This morning there is a diary on the reclist citing a Nation interview with Bernie Sanders suggesting he may run for President. This is not new: I posted a diary lasted November in which he suggested he might run.
First let me quote something I completely agree with from the Nation interview:
I like Hillary; she is very, very intelligent; she focuses on issues. But I think, sad to say, that the Clinton type of politics is not the politics certainly that I’m talking about. We are living in the moment in American history where the problems facing the country, even if you do not include climate change, are more severe than at any time since the Great Depression. And if you throw in climate change, they are more severe.
So the same old same old [Clinton administration Secretary of the Treasury] Robert Rubin type of economics, or centrist politics, or continued dependence on big money, or unfettered free-trade, that is not what this country needs ideologically.
I think he is dead right. I have been here for over 13 years. In that time I have repeatedly said that the effect of globalizations are bigger than thought, and require larger solutions then are currently being discussed. Sanders is one of the few politicians who gets this.
Hillary does not. Some here have argued that we could push Hillary left if she won. I really don't have much respect for that view. The left wasn't able to during Bill's presidency, and hasn't been very successful at pushing Obama left. Moreover, a Democratic President tends to define what the country thinks of as left politics. There simply is no space among the rank and file to push Hillary effectively.
So the question, discussed in the Nation article, is where Bernie should run. I was a UVM student when Bernie was elected in 1981. It is worth remembering that he ran for years before he won that race, and that his chief opponent was a Democrat and not some right wing Republican. It took another 7 years before he won a statewide race, and he only won one statewide race against the Democratic Party.
The question on the table is this: how do win a general election if you can't win a Democratic Primary?
So this is a quick exercise that compare two electorates: the 2012 general election electorate and the 2008 Iowa electorate. I know something about Iowa and primary process. Nate Silver cited my work repeatedly here in 2007 and 2008.
If Bernie wins Iowa, he can win the Democratic Nomination. It won't be easy. In particular Clinton has strong connections in the African American and Hispanic communities. But I should note that those connections will exist in a general election as well. I can't see how any left candidate wins without winning both of those groups - and Bernie has little historic connection with either - certainly nothing approaching the Clintons' connection.
2008 2012
Iowa General
Very Liberal 18 25 (did not distinguish between very and somewhat)
Somewhat Liberal 36
Moderate 40 41
Conservative 6 35
The Iowa Caucus electorate is simply much more liberal than the general election electorate. If you assume in a general election that Hillary holds most of the African American and Hispanic vote, it is hard to see how Bernie plays much more than a Nader role. In Iowa, though, more than half the electorate sees itself as liberal. You are not going to find a better electorate to make an ideological argument.
I won't lie - Hillary's polling in Iowa is sensational. There is little there to suggest she should be beaten. But the race is not yet engaged. There is plenty of time to build an organization. And the costs of running in Iowa and NH are far below those necessary for general election.
I will vote for Hillary in a general election. It won't be a happy vote - she isn't going to do much about globalization and its effect on wages. Hell, she wanted to intervene in Syria.
Run Bernie run. And I think Iowa is the place to do it.