Why the Bernie Sanders' surge looks like Trump 2016

As Sen. Bernie Sanders emerges as the front-runner, the establishment Democrats face the same conundrum establishment Republicans faced in 2016. 

Mike Segar/Reuters
Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders takes the stage for an outdoor campaign rally in Austin, Texas on Feb. 23, 2020.

A burn-it-down candidate is topping a splintered field of more moderate contenders and setting the party’s establishment wing on edge.

It is how Donald Trump began his unlikely march to the Republican nomination in 2016. And four years later, it is how Sen. Bernie Sanders has cemented himself as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

The Vermont senator won his second straight contest on Saturday with a convincing victory in Nevada, the first racially diverse state on the primary calendar, after winning the New Hampshire primary the week before. He also effectively tied for first place in the opening contest in Iowa.

Mr. Sanders’ surge has energized his legion of liberal supporters, including young people drawn to his calls for a government-run health care system and eliminating student debt. But it has sparked an outcry from rival campaigns and other moderate Democrats that mirrors the worries of Republicans who tried, but failed, to block Mr. Trump’s path in 2016.

They warn that Mr. Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, can’t win in the general election. They warn that he would badly damage Democratic congressional candidates facing tough competition in swing states. And they warn that his nomination is all but inevitable unless other candidates start dropping out and stop splitting up the anti-Sanders vote.

“Moderates need to either consolidate or see Bernie run away with it,” said Maria Cardona, a Democratic strategist. “It’s time for some decisions or live with the outcome.”

But none of Sanders’ rivals appears ready to make those tough decisions. And there are no real party elders who can step in to help cull the field. The only Democrat in the country with that kind of sway is former President Barack Obama, who has vowed to stay stridently neutral in the primary contest.

And so, the Democratic field is expected to stay crowded, despite the realization among many campaigns that time is running out to stop Mr. Sanders. If he amasses a significant delegate lead in the Super Tuesday contests on March 3, when big prizes like California and Texas are up for grabs, it could be impossible for other candidates to stop his march to the nomination.

Advisers to multiple Democratic campaigns privately conceded on Saturday that they expect up to five other candidates to remain in the race through Super Tuesday: former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Mike Bloomberg.

Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire former New York mayor, isn’t competing in the first four contests but is blitzing the airwaves with an unprecedented amount of primary advertising in the Super Tuesday states and beyond. But his shock-and-awe entry into the race was tempered by a shaky performance in last week’s Democratic debate.

Mr. Bloomberg is among the most aggressive candidates in warning about the risks of Mr. Sanders' nomination. His campaign said Saturday that the Nevada results underscore that a “fragmented field” is putting the Vermont senator on pace for the nomination – despite the fact that Mr. Bloomberg’s candidacy is only fragmenting the field further.

He’s far from the only candidate who sees himself as the solution to the Mr. Sanders’ dilemma, and the rest of the field as the problem.

“We’re alive and we’re coming back and we’re going to win,” said Mr. Biden, who was on track to finish a distant second to Mr. Sanders in Nevada after dismal showings in the opening states.

Mr. Biden, who finished a distant second in Nevada, is hoping to claim his first victory in South Carolina this coming Saturday. It's the first state to vote with a significant percentage of black voters, who make up the backbone of the Democratic Party. He’ll likely need that victory to be a resounding one, both to ease voters’ anxieties about his own rocky start and to draw out wealthy donors who have been reluctant to support his candidacy.

As the Nevada results came in, Ms. Klobuchar, who was in a close race for fifth with billionaire Tom Steyer, also vowed to go forward. So did fourth-place finisher Ms. Warren, who hasn’t finished higher than third in the first three contests.

“We have a lot of states to go and right now I feel the momentum. So let’s stay in this fight,” Ms. Warren said during a rally in Washington state, which votes on March 10.

Ms. Warren’s rationale for staying in the race hinges on her strong debate performance last week, which re-energized her campaign and, crucially, her fundraising. But her campaign advisers have not publicly identified which states they believe they can win in the next round of voting.

Then there’s Mr. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who was third in Nevada. He’s gotten the closest to topping Mr. Sanders in the early contests, virtually tying him in Iowa and finishing less than 2 percentage points behind in New Hampshire.

Those results, Mr. Buttigieg argued on Saturday, prove he is best to take on Sanders down the stretch. He also hardened his criticism of Mr. Sanders, urging voters to “take a sober look at the consequences” of making him the party’s nominee.

But the outcome in Nevada raises questions about his viability in the more diverse states that are up next on the primary calendar. He’s struggling in particular with black voters, according to public polling.

Mr. Sanders is relishing both his front-runner status and the anxiousness it is creating among his more moderate rivals.

Like Mr. Trump, he has been unafraid to challenge his own party’s traditional assumptions about what it takes to win both the primary and the general election.

As he claimed victory on Saturday, he declared: “We have just put together a multigenerational, multiracial coalition, which is not only going to win in Nevada, it’s going to sweep the country.”

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.