Bernie Sanders v Joe Biden: Does America Want Radical Transformation or a “Return to Normalcy” in 2020?
It’s July 12, 2016. The era of Obama/Biden is waning into its lame duck period, and making way for a new epoch. Emboldened by newfangled abilities to tap into and harness others’ fears and frustrations, the Trump campaign is deftly rising from laughable obscurity to soon being christened the eventual Republican nominee in a matter of days. Sanders realizes the dangers that this might present to society, and so, having first staved off his pride, he observes a crowd of thousands and admits in defeat that Clinton must become president:
He later in this speech presents the case that Obama/Biden were a paragon of success, contrasting their ethos in reconstituting the nation starting at the height of the 2008 Financial Crisis, to the irresponsible mortgage-backed securities and credit-swap practices that were enabled by Republican and moderate Democrat legislators, who in maljurisprudence stripped away imperative edicts like Glass-Steagall — deregulation which ultimately may have led to the recession, according to the FCIC¹.
You can essentially hear the pained words seep from his lips (gratingly so), in almost compulsory deference to the power of the DNC and institutions, in mounting concern of a possible Republican victory (especially under someone as erratic as Trump), in frustration at the results of the race. He would on later dates judiciously choose on several occasions not to call the race “rigged”, instead electing to criticize the “dumb closed primary” system and a flawed “process with pre-pledged superdelegates”,² ³ which disadvantages grassroots campaigns and impedes progressive movements. His facial expressions tell a story, but Sanders must commit to this false dilemma. Only weeks before, Sanders proclaimed Clinton “unqualified to be president”,⁴ and criticized her for her several indiscretions as Secretary of State, but none of that matters now. Because from his perspective, regardless of how corrupt or unqualified Clinton may be, the alternative is worse. Well, we all know how this turned out. Despite an exhausting tour undertaken by Sanders, consisting of a multitude of public appearances in support of a Clinton presidency,⁵ Clinton is forced to watch her chances of becoming the first female president erode in front of her eyes, to a man who guiltlessly engages in “locker room talk”,⁶ regularly ogles the most beautiful women in the world when half-naked (or worse),⁷ and refers to his own daughter in disturbing terms.⁸ What does Sanders receive from Clinton in return? Pure unadulterated resentment, and blame. Because of course it wasn’t her own failed electability, and her willingness to dismiss half of the country (the rural half), that caused her downfall. No. It was Bernie Sanders, who refused to commit fully to her success. That makes a ton of sense, right?
Fast forward four years, and we see a very similar situation emerging, with familiar and inter-related figures still involved. Except that this time we can replace former Secretary of State Hillary R Clinton with an equally centrist former Vice President Joseph R Biden, like a mix-and-match meal at Arby’s. Except that this time Trump has an even more clearly established base of support, empowered by a recent exoneration by the Senate almost completely along party lines — with a vote of 52:48 on the HoR’s Article of Impeachment for the purposefully-ambiguous term “Abuse of Power”.⁸ Except that this time, Democrat and Independent electorate may be even more complacent with simply replacing Trump with anyone (namely Biden), than focused on an ambitious progressive agenda.
As many of you may be aware, while closely monitoring the newest American socio-political developments, the race for Democratic nominee is rapidly revealing itself to be a two-person symbol of contention. Not simply a contest between opponents of differing platforms and policies, this runoff represents also the will of the people of the United States of America. Should that will materialize more greatly towards a society of moderate sensibilities (and a desire for the safety of that-which-is-already-known), we can expect to see a Biden victory in the coming weeks; conversely, Americans may finally favor progressivism and knowingly brave some new uncharted territory with a Sanders nomination. The question is which of these two philosophies will predominate in the final delegate tallies, and do existing external factors likely have major implications on the outcome?
Pooling massive resources into developing a diverse coalition of supporters, donors, and on-the-ground canvas workers, Sanders’ campaign was positioned to succeed, while Biden’s campaign was demonstrably faltering from major solvency problems⁹ in the weeks preceding the first set of caucuses and primaries, and buoyed only by the grace of Biden-friendly PACs and wealthy billionaire-class donors like Joe Kiani and George Marcus. What followed was both interesting and unsurprising:
- Iowa was a split affair.
- New Hampshire was decidedly a Sanders victory.
- In Nevada, Sanders attained nearly a majority of votes, and thus the most delegates.
- South Carolina, a more conservative state than the three before, skewed more favorably toward Biden.
