With Joe Biden struggling as frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, a surging Elizabeth Warren has begun to emerge as the party establishment’s new bogeyman—and corporate media are ready and willing to transmit insiders’ panicked calls for new “moderate” entrants to the race.
On the same day earlier this week, the Washington Post and the New York Times ran twin articles: the Post’s “Anxiety Rises Among Democrats Worried About Party’s Prospects in 2020” (10/22/19) and the Times’ “Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’” (10/22/19).
Washington Post (10/22/19)
The pieces interviewed a number of big donors and centrist party leaders, who fretted about their preferred candidate’s struggles and expressed hope for someone more corporate-friendly than Warren to enter the race and challenge her rise.
The Post laid out the dilemma for the party:
More seasoned leaders who have seen Democrats lose big have tended to prefer a safer, middle-road candidate more palatable to a wide range of voters. Those newer to the process are attracted to the vibrant and passionate candidates who can entice the base.
Of course, the paper didn’t interview those in the latter category, so the idea that a “middle-road candidate” is “safer” and “more palatable to a wide range of voters” goes unchallenged, despite the fact that the centrist strategy is often a failing one for Democrats (FAIR.org, 7/6/17).
But both papers uncritically repeated the establishment line that Warren is unelectable (a favorite accusation against Sanders in 2016—Extra!, 7–8/15). The Times wrote of “persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election,” while the Post wrote that “party leaders and activists” worry that Warren and Sanders “are too liberal to win a general election.”
New York Times (10/22/19)
The Times quoted former Obama adviser David Axelrod:
With Trump looming, there is genuine concern that the horse many have bet on may be pulling up lame and the horse who has sprinted out front may not be able to win.
The thinking of powerful people in the Democratic Party is worth writing about. But it’s crucial not to just take their claims at face value. What articles reporting on Warren’s or Sanders’ “electability” need is some grounding in facts: Polls show both leftist candidates polling ahead of Trump nationally, as well as in key swing states like Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. As the last election proved, it’s dangerous to rely solely on polls, but combined with Sanders’ and Warren’s fundraising (which are handily beating Biden’s) there’s simply no evidence to substantiate claims of their unelectability—which ought to be decided by voters, not party leaders or corporate journalists.
What establishment Democrats are really worried about, of course, is their own power in the party, which is threatened by a surging left wing. Don’t look to their establishment media counterparts to report on that transparently.
The Democratic “leadership” doesn’t want to engage with the changing demographics of the country. They want to compete for the older, whiter, more conservative segment that is more amenable to the status quo, meaning a political landscape dominated by their wealthy and powerful donors.
That’s a recipe for electoral disaster, but winning would mean being beholden to a more progressive base, and that’s anathema to the neoliberal ethos, isn’t it just?
Last night I woke up in a terror dreaming of a Clinton v. Trump rematch. As a Liberal Republican living in California, I know my vote does not mean anything but I would sure like to see Tulsi
Gabbard on the ballot. At least there would be a candidate I could support as good choice as opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils
You know what ? I have never been comfortable with Tulsi’s rah rah patriotism, or her apparent affability with bloodthirsty assholes like Al Sisi and Modi, both of whom she has “reached out to” (lets just forget Assad) ..That kind of PR sludge is how militarism has always been shoved up the ass of the American people (not to mention the rest of the world) ..I admire (and share) the sentiments expressed in the twitter comments she made after her recent “dust up” with “the Queen warmonger”.However…Gabbards call for Clinton to “enter the race” is setting off alarm klaxons in my head….Why would she invite a “queen war monger” and “the embodiment of the rot…..” etc.,etc.,, to run for for president again? Especially within a democratic primary that she, Tulsi Gabbard, is – lets be real – unlikely to prevail in, and is already over crowded clown car of corporate flaks and status quo shills ??
Me either Salerso. Even though Gabbard’s rhetoric against regime change wars was welcome, there was something in her saccharine advocacy against them that bothered me. Now that I’ve learned more about Gabbard, including a recently published sparkling FAIR story by Ari Paul, I’ve become convinced she’s as much a corporate Dim as St. Bernie. After all, who joins the US imperial armed forces in April of 2003? I don’t remember if Paul covered it, but part of that awakening was coming upon Gabbard with a smile as saccharine as her anti-regime change wars in a photo op of her with Al Sisi, the butchering warden.
So maybe Tulsi should primary Trump for the GOP nomination, since she’s not a Democrat (much less a progressive), and is polling at around 1% in the Dem primary. We don’t want/need her, you guys can have her. And she would certainly fit in better ideologically in the GOP anyways.
As I remember, this guy was a New Deal Democrat – who won four times:
Franklin D. Roosevelt Letter to the Democratic Convention
July 18, 1940
Members of the Convention:
In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government.
The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values.
The Republican Party has made its nominations this year at the dictation of those who, we all know, always place money ahead of human progress.
The Democratic Convention, as appears clear from the events of today, is divided on this fundamental issue. Until the Democratic Party through this convention makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory.
It is without question that certain political influences pledged to reaction in domestic affairs and to appeasement in foreign affairs have been busily engaged behind the scenes in the promotion of discord since this Convention convened.
Under these circumstances, I cannot, in all honor, and will not, merely for political expediency, go along with the cheap bargaining and political maneuvering which have brought about party dissension in this convention.
It is best not to straddle ideals.
In these days of danger when democracy must be more than vigilant, there can be no connivance with the kind of politics which has internally weakened nations abroad before the enemy has struck from without.
