By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981) August 11, 2020 (see related articles: August 20, 2020: I Was Wrong about Harris. Why I Changed My Mind and How She Won Me Over and August 8, 2020: Based on Experience, Susan Rice Is Easily—by Far—the Best Choice for VP for Biden (Sorry Harris Fans, that Includes Kamala))

WASHINGTON and SILVER SPRING—In my earlier recent piece comparing the careers of California Senator Kamala Harris and former Obama Administration National Security Advisor and United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, I noted that I have been watching and really enjoying ESPN’s The Last Dance (the documentary series about Michael Jordan and his Chicago Bulls’s championship teams, especially their final championship run).  I noted that there are two main facets as to how a player gets selected for a team and how they perform: the first facet is the stats: the numbers that would be a on a player’s trading card; that is what I looked at in that last piece as far as Harris and Rice.  In this piece, I want to look at some of the intangibles, the second facet: the stuff that you would not get by looking at a trading card, but which speak more to personality and traits that are more about how you operate or fit on a team in ways that numbers cannot display.  And a lot of these intangibles can come across in informed first impressions voters get from seeing each for the first time.

First Impressions

I will begin first by just explaining how I remember being introduced and familiar with both Rice and Harris.

Rice

With Rice, I do not really remember anything specific.  I did not watch or read a lot of news in the 1990s in middle school or high school.  I was super busy in both: lots of activities (music, sports) and taking advanced classes throughout.  I also went to a fairly strict boarding school for high school (shout out to Canterbury), where TV-watching was quite limited (and when we had freedom to watch TV in the common room, it was usually sports and MTV that the other kids had on; I never, ever recall seeing the news on in the dorms.  If I had put the news on, I probably would have been physically driven out of the dorms) and where I was busy enough that I did not get to read the news too often, either.

I still followed politics a bit somehow in high school, but I can say that I have no recollection that I ever heard of or even saw Susan Rice when she was with the Clinton Administration or in the time that followed before she was with the Obama campaign.  I do not have any recollection of becoming aware of her existence during the 2008 election either, though perhaps I saw her on TV or read an article or few that mentioned her.  I do know that I became aware of her as our Ambassador to the United Nations.  I recall nothing specific between the first term and the Benghazi “scandal,” other than a few times she would have been speaking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the UN and I am sure I saw her other times in clips of other UN deliberations as well as press conferences, interviews, and in articles.  Each time, I remember seeing her calm, composed, knowledgeable, competent, sharp, and articulate, a solid representation of America to the world and a competent National Security Advisor, one of the only black women in American history to reach such heights in government and on the world stage representing America.  Until recently, I only had a vague—I had never digested her in depth or at length—but strongly positive impression of her, with no complaints that I can recollect; this was, in part, because I researched the Benghazi situation deeply in advance of Clinton’s marathon Congressional testimony of October, 2015, and realized that entire case against Hillary Clinton (and, by default, Susan Rice) in terms of the Benghazi fiasco, was, as I noted at the time, a cynical, disgusting, disingenuous, dishonest, witch hunt-like, purely political attempt to damage Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration before the 2016 election (check out my in-depth article examining this hearing for a dismantling of all the specious, misleading, and/or untruthful arguments put out by Republicans).  The first experience I ever had that really focused on Rice was watching while working out in the fall of 2019 an interview of her by Walter Isaacson for Amanpour and Company on the event of the release of her memoir.  I was incredibly impressed with her, and have since paid more attention to her and her interviews and tweets since her book tour started, and her public interactions have consistently been at a level that keeps impressing me at a very high level.

Harris

When it came to Harris, my introduction to her was very much at a time when I was glued into politics as a freelance reporter who was then focusing much more on American politics than I had previously, and, she was also being built up as a star; for these reasons, I ended up paying way more attention to her when I first came across her than I did with Rice.  I was still living in the Middle East, but had found, most disappointingly and quite sadly, that Trump and the U.S. election cycle giving me much more opportunity and paid way better than covering Syrian refugees, ISIS, Iraq, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  I had been closely following the whole Trump-Russia saga, in particular, since July, 2016.  Thus, when there was a highly-anticipated hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee with key figures from the intelligence and law enforcement community, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had only weeks earlier appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia, Russian election interference, and any possible collusion between people around Trump with the Russian government or its intermediaries, I was highly interested. 

One of the Democratic senators taking part in the hearing was the newly-elected Kamala Harris from California.  Her win in 2016 was certainly met with some excitement, the second black woman to be elected to the U.S. Senate and the first South-Asian (her father was black and her mother was Indian).

Full disclosure: I grew up near New York, and we East Coasters pay little attention to California politics.  So, I barely paid attention to her in the 2016 campaign, which was an extremely busy time for me when I was trying to cover the primaries and Clinton vs. Trump.  Thus, I was pretty excited about this hearing: in many ways, it would be Harris’s biggest stage yet, her introduction to the national scene, and it was certainly her introduction to me.  I remember hearing a lot of hype about how she could be the next Obama, presidential material, and the future of the party, so I was expecting to be mightily impressed and looking forward to seeing one of our brightest new stars of my left on the national stage in action.

Now, full disclosure: before you read my take on what transpired, you should know I watched the entire hearing live and closely (full video and transcript).  I was deeply interested in all the proceedings and was at least somewhat, sometimes very, familiar with the issues being discussed.  And I have to say that from the very beginning of her allotted time (video beginning with that here) during the hearing, I was shocked at how obnoxious, grating, and disappointing I found her performance to be.  From the very beginning, she was rude and grandstandy, first very briefly to Admiral Mike Rogers, cutting him off after asking him a question so that he asked, respectfully, “Senator, if you could, could I get to respond, please, ma’am?” He then tried to continue but she interrupted him again.  “No, sir. No, no.”

It looked like Harris was going to act like a Big Name prosecutor taking on a Hostile Witness, and almost immediately, she switched to question Rosenstein with the bulk of her time, confirming this impression with him, too.  She constantly interrupted him and cut him off, was rude and hostile, not yelling and haranguing like maniac and staunch Trump apparatchik Jim Jordan might in the House, not even raising her voice to the less-annoying-than-Jim Jordan-level of Republican Ted Cruz in the saucer-cooling Senate, but still clearly determined to stand out, show that she was being “tough,” demonstrate her stern courtroom prosecutorial demeanor, and make a name for herself with a figure like Rosenstein very much in the headlines.  And her whole premise was to act like she was leading an effort to protect Mueller from Trump Administration interference or from even being sacked to protect the president, citing a precedent where a previous Attorney General (AG) overseeing an independent, specially-appointed inquiry had pledged in writing to respect the independence of the investigation.  But in that case, the appointed head of the inquiry was a sitting U.S. Attorney that could be fired by the president, so there was a potential conflict in that he normally reported as a Department of Justice employee to the AG and served at the pleasure of the president.  In this case, Mueller was a retired and private citizen who was not part of the Department of Justice and did not have that conflict or reporting issues and could not be fired by the president and under law could only be fired under special, non-political, non-arbitrary circumstances by the top Department of Justice official overseeing the investigation (Rosenstein, because AG Jeff Sessions had recused himself).   Between that and the regulations of the particular law governing Mueller’s appointment—regulations that that did not apply to the precedent Harris was citing—Harris’s point was moot and so were her attempts to get Rosenstein, in a quite a badgering (do not worry, I apply that term often for male congressman) and hostile manner, to commit to a statement in writing like the one she cited earlier but that did not apply under circumstances that were quite different in relation to Harris’s line of questioning.

Rosenstein was very respectfully trying to explain this to Harris, but Harris repeatedly cut him off and continued to demand a simple answer to a complex question.  Sen. John McCain, who stood up more to Trump and Republican malfeasance and better than any other Republican senator during the Trump Administration, came to the rescue of Rosenstein, asking for Harris to stop interrupting the witness and to let him answer the question.  The Republican Chairman of the Committee, Senator Richard Burr, would join in, stopping Harris after she challenged even Burr him from repeating the same question in a hostile manner and permitting Rosenstein to make the above explanation about why a simple “yes” or “no” did not as answer given the different circumstances.

And by hostile, I mean hostile; again, I watched the entire over two-and-a-half-hours-long hearing, and nobody else acted in any way near the manner of Harris.  Only her’; everyone else—Democrat and Republican alike—was polite to the witnesses, did not repeatedly cut them off, used a respectful, non-badgering tone, and did not feel the need to be adversarial even though they found a great many things to be frustrating and concerning, but Harris adopted this adversarial tone from her very first question to the admiral and continued using it until her time was up.