The field narrows, insofar as contenders ascertain more comprehensively their viability (or lack thereof). As other candidates began to question their electability, several suspended their campaigns to begin recouping their campaign debts. After New Hampshire spelled gloom and doom for his path to presidency, Andrew Yang and his campaign organizers did the #math, and concluded practically that Yang would not be viable, especially if appealing to as progressive of a base as New Hampshire resulted in underperforming expectations, down from 6% in polling to 3% support in tangible votes statewide.¹¹
(Admittedly the favorite of this author, Yang may not have succeeded in becoming president, but his campaign has been a critical success in several other ways, evolving the ways in which we view human labor and human worth. He engaged millions of disenchanted Americans and gripped them into the political process. He promoted rational but also empathetic discussion. Personally I believe Yang is years ahead of his time. When tens of millions of jobs are automated away, and there are screams of frustration from the precipices of call centers and corporate buildings nationwide, people will return to his philosophy.)
Yet still, as Yang is evocative of nonideological methods of improvement, and never yet backing a specific remaining candidate (despite having already called Sanders a “national hero”), Buttigieg and Kloubuchar were both expedient and confident in throwing their support behind the more centrist candidate, Biden, without much hesitancy, as they dropped out of the race.¹² These formal words of approval are very telling of their natural characteristic to promote what they believe to be safe and stable alternatives to Trump, as well as their risk-aversion to supporting a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” (which he is not), in fear that Trump would weaponize against Sanders with anti-socialist and anti-communist rhetoric. These endorsements surely affected the results of the subsequent primaries. In MN, a state which Kloubuchar very popularly represents,¹³ Biden handsomely defeated Sanders by over an 8.5 point lead,¹⁴ ¹⁵ despite the Vermont senator winning the state against Clinton in 2016 with a 61.7%/38.3% split.¹⁶
In the wake of so-called “Super Tuesday”, having been a particularly successful day for Biden, we are left wondering if Sanders can amass enough of a marginal lead in crucial states like NY, and other progressive urban centers in the northwest and northeast, in order to triumph in the end, and if superdelegates are going to play even more of a crucial part in blotting his chances. Biden swept the southern region, picking up significant numbers of delegates in high-population states like North Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee. He also won Arkansas by an astonishing 18%, despite rarely appearing there. In Texas, where Sanders was leading by a 3–6% margin for several hours of districts reporting, Biden collected enough support in both rural areas as well as major metropolitan centers like Houston and Dallas to make a comeback and squeeze out a victory from behind. Sanders’ successes in cities high in minorities or liberal collegiates, like Denton, Austin, Lubbock, and El Paso, helped to make Sanders nearly as viable as Biden, but could not propel him to a major win or plurality in a large, conventionally conservative state like Texas, and he ultimately lost important cities like Fort Worth and Corpus Christi.
Biden overperformed in several states (AR, TN, VA), while actually slightly underperforming in NC. The biggest upset was probably how well Biden performed in MA, where all previous polls since October 2019 anticipated either Warren or Sanders to win, with several percentage points of tolerance built in to buffer a Biden overperformance.¹⁸ But we can’t understate the success that Sanders had in Colorado, where the electorate traditionally vote for candidates who have the ability to unite (not necessarily based on platform), and in California, which provides the largest amount of delegates. These, paired with consistent support of 20%-25% in the southern states of OK, AR, TN, VA, and NC, are sustaining Sanders’ campaign in the face of the sudden, energized revival of Biden’s bid for president.
There may be a case to be made that Warren drew support away from Sanders with a relativistically progressive set of policies compared to that of Biden and platforms of that ilk, while support from more moderate candidates who dropped out, like Kloubuchar and Buttigieg, shifted over to Biden. But for consistency’s sake, we can also make and test the hypothesis that Bloomberg stole some of Biden’s support. In order to gauge and to quantify these dynamic things fairly and completely, we would need to conduct substantive statistical analysis, which may be beyond the scope of this article. The robustness of such a study would be testament to its margin of error, accuracy, and credibility. Suffice it to say for now, that there are several complex factors contributing to the results we saw on Tuesday, and the results that we will see in the upcoming primaries in months to follow.
With Biden in a slight lead, and Bloomberg cutting his losses at $550m¹⁹ to support a Biden nomination (along with the other newly-convinced Biden groupies), we may have to see what Sanders’ team plans to execute in terms of a counter-offensive strategy. This game has been reduced down to a two-person chess match, with experienced magnates whispering plays into one opponent’s ears, and a coalition of impassioned but inexpert friends cheering on the other. It’s starting to feel like a long shot for the progressive movement, but we might take some solace in that, at the departure of Bloomberg and Steyer in a relatively short time frame, the billionaire-class “have been vanquished”, so to speak (though they’re still represented through Biden, as a proxy). I say this even as a fan of some of Steyer’s platform, because it’s important to me that America chooses candidates for specific reason, not just the candidates who have the biggest pockets with which to throw advertisements into the faces of the electorate.
