Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (Mary Schwalm / Reuters)
by Thomas Neuburger
One of the more likely outcomes of this season's primary race is that either Warren or Sanders will be the nominee. Not because either will get a majority of first-ballot votes at the convention, though that's possible, but because it's entirely likely that one of the two of them will enter the convention with the greatest plurality.
If that occurs, all signs point to the "loser" of the two in the plurality contest adding his or her votes to the winner's total, creating a classic "unity candidate" — and a dicey-to-overcome-with-superdelegates majority candidate — when the second round ballots are cast. It doesn't matter whether they both finish above the rest, just so that one of them does.
To see how this works, let's say Sanders enters the convention with 38% of the pledged delegates, Biden (or some other centrist somebody) enters with 30%, and Warren enters with 28% — made-up numbers for sure and not a prediction. If Warren tells her pledged delegates to vote for Sanders on the second round, Sanders will have 68% of the ballots (assuming the follow her lead), a total more than enough for Sanders to claim the nomination.
The same is true if they finish one-and-two and the delegate counts are close. Let's say Warren enters the convention with 42% of the pledged delegates, Sanders enters with 40% (again, made up numbers), and the remaining 18% are split in various ways.
In that case, it makes sense for Warren to be the nominee with Sanders' second-ballot support — which is how I'm sure Sanders will see it. Thus the alternative isn't worth talking about — a fight between the two that would only open the door for superdelegates to do as much anti-progressive damage as they can.
Even if you think Warren is only halfway between Sanders and Biden on the progressive scale (domestic policy only; see below for her domestic policy), halfway is better than no way at all. It's certain at least that Sanders will see it that way.
This is not to say that primary voters should be sanguine about the Sanders v. Warren contest. On the contrary, Sanders and Warren are not only not the same, but they are very different in striking and important ways — which means that it matters which of them enters the convention with the most delegates. And in my view, it matters a lot.
How Are Sanders and Warren Different? Counting the Ways.
The person who's done the best job of laying out all the ways it does matter is Current Affairs contributing editor Eli Massey in a recent series of tweets. I want to extract what he wrote so his list can be put on one place. Here's Massey's opening tweet:
Loads of pundits have opined that the differences between Warren and Sanders are minor, cosmetic, or don't really exist. In reality, I think there are many good reasons to prefer Sanders over Warren. To highlight a few:— Eli Massey (@EliJMassey) November 9, 2019
The following is his list, with links where he includes them (bolded emphasis mine, lightly edited for clarity and to correct errors):
1) Sanders supports national rent control, Warren does not.
2) Sanders has a plan to end homelessness in the U.S., Warren does not.
3) Sanders says there should be no billionaires, Warren says there should.
This one requires some discussion, but not for now. The issue is usually put as, "Should the hard-working retain their wealth? versus "Is a society with billionaires a fair or safe one for the rest of us?" — bypassing, of course, the question "How many billionaires earned their wealth in the first place?"
After all, as a wise man once wrote, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
4) Sanders IDs as a Democratic Socialist, Warren is a "capitalist to [her] bones."
5) Sanders was endorsed by 3/4 of the Squad (AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar), Warren by 1/4 (Ayanna Pressley).
6) Sanders voted against all of Trump's military budgets, Warren voted for some.
7) Sanders called for former Brazilian President Lula da Silva to be freed from prison, Warren did not.
8) Sanders has a long, proven anti-war record, Warren does not. Article detailing some of the differences:
- When It Comes to U.S. Militarism, Elizabeth Warren Is No Progressive
There’s one important issue on which Warren has not veered far from the Democratic establishment.
10) Sanders has the superior environmental policy and approach to combating climate change. This article from @CarlBeijer gets at some of the differences:
11) Sanders will cancel all student debt, Warren will not.
12) Sanders will cancel all medical debt, Warren will not.
13) Sanders supports universal franchise, Warren was unwilling to commit.
14) Sanders calls for abolishing ICE, CBP, and USCIS, plus the full demilitarization of the border, Warren does not.
15) Sanders has made labor rights & growing unions a central part of his campaign in a way that Warren has not. Sanders has pledged to double the number of workers that belong to a union during his 1st term. Here's an article detailing some of his labor plans:
On foreign policy, where the differences are massive, Massey adds:
Foreign policy and environmental policy alone are reason enough to back Sanders over Warren, given the monumental stakes for each.His conclusion: "I should add that I think Warren is the second least terrible viable presidential candidate, but her differences from Sanders are, in my opinion, significant." I echo that.
Despite the understandable obsession with domestic policy, historically foreign policy is where presidents are able to do as they please, e.g., without oversight from congress. It is for this reason that I think foreign policy ought to be weighted significantly.
My conclusion: The future of this country for the next generation will be written at the 2020 Democratic convention, either because the nominee chosen will be unable to defeat Donald Trump, or because the nominee chosen — Sanders, Warren or someone like Biden — will take the country down definably different paths, each of which will persist until the next great crisis, which is coming sooner than anyone admits.
These are urgent times. Two violent tsunamis — extreme climate disruption, which has already started; populist revolt against bipartisan neoliberal rule, which almost brought us Sanders and did bring us Trump — are already misting our faces. We may have just one more shot at getting the whole thing right.