There are two other reasons why this is incredibly obnoxious: despite pressure from the president to stop Mueller, Rosenstein had defended Mueller’s probe (it was Rosenstein who became alarmed enough at Trump’s behavior that he was the one who decided to appoint a special counsel to investigate Trump, and it was also Rosenstein he who chose Mueller) and had given Mueller a lot of freedom, independence, and support.  Rosenstein is far from perfect and has had some problematic aspects of his time as Deputy AG ands since, but at this point he has been very much on the right side by deciding to appoint a special counsel, Mueller, and working to keep the integrity of Mueller’s investigation secure amidst considerable pressure to compromise it by Trump, Republicans, and right-wing media.  The other reason this is incredibly obnoxious is that I am certain Kamala Harris knew the law (she is an accomplished prosecutor and served as California’s Attorney General) and knew that her point was largely moot, not appropriate, and not fair to Rosenstein.  But she was determined to establish herself as a tough newcomer, to get attention, to rise above all her peers during her first major public hearing.  She was trying to trap both the admiral and especially Rosenstein into “gotchya” questions, embarrassing them and pushing them into a seemingly hypocritical trap to make the witness look like he hiding something unnecessarily in the case of the admiral and that he was not willing to stand up for the independence and integrity of the Mueller probe in the case of Rosenstein (which by all accounts up to that point and many beyond, he had).  So Harris knew she did not need to be overly concerned over Rosenstein at that point; she knew her clever attempt to prosecutorally box Rosenstein in like he was a defendant on the witness stand back in California was not getting at the heart of any major issues with the Mueller probe, knew that her actions were designed to generate a soundbite that would hopefully go viral, and knew she was engaging in self-promotion that was a subtle attack on the integrity of both Rosenstein and Admiral Rogers over a moot point, designed to make her look like she was a tough prosecutor who was taking a version of Law and Order to Washington.  In an otherwise cordial hearing, her contentious exchanges would stand out and get her attention in a situation where most junior senators would not behave this way.  You could smell presidential aspirations on her from a mile away.  And if you think I am making this up, this is exactly how Maya Rudolph satirized Harris on Saturday Night Live: always looking to create a media moment that would go viral on the internet, designed to get her attention and often show her as a tough ready-for-primetime prosecutor, regardless of the level of substance behind what she was saying.

Yep, that was my introduction to Harris: a woman clearly of great intellect, substance, and capability that chose to engage in grandstanding devoid of substance, misleading but guaranteed to get headlines.

I was deeply saddened; is this what the internet was doing to us, hollowing out our politics to be mostly hot air?  Was Harris going to use her office to be an effective legislator or focus on promoting herself in the media and on using her office to prepare a presidential run?  Would we be elevating the likes of Bernie Sanders whose “plans” were never in the realm of reality and whose central narratives and premises justifying his campaign were crafted on fantasy, thus pretty much dooming his campaign?  Were capable women of substance going to choose to play for meme and viral moments, hoping to base their campaigns on social media likes and shares?  Were these folks really going to be the future of the Party?

But the next day, it would get even worse, as Harris tried to capitalize on her events from the day before in an even more blatantly cynical attempt to create a viral, slogan-ready moment.  Because she had been interrupted by McCain and Burr—two men, two white men—there was an opportunity to frame their actions as sexist or even racist.  One thing is for certain: Warren’s viral “Nevertheless, she persisted” moment form just a few months earlier—when Republican male Senate colleagues had silenced Warren with a rarely used technicality regarding actions that “impute” fellow senators directly—was very much on Harris’s mind, and she clearly wanted to recreate that, especially the vibe of a woman standing up to powerful men.  It was almost like she could see Warren (whom I have been fairly critical of for various reasons) getting an edge over here for 2020 and she wanted to respond, and while Warren’s moment seemed relatively authentic, this would have a feel of being manufactured.  Harris’s plan was already implemented within two days of the hearing, with Harris was advertising stickers on Facebook with the words “courage not courtesy” you could get on her website—not on her Senate site, but kamalaharris.org (translation: she’s running.  Already.  In June, 2017).

Now, first off, there is a tremendous amount of sexism in the world, in America, in politics, in the Senate.  Of that, there is no doubt among rational, informed people.  And to be fair to Harris, it was smart politics.  Gimmicky as hell?  Cringingly forced and inauthentic?  Sure.  But definitely effective: most voters would not have watched the hearing.  Some—many—will have seen the clips of Harris and taken the image of her she wanted them to; most certainly would not have known much about Rosenstein or the special counsel regulations, and she was betting on that.  She had created her viral moment, though it would pale in impact and reach to Warren’s, and, I suspect, fell far short of what she was hoping, but it certainly got the attention of the media, some outlets of which tried to make it a sequel to Warren’s big moment.

I have watched Harris plenty of times since then, and, at least until the 2020 campaign—another story possibly for another time—most of her performances were much better that what I saw at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.  I would be wrong if I did not admit that this first major impression she made was strong, and that it made me more likely to read calculated political gamesmanship into some of her actions—I would say fairly—but that did not stop me from seeing her as capable, formidable, one of the top rising stars on the left, and a top-tier contender for the 2020 nomination, one of the few I thought that could compete with Biden if he was to run.

Yet still, once of the reasons I love Biden is his authenticity and positioning of substance front and center throughout his career.  As for “courage not courtesy,” just ugh.  I have written about the devolution of our politics for years and it has been happening for years, but once thing that was fairly consistent for some time was that, unlike the more unruly House, the Senate was supposed to be an elevated form of politics less prone to theatrics, more prone to comity, civility, cooperation, and compromise, with less heated rhetoric and more substantive deliberations, more removed from the passions and the whims of the masses.  There is an old, unsubstantiated tradition that Washington told Jefferson that the Senate was like a “saucer” that could allow “our legislation to cool.”  In the words of James Madison in Federalist “No. 62,” the Senate would be less “subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures” than the House.  But these days, this distinction is decidedly weakened and weakening, and I am not for that.  Today is all about “populists” on both sides smashing tradition and norms and going around institutions and political colleagues “directly to the people,” whatever that means.  Think Bernie Sanders’s mobilizing millions of people to take to the streets as a governing philosophy.  Far worse, think about Trump’s calls on his supporters to take to the streets if things do not go well for him.  Harris’s theatrics were by far nowhere near the worst I have seen in the Senate, not even close to second worst (Hello, Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton!), but they were another step in a decline that seriously worried me.  And Harris, clearly, cared little for such tradition if she felt she could blaze a trail for her advancement.

A reasonable case can be made that this is what is needed at this time, that Harris’s calculation is what is needed against the Republican and Trumpian threat.  I thought to myself, Harris might have what it takes to win in the Internet/Twitter age, perhaps even what is needed to take on Trump, and she would have my support against him, but I do not have to like it.  I do not have to like how she treated DAG Rosenstein and Admiral Rogers.  I not have to like the premeditation to stand out tonally in a setting when it just was not at all necessary.  I do not have to like the calculated attempt to prepare sloganeering stickers within days.

But that does not mean I can not like or support Harris.

Rooting for (vice presidential nominee) Harris’s Best Self

As I write this conclusion, news is breaking that Biden has picked Harris.  My preference would definitely have been for Susan Rice.  But I point out these issues I have with Harris (before or after her being picked) not to denigrate her, not to turn people against her.  Harris if anything responds to the atmosphere in the moment.  She could very likely be our next vice president.  She would have my support as VP and should have all our support, has mine as a candidate for VP, and deserves our respect for earning this pick on the part of Biden.

To an extent, some of the concerns I have about Harris are mollified by Biden’s confidence in her in selecting her.  At the same time, I am still publishing this not just because I had written most of it before the pick was announced, but because I hope these concerns I have will be shared by others in a way where we push Harris to be her best self, not the disappointing campaigner we saw in 2019 and much better than the performance I saw in the hearing from 2017 I discussed above.

I have 100% confidence that Harris is more than capable of taking the higher road.  Even though I argued recently that Rice had better experience to be a VP, Harris’s experience is still impressive and contains much substance, much to be proud of, and she is both a safer and probably a better bet politically.  It is a sad testament to our current politics that a woman of color so accomplished and so talented would feel the need to play to internet/meme culture so strongly, though Peter Beinart makes a good case defending her in The Atlantic that, like Obama, as a black trailblazer in politics she has had to play it safer, in that article’s case, with her actions on criminal justice in California, actions which have been heavily criticized.  I hope, now that she has bested all but one man to be the second survivor of the Democratic primaries, that she will feel less pressure, feel more freedom, and feel confident enough in her selection by Biden to run more on substance and less on style and seeking viral moments (not that those do not help, but that is my preference as one of her supporters and one who wants to see our politics reelevated).  I hope that, if Biden wins, she can learn from someone like Susan Rice on foreign and security policy, follow Biden’s lead, be a great governing partner, and set herself up to be an amazing president of her own years down the road. 

And that is in part up to us:  it is no longer the Democratic primaries, and a much more moderate, national crowd is her audience; as her supporters or on-the-fence-voters, it is, in part, up to us to telegraph what we want from her, so lets us demand her very best, not clamor for internet gimmicks and viral videos.  I know that my complaints here were mostly about her style and how she operated, but these “little” things, the way you pursue your goals, the norms you respect and those you break, the tenor and tone you set, set all matter… just look at Trump!