And now, with Warren out of the race as well (as of March 5, 2020), the question is decisively: will we have a Sanders nomination, or a Biden nomination? Who can defeat Trump? And which has the preferable platform?
As of writing this article, 1337 delegates have been declared, and are for the most part allocated fairly evenly between the two candidates, who have 627 and 551 pledged delegates, respectively. 1991 are needed to win. And roughly 2645 pledged delegates still hang in the balance, 2467 of which are allocated to later states’ primary elections (nearly 200 in states like California, Colorado, North Carolina, and Utah, which have already completed their primary elections, have yet to be pledged to a specific candidate).²⁰
The data that we have so far denotes concisely that progressive and ethnically diverse (Asian and LatinX) districts, states, and regions of the country vote for Sanders, as expected, while those that are predominately conservative whites (like OK, AR) or moderate blacks (like AL, NC, VA) vote for Biden. So we need to consider the demographics of the remaining target audience, while simultaneously consenting to the fact that Sanders has so far underperformed and may lose momentum going forward.
March 10, 2019 is the next noteworthy round of elections. There’s no doubt based on Biden’s past achievement on March 3 that he will hold sway with the electorate in Mississippi, Missouri, and North Dakota, based on their demographics and moderate-to-conservative southern / midwest sentiments. Biden won a plurality of the black vote in several states on March 3 — winning Texas (58%), Virginia (60%), North Carolina (62%) and Alabama (72%), as well as plurality of black Californians (33%) to a lesser extent²¹ —thus cementing his wins in those states, and the results will be very similar in Missouri and Mississippi. On the other hand, I predict that Washington will definitively subscribe to a Sanders nomination, making Idaho and Michigan the source of hotly-contested battles, where Sanders is retaining the same levels of support, but Biden is gaining traction from former Buttigieg supporters and former Kloubuchar supporters — at least, that’s what the numbers are telling me, upon first glace, naively-speaking.²²
March 17, 2020 is debatably an even more crucial day for both campaigns, featuring high-population state elections in swing states like Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and to a slightly lesser degree Arizona, which is still an important state nonetheless. Arizona will be an easy victory for Biden, but Sanders will still be viable and secure some delegates there, especially since some (but not all) of Warren’s support will invariably shift to his aid. It’s going to be hard to make a prediction on Ohio, since they haven’t conducted recent polls. The polling data that we have is from October of last year, and is thus obsolete. February polls in Illinois forecast a Sanders win with a margin of 5%, but since the field has shrunk with rapid developments causing important shifts in the voter base, there is considerable cloudiness over the winner of this contest as well, and 5% is nearly fully vulnerable to the study’s own margin of error. I would assert that it is likely that these midwestern states will vote for Biden purely based on an electability argument, and that they don’t necessarily disagree with Sanders’ policy proposals. After all, polls have shown that Democrats overwhelmingly support Medicare for All or at least some public option.²³
April 4, 2020 voting will involve the non-contiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii, which interestingly enough have polar opposite demographics and voting habits. It’s not hard to decipher the results of these smaller elections in advance, where the margin of victory is not as critical to either campaign’s success. Hawaii, in my experience, is the most liberal state in the nation, and will strongly favor Sanders, as they did overwhelmingly with a supermajority (77%/22%) in 2016 when Sanders was running against Clinton. The results in WY and LA are a no-brainer, and the Sanders team will need to hope that they can remain viable in these states. In the state of Alabama, a close cousin to other southern states, and whose voting record tracks very similarly to that of Louisiana and Tennessee, Sanders barely squeaked a 7-delegate proportion, with 17% of the popular vote, compared to Biden’s 63%. We should expect very similar results in Louisiana. Wyoming is the least populous state in America, and only dwarfs perhaps DC and territories like American Somoa. I don’t believe it to be a make-it-or-break-it for either party, but will go to the more moderate candidate by a landslide. These two largely conservative or rural states are not ready to be receptive to progressive platforms, and are easily convinced that Sanders is socialist (again, he’s not) and that his policies would weaken their regional economies with excessive regulation and hampering levels of taxation. They are not easily convinced that a single-payer system could be superior to their current healthcare insurance benefits, and their primary goal — especially among southern black Democrats in Louisiana (who constitute 33% of the state’s population) — is to:
- 1) defeat Donald Trump;
- 2) defeat Donald Trump; and
- 3) defeat Donald Trump.
