‘Bernie Bros’ vs the World – What Are Democrats Doing?

The socialists are coming! So warns Rahm Emanuel, like a modern-day Paul Revere. The former White House chief of staff, ambassador to Japan, and mayor of Chicago warned Thursday that “Bernie bros” and other democratic socialist candidates could spell electoral doom for Democrats come November. But Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wasn’t having any of it – and, if he’s right, neither are the voters. Sanders shot back on Sunday, calling Emanuel a member of the “establishment” who’s “dependent on billionaire campaign contributions to want to maintain the status quo.”

But might Emanuel be right? Democratic socialists have certainly made the news a lot this election cycle for the progress they’ve made in Democratic Party primaries so far – and certainly there are Democrats and independents who aren’t fond of socialism. But will it matter come election day?

Rahm vs Bernie

“In the name of ‘authenticity,’ the DSA and others are saddling the Democratic Party with nominees whose wildly unpopular positions will protect Republicans from having to pay the price of Donald Trump’s corruption and economic incompetence,” Rahm Emanuel declared last week. “It was socialists who led the charge to defund the police, open the borders, abolish prisons, release violent criminals onto the streets and degrade the flag.”

What a list of accusations! But that wasn’t all Emanuel had to say.

“If the Bernie bros were serious about growing jobs and wages, they would support candidates touting substantive ways to help families cover the mortgage or the rent, secure their retirement, and ensure no one is a single medical emergency away from bankruptcy,” he wrote.

Now, while Emanuel and, indeed, most “establishment” Democrats did speak out against defunding the police and having open borders, their actions sent a different message. The former mayor strongly defended Chicago’s sanctuary city status, and just about every Democrat in office over the last decade – from the House to the Senate and even the White House – supported open border policy by pushing for things like non-citizen voting and amnesty for illegals while also blocking voter ID and proof of citizenship requirements, as well as funding for border security and domestic immigration enforcement.

“There is a strong division within the Democratic Party,” Sen. Sanders, who isn’t even technically a member of the party, said in response during an interview for CBS News. “You have an establishment [sic] like Rahm Emanuel, who are dependent on billionaire campaign contributions to want to maintain the status quo. Then you have a progressive movement which, by the way, what is getting these guys nervous is we are winning all over this country.”

Now, Sanders may not be a billionaire himself, but he’s far from “the little guy.” Sanders has a net worth of around $2 million and owns multiple homes, including properties in both Vermont and DC. And he earned more than $1.7 million in sales from his books, like the ironically titled It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.

Still, Sanders said on Sunday that voters are “sick and tired of the Rahm Emanuels and the Democratic establishment and the Republican establishment”

“The American people are tired of a rigged economy, a corrupt campaign finance system, they want real change,” he continued. “They don’t want a Rahm Emanuel and the establishment maintaining the status quo.”

Socialists vs Establishment Democrats

Now let’s take a look at Emanuel’s concern. So far, democratic socialists have claimed victory in races for mayor, Congress, and state and local legislatures in California, Colorado, New York, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont – these aren’t exactly what you’d call swing states. Then there’s North Carolina, Utah, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Utah doesn’t have any representatives or senators with Ds by their names, and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon, so any socialist primary wins there really don’t matter. There are a few states there, though, that might swing one way or the other – especially Pennsylvania. Socialists winning the primaries might turn off more centrist Democrats and independents, and that could be a problem for the party. 

But we also need to look at what the voters themselves have to say. Third Way and Global Strategy Group collaborated earlier this year to conduct an online survey of 1,400 registered voters who said they’re likely to vote in a Democratic Party presidential primary. Of the respondents, 45% self-identified as “Liberal,” 34% “Moderate,” 11% “Progressive,” 6% “Socialist,” and 5% “Conservative.”

While that might seem at first glance to back up Emanuel’s point, the agree/disagree statements may suggest otherwise.

When presented with the statement: “Just because a candidate is moderate does not mean they are boring,” 89% agreed. But then the next two statements indicate that might not matter. “I am willing to vote for someone I don’t agree with on every issue as long as they are strong and will fight for the working people of this country” and “I am willing to vote for someone I don’t agree with on every issue as long as they are authentic and true to what they believe in” received 88% and 72% agreement, respectively.

Then there were a few downright conflicting results. “Nominating a Democrat for president who is too far left risks losing the general election to a MAGA candidate, because America is not liberal and someone far to the left will turn off swing voters” saw 66% agreement. “For me to be excited about a candidate, they need to be a true progressive,” meanwhile, saw 62%. And 45% agreed with the statement: “Nominating a moderate Democrat for president would just be repeating the same mistakes of the past, because moderates don’t generate the excitement that we need to turn people out to vote.”

Want one last bit of confusion to toss in? Three-quarters of respondents prefer “a candidate who works across the aisle to get things done, even if it means compromising sometimes,” to just 25% who said they’d rather have “a candidate who sticks to their progressive beliefs, even if it means getting less done.”

So, what’s really going to happen come election day? Democrats are going to vote Democrat, regardless of whether the nominee is socialist, moderate, or a mannequin in a clothing store – all that matters is that “D” beside the name and that whatever Republican ends up on the ballot is the enemy. The same can be said for most Republicans, for that matter; such is the nature of the party-line voter.

Will Democrats lose the independent vote with too many open socialists? It’s certainly possible, though the most recent predictions from Decision Desk HQ are that Democrats will likely take the House.

As for what this means for Democrats themselves, though, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. In the reliably red states, whether Democrats pick a socialist or not is largely a moot point. In the deep blue bastions, it seems just as unlikely to sway which party wins – but that’s even worse news for establishment Democrats, perhaps, as it means those radicals are headed for Congress with, or even instead of, them.