Even as I am writing this conclusion, my emotions changed a bit.  Even as someone who was rooting for Susan Rice, I am happy and pleased with Harris (whom I saw as a much better-qualified candidate than Warren, both for president and vice president), and I am genuinely proud of Harris and of her selection by my candidate Joe Biden and my Democratic Party, the historic first woman of color on a major party ticket.  It is sad because of our insane coronavirus pandemic response that we cannot have a live event with a huge crowd welcoming Kamala Harris on stage with Joe Biden: both deserved that, especially Harris.  But that lost moment is the least of the slights and challenges Harris will face going forward.  I am now rooting for Harris, and confident she can help Biden win and govern.  She is immeasurably better than Vice President Pence and even more so (obviously) than President Donald Trump.

The pressure is on, but I hope and am confident that Senator Kamala Harris will rise to the occasion.  We, the people behind her, can help by pushing to keep substance front and center in a campaign that will contain a historic amount of nonsense from Trump, Republicans, the right-wing media, and the Russians.  But together and, yes, with Kamala Harris’s help, we can ensure that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are sworn in on January 20^th, 2021.

See related previous article: Based on Experience, Susan Rice Is Easily—by Far—the Best Choice for VP for Biden (Sorry Harris Fans, that Includes Kamala)

© 2020 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Also see Brian’s latest eBook,Coronavirus the Revealer: How the Coronavirus Pandemic Exposes America As Unprepared for Biowarfare & Bioterrorism, Highlighting Traditional U.S. Weakness in Unconventional, Asymmetric Warfare, available in Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble Nook, and EPUB editions.

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here and, of course, please share the hell out of this article!!

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981)  March 10, 2020 (this was written, if not fully edited, before results came in tonight); see related articles: The Best Guide to Super Tuesday (no, seriously): Biden’s Got This (and the Nomination), Democrats Look Disastrous, But Biden May Yet Save Them from Themselves Starting in South Carolina, Sandernista Political Terrorism II: Sanders Derangement Syndrome, the Liberal Tea Party, & How Nevada Riot Pretty Much Sums Up Team Bernie, and The Sandernista Political Revolution Handbook: A Matchup Game of Bernie Sanders’ Talking Points & Those of His Fans/Supporters

WASHINGTON AND ARLINGTON—As I have noted repeatedly before, the lack of self-awareness among Bernie Sanders and his Sandernista would-be-fellow revolutionaries is among the most irritating of their (many) irritating traits.  In particular, at this stage in the quest for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination (or, as many Bernie Sanders supporters would think of it, the quest to hijack, destroy internally, and replace the Democratic Party with a democratic socialist party), one thing that strikes me is how they constantly act as if they are the only group with legitimate grievances. This has been something that has long bothered me, but as Bernieworld becomes increasingly unhinged, they act as if they have a monopoly on disappointment, frustration, anger, and rage within the left.  They are indignant about how the media, other candidates, and other supporters talk about and frame them and their candidate, yet rarely pause to consider if, let alone acknowledge that, other candidates and their supporters have similar feelings directed at not just the media but back at Bernieworld (and, yes, the other major candidates, from Sen. Elizabeth Warren to former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, have made clear that Bernie bros are in a category all their own on the left).  A group that in part lives off of their rage at what they term “The Establishment” and at any and all criticism directed their way—no matter how small—cannot seem to even fathom that they themselves may also cause offense, be unfair, should adjust how they speak and act towards others.  In fact, the mere suggestion of this seems to send them into even more rage, with their best reaction usually righteous indignation.

Reality, Ever the Enemy of Sanders and his Sandernistas

As is the case regarding so much with Bernie Sanders, his supporters, and Sandersism, there is their talk and then there is the massive gap between talk and reality. 

In 2016, his arguments were largely disproven by the dramatic way in which voters rejected their premises, with 3.7+ million more voters preferring Clinton, and this was with 14 states (28% of all states) holding caucuses, undemocratic and unrepresentative abominations that greatly depress turnout and overrepresent the enthusiastic and those without certain burdens (like having kids).  The net political effect of these caucuses was to dramatically inflate voting margins in Bernie’s favor, as Sanders blew Clinton out of the water in 12 of those 14 caucus states and only lost relatively narrowly in the other 2.  To ram this point home, in 2 of these states that Sanders won (Nebraska and Washington state) among the 12 of the caucuses he won, Clinton even won nonbinding primaries (or normal votes) that had far greater turnout.  Sanders, then, would have almost certainly have lost some caucus states he won if they were primaries (which happened in 2020 with Minnesota and Maine ditching caucuses) and his margin would definitely have been much lower even in the caucus states he won and also in those he lost.  In other words, the 3.7-million-vote margin of victory for Clinton over Sanders with voters would have been significantly larger with representative primaries than the numbers we have from 2016 would on the surface seem to suggest.

In 2016, Democratic turnout was dramatically lower (30.6 million) than in 2008 (37.1 million).  Basically,  Hillary Clinton—one of the top faces of the Democratic Party for decades—soundly beat Sanders because Democrats liked her for president much more than Bernie, and the idea that brand new voters were going to join the Democratic Party to shift it dramatically to the left into democratic socialist territory, that Bernie was going to be the inspiration for this high turnout and new voters flies in this face of these considerations.. Especially with young people, that turnout did not happen.  Instead, Democrats chose a far more traditional candidate (though revolutionary in her identity as far as her being a woman, the first major-party female nominee for president in American history) rather than an insurgent running a campaign that sought to overthrow the system as a whole.  Democrats actually like the Democratic Party, and Clinton garnered close over 3.7 million more votes than Sanders even with the caucus factor diluting Clinton’s margins.  So, while as a woman, Clinton could claim something of an outsider status, too, her politics were pretty institutional and mainstream in many ways and especially compared to Sanders.  Clinton was also one of the top faces of the Democratic Party for decades and handily outperformed Bernie with Democrats, so the idea that the American left overall hates the Democratic Party, hates its “Establishment” figures like, say, Hillary, or Barack Obama, or Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or Whip Jim Clyburn, simply has no factual basis.  Bernie campaigned against the Democratic Party itself as well as its leaders, but it turns out Democratic voters like them just fine.  So the notion that Bernie Sanders himself is somehow going to drive historic turnout—when turnout was way down in 2016 from 2008 when Sanders was one of two major contenders in a race in which Sanders got beat by some 3.7 million votes even with dramatically lower turnout—is patently absurd and has no logical or empirical basis to support it.

For the sake of argument, though, let us even pretend that the exact same arguments were not made in 2016, plainly for all to hear, and that they were not dramatically disproven in a Democratic nomination contest that underrepresented Clinton’s support in the 28% of all state contests that held caucuses.  Let’s pretend we are in a brave new world (Sanders and his people like to make the claim that the electorate has dramatically changed in just the past few years) and look at how his political performance in contests so far in 2020 matches his claims; let’s see how much his bark matches his bite.

Premise/Assumption: People were tired of the Democratic Party and the way it did things.  Instead, they would choose a new, revolutionary campaign, one with which they could smash the “Establishment.”

Reality: There has so far only been one state where Bernie Sanders did not receive fewer votes than more proud-to-be-actual-Democrats Democrats combined: his home state of Vermont, the only state in 2020 thus far where he has received more than 50% of the vote. Despite the narrative that the alt-left “progressive” non-Democrat leftists would sell, the simple reality is that Democrats overall were happy with a number of candidates in the 2020 field and with the Party overall; Speaker Nancy Pelosi is popular with a vast majority of Democrats, too.  What’s better than polls and approval ratings, though, is votes, and with Sanders receiving less than 30% of the overall vote so far, voters have overwhelming preferred existing Democrats to those who want to smash the Democratic Party. In most states, Sanders has been in 20s, a few in the teens, and some in 30s as far as vote/caucus delegate percent-share, but in no states prior to today besides his home state of Vermont and Nevada has this threshold passed 37%. The American far-left loves Sanders, but, as I have pointed out before, this is a country where only six states have more liberals than conservatives. No, this is not a man building a broad movement that can succeed on a national level, just a fraction of a faction that can disrupt and destabilize the left but has little talent or ability beyond that.

Premise/assumption: Bernie Sanders is a generational transformational figure who will inspire turnout at historic, unprecedented levels; his claim to having this ability is the central premise to his argument of a.) how he can win the nomination, b.) how he can win the general election, and c.) somehow, without ever actually explaining it, how he will govern and how he will get his agenda passed amidst intense opposition (the oft-heard “millions of people in the streets” phrase).

Reality: Even when Bernie won states in this 2020 cycle—other than his own state of Vermont—loud and proud members of the actual Democratic Party (Bernie is still an independent) got far more votes combined (yes, even in California), often dramatically more votes when combined.  Where turnout is increasing, it’s increasing, generally, in states going strongly for Biden and dramatically so.  So Bernie has failed to do the very thing he claimed he, uniquely, could do, while Biden actually did it, not with phantom progressives but with actual suburban swing voters that are the real key to elections. And youth turnout was typically low; there was no #BernieSurge.  In every state contest so far, Sanders has received fewer votes (or state delegate percentages) than he did in 2016, and in most cases, the drop has been dramatic.  Even in his home state of Vermont, Sanders received an over 35% lower portion of the votes (50.7%) than he did in 2016 (86.1%).  The truth, then, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the narrative being spun by Sanders and his surrogates for, no matter how you slice or dice it, Bernie Sanders, is less popular and is receiving less support than he was four years ago in every state that has voted thus far.

