Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) gained much attention in 2016 when he almost clinched the Democratic nomination. Although he lost to Hillary Clinton, he is now vying for the nomination again in the 2020 election. He has always been one to attract the media and voters, especially those of younger demographics, with his enthusiasm, progressive policies, and ever-growing base of support. But in January, a fight between him and his fellow Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took the spotlight. This fight, however, has done more than exposing political differences or even providing entertainment factors - it has revealed the sad state of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and elite leaders of the Democratic Party, who are showing themselves to pick favorites rather than letting the primary process play out naturally -- much like they did in 2016. Between the DNC, CNN, and other media, Bernie Sanders is, yet again, being targeted this election cycle.
Early on in the cycle, it became well known that Sanders and Warren agreed not to attack each other this election. But this pact seems to have disappeared after a Politico report showed that Sanders volunteers received a script for talking to voters in which they were told to put down Warren. It included comments such as “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what,” and then goes on to say, “she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” These criticisms drew much attention to both Sanders and Warren, the latter of which who said she was “disappointed.” At first, the Sanders campaign tried to downplay the script by saying it was not as accurate as reported. However, they then changed the script and told officials not to distribute the older one, which had also included attacks on Democratic candidates Buttigieg and Biden. But instead of moving on, a full-on fight erupted between Sanders and Warren, and their nonaggression pact seemed to vanish.
Warren then accused Sanders of saying a woman could not be president. He denied the claim, but at the January Democratic Debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillip talked about this supposed remark and she ended her question to Sanders by asking, “Why did you say that?” He explained how he, in fact, did not say it and did not want to waste time even talking about it, since that is what Trump and perhaps some in the media want. He then went on to say, “Anybody [who] knows me knows that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There's a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren. It was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president. And you know what, I stayed back. Senator Warren decided not to run, and I then did run afterwards." After giving a well-thought out response, Phillip asked him to confirm he did not say a woman could not be president. After he denied the allegation, she turned to Warren and asked, “Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?”
The word choice in CNN’s question reflects a deep bias against Sanders. Sanders was not asked whether or not he said what Warren had claimed and what he thought when he heard Warren made this claim. Rather, he was asked why he said it. Even after he denied making the comment, Warren was asked what she thought when he asked it. For an official debate, this rhetoric from a professional journalist is absolutely ridiculous. Moderators are not supposed to cater questions to specific candidates nor take a clear side in a disagreement.
In 2012, during a Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, CNN’s Candy Crowley similarly took a side during an exchange about the Benghazi scandal. Rather than doing her job of asking questions and making sure the candidates simply followed the rules, Crowley defended Obama over Romney’s accusations. Romney explained the situation afterwards: "So, she obviously thought it was her job to play a more active role in the debate than was agreed upon by the two candidates, and I thought her jumping into the interaction I was having with the president was also a mistake on her part and one I would have preferred to carry out between the two of us, because I was prepared to go after him for misrepresenting to the American people that -- the nature of the attack." It is not the job of the moderator of a debate to take a stand; it is their job to give the candidates the opportunity to be questioned on their views and actions, to have a platform for their policies, and, for entertainment purposes, to possibly incite some fights. However, it is never appropriate for them to take a clear stance in these heated exchanges— something CNN clearly did with Obama in 2012 and has now done with Warren. CNN automatically believing Warren is a sad example of Sanders once again being shafted because he is not the favorite candidate of the DNC and major Democrats.
Although there were unfair questions during the debate that brought up the fight, the exchange between Warren and Sanders afterwards is what grabbed the attention of the media and voters most. Sanders put his hand out to shake Warren’s, but she rejected it and just immediately started speaking:
"I think you called me a liar on national TV.”
"What?" Sanders said surprisingly.
She repeated herself, "I think you called me a liar on national TV.”
"You know, let's not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion," Sanders responded.
"Anytime,” she said.
"You called me a liar," Sanders, seemingly frustrated, continued. "You told me -- all right, let's not do it now."
Clearly an uncomfortable exchange, it has sparked much speculation. One explanation could be that this was completely planned by Warren - she knew and wanted the exchange to be released in order to put down Sanders and to be viewed as a strong woman standing up to a man. Another explanation could be it was not planned and simply was released to cause more drama between the campaigns - more to talk about for the media, and more entertainment for viewers. Regardless, the question still remains: which of the two candidates should be believed?
Given the past histories of both candidates, it would make more sense to believe Sanders. He has continually fought for women’s rights, eventually supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, and has made statements in the past saying a woman could be president. Logically, it is hard to believe a woman could not be president — Clinton received more popular votes than Trump, there are over 100 women in the House of Representatives, and there is a female Speaker of the House. On the other hand, Warren has been known to fabricate stories in the past. From claiming to be of Native American heritage to lying about being fired from a job for being pregnant, she has continually used lies to further her career. In this case, her campaign had been attacked so she felt she had to counter. Since simply saying she was disappointed by the negative comments of his volunteers did not help her campaign, she took it a step further by making a major accusation with no supporting evidence. This vicious attack against her fellow senator and friend shows she will do anything to attract attention and support.
