in order to make the stage. This time around, they’re scrapping it, paving the way for self-funding billionaire Mike Bloomberg to make the stage.
Now, candidates have to hit either a delegate or polling threshold: They have to have landed at least one pledged delegate for the Democratic National Convention out of Iowa or New Hampshire, or they have to get either 10 percent or more support in at least four national, South Carolina, and/or Nevada polls, or 12 percent or more in two state polls in South Carolina and/or Nevada. Polls that take place between January 15 and February 18 will be considered.
Thus far, former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren have qualified. But Bloomberg, who is not competing in Iowa or New Hampshire but who is rising in the polls, could get there soon.
As Vox’s Katelyn Burns pointed out, candidates on and off the debate stage — and in and out of the race — have raised some concerns about the DNC’s rule change that appears to benefit Bloomberg, especially given the committee’s refusal to alter its criteria in the past when candidates asked:
“To now change the rules in the middle of the game to accommodate Mike Bloomberg, who is trying to buy his way into the Democratic nomination, is wrong,” Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, told the New York Times. “That’s the definition of a rigged system.” Entrepreneur Andrew Yang — who has advocated for relaxing the requirements before, albeit to encourage diversity on the debate stage — made an even more pointed critique. Yang accused the party of not only tailoring the debate criteria to include the billionaire, but suggested Bloomberg has tried to avoid the scrutiny debates can bring. “The truth is I don’t think Mike particularly wants to debate,” he said in a tweet late Friday.
The other candidates who haven’t yet qualified for the Nevada debate but who are still running are Tulsi Gabbard, Deval Patrick, and Tom Steyer.
If it feels like this is moving fast, it’s because it is
As a political reporter who very much enjoys her nights and weekends — especially Friday nights and Saturdays — I feel confident saying that the debate and primary schedule this month is pretty intense. (Though voting on weekends is good for democracy!)
And it doesn’t slow down once February ends. We’ve got Super Tuesday on March 3 and plenty of other primaries after that where a good chunk of delegates are up for grabs.
The contest isn’t just ramping up logistically — on the debate stage, on the campaign trail, and elsewhere, elbows are getting pretty sharp.
By the time the Las Vegas debate rolls around, we’ll have results from Iowa and New Hampshire, but there will still be a lot of the race to play out. Bloomberg has essentially skipped the first four primary states, meaning we won’t really get a sense of his impact in the race until March. And it’s still unclear how both top-tier and lower-tier candidates plan to fight this out.
But Las Vegas is a fun place, so at least there’s that. Maybe it’ll bring a candidate or two some luck.


vox--2020-02-11--Amy Klobuchar is the thinking moderate Democrat’s electability candidate

As a potential standard-bearer for the moderate wing of the Democratic Party , Sen. Amy Klobuchar has a much stronger electability case than her rivals in the center lane .
And her strong showing in the New Hampshire primary should be an opportunity for Democratic Party stakeholders to take that seriously .
She ’ s not an incredible dynamo of charisma , but she does have a kind of charming dorky Midwestern shtick .
She sticks to popular policy positions , and she has a strong track record of winning the kind of voters Democrats need to carry in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar raised a key question for Democrats : “ Can you bring in those rural and suburban areas , particularly in the Midwest ?
” As a popular senator from Minnesota , Klobuchar ’ s answer is yes , she can .
The fear that haunts Democrats is that even with President Trump ’ s unpopularity , they could beat him by 3 or 4 percentage points in the nationwide vote total and still lose if he does well enough in the Midwest , specifically in Wisconsin .
Democrats don ’ t currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has run and won in Wisconsin ( though I think whoever wins should strongly consider putting Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin on the ticket as vice president for this reason ) .
Minnesota is , of course , adjacent to Wisconsin .
It ’ s bluer , essentially because Minneapolis is a bigger city than Milwaukee and the state has more college graduates than Wisconsin .
But the sensibilities are similar .
All things considered , you ’ d expect any Democrat to do better in Minnesota than in Wisconsin .
But you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a Democrat in Minnesota to also do unusually well for a Democrat in Wisconsin .
And Klobuchar does very , very well in Minnesota .
Consider the 2018 midterms , in which Democrats did well in statewide races across the board : The point isn ’ t just that Klobuchar won in an only slightly bluish Midwestern state .
It ’ s that she specifically ran so much stronger than Walz and Smith .
That Ellison , a left-winger who was under a bit of a cloud of scandal at the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a testament to how big the blue wave of 2018 was .