And there are states Bernie won in 2016—Oklahoma, Maine, and Minnesota—that shifted decisively away from him in 2020.  In terms of states he lost in 2016, yes, he won Nevada and seems to have won California, but in both those cases—as in every case so far—he still performed worse than in 2016, and, in the case of California, significantly worse. In fact, as I noted before, Nevada was also a bit of a red herring in that, since it was a caucus, it overrepresented his support with nonwhites, just as caucuses overrepresent Bernie’s support in all groups, but the media and, it seems, the Bernie campaign, took the bait and thought Bernie just might have chipped into African-American support enough to topple Biden. In the end, non-caucus South Carolina put that nonsense to rest six feet under and then some.

How can we expect a candidate to mobilize a solid coalition to defeat Trump in November if he can’t even get that supposed coalition out to get him the nomination first?  How can we expect a candidate who claims to be able to mobilize millions of people in the streets to bring pressure to bear on opponents once he is president be able to do so if the very people he is talking about stay home when he is in the fight of his life to win the nomination?  How can we expect him to win when he’s losing support compared to what he had in 2016?

Super Tuesday II: The Last Formal Battle of The Sandernista Insurgency

The answer is: we can’t.

Polls have been wrong before (but not usually), so Bernie might have a miracle and stay alive in theory (that would be a miracle) or at least in a cosmetic sense.  But there are many recent polls that have Bernie being crushed tonight in just about every state or losing narrowly in territory like Washington state that should be favorable to him.  And while, yes, the pollsters missed big in Michigan in 2016, they’re at least good enough to be on the lookout to avoid similar mistakes based on the same errors. But the fact is that, just like in 2016, even if Bernie does win Michigan, he still won’t turn it around.  He will still lose big in other states and the delegate gap for him will only grow; it is just a matter of how quickly that gap will grow.

Once this becomes obvious after tonight, will Bernie lose and bow out gracefully, or will he lose and lead (or at least not try to stop) a Sandernista terrorist insurgency against Biden and the Democratic Party as they try to marshal their strength against Trump?  The fate of the general election may hinge on the answer to this question, but if 2016 is any indication, that will be bad news for Democrats, the country, and the world and good news for Trump, Putin, and selfish, nihilist anarchists

Bernie Sanders has fought for justice as he saw it his whole adult life. He has dedicated himself to trying to make the world a better place and fighting for many of the voiceless. He deserves credit for inspiring so many from such an underdog position back in 2015 when he first announced his presidential candidacy. But how you behave in defeat is often a defining aspect of how history passes judgement on your actions and a real revealer of character. Sanders was rightly called out for the way he went about losing in 2016, for dragging his feet and keeping up intense attacks on Clinton and the Democratic Party when it was clear he was not to be the nominee, substantively damaging Clinton in ways that helped Trump win the election, something I warned about throughout the 2016 election. This is truly the moment of truth for Bernie Sanders in the twilight of his career. Will he be associated with unproductive, scorched-earth tactics that tore the left apart at the moment when Trump threatened the survival of the American republic as we know it? Or will Bernie understand, and move hard to make his followers understand, that some things are bigger than your movement and your passion?

The formal war is ending, and tonight is almost certainly the last time Sanders can put up any serious resistance in a delegate-rich state.  His Waterloo will be Michigan.  The only real question is if Sanders surrenders gracefully like General Lee at Appomattox or pulls a Saddam Hussein and allows his forces to melt away in order to mount a vicious guerrilla campaign once the big formal battles are over.

In the interest of full disclosure, Brian interned for Joe Biden from September-December, 2006. He is currently in no way professionally affiliated with the Biden 2020 campaign, nor is receiving any compensation from it nor the Democratic Party nor any related super-PACs, campaigns, or other political groups involved in the 2020 nominating contests and elections.

See related articles: The Best Guide to Super Tuesday (no, seriously): Biden’s Got This (and the Nomination), Democrats Look Disastrous, But Biden May Yet Save Them from Themselves Starting in South Carolina, Sandernista Political Terrorism II: Sanders Derangement Syndrome, the Liberal Tea Party, & How Nevada Riot Pretty Much Sums Up Team Bernie, and The Sandernista Political Revolution Handbook: A Matchup Game of Bernie Sanders’ Talking Points & Those of His Fans/Supporters

Correction appended: a comparison of turnout indicated the wrong election year in one of the mentions.

© 2020 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Brian E. Frydenborg is an American freelance writer, academic, and consultant from the New York City area. You can follow and contact him on Twitter: @bfry1981.  He also just recently authored A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia.

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here and, of course, please share the hell out of this article!!

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981)  March 3, 2020; see my related article from before the South Carolina primary where I laid out the below scenario: Democrats Look Disastrous, But Biden May Yet Save Them from Themselves Starting in South Carolina

WASHINGTON — There is talk that the global market selloffs, in addition to being about COVID-19 (coronavirus) may be something of, to use the economics term, a correction.

We can think about the upcoming Super Tuesday contests as something similar for the Democratic Party: a natural reaction to Sandersism (a virus in and of itself in many ways I have outlined before).

Because it looks like Bernie might have peaked in February, just like in 2016.

Pledged delegates are awarded in two batches, one awarded by state vote share and one awarded by vote share in Congressional districts, and the threshold is 15% for both sets of delegates.  And remember, it takes 1,191 delegates to get the nomination on the first ballot of the Democratic National Convention and thereby avoid a contested convention.

So far, only four states have voted and here are the delegate totals, with Biden barely behind Bernie:

Those crowning Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with a few-dozen delegates were fools.  If anything, February was like a wild-card playoff, a pre-playoff playoff.

Let’s just remember how weird Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are: Iowa is the one Midwestern state without any serious metropolitan area.  New Hampshire also has very few people and is also without a sizable urban area.  Iowa and New Hampshire rank 31^st and 41^st in terms of population, and, as I have noted before, they are the 8^th and 6^th whitest states (while Bernie Sanders’s home state of Vermont is the second-whitest and second-least populous of all the states).  And Nevada, well, is Nevada…

Another thing to think about: In 2016, Hillary Clinton won South Carolina 73.5% to Bernie’s 26%.  This time around, the final vote-count was 48.66% for former Vice President Biden, 19.76% for Bernie.  But if we add the moderates in that race together and add Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie together, we basically get the 2016 Clinton-Bernie margins.  This is extremely bad news for Sanders, for it suggests that in many ways, Bernie has not grown his coalition much and that many states will break down in a way similar to voting patterns from 2016, when Bernie was not even close to matching Clinton for delegates in the end.

Warren still inspires passion and will continue to be a thorn in Bernie’s side as he tries to consolidate the “progressive” wing, but I imagine some Warren supporters who like Bernie, too, will see the writing on the wall (Warren is not likely to win any state today) and some of her support (though not a lot) may shift to Bernie in the face of moderate consolidation.

Finally, a note on former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg: he will not be a non-factor, but I really do expect, at the last minute, his numbers to fade, and, as in South Carolina, I expect undecided late-breakers to break overwhelmingly for Biden, especially with the latest developments.  I think it’s one thing for people to go into a survey and declare they prefer Bloomberg, but another to go in today and vote for him when it is clearly now becoming, for all intents and purposes, a two-person race and more and more obviously so.  I think in most states he will not hit 15% statewide (a crucial threshold for being eligible for delegates).  So, in every state where Bloomberg is polling decently, I expect him to lose a solid chunk of his support and for that shifting support to inflate Biden’s numbers beyond what the polling suggests.  Of course, this is the ex-factor, but data suggests Bloomberg voters are the least committed in the Democratic primary, so I’m sticking with being bearish on Bloomberg.

Breakdown of the 16-Super Tuesday Contests:

Now, let’s look at all the contests!  Each state/territory name will be followed, in parentheses, with the number of pledged delegates up for grabs (all charts are from FiveThirtyEight unless otherwise noted), with more delegates being awarded today than any other day, over one-third of the total pledged delegates in the Democratic nomination process (for comparison, check out delegate and vote totals from 2016 and the below maps):

American Samoa (6) and Democrats abroad (13)

One tiny U.S. territory and Democrats abroad are not U.S. states, so their contests get little attention and are kind of mini-wild cards.  That being said, American Samoa went decidedly for Clinton (even though it was and still is a caucus) and Democrats abroad went decidedly for Sanders in 2016.  With no polling data available, I would guess the best bet is something akin to what happened four years ago but substituting Biden for Clinton, but who knows, so do not place a strong bet on these relatively minor contests.

Who knows?

Vermont (16)

As far as states, only Alaska and Wyoming have fewer delegates.  Bernie should obviously win his home state by a very wide margin, the question is whether he will sweep or will Biden get a sizable minority of delegates in a way that would embarrass Bernie?  With only a few recent polls, there is not much data to go on, but Bernie will win and by a sizable margin.

Bernie wins easily, but can Biden get any delegates?