Through all of this, another major question remains: why is Sanders treated this way? In 2016, Sanders was angry feeling the DNC played favorites. Although Sanders did not perform as well as Clinton with black, female, Democratic, and older voters, a major reason for his loss was the fact that many superdelegates pledged their vote to Clinton before the caucuses and primaries even began. The DNC, publicly claiming to be neutral during the 2016 primaries, exchanged emails insulting Sanders. Almost 20,000 emails were leaked and posted, demonstrating that certain top Committee officials were not acting as unbiased as they claimed. These emails revealed that the DNC purposely scheduled few debates and purposely scheduled them for the weekend so not many people would watch. They also called his campaign a mess, and commented that he did not “have his act together.” In a February 2019 CNN town hall, Sanders spoke out, saying, "In 2016, I think I will not shock anybody to suggest that the DNC was not quite even handed. I think we have come a long way since then, and I fully expect to be treated quite as well as anybody else."
Although Sanders expressed hope for the DNC, Chairman Tom Perez’s appointments to the Rules Committee which oversees the DNC convention in Milwaukee this July, are not sitting well with the Sanders campaign. Former Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) will co-chair the Rules Committee, whom the Sanders campaign tried to remove from the committee in 2016 claiming he was an “aggressive attack surrogate for the Clinton campaign.” John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman, who previously stated in a leaked email that he was, “not opposed [to] grinding Sanders to a pulp,” will have a seat on that committee as well. Although superdelegates have different rules for 2020, these appointments could play a major role on whether or not Sanders gets the nomination.
There are also many theories circulating about the Iowa caucuses. Normally the top candidates are able to use the caucuses as a case for their electability, but due to the technical difficulties this year, Sanders is unable to use his electoral results to his advantage. Could this be another means of the Democrats attempting to rig the election? People have theorized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held onto the impeachment papers to hurt Sanders leading up to the caucuses, since the favorite of the Democratic elites seems to be Biden. There could have just been technical difficulties in the Iowa caucuses and other intentions in the House about impeachment. Regardless, both are situations that have tried to hurt Sanders, but he is continuing to campaign strongly in hopes of securing the nomination.
In order to win a Primary Election, candidates must become more extreme in their policiesr, in this case, to the left. But now, the Democratic Party as a whole already appears to be going further left as reflected by the election of the freshman “ Squad” of Congresswomen, the increased support for socialism, and the desire to greatly increase taxes. They need to entice voters more than their fellow candidates with bold plans (like free college) and hope to attract more extreme voters who will be more passionate and therefore help rally support. However, by doing so, a candidate can doom themselves in a general election. The point of the general is not only get the support of one’s party but to also appeal to moderates and those on the other side. Because of this, they have to gravitate more to the center — something some candidates, like Sanders, struggle to do.
The biggest concern for Democrats in 2020 is defeating Donald Trump. Beating an incumbent is difficult on its own— it is even tougher when the economy is booming, impeachment is bringing the Republican Party together, and distrust amongst the Democratic Party is splitting them apart. On one hand, Sanders does have strong support from young people, and although they are typically less likely to vote, Sanders may be able to rally enough of their support because of his socialist policies and their hatred of Trump to drive them to the polls on Election Day. There are serious disadvantages to a Biden nomination, such as his lack of skill in debates, his son Hunter’s associations with Ukraine, and his overall lack of enthusiasm (hence, “Sleepy Joe”). Any of these could lead him to struggle getting voters out on Election Day.
On the other hand, however, a Sanders nomination could mean a new direction for the Democratic Party that older Democrats, who are much more likely to vote than young ones, may not be ready to embrace (and, arguably, should not). Because of this, Sanders, a Democratic Socialist, will struggle to get voters he needs: moderate Republicans, Independents, and moderate Democrats. They will either vote for Trump, who they view as the lesser of two evils, or they may not feel driven to vote at all. Regardless, that choice should be up to voters not the DNC and media.
Despite all these attempts to smear him and his campaign, Sanders continues to rise in the polls. It is important that voters are more aware of candidates than just what the news and the leaders of their party are telling them. Perhaps he is doing well because he is good at fundraising and has a strong social media presence? Maybe people are seeing how weak of a candidate Warren is and shifting their support to Sanders? Superdelegates’ power is lessening in 2020 and leftover anger from 2016 may affect voters. But, whatever the reason may be, Sanders has a strong effect on people, and it will be interesting to see if he will be able to rally enough support to get the nomination.
I end this by saying that by no means am I endorsing Bernie Sanders nor do I think he would make a good president. He is a Democratic Socialist with far-left policies that would not work in this country and would never be passed by Congress. He would enact heavy taxes (no, not just on the rich like he often claims) and greatly hurt the middle class. The media, rather than playing favorites, should be exposing how extreme his views are so people can better understand what his policies truly entail to see if they support him rather than taking cheap shots at trying to paint him as a sexist during a CNN debate, attacking him for an endorsement from podcaster Joe Rogan, or failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton publicly insulting him. Sanders is, however, exactly the type of far left candidate Trump wants in order to scare the American people of what he would try to do as president (which is quite concerning that Americans are supportive of his policies). Despite all of this, I do sympathize with Sanders. It is unfortunate to see the Democrats, just like in 2016, attempting to manipulate the system in order to have the favorite of the leaders of the party win rather than the favorite of the people who belong in it. But we shall soon see who comes out on top as the Democratic nominee.