That Klobuchar so dramatically outperformed a standard Democrat like Smith is a testament to how popular she is .
Her other races have been like that , too .
Back in 2012 , President Obama won 53 percent of the vote in Minnesota .
Klobuchar won 65 percent .
In 2006 , Tim Pawlenty narrowly defeated his Democratic opponent for governor in a race that also saw a significant third-party vote .
Klobuchar won 58 percent of the vote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrowest of her three statewide runs .
Last year , FiveThirtyEight computed a “ popularity above replacement senator ” score for every member of the upper house .
It compares each senator ’ s home state favorable rating to the underlying partisan attributes of the state .
Nos .
1 and 2 are West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Alabama Sen. Doug Jones , who ’ ve run and won in deep-red states .
No .
3 is Klobuchar — a Democrat who is just really good at making Midwesterners like her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than that of other moderates When I wrote the case for Sen. Bernie Sanders , I cited his distinctive progressive views on national security and monetary policy issues as key considerations .
If you think that stuff is important ( and I do ) , then taking a calculated risk on electability makes sense .
But it was , to me , especially compelling when the alleged electability alternative was a septuagenarian former vice president who backed the war in Iraq and is already plagued by questions about whether his family has gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar , by contrast , is a Sanders alternative who offers a genuine trade-off — she ’ s running on a less ambitious agenda , but that consists almost entirely of being careful to avoid politically unpopular positions .
She ’ s for taking action on climate change , but not for a fracking ban .
She ’ s for a public option and price curbs on prescription drugs rather than an expensive Medicare-for-all program .
She ’ d do a better job than Sanders of appealing to swing voters , and Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up by pulling in third-party supporters or new voters .
This is similar to the Biden pitch , but with stronger evidence .
And basically everything Dylan Matthews wrote in his case for Pete Buttigieg applies as much or more to Klobuchar .
She ’ s spent most of the 2020 campaign being largely ignored because she ’ s simply not that distinctive or interesting .
She ’ s the typical age for a presidential aspirant , has the typical qualifications , and has somewhat banal Democratic Party policy views .
But typical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want a political revolution or to take a shot at imposing a wealth tax on America ’ s billionaires , then probably none of this is very persuasive .
Fair enough .
For a long time , though , Biden was riding high on something much simpler — the perception he could beat Trump and restore basic competence and integrity to government .
Over the past couple of weeks , Biden ’ s shortcomings have started to loom larger and he ’ s plummeting in the polls .
But if his basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does appeal to a lot of Democrats — you owe it to yourself to ask if Klobuchar isn ’ t the most effective vehicle for that message .

As a potential standard-bearer for the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, Sen. Amy Klobuchar has a much stronger electability case than her rivals in the center lane. And her strong showing in the New Hampshire primary should be an opportunity for Democratic Party stakeholders to take that seriously.
She’s not an incredible dynamo of charisma, but she does have a kind of charming dorky Midwestern shtick. She sticks to popular policy positions, and she has a strong track record of winning the kind of voters Democrats need to carry in November.
Amy Klobuchar is good at winning elections
In the December presidential debate, Klobuchar raised a key question for Democrats: “Can you bring in those rural and suburban areas, particularly in the Midwest?”
As a popular senator from Minnesota, Klobuchar’s answer is yes, she can.
The fear that haunts Democrats is that even with President Trump’s unpopularity, they could beat him by 3 or 4 percentage points in the nationwide vote total and still lose if he does well enough in the Midwest, specifically in Wisconsin.
Democrats don’t currently have a candidate in the field who has run and won in Wisconsin (though I think whoever wins should strongly consider putting Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin on the ticket as vice president for this reason). Minnesota is, of course, adjacent to Wisconsin. It’s bluer, essentially because Minneapolis is a bigger city than Milwaukee and the state has more college graduates than Wisconsin. But the sensibilities are similar.
All things considered, you’d expect any Democrat to do better in Minnesota than in Wisconsin. But you’d expect one who does unusually well for a Democrat in Minnesota to also do unusually well for a Democrat in Wisconsin.
And Klobuchar does very, very well in Minnesota. Consider the 2018 midterms, in which Democrats did well in statewide races across the board:
Keith Ellison won the attorney general race by 4 points.
Tim Walz won the gubernatorial race by 11 points.
Tina Smith won the Senate special election by 10.5 points.
Klobuchar won her Senate race by 24 points.