Maine (24)

Bernie trounced Hillary here in 2016, but this was also a caucus back then, and, as I have noted before, the abominations known as caucuses heavily favor Sanders by their nature, amplifying dramatically the voice of the passionate over pragmatic, colder voters; now, Maine has a more fair primary.  Bernie was way ahead in the polls here, but that was with Bloomberg doing well and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg doing well, too.  With Bloomberg fading and Pete and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar—both moderates clogging up Biden’s moderate lane—both dropping out and endorsing Biden, Biden might actually be competitive here.  Sanders should be favored but don’t count Biden out here, especially with Sen. Elizabeth Warren from nearby Massachusetts (perhaps now strategically, in a self-sacrificing way) clogging up Bernie’s “progressive” lane and Bernie’s polling average being under 30% even in the lead.  I imagine Warren’s staying power will be far larger here and in other states relative to Bloomberg, but if Bloomberg does well (which I am doubting), expect Bernie to win here.

Ostensibly great for Bernie, but Joe could surprise

Utah (29)

Sanders demolished Clinton here in 2016, but this was also a caucus, so, as with other caucus states that are now holding primaries, expect his numbers to be closer to earth.  There are only a couple of polls here, so the picture is murky, with Sanders generally having a healthy lead but not breaking 30%.  With a now-mostly consolidated moderate wing backing Biden, this state could go either way, even though Bernie seems to be favored by analysts, but I would bet a lot of that has to do with the 2016 vote.  Biden is much more open about his religious faith than Clinton was, so the deeply religious Mormons may appreciate this about Biden over the more secularized Sanders.

Toss-up

Arkansas (31)

Only a few polls have been out for Arkansas, but they showed way more people supporting moderate candidates and Bernie was not high on the list.  Bernie does not do well with Southern whites, and this is the state the Clintons led for years, so, along with having a sizable black population, this is not fertile ground for Bernie and Biden should do very well here.  Sanders, on the other hand, was clobbered here by Clinton in 2016.

Biden is a very clear favorite

Oklahoma (37)

Only a few recent polls had Biden and Bloomberg doing well, Sanders not so much.  With Bloomberg fading quickly, Biden should take from him in addition to adding support from other candidates who just left the race.  It is also a pretty white state (favoring Sanders), but is, more specifically, Southern white (which has not worked for Sanders).  Sanders might do better here than other Southern states, but that is a pretty low bar.  Yet Sanders did beat Clinton by 10 points, so don’t be shocked if he pulls off an “upset” based on limited data, especially if Bloomberg does well (though I doubt that will happen); it could be close.

Clear edge Biden, but don’t count Bernie out with so little data

Alabama (52)

This state has a very large African-American population, and, notably, Sanders skipped the 55^th anniversary of Selma’s Bloody Sunday this weekend, the only major candidate not to attend, which could hurt him with black voters even more, especially in this state, at a time when he desperately needs to make inroads with that community; skipping Selma this weekend is just one of many tone-deaf moves by Sanders throughout his career (hello Fidel!).  Clinton demolished Sanders here in 2016 and this year’s result does not look to be much different for Sanders.

Huge win for Biden here

Tennessee (64)

Clinton dominated Sanders here, and with a sizable African-American population, it is hard to see Sanders winning this time around, either.  Though some late polling had him close, with the moderates consolidating, Biden should win comfortably, even with bad weather and a tornado hitting Nashville last night perhaps depressing turnout.

Pretty big win for Biden

Colorado (67)

Bernie trounced Hillary here in 2016, but, here again, we have a state that abandoned caucuses in 2016 for a primary in 2020.  Yes, it’s a pretty white state Bernie did well in but, once again, Bernie is polling here on average under 30% (far below his support in 2016) and moderate consolidation makes this race competitive, as it’s hard to see where a massive increase in support would come for Bernie with the moderates consolidating.  If Bloomberg doesn’t tank, Bernie has a much better chance, but I seem Bloomberg tanking.

Toss-up

Minnesota (75)

Sanders handily beat Clinton here, but back then, the state had caucuses and now it is a primary.  He was basically tied in polling with Klobuchar here, but with her dropping out along with Buttigieg and both endorsing Biden, Biden will be competitive.  But since Klobuchar’s tying with Bernie is likely more because of her being a local than ideology, perhaps a decent amount of her supporters go left and buck her endorsement of Biden.  Don’t count Joe out but definitely an edge for Bernie.

Close but edge to Bernie

Massachusetts (91)

Bernie and Warren are neck-and-neck here, but Biden should finish well, too, with all that moderate consolidation.  And yet, Massachusetts is, literally, the most liberal state in the country according to Gallup (with Bernie’s neighboring Vermont being the third most-liberal) so you would think Bernie would be doing better here… Still, I suspect that, in fact, because of moderates consolidating, a number of Warren voters will shift to Bernie for strategic reasons.  Warren was even less popular than her home state’s Republican governor in the 2018 elections so favoring her here does not seem like the better bet.

Edge to Bernie with Biden having a decent third place

Virginia (99)

With Northern Virginia being the government and politics crowd, Biden in a known and respected pillar of DC, and I have it from an impeccable inside source that absentee voting in Arlington, VA, is twice as high as in 2016, with more absentee votes still being counted, and that’s solid Biden country.  The state also has a loyal and sizable African-American constituency that even stuck by Gov. Ralph Northam through his blackface scandal. Biden should win big, especially with Bloomberg fading and moderate consolidation.

Big win for Biden

North Carolina (110)

With a large African American population and great recent polling for Biden, for many of the reasons he will do well in other states, expect Biden to win big here in North Carolina.  Not any good signs for Bernie, unless you think Bloomberg will be competitive, which I don’t.

Huge win for Biden

Texas (228)

This is the third-largest delegate haul in the country, only behind California and New York.  Results from Nevada suggest that Bernie is dominant with Hispanic voters, and, until recently, the most recent polls had Bernie with a decent lead.  But few pundits have pointed out how the caucus system there may very well have overrepresented his support with Latinos (normally difficult to poll), just as they overrepresent Sanders’s support in general, as was clearly the case with African-Americans (28% for Bernie in Nevada versus a more representative 17% in South Carolina), and I suspect this will be the case with Latinos; while it does seems Sanders has made solid inroads with Latinos since Hillary Clinton dominated him with them in 2016, the Texas primary will be the first real test of this.  If I am correct and his edge with Latinos shrinks or even disappears in Texas (and other primary states), Biden should win Texas (even if Sanders does better than Biden with Latinos, expect serious support for Biden from them, too.  And while Latinos are a huge minority in Texas, there is a solid African-American minority of about 11% of the state’s population there (and a much larger portion of the state’s Democratic primary electorate).  And with Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and former Texas U.S.-Representative-and-Senate-and-presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke all endorsing Biden yesterday in Texas, Biden’s numbers will exceed his polling.  Hillary trounced Bernie in 2016 here, and with dynamics the way they are, it’s looking good for Biden, too, even if it may be fairly close.

Biden should win here, though the margin could range from slight to solid

California (415)

By far, the biggest prize in the nomination calendar has, until recently, looked to be decidedly pro-Bernie.  But with recent events, his recent dominant polling is deceptive, and a few late polls are already showing a Biden surge, which I thought was likely after South Carolina and especially likely after the Buttigieg endorsement, let alone the Klobuchar one; these surges in a few recent polls are data-points in favor of a much closer race in California.  Hillary won comfortably in 2016, and Biden has a real chance of catching Sanders.  Still, Sanders should be considered a favorite, especially considering how California is a state that has had massive amounts of early voting for some time during Sanders’s earlier peak, and Biden’s nadir, after New Hampshire and Nevada.  Still, those expecting a Bernie blowout of Biden are likely to be disappointed.  As I noted in my last piece, who gets the nomination would come down to California: if Bernie could blow out his competition there, it would be hard to catch him if he got nearly all its 415 delegates.  But, with Biden looking a lot closer and even having a shot at winning, it seems at best Bernie’s delegate lead there will be solid but not huge even as he is crushed in other key states in the South on Tuesday.  If early voting was less intense, it would look even better for Biden, but if Bernie wins by a more-than-modest margin, early voting will likely be the determining factor in that larger margin.  Bernie should win, but probably not by a ton, and Biden has a real probability of surprising, but especially with early voting happening in force expect Bernie to at least eke it out but probably do better than eke.  In the end, a good chunk of delegates should still go Biden’s way here either way.

Bernie should win, but not with the decisive win he needs, yet don’t count Biden out, either

Conclusion: Great News for Biden and Democrats, Bad News for Bernie and Trump

I was vainly trying to get this out last night, where I had the same overall feelings about how these races today would go, but new polling out this morning has only confirmed what my instincts were telling me as soon as Pete bowed out: Biden’s got this.

