Election night with L.A.’s Democratic Socialists: Bernie Sanders impressions, revolutionizing campaign politics
When the Los Angeles Times endorsed Hillary Clinton this week, the endorsement was met with delight by one writer and dismay by another. In the latter’s eyes, the paper has fallen for “Bernie 2016,” the man who became a movement in the Democratic primaries.
It’s impossible to know if it was his popularity that made the Times decide that his supporters could have a huge impact on the general election. Perhaps the paper has succumbed to the influence of a new breed of activist: those who don’t mind being politically correct, but don’t want to be called “progressive.”
Or maybe it was just the usual factors at play in a primary: If a major paper chooses to endorse Clinton for president, it does so in the name of democracy. But does that same democratic impulse apply to Sanders, who has been railing against what he calls “elites” and “millionaires,” while using his name to create a movement that is being dubbed “Bernie Sanders Revolution?”
Whatever the reason, after the endorsement, the Times had an article that it would never let voters forget. “Dismissing Mr. Sanders’s vision as empty or naive, instead focusing on the ways his campaign has raised serious questions about Ms. Clinton’s judgment and ability to lead, The Times is making the case that it’s not clear how much his approach is worth: It’s not clear that electing a new leader in Washington will make a big difference in our everyday lives,” the article contends.
After decades of Democratic dominance, the question of whether the party or the candidate has the better record on issues has never been asked on the left. It’s a debate that has split progressive and non-progressive voters. And as the Democratic Party has swung further to the left, it