They will vote for who they think has the best chance of winning the general election, in this case (according to their beliefs and intuition), Biden. These LA election results will mirror closely to those that we’ve seen in TN, VA, NC, and AL, as well as soon-to-be-seen in Georgia and Mississippi.
April 28, 2020, on the other hand, will in fact be Sanders’ make-it-or-break-it day. We will likely have a better idea of who the next Democratic nominee will be after New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland cast their votes and the final delegate allocation is tallied and reported. These are the states where Sanders needs to not only be viable, but to dramatically dominate. The polls do not currently reflect this, in spite of NYC’s demographic diversity.²⁴ It’s possible that the business elites that proliferate throughout the region don’t care for the populist message with which Sanders is attempting to attract support, while those living in upstate New York and rural PA have more of a conservative outlook on economics and healthcare.
The states that vote after NY, MD, and CT might be moot, if my calculus is not wrong, with New Jersey and Oregon being the only state election of note that could be potentially favorable to Sanders by wider margins. Indiana will be an interesting point of contention, like other swing states in the region such as Ohio, but the rest seem already ready to fall in line with the Biden train which is bulleting full-speed ahead at the moment.
The numbers are telling an overarching tale, and that tale does not involve a Sanders presidency. There would be two likely use cases:
- Biden narrowly captures a simple majority and carries the vote before Round 2 voting.
- B̶i̶d̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶S̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶c̶k̶ ̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶l̶e̶g̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶d̶g̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶W̶a̶r̶r̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶B̶l̶o̶o̶m̶b̶e̶r̶g̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶v̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶r̶u̶p̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶s̶s̶i̶g̶n̶̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶j̶o̶r̶i̶t̶y̶.̶ ̶R̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶2̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶B̶i̶d̶e̶n̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶u̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶m̶in̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶s̶u̶p̶e̶r̶d̶e̶l̶e̶g̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶v̶i̶l̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶i̶d̶e̶.̶
2.b Sanders cedes after losing the plurality during Round 1, and we skip Round 2.
As preface before I proceed any further, I’m not saying this is the outcome that I desire, but it is my opinion of likely outcomes.
Sanders recently stated that he would cede in the event that Biden takes a plurality of the votes, but not the simple majority of 1991 needed to become the nominee. If this is the case, then Option #2 is decisively off the table, as it were, and so I’m preemptively scratching that one out above.
“I think it would be a real, real disaster for the Democratic Party. People would say ‘the person who won the most votes didn’t get selected.’ Not a good idea.”
— Bernie Sanders
Some might think that this is mostly reflective of Sanders’ disdain of superdelegates and a desire for the results of the election process to reflect the will of the people, and not the will of establishment-type superdelegates. Others would assert that his strategy is to generate a good-faith implicit pact with the Biden team to return this type of decorum, because a Round 2 voting process with superdelegates would almost certainly obliterate Sanders’ plurality, leading to an inevitable Biden nomination, due to Sanders’ anti-establishment narrative. I’m thinking that both reasons are contributing to his promise, likely weighted to the tune of something like 20%/80%. But I don’t believe that Biden and his team will return such a favor, largely because I find them to be too vain, too ambitious, too opportunistic, too greedy for the power that comes with the role of presiding over the executive branch. But most of all, I believe that Biden and his affiliates too deeply enjoy the established systems that have enabled them to become successful, wealthy, and powerful, and that propelled them into political and socioeconomic power.