Looking at just about any state poll that came out before the last few days, you can add at least 10 points to Biden’s numbers, give-or-take, factoring in the Buttigieg and Klobuchar endorsements and that those endorsement will intensify an already increasing Bloomberg defection.  If you don’t believe me, Pete was averaging 10%, Amy 5%, in national polls as late as March 1^st, with Bloomberg at 15%.  That’s 30% combined, so don’t be surprised if Biden can even add 15-20% in numerous places to his numbers from March 1^st (10% is more conservative and I’m covering my ass to allow for early voting and human stubbornness, but it’s hardly unrealistic to think that one-half to two-thirds [or more!] of that bloc of support defect[s] to Biden on Super Tuesday votes cast today).  Add to all that the fact that there are serious percentages of undecided voters that will likely break for Biden as in South Carolina, and I expect Biden to do WAY better than his polling until just the last couple of days.

A few key points:

1. Bernie’s large edge with Latinos from Nevada will likely not translate to that degree since caucuses are not representative of larger voting populations
2. Biden should get a large portion of the (especially) Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and (even) Bloomberg support (even with him still in the race)
3. Undecideds should break heavily for Biden
4. California was Bernie’s one chance to run away with it in the delegate race and it is pretty clear that is quite unlikely now
5. Biden will crush Bernie overall in the South, making up for any difference in delegates between him and Bernie in California
6. States where Bernie will/could do his best are far smaller in delegate-count than the ones where Biden will do his best
7. Final Point: Biden should dominate Super Tuesday and should be on a clear path to the nomination after today

Thus, it very likely seems Bernie has already peaked and peaked early, just like in 2016.  His inability to win over African-American voters or less liberal whites means he, once again, was fairly doomed from the start if the moderate lane consolidated enough in time, which is exactly what happened this weekend.  There will be no revolution, and a nominee toxic to so many moderate and independent voters will not hand Trump an easy victory.  I’m already hearing anecdotally that more than a few people who voted Trump in 2016 will vote for Biden in 2020.

Thanks goodness for practical African-American voters, rescuing the left from itself two election cycles in a row.

I know I made a bold claim here as to the quality of my predictions, but my predictions in the 2016 cycle—from recognizing Trump as a threat way back in August, 2015, to seeing the Russian threat in July, 2016, from noting Clinton was obviously going to be the nominee after Nevada and Trump after South Carolina, to seeing how much of a threat Bernie Sanders and his supporters were as far as damaging Clinton, and in seeing Clinton as more vulnerable in the general election against Trump—proved to be far more prescient than most.

After tomorrow, the Democratic Party will very likely have fended-off an extremist hostile takeover and can present a sane, rational alternative to Trump that will not terrify many and will have broad appeal that can cut into Trump’s coalition.  There will be no risky revolution, but we have a shot to build on solid progress from the Obama years and other previous Democratic presidents, and, more importantly, a far better chance to stop a literal madman named Donald Trump—one with overtly fascist tendencies and operating extraconstitutionally—from destroying the American republic.  Exhale…

See my related article from before the South Carolina primary where I laid out the above scenario: Democrats Look Disastrous, But Biden May Yet Save Them from Themselves Starting in South Carolina

In the interest of full disclosure, Brian interned for Joe Biden from September-December, 2006. He is currently in no way professionally affiliated with the Biden 2020 campaign, nor is receiving any compensation from it nor the Democratic Party nor any related super-PACs, campaigns, or other political groups involved in the 2020 nominating contests and elections.

© 2020 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Brian E. Frydenborg is an American freelance writer, academic, and consultant from the New York City area. You can follow and contact him on Twitter: @bfry1981.  He also just recently authored A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia.

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here and, of course, please share the hell out of this article!!

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!

By Brian E. Frydenborg (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter @bfry1981)  February 26, 2020 (title modified to include Putin/Bernie angle March 30, 2020)

WASHINGTON — As the wounded, screeching animal that is the collective of the Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls and, indeed, the Democratic Party itself, limps forward after the Nevada caucuses, I am filled both with a deep sense of dread but also have reasons for reasonable hope.

The Bad and the Ugly

First, the dread.

One almost has to admire the near-total lack of self-awareness of Bernie Sanders and so many of his followers.  Yes, countries are unique, but they do not exist in a vacuum, and as they march confidently forward, Bernie and his followers act as if they are not at all aware of the some fairly overwhelming global trends that are affecting Western democracies in particular but hardly Western Democracies alone.

The most prominent example is just from a few months ago, when a blithely confident Labour Party chief Jeremy Corbyn and his army of young and diverse Corbynistas were happy to condescend to all those questioning them as bad-faith, corrupted actors and never really prepared any serious answers to the valid concerns of those not on board as they sought to foist an ideology and scale and pace of change most Britons were nowhere near ready to accept.  The result was the worst electoral show for Britain’s Labour Party since 1935.  More than the following cases, the case of Corbyn and Labour in the UK should be a warning to Democrats, just as Brexit should have been a warning for Trump’s prospects in 2016, as I cautioned at the time.

Still, there are many more cases to consider.  We can look to Israel’s politics over the past two decades, which has seen its once mighty Labor Party fall to near political irrelevance, the same journey of the overall Israeli left.  Now, Israel is just days away from a third election this cycle in which, it seems, Israel’s left will be yet again be part of a failed effort to oust a rightist coalition.

The long-powerful French Socialist Party has likewise seen a crushing of its power recently.  In fact, all across Europe and beyond in places like Brazil, once popular leftist parties in democracies have crumbled and the far-right has risen.  While there are certainly some brighter spots for leftists electorally of late (e.g., Mexico, Canada), this collapse is stark and widespread, and not unrelated to Trump’s rise and current American political dynamics.  The collapse is also accompanied by a collapse of long-standing societal institutions—or at least a collapse in the public’s confidence in them—everything from government and organized religion to journalism and marriage to political parties and financial entities, even our faith in each other.  Such things had been stable for some time (sometimes a very long time), but in many ways now, we live in an era of dangerous declines in the very fabrics of society (in such a context, it is understanding, though still disturbing, that so many people have fallen on nationalism, ethnic identity, and/or fundamentalist religion).

It is within these contexts that Sanders’s would-be Sandernista revolutionaries have approached a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party.  And let us make it clear that we are talking about a hostile takeover: in 2016, Sanders only won about one-third of registered Democrats running against Clinton, who was the preference of about two-thirds of registered Democrats.  The reverse was the case for their performance among independents who voted in the primaries and caucuses.

Again with the lack of self-awareness, they seem not to know in what “good” company they traverse.  For there is a massive international campaign—the primary mover behind which is none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Kremlin, including Russian military forces and intelligence—designed to destroy democracy by destroying the political center (including the center-right and center-left) throughout the Western democracies, particularly the United States and within the EU.  This is not by just attacking mainstream political parties, but by boosting many far-right and far-left parties and candidates as well as secessionist movements (Brexit, California, Texas, Catalonia, Scotland, and Ukraine are among the most prominent).  The idea with the former is to help far-right ethno-nationalist parties (espousing politics similar to Putin’s own nationalist brand inside Russia) take power; in this context, boosting the far-left parties, which are almost universally unviable today, serves to weaken the center in the face of the far-right. With the latter secessionism, the idea is to literally break apart key European nations and alliances, destabilizing Europe and weakening its unity and that of NATO in the face of a Kremlin eager to expand its influence on the continent.  Especially with Trump’s anti-European and anti-NATO views—whereby the U.S. before Trump had been Europe’s biggest supporter against Russia—Putin’s support of him and others is helping to systematically weaken the post-WWII system set up by the U.S. that has brought about the greatest level of peace and prosperity in Europe since the height of the pax-Romana over one-and-a-half millennia ago.  This war on the political center contributes to a goal long-held by Putin: an overall global decline in democracy and the rule of law, happening right now to his delight.  And neither Bernie, nor his people, never, ever seem to stop to ask how things they say and do are advancing Putin’s exact agenda in their own quest to destroy the center.

So, basically, the world does not revolve around Bernie Sanders at all for the Kremlin, he is just one of many far-left “useful idiot” candidates the Kremlin favors not at all as an end, but as a means to a destabilizing end, whether in 2016 or now, as was just revelated to little surprise to those who have been following (Jill Stein is simply another, just less prominent, example).  Unlike Trump, with Sanders I do not believe that he solicits or accepts such interference (though, quite unhelpfully, he seems to be blaming the media for making a big deal of this when this is a serious issue, and he did, rather astounding and infuriatingly, also seem to blame Russia for the Bernie bro phenomenon; sure the Russians amplify, but Bernie bros are real).

What is even more remarkable is that nearly all of his supporters with whom I have interacted with online or in-person are “useful idiots” for the Kremlin, a term popularly attributed, perhaps incorrectly, to Lenin himself used to describe those who unwittingly propagate Kremlin propaganda because, simply, the believe in it.  These Bernie people basically dismiss the idea that Russia is boosting Bernie as “fake news” in spite of the detailed evidence for this (and much in the way Trump and Republicans do along with the Kremlin itself).  They deny it in spite of the obvious reality that a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, is an apologist for Fidel Castro and the 1979 Iranian hostage-takers, who broadcast Sandinista propaganda as mayor of Burlington, and seems to hate capitalism has close to zero chance of being elected president of a conservative, capitalist country with Electoral College and gerrymandered congressional voting district systems that strongly favor conservatives, that the Kremlin clearly wants Bernie to run against Trump so Putin can keep his favorite useful idiot in office.

