The real split in the Dem. party (and who actually agrees w/ Sanders on it?)?

[Beet]

Of course Chait is correct, but the answer wouldn't have been to browbeat Bernie into talking more about "race" in the primaries. Democrats should have been talking about "race" less, not more. In his blindness, Bernie inadvertently took the middle position.

The only thing 'wrong' with Bernie Sanders' campaign, in retrospect, is that he advertised himself as far to the left, when in reality he was the centrist in the Democratic primary. This was evident in his vote totals in places like Oklahoma, the Florida panhandle, Washington state, and even Wisconsin. I am more convinced than ever, that his best path to winning the primary would have been to openly declare himself a centrist on cultural issues, a populist on economic issues, and hammer Clinton on her elect-ability. That would have been an argument that had a chance among establishment types and cautious minorities who didn't want to take a risk by voting for a candidate perceived as extreme or "far out", but who cared a lot about winning.

[Beet]

Bernie Sanders isn't a Hillary Clinton or a George H.W. Bush, though. Part of his appeal was in that he very clearly was not the kind of politician who purposefully "reinvents" himself along poll-tested, focus-grouped lines every time he or she faces a new electorate. And how do you go from being a self-declared socialist who endorsed Jesse Jackson in 1988 and mused about the upside of a leftward primary challenge to Obama in 2012 to being a "centrist" populist, anyway?

Because it would be in many ways an accurate self-portrayal (his record was to the right of her on guns, immigration, xenophobia, or her dubious claim that being a woman represented substantive change in itself). He mused about challenging Obama due to Obama's lack of populism, not due to Obama's insufficient social liberalism.

[Beet]

Bernie Sanders isn't a Hillary Clinton or a George H.W. Bush, though. Part of his appeal was in that he very clearly was not the kind of politician who purposefully "reinvents" himself along poll-tested, focus-grouped lines every time he or she faces a new electorate. And how do you go from being a self-declared socialist who endorsed Jesse Jackson in 1988 and mused about the upside of a leftward primary challenge to Obama in 2012 to being a "centrist" populist, anyway?

Because it would be in many ways an accurate self-portrayal (his record was to the right of her on guns, immigration, xenophobia, or her dubious claim that being a woman represented substantive change in itself). He mused about challenging Obama due to Obama's lack of populism, not due to Obama's insufficient social liberalism.

Guns and immigration, yes. I am not sure what you mean by "xenophobia."

Sanders did have the "Chinar/Mexico taken errr jobs" thing going on. He wasn't as one-note about it as Trump obviously, but it was a part of his package, and arguably the reason he won the Michigan primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not as if he's never been moderate on these issues. He voted for the infamous Clinton crime bill, and he only opposed DOMA on states' rights grounds. And had room- where were the progressives going to go? Clinton? The ultra-social liberals are not nearly as big of a voting bloc as some think.

[Beet]

I don't think he's anything close to a white supremacist, but I do think there was an aspect of his message that resonated that had virtually nothing to do with social liberalism. Webb and Chafee didn't have the records or temperament to tap into it, but Sanders did. Had he held onto that aspect of his message, and swung to Hillary's right on social issues while hammering her over electability, I think he could have won over a lot more moderate voters and even some more establishment support, while the left would have ultimately still stuck with him over Hillary.