Ultimately, the decision comes down to whether or not people believe in Sanders’ platform enough to vote him into office, or if they want to play things as safely as possible. His candidacy stands for ideals that most Americans believe in, but can hardly support in opposition to the prospect of a second term of the Trump presidency. Mark my words, that in a Biden presidency you will see the administration failing on several imperative things and promises:
- Any considerable campaign finance reform forbidding PAC engagement in the political process
- Zero chances of the implementation of a Universal Election Year Stipend
- No support for legislation that forbids former presidents and former cabinet members from accepting high-paying speaking engagements
- No support for the implementation of RCV; same-day registration; anti-voter suppression initiatives to counteract polling location closures or ID voter laws; or the suspension of the closed primary system
- No support for legislation that forbids “revolving door” opportunities for former legislators to receive lucrative jobs as lobbyists for petro-oil, pharmaceutical, private health insurance, real estate, banking, and credit service industries, in exchange for votes that support their industries
- Simply put, a continuation of the current media and broadcasting laws that have made MSM so powerful, through polarizing the public, at the public’s expense
- Very little improved regulation on (physically/psychologically) unhealthy industries: fast food, snacking and drinks, alcohol, smoking, oil extraction and refineries, home products, mining, addictive social media
- No support for legislation that protects borrowers from predatory payday loan practices
- No increased taxation penalties on reckless Wall Street speculation and high-speed automated trading
- No substantive pushback against gentrification, NIMBYism, and other similar factors impeding affordable housing
- Little commitment to the erection of affordable public housing
- Increased concerns in the solvency for SS and Medicaid
- Very little mitigation of homelessness or poverty
- Perpetuation of an archaic, labyrinthine means-tested welfare state (which disincentivizes work), instead of superior options like no-questions-asked universal income (which actually incentivizes hard work and entrepreneurship)
- Low chances of the implementation of a FJG or a wealth tax (though, a wealth tax in practice will not work as expected anyway)
- Zero chances of the implementation of a Basic Income, and increased complications as Machine Learning algorithms and Artificial Intelligence mature, displacing workers (especially blue-collar cognitive-repetitive jobs)
- Majority of people will still be working paycheck-to-paycheck, receiving continually stagnating wages
- Continued increase in wealth inequality
- Minority of people will still continue to own the vast majority of assets, derivative securities, real estate, and other passive sources of wealth
- Majority of people will still lose out their economic value to yearly inflation, without understanding concepts like purchasing power, risk-free interest rates, or diversified investment
- Lack of any improvements on the cost of college tuition or loan forgiveness (and thus the perpetuation of legislation that outlaws almost all possibility of absolving student debt through bankruptcy)
- Zero improvements in certain critical fields of education, such as financial literacy, statistics and probability, civil engagement, monetary theory, decision sciences, or modern economics and modern history
- Perpetuation of low scholastic attainment in low-income neighborhoods, districts, towns, and regions
- Failure in attempting to generate Americans who are innovative, have entrepreneurial spirit, open to the risks associated with launching their inventive businesses.
- Frustrating struggle as we begin to lose our competitive edge on a global stage in terms of scholastic STEM achievement and technological advancements
- Continued ignoring of rural communities: failed infrastructure, poor circulation of moneys, little revitalization
- An Obama-style approach to immigration reform (i.e., still ineffective and inhumane, but slightly less ineffective and inhumane compared to Trump’s)
- Perpetuation of privitized for-profit prisons, and thus perpetuation of recidivism
- Very little investment in treating opioid addiction through safe centers, or through decriminalization
- Further gridlock (at best), or further anti-abortion legislation (at worst); no codified protections in statute law
- Zero commitment towards educational outreach, resources, or financial support that would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
- No promises to avoid expensive and deadly wars at all costs (within reason)
- No reduction in military and defense spending
- Low levels of commitment towards becoming a global leader in sustainable energy solutions and product
- Low levels of commitment towards competing against China to become the premier architect of developing countries’ energy needs, with (subsidized) sustainable energy solutions
Some of these might contradict what Biden promises on his website and in his speeches or at the Democratic Debates, but his historical decisions have almost always landed him on the wrong side of things. The Crime Bill of 1994, the vote to invade Iraq, his historical siding with banks and financial institutions instead of people, like in the 2009 Stabilization Act.
So I have to ask you (and you have to ask yourself) — is a return to normalcy actually that vast of an improvement compared to where we are today? Sure, Biden would be more balanced and predictable, less erratic than Trump. He won’t cause havoc every day he decides to tweet something insane and ostentatious (which is pretty much every day, right?). Biden may even be able to help rebuild trust between America and our traditional allies, fostering renewed reputation worldwide. But is that good enough? I guess the American people will decide in the upcoming weeks.
A note about this piece
These views express my understanding of the current state of affairs, and a reasonable level of skepticism towards the prospect of a Biden presidency, whose nomination appears to be increasingly likely.
I am in no way endorsing Bernie Sanders (or any other candidate) in publishing this article. I am also not a “Bernie Bro”, and never have been one. I am highly critical of Bernie Sanders and his platform as well, and will be publishing more work complaining about his policies as well.
I am low-key Yang-Gang, but not to preposterous, brainwashed levels, and I am even critical of several of Andrew Yang’s policies that he promoted throughout this race.
Any criticism that I direct towards the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration, or any of the Democratic candidates, or towards MSM, or any other individual, company, corporation, industry, or entity implicated in my criticisms is not meant to be a personal attack, but an exercise of my right to free speech and critique. There is nothing more American than saying “fuck you” when someone in power does something corrupt and contemptible, and I am in no shape or form anti-American.
But please be courteous to other members in this community, and please be courteous in your comments to me. We may disagree on several things, but there are lucrative ways to express these disagreements, and then there are destructive ways to express these disagreements.
Thank you in advance,
~ James