These Bernie Supporters (I know these are not all of them, but still do represent a big chunk) do not like anything that does not fit the narrative that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are entirely to blame for the 2016 loss to Trump, so they are also usually all-too-quick to dismiss the clear reality that Russia interfered in 2016 at all to help Trump (journalistically, the incredibly selective, irritatingly myopic, and downright nasty Glenn Greenwald and his fellow Intercept folks Jeremy Scahill and Aaron Maté also fall into this useful idiot category).  They could care less about their role in the wider world or even the country: all that matters is their agenda and their crusade to see the center-left be obliterated by the Bernie left, they are not willing to even entertain the idea that they should adapt to add a larger spectrum of people to their camp, no, everyone else needs to join them and that is the only way they can see meaningful progress happening.  The very idea that they might do anything to appeal to people to their right, be they less liberal Democrats, independents, or even Republicans, offends then.  Sanders exudes this style from the top.

They do not care about the Democratic Party other than its utility to them as a vehicle to power; their aims are to hijack and destroy it from the inside out, not mold or remake, but to totally take it over and “bern” it down hence, they demand while offering no compromise.

And Sanders has practically won all three of first three states (technically two in terms of actual delegates so far but all three when looking at the popular vote in Iowa).  He is the overall leader in delegates and has all sorts of positive press coverage that comes along with winning.  He is the frontrunner by the main standards that count (delegates and votes), and his opposition for the nomination is fractured and far too numerous.  If Super Tuesday were held with the latest polls as the results, in many cases Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar would dilute the moderate vote so much so that Bernie would walk away with by far the most delegates and many of the moderates would be so weak individually they would not even receive any delegates (a candidate must get 15% statewide and in a state’s congressional districts to get any statewide or district-level delegates, respectively, and it is delegates that award the nomination).  A look at the current weighted polling averages in California, the state with the most delegates by far (415) at stake, makes how dire the situation of the non-Bernie Democrats is very clear:

So Bernie could be on a march to the nomination in what would be certain, barring some unforeseen calamity like an economic collapse orchestrated unwittingly by Trump, to hand Trump four more years in the White House, which could lead to the destruction of the American republic as we know it, as I have warned for years.

For this to sink in, ponder the actual distribution of political ideology in America:

Gallup has self-identified liberals at only 25%, while moderates are 35% and conservatives 37% of the population, and only six out of fifty states have more liberals than conservatives; Pew still has moderate and conservative democrats combined slightly outnumbering liberal Democrats in real life, though not in Twitter’s cesspool.

In other words, given the Electoral College and the fact that liberals are greatly outnumbered by moderates and conservative in general and even more so by states, it is truly madness to run Bernie Sanders in a national election.  Hypothetical polling should be ignored, as both Democrats and Republicans have avoided throwing the mountains of negative opposition research against Sanders because Democrats want to win over Sanders’ supporters and have Bernie play nice if they beat him, while Republicans want to see him do well against other Democrats so they can then fire point-blank at him during the general election, when they can see the whites of his eyes.

The signs so far are more or less that this will happen, that we are stuck with Bernie… until now.

The Good

For those Democrats reasonable, not myopic, and self-aware enough as to their relative strength and position in the overall Democratic and national electorate, and for other non-Democrats who dread Bernie as a choice against Trump, there are still reasons for hope.

1.) There are signs Bernie still is not winning many Democrats and his performance thus far gives ammunition to this idea

Looking at where contests have been held to far, it is important to note that the Iowa caucuses allowed same-day registration (meaning you did not need to be registered before you went to the caucuses), the New Hampshire primary was open (meaning you did not have to be a registered Democrat to vote in it), and the Nevada caucuses also allowed same-day registration.  In Iowa’s caucus entrance polls, only 20% of people identifying as Democrats were saying they were going to support Sanders.  In New Hampshire’s exit polls, only 26% of Democrats voted Sanders, and Democrats were only 52% of voters.  And in Nevada, only 30% of Democrats said they were supporting Sanders in entrance polls (and nearly one-fifth of voters were not Democrats).

The open quality of these contests, however, is not representative of the overall situation going forward, as a large chunk of upcoming contests have closed primaries in which only Democrats can participate, including New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania, the states with the second, fourth, and fifth most delegates up for grabs.  Most states also will not have same-day registration available, though a decent chunk will.  For Bernie supporters who are not loyal Democrats and disdain the party system, this means that unless they register early as Democrats in many places (a thought that would make a fair number of them sick), they cannot vote in the nomination contests.  Considering how at least 70% of Democrats in each of the first three states have not voted for Sanders, that is not a good sign for Team Bernie.

State registration deadlines

2.) From South Carolina forward, the overall territory of the contest is far less favorable to Bernie

Bernie does well and, in 2016, did well in three types of states: a.) states with open primaries, as noted above b.) very white states

Highest percent-white-alone states, 2019 U.S. Census data

and c.) caucus states (lots of overlap in b and c).  Sanders’ message in 2016 and his approach just did not resonate with voters of color, who overwhelmingly supported Clinton over Sanders; she easily won the most diverse states, which are also the most populous states.  So far this year (as before), the first two states were also two of the whitest: Iowa and New Hampshire are almost 91% and over 93% white, respectively, the sixth and eight-whitest states in the country (Bernie’s Vermont is the second-whitest state).

That gave Sanders quite a boost and hurt, say, Biden, going into Nevada.  But Iowa and Nevada are also caucuses, which are undemocratic abominations (as I have noted before) that, overall, dramatically depress turnout and favor certain privileged and enthusiastic groups over others and introduce social pressure by forcing caucus-goers to cast their votes publicly in front of their neighbors and force lobbying during the voting process.  The system is so chaotic, bad, and unrepresentative that in 2016 (besides this year’s obvious mishaps), when Washington State and Nebraska held non-binding primaries after the binding caucuses, Clinton beat Sanders in contests with dramatically higher turnout even though Sanders won the caucuses and, therefore, most of the delegates.  This year, mercifully, half the states with caucuses have already gone over to primaries, and only two states—North Dakota and Wyoming, tied for the least delegates of any state—and three U.S. territories are holding caucuses going forward, whereas fourteen states had caucuses in 2014 (twelve of which Bernie won by large margins and two of which Clinton won rather, and relatively, narrowly). Basically, in 2016, Bernie outperformed and dominated in caucus states.

In summary, this year the first two states were states with built-in advantages for Bernie, where he only won barely with the popular votes with about 26% support, and in Nevada, where he did far better, that was still a caucus state that inflated his support.

But Bernie will find South Carolina and the more populous Super Tuesday States a whole different ballgame, with far more diverse populations bestowing bountiful delegates in primaries.

3.) Dynamics are generally setting up to favor Biden and hurt Bernie and others

Apart from the aforementioned structural, geographic, and demographic reasons, other things are coming together to help elevate former Vice President Joe Biden and stall Sanders.

For one thing, apart from Sanders not having a terrible debate, everything else went about as well as Biden could have hoped for in the Nevada debate.  Biden easily had his best performance to date.  Yes, Sen. Elizabeth Warren stole the show, but she is competing mainly for other “progressive” voters with Sanders, not with Biden voters.  And she did Biden a huge favor by eviscerating the hapless former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has taken a lot of support from Biden within the moderate lane.  The other two moderates, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, tore into each other.  Warren also tore into each of them and even Bernie, and Pete went after Bloomberg, too.  Biden needed Klobuchar and Buttigieg and especially Bloomberg to take hits, and they did in dramatic fashion.  He needed Warren to do well to siphon off votes from Sanders and she performed better than anyone else.

In part as a result of these dynamics, Biden did far better in Nevada than in Iowa or New Hampshire, and though he came in far behind Sanders, he also came in far ahead of third-place Buttigieg in terms of delegates, with Klobuchar being shut out.  This was just what Biden needed going into South Carolina: a strong debate performance; a solid and clear second-place performance, a reminder of his relative potential strength compared to Buttigieg and Klobuchar in more diverse states; Warren hanging tough and keeping some “progressive” votes from going to Sanders; Bloomberg scaring the hell out of his supporters (some of the least committed in the race, along with Buttigieg’s voters) with that awful performance; and with businessman Tom Steyer—a virtual one-hit-wonder with high polling in South Carolina and nowhere else, except for some polls in Nevada but, encouragingly, he was a dud there—not even on stage, a reminder of his lack of a national profile.

Then came the South Carolina debate, in many ways a repeat of Nevada’s.  Bloomberg did not look as awful but still did not look good, and Warren was good but not as dominant.  Joe, though, had another of his best debates, the best one yet—a far more assertive and dominant Joe than we have seen—in which he was often the center of attention, and, helpful for Biden, everyone focused most of their fire on Sanders and kind of ignored Bloomberg for much of the debate.  Sanders was consistent as usual but also responded poorly and angrily—even to the audience!—when confronted.  For the most part Klobuchar and Buttigieg were fine but also non-factors other than solid attacks against Sanders, as was Steyer, who looked pretty bad when Biden brought up his $90 million investment into for-profit prisons.  This was an even more ideal debate, then, for Biden.

