An elegant settlement should satisfy the basic needs of both factions in order to unite the party
Mr. President,
I supported you in the 2008 primary, and voted for your election and re-election. I write to you as a Sanders supporter with frankness and candor in an effort to bridge the gap between the two factions present in the Democratic Party. My proposed solution is an elegant settlement that should satisfy the basic needs of both factions. I am confident that if you are the person suggesting this settlement, both parties will give it it fair and due consideration out of respect to you and your office.
Many of your supporters became disaffected at what is perceived as your failure to enact much of the progressive change you campaigned on. These same supporters craved a progressive alternative to Secretary Clinton, and found it in Bernie Sanders. Now that June 7th has come and passed, there is increasing pressure for Sanders to drop out, endorse Clinton, and unite the party. Clinton’s camp may not realize that it is not that simple.
If recent polling is to be believed, 20-30% of Sanders supporters refuse to support Hillary Clinton. They are disaffected with capitalism, are suspicious of her hawkishness, believe Clinton is a political opportunist, and believe she has been “bought” by the corporate interests who have funneled millions of dollars into her campaign coffers, SuperPACs, and in the case of Goldman-Sachs, directly into her personal checking account.
In short, the only thing Sanders endorsing Clinton would accomplish is convincing that twenty to thirty percent of obstinate Sanders supporters that Sanders didn’t mean a word he campaigned on. Perhaps you think this is irrational; rationality is irrelevant. What is relevant is their voting behavior.
This twenty to thirty percent of Sanders supporters represents roughly 3 million votes. This only counts those who were actually able to vote - those who could not attend a caucus or vote in a closed primary are not included in this figure. The absence of three million votes could be fatal to Clinton’s campaign, to recapturing control of the Senate, or both.
The only way to guarantee these voters show up and vote as Sanders tells them to is if they feel some meaningful victory. I propose two things for the Clinton camp to support that will make it very easy for Sanders to enthusiastically endorse Clinton and campaign for her, and difficult for Sanders supporters to not show up and pull the lever for the Democratic Party.
1. Appoint Senator Sanders leader of the Senate Democrats via rule change at the Democratic National Convention by a vote of delegates.
The Convention is an important time to advertise the candidate and their plan for the United States, and successful candidates enjoy a post convention “bump” in support. A vote actively incorporating Sanders into the party structure would provide important validation to Sanders’ supporters.
The power of the Senate Majority Leader is formidable. The Majority leader may appoint committee chairs, strip and award seniority, schedule votes (and more importantly refuse to schedule votes). The practical result of this would be that any measure to which Sanders and his supporters objects can be blocked.
This is difficult to accomplish. There will be some holdouts on both sides - some Sanders supporters simply cannot be convinced no matter what. Conversely, some “super delegates” are themselves Senators, and I don’t imagine Senator Schumer, heir apparent to Senate Leader Reid’s position, would be pleased with the usurpation of his expectancy. I expect he would attempt some rally to oppose the measure. As a result, prior to this vote, abolishing the use of “super delegates” in the nomination process may be necessary and expedient.
The benefits are well worth the costs. The Democratic Party needs Sanders to fundraise and campaign for them. Sanders has an incredible and unprecedented ability to raise money from the grassroots. Clinton was able to barely out-raise Sanders, but considering his abstinence from big-money donors, SuperPACs, and the arguable collusion between Clinton and DNC Chair Schultz, only barely beating a septuagenarian socialist gadfly fringe candidate from Vermont is cold comfort.
Sanders enjoys popularity in a number of swing states and states where there are competitive, winnable Senate contests. Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are all states which Sanders won or tied with Secretary Clinton. These states are also either traditional “swing states” and have potentially competitive Senate races.
Sanders as Senate Leader would drive Sanders supporters to vote for his endorsed Senate candidates, because helping them helps Sanders.
2. Appoint Elizabeth Warren to be Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee.
This is the easier of the two. There is already a loose consensus among the pundit class that Senator Warren would be the wise choice for Vice President. Warren is strongly favored by progressive Democrats, and its arguable Sanders was only able to do as well as he did because Elizabeth Warren did not herself run. Warren would salve the anxieties of many progressive Sanders supporters.
Warren could also perform the traditional role that used to be reserved for Vice Presidential candidates - the Presidential candidate may act 'above the fray’ and preserve their own dignity while their running mate makes the attacks against their opponent. Warren is one of the few people in American politics who has engaged in a back and forth with Donald Trump and won, and could, perhaps more ably than any political contemporary, perform this traditional role.
The acrimony between the two camps is considerable. You are the only person with the clout in both camps (as well as with the media) to announce it. Once you have suggested it openly in the media, there will be pressure applied to both camps to hurry up, work out a deal, and unite the party.
Respectfully,
X