Getting the whole thing half-right may be better in the short term than getting it entirely wrong, but our grandchildren won't praise us for saving our own futures at the expense of theirs.
Short Bursts:
ReplyDeleteI believe I heard this on Majority Report, and I happen to agree with the idea. It was posited that Warren would be a great Senate Majority Leader (assuming, of course, that the Democrats won the majority - not a sure thing). I amend this proposition to suggest that Warren's expertise with Wall St shenanigans makes her the best person -whether Leader or not- to get in the way of any future moves in Congress to remove even more legal limits and controls of financial institutions.
To keep Warren's Warriors happy, she is the only other Democratic candidate running that I have not yet scratched off my options list. All of the others will not get my vote.
Ayanna Pressley seems to have drifted away from The Squad in both word and deed. Has she gone back to the Party to sit silently on a back bench?
"The future of this country for the next generation will be written at the 2020 Democratic convention..."
To a point, I agree. Unfortunately, the stuffing of Federal courts with Federalist Society partisan hacks has already put the Mark of Cain on this nation for at least a generation.
"...we may well have just one more shot at getting the whole thing right."
As with the judges, there is little chance of getting it ALL right with this one election. We aren't likely to restore the governmental control over corporate existence that was once the case prior to the Civil War.
We the People need better ways to counteract the massive economic power of the corporations. That power will be used against any effort to control or weaken them now that they have almost completed the script written for them by Lewis Powell.
"Getting it half-right may be better in the short term than getting it entirely wrong, but our grandchildren won't praise us for saving our own futures at the expense of theirs."
As the saying goes, half a loaf is better than none. The real issue is keeping what gains we can make. Obama, for instance, was more than willing to gut Social Security and Medicare, and many Democrats want to keep the existing graft and corruption which pretends to provide medical insurance coverage.
These ARE the times which try men's souls. We only have available to us a Party filled with summer soldiers and sunshine patriots who will, in these crises, shrink from the service of their country in order to receive financial and other considerations for betraying us.
Shorts, nice to see another contribution, even though I do disagree with some of it.
ReplyDelete"One of the more likely outcomes of this season's primary race is that either Warren or Sanders will be the nominee. Not because either will get a majority of first-ballot votes at the convention, though that's possible, but because it's entirely likely that one of the two of them will enter the convention with the greatest plurality....
To see how this works, let's say Sanders enters the convention with 38% of the pledged delegates, Biden (or some other centrist somebody) enters with 30%, and Warren enters with 28% — made-up numbers for sure and not a prediction. If Warren tells her pledged delegates to vote for Sanders on the second round, Sanders will have 68% of the ballots (assuming the follow her lead), a total more than enough for Sanders to claim the nomination."
Thomas, surely you are better than THIS!
The first ballot stuff is correct. The DNC will keep just enough ballast, at any cost, to prevent Bernie or Elizabeth (?) from a majority just so the first ballot can pass without a nominee.
But, dear Thomas, you forgot totally about the "superdelegates" that are empowered on all ballots after the first. As in 2016, those credentials are pre-sold and pre-vetted by the PARTY. If you think those delegates are NOT going to grease the chute for biden (or pete or... even Elizabeth, to prevent Bernie), you don't remember your democrap party/DNC history, haven't read donna brazille's book nor do you give the DNC enough credit for corruption.
Your detailing some of the main differences between B & E is important for true progressives. You could also offer some of the recent waffling that Warren has been suffering as, evidently, she is either struggling with offers of power and big money or is being forced to betray her own predilection to ally with the money.
After all, she notably refused to endorse Bernie and immediately endorsed $hillbillary after the rigged process in '16. That told me all I needed to know -- she prefers party to principle.
But her position on "fixing" finance lies in congress doing more vigorous oversight, which everyone alive since 1980 knows never works because the money bribes congress (and both political parties) to get whatever they want.
Bernie wants to do what FDR did, again, to "fix" the problem. That "fix" would last as long as it takes the money to buy another government from top to bottom. It took them from '32 to '96 (when Clinton and the democraps repealed the cornerstone, Glass-Steagall) the last time.
That, piled upon what she refused to do in '16 is more than enough to DQ her in my mind.
And this piece implies that electing Bernie might mean that some of that list of stuff could get done. In fact, none of it can. The reason? The democrap party is anathema to each and every one of those reforms. Vehemently. Their donors will never abide any of it. Pelosi and scummer will see to it that their corporate bases never suffer.
And the 'half-a-loaf' quote presumes that, should you acquiesce this time for the sake of a tiny bit better outcome THIS TIME, it won't be the last and final crumb you'll ever get.
The times that tried our souls was in 1980. And, yes Mr. Shorts, we proved our stupidity and cowardice and greed and fear and stupidity... did I mention stupidity? ... we elected Reagan.
We've been re-electing Reagan ever since. We've never waivered.
And we stood by and cheered as the party of FDR sold out and became the party of Reagan. the republicans had to sprint into naziism just to keep a dime's worth of difference between them and YOUR democraps.