The point isn’t just that Klobuchar won in an only slightly bluish Midwestern state. It’s that she specifically ran so much stronger than Walz and Smith. That Ellison, a left-winger who was under a bit of a cloud of scandal at the time, managed to win by 4 points is a testament to how big the blue wave of 2018 was. That Klobuchar so dramatically outperformed a standard Democrat like Smith is a testament to how popular she is.
Her other races have been like that, too. Back in 2012, President Obama won 53 percent of the vote in Minnesota. Klobuchar won 65 percent. In 2006, Tim Pawlenty narrowly defeated his Democratic opponent for governor in a race that also saw a significant third-party vote. Klobuchar won 58 percent of the vote in a landslide win that was also the narrowest of her three statewide runs.
Last year, FiveThirtyEight computed a “popularity above replacement senator” score for every member of the upper house. It compares each senator’s home state favorable rating to the underlying partisan attributes of the state. Nos. 1 and 2 are West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Alabama Sen. Doug Jones, who’ve run and won in deep-red states. No. 3 is Klobuchar — a Democrat who is just really good at making Midwesterners like her.
Klobuchar’s case is way stronger than that of other moderates
When I wrote the case for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I cited his distinctive progressive views on national security and monetary policy issues as key considerations.
If you think that stuff is important (and I do), then taking a calculated risk on electability makes sense. But it was, to me, especially compelling when the alleged electability alternative was a septuagenarian former vice president who backed the war in Iraq and is already plagued by questions about whether his family has gotten rich through trading on his name.
Klobuchar, by contrast, is a Sanders alternative who offers a genuine trade-off — she’s running on a less ambitious agenda, but that consists almost entirely of being careful to avoid politically unpopular positions. She’s for taking action on climate change, but not for a fracking ban. She’s for a public option and price curbs on prescription drugs rather than an expensive Medicare-for-all program. She’d do a better job than Sanders of appealing to swing voters, and Sanders would need to try to make it up by pulling in third-party supporters or new voters.
This is similar to the Biden pitch, but with stronger evidence. And basically everything Dylan Matthews wrote in his case for Pete Buttigieg applies as much or more to Klobuchar.
She’s spent most of the 2020 campaign being largely ignored because she’s simply not that distinctive or interesting. She’s the typical age for a presidential aspirant, has the typical qualifications, and has somewhat banal Democratic Party policy views.
But typical is typical for a reason. If you want a political revolution or to take a shot at imposing a wealth tax on America’s billionaires, then probably none of this is very persuasive. Fair enough.
For a long time, though, Biden was riding high on something much simpler — the perception he could beat Trump and restore basic competence and integrity to government.
Over the past couple of weeks, Biden’s shortcomings have started to loom larger and he’s plummeting in the polls. But if his basic message appeals to you — and clearly it does appeal to a lot of Democrats — you owe it to yourself to ask if Klobuchar isn’t the most effective vehicle for that message.


vox--2020-02-12--Tech underestimated Bernie Sanders. Now it has to deal with him.

Silicon Valley has freaked out over Elizabeth Warren .
But its meltdown over Bernie Sanders never quite happened .
That is probably about to change , now that Sanders ’ s victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday makes him the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential contest .
Sanders shares many of the exact same positions as Warren — he , too , wants to break up Big Tech companies and drastically increase taxes on the richest people , including those in tech — but only now is he tickling the amygdala of Silicon Valley ’ s elite .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on Sanders over the last few months , tech leaders now tell Recode : For all his criticisms of Silicon Valley , from misinformation to data leaks , these positions have not appeared to be priorities for Sanders in his public rhetoric .
Some also see sexism at play , feeling that Warren has rankled the tech industry ’ s leadership — which is heavily male — more than Sanders would .
And most importantly , many in Silicon Valley have underestimated Sanders because they saw Warren as a far more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a potential Warren presidency that Mark Zuckerberg deemed an “ existential threat to Facebook , ” rather than a potential Sanders win — even though Sanders also said he wants to break up Facebook .
But Silicon Valley can no longer afford to underestimate Sanders , and its leaders are beginning to reckon with him having a real shot at being the Democratic nominee .
Meanwhile , the Sanders campaign is expecting and preparing for a possible backlash from tech billionaires .
“ Tech has had a conniption over Warren but little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Josh Felser , a venture capitalist , who told Recode that almost all of his peers in tech support Mike Bloomberg or Pete Buttigieg .
