Bernie Sanders said something this week that really upset this yellow-dog Democrat, so I wrote about it at New York:
At a time when plenty of people have advice for unhappy progressive Democrats, one of their heroes, Bernie Sanders, had a succinct message: Don’t love the party, leave it. In an interview with the New York Times, he previewed a barnstorming tour he has undertaken with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but made it clear he wouldn’t be asking audiences to rally ’round the Democratic Party. “One of the aspects of this tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party,” Sanders said.
In one respect, that isn’t surprising. Though he has long aligned with the Democratic Party in Congress and has regularly backed its candidates, Sanders has always self-identified as an independent, even when he filed to run for president as a Democrat in 2020. Now, as before, he seems to regard the Democratic Party as inherently corrupted by its wealthy donor base, per the Times:
“During the interview on Wednesday, Mr. Sanders repeatedly criticized the influence of wealthy donors and Washington consultants on the party. He said that while Democrats had been a force for good on social issues like civil rights, women’s rights and L.G.B.T.Q. rights, they had failed on the economic concerns he has dedicated his political career to addressing.”
Still, when Democrats are now already perceived as losing adherents, and as many progressives believe their time to take over the party has arrived, Sanders’s counsel is both oddly timed and pernicious. Yes, those on the left who choose independent status may still work with Democrats on both legislative and electoral projects, much as Sanders does. And they may run in and win Democratic primaries on occasion without putting on the party yoke. But inevitably, refusing to stay formally within the Democratic tent will cede influence to centrists and alienate loyalist voters as well. And in 18 states, voters who don’t register as Democrats may be barred from voting in Democratic primaries, which proved a problem for Sanders during his two presidential runs.
More fundamentally, Democrats need both solidarity and stable membership at this moment with the MAGA wolf at the door and crucial off-year and midterm elections coming up. Staying in the Democratic ranks doesn’t mean giving up progressive principles or failing to challenge timid or ineffective leadership. To borrow an ancient cigarette-ad slogan, it’s a time when it’s better to “fight than switch.”
That said, there may be certain deep-red parts of the country where the Democratic brand is so toxic that an independent candidacy could make some sense for progressives. The example of 2024 independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn of Nebraska, who ran a shockingly competitive (if ultimately unsuccessful) race against Republican incumbent Deb Fischer, turned a lot of heads. But while Osborn might have been a “populist” by most standards, he wasn’t exactly what you’d call a progressive, and in fact, centrist and progressive Nebraska Democrats went along with Osborn as a very long shot. They didn’t abandon their party; they just got out of the way.
Someday the popularity of electoral systems without party primaries or with ranked-choice voting may spread to the point where candidates and voters alike will gradually shed or at least weaken party labels. Then self-identifying as an independent could be both principled and politically pragmatic.
But until then, it’s important to understand why American politics have regularly defaulted to a two-party system dating all the way back to those days when the Founders tried strenuously to avoid parties altogether. In a first-past-the-post system where winners take all, there’s just too much at stake to allow those with whom you are in agreement on the basics to splinter. That’s particularly true when the other party is rigidly united in subservience to an authoritarian leader. Sanders is one of a kind in his ability to keep his feet both within and outside the Democratic Party. His example isn’t replicable without making a bad situation for progressives a whole lot worse.
Can someone explain why–as repeatedly reported– if Kerry leads among independents, moderates, new voters, young voters, women voters, etc, Bush has any lead at all? Aside from men voters, where is Bush’s support coming from? Thanks!
I don’t think you can trust these “tracking” polls. They’re conducted in a way that maximizes efficiency, not robust sampling. In order to reach a desirable number of completes, they simply burn through sample, meaning that they don’t make callbacks to numbers that do not answer. This greatly increases non-response bias and representativeness.
This isn’t about polls but is about post election strategy. I’m a lawyer and have done voting rights for 30 years. I have little confidence in the courts to handle the election contests in a non-partisan way. For simplicity imagine a repeat of 2000; massive voter suppression, court challenges, court rulings on partisan lines with incredible opinions. Then what? Like last time, Democrats fold up their tents and say nice non-partisan unfifying things and turn our democracy over to the anti-democracy party for four more years? Follow John Lewis to a sit-in in Washington?
