I hear far too many times that Bernie is the "Nader" of this election, splitting the Democrat vote, potentially handing the election to the opposition. This story is tiresome for so many reasons.
 |
Don't Nader Me Bro!
2016 |
First off, it is inaccurate to say that Nader lost Gore the election. This is the establishment Democrats' spin on their historic 2000 election loss to "W". It is a false narrative that nonetheless makes them feel better about losing.
In fact, Al Gore lost that election entirely on his own, without needing any help from Nader. Right off the bat, thousands of Democrats in Florida voted for Bush, so they are to blame if anyone is. Furthermore, when the result of the election was still in dispute, Gore conceded the battle, prompting judges and others to hasten the decision for Bush. Any politician worth his salt knows to stay in the race until the very end. That is, unless his corporate paymasters decide they'd rather have Bush and order him to concede, which is what I speculate may have happened.
Second, history is not destiny. It is a different time, and we've come a long way since 2000. Progressive movements like Occupy have risen and fallen since then, and have significantly changed the parameters of discussion. The Berniecrats are not just going to fade back into the woodwork because the establishment thinks that they should.
Finally, a large block of Bernie's supporters are Independents, and do not owe Democrats anything. It is specious to claim that Democrats are somehow entitled to the support of progressive voters or millennials. A very large voting block adamantly rejects the Democrats' corporatist candidate, for a variety of valid reasons, not the least of which are her current criminal investigation, and her slipping poll numbers which show she could easily lose in Novemeber.