It is best for America to have the fight out here and now.
I wish to give the Democratic Party the opportunity to make its historic decision clearly and without equivocation. The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time.
By declining the honor of the nomination for the presidency, I can restore that opportunity to the convention. I so do.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
(They surrendered and nominated Roosevelt and the excellent Progressive Henry Wallace).
Whom FDR abandoned for the Atomic Bomber in 1944. For the very political expediency he decries in this letter. I have a lot of historical respect and appreciation for FDR But I don’t think we progressives ought fetishize him either. He created the Japanese internment camps, among other blunders.
The author writes: “As the last election proved, it’s dangerous to rely solely on polls”. True, always dangerous to rely solely on anything. That said, during the 2016 primary season the polling pattern was absolutely clear for anyone to see. Not many wanted to do so. From late February to early June, I tallied 150 surveys across the political spectrum — polls matching Sanders and Clinton not against each other but against GOP contenders including Trump. No cherrypicking, no omissions. Spoiler alert: Sanders outperformed Clinton against the GOP 90 percent of the time, in 135 of 150 polls. Further, Clinton showed disturbing signs of electoral weakness. Sanders’ performance remained so consistently strong, I dubbed him “Iron Man Sanders.” I posted these results in real time at BernieWorks.com; you can still see them there. Bottom line: if the Dem leadership and complicit corporate media had been less stupid and corrupt, Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump in the general election. I invite you to review the months-long polling pattern and explain any other conclusion.
This is all for show. Warren is as bought and sold as Biden. Just wait and see…
And Bernie is a corporate Dim, whose function is sheepdog to usher the left wing of half the corporate duopoly back into the fold. Sanders endorsed Clinton after running against everything she stood for in 2016. Beat that Golden Sacks!
leftish does not equal leftist
The Establishment, corporate Democrats are worried about their power, but they are worried more that this power is the power to keep taxes low. They know that low taxes on the rich are destroying America and that Progressives would raise them. Pelosi, Clinton, and Schumer care more about their family wealth than they worry about America’s future.
Good on David Axelrod for speaking against the leftish part (comparatively) of the left wing of the corporate duopoly. He’s the political sage largely responsible for Obama. Who in turn is largely responsible for the Orange Menace.
Just another BS article trying to conflate Warren to Bernie. Hardly mentions Bernie or his electabilty at all.
Good critique, as usual, but where is the evidence for the last paragraph “What establishment Democrats are really worried about?”
Calling Elizabeth Warren “leftist” is a stretch don’t you think? She was a Republican not long ago and is a good friend to corporate interests and has expressed her intentions to continue to be so when she met with them telling them she was a capitalist and not to fear her.
What establishment Democrats are not at all worried about, of course, is their own power in the party, which is not at all threatened by anything approaching a “surging” left wing. Senator Sheepdog has already promised to endorse and to again campaign for whichever warmonger is eventually nominated, and the Superdelegates will do the rest during Round Two of the DNC’s Primary Theater.
Don’t look to their establishment media counterparts, including FAIR, to report on that transparently.
NPR is desperate to dismiss Sanders in particular as “unelectable”.
Nearly every piece they run (eg, by Dominic Montanaro and Jessica Taylor) has that as an ongoing theme.
They and others (eg, at WBUR) were very quick to exploit Sanders heart attack to bolster their insinuation that he is too old for the office.
Some self styled “journalists ” at NPR, Washington Post, NY Times and elswhere obviously believe that they should be the ones to decide a who is electable anD who is not
But I’m pretty sure this is not what journalism is supposed to be about.
Thanks to author Julie Hollar for telling it like it is. As a Sanders supporter, the press coverage is maddening and this is a welcome exception. I am 55 in in the 80s was a left-center dem, I cast my first vote for Jesse Jackson and interned for Ted Kennedy. There were a LOT of democrats like me then. I haven’t changed. The party was victim to a hostile takeover by the DLC and conservatives. Now they enjoy their money and access and all the hobknobbing with the powerful far too much to do anything for hte people. The party is a cesspool, if less so than the poor crazy Republicans who have just gone nutso over the deep end. We need a choice other than CRAZY INSANE racists (repubs) and corporate neolibs (the dem “establishment”). They weren’t always the establishment, btw. Today’s Democratic party is to the right of the 1950s Republicans on every economic issue. I am so grateful to Sanders and Warren for giving us a home again in this party, but its turning out to be a far harder fight to get a seat at the table again than it should be, because it turns out that the “Democratic” party doesn’t believe in “democratic” representation within the party. The money dems want to control it all for their own benefit. I say, lead, follow, or get TF out of the way, because enough is enough and we, the people, have HAD IT. I’ve paid my dues in this party over 30 years, I deserve better than to be told to sit down and shut up and do as I’m told because I have “nowhere else to go.”
Three elements of Sanders’ strategy frightens the Democratic establishment:
WHAT KIND OF DEMOCRAT DOES THAT ?*
1 Bernie’s identified real and persistent problems plaguing the middle class; crafted legislative responses to address the problems; and campaigns on passing and signing them.
2 Bernie’s running on a positive, straightforward unambiguous platform, not just to avoid losing, but to win.
3 Bernie’s plan relies on using the power of the federal government to help families in the middle class, instead of corporations and billionaires.
Gosh, it seems pretty straightforward, but cynicism & duplicity are so pervasive throughout the Democratic establishment, they cannot accept Sanders approach as viable.