“ We live in a world where all that matters is toppling Trump .
My only concern would be whether Bernie can make that happen and my crystal ball is murky.
” Another investor , Bilal Zuberi , said similarly — that he was concerned that a Sanders nomination would turn the election into “ a capitalism vs. socialism referendum ” that Democrats would lose .
Sanders is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical as Warren is of Silicon Valley ’ s power .
Sanders has told Vox in a survey that he also wants to ban the use of facial recognition technology in policing , hold tech executives possibly criminally accountable for data breaches , and that he opposes granting governments a “ backdoor ” into encrypted technologies .
But he can also tend toward the abstract on tech issues when pressed in interviews , and he seems driven more by his emotional distaste for Silicon Valley ’ s power than by a bullet-point list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some in Silicon Valley doubt Sanders ’ s competence to enact the tough-on-tech agenda he professes .
And Sanders has not shifted the paradigm as Warren has : It was the senator from Massachusetts , not Vermont , who has shaped the debate about tech monopolies during the 2020 race with her marquee plan to break them up .
( Sanders eventually said he agreed with her proposal . )
And to some Silicon Valley observers , Sanders just hasn ’ t seemed quite as serious as Warren has about the tech message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me tell you : Bernie Sanders is not talking about nationalizing Apple , ” Sanders national co-chair , Rep. Ro Khanna , said on television this week .
“ There ’ s no way I could represent Silicon Valley and support him if that was the case.
” Sanders has also chosen his battles .
He ’ s proven to be particularly focused on Amazon , which the senator successfully pressured into boosting its minimum wage to $ 15 an hour in 2018 .
( To get a sense of his offense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related bill called the STOP BEZOS Act . )
And he frequently uses Amazon as the exemplar of the problems with the corporate tax code , calling out that Amazon pays zero in corporate income tax ( It ’ s unclear how much Amazon actually pays , but it says that it simply pays what the law says it owes . )
By contrast , Sanders has not talked nearly as much about the power or leadership of companies like Google or Facebook — unlike Warren , who has built a broader case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fares in the primaries , in some ways , will test whether any of Silicon Valley ’ s royalty actually have much power .
To date , not a single prominent tech leader has endorsed Sanders .
But he has actually raised more money from Big Tech ’ s employees than has any other candidates in recent months , according to a Recode analysis .
The time for Silicon Valley ’ s powers-that-be to act would be now .
Sanders is widely seen as the frontrunner for the nomination after his victory in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more-established moderate rivals , such as Joe Biden , are seen as badly damaged .
“ Everybody ’ s got to take him seriously now .
He ’ s the frontrunner , ” Oakland A ’ s part-owner Guy Saperstein , one of the few major Democratic megadonors to back Sanders , told Recode .
“ I see all these efforts to support Buttigieg and Bloomberg as attempts to stop Bernie.
” What Silicon Valley — and all of finance and its billionaires — do to respond to a surging Sanders is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks .
Some have told Recode they are cautious about explicitly taking on Sanders ( or Warren ) out of a concern that a big-money effort would backfire by allowing Sanders to portray them as disgruntled billionaires .
But Silicon Valley allies of Buttigieg and Bloomberg are out twisting arms to try to collect endorsements , especially in the lead-up to the California primary .
Buttigieg is holding two fundraisers this Friday in the Bay Area that are expected to be blowouts , and Bloomberg ’ s team has been soliciting tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to even refer their employees to him .
The looming risk for those in the tech community who oppose a Sanders nomination is that they could remain splintered between those two for months — and not in time to focus their efforts to try to stop Sanders .
Or as Kimberly Bryant , the head of Black Girls Code , put it : “ Lord please don ’ t make me have to vote for Bernie in November .
”

Silicon Valley has freaked out over Elizabeth Warren. But its meltdown over Bernie Sanders never quite happened.
That is probably about to change, now that Sanders’s victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday makes him the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential contest. Sanders shares many of the exact same positions as Warren — he, too, wants to break up Big Tech companies and drastically increase taxes on the richest people, including those in tech — but only now is he tickling the amygdala of Silicon Valley’s elite.
There are a few reasons for the lack of focus on Sanders over the last few months, tech leaders now tell Recode: For all his criticisms of Silicon Valley, from misinformation to data leaks, these positions have not appeared to be priorities for Sanders in his public rhetoric. Some also see sexism at play, feeling that Warren has rankled the tech industry’s leadership — which is heavily male — more than Sanders would. And most importantly, many in Silicon Valley have underestimated Sanders because they saw Warren as a far more likely nominee. That’s why it was a potential Warren presidency that Mark Zuckerberg deemed an “existential threat to Facebook,” rather than a potential Sanders win — even though Sanders also said he wants to break up Facebook.
