Bernie ‘socialist’ Sanders is the Democrats’ worst enemy

Take a seat, Democrats, your messiah for the 2020 presidential race has arrived, in the form of socialist septuagenarian Bernie Sanders.

If you thought that you’d seen the last of Sanders after he lost to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries, think again. The 77-year-old Vermont senator is back, launching his campaign on Tuesday and raising $5.9m in donations in the first 24 hours. He is in it to win it. Again.

With the left-wing media in such a delighted frenzy over his candidacy, you might have been surprised by the news on Wednesday that Sanders will sign an “affirmation” that he will run as a Democrat and govern as one if elected.

Why should the saviour of the Democrats have to do such a thing?

Answer: because Sanders isn’t a Democrat. He never has been. In fact, in recent years he has proven himself one of the Democratic party’s worst enemies.

While he might caucus with them, this self-proclaimed independent has spent his 40-year career repeatedly running against Democratic candidates, and has in many instances been more of a hindrance to the cause than a help.

We all remember Donald Trump’s brash and vitriolic tirades against Clinton during the 2016 race. But we shouldn’t forget the extent to which he was helped by Sanders hammering her almost as hard.

From calling her “unqualified” because she received some funding from Wall Street to alleging corruption and collusion with foreign governments, in many ways Sanders was more viciously antagonistic towards Clinton than Trump was.

Despite the numbers stacking up against him, he refused to concede for months after winning became impossible, forcing Clinton to continue fighting on two fronts.

And while he lost the primaries by 3.6m votes and nearly 1,000 delegates, still his super-fans refused to accept the result.

To this day, you will hear “Bernie bros” raging about how career politician Sanders (who couldn’t beat Clinton) would magically have triumphed over the outsider Trump.

While he is not the only reason that Clinton lost, Sanders certainly didn’t help her – the Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that more than one in 10 people who supported him in the primaries went on to vote for Trump.

And to add insult to injury, following the shock result, Sanders – who has still never embraced the Democrats – waded in to lecture the party on how to reinvent itself in the wake of a defeat that he had helped to cause.

But that was then. Now, the Democrats are enjoying something of a resurgence.

From the “blue wave” in the midterms, which saw the best result for Democrats since 1974, to the astounding rise of congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to the showdown over funding for Trump’s Mexican border wall, Democrats have been getting results.

They also have a wide range of challengers who have already thrown their hats into the ring for President – including names who in any previous race would be considered progressive trailblazers.

Kamala Harris is the second ever black female senator, Kirsten Gillibrand has spent her career championing women’s rights, and Elizabeth Warren has been a stalwart for the hard Democratic left.

This diversity – of gender, race, background, and positions – is apparently too much for Sanders.

In his campaign announcement interview, he declared: “We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the colour of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age”.

Because clearly where the party has been missing a trick is in overlooking ageing straight white men.

This is not to say that the Democrats need a candidate who ticks as many diversity boxes as possible in order to beat Trump. But it is hard to see what Sanders, who has spent four decades peddling the same tired and debunked vision of socialism, can offer to modern-day America.

If the Democrats want to tack to the left, they have Warren, who on many issues (including gun control) is more progressive than Sanders.

If they want to highlight Trump’s record of demeaning women and cosying up to sexual predators, they have Gillibrand.

If they want a common-sense moderate whose legal career showcases an ability to hold officials to account, they have Harris.

And who knows what other names might crop up as more candidates start running, from diverse walks of life and with different ideas about how to challenge Trump.

In contrast, Sanders is a deeply divisive character who inflicted wounds to the Democratic party that are yet to heal.

Anyone who runs for office must have a certain degree of arrogance. But it takes a special kind of egotism to have been roundly rejected by the voters of a party you have always demonised, and still think you are uniquely placed to lead it to victory.

Sanders is the opposite of what the Democrats need. He has already failed, and nothing in his behaviour indicates that he has learned from his mistakes.

All he can do now is deepen the schisms he caused in 2016, either by repeating his behaviour then, or by refusing to take no for an answer and running as an independent out of spite to split the Democratic vote.

The President has not been having an easy time recently. But right now, the Oval Office must be ringing with laughter.