ABC, Washington Post and Rasmussen all have Kerry UP in the race as of Monday.
I’d call that a good trend.
Bush’s team knows they are in trouble, which is why they are focusing on getting out their base and suppressing vote. They know they need to get all their people out AND stop Kerry voters by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Evidently Zogby had a very weird polling day for Bush on Saturday. On that day, Bush had a 7 point lead. It’s a clear outlier, because no other poll is showing this type of movement in either direction. However, Zogby has also said that in the Sunday poll, Kerry was up by two points. Friday numbers will be dropped off tomorrow, so I would expect the 3% margin to either remain the same or decrease slighly. On Wednesday, though, you will see a much bigger movement towards Kerry.
I think Ruy posted below about the volatility of the daily tracking polls and how they can have wild swings. If that’s what you mean, scroll down.
As Steve Soto points out at the Left Coaster, this is actually even better news than it seems. The internals of the current Gallup sample show that it is even more biased in favor of Republicans, but yet Bush’s lead went down! More Republicans, less support! Yow, that’s gotta hurt.
Zogby posted their one day results for Friday and Saturday nights. Bush took Friday 49-46, Bush also took Saturday 50-43. However, the three day rolling average for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday has Bush up 48-45. This means that Kerry took Sunday 46-45. Let’s give the poll at least two more days to flush the 49 and 50 out of the rolling average. Then we’ll see how good the President-select is doing.
Btw, WP has Kerry up 49-48 and Rasmussen has Kerry up 48-46. Gallup has Bush up by only 1 point among registered voters, with Kerry up by 2 in the Battleground States.
What was the party ID breakdown? Steve Soto has a post up, and says that Ruy Teixeira contacted him with a correction of sorts, but Soto doesn’t explain what the correction is. Can Mr. Teixeira clue us in? (Soto, at “The LEft Coaster,” has a post up saying Gallup’s party IDs are even worse than before, but then has an update — based on Teixeira — which seems to question his own post.)
I am scratching my head over some of the internals on the recentl polls. Zogby has Bush
leading among Independents by 12%. CBS
and Gallup according to this latest poll have
Kerry up by 5% by Independents. The only
explanation I can think of for this anamoly is
sampling error or respondents are making up
answers to all of the poll calls. They must be
getting tired of the calls. I am a political junkie
and I am growing wearing of these polls
What’s up with Zogby? Are they still weighting according to 2000 exit polls (democrat advantage in sample)? If so, shouldn’t their current numbers be cause for concern?
—————-
thats what i thought but then i looked up the 2000 poll of 9 days before the election and it showed the same 3 point bush lead that we see now.
It doesnt mean anything, its all within the margin of error.
I have the same concerns as chillmoth. Gallup is one thing, but Zogby is a more reliable organization, and they have Bush pulling ahead. Is there any reason not to be troubled by this, aside from the 50% rule which Zogby says might not be in play this year?
Gallup?
I call them Foul-up.
They’re doing the same thing they did four years ago. They’re showing Bush up, but they will close it to 2-3 points in a week and act like that makes up for bogus reports the past 3 months.
Both Kerry and Castor pull ahead in Florida.
http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html
Sometimes poll respondents are reluctant to express their true opinion.
1) They are talking to a stranger who may not be a legitimate pollster. Few people have heard of more than a few of the 20+ national polling organizations.
2) There may be someone else in the room listening, a person not sharing their opinion.
3) There is a reluctance to “go negative” on an an incumbent President. Especially if one is uncertain about who is calling.
In most urban areas. It is easy to acknowledge support of Democrats, even Nader. But in a suburban or rural community, it can invite unwanted attention if supporting anyone other than the Republicans.
The ballot is secret, but in telephone polling, Democrat support may be understated.
What’s up with Zogby? Are they still weighting according to 2000 exit polls (democrat advantage in sample)? If so, shouldn’t their current numbers be cause for concern?