But Silicon Valley can no longer afford to underestimate Sanders, and its leaders are beginning to reckon with him having a real shot at being the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign is expecting and preparing for a possible backlash from tech billionaires.
“Tech has had a conniption over Warren but little to say about Bernie,” said Josh Felser, a venture capitalist, who told Recode that almost all of his peers in tech support Mike Bloomberg or Pete Buttigieg. “We live in a world where all that matters is toppling Trump. My only concern would be whether Bernie can make that happen and my crystal ball is murky.”
Another investor, Bilal Zuberi, said similarly — that he was concerned that a Sanders nomination would turn the election into “a capitalism vs. socialism referendum” that Democrats would lose.
Sanders is, on paper, just as sharply critical as Warren is of Silicon Valley’s power. Sanders has told Vox in a survey that he also wants to ban the use of facial recognition technology in policing, hold tech executives possibly criminally accountable for data breaches, and that he opposes granting governments a “backdoor” into encrypted technologies.
But he can also tend toward the abstract on tech issues when pressed in interviews, and he seems driven more by his emotional distaste for Silicon Valley’s power than by a bullet-point list of his frustrations with the industry. Some in Silicon Valley doubt Sanders’s competence to enact the tough-on-tech agenda he professes. And Sanders has not shifted the paradigm as Warren has: It was the senator from Massachusetts, not Vermont, who has shaped the debate about tech monopolies during the 2020 race with her marquee plan to break them up. (Sanders eventually said he agreed with her proposal.)
And to some Silicon Valley observers, Sanders just hasn’t seemed quite as serious as Warren has about the tech message.
“I represent Silicon Valley. Let me tell you: Bernie Sanders is not talking about nationalizing Apple,” Sanders national co-chair, Rep. Ro Khanna, said on television this week. “There’s no way I could represent Silicon Valley and support him if that was the case.”
Sanders has also chosen his battles. He’s proven to be particularly focused on Amazon, which the senator successfully pressured into boosting its minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2018. (To get a sense of his offense, he at one point introduced a related bill called the STOP BEZOS Act.) And he frequently uses Amazon as the exemplar of the problems with the corporate tax code, calling out that Amazon pays zero in corporate income tax (It’s unclear how much Amazon actually pays, but it says that it simply pays what the law says it owes.) By contrast, Sanders has not talked nearly as much about the power or leadership of companies like Google or Facebook — unlike Warren, who has built a broader case about Silicon Valley monopolies.
How Sanders fares in the primaries, in some ways, will test whether any of Silicon Valley’s royalty actually have much power. To date, not a single prominent tech leader has endorsed Sanders. But he has actually raised more money from Big Tech’s employees than has any other candidates in recent months, according to a Recode analysis.
The time for Silicon Valley’s powers-that-be to act would be now. Sanders is widely seen as the frontrunner for the nomination after his victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, and his more-established moderate rivals, such as Joe Biden, are seen as badly damaged.
“Everybody’s got to take him seriously now. He’s the frontrunner,” Oakland A’s part-owner Guy Saperstein, one of the few major Democratic megadonors to back Sanders, told Recode. “I see all these efforts to support Buttigieg and Bloomberg as attempts to stop Bernie.”
What Silicon Valley — and all of finance and its billionaires — do to respond to a surging Sanders is something that will be debated over the next few weeks. Some have told Recode they are cautious about explicitly taking on Sanders (or Warren) out of a concern that a big-money effort would backfire by allowing Sanders to portray them as disgruntled billionaires.
But Silicon Valley allies of Buttigieg and Bloomberg are out twisting arms to try to collect endorsements, especially in the lead-up to the California primary. Buttigieg is holding two fundraisers this Friday in the Bay Area that are expected to be blowouts, and Bloomberg’s team has been soliciting tech leaders to publicly back his campaign and to even refer their employees to him.
The looming risk for those in the tech community who oppose a Sanders nomination is that they could remain splintered between those two for months — and not in time to focus their efforts to try to stop Sanders.
Or as Kimberly Bryant, the head of Black Girls Code, put it: “Lord please don’t make me have to vote for Bernie in November.”