Why Hillary Clinton should offer Bernie Sanders voters some goodies
This primary is very different than 2008
Bernie Sanders did a bit better than expected in Tuesday's Northeastern primaries, managing to win Rhode Island despite trailing in pre-election polls. Still, he was soundly thumped in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and lost narrowly in Connecticut.
Given that Sanders needed to win all these primaries to make a dent in Clinton's delegate lead, this election is all but wrapped up. Clinton will almost certainly go into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, and already had the vast majority of superdelegate support. Barring a gigantic upheaval, Clinton will be the nominee.
I have previously argued that Bernie Sanders should demand some concessions in return for his support. But it's worth looking at that argument from the other end of the telescope. In a strictly mercenary sense, there is a strong argument for Clinton herself to make some concessions to woo Sanders voters.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Now, Clinton supporters — and the candidate herself, as Greg Sargent demonstrates — argue that this is unfair. In 2008, after the primary campaign against Barack Obama, Clinton did not try to extract some big policy promises. Instead, after exhausting every possible avenue towards victory, she got behind him, and gave him a strong endorsement during the Democratic primary.
This is basically true, but it's also misleading. Clinton made no demands in 2008 because there were no demands to be made. She and Obama were within angstroms policy-wise. The major disputes centered first on quite vicious mud-slinging and race-baiting, second on Clinton's vote for the Iraq War, and third on whether a market-based health care reform plan should have an individual mandate. Obama, in what looks in retrospect to be deliberate deception, insisted that an individual mandate was not required, while Clinton disagreed.
In other words, the 2008 primary was between two moderate liberals with few real disagreements — best evidenced by what happened after the election, when Obama stuck Clinton's individual mandate in ObamaCare, and gave her the top foreign policy position in his administration.
By contrast, this primary has featured enormous substantive disagreements. Sanders — a self-identified socialist, something that would have been totally anathema in 2008 — argues for Nordic-style social insurance for health care and paid leave, free state college tuition, plus a big boost in Social Security and a huge new infrastructure package (in addition to various other goodies). On this score, Clinton is either mildly supportive (paid leave), much less aggressive (infrastructure), or in complete disagreement (health care).
More fundamentally, Sanders has pushed an utterly different political ideology than typical Democratic Party stuff. He constantly rails against a morally bankrupt political establishment that has been captured by extreme wealth, and therefore unable to seriously reckon with the problems faced by ordinary people. He wasn't even a Democrat until the presidential race. His speeches are mostly a laundry list of obscene wealth statistics and policy programs, mainly interesting because they are perfectly pitched to the political moment. Though surely ambition plays some role in his presidential run, he's a candidate of advancing ideas to a very unusual degree — and it has worked well against long odds, particularly among young people.
Clinton is a basically a status quo politician, content with holding the line against Republican advances and maybe fiddling around the policy margins here and there. There's not much reason for Sanders voters to believe that she is actually interested in their priorities.
The Obama coalition was basically minorities and young people, but the major demographic split during this primary has been age. Clinton has won black Americans by resounding margins, Latinos by quite a bit less, but has been repeatedly obliterated among young people. She needs those young people to turn out, particularly if she wants to win the kind of spectacular landslide that might actually flip the House of Representatives.
So it only makes sense for Clinton to make a few notable policy concessions to demonstrate at least a modicum of good faith to Sanders voters. As it stands, judging by her campaign's conservative — and flagrantly dishonest — attacks on universal single-payer health care, I predict she would actually veto such a program should it reach her desk as president.
If Hillary Clinton wants leftist support, the least she can do is clarify that she is not an active opponent of their ideas, by signing on to a few big ones like infrastructure, free college, or a strong public option for ObamaCare. In return, of course, Sanders ought to grant his endorsement. Given the extreme unlikelihood of such programs coming to a vote in the near future, it's not a tough call.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
-
Today's political cartoons - April 21, 2024
Cartoons Sunday's cartoons - devilish decrees, biblical blunders, and more
By The Week US Published
-
5 carefully selected cartoons about the Trump-Daniels jury selection process
Cartoons Artists take on a stress-free life, rare peers, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Loire Valley Lodges review: sleep, feast and revive in treetop luxury
The Week Recommends Forest hideaway offers chance to relax and reset in Michelin key-winning comfort
By Julia O'Driscoll, The Week UK Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published