As if all this was not good enough for Biden’s chances, the legendary South Carolina politician, U.S. Rep. and House Majority Whip (the number-three Democratic leader in the U.S. House of Representatives) James Clyburn, endorsed Biden today, the next morning.  This was expected but is still quite welcome, as Clyburn is a titan of South Carolina politics, where he fought for civil rights in the 1960s and was arrested and jailed for his efforts.  Clyburn is a revered figure for many African-Americans, elected to Congress in 1993 and selected for the number-three leadership position for House Democrats back in 2006, which he has held in both majority and minority roles since.

When Hillary Clinton got his endorsement in 2016, Clyburn helped her to exceed her polls and beat Sanders by an even far larger margin than Obama beat her in 2008.

So just about everything Biden could reasonably hope for (save for Steyer dropping out) has happened in the run-up to South Carolina.  If Biden win and wins convincingly there, some Democrats who have flocked to Bloomberg and Buttigieg (who are, relatively, uncommitted to them in polling) would easily flock back to a winning Biden. Buttigieg has no path going forward without any serious black support and the weaker Klobuchar even more so for the same reason has no path forward, and after they are very likely crushed in South Carolina, pressure on them to drop out will be overwhelming.  If they are not myopic or narcissistic, they will heed the call and back their fellow moderate Biden to prevent Sanders form having a high chance of piloting the Democratic Party like the Hindenburg.

Only three of fifty states have weighed in, and there are also the District of Columbia and various U.S. territories to vote, too.  A candidate needs to win 1,991 delegates to win the nomination on the first-round ballot at the convention, and Bernie Sanders so far has a whopping total of… forty-five, 2.2% of the total he needs.  Biden is just a mere thirty delegates behind, which is nothing, an easily surmountable lead that Biden has a decent chance to overtake in South Carolina.

Even if Biden does not become the frontrunner with a delegate lead immediately after South Carolina, in big Super Tuesday states, Biden is already polling well or ahead (though far lower with Bloomberg’s rise) even before the events in South Carolina impact those numbers.  Bernie is doing as well as he is in Super Tuesday polls in part because of Bloomberg’s previous surge chipping support away from Biden and Bernie’s Nevada bounce.  But Bloomberg is falling and, if Biden does well in South Carolina, we can expect his numbers to go up at the expense of Bloomberg and also Buttigieg and Klobuchar.  If one or more of them can be convinced to drop and out and endorse Biden before Super Tuesday—just three days after South Carolina, when over one-third of all pledged delegates will be awarded—that would go even farther.  On that day, two of the four states with over 200 pledged delegates up for grabs—California, with the most, and Texas, with the third-most, of all states—vote.

As in 2016, Bernie may have peaked in February in 2020.

The Moment of Truth for Non-Sanders Democrats Is Now

Until recently, Biden was ahead in most of the larger Super Tuesday votes and was competitive, as we saw above, in California, but Bernie built up a lead that could drown Biden out in California (again, if candidates do not get at least 15% statewide and in individual congressional districts, they do not get any delegates), however, this is at Bernie’s current peak.  And Biden is still neck-and-neck or ahead in Texas.

A strong South Carolina performance could seriously stop and reverse the gains Bernie has been making in these states, but it may come down to California: if too many other moderates take away enough support from Biden so that he is below 15% and gets no delegates out of the whopping 415 delegates at stake there, that could be an advantage for Bernie that might be very difficult, maybe even impossible, for Biden to overcome.  However, Bloomberg is doing tremendous damage to Biden there in current polling and in many of the larger states, and if he keeps fading, this prospect could be mitigated.  Conversely, in Florida, (voting later on March 17^th) Bernie is flirting with not being viable delegate-wise at all, so that, too, with that state’s fourth-largest delegate haul of 219 delegates, could offset to some degree a poor Biden showing in California.

But if Biden beats Sanders in Texas and take fare more delegates than him, combined, in other Super Tuesday states—something that would require Biden gaining a lot in California in the short time after South Carolina—then he would be the frontrunner.

I would argue this scenario is the hardly to be dismissed, and I would bet on him being viable there, given that Biden’s main competitors in the moderate lane have a good chance of continuing to fall or may even drop out after South Carolina, but it certainly is a serious possibility that they will not fall enough and Biden could be shutout in California.  If that scenario happens it will remain to be seen whether Biden or Bernie gets the nomination, and it will come down to a long fight over each remaining state, much like Clinton vs. Obama in 2008.  However, Biden will need the resources to compete and do respectably against Bernie in less populous, rural, and whiter states, and, currently, Sanders is way outpacing Biden in fundraising, yet, if other candidates give way to Biden, it is reasonable to think a lot more fundraising will come to Biden.  If Biden clearly outperforms Bernie on Super Tuesday, just like with Clinton, it would be hard to see Bernie overtaking Biden.

Still, rather than Bernie running away with it on Super Tuesday, South Carolina should significantly alter the dynamics of this race to give Biden a huge boost and pressure his moderate rivals to clear the way for Biden to take Bernie on mano a mano.  It is very likely that this boost will make Biden competitive for most of the rest of the nomination process, but the main question is if dynamics before Super Tuesday will boost Biden enough in California to be competitive and take a big chunk of delegates from there—which would almost surely make Biden the frontrunner—or if Bernie will dominate California to the degree of shutting or almost shutting Biden out of delegates, which could lead to a protracted, scorched-earth campaign and maybe, perhaps likely, a Bernie win.

However, Bernie Sanders being Bernie Sanders, even if Biden is the clear frontrunner, I fear, just like in 2016, Bernie and his Bernie bros will fight tooth and nail even when it is clear Bernie would not be the nominee.  Either way, the party will likely be torn apart, but apart from Bernie being the nominee and getting crushed by Trump—by far the most likely outcome with nominee Sanders—the worst outcome would be Bernie dominating in California but still losing to Biden in a very tight race, thus making Biden’s challenge of uniting the Democratic Party that much more difficult.  Still, if Biden can limit Bernie’s delegate advantage in California or even beat him there (the latter of which looks unlikely unless several people drop out), he should be a clear favorite to clear the 1,991-delegate threshold.

So I would say, roughly, there is probably a one-third chance that Biden will be a clear frontrunner, a one-third chance it could be pretty unclear until the end (I would still favor Biden then), and a one-third chance Bernie could get enough delegates on Super Tuesday, especially in California, that he would be a clear frontrunner.  But with so many x-factors—especially the behavior and performance of Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Warren (whom we have not discussed much, but her exit would help Sanders significantly)—in the mix, it is hard to narrow things down to one most likely scenario.  In contrast, in 2016, polling made it clear even after New Hampshire that Clinton was a heavy favorite in South Carolina and, as I noted at the time, Nevada was Bernie’s last chance to win over the type of non-white voters he needed before South Carolina and Super Tuesday to be viable going forward.  It was clear with her win in Nevada that Clinton would be the nominee and that Sanders had failed to dent Clinton’s formidable majority coalition.  But, since there are so many more candidates in this 2020 race, the outcome could remain in doubt for some time.

Democrats who want to win in November who are currently backing Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer need to realize that all they are doing is helping Sanders and to switch as quickly as possible to Biden.  In theory, with his fantastic ad campaign, Bloomberg could have been a viable alternative if Biden had continued to tank in Nevada and was more vulnerable in South Carolina.  Reality punctured that finely crafted image and possibility of Bloomberg’s with two far-from-good debate performances by Bloomberg.  If Biden had tanked, there would also have been a case for Buttigieg and Klobuchar remaining in the race, but with Biden poised for a clear South Carolina win, history will remember Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar for not getting out of the way and handing the nomination to Sanders if they persist in way that kneecaps Biden’s chances to overtake Sanders.  Sanders has a decent theoretical chance in South Carolina, but it seems very unlikely given the dynamics I have mentioned.

If there is one thing the anti-Sanders crowd can count on, it is the abilities of Sanders and his supporters to keep their high floor and low ceiling, sticking to their messianism, and doing little to nothing to win over those not already persuaded. Thus, Bernie will be easy to defeat if the moderate candidates consolidate quickly around Biden, but if Sanders is the nominee winning mostly 20-to-30-something % throughout, it will be because the other main non-Biden candidates could not put the country and the party before themselves even when it was clear they had virtually no chance to be the nominee, and it may be too late after Super Tuesday. At stake is not just the soul the Democratic Party, but the soul of the nation and its survival as a democratic republic.

In the interest of full disclosure, Brian interned for Joe Biden from September-December, 2006.

© 2020 Brian E. Frydenborg all rights reserved, permission required for republication, attributed quotations welcome

Brian E. Frydenborg is an American freelance writer, academic, and consultant from the New York City area. You can follow and contact him on Twitter: @bfry1981.  He also just recently authored A Song of Gas and Politics: How Ukraine Is at the Center of Trump-Russia.

If you appreciate Brian’s unique content, you can support him and his work by donating here

Feel free to share and repost this article on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. If you think your site or another would be a good place for this or would like to have Brian generate content for you, your site, or your organization, please do not hesitate to reach out to him!