Hillary’s Secret Weapon: Bernie

Bernie, You’re On In 6, 5, 4, ….

The Hillary Clinton camp needs as many Bernie Sanders supporters as possible in November.

Bernie, meanwhile, has built a movement that, knowing it’ll fall short of its goal, needs a way forward.

Absent the obdurate pride that big egos often demand, this is a perfect opportunity for outreach.  And the Hillary camp is probably considering its options.  Here’s one approach:

1.  Hillary’s offer of outreach, if sincere and reasonable, is just as important as whether Sanders accepts.  

2.  Mix up a combination of inclusivity with take-your-medicine by announcing, that Sen. Sanders is welcome to tackle three issues, legislatively, during the course of a Hillary presidency—either as a rotating cabinet member, or as a senator, whichever he wants.

3. Three possibilities:

*  Living Wage advocate, pushing legislation for higher wages.

*  College Affordability czar, putting together a legislative plan.

*  Drug Policy reformer, setting out sensible, realistic legislation.

In all three cases, let Bernie bring it, getting as much accomplished as possible.

The beauty of Sanders and Clinton combining forces is that: A) Sanders is forced to face the music of realistic expectations, as legislation is watered down in order to pass; and B) Clinton, likewise, must confront the likelihood of fairly radical success, if Sanders supporters push the Democratic party to a big victory in November.

The Case For Bernie

Best Case Scenario

The case for, paradoxically, begins with the case against.

What most political pundits think they know—based on experience—is that a Socialist like Bernie would lose when matched up against just about any Republican opponent.  

Why?  Left-wing idealism has a long track record.  It’s not just George McGovern in ’72, it’s the myriad races at the state and local level where youthful idealism almost always loses.  The further out in left field, the more likely the loss.  The Green Party is a good example of how being idealistic just isn’t enough.  Rather, political movements that champion things like single-payer healthcare, government funded higher education, legalized marijuana, and so on actually need voters who favor such things.

Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post covers the unlikelihood that voters in this country would choose radical change.

And even if Bernie were somehow, miraculously, elected, it would likely be a relatively close vote, and he’d almost certainly face a hostile House of Representatives, thwarting every one of his plans, as happened to President Obama.

Wait, though, what if he caught fire and won big?  Wouldn’t that make his plans much more likely?  Probably not.  The reason ObamaCare, for example, was so watered down by the time it passed—even with both houses of congress in Democratic control—is that not all Democrats want radical reform.  In fact, most of the 'extra' Democrats elected in a big wave election would be relatively moderate, from districts in which voters would be about as Republican as Democratic.  So, compromise would be all that would happen.

Now that we’ve completely quashed all hope of a leftist revolution in 2016, here’s that case for Bernie:

* Sure, the odds of winning might be 33% instead of 66% for Clinton, but one can trust Bernie.  He fires from the hip without having to think about what he's saying.  He has deep principles based on what's just and equitable.  One can trust his views, no questions asked.

* And his opponent, if Bernie were to get the nomination?  Maybe the worst possible candidate for the Republicans, someone like a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz, is being served up by fate just so Bernie can win this one. 

* Wouldn’t it be such a ‘get’ to keep young Bernie supporters energized?  An entire generation brought into the tent.

So, that’s the case for.  And the most convincing point is probably the last.  An entire generation at stake.  Except that when reality sank in, when, over the course of the first four years, compromise was found to be all that was possible, wouldn’t it just be an awfully big turn off?