The Post reports, “Four years [after Hillary Clinton’s race], with the senator from Vermont still running against former vice president Joe Biden despite almost impossible odds of victory, some party leaders are increasingly worried about a reprise of the bitter divisions that many Democrats blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss.” However, the chorus of denunciations is in a way reassuring that the overwhelming majority of the party is unified behind a center-left nominee:
“I just think it’s a terrible decision for him to make because he looks very selfish,” said former Democratic senator Barbara Boxer of California, who backs Biden. If Sanders is genuine about going all in to defeat Trump, “then get out,” she said. . . .Scott Brennan, a Democratic National Committee member from Iowa, expressed hope that the party’s divisions will not repeat because Biden “doesn’t generate the same sort of fevered hatred” from Sanders allies that Clinton did.
The problem, according to many Democrats, remains that 15 percent of Sanders supporters say in polling that they would vote for President Trump over Biden. This nugget actually makes the opposite argument: There is nothing that would satisfy some faction of the Sanders coalition that would rather blow up our democracy and reelect Trump. With people so irrational, the best response is to ignore them. They, like the MAGA-hat crowd, are unreachable and cannot be bargained with (e.g., more New Green Deal talk!). So do not try. No more outreach to Sanders, no more promised policy modifications, no more speaking slot at the convention. Enough.
This would have some salutary effects.
First, it would make perfectly clear that Biden is not Sanders andnot a crazy left-winger, as Trump would like to paint him in the campaign. Biden makes a sharp distinction between the “democratic socialist” crowd and his own brand of center-left politics. Since he cannot get the 15 percent of “Bernie or Bust” Democrats (or independents), he might as well make a strong play for moderate independents and disaffected Republicans. Cutting Sanders off effectively allows Biden to pitch to gettable swing voters, not waste time on unattainable Bernie Bros.
Second, freezing out Sanders will make governance in a Biden administration much easier and more cohesive. There will be no debt to be paid to Sanders, no advisers taken on to satisfy Sanders, and no weird and distracting policy initiatives to lead the new administration astray. This would be a center-left administration confident of its own governing agenda — and personally cohesive.
Third, it would free up constructive, smart progressive leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to lead that wing of the party. She has already begun that process, contributing bankruptcy and student loan forgiveness plans to the Biden campaign. With a practical, crafty progressive in the Senate (hopefully in the majority and able to lead on legislation), Biden would be able to broaden his appeal and cultivate allies in the Warren wing of the party.
In other words, shoving Sanders offstage opens up room for party builders and party reformers, putting aside unattainable proposals (e.g., Medicare-for-all) in favor of a smarter, more broadly acceptable agenda. (Biden would not need to fend off a Warren primary challenge, as Barack Obama did with Sanders in 2012.)
In sum, it is not worthwhile to court Sanders or his rabid allies. Indeed, it is far better to ignore them, clearly position Biden in the center-left, be free to construct a sensible and cohesive administration, and help clear the decks for a new group of responsible progressives.
Read more:


